I agree that a killer app (or more likely several of them) will cause OS migration. The problem is that no ISV is going to write or maintain a whole OS just to have a non-MS platform for their application. Even if they did settle on a *BSD for some reason, the software could be easily ported to Linux with no danger of GPL infection-- which is what I was primarily responding to.
I agree that Apple hardware is dang good and that they are not the outright bastards that Microsoft are. But to advise people to just go out and buy a whole new machine is ludicrous. And to top off your zealousness with nonsense like "SIGNIFICANTLY" is just plain silly. It's good stuff, but it isn't a clear winner-- especially if it's "fairly comparably priced for comparable performance". That's even up under most cost-benefit analyses methodologies except blind obedience. I've used Mac since 1988, I still use one everyday. But I think your lack of objectivity is startling.
Getting a Mac isn't a magic pill to cure your Microsoft sickness... the damn things come pre-loaded with MS Internet software. And I'm guessing that the first thing you'll want to do is either snap up a copy of Connectix Virtual PC (which includes a licensed copy of Windows) or a copy of Office for Mac. That is, unless you want to spend your time using that dog of a browser Netscape and the woefully underpowered Claris/AppleWorks stuff. Or you only use your Mac for graphics. Yeah, you can list out your alternative software (much of it expensive, all of it proprietary), but the fact is that most computer users already have hardware, and we can't simply go out and buy even the cheapest iMac to replace it.
Besides, until a couple of months ago, Mac OS was a steaming pile (I could crash my machine by looking at it funny, I swear)-- and they were constantly getting a few dollars out of users with their "upgrades", like the one where they installed a banner ad engine called Sherlock. And the software included with the base system was trash... I mean, how was I supposed to use all that serious computer power with no C compiler or a decent Perl install?
Using Linux as an OS does not decimate any commercial viability of any software, except for two things: there are very few Linux machines out there (small market), a large segment of the current Linux market prefers Free Software-- which causes those looking at the Linux market to wonder if they will find any buyers, since people are not used to buying Linux software. But neither of these are inherent in Linux, nor are they static.
Oracle releases products for Linux now-- so that part of your original post is already shown to be bunk. And there is nothing in the GPL or the LGPL which prevents software firms from developing software for Linux and retaining control over their software. It merely prevents software that is GPL from being used in proprietary solutions.
The big software firms (other than Microsoft) are not now, nor will they ever team up in any meaningful way to support a *BSD over Linux (notwithstanding that code ported to BSD is likely to be easily ported to Linux). They, none of them, are in the Operating System business, and even if they write a killer app that is only available for their new OS, no user will ever feel inclined to switch simply to get that one app. Besides, that would be silly, to have to reinvent all the great GPL software that is currently under development, like the KDE or GNOME stuff.
If anyone is going to drive the adoption of a new OS it will be hardware vendors responding to natural shifts in the marketplace. Linux has a momentum and is being noticed by these companies, so depending on how well the inertia can maintain itself now that the tech-bubble has popped, we should know in the next year or two whether there will be a real hegemony in the OS arena, or whether the public will have to rely on the courts to keep Microsoft's antics in line.
Yes, just go out and spend another $1500 on hardware. It's that simple!
So congratulations, you'll be MS free (maybe). But you will still have a completely freedom impaired machine, so that when Adobe and Apple decide they want in on the BSA action, you can be a target again.
Good to know that they have made available the features necessary to make interoperability happen available to the public. And if the new versions of Windows make it easier to cut and paste from app to app, well good for them, I guess. That's certainly an improvement over the system I've got.
I don't think I'm imagining a new conspiracy, I think I'm just seeing vapor trails of an older one.
Um, Debian already allows for distribution of non-DFSG-compliant (i.e. "non-free") software in a tree called "non-free". They also have a "contrib" section. I see that Pine is available, but pico is not (in the stable release anyway). Probably because if you have nano, you have a better-than-pico pico.
Notwithstanding the fact that it may not be that lucrative to produce alternative versions of their software, drivers, etc, I totally concur. They have no right to complain if they aren't going to work with those of us who would like to use their products without having to provide a Windows platform to do so. I, for one, am tired of device manufacturers boosting the monopoly by restricting their wares to a single platform.
So my question is, does the cut and paste still work if you go from Netscape to Word? How about Opera to Word? How about from WordPerfect to Word?
Are the system calls that perform this cut and paste even available to non-MS developers? If I want to, can I write my web browser so that it does this correctly? And most importantly, can I do it without paying MS a whole boat load of money to license that piece of the library? And what's to stop them from completely breaking this in the next "upgrade"? They wouldn't do that, would they?
FWIW, the cut and paste functionality between browser and word processor works just as well in KDE (between Konqueror and KWord) as it did for me on my corporate Windows desktop between Netscape and Word. To me, this is just another indication that the main success of Windows and Office (together, not separate) is that they present a homogenous interface and application space. This precludes other software manufacturers from even having a realistic chance to compete in any arena where MS has decided it should dominate.
Forget pronouns, I'd say that prepositional phrase "about AI" was specific enough.:)
I agree with the sentiment though, this robot is a very small machine, it _does not_ think anything like a human (the dubious quality of some human thought notwithstanding).
Actually, I doubt that most of the "corporate world" gives a rip about the openness of the source of their software. Most large companies do not sell software. Most large companies are simply consumers of software. At this point, I'd say the only reason that there is a lot of Microsoft software out there is that MS got in early, did a good job, and no one really wants to change.
Major platform changes in either the server room or at the end user level are painful, expensive, and slow. They are always associated with a loss of functionality of one thing or another. This has nothing to do with the "business model" of the people writing the software. AFAIK, the Fortune 100 corporation where I work (but am not speaking on behalf of) would be glad to switch to Linux if we could save $30 million in seat licenses-- except that everyone would be wanting to run Excel and Powerpoint and MS Access or some similarly easy to use, but fairly powerful software-- and no software like that exists for Linux (it just doesn't, don't give me with Gnumeric, KPresenter, or MySQL). Not to mention that our $30 million in savings would probably be lost in training, preparation expense, and all the other hassle of changing platforms.
As for our real computers? Why would we put Linux on those when they typically come with manufacturer versions of Unix or VMS (and for whom software is not the business model, it's hardware sales and service contracts that earn their revenues).
FWIW, several participants on the mailing list seem to be willing to change the name, and the primary on the project took down the website and asked for references to KIllustrator to be removed from elsewhere. He certainly seems cowed by the money figure in question.
OTOH, I think he is within his rights to call the project KDE Illustrator (provided KDE is fine with that) since Illustrator is a common English word. But I'm not a lawyer and this is just (to me) common sense that Adobe cannot own the word "Illustrator" anymore than MS owns the word "Word" . However, perhaps we associate the word "Illustrator" with vector drawing software _because_ of Adobe's product, so this is too close for comfort under the circumstances. In keeping with the naming used on most of the other KOffice components, I'd just call it "KDraw".
Postal solicitations have at least same cost that spam has for me as a mail user. First of all, bulk mailing rates are lower than first class rates, but why don't they charge bulk mailers the first class rate and ensure a lower first class rate for everybody? You see, bulk mail discounts result in higher first class rates, which affects me every time I want to send a letter since I do not use bulk mail. Certainly open relays do not increase the rate I pay my ISP for email services any more than bulk mail rates increase first class rates for regular mail.
Then there is the question of dealing with the solicitations. Dealing with SPAM is very simple, I download it as part of my normal email (I don't believe that this is a significant incremental expense to me-- not even your example of 1 cent). I hit the "d" key or click the little icon with the page with a red X on it. Flush. In real life I have to make sure the mail doesn't contain something sensitive-- if it does I must destroy the physical artifact before disposal. Which brings up disposal: am I supposed to recycle that? Can I recycle it? Do I not pay quite a sum each month to the municipality where I live for trash removal and recycling serivces? I suppose I should make it clear that I am not interested in any offer and mail it back to the sender in the provided envelope so that they can dispose of it. This is a time consuming process, my time is valuable. I've got Natalie Portman pics to download from alt.binaries and Hot Grits that are getting cold.
Personally, it is my opinion that with a decent kill-file and a decent filter, SPAM on the internet is a non-problem-- and even without these it is far less inconvenient than real world solicitations. And we haven't even touched the "free" neighborhood newspapers or the little rolled up Xeroxes rubberbanded to the doorknob that end up all over the yard, forcing me to collect the trash that advertisers have deposited on my property.
The error shown appears to be the result of not allowing the MySQL server to accept sufficient connections for its current load-- this is a problem with any server. If you allow infinite connections, the machine will crawl when the load goes up and none of the requests will work. Other than adding bandwidth and/or processing power, the usual solution is to not attract the entire Slashdot readership to your servers at once.
In this case the HTTP server at least kept up longer than the MySQL server (as I type this the HTTP server is not responding either). The reason you probably see more MySQL error messages of that type is that MySQL seems to be used by everyone and their dog for "quick and easy" database backends for web pages (it has a reputation for being speedier since it doesn't support a lot of the more complex features that something like postgreSQL has). This everyone-and-their-dog user group appears to be less sophisticated when it comes to trapping errors. Good web design would have the server at tiles.ice.org spit out a static page for this that was a little more user-friendly and told us all a lot less about their internal server architecture.
I think I am into this steganographic approach to secure password storage in either hard form or on a Palm. I know it's security through obscurity, but it's a lot better than having a memo file with them all written in it-- those "private" records are certainly not private to even mid-level hackers.
Hmmm. I could have gotten you a really nice laptop that didn't have Windows on it, ever. This weird little shop in California... they even have a website: www.apple.com. I hear there is a Linux distribution that installs on these machines, too.
Quit whining. Microsoft didn't just rob you or swindle you. You knowingly and with full awareness handed over money to them (indirectly). You had choices and you made one which was uncomfortable, but apparently less uncomfortable for you than buying a machine from Apple or buying a used machine with no OS expense or looking a little harder for a Linux laptop or simply doing without.
FWIW, I'm with you on this. MS bashing is getting old. As if it isn't bad enough how often one is required by an employer to deal with their software at the office, then we have these endless "My OS can beat up your OS" flamewars.
MS can bundle every piece of software they can buy into their Windows install and it probably still won't have as much stuff as what's bundled into Debian main or Red Hat 7.1. I mean, why shouldn't a user be able to get a single disc or set of discs with enough software to make the machine not just usable but VERY usable? Is it MS' fault if people are just too stupid to see that there may be alternatives?
Instead of frothing at the mouth we need to be patiently convincing our fellow citizens and computer users that there are better ways-- and PROVING it. It does not one bit of good to grandstand and stand on soapboxes unless we are showing that there is life outside Windows.
I bet that if you randomly pick 10 normal people from the main-street of your town and ask them what Mozilla is you'll get at least 9 nos
So? Mozilla is one of the worst browsers ever written-- if you can even call it a browser with all that other CRAP shoved in there. It's also a horrible example if you're looking for an Open Source success story, how is it after like two years they haven't gotten to a 1.0 stable release? Oh, maybe because they're too busy dinking around with the mailer, or whatever other irrelevant component they dreamed up to slap into their project.
For that matter, if you ask 10 people on the main street of town to describe what a computer operating system is, and to name three of them in common use at this time, my guess is that a lot more than 9 won't be able to answer you.
Except that the appeals for the 2600 case have yet to be decided. And it looks like there is plenty of far more serious stuff upon which to base the 2600 appeal-- like the constitutionality of the way the law was interpreted.
Not that any judges except Jackson himself are to blame. If he had acted a little more like a judge deciding a major case, and a little less like an instant celebrity, the decision may have stuck.
Thankfully they have not vacated his findings that they have used their monopoly power illegally, only that his remedy is to be reconsidered by another lower court.
There is nothing to say that the next lower court can decide on the same punishment, or something else entirely. At least that was my understanding from the clip I read at www.salon.com.
Oh well, back to borrowing CDS from the library and friends and ripping them to Ogg Vorbis. Plus I expect the more people get used to digital music and have access to CD writers, the more the shelves of used CD stores will swell with decent CDs.
How much easier to use and more colorful does it need to be than KDE2 already is? I mean, dang, that KDE2 is dang nice to look at. If the average dumbass can stand Windows, they should really like KDE2-- it's a lot prettier. How much easier does it get than having big square buttons along the bottom of the screen that open up your favorite applications with a single push?
So? Most libraries use the LGPL, don't they? I only know of one major library that is GPL: Qt... and if MS wanted to avoid the GPL for Qt it is very easy-- buy a commercial license from TrollTech.
The GPL is not limiting its effectiveness by preventing you from taking a Free library and building your proprietary code with it. That is an example of it being completely effective. It is the LGPL which limits the effectiveness of an otherwise GPL-ed library, for the distinct purpose of making sure that the library gets the widest possible use.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool... never thought to set the prompt (or even part of it) to the output of backticks.
I agree that a killer app (or more likely several of them) will cause OS migration. The problem is that no ISV is going to write or maintain a whole OS just to have a non-MS platform for their application. Even if they did settle on a *BSD for some reason, the software could be easily ported to Linux with no danger of GPL infection-- which is what I was primarily responding to.
I agree that Apple hardware is dang good and that they are not the outright bastards that Microsoft are. But to advise people to just go out and buy a whole new machine is ludicrous. And to top off your zealousness with nonsense like "SIGNIFICANTLY" is just plain silly. It's good stuff, but it isn't a clear winner-- especially if it's "fairly comparably priced for comparable performance". That's even up under most cost-benefit analyses methodologies except blind obedience. I've used Mac since 1988, I still use one everyday. But I think your lack of objectivity is startling.
Getting a Mac isn't a magic pill to cure your Microsoft sickness... the damn things come pre-loaded with MS Internet software. And I'm guessing that the first thing you'll want to do is either snap up a copy of Connectix Virtual PC (which includes a licensed copy of Windows) or a copy of Office for Mac. That is, unless you want to spend your time using that dog of a browser Netscape and the woefully underpowered Claris/AppleWorks stuff. Or you only use your Mac for graphics. Yeah, you can list out your alternative software (much of it expensive, all of it proprietary), but the fact is that most computer users already have hardware, and we can't simply go out and buy even the cheapest iMac to replace it.
Besides, until a couple of months ago, Mac OS was a steaming pile (I could crash my machine by looking at it funny, I swear)-- and they were constantly getting a few dollars out of users with their "upgrades", like the one where they installed a banner ad engine called Sherlock. And the software included with the base system was trash... I mean, how was I supposed to use all that serious computer power with no C compiler or a decent Perl install?
Using Linux as an OS does not decimate any commercial viability of any software, except for two things: there are very few Linux machines out there (small market), a large segment of the current Linux market prefers Free Software-- which causes those looking at the Linux market to wonder if they will find any buyers, since people are not used to buying Linux software. But neither of these are inherent in Linux, nor are they static.
Oracle releases products for Linux now-- so that part of your original post is already shown to be bunk. And there is nothing in the GPL or the LGPL which prevents software firms from developing software for Linux and retaining control over their software. It merely prevents software that is GPL from being used in proprietary solutions.
The big software firms (other than Microsoft) are not now, nor will they ever team up in any meaningful way to support a *BSD over Linux (notwithstanding that code ported to BSD is likely to be easily ported to Linux). They, none of them, are in the Operating System business, and even if they write a killer app that is only available for their new OS, no user will ever feel inclined to switch simply to get that one app. Besides, that would be silly, to have to reinvent all the great GPL software that is currently under development, like the KDE or GNOME stuff.
If anyone is going to drive the adoption of a new OS it will be hardware vendors responding to natural shifts in the marketplace. Linux has a momentum and is being noticed by these companies, so depending on how well the inertia can maintain itself now that the tech-bubble has popped, we should know in the next year or two whether there will be a real hegemony in the OS arena, or whether the public will have to rely on the courts to keep Microsoft's antics in line.
Yes, just go out and spend another $1500 on hardware. It's that simple!
So congratulations, you'll be MS free (maybe). But you will still have a completely freedom impaired machine, so that when Adobe and Apple decide they want in on the BSA action, you can be a target again.
Good to know that they have made available the features necessary to make interoperability happen available to the public. And if the new versions of Windows make it easier to cut and paste from app to app, well good for them, I guess. That's certainly an improvement over the system I've got.
I don't think I'm imagining a new conspiracy, I think I'm just seeing vapor trails of an older one.
Um, Debian already allows for distribution of non-DFSG-compliant (i.e. "non-free") software in a tree called "non-free". They also have a "contrib" section. I see that Pine is available, but pico is not (in the stable release anyway). Probably because if you have nano, you have a better-than-pico pico.
They're both full of it. :)
emacs is the real geek's email tool, isn't it?
And for us wanna-bes there's KMail, which is like Outlook without all the nasty security holes (well, and the PIM cruft).
Notwithstanding the fact that it may not be that lucrative to produce alternative versions of their software, drivers, etc, I totally concur. They have no right to complain if they aren't going to work with those of us who would like to use their products without having to provide a Windows platform to do so. I, for one, am tired of device manufacturers boosting the monopoly by restricting their wares to a single platform.
So my question is, does the cut and paste still work if you go from Netscape to Word? How about Opera to Word? How about from WordPerfect to Word?
Are the system calls that perform this cut and paste even available to non-MS developers? If I want to, can I write my web browser so that it does this correctly? And most importantly, can I do it without paying MS a whole boat load of money to license that piece of the library? And what's to stop them from completely breaking this in the next "upgrade"? They wouldn't do that, would they?
FWIW, the cut and paste functionality between browser and word processor works just as well in KDE (between Konqueror and KWord) as it did for me on my corporate Windows desktop between Netscape and Word. To me, this is just another indication that the main success of Windows and Office (together, not separate) is that they present a homogenous interface and application space. This precludes other software manufacturers from even having a realistic chance to compete in any arena where MS has decided it should dominate.
Forget pronouns, I'd say that prepositional phrase "about AI" was specific enough. :)
I agree with the sentiment though, this robot is a very small machine, it _does not_ think anything like a human (the dubious quality of some human thought notwithstanding).
Actually, I doubt that most of the "corporate world" gives a rip about the openness of the source of their software. Most large companies do not sell software. Most large companies are simply consumers of software. At this point, I'd say the only reason that there is a lot of Microsoft software out there is that MS got in early, did a good job, and no one really wants to change.
Major platform changes in either the server room or at the end user level are painful, expensive, and slow. They are always associated with a loss of functionality of one thing or another. This has nothing to do with the "business model" of the people writing the software. AFAIK, the Fortune 100 corporation where I work (but am not speaking on behalf of) would be glad to switch to Linux if we could save $30 million in seat licenses-- except that everyone would be wanting to run Excel and Powerpoint and MS Access or some similarly easy to use, but fairly powerful software-- and no software like that exists for Linux (it just doesn't, don't give me with Gnumeric, KPresenter, or MySQL). Not to mention that our $30 million in savings would probably be lost in training, preparation expense, and all the other hassle of changing platforms.
As for our real computers? Why would we put Linux on those when they typically come with manufacturer versions of Unix or VMS (and for whom software is not the business model, it's hardware sales and service contracts that earn their revenues).
FWIW, several participants on the mailing list seem to be willing to change the name, and the primary on the project took down the website and asked for references to KIllustrator to be removed from elsewhere. He certainly seems cowed by the money figure in question.
OTOH, I think he is within his rights to call the project KDE Illustrator (provided KDE is fine with that) since Illustrator is a common English word. But I'm not a lawyer and this is just (to me) common sense that Adobe cannot own the word "Illustrator" anymore than MS owns the word "Word" . However, perhaps we associate the word "Illustrator" with vector drawing software _because_ of Adobe's product, so this is too close for comfort under the circumstances. In keeping with the naming used on most of the other KOffice components, I'd just call it "KDraw".
Postal solicitations have at least same cost that spam has for me as a mail user. First of all, bulk mailing rates are lower than first class rates, but why don't they charge bulk mailers the first class rate and ensure a lower first class rate for everybody? You see, bulk mail discounts result in higher first class rates, which affects me every time I want to send a letter since I do not use bulk mail. Certainly open relays do not increase the rate I pay my ISP for email services any more than bulk mail rates increase first class rates for regular mail.
Then there is the question of dealing with the solicitations. Dealing with SPAM is very simple, I download it as part of my normal email (I don't believe that this is a significant incremental expense to me-- not even your example of 1 cent). I hit the "d" key or click the little icon with the page with a red X on it. Flush. In real life I have to make sure the mail doesn't contain something sensitive-- if it does I must destroy the physical artifact before disposal. Which brings up disposal: am I supposed to recycle that? Can I recycle it? Do I not pay quite a sum each month to the municipality where I live for trash removal and recycling serivces? I suppose I should make it clear that I am not interested in any offer and mail it back to the sender in the provided envelope so that they can dispose of it. This is a time consuming process, my time is valuable. I've got Natalie Portman pics to download from alt.binaries and Hot Grits that are getting cold.
Personally, it is my opinion that with a decent kill-file and a decent filter, SPAM on the internet is a non-problem-- and even without these it is far less inconvenient than real world solicitations. And we haven't even touched the "free" neighborhood newspapers or the little rolled up Xeroxes rubberbanded to the doorknob that end up all over the yard, forcing me to collect the trash that advertisers have deposited on my property.
The error shown appears to be the result of not allowing the MySQL server to accept sufficient connections for its current load-- this is a problem with any server. If you allow infinite connections, the machine will crawl when the load goes up and none of the requests will work. Other than adding bandwidth and/or processing power, the usual solution is to not attract the entire Slashdot readership to your servers at once.
In this case the HTTP server at least kept up longer than the MySQL server (as I type this the HTTP server is not responding either). The reason you probably see more MySQL error messages of that type is that MySQL seems to be used by everyone and their dog for "quick and easy" database backends for web pages (it has a reputation for being speedier since it doesn't support a lot of the more complex features that something like postgreSQL has). This everyone-and-their-dog user group appears to be less sophisticated when it comes to trapping errors. Good web design would have the server at tiles.ice.org spit out a static page for this that was a little more user-friendly and told us all a lot less about their internal server architecture.
I think I am into this steganographic approach to secure password storage in either hard form or on a Palm. I know it's security through obscurity, but it's a lot better than having a memo file with them all written in it-- those "private" records are certainly not private to even mid-level hackers.
Do you have some links to new reports of examples of this happening or are you just passing along some geeky urban legend?
Hmmm. I could have gotten you a really nice laptop that didn't have Windows on it, ever. This weird little shop in California... they even have a website: www.apple.com. I hear there is a Linux distribution that installs on these machines, too.
Quit whining. Microsoft didn't just rob you or swindle you. You knowingly and with full awareness handed over money to them (indirectly). You had choices and you made one which was uncomfortable, but apparently less uncomfortable for you than buying a machine from Apple or buying a used machine with no OS expense or looking a little harder for a Linux laptop or simply doing without.
FWIW, I'm with you on this. MS bashing is getting old. As if it isn't bad enough how often one is required by an employer to deal with their software at the office, then we have these endless "My OS can beat up your OS" flamewars.
MS can bundle every piece of software they can buy into their Windows install and it probably still won't have as much stuff as what's bundled into Debian main or Red Hat 7.1. I mean, why shouldn't a user be able to get a single disc or set of discs with enough software to make the machine not just usable but VERY usable? Is it MS' fault if people are just too stupid to see that there may be alternatives?
Instead of frothing at the mouth we need to be patiently convincing our fellow citizens and computer users that there are better ways-- and PROVING it. It does not one bit of good to grandstand and stand on soapboxes unless we are showing that there is life outside Windows.
I bet that if you randomly pick 10 normal people from the main-street of your town and ask them what Mozilla is you'll get at least 9 nos
So? Mozilla is one of the worst browsers ever written-- if you can even call it a browser with all that other CRAP shoved in there. It's also a horrible example if you're looking for an Open Source success story, how is it after like two years they haven't gotten to a 1.0 stable release? Oh, maybe because they're too busy dinking around with the mailer, or whatever other irrelevant component they dreamed up to slap into their project.
For that matter, if you ask 10 people on the main street of town to describe what a computer operating system is, and to name three of them in common use at this time, my guess is that a lot more than 9 won't be able to answer you.
Except that the appeals for the 2600 case have yet to be decided. And it looks like there is plenty of far more serious stuff upon which to base the 2600 appeal-- like the constitutionality of the way the law was interpreted.
Not that any judges except Jackson himself are to blame. If he had acted a little more like a judge deciding a major case, and a little less like an instant celebrity, the decision may have stuck.
Thankfully they have not vacated his findings that they have used their monopoly power illegally, only that his remedy is to be reconsidered by another lower court.
There is nothing to say that the next lower court can decide on the same punishment, or something else entirely. At least that was my understanding from the clip I read at www.salon.com.
Oh well, back to borrowing CDS from the library and friends and ripping them to Ogg Vorbis. Plus I expect the more people get used to digital music and have access to CD writers, the more the shelves of used CD stores will swell with decent CDs.
How much easier to use and more colorful does it need to be than KDE2 already is? I mean, dang, that KDE2 is dang nice to look at. If the average dumbass can stand Windows, they should really like KDE2-- it's a lot prettier. How much easier does it get than having big square buttons along the bottom of the screen that open up your favorite applications with a single push?
So? Most libraries use the LGPL, don't they? I only know of one major library that is GPL: Qt ... and if MS wanted to avoid the GPL for Qt it is very easy-- buy a commercial license from TrollTech.
The GPL is not limiting its effectiveness by preventing you from taking a Free library and building your proprietary code with it. That is an example of it being completely effective. It is the LGPL which limits the effectiveness of an otherwise GPL-ed library, for the distinct purpose of making sure that the library gets the widest possible use.