[...]
The Applix executables can be centrally mounted on an NFS-exported disk, and Applixware will look for centrally-located as well as local preference template files. This makes the product a snap to administer, no matter the network size. Contrast this with Windows application administration, and you can make a strong case for significantly reduced administration costs.
Sometimes I argue about the everreturning issue of Windows/UN?X strengh/weaknesses and it is often said, that SMB/Shortcuts is stronger than NFS/symlinks. But anyone who has tried to manage an Office97 corporate solution knows that this isn't true. NFS mounts are transparent to the applications and symlinks open just like any other files. I can see a lot of advantages in managing standard templates, standard doc-vaults, standard configuration with good UNIX praxis, rather than application specific menu hunt-downs and weird-fixes.
The note about Webjump using IIS for static pages and Apache for "processed" pages is much in line with the Mindcraft test stating that the IIS is good at pushing out bits, but that Apache is good at CGI/PHP compared to ASP technology.
It might be too, that the static pages are not that static and the people changing them, "just wants to press at button", where the "processed" pages often involves a lot of database/monitoring/organising actions that are far better handled in a UN?X environment.
Many of the questions that I have read above seems to revolve around:
Debian is to big to be practical installing.
Debian stable is simply to old, when the next unstable has not even been freezed yet.
dselect does not give the proper overview of the adhering packages.
Would it be an idea to group the packages into maintainable clusters, and the clusters could have (relatively) independant release frequency? Could it be made easier to get what is appropriate to install, for this or that task? (I know that it is already so for initial installation, but it is only for firsttimers and the sectioning is very crude)
The orginal author of the GPLed code still has full copyright of it, correct? And they can change the copyright on any subsequent version (i.e. they can make it proprietary in the next version but can't stop people from distrubiting the GPLed code.)
That is true for a piece of software written by one author. If several people has contributed to the software, a closed-source vendor should as permission from all the contributors to use it under different license rules.
It all boils down to one thing: The issue is political! Do you want to work toward a world of free software or don't you care? If the first is the issue use GPL. If your point is, that you want your piece to be free but you don't want to rule out others from doing otherwise, you will be satisfied with BSD license.
As long as you offer your (free) software to the world, that piece will be free and no one can steal it (like stealing your car) away from the public.
That said, the software is YOURS after all. So like others have the right to restrict on usage, you have no moral obligation not to do the opposite, to restrict on others freedom to restrict what is based on your work. Sometimes the FUD against GPL makes it sound more suspicious to do the second. But the work is yours, and you do get to decide on your own things, so be it!
Freedom is to be free to make the good decisions, not nessesarily to be able to do wrong! (So is the criminal law.) If GPL makes it possible to labour for a better world, it is freedom.
Well, what we know as ActiveX is also called OLE2 and COM/DCOM. According to Miguel de Icaza it is the same kind of object exchange model used in Gnome. But that doesn't mean, that Gnome can exchange objects with Windows. It is just the technology.
The open-source movement is a bit like the construction of the great medieval cathedrals of Europe: thousands of anonymous artisans working over time on a grand project whose entirety they may never know.
So Open Source is like a cathedral? It sounds like someone heard of TCATB essay, but haven't taken the time to read it. It is stupid, because the article is in other ways fine, and it really makes you wonder, what is the process of writing and article in a magazine.
Where is the professional pride of the trade? Don't they want to marvel, or are they content with doing so-so?
Linus Torvalds makes the kernel and calls it Linux. RMS calls it LiGnuX for what ever reason he has...
Can I call it Thomax, since I find that name a lot cooler? (You wouldn't know what I would be talking about, but that is applying cryptography without the hassle?!?)
... to see, if an NT survey would stand the same criteria. It is very easy to conclude that Linux is unsuitable, if the task described is very narrow. Linux serves many revenuing services, especially in the Internet business, so I don't know if I will accept the terms. OTOH if we get some big story the light, it would be fun by magnitude.
Maybe CmdrTaco et al. just happen not to have people submitting enough KDE stories, opions etc. I have no preferences to either KDE or Gnome, since I mostly do CLI stuff, but from what I hear the goals are not really the same. KDE is a desktop. It works and people likes it. Gnome is more radical, since some the ideas are a shift in paradigm of the Unix-way. And so be it!
"I almost saw it as a waste of resources," Dalheimer says. "It would have been much more useful to have those skilled developers working on KDE this whole time."
I would not consider any time used coding to be wasted. Time used on flamewars are wasted, and as an aside one must say, that there is a lot of time wasted here, but that be it. But as I see it, time used on developing public software is all to the common good.
If the Gnome project goes wrong or the KDE project does, the alternate one will have some kind of idea of a trap there.
The two projects are not identical! They may have similar goals, but many subgoals are really quite different. Gnome has network distribution as a subgoal, and this idea is somehow incompatible to KDE.
It is always questionable when one from one project determines that the other camp is wasting their time. Aren't we then all wasting our time using Linux when there is... ?
If Dalheimer is satisfied with his doing (and the rest of the KDE team is the same), he should have a fine time making KDE. If the Gnome people feels this way too, there is no waste.
OTOH if anyone is doing their task as "a tough job, but someone has to do it...", they would probably feel it is a waste. But who knows...
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes I argue about the everreturning issue of Windows/UN?X strengh/weaknesses and it is often said, that SMB/Shortcuts is stronger than NFS/symlinks. But anyone who has tried to manage an Office97 corporate solution knows that this isn't true. NFS mounts are transparent to the applications and symlinks open just like any other files.
I can see a lot of advantages in managing standard templates, standard doc-vaults, standard configuration with good UNIX praxis, rather than application specific menu hunt-downs and weird-fixes.
The note about Webjump using IIS for static pages and Apache for "processed" pages is much in line with the Mindcraft test stating that the IIS is good at pushing out bits, but that Apache is good at CGI/PHP compared to ASP technology.
It might be too, that the static pages are not that static and the people changing them, "just wants to press at button", where the "processed" pages often involves a lot of database/monitoring/organising actions that are far better handled in a UN?X environment.
Maybe this is not war but common sense.
- Debian is to big to be practical installing.
- Debian stable is simply to old, when the next unstable has not even been freezed yet.
- dselect does not give the proper overview of the adhering packages.
Would it be an idea to group the packages into maintainable clusters, and the clusters could have (relatively) independant release frequency?Could it be made easier to get what is appropriate to install, for this or that task? (I know that it is already so for initial installation, but it is only for firsttimers and the sectioning is very crude)
That is true for a piece of software written by one author. If several people has contributed to the software, a closed-source vendor should as permission from all the contributors to use it under different license rules.
It all boils down to one thing: The issue is political! Do you want to work toward a world of free software or don't you care? If the first is the issue use GPL. If your point is, that you want your piece to be free but you don't want to rule out others from doing otherwise, you will be satisfied with BSD license.
As long as you offer your (free) software to the world, that piece will be free and no one can steal it (like stealing your car) away from the public.
That said, the software is YOURS after all. So like others have the right to restrict on usage, you have no moral obligation not to do the opposite, to restrict on others freedom to restrict what is based on your work. Sometimes the FUD against GPL makes it sound more suspicious to do the second. But the work is yours, and you do get to decide on your own things, so be it!
Freedom is to be free to make the good decisions, not nessesarily to be able to do wrong! (So is the criminal law.) If GPL makes it possible to labour for a better world, it is freedom.
Well, what we know as ActiveX is also called OLE2 and COM/DCOM. According to Miguel de Icaza it is the same kind of object exchange model used in Gnome. But that doesn't mean, that Gnome can exchange objects with Windows. It is just the technology.
So Open Source is like a cathedral? It sounds like someone heard of TCATB essay, but haven't taken the time to read it. It is stupid, because the article is in other ways fine, and it really makes you wonder, what is the process of writing and article in a magazine.
Where is the professional pride of the trade? Don't they want to marvel, or are they content with doing so-so?
I don't get it . . .
Linus Torvalds makes the kernel and calls it Linux. RMS calls it LiGnuX for what ever reason he has...
Can I call it Thomax, since I find that name a lot cooler? (You wouldn't know what I would be talking about, but that is applying cryptography without the hassle?!?)
--
... to see, if an NT survey would stand the same criteria. It is very easy to conclude that Linux is unsuitable, if the task described is very narrow.
Linux serves many revenuing services, especially in the Internet business, so I don't know if I will accept the terms.
OTOH if we get some big story the light, it would be fun by magnitude.
--
Maybe CmdrTaco et al. just happen not to have people submitting enough KDE stories, opions etc.
I have no preferences to either KDE or Gnome, since I mostly do CLI stuff, but from what I hear the goals are not really the same.
KDE is a desktop. It works and people likes it. Gnome is more radical, since some the ideas are a shift in paradigm of the Unix-way.
And so be it!
--
I would not consider any time used coding to be wasted. Time used on flamewars are wasted, and as an aside one must say, that there is a lot of time wasted here, but that be it. But as I see it, time used on developing public software is all to the common good.
If Dalheimer is satisfied with his doing (and the rest of the KDE team is the same), he should have a fine time making KDE. If the Gnome people feels this way too, there is no waste.
OTOH if anyone is doing their task as "a tough job, but someone has to do it...", they would probably feel it is a waste. But who knows...