I had always thought that if you take your material and mail it to yourself without ever opening it, you have undeniable proof of copyright unless someone else can come up with something similar and with an earlier date. There is your permanent form. This works in Canada but I have no idea about the U.S.
Anybody know? (My apologies if anyone here has already mentioned this)
If you find Xhosting somewhat of a drag, try VNC at http://homepages.gs.net/vnc/xvnc.html . It won't make all of your digs with X dissapear but at least that portion of it will zoom along a little better. I use it at work to run IE on a windows box for checking customers complaints about their pages not working at all. (Front page gimps NS most of the time).
"All models after the 1000 had "kickstart" in ROM, though it was possible to modify the function jump table and replace a ROM routine with a patch in RAM."
Very true but there were a few exceptions. Although I have a 3000T with Kickstart in ROM, my other 3000 pizza box is without. I need a kickstart disk to load the rom image everytime with it. Or have the image on HD. I miss those little buggers. Neither of them work at the moment. There's a company back east here in Canada that can repair them for me though.
Thanks for the link. I've never been one to follow the masses though as the masses rarely conform to my own personal needs and or values. The only 'broken' pages I may run into are ones that are not w3c standard compliant in the future. At least I'm hoping any way with Mozilla's evolution.
The idea of introducing a browser and pushing it to the forefront, all the while adding more and more proprietary features so the maker can achieve a stranglehold on the web by breaking it apart is not my idea of good or useful. NS is just as guilty as IE in that respect but less so now.
I guess I happen to be one of the few (ie. not the rest of the world) who actually cares about this stuff. A 100% compliant browser would be a very welcome addition to designers and builders. Especially if it took off.
And sure, I'd even pay money for a browser like that. No problem... =)
I'm not so quick to thank MS for free browsers. Before we had NS, Mosaic for example was around for all to use. IE was just a reflex based on fear and IMO along with NS, are a canker to www standards.
I'll hang on with NS until Mozilla is stable enough to use. Besides, for now anything that smirks of a binary only dist, rarely does me any good. A price I do/don't have to pay since I don't use an x86.
I still own my 3000T and a 3000 pizza box. Neither of them work at the moment though. One of these days I'll have to ship them back east for repairs.
Any how, the point is more like the ideas and concepts could be somewhat up to date even still though the means is sadly not on par. So I have to agree with you there.
I also use Linux all the time and find that the UI, graphical or not can be as ugly or spiffy as you like along with the many different packages you have to choose from. I never really liked the way the Amiga WB looked either until I used NewIcons with it. (Never was a fan of MagicWB =). )
BeOS is supported on Intel based systems yes. It also runs natively on PPC architecture quite well. You mentioned it was only x86. Also for the reasons I used the Amiga, Be was and is the main company around that fills the gap that my burnt out Ami's have left behind. Linux right now is doing a great job of filling that niche rather nicely too. I'm referring to my musical hobbies. MS Windows has it's fair share of decent apps etc for that as well. I just choose not to use MS products when I can get away with it. My own little hangup I guess.
Keep up the good work Linux Developers!
Oh and one more thing...
I sincerely believe that my experience with the Amiga is the main reason why I wasn't scared to try Linux and actually learn to use it (As pitiful as I am at this point)
So I'm kinda suprised a former Amigan would find Linux or possibly any other Unix beyond them. Of course though, you can't hide in WB, ie. a WM or DT environment in Linux until you compile and install X first. =) I've logged many an hour without bothering with loadwb in the startup-sequence. Nowhere close to using Linux but the closest I ever came before I did.
I wish the Amiga well and can only hope I have enough to afford one sometime to add to my collection...
You too huh? I saw the news post, promptly hit the page, and then promptly sighed once I read the requirements. =(
This sort of thing is happening much more frequently. Heh, it used to be, "Oh I can't run that because I don't use Window's." and now it's "I can't run that either cuz I don't have an Intel based machine."
A fellow further up the comments mentioned BOCHS. Has anyone gotten it to compile under LinuxPPC?
A strange idea... running the linux port of sheepshaver and V-PC running an intel flavour of linux. What a mess... I think I'll pass. =)
But then, (though I doubt it) since G2 for Linux is still beta, we might see more platforms after the first stable release.
Ahh, interesting. I wasn't sure (and still am not though) that this player or others that will conform, will be the 'be-all end-all' for storage. If this is the route that this secure format is going to take, it's of no importance to anyone except those already caught in the loop so to speak.
I don't really see a secure format being all that bad if an artist that gives away free music on their site who also sells CD's with tracks not given away, to add the format as an option to buying the CD instead. But if it requires them to buy more hardware, I don't see that as a good thing at all.
Assuming that one could afford to license the format as well. Which the more I think about it, isn't any different than having a label gouge you for your product.
Take an indi artist who's doing somewhat ok, he/she decides to license the format for a theoretical 1000 dollars for 500 secure streams which might have to be renewed every year. Who does that money go to? I'll bet precisely the same people that previously had no connections to the artist, of which made the distinction of that artist indi in the first place.
This is potentially a way for parts of the industry to make money off of artists where they in fact didn't prior to the format. Sort of reminds me of companies wanting the Linux community to program for them for nothing in return.
I guess it all depends on how they decide to implement it.
"My guess is that because you're an independant artist, you're not part of the industry and are therefore irrellevant."
Uhh, not quite. I see your point and how you got there. But it doesn't quite work that way.
Regardless of whether you have a label or not, you still have to get your work pressed and/or burned. You still have to employ print companies to do your jackets. You still have to purchase equipment. You still have to pay for repairs or buy the equipment to do the repairs yourself.
The list goes on and on. Oh sure, a label can do all of that for you as well, but the only real thing of value that they can do, and this is the only real reason they exist, is to promote you.
So basically if an artist doesn't have someone promoting them, you are saying that they are not part of the industry. Which to me sounds like a bunch of phoophie.
I'm not on a label, yet I pour money into areas of the industry that a signed band does as well. I'm not on a label, yet I've enjoyed air time on commercial radio. I'm not on a label, yet I've brought money into venues because I've played. I'm not on a label, yet I spend time in the studio.
Again the list goes on. There are far more artists like myself than main stream artists or signed unheard of ones. Except for maybe the Video arena, a large chunk of the industry's cash flow comes from the little guy.
There's a lot more to the industry than just distributing (IE. Labels). I'll take care of that part myself. Ergo, indi's are not irrelevant.
So back to my original question which was... Is this secure file format going to be beyond the little guy's reach if the little guy so wishes to use it as an additional option for their site? That question may be a little premature still.
I myself am not particularly interested in secure formats as I plan to (hopefully) make money in a different way. But others hosted on the site may not agree with my ideals themselves.
If it turns out to have a license not too much different than say REAL's server, I can't see it becoming anything big except allowing proprietary music remain proprietary when it appears on the 'net. Which is no threat to me or any other indi artist. I can't see it changing piracy either. Unless they start messing with CD's and players as well.
Basically I don't understand why I've read so much that is either against it or worried about it. I just can't see it changing much of anything.
If anyone has a better idea of it's implications, feel free to comment constructively. =)
Personally, I'm not worried about the RIAA's newest quest for a secure audio format. As an independant artist myself, at least I have a choice. There's nothing wrong with that. I'll still use the tried and true mp3 format for free downloads and offer orders on an actual CD if the listeners so choose.
But I wonder. Once this new secure standard arrives, how much is it going to cost Joe electronic musician to use it if he/she wants to?
I can't really see it helping too many artists out there that are indi and with it being so easy for indi artists to distribute their work over the 'net now, we could probably look forward to there being so much more new music from people like myself rather than signed artists.
In all respect, I don't see a secure format changing my life in any way shape or form. Mpeg audio isn't disappearing and the only stuff I do copy are titles that I already own.
It seems to me that a company like Sony will only be pandering to artists that are already signed and wish to distribute their music on the 'net. Basically furthering the distinction between an indi and signed artist.
I haven't been keeping up with the latest on the RIAA but did see something on CNN last night about how they beleive a secure format is well needed for the industry. Well, part of it maybe is more like my take on it.
Other than pirating, can anyone see a rational difference in the future because of this? All it would do is make proprietary music more propietary. Unless I'm still missing many points.
If I am, I'd like to know. Guess I better look into it some more.
Eudora Lite under Wine.
on
CDE vs Gnome
·
· Score: 1
I haven't tried it myself, (I use a PPC) but a friend of mine with a P-166 running RH5.2 with a 2.2.5 kernel runs Eudora Lite via Wine with no real problems. Drag and drop doesn't quite work but hey. Might be worth a try.
You do have a good point. And one that could be overcome by developing partion 'ware that would ask you a few simple questions as to how you would like your system to be set up. Which in itself is rather difficult to do unless the author/s decide on some pre-configured schemes to use. (this may already exist in some incarnation or other. I don't know of one yet though) IE which file system/s to use (depends on your current kernel), generic partition sizes based on available space, or in the case of swap - what you intend to use your system for. Etc etc... For Windows, Partition Magic would solve this problem completely. I've heard it supports linux. Or at least it should support ext2 if that is true. It is a commercial product though. I will however mention that upgrading and or installing linux on a machine that already has/had linux on it is just as easy as it is with Windows or MacOS.
On a blank system, it's about the same. Assuming your CDRom can't autoboot,(Mac's have been doing it for a long time now) you have to have an initial install disk for either OS to get everything started. Without that, it is very difficult. =) The only part about one being 'easier' than the other is if you only want one partion in a Windows install. Otherwise you'll have to fool with that for a while. Although much simpler than using pdisk or fdisk for linux partitioning I'll agree.
Any more options given than just a few examples of typical installs would make it confusing to most new users without the proper background. With something like partition magic, I would imagine you would still need to have a good idea as to the sizes of your new partitions as well. I've never used it so I wouldn't really know. What I don know about it is that you can partion your drive without losing your windows installation that is already on it. Much in the same way pdisk works on the mac. I wouldn't put all of your trust into it though.
It actually can get much more complicated than that just by the sheer fact that linux (or many other unices) by nature, are so flexible and configurable. By making judgments for other users you in turn limit the intial installation to a much smaller degree which may or may not be in the users best interest of intent at that point or at some unknown future. Which then in turn _may_ actually steer them to the decision that the OS is incompetent or lacking if they don't know any better at the time.
Knowledge about the tools you use never hurts and a basic understanding of what those tools are capable of doesn't hurt either. Sooner or later something like understanding the geometry of a disk is going to be very handy and sometimes needed depending on what you might want to do.
I admire the fact that now a days virtually anyone can buy a system and use it without too much difficulty. Ease of use I guess is what it is termed as these days. I wouldn't go as far as to call it 'user friendly' though IMHO. Not everyone would agree with me but I have my own reasons. Here is one, I'll try to make it short. Bear with me. =)
My first 'real' computer aside from a cocoII or vic-20 or a c-64, was an amiga. At first glance the system looked no different really than any other GUI based system in terms of use. But that wasn't why I bought one. Part of the reason and a large one at that was because of the CLI along with the GUI. Both worked extremeley well together and I could exist virtually forever using only one or the other. I got used to using both and realized the importance of that flexability in terms of my own values of using an OS or simply using the computer itself to it's fullest potential. Eventually as the years went by, I was forced to buy a new system (both my amigas died). I had a choice to by a Macintosh or a Wintel. I ended up choosing a MacPPC for reasons that aren't important here (basically Hardware oriented). I had no experience using the Mac except for way back in high school during a course in computer animation. (back in 1987. A lot has changed since then) =) The system was completely functional out of the box and asides from needing some input about myself and my internet account, there was no configuring necessary. Which to me was a decent bonus. (I'm quite impatient when I get something new.) As time went by, I became accustomed to my new home and realized that in fact, MacOS is extremely easy to use. As was/is Windows. And has a fair amount of power of use in areas. Some of this power is directly related to it's ease of use. The same can be said about Windows too. But there is a tradeoff, as soon as I learned my way around, I wanted(needed) to start using the machine in ways that the OS wasn't really capable of doing. At least not easily. The same goes for my experience with Windows (to rewind a moment, Some may be thinking about my comments of a cli in a gui system. Dos Shell isn't exaclty a viable alternative for myself. It doesn't communicate with Windows in the way I would expect a cli/gui system to act. Applescripting really doesn't either) And no fualt to Windows. As Windows was intended to replace Dos(or at least that is the way I understood it). As MacOS was from the start of the Macintosh, intended for complete ease of use without any complication.
It came to the point that I felt that I was using a machine at only part of it's potential. Basically only half of an OS was available to me. (this is just in my case. Not true for everyone)
Unless I opted to use 3rd party applications that would come somewhat close to my needs but usually not on the mark. As well those same apps were very hard indeed to get to work well together by communicating with eachother directly or by way of setting some sort of environment variables. Applescript is actually quite functional but only if the authors included various support for it in their apps.
In no way am I cutting apart the OS('s), I'm just expecting more from it than was intended. There are solutions to my problems as well. And this is where my point is.
The OS suddenly lost it's ease of use. It in turn has actually become more difficult to use via the solutions than it is for me to use another OS such as gnu/linux. So now I have a reason to migrate as where before I was being served right. My needs just changed is all.
Earlier on I mentioned that I had 'started' out as an amiga user. I ended up taking a lot of things for granted because of that and for a while I thought that there was no real alternative to the WB. For the past few years a friend of mine was running linux and I was honestly impressed with it. Unfortunately I had shied away from it because my main hobby is creating music and I didn't see much in the way of that department for linux. I was wrong on that and I'll blame that on FUD. =) As it turns out, I did find my alternative to WB. In fact, linux is by far the best OS I've used.
Which brings me to say this. I beleive that linux (in my case) is the best alternative because I needed to graduate from another system that hampered me. If that first system did not hamper me, then I probably wouldn't use linux. Or even need to for that matter. The first OS (ie MacOS or Windows) would be adequately doing the job it was intended to do.
If for by chance those OS's were fulfilling my needs, there would probably be no need for me to know or understand disk geometry. Let alone be aware of disk geometry.
But if they didn't do their jobs, my guess is that the reason would be because of one's need for more configurabilty and/or the need to get closer to the hardware you are using. In other words something like disk geometry would become an asset to your knowledge base. Using a loopback device is quite handy for creating disk images with various file systems. You may even need one to create a compressed file system for a rescue disk or some such.
The idea of linux on every desktop is an exciting vision. It would help educate most of us or at least tone down the 'blinking 12 problem' to a degree.
I have to remember though that with the advent of Windows and the MacOS as an example, the target audiences were mainly those who didn't use computers or really have any knowledge about them prior. The majority of users today, be it at home or at work, are those that entered the computing world relatively late. It remains to be seen how many of this newer computing population would have chosen more "robust" operating systems if the new user population wasn't so reliant on the popularity of these easy to use OS's in particular. Not to say that an OS driven by ease of use makes or keeps one stupid or ignorant. But in my opinion, the trade off for this is that many aspects and functions that can be acheived are hidden completely away from the user or tucked away in such a way that you may never be aware that you have options or more capabilities. It takes time for a user to outgrow an OS and migrate to a more suitable one if that user was so inclined.
Installation in my opinion is not an actual issue. The issue as others here today have mentioned, is _who_ should be installing linux.
I suppose though that if you want to switch from say An Apple or MS OS to linux because of moral issues alone instead of more technical ones, a more straight forward and easier install in the partitioning department would be a definite asset. But be aware, eventually you might have to start learning a few more things anyway after you've commited. Not necessarily true, but highly probable.
On a side note. I'm just extememly happy and content that I can do everything I want to do regardless if it takes a little brain sweat. I'm sure I'll be sweating a lot less in the longrun because of this. I'm also happy that I can do anything that any other OS is capable of doing as well. And that things as far as development are concerned seem to me, to be heading in a decent direction and at a steady pace.
One last thing. Something I find a little interesting and possibly at times, mildly annoying. Notice that no where until now have I mentioned MacOS X or WinNT. I read and hear so much about whether or not linux is ready for the desktop environment. Why do I not hear about the same debates with NT and or MacOS X? Until just recently MacOS X wasn't even available and we are still waiting for the next release of NT. (Win2000 of which is directly related to this point). It seems to me that at least right now, those two OS's aren't viable maybe because of price or because of useablity in a desktop environment. I'm not sure.
But what I am sure about is that Linux is ahead of either product at this point in time. Whether one finds it hard to install or not. It's the server OS's that linux contends with. Not the server OS's soon to be dropped predecessors (IE MacOS X end user, and Win2000) in the desktop sector of users. When that happens, then it is safe to speculate as to what system has what merits and which one doesn't as far as desktops go. And maybe then there will be a more pressing need to make something like partitioning a little more transparent. I actually think that installation in general has become much more a joy than it was some while ago. It's all happening, it just takes time.
The debate is a lot more complex than what is generally being discussed. Codependent aspects are either being overlooked or ignored to simplify the argument. This can't really be done without producing some flaw or notion of FUD in one's impending conclusion. Heck, I'm more than likely guilty of this myself. =)
I might as well write the day off as a loss as far as news on the 'net goes. Hmm. Wonder if the the freshmeat thing is a hoax too. Be bad for Scoop if it isn't.
Too bad for mankind in general if Cold Fusion actually was here and now. =)
I think that the whole name issue has become a rather moot point. I also beleive that RMS is not exactly lost in mind about it. Whether or not there is a shift in the name as the majority of us call it, he's already driven the point home and is probably most obviously aware of just how much attention the whole issue has brought to light. He's already won his "Holy War" if you want to call it that.
Even if you choose to only call the OS 'Linux', and were not aware of GNU's contribution (I personally can't see one not being so), chances are pretty fair that you do now.
Anyone outside of the community will most likely know now as well. Or at least know of it's existence. Thus with any luck, those might be fortunate enough to actually grasp what GNU and or FSF actually stands for. We all already know that GNU does not stand for RMS. =)
Whether Richard Stallman is a raving egotistical madman or is someone of great endurance and virtue remains upon which side of the fence the judge has spent the majority of their life.
Not that I matter, but my view on it seems to lend itself quite easily to the idea that what RMS is trying to "pull off", is something more along the lines of educating the uneducated.
Unfortunately it seems that at least 'some' the vocal parts of our community that _are_ "educated" are taking his 'preachings' as something that is directed at them. In a way it is becuase of word of mouth. But as a whole, I'm pretty sure that the established community already knows the virtues of free software. With people flocking to Linux, open source et al, I would think it would be in our best interest for people to actually get in and 'drive' rather than just kick the tires.
It's not like we're being told how to tie our shoes all over again. Or how we prefer to tie them. The main point is that we know and can.
The whole name issue is also a matter of your own view as to what an OS actually is. Is it a kernel or is it what sits on top? I say it's both. But I remind you all that if I take away my interface to the OS, ie. my monitor for one example, the OS still exists, but my ability to use it has been lost/diminished. Obviously an interface to the OS is extremely important. But not so important that I cannot say that it is a variable part of my computer system. Surely I can replace my NEC monitor and use a compatable Acer instead. Maybe the picture quality is reduced by such a switch, but no less usable.
In abstraction, I view the kernel in the same fashion. Without it, there is no 'speak' to the hardware. You all already know this. I would also hardly call NT, Linux if somehow you replaced the NT kernel with the Linux kernel. It wouldn't even be a Unix or Unixish system even still. You would have to add what's 'on top' along side of the rest of NT to do it. Even then, NT is still not Unixish. The other half would be. IE. Interix as an example, is pretty much a Unixish system yet runs on top of the NT kernel along side the whole NT system. Interix is not NT, yet uses the NT kernel. It is also being reviewed as yet another possible Unix in it's own rite. (Yikes. Unix running on an NT kernel which runs on top of a microkernel. It's been around for a while. Anyone use it? Just curious)
The Kernel is an interface to the hardware. It's a very important piece to the OS as a whole. We all know that already. We also should know that if we ever chose to replace the kernel (heaven forbid) the UI and command line will probably look and feel just the way you are used to it looking and feeling. This is a rather simplistic argument but it can be understood. Of course you would feel uncomfortable about calling it Linux, but really now, if system performance were somewhat on par with the norm, would you be able to tell the difference? I mean aside from coding for it. =)
Maybe this is the issue here. I don't code. I'm limited to scripting languages. Perhaps since the community is largely coding based or even brought up from a coding base, the term Linux would be more fitting. As that is probably what is important to the programmers. At least someone who codes would be more intimate with the kernel than say someone like myself.
The chicken or the egg? I admire what RMS has accomplished and as well as what he is currently trying to do regarding this particular issue. But I don't see a compromise short of calling the OS something completely different. And I can't see that happening either. So for me as well as many others regardless of thier reasons, Linux on it's own will have to suffice.
If one MUST conform to any particular name, then I say don't bite the hand that feeds you. I still admire RMS and what it is that he preaches as I've come to know many of you do as well, but I'd say that the rest of the tribe that have done thier part have fed me the most. Regardless of the portions served by any one entity in itself. I'm not one for popular opinion or following the masses. But this time I see it fairly reasonable to do so.
Calling Linux, GNU/Linux would most definitely help the free software movement. But would it also hurt it it were not called GNU/Linux?
I'm not entirely sure. But I don't think that it would.
The community itself does a pretty darn good job of advocating free software and the likes on it's own it seems. Flames and all. =)
Regarding your commentary here. Something that I've noticed about a lot of people's opinions about RMS seem to bother me as well. The biggest thing is that a lot of those who actually voice themselves here on/. think that he (RMS) feels his fire is being snuffed out by Linus. Hence the whole name thing. GNU/Linux. That's not my take on it at all.
I really don't think that he presses this name thing because he feels the need to be recognized himself. Rather he feels the need that at least now is an important time to recognize the idea of Free Software. Average Joe wouldn't see the name Linux and say, "Wow, this whole idea is rather neat!" let alone make him think twice about what exactly free software and open source actually is and means.
In other words, the product of a virtuous community is being the subject of attention rather than the virtuous community itself. Without that community... Linux would be worse than MSWindows as an example. No matter how good or efficient that product (Linux / GNU/Linux) is.
I don't necessarily agree with everything Mr.Stallman says. But he's onto something here and it makes me kind of sick when I see so many of us flaming him when he stands up for what we are. Or pretend to be anyway.
If there really is a battle out there. Like so many say there is between Linux or GNU/Linux (however you may prefer) and other OS's such as MS's, it isn't OS vs OS at all. It's a cummunity's beleif model against another more mainstream one. GNU/Linux is merely a statement. Pardon the expression, A love child so to speak.
On a side note... One that may have relevance or one that may not (I don't really beleive so myself), I'm not a programmer. I'm a musician. But that doesn't mean I can't contribute to the community. Also, I've never had a Linux box or any other Unix system. (I ran FreeBSD for a while on my A3000T a few years ago though. But hardly long enough to have that count for anything) I've friends that have used Linux over the years and still do. As a result I've been learning more about it in the technical sense and as a whole the idea around it. I'm currently waiting for my R5 distro of LinuxPPC. I specifically bought a PPC G3 to run Linux. I also needed the Mac platform because of Pro-tools.
I mention this because I see some/.'ers flaming others because of choices they've made concerning the actual hardware they currently use. =) Function before machismo is my motto. Not everyone has the same needs as others.
You don't even have to be using Linux itself to understand the whole concept behind it or even appreciate it. Although I think it would help to practice what one preaches. I myself haven't used it for good reasons up until now. Music software/editors and sequencers as well as software synthesis are making headway in Linux. So now I can finally leave and use something worthwhile and not have to give up a great deal of my favorite hobby. And feel good about it all the while. Maybe even dredge up my old and creaky programming skills and bring them up to date sometime soon and write my own software as well.
Anyhow, I've gone way off topic. =)
I just wanted to say that you are somewhat right and that I somewhat agree with you. All except for the idea that RMS may make a bit of a scary or crazy figurehead. Again I don't beleive that he's looking for his space in the spotlight. Just trying to make sure that the idea that started this whole thing isn't lost or overshadowed. There is no real figurehead for GNU/Linux except for the media's need to produce one for public consumption. Once someone really starts to use Linux, they'll be hard pressed to not stumble across the whole ideal that makes it possible anyway. So in my eyes, practically anyone could promote the OS and get away with it. Except for maybe a select few... Gates Jobs Haynie.. =)
Like it or not, RMS's a large reason for all of this. As far as charisma goes? I don't think charisma has anything to do with GNU/Linux at all. I don't go out of my way to use a product because I or someone else might find the person or what have you promoting it to be cute. How many people here, old and new use GNU/Linux because they think Linus Torvalds is cute? Or rather don't use it because Richard Stallman may come off as fanatic about the whole subject? Does a Gnu for a mascot keep people away from using GNU software and does a cute penguin really attract people to linux?
Not many is my guess. Linux doesn't need catchy (insert musical Intel bells here) and (insert flashy translucent colours there) as well as (insert NewTek video toaster girl here) or even to be more precise (insert catchy phrase "Where do you want to go today?" somwhere in there too). We're not looking for a beautiful head of hair to sell shampoo or anything here...
In your first paragraph you say that Linus is a better match for marketing Linux. Promoting it would be a term I would be more comfortable with. But what do you mean by "marketing it"? Marketing the OS or marketing the beleif and moral system that made it possible? I would think that the latter is far more important than the OS itself. But of course in the world as it is, you would need something tangible like the OS to bring attention to how it was created. IE the whole free software/open source models. Which can be used for far more than just software licensing.
The OS and the community to me seem to be very symbiotic (it has to be) and it would be very hard if not impossible to completely seperate the two. In effect it would destroy the OS as it is known now. And the community would still find a way to survive although probably somewhat split about the whole thing. There's your code fork. And that would make Linux and what it stands for a bit of a failure. Oh I'm sure it wouldn't hurt people like you and myself.
We'd just keep using and developing the GNU/Linux that we always have. But that's not the point. GNU/Linux isn't about keeping it to ourselves, it's always been about sharing. Even if something like that did happen, My guess is that it would only be a matter of time before the 'pure' form of Linux would start to rise again. It always will. But it certainly would be better if something like that didn't have to happen. And it doesn't. Why waste time. Our time...
More importantly, as your example shows, RMS doesn't have to be the only one around to get the message across or rather just remind us as to what it's all about. I personally wouldn't care as to who is spreading the message or how many. The more the better. I also beleive that Stallman doesn't really care either. But since he is who is is, why not? Flames or no flames.
I ask one simple question of you. Why on earth should we activley hide our Pillars of the community from the outside world? Shame?
I don't understand. Maybe someone can help me out on that... Or maybe it's because I'm a newbie. Have I missed something here?
Thanks... I found the same Faq. It's http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jonh/lppc-serve/cache/1. html . If it weren't for that, I wouldn't have noticed that my right alt/option key was busted. Luckily I have a spare KB. I'll fix it later. I thought it would have been strange if there wasn't a kb modifier...
I don't know what you mean by that. I can tell you though that you don't have to quit your job to do any other activities outside of that job...
Furthermore, as a musician myself, I really dislike the idea of others making money off of my own creation and dictating to me where, how and to whom I can distribute my creation. With that said, I can offer my creation for free. In this case in the format of an mp3.
Now I don't know about you, but most people now a days still own cd players and not portable mp3 -players. So offering a full album on cd to me seems quite alright. Not to mention that any money as profit made from that cd will actually go to me. In the hopes that it may help subsidize more work created by me. This is a good thing.
I could also use the mp3's to create a market for other things. Like T-Shirt's, ball caps and even posters or bumper stickers.
A band or artist could use the same model for making money as say RedHat or LinuxPPC or Debian use to distribute thier flavour of Linux.
It isn't a big mystery. At least it isn't anymore IMHO.
Heck! Rob sells/. T-Shirts now. I plan on buying them all. AND... I don't have to pay for this wonderful service he offers. KeWl huh? =P
I don't beleive that audio is really supported at all on the LIVE version. The internal speaker works though. It's only meant to give you an idea of how it will run. And it runs damn mighty awrighty fine on a G3 OC'd to 292 thank you. =)
A small detail that I haven't yet figured out if there is a remedy for is the fact that the Mac mouse only has one mouse button. For all intents and purposes, it's a left mouse button. Keep this in mind if you have any ideas about downloading LIVE to use The Gimp and save out to floppy or zip or what have you. (Although I'm not even sure if you can save out to disk in LIVE). You need a right mouse button to activate the save options etc, by right clicking on the image. No keyboard modifiers to emulate a right click that I know of.
Kind of a pain really. I use a 4 button trackball. All four buttons are left mouse buttons in KDE. =) You could use the KDE mouse options to make the mouse a left handed mouse and that'll get you your menu alright, but try to get any further than that and you can't. =) You can't even switch back to a right handed mouse.
I'd only blame that on the LIVE version though. It's only meant to demo. (Unless there is a way around it ) Otherwise, if every little goodie was in the download, you might as well download LPPC lite for the small difference in size it would be after the fact.
That's great. I pre-ordered R5 quite some time ago. I understand the delays too. There was a message posted on linuxppc.org that those who pre-ordered R5 were going to get a copy of 4.1 sent to them. Hmm, still waiting for that and my T-Shirt as well as some sort of reply to the emails I've sent there. =) I'd ftp 4.1 but every time I look at my poor 56k modem, I laugh.
On another note and sort of off topic... I'm an old Amiga user. My 3000T bit the dust almost two years ago and it took me a year after that to decide on what system/s I should buy. I knew about Linux at the time but stayed away from it because I mainly use my system for music sequencing and recording. I also didn't like the idea of Windows (a matter of preference), as well as the idea that most of the higher end hardware I was interested in wasn't available or supported on Intel based hardware. When the G3's came out, my mind was made up. Not only that, Linux for PPC was making leaps and bounds. So my plan was to get a PowerMac and use the MacOS for things that weren't up to snuff yet in Linux. One reason I like the Linux alternative to Mac or Windows is that I'm not stuck in the GUI. I actually quite like the MacOS now that I've learned it's in and outs (didn't take very long) but it lacks in the area of flexibility. Flexibility was something I was used to on my old Amiga. A CLI or Shell is an imortant thing to me IMHO. AppleScript can be useful, but only if the app that you're interested in is AppleScriptable.
Anyhow, The more I'm learning by using Linux the more I'm inclined to think that I may not ever really need to use anything else. Functionally and morally speaking.
So I guess I'll go out and find one of these MacWorld mags with LinuxPPC and find out if it's an actual full install or not of R4.
Well then, I'm off to go find out. Heh, that'll teach me for posting before I read the article. It's only the 'LIVE' version. Ah well. =) Time to get ADSL. heh...
Yikes! 3Mkeys a sec. I thought I wasn't doing too bad at 980Kkeys. =) P-II's are much better at integer math than G3's though. I wonder what a dual G3 would perform like. Hmmm.
Slashdot Mirror
; > DiG 8.2 > @a.root-servers.net passport.com ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 10 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; passport.com, type = A, class = IN ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: COM. 1D IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. hostmaster.internic.NET. ( 1999122401 ; serial 30M ; refresh 15M ; retry 1W ; expiry 1D ) ; minimum ;; Total query time: 300 msec ;; FROM: argo to SERVER: a.root-servers.net 198.41.0.4 ;; WHEN: Sat Dec 25 08:31:33 1999 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 30 rcvd: 107 There ya go.
I had always thought that if you take your material and mail it to yourself without ever opening it, you have undeniable proof of copyright unless someone else can come up with something similar and with an earlier date. There is your permanent form. This works in Canada but I have no idea about the U.S.
Anybody know? (My apologies if anyone here has already mentioned this)
If you find Xhosting somewhat of a drag, try VNC at http://homepages.gs.net/vnc/xvnc.html . It won't make all of your digs with X dissapear but at least that portion of it will zoom along a little better. I use it at work to run IE on a windows box for checking customers complaints about their pages not working at all. (Front page gimps NS most of the time).
"All models after the 1000 had "kickstart" in ROM, though it was possible to modify the function jump table and replace a ROM routine with a patch in RAM."
Very true but there were a few exceptions. Although I have a 3000T with Kickstart in ROM, my other 3000 pizza box is without. I need a kickstart disk to load the rom image everytime with it. Or have the image on HD. I miss those little buggers. Neither of them work at the moment. There's a company back east here in Canada that can repair them for me though.
" "
Thanks for the link. I've never been one to follow the masses though as the masses rarely conform to my own personal needs and or values. The only 'broken' pages I may run into are ones that are not w3c standard compliant in the future. At least I'm hoping any way with Mozilla's evolution.
The idea of introducing a browser and pushing it to the forefront, all the while adding more and more proprietary features so the maker can achieve a stranglehold on the web by breaking it apart is not my idea of good or useful. NS is just as guilty as IE in that respect but less so now.
I guess I happen to be one of the few (ie. not the rest of the world) who actually cares about this stuff. A 100% compliant browser would be a very welcome addition to designers and builders. Especially if it took off.
And sure, I'd even pay money for a browser like that. No problem... =)
I'm not so quick to thank MS for free browsers. Before we had NS, Mosaic for example was around for all to use. IE was just a reflex based on fear and IMO along with NS, are a canker to www standards.
I'll hang on with NS until Mozilla is stable enough to use. Besides, for now anything that smirks of a binary only dist, rarely does me any good. A price I do/don't have to pay since I don't use an x86.
Just my 2 cents
I still own my 3000T and a 3000 pizza box. Neither of them work at the moment though. One of these days I'll have to ship them back east for repairs.
Any how, the point is more like the ideas and concepts could be somewhat up to date even still though the means is sadly not on par. So I have to agree with you there.
I also use Linux all the time and find that the UI, graphical or not can be as ugly or spiffy as you like along with the many different packages you have to choose from. I never really liked the way the Amiga WB looked either until I used NewIcons with it. (Never was a fan of MagicWB =). )
BeOS is supported on Intel based systems yes. It also runs natively on PPC architecture quite well. You mentioned it was only x86. Also for the reasons I used the Amiga, Be was and is the main company around that fills the gap that my burnt out Ami's have left behind. Linux right now is doing a great job of filling that niche rather nicely too. I'm referring to my musical hobbies. MS Windows has it's fair share of decent apps etc for that as well. I just choose not to use MS products when I can get away with it. My own little hangup I guess.
Keep up the good work Linux Developers!
Oh and one more thing...
I sincerely believe that my experience with the Amiga is the main reason why I wasn't scared to try Linux and actually learn to use it (As pitiful as I am at this point)
So I'm kinda suprised a former Amigan would find Linux or possibly any other Unix beyond them. Of course though, you can't hide in WB, ie. a WM or DT environment in Linux until you compile and install X first. =) I've logged many an hour without bothering with loadwb in the startup-sequence. Nowhere close to using Linux but the closest I ever came before I did.
I wish the Amiga well and can only hope I have enough to afford one sometime to add to my collection...
I meant alpha.
You too huh? I saw the news post, promptly hit the page, and then promptly sighed once I read the requirements. =(
This sort of thing is happening much more frequently. Heh, it used to be, "Oh I can't run that because I don't use Window's." and now it's "I can't run that either cuz I don't have an Intel based machine."
A fellow further up the comments mentioned BOCHS. Has anyone gotten it to compile under LinuxPPC?
A strange idea... running the linux port of sheepshaver and V-PC running an intel flavour of linux. What a mess... I think I'll pass. =)
But then, (though I doubt it) since G2 for Linux is still beta, we might see more platforms after the first stable release.
Ahh, interesting. I wasn't sure (and still am not though) that this player or others that will conform, will be the 'be-all end-all' for storage. If this is the route that this secure format is going to take, it's of no importance to anyone except those already caught in the loop so to speak.
I don't really see a secure format being all that bad if an artist that gives away free music on their site who also sells CD's with tracks not given away, to add the format as an option to buying the CD instead. But if it requires them to buy more hardware, I don't see that as a good thing at all.
Assuming that one could afford to license the format as well. Which the more I think about it, isn't any different than having a label gouge you for your product.
Take an indi artist who's doing somewhat ok, he/she decides to license the format for a theoretical 1000 dollars for 500 secure streams which might have to be renewed every year. Who does that money go to? I'll bet precisely the same people that previously had no connections to the artist, of which made the distinction of that artist indi in the first place.
This is potentially a way for parts of the industry to make money off of artists where they in fact didn't prior to the format. Sort of reminds me of companies wanting the Linux community to program for them for nothing in return.
I guess it all depends on how they decide to implement it.
Hmmm... Maybe I'm just paranoid. =)
"My guess is that because you're an independant artist, you're not part of the industry and are therefore irrellevant."
Uhh, not quite. I see your point and how you got there. But it doesn't quite work that way.
Regardless of whether you have a label or not, you still have to get your work pressed and/or burned. You still have to employ print companies to do your jackets. You still have to purchase equipment. You still have to pay for repairs or buy the equipment to do the repairs yourself.
The list goes on and on. Oh sure, a label can do all of that for you as well, but the only real thing of value that they can do, and this is the only real reason they exist, is to promote you.
So basically if an artist doesn't have someone promoting them, you are saying that they are not part of the industry. Which to me sounds like a bunch of phoophie.
I'm not on a label, yet I pour money into areas of the industry that a signed band does as well. I'm not on a label, yet I've enjoyed air time on commercial radio. I'm not on a label, yet I've brought money into venues because I've played. I'm not on a label, yet I spend time in the studio.
Again the list goes on. There are far more artists like myself than main stream artists or signed unheard of ones. Except for maybe the Video arena, a large chunk of the industry's cash flow comes from the little guy.
There's a lot more to the industry than just distributing (IE. Labels). I'll take care of that part myself. Ergo, indi's are not irrelevant.
So back to my original question which was... Is this secure file format going to be beyond the little guy's reach if the little guy so wishes to use it as an additional option for their site? That question may be a little premature still.
I myself am not particularly interested in secure formats as I plan to (hopefully) make money in a different way. But others hosted on the site may not agree with my ideals themselves.
If it turns out to have a license not too much different than say REAL's server, I can't see it becoming anything big except allowing proprietary music remain proprietary when it appears on the 'net. Which is no threat to me or any other indi artist. I can't see it changing piracy either. Unless they start messing with CD's and players as well.
Basically I don't understand why I've read so much that is either against it or worried about it. I just can't see it changing much of anything.
If anyone has a better idea of it's implications, feel free to comment constructively. =)
Personally, I'm not worried about the RIAA's newest quest for a secure audio format. As an independant artist myself, at least I have a choice. There's nothing wrong with that. I'll still use the tried and true mp3 format for free downloads and offer orders on an actual CD if the listeners so choose.
But I wonder. Once this new secure standard arrives, how much is it going to cost Joe electronic musician to use it if he/she wants to?
I can't really see it helping too many artists out there that are indi and with it being so easy for indi artists to distribute their work over the 'net now, we could probably look forward to there being so much more new music from people like myself rather than signed artists.
In all respect, I don't see a secure format changing my life in any way shape or form. Mpeg audio isn't disappearing and the only stuff I do copy are titles that I already own.
It seems to me that a company like Sony will only be pandering to artists that are already signed and wish to distribute their music on the 'net. Basically furthering the distinction between an indi and signed artist.
I haven't been keeping up with the latest on the RIAA but did see something on CNN last night about how they beleive a secure format is well needed for the industry. Well, part of it maybe is more like my take on it.
Other than pirating, can anyone see a rational difference in the future because of this? All it would do is make proprietary music more propietary. Unless I'm still missing many points.
If I am, I'd like to know. Guess I better look into it some more.
I haven't tried it myself, (I use a PPC) but a friend of mine with a P-166 running RH5.2 with a 2.2.5 kernel runs Eudora Lite via Wine with no real problems. Drag and drop doesn't quite work but hey. Might be worth a try.
You do have a good point. And one that could be overcome by developing partion 'ware that would ask you a few simple questions as to how you would like your system to be set up. Which in itself is rather difficult to do unless the author/s decide on some pre-configured schemes to use. (this may already exist in some incarnation or other. I don't know of one yet though) IE which file system/s to use (depends on your current kernel), generic partition sizes based on available space, or in the case of swap - what you intend to use your system for. Etc etc... For Windows, Partition Magic would solve this problem completely. I've heard it supports linux. Or at least it should support ext2 if that is true. It is a commercial product though. I will however mention that upgrading and or installing linux on a machine that already has/had linux on it is just as easy as it is with Windows or MacOS.
On a blank system, it's about the same. Assuming your CDRom can't autoboot,(Mac's have been doing it for a long time now) you have to have an initial install disk for either OS to get everything started. Without that, it is very difficult. =) The only part about one being 'easier' than the other is if you only want one partion in a Windows install. Otherwise you'll have to fool with that for a while. Although much simpler than using pdisk or fdisk for linux partitioning I'll agree.
Any more options given than just a few examples of typical installs would make it confusing to most new users without the proper background. With something like partition magic, I would imagine you would still need to have a good idea as to the sizes of your new partitions as well. I've never used it so I wouldn't really know. What I don know about it is that you can partion your drive without losing your windows installation that is already on it. Much in the same way pdisk works on the mac. I wouldn't put all of your trust into it though.
It actually can get much more complicated than that just by the sheer fact that linux (or many other unices) by nature, are so flexible and configurable. By making judgments for other users you in turn limit the intial installation to a much smaller degree which may or may not be in the users best interest of intent at that point or at some unknown future. Which then in turn _may_ actually steer them to the decision that the OS is incompetent or lacking if they don't know any better at the time.
Knowledge about the tools you use never hurts and a basic understanding of what those tools are capable of doesn't hurt either. Sooner or later something like understanding the geometry of a disk is going to be very handy and sometimes needed depending on what you might want to do.
I admire the fact that now a days virtually anyone can buy a system and use it without too much difficulty. Ease of use I guess is what it is termed as these days. I wouldn't go as far as to call it 'user friendly' though IMHO. Not everyone would agree with me but I have my own reasons. Here is one, I'll try to make it short. Bear with me. =)
My first 'real' computer aside from a cocoII or vic-20 or a c-64, was an amiga. At first glance the system looked no different really than any other GUI based system in terms of use. But that wasn't why I bought one. Part of the reason and a large one at that was because of the CLI along with the GUI. Both worked extremeley well together and I could exist virtually forever using only one or the other. I got used to using both and realized the importance of that flexability in terms of my own values of using an OS or simply using the computer itself to it's fullest potential.
Eventually as the years went by, I was forced to buy a new system (both my amigas died). I had a choice to by a Macintosh or a Wintel. I ended up choosing a MacPPC for reasons that aren't important here (basically Hardware oriented). I had no experience using the Mac except for way back in high school during a course in computer animation. (back in 1987. A lot has changed since then) =)
The system was completely functional out of the box and asides from needing some input about myself and my internet account, there was no configuring necessary. Which to me was a decent bonus. (I'm quite impatient when I get something new.) As time went by, I became accustomed to my new home and realized that in fact, MacOS is extremely easy to use. As was/is Windows. And has a fair amount of power of use in areas. Some of this power is directly related to it's ease of use. The same can be said about Windows too. But there is a tradeoff, as soon as I learned my way around, I wanted(needed) to start using the machine in ways that the OS wasn't really capable of doing. At least not easily. The same goes for my experience with Windows (to rewind a moment, Some may be thinking about my comments of a cli in a gui system. Dos Shell isn't exaclty a viable alternative for myself. It doesn't communicate with Windows in the way I would expect a cli/gui system to act. Applescripting really doesn't either) And no fualt to Windows. As Windows was intended to replace Dos(or at least that is the way I understood it). As MacOS was from the start of the Macintosh, intended for complete ease of use without any complication.
It came to the point that I felt that I was using a machine at only part of it's potential. Basically only half of an OS was available to me.
(this is just in my case. Not true for everyone)
Unless I opted to use 3rd party applications that would come somewhat close to my needs but usually not on the mark. As well those same apps were very hard indeed to get to work well together by communicating with eachother directly or by way of setting some sort of environment variables. Applescript is actually quite functional but only if the authors included various support for it in their apps.
In no way am I cutting apart the OS('s), I'm just expecting more from it than was intended. There are solutions to my problems as well. And this is where my point is.
The OS suddenly lost it's ease of use. It in turn has actually become more difficult to use via the solutions than it is for me to use another OS such as gnu/linux. So now I have a reason to migrate as where before I was being served right. My needs just changed is all.
Earlier on I mentioned that I had 'started' out as an amiga user. I ended up taking a lot of things for granted because of that and for a while I thought that there was no real alternative to the WB. For the past few years a friend of mine was running linux and I was honestly impressed with it. Unfortunately I had shied away from it because my main hobby is creating music and I didn't see much in the way of that department for linux. I was wrong on that and I'll blame that on FUD. =)
As it turns out, I did find my alternative to WB. In fact, linux is by far the best OS I've used.
Which brings me to say this. I beleive that linux (in my case) is the best alternative because I needed to graduate from another system that hampered me. If that first system did not hamper me, then I probably wouldn't use linux. Or even need to for that matter. The first OS (ie MacOS or Windows) would be adequately doing the job it was intended to do.
If for by chance those OS's were fulfilling my needs, there would probably be no need for me to know or understand disk geometry. Let alone be aware of disk geometry.
But if they didn't do their jobs, my guess is that the reason would be because of one's need for more configurabilty and/or the need to get closer to the hardware you are using. In other words something like disk geometry would become an asset to your knowledge base. Using a loopback device is quite handy for creating disk images with various file systems. You may even need one to create a compressed file system for a rescue disk or some such.
The idea of linux on every desktop is an exciting vision. It would help educate most of us or at least tone down the 'blinking 12 problem' to a degree.
I have to remember though that with the advent of Windows and the MacOS as an example, the target audiences were mainly those who didn't use computers or really have any knowledge about them prior. The majority of users today, be it at home or at work, are those that entered the computing world relatively late. It remains to be seen how many of this newer computing population would have chosen more "robust" operating systems if the new user population wasn't so reliant on the popularity of these easy to use OS's in particular. Not to say that an OS driven by ease of use makes or keeps one stupid or ignorant. But in my opinion, the trade off for this is that many aspects and functions that can be acheived are hidden completely away from the user or tucked away in such a way that you may never be aware that you have options or more capabilities. It takes time for a user to outgrow an OS and migrate to a more suitable one if that user was so inclined.
Installation in my opinion is not an actual issue. The issue as others here today have mentioned, is _who_ should be installing linux.
I suppose though that if you want to switch from say An Apple or MS OS to linux because of moral issues alone instead of more technical ones, a more straight forward and easier install in the partitioning department would be a definite asset.
But be aware, eventually you might have to start learning a few more things anyway after you've commited. Not necessarily true, but highly probable.
On a side note. I'm just extememly happy and content that I can do everything I want to do regardless if it takes a little brain sweat. I'm sure I'll be sweating a lot less in the longrun because of this. I'm also happy that I can do anything that any other OS is capable of doing as well. And that things as far as development are concerned seem to me, to be heading in a decent direction and at a steady pace.
One last thing. Something I find a little interesting and possibly at times, mildly annoying. Notice that no where until now have I mentioned MacOS X or WinNT. I read and hear so much about whether or not linux is ready for the desktop environment. Why do I not hear about the same debates with NT and or MacOS X? Until just recently MacOS X wasn't even available and we are still waiting for the next release of NT. (Win2000 of which is directly related to this point).
It seems to me that at least right now, those two OS's aren't viable maybe because of price or because of useablity in a desktop environment. I'm not sure.
But what I am sure about is that Linux is ahead of either product at this point in time. Whether one finds it hard to install or not. It's the server OS's that linux contends with. Not the server OS's soon to be dropped predecessors (IE MacOS X end user, and Win2000) in the desktop sector of users. When that happens, then it is safe to speculate as to what system has what merits and which one doesn't as far as desktops go. And maybe then there will be a more pressing need to make something like partitioning a little more transparent. I actually think that installation in general has become much more a joy than it was some while ago. It's all happening, it just takes time.
The debate is a lot more complex than what is generally being discussed. Codependent aspects are either being overlooked or ignored to simplify the argument. This can't really be done without producing some flaw or notion of FUD in one's impending conclusion. Heck, I'm more than likely guilty of this myself. =)
On that though, I've blurted enough...
Just my 2cents(CDN) for what it's worth.
I might as well write the day off as a loss as far as news on the 'net goes. Hmm. Wonder if the the freshmeat thing is a hoax too. Be bad for Scoop if it isn't.
Too bad for mankind in general if Cold Fusion actually was here and now. =)
I think that the whole name issue has become a rather moot point. I also beleive that RMS is not exactly lost in mind about it. Whether or not there is a shift in the name as the majority of us call it, he's already driven the point home and is probably most obviously aware of just how much attention the whole issue has brought to light. He's already won his "Holy War" if you want to call it that.
Even if you choose to only call the OS 'Linux', and were not aware of GNU's contribution (I personally can't see one not being so), chances are pretty fair that you do now.
Anyone outside of the community will most likely know now as well. Or at least know of it's existence. Thus with any luck, those might be fortunate enough to actually grasp what GNU and or FSF actually stands for. We all already know that GNU does not stand for RMS. =)
Whether Richard Stallman is a raving egotistical madman or is someone of great endurance and virtue remains upon which side of the fence the judge has spent the majority of their life.
Not that I matter, but my view on it seems to lend itself quite easily to the idea that what RMS is trying to "pull off", is something more along the lines of educating the uneducated.
Unfortunately it seems that at least 'some' the vocal parts of our community that _are_ "educated" are taking his 'preachings' as something that is directed at them. In a way it is becuase of word of mouth. But as a whole, I'm pretty sure that the established community already knows the virtues of free software. With people flocking to Linux, open source et al, I would think it would be in our best interest for people to actually get in and 'drive' rather than just kick the tires.
It's not like we're being told how to tie our shoes all over again. Or how we prefer to tie them. The main point is that we know and can.
The whole name issue is also a matter of your own view as to what an OS actually is. Is it a kernel or is it what sits on top? I say it's both. But I remind you all that if I take away my interface to the OS, ie. my monitor for one example, the OS still exists, but my ability to use it has been lost/diminished. Obviously an interface to the OS is extremely important. But not so important that I cannot say that it is a variable part of my computer system. Surely I can replace my NEC monitor and use a compatable Acer instead. Maybe the picture quality is reduced by such a switch, but no less usable.
In abstraction, I view the kernel in the same fashion. Without it, there is no 'speak' to the hardware. You all already know this. I would also hardly call NT, Linux if somehow you replaced the NT kernel with the Linux kernel. It wouldn't even be a Unix or Unixish system even still. You would have to add what's 'on top' along side of the rest of NT to do it. Even then, NT is still not Unixish. The other half would be. IE. Interix as an example, is pretty much a Unixish system yet runs on top of the NT kernel along side the whole NT system. Interix is not NT, yet uses the NT kernel. It is also being reviewed as yet another possible Unix in it's own rite. (Yikes. Unix running on an NT kernel which runs on top of a microkernel. It's been around for a while. Anyone use it? Just curious)
The Kernel is an interface to the hardware. It's a very important piece to the OS as a whole. We all know that already. We also should know that if we ever chose to replace the kernel (heaven forbid) the UI and command line will probably look and feel just the way you are used to it looking and feeling. This is a rather simplistic argument but it can be understood. Of course you would feel uncomfortable about calling it Linux, but really now, if system performance were somewhat on par with the norm, would you be able to tell the difference? I mean aside from coding for it. =)
Maybe this is the issue here. I don't code. I'm limited to scripting languages. Perhaps since the community is largely coding based or even brought up from a coding base, the term Linux would be more fitting. As that is probably what is important to the programmers. At least someone who codes would be more intimate with the kernel than say someone like myself.
The chicken or the egg? I admire what RMS has accomplished and as well as what he is currently trying to do regarding this particular issue. But I don't see a compromise short of calling the OS something completely different. And I can't see that happening either. So for me as well as many others regardless of thier reasons, Linux on it's own will have to suffice.
If one MUST conform to any particular name, then I say don't bite the hand that feeds you. I still admire RMS and what it is that he preaches as I've come to know many of you do as well, but I'd say that the rest of the tribe that have done thier part have fed me the most. Regardless of the portions served by any one entity in itself. I'm not one for popular opinion or following the masses. But this time I see it fairly reasonable to do so.
Calling Linux, GNU/Linux would most definitely help the free software movement. But would it also hurt it it were not called GNU/Linux?
I'm not entirely sure. But I don't think that it would.
The community itself does a pretty darn good job of advocating free software and the likes on it's own it seems. Flames and all. =)
Hey Erik,
Regarding your commentary here. Something that I've noticed about a lot
of people's opinions about RMS seem to bother me as well. The biggest
thing is that a lot of those who actually voice themselves here on
think that he (RMS) feels his fire is being snuffed out by Linus. Hence
the whole name thing. GNU/Linux. That's not my take on it at all.
I really don't think that he presses this name thing because he feels
the need to be recognized himself. Rather he feels the need that at least
now is an important time to recognize the idea of Free Software. Average
Joe wouldn't see the name Linux and say, "Wow, this whole idea is rather
neat!" let alone make him think twice about what exactly free software
and open source actually is and means.
In other words, the product of a virtuous community is being the subject
of attention rather than the virtuous community itself. Without that
community... Linux would be worse than MSWindows as an example. No matter
how good or efficient that product (Linux / GNU/Linux) is.
I don't necessarily agree with everything Mr.Stallman says. But he's
onto something here and it makes me kind of sick when I see so many of us
flaming him when he stands up for what we are. Or pretend to be anyway.
If there really is a battle out there. Like so many say there is between
Linux or GNU/Linux (however you may prefer) and other OS's such as MS's,
it isn't OS vs OS at all. It's a cummunity's beleif model against another
more mainstream one. GNU/Linux is merely a statement. Pardon the expression,
A love child so to speak.
On a side note... One that may have relevance or one that may not (I
don't really beleive so myself), I'm not a programmer. I'm a musician.
But that doesn't mean I can't contribute to the community. Also, I've
never had a Linux box or any other Unix system. (I ran FreeBSD for a while
on my A3000T a few years ago though. But hardly long enough to have that
count for anything) I've friends that have used Linux over the years
and still do. As a result I've been learning more about it in the
technical sense and as a whole the idea around it. I'm currently waiting
for my R5 distro of LinuxPPC. I specifically bought a PPC G3 to run Linux.
I also needed the Mac platform because of Pro-tools.
I mention this because I see some
they've made concerning the actual hardware they currently use. =) Function
before machismo is my motto. Not everyone has the same needs as others.
You don't even have to be using Linux itself to understand the whole concept
behind it or even appreciate it. Although I think it would help to practice
what one preaches. I myself haven't used it for good reasons up until now.
Music software/editors and sequencers as well as software synthesis are
making headway in Linux. So now I can finally leave and use something
worthwhile and not have to give up a great deal of my favorite hobby. And
feel good about it all the while. Maybe even dredge up my old and creaky
programming skills and bring them up to date sometime soon and write my
own software as well.
Anyhow, I've gone way off topic. =)
I just wanted to say that you are somewhat right and that I somewhat agree with
you. All except for the idea that RMS may make a bit of a scary or crazy figurehead.
Again I don't beleive that he's looking for his space in the spotlight. Just trying
to make sure that the idea that started this whole thing isn't lost or overshadowed.
There is no real figurehead for GNU/Linux except for the media's need to produce
one for public consumption. Once someone really starts to use Linux, they'll be
hard pressed to not stumble across the whole ideal that makes it possible anyway.
So in my eyes, practically anyone could promote the OS and get away with it.
Except for maybe a select few... Gates Jobs Haynie.. =)
Like it or not, RMS's a large reason for all of this. As far as charisma goes? I don't
think charisma has anything to do with GNU/Linux at all. I don't go out
of my way to use a product because I or someone else might find the person or what
have you promoting it to be cute. How many people here, old and new use GNU/Linux
because they think Linus Torvalds is cute? Or rather don't use it because Richard
Stallman may come off as fanatic about the whole subject? Does a Gnu for a mascot
keep people away from using GNU software and does a cute penguin really attract
people to linux?
Not many is my guess. Linux doesn't need catchy (insert musical Intel bells here) and
(insert flashy translucent colours there) as well as (insert NewTek video toaster girl
here) or even to be more precise (insert catchy phrase "Where do you want to go today?"
somwhere in there too). We're not looking for a beautiful head of hair to sell shampoo
or anything here...
In your first paragraph you say that Linus is a better match for marketing Linux.
Promoting it would be a term I would be more comfortable with. But what do you mean
by "marketing it"? Marketing the OS or marketing the beleif and moral system that made
it possible? I would think that the latter is far more important than the OS itself.
But of course in the world as it is, you would need something tangible like the OS
to bring attention to how it was created. IE the whole free software/open source models.
Which can be used for far more than just software licensing.
The OS and the community to me seem to be very symbiotic (it has to be) and it would be
very hard if not impossible to completely seperate the two. In effect it would destroy the
OS as it is known now. And the community would still find a way to survive although
probably somewhat split about the whole thing. There's your code fork. And that would make
Linux and what it stands for a bit of a failure. Oh I'm sure it wouldn't hurt people like
you and myself.
We'd just keep using and developing the GNU/Linux that we always have. But that's not
the point. GNU/Linux isn't about keeping it to ourselves, it's always been about sharing.
Even if something like that did happen, My guess is that it would only be a matter of
time before the 'pure' form of Linux would start to rise again. It always will. But it
certainly would be better if something like that didn't have to happen. And it doesn't.
Why waste time. Our time...
More importantly, as your example shows, RMS doesn't have to be the only one around to
get the message across or rather just remind us as to what it's all about. I personally
wouldn't care as to who is spreading the message or how many. The more the better. I also
beleive that Stallman doesn't really care either. But since he is who is is, why not?
Flames or no flames.
I ask one simple question of you. Why on earth should we activley hide our Pillars of
the community from the outside world? Shame?
I don't understand. Maybe someone can help me out on that... Or maybe it's because I'm
a newbie. Have I missed something here?
Thanks... I found the same Faq. It's http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jonh/lppc-serve/cache/1. html . If it weren't for that, I wouldn't have noticed that my right alt/option key was busted. Luckily I have a spare KB. I'll fix it later.
I thought it would have been strange if there wasn't a kb modifier...
I don't know what you mean by that. I can tell you though that you don't have to quit your job to do any other activities outside of that job...
/. T-Shirts now. I plan on buying them all. AND... I don't have to pay for this wonderful service he offers. KeWl huh? =P
Furthermore, as a musician myself, I really dislike the idea of others making money off of my own creation and dictating to me where, how and to whom I can distribute my creation. With that said, I can offer my creation for free. In this case in the format of an mp3.
Now I don't know about you, but most people now a days still own cd players and not portable mp3 -players. So offering a full album on cd to me seems quite alright. Not to mention that any money as profit made from that cd will actually go to me. In the hopes that it may help subsidize more work created by me. This is a good thing.
I could also use the mp3's to create a market for other things. Like T-Shirt's, ball caps and even posters or bumper stickers.
A band or artist could use the same model for making money as say RedHat or LinuxPPC or Debian use to distribute thier flavour of Linux.
It isn't a big mystery. At least it isn't anymore IMHO.
Heck! Rob sells
I don't beleive that audio is really supported at all on the LIVE version. The internal speaker works though. It's only meant to give you an idea of how it will run. And it runs damn mighty awrighty fine on a G3 OC'd to 292 thank you. =)
A small detail that I haven't yet figured out if there is a remedy for is the fact that the Mac mouse only has one mouse button. For all intents and purposes, it's a left mouse button. Keep this in mind if you have any ideas about downloading LIVE to use The Gimp and save out to floppy or zip or what have you. (Although I'm not even sure if you can save out to disk in LIVE). You need a right mouse button to activate the save options etc, by right clicking on the image. No keyboard modifiers to emulate a right click that I know of.
Kind of a pain really. I use a 4 button trackball. All four buttons are left mouse buttons in KDE. =) You could use the KDE mouse options to make the mouse a left handed mouse and that'll get you your menu alright, but try to get any further than that and you can't. =) You can't even switch back to a right handed mouse.
I'd only blame that on the LIVE version though. It's only meant to demo. (Unless there is a way around it ) Otherwise, if every little goodie was in the download, you might as well download LPPC lite for the small difference in size it would be after the fact.
Quick and dirty. But a good idea IMHO.
That's great. I pre-ordered R5 quite some time ago. I understand the delays too. There was a message posted on linuxppc.org that those who pre-ordered R5 were going to get a copy of 4.1 sent to them. Hmm, still waiting for that and my T-Shirt as well as some sort of reply to the emails I've sent there. =) I'd ftp 4.1 but every time I look at my poor 56k modem, I laugh.
On another note and sort of off topic... I'm an old Amiga user. My 3000T bit the dust almost two years ago and it took me a year after that to decide on what system/s I should buy. I knew about Linux at the time but stayed away from it because I mainly use my system for music sequencing and recording. I also didn't like the idea of Windows (a matter of preference), as well as the idea that most of the higher end hardware I was interested in wasn't available or supported on Intel based hardware. When the G3's came out, my mind was made up. Not only that, Linux for PPC was making leaps and bounds. So my plan was to get a PowerMac and use the MacOS for things that weren't up to snuff yet in Linux. One reason I like the Linux alternative to Mac or Windows is that I'm not stuck in the GUI. I actually quite like the MacOS now that I've learned it's in and outs (didn't take very long) but it lacks in the area of flexibility. Flexibility was something I was used to on my old Amiga. A CLI or Shell is an imortant thing to me IMHO.
AppleScript can be useful, but only if the app that you're interested in is AppleScriptable.
Anyhow, The more I'm learning by using Linux the more I'm inclined to think that I may not ever really need to use anything else. Functionally and morally speaking.
So I guess I'll go out and find one of these MacWorld mags with LinuxPPC and find out if it's an actual full install or not of R4.
Well then, I'm off to go find out. Heh, that'll teach me for posting before I read the article. It's only the 'LIVE' version. Ah well. =) Time to get ADSL. heh...
Yikes! 3Mkeys a sec. I thought I wasn't doing too bad at 980Kkeys. =) P-II's are much better at integer math than G3's though. I wonder what a dual G3 would perform like. Hmmm.