Go to www.gnu.org and you'll find the FSF asking for donations in order further develop the software which we all know and love.
the GNU/Linux community has created a nice little microcosmic working socialism that functions pretty well as far as software development is concerned.
However as soon as you want to export this technology to the corporations and individuals who exist outside of this microcosm you need to get corporate and the Linux companies have to exist outside of the microcosm in order to properly communicate with their target audiences, they need to exist in the ugly capitalist society in order to pay the staff who need to eat and feed their families.
You complain that they ask for donations for aspects of software design that will only effect them and their users, well then only their users need donate. While it's not my style I've always thought Mandrake was an excellent distribution. Their tools work and their entire setup makes the Windows interface complex by comparison. If they need donations to keep this up, well that's an economic reality at least they're asking nicely and not restricting free downloads or any other such tactic.
All in all I can only say that a) you are an idiot
and b) you are an idiot who does not know what this whole thing is about.
Yep, a sentient comment. I never muched like caldera's super corporate image much (strokes 2 inch long goatie). Only bad can come of this, I think it's time for a planet wide boycott.
And what are you, the missing link? One has to wonder how long a go your 14 year old older brother started letting you play on his BSD box, sorry dude X-Windows (The Xerox Windowing System) is long since history and the Mach kernel sucks.
It seems that the community needs to get back to it's roots (not their Super User Accounts).
On reading the Gnu Manifesto and early interviews with RMS, it is quite clear to even the stupid that he never intended free software to return no monetory reward to anyone involved. He even went so far as to suggest a Tax for all computer users in order to fund software development.
Any distribution has a right to charge for their distribution. They have made certain modifications and improvement, tht may not be part of the core Gnu/Linux system, plus an easy install process, if you are lazy or not to bright, and feel that the easy install process and extra tools are worth $15 measly bucks they are charging then buy the damn thing. If not then no problem.
My Gnu/Linux system is built entirely from scratch from source downloaded from the net and guess what guys. Linux is still free.
I have never tried libranet's product but obviously if you care, then you think it's a good one. If no one ever gives these poor guys any money, they will not be here tomorrow to deliver tomorrows products.
Catch a wake up to the economic reality of this capitilistic society. A guys gotta eat.
There's all these people out to tell us "what linux needs"
Funny thig is GNU/Linux already has the only thing that it needs, the ability to modify and make it into what you want it to be.
The original hackers didn't say to themselves "I'm not going to use this Kernel because it doesn't have a tape driver..." they wrote a tape driver and submitted the patch.
In her article, she complains about the documentation availalbe (I've always found it quite brilliant, having learned perl entirely from the man pages) yet she is a writer, who has been using Linux since '94 and claims to know it.
The GNU community was not built by people who complained that others didn't make improvements for them, it's always been about contributing and working together to build a better system that we can all benifit from.
I think that the most harm that commercial involvement in the GNU project has been in the influx of users who expect things to be done for them, and then when the nebulous "Linux" doesn't do it for them they get angry with it.
GNU/Linux is not on it's way out. Stock values are irrelevant when you're dealing with the economical module generated by the GNU philosophy the facts are that Linux use is growing, us who have been around for a while, try to stop newbies from never knowing that Linux is in fact the GNU system on the Linux kernel and that there is VI and that the GUI tools you are spoon fed by the distro (that usually don't work all that well) aren't all there is.
GNU/Linux might not survive in the module that the commercial folks involved might like it to, open source might die, but for as long as there are computer users GNU will persist and as our products get better and better as long as our free compiler remains the best on the marker, more and more people will flock to us, and the issue of GNU surviving will be a non issue, it will no longer exist, there will be only computing and computing will be free.
Bah Humbug, there's plenty support for free software. The difference is that at this point commercial solutions such as Oracle are still technically superior.
Both MySQL and PostgreSQL loose in areas that Oracle takes care of.
Postgres is ACID compliant, but it's slow, especially in a situation that requires a lot of new connections all the time, such as a high traffic web site.
MySQL is faster, but lacks a lot of the proffesional features present in Postgres or Oracle and is not ACID compliant.
At this point both free databases are good and very useable for a lot of tasks but for some especially large things Oracle is more suitable.
Okay conceptually it's brilliant, and possibly even the direction in which computing as a whole is going, while us retro geeks resist and resist.
But I have to wonder is it really necessary to invent a whole new language. We already have many languages that are both efficient and effective.
Would the time not be better spent building front ends to existing languages (uggh the retro geek in me cringes at the thought).
Slashdot Mirror
Go to www.gnu.org and you'll find the FSF asking for donations in order further develop the software which we all know and love.
the GNU/Linux community has created a nice little microcosmic working socialism that functions pretty well as far as software development is concerned.
However as soon as you want to export this technology to the corporations and individuals who exist outside of this microcosm you need to get corporate and the Linux companies have to exist outside of the microcosm in order to properly communicate with their target audiences, they need to exist in the ugly capitalist society in order to pay the staff who need to eat and feed their families.
You complain that they ask for donations for aspects of software design that will only effect them and their users, well then only their users need donate. While it's not my style I've always thought Mandrake was an excellent distribution. Their tools work and their entire setup makes the Windows interface complex by comparison. If they need donations to keep this up, well that's an economic reality at least they're asking nicely and not restricting free downloads or any other such tactic.
All in all I can only say that a) you are an idiot and b) you are an idiot who does not know what this whole thing is about.
It's not all about free software for you.
Yep, a sentient comment. I never muched like caldera's super corporate image much (strokes 2 inch long goatie). Only bad can come of this, I think it's time for a planet wide boycott.
And what are you, the missing link? One has to wonder how long a go your 14 year old older brother started letting you play on his BSD box, sorry dude X-Windows (The Xerox Windowing System) is long since history and the Mach kernel sucks.
You are an idiot.
This article made me sick, I couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing.
It seems that the community needs to get back to it's roots (not their Super User Accounts).
On reading the Gnu Manifesto and early interviews with RMS, it is quite clear to even the stupid that he never intended free software to return no monetory reward to anyone involved. He even went so far as to suggest a Tax for all computer users in order to fund software development.
Any distribution has a right to charge for their distribution. They have made certain modifications and improvement, tht may not be part of the core Gnu/Linux system, plus an easy install process, if you are lazy or not to bright, and feel that the easy install process and extra tools are worth $15 measly bucks they are charging then buy the damn thing. If not then no problem.
My Gnu/Linux system is built entirely from scratch from source downloaded from the net and guess what guys. Linux is still free.
I have never tried libranet's product but obviously if you care, then you think it's a good one. If no one ever gives these poor guys any money, they will not be here tomorrow to deliver tomorrows products.
Catch a wake up to the economic reality of this capitilistic society. A guys gotta eat.
There's all these people out to tell us "what linux needs"
Funny thig is GNU/Linux already has the only thing that it needs, the ability to modify and make it into what you want it to be.
The original hackers didn't say to themselves "I'm not going to use this Kernel because it doesn't have a tape driver..." they wrote a tape driver and submitted the patch.
In her article, she complains about the documentation availalbe (I've always found it quite brilliant, having learned perl entirely from the man pages) yet she is a writer, who has been using Linux since '94 and claims to know it.
The GNU community was not built by people who complained that others didn't make improvements for them, it's always been about contributing and working together to build a better system that we can all benifit from.
I think that the most harm that commercial involvement in the GNU project has been in the influx of users who expect things to be done for them, and then when the nebulous "Linux" doesn't do it for them they get angry with it.
GNU/Linux is not on it's way out. Stock values are irrelevant when you're dealing with the economical module generated by the GNU philosophy the facts are that Linux use is growing, us who have been around for a while, try to stop newbies from never knowing that Linux is in fact the GNU system on the Linux kernel and that there is VI and that the GUI tools you are spoon fed by the distro (that usually don't work all that well) aren't all there is.
GNU/Linux might not survive in the module that the commercial folks involved might like it to, open source might die, but for as long as there are computer users GNU will persist and as our products get better and better as long as our free compiler remains the best on the marker, more and more people will flock to us, and the issue of GNU surviving will be a non issue, it will no longer exist, there will be only computing and computing will be free.
Bah Humbug, there's plenty support for free software. The difference is that at this point commercial solutions such as Oracle are still technically superior.
Both MySQL and PostgreSQL loose in areas that Oracle takes care of.
Postgres is ACID compliant, but it's slow, especially in a situation that requires a lot of new connections all the time, such as a high traffic web site.
MySQL is faster, but lacks a lot of the proffesional features present in Postgres or Oracle and is not ACID compliant.
At this point both free databases are good and very useable for a lot of tasks but for some especially large things Oracle is more suitable.
For now......
Okay conceptually it's brilliant, and possibly even the direction in which computing as a whole is going, while us retro geeks resist and resist. But I have to wonder is it really necessary to invent a whole new language. We already have many languages that are both efficient and effective. Would the time not be better spent building front ends to existing languages (uggh the retro geek in me cringes at the thought).