It's not THAT bad. Revision control system has been changed twice during the lifetime of the kernel. Developement-method has been changed once, and now that method is simply being tweaked a bit. And what do you care how they develop the kernel? Are you are kernel-developer?
Or how would you like them to do it? "We will do things this way, and by god, we will do it like this untill the end of time! Even if better ways of doing this comes along, we will not change our ways!"
How exactly were those "spoilers"? So you now know that there's a working camcorder (minor detail in the movie), war-machines buried under the ground (not that relevant in the end) and a clear path to drive through.
Yes, I can see how your movie-experience has been ruined.... not. Here's a spoiler for you: the martians lose in the end.
Perhaps I'm hearing you wrong, but it seems like you are suggesting that Scaled Composites is not allowed to criticize NASA because they are profiting so much from NASA's research? Scaled Composites is made up of tax payers, tax payers that send astronomical amounts of money to NASA, so that NASA can burn it on any fancy that strikes their minds. In
Where exactly did I say "thou shalt not criticize NASA"? What I have been saying is that it's very hypocritical for SC to badmouth NASA, since without NASA, Burt Rutan would still be flying model airplanes. NASA paved the way for SC, and all SC can do about it is whine. NASA built their stuff and knowledge from ground-up. They learned as they went. SC doesn't have to do nearly as much, since the stuff they need has already been investigated and refined (by NASA, ESA and others).
Of course SC can do stuff without spending as much money as NASA and others do. For the sole reason that they don't do as much. SS1's concept is a rehash of X-15. Of course it has some improvements, thanks to modern technology. But as a whole, it's similar to the stuff NASA did 40 years ago. Luckily SC doesn't have to spend as much money on R&D, since NASA did large part of the work with X-15 and other projects.
Scaled Composites is made up of tax payers, tax payers that send astronomical amounts of money to NASA
Astronomical? NASA's budget is about $16 billion. That's peanuts. No, really it is. Federal Budget is something like $825 billion. The amount of money NASA receives is very very tiny portion of the whole. How much money is spent on military? War in Iraq? And NASA actually accomplishes things. They gain new knowledge and develop new technologies.
If I were a citizen of USA, I would like to see NASA's budget at least doubled.
It seems to me that you think that purpose of NASA is to get Joe Sixpack in to space. Well, it's not.
2) Rutan does innovate: Carefree Reentry was never done before - in fact, the X-15 crashed because it reentered with improper attitude.
I would sure hope that Scaled does it better than X-15 did! Considering that X-15 flew something like 40 years ago! So SS1 is an somewhat improved version of 40 years old technology and concept? Isn't it a good thing that NASA "wasted money" on things like X-15, so Scaled can now learn from it?
3) Scaled is making significant progress in a short time. Yes, they are on the shoulders of giants, but did you expect them to start with a moon shot or what?
Sure they are making progress fast. And the primary reason for that is that most of the hard lifting is already done. they are walking through the jungle on a path that was cleared (at great expense) by NASA, Soviets, Germans and the like. And while NASA does the heavy work, and lets Scaled enjoy the fruits of their work, Scaled in return keeps on asking "why is NASA wasting so much money?"
Like I said, NASA does A LOT more than Scaled does. Scaled made a sub-orbital flight. Good for them! But hinting that NASA "wastes money", because they managed to make a suborbital flight at fraction of the budget NASA has is pretty low-blow IMO. Like I said, NASA has several scientific projects, it has a space-station to run, they make ORBITAL flights, they operate several satellites and they send drones to other planets. And all that costs money. lots of money.
Not really related to the articl, but... I'm getting pretty annoyed by this "look at what this small company is capable of doing, while NASA wastes billions of dollars!". Hell, Rutan himself made some similar comments (was it on 60 Minutes?).
Yes, What Rutan/Scaled Composites did is great, no denying that. But comparing their budget to NASA's is ludicrous. Does Scaled Composites maintain orbiting space-stations? Does Scaled Composites build orbiting space-stations? Do they conduct scientific experiments on other planets and in space? Do they send probes to comets and Mars? Rutan and Co managed to put a spacecraft for a short amount of time in to edge of space. NASA did that in 1961.
Rutan and Co have the advantage of having the knowledge that NASA and others have accumulated over the years at great expense. They use that knowledge, and then make remarks how NASA is "wasting money". Well, without that "waste of money", SS1 would still be nothing but a glimmer in Burt Rutans eye.
So, according to you, they should tell everybody about their plans for the future? If they don't, they are being "evil"? What were they supposed to say when asked about their IM-plans? Saying "No comment" is same as saying "yes, we are going to do it".
You don't have to make them switch. If they are content with MSN and it's games, let them be. But there are lots and lots people who love Google. And they would love to use their IM-service. And when others start to switch, they will follow. And if the demand is there, Google/Jabber-folks just might add those games.
Yes, we need something like Jabber, and we need it to be universal. With Googles help, it might become that. Right now internet is riddled with incompatible, proprietary IM-protocols. We need an universal standard that is open. What if email was like IM is right now? you could only use email to certain people, using certain email-clients/addresses. If you wanted to send email to someone else, you have to switch clients/addresses to do so. No, that is madness. And that is what IM is today. We need something that works everywhere and is open. ICQ can't be it. AIM can't be it. MSN can't be it. Jabber could be it.
Now, if Google could just add video-conferencing....
Open-source (it uses Jabber!) IM that is backed by Google? Yes please!
I don't know about you, but I want to have "one IM to rule them all" that is also open source. Jabber was the prime candidate, but it was rather minor when compared to MSN, AIM and the like. Not anymore. Google is about to increase the number of people using Jabber by order of magnitude!
With Google's help, we just might get an IM-infrastructure that is based on open source and open standards. No need to mess around with MSN and the like, just use Jabber. No need to work around proprietary protocols.
If Google manages to put VOIP in there as well, more power to them! Once system for all your IM'ing and VOIPping. Based on open standards. Based on open source. With millions of users. Yes please! No longer would we have to rely on Skype for clients and service. No longer would we have to worry when MS or AOL breaks our IM-clients with "updated" versions of their protocol.
Furthermore, if the "idea of papal infallibility" is out of date, you'd essentially be suggesting that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church.
I'd say that the Holy Spirit was never with the church to begin with. Seriously, why does apparently almighty God require a mortal man to carry out his work? If God is almighty, he could do the work himself.
I believe that mans relationship with his god is a personal matter. There should be no churches telling how to believe and how to worship. What's the point? There are dozens to choose from (both Christian and non-Christian), so most of them (or all of them) are wrong anyway. I for one find it strange that people have a need to be told how they should believe and how they should worship.
I don't think enough Christians really understand what's happening at fertility clinics. More and more people are starting to notice, however, and will soon speak up against it.
So, you are not content with messing things up in schools, abortion-clinics, scientific study, AIDS-prevention, same-sex marriage and the like, you are hell-bent on messing things up in fertility-clinics as well? Why don't you just mind your own business? Seriously? If I want to hear your opinion on something, I'll ask you for it. But no! Instead we get the "We think this is bad, and therefore you shouldn't do it either! yes, we are pushing our opinion on you, how do you like it?"
Why do I get the feeling that Christians are ruining this place for the rest of us? Nothing is too insignificant for the Christians to stick their holier-than-thou noses in to. Things that used to be working smoothly are ruined by a bunch of religious extremists.
And if it's not the religious whackos ruining everything, we have corrupt politicians and corrupt megacorporations and lawyers finishing the job. And the sad thing is that it's the same everywhere.
It's too bad that we have no off-world colonies. We could live somewhere else, and have a few million kilometers wide sign saying "All you religious whackos, politicians, corporate monkeys and lawyers: STAY THE FUCK OUT!"
Just because _we_ don't see (yet) how they could use this to screw Linux/open source, does not mean that they are planning to do so. MS is not dumb. Their executives are not dumb. They see Linux as a threat, they see the developement-process as a threat. And they would love to screw them over. Sendo didn't think MS would screw them over, but look what happened.
How could MS screw Linux/OSDL/open source here? Well, they could jointy develop some code. Then MS "embrace and extends" it. Or maybe they want OSDL and others to waste resources at something that is not worthwhile. Who knows. But I do know that Microsoft has a long trail of blood behind it. Ant that blood is from competitors, potential competitors and "partners". OSDL is at the core of Linux-developement. If MS could figure out a way to turn them in to another casualty in their trail of conquest, they would do so in a heartbeat. Any deal they propose with OSDL is meant to benefit Microsoft. And harming Linux or it's developement would most certainly benefit Microsoft.
In the meantime, you can look back at the last 25 years of computer history and view the landscape full of the broken, rotting carcasses of everyone, from PDA manufacturers to OS/2, who ever "collaborated" with Microsoft and thought it would result in something other than betrayal followed by their complete and utter destruction.
Exactly. I wish that the people involved will remember what you wrote. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Microsoft is not to be trusted. Maybe, MAYBE after they have had a complete change of leadership (starting from Ballmer, Gates and the board of directors, followed by heads of divisions) and complete change in operating philosophy. Maybe then they can slowly start to regain the trust they have lost over the years. But as things are right now, MS has screwed competitors and potential competitors over and over again. And Linux is a competitor. Why eaxctly would MS NOT screw Linux over, if they had the chance?
MS does not want to "cooperate" with OSDL because they want to help Linux or open source. They want to do it because they feel that they have something to gain. And in this case, it would most certainly involve harming Linux and open source.
Different people have different needs. You might not care about games, but many people do. And their needs are no less important than your needs. Some people use their computers to develop software. Others use it as a glorified typewriter. And some use it to play games. All of those are valid reason to have a computer. You don't care about games? Good for you! But others do care about them.
I would absolutely love to drop Windows entirely. And mostly I have. I do play some games now and then, and I need to keep W2K for that.
Linux, on the other hand, seems to have been moving to emulate Windows out of desperation to best it. Complex systems (OpenOffice, Firefox, etc.) galore, and integration in all the wrong ways.
What do those applications have to do with Linux? Sure, you can use them on Linux, but you can use them on many other OS'es as well. Saying that "Linux sucks, just look at OpenOffice!" is just plain wrong. OpenOffice is not Linux, it's merely an app you can use on Linux (among others). You can use it *BSD as well, does that mean *BSD's suck? You can use it on Solaris, does Solaris suck?
I don't see that "wrong integration" in Linux. Things that should be is userspace, are in usespace. Those userspace apps (KDE and Gnome-apps for example) might integrate with each other, but that is a GOOD THING. Why should apps be standalone apps that have no idea what the system around them is like? Why shouldn't they talk to each other? Or is that integration bad because (*gasp*) Windows does something similar? Should they be standalone apps because that is the "UNIX way", and "UNIX way" is the right way, even though that might make the system harder to use and less powerful?
You can no longer distribute Linux without paying a fee.
Of course you can! I can give out copies of Linux to my friends just fine! What makes you think that you can't? If you have no revenue (like, Ubuntu or Debian for example, or you are merely handing out Live-CD's to people for example), or the name does not contain the word "Linux", you can distribute just fine. Nothing is preventing you. If it does contain the word Linux and you are making a profit from it, you have to pay a very modest fee. Want to sell Linux, but refuse to pay anything? Then don't use the word "Linux" in the name of the company or the product. You can still tell everyone that it's based on Linux, however.
Really, this is a tempest in a teapot. It would be good if you people actually learned what this thing means, instead of having this kneejerk reaction you guys are having!
This is about using the word "Linux" the name of the company or name of the product. If you have a company called "The Computer Guys", and say that "yes, we support Linux", you are NOT required to pay a thing. But if you called your company "The Linux-guys" you would have to pay.
"Trademarks: Use Requiring A Sublicense.
On the other hand, if you plan to market a Linux - based product or service to the public using a trademark that includes the element "Linux," such as "Super Dooper Linux" or "Real Time Linux Consultants" you are required to apply for and obtain a low-cost sublicense from LMI. This is true whether or not you apply to register your trademark with a government."
So if your trademark (name of the company or product) containss the word "Linux", you have to pay. If it doesn't, and you merely tell everyone that "this product is based on Linux" (for example), you do not have to pay, since the word "linux" is not in the name of the product.
You are confusing software-licenses with trademarks. In other words, you are comparing apples to oranges.
This thing is not about using or distributing software at all (which are handled by licenses). You can still use Linux like you did before. This is about using the word "Linux" in the name of your product or company. You could still use Linux or base your products on Linux without having to pay one dime.
Linux is still licensed under the GPL, and you can use it just fine. But if you set up a company called "uber-cool Linux-Gurus", and went on to have multi-million revenues, you would have to pay a whopping $5.000 a year for the right to use the word "Linux". If you named your company something else, you wouldn't have to pay a thing.,
Slashdot Mirror
Developement-version = 2.6.x and 2-6.x-mmz
Stable-version: 2.6.x.y and vendor-kernels
Maybe things were named differently in the past. But what matters is they way they are named today.
It's not THAT bad. Revision control system has been changed twice during the lifetime of the kernel. Developement-method has been changed once, and now that method is simply being tweaked a bit. And what do you care how they develop the kernel? Are you are kernel-developer?
Or how would you like them to do it? "We will do things this way, and by god, we will do it like this untill the end of time! Even if better ways of doing this comes along, we will not change our ways!"
IIRC it was in "60 Minutes" where Rutan made some disparaging comments about NASA and others.
How exactly were those "spoilers"? So you now know that there's a working camcorder (minor detail in the movie), war-machines buried under the ground (not that relevant in the end) and a clear path to drive through.
Yes, I can see how your movie-experience has been ruined.... not. Here's a spoiler for you: the martians lose in the end.
Do they have a "right" to see a movie? The theater is private property.
Where exactly did I say "thou shalt not criticize NASA"? What I have been saying is that it's very hypocritical for SC to badmouth NASA, since without NASA, Burt Rutan would still be flying model airplanes. NASA paved the way for SC, and all SC can do about it is whine. NASA built their stuff and knowledge from ground-up. They learned as they went. SC doesn't have to do nearly as much, since the stuff they need has already been investigated and refined (by NASA, ESA and others).
Of course SC can do stuff without spending as much money as NASA and others do. For the sole reason that they don't do as much. SS1's concept is a rehash of X-15. Of course it has some improvements, thanks to modern technology. But as a whole, it's similar to the stuff NASA did 40 years ago. Luckily SC doesn't have to spend as much money on R&D, since NASA did large part of the work with X-15 and other projects.
Astronomical? NASA's budget is about $16 billion. That's peanuts. No, really it is. Federal Budget is something like $825 billion. The amount of money NASA receives is very very tiny portion of the whole. How much money is spent on military? War in Iraq? And NASA actually accomplishes things. They gain new knowledge and develop new technologies.
If I were a citizen of USA, I would like to see NASA's budget at least doubled.
I would sure hope that Scaled does it better than X-15 did! Considering that X-15 flew something like 40 years ago! So SS1 is an somewhat improved version of 40 years old technology and concept? Isn't it a good thing that NASA "wasted money" on things like X-15, so Scaled can now learn from it?
Sure they are making progress fast. And the primary reason for that is that most of the hard lifting is already done. they are walking through the jungle on a path that was cleared (at great expense) by NASA, Soviets, Germans and the like. And while NASA does the heavy work, and lets Scaled enjoy the fruits of their work, Scaled in return keeps on asking "why is NASA wasting so much money?"
Like I said, NASA does A LOT more than Scaled does. Scaled made a sub-orbital flight. Good for them! But hinting that NASA "wastes money", because they managed to make a suborbital flight at fraction of the budget NASA has is pretty low-blow IMO. Like I said, NASA has several scientific projects, it has a space-station to run, they make ORBITAL flights, they operate several satellites and they send drones to other planets. And all that costs money. lots of money.
Not really related to the articl, but... I'm getting pretty annoyed by this "look at what this small company is capable of doing, while NASA wastes billions of dollars!". Hell, Rutan himself made some similar comments (was it on 60 Minutes?).
Yes, What Rutan/Scaled Composites did is great, no denying that. But comparing their budget to NASA's is ludicrous. Does Scaled Composites maintain orbiting space-stations? Does Scaled Composites build orbiting space-stations? Do they conduct scientific experiments on other planets and in space? Do they send probes to comets and Mars? Rutan and Co managed to put a spacecraft for a short amount of time in to edge of space. NASA did that in 1961.
Rutan and Co have the advantage of having the knowledge that NASA and others have accumulated over the years at great expense. They use that knowledge, and then make remarks how NASA is "wasting money". Well, without that "waste of money", SS1 would still be nothing but a glimmer in Burt Rutans eye.
So, according to you, they should tell everybody about their plans for the future? If they don't, they are being "evil"? What were they supposed to say when asked about their IM-plans? Saying "No comment" is same as saying "yes, we are going to do it".
You don't have to make them switch. If they are content with MSN and it's games, let them be. But there are lots and lots people who love Google. And they would love to use their IM-service. And when others start to switch, they will follow. And if the demand is there, Google/Jabber-folks just might add those games.
Yes, we need something like Jabber, and we need it to be universal. With Googles help, it might become that. Right now internet is riddled with incompatible, proprietary IM-protocols. We need an universal standard that is open. What if email was like IM is right now? you could only use email to certain people, using certain email-clients/addresses. If you wanted to send email to someone else, you have to switch clients/addresses to do so. No, that is madness. And that is what IM is today. We need something that works everywhere and is open. ICQ can't be it. AIM can't be it. MSN can't be it. Jabber could be it.
Now, if Google could just add video-conferencing....
Open-source (it uses Jabber!) IM that is backed by Google? Yes please!
I don't know about you, but I want to have "one IM to rule them all" that is also open source. Jabber was the prime candidate, but it was rather minor when compared to MSN, AIM and the like. Not anymore. Google is about to increase the number of people using Jabber by order of magnitude!
With Google's help, we just might get an IM-infrastructure that is based on open source and open standards. No need to mess around with MSN and the like, just use Jabber. No need to work around proprietary protocols.
If Google manages to put VOIP in there as well, more power to them! Once system for all your IM'ing and VOIPping. Based on open standards. Based on open source. With millions of users. Yes please! No longer would we have to rely on Skype for clients and service. No longer would we have to worry when MS or AOL breaks our IM-clients with "updated" versions of their protocol.
Do you don't. the software is still 100% free, both in speech and in beer.
This is not about software, this is about trademarks
I'd say that the Holy Spirit was never with the church to begin with. Seriously, why does apparently almighty God require a mortal man to carry out his work? If God is almighty, he could do the work himself.
I believe that mans relationship with his god is a personal matter. There should be no churches telling how to believe and how to worship. What's the point? There are dozens to choose from (both Christian and non-Christian), so most of them (or all of them) are wrong anyway. I for one find it strange that people have a need to be told how they should believe and how they should worship.
So, you are not content with messing things up in schools, abortion-clinics, scientific study, AIDS-prevention, same-sex marriage and the like, you are hell-bent on messing things up in fertility-clinics as well? Why don't you just mind your own business? Seriously? If I want to hear your opinion on something, I'll ask you for it. But no! Instead we get the "We think this is bad, and therefore you shouldn't do it either! yes, we are pushing our opinion on you, how do you like it?"
Why do I get the feeling that Christians are ruining this place for the rest of us? Nothing is too insignificant for the Christians to stick their holier-than-thou noses in to. Things that used to be working smoothly are ruined by a bunch of religious extremists.
And if it's not the religious whackos ruining everything, we have corrupt politicians and corrupt megacorporations and lawyers finishing the job. And the sad thing is that it's the same everywhere.
It's too bad that we have no off-world colonies. We could live somewhere else, and have a few million kilometers wide sign saying "All you religious whackos, politicians, corporate monkeys and lawyers: STAY THE FUCK OUT!"
Ayn Rand, is that you?
Just because _we_ don't see (yet) how they could use this to screw Linux/open source, does not mean that they are planning to do so. MS is not dumb. Their executives are not dumb. They see Linux as a threat, they see the developement-process as a threat. And they would love to screw them over. Sendo didn't think MS would screw them over, but look what happened.
How could MS screw Linux/OSDL/open source here? Well, they could jointy develop some code. Then MS "embrace and extends" it. Or maybe they want OSDL and others to waste resources at something that is not worthwhile. Who knows. But I do know that Microsoft has a long trail of blood behind it. Ant that blood is from competitors, potential competitors and "partners". OSDL is at the core of Linux-developement. If MS could figure out a way to turn them in to another casualty in their trail of conquest, they would do so in a heartbeat. Any deal they propose with OSDL is meant to benefit Microsoft. And harming Linux or it's developement would most certainly benefit Microsoft.
Exactly. I wish that the people involved will remember what you wrote. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Microsoft is not to be trusted. Maybe, MAYBE after they have had a complete change of leadership (starting from Ballmer, Gates and the board of directors, followed by heads of divisions) and complete change in operating philosophy. Maybe then they can slowly start to regain the trust they have lost over the years. But as things are right now, MS has screwed competitors and potential competitors over and over again. And Linux is a competitor. Why eaxctly would MS NOT screw Linux over, if they had the chance?
MS does not want to "cooperate" with OSDL because they want to help Linux or open source. They want to do it because they feel that they have something to gain. And in this case, it would most certainly involve harming Linux and open source.
I repeat: Microsoft is not to be trusted.
None of the games I play are available on consoles. And if they were, their gameplay wouldn't be anywhere near thair PC-equivalents.
Sorry, but I'll stick to the PC.
Different people have different needs. You might not care about games, but many people do. And their needs are no less important than your needs. Some people use their computers to develop software. Others use it as a glorified typewriter. And some use it to play games. All of those are valid reason to have a computer. You don't care about games? Good for you! But others do care about them.
I would absolutely love to drop Windows entirely. And mostly I have. I do play some games now and then, and I need to keep W2K for that.
What do those applications have to do with Linux? Sure, you can use them on Linux, but you can use them on many other OS'es as well. Saying that "Linux sucks, just look at OpenOffice!" is just plain wrong. OpenOffice is not Linux, it's merely an app you can use on Linux (among others). You can use it *BSD as well, does that mean *BSD's suck? You can use it on Solaris, does Solaris suck?
I don't see that "wrong integration" in Linux. Things that should be is userspace, are in usespace. Those userspace apps (KDE and Gnome-apps for example) might integrate with each other, but that is a GOOD THING. Why should apps be standalone apps that have no idea what the system around them is like? Why shouldn't they talk to each other? Or is that integration bad because (*gasp*) Windows does something similar? Should they be standalone apps because that is the "UNIX way", and "UNIX way" is the right way, even though that might make the system harder to use and less powerful?
Of course you can! I can give out copies of Linux to my friends just fine! What makes you think that you can't? If you have no revenue (like, Ubuntu or Debian for example, or you are merely handing out Live-CD's to people for example), or the name does not contain the word "Linux", you can distribute just fine. Nothing is preventing you. If it does contain the word Linux and you are making a profit from it, you have to pay a very modest fee. Want to sell Linux, but refuse to pay anything? Then don't use the word "Linux" in the name of the company or the product. You can still tell everyone that it's based on Linux, however.
Really, this is a tempest in a teapot. It would be good if you people actually learned what this thing means, instead of having this kneejerk reaction you guys are having!
This is about using the word "Linux" the name of the company or name of the product. If you have a company called "The Computer Guys", and say that "yes, we support Linux", you are NOT required to pay a thing. But if you called your company "The Linux-guys" you would have to pay.
Really, read about it yourself: . From the website:
"Trademarks: Use Requiring A Sublicense.
On the other hand, if you plan to market a Linux - based product or service to the public using a trademark that includes the element "Linux," such as "Super Dooper Linux" or "Real Time Linux Consultants" you are required to apply for and obtain a low-cost sublicense from LMI. This is true whether or not you apply to register your trademark with a government."
So if your trademark (name of the company or product) containss the word "Linux", you have to pay. If it doesn't, and you merely tell everyone that "this product is based on Linux" (for example), you do not have to pay, since the word "linux" is not in the name of the product.
The problem here is not that Linux is suddenly "un-free" (it's not). The problem here is that you have no clue what this whole thing is about.
You are confusing software-licenses with trademarks. In other words, you are comparing apples to oranges.
This thing is not about using or distributing software at all (which are handled by licenses). You can still use Linux like you did before. This is about using the word "Linux" in the name of your product or company. You could still use Linux or base your products on Linux without having to pay one dime.
Linux is still licensed under the GPL, and you can use it just fine. But if you set up a company called "uber-cool Linux-Gurus", and went on to have multi-million revenues, you would have to pay a whopping $5.000 a year for the right to use the word "Linux". If you named your company something else, you wouldn't have to pay a thing.,