Linux is hardly processor-agnostic. It strives toward that goal, and does fairly well, but just take a look at the verious programs out there. I'll bet you that for every ten you pick at random from the list (not counting the kernel and tools required for an absolute bare-bones distribution), all ten will compile out of the box on an Intel-based system, but at least one of those ten will compile out of the box only on an intel-based system, and it's more likely to be two or three.
Linux is not a cross-platform operating system. It is an operating system for Intel-based PCs, which happens to run on some other platforms as well. It strives to be cross-platform; someday it might even achieve it. But it's not there yet.
Highly doubtful. Possible, I suppose, since the biggest money-maker MS has is actually Office, not Windows. But even if they did release it, their license would probably make the APSL look like the GPL by comparison.
Note that I still condiser the APSL to be Open-Source, though no GPL (I don't support the FSF's move to specifically exclude APSL by changing the definition of free software), but since it seems many zealots here don't agree I figured the comparison was still valid.
It's called the Linux kernel's driver interface. It's clean and is very well documented. It has much example code available. O'Reilly has two well-written books on the topic.
Very true.
This UDI thing would also encourage distribution of binary driver images, which is a Bad Thing.
Have the ports of Linux to other platforms encouraged binary distributions? I don't think it has, and Linux does the same thing as UDI, just for programs (use it on many platforms without a recompile). Therefore, why would a port of UDI to Linux do this?
It's also probably an attempt by SCO to get a free ride by making future Linux drivers work with SCO (which would, BTW, be in grievous violation of the GPL).
RMS has taught you paranoia well. Yes, perhaps SCO would then be able to use Linux drivers. Remember, however, it goes both ways. Linux will suddenly be able to use drivers from these other Unices. Is this a Bad Thing? I can't see why it would be.
The current Linux driver model is working just fine. SCO and IBM can distill fun little PDF files if they like, but I'll keep on using the Linux kernel that I know works and has good device support today.
Certainly, that's your prerogative. But what if the Linux kernel had even better device support? Look at it this way: propple use different unices in different areas. But what if a developer could develop a single driver which could run on all Unices, and Linux to boot? That's going to be much more tempting than writing two drivers, one for Linux and one for everyone else.
The reason they did this should be painfully obvious. They did it specifically so the APSL (and several other licenses) would violate the rules. I'd say RMS and the FSF still have whatever twisted grudge they once had against Apple.
I might add one thing, they state that a user should be able to modify the program and keep it to themselves, without even mentioning their existence to anyone else. Is this not, however, completely contrary to the idea of free software, where everyone contributes? I smell hypocrisy.
Then again, I suppose I deserve it; this year I told another messageboard I frequent that my girlfriend (who also frequents it) and I were actually the same person; several people fell for that one too. We aren't, by the way.
However, this does strike me as something Microsoft would do, given the chance...
What if, in the (x posts, y moderated, etc) thing on the main page, a number (perhaps "total rating") were added. This number is simply the sum of all of the ratings of all the posts under that topic. A heavy flamewar would make that total rating very negative and warn users away, while a high rating indicates good discussion.
Notice the thing about alignment. You don't go down in score for a positive rating, even if that rating is below your current default. You only lose points for posts moderated all the way to -1. So for a +4 person who posts something mediocre, being moderated to a 2 or a 1 isn't bad at all.
At least, that's how I read the changes. Am I wrong?
The problem with that is that people will abuse it. You wouldn't, but I'm willing to bet that every flamebaiter, first-poster, spammer, l33t @01 h@x0r d00d, and MEEPT! would. They'd moderate their stuff up as high as it could go, and keep moderating it up as necessary.
It's sad that it has to be that way, but there isn't much that can be done about it. People should be rewarded for posting good stuff.
They're hiring CHILDREN to do their work for them? Have these monsters no shame? If nothing else, this should show the world the obscenity that Microsoft really is.
On the bright side, this is going to ba a huge blow to their antitrust case, since I believe they're violating at least 40 different child-labor laws. With any luck this one will get them not just broken up but completely dissolved.
Re:Let's spare the GNOME vs. KDE flames
on
CDE vs Gnome
·
· Score: 4
I, too, have experimented with both...
I like Gnome, I think it is "tres cool", but at the moment it does not seem to be as functional as KDE, which conversely does not have the cool look of Gnome, but does have the edge in usability and ease of installation and configuration (just!).
On the area of functionality I'm afraid I must disagree. WindowMaker crashes far more than either; I've never had either Gnome or KDE crash my machine. In terms of functionality KDE excels in areas Gnome does not, but Gnome too is way ahead of KDE in some areas. I'd call it a flat-out draw in that area.
In terms of looks I doubt anyone can argue against the assertion that Gnome wins, so I won't go into that one here. The Gnome team obviously thought out their aesthetics much more than the KDE people did (though the KDE team was also aesthetically hobbled by Qt, and still is to a large degree; this will probably be fixed with Qt 2.0, though it remains to be seen whether or not KDE will get some better looks out of the deal).
Now, we come to speed. With stock installations, Gnome wins hands down. Put both DE's on the same windowmanager, however, (I use WindowMaker since it seems to be the only one which currently have good support for both), and the speed again comes to roughly even; KWM is a BIG problem for KDE; it makes E look stunningly fast and stable. I'll call it a draw here too, then.
Now there's the matter of resources. I'm afraid Gnome wins it here. It appears to use far less in the way of resources than KDE does. The one exception I found was GnomeICU, which does occasionally start draining CPU cycles at an unbelieveable rate.
Filemanagers? KDE takes it. GMC has the potential, but it needs to first get stable, then get the FTP link of the "plain" MC working right. I don't care for Konqueror (KWM's Web browser) myself; give me Netscape/Mozilla any day. Konqueror reminds me far too much of a certain OS from Washington, if you know what I mean...
Ease of setup - KDE, hands down. The Gnome guys could take a cue from KDE's install process. A very large cue.
Raw toolkits: Strip out the desktop environments, and GTK wins out over Qt. This is simply a matter of functionality: GTK offers more than a few things which you can't get with Qt alone (look to the many things you can do with toolbars for just one example). This isn't the fault of the KDE team, however, and hopefully their widgets will be incorporated into Qt at some point in time. The language issue is irrelevant; several C++ bindings exist for GTK and a set of C bindings is being worked on for Qt; it should be noted however that many more language bindings are available for GTK.
In the end, I'd call it a draw. Use whichever you like, but keep the libs from the other one on your hard drive also. Until we have a clear winner you're going to want both.
You can't expect those to be absolutely perfect. Theoretically you could trace my IP right down to the side of the bedroom in the on-campus apartment I'm in right now, but just try tracing someone in Australia with one of these things; the best that site will give you is the country (it'll list Canberra as the city, no matter what city the computer is actually in).
These things are tools, but they can't be expected to be particularly reliable, especially outside of the US. If I'm not mistaken, though, that's NSI's fault, not the program's, so there isn't much that can be done.
This letter reads almost like one of those trolls who whine that the software wasn't out three days after the source release, with the one exception that it is very well-written. However, he also realizes that good software does in fact take time, and says as much in the article. Yet he denies the progress of the project he was heading, and because they couldn't get something out in the absolutely ludicrous time frame of six months (when he thinks they should have shipped) he quit.
Something's up here. I don't claim to know what it is and I won't be the first to put forth wild theories, but sonething isn't right about this.
This guy is perhaps more clueless than the people he writes about. Allow me to explain my two major reasons for this assertion:
1) He spouts the fallacy that power and ease of use are mutually exclusive; a tradeoff must be reached. This is a myth put forth by programmers either too unskilled or too lazy to do it right in the first place. Examples of powerful GUI's? GIMP (which is finally getting the GUI design usable with the latest developer releases). Any CAD tool. *AMP on any platform (Mac, Win, X11, whatever). Any spreadsheet (which by its nature has at least a semi-graphical interface). Hell, even Grapple (a Mac port of grep, complete with GUI and all of the functionality of the original) is powerful and easy to use. He mentions "removing some of the more 'arcane' options of tar" as necessary to make it easier to use: not so.
2) He still firmly believes that the user must adapt to the machine, rather than the machine adapting to the user. Computing will never become truly ubiquitous until I can walk up to any computer and use it, right away, being confident that the skills I have already will give me at least a redumentary knowledge of how the computer functions. It's also my major gripe with the Palm Pilot (and one which isn't enough to keep me from wanting one very badly): Graffiti as opposeed to true handwriting recognition. A user should not have to learn a new way of writing to work on a palmtop. It may be implemented very nicely, but it's the epitome of bad interface.
The point is this: Simple things should be simple, complicated things possible. A CLI is not necessary for that, but since it gives so many hackers power-trips and it won't break a computer, it's not something that should disappear from the face of the planet. But the dependence on a CLI can and should stop. I know it'll take a long time, but it must happen eventually. Either that or the ultimate in intuitive interfaces (namely natural-language processing) needs to be developed, and I'd say we're still several decades away from having desktop machines that can handle that sort of thing.
Well, if you take a look, MWPL actually does have one big advantage over GPL: it respects the laws of the country under which a developer may be subject. If you can't comply because of the law with MWPL, you comply as much as you can and state what you can't do. If you can't comply and you're dealing with the GPL you are quite hosed.
Frankly I think GPLv3 should include something like that.
Here's how I see it. Linux did in fact adopt the GNU tools. However, Linux is still the operating system, so regardless of the adoption issue the operating system is still Linux.
Now, I'm not trying to make light of GNU's contributions. GNU code makes up roughly 10% of a Linux distro. But that is it; only 10%. I don't see that as enough of a contribution that GNU gets to decide the name of the OS.
If they're only "a few weeks" late they're ahead of almost every software company/group/project that's ever existed. As long as they release it for the promised platforms, I'm happy.
You make an assumption which is sadly naive. I am guessing you are an Onjectivist (I've heard almost the exact speech from others before; all of them were Onjectivists too). All philosophies that I've seen have at least one fatal flaw, and Objectivism is no exception. Objectivism's is this: it assumes that all businesses act honorably (by this I mean that they do not lie, cheat, or steal). Those that do, according to Objectivism, must fail because the people will not buy from a business which does these things.
But I pose a question: what if the people do not know what M$ does? What if it is so clever at hiding these things, masking them in the jargon of a technology with whic depressingly few people are familiar, such that it can do whatever it wants and people who only think they know what's going on accept it? Such a man (or woman, I suppose), my friend, are you. I don't blame you for it; Microsoft is very devious. It hides its actions quite well. But I ask you: look over the trial; the obscenity behind the mask of Microsoft is coming to light, slowly but surely. You'll find, if you reread The Fountainhead, that Gates and Co. are nothing but real-life analogs to Howard Roark's competitors in the steel industry. (By the way, if you've never read The Fountainhead I suggest you don't; it's awful). And what's more, people are finally starting to take notice.
CmdrTaco is functionally illiterate(well...maybe just dyslexic).*
Why, because he allows Jon Katz to post here? I'm guessing you're one of those types who claims to defend free speech too.
There is no point in continuing the WIMP "ease of use" fallacy; the efforts of GNOME and KDE should be redirected towards voice recognition and control, and AI.
The fallacy is not in WIMP itself, which will be the easiest, most powerful, and most flexible interface we're going to have until natural-language voice-command takes over. The fallacy is in badly-designed WIMP, of which any Microsoft program tends to be a fine example (though if you really want an example of bad interface try XFig).
That's what most GUI programmers don't get. WIMP is not automatically easy to use. You have to do it right. M$ was never good at that; the only worse UI I've seen is DpIV (great idea, but poorly done). Gnome and KDE both are very good improvements, but both still inherit some bad-WIMP principles from Microsoft (but then, most OS's do). NeXT and MacOS get it very, very good most of the time, though examples of bad interface do exist on each. Is there any perfect UI out there? I have yet to see it on any platform. But there are those which come close. You can't say the whole barrel of fruit is bad just because the first lemon you picked out was bad.
Three, because those of you who claim to be running fully-Open-Source systems actually aren't.
Because I'm willing to bet that every single person who reads this message uses at least one piece of software which was written/is maintained by someone subject to United States laws. They are forced by the law to discriminate and therefore violate the OSD, Debian Free Software guidelines, or whatever definition you may use.
At least, this is the case if Apple's license does in fact violate the OSD. If it doesn't, and no other license is said to violate it because the original author has no choice but to respect the law, then it doesn't violate the OSD at all.
By the way, I am no fan of US export laws. They are for the most part idiotic, paranoid, and harmful to both US and foreign businesses. But the law is the law, and even if you figt to change it, you've got to follow it to the letter until it's changed.
Are you a lawyer? Somehow I doubt a retailer could be held responsible for anything that was bought from them and then subsequently exported to an embargo'd nation. Ditto for Free Software developers. Any real lawyers or law students out there care to comment?
Your point is moor anyway: Apple is not a retailer. Apple is making the software available for export via its FTP servers. By the laws of the United States (laws to which Apple is subject, even if the user is not), Apple cannot allow the software to be exported into certain nations and must take every step that it can to ensure this. It probably didn't need to reiterate the law in its license, no. But the fact remains: it holds true. It also holds true for every software license for software written by someone subject to US law, even the GPL.
CodeWarrior includes a MacOS-hosted OSX compiler, if I'm not mistaken. It is possible to compile it that way. Since OSX uses HFS+ it can even be transferred to an OSX drive via that same Mac.
You still have to tinker with Open Firmware to get it to boot, of course, but that's another story.
This cannot be considered a violation of the OSD. Let me explain why:
You see, Apple is a US-based company, and therefore is subject to the laws of the United States. Because of this, it cannot export software into those countries, nor can it allow the software to be exported there. This goes for every entity subject to US law, I might add. Therefore, Apple is doing nothing more than reiterating the laws to which it is subject (which is in fact necessary or it would be allowing the software to be exported into those countries and therefore breaking the law).
Now, let me state something here: this law does in fact affect all licenses for software written by US suthors. Therefore, if Apple is violating the OSD, so is every single piece of Open-Source software written by US authors, including the Linux kernel (or at least all versions written since Linus moved to the US), at least two of the *BSD's, and every single thing RMS, ESR, and Bruce Perens have ever written.
For that matter, KDE and Gnome both violate the OSD. In an ironic twist, GTK does but Qt does not (it's not done by US authors, though some add-on widgets might be). Netscape and Mozilla do too.
This is rather unfortunate for two three reasons. One, because the OSD does not take into account the laws of the land in which the software is written. Two, because US export law sucks. Three, because those of you who claim to be running fully-Open-Source systems actually aren't.
My proposal: either amend the OSD so that the law can be taken into account, or renew the fight to change US export law. Both should be done, actually (the first as a temporary measure until the second can be done). The only other option is to move all Open-Source projects overseas.
By the way, when I mean "written by a US author" I mean "maintained by a US author"; the maintainer would be considered to be the primary author and therefore (probably) the one responsible under US law.
How do you fight it? Take every innovation for which Microsoft has claimed credit and show its real inventors.
He takes credit for the GUI: point out that Xerox invented the concept (right down to the mouse) and Apple invented the GUI as we know it today (before you flame me, take a look at Xerox's GUI: It is very, very different from the GUI M$ ripped off (and wrecked) from Apple and which everyone else but NeXT was stupid enough to rip off from M$). He takes credit for the Web: point out how it was invented years before on a NeXTStep box.
See what I mean? Microsoft has never invented a thing in its life. It sucks the blood of the innovators, turning them into its slaves, knowing or not. That company never earned its money; every dollar of it is stolen from someone.
Oh, and for the "if not for him you would be stuck 20 years ago" bit, here's your defense: point out the innovations in all of the products Microsoft has killed or tried to kill. Use them to prove that if not for him we would be stuck 10 years in the future.
He's not the smartest, most influential person. Well, maybe he is, but he's nothing but an exceptionally clever thief.
When GNU code comprises a quarter of Linux, they'll deserve the co-creator credit they are essentially asking for. But they don't even have half that yet (if you look at the number of lines of code in the kernel and core tools GNU barely has a tenth), so they have a lot of work to do.
Let me put it another way: GNU gets as much recognition as any other Linux developer working on the OS. To ask for more when they haven't contributed enough code to deserve it is simply wrong. I read the article RMS wrote on the issue, and it seems to me that he's just mad that Linus and the gang has stolen the spotlight from him.
I can't remember who's doing it, but someone's working on porting the *BSD tools to Linux such that there could be a GNU-free Linux distro. Apparently it wouldn't even be all that difficult; GNU did less than ten percent of the Linux code (defining "Linux code" as the kernel plus the core set of tools) as it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is hardly processor-agnostic. It strives toward that goal, and does fairly well, but just take a look at the verious programs out there. I'll bet you that for every ten you pick at random from the list (not counting the kernel and tools required for an absolute bare-bones distribution), all ten will compile out of the box on an Intel-based system, but at least one of those ten will compile out of the box only on an intel-based system, and it's more likely to be two or three.
Linux is not a cross-platform operating system. It is an operating system for Intel-based PCs, which happens to run on some other platforms as well. It strives to be cross-platform; someday it might even achieve it. But it's not there yet.
Highly doubtful. Possible, I suppose, since the biggest money-maker MS has is actually Office, not Windows. But even if they did release it, their license would probably make the APSL look like the GPL by comparison.
Note that I still condiser the APSL to be Open-Source, though no GPL (I don't support the FSF's move to specifically exclude APSL by changing the definition of free software), but since it seems many zealots here don't agree I figured the comparison was still valid.
It's called the Linux kernel's driver interface. It's clean and is very well documented. It has much example code available. O'Reilly has two well-written books on the topic.
Very true.
This UDI thing would also encourage distribution of binary driver images, which is a Bad Thing.
Have the ports of Linux to other platforms encouraged binary distributions? I don't think it has, and Linux does the same thing as UDI, just for programs (use it on many platforms without a recompile). Therefore, why would a port of UDI to Linux do this?
It's also probably an attempt by SCO to get a free ride by making future Linux drivers work with SCO (which would, BTW, be in grievous violation of the GPL).
RMS has taught you paranoia well. Yes, perhaps SCO would then be able to use Linux drivers. Remember, however, it goes both ways. Linux will suddenly be able to use drivers from these other Unices. Is this a Bad Thing? I can't see why it would be.
The current Linux driver model is working just fine. SCO and IBM can distill fun little PDF files if they like, but I'll keep on using the Linux kernel that I know works and has good device support today.
Certainly, that's your prerogative. But what if the Linux kernel had even better device support? Look at it this way: propple use different unices in different areas. But what if a developer could develop a single driver which could run on all Unices, and Linux to boot? That's going to be much more tempting than writing two drivers, one for Linux and one for everyone else.
The reason they did this should be painfully obvious. They did it specifically so the APSL (and several other licenses) would violate the rules. I'd say RMS and the FSF still have whatever twisted grudge they once had against Apple.
I might add one thing, they state that a user should be able to modify the program and keep it to themselves, without even mentioning their existence to anyone else. Is this not, however, completely contrary to the idea of free software, where everyone contributes? I smell hypocrisy.
I can't believe I fell for that one.
Then again, I suppose I deserve it; this year I told another messageboard I frequent that my girlfriend (who also frequents it) and I were actually the same person; several people fell for that one too. We aren't, by the way.
However, this does strike me as something Microsoft would do, given the chance...
What if, in the (x posts, y moderated, etc) thing on the main page, a number (perhaps "total rating") were added. This number is simply the sum of all of the ratings of all the posts under that topic. A heavy flamewar would make that total rating very negative and warn users away, while a high rating indicates good discussion.
Notice the thing about alignment. You don't go down in score for a positive rating, even if that rating is below your current default. You only lose points for posts moderated all the way to -1. So for a +4 person who posts something mediocre, being moderated to a 2 or a 1 isn't bad at all.
At least, that's how I read the changes. Am I wrong?
The problem with that is that people will abuse it. You wouldn't, but I'm willing to bet that every flamebaiter, first-poster, spammer, l33t @01 h@x0r d00d, and MEEPT! would. They'd moderate their stuff up as high as it could go, and keep moderating it up as necessary.
It's sad that it has to be that way, but there isn't much that can be done about it. People should be rewarded for posting good stuff.
They're hiring CHILDREN to do their work for them? Have these monsters no shame? If nothing else, this should show the world the obscenity that Microsoft really is.
On the bright side, this is going to ba a huge blow to their antitrust case, since I believe they're violating at least 40 different child-labor laws. With any luck this one will get them not just broken up but completely dissolved.
I, too, have experimented with both...
I like Gnome, I think it is "tres cool", but at the moment it does not seem to be as functional as KDE, which conversely does not have the cool look of Gnome, but does have the edge in usability and ease of installation and configuration (just!).
On the area of functionality I'm afraid I must disagree. WindowMaker crashes far more than either; I've never had either Gnome or KDE crash my machine. In terms of functionality KDE excels in areas Gnome does not, but Gnome too is way ahead of KDE in some areas. I'd call it a flat-out draw in that area.
In terms of looks I doubt anyone can argue against the assertion that Gnome wins, so I won't go into that one here. The Gnome team obviously thought out their aesthetics much more than the KDE people did (though the KDE team was also aesthetically hobbled by Qt, and still is to a large degree; this will probably be fixed with Qt 2.0, though it remains to be seen whether or not KDE will get some better looks out of the deal).
Now, we come to speed. With stock installations, Gnome wins hands down. Put both DE's on the same windowmanager, however, (I use WindowMaker since it seems to be the only one which currently have good support for both), and the speed again comes to roughly even; KWM is a BIG problem for KDE; it makes E look stunningly fast and stable. I'll call it a draw here too, then.
Now there's the matter of resources. I'm afraid Gnome wins it here. It appears to use far less in the way of resources than KDE does. The one exception I found was GnomeICU, which does occasionally start draining CPU cycles at an unbelieveable rate.
Filemanagers? KDE takes it. GMC has the potential, but it needs to first get stable, then get the FTP link of the "plain" MC working right. I don't care for Konqueror (KWM's Web browser) myself; give me Netscape/Mozilla any day. Konqueror reminds me far too much of a certain OS from Washington, if you know what I mean...
Ease of setup - KDE, hands down. The Gnome guys could take a cue from KDE's install process. A very large cue.
Raw toolkits: Strip out the desktop environments, and GTK wins out over Qt. This is simply a matter of functionality: GTK offers more than a few things which you can't get with Qt alone (look to the many things you can do with toolbars for just one example). This isn't the fault of the KDE team, however, and hopefully their widgets will be incorporated into Qt at some point in time. The language issue is irrelevant; several C++ bindings exist for GTK and a set of C bindings is being worked on for Qt; it should be noted however that many more language bindings are available for GTK.
In the end, I'd call it a draw. Use whichever you like, but keep the libs from the other one on your hard drive also. Until we have a clear winner you're going to want both.
You can't expect those to be absolutely perfect. Theoretically you could trace my IP right down to the side of the bedroom in the on-campus apartment I'm in right now, but just try tracing someone in Australia with one of these things; the best that site will give you is the country (it'll list Canberra as the city, no matter what city the computer is actually in).
These things are tools, but they can't be expected to be particularly reliable, especially outside of the US. If I'm not mistaken, though, that's NSI's fault, not the program's, so there isn't much that can be done.
This letter reads almost like one of those trolls who whine that the software wasn't out three days after the source release, with the one exception that it is very well-written. However, he also realizes that good software does in fact take time, and says as much in the article. Yet he denies the progress of the project he was heading, and because they couldn't get something out in the absolutely ludicrous time frame of six months (when he thinks they should have shipped) he quit.
Something's up here. I don't claim to know what it is and I won't be the first to put forth wild theories, but sonething isn't right about this.
This guy is perhaps more clueless than the people he writes about. Allow me to explain my two major reasons for this assertion:
1) He spouts the fallacy that power and ease of use are mutually exclusive; a tradeoff must be reached. This is a myth put forth by programmers either too unskilled or too lazy to do it right in the first place. Examples of powerful GUI's? GIMP (which is finally getting the GUI design usable with the latest developer releases). Any CAD tool. *AMP on any platform (Mac, Win, X11, whatever). Any spreadsheet (which by its nature has at least a semi-graphical interface). Hell, even Grapple (a Mac port of grep, complete with GUI and all of the functionality of the original) is powerful and easy to use. He mentions "removing some of the more 'arcane' options of tar" as necessary to make it easier to use: not so.
2) He still firmly believes that the user must adapt to the machine, rather than the machine adapting to the user. Computing will never become truly ubiquitous until I can walk up to any computer and use it, right away, being confident that the skills I have already will give me at least a redumentary knowledge of how the computer functions. It's also my major gripe with the Palm Pilot (and one which isn't enough to keep me from wanting one very badly): Graffiti as opposeed to true handwriting recognition. A user should not have to learn a new way of writing to work on a palmtop. It may be implemented very nicely, but it's the epitome of bad interface.
The point is this: Simple things should be simple, complicated things possible. A CLI is not necessary for that, but since it gives so many hackers power-trips and it won't break a computer, it's not something that should disappear from the face of the planet. But the dependence on a CLI can and should stop. I know it'll take a long time, but it must happen eventually. Either that or the ultimate in intuitive interfaces (namely natural-language processing) needs to be developed, and I'd say we're still several decades away from having desktop machines that can handle that sort of thing.
Well, if you take a look, MWPL actually does have one big advantage over GPL: it respects the laws of the country under which a developer may be subject. If you can't comply because of the law with MWPL, you comply as much as you can and state what you can't do. If you can't comply and you're dealing with the GPL you are quite hosed.
Frankly I think GPLv3 should include something like that.
Here's how I see it. Linux did in fact adopt the GNU tools. However, Linux is still the operating system, so regardless of the adoption issue the operating system is still Linux.
Now, I'm not trying to make light of GNU's contributions. GNU code makes up roughly 10% of a Linux distro. But that is it; only 10%. I don't see that as enough of a contribution that GNU gets to decide the name of the OS.
If they're only "a few weeks" late they're ahead of almost every software company/group/project that's ever existed. As long as they release it for the promised platforms, I'm happy.
I wonder if a LinuxPPC port is in the cards...
You make an assumption which is sadly naive. I am guessing you are an Onjectivist (I've heard almost the exact speech from others before; all of them were Onjectivists too). All philosophies that I've seen have at least one fatal flaw, and Objectivism is no exception. Objectivism's is this: it assumes that all businesses act honorably (by this I mean that they do not lie, cheat, or steal). Those that do, according to Objectivism, must fail because the people will not buy from a business which does these things.
But I pose a question: what if the people do not know what M$ does? What if it is so clever at hiding these things, masking them in the jargon of a technology with whic depressingly few people are familiar, such that it can do whatever it wants and people who only think they know what's going on accept it? Such a man (or woman, I suppose), my friend, are you. I don't blame you for it; Microsoft is very devious. It hides its actions quite well. But I ask you: look over the trial; the obscenity behind the mask of Microsoft is coming to light, slowly but surely. You'll find, if you reread The Fountainhead, that Gates and Co. are nothing but real-life analogs to Howard Roark's competitors in the steel industry. (By the way, if you've never read The Fountainhead I suggest you don't; it's awful). And what's more, people are finally starting to take notice.
All lawyers must die.
Except for my girlfriend's father, agreed.
CmdrTaco is functionally illiterate(well...maybe just dyslexic).*
Why, because he allows Jon Katz to post here? I'm guessing you're one of those types who claims to defend free speech too.
There is no point in continuing the WIMP "ease of use" fallacy; the efforts of GNOME and KDE should be redirected towards voice recognition and control, and AI.
The fallacy is not in WIMP itself, which will be the easiest, most powerful, and most flexible interface we're going to have until natural-language voice-command takes over. The fallacy is in badly-designed WIMP, of which any Microsoft program tends to be a fine example (though if you really want an example of bad interface try XFig).
That's what most GUI programmers don't get. WIMP is not automatically easy to use. You have to do it right. M$ was never good at that; the only worse UI I've seen is DpIV (great idea, but poorly done). Gnome and KDE both are very good improvements, but both still inherit some bad-WIMP principles from Microsoft (but then, most OS's do). NeXT and MacOS get it very, very good most of the time, though examples of bad interface do exist on each. Is there any perfect UI out there? I have yet to see it on any platform. But there are those which come close. You can't say the whole barrel of fruit is bad just because the first lemon you picked out was bad.
Three, because those of you who claim to be running fully-Open-Source systems actually aren't.
Because I'm willing to bet that every single person who reads this message uses at least one piece of software which was written/is maintained by someone subject to United States laws. They are forced by the law to discriminate and therefore violate the OSD, Debian Free Software guidelines, or whatever definition you may use.
At least, this is the case if Apple's license does in fact violate the OSD. If it doesn't, and no other license is said to violate it because the original author has no choice but to respect the law, then it doesn't violate the OSD at all.
By the way, I am no fan of US export laws. They are for the most part idiotic, paranoid, and harmful to both US and foreign businesses. But the law is the law, and even if you figt to change it, you've got to follow it to the letter until it's changed.
Are you a lawyer? Somehow I doubt a retailer could be held responsible for anything that was bought from them and then subsequently exported to an embargo'd nation. Ditto for Free Software developers. Any real lawyers or law students out there care to comment?
Your point is moor anyway: Apple is not a retailer. Apple is making the software available for export via its FTP servers. By the laws of the United States (laws to which Apple is subject, even if the user is not), Apple cannot allow the software to be exported into certain nations and must take every step that it can to ensure this. It probably didn't need to reiterate the law in its license, no. But the fact remains: it holds true. It also holds true for every software license for software written by someone subject to US law, even the GPL.
CodeWarrior includes a MacOS-hosted OSX compiler, if I'm not mistaken. It is possible to compile it that way. Since OSX uses HFS+ it can even be transferred to an OSX drive via that same Mac.
You still have to tinker with Open Firmware to get it to boot, of course, but that's another story.
This cannot be considered a violation of the OSD. Let me explain why:
You see, Apple is a US-based company, and therefore is subject to the laws of the United States. Because of this, it cannot export software into those countries, nor can it allow the software to be exported there. This goes for every entity subject to US law, I might add. Therefore, Apple is doing nothing more than reiterating the laws to which it is subject (which is in fact necessary or it would be allowing the software to be exported into those countries and therefore breaking the law).
Now, let me state something here: this law does in fact affect all licenses for software written by US suthors. Therefore, if Apple is violating the OSD, so is every single piece of Open-Source software written by US authors, including the Linux kernel (or at least all versions written since Linus moved to the US), at least two of the *BSD's, and every single thing RMS, ESR, and Bruce Perens have ever written.
For that matter, KDE and Gnome both violate the OSD. In an ironic twist, GTK does but Qt does not (it's not done by US authors, though some add-on widgets might be). Netscape and Mozilla do too.
This is rather unfortunate for two three reasons. One, because the OSD does not take into account the laws of the land in which the software is written. Two, because US export law sucks. Three, because those of you who claim to be running fully-Open-Source systems actually aren't.
My proposal: either amend the OSD so that the law can be taken into account, or renew the fight to change US export law. Both should be done, actually (the first as a temporary measure until the second can be done). The only other option is to move all Open-Source projects overseas.
By the way, when I mean "written by a US author" I mean "maintained by a US author"; the maintainer would be considered to be the primary author and therefore (probably) the one responsible under US law.
How do you fight it? Take every innovation for which Microsoft has claimed credit and show its real inventors.
He takes credit for the GUI: point out that Xerox invented the concept (right down to the mouse) and Apple invented the GUI as we know it today (before you flame me, take a look at Xerox's GUI: It is very, very different from the GUI M$ ripped off (and wrecked) from Apple and which everyone else but NeXT was stupid enough to rip off from M$). He takes credit for the Web: point out how it was invented years before on a NeXTStep box.
See what I mean? Microsoft has never invented a thing in its life. It sucks the blood of the innovators, turning them into its slaves, knowing or not. That company never earned its money; every dollar of it is stolen from someone.
Oh, and for the "if not for him you would be stuck 20 years ago" bit, here's your defense: point out the innovations in all of the products Microsoft has killed or tried to kill. Use them to prove that if not for him we would be stuck 10 years in the future.
He's not the smartest, most influential person. Well, maybe he is, but he's nothing but an exceptionally clever thief.
When GNU code comprises a quarter of Linux, they'll deserve the co-creator credit they are essentially asking for. But they don't even have half that yet (if you look at the number of lines of code in the kernel and core tools GNU barely has a tenth), so they have a lot of work to do.
Let me put it another way: GNU gets as much recognition as any other Linux developer working on the OS. To ask for more when they haven't contributed enough code to deserve it is simply wrong. I read the article RMS wrote on the issue, and it seems to me that he's just mad that Linus and the gang has stolen the spotlight from him.
I can't remember who's doing it, but someone's working on porting the *BSD tools to Linux such that there could be a GNU-free Linux distro. Apparently it wouldn't even be all that difficult; GNU did less than ten percent of the Linux code (defining "Linux code" as the kernel plus the core set of tools) as it is.