For any software company to ever go "Open Source", the community must accept sources that are open (i.e. given to purchasers along with the binaries) but aren't freely redistributable. Until this happens, don't expect Be, Adobe, Oracle, Inprise, Microsoft, or any of the thousands of other ISVs to go open. I'm amazed that so many slashdotters don't understand that companies have to pay their bills and most employees don't work for free.
As someone out there probably knows, I'm an ex-Amiga guy who had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from the platform and still look back woth findness and occasional use. Now, I've always suspected that this was a smokescreen, but we were always told by the software houses over here that they were desperate to get out of the Amiga market because piracy was horrific. I'm still not convinced that the Windows platform is populated exclusively with good little boys and girls who never illegally distrubute, but, anyway, they left us thanks to piracy. The point here is that most people have worked out that copying software isn't all that tricky and the chance of you going down for it as a home user is nil. If we're honest, this is why most CD burners are sold.
Anyway, the reason people hang on to source is that they've worked out that releasing it would be commercial suicide. As soon as they do so, copying it becomes easier, as do users not buying the upgrades that they depend on for their survival, as someone else can patch in the little details.
Much as some of us may be enamoured with the GPL, it's not an easy world to make money in by any means. And, looking at GPL software right now, I have to say that it's not at a stage where it could replace commercial software. Besides, why should it be immoral for me to want to earn a living from my skills?
I like the idea of open source, but it would kill the software industry overnight if they all had to do it that way, and we'd be set back a long way. So, open the APIs or, even better, modularise heavily and open the object interfaces. You then have most of the technical advantages (I'll leave politics out of this one) but commercial survival remains possible.
Greg
Re:"This car is crap, it crashed into a wall!"
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 1
Firstly, I agree that it's entirely possible that his upgrade was pre-release code. He doesn't state it so we'll never know, but that would be one possibility.
However, while I don't expect beta software to be reliable, I do expect it not to kill my system on installation if it's been on the servers for more than a few days. And, as a side issue, the OS really ought to trap programs doing anything that will kill it...
I know exactly what you mean about a nice thing about GNU/Linux being that it's possible for the techies to fiddle - I'm a Comp. Sci. undergraduate myself. You're being a little dismissive of journalists though, many actually know what they're talking about as a pretty high perecntage have moved across from development.
Equally, I know what you mean about possibilities against responsibilities. But the fact is that there are enough things that an average user might do which can kill your GNU/Linux install that it really can't be considered user friendly, whiel the same isn't true with BeOS.
Ultimately, we'll never know as we won't find what he was installing. But the point stands: he tried something he thought was reasonable as a likely experienced user, and it killed his system. Not good.
Greg
Re:"This car is crap, it crashed into a wall!"
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 1
All I can say is that someone who so stupid that they manage to break their system by RPM nstalling the GTK/GLib bits and bobs shouldn't be given credit for anymore insight than Jesse Berst.
It must have been in a sorry-ass state before he started.
Sorry, but this is just bashing. Sure, it may not have been in the cleanest state out there, but the point is that it had got into that state in the hands of someone who has enough of a clue about computers to have at least two OSs installed. That doesn't make him a God, but it gives us an indication that he's no moron.
The point is that, for whatever reason, a simple upgrade killed his machine. That shouldn't happen, whatever the reasons.
The fact remains, GNU/Linux is not the most user friendly system out there, and that isn't likely to change (though I'm giving that as opinion not fact before I get flamed). BeOS proved easier for this guy to work with, so instead of bashing him you should be looking at why it proved easier and what lessons can be, erm, 'borrowed' from BeOS to make GNU/Linux a better system. Otherwise, it's going to stay as a relatively obscure system used on the odd server and by GPL zealots, but no-one else.
Not really - Amigas were a hardware/software combination rather than software for a commodity platform, so support's rather different:)
Also, think worldwide. Over here, the Amiga was a killer games machine in the main. Very little pro use at all.
It is nice to see something else out there that is following on from the Amiga OS as a style, though. I'd buy it like a shot if I could only think of a program for it I want to run
Usability. The GNU/Linux xulture has resulted in an OS which may well be technically pretty strong - not the best by a mile, but useable - but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't an experienced techie. It's miles off.
Greg
Re:o/~ Troll, troll, troll, troll... o/~
on
BeOS r4.5 released
·
· Score: 1
Yes, the spelling's a little funny:)
OK, what laughs with the content then? Maybe you don't like what we're doing, maybe head in the clouds is your view. But we're trying to get something done here that's genuienly new and combines the best of both the open- and closed-source worlds. It's going to be tough, but I can tell you it's fun!
Greg
Re:o/~ Troll, troll, troll, troll... o/~
on
BeOS r4.5 released
·
· Score: 1
I have to agree here, in that BeOS is nice regardless of licensing considerations. Yes, it's nice to have ultimate freedom to tinker, but it's also nice to have a technically superior product, which BeOS definitely is. I can see BeOS doing very nicely thankyou in a few years time, while I know I'm getting bored of religious extremists preaching the GPL whenever GNU/Linux comes into a discussion. It's been said often enough before that many of the advocates of my old favourite - the Amiga - actually did us more harm than good, and I can see the same happening with Linux. Which, nice as it is, isn't a technological breakthrough, it's just UNIX on GPL.
Incidentally, something you guys might want to have a look at - KOSH. OK, I know we're not exactly progressing at the speed of light, but we _are_ doing better than we were a few months ago (honest!) and I see KOSH as a nice halfway house here. Yes, we'd be talking about a corporate product, but not one owned by institutional shareholders, one run by the people who actually depended on it. Net result, you don't get the bloat or the bugs in the same way, simply becuase the boss who let it happen wouldn't survive the next AGM as the users would rip them to bits.
The other thing to consider is the nature of KOSH as an object based OS. So many people seem to like GNU/Linux because they can fiddle to make it work round their needs. Well, same here. Don't need a certain feature? Don't activate the object. Don't like the way one of the objects works? Replace it, as the interfaces are open so it's not _that_ big a hassle.
I KNOW these are only words ATM, and I KNOW how big a challenge we've got ahead of us. But I see more promise in this idea than anything else I've seen, and I'd love to help it work. I can't believe no-one else out there likes the idea, and support from people like you guys is what we need to make it work. Sure, we may well not make it, but we're trying to break new ground, rather than just sitting back and letting the world pass us by, or reinventing the wheel.
Anyway, the latest information is kicking around at this URL if anyone wants a look. Please, we'd love anyone who wnats to join us in the dream.
I'd have to agree here, guys. So many GNU/Linux types seem to be of the perception that the desktop world goes little or no farther than x86. Now, it's not _that_ bad and, thanks to IBM's licensing of the technology, it's a commodity by now. But in some big ways, it's behind the times and it's going to stay that way until someone decides to break with compatibility - which, let's be honest, isn't going to happen.
I stuck with Amigas for years because I seriously disliked the Wintel platform from a technology POV. TBH, I still do and would move off it like a shot if I found another which had enough software to make life comfortable. I used Macs for years and loced them, in many ways. Sure, MacOS is behind the times and sure, they're only beginning to catch up on some architectural fronts, but this was in a school networking environment, with kids doing all sorts of silly things. Breaking them was near impossible, fixing them relatively simple. As I was leaving, WinNT PCs started appearing, and problems appeared - not just with the OS, either.
Fact is, x86 is only popular on the back of DOS, Windows and cloning. If another platform had had them for any length of time, I'd have to say that x86 simply wouldn't be here in any serious numbers. GNU/Linux always seems a trifle x86 centred to me - which makes sense, when you consider that it was written because Mr. Torvalds wanted an OS to fiddle with on the i386 he already had. Now, I know that GNU/Linux wouldn't have become as popular as it has without being x86 at the start, but it's worth remembering that there are often better platforms elsewhere. Most successful usually doesn't esual best.
I know this one looks like Demon being silly, but the likely cause is far simpler. They got sued a while back for a news article that appeared on one of their servers, despite the fact it wasn't posted by their users. Their plea was an entirely sensible (IMHO) innocent redistribution and pointing out quite how the Internet works, but they lost all the same. It stinks, but it's what's happened and doing something like this is probably necessary to stop them getting sued out of existence.
Slashdot Mirror
For any software company to ever go "Open Source", the community must accept sources that are open (i.e. given to purchasers along with the binaries) but aren't freely redistributable. Until this happens, don't expect Be, Adobe, Oracle, Inprise, Microsoft, or any of the thousands of other ISVs to go open. I'm amazed that so many slashdotters don't understand that companies have to pay their bills and most employees don't work for free.
As someone out there probably knows, I'm an ex-Amiga guy who had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from the platform and still look back woth findness and occasional use. Now, I've always suspected that this was a smokescreen, but we were always told by the software houses over here that they were desperate to get out of the Amiga market because piracy was horrific. I'm still not convinced that the Windows platform is populated exclusively with good little boys and girls who never illegally distrubute, but, anyway, they left us thanks to piracy. The point here is that most people have worked out that copying software isn't all that tricky and the chance of you going down for it as a home user is nil. If we're honest, this is why most CD burners are sold.
Anyway, the reason people hang on to source is that they've worked out that releasing it would be commercial suicide. As soon as they do so, copying it becomes easier, as do users not buying the upgrades that they depend on for their survival, as someone else can patch in the little details.
Much as some of us may be enamoured with the GPL, it's not an easy world to make money in by any means. And, looking at GPL software right now, I have to say that it's not at a stage where it could replace commercial software. Besides, why should it be immoral for me to want to earn a living from my skills?
I like the idea of open source, but it would kill the software industry overnight if they all had to do it that way, and we'd be set back a long way. So, open the APIs or, even better, modularise heavily and open the object interfaces. You then have most of the technical advantages (I'll leave politics out of this one) but commercial survival remains possible.
Greg
Firstly, I agree that it's entirely possible that his upgrade was pre-release code. He doesn't state it so we'll never know, but that would be one possibility.
However, while I don't expect beta software to be reliable, I do expect it not to kill my system on installation if it's been on the servers for more than a few days. And, as a side issue, the OS really ought to trap programs doing anything that will kill it...
I know exactly what you mean about a nice thing about GNU/Linux being that it's possible for the techies to fiddle - I'm a Comp. Sci. undergraduate myself. You're being a little dismissive of journalists though, many actually know what they're talking about as a pretty high perecntage have moved across from development.
Equally, I know what you mean about possibilities against responsibilities. But the fact is that there are enough things that an average user might do which can kill your GNU/Linux install that it really can't be considered user friendly, whiel the same isn't true with BeOS.
Ultimately, we'll never know as we won't find what he was installing. But the point stands: he tried something he thought was reasonable as a likely experienced user, and it killed his system. Not good.
Greg
All I can say is that someone who so stupid that they manage to break their system by RPM nstalling the GTK/GLib bits and bobs shouldn't be given credit for anymore insight than Jesse Berst.
It must have been in a sorry-ass state before he started.
Sorry, but this is just bashing. Sure, it may not have been in the cleanest state out there, but the point is that it had got into that state in the hands of someone who has enough of a clue about computers to have at least two OSs installed. That doesn't make him a God, but it gives us an indication that he's no moron.
The point is that, for whatever reason, a simple upgrade killed his machine. That shouldn't happen, whatever the reasons.
The fact remains, GNU/Linux is not the most user friendly system out there, and that isn't likely to change (though I'm giving that as opinion not fact before I get flamed). BeOS proved easier for this guy to work with, so instead of bashing him you should be looking at why it proved easier and what lessons can be, erm, 'borrowed' from BeOS to make GNU/Linux a better system. Otherwise, it's going to stay as a relatively obscure system used on the odd server and by GPL zealots, but no-one else.
Greg
Not really - Amigas were a hardware/software combination rather than software for a commodity platform, so support's rather different :)
Also, think worldwide. Over here, the Amiga was a killer games machine in the main. Very little pro use at all.
It is nice to see something else out there that is following on from the Amiga OS as a style, though. I'd buy it like a shot if I could only think of a program for it I want to run
Greg
Usability. The GNU/Linux xulture has resulted in an OS which may well be technically pretty strong - not the best by a mile, but useable - but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't an experienced techie. It's miles off.
Greg
Yes, the spelling's a little funny :)
OK, what laughs with the content then? Maybe you don't like what we're doing, maybe head in the clouds is your view. But we're trying to get something done here that's genuienly new and combines the best of both the open- and closed-source worlds. It's going to be tough, but I can tell you it's fun!
Greg
I have to agree here, in that BeOS is nice regardless of licensing considerations. Yes, it's nice to have ultimate freedom to tinker, but it's also nice to have a technically superior product, which BeOS definitely is. I can see BeOS doing very nicely thankyou in a few years time, while I know I'm getting bored of religious extremists preaching the GPL whenever GNU/Linux comes into a discussion. It's been said often enough before that many of the advocates of my old favourite - the Amiga - actually did us more harm than good, and I can see the same happening with Linux. Which, nice as it is, isn't a technological breakthrough, it's just UNIX on GPL.
Incidentally, something you guys might want to have a look at - KOSH. OK, I know we're not exactly progressing at the speed of light, but we _are_ doing better than we were a few months ago (honest!) and I see KOSH as a nice halfway house here. Yes, we'd be talking about a corporate product, but not one owned by institutional shareholders, one run by the people who actually depended on it. Net result, you don't get the bloat or the bugs in the same way, simply becuase the boss who let it happen wouldn't survive the next AGM as the users would rip them to bits.
The other thing to consider is the nature of KOSH as an object based OS. So many people seem to like GNU/Linux because they can fiddle to make it work round their needs. Well, same here. Don't need a certain feature? Don't activate the object. Don't like the way one of the objects works? Replace it, as the interfaces are open so it's not _that_ big a hassle.
I KNOW these are only words ATM, and I KNOW how big a challenge we've got ahead of us. But I see more promise in this idea than anything else I've seen, and I'd love to help it work. I can't believe no-one else out there likes the idea, and support from people like you guys is what we need to make it work. Sure, we may well not make it, but we're trying to break new ground, rather than just sitting back and letting the world pass us by, or reinventing the wheel.
Anyway, the latest information is kicking around at this URL if anyone wants a look. Please, we'd love anyone who wnats to join us in the dream.
Greg
I'd have to agree here, guys. So many GNU/Linux types seem to be of the perception that the desktop world goes little or no farther than x86. Now, it's not _that_ bad and, thanks to IBM's licensing of the technology, it's a commodity by now. But in some big ways, it's behind the times and it's going to stay that way until someone decides to break with compatibility - which, let's be honest, isn't going to happen.
I stuck with Amigas for years because I seriously disliked the Wintel platform from a technology POV. TBH, I still do and would move off it like a shot if I found another which had enough software to make life comfortable. I used Macs for years and loced them, in many ways. Sure, MacOS is behind the times and sure, they're only beginning to catch up on some architectural fronts, but this was in a school networking environment, with kids doing all sorts of silly things. Breaking them was near impossible, fixing them relatively simple. As I was leaving, WinNT PCs started appearing, and problems appeared - not just with the OS, either.
Fact is, x86 is only popular on the back of DOS, Windows and cloning. If another platform had had them for any length of time, I'd have to say that x86 simply wouldn't be here in any serious numbers. GNU/Linux always seems a trifle x86 centred to me - which makes sense, when you consider that it was written because Mr. Torvalds wanted an OS to fiddle with on the i386 he already had. Now, I know that GNU/Linux wouldn't have become as popular as it has without being x86 at the start, but it's worth remembering that there are often better platforms elsewhere. Most successful usually doesn't esual best.
Greg
I know this one looks like Demon being silly, but the likely cause is far simpler. They got sued a while back for a news article that appeared on one of their servers, despite the fact it wasn't posted by their users. Their plea was an entirely sensible (IMHO) innocent redistribution and pointing out quite how the Internet works, but they lost all the same. It stinks, but it's what's happened and doing something like this is probably necessary to stop them getting sued out of existence.