While it's true that they talk about the installs all the time, it's not unfounded because like it or not, 99% of the users out there wanting to try Linux will have to install it themselves. While you can buy boxes with Linux pre-installed, they aren't nearly as ubiquitous as Windows or even Mac boxes.
Kids are curious. They're going to start playing around with their system, try and do things - and they'll find the command prompt. Them some kid with Linux at home will show them what they can do with it. Then watch out.:-)
"Why can't IBM or Dell just roll their own distro based on Redhats, and then not have to pay any $$$ to Redhat?"
I can think of two reasons:
1) Brand recognition. Red Hat won't let them use their brand name for free. Since Dell, etc. want their customers to feel comfortable with the linux distribution included, it would make sense to use the most recognizable one, rather than creating their own. I'm sure the licensing costs won't come anywhere near the M$ tax for this.
2) Competence. They would have to hire a group of programmers/software engineers to put together and maintain their own distro, even if they just re-package the Red Hat distribution, since Red Hat obviously wouldn't be supplying the support. I'm pretty sure they don't want the headaches associated with this. Cheaper to pay Red Hat.
"Software developers looking to write games for Sony's next-generation PlayStation console will do their work on a proprietary, Linux-based workstation built by Sony, the company said Friday."
I took that to mean that Sony was going to build workstations using the new cpu/architecture. I see now that it was probably wishful thinking.
At the very least, they will have to release the architecture-specific mods they've done to the kernel - this is a radically different architecture from most out there, so this will probably be a fair bit. I suspect there will be more than this available, though. Why would they re-invent the USB and Firewire drivers that are already out there, for instance? No, I think they will modify/improve and release. It could only help them.
Since the OS for the development stations will be Linux, they will have to release the source for the port to this new hardware. Everything will be available to the Linux community. No doubt, there is no doubt going to be some VERY interesting code in there. Cheers, Bun
I clicked on the guestbook and got some other, completely unrelated page that kept popping up. I can't reproduce it now - the guestbook link seems to have diappeared.
I couldn't see any image there. My browser (Netscape 4.6) had a hard time showing the frames - I had to view the source to read everything under the 'characteristic:' heading. So... what does it look like?
Bun (Who really should have just booted up Linux).
"I'm a faithful user of program foo. All of a sudden, program foo++ shows up on the market. Here's the problem. If foo was under a BSD license, there's no reason foo++ has to be free software. So now foo++ costs $400, and if we want the new features, we've got to reimplement them."
Ï don't really see a problem with this. It is irrational to believe that one is entitled to free software. The original foo would still be available, and noone could stop you from using it, so your right to use that software would not be affected in any way.
However, if you changed that to read "I'm a faithful, LONGTIME CONTRIBUTER OF CODE TO THE FOO PROJECT. All of a sudden, program foo++ shows up on the market, sporting a bunch of new features, and costs $400....", then I can see a reason for complaining. I think it would bother me quite a bit if someone else started making money off a code base I played a large part in developing, while keeping their additions proprietary, and not compensating me and the other major contributors.
I'm not saying this is what happened with rdist - I'm unfamiliar with the particulars there - but the scenario doesn't seem that unlikely with a BSD style license.
Slashdot Mirror
"All they ever talk about is the installs..."
While it's true that they talk about the installs all the time, it's not unfounded because like it or not, 99% of the users out there wanting to try Linux will have to install it themselves. While you can buy boxes with Linux pre-installed, they aren't nearly as ubiquitous as Windows or even Mac boxes.
Regards,
Bun
Kids are curious. They're going to start playing around with their system, try and do things - and they'll find the command prompt. Them some kid with Linux at home will show them what they can do with it. Then watch out. :-)
Regards,
Bun
um... Lucas wrote:
"Why can't IBM or Dell just roll their own distro based on Redhats, and then not have to pay any $$$ to Redhat?"
I can think of two reasons:
1) Brand recognition. Red Hat won't let them use their brand name for free. Since Dell, etc. want their customers to feel comfortable with the linux distribution included, it would make sense to use the most recognizable one, rather than creating their own. I'm sure the licensing costs won't come anywhere near the M$ tax for this.
2) Competence. They would have to hire a group of programmers/software engineers to put together and maintain their own distro, even if they just re-package the Red Hat distribution, since Red Hat obviously wouldn't be supplying the support. I'm pretty sure they don't want the headaches associated with this. Cheaper to pay Red Hat.
Regards,
Bun
Capo Rossa...
From a link in the article:
"Software developers looking to write games for Sony's next-generation PlayStation console will do
their work on a proprietary, Linux-based workstation built by Sony, the company said Friday."
I took that to mean that Sony was going to build workstations using the new cpu/architecture. I see now that it was probably wishful thinking.
Cheers,
Bun
"Why will they have to release the source?"
At the very least, they will have to release the architecture-specific mods they've done to the kernel - this is a radically different architecture from most out there, so this will probably be a fair bit. I suspect there will be more than this available, though. Why would they re-invent the USB and Firewire drivers that are already out there, for instance? No, I think they will modify/improve and release. It could only help them.
Cheers,
Bun
Since the OS for the development stations will be Linux, they will have to release the source for the port to this new hardware. Everything will be available to the Linux community. No doubt, there is no doubt going to be some VERY interesting code in there.
Cheers,
Bun
Let's see, on the /. sight right now there are 11 articles, 4 of which are Linux-related. Yep, nothing but Linux here...
Regards,
Bun
In some countries what I do is considered normal.
I clicked on the guestbook and got some other, completely unrelated page that kept popping up. I can't reproduce it now - the guestbook link seems to have diappeared.
I couldn't see any image there. My browser (Netscape 4.6) had a hard time showing the frames - I had to view the source to read everything under the 'characteristic:' heading. So... what does it look like?
Bun
(Who really should have just booted up Linux).
"I'm a faithful user of program foo. All of a sudden, program foo++ shows up on the market. Here's the problem. If foo was under a BSD license, there's no reason foo++ has to be free software. So now foo++ costs $400, and if we want the new features, we've got to reimplement them."
Ï don't really see a problem with this. It is irrational to believe that one is entitled to free software. The original foo would still be available, and noone could stop you from using it, so your right to use that software would not be affected in any way.
However, if you changed that to read "I'm a faithful, LONGTIME CONTRIBUTER OF CODE TO THE FOO PROJECT. All of a sudden, program foo++ shows up on the market, sporting a bunch of new features, and costs $400....", then I can see a reason for complaining. I think it would bother me quite a bit if someone else started making money off a code base I played a large part in developing, while keeping their additions proprietary, and not compensating me and the other major contributors.
I'm not saying this is what happened with rdist - I'm unfamiliar with the particulars there - but the scenario doesn't seem that unlikely with a BSD style license.