How are we any different from Microsoft, if we happen to "exclude" some support from projects because we do not like the receipient?
It's open source, SCO can fix whatever it wants. I don't see why we should maintain any code who is only going to benefits instances we don't wish to support. Even existing code needs maintenance.
but please do not remove any *existing* code.
On the contrary, please do. Call it a cleanup or refactoring. GCC removes support for obsolete archs all the time.
The only thing better than stripping out the support would be generating code that would execute slightly wrongly when run on an SCO OS. Adjusting small decimal numbers just a bit, corrupting a database here and there... every 3 years.
KDE is more customizable and heavier (bloated), while Gnome is lighter and more user friendly.
Slightly off topic, but to me it seems that Gnome is heavier/less responsive than KDE, while KDE has more "bloat" in terms of features/configurability. Some like it, some don't.
No you are thinking the LGPL. readline is the canonical (and perhaps only) example of the GPL actually harming development by blocking off something that is actually useful for development.
I wish Redhat would do something about this, or switch to APT... It's the only major flaw in their distro.
Yum is in rawhide, and allegedly it is better and simpler than apt. Red Hat is switching to a more open model with RHLP (P is for Project), and yum is a good fit for that.
Open source and free software has decimated any barriers to entry for software professionals.
What kind of "barrier to entry" would you like to have? As I see it, Open Source (at least bigger projects), where meritocracy reigns, has a higher barrier of entry than proprietary software, in terms of skills. Any moron can get a job doing VB user interfaces, but the moron in question would hardly get *any code* into a high profile OSS project.
Now that there is no incentive to pay for any software, the software that is available will decrease in quality over time until everyone will have to write all of their own code out of necessity.
Oh my god, that has to be among the most absurd logic I have ever seen. There is incentive to pay for software, if the SW in question provides something for which there is no OSS equivalent. OSS mostly commodizes the *infrastructure*, custom stuff and most apps will still be written by paid programmers. Ignore RMS, he doesn't represent all (or even majority) of OSS community.
I recently switched from Linux to Windows partly because of these views and partly because of low quality and lack of imagination in the Linux world.
How about lack of innovation, and the way OSS just follows in MSFT's footsteps? Or superior Value and lower TCO in MSFT sw? I can't help but assume that you are working for either MSFT, Gartner or equivalent.
As a FreeBSD user, I'm still ambivalent in the attitude towards BSD gaining popularity via the SCO FUD campaign.
And you should. Failure of Linux would not be a success for FreeBSD. FreeBSD is no more safe than Linux, it's just less succesful and therefore not worth SCO's precious lawyer time. Success of Linux is success for FreeBSD, because it means more attention to app infrastrucure surrounding Linux, which is easy/trivial to port to FreeBSD.
FreeBSD people rejoicing as Linux is attacked only server to alienate them from the "rest" of the community. I have run Free- and NetBSD on my home computer in the past, and kinda liked them (and the idea of the ability to exploit their code in proprietary setting), but in the light of the behaviour of much of FreeBSD community recently, I don't know anymore...
The reality, like it or not, is that a lot of our customers want us to use MS technologies for their projects.
It's sad, really, that they don't understand that Java runs on win32 as well.
I'm very pleased to be using C# instead of C++ for the reasons given in my previous post.
Understandably, C++ being such a PITA to program. Given a choice between C++ and C#, I would use C# in a heartbeat. However, a more realistic choice is the one between C# and Java, and in that space Java is the winner, because of its cross-platform capability if for nothing else.
Java is a huge step forward compared to C++, so your point (that C# is really just a MS proprietary version of Java) is a huge plus as far as I'm concerned.
Again, you make the mistake of comparing C# with C++. It's the thinking MSFT wants to impose on people: compare it to C++, not Java. Kinda like advertising a new Xeon by telling how much better app support it has compared to an embedded CPU.
C# and.NET look very cool as a replacement for venerable C++.
Are you on crack? C# is a Java wannabe, and can hardly compete with C++ in areas where Java can't compete with C++ (i.e. severely cramped power-performance-memory critical environments).
Repeat after me: C# is a MSFT version of Java. C# is a MSFT version of Java.
C# is a MSFT version of Java.
The fact that they often advertise it as a replacement for C++ only serves to remind us what drooling morons MSFT assumes their developer "community" to be.
... you can read a discussion about ADHD, general lack of concentration and inability to get a job done.
Re:I much prefer XFS; should be part of comparison
on
Reiser4 Benchmarks
·
· Score: 1
I also am quite annoyed that RedHat doesn't make it easy to facilitate XFS right out of the box (rootfs support).
Now that RH has switched to a more community oriented development model, perhaps you can help?
I am also offended by RedHat that baits and switches a community by having popular (5.2/6.2/7.1-7.3) versions for free, then they start charging for this Advanced Server product on the same order of magnitude as Microsoft software [RH-AS is over $1000].
RHAS is great once you have to convince your boss to switch some critical piece over to Linux, an he is troubled by the rapid development (i.e. short lifespan) of Linux distros in general (and no, Debian can't usually be utilized in this space, due to proprietary application support).
There's no reason to prevent SCO from talking if no one is listening in the first place.
On the contrary, a lot of people and companies are listening. If they are allowed to say anything they want, with nobody providing counterarguments, the unwashed will start believing that they are right.
I am almost happy that they are openly attacking Linux right now (it was bound to happen sooner or later). At least this forces everyone to wake up, instead of just ignoring the case as a contract issue between IBM and SCO.
... and before anyone starts whining, this is of course not technically a lawsuit (yet). But investigation by a public commission might be even better, as things there are not dictated simply by who's got the most money.
Someone (Mad Dog?) said that Linux and OSS are international treasures that should be protected, and government intervention might be just what we need. Obviously US government would never intervene (Bush & all), but there is hope that e.g. EU or Oz might have something to say.
How long do we have to wait for the total excommunication of SCO from the tech industry?
IBM, HP, Dell and friends could easily drop support for SCO Unix on their hardware, all OSS should refuse to compile on SCO unix (print an URL to a website explaining why). A lot could be done by adjusting autoconf or whatever.
Their representatives would not be allowed to enter premises of any company, their IP packages would be silently scrapped by routers on the internet.
Darl and Sontag would be kicked out of their yacht clubs.
Essentially, they would be told that everybody hates them. Money matters, but let's not underestimate industry recognition.
For many classes of applications (development tools, libraries, scripting systems...), a $5 $hareware version makes no sense. Such software is expected to be available indefinitely (guaranteed by OSS), and a community is always a plus. You don't get that with shareware.
It often makes sense to maintain backward compatibility for a stage or two
Actually, this is great advertising for both VMware and Linux, as it suggests that the migration need not be that radical at all. I suppose MS would never want to emphasize how they aren't "really" migrating at all, as it is in their interest to keep corps/orgs in belief that in order to migrate, they have to abandon all their legacy stuff.
Actually, this Munich case is a proof that almost any org can migrate, without any special computer usage pattern (web uis only, for example). Perhaps, after a few years, they will notice that Wine will do all their remaining win16/win32 stuff.
(I'm using Firebird on Windows 2000 at the moment)
Unfortunately the tab support in Firebird is broken. They removed the "close other tabs" command, for some reason. I often open a shitload of tabs, and on finding something interesting I "close other tabs", to ease up the task of opening and reading yet more tabs. This is perhaps the main reason I still use Mozilla Classic.
Slashdot Mirror
That would make the Free Software community no better than Microsoft -- it would be stooping to their level.
And that level is exactly where we want to be, regarding SCO.
IBM is pulling some dirty tricks (patents) to punish SCO. And we're loving them for it.
How are we any different from Microsoft, if we happen to "exclude" some support from projects because we do not like the receipient?
It's open source, SCO can fix whatever it wants. I don't see why we should maintain any code who is only going to benefits instances we don't wish to support. Even existing code needs maintenance.
but please do not remove any *existing* code.
On the contrary, please do. Call it a cleanup or refactoring. GCC removes support for obsolete archs all the time.
The only thing better than stripping out the support would be generating code that would execute slightly wrongly when run on an SCO OS. Adjusting small decimal numbers just a bit, corrupting a database here and there... every 3 years.
;-).
Talk about Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
They should have just removed the support. I don't see how it would harm normal people, as they can keep on using older compilers.
Anyway, this is the right direction. I just hope projects can strip out SCO support without breaking much good code.
... to underline how big a supporter/MSFT has been for software patents. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
At least this frivolous lawsuit will get a lots of publicity. Now everyone with a trivial patent up their sleeves can go about suing everyone.
I assume the SW patent thing has not yet been ratified by the EU? This might be something to show your MEP...
KDE is more customizable and heavier (bloated), while Gnome is lighter and more user friendly.
Slightly off topic, but to me it seems that Gnome is heavier/less responsive than KDE, while KDE has more "bloat" in terms of features/configurability. Some like it, some don't.
No you are thinking the LGPL. readline is the canonical (and perhaps only) example of the GPL actually harming development by blocking off something that is actually useful for development.
Qt?
I wish Redhat would do something about this, or switch to APT... It's the only major flaw in their distro.
Yum is in rawhide, and allegedly it is better and simpler than apt. Red Hat is switching to a more open model with RHLP (P is for Project), and yum is a good fit for that.
"He also expressed some gratitude to Red Hat for countersuing SCO."
He knows what to do, with the fund and all.
Open source and free software has decimated any barriers to entry for software professionals.
What kind of "barrier to entry" would you like to have? As I see it, Open Source (at least bigger projects), where meritocracy reigns, has a higher barrier of entry than proprietary software, in terms of skills. Any moron can get a job doing VB user interfaces, but the moron in question would hardly get *any code* into a high profile OSS project.
Now that there is no incentive to pay for any software, the software that is available will decrease in quality over time until everyone will have to write all of their own code out of necessity.
Oh my god, that has to be among the most absurd logic I have ever seen. There is incentive to pay for software, if the SW in question provides something for which there is no OSS equivalent. OSS mostly commodizes the *infrastructure*, custom stuff and most apps will still be written by paid programmers. Ignore RMS, he doesn't represent all (or even majority) of OSS community.
I recently switched from Linux to Windows partly because of these views and partly because of low quality and lack of imagination in the Linux world.
How about lack of innovation, and the way OSS just follows in MSFT's footsteps? Or superior Value and lower TCO in MSFT sw? I can't help but assume that you are working for either MSFT, Gartner or equivalent.
As a FreeBSD user, I'm still ambivalent in the attitude towards BSD gaining popularity via the SCO FUD campaign.
And you should. Failure of Linux would not be a success for FreeBSD. FreeBSD is no more safe than Linux, it's just less succesful and therefore not worth SCO's precious lawyer time. Success of Linux is success for FreeBSD, because it means more attention to app infrastrucure surrounding Linux, which is easy/trivial to port to FreeBSD.
FreeBSD people rejoicing as Linux is attacked only server to alienate them from the "rest" of the community. I have run Free- and NetBSD on my home computer in the past, and kinda liked them (and the idea of the ability to exploit their code in proprietary setting), but in the light of the behaviour of much of FreeBSD community recently, I don't know anymore...
The reality, like it or not, is that a lot of our customers want us to use MS technologies for their projects.
It's sad, really, that they don't understand that Java runs on win32 as well.
I'm very pleased to be using C# instead of C++ for the reasons given in my previous post.
Understandably, C++ being such a PITA to program. Given a choice between C++ and C#, I would use C# in a heartbeat. However, a more realistic choice is the one between C# and Java, and in that space Java is the winner, because of its cross-platform capability if for nothing else.
Java is a huge step forward compared to C++, so your point (that C# is really just a MS proprietary version of Java) is a huge plus as far as I'm concerned.
Again, you make the mistake of comparing C# with C++. It's the thinking MSFT wants to impose on people: compare it to C++, not Java. Kinda like advertising a new Xeon by telling how much better app support it has compared to an embedded CPU.
C# and .NET look very cool as a replacement for venerable C++.
Are you on crack? C# is a Java wannabe, and can hardly compete with C++ in areas where Java can't compete with C++ (i.e. severely cramped power-performance-memory critical environments).
Repeat after me: C# is a MSFT version of Java. C# is a MSFT version of Java.
C# is a MSFT version of Java.
The fact that they often advertise it as a replacement for C++ only serves to remind us what drooling morons MSFT assumes their developer "community" to be.
... you can read a discussion about ADHD, general lack of concentration and inability to get a job done.
I also am quite annoyed that RedHat doesn't make it easy to facilitate XFS right out of the box (rootfs support).
Now that RH has switched to a more community oriented development model, perhaps you can help?
I am also offended by RedHat that baits and switches a community by having popular (5.2/6.2/7.1-7.3) versions for free, then they start charging for this Advanced Server product on the same order of magnitude as Microsoft software [RH-AS is over $1000].
RHAS is great once you have to convince your boss to switch some critical piece over to Linux, an he is troubled by the rapid development (i.e. short lifespan) of Linux distros in general (and no, Debian can't usually be utilized in this space, due to proprietary application support).
I think that the major corporate interest should be obvious.
It's not that simple. MSFT and Sun are on the side of SCO.
There's no reason to prevent SCO from talking if no one is listening in the first place.
On the contrary, a lot of people and companies are listening. If they are allowed to say anything they want, with nobody providing counterarguments, the unwashed will start believing that they are right.
I am almost happy that they are openly attacking Linux right now (it was bound to happen sooner or later). At least this forces everyone to wake up, instead of just ignoring the case as a contract issue between IBM and SCO.
... and before anyone starts whining, this is of course not technically a lawsuit (yet). But investigation by a public commission might be even better, as things there are not dictated simply by who's got the most money.
Someone (Mad Dog?) said that Linux and OSS are international treasures that should be protected, and government intervention might be just what we need. Obviously US government would never intervene (Bush & all), but there is hope that e.g. EU or Oz might have something to say.
Expect to see more of this in the future! And more publicity these counterlawsuits get, the better...
You're not reffering to this article titled "SCO's Other Investor: Sun Microsystems" now are you?
Ooops, yeah.
And yet, when McBride sneezes, it makes headlines at Slashdot.
I dunno. When it was officially revealed that Sun is the secret licensee, it was not covered at all (which IMO would have been in order).
How long do we have to wait for the total excommunication of SCO from the tech industry?
IBM, HP, Dell and friends could easily drop support for SCO Unix on their hardware, all OSS should refuse to compile on SCO unix (print an URL to a website explaining why). A lot could be done by adjusting autoconf or whatever.
Their representatives would not be allowed to enter premises of any company, their IP packages would be silently scrapped by routers on the internet.
Darl and Sontag would be kicked out of their yacht clubs.
Essentially, they would be told that everybody hates them. Money matters, but let's not underestimate industry recognition.
For many classes of applications (development tools, libraries, scripting systems...), a $5 $hareware version makes no sense. Such software is expected to be available indefinitely (guaranteed by OSS), and a community is always a plus. You don't get that with shareware.
It often makes sense to maintain backward compatibility for a stage or two
Actually, this is great advertising for both VMware and Linux, as it suggests that the migration need not be that radical at all. I suppose MS would never want to emphasize how they aren't "really" migrating at all, as it is in their interest to keep corps/orgs in belief that in order to migrate, they have to abandon all their legacy stuff.
Actually, this Munich case is a proof that almost any org can migrate, without any special computer usage pattern (web uis only, for example). Perhaps, after a few years, they will notice that Wine will do all their remaining win16/win32 stuff.
(I'm using Firebird on Windows 2000 at the moment)
Unfortunately the tab support in Firebird is broken. They removed the "close other tabs" command, for some reason. I often open a shitload of tabs, and on finding something interesting I "close other tabs", to ease up the task of opening and reading yet more tabs. This is perhaps the main reason I still use Mozilla Classic.