Re:RMS is more a danger than a help
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
Go read the GNU Manifesto. (If you can keep your lunch down that long.)
Please keep the theatrics out of it. It makes you look like a ranting idiot, especially considering how you enjoy the benefits of his ideas while railing on him. Please, at least respect the code he's written.
He would do away with copyright protection for those who wish to have it. Instead, he would force all software to be freely distributable and sharable.
Yes, and have you read his arguments for it? Copyright, after all, isn't some holy writ or inalienable right. There is a good bit of thought that wonders whether copyright is even enforceable on a global Internet. You may not agree, but your jerking knee won't impress anyone with the quality of its arguments.
The problem with the GPV is that it infects whatever it touches. As Tom Christiansen pointed out in his excellent reply, this is counterproductive to their stated goal of increasing software reuse, since it forces those who cannot, for one reason or another, taint their program with GPV-infected code to reinvent the wheel. This is a Bad Thing.
To you, perhaps. Personally, if I write some code that I don't get paid for, I don't want other people taking it and benefiting from its use without reciprocating in some way. Want to fix it up, steal parts for your pet project, or tack on some doodad you like? Fine, go ahead; just make sure you share, too, just like I did. Share and share alike.
And if you think this hurts software reuse, imagine all the proprietary code that's been integrated into BSD/X licensed code that we don't have access to. I'd sure love to have X Inside's multi-head code, or Solaris's clustering and SMP tech, or even the source to WinSock. Imagine what kind of software reuse heaven we'd have if we had all that!
RMS obviously believes that, if he makes good enough software, the world will suddenly drop their anti-FSF licensing and adopt the GPV instead. He's sadly mistaken, and either intellectually dishonest or delusional. While his supporters paint him as a saint, the wider world sees him as little more than a kook. Is that the kind of champion the idea of making use of open source software needs?
Well, he's doing pretty good so far. It's not everyone that can start a movement like this and drive it for as long as he has. Like it or not, the success of Linux is built on his foundation, and without his license, it would have long ago fragmented into a million quarreling pieces, just as the *BSD scene has done.
And when you consider using words like "delusional" and "kook" to talk about him, consider that you are following him, too. Who is the more foolish, the fool, or the fool that follows him?
Re:RMS is more a danger than a help
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, I must have missed that clause in the GPL. Where, exactly, does the GPL require you to give up your rights as copyright holder?
In fact, it would seem that the GPL does more to protect your rights to the software you distribute than, say, the BSD license. With the GPL, you maintain control over the distribution of your code; you can refuse to allow it to be incorporated into proprietary products, or license it for a fee for these cases, or whatever. BSD does nothing to protect against this.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each license model. Frothing at the mouth about the "evil Communist Illuminati Overlords of the FSF" ignores the fact that their philosophy is one of the things that has made Linux possible, and that continues to make it work.
Re:What a tangled web we weave...
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
Such strong words! When comparing RMS's message and yours, one wonders who the "radical" fanatic is.
An opposing view might consider that republican (not the party) forms of government tend to foster freedom more than all-out anarchies. In some cases, freedom must have limits in order to be preserved.
The reason is simple: in order for me to have a right, others must have an obligation. If you have the right to life, I have an obligation not to pull a gun and shoot you. If you have a right to vote, I have an obligation not to obstruct you, either through intimidation and threats or by passing laws requiring some form of "competency test" before you can vote.
I'm not arguing here that the GPL strikes the ideal balance between rights and obligations, but it does promote certain ideas of freedom that are lacking in, say, the Artistic License. Whether you agree or not, you have to admit (and you have, if I read your response correctly) that the GPL does protect certain interests that are not protected by other licenses, and is preferable for this reason.
I suppose my point is this: We don't need this smearing of each other. Can we have some respect?
I think RMS has (again) set a fine example of respecting diversity in this article. He doesn't slam on Open Source or ESR (and even admits that he supports ESR in certain areas); rather, he states his differences clearly and without insult.
(Again, not that RMS hasn't had his moments; his occasional Tcl slams come to mind. Linus seems to have the cleanest slate in this regard; even the infamous Minix slamfest is rather cool by comparison. Or maybe Larry Wall; he's such a fine wordsmith that he can slam on you and still make you feel good.:-)
Tom, you've helped create some of the coolest software in history. I have a lot of respect for you. But I can't reconcile myself with name-calling like this. Please, if you disagree, by all means disagree, but be civil! Don't play the implication game that everyone who disagrees with you is a mindless cretin.
(Oh, and on the name game: We all know it's a historical artifact, but it's also a well-recognized name. Everyone, even the FSF, acknowledges Unix as the inspiration behind the GNU project's architecture. I don't think many people see it as such a big deal.)
70% of all code written is internal custom code that is never sold.
Where I live, that number is somewhere around 99%. I know lots of programmers; very, very few of them see their code sold *at all*, and none in a shrinkwrap box at Best Buy. The one company I know of that sells software sells it as a tie-in to their main business; this software would be more successful for the company if it were free (and indeed that is one direction the company is leaning).
If open source/free software were to take over, I can't think of any positions that would be eliminated - except possibly for some of the help desk/support positions that are needed now to support Windows.
Re:RMS Never tried to run a company
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
Yes, that would explain why Red Hat, VA Linux, and others wouldn't fund R&D on free projects... but they do.
And it would also explain why companies like Digital Creations steadfastly refuse to release more than token pieces of their hard-earned code base... but they haven't.
Red Hat is filing for an IPO, VA is rumored to be doing the same thing, and Digital Creations is raking in the money from contracts since releasing Zope. Pretty good business, if you ask me.
Re:HR people use Word - deal with it
on
Feature:Geek Jobs
·
· Score: 1
Memo to the DOJ:
"Hey, did you know that I have to pay Microsoft to get a job?"
I remember seeing a blurb recently on Microsoft's site slamming Sun for causing the problems at Ebay. According to MS, the Sun server failed, causing the outage, while the NT front-end servers were golden. Lots of factors were cited, including the E10K's sensitivity to config changes, reliance on a smaller domain server, and other factors.
Now we learn that the problem was caused by Ebay, and Ebay alone, by not keeping up on their vendor patches, and that Sun had fixed this particular bug quite some time earlier.
It would seem that MS needs to print a retraction. Any bets on when we'll see it?:-)
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about concerning app crashes.
You may be talking about desktop issues, which is perfectly valid. But remember that Linux is just now starting to provide comprehensive "idiot desktop" software. We do have a bit of catching up to do in this area - something we're rapidly doing. But if you look at the tried-and-true server issues - Web serving, dialup serving, file/print, DHCP/DNS, mail - you find that they have quite satisfactory stability.
The same with your criticism of the PPP setup. Again, *easy* PPP setup is still a bit new. Before, we all were good enough hackers to not mind the extra setup.
Now, most of the technical criticism directed at NT from the Linux crowd centers on several issues where Linux does have the advantage:
- Speed. - Stability. - Flexibility.
As it just so happens, these tend to be server issues more than workstation issues. I personally think it's a pain when my Windows workstation at work crashes, and I long for my Linux desktop at home; however, when my NT Server crashes, I'd consider that more than just a "pain".
I think most of us will admit that Windows has us beat on usability - today. Considering the rapid rate of advancement we've been seeing, combined with Windows' inertia, I'm sure we'll be caught up soon.
Meanwhile, there are still many things we can beat up on Windows for.
ObRelevance: Besides, most of this Morgenthal's criticisms are still off base. Some of them are demonstably wrong - the integrated list of bundled services in NT EE comes to mind, along with the assertion that none of that comes with Linux - and others are criticisms of strengths, such as the slam on its development model.
Of course, there's always the third option: divorce Internet access from the phone company, with options such as cable modem access.
There's nothing holy about dialup, or using the phone company's network. Heck, the cable companies are even drooling over the possibility that they will be able to use Internet QoS to do phone over the Internet, writing the phone company clean out of the picture.
This provides an incentive for the phone companies not to piss off their clients with such silly plans. If voice-over-IP ever becomes practical for phone purposes, then the phone companies will only have inertia on their side. Disrupt that inertia now, and what will prop up the telcos when broadband coax or Iridium-style satellite start taking chunks out of their market?
(Of course, this is the US. If something similar could be started in NZ, perhaps the same effect could be achieved. Having an antiquated phone network sounds to me like an opportunity for a voice-over-IP pilot, using something like fiber to the house or some such.)
I'm a former Exchange admin for about 200 users. (No, we didn't convert; I quit.)
It really depends on what you are using. Exchange provides many services in one package. Most of them are easily replaceable; calendar functions are the one major exception. This will hopefully change, too, once the IETF calendaring system catches on, but until then, you'll need some replacement for that if you use it.
Also, make sure that when you replace technology that you have buy-in from management. Change always brings in friction, especially if it's perceived to be harder to use. So be sure to do lots of user testing, previews, benefits analysis, and the like, especially with anything that is going to look or work different from the user's point of view.
Given all that, here's an example gameplan:
- Switch all users to open protocols. Use IMAP and SMTP for mail, LDAP for directory services, NNTP for discussion groups, etc. Hook all of these into the Exchange box for now. This is the stage to eliminate all of the user issues - training, usability, etc. Make sure that everything is set up to be compatible with the Linux way of doing things; for example, refer to public folders by their NNTP names instead of their "pretty names". This is also the stage to introduce the users to replacements if you use them; for example, roll out Web-based calendaring or group discussion stuff now (on the Linux box, of course), as well as new clients if you're switching from Outlook.
- Start replicating all those services on the Linux box. Hook them together if possible; for example, have your Exchange public folders do a NNTP news feed to their equivalents on Linux, and have the LDAP server synchronize with Exchange's directory through some means (X.500 if you can hack it, or Perl script pulloffs in a pinch).
- Set up addressing so that the Linux box and the NT box are equivalent; that is, "user@example.com" just works, no matter where the actual account resides. A good way to do this is to make the Linux box the "gateway" for all mail, and set up an aliases database to forward for all the Exchange users. We actually did this for a different reason: we wanted a fairly safe "buffer" between the Internet and the company's E-mail.
- Now start setting up your first users - the "beta team". Make sure they can get to everything and do everything they need to. Especially look out for interoperability issues with the Exchange users.
- Once all roadblocks are out of the way, start migrating the rest of the users. If you've done your job right, the move should be transparent from the user's context - the only thing they should notice is how much faster and more reliable everything is.:-)
Once you're done, things should run a lot more smoothly. We had several groups of users using Linux E-mail servers instead of Exchange; they had much less downtime than the Exchange users. Granted, they only had at most 20 users each, but they were also running on 386/40 systems with 200 MB disk and 8 MB RAM; had we the hardware we needed to run Exchange, we could probably have supported 1000 users.:-)
Apache running all CGI is compared against IIS running ISAPI, and - surprise! - IIS kicks Apache's butt. I wonder how things would look if we ran a mod_perl test and compared that to IIS running CGI. "News: Linux/Apache Provides 3.5 Times More Hits Than NT!" I will observe, for the record, that Apache, IIS, and Netscape all provided exactly the same behavior on CGI; no dynamic test was ever done with Apache, so we'll never know, but I bet a mod_perl test on Apache would have produced at least somewhat similar numbers to IIS and Netscape.
And what's all this about Apache modules having to be compiled into the server? My Apache install has a directory full of dynamically loaded shared libraries. Exactly the same way IIS implements ISAPI modules. Only on IIS, you don't have the option of static linking for whatever reasons (less overhead, security, whatever).
I especially loved all the "process vs. thread" crap. Both PC Magazine and Wugnet (yes, the true authorities on Linux) were all over Apache's "process" model vs. IIS's "thread" model. But on CGI, you invoke a new process with each client request, no matter how many servers you've preforked or how many threads are idle. Presto: poor performance, no matter what the preforking parameters are.
You know, I wouldn't be all that surprised if NT beat Linux on this high-end hardware for various things in a fair benchmark. I'm just sick of hearing this kind of drivel from the MS camp. I almost hope Linus & Co. do Mindcraft III just so we can have a decent benchmark to compare against and some future directions for development instead of all this blatant lying.
"The Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DCMA") requires copyright owners to notify internet service providers about infringing activities and about facts and circumstnaces from which infringing activity is apparent, and imposes the obligation on ISPs to remove or disable access to infringing materials. The information set out below provides you with the notice required under the DCMA with regard to unauthorized electronic files relating to the upcoming film _Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace_ ("Episode I"). It also includes information refarding infringment of trademarks relating to _Episode I_ resulting from the posting of illegal video recordings on the internet. We trust that you will act promptly to prevent this infringement."
And later:
"The information provided in this letter is accurate to the best of my knowledge and is provided under penalty of perjury."
IANAL, but this sounds like the language for giving legal notice. (Not to mention that he says he's giving legal notice.) Exactly what is he "legally notifying" them of? That copyright violations are illegal? I think they already know that.
Rather, this is an attempt to reinterpret the guidelines in the DCMA that address whether an ISP is guilty of contributory copyright infringement. This way, the rules that were set up to punish rogue ISPs that flaunt the law can be applied to any ISP that LucasFilm decides was not "diligent enough" in preventing violations.
ISPs didn't want that language written into the law for good reason; this is it.
Is LucasFilm's legal eagle team providing such a nice public service, educating the ISPs on copyright law? Don't bet on it.
You know, I remember the copyright police saying that the DMCA would only kick in for ISPs after official notification for *specific* violations. In other words, you still can't be held responsible for copyrighted material on your site unless you're notified and refuse to take it down.
Now LucasFilm is playing fast and loose with the rules and "informing" all ISPs of the "specific" violation that copying Episode 1 is illegal. This so that the hyperactive legal department at LucasFilm can kick in and sue under the DCMA the moment a file is found, without having to bother with the messy notification clause. After all, they've all been notified of the potential violation, so if a file is found, that must constitute refusal to remove it.
This is the most blatant lawyer-screw I think I've ever seen. LucasFilm stands to make millions on the film, but that isn't enough; they have to twist the law to screw the poor hapless ISPs who happen to harbor a bad apple or two, or who are unlucky enough to get hacked by the wrong hacker.
I hope they sue some ISP and lose, so that the language of the law gets some clarity in case history. And I hope the ISP they sue countersues, and gets a big chunk of those Star Wars revenues.
Re:How does the GPL infect a code tree?
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
Simply, the GPL requires that any code that links in GPLed code also be GPL.
Here are some examples:
- I write mycode.c on Solaris using vi. I then compile it and copy it over to Linux, where I run it via a Solaris emulator system of some kind. The mycode.c code does not have to be GPLed.
- I write mycode.c on Solaris using vi. I then copy that code to my Linux system and recompile it with gcc. Since I only link to LGPLed code (GPL plus an exception for linking to libraries), mycode.c does not have to be GPL.
- I write mycode.c on Linux using GNU Emacs, and I don't use any GPLed libraries (such as readline). Same deal; mycode.c does not have to be GPLed.
- I write mycode.c (using any text editor or OS), and I use functions from GNU Readline, a GPLed library. Now mycode.c must be GPLed.
- I write mycode.c (again, any text editor or OS), and I copy some code from GNU Emacs and link with it. Again, mycode.c must be GPLed.
So, you can tell your PHBs that merely writing or compiling code on Linux doesn't force you to GPL it. You have to look at the licenses for all the individual components. In most cases, the licenses will be LGPL or BSD/X, which is OK.
The UO situation sounds rather boring to me (never having played it). Economics of scarcity are nothing new, whether played out in the virtual world or not.
What fascinates me are unlimited economies, something like a UO where users could create their own land and goods.
LambdaMOO was like this (still is? haven't been on for a while). Users could create their own objects, rooms, areas, etc. You weren't guaranteed a link to the main world, but you could often convince someone to give you a link. Or not; some people preferred to keep their own world separate, where you couldn't get to it unless you knew the special object number. Kind of like an exclusive club.
I remember that one user built a bar like this that ended up being a popular hangout. It wasn't accessible unless you knew the number, but the number was passed around a lot (someone even left a note in a central part of the system with the object number on it).
Not to mention that there was a lot of creativity in linking in places. There was a Monopoly board in one area of the place; several of the "houses" on the board were real houses, and you could actually shrink yourself and go in.
All of that is very true. However, that isn't going to help matters when that $1000 report is delivered to the executive VP at my work.
That's why I think it's irresponsible for people like D. H. Brown to make statements about Linux vs. NT's reliability strictly based on feature lists. The conclusion of the report is "Linux is less reliable than NT", and that's all most suits are going to see. I'm sure I'm going to see this "study" quoted as evidence that a single NT box is more reliable than a single Linux box, something that is patently absurd.
I'm not even convinced that a HA cluster of NT boxes is going to be more reliable than a single Linux box; I've seen too many examples of HA-enabled systems on NT (such as domain control and WINS name services) having lower reliability due to global failures. (For example, a corrupt WINS database becomes no less corrupt when it's replicated.)
I would much rather have them talk about real high-end Unix's HA features as well as its high stability, NT's HA features and its low stability, and Linux's reputed high stability (anecdotal evidence is evidence, even if it's not that strong) and its lack of HA features. That, at least, would be honest, and would give people like me a leg to stand on when fighting the suits on NT deployment.
As I think I've said before, I don't mind the unfavorable comparison to the high-end Unixes. As has been pointed out, Linux isn't trying to compete with the likes of Solaris or Tru64 Unix (except in the areas where these OSes are deployed where they are extremely overqualified). So, most of D. H. Brown's study doesn't really bother me.
What kills me is the little proviso: "...as well as Windows NT".
That's where the FUD really spreads. Linux's strengths compared to NT are dismissed as "anecdotal" or "unproven", while NT's strengths are taken at face value.
The reliability thing is especially critical. In my view, this is one of the major things that elevates Linux over NT: its stability under heavy load. This is something that I've observed time and time again as an NT and Linux admin.
And what really sucks is that everyone is willing to do a quick search for studies on Linux's reliability (turning up nothing), but no one is willing to do the studies. So, lazy people like these ding Linux with "unproven stability", while also dissing Linux on not having side-of-the-box features like "high-availability clustering", and assume that NT is more stable because it has these "side-of-the-box" features, even with its proven instability.
The problem is that most admins prefer a single, stable box over an HA cluster where it makes sense. Sure, HA clusters are great for business-critical databases, but why should an HA cluster be needed for everything to get even basic reliability?
And the worst part? No one seems to be willing to do the studies. So Linux loses in these asinine assessments every time.
You know, I shouldn't really be pissed about this. We've come a long way already without the benefit of positive hype, and I don't doubt that Linux will prove itself in some enterprise setting and show all the naysayers. And even if it doesn't - even if it's the best-kept secret in the IT world - it'll keep going strong.
But I do get irritated at people who publish irresponsible studies like this when my bosses at work tell me that they won't trust an "unreliable" solution like Linux and force me to deploy NT instead. If they forced me to deploy Solaris, AIX, or Tru64, I'd be a bit happier. But when NT is ranked alongside these systems, I get pissed, because it isn't even in the same league.
First off, you're comparing apples to oranges. A shrink-wrapped commercial package should install more reliably than an RPM produced by some person out there who thought it would be cool to provide the software.
Second, you're wrong on the off-the-shelf part. I've had lots of Windows programs fail upon installation. Never mind that lots of Win3 programs don't work on NT (MS even admits this), and that certain NT programs don't work on 9x, and that certain 9x programs don't work on NT.
So, what's the difference between charging for the art or the entire package? Allocate your money however you want, you are still "selling" it. ("Call now and will give you this advanced digital watch FREE!... with only $45 shipping and handling"):-)
Several differences:
You get all the benefits of open source on the engine, including bug fixes, ports to niche/old hardware, new cool features, etc. These increase sales of your game files, and can improve your game's marketing (your ads and demos show BeOS engine clips, while competing engines can only afford a Win9x port and Win9x clips).
Others can write games for your engine, too, and sell them. That sounds like a disadvantage, since you're giving away the engine for others to make money off of. But since it's your engine, your brand gets an advantage, since everyone else's box will be advertising your brand for you, thus giving your game files a competitive advantage. Mindshare is a powerful thing - just ask Red Hat.
You can sell the games files separately from the game. If a user has the engine, buying new files can be a click-and-drag thing with the Internet. Of course, since it's your engine, your game files are displayed more prominently than others - if you even display others. Or, alternately, you can sell your CDs with a downloader for the engine, saving precious CD space.
- You can't run a 64-processor SMP box on NT. - You can't get a government B1 security rating on NT. - You can't get high-availability failover on NT (although they're working on it) - You can't get single-system-image clusters on NT. Heck, you can't get *any* clusters on NT. - You can't have > 100,000 users on an NT box for very large networks.
Had they said, "Linux is good, but is still lacking features and lags behind Solaris and Tru64 Unix", I'm sure we all would have nodded and agreed. But NT??
Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people talk about Linux as inappropriate for an enterprise, and then talking about NT as an "enterprise-level OS". Sure, I'm all for criticizing Linux where it falls short. But let's have a little objectivity, OK?
(Note to Stu: No, I'm not flaming you. You're right, of course. But this "NT" thing really has me burned.)
This is mostly true. The main problem right now is the glibc/libc5 issue; glibc binaries won't run on libc5 systems, and libc5 binaries are generally flaky on glibc systems. That's becoming mostly a moot point; Red Hat, Debian, and SuSE are glibc, with Caldera and Slackware rushing madly to get there.
However, most of the commercial vendors only commit to support one distro. So, if the vendor supports Red Hat and you install on Debian, you're on your own. It'll most likely work like a charm, but don't expect SAP (or whoever) to support you.
I think it was Oracle that broke with the pack by supporting a baseline: 2.0.36 kernel and glibc 2.0.7. This allowed the user to pick their favorite distro - even Debian - and get support. This is the best way, IMHO.
I'll disagree with Tim on this point: the GPL protects the community, not just the users.
Remember that in a vibrant open-source project, the distinction between the "users" and the "developers" is blurred. After all, developers also use, and the users often take up the developer's mantle when their use is hampered.
All of the best open-source projects can no longer be attributed to one man or one small group. For this reason, it's hard to identify "the developer" most of the time. In those cases where there is an exception, it seems to be due either to a very strong leader (Linus, for example) or to a very quiet project with few contributors.
Thus, the question of who "owns" the code (which Tim puts such stake in) is impossible to answer without looking at the community as a whole. In this situation, the GPL is best at preserving the community's best interests.
Slashdot Mirror
Go read the GNU Manifesto. (If you can keep your lunch down that long.)
Please keep the theatrics out of it. It makes you look like a ranting idiot, especially considering how you enjoy the benefits of his ideas while railing on him. Please, at least respect the code he's written.
He would do away with copyright protection for those who wish to have it. Instead, he would force all software to be freely distributable and sharable.
Yes, and have you read his arguments for it? Copyright, after all, isn't some holy writ or inalienable right. There is a good bit of thought that wonders whether copyright is even enforceable on a global Internet. You may not agree, but your jerking knee won't impress anyone with the quality of its arguments.
The problem with the GPV is that it infects whatever it touches. As Tom Christiansen pointed out in his excellent reply, this is counterproductive to their stated goal of increasing software reuse, since it forces those who cannot, for one reason or another, taint their program with GPV-infected code to reinvent the wheel. This is a Bad Thing.
To you, perhaps. Personally, if I write some code that I don't get paid for, I don't want other people taking it and benefiting from its use without reciprocating in some way. Want to fix it up, steal parts for your pet project, or tack on some doodad you like? Fine, go ahead; just make sure you share, too, just like I did. Share and share alike.
And if you think this hurts software reuse, imagine all the proprietary code that's been integrated into BSD/X licensed code that we don't have access to. I'd sure love to have X Inside's multi-head code, or Solaris's clustering and SMP tech, or even the source to WinSock. Imagine what kind of software reuse heaven we'd have if we had all that!
RMS obviously believes that, if he makes good enough software, the world will suddenly drop their anti-FSF licensing and adopt the GPV instead. He's sadly mistaken, and either intellectually dishonest or delusional. While his supporters paint him as a saint, the wider world sees him as little more than a kook. Is that the kind of champion the idea of making use of open source software needs?
Well, he's doing pretty good so far. It's not everyone that can start a movement like this and drive it for as long as he has. Like it or not, the success of Linux is built on his foundation, and without his license, it would have long ago fragmented into a million quarreling pieces, just as the *BSD scene has done.
And when you consider using words like "delusional" and "kook" to talk about him, consider that you are following him, too. Who is the more foolish, the fool, or the fool that follows him?
I'm sorry, I must have missed that clause in the GPL. Where, exactly, does the GPL require you to give up your rights as copyright holder?
In fact, it would seem that the GPL does more to protect your rights to the software you distribute than, say, the BSD license. With the GPL, you maintain control over the distribution of your code; you can refuse to allow it to be incorporated into proprietary products, or license it for a fee for these cases, or whatever. BSD does nothing to protect against this.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each license model. Frothing at the mouth about the "evil Communist Illuminati Overlords of the FSF" ignores the fact that their philosophy is one of the things that has made Linux possible, and that continues to make it work.
Such strong words! When comparing RMS's message and yours, one wonders who the "radical" fanatic is.
:-)
An opposing view might consider that republican (not the party) forms of government tend to foster freedom more than all-out anarchies. In some cases, freedom must have limits in order to be preserved.
The reason is simple: in order for me to have a right, others must have an obligation. If you have the right to life, I have an obligation not to pull a gun and shoot you. If you have a right to vote, I have an obligation not to obstruct you, either through intimidation and threats or by passing laws requiring some form of "competency test" before you can vote.
I'm not arguing here that the GPL strikes the ideal balance between rights and obligations, but it does promote certain ideas of freedom that are lacking in, say, the Artistic License. Whether you agree or not, you have to admit (and you have, if I read your response correctly) that the GPL does protect certain interests that are not protected by other licenses, and is preferable for this reason.
I suppose my point is this: We don't need this smearing of each other. Can we have some respect?
I think RMS has (again) set a fine example of respecting diversity in this article. He doesn't slam on Open Source or ESR (and even admits that he supports ESR in certain areas); rather, he states his differences clearly and without insult.
(Again, not that RMS hasn't had his moments; his occasional Tcl slams come to mind. Linus seems to have the cleanest slate in this regard; even the infamous Minix slamfest is rather cool by comparison. Or maybe Larry Wall; he's such a fine wordsmith that he can slam on you and still make you feel good.
Tom, you've helped create some of the coolest software in history. I have a lot of respect for you. But I can't reconcile myself with name-calling like this. Please, if you disagree, by all means disagree, but be civil! Don't play the implication game that everyone who disagrees with you is a mindless cretin.
(Oh, and on the name game: We all know it's a historical artifact, but it's also a well-recognized name. Everyone, even the FSF, acknowledges Unix as the inspiration behind the GNU project's architecture. I don't think many people see it as such a big deal.)
70% of all code written is internal custom code that is never sold.
Where I live, that number is somewhere around 99%. I know lots of programmers; very, very few of them see their code sold *at all*, and none in a shrinkwrap box at Best Buy. The one company I know of that sells software sells it as a tie-in to their main business; this software would be more successful for the company if it were free (and indeed that is one direction the company is leaning).
If open source/free software were to take over, I can't think of any positions that would be eliminated - except possibly for some of the help desk/support positions that are needed now to support Windows.
Yes, that would explain why Red Hat, VA Linux, and others wouldn't fund R&D on free projects... but they do.
And it would also explain why companies like Digital Creations steadfastly refuse to release more than token pieces of their hard-earned code base... but they haven't.
Red Hat is filing for an IPO, VA is rumored to be doing the same thing, and Digital Creations is raking in the money from contracts since releasing Zope. Pretty good business, if you ask me.
Memo to the DOJ:
"Hey, did you know that I have to pay Microsoft to get a job?"
I remember seeing a blurb recently on Microsoft's site slamming Sun for causing the problems at Ebay. According to MS, the Sun server failed, causing the outage, while the NT front-end servers were golden. Lots of factors were cited, including the E10K's sensitivity to config changes, reliance on a smaller domain server, and other factors.
:-)
Now we learn that the problem was caused by Ebay, and Ebay alone, by not keeping up on their vendor patches, and that Sun had fixed this particular bug quite some time earlier.
It would seem that MS needs to print a retraction. Any bets on when we'll see it?
Most BIOSes I've seen have an option to turn that off. Look for a "Keyboard Installed" option.
The ones that don't tend to be more recent, and also tend to autodetect that the keyboard is missing and deal with it.
I've set up several headless servers this way. Granted, it was a pain when I needed to play in the BIOS, but at other times, it worked out fine.
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about concerning app crashes.
You may be talking about desktop issues, which is perfectly valid. But remember that Linux is just now starting to provide comprehensive "idiot desktop" software. We do have a bit of catching up to do in this area - something we're rapidly doing. But if you look at the tried-and-true server issues - Web serving, dialup serving, file/print, DHCP/DNS, mail - you find that they have quite satisfactory stability.
The same with your criticism of the PPP setup. Again, *easy* PPP setup is still a bit new. Before, we all were good enough hackers to not mind the extra setup.
Now, most of the technical criticism directed at NT from the Linux crowd centers on several issues where Linux does have the advantage:
- Speed.
- Stability.
- Flexibility.
As it just so happens, these tend to be server issues more than workstation issues. I personally think it's a pain when my Windows workstation at work crashes, and I long for my Linux desktop at home; however, when my NT Server crashes, I'd consider that more than just a "pain".
I think most of us will admit that Windows has us beat on usability - today. Considering the rapid rate of advancement we've been seeing, combined with Windows' inertia, I'm sure we'll be caught up soon.
Meanwhile, there are still many things we can beat up on Windows for.
ObRelevance: Besides, most of this Morgenthal's criticisms are still off base. Some of them are demonstably wrong - the integrated list of bundled services in NT EE comes to mind, along with the assertion that none of that comes with Linux - and others are criticisms of strengths, such as the slam on its development model.
Of course, there's always the third option: divorce Internet access from the phone company, with options such as cable modem access.
There's nothing holy about dialup, or using the phone company's network. Heck, the cable companies are even drooling over the possibility that they will be able to use Internet QoS to do phone over the Internet, writing the phone company clean out of the picture.
This provides an incentive for the phone companies not to piss off their clients with such silly plans. If voice-over-IP ever becomes practical for phone purposes, then the phone companies will only have inertia on their side. Disrupt that inertia now, and what will prop up the telcos when broadband coax or Iridium-style satellite start taking chunks out of their market?
(Of course, this is the US. If something similar could be started in NZ, perhaps the same effect could be achieved. Having an antiquated phone network sounds to me like an opportunity for a voice-over-IP pilot, using something like fiber to the house or some such.)
I'm a former Exchange admin for about 200 users. (No, we didn't convert; I quit.)
:-)
:-)
It really depends on what you are using. Exchange provides many services in one package. Most of them are easily replaceable; calendar functions are the one major exception. This will hopefully change, too, once the IETF calendaring system catches on, but until then, you'll need some replacement for that if you use it.
Also, make sure that when you replace technology that you have buy-in from management. Change always brings in friction, especially if it's perceived to be harder to use. So be sure to do lots of user testing, previews, benefits analysis, and the like, especially with anything that is going to look or work different from the user's point of view.
Given all that, here's an example gameplan:
- Switch all users to open protocols. Use IMAP and SMTP for mail, LDAP for directory services, NNTP for discussion groups, etc. Hook all of these into the Exchange box for now. This is the stage to eliminate all of the user issues - training, usability, etc. Make sure that everything is set up to be compatible with the Linux way of doing things; for example, refer to public folders by their NNTP names instead of their "pretty names". This is also the stage to introduce the users to replacements if you use them; for example, roll out Web-based calendaring or group discussion stuff now (on the Linux box, of course), as well as new clients if you're switching from Outlook.
- Start replicating all those services on the Linux box. Hook them together if possible; for example, have your Exchange public folders do a NNTP news feed to their equivalents on Linux, and have the LDAP server synchronize with Exchange's directory through some means (X.500 if you can hack it, or Perl script pulloffs in a pinch).
- Set up addressing so that the Linux box and the NT box are equivalent; that is, "user@example.com" just works, no matter where the actual account resides. A good way to do this is to make the Linux box the "gateway" for all mail, and set up an aliases database to forward for all the Exchange users. We actually did this for a different reason: we wanted a fairly safe "buffer" between the Internet and the company's E-mail.
- Now start setting up your first users - the "beta team". Make sure they can get to everything and do everything they need to. Especially look out for interoperability issues with the Exchange users.
- Once all roadblocks are out of the way, start migrating the rest of the users. If you've done your job right, the move should be transparent from the user's context - the only thing they should notice is how much faster and more reliable everything is.
Once you're done, things should run a lot more smoothly. We had several groups of users using Linux E-mail servers instead of Exchange; they had much less downtime than the Exchange users. Granted, they only had at most 20 users each, but they were also running on 386/40 systems with 200 MB disk and 8 MB RAM; had we the hardware we needed to run Exchange, we could probably have supported 1000 users.
This is really starting to get old.
Apache running all CGI is compared against IIS running ISAPI, and - surprise! - IIS kicks Apache's butt. I wonder how things would look if we ran a mod_perl test and compared that to IIS running CGI. "News: Linux/Apache Provides 3.5 Times More Hits Than NT!" I will observe, for the record, that Apache, IIS, and Netscape all provided exactly the same behavior on CGI; no dynamic test was ever done with Apache, so we'll never know, but I bet a mod_perl test on Apache would have produced at least somewhat similar numbers to IIS and Netscape.
And what's all this about Apache modules having to be compiled into the server? My Apache install has a directory full of dynamically loaded shared libraries. Exactly the same way IIS implements ISAPI modules. Only on IIS, you don't have the option of static linking for whatever reasons (less overhead, security, whatever).
I especially loved all the "process vs. thread" crap. Both PC Magazine and Wugnet (yes, the true authorities on Linux) were all over Apache's "process" model vs. IIS's "thread" model. But on CGI, you invoke a new process with each client request, no matter how many servers you've preforked or how many threads are idle. Presto: poor performance, no matter what the preforking parameters are.
You know, I wouldn't be all that surprised if NT beat Linux on this high-end hardware for various things in a fair benchmark. I'm just sick of hearing this kind of drivel from the MS camp. I almost hope Linus & Co. do Mindcraft III just so we can have a decent benchmark to compare against and some future directions for development instead of all this blatant lying.
Quote, from the letter linked to on the page:
"The Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DCMA") requires copyright owners to notify internet service providers about infringing activities and about facts and circumstnaces from which infringing activity is apparent, and imposes the obligation on ISPs to remove or disable access to infringing materials. The information set out below provides you with the notice required under the DCMA with regard to unauthorized electronic files relating to the upcoming film _Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace_ ("Episode I"). It also includes information refarding infringment of trademarks relating to _Episode I_ resulting from the posting of illegal video recordings on the internet. We trust that you will act promptly to prevent this infringement."
And later:
"The information provided in this letter is accurate to the best of my knowledge and is provided under penalty of perjury."
IANAL, but this sounds like the language for giving legal notice. (Not to mention that he says he's giving legal notice.) Exactly what is he "legally notifying" them of? That copyright violations are illegal? I think they already know that.
Rather, this is an attempt to reinterpret the guidelines in the DCMA that address whether an ISP is guilty of contributory copyright infringement. This way, the rules that were set up to punish rogue ISPs that flaunt the law can be applied to any ISP that LucasFilm decides was not "diligent enough" in preventing violations.
ISPs didn't want that language written into the law for good reason; this is it.
Is LucasFilm's legal eagle team providing such a nice public service, educating the ISPs on copyright law? Don't bet on it.
You know, I remember the copyright police saying that the DMCA would only kick in for ISPs after official notification for *specific* violations. In other words, you still can't be held responsible for copyrighted material on your site unless you're notified and refuse to take it down.
Now LucasFilm is playing fast and loose with the rules and "informing" all ISPs of the "specific" violation that copying Episode 1 is illegal. This so that the hyperactive legal department at LucasFilm can kick in and sue under the DCMA the moment a file is found, without having to bother with the messy notification clause. After all, they've all been notified of the potential violation, so if a file is found, that must constitute refusal to remove it.
This is the most blatant lawyer-screw I think I've ever seen. LucasFilm stands to make millions on the film, but that isn't enough; they have to twist the law to screw the poor hapless ISPs who happen to harbor a bad apple or two, or who are unlucky enough to get hacked by the wrong hacker.
I hope they sue some ISP and lose, so that the language of the law gets some clarity in case history. And I hope the ISP they sue countersues, and gets a big chunk of those Star Wars revenues.
Simply, the GPL requires that any code that links in GPLed code also be GPL.
Here are some examples:
- I write mycode.c on Solaris using vi. I then compile it and copy it over to Linux, where I run it via a Solaris emulator system of some kind. The mycode.c code does not have to be GPLed.
- I write mycode.c on Solaris using vi. I then copy that code to my Linux system and recompile it with gcc. Since I only link to LGPLed code (GPL plus an exception for linking to libraries), mycode.c does not have to be GPL.
- I write mycode.c on Linux using GNU Emacs, and I don't use any GPLed libraries (such as readline). Same deal; mycode.c does not have to be GPLed.
- I write mycode.c (using any text editor or OS), and I use functions from GNU Readline, a GPLed library. Now mycode.c must be GPLed.
- I write mycode.c (again, any text editor or OS), and I copy some code from GNU Emacs and link with it. Again, mycode.c must be GPLed.
So, you can tell your PHBs that merely writing or compiling code on Linux doesn't force you to GPL it. You have to look at the licenses for all the individual components. In most cases, the licenses will be LGPL or BSD/X, which is OK.
The UO situation sounds rather boring to me (never having played it). Economics of scarcity are nothing new, whether played out in the virtual world or not.
What fascinates me are unlimited economies, something like a UO where users could create their own land and goods.
LambdaMOO was like this (still is? haven't been on for a while). Users could create their own objects, rooms, areas, etc. You weren't guaranteed a link to the main world, but you could often convince someone to give you a link. Or not; some people preferred to keep their own world separate, where you couldn't get to it unless you knew the special object number. Kind of like an exclusive club.
I remember that one user built a bar like this that ended up being a popular hangout. It wasn't accessible unless you knew the number, but the number was passed around a lot (someone even left a note in a central part of the system with the object number on it).
Not to mention that there was a lot of creativity in linking in places. There was a Monopoly board in one area of the place; several of the "houses" on the board were real houses, and you could actually shrink yourself and go in.
Virii (viruses?) are legal to write, no question. What's illegal is spreading them and causing damage.
All of that is very true. However, that isn't going to help matters when that $1000 report is delivered to the executive VP at my work.
That's why I think it's irresponsible for people like D. H. Brown to make statements about Linux vs. NT's reliability strictly based on feature lists. The conclusion of the report is "Linux is less reliable than NT", and that's all most suits are going to see. I'm sure I'm going to see this "study" quoted as evidence that a single NT box is more reliable than a single Linux box, something that is patently absurd.
I'm not even convinced that a HA cluster of NT boxes is going to be more reliable than a single Linux box; I've seen too many examples of HA-enabled systems on NT (such as domain control and WINS name services) having lower reliability due to global failures. (For example, a corrupt WINS database becomes no less corrupt when it's replicated.)
I would much rather have them talk about real high-end Unix's HA features as well as its high stability, NT's HA features and its low stability, and Linux's reputed high stability (anecdotal evidence is evidence, even if it's not that strong) and its lack of HA features. That, at least, would be honest, and would give people like me a leg to stand on when fighting the suits on NT deployment.
As I think I've said before, I don't mind the unfavorable comparison to the high-end Unixes. As has been pointed out, Linux isn't trying to compete with the likes of Solaris or Tru64 Unix (except in the areas where these OSes are deployed where they are extremely overqualified). So, most of D. H. Brown's study doesn't really bother me.
What kills me is the little proviso: "...as well as Windows NT".
That's where the FUD really spreads. Linux's strengths compared to NT are dismissed as "anecdotal" or "unproven", while NT's strengths are taken at face value.
The reliability thing is especially critical. In my view, this is one of the major things that elevates Linux over NT: its stability under heavy load. This is something that I've observed time and time again as an NT and Linux admin.
And what really sucks is that everyone is willing to do a quick search for studies on Linux's reliability (turning up nothing), but no one is willing to do the studies. So, lazy people like these ding Linux with "unproven stability", while also dissing Linux on not having side-of-the-box features like "high-availability clustering", and assume that NT is more stable because it has these "side-of-the-box" features, even with its proven instability.
The problem is that most admins prefer a single, stable box over an HA cluster where it makes sense. Sure, HA clusters are great for business-critical databases, but why should an HA cluster be needed for everything to get even basic reliability?
And the worst part? No one seems to be willing to do the studies. So Linux loses in these asinine assessments every time.
You know, I shouldn't really be pissed about this. We've come a long way already without the benefit of positive hype, and I don't doubt that Linux will prove itself in some enterprise setting and show all the naysayers. And even if it doesn't - even if it's the best-kept secret in the IT world - it'll keep going strong.
But I do get irritated at people who publish irresponsible studies like this when my bosses at work tell me that they won't trust an "unreliable" solution like Linux and force me to deploy NT instead. If they forced me to deploy Solaris, AIX, or Tru64, I'd be a bit happier. But when NT is ranked alongside these systems, I get pissed, because it isn't even in the same league.
First off, you're comparing apples to oranges. A shrink-wrapped commercial package should install more reliably than an RPM produced by some person out there who thought it would be cool to provide the software.
Second, you're wrong on the off-the-shelf part. I've had lots of Windows programs fail upon installation. Never mind that lots of Win3 programs don't work on NT (MS even admits this), and that certain NT programs don't work on 9x, and that certain 9x programs don't work on NT.
So, what's the difference between charging for the art or the entire package? Allocate your money however you want, you are still "selling" it. ("Call now and will give you this advanced digital watch FREE! ... with only $45 shipping and handling") :-)
Several differences:
(I count systems with the same essential underlying tech with a few slight differences as "flavors".)
And you know what? Everyone's worried about the Linux market fragmenting!!! What a laugh.
Those are all valid. But so are these:
- You can't run a 64-processor SMP box on NT.
- You can't get a government B1 security rating on NT.
- You can't get high-availability failover on NT (although they're working on it)
- You can't get single-system-image clusters on NT. Heck, you can't get *any* clusters on NT.
- You can't have > 100,000 users on an NT box for very large networks.
Had they said, "Linux is good, but is still lacking features and lags behind Solaris and Tru64 Unix", I'm sure we all would have nodded and agreed. But NT??
Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people talk about Linux as inappropriate for an enterprise, and then talking about NT as an "enterprise-level OS". Sure, I'm all for criticizing Linux where it falls short. But let's have a little objectivity, OK?
(Note to Stu: No, I'm not flaming you. You're right, of course. But this "NT" thing really has me burned.)
This is mostly true. The main problem right now is the glibc/libc5 issue; glibc binaries won't run on libc5 systems, and libc5 binaries are generally flaky on glibc systems. That's becoming mostly a moot point; Red Hat, Debian, and SuSE are glibc, with Caldera and Slackware rushing madly to get there.
However, most of the commercial vendors only commit to support one distro. So, if the vendor supports Red Hat and you install on Debian, you're on your own. It'll most likely work like a charm, but don't expect SAP (or whoever) to support you.
I think it was Oracle that broke with the pack by supporting a baseline: 2.0.36 kernel and glibc 2.0.7. This allowed the user to pick their favorite distro - even Debian - and get support. This is the best way, IMHO.
I'll disagree with Tim on this point: the GPL protects the community, not just the users.
Remember that in a vibrant open-source project, the distinction between the "users" and the "developers" is blurred. After all, developers also use, and the users often take up the developer's mantle when their use is hampered.
All of the best open-source projects can no longer be attributed to one man or one small group. For this reason, it's hard to identify "the developer" most of the time. In those cases where there is an exception, it seems to be due either to a very strong leader (Linus, for example) or to a very quiet project with few contributors.
Thus, the question of who "owns" the code (which Tim puts such stake in) is impossible to answer without looking at the community as a whole. In this situation, the GPL is best at preserving the community's best interests.