I haven't gotten into 9.1, but 9.0 works perfectly for me and I am planning to skip at least one version. So, on 9.0:
Firefox crashed on me a lot (much more than with other distros)
Firefox has never crashed at all. Konqueror crashes about couple of times a week from some crappy Javascripts.
- overly long boot time (five times as long as my current system)
Turn off the services you don't need. SUSE tries to guess what you need during install, but almost always starts more stuff than you actually need.
- USB keyboard and mouse randomly wouldn't work on boot (about 1 in 15 boots, no problems in other distros apart from Mdk)
Again, I never had that problem on 9.0 and I am using USB mouse and keyboard daily. I did have a problem with PS/2-to-USB converters, but I had the same problem with Windows, so it's probably hardware related.
- random lockups when powering off due to sound card module problem, plus odd static from speakers (again, not seen with any other distro)
Never heard of this either.
SUSE's main advantages are ease of configuration, lots of included software and YaST. If you don't use any of those, then SUSE won't make much difference, other than maybe standards compliance. I've been using SUSE since 6.x versions and in my experience it's been extremely stable while not giving up features and options. But then again, I haven't tried 9.1 yet, and as of now, I am not planning to either. OK, maybe I'll give it a try on my dual athlon on a test partition.
I remember that vendors like Cheapbytes and other CD burning houses were not able to sell SuSE as an unoffical CD since ironically enough the license on YaST forbid anyone but SuSE for charging for the software. Now with this restriction gone couldn't vendors just master there own unoffical CD's from the FTP packages.
I can't imagine why this was a problem even before the YaST "restriction." Why couldn't Cheapbytes or anybody else create a YaST-compatible package CDs/DVD of free software that would work with the downloadable SUSE install ISO? SUSE's install CD itself is only about 20MB which even dial-up users could download and burn, and then have a few GB extra software for use by YaST.
I don't think it would have been that hard to do. Am I missing something?
Richard Stallman has long pushed for the term "GNU/Linux", as discussed in his biography
The term refers to the whole system, not just the kernel. If you are referring to the kernel only - it's called Linux; if you are referring to the kernel plus the collection of necessary GNU libraries, tools and utilities you are referring to GNU/Linux. That's an important distinction that Ken Brown does not seem to understand.
Ken Brown asserts that Tanenbaum had the Lions notes (illegal Unix copy), so the fact that he wasn't a Unix licensee should be irrelevant. Given that, how would you now respond to Brown's statement?
People who know much more about this than I ever will have already answered this, so here is the summary.
First of all, I am not sure what the "Brown's statement" is. Is it that
- Linus used Lions' book to create his kernel; or - Linus copied code from Minix into Linux?
The latter has already been put to rest by Alexey Toptygin's code comparison done for Ken Brown (previously reported on/.):
To summarize, my analysis found no evidence whatsoever that any code was copied one way or the other.
In Tanenbaum's own words:
Thus, of course, Linus didn't sit down in a vacuum and suddenly type in the Linux source code. He had my book, was running MINIX, and undoubtedly knew the history (since it is in my book). But the code was his. The proof of this is that he messed the design up....
The aforementioned code comparison proves there is no Minix code in Linux. So, what is the "Brown's statement" with regards to Minix? I mean - what else? Of course, Linus had and knew Minix, as Tanenbaum wrote:
I told him that MINIX had clearly had a huge influence on Linux in many ways, from the layout of the file system to the names in the source tree, but I didn't think Linus had used any of my code.
Is there anything wrong with taking filesystem layout and directory structure? No. Should Linus have attributed this to Minix (if he did take it from there)? Maybe. Is it wrong that he didn't do so? Absolutely not. Not only did Linus not copy any code from Minix, he didn't even take Minix' microkernel design and later flamewars should tell you what he really thought of that system.
As far as the Lions' book, this is what Tanenbaum wrote:
I don't think he could have copied UNIX because he didn't have access to the UNIX source code, except maybe John Lions' book, which is about an earlier version of UNIX that does not resemble Linux so much.
So, even if Linus had access to Lions' book, he did not actually take anything from it because Linux didn't actually resemble the earlier version of UNIX that was in that book. Ken Brown, is obviously free, like SCO is, to name the files and lines of code that he believe were "stolen" from earlier versions of UNIX and put into Linux' first release so he can have something factual rather than fictional.
So, what exactly is the "Brown's statement" is what I don't know. It's obvious by now that he doesn't have any proof to back his assertions up - how could Linus have written a kernel by himself in 6 months - it's all fiction in his created in his own mind; it's also obvious that he is misrepresenting many interviewees that he "extensively" interviewed, and all those interviewees that sounded off are ever so politely calling him a liar at best.
Just shows the guy knows nothing about the subject matter, he is just creating some fictional story in his own little world:
Is it likely that a student (Linus Torvalds) with no operating systems experience, a non-Unix licensee, without any use of Minix or Unix source code, could build a functioning kernel in six months -- whereas it took you (Tanenbaum) three years to build Minix?
I think he already replied to that by saying "yes." Since Minix was worked only part-time during those 3 years. And creating a simple kernel for limited hardware and limited functionality is not that hard of a task as it's made out to be in this case.
Another problem with Tanenbaum's logic is that he only presents examples of people that were Unix licensees...
Tanenbaum was not a Unix licensee and he told you the task was possible to accomplish in few months if he had devoted more time to it.
Yet Tanenbaum vehemently insists that Torvalds wrote Linux from scratch, which means from a blank computer screen to most people. No books, no resources, no notes -- certainly not a line of source code to borrow from, or to be tempted to borrow from.
Making stuff up eh? When you have no logical argument to make, just use your creativity. I am assuming Linus had programming books, knowledge and education, a compiler, and other tools, including an existing OS - Minix. Not to say that he copied code from Minix, as Tanenbaum already showed.
The GNU team contributed their GCC compiler, a complicated product with over 110,000 lines of code to the Linux project. Without the compiler, it is very likely that the Linux project would not have succeeded. The GNU team only asked that the product be called GNU/Linux, a very simple request for helping to make him famous. But Torvalds silently, but deliberately let the naming idea die.
Eh? Where do you begin? "Contributed" to who - Linus? Kernel called GNU/Linux? I don't recall reading anywhere anyone insisting the kernel should be called GNU/Linux. Surely, the guy knows nothing about the subject matter he is trying so hard to talk about.
How much 'inspiration' did Linus get from Minix? AdTI argues clearly enough to credit the Prentice Hall product. Not in conversation either, but within the copyright and/or the credits files of the kernel. Quite noticeably, however, there is not one acknowledgement of Minix anywhere in the Linux kernel.
Because Linus didn't copy any code from Minix. How many times does this guy have to be told, and by how many people? Or maybe he wants to come in and specify files and line numbers like SCO did? Oh wait a minute...
I also found quotes taken out of context quite amusing:
Tanenbaum insists that we are wrong to bring any of this up, but ironically, he comments on his site, "but Linus' sloppiness about attribution is no reason to assert that Linus didn't write Linux(8)."
Linus decided he was not the inventor of Linux commenting in a ZDNet story, "I'd agree that 'inventor' is not necessarily the right word(9)"
And finally, a reply to:
Linux is a leprosy; and is having a deleterious effect on the U.S. IT industry because it is steadily depreciating the value of the software industry sector.
Err... replace "Linux" with "competition" - because competition in general is also very bad - it has a deleterious effect and is depreciating the value of the products and services that our patriotic abusive monopolists provide to masses, right? Idiot! Why don't we ask HP (a Unix licensee, ironically) how "deleterious" Linux has been for them last year. Or maybe you want to try IBM, another Unix licensee?
What is video other than a sequence of still images presented at regular intervals, synchronized to voice mail?
What is everything but a combination of 1s and 0s?
And if the operating system does manage to block transmitting video works created by an author using home equipment, it would mean that Grandma wouldn't be able to send home movies to other family members.
Maybe you are right - because you don't want anyone to e-mail child porn to your children, right? Remember, in my hypothetical scenario people are turned against the "untrusted" content.
Or, maybe, you could get a discount for a personal "multimedia trust certificate" from Microsoft with your 2-year subscription to MSN? "Personal" meaning you can distribute your video to up to 5 people, but recipients are not allowed to redistribute it - or some variation of that - details can be arranged and adjusted anytime as long as the system is in place.
So what happens to makers and users of digital image input devices such as cameras and scanners?
I don't really see a problem. The content from hardware devices physically attached to the PC would be "trusted" for your personal use, but similar content downloaded online would not. Moreover, restrictions on images could be looser since media cartels and BSA are not concerned about those as much.
OK, again, I am not saying that this is what will happen, but I can also imagine how this could happen. Obviously, it cannot be the immediate next step from where we are today. It takes some time and public education and gradual change on both hardware and software side. As an example, a lot of people are already aware and look for an SSL icon/URL before they type in their credit card or social security numbers. With sufficient time, mainstream attention, and a strong push from technology giants like Intel, Microsoft, anti-virus corps, as well as media companies you could get general public to understand and differentiate between "trusted" and "untrusted" content.
With a similar campaigning from same sources depicting "untrusted" content as inherently evil (e.g. pirated music, child pornography, worms and viruses, etc.) you could, with some time and effort, turn ignorant general public against it. Note that most applications/content that you purchase and use will be trusted - MS Office, TurboTax, most commercial games, RIAA/MPAA content, etc. What will not be trusted is viruses, worms, "illegal" music, porn, and free software (or other free legitimate content) the authors of which have no resources to obtain the "trusted" certification.
This type of classification of free software, shareable music and other similar content with very bad things like child pornography, works to a great advantage of technology giants like Microsoft and media cartels like RIAA and MPAA. You can see where this is going and where they'd like to take it. With enough time, resources and scare tactics, they could even lobby for a piece of legislation outlawing "untrusted" content. I can imagine how this could happen, not that it definitely will.
Doesn't this depend on actual implementation? You may have different intentions but you are not in charge of designing and implementing the DRM system on 90% of user desktops. Imagine a DRM system where "untrusted" content is branded as unsafe and dangerous and is extremely hard for an average user to play/execute/etc. compared to the "trusted" content which is easy and effortless. When such a system is widely spread, you may even have settings that disable any "untrusted" content outright - that may even be turned on by default without user realizing anything.
No, in such a case, you won't be able to easily share music you create, or a free software program you write to the world unless you get certified by (who? BSA?) whoever for huge amounts of cash to become a "trusted" provider. Or convince your users, if they have an option, to turn off the security setting that Microsoft, anti-virus companies, mainstream press and all others say is wrong to do, will result in worms and viruses, and will no longer be supported by the OEM.
I am not saying this is what will happen. I am saying it depends on what will, and how much monopolies and cartels can get away with.
To me, that sounds like you've only got a patent license until you modify the code... and then your new "combination" is infringing again. (But I haven't read the rest of the CPL quite carefully enough to know if there's other wrinkles... such as a special definition of "combination", prehaps)
IANAL, but to me, it means you are only granted a patent license in connection with the original program and any contributions you make to it. You are not granted a license to use that same patented "technology" (or a contribution that uses that patent) in another project or program.
When the Program is made available in source code form:
a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of the Program.
Contributors may not remove or alter any copyright notices contained within the Program.
Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its Contribution, if any, in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution.
The license expressly grants any patent licenses as well. It also allows for closed source binary-only distribution.
They were found guilty and supposedly paid the price they deserved. The open debate about the severity of the fine is irrelevant.
This is not really relevant to the original discussion but RIAA was never found guilty! They settled out of court for some pocket change (for them), and now continue to employ exactly the same practices as before.
If they were indeed found guilty (like you suggested), they would not be able to continue with their price-fixing practices. But that's not how most class action lawsuits work - all lawyers want is pocketing their share of money, not proving something to the RIAA, or doing what's right. They'd rather settle out of court in a shorter period of time with guaranteed money, than attempt to prove something taking some risk of losing the case and ending up with nothing.
Violating anti-competitive, price-fixing, accounting, trade, and other laws is just a regular business expense for the RIAA cartel.
I would actually like to start a discussion and have someone explain to me exactly why Apple DRM is wonderful but Microsoft DRM is wrong.
Apple DRM is not "wonderful," but there are obvious reasons why Microsoft's position is more unfavorable and negative as far as people's opinions, IMO:
- Apple's iTunes music store (and associated DRM) is a service that you may or may not use; there are many other music download services that you may or may not use also;
- the perception with Microsoft is that their DRM will be built into the OS whether you want to or not;
- Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any related markets, while Microsoft has been convicted of abusing their desktop OS monopoly power to destroy competition in other markets.
In general, technologies or abuses thereof that unfairly restrict people's rights should be more closely watched and scrutinized when implemented by a monopoly, as opposed to a company that merely competes for consumer dollar in a market. In a latter case, the market may well decide what technology and what use it will tolerate - good for competition; while in the former case the monopoly will be granted more de facto abusive powers, consumers will suffer from lack of choices, and will be guaranteed not to see any competition for their spending dollars.
Having said that, and on a side note, RIAA members (applies to MPAA also) are an oligopoly, which operate a cartel with the sole intention to guarantee revenue streams for their members, even if it means violating [anti-competitive, accounting, trade, etc.] laws, taking away people's rights, and lobbying and bribing the Congress for unfair and unconstitutional legislation like the DMCA.
There are some performance issues to look at not to mention that even if the relational database uses a raw partition it is still use some sort of filesystem to store its data on disk and to manage free space.
OK, IANAFE (filesystem expert).
It wouldn't need a full-blown filesystem. That "filesystem" would be extremely fast and simple for storing and retrieving data. The database itself would be the real filesystem in terms of abstraction.
From the book:
The two fundamental concepts of any file system are files and directories.
Why can't those be files and categories? That way each file can belong to one of more categories, completely indexed with the help of a database, with proper security, and search capabilities.
I am assuming you can still burn at 1x, 2x and 4x speeds with it. The burner is a longer term investment compared to the media. You buy slower media until the prices come down on faster ones. Whereas with the burner, you are not going to upgrade every few months depending on the media price.
Can you read your stored mail from another computer?
I use fastmail too, and yes you can either with IMAP (with optional SSL no less), or webmail (optional SSL), or both. One thing is - with free e-mail they do attach a small tagline at the end of each message, but there are no ads in web interface. They also measure your storage and bandwidth usage per month. I prefer them over Yahoo or Hotmail or anything else like that. I think gmail is targeting at a different featureset. I will always have and use fastmail.fm account even if I do get gmail one day.
The "conversations" part of gmail is worth it enough to switch.
Maybe the reviewer missed it, or didn't do it on purpose, but I didn't see a way (from screenshots) to delete each individual message from "conversations." I.e. you don't want to delete the whole conversation just one or more messages from it. This is a basic e-mail functionality as well that should have been reviewed.
Also, people seem to hit "reply" button on one message and then write about something totally different. Maybe there should be a way to add or move messages from one "conversation" to another.
Also, I thought "gmail" was a name for a gnome mail app.
I guess this is one way to see who is really using open source.
It's not blinking in Konqueror either and Konqueror is definitely open source.
The drive is reasonably priced, I think. A lot of people still pay about $200 for quality brand names for 4x DVD±RW at retail stores.
If implemented properly, SQL-based database filesystem can provide extremely fast content searches through all files. Want to search all documents, spreadsheets, presentations, emails, etc. for a specific phrase? Search results in 0.01 seconds. Could be extremely useful for both servers and home users. Also, it can protect file contents, not only metadata from corruption and roll back any transaction performed on the data. Also, files do not have to be organized in directories necessarily; they could be and most likely will be, but not required - each file can belong to one or more categories and that will present a different view of how users see their files and the whole filesystem. I am no filesystem expert, so there's probably more advantages as well.
It's going to have a performance hit compared to today's journaling filesystems, but with hardware speed improvements it's going to be less of an issue in the future. What MS delivers with Longhorn is yet to be seen though.
Also reminds us that OSS is wonderful, OSS is great, but for the *most part*, most OSS that has been produced so far is not INNOVATIVE. When the primary goal of a project is to clone another product (Evolution springs to mind), it's just not something that drives the realm of computing forward.
Just a nit-pick. This is true of most software projects, and is not specific to OSS. For every single successful "innovative" product or feature you have multiple clones trying to duplicate the same, and then improve on it. For example, when was the last time you saw any "innovation" in the Internet Explorer? How about never - IE was/is trying to duplicate already existing "innovative" functionalities on the market. If you want something like that you have to look other places like Opera or Konqueror or Mozilla even.
Speaking of the interview, XAML is not anywhere near to "innovative" either. It's just a slightly different clone of the same ideas as XUL, Flex, UIX, Glade. Nobody really knows what XAML will be in (when?) 2006-7. Mozilla already uses cross-platform XUL, why should it start using XAML? How many XAML patents are there and will there be in the future? I don't think MS' intention is to lock out its developers (remember the song/dance?) with their proprietary patented technology, but only their competitors. Mozilla is one of the latter. Why doesn't the guy try to convince MS to use the existing, already battle-tested and [web] standards-compliant XUL instead?
Also notice what he says in his interview:
You don't take advantage of WinFS. These things are not threats to you. They are platform-level investments we're making for you to use. If you don't use them, I'm sure some other browser will (Opera?) and I'll switch to that.
Why not switch to IE then? For sure, it will use WinFS/XAML/etc. in Longhorn.
Your sarcasm in (A) and (B) are contradictory. Are you saying that Baystar doesn't want SCO to win the IBM lawsuit? The way I see it is that SCO (i.e. their management) never wanted to win a lawsuit, they just wanted to cash out before it was too late for SCO the company.
Unless you are saying that both Baystar and Royal Bank of Canada knew this prior to their investments; AND Baystar just wanted to replace the management and take over the company "assets" from the very beginning when they considered their investments. In that case, it's who's playing who. But I don't think so, I think they realized they were fooled and Baystar now realizes they have a tough decision to make whether it's worth to grab onto the last straws. Because the way the lawsuit is heading right now is that SCO is not providing anything substantial, while IBM will likely nail SCO in their countersuit. So what would you do from this point on if you were Baystar in this situation? I'd want my money back too, and what Baystar is doing is the only way to get it back.
IANAL, but one reason that I can think of why it would not be OK is that SUSE CDs/DVDs that you pay for usually include quite a bit of commercial software that otherwise costs money and is not under GPL, BSD, or other open source license. So, if you did share ISOs you may be violating some of those copyrights. But again, SUSE may be keeping the "commercial" software on a separate CD - in that case, as long as you don't share that ISO, this won't be a problem.
If you feel so inclined and have some time to waste, I believe you can even roll your own SUSE distro with the packages that you choose and make them available in ISOs or from FTP, or whatever. And since YaST is (should be) now GPL, you can even charge money for it.
IANAL, but my point was that you don't have to invent or create a plant, you can simply discover it - hey look, that apple tree over there in our apple tree plantation looks a little different, let's patent it.
And what does new mean? Does it mean that it's not in encyclopedia? Or any botanical research papers? Does patent office check encyclopedias or botanical research? Or does it mean that the new plant in question cannot be found anywhere else in the world, including wilderness?
Of course, I still think this is all bullshit. USPTO will not even have a clue where the patented plant came from. And what does it take to reproduce a plant asexually? Describe its genetics?
I think if you develop a specific breed, you are given the sole rights to use it for commercial purposes.
I don't know what you mean by "develop" but you don't even have to invent the plant to get a patent, you can simply discover it and patent it, as long as you know what it is. From the link you provided:
A plant patent is granted by the Government to an inventor (or the inventor's hiers or assigns) who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced a distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state. (emphasis mine)
Basically, if you discover a plant and can genetically describe it, you can patent it. It's a plant for crying out loud, can you patent your dog? Oh wait... is there anything you cannot patent?
If only they added a camera to this it would be a "clie-killer" whatever that means. Other than that, according to the review it's very impressive. The 64-bit encryption and a VPN client on a PDA is a nice-to-have to connect to your office network from anywhere (although it's a shame VPN wasn't tested), and Qtopia looks cool, IMO. One thing I'm wondering - does it support multiple virtual desktops? Can you run an X client on it at reasonable speeds?
I read somewhere that someone put a VNC server on Zaurus and connected to the PDA desktop from another PDA and a PC. Hell, at 640x480, you can have your whole monitor screen taken by the PDA. I think there's lots of cool stuff you can do when you are not limited by some proprietary systems.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't gotten into 9.1, but 9.0 works perfectly for me and I am planning to skip at least one version. So, on 9.0:
Firefox has never crashed at all. Konqueror crashes about couple of times a week from some crappy Javascripts.
Turn off the services you don't need. SUSE tries to guess what you need during install, but almost always starts more stuff than you actually need.
Again, I never had that problem on 9.0 and I am using USB mouse and keyboard daily. I did have a problem with PS/2-to-USB converters, but I had the same problem with Windows, so it's probably hardware related.
Never heard of this either.
SUSE's main advantages are ease of configuration, lots of included software and YaST. If you don't use any of those, then SUSE won't make much difference, other than maybe standards compliance. I've been using SUSE since 6.x versions and in my experience it's been extremely stable while not giving up features and options. But then again, I haven't tried 9.1 yet, and as of now, I am not planning to either. OK, maybe I'll give it a try on my dual athlon on a test partition.
I can't imagine why this was a problem even before the YaST "restriction." Why couldn't Cheapbytes or anybody else create a YaST-compatible package CDs/DVD of free software that would work with the downloadable SUSE install ISO? SUSE's install CD itself is only about 20MB which even dial-up users could download and burn, and then have a few GB extra software for use by YaST.
I don't think it would have been that hard to do. Am I missing something?
The term refers to the whole system, not just the kernel. If you are referring to the kernel only - it's called Linux; if you are referring to the kernel plus the collection of necessary GNU libraries, tools and utilities you are referring to GNU/Linux. That's an important distinction that Ken Brown does not seem to understand.
People who know much more about this than I ever will have already answered this, so here is the summary.
First of all, I am not sure what the "Brown's statement" is. Is it that
- Linus used Lions' book to create his kernel; or
- Linus copied code from Minix into Linux?
The latter has already been put to rest by Alexey Toptygin's code comparison done for Ken Brown (previously reported on
To summarize, my analysis found no evidence whatsoever that any code was copied one way or the other.
In Tanenbaum's own words:
Thus, of course, Linus didn't sit down in a vacuum and suddenly type in the Linux source code. He had my book, was running MINIX, and undoubtedly knew the history (since it is in my book). But the code was his. The proof of this is that he messed the design up.
The aforementioned code comparison proves there is no Minix code in Linux. So, what is the "Brown's statement" with regards to Minix? I mean - what else? Of course, Linus had and knew Minix, as Tanenbaum wrote:
I told him that MINIX had clearly had a huge influence on Linux in many ways, from the layout of the file system to the names in the source tree, but I didn't think Linus had used any of my code.
Is there anything wrong with taking filesystem layout and directory structure? No. Should Linus have attributed this to Minix (if he did take it from there)? Maybe. Is it wrong that he didn't do so? Absolutely not. Not only did Linus not copy any code from Minix, he didn't even take Minix' microkernel design and later flamewars should tell you what he really thought of that system.
As far as the Lions' book, this is what Tanenbaum wrote:
I don't think he could have copied UNIX because he didn't have access to the UNIX source code, except maybe John Lions' book, which is about an earlier version of UNIX that does not resemble Linux so much.
So, even if Linus had access to Lions' book, he did not actually take anything from it because Linux didn't actually resemble the earlier version of UNIX that was in that book. Ken Brown, is obviously free, like SCO is, to name the files and lines of code that he believe were "stolen" from earlier versions of UNIX and put into Linux' first release so he can have something factual rather than fictional.
So, what exactly is the "Brown's statement" is what I don't know. It's obvious by now that he doesn't have any proof to back his assertions up - how could Linus have written a kernel by himself in 6 months - it's all fiction in his created in his own mind; it's also obvious that he is misrepresenting many interviewees that he "extensively" interviewed, and all those interviewees that sounded off are ever so politely calling him a liar at best.
Just shows the guy knows nothing about the subject matter, he is just creating some fictional story in his own little world:
...
Is it likely that a student (Linus Torvalds) with no operating systems experience, a non-Unix licensee, without any use of Minix or Unix source code, could build a functioning kernel in six months -- whereas it took you (Tanenbaum) three years to build Minix?
I think he already replied to that by saying "yes." Since Minix was worked only part-time during those 3 years. And creating a simple kernel for limited hardware and limited functionality is not that hard of a task as it's made out to be in this case.
Another problem with Tanenbaum's logic is that he only presents examples of people that were Unix licensees
Tanenbaum was not a Unix licensee and he told you the task was possible to accomplish in few months if he had devoted more time to it.
Yet Tanenbaum vehemently insists that Torvalds wrote Linux from scratch, which means from a blank computer screen to most people. No books, no resources, no notes -- certainly not a line of source code to borrow from, or to be tempted to borrow from.
Making stuff up eh? When you have no logical argument to make, just use your creativity. I am assuming Linus had programming books, knowledge and education, a compiler, and other tools, including an existing OS - Minix. Not to say that he copied code from Minix, as Tanenbaum already showed.
The GNU team contributed their GCC compiler, a complicated product with over 110,000 lines of code to the Linux project. Without the compiler, it is very likely that the Linux project would not have succeeded. The GNU team only asked that the product be called GNU/Linux, a very simple request for helping to make him famous. But Torvalds silently, but deliberately let the naming idea die.
Eh? Where do you begin? "Contributed" to who - Linus? Kernel called GNU/Linux? I don't recall reading anywhere anyone insisting the kernel should be called GNU/Linux. Surely, the guy knows nothing about the subject matter he is trying so hard to talk about.
How much 'inspiration' did Linus get from Minix? AdTI argues clearly enough to credit the Prentice Hall product. Not in conversation either, but within the copyright and/or the credits files of the kernel. Quite noticeably, however, there is not one acknowledgement of Minix anywhere in the Linux kernel.
Because Linus didn't copy any code from Minix. How many times does this guy have to be told, and by how many people? Or maybe he wants to come in and specify files and line numbers like SCO did? Oh wait a minute...
I also found quotes taken out of context quite amusing:
Tanenbaum insists that we are wrong to bring any of this up, but ironically, he comments on his site, "but Linus' sloppiness about attribution is no reason to assert that Linus didn't write Linux(8)."
Linus decided he was not the inventor of Linux commenting in a ZDNet story, "I'd agree that 'inventor' is not necessarily the right word(9)"
And finally, a reply to:
Linux is a leprosy; and is having a deleterious effect on the U.S. IT industry because it is steadily depreciating the value of the software industry sector.
Err... replace "Linux" with "competition" - because competition in general is also very bad - it has a deleterious effect and is depreciating the value of the products and services that our patriotic abusive monopolists provide to masses, right? Idiot! Why don't we ask HP (a Unix licensee, ironically) how "deleterious" Linux has been for them last year. Or maybe you want to try IBM, another Unix licensee?
What is everything but a combination of 1s and 0s?
Maybe you are right - because you don't want anyone to e-mail child porn to your children, right? Remember, in my hypothetical scenario people are turned against the "untrusted" content.
Or, maybe, you could get a discount for a personal "multimedia trust certificate" from Microsoft with your 2-year subscription to MSN? "Personal" meaning you can distribute your video to up to 5 people, but recipients are not allowed to redistribute it - or some variation of that - details can be arranged and adjusted anytime as long as the system is in place.
I don't really see a problem. The content from hardware devices physically attached to the PC would be "trusted" for your personal use, but similar content downloaded online would not. Moreover, restrictions on images could be looser since media cartels and BSA are not concerned about those as much.
OK, again, I am not saying that this is what will happen, but I can also imagine how this could happen. Obviously, it cannot be the immediate next step from where we are today. It takes some time and public education and gradual change on both hardware and software side. As an example, a lot of people are already aware and look for an SSL icon/URL before they type in their credit card or social security numbers. With sufficient time, mainstream attention, and a strong push from technology giants like Intel, Microsoft, anti-virus corps, as well as media companies you could get general public to understand and differentiate between "trusted" and "untrusted" content.
With a similar campaigning from same sources depicting "untrusted" content as inherently evil (e.g. pirated music, child pornography, worms and viruses, etc.) you could, with some time and effort, turn ignorant general public against it. Note that most applications/content that you purchase and use will be trusted - MS Office, TurboTax, most commercial games, RIAA/MPAA content, etc. What will not be trusted is viruses, worms, "illegal" music, porn, and free software (or other free legitimate content) the authors of which have no resources to obtain the "trusted" certification.
This type of classification of free software, shareable music and other similar content with very bad things like child pornography, works to a great advantage of technology giants like Microsoft and media cartels like RIAA and MPAA. You can see where this is going and where they'd like to take it. With enough time, resources and scare tactics, they could even lobby for a piece of legislation outlawing "untrusted" content. I can imagine how this could happen, not that it definitely will.
Doesn't this depend on actual implementation? You may have different intentions but you are not in charge of designing and implementing the DRM system on 90% of user desktops. Imagine a DRM system where "untrusted" content is branded as unsafe and dangerous and is extremely hard for an average user to play/execute/etc. compared to the "trusted" content which is easy and effortless. When such a system is widely spread, you may even have settings that disable any "untrusted" content outright - that may even be turned on by default without user realizing anything.
No, in such a case, you won't be able to easily share music you create, or a free software program you write to the world unless you get certified by (who? BSA?) whoever for huge amounts of cash to become a "trusted" provider. Or convince your users, if they have an option, to turn off the security setting that Microsoft, anti-virus companies, mainstream press and all others say is wrong to do, will result in worms and viruses, and will no longer be supported by the OEM.
I am not saying this is what will happen. I am saying it depends on what will, and how much monopolies and cartels can get away with.
IANAL, but to me, it means you are only granted a patent license in connection with the original program and any contributions you make to it. You are not granted a license to use that same patented "technology" (or a contribution that uses that patent) in another project or program.
Why can't you read yourself?
Some relevant parts:
When the Program is made available in source code form:
a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and
b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of the Program.
Contributors may not remove or alter any copyright notices contained within the Program.
Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its Contribution, if any, in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution.
The license expressly grants any patent licenses as well. It also allows for closed source binary-only distribution.
This is not really relevant to the original discussion but RIAA was never found guilty! They settled out of court for some pocket change (for them), and now continue to employ exactly the same practices as before.
If they were indeed found guilty (like you suggested), they would not be able to continue with their price-fixing practices. But that's not how most class action lawsuits work - all lawyers want is pocketing their share of money, not proving something to the RIAA, or doing what's right. They'd rather settle out of court in a shorter period of time with guaranteed money, than attempt to prove something taking some risk of losing the case and ending up with nothing.
Violating anti-competitive, price-fixing, accounting, trade, and other laws is just a regular business expense for the RIAA cartel.
Apple DRM is not "wonderful," but there are obvious reasons why Microsoft's position is more unfavorable and negative as far as people's opinions, IMO:
- Apple's iTunes music store (and associated DRM) is a service that you may or may not use; there are many other music download services that you may or may not use also;
- the perception with Microsoft is that their DRM will be built into the OS whether you want to or not;
- Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any related markets, while Microsoft has been convicted of abusing their desktop OS monopoly power to destroy competition in other markets.
In general, technologies or abuses thereof that unfairly restrict people's rights should be more closely watched and scrutinized when implemented by a monopoly, as opposed to a company that merely competes for consumer dollar in a market. In a latter case, the market may well decide what technology and what use it will tolerate - good for competition; while in the former case the monopoly will be granted more de facto abusive powers, consumers will suffer from lack of choices, and will be guaranteed not to see any competition for their spending dollars.
Having said that, and on a side note, RIAA members (applies to MPAA also) are an oligopoly, which operate a cartel with the sole intention to guarantee revenue streams for their members, even if it means violating [anti-competitive, accounting, trade, etc.] laws, taking away people's rights, and lobbying and bribing the Congress for unfair and unconstitutional legislation like the DMCA.
OK, IANAFE (filesystem expert).
It wouldn't need a full-blown filesystem. That "filesystem" would be extremely fast and simple for storing and retrieving data. The database itself would be the real filesystem in terms of abstraction.
From the book:
The two fundamental concepts of any file system are files and directories.
Why can't those be files and categories? That way each file can belong to one of more categories, completely indexed with the help of a database, with proper security, and search capabilities.
I am assuming you can still burn at 1x, 2x and 4x speeds with it. The burner is a longer term investment compared to the media. You buy slower media until the prices come down on faster ones. Whereas with the burner, you are not going to upgrade every few months depending on the media price.
I use fastmail too, and yes you can either with IMAP (with optional SSL no less), or webmail (optional SSL), or both. One thing is - with free e-mail they do attach a small tagline at the end of each message, but there are no ads in web interface. They also measure your storage and bandwidth usage per month. I prefer them over Yahoo or Hotmail or anything else like that. I think gmail is targeting at a different featureset. I will always have and use fastmail.fm account even if I do get gmail one day.
Maybe the reviewer missed it, or didn't do it on purpose, but I didn't see a way (from screenshots) to delete each individual message from "conversations." I.e. you don't want to delete the whole conversation just one or more messages from it. This is a basic e-mail functionality as well that should have been reviewed.
Also, people seem to hit "reply" button on one message and then write about something totally different. Maybe there should be a way to add or move messages from one "conversation" to another.
Also, I thought "gmail" was a name for a gnome mail app.
The drive is reasonably priced, I think. A lot of people still pay about $200 for quality brand names for 4x DVD±RW at retail stores.
If implemented properly, SQL-based database filesystem can provide extremely fast content searches through all files. Want to search all documents, spreadsheets, presentations, emails, etc. for a specific phrase? Search results in 0.01 seconds. Could be extremely useful for both servers and home users. Also, it can protect file contents, not only metadata from corruption and roll back any transaction performed on the data. Also, files do not have to be organized in directories necessarily; they could be and most likely will be, but not required - each file can belong to one or more categories and that will present a different view of how users see their files and the whole filesystem. I am no filesystem expert, so there's probably more advantages as well.
It's going to have a performance hit compared to today's journaling filesystems, but with hardware speed improvements it's going to be less of an issue in the future. What MS delivers with Longhorn is yet to be seen though.
That's all I have.
Just a nit-pick. This is true of most software projects, and is not specific to OSS. For every single successful "innovative" product or feature you have multiple clones trying to duplicate the same, and then improve on it. For example, when was the last time you saw any "innovation" in the Internet Explorer? How about never - IE was/is trying to duplicate already existing "innovative" functionalities on the market. If you want something like that you have to look other places like Opera or Konqueror or Mozilla even.
Speaking of the interview, XAML is not anywhere near to "innovative" either. It's just a slightly different clone of the same ideas as XUL, Flex, UIX, Glade. Nobody really knows what XAML will be in (when?) 2006-7. Mozilla already uses cross-platform XUL, why should it start using XAML? How many XAML patents are there and will there be in the future? I don't think MS' intention is to lock out its developers (remember the song/dance?) with their proprietary patented technology, but only their competitors. Mozilla is one of the latter. Why doesn't the guy try to convince MS to use the existing, already battle-tested and [web] standards-compliant XUL instead?
Also notice what he says in his interview:
You don't take advantage of WinFS. These things are not threats to you. They are platform-level investments we're making for you to use. If you don't use them, I'm sure some other browser will (Opera?) and I'll switch to that.
Why not switch to IE then? For sure, it will use WinFS/XAML/etc. in Longhorn.
Your sarcasm in (A) and (B) are contradictory. Are you saying that Baystar doesn't want SCO to win the IBM lawsuit? The way I see it is that SCO (i.e. their management) never wanted to win a lawsuit, they just wanted to cash out before it was too late for SCO the company.
Unless you are saying that both Baystar and Royal Bank of Canada knew this prior to their investments; AND Baystar just wanted to replace the management and take over the company "assets" from the very beginning when they considered their investments. In that case, it's who's playing who. But I don't think so, I think they realized they were fooled and Baystar now realizes they have a tough decision to make whether it's worth to grab onto the last straws. Because the way the lawsuit is heading right now is that SCO is not providing anything substantial, while IBM will likely nail SCO in their countersuit. So what would you do from this point on if you were Baystar in this situation? I'd want my money back too, and what Baystar is doing is the only way to get it back.
IANAL, but one reason that I can think of why it would not be OK is that SUSE CDs/DVDs that you pay for usually include quite a bit of commercial software that otherwise costs money and is not under GPL, BSD, or other open source license. So, if you did share ISOs you may be violating some of those copyrights. But again, SUSE may be keeping the "commercial" software on a separate CD - in that case, as long as you don't share that ISO, this won't be a problem.
If you feel so inclined and have some time to waste, I believe you can even roll your own SUSE distro with the packages that you choose and make them available in ISOs or from FTP, or whatever. And since YaST is (should be) now GPL, you can even charge money for it.
Again, IANAL, ask SUSE/Novell and/or a laywer.
IANAL, but my point was that you don't have to invent or create a plant, you can simply discover it - hey look, that apple tree over there in our apple tree plantation looks a little different, let's patent it.
And what does new mean? Does it mean that it's not in encyclopedia? Or any botanical research papers? Does patent office check encyclopedias or botanical research? Or does it mean that the new plant in question cannot be found anywhere else in the world, including wilderness?
Of course, I still think this is all bullshit. USPTO will not even have a clue where the patented plant came from. And what does it take to reproduce a plant asexually? Describe its genetics?
I don't know what you mean by "develop" but you don't even have to invent the plant to get a patent, you can simply discover it and patent it, as long as you know what it is. From the link you provided:
A plant patent is granted by the Government to an inventor (or the inventor's hiers or assigns) who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced a distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state. (emphasis mine)
Basically, if you discover a plant and can genetically describe it, you can patent it. It's a plant for crying out loud, can you patent your dog? Oh wait... is there anything you cannot patent?
If only they added a camera to this it would be a "clie-killer" whatever that means. Other than that, according to the review it's very impressive. The 64-bit encryption and a VPN client on a PDA is a nice-to-have to connect to your office network from anywhere (although it's a shame VPN wasn't tested), and Qtopia looks cool, IMO. One thing I'm wondering - does it support multiple virtual desktops? Can you run an X client on it at reasonable speeds?
I read somewhere that someone put a VNC server on Zaurus and connected to the PDA desktop from another PDA and a PC. Hell, at 640x480, you can have your whole monitor screen taken by the PDA. I think there's lots of cool stuff you can do when you are not limited by some proprietary systems.