It's a feature. The Mozilla people have evidently decided that they're too good to use native widgets...
Actually, it really is a feature.
In order to embed UI widgets in an HTML document (as Mozilla needs to do to fully support the W3C's DOM and CSS), they had to write their own widget set. Native widgets simply didn't work for them.
How many times are we going to see this gripe before people figure it out?
And, besides, the GPL doesn't give freedom. It takes it away.
*sigh* That old thing again?
Very similar to the USA's Bill of Rights, the GPL makes sure certain things (RMS calls them "freedoms", you call them whatever you want) will always be available. And, like the Bill of Rights, it does that by limiting other things.
Now, it is up to the developer to choose the license they like best. Personally, I prefer the GPL, but I don't get all bent out of shape over it.
Seriously, the GPL is far too limiting.
*shrug* See above. There are those who think the GPL's "limitations" are like the "limitations" that prevent citizens from murdering one another.
If we, as a community, are to be taken seriously, we need to break the notion that all software companies, once they open their source, need to be flooded with responses amounting to, "your license is crap, make it GPL so it's truly free!"
I agree. I also think we need to break the notion that shouting "DIE SOUP NAZI" and going off on a rant about the GPL every time someone suggests it accomplishes anything.
Practice what you preach.:)
More Red Hat version stuff
on
Free Solaris 8
·
· Score: 2
I would be interested in getting a detailed version history of RedHat.. Just head over to RedHat's website, and find the info for me, then post a reply:-)
Well, I'm not going to do your work for you.:-)
Seriously, just because Red Hat doesn't maintain a full version history in an easy-to-find spot doesn't mean the versions don't exist.
But RedHat still went up from 0.1 to 4.0 in a period of two years or so, which seems weird.
Welcome to the world of Open Source Software. Developments are rapid.:)
Quick! Mirror it before the DVD CCA sues them!
on
Slash v0.9 Released
·
· Score: 2
Oh, wait, that's DeCSS, not Slash. I got confused.
Ah, the CCA will probably sue them anyway. Little things like actually doing something wrong don't bother them much.
...many of us are willing to pay a few bucks for a good commercial tool when there's no open source alternative.
I don't have any problem with your endorsement (it is useful information, after all), but For Your Information, there is an Open Source product available that blocks banner ads, cookies, and such. Source available, no cost, and protected by the GPL, it is called "The Internet Junkbuster" and is available for free download from www.junkbusters.com. It functions as a proxy server, and guards your privacy.
Do you really think this member of MoRE, an admitted cracker, PAID for a CPP copy of W2K?
So it's guilty until proven innocent now, is it? Well, I don't know how it works where you're from, but here in the USA, we like to have a little evidence of wrongdoing before accusing someone of it.
His other machines are linux and freebsd - no $ here.
Gee, I run Linux and Windows too, so I must be a cracker running tons of illegal pirated software, eh?
BTW, what makes you say he didn't spend money for his copies of Linux and FreeBSD? Maybe he paid hard cash for Red Hat Linux Professional and a full distribution of FreeBSD?
There were no localized versions for his country...
And he obviously can't use an English version, right?
I think it's MORE than safe to say it's a pirated copy.
All I can say is, thank goodness our legal system isn't based on your methods of accusation without even the faintest shred of evidence.
If you want to bother to get that right, it should be *cough*RED HAT*cough* since they did that BEFORE Slackware, and were the main reason that Slackware did that in the first case.
While I agree that the version number jumping game is silly and confusing, if not morally wrong, I am confused here. I am fairly confident Red Hat has gone through all the major version numbers, from 1.0 ("Mother's Day") to 6.1. Personally, I've run 2.1, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, and 6.1. What makes you say Red Hat did any skipping?
Alright, while I think this would be Really Cool (TM) and all, I think we have to remember who we are dealing with here. The company which has recently proven it has more faces then a pair of dice: Sun Microsystems.
These are the people who have said several times (here, here, and as far back as here) that Solaris isn't just going to be free, but Open Source.
These are the people who pushed Java as an open standard, and then -- once many companies had tied their future to it -- pulled out of the standards process. Then, when others suggested going forward with a Java standard without Sun, claimed that their own public documentation was not complete enough for anyone to do that.
So, when they say Solaris is going to be "free", I have to say: "Sure, and I have a bridge to sell you. It's in Brooklyn. Great view of the water."
I think Sun's products are pretty good (they're certainly a hell of a lot better then Micros~1) and that Java still has a lot of promise, but I'm still not gonna trust Sun any further then I can throw an E10K.
Pirating unreleased software (no matter who makes it) is illegal. He does not garner any sympathy from me, nor make me want to contribute to his defense.
Um, the beta releases of MS Windows 2000 have been out since last August or so. Where do you get off claiming he pirated it from his statement that he runs it? Most likely, it is a perfectly legal beta copy. And who the hell moderated this up? Insightful??
A couple of people need a major reality check, here.
Sure, Linux viruses might be worse because Linux is Open Source Software, all other things being equal. If you have the source, it is easier to find holes and create exploits for them.
The thing is, all other things are not equal.
The advantages of OSS and the design of Unix (and thus Linux) can easily outweigh the problem of open access to the source code. On the OSS side, you have peer review by a cast of thousands, and the ability to check for malicious code yourself. On the Unix side, you have the concept of security permissions which prevent viruses from propagating as easily.
Sure, if an infected program is run by a user with root privileges, it can seek out and infect other programs. But you can easily restrict virus behavior by not running things as root. Install your package as root, but run it as a user.
Your home directory is, of course, vulnerable, but you have cut a potential propagating virus down to a simple Trojan Horse. Viruses are so dangerous because they spread unknowingly; a Trojan is quickly discovered and snuffed when people discover what it does.
Will malicious code be a problem on Linux? Of course. It already is. But thinking the same problems of the Ms-Windows world apply in the Unix one is an error.
What we may see is smarter, more sophisticated attacks being deployed. MS-Windows is so poorly designed that virus writers have it easy. With Linux, we may see fewer, but far more dangerous, malicious programs. That, if anything, should be the real fear. Sticking with trusted, Open Source Software should keep such problems to a minimum, however.
All in all, I think Linux users have far less to worry about then MS-Windows users.
If you check the latest stable Linux kernel - you'll find (I think) the S/390 Linux port.
The poster was asking where the S/390 port of NetBSD was. He makes the valid point that both NetBSD and Linux are widely ported to a large variety of platforms, and quibbling over who has the most support for obscure platforms is a waste of time and bandwidth.
...the OSS movement in the company is still largely driven by the lower employees rather than management.
Indeed. In fact, I would expect most companies to be like this. Management is generally only good at keeping people in line and on the job (and sometimes not even that). It always seems to be the engineers and techies "in the trenches" who know which way the wind is blowing first. No great surprise there. Of course, with a company as large as IBM (Incredibly Big Monolith), inertia plays that much bigger a role, reaction time is much slower, and some parts of IBM will still be swinging around when The Next Big Thing is happening.
"preview what has to be done" just tells you which services it's going to restart (i.e. inetd) but it doesn't tell you which files it's editing (i.e./etc/hosts)
Um, I just double-checked, and you're right. I stand corrected. Somebody moderate my original post down with "-1, Incorrect".
(I could have sworn it told you the configuration files it was about to modify, but I must have been thinking of something else.)
You can/should/have to standardize... even win16 had a consistent *.ini file syntax that made sense even if you had never seen the application before. Why can't Unix standardize? why not Linux?
Mainly because of that beast that causes engineers to shudder and admins to dive for cover: Backwards compatibility.
There is a huge installed base of software that reads and/or writes the countless configuration files that live in/etc/* and their siblings. Not only the original software which gets fed said files, but other software as well. Changing things would break huge amounts of software. Ironically, some of these programs are automation tools design to make admins' jobs easier.
There are other problems as well. For one, what format do you pick? Some will want Windows style.INI files; others will want XML; others still will want something based on their favorite scripting syntax. Who gets to be king of the world and decide the standard?
There is also the legitimate technical complaint that no one format fits all possible uses. The sendmail configuration file format is a programming language all its own; it would be tough to reduce it to a universal format that would work for all software.
In short, changing things around to use a single standard format would be akin to getting all the people of world to settle on one language: Really nice idea, but impossible to execute.
That's my biggest beef with Linuxconf - when I resort to using it because I don't know how to do it by hand, I would *really* like to have it tell me which file it's editing...
linuxconf offers you the option of previewing your changes before it applies them. When you quit the program, choose "Preview what has to be done".
This is on Red Hat 6.1, linuxconf 1.16r3.2-2, but I'm pretty sure it has done this for a long time.
... they are still emulating the x86 instruction set. Even with all their fancy technology a 700mhz processor will only perform, at best equivalent, to a 500mhz Pentium.
It is important to realize that the current Intel and AMD CPUs do not execute x86 instructions, either. They use hybrid RISC cores with front-end instruction decoders to break down the x86 CISC operations into smaller, RISC-style operations which can be more easily optimized.
So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Transmeta's performance claims as impossible simply because they are using emulation. If this was traditional emulation, I would agree with you. But it isn't.
In traditional processor emulation, you write a special program which sits between the host CPU and the "foreign code". This program reads the foreign code, figures out what it is doing, and does it. Essentially, you write a program to act like the foreign CPU. Not very efficient.
Transmeta's "code morphing" techniques, on the other hand, do something a little more intelligent. They start by translation of x86 to native instructions. So you are running native code, with an up-front penalty for translation. Then they apply selective optimizations to tune the translated code to the native design as needed.
Given time, that could result in much higher performance then traditional emulation. You might get very close to "native" performance by optimizing the code that matters in ways that apply to the native CPU.
Or you might not. There is very little hard data available right now, so all anyone can do is speculate. We can't say "Yes", nor can we say "No".
Closed Development vs OSS for BeOS
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 2
... could anyone (previous poster even) dig up a link to a page which explains how OSS created the internet?
Hmmm. I don't think I have a link that says, specifically, "OSS created the Internet". For starters, the term "Open Source Software" hadn't been coined yet. Besides, assertions are worthless alone; it is the proof that backs them up.
So take a look at the Internet Engineering Task Force and this archive of Internet Requests for Comments (RFCs). You will find the Internet was developed through the same process of open development, code sharing, and peer review that define OSS software development. Everything you use on the web today, from the Domain Name System to the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol to HTTP itself was developed using OSS principles. "We believe in rough consensus and working code", to quote David Clark of the IETF. That seems to define OSS pretty well.
I thought Al Gore did that.
Cute.:)
The BeOS would never have been developed if it was open source.
See above about assertions without proof.
The sheer slickness of it is testament to how much close planning and discussion went into its design.
OSS and planning and discussion are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, discussion is one of the key tenets of OSS. OSS projects are often characterized by the intense, often heated discussions that take place on their mailing lists. It may be a process of beating it into shape rather then careful artistic planning, but the end result seems to be the same. One man's hammer is another man's paint brush, so to speak.
The business model, in Be's case at least, can work very well for developing high-quality products...
Certainly; BeOS itself is evidence of that. I was never arguing against BeOS. However, the fact that closed development can work does not mean that open development cannot.
... because of the fact that each programmer is working in sync with everyone else.
Again, that happens in OSS as well. True, as you note, you often find different people and projects overlapping. However, this is not necessarily a Bad Thing. For one, it offers a form of redundant protection against failure. Second, it fosters an almost Darwinian approach to software development. Many ideas are put forward, and the best selected.
Look at Gnome and KDE. Two projects aiming to accomplish the same thing, and thousands of hours of work wasted.
Interesting. When two companies compete against each other, that competition is generally viewed as a Good Thing (here in the USA, anyway). No one (other then socialists (no, I'm not calling you a socialist (nor am I offering opinions on socialism in general, one way or the other))) calls that competition "a waste". Why should it be any different for OSS development? The GNOME and KDE projects are both offering different solutions to the same problem. Cooperation between the two is quite good, so compatibility should be high. The end result is more choice and better software, as the good ideas live on and the bad ones die off. I don't regard that as a waste at all.
The fact is that the BeOS is a more technically sophisticated, better designed OS that Linux, and it is thanks to closed source design that it has gotten this far.
Ohhhh, inflammatory and unsupported in the same sentence! Did you do that on purpose?:-)
Anyway, BeOS and Linux each have their strengths and weaknesses. You don't put forward any arguments for either of your points: BeOS "better designed" then Linux or that closed development has gotten BeOS this far. I could as easily say that "BeOS would be much further along if it was OSS", but I don't. Please add some justification for your argument, or stop cluttering up the discussion. Thank you.:)
I believe that once your Karma reaches 25, you should be able to give one point to people, indicating that you believe they're worth listening to. However, if they start to suck, it would be nice to be able to take it back...
Well, the idea of bestowing karma gifts on others is interesting and might work, but I don't think you should be able to take it back. That could lead to all sorts of bad situations... blackmail being the first that comes to mind. (Yah, I know, it's just Slashdot, but hey, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.) Gifts should be gifts. No "Indian givers", please.
Besides, moderators should take care of any one who get gifts and turns out to be a looser. Same as they do now.:)
From what I've been able to gather from a few discussions with NVidia people, the company is divided into (at least) two camps. On one side, you have the engineers, some who like and use Linux, and who think that releasing source and documenting their hardware interface is a Good Thing. On the other, you have the suits and lawyers who cannot stop saying "Mine! Mine!" with regards to their designs.
That might explain some of the tension you see in their releases & support, and the conflicting messages you sometimes hear from them. On the other hand, I don't know any of this, I'm just guessing. Maybe they just hate all Linux users personally.:-)
Personally, I like NVidia's products. When they take the time to do it right, they seem to have some of the best stuff available for the PC. It appears that sometimes the suits get their claws into things and cause problems, though.
Sadly typical.
Open Source and innovation
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 2
Can you name one unique, one specific piece of open sourced software which has no equals on any non-open source system?... There's no innovation coming from the OSS community yet, other than the fundamental ideals of OSS itself.
What, exactly, is your point here?
If you are saying that the innovative part about OSS is the development technique itself, well, you're right. That is the point ESR has been trying to make all along: OSS works better then closed development. The big deal isn't about the end product; it is about the process. OSS is a better process (yielding better software as an end result). That's the whole idea.
OSS often means building a better mouse trap -- not coming up with something entirely different. In the case of Linux, a bunch of people have decided Unix has the general idea down right; they are refining it. The rest of the world works this way (standing on the shoulders of giants, et. al.); why should OSS be any different?
Innovation is about taking existing ideas and putting them together to synthesize a new and better whole. If we are to be limited to that which has never been done before, we're doomed. Fortunately, that is not the case.
And, just for your continued edification, yes, I can think of something the OSS community has created that does not exist anywhere else: The Internet. That's right, the Internet. The Internet is a creation of OSS network development. OSS has enabled the very thing that makes this discussion possible.
Indeed. You know, I can't help but wonder if this isn't an instance of some sort of culture clash. The same sort of thing that used to happen when September rolled around on Usenet, or when [insert big online service here] got their first Usenet feed. Or whenever anybody from AOL posts.
As far as I know, Roblimo is first a journalist type. Like some of the communications majors I knew in college. Nothing wrong with that. But maybe Roblimo isn't too familar with the Internet and what can happen in online discussions. Like far too many people in the past, maybe he sees all this flamage and debate, along with the occasional personal attack, and gets shaken up, because he's not used to the way these things go. He's obviously taking it too personally, I'm just wondering if this might be the reason.
So, maybe we should suggest that he read some nice, friendly Usenet newsgroups for a week or so. I'd recommend anything cross-posted to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and comp.os.linux.advocacy.:) Maybe that will introduce him to the sort of... heated discussions that can take place online.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a feature. The Mozilla people have evidently decided that they're too good to use native widgets...
Actually, it really is a feature.
In order to embed UI widgets in an HTML document (as Mozilla needs to do to fully support the W3C's DOM and CSS), they had to write their own widget set. Native widgets simply didn't work for them.
How many times are we going to see this gripe before people figure it out?
Does IE5 crash my box every 10 minutes?
If your box is crashing every ten minutes, then there is something wrong with your box, not your browser.
Since you are using IE5, I would assume you are using Windows. That might be your problem, right there.
With a good OS, a bad application cannot and will not bring down your whole system.
Now, I'm not saying Mozilla is bug free, but if it can take down your whole system, you've got much bigger problems then a bad browser.
And, besides, the GPL doesn't give freedom. It takes it away.
:)
*sigh* That old thing again?
Very similar to the USA's Bill of Rights, the GPL makes sure certain things (RMS calls them "freedoms", you call them whatever you want) will always be available. And, like the Bill of Rights, it does that by limiting other things.
Now, it is up to the developer to choose the license they like best. Personally, I prefer the GPL, but I don't get all bent out of shape over it.
Seriously, the GPL is far too limiting.
*shrug* See above. There are those who think the GPL's "limitations" are like the "limitations" that prevent citizens from murdering one another.
If we, as a community, are to be taken seriously, we need to break the notion that all software companies, once they open their source, need to be flooded with responses amounting to, "your license is crap, make it GPL so it's truly free!"
I agree. I also think we need to break the notion that shouting "DIE SOUP NAZI" and going off on a rant about the GPL every time someone suggests it accomplishes anything.
Practice what you preach.
I would be interested in getting a detailed version history of RedHat.. Just head over to RedHat's website, and find the info for me, then post a reply :-)
:-)
:)
Well, I'm not going to do your work for you.
Seriously, just because Red Hat doesn't maintain a full version history in an easy-to-find spot doesn't mean the versions don't exist.
But RedHat still went up from 0.1 to 4.0 in a period of two years or so, which seems weird.
Welcome to the world of Open Source Software. Developments are rapid.
Oh, wait, that's DeCSS, not Slash. I got confused.
Ah, the CCA will probably sue them anyway. Little things like actually doing something wrong don't bother them much.
...many of us are willing to pay a few bucks for a good commercial tool when there's no open source alternative.
I don't have any problem with your endorsement (it is useful information, after all), but For Your Information, there is an Open Source product available that blocks banner ads, cookies, and such. Source available, no cost, and protected by the GPL, it is called "The Internet Junkbuster" and is available for free download from www.junkbusters.com. It functions as a proxy server, and guards your privacy.
Just FYI.
I've got a copy of Red Hat Linux 2.1 sitting right in front of me, and I am fairly confident I've seen a 3.x release as well.
I cannot help but think that you're a Slackware fan blinded by loyalty, as you are leaving a number of Red Hat releases from your "facts".
I've got a copy of Red Hat Linux 2.1 sitting right in front of me, and I am fairly confident I've seen a 3.x release as well.
I cannot help but think that you're a Slackware fan blinded by loyalty, as you are leaving a number of Red Hat releases from your "facts".
Do you really think this member of MoRE, an admitted cracker, PAID for a CPP copy of W2K?
So it's guilty until proven innocent now, is it? Well, I don't know how it works where you're from, but here in the USA, we like to have a little evidence of wrongdoing before accusing someone of it.
His other machines are linux and freebsd - no $ here.
Gee, I run Linux and Windows too, so I must be a cracker running tons of illegal pirated software, eh?
BTW, what makes you say he didn't spend money for his copies of Linux and FreeBSD? Maybe he paid hard cash for Red Hat Linux Professional and a full distribution of FreeBSD?
There were no localized versions for his country...
And he obviously can't use an English version, right?
I think it's MORE than safe to say it's a pirated copy.
All I can say is, thank goodness our legal system isn't based on your methods of accusation without even the faintest shred of evidence.
If you want to bother to get that right, it should be *cough*RED HAT*cough* since they did that BEFORE Slackware, and were the main reason that Slackware did that in the first case.
While I agree that the version number jumping game is silly and confusing, if not morally wrong, I am confused here. I am fairly confident Red Hat has gone through all the major version numbers, from 1.0 ("Mother's Day") to 6.1. Personally, I've run 2.1, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, and 6.1. What makes you say Red Hat did any skipping?
Alright, while I think this would be Really Cool (TM) and all, I think we have to remember who we are dealing with here. The company which has recently proven it has more faces then a pair of dice: Sun Microsystems.
These are the people who let the Blackdown Java porting effort do all the work, and then took it all from them with no credit.
These are the people who have said several times (here, here, and as far back as here) that Solaris isn't just going to be free, but Open Source.
These are the people who pushed Java as an open standard, and then -- once many companies had tied their future to it -- pulled out of the standards process. Then, when others suggested going forward with a Java standard without Sun, claimed that their own public documentation was not complete enough for anyone to do that.
So, when they say Solaris is going to be "free", I have to say: "Sure, and I have a bridge to sell you. It's in Brooklyn. Great view of the water."
I think Sun's products are pretty good (they're certainly a hell of a lot better then Micros~1) and that Java still has a lot of promise, but I'm still not gonna trust Sun any further then I can throw an E10K.
Pirating unreleased software (no matter who makes it) is illegal. He does not garner any sympathy from me, nor make me want to contribute to his defense.
Um, the beta releases of MS Windows 2000 have been out since last August or so. Where do you get off claiming he pirated it from his statement that he runs it? Most likely, it is a perfectly legal beta copy. And who the hell moderated this up? Insightful??
A couple of people need a major reality check, here.
I wonder if he's talking about Tomb Raider ;-) What are we at now? III? IV? I still haven't noticed any improvement in the rendering or gameplay...
The only changes I've seen in Tomb Raider are that I think Laura Croft's breasts are getting bigger.
They aughtta call it "Boob Raider" or something.
;-)
Sure, Linux viruses might be worse because Linux is Open Source Software, all other things being equal. If you have the source, it is easier to find holes and create exploits for them.
The thing is, all other things are not equal.
The advantages of OSS and the design of Unix (and thus Linux) can easily outweigh the problem of open access to the source code. On the OSS side, you have peer review by a cast of thousands, and the ability to check for malicious code yourself. On the Unix side, you have the concept of security permissions which prevent viruses from propagating as easily.
Sure, if an infected program is run by a user with root privileges, it can seek out and infect other programs. But you can easily restrict virus behavior by not running things as root. Install your package as root, but run it as a user.
Your home directory is, of course, vulnerable, but you have cut a potential propagating virus down to a simple Trojan Horse. Viruses are so dangerous because they spread unknowingly; a Trojan is quickly discovered and snuffed when people discover what it does.
Will malicious code be a problem on Linux? Of course. It already is. But thinking the same problems of the Ms-Windows world apply in the Unix one is an error.
What we may see is smarter, more sophisticated attacks being deployed. MS-Windows is so poorly designed that virus writers have it easy. With Linux, we may see fewer, but far more dangerous, malicious programs. That, if anything, should be the real fear. Sticking with trusted, Open Source Software should keep such problems to a minimum, however.
All in all, I think Linux users have far less to worry about then MS-Windows users.
If you check the latest stable Linux kernel - you'll find (I think) the S/390 Linux port.
The poster was asking where the S/390 port of NetBSD was. He makes the valid point that both NetBSD and Linux are widely ported to a large variety of platforms, and quibbling over who has the most support for obscure platforms is a waste of time and bandwidth.
...the OSS movement in the company is still largely driven by the lower employees rather than management.
Indeed. In fact, I would expect most companies to be like this. Management is generally only good at keeping people in line and on the job (and sometimes not even that). It always seems to be the engineers and techies "in the trenches" who know which way the wind is blowing first. No great surprise there. Of course, with a company as large as IBM (Incredibly Big Monolith), inertia plays that much bigger a role, reaction time is much slower, and some parts of IBM will still be swinging around when The Next Big Thing is happening.
"preview what has to be done" just tells you which services it's going to restart (i.e. inetd) but it doesn't tell you which files it's editing (i.e. /etc/hosts)
Um, I just double-checked, and you're right. I stand corrected. Somebody moderate my original post down with "-1, Incorrect".
(I could have sworn it told you the configuration files it was about to modify, but I must have been thinking of something else.)
You can/should/have to standardize... even win16 had a consistent *.ini file syntax that made sense even if you had never seen the application before. Why can't Unix standardize? why not Linux?
/etc/* and their siblings. Not only the original software which gets fed said files, but other software as well. Changing things would break huge amounts of software. Ironically, some of these programs are automation tools design to make admins' jobs easier.
.INI files; others will want XML; others still will want something based on their favorite scripting syntax. Who gets to be king of the world and decide the standard?
Mainly because of that beast that causes engineers to shudder and admins to dive for cover: Backwards compatibility.
There is a huge installed base of software that reads and/or writes the countless configuration files that live in
There are other problems as well. For one, what format do you pick? Some will want Windows style
There is also the legitimate technical complaint that no one format fits all possible uses. The sendmail configuration file format is a programming language all its own; it would be tough to reduce it to a universal format that would work for all software.
In short, changing things around to use a single standard format would be akin to getting all the people of world to settle on one language: Really nice idea, but impossible to execute.
That's my biggest beef with Linuxconf - when I resort to using it because I don't know how to do it by hand, I would *really* like to have it tell me which file it's editing...
linuxconf offers you the option of previewing your changes before it applies them. When you quit the program, choose "Preview what has to be done".
This is on Red Hat 6.1, linuxconf 1.16r3.2-2, but I'm pretty sure it has done this for a long time.
... they are still emulating the x86 instruction set. Even with all their fancy technology a 700mhz processor will only perform, at best equivalent, to a 500mhz Pentium.
It is important to realize that the current Intel and AMD CPUs do not execute x86 instructions, either. They use hybrid RISC cores with front-end instruction decoders to break down the x86 CISC operations into smaller, RISC-style operations which can be more easily optimized.
So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Transmeta's performance claims as impossible simply because they are using emulation. If this was traditional emulation, I would agree with you. But it isn't.
In traditional processor emulation, you write a special program which sits between the host CPU and the "foreign code". This program reads the foreign code, figures out what it is doing, and does it. Essentially, you write a program to act like the foreign CPU. Not very efficient.
Transmeta's "code morphing" techniques, on the other hand, do something a little more intelligent. They start by translation of x86 to native instructions. So you are running native code, with an up-front penalty for translation. Then they apply selective optimizations to tune the translated code to the native design as needed.
Given time, that could result in much higher performance then traditional emulation. You might get very close to "native" performance by optimizing the code that matters in ways that apply to the native CPU.
Or you might not. There is very little hard data available right now, so all anyone can do is speculate. We can't say "Yes", nor can we say "No".
... could anyone (previous poster even) dig up a link to a page which explains how OSS created the internet?
:)
... because of the fact that each programmer is working in sync with everyone else.
:-)
:)
Hmmm. I don't think I have a link that says, specifically, "OSS created the Internet". For starters, the term "Open Source Software" hadn't been coined yet. Besides, assertions are worthless alone; it is the proof that backs them up.
So take a look at the Internet Engineering Task Force and this archive of Internet Requests for Comments (RFCs). You will find the Internet was developed through the same process of open development, code sharing, and peer review that define OSS software development. Everything you use on the web today, from the Domain Name System to the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol to HTTP itself was developed using OSS principles. "We believe in rough consensus and working code", to quote David Clark of the IETF. That seems to define OSS pretty well.
I thought Al Gore did that.
Cute.
The BeOS would never have been developed if it was open source.
See above about assertions without proof.
The sheer slickness of it is testament to how much close planning and discussion went into its design.
OSS and planning and discussion are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, discussion is one of the key tenets of OSS. OSS projects are often characterized by the intense, often heated discussions that take place on their mailing lists. It may be a process of beating it into shape rather then careful artistic planning, but the end result seems to be the same. One man's hammer is another man's paint brush, so to speak.
The business model, in Be's case at least, can work very well for developing high-quality products...
Certainly; BeOS itself is evidence of that. I was never arguing against BeOS. However, the fact that closed development can work does not mean that open development cannot.
Again, that happens in OSS as well. True, as you note, you often find different people and projects overlapping. However, this is not necessarily a Bad Thing. For one, it offers a form of redundant protection against failure. Second, it fosters an almost Darwinian approach to software development. Many ideas are put forward, and the best selected.
Look at Gnome and KDE. Two projects aiming to accomplish the same thing, and thousands of hours of work wasted.
Interesting. When two companies compete against each other, that competition is generally viewed as a Good Thing (here in the USA, anyway). No one (other then socialists (no, I'm not calling you a socialist (nor am I offering opinions on socialism in general, one way or the other))) calls that competition "a waste". Why should it be any different for OSS development? The GNOME and KDE projects are both offering different solutions to the same problem. Cooperation between the two is quite good, so compatibility should be high. The end result is more choice and better software, as the good ideas live on and the bad ones die off. I don't regard that as a waste at all.
The fact is that the BeOS is a more technically sophisticated, better designed OS that Linux, and it is thanks to closed source design that it has gotten this far.
Ohhhh, inflammatory and unsupported in the same sentence! Did you do that on purpose?
Anyway, BeOS and Linux each have their strengths and weaknesses. You don't put forward any arguments for either of your points: BeOS "better designed" then Linux or that closed development has gotten BeOS this far. I could as easily say that "BeOS would be much further along if it was OSS", but I don't. Please add some justification for your argument, or stop cluttering up the discussion. Thank you.
I believe that once your Karma reaches 25, you should be able to give one point to people, indicating that you believe they're worth listening to. However, if they start to suck, it would be nice to be able to take it back...
:)
Well, the idea of bestowing karma gifts on others is interesting and might work, but I don't think you should be able to take it back. That could lead to all sorts of bad situations... blackmail being the first that comes to mind. (Yah, I know, it's just Slashdot, but hey, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.) Gifts should be gifts. No "Indian givers", please.
Besides, moderators should take care of any one who get gifts and turns out to be a looser. Same as they do now.
From what I've been able to gather from a few discussions with NVidia people, the company is divided into (at least) two camps. On one side, you have the engineers, some who like and use Linux, and who think that releasing source and documenting their hardware interface is a Good Thing. On the other, you have the suits and lawyers who cannot stop saying "Mine! Mine!" with regards to their designs.
:-)
That might explain some of the tension you see in their releases & support, and the conflicting messages you sometimes hear from them. On the other hand, I don't know any of this, I'm just guessing. Maybe they just hate all Linux users personally.
Personally, I like NVidia's products. When they take the time to do it right, they seem to have some of the best stuff available for the PC. It appears that sometimes the suits get their claws into things and cause problems, though.
Sadly typical.
Can you name one unique, one specific piece of open sourced software which has no equals on any non-open source system? ... There's no innovation coming from the OSS community yet, other than the fundamental ideals of OSS itself.
What, exactly, is your point here?
If you are saying that the innovative part about OSS is the development technique itself, well, you're right. That is the point ESR has been trying to make all along: OSS works better then closed development. The big deal isn't about the end product; it is about the process. OSS is a better process (yielding better software as an end result). That's the whole idea.
OSS often means building a better mouse trap -- not coming up with something entirely different. In the case of Linux, a bunch of people have decided Unix has the general idea down right; they are refining it. The rest of the world works this way (standing on the shoulders of giants, et. al.); why should OSS be any different?
Innovation is about taking existing ideas and putting them together to synthesize a new and better whole. If we are to be limited to that which has never been done before, we're doomed. Fortunately, that is not the case.
And, just for your continued edification, yes, I can think of something the OSS community has created that does not exist anywhere else: The Internet. That's right, the Internet. The Internet is a creation of OSS network development. OSS has enabled the very thing that makes this discussion possible.
It seems Rob's taken things to heart.
:) Maybe that will introduce him to the sort of... heated discussions that can take place online.
Indeed. You know, I can't help but wonder if this isn't an instance of some sort of culture clash. The same sort of thing that used to happen when September rolled around on Usenet, or when [insert big online service here] got their first Usenet feed. Or whenever anybody from AOL posts.
As far as I know, Roblimo is first a journalist type. Like some of the communications majors I knew in college. Nothing wrong with that. But maybe Roblimo isn't too familar with the Internet and what can happen in online discussions. Like far too many people in the past, maybe he sees all this flamage and debate, along with the occasional personal attack, and gets shaken up, because he's not used to the way these things go. He's obviously taking it too personally, I'm just wondering if this might be the reason.
So, maybe we should suggest that he read some nice, friendly Usenet newsgroups for a week or so. I'd recommend anything cross-posted to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Know what I mean?