"Actually they have every right to do whatever they like as long as it is within the law"
You _MAY_ be correct and it is later found they do have a legal right as the result of a technicality. It is unfortunate the Samba announcement used the words "no right to", that phrase (like the GPL it seems) leaves wiggle room for semantic debate.
The real issue before us is quite simple. It is undetermined whether or not Novell broke the legal agreement of the GPL, however it appears the majority of GPL software developers understood the GPL to forbid this type of behavior. It is also clear that a large percentage of Novell's users (opensuse mailing list / forums etc..) feel Novell's actions are harmful to our community over all.
This is a horrible position for a company to be in when 99.98% of their product is produced by these same developers and users. The end result will not be a semantic debate, it will end with significant adjustments that are counter to Novell's actions and it will end with developers and users less open to working with Novell in the future.
Novell made a critical mistake thinking a legal agreement was/is more important than the social agreement between them and the community, the cost for that mistake may be more than they can pay.
"So, what if Eben finds that it is compatible with GPL?" Then Novell did not break the law.
However, there is a far more important question before us: Did Novell act in a way that is beneficial to the community at large or harmful. If it was harmful, then it is safe to say they did not behave in a way compatible with the spirit of the GPL and I personally find unforgivable for company that claims to be FOR us.
We are to blame. The only entity that holds more power than the US government is the people of the united states. Sadly, power does not translate to wisdom and wisdom is not driving the majority to action so if there is ANYONE who is most at blame it is in fact us.
Q: That's the kind of stuff I think I was more getting at with my question. So you have somebody who creates something useful but it has a zero distribution cost, and it's useful in a way that's not, not useful like celebrity, though I'm not sure, I don't think that's useful in some ways, but it's useful in the different sense that it takes a long time to create well.
Moglen: See, the programmers I worked with all my life thought of themselves as artisans, and it was very hard to unionize them. They thought that they were individual creators. Software writers at the moment have begun to lose that feeling, as the world proletarianizes them much more severely than it used to. They're beginning to notice that they're workers, and not only that, but if you pay attention to the Presidential campaign currently going on around us, they are becoming aware of the fact that they are workers whose jobs are movable in international trade.
We are actually doing more to sustain the livelihood of programmers than the proprietary people are. Mr. Gates has only so many jobs, and he will move them to where the programming is cheapest. Just you watch. We, on the other hand, are enabling people to gain technical knowledge which they can customize and market in the world where they live. We are making people programmers, right? And we are giving them a base upon which to perform their service activity at every level in the economy, from small to large.
[1:15]
There is programming work for fourteen-year-olds in the world now because they have the whole of GNU upon which to erect whatever it is that somebody in their neighbourhood wants to buy, and we are making enough value for the IBM corporation that it's worth putting billions of dollars behind.
If I were an employee of the IBM corporation right this moment, I would consider my job more secure where it is because of free software than if free software disappeared from the face of the earth, and I don't think most of the people who work at IBM would disagree with me.
Of all the people who participate in the economy of zero marginal cost, I think the programmers can see most clearly where their benefits lie, and if you just wait for a few more tens of thousands of programming jobs to go from here to Bangalore, they'll see it even more clearly.
I for one found this "road map" to be very enlightening. There is no one person or group of people in this community that can say "this is what we (the community) is going to do". So rather freedesktop published a "map" that shows where on that map we are currently and the route to get where we want to go.
The "Road map" seemed from my perspective to be targeted more at poential developers than desktop users. Remember Xfree86 has been a rather closed process, so this looks like an honest attempt to try and get interested parties to get involved.
You are wrong, the QA that you say is lacking exists and to an even greater degree than you find in most commerical software. Buy RedHat Linux Advance Server, pay for a support contract and you will see what I mean.
FYI, I have not deployed AD as of yet. The plan is NOT to use Win2k for DNS or DHCP. Our DNS servers support 10,000 internal users and have a uptime of 4 years each. (I know I have been bad and have not fixed security holes in the kernel... bad me..)
I guess my point is.. I am like I said "not of fan of Win2k" but I do respect certain attributes that are superior... now it might very well be that the way they were implimented sucks... but remember the topic was... what does UNIX have that Linux doesn't... while WIn2k isn't unix it is another server OS.
I suggest you open your mind a bit and avoid the LUG once in awhile.. its clouding your perspective:)
I use dynmiac updates on Linux that is not what Linux is missing.. Its missing the ability to have Multiple Master Servers capable of replicating changes between servers.. this is needed for high volume dynamic updates.
Win2k DNS supports Multi-Master Servrs through their active directory. What this means different servers servering the same domains can be updated and changes will be replicated to the other servers. Microsoft uses active directory to achieve this. Linux/unix could use LDAP to serve the same function.
I was reading about Win2k's file/print/active directory structure and I must say I am impressed with how powerful the system is. We have LDAP but it is not tied into all the rest of our applications and systems like AD is. If someone tied DNS, DHCP, Printing, SAMBA, Mono, Apache etc.. into LDAP and then provided a solid administrative interface it would _begin_ to provide the level of management and flexability that I am sad to report Win2k and AD provide.
You might ask yourself why would anyone need this? Well if your DNS is only static content then you most likely would not. But if your DNS server is acting as a dynamic name host for SRV or RR records supporting this for 50,000 could very easily overload the server.
Microsoft printing is much more flexable then LPR/LDP as far as I know unix systems have no capabilites for advanced features like distributing new drivers and define where the "closest" printers are.
Some people might not see this as a feature, but a unfied configuration interface (i.e. something like webmin but more flexable, documented, powerful)is VERY MUCH NEEDED to convert smaller IT shops over to Linux.
The cost of back porting patches to OS thats only a small miniority use is cost prohibited. If you are not willing to free upgrade once a year I suggest you pay RedHat and RedHat Advance Server like my company did. We now have a 5 years of software updates which is more then reasonable. Does it cost money? You bet your ass it does... but it is worth it.. in the end you seem miffed because Redhat decided the $60 from 1/8th of their install base isn't worth supporting 5 years worth of releases (5x2 = 10).
Thats why my company has an outside mail server behind a firewall running smtp proxy, seperated by an inside firewall with an inside mail server. The inside server talks statefully to the outside server using uucp-dom which does not require open ports into the software side of the network... Now if only I could get my company to disable the webmail server running novell with two nic cards:(
RedHat AS will only provide SRPMs. It is not a distros job to make it easy for non paying users to exploit their efforts.
Both RedHat and UnitedLinux provide source code so our freedoms are being respected. Why does the Linux community feel its a business/distros job to provide convient certified binaries to the general public? Remember it is freedom as in free speach not freedom as in beer. Binaries and ISO's have nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with free beer.
I am sad to say this but, I am seeing more and more users in our community take the perspective that they are owed something... this something seems to have more and more to do with end users getting something for nothing.
Only thru _TIGHT_ CONTROL and superior foresight will quality software be written. Without a verbose design, structured development process, perfect testing procedure and most importantly superior direction, software will fail to be of any value to society.
This universe might be based on pure uncertainty (as shown in quantum mechcanics) but we as observers are completely outside of this random system and must structure this randomness into something consistent and predictable thru solid design. If not, progress will be slow and fraught with failures (evolution). Evolution is slow and seeing as we are of the universe, yet outside of it (we can observe), we need not be restricted by it's short comings.
Thru perfect top down control we will write perfect software which is second to none!
On the other hand, maybe function precedes form. Maybe it is better to focus on the task at hand, allowing external events to dictate the direction, then to separate ourselves from the environment we are tending, after all, we create things be _useful_ and not just to be used:)
Maybe.. just maybe there is a point where control is harmful and hinders progress, maybe.. just maybe.. progress is unavoidable.
First: This linux bug does not the loss of the ENTIRE FILE SYSTEM. It leaves.lock files with invalid INODES which can be repaired by manully running fsck. As to you're challenge, these are just a few corruption problems with windows 2000 that I found doing a simple search on www.microsoft.com.
Up to a point I will agree with you. Some key conflicts I have with your statements is that a) Microsoft has these issues all the time, they are documented in their changelogs. b) Microsoft isn't evil, they are greedy and controlling and have too much power given their past actions. In my opinion this is why so many people dislike microsoft and not Linus, Alan ect..
The software _was_ released after it was tested. It was tested, a problem was found.. a patch was provided.. the patch was tested.. it was included.. kernel got released.. problem was discovered a patch was created and its about to be released.. thats how software works. You don't catch all of the issues..
Now you can sit there and say "If Linus would of waited _blank_ period of time someone would of caught the problem before the release and this wouldn't of happend. You could also says that if Linus would just release -pre kernels and only release -stable kernels once a year we would have a REALLY stable kernel... the problem is thats not how the release early/release often model of development works. If you want that model use Microsoft we all know how stable their software is.
If you want serious QA use redhat.. they do serious QA.. If you are running 0day software you get burned.. wether its the latest linux kernel, the latest microsoft service pack or the latest Cisco IOS.
Question: what is your example of software that is released "AFTER it's been tested". I can't wait to go read through the change logs and find some bugs that should of been caught by this software superior QA.
Slashdot Mirror
Cisco Security Manager does all that and more. The key features being Interface roles and ACL/device hierarchy.
Obviously this is not opensource.
"Actually they have every right to do whatever they like as long as it is within the law"
You _MAY_ be correct and it is later found they do have a legal right as the result of a technicality. It is unfortunate the Samba announcement used the words "no right to", that phrase (like the GPL it seems) leaves wiggle room for semantic debate.
The real issue before us is quite simple. It is undetermined whether or not Novell broke the legal agreement of the GPL, however it appears the majority of GPL software developers understood the GPL to forbid this type of behavior. It is also clear that a large percentage of Novell's users (opensuse mailing list / forums etc..) feel Novell's actions are harmful to our community over all.
This is a horrible position for a company to be in when 99.98% of their product is produced by these same developers and users. The end result will not be a semantic debate, it will end with significant adjustments that are counter to Novell's actions and it will end with developers and users less open to working with Novell in the future.
Novell made a critical mistake thinking a legal agreement was/is more important than the social agreement between them and the community, the cost for that mistake may be more than they can pay.
"So, what if Eben finds that it is compatible with GPL?" Then Novell did not break the law.
However, there is a far more important question before us: Did Novell act in a way that is beneficial to the community at large or harmful. If it was harmful, then it is safe to say they did not behave in a way compatible with the spirit of the GPL and I personally find unforgivable for company that claims to be FOR us.
I am typing this as I walk into the data center and unplug our cisc enterprise fiber switches and Cisco Intrusion detection systems....
We are to blame. The only entity that holds more power than the US government is the people of the united states. Sadly, power does not translate to wisdom and wisdom is not driving the majority to action so if there is ANYONE who is most at blame it is in fact us.
Q: But what about the software writer?
.
Moglen: Ah, the software. .
Q: That's the kind of stuff I think I was more getting at with my question. So you have somebody who creates something useful but it has a zero distribution cost, and it's useful in a way that's not, not useful like celebrity, though I'm not sure, I don't think that's useful in some ways, but it's useful in the different sense that it takes a long time to create well.
Moglen: See, the programmers I worked with all my life thought of themselves as artisans, and it was very hard to unionize them. They thought that they were individual creators. Software writers at the moment have begun to lose that feeling, as the world proletarianizes them much more severely than it used to. They're beginning to notice that they're workers, and not only that, but if you pay attention to the Presidential campaign currently going on around us, they are becoming aware of the fact that they are workers whose jobs are movable in international trade.
We are actually doing more to sustain the livelihood of programmers than the proprietary people are. Mr. Gates has only so many jobs, and he will move them to where the programming is cheapest. Just you watch. We, on the other hand, are enabling people to gain technical knowledge which they can customize and market in the world where they live. We are making people programmers, right? And we are giving them a base upon which to perform their service activity at every level in the economy, from small to large.
[1:15]
There is programming work for fourteen-year-olds in the world now because they have the whole of GNU upon which to erect whatever it is that somebody in their neighbourhood wants to buy, and we are making enough value for the IBM corporation that it's worth putting billions of dollars behind.
If I were an employee of the IBM corporation right this moment, I would consider my job more secure where it is because of free software than if free software disappeared from the face of the earth, and I don't think most of the people who work at IBM would disagree with me.
Of all the people who participate in the economy of zero marginal cost, I think the programmers can see most clearly where their benefits lie, and if you just wait for a few more tens of thousands of programming jobs to go from here to Bangalore, they'll see it even more clearly.
It did help, I for one value the freedoms I have and believe freenet is one of the things required to protect these freedoms.
In short I donated $20.
I for one found this "road map" to be very enlightening. There is no one person or group of people in this community that can say "this is what we (the community) is going to do". So rather freedesktop published a "map" that shows where on that map we are currently and the route to get where we want to go.
The "Road map" seemed from my perspective to be targeted more at poential developers than desktop users. Remember Xfree86 has been a rather closed process, so this looks like an honest attempt to try and get interested parties to get involved.
You are wrong, the QA that you say is lacking exists and to an even greater degree than you find in most commerical software. Buy RedHat Linux Advance Server, pay for a support contract and you will see what I mean.
Which in this context I believe means:
Thing belonging to the common public, no one person may rule over it.
FYI, I have not deployed AD as of yet. The plan is NOT to use Win2k for DNS or DHCP. Our DNS servers support 10,000 internal users and have a uptime of 4 years each. (I know I have been bad and have not fixed security holes in the kernel... bad me..)
:)
I guess my point is.. I am like I said "not of fan of Win2k" but I do respect certain attributes that are superior... now it might very well be that the way they were implimented sucks... but remember the topic was... what does UNIX have that Linux doesn't... while WIn2k isn't unix it is another server OS.
I suggest you open your mind a bit and avoid the LUG once in awhile.. its clouding your perspective
I wouldn't personnally.. but a lot of people/smaller companies don't have the man power or the knowelage to manager a Unix/LDAP server.
I use dynmiac updates on Linux that is not what Linux is missing.. Its missing the ability to have Multiple Master Servers capable of replicating changes between servers.. this is needed for high volume dynamic updates.
btw I am not a Win2k fan.
Win2k DNS supports Multi-Master Servrs through their active directory. What this means different servers servering the same domains can be updated and changes will be replicated to the other servers. Microsoft uses active directory to achieve this. Linux/unix could use LDAP to serve the same function.
I was reading about Win2k's file/print/active directory structure and I must say I am impressed with how powerful the system is. We have LDAP but it is not tied into all the rest of our applications and systems like AD is. If someone tied DNS, DHCP, Printing, SAMBA, Mono, Apache etc.. into LDAP and then provided a solid administrative interface it would _begin_ to provide the level of management and flexability that I am sad to report Win2k and AD provide.
You might ask yourself why would anyone need this? Well if your DNS is only static content then you most likely would not. But if your DNS server is acting as a dynamic name host for SRV or RR records supporting this for 50,000 could very easily overload the server.
Microsoft printing is much more flexable then LPR/LDP as far as I know unix systems have no capabilites for advanced features like distributing new drivers and define where the "closest" printers are.
Some people might not see this as a feature, but a unfied configuration interface (i.e. something like webmin but more flexable, documented, powerful)is VERY MUCH NEEDED to convert smaller IT shops over to Linux.
NFS does not seem to get much attention on Linux. Most Linux admins I know use Samba for network file shares.
btw the 5x2 = 10 thing is in reference to 2 releases per year times 5 years :)
The cost of back porting patches to OS thats only a small miniority use is cost prohibited. If you are not willing to free upgrade once a year I suggest you pay RedHat and RedHat Advance Server like my company did. We now have a 5 years of software updates which is more then reasonable. Does it cost money? You bet your ass it does... but it is worth it.. in the end you seem miffed because Redhat decided the $60 from 1/8th of their install base isn't worth supporting 5 years worth of releases (5x2 = 10).
Thats why my company has an outside mail server behind a firewall running smtp proxy, seperated by an inside firewall with an inside mail server. The inside server talks statefully to the outside server using uucp-dom which does not require open ports into the software side of the network... Now if only I could get my company to disable the webmail server running novell with two nic cards :(
I was updated before I read the E-mail telling me I _WAS_ insecure.
RedHat AS will only provide SRPMs. It is not a distros job to make it easy for non paying users to exploit their efforts.
Both RedHat and UnitedLinux provide source code so our freedoms are being respected. Why does the Linux community feel its a business/distros job to provide convient certified binaries to the general public? Remember it is freedom as in free speach not freedom as in beer. Binaries and ISO's have nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with free beer.
I am sad to say this but, I am seeing more and more users in our community take the perspective that they are owed something... this something seems to have more and more to do with end users getting something for nothing.
Only thru _TIGHT_ CONTROL and superior foresight will quality software be written. Without a verbose design, structured development process, perfect testing procedure and most importantly superior direction, software will fail to be of any value to society.
:)
This universe might be based on pure uncertainty (as shown in quantum mechcanics) but we as observers are completely outside of this random system and must structure this randomness into something consistent and predictable thru solid design. If not, progress will be slow and fraught with failures (evolution). Evolution is slow and seeing as we are of the universe, yet outside of it (we can observe), we need not be restricted by it's short comings.
Thru perfect top down control we will write perfect software which is second to none!
On the other hand, maybe function precedes form. Maybe it is better to focus on the task at hand, allowing external events to dictate the direction, then to separate ourselves from the environment we are tending, after all, we create things be _useful_ and not just to be used
Maybe.. just maybe there is a point where control is harmful and hinders progress, maybe.. just maybe.. progress is unavoidable.
First: This linux bug does not the loss of the ENTIRE FILE SYSTEM. It leaves .lock files with invalid INODES which can be repaired by manully running fsck. As to you're challenge, these are just a few corruption problems with windows 2000 that I found doing a simple search on www.microsoft.com.
s /Q 268/8/97.ASP
s /Q 258/0/75.ASP
s /Q 273/2/45.ASP
s /Q 298/9/36.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0&qry=file%20system %20corruption&rnk=16&src=DHCS_MSPSS_gn_SRCH&SPR=WI N2000
s /Q 261/1/22.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0&qry=file%20system %20corruption&rnk=19&src=DHCS_MSPSS_gn_SRCH&SPR=WI N2000
s /Q 255/5/69.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0&qry=file%20system %20corruption&rnk=23&src=DHCS_MSPSS_gn_SRCH&SPR=WI N2000
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
Up to a point I will agree with you. Some key conflicts I have with your statements is that a) Microsoft has these issues all the time, they are documented in their changelogs. b) Microsoft isn't evil, they are greedy and controlling and have too much power given their past actions. In my opinion this is why so many people dislike microsoft and not Linus, Alan ect..
Oh it isn't? Name one that has not had this same problem in the last year? Just one.
The software _was_ released after it was tested. It was tested, a problem was found.. a patch was provided.. the patch was tested.. it was included.. kernel got released.. problem was discovered a patch was created and its about to be released.. thats how software works. You don't catch all of the issues..
Now you can sit there and say "If Linus would of waited _blank_ period of time someone would of caught the problem before the release and this wouldn't of happend. You could also says that if Linus would just release -pre kernels and only release -stable kernels once a year we would have a REALLY stable kernel... the problem is thats not how the release early/release often model of development works. If you want that model use Microsoft we all know how stable their software is.
If you want serious QA use redhat.. they do serious QA.. If you are running 0day software you get burned.. wether its the latest linux kernel, the latest microsoft service pack or the latest Cisco IOS.
Question: what is your example of software that is released "AFTER it's been tested". I can't wait to go read through the change logs and find some bugs that should of been caught by this software superior QA.