kdm, gdm, wdm, and all the xdm replacements are way alpha! I haven't got any of them to work at all. They all seem to work ok for normal GUI login, but none of them have a working chooser, so there is not much point in using them on a LAN.
Cool... Red Hat made a good choice if this is really 5.9 (I haven't been able to get through yet to the site thought).
They would be best to just ftp release 5.9 and do massive bug tracking, then _just_ bugfix for 6.0 without putting in new stuff... to speed up 6.0's release, and insure it is more stable, IMHO.
Hmm... Not that they are the greatest there is, but I sure won't mind giving 4Dwm and some of thier desktop tools a spin on a Linux box. But, I am not going to hold my breath, I'll believe it when I see the source trees pop up on an ftp site.
"Problem with that is, that RedHat is one of the main people in the LSB effort. Most of the past discussion about LSB has been about what package manager to use. I thought it had died, and was glad."
You know, I have to say, I can't take anything in this post seriously after the opening sentance. The LSB mailing list is hosted by Debian. The site isn't hosted by RedHat. The activity on the mailing list seems to show RedHat hasn't pushed for anything that much, and definately not for something that would specificly benifit them.
The LSB is NOT a behind closed doors project, and it is not going to be bulldoged by one distribution. Following your logic, the LSB would be doomed to include a commercial X server because the LSB written standard Technical lead is Stuart Anderson and he works for Metro Link, Inc. That more consistant with your logic, and we all know that won't happen.
Guilt by association is absolutely rediculus, and your stretching to even prove the association! It would be wise to read up on it, and check it out yourself at thier website a bit, join some of the mailing lists, and learn more about it before you condem something you don't seem to understand.
Oh, yea, the phone company is getting screwed... Sure, that's why record numbers of households have been "sold" a second line for thier computer now. "Are you sure you don't want a second phone line put in for your computer? It's not going to double your basic rate, it's only raising it from $19.55 a month to $35.95 a month, and you won't have to worry about missing a call while your on the internet."
Come on... They may have more traffic now, but they have better technology to handle it. And they are selling additional services now that they never offered before. I have a damn hard time believeing thier going broke because of the Internet!
So, now they sold everyone a second line, thier going to charge them per minute to actually use that second line??!?!! You can BET people will flock to cable modem. And if you don't get Cable modem yet (like me), just place a weekly phone call to your cable company (mine is TCI) asking them "is cable modem avaliable yet" (I know the answer is no, but I want to be honest in my effort to let them know I want it, and I wanna know as soon as I can get it.)
Is it just me, or has anyone else thought that ever since kernel 2.2.0 came out, Gnome has been racing at breakneck speed to get to 1.0 (maybe because they want it to be bundled in new distributions that will be comming because of Kernel 2.2.x?)
I am all for the Gnome project, choices are good. But, I just wonder if they can't help but let a few bugs slip by because they are in a hurry.
Linux popularity can't be judged by the number of programs sitting on a shelf in Best Buy or the local computer shop as they suggest! Linux users would be unhappy with an "off the shelf" product, because they have grown use to getting the "latest greatest" version of every application they use by downloading it off the internet. Do you want to walk in and buy GIMP version 0.95 when you can just set your system to download a much newer version while you sleep?
The internet is an integral part of the Linux culture, and it will take time before people get use to the idea that the Internet is also a primary (not secondary) source of software. The linux community knows this, the buisness world doesn't want to acknoledge this.
If linux is to be analyzed by the buisness world, it should be analized in other contexts, not the traditional one. Possable opertunities are things like a publication buisness. I know more people would be interested in buying a monthly "subscription" (for $5 a month?) to the most recent version of the top 200 GPL titles for Linux on CD insted of buying stuff off the shelf. People like Time/Warner and all the publishing giants are the ones who stand something to gain, with thier publication subscription machienary in place... So, analyzing Linux in the "traditional" buisness context is idotic, because linux and gpl software will never be a "New version every two years" market like Microsoft has made for thier OS and software.
Linux popularity can't be judged by the number of programs sitting on a shelf in Best Buy or the local computer shop as they suggest!
Linux users would be unhappy with an "off the shelf" product, because they have grown use to getting the "latest greatest" version of every application they use by downloading it off the internet. Do you want to walk in and buy GIMP version 0.95 when you can just set your system to download a much newer version while you sleep?
The internet is an integral part of the Linux culture, and it will take time before people get use to the idea that the Internet is also a primary (not secondary) source of software. The linux community knows this, the buisness world doesn't want to acknoledge this.
If linux is to be analyzed by the buisness world, it should be analized in other contexts, not the traditional one. Possable opertunities are things like a publication buisness. I know more people would be interested in buying a monthly "subscription" (for $5 a month?) to the most recent version of the top 200 GPL titles for Linux on CD insted of buying stuff off the shelf. People like Time/Warner and all the publishing giants are the ones who stand something to gain, with thier publication subscription machienary in place... So, analyzing Linux in the "traditional" buisness context is idotic, because linux and gpl software will never be a "New version every two years" market like Microsoft has made for thier OS and software.
Seriously, does Dell, or Compaq, or any of the leading laptop makers disclose information about the internal workings of thier laptop line to Linux developers?
I don't know myself, but I would like to hear that others do this before I condem Toshiba for not doing so.
Linux won't be under OS X, because Apple is hanging on to something called YellowBox, which they won't open up, and which seems to be quite good for them, and wouldn't be that easy to work up a connection to Linux with (licencing and coding wise). No?
Honestly, I don't see it happening. Anyone an expert on YellowBox here? Did I even spell that right, and is it correct that it's very closed technology, and it probably won't play well with a GPL layer above and below it?
Gnome argues KDE's licence sucks, no matter how much they change it.
GNUstep grows quietly in the background with a better foundation, but since the other KDE and Gnome are "hot" it doesn't get as much attention, and support. Yet, the end users flock to it to avoid contriversy (seen last Window Manager poll on slashdot?). But, the developers as a whole remain cluelessly beating eachother with clubs. Gee... Yea, I can see how THAT is going to cause evolution. The "weaker ignored" ones remain while the potential "diversity" kills each other off.
My point is, Flame Wars != Diversity. And if you must put Linux in the context of an ecosystem to understand it, then think about this. Everything has it's place on the food chain. Animals have become extinct solely from being "too good" that they over hunt thier pray, and end up starving. Does this mean the animal was not powerful? No. It means that without carefull planning, and understand the delicate balance, you can do more harm than good to yourself.
So, who do you want to be? The Powerful Pre-Historic brutal tigers who conquer all, but then starve, or the crafty and wise squirl who stores his nuts away for winter and trys not to call too much attention to himself by not starting fights?
Who won the race? The Hare who gloated, bragged, argued, and was cocky, OR the turtle who kept his mouth shut, didn't mock anyone, and just kept on plugging without making any enemies? Who do you think everyone wanted to actually SEE win the race? The Jerk of a Hare? Or the relyable friendly little Turtle?
Fighting each other in the name of diversity is pointless. Diversity will grow as the natural product of many many things, the least productive of which is infighting.
Ya know, there is more than one case of a "pack" or "tribe" or "club" or "commnuity" turning on each other and distroying itself, while the rest of the world goes without knowing or caring.
Shake hands with your rival, compete with them, keep them in sight, work out with them, share ideas. Two runners who are friends or two body builders can push each other as friends much farther and faster than they can move on thier own. If the two start duking it out from the beginning, they will just be bloody, weak, tired messes before they leave the starting line, and they will never see the finish line or a trophy.
Those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
"I can't help observing, of course, the "free source" Unix-derived world seems to be suffering from exactly the same kind of fragmentation and strife that occurred and is still occurring in the commercial world."
Reminds me a hole lot of what Jim Gettys, the guy who brought us X, had to say not to long ago.
Linux is it's own worst enemy. Microsoft can't destroy Linux. But Linux can destroy itself. Take sometime and think about that before your next flame war over libraries, hiarchies, OSS, OSI, all this other junk...
Basically, I think it's BS. It's not real, it's vaporware, not hardware. There is no existing stuff, it's "planned" for thier "project." They are partners with Sun, BUT.... The project is not even lead by a Russian, it's lead by an Armenian(sp?) guy, and Russians have a trust issue over that, because it might not even benifit thier country (which could use a technological boost).
Anyway, that's the spin I get from http://www.el2000.ru/news/presentation.html
I do admit they (BP, ESR, RMS, et al) have done some great things for the software community. I wouldn't go as far as some of you saying they have done more harm than good though. I think each one has probably done more good than harm.
But, personally, I believe in KISS more than I believe in OSR, OSS, OSI, ABC, XYZ, PDQ, on and on, and on... I quote slackware.com and Patrick Volkerding here with "KISS Principle, that is Keep It Simple, Stupid!"
IMHO, all these "orginizations" to try to promote one licence over another, and one principle over another are just BS. There are plenty of options out there, GNU/GPL and BSD should be the primary two considered by anyone IMHO. Either pick one of those to, and make it simple for people to know you are following a "well know licence" or write your own (ala Netscape, Java, etc.) and be know as a "more restrictive licence."
Making it more complicated than it needs to be is wasting the time of valuable minds like BP, ESR, RMS, etc... and the community might be better served by less promotion and more coding. Let the products speak for themselfs.
Trying to tweak all the "open-ness" of Licences is just going to dillute the whole issue, and people are getting sick of it. The end result is people will just care even less, and not even read the licences themselfs anymore. So, KISS and make up, all of you!
"Given say, a $1000 budjet for Drivers, Monitor, and Video Card, what could you do with that in Linux?"
No where in that do I see anything about CPU, RAM, Motherboard, etc.... They are being VERY video specific. And when I see posts that say "you can't get a system that will do 3D at all for $1000" it seems to say to me, you didn't even read the question.
I don't know much about 3D, I have never done any on x86, what I have done is on SGI's, but I would guess that a high quality SONY selling for about $400 (checking PriceWatch, that would get about a 17".25 pitch, blah blah blah Sony) might not be the biggest monitor, but should be high quality. That leaves $600 for a video card and commercial X server. My God, if you can't do it on that, I will be sad to hear Linux is soo far off. I bet an NT newsgroup would give you endless suggestions. I can't believe all the Linux fanatics here say it can't be done.
I believe the question was $1000 for drivers and video card, maybe not even including the monitor, but maybe. But I sure didn't read that it was the whole workstation!!! I believe they were talking $1000 specific to video, and then add the CPU/RAM/Motherboard/etc to that.
Remember when we got to kernel 2.1.99 and everyone thought 2.2.0 was next... hehehehe... Wait a couple weeks and watch the shock when they release Gnome v0.100.0 then v0.101.0 and everyone crys...:-) Just a thought.
While I personally prefer to compile things on my own, I do believe that RPM's for things like a kernel make remote administration much easier for some people (eg multiple servers, some of which have low cpu power despite high bandwidth). Seems that the RPM's are intended to make things more "2.2.x" friendly, but, they don't have a generic 2.2.x kernel in RPM yet. Anyone know why?
I have rpm'ed a few 2.0.x kernels in for upgrades on older boxes (like a 386 that takes 18 hours to compile a kernel on, but rpm's in in 2 minutes), so I do understand thier value. So, I guess I want to know, will the new rpm's break anything in 2.0.x systems, and if they have rpm's to upgrade the stuff needed for 2.2.x, why don't they have a 2.2.x kernel in.rpm?
I do applaud Red Hat for so far waiting, and not jumping to release a 6.0 version with 2.2.x kernel. If they can hold just a little longer, they might be able to use glibc 2.1, gnome 1.0, and kernel 2.2.x... If they do widespread testing before distributing it, it might be cool. Of course, this is going to scream "buggy" despite any amount of beta testing, due to the "new-ness" of so many of the parts... But, wooo... come 6.1, it will probably really rock (if they wait like I hope for 6.0).
Man, if this is news for nerds, what does that make me? Considering I must have found at least 50 periodic tables on the web over two years ago and bookmarked all of them...if this is news for nerds, and it's just hitting slashdot now, I must be like a mega-nerd (now I am depressed).
I must admit, these are rather "tame" tables...compared to some of the more elabrated Java ones I have seen...Uh...Try a search engine;-) I'm going to settle for my Periodic Table coffee mug, cause I can take it with me and I don't have a laptop with wireless... (what I really need is to find one of those places that sells "vi help" coffee mugs...I need another periodic table like I need a ___)
Sorry if this posts twice, I waited about 5 minutes for it to load in the static pages, but didn't see it, so I thought I would try again
For lack of a better word, I think "modular" covers it. As "Linux*" grows bigger, the modularity of it also grows. Which, in fact improves support.
Commercial OS's grow bigger and rely on "in house" support. The more features they add to the code base, the more support they have to provide.
Where as, development "teams" in the Linux commnuity actually provide specific nitch code and support for the code completely independantly of each other... Well, at least more independantly than commercial shops.
XFree86 and Linux is only one of thousands of examples. Both could stand independantly, Linux with commercial X support, XFree86 on other OS's. Both have thier own development team, thier own specific tasks, and thier own support base and style. Same goes for almost every linux application down to the basics... vim, bash, tcsh, etc.. these aren't written and supported by kernel coders. So the support base branches out as rapidly as the code base.
Where as, shops like Microsoft use in house "support centers" and in house "development centers." This leads to the "support center" haveing to deal with Windows, Word, WordPad, DOS, on and on and on, each with more features every release. But all just the same support center.
So, the case of "more Linux* features" creating bloat and failing maintaince and support doesn't hold to the commercial model it would fail in.
This is how GPL/GNU evolved, little seperate teams, on little seprate projects, functioning independantly, but knowing what thier place in the "big picture" was, because they are carving that place out for themselfs. Thus, the "modularity" of Linux*, and the reason to keep that modularity, and the reason support will scale up efficently with the features in GNU/GPL.
Linux* -- * denotes, in a generic sence, because Linux to me is the kernel, but what were really talking about here is the whole ball of wax, from kernel up through the highest level applications.
Boy, he really shift's gears there in the middle of that thing. Two words to you John, Transision Paragraph. Half a sentance for a transision is pretty abrupt for Monday morning reading.
As far as Transmeta RISC x86 clones, interesting, believe it when I see it.
As far as day dreams go, Transmeta/Linus T. do a Socket 7 RISC chip, Linux writes some LINUX code that drops all the "X86 Emulation" crap and runs the chip "native" for a 25% preformance boost, Transmeta sells the 500MHz version for $100/ea, and Boom.... Linux rocks the world./dream off
Slashdot Mirror
kdm, gdm, wdm, and all the xdm replacements are way alpha! I haven't got any of them to work at all. They all seem to work ok for normal GUI login, but none of them have a working chooser, so there is not much point in using them on a LAN.
for those who wanna see what is in there.
They would be best to just ftp release 5.9 and do massive bug tracking, then _just_ bugfix for 6.0 without putting in new stuff... to speed up 6.0's release, and insure it is more stable, IMHO.
Hmm... Not that they are the greatest there is, but I sure won't mind giving 4Dwm and some of thier desktop tools a spin on a Linux box. But, I am not going to hold my breath, I'll believe it when I see the source trees pop up on an ftp site.
"Problem with that is, that RedHat is one of the main people in the LSB effort. Most of the past discussion about LSB has been about what package manager to use. I thought it had died, and was glad."
You know, I have to say, I can't take anything in this post seriously after the opening sentance. The LSB mailing list is hosted by Debian. The site isn't hosted by RedHat. The activity on the mailing list seems to show RedHat hasn't pushed for anything that much, and definately not for something that would specificly benifit them.
The LSB is NOT a behind closed doors project, and it is not going to be bulldoged by one distribution. Following your logic, the LSB would be doomed to include a commercial X server because the LSB written standard Technical lead is Stuart Anderson and he works for Metro Link, Inc. That more consistant with your logic, and we all know that won't happen.
Guilt by association is absolutely rediculus, and your stretching to even prove the association! It would be wise to read up on it, and check it out yourself at thier website a bit, join some of the mailing lists, and learn more about it before you condem something you don't seem to understand.
I ordered a copy of Solaris x86 the day they started the offer. It never came at all.
Come on... They may have more traffic now, but they have better technology to handle it. And they are selling additional services now that they never offered before. I have a damn hard time believeing thier going broke because of the Internet!
So, now they sold everyone a second line, thier going to charge them per minute to actually use that second line??!?!! You can BET people will flock to cable modem. And if you don't get Cable modem yet (like me), just place a weekly phone call to your cable company (mine is TCI) asking them "is cable modem avaliable yet" (I know the answer is no, but I want to be honest in my effort to let them know I want it, and I wanna know as soon as I can get it.)
I am all for the Gnome project, choices are good. But, I just wonder if they can't help but let a few bugs slip by because they are in a hurry.
The internet is an integral part of the Linux culture, and it will take time before people get use to the idea that the Internet is also a primary (not secondary) source of software. The linux community knows this, the buisness world doesn't want to acknoledge this.
If linux is to be analyzed by the buisness world, it should be analized in other contexts, not the traditional one. Possable opertunities are things like a publication buisness. I know more people would be interested in buying a monthly "subscription" (for $5 a month?) to the most recent version of the top 200 GPL titles for Linux on CD insted of buying stuff off the shelf. People like Time/Warner and all the publishing giants are the ones who stand something to gain, with thier publication subscription machienary in place... So, analyzing Linux in the "traditional" buisness context is idotic, because linux and gpl software will never be a "New version every two years" market like Microsoft has made for thier OS and software.
Linux users would be unhappy with an "off the shelf" product, because they have grown use to getting the "latest greatest" version of every application they use by downloading it off the internet. Do you want to walk in and buy GIMP version 0.95 when you can just set your system to download a much newer version while you sleep?
The internet is an integral part of the Linux culture, and it will take time before people get use to the idea that the Internet is also a primary (not secondary) source of software. The linux community knows this, the buisness world doesn't want to acknoledge this.
If linux is to be analyzed by the buisness world, it should be analized in other contexts, not the traditional one. Possable opertunities are things like a publication buisness. I know more people would be interested in buying a monthly "subscription" (for $5 a month?) to the most recent version of the top 200 GPL titles for Linux on CD insted of buying stuff off the shelf. People like Time/Warner and all the publishing giants are the ones who stand something to gain, with thier publication subscription machienary in place... So, analyzing Linux in the "traditional" buisness context is idotic, because linux and gpl software will never be a "New version every two years" market like Microsoft has made for thier OS and software.
Seriously, does Dell, or Compaq, or any of the leading laptop makers disclose information about the internal workings of thier laptop line to Linux developers?
I don't know myself, but I would like to hear that others do this before I condem Toshiba for not doing so.
Linux won't be under OS X, because Apple is hanging on to something called YellowBox, which they won't open up, and which seems to be quite good for them, and wouldn't be that easy to work up a connection to Linux with (licencing and coding wise). No?
Honestly, I don't see it happening. Anyone an expert on YellowBox here? Did I even spell that right, and is it correct that it's very closed technology, and it probably won't play well with a GPL layer above and below it?
Specifically http://slashdot.org /comments.pl?sid=99/02/20/0133207&pid=67#642
Then, be very very very careful how you define fragmentation. Yes, it's good, IF you qualify it to exclude some critical factors (infighting).
KDE flames Gnome cause KDE works and is stable.
Gnome argues KDE's licence sucks, no matter how much they change it.
GNUstep grows quietly in the background with a better foundation, but since the other KDE and Gnome are "hot" it doesn't get as much attention, and support. Yet, the end users flock to it to avoid contriversy (seen last Window Manager poll on slashdot?). But, the developers as a whole remain cluelessly beating eachother with clubs. Gee... Yea, I can see how THAT is going to cause evolution. The "weaker ignored" ones remain while the potential "diversity" kills each other off.
My point is, Flame Wars != Diversity. And if you must put Linux in the context of an ecosystem to understand it, then think about this. Everything has it's place on the food chain. Animals have become extinct solely from being "too good" that they over hunt thier pray, and end up starving. Does this mean the animal was not powerful? No. It means that without carefull planning, and understand the delicate balance, you can do more harm than good to yourself.
So, who do you want to be? The Powerful Pre-Historic brutal tigers who conquer all, but then starve, or the crafty and wise squirl who stores his nuts away for winter and trys not to call too much attention to himself by not starting fights?
Who won the race? The Hare who gloated, bragged, argued, and was cocky, OR the turtle who kept his mouth shut, didn't mock anyone, and just kept on plugging without making any enemies? Who do you think everyone wanted to actually SEE win the race? The Jerk of a Hare? Or the relyable friendly little Turtle?
Fighting each other in the name of diversity is pointless. Diversity will grow as the natural product of many many things, the least productive of which is infighting.
Ya know, there is more than one case of a "pack" or "tribe" or "club" or "commnuity" turning on each other and distroying itself, while the rest of the world goes without knowing or caring.
Shake hands with your rival, compete with them, keep them in sight, work out with them, share ideas. Two runners who are friends or two body builders can push each other as friends much farther and faster than they can move on thier own. If the two start duking it out from the beginning, they will just be bloody, weak, tired messes before they leave the starting line, and they will never see the finish line or a trophy.
Those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
"I can't help observing, of course, the "free source" Unix-derived world seems to be suffering from exactly the same kind of fragmentation and strife that occurred and is still occurring in the commercial world."
Reminds me a hole lot of what Jim Gettys, the guy who brought us X, had to say not to long ago.
Linux is it's own worst enemy. Microsoft can't destroy Linux. But Linux can destroy itself. Take sometime and think about that before your next flame war over libraries, hiarchies, OSS, OSI, all this other junk...
Basically, I think it's BS. It's not real, it's vaporware, not hardware. There is no existing stuff, it's "planned" for thier "project." They are partners with Sun, BUT.... The project is not even lead by a Russian, it's lead by an Armenian(sp?) guy, and Russians have a trust issue over that, because it might not even benifit thier country (which could use a technological boost).
Anyway, that's the spin I get from http://www.el2000.ru/news/presentation.html
http://www.ipmce.su/
http://www.el2000.ru/
K, I found them, now someone translate for me? :-)
I do admit they (BP, ESR, RMS, et al) have done some great things for the software community. I wouldn't go as far as some of you saying they have done more harm than good though. I think each one has probably done more good than harm.
But, personally, I believe in KISS more than I believe in OSR, OSS, OSI, ABC, XYZ, PDQ, on and on, and on... I quote slackware.com and Patrick Volkerding here with "KISS Principle, that is Keep It Simple, Stupid!"
IMHO, all these "orginizations" to try to promote one licence over another, and one principle over another are just BS. There are plenty of options out there, GNU/GPL and BSD should be the primary two considered by anyone IMHO. Either pick one of those to, and make it simple for people to know you are following a "well know licence" or write your own (ala Netscape, Java, etc.) and be know as a "more restrictive licence."
Making it more complicated than it needs to be is wasting the time of valuable minds like BP, ESR, RMS, etc... and the community might be better served by less promotion and more coding. Let the products speak for themselfs.
Trying to tweak all the "open-ness" of Licences is just going to dillute the whole issue, and people are getting sick of it. The end result is people will just care even less, and not even read the licences themselfs anymore. So, KISS and make up, all of you!
"Given say, a $1000 budjet for Drivers, Monitor, and Video Card, what could you do with that in Linux?"
No where in that do I see anything about CPU, RAM, Motherboard, etc.... They are being VERY video specific. And when I see posts that say "you can't get a system that will do 3D at all for $1000" it seems to say to me, you didn't even read the question.
I don't know much about 3D, I have never done any on x86, what I have done is on SGI's, but I would guess that a high quality SONY selling for about $400 (checking PriceWatch, that would get about a 17" .25 pitch, blah blah blah Sony) might not be the biggest monitor, but should be high quality. That leaves $600 for a video card and commercial X server. My God, if you can't do it on that, I will be sad to hear Linux is soo far off. I bet an NT newsgroup would give you endless suggestions. I can't believe all the Linux fanatics here say it can't be done.
I believe the question was $1000 for drivers and video card, maybe not even including the monitor, but maybe. But I sure didn't read that it was the whole workstation!!! I believe they were talking $1000 specific to video, and then add the CPU/RAM/Motherboard/etc to that.
Remember when we got to kernel 2.1.99 and everyone thought 2.2.0 was next... hehehehe... Wait a couple weeks and watch the shock when they release Gnome v0.100.0 then v0.101.0 and everyone crys... :-) Just a thought.
I have rpm'ed a few 2.0.x kernels in for upgrades on older boxes (like a 386 that takes 18 hours to compile a kernel on, but rpm's in in 2 minutes), so I do understand thier value. So, I guess I want to know, will the new rpm's break anything in 2.0.x systems, and if they have rpm's to upgrade the stuff needed for 2.2.x, why don't they have a 2.2.x kernel in .rpm?
I do applaud Red Hat for so far waiting, and not jumping to release a 6.0 version with 2.2.x kernel. If they can hold just a little longer, they might be able to use glibc 2.1, gnome 1.0, and kernel 2.2.x... If they do widespread testing before distributing it, it might be cool. Of course, this is going to scream "buggy" despite any amount of beta testing, due to the "new-ness" of so many of the parts... But, wooo... come 6.1, it will probably really rock (if they wait like I hope for 6.0).
I must admit, these are rather "tame" tables...compared to some of the more elabrated Java ones I have seen...Uh...Try a search engine
Sorry if this posts twice, I waited about 5 minutes for it to load in the static pages, but didn't see it, so I thought I would try again
For lack of a better word, I think "modular" covers it. As "Linux*" grows bigger, the modularity of it also grows. Which, in fact improves support.
Commercial OS's grow bigger and rely on "in house" support. The more features they add to the code base, the more support they have to provide.
Where as, development "teams" in the Linux commnuity actually provide specific nitch code and support for the code completely independantly of each other... Well, at least more independantly than commercial shops.
XFree86 and Linux is only one of thousands of examples. Both could stand independantly, Linux with commercial X support, XFree86 on other OS's. Both have thier own development team, thier own specific tasks, and thier own support base and style. Same goes for almost every linux application down to the basics... vim, bash, tcsh, etc.. these aren't written and supported by kernel coders. So the support base branches out as rapidly as the code base.
Where as, shops like Microsoft use in house "support centers" and in house "development centers." This leads to the "support center" haveing to deal with Windows, Word, WordPad, DOS, on and on and on, each with more features every release. But all just the same support center.
So, the case of "more Linux* features" creating bloat and failing maintaince and support doesn't hold to the commercial model it would fail in.
This is how GPL/GNU evolved, little seperate teams, on little seprate projects, functioning independantly, but knowing what thier place in the "big picture" was, because they are carving that place out for themselfs. Thus, the "modularity" of Linux*, and the reason to keep that modularity, and the reason support will scale up efficently with the features in GNU/GPL.
Linux* -- * denotes, in a generic sence, because Linux to me is the kernel, but what were really talking about here is the whole ball of wax, from kernel up through the highest level applications.
As far as Transmeta RISC x86 clones, interesting, believe it when I see it.
As far as day dreams go, Transmeta/Linus T. do a Socket 7 RISC chip, Linux writes some LINUX code that drops all the "X86 Emulation" crap and runs the chip "native" for a 25% preformance boost, Transmeta sells the 500MHz version for $100/ea, and Boom.... Linux rocks the world. /dream off