My guess is that your smaller outfits which only make HDs don't get much out of it at all.
It's the bigger companies (IBM might be an example, but I'm not pointing the finger; I don't know what their corporate strategies are on this issue) which can see a market for appliances with content-management (smart car radios which allow you to transfer a limited number of your own personal CDS as long as they are yours, etc...) that have an interest, I suppose.
As we move into a technological environment where the barrier to copying music is lower and lower, where it's easier and easier for "normal" people to copy music to/from their friends, the car, the internet, the industry is searching for new revenue schemes.
I understand their search, I don't think this is the right way, but I must admit I don't know what/is/ the right way.
On the contrary, the answer is simply that Microsoft are in fact, despite their public protestations occasionally, strongly in favour of software piracy. Market share is much more important to microsoft than money lost from piracy: If even 15% of the (computer-using) world pays for MS products, but another 84% pirates it, then microsoft has a monopoly, which ensures that the law-abiding and rich 15% (mainly in the richer countries) keep buying MS products.
On a similar note, but closer to home, as long as kids and students who can't afford MS products pirate them, the MS monopoly is strengthened. If they could no longer pirate them, they'd be forced to move to cheaper (free?) alternatives, which might increase market conciousness that there/are/ alternatives.
Both the original poster and the register are well aware of this argument;-)
In fact, electrical impulses propagate down the wire at a speed much faster then the motion of the electrons themselves (which as you say, is around 1 to 2 m/sec). Depending on the medium, electrical impulses typically propagate at 10-90% of the speed of light, I think (I don't have figures handy).
This is because what I'm calling an electrical impulse is essentially a ripple in an electro-magnetic field: also known as a photon.
Consider transatlantic, for example. About 5000km, which is 5 million meters. At light-speed, that would take about 17ms. In fact, my ping time to US sites can be as low as 70ms -- so my internet conenction already has 50% lightspeed latency.
In fact, latency is more-or-less orthogonal to bandwidth anyhow (compare bps and baud, not that anyone gets those terms correct anyhow).
Mosaic: Once again privatly funded research. NCSA Mosaic i belive.
NCSA? Private? That would be the national centre for super computing applications, would it? At the university of illinois at Urbana-Champaign?
That's not what I call private funding;-) It was a publically funded, open source (before the term was coined) project from the start.
Similarly, of course, NCSA httpd, which started apache.
In fact, you could reasonably say that the web was invented in a free software environment. I'd call that a significant innovation.
I think ssh counts, too. Not open source now, of course, but the first versions were, and as far as I can remember, it was the first secure telnet thing. Maybe that was stelnet though (but that's open source too), or a kerberised telnet (oops, open source as well).
That's right, he cares about freedom. But freedom isn't all-or-nothing. The APSL gives you some of the freedoms that RMS (and you, and I) agree are desirable. Being given some of those freedoms is, IMO, better than being given none of them.
No. But it does mean that if I come up with the `furious green ideas' foundation, and with it I write an essay defining what I mean by `furious green idea', then at that point I become an authority of what it means.
Of course, it's less black-and-white with `free software', since that might be argued to have had a meaning before RMS started writing about it. (It's that kind of thinking which caused the term `open source' to be born). However, the previous meaning of `free software' was certainly free-as-in-beer.
So, to the extent that RMS crystallised an idea (the idea of free as in speech software), and wrote about it, and chose to call it `Free Software', and built the FSF on it, he is an arbiter of what the term means.
It's a convention in human intercourse that when a term has an accepted meaning by a bunch of people, you agree with them on the definition (and if you want to say something else, you think up a new term). I don't think that's unreasonable.
Otherwise all of your arguments become `Foo Bars do this'. `No they don't, they do this'. `But a Foo Bar is one of these'. `No, that's only your definition, a Foo Bar is actually one of these'.
Hmm... with the 'italic quote' convention, what do I do about italics within italics? Let's try bold
It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
A truly free software license wouldn't/shouldn't care what you do or do not link to.
It's important to notice the difference between a free software license, and a copyleft. A free software license is simply a license which satifies the freedoms RMS suggests (which is very similar to the Debian guidelines). A copyleft is a specific kind of free software license, once which deliberately hinders the progress of non-free software. RMS isn't saying that the APSL must be copyleft to be free; he's just remarking that it isn't copyleft.
To that effect, what Richard Stallman is describing is contradictory to the "freedoms" he describes in the GPL.
Yes. The copyleft is a sort of compromise; it does restrict the users freedoms. It does so, the FSF hopes, to help the 'larger' cause of free software. But you're absolutely right in noticing that it is a restriction.
You're wrong about the middle road, though. The middle road exists, and RMS is happy with it. The middle road is the X11 (BSD without advertising) style licenses, which are free, but not copyleft. Apple's APSL isn't middle-of-the-road, it's just hovering around the right fence;-)
We hate Stallman because he says that, "It you use my code with your code, you have to give your code away."
(Aside: So you hate people for their views on copyright? Nice...)
Ah? I misheard? You hate his views? Fair enough. Let's discuss, then.
Stallman: If you use my code in your code, you have to give your code away 'Old-style' software company: You can't even look at my code! It's private! Don't you dare copy it! That's called piracy, that is!
Well, the contrast is there for all to see. Stallman envisions a world in which, because there is constant, free sharing and reuse of software, the programs get enormously better, and all can use them freely. The GPL is a device (with drawbacks) for acheiving this goal. I can understand that.
To be more mercenary: If you use my code, (in your code, to make a better program), I want something back. Before I heard about free software, I would have asked for money. Now, I'd use the GPL, and hence be asking you to give your code back (not just to me, but to everyone). That's the fee --- I think it's a great one.
If you ship the GPL with your software, and indicate that it is the license for your software, then that's the one you're talking about (that very one there in your tarball).
Of course, if your boilerplate allows the user to use 'any later version, at your option' (which some GPL boilerplates do say) then there is indeed a point. But note the 'at your option' --- that's you (the user), so the user has will always have the option of using 2.0.
So, in practice, RMS couldn't play any damaging tricks, really.
That's a copyright law question, though, so not specific to the GPL (or APSL).
It's `distribution', and copyright law comes into effect, when a copy is made, basically. But the idea of `fair use' outlines some circumstances when making a copy still only constitutes use.
Presumably because, to him, the philosophy behind it is the important part. I agree with him: there are moral, as well as practical, imperatives to use free software. I won't duplicate the arguments here, they're all over the web;-)
With all due respect to the FSF, who cares what they think is
"free software".
People who think that the FSF have thought through many of the issues of free software carefully, and given arguments as to why it is a good thing. Since the FSF (and RMS in particular) have thought about these issues extensively, that makes it interesting (to me) to hear what they have to say. Even when I don't agree with them.
They set up conditions for a definition of "free" and insist till the end of time that software is not "free" unless it follows the GPL (or some very
close and related liscense)
FUD. Look at their website (here comes the link again) and see that there are many other licenses they class as free, that are quite different from the GPL.
Say all you want, its BETTER that not having the source at all. Apple should be given credit
for it.
Hear, hear. I don't think anyone (least of all RMS) would disagree with the above statement
[offtopic remark about trolls] What you wrote certainly isn't a troll. A troll is when an author deliberately makes comments that he doesn't even personally believe to be true, just to incite an argument. You believe what you said, that's not a troll. (Moderators take note, please)
Indeed. RMS would probably be in favour of a total abolition of copyright for computer software. I think I would. But whilst copyright for computer software exists, there is an argument for using a license like the GPL, rather than simply releasing your code with full permissions (which amounts to the X11 license, roughly).
And copyright is not going away any time soon, I fear.
The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL. It does not matter what anyone else attempt to do,
unless you give all software over to their dogmatic cause, then you are the enemy. I don't think Apple should pay them a bit of attention. The FSF's dogma has
always been "My way or the highway."
Well, the FSF think they're right. Of course. Most people who take a philosophical or moral stance think they've taken the right one;) But the FSF do accept many other licenses as being free software, most of them not viral like the GPL. They list here, on their website various licenses, many of which they consider free.
Also, I don't think GPL'ing software gives the FSF any particular control. It's still your copyright, you just happen to have chosen a license their lawyers drafted.
The fact that I can't make a direct system call (and bypassing the LGPL'ed glibc) in Linux without GPL'ing my software is nauseating. The fact that I can't use
the GNU regular expression library without GPLing my software is even more frustrating. What is the point of a library you can't use because of licensing
issues? How is that free?
It's a device to ensure that software stays free. I'm sure you understand this. (I'm not asking you to agree with it, you don't have to). It's a device to protect the author's work, in a different way to a conventional copyright. A conventional copyright protects the author's work by forbidding copying it at all without a fee (and, in general, source code is not available). The GPL protects the author's work by ensuring that derived works must also be GPL'ed (which almost, but not quite, means that their source must be released). The X11 license (also a free software license) simply doesn't protect the author's rights at all.
Oh, and incidentally, a program which syscalls directly is still (probably) not a derived work of the Linux kernel, and so wouldn't need to be GPL'ed. Exactly what a derived work is, is a subjective, not technical, issue.
I don't think that it's important. It's just an attempt to get the zealots stirred up in an attempt to force Apple to accept things on the FSF's terms. I say ignore
them.
I think it's simply RMS saying "It seems Apple wishes this to be free software" (and it does seem that; that does appear to be Apple's intention), and "in my opinion, it still isn't, for this reason". No one is claiming RMS is the only voice that counts, but (for me, at least) his views are interesting, because he has taken a long time to think about the issues involved
Yes, you're right, it is interesting. How Debian continues to function is a constant source of amazement to me, but it does nonetheless...
More or less, Debian functions by consensus, and small areas of local authority. So, just as Linux has the absolute last word about the kernel, each debian developer has the last word about his particular package. In principle, the developers en masse or the project leader can overrule a developer but this very, very, very rarely happens. I can't recall a specific instance at all.
In general, discussions carried out on the mailing list suffice to convince people amicably.
I find the most interesting phenomenon the way my trust (and presumably other peoples') of particular email addresses builds over the months. When I keep seeing a particular email address giving well reasoned arguments, I start to trust that person to understand complex issues, and simply take their word on things I may not have time to investigate fully.
So no, it's not committee as such. More community (oops.. that word will get me in trouble!)
No, of course not. People jumping on the Linux bandwagon typically want a supported solution, and Debian doesn't offer a supported solution; that's not our business. Some companies do offer supported solutions based on Debian (for example, VA and Progeny) but I'm quite aware that RedHat has most of that share; if you're recommending Mandrake to your clients, fair enough.
There's room out there for more than one distro with different aims and objectives.
When I work as a consultant (and I certainly wouldn't call myself top-flight) I recommend Debian; that's for much more down-to-earth reasons like usability, upgradability and maintainability. But my clients typically self-support, so they're not interested in paying for support licenses; that's not the right decision for every company, but it is for some.
It's a very unusual member of the corporate world who knows enough about Linux to formulate a thought like 'if the Debian team had their way, Linux would still be booting off a floppy'! Certainly such an idea has never remotely been a Debian goal; Debian's goals relate to free software, certainly not to limited usability.
Finally, why should we budge about our ideology? Debian is about its ideology. Other distributions may be about other things, and that's all well and good. RMS believes, and I think he may be right (and many, but certainly not all, debian developers agree with me) that free software's inherent advantages make it the best solution. Time will, presumably, show whether we were right.
Do you think so? I'm unconvinced. In fact, I'm not sure if the proportion of non-free software on Linux has even gone up over the last (say) two years. I think probably it's gone down, with a huge number of new open source projects getting close to full functionality, and some prominent non-free projects going free (mysql, netscape, staroffice==openoffice).
Speaking for me personally, the only non-free on my machine is netscape and a couple of games. I still hope that mozilla will one day soon be a usable as netscape (and I've also just installed konqueror, which looks nice).
Heck, even quake is free and will be moving to debian's main archive soon.
I don't think the lack of official support for non-free is too much of an issue for potential Debian users: apt still installs non-free, and people still sell non-free CDs. I think a bigger issue will be that debian's usability advantages (apt, consistent configuration handling) will be adopted by the other distributions. Not that I mind, of course... everybody wins when things get better.
In terms of debian's leadership, several strong candidates have already put themselves forwards (you should be able to see the nominations at the list archives). I think this coming year will be good for Debian (first release with a fully usable KDE as well as GNOME desktop, for one thing) as well as for the free software community in general.
Roughly speaking, anything better than human persistence of vision is going to look nice and smooth (17-25fps, as a guide).
However, the major confounding factor is that the FPS isn't constant. My machine here will do a comfortable 40-50 fps in quake when there's not much going on, but it will still drop to 10-12 on a busy level with a rocket fight going on.
And when a rocket fight is going on is the last time you want the frame rate to drop!
Ideally, you want a figure which keeps the fps above 30 *all the time*. Typical estimates are that you want a bit over 60fps in a timedemo to assure this.
This is really good stuff... linux support for advanced printing technology (I don't mean super-advanced, just getting the best out of the deskjet I have here) is lagging behind, and these algorithms may well be as good or better than the ones the vendors use in their windows drivers.
There's some good discussion on the GPL/patent issues at the advogato link, so go read that before posting here.
Last I heard, Carmack had a gentle go at them. I don't know how it resolved in the end. Best to draw a veil, IMO, and concentrate attention on the really cool stuff coming out of quakefore, qwf, QER (here) etc.
The source is found on quakeforge.net, or you can use their CVS. Of course, the merged tree talked about in the press release hasn't happened yet.
As for CDs:
No, you don't need a CD. However, you will need the shareware PAK file until openquartz ( on sourceforge) finishes its planned complete replacement. No, there's not much going on on the website, but the mailing list is active.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that your smaller outfits which only make HDs don't get much out of it at all.
/is/ the right way.
It's the bigger companies (IBM might be an example, but I'm not pointing the finger; I don't know what their corporate strategies are on this issue) which can see a market for appliances with content-management (smart car radios which allow you to transfer a limited number of your own personal CDS as long as they are yours, etc...) that have an interest, I suppose.
As we move into a technological environment where the barrier to copying music is lower and lower, where it's easier and easier for "normal" people to copy music to/from their friends, the car, the internet, the industry is searching for new revenue schemes.
I understand their search, I don't think this is the right way, but I must admit I don't know what
Jules
On the contrary, the answer is simply that Microsoft are in fact, despite their public protestations occasionally, strongly in favour of software piracy. Market share is much more important to microsoft than money lost from piracy: If even 15% of the (computer-using) world pays for MS products, but another 84% pirates it, then microsoft has a monopoly, which ensures that the law-abiding and rich 15% (mainly in the richer countries) keep buying MS products.
/are/ alternatives.
;-)
On a similar note, but closer to home, as long as kids and students who can't afford MS products pirate them, the MS monopoly is strengthened. If they could no longer pirate them, they'd be forced to move to cheaper (free?) alternatives, which might increase market conciousness that there
Both the original poster and the register are well aware of this argument
Jules
I'm afraid that's not quite to the point...
In fact, electrical impulses propagate down the wire at a speed much faster then the motion of the electrons themselves (which as you say, is around 1 to 2 m/sec). Depending on the medium, electrical impulses typically propagate at 10-90% of the speed of light, I think (I don't have figures handy).
This is because what I'm calling an electrical impulse is essentially a ripple in an electro-magnetic field: also known as a photon.
Consider transatlantic, for example. About 5000km, which is 5 million meters. At light-speed, that would take about 17ms. In fact, my ping time to US sites can be as low as 70ms -- so my internet conenction already has 50% lightspeed latency.
In fact, latency is more-or-less orthogonal to bandwidth anyhow (compare bps and baud, not that anyone gets those terms correct anyhow).
Jules
Mosaic: Once again privatly funded research. NCSA Mosaic i belive.
;-) It was a publically funded, open source (before the term was coined) project from the start.
NCSA? Private? That would be the national centre for super computing applications, would it? At the university of illinois at Urbana-Champaign?
That's not what I call private funding
Similarly, of course, NCSA httpd, which started apache.
In fact, you could reasonably say that the web was invented in a free software environment. I'd call that a significant innovation.
I think ssh counts, too. Not open source now, of course, but the first versions were, and as far as I can remember, it was the first secure telnet thing. Maybe that was stelnet though (but that's open source too), or a kerberised telnet (oops, open source as well).
Jules
That's right, he cares about freedom. But freedom isn't all-or-nothing. The APSL gives you some of the freedoms that RMS (and you, and I) agree are desirable. Being given some of those freedoms is, IMO, better than being given none of them.
Jules
No. But it does mean that if I come up with the `furious green ideas' foundation, and with it I write an essay defining what I mean by `furious green idea', then at that point I become an authority of what it means.
Of course, it's less black-and-white with `free software', since that might be argued to have had a meaning before RMS started writing about it. (It's that kind of thinking which caused the term `open source' to be born). However, the previous meaning of `free software' was certainly free-as-in-beer.
So, to the extent that RMS crystallised an idea (the idea of free as in speech software), and wrote about it, and chose to call it `Free Software', and built the FSF on it, he is an arbiter of what the term means.
It's a convention in human intercourse that when a term has an accepted meaning by a bunch of people, you agree with them on the definition (and if you want to say something else, you think up a new term). I don't think that's unreasonable.
Otherwise all of your arguments become `Foo Bars do this'. `No they don't, they do this'. `But a Foo Bar is one of these'. `No, that's only your definition, a Foo Bar is actually one of these'.
Jules
Hmm... with the 'italic quote' convention, what do I do about italics within italics? Let's try bold
It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
A truly free software license wouldn't/shouldn't care what you do or do not link to.
It's important to notice the difference between a free software license, and a copyleft. A free software license is simply a license which satifies the freedoms RMS suggests (which is very similar to the Debian guidelines). A copyleft is a specific kind of free software license, once which deliberately hinders the progress of non-free software. RMS isn't saying that the APSL must be copyleft to be free; he's just remarking that it isn't copyleft.
To that effect, what Richard Stallman is describing is contradictory to the "freedoms" he describes in the GPL.
Yes. The copyleft is a sort of compromise; it does restrict the users freedoms. It does so, the FSF hopes, to help the 'larger' cause of free software. But you're absolutely right in noticing that it is a restriction.
You're wrong about the middle road, though. The middle road exists, and RMS is happy with it. The middle road is the X11 (BSD without advertising) style licenses, which are free, but not copyleft. Apple's APSL isn't middle-of-the-road, it's just hovering around the right fence ;-)
Jules
We hate Stallman because he says that, "It you use my code with your code, you have to give your code away."
(Aside: So you hate people for their views on copyright? Nice...)
Ah? I misheard? You hate his views? Fair enough. Let's discuss, then.
Stallman: If you use my code in your code, you have to give your code away
'Old-style' software company: You can't even look at my code! It's private! Don't you dare copy it! That's called piracy, that is!
Well, the contrast is there for all to see. Stallman envisions a world in which, because there is constant, free sharing and reuse of software, the programs get enormously better, and all can use them freely. The GPL is a device (with drawbacks) for acheiving this goal. I can understand that.
To be more mercenary: If you use my code, (in your code, to make a better program), I want something back. Before I heard about free software, I would have asked for money. Now, I'd use the GPL, and hence be asking you to give your code back (not just to me, but to everyone). That's the fee --- I think it's a great one.
Jules
No.
If you ship the GPL with your software, and indicate that it is the license for your software, then that's the one you're talking about (that very one there in your tarball).
Of course, if your boilerplate allows the user to use 'any later version, at your option' (which some GPL boilerplates do say) then there is indeed a point. But note the 'at your option' --- that's you (the user), so the user has will always have the option of using 2.0.
So, in practice, RMS couldn't play any damaging tricks, really.
Jules
That's a copyright law question, though, so not specific to the GPL (or APSL).
It's `distribution', and copyright law comes into effect, when a copy is made, basically. But the idea of `fair use' outlines some circumstances when making a copy still only constitutes use.
Jules
Presumably because, to him, the philosophy behind it is the important part. I agree with him: there are moral, as well as practical, imperatives to use free software. I won't duplicate the arguments here, they're all over the web ;-)
With all due respect to the FSF, who cares what they think is "free software".
People who think that the FSF have thought through many of the issues of free software carefully, and given arguments as to why it is a good thing. Since the FSF (and RMS in particular) have thought about these issues extensively, that makes it interesting (to me) to hear what they have to say. Even when I don't agree with them.
They set up conditions for a definition of "free" and insist till the end of time that software is not "free" unless it follows the GPL (or some very close and related liscense)
FUD. Look at their website (here comes the link again) and see that there are many other licenses they class as free, that are quite different from the GPL.
Say all you want, its BETTER that not having the source at all. Apple should be given credit for it.
Hear, hear. I don't think anyone (least of all RMS) would disagree with the above statement
[offtopic remark about trolls] What you wrote certainly isn't a troll. A troll is when an author deliberately makes comments that he doesn't even personally believe to be true, just to incite an argument. You believe what you said, that's not a troll. (Moderators take note, please)
Jules
Indeed. RMS would probably be in favour of a total abolition of copyright for computer software. I think I would. But whilst copyright for computer software exists, there is an argument for using a license like the GPL, rather than simply releasing your code with full permissions (which amounts to the X11 license, roughly).
And copyright is not going away any time soon, I fear.
The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL. It does not matter what anyone else attempt to do, unless you give all software over to their dogmatic cause, then you are the enemy. I don't think Apple should pay them a bit of attention. The FSF's dogma has always been "My way or the highway."
Well, the FSF think they're right. Of course. Most people who take a philosophical or moral stance think they've taken the right one ;) But the FSF do accept many other licenses as being free software, most of them not viral like the GPL. They list here, on their website various licenses, many of which they consider free.
Also, I don't think GPL'ing software gives the FSF any particular control. It's still your copyright, you just happen to have chosen a license their lawyers drafted.
The fact that I can't make a direct system call (and bypassing the LGPL'ed glibc) in Linux without GPL'ing my software is nauseating. The fact that I can't use the GNU regular expression library without GPLing my software is even more frustrating. What is the point of a library you can't use because of licensing issues? How is that free?
It's a device to ensure that software stays free. I'm sure you understand this. (I'm not asking you to agree with it, you don't have to). It's a device to protect the author's work, in a different way to a conventional copyright. A conventional copyright protects the author's work by forbidding copying it at all without a fee (and, in general, source code is not available). The GPL protects the author's work by ensuring that derived works must also be GPL'ed (which almost, but not quite, means that their source must be released). The X11 license (also a free software license) simply doesn't protect the author's rights at all.
Oh, and incidentally, a program which syscalls directly is still (probably) not a derived work of the Linux kernel, and so wouldn't need to be GPL'ed. Exactly what a derived work is, is a subjective, not technical, issue.
I don't think that it's important. It's just an attempt to get the zealots stirred up in an attempt to force Apple to accept things on the FSF's terms. I say ignore them.
I think it's simply RMS saying "It seems Apple wishes this to be free software" (and it does seem that; that does appear to be Apple's intention), and "in my opinion, it still isn't, for this reason". No one is claiming RMS is the only voice that counts, but (for me, at least) his views are interesting, because he has taken a long time to think about the issues involved
Jules
Or, indeed, one microkelvin. 1 uK (given the absence of a mu on my keyboard).
This is what we have units for, after all.
Yes, you're right, it is interesting. How Debian continues to function is a constant source of amazement to me, but it does nonetheless...
More or less, Debian functions by consensus, and small areas of local authority. So, just as Linux has the absolute last word about the kernel, each debian developer has the last word about his particular package. In principle, the developers en masse or the project leader can overrule a developer but this very, very, very rarely happens. I can't recall a specific instance at all.
In general, discussions carried out on the mailing list suffice to convince people amicably.
I find the most interesting phenomenon the way my trust (and presumably other peoples') of particular email addresses builds over the months. When I keep seeing a particular email address giving well reasoned arguments, I start to trust that person to understand complex issues, and simply take their word on things I may not have time to investigate fully.
So no, it's not committee as such. More community (oops.. that word will get me in trouble!)
Jules
No, of course not. People jumping on the Linux bandwagon typically want a supported solution, and Debian doesn't offer a supported solution; that's not our business. Some companies do offer supported solutions based on Debian (for example, VA and Progeny) but I'm quite aware that RedHat has most of that share; if you're recommending Mandrake to your clients, fair enough.
There's room out there for more than one distro with different aims and objectives.
When I work as a consultant (and I certainly wouldn't call myself top-flight) I recommend Debian; that's for much more down-to-earth reasons like usability, upgradability and maintainability. But my clients typically self-support, so they're not interested in paying for support licenses; that's not the right decision for every company, but it is for some.
It's a very unusual member of the corporate world who knows enough about Linux to formulate a thought like 'if the Debian team had their way, Linux would still be booting off a floppy'! Certainly such an idea has never remotely been a Debian goal; Debian's goals relate to free software, certainly not to limited usability.
Finally, why should we budge about our ideology? Debian is about its ideology. Other distributions may be about other things, and that's all well and good. RMS believes, and I think he may be right (and many, but certainly not all, debian developers agree with me) that free software's inherent advantages make it the best solution. Time will, presumably, show whether we were right.
Do you think so? I'm unconvinced. In fact, I'm not sure if the proportion of non-free software on Linux has even gone up over the last (say) two years. I think probably it's gone down, with a huge number of new open source projects getting close to full functionality, and some prominent non-free projects going free (mysql, netscape, staroffice==openoffice).
Speaking for me personally, the only non-free on my machine is netscape and a couple of games. I still hope that mozilla will one day soon be a usable as netscape (and I've also just installed konqueror, which looks nice).
Heck, even quake is free and will be moving to debian's main archive soon.
I don't think the lack of official support for non-free is too much of an issue for potential Debian users: apt still installs non-free, and people still sell non-free CDs. I think a bigger issue will be that debian's usability advantages (apt, consistent configuration handling) will be adopted by the other distributions. Not that I mind, of course... everybody wins when things get better.
In terms of debian's leadership, several strong candidates have already put themselves forwards (you should be able to see the nominations at the list archives). I think this coming year will be good for Debian (first release with a fully usable KDE as well as GNOME desktop, for one thing) as well as for the free software community in general.
There's some stuff at www.toybuilders.com, check there.
Roughly speaking, anything better than human persistence of vision is going to look nice and smooth (17-25fps, as a guide).
However, the major confounding factor is that the FPS isn't constant. My machine here will do a comfortable 40-50 fps in quake when there's not much going on, but it will still drop to 10-12 on a busy level with a rocket fight going on.
And when a rocket fight is going on is the last time you want the frame rate to drop!
Ideally, you want a figure which keeps the fps above 30 *all the time*. Typical estimates are that you want a bit over 60fps in a timedemo to assure this.
Jules
Of course, he also explains why he doesn't use the LGPL.
Because then someone could build libpatents.so, under the LGPL, and then link their proprietary code to it.
Actually, it would be possible to forbid the latter (this is patent law, not copyright law) but he hasn't opted for that route.
Jules
This is really good stuff... linux support for advanced printing technology (I don't mean super-advanced, just getting the best out of the deskjet I have here) is lagging behind, and these algorithms may well be as good or better than the ones the vendors use in their windows drivers.
There's some good discussion on the GPL/patent issues at the advogato link, so go read that before posting here.
Jules
Yes, that document refers to the current system in QWF. The new asymettric system is planned, but not yet implemented.
Jules
You're thinking of quakelives.
Last I heard, Carmack had a gentle go at them. I don't know how it resolved in the end. Best to draw a veil, IMO, and concentrate attention on the really cool stuff coming out of quakefore, qwf, QER (here) etc.
Jules
The source is found on quakeforge.net, or you can use their CVS. Of course, the merged tree talked about in the press release hasn't happened yet.
As for CDs:
No, you don't need a CD. However, you will need the shareware PAK file until openquartz ( on sourceforge) finishes its planned complete replacement. No, there's not much going on on the website, but the mailing list is active.
Jules