Or else someone with good intentions who would like this project not to be so Linux- or Freeunix- or whatever-centric could have grabbed the domain first!
[nonroot@mymachine homedir]$ xauth list mymachine:0 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 LARGE-HEX-NUMBER-WHICH-IS-THE-COOKIE mymachine/unix:0 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 PROBABLY-THE-SAME-LARGE-HEX-NUMBER
Go root and add the authorization cookie to root's xauth file. Since you are on the same machine, and on the console, you want to copy the line that says mymachine/unix:0:
Although typing: xhost +localhost seems more economical, it opens you to "X attacks" by any one with login access to your machine (attacks such as popping whatever X programs on your screens or being able to know whatever programs are running on your X and killing them or sending any X events to them). Besides, some sensitive X programs (particularly those that are supposed to be run by root) simply refuse to run on displays with xhost +whatever-machine because of the unsafety descibed above.
Following Wine development thru their weekly newsletter one can see the commitment of Corel to the Wine Project in the patches constantly sent. It can be seen that Corel is commited to make Wine a better product.
Unfortunately, the same does not happen with either the Debian Project or the KDE Project, where you took their product, made a better product out of them and released back the finished products. In Free Software jargon, what you made is a fork.
Now, although Corel has released the source code to the enhanced forked products (as you were legally bound to, by the GPL), the enhancements made cannot be easily folded back into the respective projects because these projects have evolved since Corel's fork. So the original projects cannot immediately profit from the work Corel's engineers put on them.
Also, because the Free Software programmers are already commited to the original projects, Corel's forks won't benefit much from the Free Software advantages of constant peer review and bug fixes.
So, my question is: What was the motivation behind the decision not to fully cooperate in a Bazaar way with Debian or KDE projects but enhance them in a Cathedral way? At first I thought the answer was that Corel just didn't understand Open Source projects, but after seeing your comendable cooperation with the Wine Project I am now puzzled. Could it be that you needed a shipping product fast and could not afford to follow their release cycles?
And now that Corel Linux has seen the light of day, does Corel intend to work on folding its enhancements back into the original projects or will you keep on with the forking, thereby forfeiting most benefits from Open Source development model?
I understand that a question similar to this one was asked during your keynote speech at TheBazaar and your answer to it involved equating the number of download attempts of Corel Linux to the success and acceptance of your distribution, to which I am inclined to reply that such a high number of downloads is a good gauge of the amount of curiosity Corel Linux managed to gather or, at most, of the quality of your programmers, but not of the success of Corel in cooperating with the comunity.
Slashdot Mirror
Or else someone with good intentions who would like this project not to be so Linux- or Freeunix- or whatever-centric could have grabbed the domain first!
[nonroot@mymachine homedir]$ xauth list
mymachine:0 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 LARGE-HEX-NUMBER-WHICH-IS-THE-COOKIE
mymachine/unix:0 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 PROBABLY-THE-SAME-LARGE-HEX-NUMBER
Go root and add the authorization cookie to root's xauth file. Since you are on the same machine, and on the console, you want to copy the line that says mymachine/unix:0:
[nonroot@mymachine homedir]$ su - root /root]# xauth add mymachine/unix:0 MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 LARGE-HEX-NUMBER
Password:
[root@mymachine
Now, export display to the console:
[root@mymachine /root]# export DISPLAY=:0
Now everything should work.
Although typing: xhost +localhost seems more economical, it opens you to "X attacks" by any one with login access to your machine (attacks such as popping whatever X programs on your screens or being able to know whatever programs are running on your X and killing them or sending any X events to them). Besides, some sensitive X programs (particularly those that are supposed to be run by root) simply refuse to run on displays with xhost +whatever-machine because of the unsafety descibed above.
Unfortunately, the same does not happen with either the Debian Project or the KDE Project, where you took their product, made a better product out of them and released back the finished products. In Free Software jargon, what you made is a fork.
Now, although Corel has released the source code to the enhanced forked products (as you were legally bound to, by the GPL), the enhancements made cannot be easily folded back into the respective projects because these projects have evolved since Corel's fork. So the original projects cannot immediately profit from the work Corel's engineers put on them.
Also, because the Free Software programmers are already commited to the original projects, Corel's forks won't benefit much from the Free Software advantages of constant peer review and bug fixes.
So, my question is: What was the motivation behind the decision not to fully cooperate in a Bazaar way with Debian or KDE projects but enhance them in a Cathedral way? At first I thought the answer was that Corel just didn't understand Open Source projects, but after seeing your comendable cooperation with the Wine Project I am now puzzled. Could it be that you needed a shipping product fast and could not afford to follow their release cycles?
And now that Corel Linux has seen the light of day, does Corel intend to work on folding its enhancements back into the original projects or will you keep on with the forking, thereby forfeiting most benefits from Open Source development model?
I understand that a question similar to this one was asked during your keynote speech at TheBazaar and your answer to it involved equating the number of download attempts of Corel Linux to the success and acceptance of your distribution, to which I am inclined to reply that such a high number of downloads is a good gauge of the amount of curiosity Corel Linux managed to gather or, at most, of the quality of your programmers, but not of the success of Corel in cooperating with the comunity.