Let's take a quick break from the KDE vs. GNOME/Debian vs. Red Hat vs. Slackware festivities I know this article is going to generate.
IMHO, Yet Another Linux Distribution is not just a Good Thing, it's a GREAT Thing. Why? Because it brings us one step closer to operating systems becoming a commodity. That means no more OS tax when you buy a computer. I imagine a future in which my children laugh at us and say, "You guys paid HOW MUCH for an OS? And you didn't even get the source code with it? And you couldn't customize it or fix it yourself? I guess you all smoked crack back then, huh?"
So, bring 'em on! Let every company from Adobe to Zenith release Linux distros. Their development costs for this are minimal (probably quite a bit less than a writing a new product from scratch), so they have very little to lose.
"What about standards?" I believe that distros which break standards will get killed in the marketplace. People won't buy a distro on which nothing runs. This is NOT the traditional model, remember? In fact, it's probably closer to a "free market" than anything we've seen in software.
When I can walk into a grocery store and buy a Linux distro -- THAT's world domination!
You're maybe a little harsh on slashdot posters, but I think you make a good point. A distribution is really just a starting point -- sooner or later, after downloading a new kernel, new libraries, installing this, removing that, you end up with your own customized distribution.
BTW -- Linus uses SuSE at home. [Ducking to avoid the keyboard thrown at me]
I find it ironic that MS describes Linux as "chasing taillights" of proprietary software vendors.
Last time I checked, Standard Operating Procedure for MS is to let someone else innovate, then copy the innovation while adding their own proprietary enhancements.
Examples: MP3 audio Web browsers PDAs Java
And let's face it -- before NT, Windows was strictly a desktop OS. Microsoft got jilted by AT&T when they tried to move into the Unix market, so they decided to create something to compete with Unix. In that respect, NT is chasing the taillights of Unix.
I know that in some American public schools, they have huge problems with troublemakers who think it's funny to install a virus, format the C: drive, etc. on the school PCs.
At least with a Unix-style system, you can configure the permissions to keep them from doing malicious things.
That's a twisted, evil, and thoroughly amusing idea.:)
Should be pretty simple -- just write a standard spam bulk mailer program but add a timebomb. Give it away for free. Let the spammer go for a few days, then format the drive.
I'm not advocating this, but it does make me smile.
I want to chime in with you and Javel's reply. I don't think Linus has the hostility towards Java that MS has shown, but I do think he pooh-poohs it a little bit.
Granted, Java has been overhyped. It's interesting to me, though, that the people who seem the most disdainful of Java are highly-skilled C and C++ programmers.
As far as good VMs for Java, I think there are several. Blackdown comes to mind immediately, but I know there are more.
I don't know why an OS advocate would resist Java. It seems to me that Java allows an OS to compete on its own merits, rather than on application availability. Personally, lack of Java support is what keeps me from trying BeOS.
Ok, when I was a little kid two weeks ago, I wanted to be a technology columnist. It looked like an easy way to make some bucks -- just spew wild predictions about the future of computing and cash the checks.
I've changed my mind. Now I want to be a computer security consultant who TALKS to technology columnists.
It seems all I have to do is print up some business cards that say "DonkPunch -- Information Security Consultant" and I'm in business.
Best of all, the columnists will fawn over me as a modern-day Sherlock Holmes ("Elementary, dear Watson. He used MS Word to create a macro virus which gave him remote access to little Jenny's hard drive").
How much can I charge per hour to tell people to turn off macros in MS Word?
I hate spammers AND I hate junk snail-mailers AND I hate telephone solicitors.
This "direct-marketing database of names, addresses, and phone numbers" nonsense is getting REAL old. If I've never bought anything from you or requested information from you, you shouldn't have my name, address, or phone number. Period.
The notion that I have to ASK to be taken off your list is stupid, too. By the reasoning, you have to ASK me to stop whacking you with a baseball bat.
/* Some of my posts are very serious and thoughtful. Some are just rants. Guess which one this was. */
I'm curious how the Linux zealots compare to the OS/2 zealots. Are they more vocal? Are they more vicious in their flames? Are they less reasonable?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that poor marketing killed OS/2 more than anything else, but I wasn't an active part of that community so I don't have much to base my opinion on.
I'm wondering if excessive zealotry seriously hurt OS/2 and if Linux zealots are repeating some bad history.
There ARE Microsoft zealots. I work with one. We've learned not to discuss OS issues the same way I've learned not to discuss politics or religion with some people.:)
Why is this argument always framed as, "either free software or proprietary software?" Is there some natural law that prevents them from co-existing?
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that both articles misuse the word "free" as it applies to FSF (not zero-cost, simply free to modify, redistribute, etc.). I make it a point to read as much about Richard Stallman and the FSF as I can (something the authors should try). It seems to me that the GNU tools were intended to provide a free alternative to proprietary tools.
The word "alternative" is important. It's not "replacement" -- it's "alternative". That means you have the choice to use free software, proprietary software, or both.
I hate to fall into the traditional slashdot MS-bashing, but this notion that you have either 100% marketshare or nothing seems to be a peculiar part of their culture. What are they afraid of? That Free Software might knock them down from 90% to 80% or even 70%? Gasp! How many industries are there where only 70% marketshare is unacceptable? I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that in the real world.
Maybe it's not the loss of marketshare or revenue that Microsoft fears. Maybe they are afraid that customers will get tired of being treated like idiots.
Relax, Microsoft. You will put yourselves out of business before Free Software does.
Man, I need to do a prejudice-check. I was expecting unrealistic, excessive penalties just because they're Microsoft (and, admittedly, because RMS wrote it).
What I read was more fair, reasonable, and productive than anything I've heard proposed so far. I think he cut right to the heart of (one reason) why many Free Software advocates hate Microsoft -- "hidden stuff" used for unfair advantage.
Not that my opinion is worth/dev/null, but kudos anyway to RMS.
By that logic, if a program is given away rather than sold, it must not be any good.
I know I'm taking some pretty obvious flamebait here, but I can't believe anyone thinks that recording contracts have ANYTHING to do with quality.
Record companies are interested in selling records. They give contracts to people who are marketable. That's not the same thing as being talented.
Yes, a lot of unsigned artists suck. A lot of signed artists suck, too. Haven't you noticed? Someone just decided that they could SELL the sucky signed ones.
Then there are the unsigned artists who are not interested in recording contracts. The fact is that it's possible to have a very good recording studio in your own home today for not a whole lot of money.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that real? That's ... like ... the dumbest statement I've ever seen. :O
"Retooling AOL services to make them work on devices without the broad capabilities of a desktop computer wouldn't be technically difficult"
:)
How "technically difficult" is it to generate a busy signal?
/* If that's a lawyer on the phone, I'm not here. */
...and yet it happened anyway. :P
"Linux -- our OS is reliable, and our users are predictable." -- me
Or does he come pre-installed?
Can I make copies of Linus and give him to my friends?
Let's take a quick break from the KDE vs. GNOME/Debian vs. Red Hat vs. Slackware festivities I know this article is going to generate.
IMHO, Yet Another Linux Distribution is not just a Good Thing, it's a GREAT Thing. Why? Because it brings us one step closer to operating systems becoming a commodity. That means no more OS tax when you buy a computer. I imagine a future in which my children laugh at us and say, "You guys paid HOW MUCH for an OS? And you didn't even get the source code with it? And you couldn't customize it or fix it yourself? I guess you all smoked crack back then, huh?"
So, bring 'em on! Let every company from Adobe to Zenith release Linux distros. Their development costs for this are minimal (probably quite a bit less than a writing a new product from scratch), so they have very little to lose.
"What about standards?" I believe that distros which break standards will get killed in the marketplace. People won't buy a distro on which nothing runs. This is NOT the traditional model, remember? In fact, it's probably closer to a "free market" than anything we've seen in software.
When I can walk into a grocery store and buy a Linux distro -- THAT's world domination!
You're maybe a little harsh on slashdot posters, but I think you make a good point. A distribution is really just a starting point -- sooner or later, after downloading a new kernel, new libraries, installing this, removing that, you end up with your own customized distribution.
BTW -- Linus uses SuSE at home.
[Ducking to avoid the keyboard thrown at me]
I think I saw an RFC for "Furby Light Optical Protocol". It got slammed for having a stupid acronym.
/* Dry humor mode OFF now */
I find it ironic that MS describes Linux as "chasing taillights" of proprietary software vendors.
Last time I checked, Standard Operating Procedure for MS is to let someone else innovate, then copy the innovation while adding their own proprietary enhancements.
Examples:
MP3 audio
Web browsers
PDAs
Java
And let's face it -- before NT, Windows was strictly a desktop OS. Microsoft got jilted by AT&T when they tried to move into the Unix market, so they decided to create something to compete with Unix. In that respect, NT is chasing the taillights of Unix.
I know that in some American public schools, they have huge problems with troublemakers who think it's funny to install a virus, format the C: drive, etc. on the school PCs.
At least with a Unix-style system, you can configure the permissions to keep them from doing malicious things.
Just think -- a little mechanical penguin that says things like, "Use the source".
:)
Now THAT I would buy!
Is he involved with Star Wars?
That's a twisted, evil, and thoroughly amusing idea. :)
Should be pretty simple -- just write a standard spam bulk mailer program but add a timebomb. Give it away for free. Let the spammer go for a few days, then format the drive.
I'm not advocating this, but it does make me smile.
What, you can't indent your code? :)
Also, is this function under a GPL or a BSD-style license?
/* Counting the days until Rob modifies the scripts to stop me from posting. */
I want to chime in with you and Javel's reply. I don't think Linus has the hostility towards Java that MS has shown, but I do think he pooh-poohs it a little bit.
Granted, Java has been overhyped. It's interesting to me, though, that the people who seem the most disdainful of Java are highly-skilled C and C++ programmers.
As far as good VMs for Java, I think there are several. Blackdown comes to mind immediately, but I know there are more.
I don't know why an OS advocate would resist Java. It seems to me that Java allows an OS to compete on its own merits, rather than on application availability. Personally, lack of Java support is what keeps me from trying BeOS.
Just kidding! I knew someone would post something like this EVENTUALLY.
(Oh dear. I've probably started one of those 16-level deep vi vs. emacs threads, haven't I?)
/* Put tongue in cheek */
Ok, when I was a little kid two weeks ago, I wanted to be a technology columnist. It looked like an easy way to make some bucks -- just spew wild predictions about the future of computing and cash the checks.
I've changed my mind. Now I want to be a computer security consultant who TALKS to technology columnists.
It seems all I have to do is print up some business cards that say "DonkPunch -- Information Security Consultant" and I'm in business.
Best of all, the columnists will fawn over me as a modern-day Sherlock Holmes ("Elementary, dear Watson. He used MS Word to create a macro virus which gave him remote access to little Jenny's hard drive").
How much can I charge per hour to tell people to turn off macros in MS Word?
/* Remove toungue from cheek */
Let the great root in the sky sort 'em out.
I hate spammers AND I hate junk snail-mailers AND I hate telephone solicitors.
This "direct-marketing database of names, addresses, and phone numbers" nonsense is getting REAL old. If I've never bought anything from you or requested information from you, you shouldn't have my name, address, or phone number. Period.
The notion that I have to ASK to be taken off your list is stupid, too. By the reasoning, you have to ASK me to stop whacking you with a baseball bat.
/* Some of my posts are very serious and thoughtful. Some are just rants. Guess which one this was. */
Ok, so in the last week we have established:
:)
1. American programmers are lazy 9-to-5 slackers.
2. UK programmers are addicted to drugs.
I guess articles about IT professionals who do a good job and go home to dinner with their spouses and children don't generate many hits.
I'm curious how the Linux zealots compare to the OS/2 zealots. Are they more vocal? Are they more vicious in their flames? Are they less reasonable?
:)
Personally, I'm of the opinion that poor marketing killed OS/2 more than anything else, but I wasn't an active part of that community so I don't have much to base my opinion on.
I'm wondering if excessive zealotry seriously hurt OS/2 and if Linux zealots are repeating some bad history.
There ARE Microsoft zealots. I work with one. We've learned not to discuss OS issues the same way I've learned not to discuss politics or religion with some people.
Why is this argument always framed as, "either free software or proprietary software?" Is there some natural law that prevents them from co-existing?
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that both articles misuse the word "free" as it applies to FSF (not zero-cost, simply free to modify, redistribute, etc.). I make it a point to read as much about Richard Stallman and the FSF as I can (something the authors should try). It seems to me that the GNU tools were intended to provide a free alternative to proprietary tools.
The word "alternative" is important. It's not "replacement" -- it's "alternative". That means you have the choice to use free software, proprietary software, or both.
I hate to fall into the traditional slashdot MS-bashing, but this notion that you have either 100% marketshare or nothing seems to be a peculiar part of their culture. What are they afraid of? That Free Software might knock them down from 90% to 80% or even 70%? Gasp! How many industries are there where only 70% marketshare is unacceptable? I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that in the real world.
Maybe it's not the loss of marketshare or revenue that Microsoft fears. Maybe they are afraid that customers will get tired of being treated like idiots.
Relax, Microsoft. You will put yourselves out of business before Free Software does.
I'm an American programmer and, therefore, a "slacker". :)
Man, I need to do a prejudice-check. I was expecting unrealistic, excessive penalties just because they're Microsoft (and, admittedly, because RMS wrote it).
/dev/null, but kudos anyway to RMS.
What I read was more fair, reasonable, and productive than anything I've heard proposed so far. I think he cut right to the heart of (one reason) why many Free Software advocates hate Microsoft -- "hidden stuff" used for unfair advantage.
Not that my opinion is worth
I think I need to get a resume to maddog. I want to work for him. :)
"I saw more power to 'em!"
:)
should be
"I SAY more power to 'em!"
-- Someday I hope to learn to use the "preview" button before firing off my hot music opinions.
...they must not be any good, right?
By that logic, if a program is given away rather than sold, it must not be any good.
I know I'm taking some pretty obvious flamebait here, but I can't believe anyone thinks that recording contracts have ANYTHING to do with quality.
Record companies are interested in selling records. They give contracts to people who are marketable. That's not the same thing as being talented.
Yes, a lot of unsigned artists suck. A lot of signed artists suck, too. Haven't you noticed? Someone just decided that they could SELL the sucky signed ones.
Then there are the unsigned artists who are not interested in recording contracts. The fact is that it's possible to have a very good recording studio in your own home today for not a whole lot of money.
I saw more power to 'em!