Right. Furthermore... the head end isn't the issue here.. it's the community wan they want to build... the head end can easily be scaled up to whatever the community feels is appropriate.
And if you pick a distribution with the right focus, it should have what yo need. If not, tell them, and it will in the next version. I've had several peopel running the latest mandrake incarnation, and they've had very little trouble finding what tehy want.. using only the gui tools and the default install set.
Something like the Briefcase in windows.... you may use it, but most people don't. It's not very common at all.
Linux doesn't try to show anything.. people try to show things about linux. It seems like they are trying to show it can do everything because, in the right hands, it can.
Psychology is a funny thing. The reason you like the Briefcase feature, and the reason people see linux as lacking, is because they were raised on Microsoft. I doubt you picked Windows because it had the briefcase feature.. you probably discovered that feature when you used windows one time. People don't want to take time to adapt.. and naturally tend to think "however things are now, that's how they are supposed to be."
Sure, linux is "free software" and everyone likes to focus no that.... but I use it because it works.
"Where will programmers go?" "Why should I work for free?"
Answer: They will still program, and you don't have to work for free at all.
Nobody every said your time, labor, and effort is not worth money.
Companies will just have to actually produce real, useful software above and beyond the baseline set by FREE software that people actualy have a genuine need for, that's all. The ability to sell crap is all that's disappearing.
Look at.. VMWARE. Good, solid product. Innovative too. Price is right. Then look at FreeMware.. the oss project that aimed to duplicate it. Still nowhere close, they may have even changed their focus, i'm not sure, and will never catch up. And as lon gas VMWare keeps putting money back into development, and improving their products in both ways that are useful, innovative, and people want, they will continue to sell it and make money. The only thing they can't do is stop developing, just fix bugs, and keep selling it for years.
Free software sets a baseline, a barrier to entry to the software business world that says "You have to make something significantly better and more desirable than this."
Furthermore, many programmers work in-house in companies, developing software for internal use... where the ability to sell software is of les importance.. and heck, the world still hasn't realized the potential of real web services.
If your time and effort can be replaced with something that is free, then it should be. If your employer has you working on something he could just throw in for free, he should have you working on something he CAN'T get for free instead.
Because it's a lot harder to run an external hardware bus at 2Ghz. It's easeir to feed the bus complex instructions then have the chip break them down into a series of simploer instructions for execution at higher speeds.
accountability is a big thing in corporate politics.. nobody got fired for buying a microsoft solution that thousands of people use, no matter how badly it works in practice.
On the other hand, if theri open solution fails... they will be seen as personally responsible for it.
Does it make sense technically? no. Politically? hell yes.
If you base the argument on that, you are fighting a battle you can't win.
Your battle should be about choosing the best tools for the job. Yes, the fact that a tool is open is a plus... but seriously..
The reason many of us would rather use linux over solaris is NOT because of the cost.. it's because linux is more flexible and has more tools readily available. IF linux cost the same amount, we would still choose it.
No.. the reason tcp over tcp has issues is because you end up with both tcp layers trying to backoff and deal with congestion and retransmits rather than one, and things can happen such that the two layers start interfering with each other rather than helping. (one layer transmits, then another does, causing even more extra packets, etc)
Protocol overhead is obvious.. the real issue that people talk about is to do with how TCP deals with congestion... you end up with 2 layers of protocol trying to deal with a problem when only one needs to.. leading to some interesting issues... (things can theoretically get really slow)
The "Community" doesn't own software; the authors do. If the authors want their names displayed, they can insist on it. If they don't care, then why should anyone else?
First, let me state I'm not talking about any code distirbute by ti's authors; authors are not bound by any license; they own he code outright... so any discussion about what they can and cannot do with the GPL is irrelevant.
Where did you get the idea they cannot charge you for software? The GPL says nothing at all about whether or not you can charge for software.
I can take the linux kernel, modify it, and sell copies for $50,000 a pop.
The GPL lets me do this as long as I provide them with source (or equivalent access to the source, as with binaries distributed via ftp or over the web, or a witten offer to give them the source for no more than a handling fee, valid for up to five years).
The problem is in the "leasing" part... you cannot distribute GPL'd code without doing so under the terms of the gpl, which means you have to offer others the source, under the same terms (not more restrictive ones). So you can't prevent them from exercising their rights under the GPL (which you have to offer them, because nothing else gives you the right to distribute the software)
Please, please, realize the GPL is NOT about "getting software for free". There are NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER on commerce.. the main stipulation ist hat if you give someon binaries (be they from sale, free, loan, etc) you are required to license the source to those binaries to them under the terms of the GPL.
The GPL was never about keeping all code free.. just stuff derived. Code covered by it is permitted to be part of a collection of code alongside other stuff; IBM can lease you a system, and as long as the parts that are required to be covered are covered by the GPL and IBM does not have additional restrictions on THOSE parts, they have met their obligations to the letter AND INTENT of the GPL.
First, what point of mine is it you are disputing? It's not clear
Second, the GPL is absolutely NOT an EULA. IT even states right there in the GPL it is NOT A USE LICENSE. It does not cover the usage of the software at all, and you do not have to accept it to use the software.
The GPL is a license that grants you permissions above and beyond what you are allowed to do under copyright law.
I'm not sure what point you are disputing.. what you say about how the GPL works with reference to the original copyright holder of the code is true.. but what's that got to do with the issue at hand? We're talking about people taking GPLd code, and leasing it (or modifications of it), and whether or not that's valid/possible.
Obviously the original author can do whatever he wants. And actually, your comment about "Not accepting patches" is not entirely correct either; if you submit a bugfix to my code you do not automatically become a co-author, and I am not necessarily bound to keep that code under the GPL unless you licensed it to ME under the gpl for inclusion in my project. That of course depends on the amount and type of code presented, and the temrs and conditions all parties agreed to (or did not discuss). If you submit code to my project, and the email says "here, this lets your code do blah blah on newere kernls".. I could assume you were just being nice and giving it to me.. I am not bound to keep your code under the GPL. YOu will notice many major open projects using the GPL as a license stipulate that copyright on the patches submitted for inclusion are transferred to the project owner/group, and not held by the individual.
If you purchase controlling interest in a company, the board still cannot DESTROY the company, and any shareholder value that went along with it. They have a DUTY to the shareholders to maximize shareholder value.
That's why public companies often don't "do the right thing" and why you don't just buy one up and close it down... becuase the shareholders will SUE you for destroying their product.
Remember, even if IBM buys a controlling interested in SCO, that doesn't make it the outright owner. Control and ownership are two different things.
Well, you are allowed to trasnfer a license to someone else unless the license says you are not.. which is the case more and more often nowadays.. and always has been the case with really big software licenses.
The GPL says you are not allowed to distribte to anyone unless it's under the terms of the GPL.. and saying "You have to give up your rights under this license in 30 days" is a violation of the GPL, as it does not allow additional restrictions.
The difference with a DVD is that it's a physical object, not a copy. The video store can't make 20 copies of a DVD and then rent THOSE, not without a license from the copyright holder.
Just the same, you cannot make 20 copies of my software and rent it out without my permission.
The GPL says the only way you an make copies and distribute them is if you do so under the terms of the GPL. That means you can't throw additional restrictions on it, like having to return it.
The GPL clearly states that the act of running the program is not covered, and the OUTPUT of the program is also not covered.
So.. if you are not running the software, and it's not being distribute to you, but instaed, you are only permitted to interact with it, you have no claim to anything.
This issue, I'm sure, will get clouded beyond reason, by those who are going by what they think the GPL is about rather than what it says.
When you make a work based on GPL code, the following can be said, logically:
The first law in question is: Copryight
Under copyright law, do I have permission to "lease" copies of software that I do not hold the copyright to, to others? No, I don't. Why? Because that requries making COPIES, which I am not allowed to do under copyright law (other than fair-use.. which this certainly isn't)
So.. that iother avenue is open? Well, the software is covered by the GPL.. so that lets you do some things normally reserved for the copyrgiht older....
It clearly states that you cannot distribute copies to anyone unless it's under the terms of the GPL. As another poster said, the GPL does not cover "ownership", it covers copying & distribution. This is not about who owns software... you can't say "well it's still ours, we are just letting you borrow it".
So in short: Copyright says you can't lease out copies without permission of the copyright holder. The copiright holder gave you permission, via the GPL, to distribute copies ONLY IF YOU license those copies to those to whom you disribute under the GPL.
If a node with a guest task crashes in mosix, the task is re-dispatched to another node; it doesn't crash. Only if the originating node crashes does the task fail. So if there is one master node in your cluster, your failure rate is the same as if you had one machine.
Furthermore, this is for AMD RETAIL cpus only, not OEM. So.. if you buy a retail cpu, they expect you to use the equipment they want you to use to cool it, or they won't honor the warrantee. Fair enough.
If you want to use other stuff, don't buy retail, buy OEM.
Any warrantee beyond the implied one usually required by law (fitness for a particular purpose, etc) is OPTIONAL, and they don't have to offer one at all; and if they DO, it can be under whatever terms they like.
So... if you take it home and it's busted out of the box, yeah, they have to do something about it.. because that's the law.
IF it breaks in six months, but had a 12 month guarantee on it saying you had to use the original cooler.. and you used another one, why should they honor it?
Administrator can not necessarily overcome these limitations; the role of Administrator can have varying degrees of access.
Furthermore, it's not about what can be absolutely proven in court. it's about normal operation: I can go and see who modified what, when. I can tell if one of my guys took ownership of something and messed with it.
Sure, they COULD be sophisticated and do some crazy shit to hide whta they are doing, but if the information was sensitive enough to warrant that, i'd be using something else.
This is kind of like how a tiny lock box keeps cash safe. Anyone can steal it.... It keeps honest people honest.
No, mosix just migrates the user context of a task to the remote machine.
There is some primitive distributed shared memory support in OpenMOSIX; no idea how stable it is though. Normal openmosix/mosix won't migrate tasks requiring shared memory (ie: threads)
Slashdot Mirror
Right.
Furthermore... the head end isn't the issue here.. it's the community wan they want to build... the head end can easily be scaled up to whatever the community feels is appropriate.
Discuss with the telephone company. Start an ISP co-op and offer DSL service.
If you can actually run your own cable... run fiber to every house.
And if you pick a distribution with the right focus, it should have what yo need. If not, tell them, and it will in the next version. I've had several peopel running the latest mandrake incarnation, and they've had very little trouble finding what tehy want.. using only the gui tools and the default install set.
Something like the Briefcase in windows.... you may use it, but most people don't. It's not very common at all.
Linux doesn't try to show anything.. people try to show things about linux. It seems like they are trying to show it can do everything because, in the right hands, it can.
Psychology is a funny thing. The reason you like the Briefcase feature, and the reason people see linux as lacking, is because they were raised on Microsoft. I doubt you picked Windows because it had the briefcase feature.. you probably discovered that feature when you used windows one time. People don't want to take time to adapt.. and naturally tend to think "however things are now, that's how they are supposed to be."
Many of us don't see it as a free software war.
Sure, linux is "free software" and everyone likes to focus no that.... but I use it because it works.
"Where will programmers go?" "Why should I work for free?"
Answer: They will still program, and you don't have to work for free at all.
Nobody every said your time, labor, and effort is not worth money.
Companies will just have to actually produce real, useful software above and beyond the baseline set by FREE software that people actualy have a genuine need for, that's all. The ability to sell crap is all that's disappearing.
Look at.. VMWARE. Good, solid product. Innovative too. Price is right. Then look at FreeMware.. the oss project that aimed to duplicate it. Still nowhere close, they may have even changed their focus, i'm not sure, and will never catch up. And as lon gas VMWare keeps putting money back into development, and improving their products in both ways that are useful, innovative, and people want, they will continue to sell it and make money. The only thing they can't do is stop developing, just fix bugs, and keep selling it for years.
Free software sets a baseline, a barrier to entry to the software business world that says "You have to make something significantly better and more desirable than this."
Furthermore, many programmers work in-house in companies, developing software for internal use... where the ability to sell software is of les importance.. and heck, the world still hasn't realized the potential of real web services.
If your time and effort can be replaced with something that is free, then it should be. If your employer has you working on something he could just throw in for free, he should have you working on something he CAN'T get for free instead.
Because it's a lot harder to run an external hardware bus at 2Ghz. It's easeir to feed the bus complex instructions then have the chip break them down into a series of simploer instructions for execution at higher speeds.
That's not the point...
accountability is a big thing in corporate politics.. nobody got fired for buying a microsoft solution that thousands of people use, no matter how badly it works in practice.
On the other hand, if theri open solution fails... they will be seen as personally responsible for it.
Does it make sense technically? no. Politically? hell yes.
If you base the argument on that, you are fighting a battle you can't win.
Your battle should be about choosing the best tools for the job.
Yes, the fact that a tool is open is a plus... but seriously..
The reason many of us would rather use linux over solaris is NOT because of the cost.. it's because linux is more flexible and has more tools readily available. IF linux cost the same amount, we would still choose it.
No.. the reason tcp over tcp has issues is because you end up with both tcp layers trying to backoff and deal with congestion and retransmits rather than one, and things can happen such that the two layers start interfering with each other rather than helping. (one layer transmits, then another does, causing even more extra packets, etc)
Protocol overhead is obvious.. the real issue that people talk about is to do with how TCP deals with congestion... you end up with 2 layers of protocol trying to deal with a problem when only one needs to.. leading to some interesting issues... (things can theoretically get really slow)
Except that all the little towns between all our big cities have broadband too. And they are way more spread out than the US is.
The "Community" doesn't own software; the authors do.
If the authors want their names displayed, they can insist on it. If they don't care, then why should anyone else?
First, let me state I'm not talking about any code distirbute by ti's authors; authors are not bound by any license; they own he code outright... so any discussion about what they can and cannot do with the GPL is irrelevant.
Where did you get the idea they cannot charge you for software? The GPL says nothing at all about whether or not you can charge for software.
I can take the linux kernel, modify it, and sell copies for $50,000 a pop.
The GPL lets me do this as long as I provide them with source (or equivalent access to the source, as with binaries distributed via ftp or over the web, or a witten offer to give them the source for no more than a handling fee, valid for up to five years).
The problem is in the "leasing" part... you cannot distribute GPL'd code without doing so under the terms of the gpl, which means you have to offer others the source, under the same terms (not more restrictive ones). So you can't prevent them from exercising their rights under the GPL (which you have to offer them, because nothing else gives you the right to distribute the software)
Please, please, realize the GPL is NOT about "getting software for free". There are NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER on commerce.. the main stipulation ist hat if you give someon binaries (be they from sale, free, loan, etc) you are required to license the source to those binaries to them under the terms of the GPL.
The GPL was never about keeping all code free.. just stuff derived. Code covered by it is permitted to be part of a collection of code alongside other stuff; IBM can lease you a system, and as long as the parts that are required to be covered are covered by the GPL and IBM does not have additional restrictions on THOSE parts, they have met their obligations to the letter AND INTENT of the GPL.
First, what point of mine is it you are disputing? It's not clear
Second, the GPL is absolutely NOT an EULA. IT even states right there in the GPL it is NOT A USE LICENSE. It does not cover the usage of the software at all, and you do not have to accept it to use the software.
The GPL is a license that grants you permissions above and beyond what you are allowed to do under copyright law.
I'm not sure what point you are disputing.. what you say about how the GPL works with reference to the original copyright holder of the code is true.. but what's that got to do with the issue at hand? We're talking about people taking GPLd code, and leasing it (or modifications of it), and whether or not that's valid/possible.
Obviously the original author can do whatever he wants.
And actually, your comment about "Not accepting patches" is not entirely correct either; if you submit a bugfix to my code you do not automatically become a co-author, and I am not necessarily bound to keep that code under the GPL unless you licensed it to ME under the gpl for inclusion in my project. That of course depends on the amount and type of code presented, and the temrs and conditions all parties agreed to (or did not discuss). If you submit code to my project, and the email says "here, this lets your code do blah blah on newere kernls".. I could assume you were just being nice and giving it to me.. I am not bound to keep your code under the GPL.
YOu will notice many major open projects using the GPL as a license stipulate that copyright on the patches submitted for inclusion are transferred to the project owner/group, and not held by the individual.
If you purchase controlling interest in a company, the board still cannot DESTROY the company, and any shareholder value that went along with it. They have a DUTY to the shareholders to maximize shareholder value.
That's why public companies often don't "do the right thing" and why you don't just buy one up and close it down... becuase the shareholders will SUE you for destroying their product.
Remember, even if IBM buys a controlling interested in SCO, that doesn't make it the outright owner. Control and ownership are two different things.
Well, you are allowed to trasnfer a license to someone else unless the license says you are not.. which is the case more and more often nowadays.. and always has been the case with really big software licenses.
The GPL says you are not allowed to distribte to anyone unless it's under the terms of the GPL.. and saying "You have to give up your rights under this license in 30 days" is a violation of the GPL, as it does not allow additional restrictions.
That thing about IBM is really cool...
The difference with a DVD is that it's a physical object, not a copy.
The video store can't make 20 copies of a DVD and then rent THOSE, not without a license from the copyright holder.
Just the same, you cannot make 20 copies of my software and rent it out without my permission.
The GPL says the only way you an make copies and distribute them is if you do so under the terms of the GPL. That means you can't throw additional restrictions on it, like having to return it.
The GPL clearly states that the act of running the program is not covered, and the OUTPUT of the program is also not covered.
So.. if you are not running the software, and it's not being distribute to you, but instaed, you are only permitted to interact with it, you have no claim to anything.
That's the best point I think I've seen yet.
fundamentally, is very simple.
This issue, I'm sure, will get clouded beyond reason, by those who are going by what they think the GPL is about rather than what it says.
When you make a work based on GPL code, the following can be said, logically:
The first law in question is: Copryight
Under copyright law, do I have permission to "lease" copies of software that I do not hold the copyright to, to others? No, I don't. Why? Because that requries making COPIES, which I am not allowed to do under copyright law (other than fair-use.. which this certainly isn't)
So.. that iother avenue is open? Well, the software is covered by the GPL.. so that lets you do some things normally reserved for the copyrgiht older....
It clearly states that you cannot distribute copies to anyone unless it's under the terms of the GPL. As another poster said, the GPL does not cover "ownership", it covers copying & distribution. This is not about who owns software... you can't say "well it's still ours, we are just letting you borrow it".
So in short:
Copyright says you can't lease out copies without permission of the copyright holder.
The copiright holder gave you permission, via the GPL, to distribute copies ONLY IF YOU license those copies to those to whom you disribute under the GPL.
It's very clear cut.
If a node with a guest task crashes in mosix, the task is re-dispatched to another node; it doesn't crash.
Only if the originating node crashes does the task fail. So if there is one master node in your cluster, your failure rate is the same as if you had one machine.
Greasing incorrectly makes things worse.
Furthermore, this is for AMD RETAIL cpus only, not OEM. So.. if you buy a retail cpu, they expect you to use the equipment they want you to use to cool it, or they won't honor the warrantee.
Fair enough.
If you want to use other stuff, don't buy retail, buy OEM.
They can't *prevent* you from doing it.....
Any warrantee beyond the implied one usually required by law (fitness for a particular purpose, etc) is OPTIONAL, and they don't have to offer one at all; and if they DO, it can be under whatever terms they like.
So... if you take it home and it's busted out of the box, yeah, they have to do something about it.. because that's the law.
IF it breaks in six months, but had a 12 month guarantee on it saying you had to use the original cooler.. and you used another one, why should they honor it?
Administrator can not necessarily overcome these limitations; the role of Administrator can have varying degrees of access.
Furthermore, it's not about what can be absolutely proven in court. it's about normal operation: I can go and see who modified what, when. I can tell if one of my guys took ownership of something and messed with it.
Sure, they COULD be sophisticated and do some crazy shit to hide whta they are doing, but if the information was sensitive enough to warrant that, i'd be using something else.
This is kind of like how a tiny lock box keeps cash safe. Anyone can steal it....
It keeps honest people honest.
No, mosix just migrates the user context of a task to the remote machine.
There is some primitive distributed shared memory support in OpenMOSIX; no idea how stable it is though. Normal openmosix/mosix won't migrate tasks requiring shared memory (ie: threads)