Ok, I'm a long time Linux advocate, and if you don't believe me, just check out my previous posts. But last night was a Nightmare. But I do claim that this is largely my own fault.
With a RedHat 6.1 CD I received at LinuxWorld, I tried to upgrade my current 6.0. But since I have a Quad boot (Slackware/Redhat/Win95/NT) and a NTFS partition, the upgrade died on the scanning. I checked with bugzilla, and it is known that the upgrade doesn't work if you have an NTFS partition. I still wanted to install from the CD so I rebooted and continued.
After one attempt, I didn't have enough diskspace for my custom install, so I went back an chose not to have KDE (I'm more a GNOME person). Then I let the installation go. It seemed to work fine, but after I rebooted, I had a ton of error messages. It seems that my/usr/bin and/usr/lib and other directories were missing! But the 'df' showed that the/usr partition was almost full. When I checked the total file size (with ls -Rla and an awk script) it didn't match up. It seemed that it messed up the file inodes or something.
So I got brave and reformated the/usr partition. After spending several hours installing rpms by hand (reminds me of my old slackware days) I still don't have text when I bring up X. My xterm is missing the word "xterm" where it should be. And the menues are ok until a run the mouse over them, and then the text goes away?
I've been using Linux for a few years now, and if this is bothering me, I can't imagine what a newbie would do.
PS. If anyone knows how to fix the xterm problem, please let me know. I've installed every font I can think of. Is there something that I'm missing?
I talked to that VP as well, I took his card: Roy Bentley Holmes Vice President of Sales Tel: (408) 929-3331 Fax: (408) 929-3330
LINUXONE, INC. 201 San Antonio Circle C250 Mountain View, CA 94040 Tel: (650) 948-6201 Fax: (650) 948-2932 roy@linuxone.net www.linuxone.net
He couldn't answer any questions that I asked. I simply asked what development tools are on the distibution, and he referred me to this other guy who told me "Linux Lite runs on Windows"???? It was like they were programmed for certain responses. But didn't know what to do if someone asked them something of content.
Also, a guy from Loki was there messing with their heads! He placed a Linux Mandrake Hat on their box (on top of the penguin), and they didn't even notice. I started asking a few more questions and the VP had to pick up the box and read it. Still he didn't notice that hat, and couldn't answer my questions. I later saw him at the session with Bob Young. He was sitting in the audience trying to stay awake. He obviously didn't have a clue about the Open Source community nor Linux.
(-1 Redundant) PS. Sorry if this posted twice, I hit stop right after I hit submit, because I just realized I had his card and I don't know if it made it to Slashdot or not the first time.
I talked to that VP as well. He couldn't answer any questions that I asked. I simply asked what development tools are on the distibution, and he referred me to this other guy who told me "Linux Lite runs on Windows"???? It was like they were programmed for certain responses. But didn't know what to do if someone asked them something of content.
Also, a guy from Loki was there messing with their heads! He placed a Linux Mandrake Hat on their box (on top of the penguin), and they didn't even notice. I started asking a few more questions and the VP had to pick up the box and read it. Still he didn't notice that hat, and couldn't answer my questions. I later saw him at the session with Bob Young. He was sitting in the audience trying to stay awake. He obviously didn't have a clue about the Open Source community nor Linux.
Sorry for the late reply, but I couldn't get to a terminal. Every time I tried, they were all taken. Especially at the Slashdot pavilion.
You are right, I did get confused with the BSD/OS because they are right next to each other. When I went to the booth, the FreeBSD guys/gals were not there, so I strolled too far an ended up with the BSD/OS people, and thought I was still with the Free BSD. My mistake, sorry.
Thanks for the invite on the picture with the daemonettes, but my wife won't care for that;^)
BTW, I did pick up a copy of the Free BSD, and I do plan on trying it out. I think it will go well with my Slackware and RedHat machines.
Ok, I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm here at the Expo. I didn't even realize I was being recorded, when I debated Rob about having a "reject bin" for filtered rejected posts!
Yes those women in the pics are from the BSD booth, coming over to see/advertise-on slashdot. It's funny to see the ways companies/orginizations try to get people to come and see them. I went there and picked up my "Free BSD" CD/floppies, and it comes with a paper that reads that it is an evaluation copy. How can a Free BSD give evaluation copies that expire in 60 days??! If I remember correctly, they did the same thing to me last year, and that was why I never installed it. Maybe I read it wrong. If anyone knows, please respond. I like to be open, and want to install *BSD to work with my Linux boxes. But they left me confused!
I agree. I don't think of Palm OS as an embedded system. But I do consider the code in a gas pump as an embedded system, and that has a computer monitor like interface too. These two could be the same, although I consider only one of them as embedded. Maybe we should only consider software that runs something and has little or no interface to a human as being embedded, and call everything else up to computers "Mini". So the software that runs my watch could be embedded, and that gas pump and Palm OS can be mini.
Just an idea, since it is getting hard to distinguish "embedded" with actual normal software. Heck, soon a Palm may be as powerful as today's laptops.
We really need a new term to be able to remove this confusion. At my work, we really do write "embedded" and RT systems. The software runs aircrafts and that is probably the most RT and embedded as you can get. Most of the software needs to fit in less than a Meg, since the hardware needs to take tremendous evironment abuses and must only produce minimal heat, we can't use the stuff you get at Comp USA, and thus we are limited.
Anytime you are representing a side, you have some bias towards it. If you work for Al Gore's PR division, you obviously will point out the good points of VP Gore, and ignore or hide his bad points. Same goes for Bush, Bradley, McCain, etc.
You only have a single judge in a case. After the facts are laid then, the judge decides one way or the other. I agree with your point of having two sides to a story, but that usually is an analogy of having two lawyers who represent each side. As you say It's opinions that bias something - not facts, but it's bias to choose what facts to point out. Having one bias to one side and another bias to anther, will help show the most facts of both sides, and then you can get a better picture. Of course this doesn't always work. If one lawyer is much better than the other, then you don't get an equal showing of facts. That's probably the problem with our (US) legal system. But that's another story.
Again, I agree that the press should always have reporters that favor each side. But opinions are hard to subdue. Let the reporters fight, and then we can get the best news. My news-paper has reporters that are both Democrats and Republicans, and I love to read the difference in opinions. I enjoy reading Pro-MS as much or even better than I do for Pro-Linux. Being Pro-Linux myself, I find that I too am bias, and like to find the ways to make Linux better. I read that Linux has trouble with configuring the Video, and I say to myself "yes it does, let's fix that".
Although I totally agree with your statement about ZDNet, and since I actually subscribe to "Berst Alert", I have seen (and laugh!) at Jesse just following the masses. I like the tech news better from them, but I always considered Jesse as the comic relief.
But as for your statement
*represent both sides equally and without bias*
I would like to see how could you do that. Can someone represent a side with being bias? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron? Or do you mean just mean have a bias MS person and a bias Linux/free software person. Of course I don't know anyone that would like to write on/. being pro-MS. That's kind of like suicide! But I'm sure there are people out there that enjoy the flames.
I could go on like other posters and just bash Microsoft for the "inferior" product, but I think that tone is starting to get lame.
But I want to mention something about Microsoft that really irks me and should irk their customers to. And that is the following statement:
Of course, from a security perspective, you shouldn't offer any services you don't use," Culp said. "We want to make sure our customers are educated about this, and that they are aware of which services they have active and how to disable what they don't need. We've also given Windows 2000 tighter defaults and made it much easier to configure
I'm sorry, but I don't buy their statement about having tighter defaults. Almost all problems with Windows has been because of defaults. It seems to me that they should default everything off, and let the user have to go and turn what they need on.
Of course I don't like the way Red Hat does this too. I had to spend a few hours trying to figure out what Red Hat had default on. I forgot to turn off the "finger" utility until I noticed in my logs that someone was using it on my firewall. Now I do my security like I do my installs: Customize, turn everything off, then when I find something I need, I install/turn-on that service.
Good point. Actually I would use XHTML or XML instead. This may might be applicable, but I only downloaded the full specs on XML a few days ago and have yet to read them.
I'd say screw it all and just go with a common DLL that you can link.
DLL? do you mean shared object. This isn't a Windows machine. Like I stated in my post, I don't want to guess what the utility is doing, and I don't want to look through source code to figure it out. A simple standard config file would work. If you add a new utility and need to add configurations to it. Just place you configurations into the/etc/config.d directory, during "make install", with the considered file format (XML if you wish) and the given utility (GNU Control Panel?) would then list that configuration format.
I recommend different files in a single directory since you don't want a bad install to destroy current files (Windows Registry anyone!).
The format XML or what ever, needs to be able to run commands as well. So the user would need to su to root to run their browser or other application that would read these files. Since the files are ASCII, the likelyhood of a virus would be minimal.
How dare you insist that I change it so as to make it more convenient for you to increase the size of the market!
I wasn't. I was replying to your statement COMPUTERS ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE. I'm arguing that computers can be good for most people. Grant you, not everyone, but if you are interested in any of the things that I have stated, then computers are for you.
Sorry, but the statement is about the OSS, if you don't need the masses, then go back to your basement and write all your device drivers yourself. I'm interested in using Linux for things like accounting and better web browsing. I want secure transactions when I buy stock. Now I'm not going to write my own Tax, and accounting software, but I hope someone does. The only reason that I boot up in Windows, is to use Quicken and Tax Cut. Although I am concern that they should be so that people can make sure that they are correct (God help me if they screw up my taxes!).
If I want these utilities and my new monitor supported, then I need to get a motive for companies to write drivers and applications for Linux. I don't care if Tax Cut or Quicken are closed source. I don't write any applications on top of them, so it doesn't bother me. If I had a need to do so, then I would push them to be more open. Closed source software is best for those applications that are not "fun" to work with. And I don't know any programmer that thinks taxes or accounting is fun.
If you don't agree with me, then fine. I respect your opinion. But my original comment is to those that don't want to write every piece of software that they use. I prefer a world where Linux is dominant. My recommendation is to those that want to use Linux at work as well as at home, and have the power to do so.
A whole lot of people seem to like email. Yes, you can do this on handhelds and such, but I see alot of people wanting to use a computer. They want to do their accounting, write letters, taxes, browse websites, send and receive email, play games, buy/sell stock, buy/sell merchandise, etc, etc, etc...
[rant] Do you want them to go to Windows? Sure, why not! I don't know about you, but the more they go to windows, the more the money goes to windows, the more the games go to windows, the more the accounting systems go to windows, the more eveything that I want goes to windows!!!! [/rant]
Sorry, but I don't buy your argument. There's lots of people I know that want to do simple things that are best left to computers, and don't want to use Windows. They ask me: "I'm looking into getting Linux, can I do my taxes, accounting, play DVD's?". And mostly I have to say is "No!". The reason is because the market is not there. If you want there to be a market for Linux then you need to get the masses over. And for you BSD folks, if you get the masses over to Linux, it will be easier to get people to develop for BSD as well.
I stated a proposal in another post on this thread to make it not only easier for users, but for programmers as well. We need some config file that the users can use to easily set up their system. And the programmers will have a easy time to.
A first time user doesn't understand most of this. Think of yourself as going to dance lessons. You start off feeling funny and don't understand all the terms. You feel stupid by asking and looked down on by others that have been doing this for a while.
If you want OSS to succeed, you need to make it easy. If we can think of a standard interface utility that performs "Control Panel" operations, then this could help not only the users, but the gurus themselves.
If we can come up with a standard configuration tool that takes an ASCII config file as input, and produces simple user interface, then this would accomplish the task. Something that would be a standard, much like rpms are today. Say we have a Linuxconf interface that would get its commands from a file.
Example:
# hostname command start command; label: hostname entry: text run: hostname text end command;
Where this would be read buy some utility and show a label stating hostname: [ ] and then when the user enters in the hostname the command "hostname entered hostname" is executed.
This way all new utilities can conform to this format and append to the config file, or just have a single config directory (like/etc/config.d) that gets read by the tool, and have a "make xconfig" menu or linuxconf user interface. This would also solve the problem that some of us (me included) don't like about linuxconf, that we don't know what it is doing. But with this, all we need to do is look in the config.d directory and see for ourselves. This would make end-users happy (simple interface) and gurus happy (can see WTF is going on).
Of course, this utility would need to be thought out quite a bit. Maybe have a separate organization under OSI to make the standard. My example was just to make a point and not actually a real example.
I will argue that Open Source is a better development method. But methods alone do not make a good product. Only good software programmers do. If you follow strict methods of implementation, and have good programmers, you will have a good product. Some people think that Open Source is the end all. But it is just a better way of doing things. The products you mentioned are good, but I believe would become better if they were opened.
You can't take a badly written product and just dump it out as Open Source and expect it to magically become better. Netscape, is a perfect example of this. Instead of making Netscape better, it had to start almost from scratch to create todays Mozilla. A lot of code had to be rewritten.
So I agree that a development plan is needed, but Open Source with the propper support will do this. When we have vendors releasing specs or drivers up front for Open Source programs, we have better quality. You're right that people don't want to wait for this, and just start writing code. But if the support from vendors was there in the beginning, you won't have this. I think that XFree86 is a good example of this. They have a lot of vendors that do support them, and those drivers are up to par.
I'm shocked. This is a good and informative (to others. Nothing new to the/. crowd) article.
This is the first article I read from the Gartner Group that didn't bash OSS. Their other articles that I have read seemed to not be researched very well. I think this article actually debunks a lot of other articles that they have written.
Did they finally get a clue, or did they hire an OSS advocate?
I don't work for IBM, but I use to (the federal systems division was bought) and I know several people (including my father, a retired IBM manager, and my mother who still has a few years left with them). I'll back your statements.
A good friend of mine, at IBM, is working on the Transmeta Crusoe chip (but he won't give me details, that stupid NDA!). And my mother has said that there is a huge push towards Linux. They are trying to get their hardware and other software packages out to the community so that they can profit on the service. But they have ties to Red Hat for the Linux specific support. I also believe that they are working with other distros as well as LinuxCare(I'm not sure, since this bit of info came from hearsay). The service that they supply is more towards their own products.
Expect to see more coming from IBM that will help the Linux community. From all my resources, it seems that IBMs intent is genuine. They found a way to profit with the Linux community without stepping too much on the principles. Their focus seems to lean towards hardware/service, where the GPL doesn't effect it much.
Remember its the whole linux distribution you are talking about. Did your NT come with a Web server, FTP server, Telnet server, DNS server, Mail Server, etc. And it could also include the source.
I have custom installed Linux that has taken only 80 meg. I also have installed Linux to take up over 800 megs (KDE, GNOME, and all of the window managers) I was lasy one install and just clicked "Everything!".
So, please, don't talk about bloatware. NT is bloated without the features.
I'm just saying that I'm not sure that Intel is worried about Transmeta yet! The chip market is one of the most competetive markets out there. It's not easy to survive. AMD has become quite popular lately and I'm sure that Intel is more concerned about them then they are about Transmeta. Right now Transmetas chip has just come out, but it has yet to really prove itself in the market. I'm not talking about OEMs selling them, I'm talking about people buying products with them. Although one does lead to the other.
I'm sure Intel is concerned with Transmeta, but I'm sure that they are concerned with the bigger fish in the sea. And yes, Transmeta will probably grow to be one of those fish too. The point I'm trying to make is that this anouncement is not a direct result of Transmeta. It just makes it a more convenient time.
In the article it states that the prices took effect on January 16th. Unless they were able to break the security and secrecy of Transmeta, I don't think they knew. I'm sure some of you will argue that this was Intel getting ready for Transmeta, but I don't think they are too worried yet. I'm sure that AMD gives them a bigger scare.
I love SMIT. When I have more free time (in a year or two:( ) I wanted to write something like "SPIT" "Sytem Programming Interface Tools" that simulated the SMIT features. And write a ncurses to do SPITTY. Maybe we can get Redhat or SUSe or better yet Slackware to come up with a end all tool to do this.
I wouldn't mind writing one up, but I only know the configuration formats of some tools. Not all, so this would definitly be a group effort!
Although I do worry about the "dumbing down" of Linux, I do think it needs to be done. The alternative is to have a monopolistic/proprietary OS. Any proprietary OS has the ability to be monopolistic and controlling of other technologies. So whether it be Be, Sun, MS, Apple, if they become dominant, then they can control what is out there. Having Linux (or Free BSD for that matter) keeps the playing field level. We need a Linux client that is "dumbed down" for non-technical users. But make it configurable.
The thing that can keep a dumb Linux from being as insecure as Windows, is not to have the default options that Windows have. Let the user configure Linux to a less secure system. For example, have system operations done only as root, unless the user states (at installation, or as root) that they can do something as administrator. I know that this can be done today, but make it more application dependant and user friendly. IOW, let the user turn off security with a push of a button and a warning message, so that they know that they are in trouble.
Like the Mellisa virus. The main Word template/macros were modified so that any document that was opened was infected. If this was in Linux, then Word (Word for Linux?) would have been installed by an adminstrator any only that administrator could modify that template, so the Mellisa virus would not spread as easily.
Security is an issue, and I do believe that ease of use and security are reversly proportional, and you will see Windows getting more complex as it tries to be secure.
Windows and Linux are trying to be both secure and friendly. Windows is trying to get the secure/stable environment and Linux is trying to get the friendliness environment. It's like Windows is this beautiful glass house trying to build a solid foundation. Where Linux is a strong brick building trying to become beautiful. It's easier to take a strong building and make it beautiful then a fancy but weak building and make it strong.
how would he secure a server? he hasn't touched a computer for 5 years. I'm sure he's still a security expert, but 5 years is a long time in computer years.
Well I'm sure that he reads, and keeps up with the technology. What else would you do in jail? I wonder if he can still look at source code for operating systems and such. Paper form that is.
but it would be alot more interesting to interview him in a month or two and get his perspective on the changes that have taken place in the last 5 years.
Please log in. Your words would be taken more seriously if you did. You can still be anonymous if you have an account (at least to the/. community, but not to the/. team themselves)
I really like to see a Pro-MS person defending MS that is not an AC!
This is not just a Linux site. That would be sites like Linux Today. Yes it is highly dominant in Linux advocates, but you see other views as well. This is supposed to be the site for nerds, and I do think Kevin qualifies as a nerd.
I would like to ask him a few questions, Like how he himself would secure a server. What OS is the most secure (in his opinion).
The people we interview are not always part of the community. Like that anti-online guy, and even Woz (although we would like him to be!). Steven Rostedt
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I'm a long time Linux advocate, and if you don't believe me, just check out my previous posts. But last night was a Nightmare. But I do claim that this is largely my own fault.
/usr/bin and /usr/lib and other directories were missing! But the 'df' showed that the /usr partition was almost full. When I checked the total file size (with ls -Rla and an awk script) it didn't match up. It seemed that it messed up the file inodes or something.
/usr partition. After spending several hours installing rpms by hand (reminds me of my old slackware days) I still don't have text when I bring up X. My xterm is missing the word "xterm" where it should be. And the menues are ok until a run the mouse over them, and then the text goes away?
With a RedHat 6.1 CD I received at LinuxWorld, I tried to upgrade my current 6.0. But since I have a Quad boot (Slackware/Redhat/Win95/NT) and a NTFS partition, the upgrade died on the scanning. I checked with bugzilla, and it is known that the upgrade doesn't work if you have an NTFS partition. I still wanted to install from the CD so I rebooted and continued.
After one attempt, I didn't have enough diskspace for my custom install, so I went back an chose not to have KDE (I'm more a GNOME person). Then I let the installation go. It seemed to work fine, but after I rebooted, I had a ton of error messages. It seems that my
So I got brave and reformated the
I've been using Linux for a few years now, and if this is bothering me, I can't imagine what a newbie would do.
PS. If anyone knows how to fix the xterm problem, please let me know. I've installed every font I can think of. Is there something that I'm missing?
Steven Rostedt
I talked to that VP as well, I took his card:
Roy Bentley Holmes
Vice President of Sales
Tel: (408) 929-3331
Fax: (408) 929-3330
LINUXONE, INC.
201 San Antonio Circle C250
Mountain View, CA 94040
Tel: (650) 948-6201
Fax: (650) 948-2932
roy@linuxone.net
www.linuxone.net
He couldn't answer any questions that I asked. I simply asked what development tools are on the distibution, and he referred me to this other guy who told me "Linux Lite runs on Windows"???? It was like they were programmed for certain responses. But didn't know what to do if someone asked them something of content.
Also, a guy from Loki was there messing with their heads! He placed a Linux Mandrake Hat on their box (on top of the penguin), and they didn't even notice. I started asking a few more questions and the VP had to pick up the box and read it. Still he didn't notice that hat, and couldn't answer my questions. I later saw him at the session with Bob Young. He was sitting in the audience trying to stay awake. He obviously didn't have a clue about the Open Source community nor Linux.
(-1 Redundant)
PS. Sorry if this posted twice, I hit stop right after I hit submit, because I just realized I had his card and I don't know if it made it to Slashdot or not the first time.
Steven Rostedt
I talked to that VP as well. He couldn't answer any questions that I asked. I simply asked what development tools are on the distibution, and he referred me to this other guy who told me "Linux Lite runs on Windows"???? It was like they were programmed for certain responses. But didn't know what to do if someone asked them something of content.
Also, a guy from Loki was there messing with their heads! He placed a Linux Mandrake Hat on their box (on top of the penguin), and they didn't even notice. I started asking a few more questions and the VP had to pick up the box and read it. Still he didn't notice that hat, and couldn't answer my questions. I later saw him at the session with Bob Young. He was sitting in the audience trying to stay awake. He obviously didn't have a clue about the Open Source community nor Linux.
Steven Rostedt
Sorry for the late reply, but I couldn't get to a terminal. Every time I tried, they were all taken. Especially at the Slashdot pavilion.
;^)
You are right, I did get confused with the BSD/OS because they are right next to each other. When I went to the booth, the FreeBSD guys/gals were not there, so I strolled too far an ended up with the BSD/OS people, and thought I was still with the Free BSD. My mistake, sorry.
Thanks for the invite on the picture with the daemonettes, but my wife won't care for that
BTW, I did pick up a copy of the Free BSD, and I do plan on trying it out. I think it will go well with my Slackware and RedHat machines.
Thanks,
Steven Rostedt
Ok, I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm here at the Expo. I didn't even realize I was being recorded, when I debated Rob about having a "reject bin" for filtered rejected posts!
Yes those women in the pics are from the BSD booth, coming over to see/advertise-on slashdot. It's funny to see the ways companies/orginizations try to get people to come and see them. I went there and picked up my "Free BSD" CD/floppies, and it comes with a paper that reads that it is an evaluation copy. How can a Free BSD give evaluation copies that expire in 60 days??! If I remember correctly, they did the same thing to me last year, and that was why I never installed it. Maybe I read it wrong. If anyone knows, please respond. I like to be open, and want to install *BSD to work with my Linux boxes. But they left me confused!
Steven Rostedt
I agree. I don't think of Palm OS as an embedded system. But I do consider the code in a gas pump as an embedded system, and that has a computer monitor like interface too. These two could be the same, although I consider only one of them as embedded. Maybe we should only consider software that runs something and has little or no interface to a human as being embedded, and call everything else up to computers "Mini". So the software that runs my watch could be embedded, and that gas pump and Palm OS can be mini.
Just an idea, since it is getting hard to distinguish "embedded" with actual normal software. Heck, soon a Palm may be as powerful as today's laptops.
We really need a new term to be able to remove this confusion. At my work, we really do write "embedded" and RT systems. The software runs aircrafts and that is probably the most RT and embedded as you can get. Most of the software needs to fit in less than a Meg, since the hardware needs to take tremendous evironment abuses and must only produce minimal heat, we can't use the stuff you get at Comp USA, and thus we are limited.
Steven Rostedt
Anytime you are representing a side, you have some bias towards it. If you work for Al Gore's PR division, you obviously will point out the good points of VP Gore, and ignore or hide his bad points. Same goes for Bush, Bradley, McCain, etc.
You only have a single judge in a case. After the facts are laid then, the judge decides one way or the other. I agree with your point of having two sides to a story, but that usually is an analogy of having two lawyers who represent each side. As you say It's opinions that bias something - not facts, but it's bias to choose what facts to point out. Having one bias to one side and another bias to anther, will help show the most facts of both sides, and then you can get a better picture. Of course this doesn't always work. If one lawyer is much better than the other, then you don't get an equal showing of facts. That's probably the problem with our (US) legal system. But that's another story.
Again, I agree that the press should always have reporters that favor each side. But opinions are hard to subdue. Let the reporters fight, and then we can get the best news. My news-paper has reporters that are both Democrats and Republicans, and I love to read the difference in opinions. I enjoy reading Pro-MS as much or even better than I do for Pro-Linux. Being Pro-Linux myself, I find that I too am bias, and like to find the ways to make Linux better. I read that Linux has trouble with configuring the Video, and I say to myself "yes it does, let's fix that".
Steven Rostedt
Although I totally agree with your statement about ZDNet, and since I actually subscribe to "Berst Alert", I have seen (and laugh!) at Jesse just following the masses. I like the tech news better from them, but I always considered Jesse as the comic relief.
/. being pro-MS. That's kind of like suicide! But I'm sure there are people out there that enjoy the flames.
But as for your statement
*represent both sides equally and without bias*
I would like to see how could you do that. Can someone represent a side with being bias? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron? Or do you mean just mean have a bias MS person and a bias Linux/free software person. Of course I don't know anyone that would like to write on
Steven Rostedt
I could go on like other posters and just bash Microsoft for the "inferior" product, but I think that tone is starting to get lame.
But I want to mention something about Microsoft that really irks me and should irk their customers to. And that is the following statement:
Of course, from a security perspective, you shouldn't offer any services you don't use," Culp said. "We want to make sure our customers are educated about this, and that they are aware of which services they have active and how to disable what they don't need. We've also given Windows 2000 tighter defaults and made it much easier to configure
I'm sorry, but I don't buy their statement about having tighter defaults. Almost all problems with Windows has been because of defaults. It seems to me that they should default everything off, and let the user have to go and turn what they need on.
Of course I don't like the way Red Hat does this too. I had to spend a few hours trying to figure out what Red Hat had default on. I forgot to turn off the "finger" utility until I noticed in my logs that someone was using it on my firewall. Now I do my security like I do my installs: Customize, turn everything off, then when I find something I need, I install/turn-on that service.
Steven Rostedt
Why not just stick with HTML?
/etc/config.d directory, during "make install", with the considered file format (XML if you wish) and the given utility (GNU Control Panel?) would then list that configuration format.
Good point. Actually I would use XHTML or XML instead. This may might be applicable, but I only downloaded the full specs on XML a few days ago and have yet to read them.
I'd say screw it all and just go with a common DLL that you can link.
DLL? do you mean shared object. This isn't a Windows machine. Like I stated in my post, I don't want to guess what the utility is doing, and I don't want to look through source code to figure it out. A simple standard config file would work. If you add a new utility and need to add configurations to it. Just place you configurations into the
I recommend different files in a single directory since you don't want a bad install to destroy current files (Windows Registry anyone!).
The format XML or what ever, needs to be able to run commands as well. So the user would need to su to root to run their browser or other application that would read these files. Since the files are ASCII, the likelyhood of a virus would be minimal.
Steven Rostedt
only about 1% of the Chinese population
hmmm, 1 billion Chinese, 1% of 1 billion == 10 Million. That's still a lot of people!
Steven Rostedt
How dare you insist that I change it so as to make it more convenient for you to increase the size of the market!
I wasn't. I was replying to your statement COMPUTERS ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE. I'm arguing that computers can be good for most people. Grant you, not everyone, but if you are interested in any of the things that I have stated, then computers are for you.
Sorry, but the statement is about the OSS, if you don't need the masses, then go back to your basement and write all your device drivers yourself. I'm interested in using Linux for things like accounting and better web browsing. I want secure transactions when I buy stock. Now I'm not going to write my own Tax, and accounting software, but I hope someone does. The only reason that I boot up in Windows, is to use Quicken and Tax Cut. Although I am concern that they should be so that people can make sure that they are correct (God help me if they screw up my taxes!).
If I want these utilities and my new monitor supported, then I need to get a motive for companies to write drivers and applications for Linux. I don't care if Tax Cut or Quicken are closed source. I don't write any applications on top of them, so it doesn't bother me. If I had a need to do so, then I would push them to be more open. Closed source software is best for those applications that are not "fun" to work with. And I don't know any programmer that thinks taxes or accounting is fun.
If you don't agree with me, then fine. I respect your opinion. But my original comment is to those that don't want to write every piece of software that they use. I prefer a world where Linux is dominant. My recommendation is to those that want to use Linux at work as well as at home, and have the power to do so.
Steven Rostedt
A whole lot of people seem to like email. Yes, you can do this on handhelds and such, but I see alot of people wanting to use a computer. They want to do their accounting, write letters, taxes, browse websites, send and receive email, play games, buy/sell stock, buy/sell merchandise, etc, etc, etc...
[rant]
Do you want them to go to Windows? Sure, why not! I don't know about you, but the more they go to windows, the more the money goes to windows, the more the games go to windows, the more the accounting systems go to windows, the more eveything that I want goes to windows!!!!
[/rant]
Sorry, but I don't buy your argument. There's lots of people I know that want to do simple things that are best left to computers, and don't want to use Windows. They ask me: "I'm looking into getting Linux, can I do my taxes, accounting, play DVD's?". And mostly I have to say is "No!". The reason is because the market is not there. If you want there to be a market for Linux then you need to get the masses over. And for you BSD folks, if you get the masses over to Linux, it will be easier to get people to develop for BSD as well.
I stated a proposal in another post on this thread to make it not only easier for users, but for programmers as well. We need some config file that the users can use to easily set up their system. And the programmers will have a easy time to.
Steven Rostedt
You hit the nail squarely on the head!
/etc/config.d) that gets read by the tool, and have a "make xconfig" menu or linuxconf user interface. This would also solve the problem that some of us (me included) don't like about linuxconf, that we don't know what it is doing. But with this, all we need to do is look in the config.d directory and see for ourselves. This would make end-users happy (simple interface) and gurus happy (can see WTF is going on).
A first time user doesn't understand most of this. Think of yourself as going to dance lessons. You start off feeling funny and don't understand all the terms. You feel stupid by asking and looked down on by others that have been doing this for a while.
If you want OSS to succeed, you need to make it easy. If we can think of a standard interface utility that performs "Control Panel" operations, then this could help not only the users, but the gurus themselves.
If we can come up with a standard configuration tool that takes an ASCII config file as input, and produces simple user interface, then this would accomplish the task. Something that would be a standard, much like rpms are today. Say we have a Linuxconf interface that would get its commands from a file.
Example:
# hostname command
start command;
label: hostname
entry: text
run: hostname text
end command;
Where this would be read buy some utility and show a label stating hostname: [ ] and then when the user enters in the hostname the command
"hostname entered hostname" is executed.
This way all new utilities can conform to this format and append to the config file, or just have a single config directory (like
Of course, this utility would need to be thought out quite a bit. Maybe have a separate organization under OSI to make the standard. My example was just to make a point and not actually a real example.
Steven Rostedt
I will argue that Open Source is a better development method. But methods alone do not make a good product. Only good software programmers do. If you follow strict methods of implementation, and have good programmers, you will have a good product. Some people think that Open Source is the end all. But it is just a better way of doing things. The products you mentioned are good, but I believe would become better if they were opened.
You can't take a badly written product and just dump it out as Open Source and expect it to magically become better. Netscape, is a perfect example of this. Instead of making Netscape better, it had to start almost from scratch to create todays Mozilla. A lot of code had to be rewritten.
So I agree that a development plan is needed, but Open Source with the propper support will do this. When we have vendors releasing specs or drivers up front for Open Source programs, we have better quality. You're right that people don't want to wait for this, and just start writing code. But if the support from vendors was there in the beginning, you won't have this. I think that XFree86 is a good example of this. They have a lot of vendors that do support them, and those drivers are up to par.
Steven Rostedt
I'm shocked. This is a good and informative (to others. Nothing new to the
This is the first article I read from the Gartner Group that didn't bash OSS. Their other articles that I have read seemed to not be researched very well. I think this article actually debunks a lot of other articles that they have written.
Did they finally get a clue, or did they hire an OSS advocate?
Send this article to your managers!
Steven Rostedt
I don't work for IBM, but I use to (the federal systems division was bought) and I know several people (including my father, a retired IBM manager, and my mother who still has a few years left with them). I'll back your statements.
A good friend of mine, at IBM, is working on the Transmeta Crusoe chip (but he won't give me details, that stupid NDA!). And my mother has said that there is a huge push towards Linux. They are trying to get their hardware and other software packages out to the community so that they can profit on the service. But they have ties to Red Hat for the Linux specific support. I also believe that they are working with other distros as well as LinuxCare(I'm not sure, since this bit of info came from hearsay). The service that they supply is more towards their own products.
Expect to see more coming from IBM that will help the Linux community. From all my resources, it seems that IBMs intent is genuine. They found a way to profit with the Linux community without stepping too much on the principles. Their focus seems to lean towards hardware/service, where the GPL doesn't effect it much.
Steven Rostedt
Remember its the whole linux distribution you are talking about. Did your NT come with a Web server, FTP server, Telnet server, DNS server, Mail Server, etc. And it could also include the source.
I have custom installed Linux that has taken only 80 meg. I also have installed Linux to take up over 800 megs (KDE, GNOME, and all of the window managers) I was lasy one install and just clicked "Everything!".
So, please, don't talk about bloatware. NT is bloated without the features.
Steven Rostedt
I am for real, but then again, what is real?
I'm just saying that I'm not sure that Intel is worried about Transmeta yet! The chip market is one of the most competetive markets out there. It's not easy to survive. AMD has become quite popular lately and I'm sure that Intel is more concerned about them then they are about Transmeta. Right now Transmetas chip has just come out, but it has yet to really prove itself in the market. I'm not talking about OEMs selling them, I'm talking about people buying products with them. Although one does lead to the other.
I'm sure Intel is concerned with Transmeta, but I'm sure that they are concerned with the bigger fish in the sea. And yes, Transmeta will probably grow to be one of those fish too. The point I'm trying to make is that this anouncement is not a direct result of Transmeta. It just makes it a more convenient time.
Steven Rostedt
In the article it states that the prices took effect on January 16th. Unless they were able to break the security and secrecy of Transmeta, I don't think they knew. I'm sure some of you will argue that this was Intel getting ready for Transmeta, but I don't think they are too worried yet. I'm sure that AMD gives them a bigger scare.
Steven Rostedt
Sorry for the late response ;)
:( ) I wanted to write something like "SPIT" "Sytem Programming Interface Tools" that simulated the SMIT features. And write a ncurses to do SPITTY. Maybe we can get Redhat or SUSe or better yet Slackware to come up with a end all tool to do this.
I love SMIT. When I have more free time (in a year or two
I wouldn't mind writing one up, but I only know the configuration formats of some tools. Not all, so this would definitly be a group effort!
Steven Rostedt
I have to disagree.
Although I do worry about the "dumbing down" of Linux, I do think it needs to be done. The alternative is to have a monopolistic/proprietary OS. Any proprietary OS has the ability to be monopolistic and controlling of other technologies. So whether it be Be, Sun, MS, Apple, if they become dominant, then they can control what is out there. Having Linux (or Free BSD for that matter) keeps the playing field level. We need a Linux client that is "dumbed down" for non-technical users. But make it configurable.
The thing that can keep a dumb Linux from being as insecure as Windows, is not to have the default options that Windows have. Let the user configure Linux to a less secure system. For example, have system operations done only as root, unless the user states (at installation, or as root) that they can do something as administrator. I know that this can be done today, but make it more application dependant and user friendly. IOW, let the user turn off security with a push of a button and a warning message, so that they know that they are in trouble.
Like the Mellisa virus. The main Word template/macros were modified so that any document that was opened was infected. If this was in Linux, then Word (Word for Linux?) would have been installed by an adminstrator any only that administrator could modify that template, so the Mellisa virus would not spread as easily.
Security is an issue, and I do believe that ease of use and security are reversly proportional, and you will see Windows getting more complex as it tries to be secure.
Windows and Linux are trying to be both secure and friendly. Windows is trying to get the secure/stable environment and Linux is trying to get the friendliness environment.
It's like Windows is this beautiful glass house trying to build a solid foundation. Where Linux is a strong brick building trying to become beautiful. It's easier to take a strong building and make it beautiful then a fancy but weak building and make it strong.
Steven Rostedt
how would he secure a server? he hasn't touched a computer for 5 years. I'm sure he's still a security expert, but 5 years is a long time in computer years.
Well I'm sure that he reads, and keeps up with the technology. What else would you do in jail? I wonder if he can still look at source code for operating systems and such. Paper form that is.
but it would be alot more interesting to interview him in a month or two and get his perspective on the changes that have taken place in the last 5 years.
Agreed, it would be interesting.
Steven Rostedt
Why would you assume I wasn't being serious?
/. community, but not to the /. team themselves)
Can you say "Anonymous Coward".
Please log in. Your words would be taken more seriously if you did. You can still be anonymous if you have an account (at least to the
I really like to see a Pro-MS person defending MS that is not an AC!
Steven Rostedt
This is not just a Linux site. That would be sites like Linux Today. Yes it is highly dominant in Linux advocates, but you see other views as well. This is supposed to be the site for nerds, and I do think Kevin qualifies as a nerd.
I would like to ask him a few questions, Like how he himself would secure a server. What OS is the most secure (in his opinion).
The people we interview are not always part of the community. Like that anti-online guy, and even Woz (although we would like him to be!).
Steven Rostedt