And, as a multi-platform computer user, IE isn't even as good as lynx, much less netscrape
I believe he was referring to using IE on, say, Linux, Sun, AIX, etc. I'd say Mac but I think they have a port, and probably OS/2. But Netscape and lynx, run on a lot more platforms.
First, I never cared for Bill Gates or his corporate policies (three years ago, 10 years ago, nor today). Also I don't see me at Sun's feet either.
No, I don't believe that the worlds software can come from a bunch of hackers, but I do believe that joint efforts help a lot. This is where I disagree with you. I'm worried that this One Company with One University, can become corrupted quickly. If this was a joint effort with multiple corporations and universities, then I would have no problem.
Microsoft being a corporation, usually does something to be able to take advantage of it in a later time. With MS being first to patent, do you see them sharing this technology, or charging a ton for it. There's a reason that MS is so rich, they overcharge, and we pay, because we have no other alternative (unfortunately, Linux is not there quite yet). MS has been know to kill there competition. If they see someone making money in an area that they want, they use their muscle to get it.
and I don't see VA Linux, RedHat, or any of Slashdot's favorite companies making any donations.
I don't know if they have made any donations or not, but I know it won't be of the magnitude of MS, mainly because they don't have the resources.
If you become a monopoly, you then have the leverage to keep it. And anyone who dares compete, you can destroy. Simply because you have the resources to do it. It seems all of MS products have become the "defacto" after another company was there first. The reason, MS has the leverage to do so.
I would have no problem with this agreement, if it was open for others to join, or that all results would be public domain. This is a University, not a customer. Universities are for education and sharing of knowledge, NOT for expanding and embracing ones monopolies!
If you ordered from RedHat, see if they will let you upgrade (for free) or maybee, the UPS shipment is late because they are including 6.1 instead. Steven Rostedt
I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong, somebody), but I don't think "anyone" can just take it and re-release it under GPL. Nor can they add GPL and "contaminate" it. Only TGPL code can be added. I believe that only the owner can release it later under GPL. Its still "free speach" because noone can (but the owner) make it their own. But even the owner can't suddenly make restrictions on the ones who have the released (TGPL) code. That code is just like GPL, except that the owner can incorporate any changes back into their proprietary version. But that alone may be a task.
I still see it as free, just that the one who released it has the advantage. And I don't have any problems with that. This way if you have an existing product that under various reasons, you can't put under GPL, and you like to make something that uses it and place that under TGPL, then you can and still incorporate your product with it. Steven Rostedt
I don't know about the TGPL, but I want to comment on your questions about the originator. These are my own thoughts and do not apply that this is how the TGPL works.
I believe that if you start a project and produce TGPL code you should be the owner and be the only one to re-release it under GPL. The TGPL should stay intact until the owner relinquishes it. Even if you don't support it anymore, but you should have the option of transfering ownership to someone else. If you enhance the code (even rewrite most of it) it stays under the TGPL. If you are going to rewrite most of it, might as well rewrite the whole thing under your own license.
This is how I view GPL. If I want to continue a GPL product, I will write on top of it. If I don't feel I want the GPL license, then I will start from scratch. I find that the biggest complaints about the GPL is that it "restricts" from using with non-GPL licenses. I don't feel that this is a case. I only restricts those who did not create it. So it restricts those who want to profit off of someone elses work. The GPL is like a gift from programmers. But you cannot abuse that gift. If you use it and change it, you must also give it away (as in rights, not giving away free beer). If you use a GPL product and enhance it, give it to someone, you can charge for any more enhancements. But you can't restrict your customers from going to someone else, or doing it themselves. TGPL seems like it allows the creator to incorporate any changes that the customer has done (and released) or from anyone else.
I like this idea, because it still allows for a freedom of source, and it gives you away of being one up from it. So the community will support you as well as everyone else. But if you stop the support and don't transfer ownership, I don't see how that will be a problem because the product is still out.
I read other posts about how open source was a cause for finding the CGI "bug". And others who say that the PC Week admin should have read the bug traq and updated their installation.
But no where did I see anyone mention that the posted bug report was used by the cracker!
He said, after finding the exploit in the CGI script, he looked up ways to crack it. Then he found the crontab thingy in the bugtraq report.
So if you don't read the bugtraq, you are very susceptible to attacks because the crackers are reading them!
Actually I install Linux all the time. It's pretty easy (for me). Yes the first time I installed linux I had trouble (Slackware on floppies) but I learned how to do it. I also have (and still have) trouble installing Windows. But that is because I usually don't install Windows often.
So I think this installing of Windows and Linux comparison is quite off. If you are use to installing Windows then yes it is easy. If you are use to installing Linux, that is easy to. As I have noted in an earlier post, I installed RedHat via ftp (try that with Windows) and the only problem I had was to find a mirror that didn't have the anonymous users maxed out.
I recommend you install a more recent copy, which is more likely to include drivers for unusual hardware like yours.
Funny, I usually say the same thing when I hear people installing old versions of Linux (say Caldera 1.3)
I did my first install with old Slack on floppies as well.
Now-a-days, I just got done installing RedHat via FTP. One floppy for the bootnet.img and the rest was to locate a RedHat mirror that was accepting anonymous users. Boy that was easy, and quite fun.
I still have a dual boot of slackware because it will always have a place in my heart (boy am I a geek:)
I certainly agree with restricting peoples ability to turn my code into non-free code. And a lot of companies that release free software like the GPL too.
Funny, I notice that those who give code away prefer the GPL license, but those who want the code prefer the BSD license. Your statement is exactly why I fight to release code under GPL, or atleast LGPL for my libraries.
If you need a function, and you don't want to give your code away, you are happy to have BSD, because you can do that. But if you want to give it away without fear of it being controlled by someone else, then GPL is probably preferred.
Corel is being very careful not to upset the Open Source community. For now, we are a strong ally against their main enemy.
It's a GOOD THING(tm) to uproar about anything we think is wrong, even if it is just a hint. As long as you don't go flaming or throwing insults, and respond in an intellectual manner. Of course we have those that don't do that and I'm embarrassed of that, but I will complain if they just seem to be breaking the rules.
I liked their response (Although I'm sure RMS can't stand it and wonders "What type of Open Source license they will use", since it was stated that the terms will be developed later).
This response probably would not have happened without the reaction of Slashdot. They could be acting like a child, pushing the rules until they are stopped.
1. This is a very early _LIMITED_ Beta. According to the FAQ, there will be a larger second beta. I presume this means that we all will be able to take it for a test drive.
I have to agree to a previous response, that this should really be called an Alpha. But what the hey!
2. Were any of us whining what we couldn't see their code as it was being developed? I don't think so. This is not any different.
No, but I wonder if the "beta testers" can see the source code? If this is truly internal, then they should.
3. Corel is probably expecting (and will likely recieve) a large response when they make Corel Linux publicly available. It is in everyone best interests if the project is kept organized and orderly. Letting a small group of outside people help them work through the rough spots will help ensure there is no fiasco when the full public release comes.
Fine, but will they release a beta to the public under true GPL. And place a disclaimer that this is a beta, and that it is not for mission critical use. This way, they can get the benefits of Open Source and have it thoroughly debugged. It won't be perfect, but then the official release should be cleaner.
4. In case you haven't noticed yet, Bruce Perens has been talking with them personally. He says that they are listening/receptive. You can count on him to let us know if they stop being responsive.
This is a GOOD THING(tm)
5. Corel will look out for Corel first. The rest of us are second. I agree with this attitude completely. I don't expect them to turn a blind eye to the rest of the world, but given the choice, they'll look out for #1.
I think it is great to look out for old number 1, If you don't who will? But if they have taken others work that others have licensed under GPL, they are obliged to obey the license. Good they are joining the Open Source community. But if they try to rape it, then they get what they deserve.
I'm not one of these extreme advocates (although I may be close:), I'm not going to flame Corel, for this. But I'm going to watch very closely. And if they start to try take advantage of the Open Source, then I will let others know, and influence my peers in staying away from Corel. This is where it can hurt them.
If I agree with Corel (which I don't), and say that the distribution is to a select few for "internal" development, they are missing the point of GPL.
Beta testing is to find and remove bugs. An "internal" approach is not the most effective. The point of Open Source, is to let a large community debug and improve the product. Being the owner allows you to be the center point of development and support (where the money is).
I don't believe in Corel's "Open Source Spirit". If that was the case, then they would take the bennefits of Open Source, and use it.
Network computing is the answer but not "thin clients". I have network several computers, both at home and at the office. At home I mainly have linux (Slackware and Redhat) and at work I have an array of Linux, AIX, Sun, and even NT. I use each for a different task, or mutliple tasks. I have found that the most efficient way of doing things is to have the clients run the applications but use a central server to store the data. This way, the servers don't get bogged down when we have a hundred users.
Even doing simple tasks as word processors and spreadsheets, it's more efficent to have the client run the applications and retrieve data from a central location. You only need to back up the data. Yes it is more of a pain to do upgrades, but it saves on network traffic for either loading a network app, and running completely off another machine.
Please, don't ask for bench marks. The only bench marks I used was the drop of complaints from users that the system is too slow.
Bear deterrent sprays. You can buy them in stores in the States and Canada. You go into the store, you pay 50 to 60 bucks, you get a little can. And it's bear spray; you take it into the bush. Well, they don't work. I mean they wouldn't stop a dog, let alone a bear.
There was three links to read, I read the last two, and skimmed the first. I do this at work so I don't have much time. Anyway, I thought I had read enough to post. I hate it when someone posts with out reading too, but hey I missed that "bear spray" part. I had to go back and read it again to see what you were talking about.
Geeze, don't get so p*ssed off. I was just trying to make a point about the suit that I saw when it airred on TV.
The "bear repellent" remark was just to say that I wouldn't count on it. And as the story says, It won't work.
Actually the world wide web and Internet are a kind of database. So who owns the copyright?
Al Gore?
;)
(Oh he just invented it, he didn't actually create the gathered information, [or did he?!?])
Re:I saw this on TV about 6 months ago
on
Project Grizzly
·
· Score: 1
I saw this guy on TV too, and he had one major problem with his suit. If he fell over, he could not get up. That would be a problem if the bear knocks him down, which is most likely to happen. He be like a turtle on its back.
They should call it the "Bear Amusement Suit" (the bear's amusement, not yours) or the "Become a Bear Toy Suit".
It may protect you, but how will you get away. Anyone know how well "bear repellent" works?
The 'code' belongs to MS. Their money was used to produce it. Not yours, not mine.
I really would like the government to investigate this. I wonder how much code is actually theirs? One reason to keep something secret is to hide criminal activity. I'm not accusing MS of stealing code, but I would like to make sure that they are not.
Another thing is that I have heard that they have their own API into Windows. So even if you program for Windows, you are already at a disadvantage because you are given an inferior set of rules to play by. This also is wrong.
Lastly, have you noticed that the evil Bill Gates just gave one billion
I never notice him giving anything before his PR committee told him that his public popularity was one step below the devil.
If you do not like MS, do not use their products.
This part I wish was true. But programming is my profession. I am always given tasks that I know could be done better in *nix environment but I am forced to use NT. I usually have major problems and its always "my fault", although I have done the same tasks in *nix effortlessly.
Slashdot Mirror
If you state his whole statement
And, as a multi-platform computer user, IE isn't even as good as lynx, much less netscrape
I believe he was referring to using IE on, say, Linux, Sun, AIX, etc. I'd say Mac but I think they have a port, and probably OS/2. But Netscape and lynx, run on a lot more platforms.
Steven Rostedt
First, I never cared for Bill Gates or his corporate policies (three years ago, 10 years ago, nor today). Also I don't see me at Sun's feet either.
No, I don't believe that the worlds software can come from a bunch of hackers, but I do believe that joint efforts help a lot. This is where I disagree with you. I'm worried that this One Company with One University, can become corrupted quickly. If this was a joint effort with multiple corporations and universities, then I would have no problem.
Microsoft being a corporation, usually does something to be able to take advantage of it in a later time. With MS being first to patent, do you see them sharing this technology, or charging a ton for it. There's a reason that MS is so rich, they overcharge, and we pay, because we have no other alternative (unfortunately, Linux is not there quite yet). MS has been know to kill there competition. If they see someone making money in an area that they want, they use their muscle to get it.
and I don't see VA Linux, RedHat, or any of Slashdot's favorite companies making any donations.
I don't know if they have made any donations or not, but I know it won't be of the magnitude of MS, mainly because they don't have the resources.
If you become a monopoly, you then have the leverage to keep it. And anyone who dares compete, you can destroy. Simply because you have the resources to do it. It seems all of MS products have become the "defacto" after another company was there first. The reason, MS has the leverage to do so.
I would have no problem with this agreement, if it was open for others to join, or that all results would be public domain. This is a University, not a customer. Universities are for education and sharing of knowledge, NOT for expanding and embracing ones monopolies!
Steven Rostedt
If you ordered from RedHat, see if they will let you upgrade (for free) or maybee, the UPS shipment is late because they are including 6.1 instead.
Steven Rostedt
I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong, somebody), but I don't think "anyone" can just take it and re-release it under GPL. Nor can they add GPL and "contaminate" it. Only TGPL code can be added. I believe that only the owner can release it later under GPL. Its still "free speach" because noone can (but the owner) make it their own. But even the owner can't suddenly make restrictions on the ones who have the released (TGPL) code. That code is just like GPL, except that the owner can incorporate any changes back into their proprietary version. But that alone may be a task.
I still see it as free, just that the one who released it has the advantage. And I don't have any problems with that. This way if you have an existing product that under various reasons, you can't put under GPL, and you like to make something that uses it and place that under TGPL, then you can and still incorporate your product with it.
Steven Rostedt
I don't know about the TGPL, but I want to comment on your questions about the originator. These are my own thoughts and do not apply that this is how the TGPL works.
I believe that if you start a project and produce TGPL code you should be the owner and be the only one to re-release it under GPL. The TGPL should stay intact until the owner relinquishes it. Even if you don't support it anymore, but you should have the option of transfering ownership to someone else. If you enhance the code (even rewrite most of it) it stays under the TGPL. If you are going to rewrite most of it, might as well rewrite the whole thing under your own license.
This is how I view GPL. If I want to continue a GPL product, I will write on top of it. If I don't feel I want the GPL license, then I will start from scratch. I find that the biggest complaints about the GPL is that it "restricts" from using with non-GPL licenses. I don't feel that this is a case. I only restricts those who did not create it. So it restricts those who want to profit off of someone elses work. The GPL is like a gift from programmers. But you cannot abuse that gift. If you use it and change it, you must also give it away (as in rights, not giving away free beer). If you use a GPL product and enhance it, give it to someone, you can charge for any more enhancements. But you can't restrict your customers from going to someone else, or doing it themselves. TGPL seems like it allows the creator to incorporate any changes that the customer has done (and released) or from anyone else.
I like this idea, because it still allows for a freedom of source, and it gives you away of being one up from it. So the community will support you as well as everyone else. But if you stop the support and don't transfer ownership, I don't see how that will be a problem because the product is still out.
Steven Rostedt
This is funny!
I read other posts about how open source was a cause for finding the CGI "bug". And others who say that the PC Week admin should have read the bug traq and updated their installation.
But no where did I see anyone mention that the posted bug report was used by the cracker!
He said, after finding the exploit in the CGI script, he looked up ways to crack it. Then he found the crontab thingy in the bugtraq report.
So if you don't read the bugtraq, you are very susceptible to attacks because the crackers are reading them!
Food for thought
Steven Rostedt
Actually I install Linux all the time. It's pretty easy (for me). Yes the first time I installed linux I had trouble (Slackware on floppies) but I learned how to do it. I also have (and still have) trouble installing Windows. But that is because I usually don't install Windows often.
So I think this installing of Windows and Linux comparison is quite off. If you are use to installing Windows then yes it is easy. If you are use to installing Linux, that is easy to. As I have noted in an earlier post, I installed RedHat via ftp (try that with Windows) and the only problem I had was to find a mirror that didn't have the anonymous users maxed out.
I recommend you install a more recent copy, which is more likely to include drivers for unusual hardware like yours.
Funny, I usually say the same thing when I hear people installing old versions of Linux (say Caldera 1.3)
Steven Rostedt
I believe the poster was refering to the comment remark of
;}
If he finds Linux is more difficult to install than Windows
So I have to say that your assumption is bad *and* off topic.
Sorry
Steven Rostedt
I did my first install with old Slack on floppies as well.
:)
Now-a-days, I just got done installing RedHat via FTP. One floppy for the bootnet.img and the rest was to locate a RedHat mirror that was accepting anonymous users. Boy that was easy, and quite fun.
I still have a dual boot of slackware because it will always have a place in my heart (boy am I a geek
Steven Rostedt
I certainly agree with restricting peoples ability to turn my code into non-free code. And a lot of companies that release free software like the GPL too.
Funny, I notice that those who give code away prefer the GPL license, but those who want the code prefer the BSD license. Your statement is exactly why I fight to release code under GPL, or atleast LGPL for my libraries.
If you need a function, and you don't want to give your code away, you are happy to have BSD, because you can do that. But if you want to give it away without fear of it being controlled by someone else, then GPL is probably preferred.
Steven Rostedt
Isn't Windows as close to Apple as Apple is close to Xerox's (internal) system.
So technically, isn't everyone using the Xerox OS?
Steven Rostedt
And he even answered yours! :)
I have to totally agree with you.
Corel is being very careful not to upset the Open Source community. For now, we are a strong ally against their main enemy.
It's a GOOD THING(tm) to uproar about anything we think is wrong, even if it is just a hint. As long as you don't go flaming or throwing insults, and respond in an intellectual manner. Of course we have those that don't do that and I'm embarrassed of that, but I will complain if they just seem to be breaking the rules.
I liked their response (Although I'm sure RMS can't stand it and wonders "What type of Open Source license they will use", since it was stated that the terms will be developed later).
This response probably would not have happened without the reaction of Slashdot. They could be acting like a child, pushing the rules until they are stopped.
1. This is a very early _LIMITED_ Beta. According to the FAQ, there will be a larger second beta. I presume this means that we all will be able to take it for a test drive.
:), I'm not going to flame Corel, for this. But I'm going to watch very closely. And if they start to try take advantage of the Open Source, then I will let others know, and influence my peers in staying away from Corel. This is where it can hurt them.
I have to agree to a previous response, that this should really be called an Alpha. But what the hey!
2. Were any of us whining what we couldn't see their code as it was being developed? I don't think so. This is not any different.
No, but I wonder if the "beta testers" can see the source code? If this is truly internal, then they should.
3. Corel is probably expecting (and will likely recieve) a large response when they make Corel Linux publicly available. It is in everyone best interests if the project is kept
organized and orderly. Letting a small group of outside people help them work through the rough spots will help ensure there is no fiasco when the full public release comes.
Fine, but will they release a beta to the public under true GPL. And place a disclaimer that this is a beta, and that it is not for mission critical use. This way, they can get the benefits of Open Source and have it thoroughly debugged. It won't be perfect, but then the official release should be cleaner.
4. In case you haven't noticed yet, Bruce Perens has been talking with them personally. He says that they are listening/receptive.
You can count on him to let us know if they stop being responsive.
This is a GOOD THING(tm)
5. Corel will look out for Corel first. The rest of us are second. I agree with this attitude completely. I don't expect them to turn a blind eye to the rest of the world, but
given the choice, they'll look out for #1.
I think it is great to look out for old number 1, If you don't who will? But if they have taken others work that others have licensed under GPL, they are obliged to obey the license. Good they are joining the Open Source community. But if they try to rape it, then they get what they deserve.
I'm not one of these extreme advocates (although I may be close
Sorry, Bad grammar!
If I agree with Corel (which I don't), and say that the distribution is to a select few for "internal" development, they are missing the point of GPL.
Beta testing is to find and remove bugs. An "internal" approach is not the most effective. The point of Open Source, is to let a large community debug and improve the product. Being the owner allows you to be the center point of development and support (where the money is).
I don't believe in Corel's "Open Source Spirit". If that was the case, then they would take the bennefits of Open Source, and use it.
Network computing is the answer but not "thin clients". I have network several computers, both at home and at the office. At home I mainly have linux (Slackware and Redhat) and at work I have an array of Linux, AIX, Sun, and even NT. I use each for a different task, or mutliple tasks. I have found that the most efficient way of doing things is to have the clients run the applications but use a central server to store the data. This way, the servers don't get bogged down when we have a hundred users.
Even doing simple tasks as word processors and spreadsheets, it's more efficent to have the client run the applications and retrieve data from a central location. You only need to back up the data. Yes it is more of a pain to do upgrades, but it saves on network traffic for either loading a network app, and running completely off another machine.
Please, don't ask for bench marks. The only bench marks I used was the drop of complaints from users that the system is too slow.
Nothing irritates me more than people who post on Slashdot without ever previewing their comments to see if they are correct!
;)
Oh do you mean this part?
Bear deterrent sprays. You can buy them in stores in the States and Canada. You go into the store, you pay 50 to 60 bucks, you get a little can. And it's bear spray;
you take it into the bush. Well, they don't work. I mean they wouldn't stop a dog, let alone a bear.
There was three links to read, I read the last two, and skimmed the first. I do this at work so I don't have much time. Anyway, I thought I had read enough to post. I hate it when someone posts with out reading too, but hey I missed that "bear spray" part. I had to go back and read it again to see what you were talking about.
Geeze, don't get so p*ssed off. I was just trying to make a point about the suit that I saw when it airred on TV.
The "bear repellent" remark was just to say that I wouldn't count on it. And as the story says, It won't work.
Actually the world wide web and Internet are a kind of database. So who owns the copyright?
Al Gore?
;)
(Oh he just invented it, he didn't actually create the gathered information, [or did he?!?])
I saw this guy on TV too, and he had one major problem with his suit. If he fell over, he could not get up. That would be a problem if the bear knocks him down, which is most likely to happen. He be like a turtle on its back.
They should call it the "Bear Amusement Suit" (the bear's amusement, not yours)
or the "Become a Bear Toy Suit".
It may protect you, but how will you get away. Anyone know how well "bear repellent" works?
Just had to add that little remark.
according to netcraft
They added a "Post Anonymously" box.
You may have it checked!
How about just a random pick
being 39138, I doubt that I will be in any number.
I don't think that they can release to 40000!
The 'code' belongs to MS. Their money was used to produce it. Not yours, not mine.
I really would like the government to investigate this. I wonder how much code is actually theirs? One reason to keep something secret is to hide criminal activity. I'm not accusing MS of stealing code, but I would like to make sure that they are not.
Another thing is that I have heard that they have their own API into Windows. So even if you program for Windows, you are already at a disadvantage because you are given an inferior set of rules to play by. This also is wrong.
Lastly, have you noticed that the evil Bill Gates just gave one billion
I never notice him giving anything before his PR committee told him that his public popularity was one step below the devil.
If you do not like MS, do not use their products.
This part I wish was true. But programming is my profession. I am always given tasks that I know could be done better in *nix environment but I am forced to use NT. I usually have major problems and its always "my fault", although I have done the same tasks in *nix effortlessly.