If they had stuck with half of what they started they may have been really sucessful. A java office suite is not such a bad idea, an easy to use linux distro is not such a bad idea, but they take TIME. Corel wants a six month sensation. Get a clue guys, Microsoft can't make anything sucessful in less than three tries (Windows, Office, NT/2000, winCE?) but they get to the third try(even if the end product isn't so great at least someone BUYS it)!
You can't just take the buzz word of the day. put a spit shine on it, and make a billion without a little time.
I don't think I'll try it, but it is nice to know that Wine is coming along so well. I still would like to see StarOffice (now that they have released the source) Gnumeric, Abiword, etc. keep up the linux side of the office. Word 2000 may be a very nice program but I think that some of the talented people who are working on the projects I mentioned can surpass it in form and function. Remember all the people who said "can't be done" or "maybe they will get Win 3.1 proggies working"? Thanks for all the hard work. Insert pithy comment here.
I don't know this for sure, but if you look at almost everything IBM does they often sign cross-technology agreements with other companies. For example they used to (maybe still) have access to the source code for Windows. There may be little bits and pieces of AIX that belong to other companies that even IBM is not allowed to use any way they want. I think this is one of the attractive features of Linux to some large vendors. Microsoft wrote large chunks of OS/2(and later used them to build NT) and now IBM can't use those pieces any way they like(like freeing thier source) because Microsoft still has a claim to them. Linux lets you use it anywhere you want and no-one can pull the plug on it because it conflicts with what they want (again-OS/2 and Microsoft). That is why open source is a big deal to companies that don't WANT to sell software, they have to have some operating system, why not one that they can use for what they need, when they need it, that partially supports itself?
I'm sure Hemos just wanted to help them test it ;)
on
Kuro5hin Returns
·
· Score: 1
C'mon who didn't expect K5 to go down in flames the first time they got a SlashWave(TM)? Still next time Hemos you might what to give them some notice first, the/. effect is not a toy.
Welcome back K5 we missed you.
I think the author has given this issue some thught but I would like to add my two cents. Free software(the phrase "open source" has this sensitivity training feeling to me) may have little reason to improve it's products, but it miraculously has. Most prominent free software projects have dramatically improved. One reason may be WE ACUTALLY USE THIS STUFF. A lot of people use computers when they MUST, at work they type away, they learn what they have to to do their jobs. Where MAC and *NIX users are alike is that many of them like to use computers. Most Mac users I know have many more customizations than most of the Windows users I know. Some people seem to feel that Mac users are the least computer savvy users out there but I think on average they know the Mac far better than the average Windows user knows their computer. Linux users almost ALL have highly customized systems, and they know their computer FAR better than most Windows users. I agree that the user culture has much more influence over the direction of the platform than developer cultures but in the free software arena the two groups have more overlap. Mac programs and free software projects, at least in part, get better because the users care about and think about what they are doing, it isn't just a tool, it is a tool they depend on to do what they want, they will learn how to use it if that is the cost, but they want to use THAT tool. They are working on that platform because they chose it, not because it was on the desk when they got that job.
(sorry to step offtopic) Just an FYI to fix your focus problem. You change the focus behavior in the window manager either through editing the script or through the configuration program (Enlightenment configuration, Wmaker.conf, etc. or in the case of Sawmill/Sawfish[gnome 2.0 default I think] it is in the GNOME control panel) Hope that helps improve things for you. I don't believe either KDE or GNOME directly change the focus behavior it is just that most people probably use KWM as the KDE window manager.
I don't think the recording industry is so much against digital distrobution I think they just fear formats that can be distributed over and over. Mp3s are scary to them because the same file can be distributed a 1000 times with no loss in quality. If someone could make a format that couldn't be copied by every day users but that they could distribute in a controlled way for a price on the internet. (probably at close to the cost of a CD, greedy bastards,I don't mind paying a fair price but $17.00 ?!? When the price of manufacturing media has gone down as drastically as it has with CD's the consumer should see SOME of that reflected in lower prices ) they would love it. That would be the only way they will gracefully accept digital distribution of music. Before that comes however expect a lame attempt at a DSS type protection scheme, because now thanks to the new laws that prohibit the circumvention of encryption/"delivery systems" they can stop us from ripping the song from the original in the first place.
I think this is one thing about opensource that companies have overlooked. Often the first company to sell alot of units with a particular feature becomes a standard, (Office files for example). When you open source something like this you stand a better chance of other companies doing things your way. Suddenly your technology is the standard and you can sell a ton of the hardware because many manufacturers use it. I'm glad to see that some companies are getting the idea that they are spending money writing software anyway, if they keep it in-house it only works there, if they opensource it can become the way things are done many places.
Uh... I'm no programming god, but I think you mean "multi-threaded" TCP/IP stack. An "object-oriented" stack would not have any particular speed advantage if I recall correctly.
but maybe the way they plan on working the problem out will be to help develop WinModem drivers. I think it's kind of funny that an OS like linux, that can actually cope with multiple tasks well, doesn't use WinModems. Windows is noticeably slower when used with one. (Compare sometime, the difference is a little scary.) On the issue of the Red Hat cert I don't think they should be certified compatible. If it was just the modem that was shipped with the machine, maybe... but it is internal and I think that makes it part of any certification. Opinions vary.
Am I correct that this restriction is only if you do not alter the code? Earlier in the thread it has been said by a few people that now it is possible to put BSD code under a new license (GPL, proprietary, whatever). If that is true then I can see any substantive difference between BSD and public domain when one is modifying or adding code.
What is the difference between this and public domain now? The GPL prevents commercial development from absorbing source into proprietary works (for good or bad). Without the credit clause what is the point of the BSD license? Does it encourage or discourage anything in any way that makes it different from public domain?
Could someone please explain to me what the evolutionary argument is for mulit-cell organisms? There are uni-cellular organisms that are native to every part (as far as I know, if you know different then you have answered my question) of the biosphere. Uni-cellular organisms can survive in areas that multi-cellular organism can't, is the opposite true anywhere on Earth? If not then the survival of the fittest rule should rule out multicellular organisms. Uni-cellular organisms are more prolific, faster to adapt, more efficient , and longer lived in some cases. Any reasonable response would be appreciated.
OK I admit this is not how I hoped Linux would conquer windows. I am disturbed by the propietary shadows this distro casts, but I think it may still be a good step. With Micro$oft's current plans (which can change quickly "It will be entirely NT kernel based...sort of... not exactly... WE DIDN'T SAY THAT!") DOS is supposed to be phased out in the very near future. So let's fork the road right here, give people who need to upgrade a path to the future AND a bridge to the past. Put the finishing touches on DOSemu, freeDOS, WINE, for legacy data and apps, and give them a stable, elegant, easy to use platform for the future. All the talk about ease of use is misleading, probably 75% of computer use in offices today centers around 2 or 3 main applications for most people. They don't spend all day "managing files" they are word processing or data entering, etc. If they can start thier programs, save thier data, and close thier programs without 4 reboots and 2 lost hours of typing they will be ecstatic! The interface to them is the quickest way to thier apps. Make windows irrelevent, if someone is going to be clueless about how to save files to a floppy on Windows they are going to be clueless on Linux. I say it's better they be clueless on Linux, where they can't delete autoexec.bat or config.sys. Where thier login only allows them rights to certain places and things that they need, even on thier own machine. I know part of this is possible with NT, but why bother? Linux is cheaper, more stable (or at least as stable, so put down that flame thrower Microsoftians)
So we all can improve Microsoft products, without source, without complete API's, and then we can have the priveledge of purchasing the fruit of our labor? Good plan. Maybe re-inventing the wheel is only sane thing when the wheel is square. Also, I would submit Microsoft re-invented the wheel first, DOS wasn't the best solution at the time, just the one that IBM threw thier weight behind due to convenience and some arcane back room deal. Here is to Linux, Round wheels, Free Software, and doing it right.
I don't think having a common basis would be a bad thing in itself. If you say the next releases of X and Y distribution should have spiffylib.0.63 and wowlib.1.1 or higher that just makes development easier for everyone, open source developers included. Commercial Standards make me nervous, what happens when some company comes out with a proprietary lib that makes thier programs run (vb300.dll for Linux AAAAAAAHHHH!) And then they push to make it standard in all distributions that can be called standard complient. If there is going to be a standard it must be minimal and it MUST be opensource. QT wouldn't even qualify until 2.0 is out. Ligjpeg, libungif, fine suggest a minimum version for compliance. But the first piece of closed source that makes it to the standard will stop several distributions from adhering to it.
Am I missing something? I submitted a link to Pixel Co. over a week ago and it never got posted. Around the same time I posted a reply to an article that never showed up. Is it because of the database problems? My breath? I'll brush, really!
Slashdot Mirror
If they had stuck with half of what they started they may have been really sucessful. A java office suite is not such a bad idea, an easy to use linux distro is not such a bad idea, but they take TIME. Corel wants a six month sensation. Get a clue guys, Microsoft can't make anything sucessful in less than three tries (Windows, Office, NT/2000, winCE?) but they get to the third try(even if the end product isn't so great at least someone BUYS it)! You can't just take the buzz word of the day. put a spit shine on it, and make a billion without a little time.
Insert pithy comment here.
I don't think I'll try it, but it is nice to know that Wine is coming along so well. I still would like to see StarOffice (now that they have released the source) Gnumeric, Abiword, etc. keep up the linux side of the office. Word 2000 may be a very nice program but I think that some of the talented people who are working on the projects I mentioned can surpass it in form and function. Remember all the people who said "can't be done" or "maybe they will get Win 3.1 proggies working"? Thanks for all the hard work.
Insert pithy comment here.
I don't know this for sure, but if you look at almost everything IBM does they often sign cross-technology agreements with other companies. For example they used to (maybe still) have access to the source code for Windows. There may be little bits and pieces of AIX that belong to other companies that even IBM is not allowed to use any way they want. I think this is one of the attractive features of Linux to some large vendors. Microsoft wrote large chunks of OS/2(and later used them to build NT) and now IBM can't use those pieces any way they like(like freeing thier source) because Microsoft still has a claim to them. Linux lets you use it anywhere you want and no-one can pull the plug on it because it conflicts with what they want (again-OS/2 and Microsoft). That is why open source is a big deal to companies that don't WANT to sell software, they have to have some operating system, why not one that they can use for what they need, when they need it, that partially supports itself?
C'mon who didn't expect K5 to go down in flames the first time they got a SlashWave(TM)? Still next time Hemos you might what to give them some notice first, the /. effect is not a toy.
Welcome back K5 we missed you.
I think the author has given this issue some thught but I would like to add my two cents. Free software(the phrase "open source" has this sensitivity training feeling to me) may have little reason to improve it's products, but it miraculously has. Most prominent free software projects have dramatically improved. One reason may be WE ACUTALLY USE THIS STUFF. A lot of people use computers when they MUST, at work they type away, they learn what they have to to do their jobs. Where MAC and *NIX users are alike is that many of them like to use computers. Most Mac users I know have many more customizations than most of the Windows users I know. Some people seem to feel that Mac users are the least computer savvy users out there but I think on average they know the Mac far better than the average Windows user knows their computer. Linux users almost ALL have highly customized systems, and they know their computer FAR better than most Windows users. I agree that the user culture has much more influence over the direction of the platform than developer cultures but in the free software arena the two groups have more overlap. Mac programs and free software projects, at least in part, get better because the users care about and think about what they are doing, it isn't just a tool, it is a tool they depend on to do what they want, they will learn how to use it if that is the cost, but they want to use THAT tool. They are working on that platform because they chose it, not because it was on the desk when they got that job.
(sorry to step offtopic) Just an FYI to fix your focus problem. You change the focus behavior in the window manager either through editing the script or through the configuration program (Enlightenment configuration, Wmaker.conf, etc. or in the case of Sawmill/Sawfish[gnome 2.0 default I think] it is in the GNOME control panel) Hope that helps improve things for you. I don't believe either KDE or GNOME directly change the focus behavior it is just that most people probably use KWM as the KDE window manager.
I don't think the recording industry is so much against digital distrobution I think they just fear formats that can be distributed over and over. Mp3s are scary to them because the same file can be distributed a 1000 times with no loss in quality. If someone could make a format that couldn't be copied by every day users but that they could distribute in a controlled way for a price on the internet. (probably at close to the cost of a CD, greedy bastards,I don't mind paying a fair price but $17.00 ?!? When the price of manufacturing media has gone down as drastically as it has with CD's the consumer should see SOME of that reflected in lower prices ) they would love it. That would be the only way they will gracefully accept digital distribution of music. Before that comes however expect a lame attempt at a DSS type protection scheme, because now thanks to the new laws that prohibit the circumvention of encryption/"delivery systems" they can stop us from ripping the song from the original in the first place.
I think this is one thing about opensource that companies have overlooked. Often the first company to sell alot of units with a particular feature becomes a standard, (Office files for example). When you open source something like this you stand a better chance of other companies doing things your way. Suddenly your technology is the standard and you can sell a ton of the hardware because many manufacturers use it. I'm glad to see that some companies are getting the idea that they are spending money writing software anyway, if they keep it in-house it only works there, if they opensource it can become the way things are done many places.
Uh... I'm no programming god, but I think you mean "multi-threaded" TCP/IP stack. An "object-oriented" stack would not have any particular speed advantage if I recall correctly.
but maybe the way they plan on working the problem out will be to help develop WinModem drivers. I think it's kind of funny that an OS like linux, that can actually cope with multiple tasks well, doesn't use WinModems. Windows is noticeably slower when used with one. (Compare sometime, the difference is a little scary.)
On the issue of the Red Hat cert I don't think they should be certified compatible. If it was just the modem that was shipped with the machine, maybe... but it is internal and I think that makes it part of any certification. Opinions vary.
Am I correct that this restriction is only if you do not alter the code? Earlier in the thread it has been said by a few people that now it is possible to put BSD code under a new license (GPL, proprietary, whatever). If that is true then I can see any substantive difference between BSD and public domain when one is modifying or adding code.
What is the difference between this and public domain now? The GPL prevents commercial development from absorbing source into proprietary works (for good or bad). Without the credit clause what is the point of the BSD license? Does it encourage or discourage anything in any way that makes it different from public domain?
Could someone please explain to me what the evolutionary argument is for mulit-cell organisms? There are uni-cellular organisms that are native to every part (as far as I know, if you know different then you have answered my question) of the biosphere. Uni-cellular organisms can survive in areas that multi-cellular organism can't, is the opposite true anywhere on Earth? If not then the survival of the fittest rule should rule out multicellular organisms. Uni-cellular organisms are more prolific, faster to adapt, more efficient , and longer lived in some cases. Any reasonable response would be appreciated.
OK I admit this is not how I hoped Linux would conquer windows. I am disturbed by the propietary shadows this distro casts, but I think it may still be a good step. ... not exactly ... WE DIDN'T SAY THAT!") DOS is supposed to be phased out in the very near future.
With Micro$oft's current plans (which can change quickly "It will be entirely NT kernel based...sort of
So let's fork the road right here, give people who need to upgrade a path to the future AND a bridge to the past. Put the finishing touches on DOSemu, freeDOS, WINE, for legacy data and apps, and give them a stable, elegant, easy to use platform for the future.
All the talk about ease of use is misleading, probably 75% of computer use in offices today centers around 2 or 3 main applications for most people. They don't spend all day "managing files" they are word processing or data entering, etc. If they can start thier programs, save thier data, and close thier programs without 4 reboots and 2 lost hours of typing they will be ecstatic! The interface to them is the quickest way to thier apps. Make windows irrelevent, if someone is going to be clueless about how to save files to a floppy on Windows they are going to be clueless on Linux. I say it's better they be clueless on Linux, where they can't delete autoexec.bat or config.sys. Where thier login only allows them rights to certain places and things that they need, even on thier own machine. I know part of this is possible with NT, but why bother? Linux is cheaper, more stable (or at least as stable, so put down that flame thrower Microsoftians)
So we all can improve Microsoft products, without source, without complete API's, and then we can have the priveledge of purchasing the fruit of our labor? Good plan. Maybe re-inventing the wheel is only sane thing when the wheel is square.
Also, I would submit Microsoft re-invented the wheel first, DOS wasn't the best solution at the time, just the one that IBM threw thier weight behind due to convenience and some arcane back room deal. Here is to Linux, Round wheels, Free Software, and doing it right.
I don't think having a common basis would be a bad thing in itself. If you say the next releases of X and Y distribution should have spiffylib.0.63 and wowlib.1.1 or higher that just makes development easier for everyone, open source developers included. Commercial Standards make me nervous, what happens when some company comes out with a proprietary lib that makes thier programs run (vb300.dll for Linux AAAAAAAHHHH!) And then they push to make it standard in all distributions that can be called standard complient. If there is going to be a standard it must be minimal and it MUST be opensource. QT wouldn't even qualify until 2.0 is out. Ligjpeg, libungif, fine suggest a minimum version for compliance. But the first piece of closed source that makes it to the standard will stop several distributions from adhering to it.
Am I missing something? I submitted a link to Pixel Co. over a week ago and it never got posted. Around the same time I posted a reply to an article that never showed up. Is it because of the database problems? My breath? I'll brush, really!