"With "limited" resources a focus should be made to take the server market from M$, drop the GUI crap, Linux WON'T win on the desktop (at least not yet). But can easily win on the server."
This statement shows that you don't get it, and I don't know where to begin..
I don't use Linux on my desktop because I think it will win or whatever.. I use it because it does what I need, and I suspect most people who use a Linux desktop use it for the same reason.
And who are you talking to when you say "drop the GUI crap."? Why should people stop trying to write good, free software that people like myself prefer to use just because you say it won't win some war that only people like yourself acknowledge?
Besides, why are you in such a hurry to see something happen? I see posts like yours so often: Oh, if only you (as if they are referencing a single person and not the entire world) would focus on X, X would be so much better than this Y that Microsoft does!
Microsoft will never port Office to Linux (never being a very long time) because if they do, it gives legitimacy to Linux, and it also allows businesses to switch easier (some people can't get by with OpenOffice b/c it's not 100% compatible.)
Microsoft most certainly does not like Wine, or the ability to run Windows programs in Linux. They even threatened to sue some Wine people who wanted to demo Visual Foxpro (iirc) running under Linux in Wine, because it demonstrates the feasibility of running their software on a competing platform.
Do a google on GPL violations, and you'll find that the responses of the authors of the programs are all polite, and they ask only that the company correct the violation.
I wonder, do people like you ever speed? Do you ever go 51 in a 50? Would you complain if you received a $500 ticket for going 1mph over the legal speed limit? If you would, then perhaps you're being hypocritical, since the law does say that you must not go over 50mph in this zone where you were doing 51..
Everyone is expected to break some laws, at least a little. In many states it's not OK for cops to hide themselves while clocking cars. This gives the small-time speeders time to correct their speed, and reminds them that there is a speed limit. The ones going 100mph may not notice the cop even if he's out in the open, and he'll get ticket or go to jail.
This Ernie Ball guy is barely infringing compared to many companies. I agree that what happened to his buisness was heavy-handed and driven soley by greed, and it is a shitty way to treat your customers. I'm sure he would have been interested in being in compliance, but the BSA is not interseted in this, they are only interested in making examples out of people and justifying their own existince. Why couldn't they call him a month in advance and schedule the audit? Sounds fair to me.
To be fair, OpenOffice hasn't even reached version 1.0 yet. It's not like they rushed out a 1.0, told everyone to use it, and then changed the file format.
While you may be physically weaker, I'm sure you will be a different person, probably stronger mentally. People with disabilities must be stronger than those of us who have none, whether they are blind, deaf, crippled, etc.
Think about that time you were dumped by that girl that you really liked (assuming you're straight and have had a girlfriend before.) If the experience didn't toughen you up a bit, then I think you're in the minority.
Microsoft has a history of pushing closed standards and protocols out to the masses, and their monopoly status is the ONLY reason this is possible.
If Microsoft didn't enable MSFT-ONLY, PROPRIETARY codecs, their bundling of a media player would be a non issue. The same applies to IE and IE-only tags. I guess this doesn't matter to people who are in love with Windows XP.
You can't compare free software to jailware. Redhat doesn't add proprietary codecs to Xine, and then roll it out to millions of people in it's up2date service.
Medium and large businesses hire people to setup and maintain computers for the people who work there (shocking, yes.)
In that type of environment, the users usually aren't even allowed to install anything non-standard onto their computer, and the sysadmins are expected to install everything for them - so what's the problem with Joe User not being able to tweak a Linux box?
From your posts it seems that you know alot about Linux, but it seems that you know nothing about Stallman and what motivates him. He doesn't care about Linux, or KDE, or whatever. His goal is to rid the world of proprietary software, because he feels that it enslaves people. That's it. The only time RMS will shut up is when the whole world acknowledges that free software is the the only kind of software there should be, which means he probably won't ever be fully content.
And as the saying goes, "there is no such thing as bad publicity"' By ranting about him you are showing that his persistance is paying off! Maybe some people will side with you and label him as a raving lunatic, but some won't. My advise to you is to keep quiet about this GNU/Linux thing, or the problem may only get worse;)
To be fair, one could say that both projects sought to create a free OS, but they both started at opposite ends.
You claim that GNU contributed to Linux, and we claim that Linux contributed to GNU.. We want to say GNU/Linux, you just want to say Linux. It's obvious that debating this is as productive as debating the state of the glass that is half empty|full.
What it boils down to is: Do you consider the FSF's ideals important? If yes, then say GNU/Linux. If not, then just say Linux.
XFree86 and KDE are included in most Linux distros, and they are extremely important, but they aren't essential to a the basic OS. The two projects that made the LInux of today possible: Linux (the project and effort) and GNU.
That said, I don't think it's so horrible for RMS to ask people to call it GNU/Linux, since GNU really did play a critical role in the birth of what people today call Linux. Stallman wants people to not only use Free software, but to be aware that they are using it. You don't want to call it GNU/Linux? Fine, then don't.
The problem is, most of us really don't give a shit.
Then linux.org is wrong. Linux is a kernel, which is not the same as an OS or distribution on top of the Linux kernel. Linux by itself is useless, and requires libraries and utilities to make it usable.
Saying Linux is an OS is like saying the Windows kernel is an OS.
Do they really need to spend the effort porting the game so that a few people can show it off on a Zauras, or a few people with alphas can play it on their PCI video card?
Linux gaming is synonymous with Linux on x86 gaming, yes. If you're waiting for it to take off on the Alpha platform, regardless of OS, you're going to be waiting a long time.
Mozilla is a well-established, widely-used, and well-respected OS project. Not only is this foundation starting with a very mature project, they are starting it with $2,000,000.. If you think that sum of money is insignificant, you haven't seen the donation totals for other open projects. It doesn't matter how much money AOL has, for an OS project 2mil is a huge chunk of cash.
What are you talking about? AOL has no use for Netscape anymore - they don't care if the Netscape devs continue to work on it or not. If AOL thought they had a use for Netscape, they would pay the paltry amount it would take to keep it alive.
This reminds me of the people who used to bash Mozilla in its early days. Interesting how you don't see too much of that around here anymore. The last valid complaint about Mozilla is "I don't need an IRC/Mail/HTML Editor in my Browser!", and the Mozilla project is fixing that as we speak.
OpenOffice IS relatively new, even though its code is based on StarOffice. Give it some time and I'm sure they'll work out the speed issues. As for simplicity, well, if Abiword already fills the niche for a simple word processor, why do you want another? Why have yet another simple word processor when the world lacks one that is compatible with Microsoft Word, which has become the defacto standard?
The fact is that sometimes people need to upgrade kernels, either to fix a vulnerability, or to fix a bug that prevents someone's hardware from working correctly. If you say that people shouldn't upgrade their kernels, you're essentially saying that they shouldn't update their drivers. I don't go to creative.com to get my SBLive working, I expect the kernel to support it, and if it doesn't I update the kernel. And under modern distros, upgrading a kernel is as easy as upgrading any other package on the system.
ATI's cards will work out of the box, and updating your kernel won't screw up your X setup. One step closer to "It just works."
When you install Nvidia's drivers, it puts a module for your RUNNING kernel in the proper place, which is something like/lib/modules/$kernelversion/drivers/video.
When you update your kernel, the nvidia module is not in your new kernel's modules directory, meaning you have to re-run the nvidia installer every time you upgrade your kernel, and that is a pain in the ass when compared to having an ATI card. Maybe it isn't for you or I, but for people new to Linux I would imagine it would be quite discouraging. In fact, I went through this last night while updating a friend's Redhat 8 setup (which he never uses.) I updated the kernel and rebooted to find that gdm wouldn't start, because X wouldn't start, because there was no nvidia module for that running kernel.
It's not hard for me, but it's nowhere near being intuitive to someone who isn't familiar with the kernel, XFree86, make, kernel source headers, etc etc etc.
The other guy is right: Nvidia's drivers are a pain in the ass compared to the cards are supported by XFree86.
GNU is a vision of a complete OS. Linux is a kernel project that generated lots of interest.
The reason RMS wants people to put GNU in front of Linux is that GNU was the primary driving force behind the OSes that people call Linux. Long before Linus was talking about writing a (large) piece of a full OS, GNU was there, working towards the much larger goal of creating a completely free OS. GNU's goal was to create a complete SYSTEM, while the XFree86 project, Linux, etc all seeked to create entities that are completely separate and are only semi-related. For this reason I think it's valid for RMS to ask people to say GNU/Linux, and it's not necessary to say something like GNU/XFree86/KDE/Linux.
I would believe the results submitted to by Dell themselves before I believed the results subitted by Apple on Dell's behalf.
If Dell is lying on their benchmarks, it will show when other system makers submit their benchmarks. I'm sure spec doesn't want their benchmark database to be tained with bogus results, and they will not allow such activies to persist. That said, I've never seen big discrepencies in their submitted results.
That said, Apple's benchmark of the Dual Xeon system is much different from the ones sitting on SPEC's site.
If you don't like Redhat's EULA, you go get another Linux distro, or even another version of Redhat. If you don't like the Windows XP EULA, you can't get another distribution of Windows XP.
If your job requires Windows, you're forced to abide by Microsoft's rules. If your job requires Linux, you most certainly aren't forced to use Redhat's EULA.
And we can't forget, at any given point in time, another Mandrake Linux could be born from what is now Redhat Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
"With "limited" resources a focus should be made to take the server market from M$, drop the GUI crap, Linux WON'T win on the desktop (at least not yet). But can easily win on the server."
This statement shows that you don't get it, and I don't know where to begin..
I don't use Linux on my desktop because I think it will win or whatever.. I use it because it does what I need, and I suspect most people who use a Linux desktop use it for the same reason.
And who are you talking to when you say "drop the GUI crap."? Why should people stop trying to write good, free software that people like myself prefer to use just because you say it won't win some war that only people like yourself acknowledge?
Besides, why are you in such a hurry to see something happen? I see posts like yours so often: Oh, if only you (as if they are referencing a single person and not the entire world) would focus on X, X would be so much better than this Y that Microsoft does!
Bah.
Microsoft will never port Office to Linux (never being a very long time) because if they do, it gives legitimacy to Linux, and it also allows businesses to switch easier (some people can't get by with OpenOffice b/c it's not 100% compatible.)
Microsoft most certainly does not like Wine, or the ability to run Windows programs in Linux. They even threatened to sue some Wine people who wanted to demo Visual Foxpro (iirc) running under Linux in Wine, because it demonstrates the feasibility of running their software on a competing platform.
Your argument doesn't apply to the BSD licence, because it imposes its own restrictions.
According to your definition of what free is, the only license that fits the bill is public domain.
Maybe if you people read the article, you would see that it says they are likely to go with an existing open-source system such as Linux.
Do a google on GPL violations, and you'll find that the responses of the authors of the programs are all polite, and they ask only that the company correct the violation.
I wonder, do people like you ever speed? Do you ever go 51 in a 50? Would you complain if you received a $500 ticket for going 1mph over the legal speed limit? If you would, then perhaps you're being hypocritical, since the law does say that you must not go over 50mph in this zone where you were doing 51..
Everyone is expected to break some laws, at least a little. In many states it's not OK for cops to hide themselves while clocking cars. This gives the small-time speeders time to correct their speed, and reminds them that there is a speed limit. The ones going 100mph may not notice the cop even if he's out in the open, and he'll get ticket or go to jail.
This Ernie Ball guy is barely infringing compared to many companies. I agree that what happened to his buisness was heavy-handed and driven soley by greed, and it is a shitty way to treat your customers. I'm sure he would have been interested in being in compliance, but the BSA is not interseted in this, they are only interested in making examples out of people and justifying their own existince. Why couldn't they call him a month in advance and schedule the audit? Sounds fair to me.
To be fair, OpenOffice hasn't even reached version 1.0 yet. It's not like they rushed out a 1.0, told everyone to use it, and then changed the file format.
You do know that spam is defined as unsolicited email, right?
While you may be physically weaker, I'm sure you will be a different person, probably stronger mentally. People with disabilities must be stronger than those of us who have none, whether they are blind, deaf, crippled, etc.
Think about that time you were dumped by that girl that you really liked (assuming you're straight and have had a girlfriend before.) If the experience didn't toughen you up a bit, then I think you're in the minority.
Microsoft has a history of pushing closed standards and protocols out to the masses, and their monopoly status is the ONLY reason this is possible.
If Microsoft didn't enable MSFT-ONLY, PROPRIETARY codecs, their bundling of a media player would be a non issue. The same applies to IE and IE-only tags. I guess this doesn't matter to people who are in love with Windows XP.
You can't compare free software to jailware. Redhat doesn't add proprietary codecs to Xine, and then roll it out to millions of people in it's up2date service.
Medium and large businesses hire people to setup and maintain computers for the people who work there (shocking, yes.)
In that type of environment, the users usually aren't even allowed to install anything non-standard onto their computer, and the sysadmins are expected to install everything for them - so what's the problem with Joe User not being able to tweak a Linux box?
From your posts it seems that you know alot about Linux, but it seems that you know nothing about Stallman and what motivates him. He doesn't care about Linux, or KDE, or whatever. His goal is to rid the world of proprietary software, because he feels that it enslaves people. That's it. The only time RMS will shut up is when the whole world acknowledges that free software is the the only kind of software there should be, which means he probably won't ever be fully content.
;)
And as the saying goes, "there is no such thing as bad publicity"' By ranting about him you are showing that his persistance is paying off! Maybe some people will side with you and label him as a raving lunatic, but some won't. My advise to you is to keep quiet about this GNU/Linux thing, or the problem may only get worse
To be fair, one could say that both projects sought to create a free OS, but they both started at opposite ends.
You claim that GNU contributed to Linux, and we claim that Linux contributed to GNU.. We want to say GNU/Linux, you just want to say Linux. It's obvious that debating this is as productive as debating the state of the glass that is half empty|full.
What it boils down to is: Do you consider the FSF's ideals important? If yes, then say GNU/Linux. If not, then just say Linux.
XFree86 and KDE are included in most Linux distros, and they are extremely important, but they aren't essential to a the basic OS. The two projects that made the LInux of today possible: Linux (the project and effort) and GNU.
That said, I don't think it's so horrible for RMS to ask people to call it GNU/Linux, since GNU really did play a critical role in the birth of what people today call Linux. Stallman wants people to not only use Free software, but to be aware that they are using it. You don't want to call it GNU/Linux? Fine, then don't.
The problem is, most of us really don't give a shit.
All I can say is: "speak for yourself."
Then linux.org is wrong. Linux is a kernel, which is not the same as an OS or distribution on top of the Linux kernel. Linux by itself is useless, and requires libraries and utilities to make it usable.
Saying Linux is an OS is like saying the Windows kernel is an OS.
Do they really need to spend the effort porting the game so that a few people can show it off on a Zauras, or a few people with alphas can play it on their PCI video card?
Linux gaming is synonymous with Linux on x86 gaming, yes. If you're waiting for it to take off on the Alpha platform, regardless of OS, you're going to be waiting a long time.
Mozilla is a well-established, widely-used, and well-respected OS project. Not only is this foundation starting with a very mature project, they are starting it with $2,000,000.. If you think that sum of money is insignificant, you haven't seen the donation totals for other open projects. It doesn't matter how much money AOL has, for an OS project 2mil is a huge chunk of cash.
What are you talking about? AOL has no use for Netscape anymore - they don't care if the Netscape devs continue to work on it or not. If AOL thought they had a use for Netscape, they would pay the paltry amount it would take to keep it alive.
This reminds me of the people who used to bash Mozilla in its early days. Interesting how you don't see too much of that around here anymore. The last valid complaint about Mozilla is "I don't need an IRC/Mail/HTML Editor in my Browser!", and the Mozilla project is fixing that as we speak.
OpenOffice IS relatively new, even though its code is based on StarOffice. Give it some time and I'm sure they'll work out the speed issues. As for simplicity, well, if Abiword already fills the niche for a simple word processor, why do you want another? Why have yet another simple word processor when the world lacks one that is compatible with Microsoft Word, which has become the defacto standard?
The fact is that sometimes people need to upgrade kernels, either to fix a vulnerability, or to fix a bug that prevents someone's hardware from working correctly. If you say that people shouldn't upgrade their kernels, you're essentially saying that they shouldn't update their drivers. I don't go to creative.com to get my SBLive working, I expect the kernel to support it, and if it doesn't I update the kernel. And under modern distros, upgrading a kernel is as easy as upgrading any other package on the system.
ATI's cards will work out of the box, and updating your kernel won't screw up your X setup. One step closer to "It just works."
When you install Nvidia's drivers, it puts a module for your RUNNING kernel in the proper place, which is something like /lib/modules/$kernelversion/drivers/video.
When you update your kernel, the nvidia module is not in your new kernel's modules directory, meaning you have to re-run the nvidia installer every time you upgrade your kernel, and that is a pain in the ass when compared to having an ATI card. Maybe it isn't for you or I, but for people new to Linux I would imagine it would be quite discouraging.
In fact, I went through this last night while updating a friend's Redhat 8 setup (which he never uses.) I updated the kernel and rebooted to find that gdm wouldn't start, because X wouldn't start, because there was no nvidia module for that running kernel.
It's not hard for me, but it's nowhere near being intuitive to someone who isn't familiar with the kernel, XFree86, make, kernel source headers, etc etc etc.
The other guy is right: Nvidia's drivers are a pain in the ass compared to the cards are supported by XFree86.
GNU is a vision of a complete OS. Linux is a kernel project that generated lots of interest.
The reason RMS wants people to put GNU in front of Linux is that GNU was the primary driving force behind the OSes that people call Linux. Long before Linus was talking about writing a (large) piece of a full OS, GNU was there, working towards the much larger goal of creating a completely free OS. GNU's goal was to create a complete SYSTEM, while the XFree86 project, Linux, etc all seeked to create entities that are completely separate and are only semi-related. For this reason I think it's valid for RMS to ask people to say GNU/Linux, and it's not necessary to say something like GNU/XFree86/KDE/Linux.
If you don't trust Dell's reported score for their Xeon line, then you must not trust Spec's online database:
Here
I would believe the results submitted to by Dell themselves before I believed the results subitted by Apple on Dell's behalf.
If Dell is lying on their benchmarks, it will show when other system makers submit their benchmarks. I'm sure spec doesn't want their benchmark database to be tained with bogus results, and they will not allow such activies to persist. That said, I've never seen big discrepencies in their submitted results.
That said, Apple's benchmark of the Dual Xeon system is much different from the ones sitting on SPEC's site.
Oops, that should have read "you aren't forced to abide by Redhat's EULA."
If you don't like Redhat's EULA, you go get another Linux distro, or even another version of Redhat. If you don't like the Windows XP EULA, you can't get another distribution of Windows XP.
If your job requires Windows, you're forced to abide by Microsoft's rules. If your job requires Linux, you most certainly aren't forced to use Redhat's EULA.
And we can't forget, at any given point in time, another Mandrake Linux could be born from what is now Redhat Linux.
I thought everyone knew that...
What version of KDE do you run on your production servers?
Do you think Ximian Gnome will make my mail server go faster?