IBM is positioning Linux as an NT alternative. It's only selling it in markets where NT is a serious contender. This is the low end of the server scale.
IBM has 3 other high end server OSs. AIX, OS/400 & OS/390. I they put Linux in the same market they just fragment themselves more and loose money. Let them call Linux a low end server. It doesn't matter because people who deploy high end servers can dig through hype OK. If they couldn't NT would have supplanted AIX long ago.
Linux doesn't need to be marketed on the high end. It just needs to be sold and supported. VA Research ships 8 CPU boxes next month. Linux care supports them immediately and IBM gets to discover high end Linux when it owns the market:)
The March Entries include a massive pile of severe bug reports. Most are about outright Crashes in core components. It seams to me that only 2 possibilities exist here.
This is a sampling of just the last 3 days of gnome-list@. The main list, not even the Bug Tracking list. In other words this is where newbis who can't get it to work go to cry for help. Note I cut it off before the Was 1.0 released too early thread.
Sounds to me like someone wanted to delay Gnome 1.0 and was spaming the list under multiple names. 'Astroturf', I call it.
Re: orbitgtk.c kills compile for gnome-libs Shane W Rogers (Wed Mar 3 20:45:45 1999) Re: orbitgtk.c kills compile for gnome-libs Elliot Lee Re: orbitgtk.c kills compile for gnome-libs Shane W Rogers E-Mac.etheme questions mlemsing@swavley.com.au (Wed Mar 3 20:16:05 1999) German User Guide Knut Neumann (Wed Mar 3 18:29:01 1999) Re: German User Guide Karl Eichwalder How can I turn off session management? Mike Dickson (Wed Mar 3 17:57:47 1999) font sizes in balsa Michael Perry (Wed Mar 3 17:00:46 1999) GNOME on SuSE 6.0, a nightmare. Martin Hawlisch Re: GNOME on SuSE 6.0, a nightmare. Karl Eichwalder Re: GNOME on SuSE 6.0, a nightmare. James Henstridge Re: GNOME on SuSE 6.0, a nightmare. Jan Gentsch Re: GNOME on SuSE 6.0, a nightmare. Karl Eichwalder Minor visual quirk in the panel Daniel Burrows (Wed Mar 3 16:19:58 1999) Help compiling balsa-0.4.9 Igor S. Livshits (Wed Mar 3 16:02:55 1999) Re: Help compiling balsa-0.4.9 Spud Re: Help compiling balsa-0.4.9 Igor S. Livshits Resizing bug in panel? Daniel Burrows (Wed Mar 3 15:53:43 1999) Re: Resizing bug in panel? James M. Cape Gnome-guile Dies James M. Cape (Wed Mar 3 15:51:47 1999) Re: Gnome-guile Dies James Henstridge Re: Gnome-guile Dies James M. Cape Linux Magazin cover story Matthias Warkus (Wed Mar 3 15:51:01 1999) RE: Linux Magazin cover story Nathan Clegg E/Gnome window placement quirks Daniel Burrows (Wed Mar 3 15:47:21 1999) Re: E/Gnome window placement quirks Daniel Burrows How do you start gnome? (solved) Bryan Schmidt (Wed Mar 3 15:27:06 1999) How do you start gnome? Bryan Schmidt (Wed Mar 3 14:53:27 1999) balsa compile Sigmund Freud (Wed Mar 3 13:57:27 1999) /lib/cpp? Jason N Pratt (Wed Mar 3 13:00:02 1999) Re:/lib/cpp? John Huttley libungif.so.4? Jason N Pratt (Wed Mar 3 12:06:26 1999) Re: libungif.so.4? Daniel Veillard Re: libungif.so.4? Harry Henry Gebel Difficulties subscribing to gnome-list from home Tim Lewis (Wed Mar 3 11:51:59 1999) orbitgkt.c kills compile for gnome-libs Shane William Rogers (Wed Mar 3 10:53:07 1999) Eterm is looking at e's bg, not gnome's Mike Dickson (Wed Mar 3 10:30:30 1999) Re: Eterm is looking at e's bg, not gnome's Daniel Burrows Re: Eterm is looking at e's bg, not gnome's Greg Fall Re: Eterm is looking at e's bg, not gnome's Tomas Ogren gdm problems Marcin Gorycki (Wed Mar 3 10:25:24 1999) Gnome without sound Aaron Held (Wed Mar 3 09:49:08 1999) compile gdm i2ambler (Wed Mar 3 08:41:31 1999) OT: Blackbox... Jason N Pratt (Wed Mar 3 08:17:27 1999) Re: OT: Blackbox... Gleef balsa-v0.4.6.2 on gnome-0.98 Adam Moyes (Wed Mar 3 07:04:29 1999) RPM problem Benjamin Walling (Wed Mar 3 07:00:29 1999) Re: RPM problem Gleef Reducing size of icone and panel Franco Spinelli (Wed Mar 3 04:01:30 1999) Re: Reducing size of icone and panel James Henstridge Re: Reducing size of icone and panel Shooby Ban Startup help for a newbie? Jim Meyer (Wed Mar 3 02:00:31 1999) Re: Startup help for a newbie? James Henstridge Re: Startup help for a newbie? Jim Meyer Re: Startup help for a newbie? James Henstridge gnumeric Michel Bertignac (Wed Mar 3 00:18:41 1999) Re: gnumeric Havoc Pennington RE: gnumeric Michel Bertignac RE: gnumeric James Henstridge gmc segfault Daniel Burrows (Tue Mar 2 23:59:40 1999) The Real State of GNOME Albert Strasheim (Tue Mar 2 22:38:41 1999) Gnome WindowMaker App Icons won't stay away! Harry Henry Gebel (Tue Mar 2 19:16:30 1999) Re: GTK Themes and Font Sizes Matt Martin (Tue Mar 2 19:14:08 1999) running Gnome without sound Aaron Held (Tue Mar 2 18:32:23 1999) Off the topic. Simon Murcott (Tue Mar 2 18:24:41 1999) Proper TERM value for gnome-terminal under Solaris 2.6 Glenn Kronschnabl (Tue Mar 2 17:27:01 1999) Re: Gnome-stones Carsten Schaar (Tue Mar 2 16:57:51 1999) Re: Gnome-stones Carsten Schaar (Tue Mar 2 16:53:24 1999) pre1.0 Michael Hall (Tue Mar 2 15:42:44 1999) gnome-session and psuedorandom X crashes. Marshal Wong (Tue Mar 2 14:59:30 1999) RE: gnome-session and psuedorandom X crashes. Fox, Kevin M panel bug Fox, Kevin M (Tue Mar 2 14:34:40 1999) Re: panel bug Arup Kanjilal Re: panel bug Daniel Burrows Re: panel bug Daniel Burrows gtop on Solaris 2.6? run-time errors Glenn Kronschnabl (Tue Mar 2 14:27:59 1999) Re: gtop on Solaris 2.6? run-time errors Martin Baulig [slight bug? + patch] gnome-pager Mike McEwan (Tue Mar 2 14:06:38 1999) Re: [slight bug? + patch] gnome-pager Jesse D . Sightler Re: [slight bug? + patch] gnome-pager Peter Wainwright Re: GLIB_SYSDEF_POLLIN kmb (Tue Mar 2 10:17:07 1999) Bizarre problem with panel and E Daniel Burrows (Tue Mar 2 08:48:16 1999) Re: Bizarre problem with panel and E Daniel Burrows Audiofile library -endedness problems? Mark R. Bowyer (Tue Mar 2 07:22:01 1999) Gmc Desktop and Enlightenment James M. Cape (Tue Mar 2 04:20:52 1999) First installation and running. A few newbie Questions. Kerry Todyruik (Tue Mar 2 03:11:44 1999) Re: First installation and running. A few newbie Questions. Jesse D . Sightler Re: Loading things directly from targz/zip files? Stefan Mattauch (Tue Mar 2 02:22:15 1999) Re: RPM snapshots Gleef (Tue Mar 2 01:55:55 1999) Re: enlightenment & gnome window placement - solution? Colin Walters (Tue Mar 2 01:36:04 1999) enlightenment themes? hitch (Tue Mar 2 00:38:19 1999) Re: enlightenment themes? Spud RE: enlightenment themes? David Puryear RE: enlightenment themes? Federico David Sacerdoti RE: enlightenment themes? David Puryear [BUGS] Panel Menu Editor! Jesse D . Sightler (Mon Mar 1 23:49:17 1999) Re: autoconf-2.13 kmb (Mon Mar 1 23:20:28 1999) Re: autoconf-2.13 James M. Cape Re: autoconf-2.13 David Ford Balsa dies in compile James M. Cape (Mon Mar 1 22:48:27 1999) Re: Balsa dies in compile Jesse D . Sightler Panel segfault Jason Tackaberry (Mon Mar 1 22:40:30 1999) Re: Panel segfault Elliot Lee Re: Panel segfault Daniel Burrows GUILE won't compile hhv (Mon Mar 1 22:36:16 1999) Gnome-guile Compile Dies James M. Cape (Mon Mar 1 22:12:35 1999) Re: gdm submission Todd Graham Lewis (Mon Mar 1 21:28:45 1999) gdm submission Todd Graham Lewis (Mon Mar 1 21:00:41 1999) Re: gdm submission Robert Bihlmeyer Re: gdm submission Matthew Kirkwood Re: gdm submission Robert Bihlmeyer RE: gdm submission Fox, Kevin M Re: gdm submission Sam Vilain RE: gdm submission Todd Graham Lewis Re: gdm submission Erik Andersen Re: gdm submission Todd Graham Lewis Re: gdm submission Tomas Ogren RE: gdm submission Fox, Kevin M RE: gdm submission Fox, Kevin M Re: gdm submission Sam Vilain Re: gdm submission klw RE: gdm submission Wicks Robert-CRW051C RE: gdm submission Guillermo S. Romero / unnamed / Familia Romero RE: gdm submission Fox, Kevin M RE: gdm submission Todd Graham Lewis RE: gdm submission Fox, Kevin M GMC and NFS ~home Bryson Borg (Mon Mar 1 20:36:39 1999) connection refused by server -> core dump Ronald de Man (Mon Mar 1 20:10:04 1999) Hiding panel James Charles Lewis (Mon Mar 1 19:40:27 1999) Re: Hiding panel John St . Clair GtkICQ and panel Mohammad Abdin (Mon Mar 1 18:38:50 1999) enlightenment & gnome window placement Colin Walters (Mon Mar 1 18:37:10 1999) Re: enlightenment & gnome window placement Daniel Burrows Re: enlightenment & gnome window placement Spud Re: enlightenment & gnome window placement Matt Martin Gnome-mixer John St . Clair (Mon Mar 1 18:24:11 1999) Gnome-guile & CVS GTK+ James M. Cape (Mon Mar 1 17:55:52 1999) gdk_imlib Mark Toller (Mon Mar 1 17:18:11 1999) guile-gtk part 2 Sigmund Freud (Mon Mar 1 17:16:15 1999) GTk 1.20 breaks guitar Michael Perry (Mon Mar 1 17:02:24 1999) Re: GTk 1.20 breaks guitar Michael Perry Re: GTk 1.20 breaks guitar Michal Palczewski Re: GTk 1.20 breaks guitar Michael Perry Re: gedit-0.5.1 Alex Roberts (Mon Mar 1 14:46:28 1999) gnome-guile won't compile Miguel A. Figueroa (Mon Mar 1 14:14:53 1999) Re: gnome-guile won't compile Marius Vollmer Re: proper gnome startup procedure Tim Lewis (Mon Mar 1 14:10:44 1999) GDM, and how to use it] Tim Lewis (Mon Mar 1 14:07:06 1999) Re: GDM, and how to use it] Andrew Clausen Re: GDM, and how to use it] Tim Lewis Problems with swallowed XEyes Daniel Burrows (Mon Mar 1 13:58:45 1999) libgtop probs Sigmund Freud (Mon Mar 1 12:26:01 1999) Editing the menu Mike Dickson (Mon Mar 1 11:59:02 1999) balsa 0.4.9: configure: can't find libPropList?? Mario Vukelic (Mon Mar 1 09:34:08 1999) Re: gnome-objc 0.99.8 and GTK 1.2.0 (fwd) Mario Vukelic (Mon Mar 1 09:29:34 1999) Re: gnome-objc 0.99.8 and GTK 1.2.0 (fwd) James Henstridge Re: gnome-objc 0.99.8 and GTK 1.2.0 (fwd) Mario Vukelic E keybindings Jason Coposky (Mon Mar 1 09:25:41 1999) Re: Gedit not compiling Mario Vukelic (Mon Mar 1 09:06:24 1999) RE: Getting the gnome going Michael James (Mon Mar 1 09:05:39 1999) gmc 4.5.21: make check does rm -rf to th mc source tree Mario Vukelic (Mon Mar 1 08:55:57 1999) Task bar Mark Toller (Mon Mar 1 08:55:08 1999) Task bar Mark Toller Re: Task bar Daniel Burrows Re: ORBit-0.4.0 compile problem Mario Vukelic (Mon Mar 1 08:52:12 1999) guile-gtk Sigmund Freud (Mon Mar 1 05:57:17 1999) Re: guile-gtk Marius Vollmer Re: guile-gtk David Knight Re: GLIB_SYSDEF_POLLIN kmb (Mon Mar 1 05:09:10 1999) gmc crashing Mike Palczewski (Mon Mar 1 04:35:03 1999) Re: New file manager 4.5.23 is out Mike Palczewski (Mon Mar 1 04:27:36 1999) Re: New file manager 4.5.23 is out Mike Palczewski (Mon Mar 1 04:26:25 1999) RE: GNOME development in C++ Marcin Gorycki (Mon Mar 1 03:34:55 1999) RE: gnometris Marcin Gorycki (Mon Mar 1 03:26:59 1999) Re: Session management: Don't save session on exit/Save session now Robert Bihlmeyer (Mon Mar 1 03:06:28 1999) Re: ESD options Robert Bihlmeyer (Mon Mar 1 03:05:32 1999) Re: GTK Themes and Font Sizes James M. Cape (Mon Mar 1 02:14:50 1999) Dependancies Brian Clark Re: Dependancies James Henstridge Re: Control-Center Jesse D . Sightler (Mon Mar 1 01:32:35 1999) Gnome canvas: should it be part of gtk+? Jason Tackaberry (Mon Mar 1 01:24:57 1999) Re: Gnome canvas: should it be part of gtk+? Havoc Pennington Re: Gnome canvas: should it be part of gtk+? Marius Vollmer Quite a few questions... Spud (Mon Mar 1 01:22:20 1999) Re: Quite a few questions... David Ford Re: Control-Center Michal Palczewski (Mon Mar 1 00:30:43 1999)
Corel wants to ship a desktop Linux. They want to ship it soon. This means they have no choice but to use KDE. I have the latest Gnome installed on my system right now and while it's pretty it isn't a release product yet.
to maintain the Linux/GNU reputation for quality and stability Gnome won't ship before the summer ( at best ). Corel could see this last year when they gave a half dozen Netwinders to KDE members.
I expect them to overhaul the print system too since printer drivers have traditionally been WordPerfect's strength.
PS : There are 2 different KDE based all GUI Linux installation programs out there. What's to stop Corel from writing a 3rd or buying into one of those ? ( One will be GPLed the other is unknown )
Let's see. You finger a server and don't close the connection then you finger it again. You keep doing this until the servers process tables overload and it goes under.
There is a simple workaround which is to limit how much resources a daemon can eat up.
It takes 10 hours to bring down a server.
When you do it you can easily be traced by the server admin.
Unix vendors have known about this for years and don't even consider it a problem "[...It's like saying the gas in my car could explode]".
RedHat's Market-Droid had never herd of it but dismissed it in the usual manner "[If there is really a problem it will be fixed quickly]".
There are no real exploits, just an app that went haywire on a client PC and brought down one server at an ISP.
Dose anybody else smell FUD aimed at dampening the "problem" called LinuxWorld ?
1 : The QPL is MORE FREE than the GPL. This is because the QPL allows you to link QPLed code against any Free/OSS license.
You can not link GPL code against QPL code, no matter what Troll Tech says. Authors may grant an exception, but often this has not been granted. The QPL is not more free. I can't fork the tree in any practical way. Who cares? Libraries should use the LGPL, not the full GPL. (apps can use the LGPL too)
Incorect. QPL-0.92 is GPL compatible READ IT HERE. Somebody got copyright Lawyers to verify it. Basicaly the conclusion was that either the GPL was incompatible with all Licenses but the GPL itself ( including the LGPL, BSD and X Licenses... thus rendering Linux an ilegal product in any form ) or it can be linked against Licenses which alow the things the GPL demands. I.e. Redistribution of modifide source.
2 : The LGPL dose ALLOW and ENCOURAGE the development of 100% proprietary software. If LibC, GlibC and the Kernel headers were not LGPL there would be no commercial apps for Linux at all. Not WordPerfect, Not Netscape nothing.
Proprietary software itself is not evil. I would not object to a QPL application. System libraries must be totally free, without even a hint of doubt. Non-free libraries limit my choice to use free or proprietary software as I see fit. In particular, Qt sticks me with a pseudo-free system.
I like to use the DFSG to determine what is free and what isn't. Somebody on Debian proposed modifying it in such a way that the QPL wold fall outside. The problem is that such a modification wold kill around 1/2 of Debian. The "patch clause" was invented by TeX. QPL-0.92 makes it optional. This means the QPL alows all the GPL dose and then some.
3 : The Only people who have to pay to use QT are those developing proprietary apps. If you use a GPLed lib you just can't do that and your app must be GPL too. If you use LGPL then it's free for all ( encouragement I call it ).
Why discriminate against people? Those that want to use a totally free system should get to have it, without Qt popularity limiting their choice of software. Those that want to use proprietary software should not have to pay a Troll tax.
Ohh. So you want Troll Tech to provide a charity service to let you develop and sell proprietery aplications with the lib they wrote without paying for it or contributing your source code to the comunity ?
4 : The QPL allows you to make and Redistribute modifications to QT. That is Open Source and Free software. For all you people with no knolage (sic) of english or lacking the ability to think for yourselves RMS, ESR and Bruce Perens all say it's OSS/Free thus saving you the effort of having to think for yourselves. I want the right to get a group of fellow hackers together and fork the Qt development as needed. Xemacs, OpenBSD, and egcs would not exist without such a right. If you thought RMS supports you, think again: "The new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it remains desirable to avoid using Qt."
The QPL grants this "right".
Simple. Set up a CVS server and put QT there. Then all you have to do is get people to contribute changes to it under the GPL that they don't want Troll Tech to use ( If the changes are QPL then Troll can take them but it must keep the resulting total QPL ).
The difficulty is that you will not find a single programer who is capable of leading the development of a GUI library who will do the work. You can't do it and neither can anyone who whines about the QPL being unfree.
There used to be a Harmony project dedicated to making an LGPLed QT clone. It could have been complete in another 9 months or so. As soon as the developers read the QPL they stopped working on it. All of them.
Why don't you pick up where they left off ? Harmony is still on ftp.kde.org and if you can't find it I have it on my hard drive.
The final source of contention is that the QPL isn't GPL compatible. Check out the last 50 posts on kde-licensing ( the log can be found under kde.org )
AC. If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up. People like you just make us look like illiterate morons. Can't you read ? HTTP://www.troll.no/qpl
You have no idea what freedom is and you have no idea how to read a license and understand what it means. If you did you would understand that the QPL allows everything the GPL dose.
This includes taking the whole archive and forking the code.
It includes sending out patches to your customers or to everybody on the web when you find them. It includes sending out RPMs of the complete patched version without so much as asking Troll Tech.
In fact the only thing that the QPL doesn't allow is linking proprietary applications to QT. For that you need the $1,299 "Professional Edition".
I fail to see this as a problem. If Corel wants to use QT for Corel Draw they can pay this fee and recover it when they sell the app. If they think the price is unreasonable they can use GTK or Lestif without paying a cent or they can shell out some money for Motif or one of the gazillion Linux compatible GUI Libs. The Apps will still work on the KDE desktop.
Libraries should use the LGPL. It is enough like the GPL to prevent severe proprietary abuse, but does not cause problems for those that prefer to write apps with the BSD license.
I Really do Hate reading this level of BS.
1 : The QPL is MORE FREE than the GPL. This is because the QPL allows you to link QPLed code against any Free/OSS license.
2 : The LGPL dose ALLOW and ENCOURAGE the development of 100% proprietary software. If LibC, GlibC and the Kernel headers were not LGPL there would be no commercial apps for Linux at all. Not WordPerfect, Not Netscape nothing.
3 : The Only people who have to pay to use QT are those developing proprietary apps. If you use a GPLed lib you just can't do that and your app must be GPL too. If you use LGPL then it's free for all ( encouragement I call it ).
4 : The QPL allows you to make and Redistribute modifications to QT. That is Open Source and Free software. For all you people with no knolage of english or lacking the ability to think for yourselves RMS, ESR and Bruce Perens all say it's OSS/Free thus saving you the effort of having to think for yourselves.
AC. If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up.
This means they will probably start with something like "Linux Mandrake" and polish it until it shines. Then they will slap the big Corel C on it and call it there own.
KDE will be the center of this equation, even more so than the the 2.2.x Kernel ( everybody has that:). Other enhancements I would expect from a Corel Linux for Windows users is that They will set up Fax as a printer and make it pop up by default if you select print to that printer. ( I.e. You can use Bitfax before the brain is turned on. Why is Megety+SendFax so much more difficult ? )
Corel is clever enough to not make Corel Linux less free than other distribution. I think this is a perfectly legal and efficient name btw. It will sell a hell of a lot better than any other name they could come up with. They already have extensive distribution channels in place ( 2nd only to MS as far as I know ).
Best of all is a quote I got from a DieHard Windows user ( meaning he installed and liked the IE4 BETA ) more than a year ago. "If Corel released and Operating System I would buy it as soon as It came to Jamaica and if it didn't come I would go to Miami for it. Even if I was the only person to buy it".
There is a Tetris included with every copy of QT and Troll Tech makes no claims about ownership that I am aware of other than "We wrote this toy so you can poke through the source and see how cool the QT tool kit is".
Troll is small by corporate standards but it would be nice for these gays to pick on them since Troll would win easily and recoup the cost of going to court.
They don't own the Tetris copyright and they can't own it either. Tetris was created in the 60s/70s by a Russian scientist who refused to collect royalties. He essentially made the Tetris name concept and original source code public domain.
If these yahoos choose to sue then take it to a british court because there is no way they can win.
PS : In England, Jamaica and some other commonwealth countries the looser pays all the expenses and when you bring a merit-less case ( like this one ) the courts are extremely hard on you and have bean known to award punitive damages and to fine you for creating public mischief.
I hope "backoffice" doesn't mean any of the things I have herd referred to as such lately.
1 : A suite of Server products from Microsoft:: They don't know anything about this. Otherwise they would have configured thing to work properly and handle reasonable network loads. It would also have sane HTML.
2 : The room where you keep all the servers and switches etc... I.e. The place where the network admin works. See above for why they shouldn't talk about this. A good admin knows that when his server budget falls below where an NT solution wold be adequet he shul go with [Linux/*BSD]+Apache.
If "backoffice" means something else that I am not aware of then it's OK. Anybody can commit a major blunder when setting up a server. just not someone who is selling advise to networking profesionals.
I hope "backoffice" doesn't mean any of the things I have herd referred to as such lately.
1 : A suite of Server products from Microsoft:: They don't know anything about this. Otherwise they would have configured thing to work properly and handle reasonable network loads. It would also have sane HTML.
2 : The room where you keep all the servers and switches etc... I.e. The place where the network admin works. See above for why they shouldn't talk about this.
If back office means something else that I am not aware of then it's OK. Anybody can commit a major blunder when setting up a server. just not someone who is selling advise to netprofesionals.
That was the mistake they made with marketing Warp. They also know that closed technology from a single vendor can't compeat with open technology from all over the world. That's what killed the PS/2 and Microchanel.
The funny thing is that they were superior technology at the time. It just didn't count for much compared to comodity hardware that was 1/2 as fast and 1/3 as rubost. Since Linux has the advantages on both sides of that war ( better quality and multiple vendors ). IBM knows it's the next cash cow. It's the thing that can push the IBM percentage of PC sales into duble figures.
Quite simply the Windows EULA is a contract. It is all that stands between you and rampantly selling copies of your Windows CDs on street corners.
Since the PC makers and Microsoft are refusing to respect the license agreement it is invalid. If it is invalid then those who have been refused refunds are free to sell copies of the CDs.
Be prepared to fight though. This is a way to bring them to the courtroom since they will laugh off a class action suite for years.
1 : Microsoft abandons Java and starts a Java smellalike that only thinks it's cool.
2 : Somebody else ( Sun, Burland, IBM etc... ) ships Java development tools on the Windows platform.
3 : Microsoft shifts the windows platform to break these other products. Unfortunately twisting it around under at least 3 massive suites like this plus apps written in them is too much of a burden.
4 : As a result W2K ships in 2001 and is less stable than NT4.
This is just another nail in the coffin MS has built for themselves. Windows will be practically dead by 2003. MSBSD ( The "Innovative" version of FreeBSD ) will ship in 2005. Sometime between 2002 and 2007 the stock goes down so hard that brokers start decorating the pavement.
It will all be blamed on the DOJ and Bill will retire to an even more luxurious castle. Probably aboard ISS.
I really hate to use language like this but it's all BS.
This is the most monumental pile of fud I have read in years. So let me relax and tear his claims apart.
1 : Linux is compared to Unix when Reliability is tested. Not Windows NT. This is significant because the only selling point of NT in Big offices is that it's cheaper to deploy and therefore lower quality is acceptable for none critical costs. As long as Linux is Better than NT it's good enough to crush it. Solaris and Aix can stay where they are for now.
2 : All his Embrace and Extend scenarios assume that the GPL doesn't exist. Simply put anyone who sells Linux must keep it open. End of story.
3 : He compared Linux size to that of other unixs and NT based on the number of Lines of code. Sure Linux is small by that measure. Now put it against SCO based on features included in the Kernel. Suddenly Linux is the lumbering giant.
4 : Apache's once large dev team has shrunk to less than 20 because the hype has died down, or maybe it's because the developers have all the features they want so only a dozen good men are needed to fix security breaches and tweak performance.
5 : IIS matches apache in performance. This is the biggest BS of the lot. It's also why I like the idea that Apps based on QT won't be ported to Windows. Apache may be slower than IIS under light loads when running on NT with a large computer that's bearly stressed. Compare Apache on Linux to IIS on NT when both are on identical hardware. Huge difference.
6 : Linux is compared to Unix on market share based only on the $$$ spent. Linux is free to cheap, therefore The fact that it's equal to all the other unixs combined in volume means nothing to this "reporter".
7 : He talks about management difficulties and how Linux development has slowed down since the 2.0 release. In the same section he states how the management problems are being effectively dealt with. I.e. Delegate.
8 : He compares Linux dev team to NT Dev team based on numbers of programers and testers. Linux has 200 full time while NT has 400 full time. Linux has 1000 Par time, NT has 0 part time. NT has 60,000 Beta testers max and 250 internal testers who can peak at the source code. Linux hase over 100,000 testers who peak at the source code. Including me. Too bad that didn't make it in.
This is the most beautiful fud fest I have sean in a long time and yes. It's BS but it's beautiful BS. We are in the 3rd stage of Ms Ghandi's 4 stage struggle. They are fighting us now. Next year we win.
Slashdot Mirror
www.realnetworks.com is runninga 12 on Linux
s t=www.realnetworks.com :)
Thisisarealoperatingsystemfromthefreeworld1.2alph
Linux users include Slashdot, register.com, and Deja News.
====
http://www.netcraft.com/cgi-bin/Survey/whats?ho
====
It's probebly Appache. but boy did they customize
IBM is positioning Linux as an NT alternative. It's only selling it in markets where NT is a serious contender. This is the low end of the server scale.
:)
IBM has 3 other high end server OSs. AIX, OS/400 & OS/390. I they put Linux in the same market they just fragment themselves more and loose money. Let them call Linux a low end server. It doesn't matter because people who deploy high end servers can dig through hype OK. If they couldn't NT would have supplanted AIX long ago.
Linux doesn't need to be marketed on the high end. It just needs to be sold and supported. VA Research ships 8 CPU boxes next month. Linux care supports them immediately and IBM gets to discover high end Linux when it owns the market
Linux Rox
Windows Sux
Sin is Stupid
Among the many slogans that we need to remember for a healthy, happy life.
Avoid the Slashdot efect.
www.us.kde.org
www.de.kde.org
and a few others.
http://www.gnome.org/mailing-lists/archives/gnome- list/1999-March/
/lib/cpp? Jason N Pratt (Wed Mar 3 13:00:02 1999) /lib/cpp? John Huttley
The March Entries include a massive pile of severe bug reports. Most are about outright Crashes in core components. It seams to me that only 2 possibilities exist here.
This is a sampling of just the last 3 days of gnome-list@. The main list, not even the Bug Tracking list. In other words this is where newbis who can't get it to work go to cry for help. Note I cut it off before the Was 1.0 released too early thread.
Sounds to me like someone wanted to delay Gnome 1.0 and was spaming the list under multiple names. 'Astroturf', I call it.
Re: orbitgtk.c kills compile for gnome-libs Shane W Rogers (Wed Mar 3
20:45:45 1999)
Re: orbitgtk.c kills compile for gnome-libs Elliot Lee
Re: orbitgtk.c kills compile for gnome-libs Shane W Rogers
E-Mac.etheme questions mlemsing@swavley.com.au (Wed Mar 3 20:16:05 1999)
German User Guide Knut Neumann (Wed Mar 3 18:29:01 1999)
Re: German User Guide Karl Eichwalder
How can I turn off session management? Mike Dickson (Wed Mar 3 17:57:47
1999)
font sizes in balsa Michael Perry (Wed Mar 3 17:00:46 1999)
GNOME on SuSE 6.0, a nightmare. Martin Hawlisch
Re: GNOME on SuSE 6.0, a nightmare. Karl Eichwalder
Re: GNOME on SuSE 6.0, a nightmare. James Henstridge
Re: GNOME on SuSE 6.0, a nightmare. Jan Gentsch
Re: GNOME on SuSE 6.0, a nightmare. Karl Eichwalder
Minor visual quirk in the panel Daniel Burrows (Wed Mar 3 16:19:58 1999)
Help compiling balsa-0.4.9 Igor S. Livshits (Wed Mar 3 16:02:55 1999)
Re: Help compiling balsa-0.4.9 Spud
Re: Help compiling balsa-0.4.9 Igor S. Livshits
Resizing bug in panel? Daniel Burrows (Wed Mar 3 15:53:43 1999)
Re: Resizing bug in panel? James M. Cape
Gnome-guile Dies James M. Cape (Wed Mar 3 15:51:47 1999)
Re: Gnome-guile Dies James Henstridge
Re: Gnome-guile Dies James M. Cape
Linux Magazin cover story Matthias Warkus (Wed Mar 3 15:51:01 1999)
RE: Linux Magazin cover story Nathan Clegg
E/Gnome window placement quirks Daniel Burrows (Wed Mar 3 15:47:21 1999)
Re: E/Gnome window placement quirks Daniel Burrows
How do you start gnome? (solved) Bryan Schmidt (Wed Mar 3 15:27:06 1999)
How do you start gnome? Bryan Schmidt (Wed Mar 3 14:53:27 1999)
balsa compile Sigmund Freud (Wed Mar 3 13:57:27 1999)
Re:
libungif.so.4? Jason N Pratt (Wed Mar 3 12:06:26 1999)
Re: libungif.so.4? Daniel Veillard
Re: libungif.so.4? Harry Henry Gebel
Difficulties subscribing to gnome-list from home Tim Lewis (Wed Mar 3
11:51:59 1999)
orbitgkt.c kills compile for gnome-libs Shane William Rogers (Wed Mar 3
10:53:07 1999)
Eterm is looking at e's bg, not gnome's Mike Dickson (Wed Mar 3 10:30:30 1999)
Re: Eterm is looking at e's bg, not gnome's Daniel Burrows
Re: Eterm is looking at e's bg, not gnome's Greg Fall
Re: Eterm is looking at e's bg, not gnome's Tomas Ogren
gdm problems Marcin Gorycki (Wed Mar 3 10:25:24 1999)
Gnome without sound Aaron Held (Wed Mar 3 09:49:08 1999)
compile gdm i2ambler (Wed Mar 3 08:41:31 1999)
OT: Blackbox... Jason N Pratt (Wed Mar 3 08:17:27 1999)
Re: OT: Blackbox... Gleef
balsa-v0.4.6.2 on gnome-0.98 Adam Moyes (Wed Mar 3 07:04:29 1999)
RPM problem Benjamin Walling (Wed Mar 3 07:00:29 1999)
Re: RPM problem Gleef
Reducing size of icone and panel Franco Spinelli (Wed Mar 3 04:01:30 1999)
Re: Reducing size of icone and panel James Henstridge
Re: Reducing size of icone and panel Shooby Ban
Startup help for a newbie? Jim Meyer (Wed Mar 3 02:00:31 1999)
Re: Startup help for a newbie? James Henstridge
Re: Startup help for a newbie? Jim Meyer
Re: Startup help for a newbie? James Henstridge
gnumeric Michel Bertignac (Wed Mar 3 00:18:41 1999)
Re: gnumeric Havoc Pennington
RE: gnumeric Michel Bertignac
RE: gnumeric James Henstridge
gmc segfault Daniel Burrows (Tue Mar 2 23:59:40 1999)
The Real State of GNOME Albert Strasheim (Tue Mar 2 22:38:41 1999)
Gnome WindowMaker App Icons won't stay away! Harry Henry Gebel (Tue
Mar 2 19:16:30 1999)
Re: GTK Themes and Font Sizes Matt Martin (Tue Mar 2 19:14:08 1999)
running Gnome without sound Aaron Held (Tue Mar 2 18:32:23 1999)
Off the topic. Simon Murcott (Tue Mar 2 18:24:41 1999)
Proper TERM value for gnome-terminal under Solaris 2.6 Glenn
Kronschnabl (Tue Mar 2 17:27:01 1999)
Re: Gnome-stones Carsten Schaar (Tue Mar 2 16:57:51 1999)
Re: Gnome-stones Carsten Schaar (Tue Mar 2 16:53:24 1999)
pre1.0 Michael Hall (Tue Mar 2 15:42:44 1999)
gnome-session and psuedorandom X crashes. Marshal Wong (Tue Mar 2
14:59:30 1999)
RE: gnome-session and psuedorandom X crashes. Fox, Kevin M
panel bug Fox, Kevin M (Tue Mar 2 14:34:40 1999)
Re: panel bug Arup Kanjilal
Re: panel bug Daniel Burrows
Re: panel bug Daniel Burrows
gtop on Solaris 2.6? run-time errors Glenn Kronschnabl (Tue Mar 2 14:27:59
1999)
Re: gtop on Solaris 2.6? run-time errors Martin Baulig
[slight bug? + patch] gnome-pager Mike McEwan (Tue Mar 2 14:06:38 1999)
Re: [slight bug? + patch] gnome-pager Jesse D . Sightler
Re: [slight bug? + patch] gnome-pager Peter Wainwright
Re: GLIB_SYSDEF_POLLIN kmb (Tue Mar 2 10:17:07 1999)
Bizarre problem with panel and E Daniel Burrows (Tue Mar 2 08:48:16 1999)
Re: Bizarre problem with panel and E Daniel Burrows
Audiofile library -endedness problems? Mark R. Bowyer (Tue Mar 2 07:22:01
1999)
Gmc Desktop and Enlightenment James M. Cape (Tue Mar 2 04:20:52 1999)
First installation and running. A few newbie Questions. Kerry Todyruik
(Tue Mar 2 03:11:44 1999)
Re: First installation and running. A few newbie Questions. Jesse D .
Sightler
Re: Loading things directly from targz/zip files? Stefan Mattauch (Tue Mar 2
02:22:15 1999)
Re: RPM snapshots Gleef (Tue Mar 2 01:55:55 1999)
Re: enlightenment & gnome window placement - solution? Colin Walters
(Tue Mar 2 01:36:04 1999)
enlightenment themes? hitch (Tue Mar 2 00:38:19 1999)
Re: enlightenment themes? Spud
RE: enlightenment themes? David Puryear
RE: enlightenment themes? Federico David Sacerdoti
RE: enlightenment themes? David Puryear
[BUGS] Panel Menu Editor! Jesse D . Sightler (Mon Mar 1 23:49:17 1999)
Re: autoconf-2.13 kmb (Mon Mar 1 23:20:28 1999)
Re: autoconf-2.13 James M. Cape
Re: autoconf-2.13 David Ford
Balsa dies in compile James M. Cape (Mon Mar 1 22:48:27 1999)
Re: Balsa dies in compile Jesse D . Sightler
Panel segfault Jason Tackaberry (Mon Mar 1 22:40:30 1999)
Re: Panel segfault Elliot Lee
Re: Panel segfault Daniel Burrows
GUILE won't compile hhv (Mon Mar 1 22:36:16 1999)
Gnome-guile Compile Dies James M. Cape (Mon Mar 1 22:12:35 1999)
Re: gdm submission Todd Graham Lewis (Mon Mar 1 21:28:45 1999)
gdm submission Todd Graham Lewis (Mon Mar 1 21:00:41 1999)
Re: gdm submission Robert Bihlmeyer
Re: gdm submission Matthew Kirkwood
Re: gdm submission Robert Bihlmeyer
RE: gdm submission Fox, Kevin M
Re: gdm submission Sam Vilain
RE: gdm submission Todd Graham Lewis
Re: gdm submission Erik Andersen
Re: gdm submission Todd Graham Lewis
Re: gdm submission Tomas Ogren
RE: gdm submission Fox, Kevin M
RE: gdm submission Fox, Kevin M
Re: gdm submission Sam Vilain
Re: gdm submission klw
RE: gdm submission Wicks Robert-CRW051C
RE: gdm submission Guillermo S. Romero / unnamed / Familia Romero
RE: gdm submission Fox, Kevin M
RE: gdm submission Todd Graham Lewis
RE: gdm submission Fox, Kevin M
GMC and NFS ~home Bryson Borg (Mon Mar 1 20:36:39 1999)
connection refused by server -> core dump Ronald de Man (Mon Mar 1
20:10:04 1999)
Hiding panel James Charles Lewis (Mon Mar 1 19:40:27 1999)
Re: Hiding panel John St . Clair
GtkICQ and panel Mohammad Abdin (Mon Mar 1 18:38:50 1999)
enlightenment & gnome window placement Colin Walters (Mon Mar 1 18:37:10
1999)
Re: enlightenment & gnome window placement Daniel Burrows
Re: enlightenment & gnome window placement Spud
Re: enlightenment & gnome window placement Matt Martin
Gnome-mixer John St . Clair (Mon Mar 1 18:24:11 1999)
Gnome-guile & CVS GTK+ James M. Cape (Mon Mar 1 17:55:52 1999)
gdk_imlib Mark Toller (Mon Mar 1 17:18:11 1999)
guile-gtk part 2 Sigmund Freud (Mon Mar 1 17:16:15 1999)
GTk 1.20 breaks guitar Michael Perry (Mon Mar 1 17:02:24 1999)
Re: GTk 1.20 breaks guitar Michael Perry
Re: GTk 1.20 breaks guitar Michal Palczewski
Re: GTk 1.20 breaks guitar Michael Perry
Re: gedit-0.5.1 Alex Roberts (Mon Mar 1 14:46:28 1999)
gnome-guile won't compile Miguel A. Figueroa (Mon Mar 1 14:14:53 1999)
Re: gnome-guile won't compile Marius Vollmer
Re: proper gnome startup procedure Tim Lewis (Mon Mar 1 14:10:44 1999)
GDM, and how to use it] Tim Lewis (Mon Mar 1 14:07:06 1999)
Re: GDM, and how to use it] Andrew Clausen
Re: GDM, and how to use it] Tim Lewis
Problems with swallowed XEyes Daniel Burrows (Mon Mar 1 13:58:45 1999)
libgtop probs Sigmund Freud (Mon Mar 1 12:26:01 1999)
Editing the menu Mike Dickson (Mon Mar 1 11:59:02 1999)
balsa 0.4.9: configure: can't find libPropList?? Mario Vukelic (Mon Mar 1
09:34:08 1999)
Re: gnome-objc 0.99.8 and GTK 1.2.0 (fwd) Mario Vukelic (Mon Mar 1 09:29:34
1999)
Re: gnome-objc 0.99.8 and GTK 1.2.0 (fwd) James Henstridge
Re: gnome-objc 0.99.8 and GTK 1.2.0 (fwd) Mario Vukelic
E keybindings Jason Coposky (Mon Mar 1 09:25:41 1999)
Re: Gedit not compiling Mario Vukelic (Mon Mar 1 09:06:24 1999)
RE: Getting the gnome going Michael James (Mon Mar 1 09:05:39 1999)
gmc 4.5.21: make check does rm -rf to th mc source tree Mario Vukelic
(Mon Mar 1 08:55:57 1999)
Task bar Mark Toller (Mon Mar 1 08:55:08 1999)
Task bar Mark Toller
Re: Task bar Daniel Burrows
Re: ORBit-0.4.0 compile problem Mario Vukelic (Mon Mar 1 08:52:12 1999)
guile-gtk Sigmund Freud (Mon Mar 1 05:57:17 1999)
Re: guile-gtk Marius Vollmer
Re: guile-gtk David Knight
Re: GLIB_SYSDEF_POLLIN kmb (Mon Mar 1 05:09:10 1999)
gmc crashing Mike Palczewski (Mon Mar 1 04:35:03 1999)
Re: New file manager 4.5.23 is out Mike Palczewski (Mon Mar 1 04:27:36 1999)
Re: New file manager 4.5.23 is out Mike Palczewski (Mon Mar 1 04:26:25 1999)
RE: GNOME development in C++ Marcin Gorycki (Mon Mar 1 03:34:55 1999)
RE: gnometris Marcin Gorycki (Mon Mar 1 03:26:59 1999)
Re: Session management: Don't save session on exit/Save session now
Robert Bihlmeyer (Mon Mar 1 03:06:28 1999)
Re: ESD options Robert Bihlmeyer (Mon Mar 1 03:05:32 1999)
Re: GTK Themes and Font Sizes James M. Cape (Mon Mar 1 02:14:50 1999)
Dependancies Brian Clark
Re: Dependancies James Henstridge
Re: Control-Center Jesse D . Sightler (Mon Mar 1 01:32:35 1999)
Gnome canvas: should it be part of gtk+? Jason Tackaberry (Mon Mar 1
01:24:57 1999)
Re: Gnome canvas: should it be part of gtk+? Havoc Pennington
Re: Gnome canvas: should it be part of gtk+? Marius Vollmer
Quite a few questions... Spud (Mon Mar 1 01:22:20 1999)
Re: Quite a few questions... David Ford
Re: Control-Center Michal Palczewski (Mon Mar 1 00:30:43 1999)
LD_LIBRARY_PATH is set to include /usr/lib/rvplayer according to 'set | more'.
.ram file.
The links are made to in the Netscape configuration.
rvplayer starts up when I click on a
That's all. silence. No attempt to download or play the file. No PPP traffic. nothing.
Corel wants to ship a desktop Linux. They want to ship it soon. This means they have no choice but to use KDE. I have the latest Gnome installed on my system right now and while it's pretty it isn't a release product yet.
to maintain the Linux/GNU reputation for quality and stability Gnome won't ship before the summer ( at best ). Corel could see this last year when they gave a half dozen Netwinders to KDE members.
I expect them to overhaul the print system too since printer drivers have traditionally been WordPerfect's strength.
PS : There are 2 different KDE based all GUI Linux installation programs out there. What's to stop Corel from writing a 3rd or buying into one of those ? ( One will be GPLed the other is unknown )
Jump right in.
Flaw ?
Let's see. You finger a server and don't close the connection then you finger it again. You keep doing this until the servers process tables overload and it goes under.
There is a simple workaround which is to limit how much resources a daemon can eat up.
It takes 10 hours to bring down a server.
When you do it you can easily be traced by the server admin.
Unix vendors have known about this for years and don't even consider it a problem "[...It's like saying the gas in my car could explode]".
RedHat's Market-Droid had never herd of it but dismissed it in the usual manner "[If there is really a problem it will be fixed quickly]".
There are no real exploits, just an app that went haywire on a client PC and brought down one server at an ISP.
Dose anybody else smell FUD aimed at dampening the "problem" called LinuxWorld ?
PS : "[...]" means it was paraphrased.
Jump right in.
PS : Flaw ?
You can not link GPL code against QPL code, no matter what Troll Tech says. Authors may grant an exception, but often this has not been granted. The QPL is not more free. I can't fork the tree in any practical way. Who cares? Libraries should use the LGPL, not the full GPL. (apps can use the LGPL too)
Incorect. QPL-0.92 is GPL compatible READ IT HERE. Somebody got copyright Lawyers to verify it. Basicaly the conclusion was that either the GPL was incompatible with all Licenses but the GPL itself ( including the LGPL, BSD and X Licenses ... thus rendering Linux an ilegal product in any form ) or it can be linked against Licenses which alow the things the GPL demands. I.e. Redistribution of modifide source.
2 : The LGPL dose ALLOW and ENCOURAGE the development of 100% proprietary software. If LibC, GlibC and the Kernel headers were not LGPL there would be no commercial apps for Linux at all. Not WordPerfect, Not Netscape nothing.
Proprietary software itself is not evil. I would not object to a QPL application. System libraries must be totally free, without even a hint of doubt. Non-free libraries limit my choice to use free or proprietary software as I see fit. In particular, Qt sticks me with a pseudo-free system.
I like to use the DFSG to determine what is free and what isn't. Somebody on Debian proposed modifying it in such a way that the QPL wold fall outside. The problem is that such a modification wold kill around 1/2 of Debian. The "patch clause" was invented by TeX. QPL-0.92 makes it optional. This means the QPL alows all the GPL dose and then some.
3 : The Only people who have to pay to use QT are those developing proprietary apps. If you use a GPLed lib you just can't do that and your app must be GPL too. If you use LGPL then it's free for all ( encouragement I call it ).
Why discriminate against people? Those that want to use a totally free system should get to have it, without Qt popularity limiting their choice of software. Those that want to use proprietary software should not have to pay a Troll tax.
Ohh. So you want Troll Tech to provide a charity service to let you develop and sell proprietery aplications with the lib they wrote without paying for it or contributing your source code to the comunity ?
4 : The QPL allows you to make and Redistribute modifications to QT. That is Open Source and Free software. For all you people with no knolage (sic) of english or lacking the ability to think for yourselves RMS, ESR and Bruce Perens all say it's OSS/Free thus saving you the effort of having to think for yourselves. I want the right to get a group of fellow hackers together and fork the Qt development as needed. Xemacs, OpenBSD, and egcs would not exist without such a right. If you thought RMS supports you, think again: "The new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it remains desirable to avoid using Qt."
The QPL grants this "right".
Simple. Set up a CVS server and put QT there. Then all you have to do is get people to contribute changes to it under the GPL that they don't want Troll Tech to use ( If the changes are QPL then Troll can take them but it must keep the resulting total QPL ).
The difficulty is that you will not find a single programer who is capable of leading the development of a GUI library who will do the work. You can't do it and neither can anyone who whines about the QPL being unfree.
There used to be a Harmony project dedicated to making an LGPLed QT clone. It could have been complete in another 9 months or so. As soon as the developers read the QPL they stopped working on it. All of them.
Why don't you pick up where they left off ? Harmony is still on ftp.kde.org and if you can't find it I have it on my hard drive.
The final source of contention is that the QPL isn't GPL compatible. Check out the last 50 posts on kde-licensing ( the log can be found under kde.org )
AC. If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up. People like you just make us look like illiterate morons. Can't you read ? HTTP://www.troll.no/qpl
You have no idea what freedom is and you have no idea how to read a license and understand what it means. If you did you would understand that the QPL allows everything the GPL dose.
This includes taking the whole archive and forking the code.
It includes sending out patches to your customers or to everybody on the web when you find them. It includes sending out RPMs of the complete patched version without so much as asking Troll Tech.
In fact the only thing that the QPL doesn't allow is linking proprietary applications to QT. For that you need the $1,299 "Professional Edition".
I fail to see this as a problem. If Corel wants to use QT for Corel Draw they can pay this fee and recover it when they sell the app. If they think the price is unreasonable they can use GTK or Lestif without paying a cent or they can shell out some money for Motif or one of the gazillion Linux compatible GUI Libs. The Apps will still work on the KDE desktop.
I Really do Hate reading this level of BS.
1 : The QPL is MORE FREE than the GPL. This is because the QPL allows you to link QPLed code against any Free/OSS license.
2 : The LGPL dose ALLOW and ENCOURAGE the development of 100% proprietary software. If LibC, GlibC and the Kernel headers were not LGPL there would be no commercial apps for Linux at all. Not WordPerfect, Not Netscape nothing.
3 : The Only people who have to pay to use QT are those developing proprietary apps. If you use a GPLed lib you just can't do that and your app must be GPL too. If you use LGPL then it's free for all ( encouragement I call it ).
4 : The QPL allows you to make and Redistribute modifications to QT. That is Open Source and Free software. For all you people with no knolage of english or lacking the ability to think for yourselves RMS, ESR and Bruce Perens all say it's OSS/Free thus saving you the effort of having to think for yourselves.
AC. If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up.
This means they will probably start with something like "Linux Mandrake" and polish it until it shines. Then they will slap the big Corel C on it and call it there own.
:). Other enhancements I would expect from a Corel Linux for Windows users is that They will set up Fax as a printer and make it pop up by default if you select print to that printer. ( I.e. You can use Bitfax before the brain is turned on. Why is Megety+SendFax so much more difficult ? )
KDE will be the center of this equation, even more so than the the 2.2.x Kernel ( everybody has that
Corel is clever enough to not make Corel Linux less free than other distribution. I think this is a perfectly legal and efficient name btw. It will sell a hell of a lot better than any other name they could come up with. They already have extensive distribution channels in place ( 2nd only to MS as far as I know ).
Best of all is a quote I got from a DieHard Windows user ( meaning he installed and liked the IE4 BETA ) more than a year ago. "If Corel released and Operating System I would buy it as soon as It came to Jamaica and if it didn't come I would go to Miami for it. Even if I was the only person to buy it".
This is what seperates the big boys from ZDNet.
The readers of the Wall Streat Jurnal and the
NWTimes and such rags will kick and scream when
they are told claptrap or FUD.
Enquirer, Cosmopolitan and Most of ZD dosn't have
the same kind of apeal.
Note that "Smart Reseler" who's target is in it's
name gives realetively FUDless coverage.
There is a Tetris included with every copy of QT and Troll Tech makes no claims about ownership that I am aware of other than "We wrote this toy so you can poke through the source and see how cool the QT tool kit is".
Troll is small by corporate standards but it would be nice for these gays to pick on them since Troll would win easily and recoup the cost of going to court.
They don't own the Tetris copyright and they can't own it either. Tetris was created in the 60s/70s by a Russian scientist who refused to collect royalties. He essentially made the Tetris name concept and original source code public domain.
If these yahoos choose to sue then take it to a british court because there is no way they can win.
PS : In England, Jamaica and some other commonwealth countries the looser pays all the expenses and when you bring a merit-less case ( like this one ) the courts are extremely hard on you and have bean known to award punitive damages and to fine you for creating public mischief.
I hope "backoffice" doesn't mean any of the things I have herd referred to as such lately.
:: They don't know anything about this. Otherwise they would have configured thing to work properly and handle reasonable network loads. It would also have sane HTML.
1 : A suite of Server products from Microsoft
2 : The room where you keep all the servers and switches etc... I.e. The place where the network admin works. See above for why they shouldn't talk about this. A good admin knows that when his server budget falls below where an NT solution wold be adequet he shul go with [Linux/*BSD]+Apache.
If "backoffice" means something else that I am not aware of then it's OK. Anybody can commit a major blunder when setting up a server. just not someone who is selling advise to networking profesionals.
I hope "backoffice" doesn't mean any of the things I have herd referred to as such lately.
:: They don't know anything about this. Otherwise they would have configured thing to work properly and handle reasonable network loads. It would also have sane HTML.
1 : A suite of Server products from Microsoft
2 : The room where you keep all the servers and switches etc... I.e. The place where the network admin works. See above for why they shouldn't talk about this.
If back office means something else that I am not aware of then it's OK. Anybody can commit a major blunder when setting up a server. just not someone who is selling advise to netprofesionals.
That was the mistake they made with marketing Warp. They also know that closed technology from a single vendor can't compeat with open technology from all over the world. That's what killed the PS/2 and Microchanel.
The funny thing is that they were superior technology at the time. It just didn't count for much compared to comodity hardware that was 1/2 as fast and 1/3 as rubost. Since Linux has the advantages on both sides of that war ( better quality and multiple vendors ). IBM knows it's the next cash cow. It's the thing that can push the IBM percentage of PC sales into duble figures.
After the St. Valentines day massacre one of the victims was found bleeding and dying among the corpses. he was asked who did this. His response ?
"Nobody. Nobody shot me."
Microsoft instills that kind of terror.
for the people who were refused refunds.
Quite simply the Windows EULA is a contract. It is all that stands between you and rampantly selling copies of your Windows CDs on street corners.
Since the PC makers and Microsoft are refusing to respect the license agreement it is invalid. If it is invalid then those who have been refused refunds are free to sell copies of the CDs.
Be prepared to fight though. This is a way to bring them to the courtroom since they will laugh off a class action suite for years.
Here is the scenario as I see it.
1 : Microsoft abandons Java and starts a Java smellalike that only thinks it's cool.
2 : Somebody else ( Sun, Burland, IBM etc... ) ships Java development tools on the Windows platform.
3 : Microsoft shifts the windows platform to break these other products. Unfortunately twisting it around under at least 3 massive suites like this plus apps written in them is too much of a burden.
4 : As a result W2K ships in 2001 and is less stable than NT4.
This is just another nail in the coffin MS has built for themselves. Windows will be practically dead by 2003. MSBSD ( The "Innovative" version of FreeBSD ) will ship in 2005. Sometime between 2002 and 2007 the stock goes down so hard that brokers start decorating the pavement.
It will all be blamed on the DOJ and Bill will retire to an even more luxurious castle. Probably aboard ISS.
I never thoght of this.
:)
I hate slicing bread so much that I used to always get naged ( by mom of course ) for my 3" thick slices.
This might help things.
Thean again it still neads a blade
Look in QT. There is a full blown tetris there for your playing plesure :).
/usr/local/qt/examples/tetrix
Probebly why the KDE crew didn't bother.
I really hate to use language like this but it's all BS.
This is the most monumental pile of fud I have read in years. So let me relax and tear his claims apart.
1 : Linux is compared to Unix when Reliability is tested. Not Windows NT. This is significant because the only selling point of NT in Big offices is that it's cheaper to deploy and therefore lower quality is acceptable for none critical costs. As long as Linux is Better than NT it's good enough to crush it. Solaris and Aix can stay where they are for now.
2 : All his Embrace and Extend scenarios assume that the GPL doesn't exist. Simply put anyone who sells Linux must keep it open. End of story.
3 : He compared Linux size to that of other unixs and NT based on the number of Lines of code. Sure Linux is small by that measure. Now put it against SCO based on features included in the Kernel. Suddenly Linux is the lumbering giant.
4 : Apache's once large dev team has shrunk to less than 20 because the hype has died down, or maybe it's because the developers have all the features they want so only a dozen good men are needed to fix security breaches and tweak performance.
5 : IIS matches apache in performance. This is the biggest BS of the lot. It's also why I like the idea that Apps based on QT won't be ported to Windows. Apache may be slower than IIS under light loads when running on NT with a large computer that's bearly stressed. Compare Apache on Linux to IIS on NT when both are on identical hardware. Huge difference.
6 : Linux is compared to Unix on market share based only on the $$$ spent. Linux is free to cheap, therefore The fact that it's equal to all the other unixs combined in volume means nothing to this "reporter".
7 : He talks about management difficulties and how Linux development has slowed down since the 2.0 release. In the same section he states how the management problems are being effectively dealt with. I.e. Delegate.
8 : He compares Linux dev team to NT Dev team based on numbers of programers and testers. Linux has 200 full time while NT has 400 full time. Linux has 1000 Par time, NT has 0 part time. NT has 60,000 Beta testers max and 250 internal testers who can peak at the source code. Linux hase over 100,000 testers who peak at the source code. Including me.
Too bad that didn't make it in.
This is the most beautiful fud fest I have sean in a long time and yes. It's BS but it's beautiful BS. We are in the 3rd stage of Ms Ghandi's 4 stage struggle. They are fighting us now. Next year we win.