I don't know who pulled the number 2500 out of thin air, but a query of bugzilla as of 9:25pm on 10/02 shows "only" 149 bugs, and given the number of those that are NEW, there are probably less than 100 actual bugs. And of those, how many are RedHat's fault as opposed to buggy packages?
If someone pulled that number out of bugzilla, they must not have known how to use it. If not, then they just pulled the number out of thin air.
I'm not saying that 149 possible bugs is "good", but it is more in line with what you might expect a week after a major release.
You realize, of course, that these star naming outfits are basically a scam, right? The only place your "star name" can be found is in the book published by a given star-name registry. There are at least 3 of these registry companies, and none of them are recognized by any legitimate scientific organization.
Macromedia Flash Plug-in, RealPlayer, and several other "mainstream" offerings that have been ported to Linux seem to have remained in a "beta" state far too long for us to think that there is active development being done on them.
Is it now the standard corporate policy to release a mostly finished product for Linux, label it beta so that you don't have to support it (but you successfully kill off interest in open source equivalents), and call it a day?
Freshmeat could perhaps do some "advocacy" work in this area. Maybe they could post a "beta wall of shame" for companies that allow their products to linger too long. Perhaps the embarrassment of being on such a list will convince some companies to get off their duffs and finish these ports.
I've been amazed by how little Linux companies seem to care about trying to do any pre-sales work with a customer.
Gateway, Alcatel, and General Meters visit our campus, meet with us to answer questions before we buy, and check in on us now and then to make sure all is well.
When I went to buy $60K on servers from VA and asked for some help on sizing the equipment, I basically was told that answers to those questions would have to go through their consulting department and would cost $$$. I bought from VA anyway, and although the machines are great, I have one that is underpowered and two that are tremendous overkill. And I've never even received a call to see if I needed anything else.
This summer, I attended SGI's Linux University, and was excited about all the things they were doing. SGI has offices in Indy, so I figured it would be easy to get them to come out and talk to the rest of the staff so we could switch from VA to SGI. After 6 calls to their offices, I could never get the Indiana rep to call or email me. So, we ended up ordering from VA again.
If those that are already "converted" have to pull teeth to get the sales people to help them, how are they ever going to sell to the "fence-sitters"?
I was at this keynote session. The interesting part is that after Mr. Garfinkel made all these remarks, someone asked if he practiced what he preaches at his own ISP (he apparently operates an ISP at Martha's Vineyard), and his response was something along the lines of 'well, as an ISP my cost structure is a lot different, and I have to keep my customers happy, and they aren't very technical... so I don't ban ftp or telnet.'
He also chastised all of us at universities for not having good privacy policies in place, and again when asked about his privacy policy, he remark was along the lines of 'well, we're in the process of being bought out, so we're working on getting a good policy together with the new owners, so for now we don't really have a policy available, but we don't do anything with the information we log anyway.'
Basically, the most interesting and insightful thing Mr. Ganfinkel had at this presentation was a lot pictures and info about Sealand.
I did a lot of research into SSN's because our unviersity still uses them as ID numbers, and I was looking for a justification to change this.
Apparently, it is only illegal for certain government agencies to require your social security number. Anyone else can ask for it, and if you don't want to give it then your only recourse is not to do business with that organization. At least, that's the conclusion my research came to.
I believe you will find that there are 2.2.15pre kernels currently available. Since Alan Cox is the official maintainer of released kernels and also works for RedHat, it's not too hard to see why redhat has no problem putting this kernel into their distro. Alan probably told them that he didn't expect many changes between this pre kernel and the.15 kernel, and also one would expect that the.15 release will probably happen before redhat 6.2 goes final.
I believe in one of the 5.x releases redhat did actually ship a pre kernel (the RPM had -0.x revision).
Really, does the announcement of a single BOF session at any conference belong on slashdot? There are maybe a few dozen people who will attend this event, and most of them probably already saw it posted on the boards that are undoubtedly hanging around the event location.
I think an overzealous BSD advocate is abusing their Slashdot posting privileges.
Since trademark law requires that Linux defend his trademark, I've often worried that Linus wasn't vigilant enough in guarding his trademark. The last thing anyone wants is for Microsoft to come along and slap "Win Linux" on the side of a box and say that "Our definition of Linux is different than many people's definition of Linux."
Truly it would be best for Linus to do exactly what it seems he's done. Setup a registry that requires a nominal (say $1?) fee to grant an unlimited "license" to use the Linux trademark. The nominal fee is probably required in order to make everything legal. In the same vein, they have to police the use of the word Linux by unregistered and frivolous users.
Ideally, I would like to see this "registry" run by an organization like Linux International, which could be more easily pressured to change their practices if the users think they are being inappropriate in their judgements about who should be granted a license (and their current leader, Maddog, is one of the fairest players I've ever encountered).
But hey, if Linus thinks he's can do just a good a job at monitoring this, well, it is his trademark.
Can the RIAA be a monopoly?
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
It strikes me that the RIAA behaves much the same way Microsoft does/did, and obviously those tactics lead to them being declared a monopoly. Is it possible for the DOJ to pursue the RIAA on anti-trust charges for the abuse of monopolistic powers?
The RIAA certainly does not act in the interest of the consumer (or the artist for that matter), and they abuse contractual, monetary, and legal barriers to keep new technologies, new recording startups, and even new artists from entering the market. Sure sounds like another monpoly.
I realize there is no single company here, but isn't there some kind of protection to stop an industrial group from abusing their powers?
Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself quite clear. I didn't actually mean two separate development tracks, just two different distributions, as you said. The RPMs should be usable on either distribution. Now that I think about, maybe Red Hat should just ship on a DVD, with a better set of defaults for Workstation and Server? Oh yeah, not too many servers have DVD drives (or workstations for that matter). Nevermind.
If Red Hat has to stick to one distribution, then 6 months is probably the best compromise they can come up with. Myself, I'm itching to get all the new stuff on workstation because I want all the new functionality. For me, 6 months is way too long of a release cycle.
On the other hand, I'm not even considering the upgrade for my servers. I'll probably cherry-pick the stuff that I want the upgrades for and save the rest until Christmas or whenever I feel the desire to "clean up" the machines.
Remember, Linux is still really being developed on the desktop end. I can't believe that if you had dozens of workstations, you wouldn't be very desirous of new features that were simply not available for Linux 6 months ago. Sure, it's a hassle to upgrade. But if you chose Linux for your desktops, either you don't *need* the upgrade, or you should have been prepared for a new version in about 6 months. I postponed my own roll-out of a Red Hat dual-boot in the labs when I saw the 6.1 beta. There were too many features that I just new I would kick myself for not having.
I hear that 6.1 has a software package that will automatically download new RPM's and such (I didn't notice in the beta, myself). This is the solution for people who are using Linux in the enterprise as a desktop. You have it point to *your* update servers. Then when you're ready to deal with updates for your users, you place the updated RPMS on your server. Minor stuff could be slid in without anyone even noticing.
I don't fault redhat at all for ".x" releases. As long as they don't get carried away with "X." releases. When someone like Dell advertises that their system ship with Red Hat 6, that should mean 6.x, whatever the latest revision may be. If Red Hat's numbering scheme is incompatible with that type of mindset, then *that* is where I see a problem for Red Hat.
Both of these are fine, and I've used them both, but:
1) The public betas don't give us any of the information I was referring to in my first post. I'd like to know why they choose what software they include and why they ignore others. If/when things like next-generation subsystems might be integrated. Why they stick to old versions of certain software. Why do they choose to add certain patches, and what their rationale is in their directory structure (which I personally happen to like for the most part). That's what I mean when I say I'd like to know where the development is headed.
2) Rawhide is a good effort, but it really seems a bit haphazard at time (look at the kernel packages right now). The SRPMS often don't match the RPMS (or extra SRPMS are left around), and it's just not the same as having a group of packages that Red Hat endorses as being "reasonably tested and approved" for use by users who want/need newer software.
3) Even if Lorax and RawHide did solve the problems of open development and new packages, I would still prefer two branched distributions. I'd rather see more server-side stuff on a Server Distribution CD when I'm installing the servers (optional PAM and apache modules, maybe a choice of databases, etc), and more client/workstation packages (where to begin) included on the Workstation Distribution CD.
Of course, the Membership Card is the piece that makes the difference!
Seriously, though, has anyone tried this program? Are the update CD's anything other than the RHSA updates shipped on a CD? If I wait for RedHat to ship me a CD full of security updates that have been available for a month, aren't I being a bit irresponsible as a sysadmin?
I really wish Red Hat would open up their development process a bit. Or, at least tell us some of their plans. I realize they don't like to pre-announce features and be accused of vaporware, but it would be nice to know what their thinking is in terms of when packages get updated and when they don't. Or when/why major version numbers increase.
I also know Red Hat is trying to strattle the line between stability for servers and functionality for users, so maybe it's time for two development tracks? One that has a smaller, with a core set of sever-type packages and an server-centric installer. This distribution would get the current treatment of quarterly, well tested updates, and emergency security patches.
But then there should also be a second distribution that is more of a "rolling release" system that maybe gets a bi-weekly set of updates. I think this second distribution is needed to keep up with the active development in the area of user applications.
Both packages would have a lot of overlap, in fact the RPMS should generally usable on either distribution. But for example, we don't need GIMP and the latest version of XBill on servers, but it might be nice to have newer version of GNOME for the desktop distribution since there is such a big difference in the software in four months.
I realize this may not be the ideal way of doing things, but we need to keep two things in mind:
1) Linux is still under heavy development on the client end. In one month, Linux has gnoe from completely unusable on my brand new laptop to almost fully functional thanks to new releases of software. We need this kind of functinoality in the biggest distribution.
2) Microsoft has shown what kind of a mess you can get into when you try to maintain everything from the consumer-level system all the way up to the highets end server-level systems all in one bundle. You get a compromise that doesn't work well for either.
So, at least for another couple years while Linux is in such constant development, wouldn't it make sense to treat Linux distributions a bit differently?
People are always complaining about the quantity of OpenSource licenses out there. Would it be possible for the OSI or someone to develop a single license with 5-10 "optional clauses" that an organization could add or remove when they release their software.
Presumably, in it's stripped-down state, the license would barely meet the Open Source Definition, and this would be the standard license that most companies would go with. People could then add clauses to make it similar to BSD, or the GPL if they are feeling very generous.
When an organization publishes the software, they can include the full license with it's clauses, but in press releases and such they can say "This code is licensed under the Flexible Public License, amended with Special Clause A, F, and H" or something like that.
I would think it could eliminate some of the bickering about licenses, some of the confusion about what one license offers that another doesn't, and also allow us to reduce the legal hassles involved in checking all these new licenses.
So by next week Deron at SoftLogik should be announcing that the beta version of PageStream 5 for Linux is almost ready and that for just $50 you can get a copy. Of course this time the full version really will be released in just 2 months and this time it will really have all the promised features.
OK, that's very obscure, I know.
Really, I would love to see a port of PageStream to Linux, but I don't want to wait 3 years for it to be finished again.
From what I understand, copyrights (don't know about patents) do offer this type of user-protection. If a company does not defend their copyright under certain circumstances, they may lose it.
This is why Disney sues kids who draw little comic strips featuring their characters, or nurseries that draw the characters on walls. They have to, or some guy can sell unlicensed T-shirts later and claim that Disney had forfeited their copyright.
It seems that the only way to really fight Microsoft on this front is for Open Source developers to make the current Win32 version of PERL run better. If the open source, free version of perl for Windows runs better than this "proprietary-ish" version, what incentive would there be for others to use it?
In fact, the open source movement could really turn the tables on Microsoft if we could get even half as many Windows-specific open source programmers as we have for *ix. As an example, there is currently no good cross-platform group scheduling and contact management software, even between MacOS and Windows. If some group were to take something like KOrganizer, add some polish and a good port to MacOS and Windows as well, I think we could easily steal market share away from Outlook. I'm hoping that Mozilla's calendaring component will be able to do this if nothing else.
In the long run, as long as Windows is the dominant platform, the best way for us to gain market share is to port the best open source programs to Windows and Mac, rather than waiting for the commercial programs to come to us from the other platforms.
This is precisely the reason why Linux is regarded as a hacker OS and not ready for prime time.
Huh?
- A fix is available for users who know how to use it. - Companies who don't know how to use the patch could have a consultant compile a kernel for them if they feel it is urgent. - Linus will probably have an "officially fixed" kernel out by the end of the week, with RedHat likely close on the heels.
And you want to speak as though this is a slow response time? Even if it takes two weeks for "commercial" fixes to appear, that is much faster than you would expect from the average commercial OS company. The fact that the kernel patch is available now to those who know how to use it is icing on the cake, not a negative point.
First, I'm not sure Bob Young's statements were entirely in context. If you read the actual quotes, it seems to me like all he's really saying is that the Alpha is not a driving factor in their business right now, due to lower market share. Most of the derrogatory spin seems to applied by the reporter.
But, I must say that I can understand why they might not take Compaq too seriously yet. Purchasing a Compaq branded alpha with any kind of enterprise-level features will cost you tens of thousands of dollars (at least as of a couple months ago), and even then Compaq won't support you. We had a Microway Alpha in here for about a month as a server, and it had tons of problems (configuration out of the box, shipped by Microway). I spoke to a lot of people at the time, and the consensus seemed to be that if you have time to port & clean-up individual applications, then Alpha Linux was great for running those apps, but for general purpose serving, it just wasn't a quality product yet.
The Alpha port requires a lot of work for a small number of users, and since these users are probably even more technical than the Intel base it probably is one of the lowest income platforms they support. I can understand why RedHat doesn't see it as a compelling platform right now.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know who pulled the number 2500 out of thin air, but a query of bugzilla as of 9:25pm on 10/02 shows "only" 149 bugs, and given the number of those that are NEW, there are probably less than 100 actual bugs. And of those, how many are RedHat's fault as opposed to buggy packages?
If someone pulled that number out of bugzilla, they must not have known how to use it. If not, then they just pulled the number out of thin air.
I'm not saying that 149 possible bugs is "good", but it is more in line with what you might expect a week after a major release.
You realize, of course, that these star naming outfits are basically a scam, right? The only place your "star name" can be found is in the book published by a given star-name registry. There are at least 3 of these registry companies, and none of them are recognized by any legitimate scientific organization.
Even better, how about the cost of putting up some billboards in various metropolitan areas, just to prove the point?
Macromedia Flash Plug-in, RealPlayer, and several other "mainstream" offerings that have been ported to Linux seem to have remained in a "beta" state far too long for us to think that there is active development being done on them.
Is it now the standard corporate policy to release a mostly finished product for Linux, label it beta so that you don't have to support it (but you successfully kill off interest in open source equivalents), and call it a day?
Freshmeat could perhaps do some "advocacy" work in this area. Maybe they could post a "beta wall of shame" for companies that allow their products to linger too long. Perhaps the embarrassment of being on such a list will convince some companies to get off their duffs and finish these ports.
I've been amazed by how little Linux companies seem to care about trying to do any pre-sales work with a customer.
Gateway, Alcatel, and General Meters visit our campus, meet with us to answer questions before we buy, and check in on us now and then to make sure all is well.
When I went to buy $60K on servers from VA and asked for some help on sizing the equipment, I basically was told that answers to those questions would have to go through their consulting department and would cost $$$. I bought from VA anyway, and although the machines are great, I have one that is underpowered and two that are tremendous overkill. And I've never even received a call to see if I needed anything else.
This summer, I attended SGI's Linux University, and was excited about all the things they were doing. SGI has offices in Indy, so I figured it would be easy to get them to come out and talk to the rest of the staff so we could switch from VA to SGI. After 6 calls to their offices, I could never get the Indiana rep to call or email me. So, we ended up ordering from VA again.
If those that are already "converted" have to pull teeth to get the sales people to help them, how are they ever going to sell to the "fence-sitters"?
I was at this keynote session. The interesting part is that after Mr. Garfinkel made all these remarks, someone asked if he practiced what he preaches at his own ISP (he apparently operates an ISP at Martha's Vineyard), and his response was something along the lines of 'well, as an ISP my cost structure is a lot different, and I have to keep my customers happy, and they aren't very technical... so I don't ban ftp or telnet.'
He also chastised all of us at universities for not having good privacy policies in place, and again when asked about his privacy policy, he remark was along the lines of 'well, we're in the process of being bought out, so we're working on getting a good policy together with the new owners, so for now we don't really have a policy available, but we don't do anything with the information we log anyway.'
Basically, the most interesting and insightful thing Mr. Ganfinkel had at this presentation was a lot pictures and info about Sealand.
I did a lot of research into SSN's because our unviersity still uses them as ID numbers, and I was looking for a justification to change this.
Apparently, it is only illegal for certain government agencies to require your social security number. Anyone else can ask for it, and if you don't want to give it then your only recourse is not to do business with that organization. At least, that's the conclusion my research came to.
I believe you will find that there are 2.2.15pre kernels currently available. Since Alan Cox is the official maintainer of released kernels and also works for RedHat, it's not too hard to see why redhat has no problem putting this kernel into their distro. Alan probably told them that he didn't expect many changes between this pre kernel and the .15 kernel, and also one would expect that the .15 release will probably happen before redhat 6.2 goes final.
I believe in one of the 5.x releases redhat did actually ship a pre kernel (the RPM had -0.x revision).
... but not because it's about BSD.
Really, does the announcement of a single BOF session at any conference belong on slashdot? There are maybe a few dozen people who will attend this event, and most of them probably already saw it posted on the boards that are undoubtedly hanging around the event location.
I think an overzealous BSD advocate is abusing their Slashdot posting privileges.
Since trademark law requires that Linux defend his trademark, I've often worried that Linus wasn't vigilant enough in guarding his trademark. The last thing anyone wants is for Microsoft to come along and slap "Win Linux" on the side of a box and say that "Our definition of Linux is different than many people's definition of Linux."
Truly it would be best for Linus to do exactly what it seems he's done. Setup a registry that requires a nominal (say $1?) fee to grant an unlimited "license" to use the Linux trademark. The nominal fee is probably required in order to make everything legal. In the same vein, they have to police the use of the word Linux by unregistered and frivolous users.
Ideally, I would like to see this "registry" run by an organization like Linux International, which could be more easily pressured to change their practices if the users think they are being inappropriate in their judgements about who should be granted a license (and their current leader, Maddog, is one of the fairest players I've ever encountered).
But hey, if Linus thinks he's can do just a good a job at monitoring this, well, it is his trademark.
It strikes me that the RIAA behaves much the same way Microsoft does/did, and obviously those tactics lead to them being declared a monopoly. Is it possible for the DOJ to pursue the RIAA on anti-trust charges for the abuse of monopolistic powers?
The RIAA certainly does not act in the interest of the consumer (or the artist for that matter), and they abuse contractual, monetary, and legal barriers to keep new technologies, new recording startups, and even new artists from entering the market. Sure sounds like another monpoly.
I realize there is no single company here, but isn't there some kind of protection to stop an industrial group from abusing their powers?
Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself quite clear. I didn't actually mean two separate development tracks, just two different distributions, as you said. The RPMs should be usable on either distribution. Now that I think about, maybe Red Hat should just ship on a DVD, with a better set of defaults for Workstation and Server? Oh yeah, not too many servers have DVD drives (or workstations for that matter). Nevermind.
If Red Hat has to stick to one distribution, then 6 months is probably the best compromise they can come up with. Myself, I'm itching to get all the new stuff on workstation because I want all the new functionality. For me, 6 months is way too long of a release cycle.
On the other hand, I'm not even considering the upgrade for my servers. I'll probably cherry-pick the stuff that I want the upgrades for and save the rest until Christmas or whenever I feel the desire to "clean up" the machines.
Remember, Linux is still really being developed on the desktop end. I can't believe that if you had dozens of workstations, you wouldn't be very desirous of new features that were simply not available for Linux 6 months ago. Sure, it's a hassle to upgrade. But if you chose Linux for your desktops, either you don't *need* the upgrade, or you should have been prepared for a new version in about 6 months. I postponed my own roll-out of a Red Hat dual-boot in the labs when I saw the 6.1 beta. There were too many features that I just new I would kick myself for not having.
I hear that 6.1 has a software package that will automatically download new RPM's and such (I didn't notice in the beta, myself). This is the solution for people who are using Linux in the enterprise as a desktop. You have it point to *your* update servers. Then when you're ready to deal with updates for your users, you place the updated RPMS on your server. Minor stuff could be slid in without anyone even noticing.
I don't fault redhat at all for ".x" releases. As long as they don't get carried away with "X." releases. When someone like Dell advertises that their system ship with Red Hat 6, that should mean 6.x, whatever the latest revision may be. If Red Hat's numbering scheme is incompatible with that type of mindset, then *that* is where I see a problem for Red Hat.
Sorry for the long post.
Both of these are fine, and I've used them both, but:
1) The public betas don't give us any of the information I was referring to in my first post. I'd like to know why they choose what software they include and why they ignore others. If/when things like next-generation subsystems might be integrated. Why they stick to old versions of certain software. Why do they choose to add certain patches, and what their rationale is in their directory structure (which I personally happen to like for the most part). That's what I mean when I say I'd like to know where the development is headed.
2) Rawhide is a good effort, but it really seems a bit haphazard at time (look at the kernel packages right now). The SRPMS often don't match the RPMS (or extra SRPMS are left around), and it's just not the same as having a group of packages that Red Hat endorses as being "reasonably tested and approved" for use by users who want/need newer software.
3) Even if Lorax and RawHide did solve the problems of open development and new packages, I would still prefer two branched distributions. I'd rather see more server-side stuff on a Server Distribution CD when I'm installing the servers (optional PAM and apache modules, maybe a choice of databases, etc), and more client/workstation packages (where to begin) included on the Workstation Distribution CD.
Am I way out in left field on my thinking?
Of course, the Membership Card is the piece that makes the difference!
Seriously, though, has anyone tried this program? Are the update CD's anything other than the RHSA updates shipped on a CD? If I wait for RedHat to ship me a CD full of security updates that have been available for a month, aren't I being a bit irresponsible as a sysadmin?
Just wondered
I really wish Red Hat would open up their development process a bit. Or, at least tell us some of their plans. I realize they don't like to pre-announce features and be accused of vaporware, but it would be nice to know what their thinking is in terms of when packages get updated and when they don't. Or when/why major version numbers increase.
I also know Red Hat is trying to strattle the line between stability for servers and functionality for users, so maybe it's time for two development tracks? One that has a smaller, with a core set of sever-type packages and an server-centric installer. This distribution would get the current treatment of quarterly, well tested updates, and emergency security patches.
But then there should also be a second distribution that is more of a "rolling release" system that maybe gets a bi-weekly set of updates. I think this second distribution is needed to keep up with the active development in the area of user applications.
Both packages would have a lot of overlap, in fact the RPMS should generally usable on either distribution. But for example, we don't need GIMP and the latest version of XBill on servers, but it might be nice to have newer version of GNOME for the desktop distribution since there is such a big difference in the software in four months.
I realize this may not be the ideal way of doing things, but we need to keep two things in mind:
1) Linux is still under heavy development on the client end. In one month, Linux has gnoe from completely unusable on my brand new laptop to almost fully functional thanks to new releases of software. We need this kind of functinoality in the biggest distribution.
2) Microsoft has shown what kind of a mess you can get into when you try to maintain everything from the consumer-level system all the way up to the highets end server-level systems all in one bundle. You get a compromise that doesn't work well for either.
So, at least for another couple years while Linux is in such constant development, wouldn't it make sense to treat Linux distributions a bit differently?
People are always complaining about the quantity of OpenSource licenses out there. Would it be possible for the OSI or someone to develop a single license with 5-10 "optional clauses" that an organization could add or remove when they release their software.
Presumably, in it's stripped-down state, the license would barely meet the Open Source Definition, and this would be the standard license that most companies would go with. People could then add clauses to make it similar to BSD, or the GPL if they are feeling very generous.
When an organization publishes the software, they can include the full license with it's clauses, but in press releases and such they can say "This code is licensed under the Flexible Public License, amended with Special Clause A, F, and H" or something like that.
I would think it could eliminate some of the bickering about licenses, some of the confusion about what one license offers that another doesn't, and also allow us to reduce the legal hassles involved in checking all these new licenses.
Is this even remotely feasible?
So by next week Deron at SoftLogik should be announcing that the beta version of PageStream 5 for Linux is almost ready and that for just $50 you can get a copy. Of course this time the full version really will be released in just 2 months and this time it will really have all the promised features.
OK, that's very obscure, I know.
Really, I would love to see a port of PageStream to Linux, but I don't want to wait 3 years for it to be finished again.
From what I understand, copyrights (don't know about patents) do offer this type of user-protection. If a company does not defend their copyright under certain circumstances, they may lose it.
This is why Disney sues kids who draw little comic strips featuring their characters, or nurseries that draw the characters on walls. They have to, or some guy can sell unlicensed T-shirts later and claim that Disney had forfeited their copyright.
At least that's my general understanding of it.
BTW, it's just "Gateway" now. They officially dropped the 2000 part last summer. Just FYI....
It seems that the only way to really fight Microsoft on this front is for Open Source developers to make the current Win32 version of PERL run better. If the open source, free version of perl for Windows runs better than this "proprietary-ish" version, what incentive would there be for others to use it?
In fact, the open source movement could really turn the tables on Microsoft if we could get even half as many Windows-specific open source programmers as we have for *ix. As an example, there is currently no good cross-platform group scheduling and contact management software, even between MacOS and Windows. If some group were to take something like KOrganizer, add some polish and a good port to MacOS and Windows as well, I think we could easily steal market share away from Outlook. I'm hoping that Mozilla's calendaring component will be able to do this if nothing else.
In the long run, as long as Windows is the dominant platform, the best way for us to gain market share is to port the best open source programs to Windows and Mac, rather than waiting for the commercial programs to come to us from the other platforms.
Huh?
- A fix is available for users who know how to use it.
- Companies who don't know how to use the patch could have a consultant compile a kernel for them if they feel it is urgent.
- Linus will probably have an "officially fixed" kernel out by the end of the week, with RedHat likely close on the heels.
And you want to speak as though this is a slow response time? Even if it takes two weeks for "commercial" fixes to appear, that is much faster than you would expect from the average commercial OS company. The fact that the kernel patch is available now to those who know how to use it is icing on the cake, not a negative point.
Any longtime reader of Slashdot should know that this is a joke because Sengan could never post a story like that without making some kind of comment.
Nice touch having the story site in russian so the majority of the readers can't read it, though.
First, I'm not sure Bob Young's statements were entirely in context. If you read the actual quotes, it seems to me like all he's really saying is that the Alpha is not a driving factor in their business right now, due to lower market share. Most of the derrogatory spin seems to applied by the reporter.
But, I must say that I can understand why they might not take Compaq too seriously yet. Purchasing a Compaq branded alpha with any kind of enterprise-level features will cost you tens of thousands of dollars (at least as of a couple months ago), and even then Compaq won't support you. We had a Microway Alpha in here for about a month as a server, and it had tons of problems (configuration out of the box, shipped by Microway). I spoke to a lot of people at the time, and the consensus seemed to be that if you have time to port & clean-up individual applications, then Alpha Linux was great for running those apps, but for general purpose serving, it just wasn't a quality product yet.
The Alpha port requires a lot of work for a small number of users, and since these users are probably even more technical than the Intel base it probably is one of the lowest income platforms they support. I can understand why RedHat doesn't see it as a compelling platform right now.