For a long time, the Open Source community has been suffering from the lack of software which is good for customers. Luckily, it is changing these days.
For the purpose of this post, I'd like to differentiate between "plain" good software, and consumer-good software. Just "good" means well-engineered. For example, Linux kernel is very good software. It can be used as such, for instance, in embedded applications. However, customers are interested in the more advanced layers. Therefore, the Linux kernel is useless unless it is used as a base for software which is both good in its own right, and easy [enough] to use.
It seems to me that now the various Linux projects have at last reached the usability threshold. Ximian GNOME 1.4 and the emerging open-source office suites (AbiWord, KOffice etc.) are already very easy and productive. Newer distros have very easy installations that minimize the amount of [command-line] hacking that has to be done to a zero. It is a major victory for Linux, since while we do retain the flexibility of configuring it the way we want, it now much easier for newbies to join the community of Linux users.
SMB is a very major step in this direction. It is definitely good software; it is quite user-friendly, and is still developed further in that direction. It also provides something that Microsoft does not: unconditional interoperability. Linux will support everything.
It is very delightful to finally see Linux becoming ready for the millions of customers. With stuff like SMB and WINE, it is no longer a question of Microsoft vs. Non-Microsoft. It is becoming expensive vs. free, bad vs. good and slow vs. fast. We can win these battles.
I don't think it really occured to me or any of us that open-source has clear benifits for use in a developing country. The absence of fees (which is very important where your salary is twice as much as the cost of Windows 2000), and the IT benefits make free software a very viable alternative.
However, in order to utilize that development, we need yet to improve the open-source software. For example, Ximian 1.4 and KDE 2.1 which provide a self-sufficient user experience (i.e. no external tools necessary when configured) are quite slow, and by all means it is not a desirable result when computer expences are to be decreased.
All in all, it is a pretty important step, and hopefully it will open the eyes of other developing countries to the possibility of acquiring open-source software.
Although for most of us it sounds like a fantasy, I think it is more than that. It is feasible, and the way things are going now, it will be implemented shortly.
All the hardware and software discussed here is available now. In 5 years it will be as cheap as original Pentiums now (that is, those for which 2/2.0000001 is not 1.5). As for the customer demand, it is obvious that home appliances will dominate the home market for the next decade. IP toasters are definitely becoming real these days.
I think that the right conclusion from the above is to establish an Open-Source (and possibly Open-Hardware) initiative to create such a solution. Open-Source has been trying to emulate commercial products for almost two decades now. It is time for us to be the innovators.
As a Tolkien fan, I'd like to inquire whether Akalabeth, one of R.G's first games has anything to do with Numenor, the downfallen island kingdom of the Edain.
In the Elvish tongue of Sindarin, Akalabeth means "The Downfallen". It is also a name of a part in the Silmarillion that describes the downfall of Numenor.
As a side note, the name does not come from Arabic (since the L in the definitive particle A(l) not cancelled before K, but Q).
As we have discussed just a few hours earlier, it will be possible to turn the X Box into a useful Linux station, perhaps even without opening the case. Therefore, there's something useful to do with it.
Second point: I've heard that Microsoft's designated price for the X-Box is US $300 - which was considered a loss for Microsoft. More sales lead to more losses (well, I know that prices are affected by the demand, but there should be a few good months when Microsoft will lose money for every box it sells.
To summarize, the X-Box will be a bunch of cheap, groovy hardware (a rarity these days), and it will be bought just for that.
I think that the right mix for Linux gaming is made from an open engine, and closed content. For instance, for a game such as Red Alert, the engine would be the sprite displaying mechanism, the audio code and the code for displaying video sequences. Content would be the game sprites, the game sounds and the videos and animations.
While this model allows for copying of game engines, it does not allow the copying of games themselves. Moreover, for most games the content is what makes them unique. Even Quake III or Unreal Tournament would not be worth anything without the player models, the world physics (they're simple, but they have to be written by someone!), the maps or the sounds.
However, such attitude will also allow game developers to earn enough for their living (creating serious games, unlike, say, writing desktop software, is very resource-consuming, so very little is possible without adequate funding). Yet on the other side, the engines are still free, and can be easily tweaked, reused and worked upon, and open for people who'd like to develop a completely open game anyway.
There can be only one kind of a force that can confront Microsoft and make it lose. This force is Microsoft itself.
Linux won't be able to achieve a victory over Microsoft alone. Microsoft's got much more audience, more money, and it can draft along lots of programmers to shorten the development cycles immensly. However Microsoft's corporate attitudes can cross out all the resources they've gathered up until now.
It's all quite simple: at the moment corporate officials understand that the Microsoft way is too expensive to follow, they will start looking for ways to detach themselves from Microsoft. Not immediately, not completely, hovewer Linux enterprises should gradually become less of a remote possibility, and more of obvious reality.
The only condition for such a favourable development is the creation of viable desktop environments for Linux. They are as necessary to corporate adoption of Linux as oxygen is for breathing. If this condition is met, it is probable that we will yet witness our foe's destruction of itself.
In the wake of the recent developments in the area of standard, will Microsoft open their interfaces - both to and from the public?
I'd like to elaborate on this: while Microsoft published most of its basic interfaces (like Windows API), it does not publish the more intricate workings, for example Windows NT's interal API, various network protocols, filesystems, authentication and so on. They could be published to the great relief of the people who are forced (or like) to use both Microsoft and Linux at the same time.
It is also possible for Microsoft to make its own operating system more flexible, so it could be made more interoperable by third parties. A possible example is making GTK (Linux UI library; the foundation of GNOME) apps run natively on Windows without having to rewrite significant parts of them.
My starting point is that OSX is cool. It is after all a good UNIX-clone, which is about as much UNIX inside as a system can become. It is attractive in its own right, and it also provides rock-solid foundations for the GUI (unlike Windows or the old MacOS).
However, OSX is hardly open-source software. Its kernel and system libraries are not developed by the general public. Therefore, it is quite similar to, say, Solaris or IRIX, which are also proprietary UNIX clones, albeit with some open-source userspace software (gcc, emacs etc.).
OSX lacks one central Linux feature - transparency. OSX will never be as thoroughly hacked, and it will not attract the sights of such a distinguished group of programmers as Linux. It is a step backwards from the openness that we learnt to like in Linux.
Another main advantage of Linux is the fact that it can dynamically absorb the new developments in various areas. These include new device standards (USB), or new user-level conceptions (browser integration in the OS). It is much harder to do so in a closed OS, like OSX. So perhaps OSX will be a king for its day; however Linux will still be actively developed when OSX media are dust.
First of all, the ICQ protocol has been well-documented. Look at this address: http://www.algonet.se/~henisak/icq/icqv5.html, for example. As far as I saw, it's quite a primitive UDP protocol which uses magic numbers for coding stuff.
Secondly, how do you think LICQ works? LICQ certainly's got more than 10K users, and it's out of the GPL to sign various NDAs (even liberal ones!).
Thirdly, it's been there for quite a long time, and I think it is to be taken off shortly. ICQ is becoming an adware, and I don't think they'll be so liveral for long.
I noticed that it is generally in the human nature, to be too short sighted when there seems to be no problem in the short range. It has happened numerous times before in the human history, that actions not taken in their due time had to be corrected (if there was such a possibility) when they became real problems.
In the case of NASA, I think they are making a most severe mistake. The X-33 and X-34 were the first steps to opening the space for the rest of us. I believe that humanity strives towards the stars, and a convenient (read: modern and cheap) shuttle system is crucial for our first step outwards.
Machiavelli compared the actions of a prudent man to an archer. The archer can not be sure that the arrow will descend too much during its flight. And the proper solution is not to discard arrows, but send them a bit higher.
From the comments I've read earlier, I can conclude that the system in question has quite modest performance, which is inferior for instance to a $1K PC. However, I do think that Sun is going in the right direction. Sun began to understand that there are many people (like us) who are not bound to Wintel, and may appreciate a cheap system.
For many of the tasks I do, it doesn't really matter for me what powers my system, as long as it is effective enough, and it's UNIX. SPARCs are renowned for their scalability and stability.
It is too bad that Sun can't make cheap and good SPARC boxes (their production not sufficient for a dramatic drop of price). However, when the price becomes low enough, and I can get a decent configuration, I will seriously consider getting such a box.
Microsoft obviously doesn't feel comfortable with Linux. This is completely natural, since Linux is a competitor. Normally, they crush all their competitors before they become big, however they couldn't devise a crushing strategy against Linux, and in a couple of years it will become a serious threat to MS's business.
The reason for Microsoft's inadequate handling of Linux is that Linux is supported by many people whose main occupation is not supporting it. As fair as I've seen so far, most of the contributors to OSS projects (and./ readers) are sysadmins and CS students who feel anxious to help humanity. Microsoft has difficulty fighting something which is not a corporation.
I think that OSS does provide people with job opportunities. A Linux programmer may do sysadmin jobs, or if he's good enough be hired by some Linux company (which survives through support fees and media sales).
In addition, many major corporations like IBM find using Linux more comfortable than using closed code specifically because of its openness. For instance the updates Sun puts into Linux benefit not only Sun, but also IBM and SGI. The improvements that go into the common source work to all parties' benefit, so the companies are more than content to pay developers for OSS.
As a final note, I'd like to mark that America is famous for its witch hunts. I really hope it's not one of these.
Ten years ago when Linux was a very young project, with only a few of really devoted developers, the mailing list structure of the kernel development was efficient. Since it took over 3 years to get Linux to work on a TYPICAL PC configuration, it wouldn't make sense to talk about splitting the work into several groups.
However, now the situation is cardinally different. Linux runs on about a dozen of major CPU platforms, supports endless types of devices that sit on every imaginable kind of a bus.
In this situation, it makes sense to split the single bazaar into a few smaller ones, when a strict relationship is declared between them. I think no single individual (and that includes Linus) can fully understand the whole kernel workings. While Linus could (and should) remain active in many of those groups, it is no longer possible to leave all the decision-taking for him.
A kernel split would be BAD. First of all, consumers want one set of sources (and preferably, binaries). Secondly, the improvements in some projects could be of use to others. For instance, while hardware I/O and filesystem issues are quite different, their workings have to be combined in order to achieve optimal performance.
The bottom line: Kernel is growing up. More parties are willing to participate in its development. Linus has to ease his control, for the common good.
I am a high school student, and though I don't live in the US, I've watched the recent developments in attitude toward students with much concern. I would like to tell you my considerations on the matter.
As a reporter in the school newspaper I had to interview our director. One of the issues the interview addressed was anonymous comments. The director said he disliked them, because a person's inability to identify himself meant that he had distrusted the director. I think that he made a very valid point. While in large communities (like the whole society) anonymity is a vital tool, smaller communities have to emphasize directness in such matters that rely on personal trust.
I think that it is impossible for a school to ignore such warnings, but the staff had to respond to them carefully and with attention, personally and with no press/police (unless there are serious grounds for such outside intervention). I see it very gravely that the school did not settle this matter quietly in the first place (my best guess is that they submitted to the ubitiquous xenophobia), and when it became public, their reluctance to stand behind the girl can be described as nothing but cowardly and indecisive.
As I see it, American society could use much tolerance towards all of its people. It appears to me impossible that such vital institutions as the education system are becoming mere tools of disintegrating the ties between people on the basis of hatred.
I also live in Israel, and I would like to address some earlier comments:
First of all, KDE's support for Hebrew exists (which is generally good), but is schematic at most. Fonts suck (probably since they're raster), and BIDI display algorythms suck big time (they reverse digits in numbers etc.).
Pango is under extremely heavy development, and will not be available until Gnome 2.X (by which time the Mashiah (Messia) will probably come).
Mozilla supports Visual Hebrew under Windows, and Logical Hebrew under Linux. The other options just don't work - so pick one.
There's NO WORD PROCESSOR. That's right, KOffice is miles away from doing any I18N (as opposed to L10N which AFAIK no one needs). OpenOffice is under development, but no BIDI plans are available.
There are also some CLI attempts like giving Hebrew support to Emacs (Mule) or VIM (integrated into the source tree). However, Hebrew is not present at CLI either.
Regarding Microsoft's support of Hebrew, I can say that it is TOTAL. They've got all their products tuned for Hebrew, and even the Win32 API's got special fields for BIDI layouts.
I don't need anything from Windows, but for the Hebrew support. If I were able to write documents in Linux, I won't be needing Win2K (BTW, NT generally supports Hebrew better than 9X/ME).
I call upon all code-writers for common GUI interfaces (GTK, KDE, wxWindows and others), to devote some thought for design and implementation of BIDI algorythms and fonts. It will not only cater to Israel, but for Arabic as well.
I would also like to express my thanks to all of you who do care for Hebrew support . Just hang on and complete it - when it's there, it won't need any more housekeeping, and one more country will be able to enjoy UNIX.
The best thing I can say about the article is that it's a troll. So you have been trolled, gentlemen. However, since I'm paying my $0.02 anyway, I'd like to mention why the article is wrong, in its whole attitude to free software.
Modern software projects are usually very complicated. Kernel sources (2.4.0) take up to a hundred MBs. I dare not think how much weigh the sources of StarOffice.
No modern software company has shown ability to make mainstream high-quality products while producing it in a corporate environment. Simply speaking, in every project there's a saturation stage when every new feature has such a high price that it is no longer possible to pay it. Only a conmplete rewrite may save the code then, yet a corporation rarely can afford (or wants to afford) one.
On the other hand, open-source software is very amorphic. It gets as much time and effort, as its developers can give it (and usually it is quite a lot). Open-source developers are in most of the cases smart enough to know how to write big new chunks of software, and devoted enough to write it in the best way.
Therefore, while at the short run Microsoft may be triumphant, it will inevitably lose. Having seen Linux, I will nevermore use their software if any other option is available.
P.S. To site admins: please minimize the amount of trolls that get to the main page. Thanks.
Paying for the subscription contradicts the Internet's best quality: it is free. It is also anonymous, so that whatever you do, in most of the cases you can't be easily tracked.
Now, when Napster becomes for-pay, it no longer possesses the two advantages above. People won't buy it, at least not until there are no other choices.
Luckily for us, we have ample choices. Gnutella is one, OpenNap is another. There's really nothing indispensable about Napster. Ironically, I think that Napster could have made much profit, if they put ads into their service. However, now the loss is theirs alone.
The bottom line is: The king is dead - long live the king.
For 10 years now, Linux has been mostly a project done by a few (now a few dozens) of dedicated hackers. Linux's good general design originates in that fact that in the early stages of its development it was built by only a few people, following a uniform way of thinking and pursuing a limites set of goals. However, now when Linux is a major project which is supported by millions of users, thousands of enthusiastic developers and numerous industrial giants, it seems that the concentration of kernel development in the hands of a small group of people (and particularly, Linus) is becoming ineffective.
Linux source is so large (2.2 had over 1.5 million lines!), that it is no longer uniform. It has split to numerous platforms, and it supports a wide array of hardware. This new diversity makes it impossible for a single group of people to have a coherent opinion regarding all the added issues.
I think that Linus has to understand that the burden of being the kernel's sole guardian is very heavy, particularly when so many parties have to say so many things regarding so many questions. Being the only decision maker will do no good, neither to him, nor to anyone else who wants the kernel's good.
I think that the best solution in the meanwhile is to divide the kernel development into a few sub-groups, with expert leaders attached to each one. It seems clear to me, that there should be separate discussion lists for issues like LVM and networking. I could be wrong, but it also seems to me that Linus' deep insight as a project leader is being wasted on checking whether Patch Nr. xxxxx is indented in the right way. Others could check it (or at least do most of the job), and leave the thinking to Linus.
Leading such a project is in a way similar to being a parent. A 5 year old is not yet ready for the complex world of the school. Yet, a 17 year-old is unlikely to fit into a nursery. A teenager is much more open to the influences from his environment, than to influences from his parents. That is also the way it is in Linux. I think that the true wisdom for Linus will be to ease his control over Linux, so it can mature in the best interest of everyone.
... Dreamcast uses Hitcahci's SuperH 4 CPU. I couldn't find its specifications, but it is widely known that it's 128-bit. That's right, 4 times as much as Intel's IA32 (which is used inside the X-Box). Against such a thing, even big-endian/little-endian controversies stand still.
Now, the Dreamcast is only a year and a half old, and it had very successful hardware for its time. It seems extremely unlikely for me that a PC can emulate such a relatively modern console as this one.
It seems more likely to me (though unprobable), that Microsoft will support Dreamcast's APIs. However, again, optimization for SH4 must be very different from the optimization for Pentiums.
I remember that in 1998 I was one of the two or three people from my class who've had ICQ. I've hardly ever ran it, and I was close to uninstalling it (however I wanted to look 31337, so I kept it:-)
Then in Summer 1999, things began to change. In the beginning of the summer, 7 or 8 people were there. By the end of it, most of the class has joined ICQ. And I could almost feel, how isolated became the children who did not have ICQ.
This problem has grown beyond the techie/non-techie issue. Having a computer has become a criterium for being "in" or "out". Modern schools have to understand that they must provide Internet (and particularly, e-mail and ICQ) access, so that even the students in need will be able to conduct a normal social life (if it can be described as normal).
The social aspect of the issue also prevents kinds from using old PCs. I mean, how can they compare with their luser systems the zillion-GHz system of that cool guy John Doe from accross the street? Most of them are not after computers themselves; they're just after the new social aspects that computers open.
And as a final note - I use my 486 Linux box for C++ programming. However, most of my friends (non-techies) don't understand how can I use such a piece of scrap. It is clear for me that even a IBM/360 is better than nothing (although FORTRAN is big-time $hit (c), I have to admit). However, for most kids it isn't. They can't just learn Linux, they need someone to guide them. Only a small fraction of programmers can devise a whole set of activities for themselves, and then vigorously perform it. What those kids need is advice, lots of advice by professionals (perhaps it's time for an open-source CS studies program?).
It was a bit more than $0.02, but I hope it will change something.
I wonder why nobody asked this question, but how do they connect to the ground?. I mean, there are not so many types of connections that can be used at the altitude of eight miles (and dragging a coax behind the airplane might prove to be one of the cheaper ones:-). Or do they provide only static content (we load some sites before the flight, and then the customers can browse them during it)?
I am a teenager, and I don't live in the US. Having read some of the things here at./, I am very glad I won't be living there anytime soon.
It seems to me, that the American society is full of hidden hatred towards itself. I mean look at all the racist shit going there. For Americans, finding a way to hurt nerds is just another way of hating themselves.
Americans also have an interesting conception, in which young people don't have any rights (I sometimes feel that neither do adults). They are subjects to spontaneous police scrutiny, as if there had never been such a
I've heard rumours that currently Crusoe runs Linux as just another x86 OS - using its hardware translation mechanisms. Now, that's a nifty technique, but wouldn't it be quicker if Linux ran using generic Crusoe instructions? I think that would be a bit (10%) quicker, and also allocate some system resources that were previously occupied with translations. Noone will mind if it won't be x86 anymore
This assault on behalf of the major media companies struck too early for the majority of customers to understand and apprehend. We are now seeing the beginning of a system of faulty legislation, and we are sinking deeper and deeper into it.
This reminds me the situation in England in the beginning of the 19th century, when there were very few social laws. It took the best part of a century (and in some aspects even longer) to fix the matter. And the situation in England was really bad: life expectancy fell to below 30 years. Imagine how much effort will it take to change the media legislation, which does not (hopefully) affect human lives!
We are now facing years, possibly decades of legal hardships. However I am confident that this struggle will be eventually won, for as long as things like./ exist, there will always be places for people to think, not just to flow downstream.
Slashdot Mirror
For a long time, the Open Source community has been suffering from the lack of software which is good for customers. Luckily, it is changing these days.
For the purpose of this post, I'd like to differentiate between "plain" good software, and consumer-good software. Just "good" means well-engineered. For example, Linux kernel is very good software. It can be used as such, for instance, in embedded applications. However, customers are interested in the more advanced layers. Therefore, the Linux kernel is useless unless it is used as a base for software which is both good in its own right, and easy [enough] to use.
It seems to me that now the various Linux projects have at last reached the usability threshold. Ximian GNOME 1.4 and the emerging open-source office suites (AbiWord, KOffice etc.) are already very easy and productive. Newer distros have very easy installations that minimize the amount of [command-line] hacking that has to be done to a zero. It is a major victory for Linux, since while we do retain the flexibility of configuring it the way we want, it now much easier for newbies to join the community of Linux users.
SMB is a very major step in this direction. It is definitely good software; it is quite user-friendly, and is still developed further in that direction. It also provides something that Microsoft does not: unconditional interoperability. Linux will support everything.
It is very delightful to finally see Linux becoming ready for the millions of customers. With stuff like SMB and WINE, it is no longer a question of Microsoft vs. Non-Microsoft. It is becoming expensive vs. free, bad vs. good and slow vs. fast. We can win these battles.
I don't think it really occured to me or any of us that open-source has clear benifits for use in a developing country. The absence of fees (which is very important where your salary is twice as much as the cost of Windows 2000), and the IT benefits make free software a very viable alternative.
However, in order to utilize that development, we need yet to improve the open-source software. For example, Ximian 1.4 and KDE 2.1 which provide a self-sufficient user experience (i.e. no external tools necessary when configured) are quite slow, and by all means it is not a desirable result when computer expences are to be decreased.
All in all, it is a pretty important step, and hopefully it will open the eyes of other developing countries to the possibility of acquiring open-source software.
Although for most of us it sounds like a fantasy, I think it is more than that. It is feasible, and the way things are going now, it will be implemented shortly.
All the hardware and software discussed here is available now. In 5 years it will be as cheap as original Pentiums now (that is, those for which 2/2.0000001 is not 1.5). As for the customer demand, it is obvious that home appliances will dominate the home market for the next decade. IP toasters are definitely becoming real these days.
I think that the right conclusion from the above is to establish an Open-Source (and possibly Open-Hardware) initiative to create such a solution. Open-Source has been trying to emulate commercial products for almost two decades now. It is time for us to be the innovators.
As a Tolkien fan, I'd like to inquire whether Akalabeth, one of R.G's first games has anything to do with Numenor, the downfallen island kingdom of the Edain.
In the Elvish tongue of Sindarin, Akalabeth means "The Downfallen". It is also a name of a part in the Silmarillion that describes the downfall of Numenor.
As a side note, the name does not come from Arabic (since the L in the definitive particle A(l) not cancelled before K, but Q).
As we have discussed just a few hours earlier, it will be possible to turn the X Box into a useful Linux station, perhaps even without opening the case. Therefore, there's something useful to do with it.
Second point: I've heard that Microsoft's designated price for the X-Box is US $300 - which was considered a loss for Microsoft. More sales lead to more losses (well, I know that prices are affected by the demand, but there should be a few good months when Microsoft will lose money for every box it sells.
To summarize, the X-Box will be a bunch of cheap, groovy hardware (a rarity these days), and it will be bought just for that.
I think that the right mix for Linux gaming is made from an open engine, and closed content. For instance, for a game such as Red Alert, the engine would be the sprite displaying mechanism, the audio code and the code for displaying video sequences. Content would be the game sprites, the game sounds and the videos and animations.
While this model allows for copying of game engines, it does not allow the copying of games themselves. Moreover, for most games the content is what makes them unique. Even Quake III or Unreal Tournament would not be worth anything without the player models, the world physics (they're simple, but they have to be written by someone!), the maps or the sounds.
However, such attitude will also allow game developers to earn enough for their living (creating serious games, unlike, say, writing desktop software, is very resource-consuming, so very little is possible without adequate funding). Yet on the other side, the engines are still free, and can be easily tweaked, reused and worked upon, and open for people who'd like to develop a completely open game anyway.
There can be only one kind of a force that can confront Microsoft and make it lose. This force is Microsoft itself.
Linux won't be able to achieve a victory over Microsoft alone. Microsoft's got much more audience, more money, and it can draft along lots of programmers to shorten the development cycles immensly. However Microsoft's corporate attitudes can cross out all the resources they've gathered up until now.
It's all quite simple: at the moment corporate officials understand that the Microsoft way is too expensive to follow, they will start looking for ways to detach themselves from Microsoft. Not immediately, not completely, hovewer Linux enterprises should gradually become less of a remote possibility, and more of obvious reality.
The only condition for such a favourable development is the creation of viable desktop environments for Linux. They are as necessary to corporate adoption of Linux as oxygen is for breathing. If this condition is met, it is probable that we will yet witness our foe's destruction of itself.
In the wake of the recent developments in the area of standard, will Microsoft open their interfaces - both to and from the public?
I'd like to elaborate on this: while Microsoft published most of its basic interfaces (like Windows API), it does not publish the more intricate workings, for example Windows NT's interal API, various network protocols, filesystems, authentication and so on. They could be published to the great relief of the people who are forced (or like) to use both Microsoft and Linux at the same time.
It is also possible for Microsoft to make its own operating system more flexible, so it could be made more interoperable by third parties. A possible example is making GTK (Linux UI library; the foundation of GNOME) apps run natively on Windows without having to rewrite significant parts of them.
My starting point is that OSX is cool. It is after all a good UNIX-clone, which is about as much UNIX inside as a system can become. It is attractive in its own right, and it also provides rock-solid foundations for the GUI (unlike Windows or the old MacOS).
However, OSX is hardly open-source software. Its kernel and system libraries are not developed by the general public. Therefore, it is quite similar to, say, Solaris or IRIX, which are also proprietary UNIX clones, albeit with some open-source userspace software (gcc, emacs etc.).
OSX lacks one central Linux feature - transparency. OSX will never be as thoroughly hacked, and it will not attract the sights of such a distinguished group of programmers as Linux. It is a step backwards from the openness that we learnt to like in Linux.
Another main advantage of Linux is the fact that it can dynamically absorb the new developments in various areas. These include new device standards (USB), or new user-level conceptions (browser integration in the OS). It is much harder to do so in a closed OS, like OSX. So perhaps OSX will be a king for its day; however Linux will still be actively developed when OSX media are dust.
First of all, the ICQ protocol has been well-documented. Look at this address: http://www.algonet.se/~henisak/icq/icqv5.html, for example. As far as I saw, it's quite a primitive UDP protocol which uses magic numbers for coding stuff.
Secondly, how do you think LICQ works? LICQ certainly's got more than 10K users, and it's out of the GPL to sign various NDAs (even liberal ones!).
Thirdly, it's been there for quite a long time, and I think it is to be taken off shortly. ICQ is becoming an adware, and I don't think they'll be so liveral for long.
I noticed that it is generally in the human nature, to be too short sighted when there seems to be no problem in the short range. It has happened numerous times before in the human history, that actions not taken in their due time had to be corrected (if there was such a possibility) when they became real problems.
In the case of NASA, I think they are making a most severe mistake. The X-33 and X-34 were the first steps to opening the space for the rest of us. I believe that humanity strives towards the stars, and a convenient (read: modern and cheap) shuttle system is crucial for our first step outwards.
Machiavelli compared the actions of a prudent man to an archer. The archer can not be sure that the arrow will descend too much during its flight. And the proper solution is not to discard arrows, but send them a bit higher.
From the comments I've read earlier, I can conclude that the system in question has quite modest performance, which is inferior for instance to a $1K PC. However, I do think that Sun is going in the right direction. Sun began to understand that there are many people (like us) who are not bound to Wintel, and may appreciate a cheap system.
For many of the tasks I do, it doesn't really matter for me what powers my system, as long as it is effective enough, and it's UNIX. SPARCs are renowned for their scalability and stability.
It is too bad that Sun can't make cheap and good SPARC boxes (their production not sufficient for a dramatic drop of price). However, when the price becomes low enough, and I can get a decent configuration, I will seriously consider getting such a box.
Microsoft obviously doesn't feel comfortable with Linux. This is completely natural, since Linux is a competitor. Normally, they crush all their competitors before they become big, however they couldn't devise a crushing strategy against Linux, and in a couple of years it will become a serious threat to MS's business.
The reason for Microsoft's inadequate handling of Linux is that Linux is supported by many people whose main occupation is not supporting it. As fair as I've seen so far, most of the contributors to OSS projects (and ./ readers) are sysadmins and CS students who feel anxious to help humanity. Microsoft has difficulty fighting something which is not a corporation.
I think that OSS does provide people with job opportunities. A Linux programmer may do sysadmin jobs, or if he's good enough be hired by some Linux company (which survives through support fees and media sales).
In addition, many major corporations like IBM find using Linux more comfortable than using closed code specifically because of its openness. For instance the updates Sun puts into Linux benefit not only Sun, but also IBM and SGI. The improvements that go into the common source work to all parties' benefit, so the companies are more than content to pay developers for OSS.
As a final note, I'd like to mark that America is famous for its witch hunts. I really hope it's not one of these.
Ten years ago when Linux was a very young project, with only a few of really devoted developers, the mailing list structure of the kernel development was efficient. Since it took over 3 years to get Linux to work on a TYPICAL PC configuration, it wouldn't make sense to talk about splitting the work into several groups.
However, now the situation is cardinally different. Linux runs on about a dozen of major CPU platforms, supports endless types of devices that sit on every imaginable kind of a bus.
In this situation, it makes sense to split the single bazaar into a few smaller ones, when a strict relationship is declared between them. I think no single individual (and that includes Linus) can fully understand the whole kernel workings. While Linus could (and should) remain active in many of those groups, it is no longer possible to leave all the decision-taking for him.
A kernel split would be BAD. First of all, consumers want one set of sources (and preferably, binaries). Secondly, the improvements in some projects could be of use to others. For instance, while hardware I/O and filesystem issues are quite different, their workings have to be combined in order to achieve optimal performance.
The bottom line: Kernel is growing up. More parties are willing to participate in its development. Linus has to ease his control, for the common good.
I am a high school student, and though I don't live in the US, I've watched the recent developments in attitude toward students with much concern. I would like to tell you my considerations on the matter.
As a reporter in the school newspaper I had to interview our director. One of the issues the interview addressed was anonymous comments. The director said he disliked them, because a person's inability to identify himself meant that he had distrusted the director. I think that he made a very valid point. While in large communities (like the whole society) anonymity is a vital tool, smaller communities have to emphasize directness in such matters that rely on personal trust.
I think that it is impossible for a school to ignore such warnings, but the staff had to respond to them carefully and with attention, personally and with no press/police (unless there are serious grounds for such outside intervention). I see it very gravely that the school did not settle this matter quietly in the first place (my best guess is that they submitted to the ubitiquous xenophobia), and when it became public, their reluctance to stand behind the girl can be described as nothing but cowardly and indecisive.
As I see it, American society could use much tolerance towards all of its people. It appears to me impossible that such vital institutions as the education system are becoming mere tools of disintegrating the ties between people on the basis of hatred.
I also live in Israel, and I would like to address some earlier comments:
First of all, KDE's support for Hebrew exists (which is generally good), but is schematic at most. Fonts suck (probably since they're raster), and BIDI display algorythms suck big time (they reverse digits in numbers etc.). Pango is under extremely heavy development, and will not be available until Gnome 2.X (by which time the Mashiah (Messia) will probably come).
Mozilla supports Visual Hebrew under Windows, and Logical Hebrew under Linux. The other options just don't work - so pick one.
There's NO WORD PROCESSOR. That's right, KOffice is miles away from doing any I18N (as opposed to L10N which AFAIK no one needs). OpenOffice is under development, but no BIDI plans are available. There are also some CLI attempts like giving Hebrew support to Emacs (Mule) or VIM (integrated into the source tree). However, Hebrew is not present at CLI either.
Regarding Microsoft's support of Hebrew, I can say that it is TOTAL. They've got all their products tuned for Hebrew, and even the Win32 API's got special fields for BIDI layouts.
I don't need anything from Windows, but for the Hebrew support. If I were able to write documents in Linux, I won't be needing Win2K (BTW, NT generally supports Hebrew better than 9X/ME).I call upon all code-writers for common GUI interfaces (GTK, KDE, wxWindows and others), to devote some thought for design and implementation of BIDI algorythms and fonts. It will not only cater to Israel, but for Arabic as well.
I would also like to express my thanks to all of you who do care for Hebrew support . Just hang on and complete it - when it's there, it won't need any more housekeeping, and one more country will be able to enjoy UNIX.Toda lahem anashim, atem hachi tovim.
The best thing I can say about the article is that it's a troll. So you have been trolled, gentlemen. However, since I'm paying my $0.02 anyway, I'd like to mention why the article is wrong, in its whole attitude to free software.
Modern software projects are usually very complicated. Kernel sources (2.4.0) take up to a hundred MBs. I dare not think how much weigh the sources of StarOffice.
No modern software company has shown ability to make mainstream high-quality products while producing it in a corporate environment. Simply speaking, in every project there's a saturation stage when every new feature has such a high price that it is no longer possible to pay it. Only a conmplete rewrite may save the code then, yet a corporation rarely can afford (or wants to afford) one.
On the other hand, open-source software is very amorphic. It gets as much time and effort, as its developers can give it (and usually it is quite a lot). Open-source developers are in most of the cases smart enough to know how to write big new chunks of software, and devoted enough to write it in the best way.
Therefore, while at the short run Microsoft may be triumphant, it will inevitably lose. Having seen Linux, I will nevermore use their software if any other option is available.
P.S. To site admins: please minimize the amount of trolls that get to the main page. Thanks.
Paying for the subscription contradicts the Internet's best quality: it is free. It is also anonymous, so that whatever you do, in most of the cases you can't be easily tracked.
Now, when Napster becomes for-pay, it no longer possesses the two advantages above. People won't buy it, at least not until there are no other choices.
Luckily for us, we have ample choices. Gnutella is one, OpenNap is another. There's really nothing indispensable about Napster. Ironically, I think that Napster could have made much profit, if they put ads into their service. However, now the loss is theirs alone.
The bottom line is: The king is dead - long live the king.
For 10 years now, Linux has been mostly a project done by a few (now a few dozens) of dedicated hackers. Linux's good general design originates in that fact that in the early stages of its development it was built by only a few people, following a uniform way of thinking and pursuing a limites set of goals. However, now when Linux is a major project which is supported by millions of users, thousands of enthusiastic developers and numerous industrial giants, it seems that the concentration of kernel development in the hands of a small group of people (and particularly, Linus) is becoming ineffective.
Linux source is so large (2.2 had over 1.5 million lines!), that it is no longer uniform. It has split to numerous platforms, and it supports a wide array of hardware. This new diversity makes it impossible for a single group of people to have a coherent opinion regarding all the added issues.
I think that Linus has to understand that the burden of being the kernel's sole guardian is very heavy, particularly when so many parties have to say so many things regarding so many questions. Being the only decision maker will do no good, neither to him, nor to anyone else who wants the kernel's good.
I think that the best solution in the meanwhile is to divide the kernel development into a few sub-groups, with expert leaders attached to each one. It seems clear to me, that there should be separate discussion lists for issues like LVM and networking. I could be wrong, but it also seems to me that Linus' deep insight as a project leader is being wasted on checking whether Patch Nr. xxxxx is indented in the right way. Others could check it (or at least do most of the job), and leave the thinking to Linus.
Leading such a project is in a way similar to being a parent. A 5 year old is not yet ready for the complex world of the school. Yet, a 17 year-old is unlikely to fit into a nursery. A teenager is much more open to the influences from his environment, than to influences from his parents. That is also the way it is in Linux. I think that the true wisdom for Linus will be to ease his control over Linux, so it can mature in the best interest of everyone.
... Dreamcast uses Hitcahci's SuperH 4 CPU. I couldn't find its specifications, but it is widely known that it's 128-bit. That's right, 4 times as much as Intel's IA32 (which is used inside the X-Box). Against such a thing, even big-endian/little-endian controversies stand still.
Now, the Dreamcast is only a year and a half old, and it had very successful hardware for its time. It seems extremely unlikely for me that a PC can emulate such a relatively modern console as this one.
It seems more likely to me (though unprobable), that Microsoft will support Dreamcast's APIs. However, again, optimization for SH4 must be very different from the optimization for Pentiums.
I remember that in 1998 I was one of the two or three people from my class who've had ICQ. I've hardly ever ran it, and I was close to uninstalling it (however I wanted to look 31337, so I kept it :-)
Then in Summer 1999, things began to change. In the beginning of the summer, 7 or 8 people were there. By the end of it, most of the class has joined ICQ. And I could almost feel, how isolated became the children who did not have ICQ.
This problem has grown beyond the techie/non-techie issue. Having a computer has become a criterium for being "in" or "out". Modern schools have to understand that they must provide Internet (and particularly, e-mail and ICQ) access, so that even the students in need will be able to conduct a normal social life (if it can be described as normal).
The social aspect of the issue also prevents kinds from using old PCs. I mean, how can they compare with their luser systems the zillion-GHz system of that cool guy John Doe from accross the street? Most of them are not after computers themselves; they're just after the new social aspects that computers open.
And as a final note - I use my 486 Linux box for C++ programming. However, most of my friends (non-techies) don't understand how can I use such a piece of scrap. It is clear for me that even a IBM/360 is better than nothing (although FORTRAN is big-time $hit (c), I have to admit). However, for most kids it isn't. They can't just learn Linux, they need someone to guide them. Only a small fraction of programmers can devise a whole set of activities for themselves, and then vigorously perform it. What those kids need is advice, lots of advice by professionals (perhaps it's time for an open-source CS studies program?).
It was a bit more than $0.02, but I hope it will change something.
I wonder why nobody asked this question, but how do they connect to the ground?. I mean, there are not so many types of connections that can be used at the altitude of eight miles (and dragging a coax behind the airplane might prove to be one of the cheaper ones :-). Or do they provide only static content (we load some sites before the flight, and then the customers can browse them during it)?
I am a teenager, and I don't live in the US. Having read some of the things here at ./, I am very glad I won't be living there anytime soon.
It seems to me, that the American society is full of hidden hatred towards itself. I mean look at all the racist shit going there. For Americans, finding a way to hurt nerds is just another way of hating themselves.
Americans also have an interesting conception, in which young people don't have any rights (I sometimes feel that neither do adults). They are subjects to spontaneous police scrutiny, as if there had never been such a
I've heard rumours that currently Crusoe runs Linux as just another x86 OS - using its hardware translation mechanisms. Now, that's a nifty technique, but wouldn't it be quicker if Linux ran using generic Crusoe instructions? I think that would be a bit (10%) quicker, and also allocate some system resources that were previously occupied with translations. Noone will mind if it won't be x86 anymore
This assault on behalf of the major media companies struck too early for the majority of customers to understand and apprehend. We are now seeing the beginning of a system of faulty legislation, and we are sinking deeper and deeper into it.
This reminds me the situation in England in the beginning of the 19th century, when there were very few social laws. It took the best part of a century (and in some aspects even longer) to fix the matter. And the situation in England was really bad: life expectancy fell to below 30 years. Imagine how much effort will it take to change the media legislation, which does not (hopefully) affect human lives!
We are now facing years, possibly decades of legal hardships. However I am confident that this struggle will be eventually won, for as long as things like ./ exist, there will always be places for people to think, not just to flow downstream.