No, you can get the source code of RHEL, not the compiled binaries.
I just gave you the link to the compiled binaries, since you obviously didn't actually read what I wrote and instead went off on your incorrect perceptions I'll give it to you again: here.
If you want the latter, you'd need to go to CentOS or Scientific or one of the RHEL clone makers, like Mandriva.
Wrong, the binaries are freely re-distributable because they are free software, that is why they are available from numerous ftp sites.
If you want compiled binaries from RHEL, you do have to pay something.
From RHEL? You mean from RedHat? If you want RedHat to give them to you then yes, but since they are freely distributable and the source code is available they are easily found or compiled yourself.
Maybe much less than Windows, but there's still a price there.
There is only a price if you want support, you can get the binaries or the code from many places because it is free software.
The point is that Microsoft was still not capable of writing their own Networking stack even after Windows 95.
Why would you write it again when good code has already been written and is freely licensable? Re-inventing the wheel and succumbing to NIH syndrome just leads to people pointlessly re-doing work that has already been done. Code re-use doesn't mean you weren't capable of writing it, it means that you weren't stupid enough to re-write something that already works for no reason.
What's wrong with this picture? Plenty, vendor lock-in, third party and [in the UK] foreign control of a vital resource
Vendor lock-in? You can access those documents on any system and even download them and use another application to view them.
Control of a vital resource is again not an issue, you can sync all your documents to offline storage and use some other editor in the outside chance your great conspiracy theory comes to pass.
and not understanding whatever long game Google is playing
So more a fear of what you don't know than something real. Obviously it's the same as many other educational programs, it gets people into using and getting familiar with a product such that they want to continue using it in the workplace.
Just because it's bundled doesn't mean it wasn't created by a third party (OK, maybe that makes it 2nd-party).
And just because the original code that is used in Windows was written by a third party doesn't make it a third party application. Do you not understand the distinction?
The point is that the Windows software was not capable of TCP/IP networking and required a 3rd party application to do it, ever since Windows 95 this capability has been a direct part of Windows.
Uh, no!!! RHEL is 'libre', but not 'gratis'. Being libre doesn't necessarily imply being gratis, & vice versa.
Sure it is, you can get it from here for example, the cost associated is for support. There is self-support (which is no support) which is free, then there is standard and premium levels which you pay for.
What 3rd party program do you have to run to get TCP/IP networking in modern Windows? Prior to 95 I remember using Winsock but TCP/IP has been built into the OS ever since so you dont need 3rd party applications for it.
Yeah why can't everybody just speak the same language, or get people to donate time to every project to translate it into all different languages?! Graphic icons are a much better way to get the message across multiple languages without having to do language translation and worrying about whether the translated text from any given language will fit in the allocated space for the button.
So fork it and maintain the old one! If you're willing to just complaining about changes and not actually do anything then whether it's open or closed source makes no difference whatsoever, what's the benefit of it even being open source in this case?
bloodhawk didn't mention whether the FOSS being used was bought, or just taken for $0.00.
Bought what? FOSS is gratis as a result of being libre, you don't "buy" it the same way you buy a license for proprietary software.
The real reason to use FOSS, other than price, is long term cost, particularly for organizations, so that they can control their own future and not be forced to upgrade if they're not ready.
But then you just need to perform your own maintenance or pay somebody else to do it, which is a huge cost and is out of the scope of most users and companies. Take GP's example of the Gimp vs Photoshop and see how far behind the Gimp still is, how much do you think it would cost to bring it up to a functionally comparable level?
Consider all the people still on XP, and who are forced to at some point choose painful migration paths to 7/8/10. If they had the source code to things, then they could either maintain it themselves, independent of MS, or in case of organizations, they could hire IT teams to do it for them.
Yeah except that is prohibitively expensive, as we have seen with this systemd debacle. Sure in theory they could just maintain the old debian codebase themselves or hire IT teams to do it for them and it should be no problem but as many people here have said, it's prohibitively expensive in time and money so people are either embracing it, moving to distros like slackware that don't yet have it or moving to BSD.
There were many many alternatives to players and the store anyway, so the iPod was far from a monopoly.
Yeah and there were many many alternative PC operating systems, so Windows was far from a monopoly.
Palm started copying Apple's USB port IDs to allow their devices to sync with iTunes. After some cat and mouse there, even the USB Implementers Forum sided with Apple and told Palm they were in the wrong for copying Apple's USB codes.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever.
If Palm or Real or anyone else doesn't like Apple not giving them free access to what they've built, then build something better. Go ahead and try.
Yeah that's what Microsoft should have said to everybody who complained about not getting access to their private APIs.
The iTunes Store was far from a monopoly.
Having many other unviable options doesn't eliminate market power otherwise Windows would never have been classified a monopoloy.
The iPod was severely outnumbered.
But it was backed by the itunes behemoth, and nobody else was allowed in to leverage that.
Apple was under no obligation to license their ecosystem to other manufacturers just as Microsoft would not license WMA to Apple (don't know if they tried). That's not illegal.
It's anti-competitive and becomes illegal when you get to the point that itunes has with its market power.
Does that help make you a little mad at Ballmer?
Unlike you I'm not emotionally invested in this, sorry.
I totally get why everyone believes the iPod and iTunes were made to lock everyone else out. Problem is, all the other manufacturers were doing the same thing and iTunes did not hold the majority position at that time.
I has nothing to do with majority position, it has to do with market power and iTunes owned online music sales despite there being other music stores.
What killed everyone else was not monopolistic force, it was constant improvement of the iPod product category in ways the competition couldn't follow.
It was the tying of the itunes store to the ipod that killed the competition, the ipod was no better from any technical perspective than any other device (in fact in most it was worse) but it had itunes and there was no viable competition in that space.
You may want it to be that way, but this is actually about somebody (RealNetwork) else selling not enough of their own DRMed music, so they made a little program that turned their DRMed music into something that looked like it was DRMed music from Apple to iPods. And Apple changed the firmware so those wouldn't play on the iPods named in the suit anymore. THAT AND NOTHING ELSE IS WHAT THIS SUIT IS ABOUT.
If that is what you think then clearly you didn't understand the suit, read it again.
It sounds like the problem with people in general... You find these flaws emerge everywhere on the commercial software spectrum from mass-market consumer applications to meat and potatoes business applications, enterprise verticals, bespoke consulting and in-house development. There can often be a cult of the lead developer, architect, product manager, VP, primary customer, next customer, or last customer.
But people are less inclined to deal with that when they are just volunteering their spare time.
For bug tracking and reporting issues my experience has been either I get no response or I don't have the capabilities to supply the developer with the information they need to track the bug down.
I'd say that's because unless it's a corporate-sponsored project the developers are probably just doing it as a hobby (or to support something else) so they aren't particularly interested in the bugs you experience unless they experience them themselves, they usually have more important or interesting areas to focus on.
Okay... so why is ApplePay required to get down to those 3 items? Surely he can do with just the 3 and no apple pay....
Exactly! 2 of the 3 things he is still carrying are exactly the things ApplePay is designed to replace, what items were removed that ApplePay replaced?
The problem with it isn't the privacy aspect, it's the obtrusiveness of it. Sure you could be surreptitiously filmed on a smartphone (though even then most people are pointing their cameras down when using their phones so it's pretty obvious when they're filming) but that's not quite the same as somebody holding their phone up and aiming the camera at you, it appears the latter is what google glass feels like to people.
The iPod was first and foremost an MP3 player. Where did they force anyone to buy music through the iTunes Store?
They didn't, this is about the biggest online music store tying one product to another such that the only portable music player you could use was the ipod.
Where's the lawsuit against Microsoft to force all the hundreds of "Plays For Sure" players to not play AAC files?
Well that isn't an anti-trust issue, even if they played AAC files the Fairplay DRM would prevent it from working. Any player that supported "Plays For Sure" could also support AAC if they wanted, there was no restriction that forced them to only play "Plays For Sure" media just like there was no restriction that forced iPods to only play Fairplay media.
Everyone knows AAC is a dialect of Dolby Digital and not an Apple invention, right?
Yes but this is about the Fairplay DRM Apple put in its AAC files from iTunes.
I don't particularly like iTunes myself, but it's a damn sight better than shoving files around where the massive file names contain all your metadata. iTunes organizes the library, let's you metatag everything, let's you search by lots of criteria and let's you manipulate collections into handy playlists.
Yeah because no other software was every able to do that. </sarcasm>
I'm not sure you understand how it works, it learns based on the photos you are tagged in so when people are tagged as their children or as different people in photos they want to draw attention to it gets pretty flakey which is why it rarely gets it right with me and my friends. Obviously it works well if you are only tagged in pictures of yourself.
When you set up to do dual monitors, in the preferences, where on a Windows machine, you'll usually see the monitors as 1 and 2, and beside each other, Linux allows you to place the second monitor on either side or above or below.
Windows allows you to do that as well, just drag the monitor to wherever you want it to be relative to the other one.
When I placed the monitors side by side, I took a nasty-ass performace hit, as if I was forcing a crazy resolution it didn't like. But when I placed the secondary monitor above the primary one in the preference panel, it worked fine. Try that maybe?
Thanks but the performance hit I'm getting is just the nouveau drivers vs the nvidia proprietary ones rather than being anything specific to the multimonitor setup (same deal with single monitor). I can use nouveau and PRIME to get Optimus working on Linux but the performance hit of the nouveau drivers makes it undesirable.
Getting multimonitors and displayport to work on my zbook under Linux has been a pain in the ass, even then I can't use the Optimus setup unless I take the performance hit of going to the nouveau drivers and even with the nouveau drivers there are often problems when switching graphics that windows just show black and need to be resized to be redrawn (which is fine for windowed programs but not so good for fullscreen ones).
For basic stuff you can use just about any machine, I've even run it fine on a surface pro. But advanced features supported on OS X and Windows are usually flakey on Linux for a long time.
I don't suppose you could toss me one of those links you found where the problem is actually solved, could you?
I never said I did, just that there is a lot of discussion on it so it isn't unnoticed. The odd thing is that there is allegedly a majority of the community that is anti-systemd that claim it is being foisted on them by a minority yet they exclaim that maintaining Linux distributions without systemd is unfeasible. The open source way is to fix it or pay for it to be fixed yet this alleged majority is unwilling to do either of those things and is instead just running away from the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
What benefit would they get for all the work of re-writing Qualcomm's proprietary drivers for every component?
No, you can get the source code of RHEL, not the compiled binaries.
I just gave you the link to the compiled binaries, since you obviously didn't actually read what I wrote and instead went off on your incorrect perceptions I'll give it to you again: here.
If you want the latter, you'd need to go to CentOS or Scientific or one of the RHEL clone makers, like Mandriva.
Wrong, the binaries are freely re-distributable because they are free software, that is why they are available from numerous ftp sites.
If you want compiled binaries from RHEL, you do have to pay something.
From RHEL? You mean from RedHat? If you want RedHat to give them to you then yes, but since they are freely distributable and the source code is available they are easily found or compiled yourself.
Maybe much less than Windows, but there's still a price there.
There is only a price if you want support, you can get the binaries or the code from many places because it is free software.
Because a monoculture of code is a vulnerability - especially on something as low-level as networking.
No, that's a baseless argument and absolutely not justification for re-writing everything every time and avoiding code reuse.
The point is that Microsoft was still not capable of writing their own Networking stack even after Windows 95.
Why would you write it again when good code has already been written and is freely licensable? Re-inventing the wheel and succumbing to NIH syndrome just leads to people pointlessly re-doing work that has already been done. Code re-use doesn't mean you weren't capable of writing it, it means that you weren't stupid enough to re-write something that already works for no reason.
What's wrong with this picture? Plenty, vendor lock-in, third party and [in the UK] foreign control of a vital resource
Vendor lock-in? You can access those documents on any system and even download them and use another application to view them.
Control of a vital resource is again not an issue, you can sync all your documents to offline storage and use some other editor in the outside chance your great conspiracy theory comes to pass.
and not understanding whatever long game Google is playing
So more a fear of what you don't know than something real. Obviously it's the same as many other educational programs, it gets people into using and getting familiar with a product such that they want to continue using it in the workplace.
Just because it's bundled doesn't mean it wasn't created by a third party (OK, maybe that makes it 2nd-party).
And just because the original code that is used in Windows was written by a third party doesn't make it a third party application. Do you not understand the distinction?
The point is that the Windows software was not capable of TCP/IP networking and required a 3rd party application to do it, ever since Windows 95 this capability has been a direct part of Windows.
Uh, no!!! RHEL is 'libre', but not 'gratis'. Being libre doesn't necessarily imply being gratis, & vice versa.
Sure it is, you can get it from here for example, the cost associated is for support. There is self-support (which is no support) which is free, then there is standard and premium levels which you pay for.
My understanding is they want to provide a phone OS that isn't going to lock you into the Google/Apple walled garden
What do you mean by "lock you in"?
They still rely on third-party applications.
What 3rd party program do you have to run to get TCP/IP networking in modern Windows? Prior to 95 I remember using Winsock but TCP/IP has been built into the OS ever since so you dont need 3rd party applications for it.
Can't anyone read a text menu anymore?
Yeah why can't everybody just speak the same language, or get people to donate time to every project to translate it into all different languages?! Graphic icons are a much better way to get the message across multiple languages without having to do language translation and worrying about whether the translated text from any given language will fit in the allocated space for the button.
Just download the source and hope it continues to compile.
And maintain it yourself or pay somebody to do it for you.
So fork it and maintain the old one! If you're willing to just complaining about changes and not actually do anything then whether it's open or closed source makes no difference whatsoever, what's the benefit of it even being open source in this case?
bloodhawk didn't mention whether the FOSS being used was bought, or just taken for $0.00.
Bought what? FOSS is gratis as a result of being libre, you don't "buy" it the same way you buy a license for proprietary software.
The real reason to use FOSS, other than price, is long term cost, particularly for organizations, so that they can control their own future and not be forced to upgrade if they're not ready.
But then you just need to perform your own maintenance or pay somebody else to do it, which is a huge cost and is out of the scope of most users and companies. Take GP's example of the Gimp vs Photoshop and see how far behind the Gimp still is, how much do you think it would cost to bring it up to a functionally comparable level?
Consider all the people still on XP, and who are forced to at some point choose painful migration paths to 7/8/10. If they had the source code to things, then they could either maintain it themselves, independent of MS, or in case of organizations, they could hire IT teams to do it for them.
Yeah except that is prohibitively expensive, as we have seen with this systemd debacle. Sure in theory they could just maintain the old debian codebase themselves or hire IT teams to do it for them and it should be no problem but as many people here have said, it's prohibitively expensive in time and money so people are either embracing it, moving to distros like slackware that don't yet have it or moving to BSD.
There were many many alternatives to players and the store anyway, so the iPod was far from a monopoly.
Yeah and there were many many alternative PC operating systems, so Windows was far from a monopoly.
Palm started copying Apple's USB port IDs to allow their devices to sync with iTunes. After some cat and mouse there, even the USB Implementers Forum sided with Apple and told Palm they were in the wrong for copying Apple's USB codes.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever.
If Palm or Real or anyone else doesn't like Apple not giving them free access to what they've built, then build something better. Go ahead and try.
Yeah that's what Microsoft should have said to everybody who complained about not getting access to their private APIs.
The iTunes Store was far from a monopoly.
Having many other unviable options doesn't eliminate market power otherwise Windows would never have been classified a monopoloy.
The iPod was severely outnumbered.
But it was backed by the itunes behemoth, and nobody else was allowed in to leverage that.
Apple was under no obligation to license their ecosystem to other manufacturers just as Microsoft would not license WMA to Apple (don't know if they tried). That's not illegal.
It's anti-competitive and becomes illegal when you get to the point that itunes has with its market power.
Does that help make you a little mad at Ballmer?
Unlike you I'm not emotionally invested in this, sorry.
I totally get why everyone believes the iPod and iTunes were made to lock everyone else out. Problem is, all the other manufacturers were doing the same thing and iTunes did not hold the majority position at that time.
I has nothing to do with majority position, it has to do with market power and iTunes owned online music sales despite there being other music stores.
What killed everyone else was not monopolistic force, it was constant improvement of the iPod product category in ways the competition couldn't follow.
It was the tying of the itunes store to the ipod that killed the competition, the ipod was no better from any technical perspective than any other device (in fact in most it was worse) but it had itunes and there was no viable competition in that space.
You may want it to be that way, but this is actually about somebody (RealNetwork) else selling not enough of their own DRMed music, so they made a little program that turned their DRMed music into something that looked like it was DRMed music from Apple to iPods. And Apple changed the firmware so those wouldn't play on the iPods named in the suit anymore. THAT AND NOTHING ELSE IS WHAT THIS SUIT IS ABOUT.
If that is what you think then clearly you didn't understand the suit, read it again.
It sounds like the problem with people in general... You find these flaws emerge everywhere on the commercial software spectrum from mass-market consumer applications to meat and potatoes business applications, enterprise verticals, bespoke consulting and in-house development. There can often be a cult of the lead developer, architect, product manager, VP, primary customer, next customer, or last customer.
But people are less inclined to deal with that when they are just volunteering their spare time.
For bug tracking and reporting issues my experience has been either I get no response or I don't have the capabilities to supply the developer with the information they need to track the bug down.
I'd say that's because unless it's a corporate-sponsored project the developers are probably just doing it as a hobby (or to support something else) so they aren't particularly interested in the bugs you experience unless they experience them themselves, they usually have more important or interesting areas to focus on.
Okay... so why is ApplePay required to get down to those 3 items? Surely he can do with just the 3 and no apple pay....
Exactly! 2 of the 3 things he is still carrying are exactly the things ApplePay is designed to replace, what items were removed that ApplePay replaced?
The problem with it isn't the privacy aspect, it's the obtrusiveness of it. Sure you could be surreptitiously filmed on a smartphone (though even then most people are pointing their cameras down when using their phones so it's pretty obvious when they're filming) but that's not quite the same as somebody holding their phone up and aiming the camera at you, it appears the latter is what google glass feels like to people.
The iPod was first and foremost an MP3 player. Where did they force anyone to buy music through the iTunes Store?
They didn't, this is about the biggest online music store tying one product to another such that the only portable music player you could use was the ipod.
Where's the lawsuit against Microsoft to force all the hundreds of "Plays For Sure" players to not play AAC files?
Well that isn't an anti-trust issue, even if they played AAC files the Fairplay DRM would prevent it from working. Any player that supported "Plays For Sure" could also support AAC if they wanted, there was no restriction that forced them to only play "Plays For Sure" media just like there was no restriction that forced iPods to only play Fairplay media.
Everyone knows AAC is a dialect of Dolby Digital and not an Apple invention, right?
Yes but this is about the Fairplay DRM Apple put in its AAC files from iTunes.
I don't particularly like iTunes myself, but it's a damn sight better than shoving files around where the massive file names contain all your metadata. iTunes organizes the library, let's you metatag everything, let's you search by lots of criteria and let's you manipulate collections into handy playlists.
Yeah because no other software was every able to do that. </sarcasm>
No, not as poorly as you think.
I'm not sure you understand how it works, it learns based on the photos you are tagged in so when people are tagged as their children or as different people in photos they want to draw attention to it gets pretty flakey which is why it rarely gets it right with me and my friends. Obviously it works well if you are only tagged in pictures of yourself.
When you set up to do dual monitors, in the preferences, where on a Windows machine, you'll usually see the monitors as 1 and 2, and beside each other, Linux allows you to place the second monitor on either side or above or below.
Windows allows you to do that as well, just drag the monitor to wherever you want it to be relative to the other one.
When I placed the monitors side by side, I took a nasty-ass performace hit, as if I was forcing a crazy resolution it didn't like. But when I placed the secondary monitor above the primary one in the preference panel, it worked fine. Try that maybe?
Thanks but the performance hit I'm getting is just the nouveau drivers vs the nvidia proprietary ones rather than being anything specific to the multimonitor setup (same deal with single monitor). I can use nouveau and PRIME to get Optimus working on Linux but the performance hit of the nouveau drivers makes it undesirable.
Getting multimonitors and displayport to work on my zbook under Linux has been a pain in the ass, even then I can't use the Optimus setup unless I take the performance hit of going to the nouveau drivers and even with the nouveau drivers there are often problems when switching graphics that windows just show black and need to be resized to be redrawn (which is fine for windowed programs but not so good for fullscreen ones).
For basic stuff you can use just about any machine, I've even run it fine on a surface pro. But advanced features supported on OS X and Windows are usually flakey on Linux for a long time.
The complaint by the anti-systemd crowd is that the systemd crowd is actively promoting things becoming dependent on systemd.
Apparently the systemd crowd is a tiny minority though, can't be that hard to deal with.
You must have missed the articles about organizing a Debian fork.
No i've seen them, but nobody seems to want to spend money on it, they're still just begging for donations.
Or the whole uselessd thing.
Yes that is one that I have seen, assuming it's successful in its goals what's all the complaining about? You can just use that instead.
If systemd would just keep their fingers out of everyone else's pie, nobody would much care what they do or don't do.
If developers see no value in it then they wont go to any effort to create a dependency on it in the first place.
I don't suppose you could toss me one of those links you found where the problem is actually solved, could you?
I never said I did, just that there is a lot of discussion on it so it isn't unnoticed. The odd thing is that there is allegedly a majority of the community that is anti-systemd that claim it is being foisted on them by a minority yet they exclaim that maintaining Linux distributions without systemd is unfeasible. The open source way is to fix it or pay for it to be fixed yet this alleged majority is unwilling to do either of those things and is instead just running away from the problem.