The FSF points out that they are incompatible so people who agree with the ideals of the FSF can easily spot licenses which meet their definition of free, and avoid those which do not.
Therefore it useless to ask if the problem is the GPL, because it is the pro-GPL people who are the ones stating that the other licenses are a problem.
More restrictive than not having the source code at all? If you consider all software, all licenses, GPL is most certainly on the free side of things. No, it's not the same as having total freedom, since it limits a small subset of modifiers who refuse to (or can't) give back their modifications, but for most modifiers and 100% of GPL software users it is absolutely free.
If you had said "restrictive to a set of modifiers who refuse to share their modifications with their user base", then you would have been correct. Implying that the license is restrictive to everyone, as you seem to be doing, is bullshit.
Hey, sorry if I misinterpreted your post. It just seemed as if you were insinuating that the Linux desktop was where it was 5 years ago, so I took your post as negative. I guess the fact that you chose to use the older examples is what made me think you were bashing..
However, just because there are other options for Window Managers doesn't mean she has to know about them. She can just use it as the OEM shipped it to her, just like everyone does with their Windows computer.
So what exactly is this killer feature in Longhorn that is going to ensure that no business or person will choose something that is free and open over something that is costly and closed?
This window that they speak of is non-existant, unless you can come up with some (mandatory) features that Longhorn will have that a Linux desktop couldn't in 3 years.
Now regarding grandmothers and choices of Window Manangers - when is the last time you actually looked at the Linux desktop scene? Window Managers are something you don't actually worry about, these days it's more an issue of KDE or GNOME, both of which have "Start"-like buttons to access menus (just as Windows does), both of which have file managers that work similarly to Windows Explorer, both of which generally have web browsers with "Forward" and "Back" buttons.
Now, I'm not going to argue what is easier to use, or if it is as easy as Windows. My argument is that when you talk about someone's grandmother having issues choosing which Window Mananger she needs, you really have no idea where the Linux desktop is at, or where it is going.
1.11) What is Keith Packards involvement with Xouvert?
Keith Packard is a champion of the move to open XFree86, and supports Xouvert's efforts in that regard. Keith's project is freedesktop.org, and he's expressed interest in bundling with Xouvert's results.
So Keith is right there in the middle of it all.
And according to the Xouvert FAQ, it is not a fork, but more of a public development branch.
I really like KDE, I think it is further along than GNOME in many ways that are important to me, but their disregard for licensing issues is probably why many big names aren't touching it, and will ultimately not succeed in its goal to become the Linux Desktop.
Sun: Gnome. UserLinux: Gnome. Redhat: Gnome. If IBM ever did a desktop, it would probably be based on Gnome.
Sorry, but if Gnome (or a project like Linux) isn't proof that licensing is more important than features in the long run, then I don't know what is.
Compared to Windows, KDE used to suck, but it is getting better every day right? The same will happen with Gnome: it will improve until the gap between itself and KDE is insignificant, and then licensing will be the only issue.
I know I'll get flamed for claiming that 1.) UserLinux will be significant and 2.) that corporate backing is important, but I think corporate/community harmony is critical for Open Source software whose goal is to become mainstream (which is true for KDE.)
People keep saying it will be the year of the Linux desktop without explaining why or how. And they seem to pretend Windows and MacOS are magically going to halt progress or disappear in the meantime. People said Linux would take over when Longhorn's release date was pushed ahead, yet XP shows no signs of disappearing, and SP2 is even due out soon.
It is quite easy. Why would you pay hundreds of dollars on software that you can get for free?
Sure, the free stuff isn't as good as the commercial stuff in the desktop arena, but it the gap is narrowing. Sure, OpenOffice is about as good as Office 97. Ok, so having the ability to resize your desktop without restarting you desktop is a little late.
If you are looking at Open/Free software in this way, then you aren't seeing the big picture. You have to consider ALL the data, not just the data at this point in time. What was Linux like 5 years ago? Windows? What is Windows like now? Linux? What will Linux be like in 5 years? Windows?
This may not be so easy to consider for people who are new to Linux, or haven't used it back when the whole idea of there being a Desktop Linux didn't even exist. For those who have been using it for long periods of time, it is easier to see.
At some point in time, Linux will be "good enough" for businesses to start using it instead of Windows. It won't be better (in a usability sense) than Windows or MacOS X, but it won't need to be. And once the deskop share for Linux goes up, so will the rate at which bugs are fixed and features are implemented. For example, Large government organizations aren't going to sit around waiting for the community to fix a bug their employees are seeing now, they are going to hire the community to fix it.
Would it be too much to ask to you to consider the differences between Joe Smoe Linux user making this claim and Linus Torvalds, assuming you know who this Linus guy is?
In contrast, when you build a KDE app, you are tied into the KDE framework.
Opera is written in pure Qt, is it not? Anyone who wants to write an application with no ties to a DE can choose either pure GTK or Qt, unless I am missing something.
Yet, not one bit of evidence you provided indicates that there are technical reasons to choose GTK+/GNOME over Qt/KDE.
I don't think your parent's point was to show that GTK is technically superior to Qt, but that there are valid reason to use Gtk over Qt. He was actually questioning the statement "But the obvious technical merits of KDE aren't enough to convince those who feel irrational and emotional about two things: Qt's "corporate" status, and a visceral hatred for C++."
Yes, it's pretty sick when you can type imaps://mailserver in your file manager and get a listing of your mailbox on your mail server, or click File | Open in your text editor and type in imaps://mailserver/INBOX to view your inbox..:)
Choice like this for regular users is unnecessary. I think most regular users will use whatever they are given, and once used to it they will choose it over others (Put a Windows user on a Mac and watch them cry, for example.) The future Linux users won't care what deskotp they use, as long as it lets them use their computer. If they do care, they are most likely advanced users (a minority), and they can go install KDE, just like I can go install Fluxbox or Enlightenment under Redhat.
And since when is making a default choice a removal of choice from a Linux user? When the KDE people didn't like what Redhat did with KDE, stock KDE Redhat RPMS showed up. If people want KDE on this UserLinux, it is available. That's the whole point of Open Source/Free Software.
The thing is, you don't have to test for KDE and GNOME. If you write a GNOME program, test it with GNOME, and it will always work with KDE since if you run it from KDE it will still use the GNOME libraries. The same is true for the other way around.
The argument is that including two software packages that are themselves as complex as the Linux kernel is not a good idea. I'm not a KDE/GNOME developer, but I can understand this. Why can't you?
I personally don't like GNOME very much. I think QT is a better toolkit than GTK.
Yes, just what I thought. You're not considering what is best for open/free software, you are simply thinking of yourself. Well, look at the bright side: KDE is open and free, and you are free to compile it under any Linux distro you want.
Not that I agree with the parent, but Operatings Systems are a hell of a lot more interesting, and people tend to work on what interests them. Not only would Unix programmers be checking it out, so would the many more Windows programmers.
Why would it be a cold day in hell to admit they're implementing features of Linux? They've already implemented Unix'esque features, why would Linux do it? Do you guys think Bill Gates has a pic of Linux on his dartboard?
I take it you didn't watch the Matrix spoof with Ballmer and Gates as Neo and Morpheus. They don't throw darts at Linux, but they definately were taking jabs at it. So I wouldn't be surprised if Gates had a dartboard with Tux on it. *shrug*
Actually, the Enlightenment Window Manager had a feature for years which is similar to Expose. The pager created small thumbs of windows, and you could even interact with the windows in the pager.
Sure, Apple's Expose goes a step further and they do know how to polish a gui, but it's unfair to not consider that Enlightenment had a similar feature (window thumbnailing) 5 or so years ago.
Legalities aside, I think that what this guy did is more inline with what is truly right and wrong than how the US sends suspected terrorists to 3rd parties to be tortured, which is legal.
Spamming, at this point in time, is unethical. It costs us all time and money, whether we want to deal with it or not. I can understand how people snap over it, and I think that any spam company deserves anything negative that they get.
So while the nation that claims to champion decomcracy, human rights, etc. sends people to be tortured in 3rd world countries without any hearing, this guy gets busted for making empty threats to some scum-bag spam operation based in some outside country. It's not like he sent someone to be torture
In business, and in government, the only game in town (mostly for compatibility reasons) is Microsoft Office. If you want to create your presentations etc., and be able to view everyone else's, you need Office.
Businesses and government have to buy copies of Office regardless of whether they're on Windows, MacOS, or Linux, but that's not the point. The point is that you can't run Office on Linux, which means government and business cannot easily switch to an arguably more secure platform.
Office for Linux would be huge in the business and govt. sector (or the sector that actually does buy licenses for its software, unlike the home market that you are speaking of.)
One benchmark used for Linux kernels is hammering a system while playing an mp3 to see if they can get it to skip. Low latency is mostly a desktop feature, and the 2.6 kernel is going to have much improved latency.
Other portions of Linux have changed, and may not initially outperform 2.4, but if you think this kernel isn't going to be a dramatic improvement over 2.4 for desktop users and servers, and if you think the kernel developers aren't taking the desktop into consideration, you are mistaken.
You're wrong about the China deal, since they could choose a BSD instead.
If they choose Linux, if a highly populated, up-and-coming nation is primarily using Linux, hardware and software vendors are going to have that much more incentive to support the Linux platform. Not to mention that they will no doubt be making some contributions to Linux and company.
Worms like the Ramen and Lion worm are a good example of what happens when a company doesn't take security into consideration.
That said, it's nice that companies like Redhat have learned from their past mistakes, and now disable network services by default, and really push a personal firewall onto you.
There is no need to listen to network ports by default. If someone needs to share something, make them take the concious effort of turning it on themselves.
Anyway, Microsoft is most certainly guilty of not paying enough attention to security issues, and they deserve to be blasted for it, just as Redhat deserved to be blasted by enabling ftp severs and such by default in the pre Redhat 7.1(2?) days..
You obviously don't understand the GPL, and it appears you have it backwards.
The GPL is a license whose goal is ensure that an end user has some rights with respect to a piece of software. It imposes no restrictions on end usage, it only imposes restrictions on people/companies who want to re-distribute GPLed code.
So you favor developer/corporation rights, I favor end user rights. Arguing over which one gives more freedom is not going to go anywhere. We'll just let the software and the chosen licenses speak for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
The FSF points out that they are incompatible so people who agree with the ideals of the FSF can easily spot licenses which meet their definition of free, and avoid those which do not.
Therefore it useless to ask if the problem is the GPL, because it is the pro-GPL people who are the ones stating that the other licenses are a problem.
Yes, it is restrictive.
More restrictive than not having the source code at all? If you consider all software, all licenses, GPL is most certainly on the free side of things. No, it's not the same as having total freedom, since it limits a small subset of modifiers who refuse to (or can't) give back their modifications, but for most modifiers and 100% of GPL software users it is absolutely free.
If you had said "restrictive to a set of modifiers who refuse to share their modifications with their user base", then you would have been correct. Implying that the license is restrictive to everyone, as you seem to be doing, is bullshit.
Hey, sorry if I misinterpreted your post. It just seemed as if you were insinuating that the Linux desktop was where it was 5 years ago, so I took your post as negative. I guess the fact that you chose to use the older examples is what made me think you were bashing..
However, just because there are other options for Window Managers doesn't mean she has to know about them. She can just use it as the OEM shipped it to her, just like everyone does with their Windows computer.
So what exactly is this killer feature in Longhorn that is going to ensure that no business or person will choose something that is free and open over something that is costly and closed?
This window that they speak of is non-existant, unless you can come up with some (mandatory) features that Longhorn will have that a Linux desktop couldn't in 3 years.
Now regarding grandmothers and choices of Window Manangers - when is the last time you actually looked at the Linux desktop scene? Window Managers are something you don't actually worry about, these days it's more an issue of KDE or GNOME, both of which have "Start"-like buttons to access menus (just as Windows does), both of which have file managers that work similarly to Windows Explorer, both of which generally have web browsers with "Forward" and "Back" buttons.
Now, I'm not going to argue what is easier to use, or if it is as easy as Windows. My argument is that when you talk about someone's grandmother having issues choosing which Window Mananger she needs, you really have no idea where the Linux desktop is at, or where it is going.
The answer to his question is here
1.11) What is Keith Packards involvement with Xouvert?
Keith Packard is a champion of the move to open XFree86, and supports Xouvert's efforts in that regard. Keith's project is freedesktop.org, and he's expressed interest in bundling with Xouvert's results.
So Keith is right there in the middle of it all.
And according to the Xouvert FAQ, it is not a fork, but more of a public development branch.
I really like KDE, I think it is further along than GNOME in many ways that are important to me, but their disregard for licensing issues is probably why many big names aren't touching it, and will ultimately not succeed in its goal to become the Linux Desktop.
Sun: Gnome. UserLinux: Gnome. Redhat: Gnome. If IBM ever did a desktop, it would probably be based on Gnome.
Sorry, but if Gnome (or a project like Linux) isn't proof that licensing is more important than features in the long run, then I don't know what is.
Compared to Windows, KDE used to suck, but it is getting better every day right? The same will happen with Gnome: it will improve until the gap between itself and KDE is insignificant, and then licensing will be the only issue.
I know I'll get flamed for claiming that 1.) UserLinux will be significant and 2.) that corporate backing is important, but I think corporate/community harmony is critical for Open Source software whose goal is to become mainstream (which is true for KDE.)
People keep saying it will be the year of the Linux desktop without explaining why or how. And they seem to pretend Windows and MacOS are magically going to halt progress or disappear in the meantime. People said Linux would take over when Longhorn's release date was pushed ahead, yet XP shows no signs of disappearing, and SP2 is even due out soon.
It is quite easy. Why would you pay hundreds of dollars on software that you can get for free?
Sure, the free stuff isn't as good as the commercial stuff in the desktop arena, but it the gap is narrowing. Sure, OpenOffice is about as good as Office 97. Ok, so having the ability to resize your desktop without restarting you desktop is a little late.
If you are looking at Open/Free software in this way, then you aren't seeing the big picture. You have to consider ALL the data, not just the data at this point in time. What was Linux like 5 years ago? Windows? What is Windows like now? Linux? What will Linux be like in 5 years? Windows?
This may not be so easy to consider for people who are new to Linux, or haven't used it back when the whole idea of there being a Desktop Linux didn't even exist. For those who have been using it for long periods of time, it is easier to see.
At some point in time, Linux will be "good enough" for businesses to start using it instead of Windows. It won't be better (in a usability sense) than Windows or MacOS X, but it won't need to be. And once the deskop share for Linux goes up, so will the rate at which bugs are fixed and features are implemented. For example, Large government organizations aren't going to sit around waiting for the community to fix a bug their employees are seeing now, they are going to hire the community to fix it.
Would it be too much to ask to you to consider the differences between Joe Smoe Linux user making this claim and Linus Torvalds, assuming you know who this Linus guy is?
In contrast, when you build a KDE app, you are tied into the KDE framework.
Opera is written in pure Qt, is it not? Anyone who wants to write an application with no ties to a DE can choose either pure GTK or Qt, unless I am missing something.
Yet, not one bit of evidence you provided indicates that there are technical reasons to choose GTK+/GNOME over Qt/KDE.
I don't think your parent's point was to show that GTK is technically superior to Qt, but that there are valid reason to use Gtk over Qt. He was actually questioning the statement "But the obvious technical merits of KDE aren't enough to convince those who feel irrational and emotional about two things: Qt's "corporate" status, and a visceral hatred for C++."
Yes, it's pretty sick when you can type imaps://mailserver in your file manager and get a listing of your mailbox on your mail server, or click File | Open in your text editor and type in imaps://mailserver/INBOX to view your inbox.. :)
Choice like this for regular users is unnecessary. I think most regular users will use whatever they are given, and once used to it they will choose it over others (Put a Windows user on a Mac and watch them cry, for example.) The future Linux users won't care what deskotp they use, as long as it lets them use their computer. If they do care, they are most likely advanced users (a minority), and they can go install KDE, just like I can go install Fluxbox or Enlightenment under Redhat.
And since when is making a default choice a removal of choice from a Linux user? When the KDE people didn't like what Redhat did with KDE, stock KDE Redhat RPMS showed up. If people want KDE on this UserLinux, it is available. That's the whole point of Open Source/Free Software.
The thing is, you don't have to test for KDE and GNOME. If you write a GNOME program, test it with GNOME, and it will always work with KDE since if you run it from KDE it will still use the GNOME libraries. The same is true for the other way around.
The argument is that including two software packages that are themselves as complex as the Linux kernel is not a good idea. I'm not a KDE/GNOME developer, but I can understand this. Why can't you?
I personally don't like GNOME very much. I think QT is a better toolkit than GTK.
Yes, just what I thought. You're not considering what is best for open/free software, you are simply thinking of yourself. Well, look at the bright side: KDE is open and free, and you are free to compile it under any Linux distro you want.
Not that I agree with the parent, but Operatings Systems are a hell of a lot more interesting, and people tend to work on what interests them. Not only would Unix programmers be checking it out, so would the many more Windows programmers.
Why would it be a cold day in hell to admit they're implementing features of Linux? They've already implemented Unix'esque features, why would Linux do it? Do you guys think Bill Gates has a pic of Linux on his dartboard?
I take it you didn't watch the Matrix spoof with Ballmer and Gates as Neo and Morpheus. They don't throw darts at Linux, but they definately were taking jabs at it. So I wouldn't be surprised if Gates had a dartboard with Tux on it. *shrug*
So which one is truly the best text editor for unix:
vim or Emacs?
I happen to like vim, are you going to tell me that my preference is wrong? How can a preference be wrong?
My point is that as long as people have preferences, multiple solutions will exist for a particular problem, and this is not a bad thing.
Actually, the Enlightenment Window Manager had a feature for years which is similar to Expose. The pager created small thumbs of windows, and you could even interact with the windows in the pager.
Sure, Apple's Expose goes a step further and they do know how to polish a gui, but it's unfair to not consider that Enlightenment had a similar feature (window thumbnailing) 5 or so years ago.
Legalities aside, I think that what this guy did is more inline with what is truly right and wrong than how the US sends suspected terrorists to 3rd parties to be tortured, which is legal.
Spamming, at this point in time, is unethical. It costs us all time and money, whether we want to deal with it or not. I can understand how people snap over it, and I think that any spam company deserves anything negative that they get.
So while the nation that claims to champion decomcracy, human rights, etc. sends people to be tortured in 3rd world countries without any hearing, this guy gets busted for making empty threats to some scum-bag spam operation based in some outside country. It's not like he sent someone to be torture
I wonder how much money was saved in the past month by companies hiring less knowledgable people who can't even run Windows update?
Once you start paying a decent salary for a decent sysadmin, the differences between adminning Windows and Linux isn't as big an issue.
Oh know, I've just been eaten by a troll, wow, i'm slow today.
Now you gnow why I stopped using KDE!
Do you people have jobs?
In business, and in government, the only game in town (mostly for compatibility reasons) is Microsoft Office. If you want to create your presentations etc., and be able to view everyone else's, you need Office.
Businesses and government have to buy copies of Office regardless of whether they're on Windows, MacOS, or Linux, but that's not the point. The point is that you can't run Office on Linux, which means government and business cannot easily switch to an arguably more secure platform.
Office for Linux would be huge in the business and govt. sector (or the sector that actually does buy licenses for its software, unlike the home market that you are speaking of.)
Have you ever heard the phrase "There is no such thing as bad publicity?"
Wrong.
One benchmark used for Linux kernels is hammering a system while playing an mp3 to see if they can get it to skip. Low latency is mostly a desktop feature, and the 2.6 kernel is going to have much improved latency.
Other portions of Linux have changed, and may not initially outperform 2.4, but if you think this kernel isn't going to be a dramatic improvement over 2.4 for desktop users and servers, and if you think the kernel developers aren't taking the desktop into consideration, you are mistaken.
I shouldn't reply to a troll, but what the heck.
You're wrong about the China deal, since they could choose a BSD instead.
If they choose Linux, if a highly populated, up-and-coming nation is primarily using Linux, hardware and software vendors are going to have that much more incentive to support the Linux platform. Not to mention that they will no doubt be making some contributions to Linux and company.
Worms like the Ramen and Lion worm are a good example of what happens when a company doesn't take security into consideration.
That said, it's nice that companies like Redhat have learned from their past mistakes, and now disable network services by default, and really push a personal firewall onto you.
There is no need to listen to network ports by default. If someone needs to share something, make them take the concious effort of turning it on themselves.
Anyway, Microsoft is most certainly guilty of not paying enough attention to security issues, and they deserve to be blasted for it, just as Redhat deserved to be blasted by enabling ftp severs and such by default in the pre Redhat 7.1(2?) days..
You obviously don't understand the GPL, and it appears you have it backwards.
The GPL is a license whose goal is ensure that an end user has some rights with respect to a piece of software. It imposes no restrictions on end usage, it only imposes restrictions on people/companies who want to re-distribute GPLed code.
So you favor developer/corporation rights, I favor end user rights. Arguing over which one gives more freedom is not going to go anywhere. We'll just let the software and the chosen licenses speak for themselves.