I was wrong. Seriously wrong. The sound you hear is me gagging on my words...
I always thought Mozilla was Open Source. I was wrong. How could I ever have been so stupid. There is no source code for mozilla-1.4! This is not Open Source. This is not Free Software.
Even stranger, they say to stay tuned for further releases by volunteers. But there is no source code for volunteers to build volunteer releases with! Aaagh!
Off to log a major serious critical bug with the project...
"MozillaZine is reporting that Mozilla 1.4 has been released for Windows, Mac OS and Linux.
What the fsck! Are the editors even awake! Come one guys, read the damn article! There is nothing in the article that says it's released for those systems, especially not the implication that it's released JUST for those systems. Mozilla 1.4 has been released for all platforms!
The systems that Mozilla 1.4 work on are: Linux (all architectures), GNU/HURD, IRIX, Tru4, BSD/OS, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Windows, OSX, OS/2, BeOS. There are probably others systems as well...
Then you couldn't use the patents in such Free Software as Apache, XFree86, Python, much of KDE, etc. And if the patent laywers were anal enough, they wouldn't let it be used in in the Linux kernel either, because with its exception it's no longer 100% pure GPL.
The fact that Linux is always an "alternative" to Windows is in my opinion, just furthering the saying that "Linux is for people that hate Windows"
There are lots of reason why people use Linux, and hating Windows is only one of them, even if it happens to be the most popular.
Every OS has its advocacy group that loudly proclaims their hatred of everything else. "Amiga if for those that hate PC's, Macintosh is for those that love 68000..."
LiGNuX was Richard Stallman's first name for Linux. After universal and noisy disgust over the name, even from his own FSF cohorts, he changed his preferred name to GNU/Linux.
Thus, you can still pronounce the OS as "leenucks" while using a politically correct spelling.
Thus Debian can be viewed as essentially a distribution of the GNU OS
Actually, as any who has used more than one distro can tell you, Debian is best viewed as essentially a distribution of the Debian distribution.
If it were really "The GNU System with the Linux kernel", then there would be no point of Debian at all, since a shell script to excise HURD and drop in linux would be all that's required.
Of course *WE* shouldn't do that! I wouldn't feel right about handcuffng a Gnome developer. That's what government is for: so we can have someone else do the dirty work while we feel all smug about ourselves for our civic mindedness.
If there's a problem with too many UNIX desktops, then we need a law!
p.s. The above post is not to be taken seriously. Come to think of it, nothing on Slashdot should be taken seriously.
Funny, every Free UNIX system with package management has automatic nightly updates... but not necessarily by default.
Find a good ftp site for your system and write your own update script.
No, I'm not being elitist in telling you to do stuff yourself. I'm merely pointing out the major benefit of Free UNIX: you are in charge of your own system. Stop relying on Redhat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc., to administer your system for you. Be your own master.
Re:No Overtime No Vacation
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Funny, GE is Siemens biggest competitor along with Philips. The only reason I haven't quit and gone to a competitor is because the competitors are just as bad. There's a few small startup competitors for this particular division, but their business plans are merely to be bought out by the big three.
Re:No Overtime No Vacation
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Five years ago I thought the Dilbert comic strip was funny. Five years ago I would have that your post amusingly cynical. But that was five years ago. Today I find Dilbert depressing and your post all too true.
Five years ago I started working for the classic American tech firm. Started by an engineer, invented its field, remained at %50+ marketshare in the field for over fifteen years, and universally loved by the customer. We were the innovators. Then we got bought out by a competitor when the founder decided to retire.
So I now work for Siemens. A European company. I miss the good old days of greedy American capitalism. We're still a tech firm, but we're run by the marketing department who is making technical engineering decisions. A VP made the official statement that the company will no longer innovate, but instead repackage old products forever. The CEO routinely yells at us oldtimer non-Siemens types at every quarterly meeting. "You guys just don't know how to cooperate!" After two rounds of layoffs he sees that our morale still hasn't improved, so we are now told to train our own replacements in their new engineering center in Bangalore India.
Everything I know about evil corporations I learned from the Europeans.
Second, it's the GPL and only the GPL that is protecting everything from SCO.
Nonsense. It is the open and free nature of Linux is protecting the distros from SCO, not the specific license. Any license that grants non-revocable permission to freely use, modify and copy Linux would have the same effect once SCO distributed their own copy.
This case isn't about SCO "grabbing" Linux and making it their own. It's about SCO not wanting others to "grab" what they wrongly feel is theirs. But if they distribute Linux under an Open/Free license, anyone can legally "grab" it.
RMS sort of reminds me of the man who decries ownership of land, and goes on a lifelong quest to abolish the world of real estate. So he buys title to a parcel of land and starts a commune on it.
The GPL is a license. It is a license based upon copyright. Copyright is an affirmation of ownership. Software that is owned is defined by the dictionary as "proprietary".
The problem with RMS is that he uses the terms "operating system" and "system" interchangeably, depending on what best makes his point at the moment. But the system as a whole is NOT the operating system.
Think of an automobile. The system as a whole is the automobile. The operating system is the engine. The chassis is not the engine. The body is not the engine. The Bose subwoofers behind the back seat are not the engine. In most distros the chassis and the axles are from GNU, the body is X11R6, the seats and dash are either Gnome or KDE at the user's whim, the radiator is a direct descendent of 44BSD, etc. Most of the nuts, bolts and gaskets are from the distro's integration team. It most certainly is NOT "The GNU Automobile".
As I said earlier, bash has very good bourne compatibility. Also the differences between traditional bourne and POSIX sh are minimal.
The problem is that bash running as/bin/sh still recognizes bash extensions. This can make life very difficult in a heterogenous environment. A shell script that says #!/bin/sh should always behave as a bourne shell script, and never as a bash script.
My day job is working on a complex embedded system. My progenitors wrote a whole bunch of bash scripts marked as #!/bin/sh. Everything worked fine as long as bash was linked to/bin/sh. But you're always looking for speed and resources in an embedded environment, so I tried saving about 300k by using a minimal bourne shell (ash). I expected some porting problems, but I would never have guessed that EVERY script had a problem.
Here's one example. HOSTNAME. This is a bash extension. It's a damned useful extension, but an extension nonetheless. And bash still recognizes it in POSIX mode. Something like this is way too easy to overlook when you're trying to write a compatible script. All bash scripts should be marked as bash scripts.
Not really./bin/sh is vanilla bourne shell under NetBSD and OSX, but under GNU and Linux it's all too often a symlink to bash. Although bash has very good bourne compatibility, and squeaks past the POSIX shell requirements, it's managed to cause numerous headaches for me when I specify/bin/sh only to get/bin/bash instead./bin/sh should always be a plain boring bourne shell, and not a link to bash, ksh or another "big" shell./bin/sh is not going to be used by the enduser, it's going to be used by scripts.
Slashdot Mirror
I was wrong. Seriously wrong. The sound you hear is me gagging on my words...
I always thought Mozilla was Open Source. I was wrong. How could I ever have been so stupid. There is no source code for mozilla-1.4! This is not Open Source. This is not Free Software.
Even stranger, they say to stay tuned for further releases by volunteers. But there is no source code for volunteers to build volunteer releases with! Aaagh!
Off to log a major serious critical bug with the project...
Yeah yeah yeah. I was under the stupid assumption that Mozilla was open source, and thus you could build it for any damn platform you liked.
I was wrong. There is no source code for any Mozilla later than 1.4b.
"MozillaZine is reporting that Mozilla 1.4 has been released for Windows, Mac OS and Linux.
What the fsck! Are the editors even awake! Come one guys, read the damn article! There is nothing in the article that says it's released for those systems, especially not the implication that it's released JUST for those systems. Mozilla 1.4 has been released for all platforms!
The systems that Mozilla 1.4 work on are: Linux (all architectures), GNU/HURD, IRIX, Tru4, BSD/OS, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Windows, OSX, OS/2, BeOS. There are probably others systems as well...
Why don't they just let Redhat die in peace and tell people to go use Mandrake? It doesn't have anything of value.
Answer: because you're not king of the world, and until you are there's no law saying they can't.
That's funny, I'm running Netscape 7.0 under Solaris 8 right now. No, it's not NS 7.1, because it just got released today. Duh!
Then you couldn't use the patents in such Free Software as Apache, XFree86, Python, much of KDE, etc. And if the patent laywers were anal enough, they wouldn't let it be used in in the Linux kernel either, because with its exception it's no longer 100% pure GPL.
The fact that Linux is always an "alternative" to Windows is in my opinion, just furthering the saying that "Linux is for people that hate Windows"
There are lots of reason why people use Linux, and hating Windows is only one of them, even if it happens to be the most popular.
Every OS has its advocacy group that loudly proclaims their hatred of everything else. "Amiga if for those that hate PC's, Macintosh is for those that love 68000..."
LiGNuX was Richard Stallman's first name for Linux. After universal and noisy disgust over the name, even from his own FSF cohorts, he changed his preferred name to GNU/Linux.
Thus, you can still pronounce the OS as "leenucks" while using a politically correct spelling.
Thus Debian can be viewed as essentially a distribution of the GNU OS
Actually, as any who has used more than one distro can tell you, Debian is best viewed as essentially a distribution of the Debian distribution.
If it were really "The GNU System with the Linux kernel", then there would be no point of Debian at all, since a shell script to excise HURD and drop in linux would be all that's required.
Of course *WE* shouldn't do that! I wouldn't feel right about handcuffng a Gnome developer. That's what government is for: so we can have someone else do the dirty work while we feel all smug about ourselves for our civic mindedness.
If there's a problem with too many UNIX desktops, then we need a law!
p.s. The above post is not to be taken seriously. Come to think of it, nothing on Slashdot should be taken seriously.
Funny, every Free UNIX system with package management has automatic nightly updates... but not necessarily by default.
Find a good ftp site for your system and write your own update script.
No, I'm not being elitist in telling you to do stuff yourself. I'm merely pointing out the major benefit of Free UNIX: you are in charge of your own system. Stop relying on Redhat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc., to administer your system for you. Be your own master.
Funny, GE is Siemens biggest competitor along with Philips. The only reason I haven't quit and gone to a competitor is because the competitors are just as bad. There's a few small startup competitors for this particular division, but their business plans are merely to be bought out by the big three.
Five years ago I thought the Dilbert comic strip was funny. Five years ago I would have that your post amusingly cynical. But that was five years ago. Today I find Dilbert depressing and your post all too true.
Five years ago I started working for the classic American tech firm. Started by an engineer, invented its field, remained at %50+ marketshare in the field for over fifteen years, and universally loved by the customer. We were the innovators. Then we got bought out by a competitor when the founder decided to retire.
So I now work for Siemens. A European company. I miss the good old days of greedy American capitalism. We're still a tech firm, but we're run by the marketing department who is making technical engineering decisions. A VP made the official statement that the company will no longer innovate, but instead repackage old products forever. The CEO routinely yells at us oldtimer non-Siemens types at every quarterly meeting. "You guys just don't know how to cooperate!" After two rounds of layoffs he sees that our morale still hasn't improved, so we are now told to train our own replacements in their new engineering center in Bangalore India.
Everything I know about evil corporations I learned from the Europeans.
Yeah, it's not like Windows has a monopoly on ethical users...
CTO: Here's this article about a spammer who uses Outlook to send out 10,000,000 viagra messages a day.
CIO: Communist bastards! That's it then, no more Windows in this company!
it's advocating homogeneous networks. Which is sound advice.
Down with those homos! Heterogeny forever!
No, it's whatever the manufacturer decides to call it. Like Taurus, Thunderbird, Metro or RX7.
Of course, the community will still call it whatever they call it.
"Hey dude, heard you got a new car!"
"Yeah, I got a 440 V8"
"You can't call a car by its engine!"
"You're right, I should be ashamed of myself. It's really a GNU/440 GNU/V8."
"That's better..."
So why does the City of Berkeley use Microsoft instead of BSD?
Let's all say it together: copyright violation is not stealing. It's just copyright violation.
So then all this talk about using the GPL so that evil corporations can't steal your hard work is just inane babble?
Second, it's the GPL and only the GPL that is protecting everything from SCO.
Nonsense. It is the open and free nature of Linux is protecting the distros from SCO, not the specific license. Any license that grants non-revocable permission to freely use, modify and copy Linux would have the same effect once SCO distributed their own copy.
This case isn't about SCO "grabbing" Linux and making it their own. It's about SCO not wanting others to "grab" what they wrongly feel is theirs. But if they distribute Linux under an Open/Free license, anyone can legally "grab" it.
RMS sort of reminds me of the man who decries ownership of land, and goes on a lifelong quest to abolish the world of real estate. So he buys title to a parcel of land and starts a commune on it.
The GPL is a license. It is a license based upon copyright. Copyright is an affirmation of ownership. Software that is owned is defined by the dictionary as "proprietary".
The problem with RMS is that he uses the terms "operating system" and "system" interchangeably, depending on what best makes his point at the moment. But the system as a whole is NOT the operating system.
Think of an automobile. The system as a whole is the automobile. The operating system is the engine. The chassis is not the engine. The body is not the engine. The Bose subwoofers behind the back seat are not the engine. In most distros the chassis and the axles are from GNU, the body is X11R6, the seats and dash are either Gnome or KDE at the user's whim, the radiator is a direct descendent of 44BSD, etc. Most of the nuts, bolts and gaskets are from the distro's integration team. It most certainly is NOT "The GNU Automobile".
Most of the Linux stuff consists of small packages tightly bound to the kernel
You don't for one second expect me to believe that the file system is an insigificant and trivial part of the OS do you?
As I said earlier, bash has very good bourne compatibility. Also the differences between traditional bourne and POSIX sh are minimal.
/bin/sh still recognizes bash extensions. This can make life very difficult in a heterogenous environment. A shell script that says #!/bin/sh should always behave as a bourne shell script, and never as a bash script.
/bin/sh. But you're always looking for speed and resources in an embedded environment, so I tried saving about 300k by using a minimal bourne shell (ash). I expected some porting problems, but I would never have guessed that EVERY script had a problem.
The problem is that bash running as
My day job is working on a complex embedded system. My progenitors wrote a whole bunch of bash scripts marked as #!/bin/sh. Everything worked fine as long as bash was linked to
Here's one example. HOSTNAME. This is a bash extension. It's a damned useful extension, but an extension nonetheless. And bash still recognizes it in POSIX mode. Something like this is way too easy to overlook when you're trying to write a compatible script. All bash scripts should be marked as bash scripts.
This "butterfly" keyboard was the closest anyone has ever come to producing a desktop-type experience in a notebook package
The 17" PowerBook...
/bin/sh is /bin/sh wether in NetBSD, OS X or GNU.
/bin/sh is vanilla bourne shell under NetBSD and OSX, but under GNU and Linux it's all too often a symlink to bash. Although bash has very good bourne compatibility, and squeaks past the POSIX shell requirements, it's managed to cause numerous headaches for me when I specify /bin/sh only to get /bin/bash instead. /bin/sh should always be a plain boring bourne shell, and not a link to bash, ksh or another "big" shell. /bin/sh is not going to be used by the enduser, it's going to be used by scripts.
Not really.