The Handbook and FAQ have a section on setting up XDM. In a nutshell, there ain't no separate runlevel for a GUI login (why should there be?). Just edit your/etc/ttys file to turn it on, or shove a script in/usr/X11R6/etc/rc.d.
they're still debating what to do about libc (BSD) versus libc6 (GNU) dependencies in packages.
Why don't they just get a big stick and beat anyone over the head who doesn't code to the standards? That why you never need to worry about which brand of libc you're using. Frankly, everything in the FreeBSD ports tree that I've tried compiles just fine under libc. Even the GNU stuff.
To be honest, if you are just using workstation apps, and not really using it for anything like a nat box, or the 'server in the closet tha never gets turned off' , it's probably not worth your time.
I have to respectfully disagree. There's nothing that Linux can do that FreeBSD can't. So why is there this perception that Linux is suitable for a workstation but FreeBSD isn't?
KDE, GNOME, Xmms, StarOffice, Java, Mozilla, Wine, etc., etc. I'm using FreeBSD as my desktop at home and my workstation at work. I couldn't be happier.
Yes, give FreeBSD a try. But don't go in expecting it to be just another Linux distro, because it's not. It's a real Unix in all but name. If you read the manual you shouldn't have too many problems.
What are the differences? Well that depends. What specific Linux distro are you comparing it to? All the Linux distros are different, so you can't really compare it to Linux as a whole, because that's just the kernel. Some distros don't even use glibc.
Installation is similar to Slackware and Debian. You won't get a fancy GUI that routinely misdetects your video card. It's very straight forward, sensible, and chock full of help.
Administration is uses sysinstall, which happens to lead a double life as the installer. No need to learn two programs when one will do. Similar to YaST in that regard. But you can also edit everything by hand in vi, and sysinstall won't undo you changes. You won't have a SysV style init scripts, but BSD (duh!) style scripts instead. I prefer the latter as it's easier to learn and understand. Everything in the base system is configured in one file, rc.conf. Apache, Sendmail, etc., still have their own configuration files though.
Installing software is similar to Debian and Gentoo. There are precompiled packages available, but the standard way is to use ports, which automatically fetches source, builds and installs. Using the cvsup and portupgrade utilities, keeping your system up to date is simplicity.
The GNU utilities aren't standard, so if you learned Unix the GNU way you may be thrown for a loop now and then. But if you learned Unix the Unix way, then you'll feel right at home. sh and tcsh are the standard shells, but just install bash if that's what you want. I prefer bash at the command prompt, but I write my scripts for plain vanilla sh.
It works great for you, and it works great for me. But there's a whole boatload of people out there will problems. This arguing over with VM to implement in the "stable" branch is ludicrous. You simply don't change the VM architecture in a stable release. You just don't.
stable == unchanging
unstable == changing
The only new additions going into the stable branch should be drivers and bug fixes. Even a cursory glance at the 2.4 Changlog is proof of it's instability.
If you want less slop, stick with a distribution kernel.
Um, pardon me, but 2.4 is the stable production kernel. Therein lies the crux of the problem.
Re:The beginning of a major shift in Linux kernel
on
Linus Does Not Scale
·
· Score: 1
I agree. The Linux kernel has reached a critical mass of sorts. It's time to Linus to give up the micromanagement of the project and start delegating. He is a human being after all, and he can't be expected to be an expert in everything. So let him find those experts and give them the reins over their area of expertise. No other project of this size has this level of control by a single person. Even Theo delegates.
I have never written any software, webpages, etc... to exclude a subset of my potential users.
Nor have I. Although I have been sorely tempted to. That temptation usually arises immediately after trying to view a webpage in Mozilla or Konqueror, only to be informed that I am not using the webmaster's preferred browser (typically some version of IE released last week).
Every OS distribution I've seen that includes the Linux kernel is a GNU System, because it incorporates pretty much all of the software that resulted from Project GNU
The GNU System is an operating system. There can be no mistake about this. Just read the initial GNU announcement and hear it from RMS' own words. Repeat, The GNU System is an operating system. Got that?
The operating system that comes with Slackware, SuSE, Gentoo, Redhat, etc., is The Linux OS. It consists of the Linux kernel, init and some infrastructure. Nothing else is part of the operating system. No OS components of The GNU System are used in those distros (although Debian does indeed make a genuine GNU System with the Hurd kernel, Debian GNU/Linux is not it).
The problem comes about because people play fast and loose with the definition of "operating system." I attribute this lax definition in part to Microsoft, who continues to insist despite court rulings that Windows95 and successors are operating systems, when in fact the OS that those systems run on is *DOS*. With such sloppy definitions, it's no wonder that even the normally precise Unix users get attacks of muddled thinking.
I see hundreds of stories on Slashdot and Linuxtoday that talk about the Linux desktop. Linux has no desktop! We are all intelligent enough to know that KDE is not part of the operating system, and neither is GNOME. So why do we insist that Emacs, gcc, bash and gzip are parts of an operating system?
In large part because RMS himself is confused. From the GNU Initial Announcement: "After this we will add a text formatter, a YACC, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other things." I'm sorry, but Empire is not a part of an operating system! The next sentence though clears things up. Too bad RMS forgot he wrote it: "We hope to supply, eventually, everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system." Hah! Along with the operating system, GNU is going to supply non-OS things that normally ship with operating systems. Notice the word "with". He didn't say "as". Even he wasn't so muddleheaded then as to think bison was part of an OS. Window systems normally ship with Notepad and Internet Explorer. But neither of those is part of the DOS or NT operating systems. Likewise, just because GNU wrote or obtained emacs, bison, bash and tar does not mean that those items are a part of The GNU System OS.
I have a friend who builds packing machinery. They are used by many manufacturers in their factories. Yet his company, Dover, does not insist that a certain factory be called "Dover/Kelloggs". As far as I know, the Dover president has never had a conniption fit when the president of Kellogs failed to use the words "Dover/Kelloggs Rice Krispies", even though Rice Krispies are made using Dover machinery. Ditto for Linux. The presence of GNU tools in a distro does not mean you have to call the OS or the distro "GNU".
Ideas, concepts, and whatever else is included in those classes might as well be written for Microsoft, for free.
Yeah, so what? I mean seriously, so what?
Just do Microsoft a favour and virtually work for them for free while you're at it!
Since I don't have to pay to get Mono, Miguel is working for me for free. I like that. It's cool. I don't have to pay Miguel a damn thing to get Mono. So if Miguel is working for me for free, why can't he work for Bill Gates for free at the same time?
Or is Free Software not the issue here, and you could care less what the software is as long as someone you don't like gets screwed?
Hah! Hah! Hah! You're so full of it the roto-rooter man is jealous.
Let's say I have an MIT-X11 program sitting on my ftp site. How, just how, can anyone make it non-free? They could of course download their own copy, build it, and distribute the resulting binary source-less. But that non-free binary will be on their ftp site, not mine. My copy is still 100% free.
You know, if you were correct, Bill Gates could stop Linux in its tracks in a heartbeat. All he would have to do is relicense XFree86 under a proprietary license, and suddenly it's no longer free. You have have to pay royalties to Microsoft to use any GUI on Linux. But guess what? That's not the way the world works. Bill Gates could do all sorts of evil and heinous things to his *copy* of XFree86, but his filthy hands will never touch my copy, your copy, or the copy at ftp.xfree86.org.
Frankly, if someone wants to use a non-free binary instead of my free binary that comes with source code, that's *their* decision.
You, along with all other GNU zealots, need to get a proper English dictionary. Besides looking up the term "operating system", you also need to look up the word "zealotry."
Duh! A compiler is not an operating system. Neither is it a component of an operating system. A compiler is an application that runs on *top* of an operating system. As such, it is no more vital to the -operation- of LinuxOS than than any other application. That the LinuxOS was designed to only build with one particular compiler is irrelevant. You don't name your products after the tools used to make them.
A Linux OS without any GNU OS stuff is simplicity to create. But a tool is not a component of an operating system. Yes, it's going to be hard running LinuxOS without any of the GNU *tools*, but running one without GNU OS Components is trivial.
Yep, cvsup is the way to go. Unfortunately I can't do it at work because of the really lame firewall that blocks everything but http and ftp. But I could still do an upgrade install with the boot floppies and passive ftp.
...because Linux already has a solid toolchain of its own.
I see the monopolists are out in force today. A language standard like ISO Standard C++ is a Good Thing. A single compiler that becomes a standard is a Bad Thing. When there is no room in Unix for an additional compiler, the end is near.
If Borland C++ (the stand-alone compiler) won't be free then there probably won't be many users. It won't be shipped with your Redhat Subscription Service. But it will still have a place, namely with those that think choice is the first attribute of freedom. And if it is free, then expect it to be widely used.
Gcc will finally have competition. It might actualy spur GNU into action to improve their compiler. Most of you guys here are too new to remember the history of gcc. Only a few years ago gcc *sucked* at C++. The unwritten by very official stance policy of GNU was that C++ sucked so don't bother. There was little standards conformance. But someone in the GNU crowd did have a clue, and forked the compiler. Before you knew it, egcs was being used more than gcc. Eventually the two merged back together, but I hope GNU learned its lesson.
I thought the goal was to produce the best, most powerful tool.
The goal is to produce a usable and intuitive interface. The "intuitive" part has proven to be quite elusive, even for the Mac, but the "usable" part is not. I don't care how powerful your tool is, if it isn't usable, you will be the only one using it.
Windows didn't have a desktop when CDE was created. All it had were icon groups and blank areas on the screen. They may have been influenced by earlier versions of OS/2, but I see no influence from Windows.
KDE and GNOME are *not* imitating Windows. They are imitating what works. It just so happens that Microsoft isn't staffed by idiots, so they tend to imitate what works as well.
The first time I saw KDE (1.0) I thought "wow, it's my old OS/2 desktop!" You see, contrary to popular belief and the tripe they feed you in the press, Microsoft did not invent the GUI or the desktop. Xerox PARC did. It was copied by Apple Lisa then Apple Macintosh. OS/2 Warp had that style of desktop before Windows did. But Microsoft saw that the Mac and OS/2 Warp were *usable* interfaces and got worried. So they made a radical design change with the Win95 desktop.
It's a pain in the butt creating a truly original interface. A major pain the arse. It's easy to come up with a concept, but making it usable is the hard part. I am glad that KDE and GNOME didn't decide to join the radical fringe and try to shove a new metaphor down people's throats. They stuck with what worked. The "computer as desktop" metaphor may not be the best metaphor, but it does work and people are used to it.
If you don't like the default setup of KDE or GNOME, you can change it. Try that with Windows. If you don't like the main menu accessible from the panel, change it and make it a root menu. If you don't like the taskbar in the panel, make it a separate taskbar or use KasBar. Get rid of the panel entirely if you wish. If you don't like the file manager to be a plain window with icons representing files, then change it. Add a sidebar or/or shell to it. Use text view mode. Use a norton commander clone mode. Or use a different file manager completely. If you want menus to be on the top like in the Mac, just do it.
This is the truly original interface that KDE and GNOME give you (original for Windows users, but not for Unix users): you are in complete control of your desktop. You get to decide how it will look, feel and work.
There would obviously need to be an US plugin available to find decent US brewpubs. But without a quality assuring organization like CAMRA, it might lead us to one of those trendy shits like Los Gatos Brewery, and not to where the the REAL ale is served, like Faultline, Stoddard's or Seabright. Heck, with the right plugin, it might even beep to let you know that the Anchor tour is starting...
1) Closed Source and Closed Minds. nVidia is the most secretive video card manufacturer there is. You can't get specs, you can't get help, and you get sued if you reverse engineer. If nVidia decides not to "care" anymore for Linux then you're stuck with XFree86-4.1 for the rest of your card's life.
With a Matrox or ATI card I don't have to worry about what Matrox or ATI does. The drivers are a *part* of XFree86. I don't have to hunt down new drivers everytime I upgrade X. I can use their cards on both Linux or FreeBSD. Of course Matrox and ATI aren't the most open of companies, but compared to nVidia they're radical philanthropists.
2) 2D support needed. I don't know what universe you live in, but the number of Linux programs that need the 3D support that only nVidia can provide can be counted on zero hands. I'm not a game player. I have a life. I use Linux/FreeBSD to get stuff *done*. My OS is a productivity tool. That means I care about 2D graphics. And nVidia can't even come close to Matrox or ATI in terms of 2D.
If all you do is play games, just stick with Windows. I'm serious. Don't give me that crap that you have to have Free Software for your OS. We know better than that. You want Unfree nVidia to run your Unfree games designed for an Unfree platform. So just go Unfree all the way. We'll both be happier.
In the meantime I'm perfectly content with 2D Konqueror, XEmacs, Xmms, Dia, Gimp, KOffice, Staroffice, gcc, Mozilla, Windowmaker, etc. The games I play when I do play games are CivIII, Simcity3k, and MystIII, none of which require or would gain from a 3D video card.
Caldera's community is not the slashdot crowd, but corporate purchasing departments. To them, Caldera must seem like a radical anarchist giving away the farm.
Besides, this isn't the first Free Software they've released that they didn't have to, and I suspect it won't be the last.
The Linux community needs to stop pushing nVidia. I don't know why they do, but they do. You see the lists and boards choked with newbies trying to get their cards to work, yet the GeForce still seems to be the recommended card fo Linux. Huh?
The "Linux guy" where I bought my Matrox G450 didn't want to sell it to me. He insisted I buy an nVidia instead because it was better supported under Linux. I had to walk away and get another salesperson who would sell me what I asked for. I've had Linux guys tell me I should take back my G450 because nVidia was better. I've seen posts on boards where some guy wants to know what the best card is and gets a dozen replies favoring nVidia.
Slashdot Mirror
The Handbook and FAQ have a section on setting up XDM. In a nutshell, there ain't no separate runlevel for a GUI login (why should there be?). Just edit your /etc/ttys file to turn it on, or shove a script in /usr/X11R6/etc/rc.d.
they're still debating what to do about libc (BSD) versus libc6 (GNU) dependencies in packages.
Why don't they just get a big stick and beat anyone over the head who doesn't code to the standards? That why you never need to worry about which brand of libc you're using. Frankly, everything in the FreeBSD ports tree that I've tried compiles just fine under libc. Even the GNU stuff.
To be honest, if you are just using workstation apps, and not really using it for anything like a nat box, or the 'server in the closet tha never gets turned off' , it's probably not worth your time.
I have to respectfully disagree. There's nothing that Linux can do that FreeBSD can't. So why is there this perception that Linux is suitable for a workstation but FreeBSD isn't?
KDE, GNOME, Xmms, StarOffice, Java, Mozilla, Wine, etc., etc. I'm using FreeBSD as my desktop at home and my workstation at work. I couldn't be happier.
Yes, give FreeBSD a try. But don't go in expecting it to be just another Linux distro, because it's not. It's a real Unix in all but name. If you read the manual you shouldn't have too many problems.
What are the differences? Well that depends. What specific Linux distro are you comparing it to? All the Linux distros are different, so you can't really compare it to Linux as a whole, because that's just the kernel. Some distros don't even use glibc.
Installation is similar to Slackware and Debian. You won't get a fancy GUI that routinely misdetects your video card. It's very straight forward, sensible, and chock full of help.
Administration is uses sysinstall, which happens to lead a double life as the installer. No need to learn two programs when one will do. Similar to YaST in that regard. But you can also edit everything by hand in vi, and sysinstall won't undo you changes. You won't have a SysV style init scripts, but BSD (duh!) style scripts instead. I prefer the latter as it's easier to learn and understand. Everything in the base system is configured in one file, rc.conf. Apache, Sendmail, etc., still have their own configuration files though.
Installing software is similar to Debian and Gentoo. There are precompiled packages available, but the standard way is to use ports, which automatically fetches source, builds and installs. Using the cvsup and portupgrade utilities, keeping your system up to date is simplicity.
The GNU utilities aren't standard, so if you learned Unix the GNU way you may be thrown for a loop now and then. But if you learned Unix the Unix way, then you'll feel right at home. sh and tcsh are the standard shells, but just install bash if that's what you want. I prefer bash at the command prompt, but I write my scripts for plain vanilla sh.
"Professionalism" is only concerned with looks.
What a load of horse apples! I can see that you don't like your boss. So why don't you quit your job and move on?
Professionalism is about acting like a professional instead of an amateur. You can still be an amateur, just don't act like one.
It works great for you, and it works great for me. But there's a whole boatload of people out there will problems. This arguing over with VM to implement in the "stable" branch is ludicrous. You simply don't change the VM architecture in a stable release. You just don't.
stable == unchanging
unstable == changing
The only new additions going into the stable branch should be drivers and bug fixes. Even a cursory glance at the 2.4 Changlog is proof of it's instability.
If you want less slop, stick with a distribution kernel.
Um, pardon me, but 2.4 is the stable production kernel. Therein lies the crux of the problem.
I agree. The Linux kernel has reached a critical mass of sorts. It's time to Linus to give up the micromanagement of the project and start delegating. He is a human being after all, and he can't be expected to be an expert in everything. So let him find those experts and give them the reins over their area of expertise. No other project of this size has this level of control by a single person. Even Theo delegates.
I have never written any software, webpages, etc... to exclude a subset of my potential users.
Nor have I. Although I have been sorely tempted to. That temptation usually arises immediately after trying to view a webpage in Mozilla or Konqueror, only to be informed that I am not using the webmaster's preferred browser (typically some version of IE released last week).
Every OS distribution I've seen that includes the Linux kernel is a GNU System, because it incorporates pretty much all of the software that resulted from Project GNU
The GNU System is an operating system. There can be no mistake about this. Just read the initial GNU announcement and hear it from RMS' own words. Repeat, The GNU System is an operating system. Got that?
The operating system that comes with Slackware, SuSE, Gentoo, Redhat, etc., is The Linux OS. It consists of the Linux kernel, init and some infrastructure. Nothing else is part of the operating system. No OS components of The GNU System are used in those distros (although Debian does indeed make a genuine GNU System with the Hurd kernel, Debian GNU/Linux is not it).
The problem comes about because people play fast and loose with the definition of "operating system." I attribute this lax definition in part to Microsoft, who continues to insist despite court rulings that Windows95 and successors are operating systems, when in fact the OS that those systems run on is *DOS*. With such sloppy definitions, it's no wonder that even the normally precise Unix users get attacks of muddled thinking.
I see hundreds of stories on Slashdot and Linuxtoday that talk about the Linux desktop. Linux has no desktop! We are all intelligent enough to know that KDE is not part of the operating system, and neither is GNOME. So why do we insist that Emacs, gcc, bash and gzip are parts of an operating system?
In large part because RMS himself is confused. From the GNU Initial Announcement: "After this we will add a text formatter, a YACC, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other things." I'm sorry, but Empire is not a part of an operating system! The next sentence though clears things up. Too bad RMS forgot he wrote it: "We hope to supply, eventually, everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system." Hah! Along with the operating system, GNU is going to supply non-OS things that normally ship with operating systems. Notice the word "with". He didn't say "as". Even he wasn't so muddleheaded then as to think bison was part of an OS. Window systems normally ship with Notepad and Internet Explorer. But neither of those is part of the DOS or NT operating systems. Likewise, just because GNU wrote or obtained emacs, bison, bash and tar does not mean that those items are a part of The GNU System OS.
I have a friend who builds packing machinery. They are used by many manufacturers in their factories. Yet his company, Dover, does not insist that a certain factory be called "Dover/Kelloggs". As far as I know, the Dover president has never had a conniption fit when the president of Kellogs failed to use the words "Dover/Kelloggs Rice Krispies", even though Rice Krispies are made using Dover machinery. Ditto for Linux. The presence of GNU tools in a distro does not mean you have to call the OS or the distro "GNU".
Ideas, concepts, and whatever else is included in those classes might as well be written for Microsoft, for free.
Yeah, so what? I mean seriously, so what?
Just do Microsoft a favour and virtually work for them for free while you're at it!
Since I don't have to pay to get Mono, Miguel is working for me for free. I like that. It's cool. I don't have to pay Miguel a damn thing to get Mono. So if Miguel is working for me for free, why can't he work for Bill Gates for free at the same time?
Or is Free Software not the issue here, and you could care less what the software is as long as someone you don't like gets screwed?
...or can be made non-Free at any
moment.
Hah! Hah! Hah! You're so full of it the roto-rooter man is jealous.
Let's say I have an MIT-X11 program sitting on my ftp site. How, just how, can anyone make it non-free? They could of course download their own copy, build it, and distribute the resulting binary source-less. But that non-free binary will be on their ftp site, not mine. My copy is still 100% free.
You know, if you were correct, Bill Gates could stop Linux in its tracks in a heartbeat. All he would have to do is relicense XFree86 under a proprietary license, and suddenly it's no longer free. You have have to pay royalties to Microsoft to use any GUI on Linux. But guess what? That's not the way the world works. Bill Gates could do all sorts of evil and heinous things to his *copy* of XFree86, but his filthy hands will never touch my copy, your copy, or the copy at ftp.xfree86.org.
Frankly, if someone wants to use a non-free binary instead of my free binary that comes with source code, that's *their* decision.
You, along with all other GNU zealots, need to get a proper English dictionary. Besides looking up the term "operating system", you also need to look up the word "zealotry."
good luck getting your kernel compiled with Perl!
Duh! A compiler is not an operating system. Neither is it a component of an operating system. A compiler is an application that runs on *top* of an operating system. As such, it is no more vital to the -operation- of LinuxOS than than any other application. That the LinuxOS was designed to only build with one particular compiler is irrelevant. You don't name your products after the tools used to make them.
A Linux OS without any GNU OS stuff is simplicity to create. But a tool is not a component of an operating system. Yes, it's going to be hard running LinuxOS without any of the GNU *tools*, but running one without GNU OS Components is trivial.
Yep, cvsup is the way to go. Unfortunately I can't do it at work because of the really lame firewall that blocks everything but http and ftp. But I could still do an upgrade install with the boot floppies and passive ftp.
'grats! *BSD is so obviously alive that even /dot jumps the gun in its excitement.
ALIVE and THRIVING!
...because Linux already has a solid toolchain of its own.
I see the monopolists are out in force today. A language standard like ISO Standard C++ is a Good Thing. A single compiler that becomes a standard is a Bad Thing. When there is no room in Unix for an additional compiler, the end is near.
If Borland C++ (the stand-alone compiler) won't be free then there probably won't be many users. It won't be shipped with your Redhat Subscription Service. But it will still have a place, namely with those that think choice is the first attribute of freedom. And if it is free, then expect it to be widely used.
Gcc will finally have competition. It might actualy spur GNU into action to improve their compiler. Most of you guys here are too new to remember the history of gcc. Only a few years ago gcc *sucked* at C++. The unwritten by very official stance policy of GNU was that C++ sucked so don't bother. There was little standards conformance. But someone in the GNU crowd did have a clue, and forked the compiler. Before you knew it, egcs was being used more than gcc. Eventually the two merged back together, but I hope GNU learned its lesson.
I thought the goal was to produce the best, most powerful tool.
The goal is to produce a usable and intuitive interface. The "intuitive" part has proven to be quite elusive, even for the Mac, but the "usable" part is not. I don't care how powerful your tool is, if it isn't usable, you will be the only one using it.
Windows didn't have a desktop when CDE was created. All it had were icon groups and blank areas on the screen. They may have been influenced by earlier versions of OS/2, but I see no influence from Windows.
KDE and GNOME are *not* imitating Windows. They are imitating what works. It just so happens that Microsoft isn't staffed by idiots, so they tend to imitate what works as well.
The first time I saw KDE (1.0) I thought "wow, it's my old OS/2 desktop!" You see, contrary to popular belief and the tripe they feed you in the press, Microsoft did not invent the GUI or the desktop. Xerox PARC did. It was copied by Apple Lisa then Apple Macintosh. OS/2 Warp had that style of desktop before Windows did. But Microsoft saw that the Mac and OS/2 Warp were *usable* interfaces and got worried. So they made a radical design change with the Win95 desktop.
It's a pain in the butt creating a truly original interface. A major pain the arse. It's easy to come up with a concept, but making it usable is the hard part. I am glad that KDE and GNOME didn't decide to join the radical fringe and try to shove a new metaphor down people's throats. They stuck with what worked. The "computer as desktop" metaphor may not be the best metaphor, but it does work and people are used to it.
If you don't like the default setup of KDE or GNOME, you can change it. Try that with Windows. If you don't like the main menu accessible from the panel, change it and make it a root menu. If you don't like the taskbar in the panel, make it a separate taskbar or use KasBar. Get rid of the panel entirely if you wish. If you don't like the file manager to be a plain window with icons representing files, then change it. Add a sidebar or/or shell to it. Use text view mode. Use a norton commander clone mode. Or use a different file manager completely. If you want menus to be on the top like in the Mac, just do it.
This is the truly original interface that KDE and GNOME give you (original for Windows users, but not for Unix users): you are in complete control of your desktop. You get to decide how it will look, feel and work.
There would obviously need to be an US plugin available to find decent US brewpubs. But without a quality assuring organization like CAMRA, it might lead us to one of those trendy shits like Los Gatos Brewery, and not to where the the REAL ale is served, like Faultline, Stoddard's or Seabright. Heck, with the right plugin, it might even beep to let you know that the Anchor tour is starting...
1) Closed Source and Closed Minds. nVidia is the most secretive video card manufacturer there is. You can't get specs, you can't get help, and you get sued if you reverse engineer. If nVidia decides not to "care" anymore for Linux then you're stuck with XFree86-4.1 for the rest of your card's life.
With a Matrox or ATI card I don't have to worry about what Matrox or ATI does. The drivers are a *part* of XFree86. I don't have to hunt down new drivers everytime I upgrade X. I can use their cards on both Linux or FreeBSD. Of course Matrox and ATI aren't the most open of companies, but compared to nVidia they're radical philanthropists.
2) 2D support needed. I don't know what universe you live in, but the number of Linux programs that need the 3D support that only nVidia can provide can be counted on zero hands. I'm not a game player. I have a life. I use Linux/FreeBSD to get stuff *done*. My OS is a productivity tool. That means I care about 2D graphics. And nVidia can't even come close to Matrox or ATI in terms of 2D.
If all you do is play games, just stick with Windows. I'm serious. Don't give me that crap that you have to have Free Software for your OS. We know better than that. You want Unfree nVidia to run your Unfree games designed for an Unfree platform. So just go Unfree all the way. We'll both be happier.
In the meantime I'm perfectly content with 2D Konqueror, XEmacs, Xmms, Dia, Gimp, KOffice, Staroffice, gcc, Mozilla, Windowmaker, etc. The games I play when I do play games are CivIII, Simcity3k, and MystIII, none of which require or would gain from a 3D video card.
Caldera's community is not the slashdot crowd, but corporate purchasing departments. To them, Caldera must seem like a radical anarchist giving away the farm.
Besides, this isn't the first Free Software they've released that they didn't have to, and I suspect it won't be the last.
The Linux community needs to stop pushing nVidia. I don't know why they do, but they do. You see the lists and boards choked with newbies trying to get their cards to work, yet the GeForce still seems to be the recommended card fo Linux. Huh?
The "Linux guy" where I bought my Matrox G450 didn't want to sell it to me. He insisted I buy an nVidia instead because it was better supported under Linux. I had to walk away and get another salesperson who would sell me what I asked for. I've had Linux guys tell me I should take back my G450 because nVidia was better. I've seen posts on boards where some guy wants to know what the best card is and gets a dozen replies favoring nVidia.