I believe this to be true. While it is nice to develop something comparible to windows, what makes linux more advanced if its just playing catchup? I believe with atleast Netscape Mozilla 5.0, the open source is showing an adoption of standards, which is a good thing for any market.
But linux, seems to be in a "wholy ware" That is dediced based on how you conform. Whats so different from being a Microsoft Biggot to a Linux Biggot? Bot OS's have there advantages and disadvantages, but someone has a direction.. and i agree, microsoft holds it.
While Redhat, and other distributions have a release map that seems to be 6 months (from previous discussions, i still find that too short of a release cycle) there is *no* roadmap other then directly related to the kernel. There is no beta system to show a developer road map, no enduser solution map, and no training map.. training seems to be specific to distro, which doesn't mean doodoo to an admin (since all distros are familiar) but to a corporation/business specifics do matter.. so with all these certificaitons going, there is no specific cover all certification roadmap.
Like i've express my OPINION before, i believe for linux to be stable, for personall and business use, it needs a long term plan, and short term updates. It doesn't need short term plans and long term updates:) By what i mean, slow down the release schedules, Business like 3 year product life cycles.. that means from 6-7 there should be a good few years to get your monies worth (yeah, yeah, its free. but installation/support in a business environment isn far from free)..1 releases should be minor upgrades or patch releases.. kernel upgrades should have some form of controlled distribution. and distributors should have long term plans in beta. Like redhat 7.0 for example should be in a long term beta.. throw in Xfree86 4.0, kernel 2.4 beta's, the newest kde, the newest gnome, the newest office apps, debug the system as a whole, give endusers/developers something to work with and work from, but most of all, it shows a roadmap of whats to come, and provides ample time for business to ramp up to that product
I love linux, i'm not dissing it, i love open source, its agreat concept. but for business, it needs something i can gurantee my job and and the company can gurantee its data on. not just something i get for free or something i can look at the source at..
My own reply last night, was a tempered one, i didn't even finish nor make sense of what i wanted to say, i must have had 40 email responses telling me i was idiot.. so now a nights worth of rest later, and a good cup of mocha, i can really say whats on my mind.
I believe suns license is VERY acceptable, and even MORE acceptable to the enduser and developer then the GPL license.
The sun license restricts you from distributing your own piece of solaris, but it does not prohibit you from selling a service to provide these modifications as a business much like redhat doesn't really sell its own version of linux, but customizations that it feels distinguishes.. its just under sun, you would sell a commercial package and provide a service, instead of provide free software and provide a service.
The sun license opens up solaris to the End User, thats who we are. The only people who should be scared of there license are people selling Operating systems to compete with Solaris. As the license strictly prohibits selling modified sources/versions of the OS. Again, if your smart, and can modifiy solaris, you can use that "open Source" business model to sell your services.. Your just taking the credibility and legal ramifications of your services in your own hands, which is what sun is protecting itself.
Open source is "Open Source" you got it, its truely WSYWIG.. you can't get any more Open Source. Free software on the other hand is a totally different issue. And doesn't follow Sun's business model that its investors are following. Sun has just as much of a bind to its investors as does redhat to there's.. there business models are different.
Once you include the unmodified GPL license in your program, your code is effectively licensed to the Free Software Foundation and GPL. You are not personally legally the licensee of the software since it doesn't reference you as the licensee. So if i stole all your code, and sold a program in binary format, YOU couldn't hold me up on anything in court, the FSF or GNU foundations would have to provide legal interest and support since it is licensed to there foundation and guidelines.
There is absolutly *NOTHING* wrong with suns license, it does what everyone needs it to do, and works with there business model
There is *SOMETHING* wrong with people who constantly praise a license, and don't even stop to think about who owns that license, and why they would put someone else license under there software.
sure you may be giving your code to the community, but again, if your protecting your code, the GPL doesn't help you one bit unless you can rely on them in court.
so since you got the code, and sun has complete protection from liability and missuse of what they gave you, tell me.. whats wrong with that?
Well, lets see.. Linux is called linux, even though i can distribute my own version of it, so whats to stop someone from calling it RedHat Solaris.. since Sun "Owns" Solaris, they would be responsible for an OEM screwing up something.. just like people selling RedHat, i can burn a CD, and sell them support, but who's liable? bah..
Open Source = "My source code is open, you can browse me, modify me, and turn me into whatever you want"
Suns license maintains ownership of the code and direct results from the code, in commercial and non commercial aspects.
GPL controls the source code in the same fashion, just can't be used in a commercial package.
Whats the difference? Either sun is gonna get your money, or the FSF is gonna get your money.
Open Source doesn't mean free from restrictions, nor does it mean strings attatched. Sun is progressing.. i thought progression, technology, and freedom of your choice was what it was about.
i didn't think stealing was the issue.. why else would you want to use something you had absolutely no part of in the development cycle.
Linux is a community project, its built from the ground up for whatever reason people see fit to spend there own time on. Solaris was built from the ground up to be a Commercial OS, and for SUN to maintain its support, its quality of service, and its confidence of the customers and vice versa, they feel they *NEED* complete control of THERE OS.
Sun is 100% a commercial company, selling a hardware and software based solution from workstations to enterprise class database servers. I don't think sun would be happy if some joe schmoe hacked up solaris, sold it as original and it breaks the compatibility and ultimately sun becomes responsibale for a fortune 500 company loosing 100,000,000 dollars because of an OS glitch.
This is my opinion, moderate me down and you may was well call this slashcensord.org
I think some advancements in vrml technology will come in time just like java technology.
higher bandwidth is the best breath of air for VRML, but also maybe following along with the Jar format, where you download a wrl container and work as an Object, or download a group of containers and work as a scene.
If someone released a true "open sourced" vrml, then i'm sure it could be dropped into mozilla as a library rather then an external plugin.
working in a manufacturing environment, and building maintenance would be a dream come true. click through your project, and not have to load up your cad software, or simply walk through the building and have temperatures show up, and what staff is in each room, who's logged in/punched in and such. Since most of this is controlled from a computer, why not use VRML and html and javascript to represent your building as a scene and let you click through instead of constantly walking around.. with javascript you could add triggars, alarms and do whatever you heart desires.
just some ideas, but vrml has its place, if you think of it as a modeling language and not simply html sending you a 3d picture.
thats market fragmentation.. "if you don't like redhat, then buy debian or the other 40 distributions."
since you have so many choices, there is no market direction, eevryone is doing something different and there is no standard, even the kernels are hacked amongs distributions.. you still have to upgrade everytime redhat releases a new version simply because there are bugs in the old version
how could that possibly be good. heh?
Solaris 2.5 to 2.51 was supposedly minor.. pshaww.. solaris 2.5 to 2.6 was almost a new version.. thats a.1 minor release, but NIS+ changed, almost every system utility changed a parameter, and costs lots of people down time in what should have been a minor point release.. and well, 2.7 fell into solaris 7.
But if you sure as hell call Sun on a solaris 2.51 problem, they will say use our latest release.. they don't backport patches any more since its simply not feasable to backport from a system thats got alot of 64bit to an older system
no where did i reference microsoft.. even stable unix systems offer patch clusters and point releases.. a service pack is not a trade mark of microsoft.. IBM PC Dos had a service pack long before microsoft thought of it. OS/2 had service releases... its nothing new..
but OS/2, Windows, or any os for that matter has never told me to go somewhere else simply because i dispute something.. I have to agree with what i said earlier.. its pointless to dispute anything in here, as everyone is happy go lucky it doesn't matter since were cool and we run linux so were more elite then everyone else and the laws of business practices, product life cycles and system support and services don't apply since we are smarter then everyone else.
Certification for *ANY* server OS is a letter saying that you are certified for product rollout, maintenance, administration and configuration.
according to the news, Redhat has a completly new Installation procedure, a completely new upgrade system and other major differences in feature sets
I'm sure for a company to be "Certified RedHat Partner" they have to carry the latest training, vendor approval and QOS so that they can roll out the product according to Vendor Specs.
Should redhat not care about these "security and business ethics" for reliability, and quality of product the that is there problem.
simply being you know linux and then your the king of all unices is bs, and vice versa, just becuase you know 6.0 and are certified on 6.0 doesn't mean your certified to rollout millions of machines with 6.1 installed and still be able to maintain vendor or partner status with "Redhat".
its not as simple as ls is still ls in 6.1 and rpm is still rpm in 6.1, its the business side of this short market life being effected.
I still disagree.. This is leading to market fragmentation. 6.0 is still *FULL* on the shelves at *EVERY* store i see that carries it. Dell, Compaq and other Vendors now have to do a costly revamp to install 6.1 on machines unless they don't plan on upgrading and then whats the point of following redhat if you don't use the latest.
I firmly believe that this should have been a PRE-RELEASE for 7.0. I believe Beta Xfree86 4.0 should have been included, i believe the beta kernel should have been included, and beta of whatever gnome or kde it wants to use in the 7.0 release should have been included. This would create a market presence.. everyone would be able to toy around with the latest and greatest, vendors wouldn't have to revamp, but would have a roadmap of whats coming..
beta's aren't simply to test, but are also for market acceptance, revamp of installation methods and procedures, sales training, literature planning, advertising and marketing.
ALso, putting out a huge maybe even kludgy beta release would offer the *FIRST* production os to work out the compatibility bugs.. bugs could be killed alot quicker if the applications were interopable and interlaced from the get go.. that way the whole system as a whole gets upgraded, bugs get squashed and the system develops as a piece to function together..
This *IS* market fragmentation.. and NOT what we need. IS groups run stable systems, IS groups will upgrade workstations for the latest and greatest, but never a rollout on such a short product cycle would happen in any instituin of a good size..
I run a companies oracle financials package on oracle and hpux, i am responsible for 200+ workstations that monitor assembly, marketing, inventory and process control. no way in HELL i could implement redhat on these systems with such a short market life. 2 years is what any company expects as MINIMUL life in market, 3 years is the ultimate goal. 6 months is a sham..
again, these are my beliefs.. no reason to flame, but just what i feel. so don't reply with "then don't say anything or don't buy it" because this does'nt explicitly relate to redhat, but the linux market in general.
I've heard of a graphical installation now, and an update wizard. Are these under the GPL as well? just wondering if redhat is going back to proprietary software or if it is open sourced. just curious, a license doesn't bother me, but since "linux" should be a base, any veering off from Linux and just into RedHat is more market fragmentation..
redhat should buy up a few distros to narrow it down and bring more talent in and spread some of the wealth.
Mandrake is nice.. its had a simple upgrade wizard for a while now.. and the graphical install? that could have been a release 6.0 workstation addition or feature demo of upcoming 7.0 with a bunch of new stuff..
I wont, but Redhat releasing new distros and fragmenting the industry is whats bad.. i don't use redhat, but being a market leader i would have thought they would be smarter about scheduling.
now all thos suckers who got "6.0" training need 6.1 training, now all the people who have support contracts need downtime to upgrade after only having a system up for 5 months..
Thats how *NOT* to run a business, i know RedHat won't just drop 6.0 but it won't be there truely supported platform once 6.1 is released..
had it been a service release, people could upgrade in due time and get the new patches/features and additions to the os..
a kernel upgrade, and a window manager upgrade don't consitute a 7.0 either.. IMHO 7.0 should be a radical new form of Linux with a solid foundation, a good programming backend, and a feature set to compare to other unices..
this has gotta slow down.. i think there should be some "service packs" and not new version #'s for minor upgrades and such.. i would have hoped redhat 6.1 would have waited until Xfree86 4 or something a lil more worth the version # change would have come out.. whats new? is there anything listed on the site? and one beta release is pretty balsy..
I never read my licenses, i could care less what people think of the license. When i buy/download/use something i don't carry a lawyer with me to debug the license.
solaris is a superb operating system, i could care less if it kills linux, things are a fad, things will die, things will pass on.. nothing stays around forever..
but having the code, and having an OS freely available is great.. now whenever i run into a problem under solaris and i said "damn i wish i could have the source, this is a simple problem" i can now fix it..
so what if i don't get the claim to fame on my patch, screw all you hippies out there who have to have that.. i'm getting my job done, and thats what counts..
congrats sun, congrats apple.. both of you have great unix systems, and i applaud anyone opening up technology..
and i pitty the fool who cries over licensing all the time, when really its not anything to cry about.
i figure if you can patent how to do everything else, everyone who owns a car that has the sterring wheel on the left side owes me a royalty of 2.00 a month for as long as your car is registered.
Also, i patented toasters, so if you stick your toast in the toaster and push DOWN on the lil lever, you owe me money too..
don't forget the door.. if you have a door knob that unlocks when you turn it, then you owe me money
also sex, i patented the old in out.. no matter how you stick it in, you owe me.. accessing that nookie is gonna cost you!
If anyone really knows how a PC works, then that stuff is garbage.. You can find out what processes are running.. simple ast ctrl-alt-delete for task man.. If you really are a PC user then you can easily bypass any of that type of software.. ON the other hand, you are at work.. supposed to be working.. if you need big brother watching you then step aside and let someoen who wants to work work.
just by a 14.95 account from a place like www.jumpline.com, and have your box upload your webcam images and serve the content.. you get 3 gigs of transfers a month, 50 megs space, even ftp support.. they run the servers and offer bandwitdh.. if you need more upgrade accounts..
its a hell of alot cheaper then getting your own t-1 & servers.. as most of these people are sitting directly on the mae's and such.
Just choose a vendor that solves your OS needs. And follow the product. once a year/6 month product cycles is good.. Caldera Open Linux 2.2 has been out for a while now. Same with RedHat 6.0 and such. Just a plethora of distro's to choose from, but once you find one you like, there really not pushing out too many products..
windows just sneaks in new updates with web browsers and other lil things, so it doesn't seem like you contstantly upgrading:)
well, the selling point of COS, is that it is easy, and a steady/consistant OS.
part of linux is choices, you have a choice of mandrake if you love goofing around with millions of things..
and you have a choice of Caldera, if you like a consistant look, feel, and stability with ease of installation and use.
I'm not saying the others are not just as simple with the new installation wizards and stuff, i'm just saying COS solves a specific market.. not just a genaralize catch all:)
Its not really derived from either.. It uses RPM as a package manager, which is a redhat GPL'd program..
rpm is a good idea, brings some software management to the table.. just kind of weird no one followed the same package format that sun/sco use wich seems to work pretty well.. i guess it isn't gpld so it wouldn't work:)
Yeah, i know who ya are. I've been visiting the site for years, frankly this is the first time i ever posted off topic or started crap on here.
i've loved slashdot, and loved its articles. But it truely seems biased.. as news for nerds and stuff that matters should be news.. not what joe schmoe runs, it shouldn't be any better or worse because 1 out of 10 use it or 6 out of 10 use it.
the site is nice, maybe there should be a minor news section, maybe linux stuff should be rolled off from being headlines to its own group.. the bsd and be and other people have complained about this..
personally GTK is good, i'm happy to see a book. but its not revolutionary, and its not any more news then redhat coming out with a beta, more so, i would have considered putting news up about Open Linux 2.3 with its huge jump in useability and functionality.. news about how the G4 works, not about how its marketed.. its news for geeks, not news for marketing peoples who play golf all the time:)
hehe, i apologize for the off topic, and the continuation of going for a point that really has no point (since there really is no argument, this isn't my site to controll).
But, i'd like to see a broader scope of whats considered news for nerds, and not news for gnome or news for redhat or news for linux, but whats technology doing for me.. that covers bds, linux, solairs, java, c, c++, perl, python, disks, ibm, microsoft, everything really..
wahoo.. moderated down now too. This is great:) I hope someone does come out with a website.. news for nerds, stuff that matters.. i loved reading about science break throughs, new developments, Q&a's, but if were gonna be biased, then it should be through and through.. gtk shouldn't get any more covereage then qt, and redhat shouldn't get anymore then whatever else is out there..
Slashdot Mirror
brain fart.. pardon me
I believe with atleast Netscape Mozilla 5.0, the open source is showing an adoption of standards, which is a good thing for any market.
But linux, seems to be in a "wholy ware" That is dediced based on how you conform. Whats so different from being a Microsoft Biggot to a Linux Biggot? Bot OS's have there advantages and disadvantages, but someone has a direction.. and i agree, microsoft holds it.
While Redhat, and other distributions have a release map that seems to be 6 months (from previous discussions, i still find that too short of a release cycle) there is *no* roadmap other then directly related to the kernel. There is no beta system to show a developer road map, no enduser solution map, and no training map.. training seems to be specific to distro, which doesn't mean doodoo to an admin (since all distros are familiar) but to a corporation/business specifics do matter.. so with all these certificaitons going, there is no specific cover all certification roadmap.
Like i've express my OPINION before, i believe for linux to be stable, for personall and business use, it needs a long term plan, and short term updates. It doesn't need short term plans and long term updates :) By what i mean, slow down the release schedules, Business like 3 year product life cycles.. that means from 6-7 there should be a good few years to get your monies worth (yeah, yeah, its free. but installation/support in a business environment isn far from free). .1 releases should be minor upgrades or patch releases.. kernel upgrades should have some form of controlled distribution. and distributors should have long term plans in beta. Like redhat 7.0 for example should be in a long term beta.. throw in Xfree86 4.0, kernel 2.4 beta's, the newest kde, the newest gnome, the newest office apps, debug the system as a whole, give endusers/developers something to work with and work from, but most of all, it shows a roadmap of whats to come, and provides ample time for business to ramp up to that product
I love linux, i'm not dissing it, i love open source, its agreat concept. but for business, it needs something i can gurantee my job and and the company can gurantee its data on. not just something i get for free or something i can look at the source at..
I believe suns license is VERY acceptable, and even MORE acceptable to the enduser and developer then the GPL license.
The sun license restricts you from distributing your own piece of solaris, but it does not prohibit you from selling a service to provide these modifications as a business much like redhat doesn't really sell its own version of linux, but customizations that it feels distinguishes.. its just under sun, you would sell a commercial package and provide a service, instead of provide free software and provide a service.
The sun license opens up solaris to the End User, thats who we are. The only people who should be scared of there license are people selling Operating systems to compete with Solaris. As the license strictly prohibits selling modified sources/versions of the OS. Again, if your smart, and can modifiy solaris, you can use that "open Source" business model to sell your services.. Your just taking the credibility and legal ramifications of your services in your own hands, which is what sun is protecting itself.
Open source is "Open Source" you got it, its truely WSYWIG.. you can't get any more Open Source. Free software on the other hand is a totally different issue. And doesn't follow Sun's business model that its investors are following. Sun has just as much of a bind to its investors as does redhat to there's.. there business models are different.
Once you include the unmodified GPL license in your program, your code is effectively licensed to the Free Software Foundation and GPL. You are not personally legally the licensee of the software since it doesn't reference you as the licensee. So if i stole all your code, and sold a program in binary format, YOU couldn't hold me up on anything in court, the FSF or GNU foundations would have to provide legal interest and support since it is licensed to there foundation and guidelines.
There is absolutly *NOTHING* wrong with suns license, it does what everyone needs it to do, and works with there business model
There is *SOMETHING* wrong with people who constantly praise a license, and don't even stop to think about who owns that license, and why they would put someone else license under there software.
sure you may be giving your code to the community, but again, if your protecting your code, the GPL doesn't help you one bit unless you can rely on them in court.
so since you got the code, and sun has complete protection from liability and missuse of what they gave you, tell me.. whats wrong with that?
Well, lets see.. Linux is called linux, even though i can distribute my own version of it, so whats to stop someone from calling it RedHat Solaris.. since Sun "Owns" Solaris, they would be responsible for an OEM screwing up something.. just like people selling RedHat, i can burn a CD, and sell them support, but who's liable? bah..
Open Source = "My source code is open, you can browse me, modify me, and turn me into whatever you want"
Suns license maintains ownership of the code and direct results from the code, in commercial and non commercial aspects.
GPL controls the source code in the same fashion, just can't be used in a commercial package.
Whats the difference? Either sun is gonna get your money, or the FSF is gonna get your money.
Open Source doesn't mean free from restrictions, nor does it mean strings attatched. Sun is progressing.. i thought progression, technology, and freedom of your choice was what it was about.
i didn't think stealing was the issue.. why else would you want to use something you had absolutely no part of in the development cycle.
Linux is a community project, its built from the ground up for whatever reason people see fit to spend there own time on. Solaris was built from the ground up to be a Commercial OS, and for SUN to maintain its support, its quality of service, and its confidence of the customers and vice versa, they feel they *NEED* complete control of THERE OS.
Sun is 100% a commercial company, selling a hardware and software based solution from workstations to enterprise class database servers. I don't think sun would be happy if some joe schmoe hacked up solaris, sold it as original and it breaks the compatibility and ultimately sun becomes responsibale for a fortune 500 company loosing 100,000,000 dollars because of an OS glitch.
This is my opinion, moderate me down and you may was well call this slashcensord.org
I think some advancements in vrml technology will come in time just like java technology.
higher bandwidth is the best breath of air for VRML, but also maybe following along with the Jar format, where you download a wrl container and work as an Object, or download a group of containers and work as a scene.
If someone released a true "open sourced" vrml, then i'm sure it could be dropped into mozilla as a library rather then an external plugin.
working in a manufacturing environment, and building maintenance would be a dream come true. click through your project, and not have to load up your cad software, or simply walk through the building and have temperatures show up, and what staff is in each room, who's logged in/punched in and such. Since most of this is controlled from a computer, why not use VRML and html and javascript to represent your building as a scene and let you click through instead of constantly walking around.. with javascript you could add triggars, alarms and do whatever you heart desires.
just some ideas, but vrml has its place, if you think of it as a modeling language and not simply html sending you a 3d picture.
since you have so many choices, there is no market direction, eevryone is doing something different and there is no standard, even the kernels are hacked amongs distributions.. you still have to upgrade everytime redhat releases a new version simply because there are bugs in the old version
how could that possibly be good. heh?
Solaris 2.5 to 2.51 was supposedly minor.. pshaww.. solaris 2.5 to 2.6 was almost a new version.. thats a .1 minor release, but NIS+ changed, almost every system utility changed a parameter, and costs lots of people down time in what should have been a minor point release.. and well, 2.7 fell into solaris 7.
But if you sure as hell call Sun on a solaris 2.51 problem, they will say use our latest release.. they don't backport patches any more since its simply not feasable to backport from a system thats got alot of 64bit to an older system
no where did i reference microsoft.. even stable unix systems offer patch clusters and point releases.. a service pack is not a trade mark of microsoft.. IBM PC Dos had a service pack long before microsoft thought of it. OS/2 had service releases... its nothing new..
but OS/2, Windows, or any os for that matter has never told me to go somewhere else simply because i dispute something.. I have to agree with what i said earlier.. its pointless to dispute anything in here, as everyone is happy go lucky it doesn't matter since were cool and we run linux so were more elite then everyone else and the laws of business practices, product life cycles and system support and services don't apply since we are smarter then everyone else.
according to the news, Redhat has a completly new Installation procedure, a completely new upgrade system and other major differences in feature sets
I'm sure for a company to be "Certified RedHat Partner" they have to carry the latest training, vendor approval and QOS so that they can roll out the product according to Vendor Specs.
Should redhat not care about these "security and business ethics" for reliability, and quality of product the that is there problem.
simply being you know linux and then your the king of all unices is bs, and vice versa, just becuase you know 6.0 and are certified on 6.0 doesn't mean your certified to rollout millions of machines with 6.1 installed and still be able to maintain vendor or partner status with "Redhat".
its not as simple as ls is still ls in 6.1 and rpm is still rpm in 6.1, its the business side of this short market life being effected.
I firmly believe that this should have been a PRE-RELEASE for 7.0. I believe Beta Xfree86 4.0 should have been included, i believe the beta kernel should have been included, and beta of whatever gnome or kde it wants to use in the 7.0 release should have been included. This would create a market presence.. everyone would be able to toy around with the latest and greatest, vendors wouldn't have to revamp, but would have a roadmap of whats coming..
beta's aren't simply to test, but are also for market acceptance, revamp of installation methods and procedures, sales training, literature planning, advertising and marketing.
ALso, putting out a huge maybe even kludgy beta release would offer the *FIRST* production os to work out the compatibility bugs.. bugs could be killed alot quicker if the applications were interopable and interlaced from the get go.. that way the whole system as a whole gets upgraded, bugs get squashed and the system develops as a piece to function together..
This *IS* market fragmentation.. and NOT what we need. IS groups run stable systems, IS groups will upgrade workstations for the latest and greatest, but never a rollout on such a short product cycle would happen in any instituin of a good size..
I run a companies oracle financials package on oracle and hpux, i am responsible for 200+ workstations that monitor assembly, marketing, inventory and process control. no way in HELL i could implement redhat on these systems with such a short market life. 2 years is what any company expects as MINIMUL life in market, 3 years is the ultimate goal. 6 months is a sham..
again, these are my beliefs.. no reason to flame, but just what i feel. so don't reply with "then don't say anything or don't buy it" because this does'nt explicitly relate to redhat, but the linux market in general.
redhat should buy up a few distros to narrow it down and bring more talent in and spread some of the wealth.
now all thos suckers who got "6.0" training need 6.1 training, now all the people who have support contracts need downtime to upgrade after only having a system up for 5 months..
Thats how *NOT* to run a business, i know RedHat won't just drop 6.0 but it won't be there truely supported platform once 6.1 is released..
had it been a service release, people could upgrade in due time and get the new patches/features and additions to the os..
a kernel upgrade, and a window manager upgrade don't consitute a 7.0 either.. IMHO 7.0 should be a radical new form of Linux with a solid foundation, a good programming backend, and a feature set to compare to other unices..
this has gotta slow down.. i think there should be some "service packs" and not new version #'s for minor upgrades and such.. i would have hoped redhat 6.1 would have waited until Xfree86 4 or something a lil more worth the version # change would have come out.. whats new? is there anything listed on the site? and one beta release is pretty balsy..
I never read my licenses, i could care less what people think of the license. When i buy/download/use something i don't carry a lawyer with me to debug the license.
solaris is a superb operating system, i could care less if it kills linux, things are a fad, things will die, things will pass on.. nothing stays around forever..
but having the code, and having an OS freely available is great.. now whenever i run into a problem under solaris and i said "damn i wish i could have the source, this is a simple problem" i can now fix it..
so what if i don't get the claim to fame on my patch, screw all you hippies out there who have to have that.. i'm getting my job done, and thats what counts..
congrats sun, congrats apple.. both of you have great unix systems, and i applaud anyone opening up technology..
and i pitty the fool who cries over licensing all the time, when really its not anything to cry about.
don't read it then
everyone has a right to an opinion
i figure if you can patent how to do everything else, everyone who owns a car that has the sterring wheel on the left side owes me a royalty of 2.00 a month for as long as your car is registered.
Also, i patented toasters, so if you stick your toast in the toaster and push DOWN on the lil lever, you owe me money too..
don't forget the door.. if you have a door knob that unlocks when you turn it, then you owe me money
also sex, i patented the old in out.. no matter how you stick it in, you owe me.. accessing that nookie is gonna cost you!
gimme a break NCR.
geez, same posting.. who woulda thunk it.. come on guys, index your own site so you don't repost the same old, same old..
news for needs, more renruns then ever!
If anyone really knows how a PC works, then that stuff is garbage.. You can find out what processes are running.. simple ast ctrl-alt-delete for task man.. If you really are a PC user then you can easily bypass any of that type of software.. ON the other hand, you are at work.. supposed to be working.. if you need big brother watching you then step aside and let someoen who wants to work work.
who cares, by an extra 4-5 gigs of transfers for pennies to the dollar comapiaired against expensing a machine/t1/bandwidth/telco charges..
just by a 14.95 account from a place like www.jumpline.com, and have your box upload your webcam images and serve the content.. you get 3 gigs of transfers a month, 50 megs space, even ftp support.. they run the servers and offer bandwitdh.. if you need more upgrade accounts..
its a hell of alot cheaper then getting your own t-1 & servers.. as most of these people are sitting directly on the mae's and such.
windows just sneaks in new updates with web browsers and other lil things, so it doesn't seem like you contstantly upgrading :)
part of linux is choices, you have a choice of mandrake if you love goofing around with millions of things..
and you have a choice of Caldera, if you like a consistant look, feel, and stability with ease of installation and use.
I'm not saying the others are not just as simple with the new installation wizards and stuff, i'm just saying COS solves a specific market.. not just a genaralize catch all :)
rpm is a good idea, brings some software management to the table.. just kind of weird no one followed the same package format that sun/sco use wich seems to work pretty well.. i guess it isn't gpld so it wouldn't work :)
i've loved slashdot, and loved its articles. But it truely seems biased.. as news for nerds and stuff that matters should be news.. not what joe schmoe runs, it shouldn't be any better or worse because 1 out of 10 use it or 6 out of 10 use it.
the site is nice, maybe there should be a minor news section, maybe linux stuff should be rolled off from being headlines to its own group.. the bsd and be and other people have complained about this..
personally GTK is good, i'm happy to see a book. but its not revolutionary, and its not any more news then redhat coming out with a beta, more so, i would have considered putting news up about Open Linux 2.3 with its huge jump in useability and functionality.. news about how the G4 works, not about how its marketed.. its news for geeks, not news for marketing peoples who play golf all the time :)
hehe, i apologize for the off topic, and the continuation of going for a point that really has no point (since there really is no argument, this isn't my site to controll).
But, i'd like to see a broader scope of whats considered news for nerds, and not news for gnome or news for redhat or news for linux, but whats technology doing for me.. that covers bds, linux, solairs, java, c, c++, perl, python, disks, ibm, microsoft, everything really..
wahoo.. moderated down now too. This is great :) I hope someone does come out with a website.. news for nerds, stuff that matters.. i loved reading about science break throughs, new developments, Q&a's, but if were gonna be biased, then it should be through and through.. gtk shouldn't get any more covereage then qt, and redhat shouldn't get anymore then whatever else is out there..