Have you tried using crossover office? I havn't tried it myself, but the couple reviews I've read from people using it with photoshop seemed positive.
Doesn't solve the problem with Quark, however. Also, it would have to be as fast as my normal setup, since some filter in Photoshop take many many minutes (some more complicated stuff takes over 1/2 hour) on larger cmyk files. Also, the other plugins must work. Basically, it won't work for my particular needs. If I only did basic web graphics, maybe, but not 4 color.
4 color work is a wholey different animal from web graphics, and calc time and productivity is vital.
If there were a problem with Linux distributions per se it wouldn't be with the Desktop
Wow, I would really have to respectfully disagree there. The desktop is the primary problem, IMHO. I have used linux for years on servers, but still use it sparingly for desktops. Part of the problem *is* the decentralized way Linux is developed, in one respect: No one agrees how much configurability is too much or not enough. Ironically, its also its greatest strength.
The current Linux desktop does NOT pass the Granny test. My mom is 67, and no, she would not be able to use Linux, at least any distro I have tried, and I have tried many. Ok, maybe Knoppix, but only because she would have so little choice. There is typically 10x more control panels that needed on the typical desktop distro, many which are redundant.
We do agree on the configuration layout differences of all the distros. The lack of real standardization is a problem in our office. I have to mix 95/98/me/2k/xp and it all works. Its still crappy MS software, but it connects. The lack of standardization may also be what is slowing development of existing successful applications on the Linux platform. I have said it before, if they made Quark and Photoshop for Linux, I would buy it. Since there is no substitute in the Linux world, I can choose Mac or MS only, and MS wins for all around usability in my case. (gimp won't do CMYK, and there is no Quark like program that a print company would have to be able to output my stuff to film) For my desktop at work, Linux isn't even an option, no matter how bad I wish it were. It *CANT* do the work.
Until recently, I figured all Linux distros were pretty similar. After installing a removeable HD rack system on a box, and literally one dozen removable drives, I have gotten to compare several distros, side by side, on the exact same machine. BSD also. The differences are remarkable.
I have no problem that a SERVER tuned distro would be different than desktop, after all, I don't use X on servers, and generally servers have 1/3 of the packages installed so the logical layout being different is expected. But on the desktop, its a different thing. There needs to be an "accepted" view on configuration files and layout if you want linux to grow. I don't mean rigid rules, just agreed concepts a step beyond where we are. I am not sure we need/usr/local, for instance, on the desktop, nor several other seemingly redundant structures.
But getting back to main point, the Linux Desktop, in the form of KDE or Gnome, is still not ready for primetime. Its fun. Its different, yet familiar. It has tremendous potential. Its geeky cool. But it takes more time to do the same thing on my windows box. Really. So its still less productive. Thats ok, its still young and Linus isn't a billionare tyrant throwing tons of money to make purdy click widgets. But IBM was right: As it is NOW, Linux is best suited for repetitive task environments like banks, POS, etc. My best wishes are hoping it will *really* and *objectively* catch up within 2 years. Now we just need some of those nasty 'for profit' companies to port existing, popular, pre-existing programs to it, to ease the transition to a free software future.
Yes. and it will be easy to prove ONE aspect, the fact that the specification was readily available. If they can kangaroo that issue, and make the case about whether or not you used the specification, odds are not in your favor since they can outspend you in the legal dept.
Second, how can Microsoft put something out there freely and expect to have control over what people do with it? What about when this information seeps into common knowledge? Do they retain their rights?
Yes they can, just like GPL software is enforced. The source is out there for everyone to see, but you still have to abide by the GPL. Lots of people miss this point, and attempt to put GPL kernel code into their own products and distribute them without releasing the source (see Linksys and SCO's UnixWare) Since the knowledge is patented, it doesn't matter that it becomes common knowledge. This is part of the problem with patenting software or pure "ideas". Patents are usually for specific methods of accomplishing a goal, so it IS legal to do it a different way. IIf your clean room method is very very different, its not a problem, but if you independently use similar methods, then you are screwed. Thats a problem since for some things, there is only one or two logical ways to accomplish them, so a clean room implimentation may look like it infringes when it really doesnt.
Their rights to inforce this patent is pretty much absolute unless the patent is reversed. The main problem is they can sue you and you will end up having to prove you are NOT guilty of infringement, simply because of the ease of availability of the info. You still have the absolute right to reverse engineer their products for compatability, its just harder to prove "clean room" status, and easier to point the blame by MS, especially if you end up using independent but similar methods.
You missed the point. Now it is harder to clean room it, or prove that a clean room implimentation *IS* clean, because MS can always show how easy it was to get the specs. If they don't release it under this license, you can always claim you never had access to it to begin with, now you can't.
Also, ask anyone involved with OO, its is VERY DIFFICULT to reverse engineer an office file format, since there are so many potential variables. More difficult than the average API to crack. You have to reverse all the potential formatting, not counting how you accomidate VBS, since it can't have VBS support.
The factual error is the implied "I know more than Bill Gates", or "Bill Gates is making such a freshman mistake, but I caught it."
According to Microsoft.com "William (Bill) H. Gates is chairman and chief software architect of Microsoft Corporation" and NOT the head of marketing. Obviously the buck stops with him, but I would hope he would have better things to do than write the script for this little spoof.
I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but the bottom line is that he's a brilliant businessman, and he wouldn't have achieved his current wealth were it not for the ability to market a product effectively.
No one is disputing that. But are you saying he NEVER makes a mistake? And no:) my feeling aren't hurt. Like I said, 20 years and doing just fine, so I must be doing something right, too. If you ever have the chance to see a "brainstorming" session within a marketing dept., you will see its always a heated affair. One comment on/. doesn't even compare.
Either that, or you may argue that Windows is just better than anything else out there. I'm going to stick with "better marketer".
On the desktop, it IS the best game in town. I wish it wasn't, but it still is, and not just because of the %, but the whole experience. On the server, its one of the worst going, with tons of unnecessary GUI and wasted resources. Thats my opinion. I use both on the server and desktop for good reason, however. Again, from experience, marketing can only get you so far if your product sucks.
Personally, I think Windows is a decent product, especially after adding NAV, Zone Alarm, ActiveState Perl, Cygwin.... Not always my favorite, but I like it enough to use it most of the time for purely client tasks. Its the tactics and lack of ethics of Microsoft that I hate, not the products.
Well it is said that B.G. is quite good at predicting future trends in the software industry.
True, he did predict that Netscape would lose the browser wars. They have predicted the fall of several companies. Then again, if I point a gun to your head, and pull the trigger right after I predict you will die, that doesn't make me a clairvoyant.
But you may be right on this one. Its hard to drive a company out of business when its based on all volunteers and no big buildings.
But I'm sure you know way more than him about marketing and such.....
You miss the entire point. It doesn't matter who you are, in Marketing you make mistakes because you must take risks. The key is to take risks that have potential rewards that are greater than the risk's downside. In this case, there really IS no reward. Its just a dig at Linux, but in the process, they elevate it. The only reward is how cool they feel about digging Linux.
Being rich doesn't make you a marketing genious. It doesn't make you immune from mistakes, and it certainly doesn't prevent you from getting overly confident, which was my point. As to my success, you have no idea, so it is not relevent.
Instead of being a asshole, you might try debating the CONTENT of what I said, instead of assuming I am incorrect simply because he is richer than I am. If you see any factual errors in my comments, please feel free to correct them.
Even as I write this in Mozilla I spell check it with Word.
You spell check?:) I would say "you must be new here" but I don't need the karma.
I use quark or frontpage to spell check, but I dont bother on/. But im migrating my old p3/1.1 laptop to a p4/2.4 laptop (i only slash on the laptop in the livingroom) and will set it up as a dualboot with some flavor of linux (pissed at RH, looking for another distro still), so will have to use something else.
Microsoft more then just about anyone needs to get the word out about Linux right now.
Actually, I can see MS getting Word for Linux, but not getting the word out on linux. I will be shocked if MS doesn't end up making software for Linux. The whole activation thing will be weird tho, cause if you think their codes get cracked fast on windows, wait until they park it on *nix. Remember, they DO have a fair amount of experience with unix...but not as much as the crackers.
Well, apache does have 70% of the web server market share. I would say that makes it a serious competitor.
True, but Apache isn't Linux, nor GPL. And many installations are actually on windows, since apache 2.0.
Regarding linux, it has a minority share of the market. Most of my servers, and probably users too, but a small share overall. On the desktop, Linux is almost non-existant. that was my point, that MS is acting like Linux has equal share. Not smart. I mean, it WILL have equal share soon enough, just not this year, or next.
The irony is that Linux still has a very small market share, but Billy's response to Linux in this spoof, by linking it to IBM, tends to make Linux even bigger than it is, and makes it look like it is more competition than it is yet.
As someone who has been in marketing for 20 years now, I know the best way to make your competition look small is ignore them in public, and sweat them in private. This is just petty crapola by Billy and Company, but it serves to make MS look bad, and Linux to look better by being the butt of a joke made by "the evil empire". I mean, the method they used to parody Linux is fine, even remotely humorous, but doesn't serve their marketing dept. very well.
Seriously, this may sound odd to some of you, but this is a fundamental marketing mistake, this is Marketing 201 stuff, not that advanced. This is typical of a company that thinks it is invincible, or thinks the competition can never catch up. Problem is, no one else believes this except Billy and Co.
Now, with the opening of the format, that "mostly compatible" becomes "compatible."
Did any of you read the actual Microsoft patent statement? It says you must obtain a license if you USE the information in a seperate application for compatability. Quoting them:
"There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification."
Technically, anyone that looks at it, and uses it to put compatability for Open Office, are infringing on their patent. And now that the spec is in the open, its very easy for microsoft to say "we opened it up, and they infringed, this is why we dont like open source". This also means, that if you DON'T look at it, and instead do manage to reverse engineer it, it is likely that a judge will believe MS that you are lying and instead just read their "open" standard.
You just sound like someone who hasn't even used the recent Redhat Linces, and the new Fedora Core 1. You are pointing to a rose and telling me that it is not a rose because of a review you read.
That is one review, go google your own. My bias against Fedora is based upon REDHATS own admissions and information. And of course I am talking about production machines, since no one really cares what you run on some machine in your home for fun. Personally, I have a system (2500amd/512mb) with removable HD racks so I can run Win2k, 98, xp, rh9 (soon to be fdisked), debian, freebsd, gentoo, slack, and soon darwin, all on the same box to compare for myself. THAT is my "toy" box where I test. It is safe to say that I do test other distros, well beyond the average user, and feel confident in my comparisons.
Everything else, including my personal workstations and the workstations at the office I would consider too critical to run Fedora, based on RedHats own statements and admissions. Out of the over 30 boxes (and growing) I have to worry about, maybe TWO I would run this type of experimental OS on. Sales, marketing, administration, credit dept., all these computers are entirely too important to run Fedora. They were in the middle of being migrated to RedHat 9, which will obviously not happen now. Not everyone runs a slew of non-critical boxes, some of us actually have to maintain over 99% uptime to keep the wheels of capitalism greased.
Enterprise is not based on Fedora. Fedora is a testing ground for technology that may or may not make it to Enterprise. Common sense says the majority of patches will NOT make it into Enterprise. There will be lots in common, grated, but stability isn't one of them, and support damn sure isn't, at ANY price. If you read the original post, you know that I PAY for RedHat support, $60 per year per box. Fedora doesn't offer this and the new system is at least 4x more expensive.
This isn't idle chatter. This is what I actually have to deal with everyday, and many others in my situation. So yea, I would say I have checked into Fedora and other distros, more than just on the surface. The difference is I am talking about the real world, not some play box at home.
That depends on how you interpret the Big Picture.
1) SCO is after huge settlement and/or buyout -- OR -- 2) SCO is out to kill free software / open source / GNU / Linux (whether on their own or as a pawn of Microsoft)
Unless there is a giant conspiracy out there that has some religious, moral, or political opposition to the idea of Free Software, its about the money. Even if they wanted to kill Linux, it would be to sell more Unix, so its still about the money. They may not even care how they get the money or it hurts along the way, which recent events seem to support. But its still, about making money, at any cost, in the short term.
um, I know that Pine IS included, because I use it on every RH9 server I have. This is because I prefer it and Pico, and have used those for umpteen years, even before I knew what Linux was. It isn't installed in a "default" install, but you just []select individual packages and choose it. I think its on disk 3. I also know that RH9 has vNidia drivers, which are not free, and not open source.
Actually, there is LOTS of not free software on RH9. Lots. You just have to choose to install it. Their older distros also had tons of non free, including some very proprietary stuff like IBM's DB2 development kit, etc.
To ME, the real freedom is the freedom to be able to choose to install Netscape, Real Player, Pine, and other "not free" software on my box without having to get the source and compile it myself, or explain to the RMS nazi's why I prefer to use some non-free software. If Photoshop, Quark, FlashMX, and other progs were out for Linux, I would gladly buy them.
There is no way I could go 100% free, nor do I want to, since I live in the real world where people have jobs and businesses, and think that software companies should have the choice to release their software as free or not, and I have the choice to buy or not. I mean, I'm dying to buy HL2, and I will be damned if I am giving up my games just to live up to someone elses idea of "Free".
I am not an authority on Slack, but I will give you my impression from using it just a few weeks, after using RedHat for many years, and having SunOS and Solaris shell accounts for MANY years.
Slack seems more Unix like. Things are in very standard places, where you would expect them to be on a real Unix system. This is still a little confusing to me because I am used to them being in the wrong places with RH, but my SunOS and Solaris experience helps. I found it to be quite easy to install Slack 9.0. Some parts are a little confusing, but only because they are different, not necessarily harder. Unlike many, I prefer a menu based text based install, which Slack has. After roaming around it a few minutes, it all made sense. My second install took 10 minutes to get started, and then I just walked away while it copied files.
It handles groups differently, it doesn't just create a group for every user independently (which I never understood why RH does). The security is a bit more important, and you will find it defaults to a bit more secure of a systems, especially compared to older RH distros (7.2 and older). It does require some getting used to, and I am still not ready to commit the servers to it (looking at Debian also, waiting for a new MB to arrive for testing). But its in the hunt.
I can easily see that Slack is NOT for people who just want to click pretty widgets to configure their systems. My experience with pretty widgets on Linux is a mixed bag, from linuxconf trashing an install (on RH 6.1 default install) to all the crap included with Gnome (which I don't like) and KDE (which I do like, but dont use the widgets). I can see why real hardware/os minded people like Slack, because of its elegant simplicity, power, and security.
Fedora is Redhat Linux....It is the same f*cking OS you dolts!
Um, not exactly. Fedora != RedHat. The reviews are Fedora have been not favorable. Also, Fedora will always be less stable and less tested than the standard RedHat was, by design. RedHat flatly says this when they refer to "cutting edge" and "It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products." They want it be completely Free Software, which is not exactly what RH9 is. Fedora will have patches that are not in the official Linux tree, and other code that is not considered stable enough for production machines. This is not my opinion, this is the stated policy objective of RedHat, Inc.
You miss the entire point about Fedora and RedHat Enterprise Linux. As someone who has used RedHat for more than a few years, I can tell you there are significant differences. It is SO different, in fact, that the several servers I have RH7.2 and RH9 on won't just upgrade to Fedora OR Enterprise. RedHat flatly states you should WIPE your system and perform a new install.
Fedora is SO different, that it will actually require a MIGRATION, which is why I will move to Debian or Slackware instead. It may LOOK like RedHat, but its not. It is considered (by RedHat) to be an experimental distribution designed for hobbiest and developers. It will likely be a great testing ground for new hacks, programs, drivers and feature the latest untested software, but no hacker in his right mind would use Fedora for a company's production machines.
From RedHat's site "If your interest in Red Hat Linux is to interact with the Linux community and contribute to the development of a general purpose operating system from free software, then the Fedora Project is for you." This obviously means if you are wanting a stable production environment, then Fedora is NOT for you.
You might want to actually check the reviews and under the hood before you start calling people "f*cking dolts". Maybe to a Windows user, its the same, but those of us that actually USE the product and have for years, its as different as Mandrake is the Debian. For anyone who gets paid to make sure the servers never go down, Fedora is not even an option under any circumstance. Anyone who would use Fedora in a production environment deserves to be fired, especially considering the other options such as Debian, Slack, Mandrake, and the BSDs that are free, or Turbo or SuSe which are stable.
What should customers that run small business networks using your standard product and Up2date service but do not need or cannot justify full enterprise products do now? What distribution would you recommend we switch to if neither of your offerings will suit their needs in the near future?
Should a 20 year old, rapidly growing business that can project needing enterprise grade services in 2 or 3 years, and currently pays hundreds per year for RedHat services that are about to be discontinuted, and paid retail for RedHat since 5.x days, ever consider using RedHat again?
--- my editorial behind these questions
Believe it or not, these are quite serious questions to me. My first RH distro was pre 5.0 and I have always bought the box set just because it felt like the right thing to do, and paid for up2date service since it was offered a little over a year ago. I have been as loyal a customer as they could hope for, but I can't help but to feel betrayed with the "new policies". Either I will have to suck it up and pay much more for service I do not need, or change distros. It would be cheaper to just pay RedHat, but I had the same feeling everytime Microsoft releases a new OS, with a higher price. Its cheaper to just pay the much higher price, but it still leaves a very bad taste in your mouth.
When you feel that your loyalty has just been rewarded with a slap in the face, you have no choice but to consider changing loyalties. Go google it, and you will see I have always been pro-Redhat, almost fanatically...until now.
well put. i am pissed about this as well. I pay them $180 for 3 entitlements (plus 1 free) per year, and have purchased most of their software in their own boxes, except 9 which was not released in a box. I have used RH since 5.x and now I have 6 servers and many workstations that I have to change distros on.
Changing from one linux to another is more than trivial. Stuff IS organized differently. Some hardcoded scripts break (yea, dont hardcode, but never mind). I had no problem paying $60 a year to just use up2date, per box. I hope someone comes up with a similar service. I mean, if MS can charge you 200 for an OS (or much less if its installed on a new box) and support it for 5 years (40 a year or less) then SOMEONE should be able to support a version of Linux for 50% more money.
I buy the support because I don't want to recompile SENDMAIL and BIND every two weeks, and want support that I can depend on. If I pay for it, I can bitch about it, and I don't mind paying because I want MORE than just community support. If I have to start compiling my own patches again, I will just say fuck it and go to Slackware.
go google "richard stallman" and then select the images tab. Its more than long hair. He often looks like the guy with the "will work for food" sign, that pesters you at intersections.
I am sure he does bathe at least somewhat regularly, but its not easy to tell in photos. He does piss people off because he is not the best at expressing himself in a tactful manner (which I fully understand). He would never be a diplomat, for instance. Idealism is fine, but he is a bit too self rightous for most people, and even the people that are 100% behind him get verbally stepped on from time to time.
Remember, this is the guy that says even Debian isn't "Free" enough, probably due to nVidia binaries or something. He takes shit entirely too far sometimes, but then, thats his right. Its my right to be annoyed by it.
Two outta three ain't bad. They can embrace and attempt to extend, but since they can't buy the IP they can't extinguish....
The real catch is the fact that if they embrace and extend, they have to open the source, which would be instantly forked without their contributions. They can't extinguish something they have to have in the open. If they DID embrace a program, lets say Mozilla, and then added some crapola that was MS only specific, called it Billzilla, then two years later dropped it. They have to show us the code, and the Bill part of the zilla would be stripped out instantly, and any good stuff would be left in. They can't kill it.
GPL is like the Borg in one way, you can't kill it. You can't revoke the license, you can't make any software under the GPL go away. It lives forever, and not even the copyright holder can kill it, because I can always take the last release and fork it, change the name (leave the copyrights) and release it. It's like Freddy Krugar, with #comments.
Linus however worries me, he seems to be so uninterested in the legal system that he might be considered ignorant of it.
He would not be expected to be a legal expert, rather he is responsible for everything that is in the official linux tree. Its not his job to know copyright law and he will tell you flatly that he is not an expert, but he knows what HE wrote, including large parts of the SMP code that SCO is claiming as their own. Its a good thing he is politically apothetic, I would rather see him spending more time coding and less debating.
He statements on patents was simple: don't research them. The reason is, if you accidently infringe on one, you are liable. If you knew about it and infringed anyway, you are liable for treble damages. ANY shop will tell you the same, programmers should NEVER research patents, thats Legal's job. Its just bad business.
I imagine this is what Stallman wanted, a chance to prove the GPL in court.
I appreciate everything RMS has done, but I am not sure he is the best person to represent the open source movement, especially since he is not a party to the suit. Preachy, self rightous, unwashed. Again, thanks RMS, but he does look more like a stereotype of a hippie than an industry leader...
(think of how South Park would illustrate a hippie in one of Cartman's nightmares, and then TELL me it aint a picture of him)
No you are wrong. Anyone can "use" GPL software without agreeing to the terms.
I never said you couldn't. The GPL clearly states this, because you have not signed anything.
The GPL does not restrict, it permits.
Sorry, but you are reading it wrong. In order to protect the "right" of the software to be "Free", it restricts how you can distribute it. Again, you are focusing on the end user, which is fine, but the GPL focuses on programmers and distributing. As a user, you don't have to agree to anything, as we both know. As a programmer or distributor, this means that you MUST provide source code in a reasonable fashion, forever. If you write fresh code but link to GPL libraries (not LGPL) then you must release your code.
The GPL virtually breathes life in the software, and the purpose is to give IT the right to exist without restriction. As I have made perfectly clear, I have no problem with it (and have released some small stuff under the GPL for that matter). But it is still a highly restrictive license. This is exactly why many companies are slow to use it.
I am not anti-GPL. The opposite is true. I do like it well enough to be migrating to using Free software as exclusively as I can, both at home and at the office. But my love for Linux, and distaste for MS doesn't change the fact that the GPL is still quite restrictive. For the right reasons, yes, but still restrictive. From MY perspective, you start with Public Domain, which has no restrictions, and work in the opposite direction. PD, BSD, GPL, others.....with MS last. At least in regards to restrictions, this seems to be the natural flow.
Yes, there are still restrictions on what you can do with GPL'd code. No, the GPL is not the source of those restrictions.
I hesitate to reply to an AC, but you seem sincere, however incorrect. The GPL is specifically the source of those restrictions. The copyright holder of any software can put any restrictions they want on their software, by releasing it under the GPL, they are specifically putting the restrictions inherent in the GPL in their software. The restrictions do not exist without the license. It would simply be unlicense software.
To compare GPL with copyright is not only silly, but apples to oranges. Copyright is not a license. GPL and MS EULA are. My comparison is with the BSD license anyway, which offers the least restrictions. Any license can only be on copyrighted software, since if it was not copyrighted, the author would have no legal authority to inforce the license, it would be Public Domain, which is impossible to "enforce" any license on by its very nature.
Your reference to the MS EULA is also misleading. You CAN sell your copy of the software. I sell used computers all the time, legally, with Windows installed. I transfer all copies, the little license tag and all, legally. You can make copies for archival purposes as well. There are some restrictions on use of MS EULA, but they are generally concerned with how many copies you can run. You can run Office for business, pleasure, to design nuclear weapons, etc. without any say from MS.
The purpose of the GPL is NOT to be the least restrictive license. Quite the contrary. PD has that honor, with BSD next in line. The GPL is soley designed to keep people from distributing changes without sharing the source. It forces everyone to "share" the source if they distribute the binaries. I can live with that, but that doesn't change the fact that it is quite restrictive.
The other restrictions you DON'T mention is that if you write a program from scratch, but it links to GPL (not LGPL) libraries, you have to release it under the GPL. This means if you program, you either have to produce your own libraries, or GPL, or infringe. Again, I can live with that, but that doesn't change the fact that the GPL is quite restrictive, just in a very different way than other licenses.
The same features that make the GPL more restrictive than BSD also prevent some of the forking, stealing, (BSD is harder to enforce) and still allow me to NOT release my changes if I use them in my own business/home only. I prefer the GPL for most stuff, but I am still aware that it has at LEAST at much restriction as other licenses.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you tried using crossover office? I havn't tried it myself, but the couple reviews I've read from people using it with photoshop seemed positive.
Doesn't solve the problem with Quark, however. Also, it would have to be as fast as my normal setup, since some filter in Photoshop take many many minutes (some more complicated stuff takes over 1/2 hour) on larger cmyk files. Also, the other plugins must work. Basically, it won't work for my particular needs. If I only did basic web graphics, maybe, but not 4 color.
4 color work is a wholey different animal from web graphics, and calc time and productivity is vital.
If there were a problem with Linux distributions per se it wouldn't be with the Desktop
/usr/local, for instance, on the desktop, nor several other seemingly redundant structures.
Wow, I would really have to respectfully disagree there. The desktop is the primary problem, IMHO. I have used linux for years on servers, but still use it sparingly for desktops. Part of the problem *is* the decentralized way Linux is developed, in one respect: No one agrees how much configurability is too much or not enough. Ironically, its also its greatest strength.
The current Linux desktop does NOT pass the Granny test. My mom is 67, and no, she would not be able to use Linux, at least any distro I have tried, and I have tried many. Ok, maybe Knoppix, but only because she would have so little choice. There is typically 10x more control panels that needed on the typical desktop distro, many which are redundant.
We do agree on the configuration layout differences of all the distros. The lack of real standardization is a problem in our office. I have to mix 95/98/me/2k/xp and it all works. Its still crappy MS software, but it connects. The lack of standardization may also be what is slowing development of existing successful applications on the Linux platform. I have said it before, if they made Quark and Photoshop for Linux, I would buy it. Since there is no substitute in the Linux world, I can choose Mac or MS only, and MS wins for all around usability in my case. (gimp won't do CMYK, and there is no Quark like program that a print company would have to be able to output my stuff to film) For my desktop at work, Linux isn't even an option, no matter how bad I wish it were. It *CANT* do the work.
Until recently, I figured all Linux distros were pretty similar. After installing a removeable HD rack system on a box, and literally one dozen removable drives, I have gotten to compare several distros, side by side, on the exact same machine. BSD also. The differences are remarkable.
I have no problem that a SERVER tuned distro would be different than desktop, after all, I don't use X on servers, and generally servers have 1/3 of the packages installed so the logical layout being different is expected. But on the desktop, its a different thing. There needs to be an "accepted" view on configuration files and layout if you want linux to grow. I don't mean rigid rules, just agreed concepts a step beyond where we are. I am not sure we need
But getting back to main point, the Linux Desktop, in the form of KDE or Gnome, is still not ready for primetime. Its fun. Its different, yet familiar. It has tremendous potential. Its geeky cool. But it takes more time to do the same thing on my windows box. Really. So its still less productive. Thats ok, its still young and Linus isn't a billionare tyrant throwing tons of money to make purdy click widgets. But IBM was right: As it is NOW, Linux is best suited for repetitive task environments like banks, POS, etc. My best wishes are hoping it will *really* and *objectively* catch up within 2 years. Now we just need some of those nasty 'for profit' companies to port existing, popular, pre-existing programs to it, to ease the transition to a free software future.
First, isn't the burden of proof on Microsoft?
Yes. and it will be easy to prove ONE aspect, the fact that the specification was readily available. If they can kangaroo that issue, and make the case about whether or not you used the specification, odds are not in your favor since they can outspend you in the legal dept.
Second, how can Microsoft put something out there freely and expect to have control over what people do with it? What about when this information seeps into common knowledge? Do they retain their rights?
Yes they can, just like GPL software is enforced. The source is out there for everyone to see, but you still have to abide by the GPL. Lots of people miss this point, and attempt to put GPL kernel code into their own products and distribute them without releasing the source (see Linksys and SCO's UnixWare) Since the knowledge is patented, it doesn't matter that it becomes common knowledge. This is part of the problem with patenting software or pure "ideas". Patents are usually for specific methods of accomplishing a goal, so it IS legal to do it a different way. IIf your clean room method is very very different, its not a problem, but if you independently use similar methods, then you are screwed. Thats a problem since for some things, there is only one or two logical ways to accomplish them, so a clean room implimentation may look like it infringes when it really doesnt.
Their rights to inforce this patent is pretty much absolute unless the patent is reversed. The main problem is they can sue you and you will end up having to prove you are NOT guilty of infringement, simply because of the ease of availability of the info. You still have the absolute right to reverse engineer their products for compatability, its just harder to prove "clean room" status, and easier to point the blame by MS, especially if you end up using independent but similar methods.
Fine, "clean room" it.
You missed the point. Now it is harder to clean room it, or prove that a clean room implimentation *IS* clean, because MS can always show how easy it was to get the specs. If they don't release it under this license, you can always claim you never had access to it to begin with, now you can't.
Also, ask anyone involved with OO, its is VERY DIFFICULT to reverse engineer an office file format, since there are so many potential variables. More difficult than the average API to crack. You have to reverse all the potential formatting, not counting how you accomidate VBS, since it can't have VBS support.
The factual error is the implied "I know more than Bill Gates", or "Bill Gates is making such a freshman mistake, but I caught it."
:) my feeling aren't hurt. Like I said, 20 years and doing just fine, so I must be doing something right, too. If you ever have the chance to see a "brainstorming" session within a marketing dept., you will see its always a heated affair. One comment on /. doesn't even compare.
According to Microsoft.com "William (Bill) H. Gates is chairman and chief software architect of Microsoft Corporation" and NOT the head of marketing. Obviously the buck stops with him, but I would hope he would have better things to do than write the script for this little spoof.
I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but the bottom line is that he's a brilliant businessman, and he wouldn't have achieved his current wealth were it not for the ability to market a product effectively.
No one is disputing that. But are you saying he NEVER makes a mistake? And no
Either that, or you may argue that Windows is just better than anything else out there. I'm going to stick with "better marketer".
On the desktop, it IS the best game in town. I wish it wasn't, but it still is, and not just because of the %, but the whole experience. On the server, its one of the worst going, with tons of unnecessary GUI and wasted resources. Thats my opinion. I use both on the server and desktop for good reason, however. Again, from experience, marketing can only get you so far if your product sucks.
Personally, I think Windows is a decent product, especially after adding NAV, Zone Alarm, ActiveState Perl, Cygwin.... Not always my favorite, but I like it enough to use it most of the time for purely client tasks. Its the tactics and lack of ethics of Microsoft that I hate, not the products.
Well it is said that B.G. is quite good at predicting future trends in the software industry.
True, he did predict that Netscape would lose the browser wars. They have predicted the fall of several companies. Then again, if I point a gun to your head, and pull the trigger right after I predict you will die, that doesn't make me a clairvoyant.
But you may be right on this one. Its hard to drive a company out of business when its based on all volunteers and no big buildings.
But I'm sure you know way more than him about marketing and such.....
You miss the entire point. It doesn't matter who you are, in Marketing you make mistakes because you must take risks. The key is to take risks that have potential rewards that are greater than the risk's downside. In this case, there really IS no reward. Its just a dig at Linux, but in the process, they elevate it. The only reward is how cool they feel about digging Linux.
Being rich doesn't make you a marketing genious. It doesn't make you immune from mistakes, and it certainly doesn't prevent you from getting overly confident, which was my point. As to my success, you have no idea, so it is not relevent.
Instead of being a asshole, you might try debating the CONTENT of what I said, instead of assuming I am incorrect simply because he is richer than I am. If you see any factual errors in my comments, please feel free to correct them.
Even as I write this in Mozilla I spell check it with Word.
:) I would say "you must be new here" but I don't need the karma.
/. But im migrating my old p3/1.1 laptop to a p4/2.4 laptop (i only slash on the laptop in the livingroom) and will set it up as a dualboot with some flavor of linux (pissed at RH, looking for another distro still), so will have to use something else.
You spell check?
I use quark or frontpage to spell check, but I dont bother on
Microsoft more then just about anyone needs to get the word out about Linux right now.
Actually, I can see MS getting Word for Linux, but not getting the word out on linux. I will be shocked if MS doesn't end up making software for Linux. The whole activation thing will be weird tho, cause if you think their codes get cracked fast on windows, wait until they park it on *nix. Remember, they DO have a fair amount of experience with unix...but not as much as the crackers.
Well, apache does have 70% of the web server market share. I would say that makes it a serious competitor.
True, but Apache isn't Linux, nor GPL. And many installations are actually on windows, since apache 2.0.
Regarding linux, it has a minority share of the market. Most of my servers, and probably users too, but a small share overall. On the desktop, Linux is almost non-existant. that was my point, that MS is acting like Linux has equal share. Not smart. I mean, it WILL have equal share soon enough, just not this year, or next.
The irony is that Linux still has a very small market share, but Billy's response to Linux in this spoof, by linking it to IBM, tends to make Linux even bigger than it is, and makes it look like it is more competition than it is yet.
As someone who has been in marketing for 20 years now, I know the best way to make your competition look small is ignore them in public, and sweat them in private. This is just petty crapola by Billy and Company, but it serves to make MS look bad, and Linux to look better by being the butt of a joke made by "the evil empire". I mean, the method they used to parody Linux is fine, even remotely humorous, but doesn't serve their marketing dept. very well.
Seriously, this may sound odd to some of you, but this is a fundamental marketing mistake, this is Marketing 201 stuff, not that advanced. This is typical of a company that thinks it is invincible, or thinks the competition can never catch up. Problem is, no one else believes this except Billy and Co.
Now, with the opening of the format, that "mostly compatible" becomes "compatible."
Did any of you read the actual Microsoft patent statement? It says you must obtain a license if you USE the information in a seperate application for compatability. Quoting them:
"There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification."
Technically, anyone that looks at it, and uses it to put compatability for Open Office, are infringing on their patent. And now that the spec is in the open, its very easy for microsoft to say "we opened it up, and they infringed, this is why we dont like open source". This also means, that if you DON'T look at it, and instead do manage to reverse engineer it, it is likely that a judge will believe MS that you are lying and instead just read their "open" standard.
Its open, as long as you don't use it.
You just sound like someone who hasn't even used the recent Redhat Linces, and the new Fedora Core 1. You are pointing to a rose and telling me that it is not a rose because of a review you read.
That is one review, go google your own. My bias against Fedora is based upon REDHATS own admissions and information. And of course I am talking about production machines, since no one really cares what you run on some machine in your home for fun. Personally, I have a system (2500amd/512mb) with removable HD racks so I can run Win2k, 98, xp, rh9 (soon to be fdisked), debian, freebsd, gentoo, slack, and soon darwin, all on the same box to compare for myself. THAT is my "toy" box where I test. It is safe to say that I do test other distros, well beyond the average user, and feel confident in my comparisons.
Everything else, including my personal workstations and the workstations at the office I would consider too critical to run Fedora, based on RedHats own statements and admissions. Out of the over 30 boxes (and growing) I have to worry about, maybe TWO I would run this type of experimental OS on. Sales, marketing, administration, credit dept., all these computers are entirely too important to run Fedora. They were in the middle of being migrated to RedHat 9, which will obviously not happen now. Not everyone runs a slew of non-critical boxes, some of us actually have to maintain over 99% uptime to keep the wheels of capitalism greased.
Enterprise is not based on Fedora. Fedora is a testing ground for technology that may or may not make it to Enterprise. Common sense says the majority of patches will NOT make it into Enterprise. There will be lots in common, grated, but stability isn't one of them, and support damn sure isn't, at ANY price. If you read the original post, you know that I PAY for RedHat support, $60 per year per box. Fedora doesn't offer this and the new system is at least 4x more expensive.
This isn't idle chatter. This is what I actually have to deal with everyday, and many others in my situation. So yea, I would say I have checked into Fedora and other distros, more than just on the surface. The difference is I am talking about the real world, not some play box at home.
Thanks to a B-52, this penguin can fly. (middle page, 3 pix)
And for no real reason, here is a picture of tux on the can reading one of the dummies books, that I found while googling.
That depends on how you interpret the Big Picture.
1) SCO is after huge settlement and/or buyout
-- OR --
2) SCO is out to kill free software / open source / GNU / Linux (whether on their own or as a pawn of Microsoft)
Unless there is a giant conspiracy out there that has some religious, moral, or political opposition to the idea of Free Software, its about the money. Even if they wanted to kill Linux, it would be to sell more Unix, so its still about the money. They may not even care how they get the money or it hurts along the way, which recent events seem to support. But its still, about making money, at any cost, in the short term.
um, I know that Pine IS included, because I use it on every RH9 server I have. This is because I prefer it and Pico, and have used those for umpteen years, even before I knew what Linux was. It isn't installed in a "default" install, but you just []select individual packages and choose it. I think its on disk 3. I also know that RH9 has vNidia drivers, which are not free, and not open source.
Actually, there is LOTS of not free software on RH9. Lots. You just have to choose to install it. Their older distros also had tons of non free, including some very proprietary stuff like IBM's DB2 development kit, etc.
To ME, the real freedom is the freedom to be able to choose to install Netscape, Real Player, Pine, and other "not free" software on my box without having to get the source and compile it myself, or explain to the RMS nazi's why I prefer to use some non-free software. If Photoshop, Quark, FlashMX, and other progs were out for Linux, I would gladly buy them.
There is no way I could go 100% free, nor do I want to, since I live in the real world where people have jobs and businesses, and think that software companies should have the choice to release their software as free or not, and I have the choice to buy or not. I mean, I'm dying to buy HL2, and I will be damned if I am giving up my games just to live up to someone elses idea of "Free".
I am not an authority on Slack, but I will give you my impression from using it just a few weeks, after using RedHat for many years, and having SunOS and Solaris shell accounts for MANY years.
Slack seems more Unix like. Things are in very standard places, where you would expect them to be on a real Unix system. This is still a little confusing to me because I am used to them being in the wrong places with RH, but my SunOS and Solaris experience helps. I found it to be quite easy to install Slack 9.0. Some parts are a little confusing, but only because they are different, not necessarily harder. Unlike many, I prefer a menu based text based install, which Slack has. After roaming around it a few minutes, it all made sense. My second install took 10 minutes to get started, and then I just walked away while it copied files.
It handles groups differently, it doesn't just create a group for every user independently (which I never understood why RH does). The security is a bit more important, and you will find it defaults to a bit more secure of a systems, especially compared to older RH distros (7.2 and older). It does require some getting used to, and I am still not ready to commit the servers to it (looking at Debian also, waiting for a new MB to arrive for testing). But its in the hunt.
I can easily see that Slack is NOT for people who just want to click pretty widgets to configure their systems. My experience with pretty widgets on Linux is a mixed bag, from linuxconf trashing an install (on RH 6.1 default install) to all the crap included with Gnome (which I don't like) and KDE (which I do like, but dont use the widgets). I can see why real hardware/os minded people like Slack, because of its elegant simplicity, power, and security.
Fedora is Redhat Linux....It is the same f*cking OS you dolts!
Um, not exactly. Fedora != RedHat. The reviews are Fedora have been not favorable. Also, Fedora will always be less stable and less tested than the standard RedHat was, by design. RedHat flatly says this when they refer to "cutting edge" and "It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products." They want it be completely Free Software, which is not exactly what RH9 is. Fedora will have patches that are not in the official Linux tree, and other code that is not considered stable enough for production machines. This is not my opinion, this is the stated policy objective of RedHat, Inc.
You miss the entire point about Fedora and RedHat Enterprise Linux. As someone who has used RedHat for more than a few years, I can tell you there are significant differences. It is SO different, in fact, that the several servers I have RH7.2 and RH9 on won't just upgrade to Fedora OR Enterprise. RedHat flatly states you should WIPE your system and perform a new install.
Fedora is SO different, that it will actually require a MIGRATION, which is why I will move to Debian or Slackware instead. It may LOOK like RedHat, but its not. It is considered (by RedHat) to be an experimental distribution designed for hobbiest and developers. It will likely be a great testing ground for new hacks, programs, drivers and feature the latest untested software, but no hacker in his right mind would use Fedora for a company's production machines.
From RedHat's site "If your interest in Red Hat Linux is to interact with the Linux community and contribute to the development of a general purpose operating system from free software, then the Fedora Project is for you." This obviously means if you are wanting a stable production environment, then Fedora is NOT for you.
You might want to actually check the reviews and under the hood before you start calling people "f*cking dolts". Maybe to a Windows user, its the same, but those of us that actually USE the product and have for years, its as different as Mandrake is the Debian. For anyone who gets paid to make sure the servers never go down, Fedora is not even an option under any circumstance. Anyone who would use Fedora in a production environment deserves to be fired, especially considering the other options such as Debian, Slack, Mandrake, and the BSDs that are free, or Turbo or SuSe which are stable.
What should customers that run small business networks using your standard product and Up2date service but do not need or cannot justify full enterprise products do now? What distribution would you recommend we switch to if neither of your offerings will suit their needs in the near future?
Should a 20 year old, rapidly growing business that can project needing enterprise grade services in 2 or 3 years, and currently pays hundreds per year for RedHat services that are about to be discontinuted, and paid retail for RedHat since 5.x days, ever consider using RedHat again?
--- my editorial behind these questions
Believe it or not, these are quite serious questions to me. My first RH distro was pre 5.0 and I have always bought the box set just because it felt like the right thing to do, and paid for up2date service since it was offered a little over a year ago. I have been as loyal a customer as they could hope for, but I can't help but to feel betrayed with the "new policies". Either I will have to suck it up and pay much more for service I do not need, or change distros. It would be cheaper to just pay RedHat, but I had the same feeling everytime Microsoft releases a new OS, with a higher price. Its cheaper to just pay the much higher price, but it still leaves a very bad taste in your mouth.
When you feel that your loyalty has just been rewarded with a slap in the face, you have no choice but to consider changing loyalties. Go google it, and you will see I have always been pro-Redhat, almost fanatically...until now.
well put. i am pissed about this as well. I pay them $180 for 3 entitlements (plus 1 free) per year, and have purchased most of their software in their own boxes, except 9 which was not released in a box. I have used RH since 5.x and now I have 6 servers and many workstations that I have to change distros on.
Changing from one linux to another is more than trivial. Stuff IS organized differently. Some hardcoded scripts break (yea, dont hardcode, but never mind). I had no problem paying $60 a year to just use up2date, per box. I hope someone comes up with a similar service. I mean, if MS can charge you 200 for an OS (or much less if its installed on a new box) and support it for 5 years (40 a year or less) then SOMEONE should be able to support a version of Linux for 50% more money.
I buy the support because I don't want to recompile SENDMAIL and BIND every two weeks, and want support that I can depend on. If I pay for it, I can bitch about it, and I don't mind paying because I want MORE than just community support. If I have to start compiling my own patches again, I will just say fuck it and go to Slackware.
go google "richard stallman" and then select the images tab. Its more than long hair. He often looks like the guy with the "will work for food" sign, that pesters you at intersections.
I am sure he does bathe at least somewhat regularly, but its not easy to tell in photos. He does piss people off because he is not the best at expressing himself in a tactful manner (which I fully understand). He would never be a diplomat, for instance. Idealism is fine, but he is a bit too self rightous for most people, and even the people that are 100% behind him get verbally stepped on from time to time.
Remember, this is the guy that says even Debian isn't "Free" enough, probably due to nVidia binaries or something. He takes shit entirely too far sometimes, but then, thats his right. Its my right to be annoyed by it.
Two outta three ain't bad. They can embrace and attempt to extend, but since they can't buy the IP they can't extinguish....
The real catch is the fact that if they embrace and extend, they have to open the source, which would be instantly forked without their contributions. They can't extinguish something they have to have in the open. If they DID embrace a program, lets say Mozilla, and then added some crapola that was MS only specific, called it Billzilla, then two years later dropped it. They have to show us the code, and the Bill part of the zilla would be stripped out instantly, and any good stuff would be left in. They can't kill it.
GPL is like the Borg in one way, you can't kill it. You can't revoke the license, you can't make any software under the GPL go away. It lives forever, and not even the copyright holder can kill it, because I can always take the last release and fork it, change the name (leave the copyrights) and release it. It's like Freddy Krugar, with #comments.
Linus however worries me, he seems to be so uninterested in the legal system that he might be considered ignorant of it.
He would not be expected to be a legal expert, rather he is responsible for everything that is in the official linux tree. Its not his job to know copyright law and he will tell you flatly that he is not an expert, but he knows what HE wrote, including large parts of the SMP code that SCO is claiming as their own. Its a good thing he is politically apothetic, I would rather see him spending more time coding and less debating.
He statements on patents was simple: don't research them. The reason is, if you accidently infringe on one, you are liable. If you knew about it and infringed anyway, you are liable for treble damages. ANY shop will tell you the same, programmers should NEVER research patents, thats Legal's job. Its just bad business.
I imagine this is what Stallman wanted, a chance to prove the GPL in court.
I appreciate everything RMS has done, but I am not sure he is the best person to represent the open source movement, especially since he is not a party to the suit. Preachy, self rightous, unwashed. Again, thanks RMS, but he does look more like a stereotype of a hippie than an industry leader...
(think of how South Park would illustrate a hippie in one of Cartman's nightmares, and then TELL me it aint a picture of him)
No you are wrong. Anyone can "use" GPL software without agreeing to the terms.
I never said you couldn't. The GPL clearly states this, because you have not signed anything.
The GPL does not restrict, it permits.
Sorry, but you are reading it wrong. In order to protect the "right" of the software to be "Free", it restricts how you can distribute it. Again, you are focusing on the end user, which is fine, but the GPL focuses on programmers and distributing. As a user, you don't have to agree to anything, as we both know. As a programmer or distributor, this means that you MUST provide source code in a reasonable fashion, forever. If you write fresh code but link to GPL libraries (not LGPL) then you must release your code.
The GPL virtually breathes life in the software, and the purpose is to give IT the right to exist without restriction. As I have made perfectly clear, I have no problem with it (and have released some small stuff under the GPL for that matter). But it is still a highly restrictive license. This is exactly why many companies are slow to use it.
I am not anti-GPL. The opposite is true. I do like it well enough to be migrating to using Free software as exclusively as I can, both at home and at the office. But my love for Linux, and distaste for MS doesn't change the fact that the GPL is still quite restrictive. For the right reasons, yes, but still restrictive. From MY perspective, you start with Public Domain, which has no restrictions, and work in the opposite direction. PD, BSD, GPL, others.....with MS last. At least in regards to restrictions, this seems to be the natural flow.
Yes, there are still restrictions on what you can do with GPL'd code. No, the GPL is not the source of those restrictions.
I hesitate to reply to an AC, but you seem sincere, however incorrect. The GPL is specifically the source of those restrictions. The copyright holder of any software can put any restrictions they want on their software, by releasing it under the GPL, they are specifically putting the restrictions inherent in the GPL in their software. The restrictions do not exist without the license. It would simply be unlicense software.
To compare GPL with copyright is not only silly, but apples to oranges. Copyright is not a license. GPL and MS EULA are. My comparison is with the BSD license anyway, which offers the least restrictions. Any license can only be on copyrighted software, since if it was not copyrighted, the author would have no legal authority to inforce the license, it would be Public Domain, which is impossible to "enforce" any license on by its very nature.
Your reference to the MS EULA is also misleading. You CAN sell your copy of the software. I sell used computers all the time, legally, with Windows installed. I transfer all copies, the little license tag and all, legally. You can make copies for archival purposes as well. There are some restrictions on use of MS EULA, but they are generally concerned with how many copies you can run. You can run Office for business, pleasure, to design nuclear weapons, etc. without any say from MS.
The purpose of the GPL is NOT to be the least restrictive license. Quite the contrary. PD has that honor, with BSD next in line. The GPL is soley designed to keep people from distributing changes without sharing the source. It forces everyone to "share" the source if they distribute the binaries. I can live with that, but that doesn't change the fact that it is quite restrictive.
The other restrictions you DON'T mention is that if you write a program from scratch, but it links to GPL (not LGPL) libraries, you have to release it under the GPL. This means if you program, you either have to produce your own libraries, or GPL, or infringe. Again, I can live with that, but that doesn't change the fact that the GPL is quite restrictive, just in a very different way than other licenses.
The same features that make the GPL more restrictive than BSD also prevent some of the forking, stealing, (BSD is harder to enforce) and still allow me to NOT release my changes if I use them in my own business/home only. I prefer the GPL for most stuff, but I am still aware that it has at LEAST at much restriction as other licenses.