I've noticed our community is actually several communities with the majority overlapping.
1. There are many Microsoft bashers. It is kind of sad but true.
2. Linux advocates. They all like Linux for many reason, mostly for its flexability.
3. People who want to try something different.
4. The "Open Source Software made my job easier" people.
5. The Unix people.
6. Free software advocates. Their are many these that watch or contribute to the GNU project consciensly.
7. The "I want cheap software" people.
8. The people who are afraid of a future where they are tied to Microsoft. Not quite the same as the MS bashers.
I tried to put the various people in what think is the order of population. Of course I probably have no idea because of some peoples flamings. For example, the free software advocates have become unfashionable for some reason. Probably because some people have found out how long they can advocate free software before the "have" to play quake. Then propietary software is okay.
This is just my judgement. I haven't written a thesis or anything. Just my opinion.
The fact is, whenever a company that gets really big walks around, people get trampled. Right now Microsoft is doing the trampling. But I would hate to see AOL in MS's place. They would have the power of all them computer illiterates who don't know any better. At least with Microsoft, most of its users know what they are getting into (even though they don't have much of a choice otherwise).
I prefer a number of smaller companies specializing to the needs of the customer instead of trying to get absolute control thier market.
--
This is your wake up call
on
Linux 2.2.10
·
· Score: 1
Good Morning fellow Slashdotters!
I just want to inform you that L1zard_K1n6 is speaking of Linux the same way too many Linux Advocates speak of Windows.
What is good for the geese is good for the gander.
New Moderator Guideline: Anyone who says something bad about Linux is a Troll. Everyone knows that Linux is perfect and there is nothing bad to say about it.
Of course what L1zard_K1n6 is simply untrue. Linux is very tested. But some of these couter-flames are unwarented.
I thought slashdot was OS agnostic?
(Sure, leave it to me to go against public-opinion. Boy, am I gonna be flames!)
Recently Slashdot had an article about software piracy. A number of slashdotters said how that most who pirate software, would not have bought it otherwise.
I think that is true with Red Hat. Most people who use Red Hat, wouldn't use Red Hat if they had to pay. But there are many who do pay, to support what Red Hat is doing.
Sorta like AOL disks. Well, not exactly like AOL disks, but similar. Give out the software for free, let it penetrate the market. In software industry, the more people who use software, the even more people who use the software. Im going to make a guess and say that the people who pay for Red Hat is proportional to the people who don't pay. So, by giving the software free and keeping the quality high of their distro, they get many people using it and more people paying for Red Hat Linux.
This works, because in my judgment, their are more newbies buy Linux than people already familiar to it. When the ratio changes, however, we won't be screwed though. Then the distrobutions will need to make money off of people upgrading their distrobutions. Even if Linux monopolizes the market, we will have numerous distros, trying to compete for market. Just think how much better the world would be if there were multiple distributions of Windows. The competition would raise software quality sky high and their would be a distribution for each niche of the market.
I've read Linux Weekly News weekly and there are really mature about things. They often correct FUD in the press and have the latest about the Kernal, various distributions, and ongoing development projects. They do editorialize at times but their suggestions are very mature and often the correct course of action. I have thought time and again that more of our community should listen to LWN instead of the loudest flamer on slashdot. The Open Source model doesn't work with politics.
I am not sure, but I think you are saying that the GPL doesn't give you the freedom to restrict other people's freedom from their own modifications. I wouldn't call that freedom. Just like I don't have the freedom to shoot you.
"Feel free to use my code, as long as you become part of our GPL family. If you don't want to become a part of our GPL family, then don't use my code. I won't share it even if you share your code with others."
Im sorry but this is very vague. The GPL says you have to share. And I don't know what you mean by the GPL family. If you are saying that you want the right to relisence the software and "not be a part of the GPL family" then you are advocating "I want the freedom to restrict freedom".
I am not going tell anyone what liscense to use but if you use a liscense that allows you to restrict my freedom, don't expect me to use or enhance your software. And I think a lot of people agree with me.
The Publicity aside for the moment, what did Red Hat loose? I am not sure about this stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Didn't Raster work on Enlightenment at Red Hat? I mean, it is all free software anyway, only Red Hat isn't paying for it. So Raster will end up doing what he would be doing at Red Hat anyway.
Of course Red Hat could direct what Raster was doing but...
Of course all my arguments are wrong if in fact Raster was hired for doing something else.
Look beyond your eye-balls. The fact that Linux is Open Source is a fundamental advantage. And like most Fundamental advantages are the least obvious to see. Democracy is an example. Sure communism could have given us everything we wanted, but power to the people is so fundamental.
This is the second great loss for Star Trek. So many people look up to skies in hope, and towards technology with possibility, because of Star Trek.
The Star Trek Universe was suppose to be a world were people no longer live for the aquisition of money but for doing what they love for the betterment of mankind. I believe, we, in the free software community, are living some of that. I don't think I need to explain the parellels.
Gee, I didn't expect a well thought out analysis of what I said. I just want to comment on the last point you made:
I think they're a way of the future; I often find GUI-based packet capture and analysis program more convenient than text-based ones like "snoop", for example.
I don't think the elimination of CLIs is necessary, however.
No, absolutly not. An xterm provides everything the console does and more. And I don't think a GUI necessitates a WIMP interface (Windows, Icons, Menus, and Pointers). In fact, I'd rather the keyboard be the major input device of a GUI. But this is all forward thinking thought. I would really like to see Unix evolve into a GUI world.
--
Re:Problems I've had with RH 6 (mostly gnome relat
on
Red Hat Growing Pains
·
· Score: 1
2. I've had the problem on several boxes where gdm/xdm/kdm won't take keyboard input if you boot into runlevel 5. Works fine if you start with 3, and then go to 5 later. Really weird.
I've found that the mouse cursor has to be over the login window in GDM to have keyboard focus.
I changed the subject line as you requested. You are right. Evolution is needed. But how much can an OS evolve before it becomes something else?
As to your first question, baggage is all the layers you have in a Linux system. Kernal->libraries->shell->X Windows->Windows Manager->GUI toolkit->Desktop Enviroment->Corba. When Unix was still young, there was only the first three or four layers. Now we have so many complexities. This, in my opinion is baggage.
And your second question, Unix was designed for a text-based system. I can name several consequences. Firstly, the directory structure and PATH argument assume you are typing commands from the command line. There is no standard way of registering applications to the system. Secondly, common Unix things like piping and standard input have no equivalence in a GUI shell. The point is that Unix was made for the console. Unix is flexable to allow for modern GUIs and such like many of us use now on our Linux systems. But how far can you stretch Unix until it snaps?
I shouldn't have asked for the death of Unix. But it isn't evolving either. It is just extending itself to incorporate anything new.
Oh, and thanks for not flaming me. As I read your post, I saw how easilty flaming could have been and I asked for it in part. This is just my opinion as to why Unix doesn't give the newbie a good first impression. And I know some people hate to hear it, but GUIs are the way of the future.
What I was talking was just an example of what could happen. And I am not questioning whether Be supports the OSS movement. It is just the simple fact that anything could happen. Sun could buy Be and everything changes. Or maybe if BeOS becomes the main desktop OS in a five years, what then?
BeOS is completely dependent on Be and whatever happens to Be has a direct affect on the BeOS. That is a risk factor.
Lets say Microsoft wants to port MSOffice to BeOS. Be Inc, not being fools, encourages this. Except that there is already a free word processor created by free software developers. So Microsoft says, Hey, change the APIs and we will port. Be does this, because like any company, they are in it for the money and free software quickly becomes a luxury. The free word processor becomes broken.
Im sorry but any serious effort to develop free software for BeOS should be questioned in my opinion.
I hate to be so enthused about this, but a fresh start, IMO, is a very good idea. UNIX has been a console-based operating system for a very long time and that is what it is very good at. But now, with today's GUIs, we need something that is good with a GUI too. Gnome and KDE are nice but it is another layer on top. And may say it looks like baggage.
I am keeping my hopes up, hoping that something like the Hurd and the Berlin Project may make an Operating System that is as good with a graphical user interface as Unix is good with the console.
I think this will have a number of positive side-effects:
* Flesh out the GPLed game engine. I don't think any major games were made with it before (correct me if I'm wrong)
* Prove the free software development model works for games. Of course this could prove that the development model doesn't work as well. We will have to see.
* More reason for propietary game vendors to use the CrystalSpace GPLed engine. This is good.
* Flesh out OSS.
* Improve graphics support in Linux.
Of course these assume that this project is succesful. Of course, if the game turns out to be popular, the sky is the limit.
Also, if they make a version for Windows/DOS (they should, CrystalSpace is portable) and it does prove popular, then free software wins big time!
Slashdot Mirror
I think a reasonably intelligent person can put that into context.
--
1. There are many Microsoft bashers. It is kind of
sad but true.
2. Linux advocates. They all like Linux for many
reason, mostly for its flexability.
3. People who want to try something different.
4. The "Open Source Software made my job easier"
people.
5. The Unix people.
6. Free software advocates. Their are many these
that watch or contribute to the GNU project
consciensly.
7. The "I want cheap software" people.
8. The people who are afraid of a future where
they are tied to Microsoft. Not quite the same
as the MS bashers.
I tried to put the various people in what think is the order of population. Of course I probably have no idea because of some peoples flamings. For example, the free software advocates have become unfashionable for some reason. Probably because some people have found out how long they can advocate free software before the "have" to play quake. Then propietary software is okay.
This is just my judgement. I haven't written a thesis or anything. Just my opinion.
--
I prefer a number of smaller companies specializing to the needs of the customer instead of trying to get absolute control thier market.
--
I just want to inform you that L1zard_K1n6 is speaking of Linux the same way too many Linux Advocates speak of Windows.
What is good for the geese is good for the gander.
New Moderator Guideline: Anyone who says something bad about Linux is a Troll. Everyone knows that Linux is perfect and there is nothing bad to say about it.
Of course what L1zard_K1n6 is simply untrue. Linux is very tested. But some of these couter-flames are unwarented.
I thought slashdot was OS agnostic?
(Sure, leave it to me to go against public-opinion. Boy, am I gonna be flames!)
--
Recently Slashdot had an article about software piracy. A number of slashdotters said how that most who pirate software, would not have bought it otherwise.
I think that is true with Red Hat. Most people who use Red Hat, wouldn't use Red Hat if they had to pay. But there are many who do pay, to support what Red Hat is doing.
Sorta like AOL disks. Well, not exactly like AOL disks, but similar. Give out the software for free, let it penetrate the market. In software industry, the more people who use software, the even more people who use the software. Im going to make a guess and say that the people who pay for Red Hat is proportional to the people who don't pay. So, by giving the software free and keeping the quality high of their distro, they get many people using it and more people paying for Red Hat Linux.
This works, because in my judgment, their are more newbies buy Linux than people already familiar to it. When the ratio changes, however, we won't be screwed though. Then the distrobutions will need to make money off of people upgrading their distrobutions. Even if Linux monopolizes the market, we will have numerous distros, trying to compete for market. Just think how much better the world would be if there were multiple distributions of Windows. The competition would raise software quality sky high and their would be a distribution for each niche of the market.
I can dream, can't I?
--
--
"Feel free to use my code, as long as you become part of our GPL family. If you don't want to become a part of our GPL family, then don't use my code. I won't share it even if you share your code with others."
Im sorry but this is very vague. The GPL says you have to share. And I don't know what you mean by the GPL family. If you are saying that you want the right to relisence the software and "not be a part of the GPL family" then you are advocating "I want the freedom to restrict freedom".
I am not going tell anyone what liscense to use but if you use a liscense that allows you to restrict my freedom, don't expect me to use or enhance your software. And I think a lot of people agree with me.
--
Even though I believe they modified the souce of Linux to run on all them processors, it is one of the advantages of Linux.
I am awaiting a press release from Redmond.
--
**
--
Didn't Raster work on Enlightenment at Red Hat? I mean, it is all free software anyway, only Red Hat isn't paying for it. So Raster will end up doing what he would be doing at Red Hat anyway.
Of course Red Hat could direct what Raster was doing but...
Of course all my arguments are wrong if in fact Raster was hired for doing something else.
But lets say Alan Cox left, same work, no pay.
--
--
The Star Trek Universe was suppose to be a world were people no longer live for the aquisition of money but for doing what they love for the betterment of mankind. I believe, we, in the free software community, are living some of that. I don't think I need to explain the parellels.
Thanks DeForest Kelly. I miss you.
--
I think they're a way of the future; I often find GUI-based packet capture and analysis program more convenient than text-based ones like "snoop", for example.
I don't think the elimination of CLIs is necessary, however.
No, absolutly not. An xterm provides everything the console does and more. And I don't think a GUI necessitates a WIMP interface (Windows, Icons, Menus, and Pointers). In fact, I'd rather the keyboard be the major input device of a GUI. But this is all forward thinking thought. I would really like to see Unix evolve into a GUI world.
--
I've found that the mouse cursor has to be over the login window in GDM to have keyboard focus.
--
--
As to your first question, baggage is all the layers you have in a Linux system. Kernal->libraries->shell->X Windows->Windows Manager->GUI toolkit->Desktop Enviroment->Corba. When Unix was still young, there was only the first three or four layers. Now we have so many complexities. This, in my opinion is baggage.
And your second question, Unix was designed for a text-based system. I can name several consequences. Firstly, the directory structure and PATH argument assume you are typing commands from the command line. There is no standard way of registering applications to the system. Secondly, common Unix things like piping and standard input have no equivalence in a GUI shell. The point is that Unix was made for the console. Unix is flexable to allow for modern GUIs and such like many of us use now on our Linux systems. But how far can you stretch Unix until it snaps?
I shouldn't have asked for the death of Unix. But it isn't evolving either. It is just extending itself to incorporate anything new.
Oh, and thanks for not flaming me. As I read your post, I saw how easilty flaming could have been and I asked for it in part. This is just my opinion as to why Unix doesn't give the newbie a good first impression. And I know some people hate to hear it, but GUIs are the way of the future.
--
BeOS is completely dependent on Be and whatever happens to Be has a direct affect on the BeOS. That is a risk factor.
--
Im sorry but any serious effort to develop free software for BeOS should be questioned in my opinion.
--
Does the end justify the means?
--
I am keeping my hopes up, hoping that something like the Hurd and the Berlin Project may make an Operating System that is as good with a graphical user interface as Unix is good with the console.
--
Okay, so I tend to look on the bright side.
--
--
--
* Flesh out the GPLed game engine. I don't think any major games were made with it before (correct me if I'm wrong)
* Prove the free software development model works for games. Of course this could prove that the development model doesn't work as well. We will have to see.
* More reason for propietary game vendors to use the CrystalSpace GPLed engine. This is good.
* Flesh out OSS.
* Improve graphics support in Linux.
Of course these assume that this project is succesful. Of course, if the game turns out to be popular, the sky is the limit.
Also, if they make a version for Windows/DOS (they should, CrystalSpace is portable) and it does prove popular, then free software wins big time!
--
--