Did your RTFA? You cannot use Linux without paying a fee to this weird corporation Linus set up.
No you dimwit! You can use Linux just fine! You can distribute Linux just fine! You can hack Linux just fine! No-one is stopping you!
What does this thing mean? It means that companies that use the word "Linux" in their name or in the name of their product are going to have to pay a modest fee. How much? Well, if their revenue exceeds 1 million, they have to pay a whopping $5.000. If the revenues are lower, the price is lower. $5.000 is the amount Red Hat, Novell and the like are expected to pay. For some reason I don't see them going out of business because of that. Nor do I see them raising their prices to get back that $5.000.
An example: Suppose I set up a company called "Car PC Inc." I run my entire business on Linux, and my product (called "Car PC") is based on Linux. How much would I have to pay? Zero. How much would I have to pay if my revenue was 10 billion? Zero. How much would I have to pay if my revenue was 10 billion, and my company was called "Linux Car PC Inc."? $5.000.
Well "Linux" ic a trademark that is owned by Linus Torvalds. And there was a case in the past when one nutjob (completely unrelated to Linux) laid claims on the word "Linux" and started demanding money. Luckily he lost. What they are doing here is trying to prevent something like that from happening again. If they do not defend the trademark, someone could in the future say "they didn't care about it in the past, therefore they have no claims to this word anymore!"
what they're doing is in violation of the spirit of the GPL under which Linux is licensed.
Uh, GPL is about the way the software is licenced and distributed. This is a completely different thing. This thing is NOT about licensing or distributing the software at all. It's merely about using a trademarked word "Linux". GPL has nothing to do with this issue.
While the GPL does not provide for the use of the mark, it does say anyone can use that software any which way they want.
Exactly. And no-one is preventing anyone from using or distributing software.
That means if I want to run a porn site on Linux I can do so.
Sure you can. Is anyone stopping you? You can also use Linux freely on your servers and workstations, no-one is stopping you. But you could not call your porn-site linux.com (assuming that web-add was still available). Not unless the owner of the trademark (in this case, Linus) agrees to it.
Free Software means the author allows people to choose to do what they want.
And you can do whatever you want to do with the software. But trademarks are completely different thing. Red Hat wouldn't like if someone used their trademarks, why should it be different in this case?
So MS should be able to trademark the word "Linux", and require anyone wanting to use the word to pay them money? They should be able to rename Vista to Linux?
If Linus is just fucking with us, then I condemn this even more so than if he's serious, and the problem is a hell of a lot bigger.
Well, I just checked. Apparently you have to pay $5000 dollars if your revenue exceed 1 million dollars. For lower revenues, the amount you have to pay is lower. Is that unreasonable? You would be making money from someone else's trademark, after all.
Oh for crying out loud! This is abiout PREOTECTING the trademark! if they don't do this, then anyone could use the name "Linux" for just about anything! Like it was said, Microsoft could rename "Vista" to "Linux" if they wanted to. And what if MS then copyrighted the word "Linux", and started charging Red Hat, Novell etc. money for using the word? If you do not protect your trademark, you will lose it.
Linus (nor his representatives) is NOT asking for any money from these companies. The letter mentions that they MAY be required to pay in the future, but it's not asking any money now, nor does that mean that they will be expected to pay in the future! It merely mentions something that may or may not happen in the future.
After all he's not charging for the software, but the use of his trademark by these companies.
No he's not. He (or his representative) has not asked for any money from these companies. The letters said that they MIGHT be required to pay in the future, but that does not mean that they are asking for money now, or that they will ever ask for money.
Enforcing competition? No, the government has no place defining what competition is, much less ensuring that it exists.
By same logic: Government has no place defining what is theft and what is fraud, much less ensuring that is does not exist.
But government DO define what those are, and they ARE working (at least in theory) to make sure it does not exist. Why do governments do that? Because it helps the society as a whole. Same thing goes with competition. Government SHOULD be making sure that there is healthy competition going on. Why? Because it benefits the society as a whole.
Why should governments be concerned about theft and fraud, but it should NOT concern itself when it comes to competition? And before you say that government should not interfere in business: aren't governments interferening with business right now, when they try to make sure that companies do not steal or defraud others?
Second, current price of oil is currently at $63.25/bbl and has yet to ever reach $70/bbl.
Yes it has. In fact, it has surpassed it clearly. If you compare prices over a long period of time, you should take inflation in to account, instead of blindly staring at the dollar-figure. If you take inflation in to account, you will notice that during the oil-crisis in the late 70's, the price of oil was $94.48/bbl in 2005 dollars: link
Um, yeah, take a look at the globe, and compare the size of South Korea to the size of the United States (as well as the rest of the countries that have "got us beat").
What matter is the population-density, not the overall size of the country. More people living in the area, more people paying for broadband. Sure, USA might be a big place, but there are also lots of people paying for the infrastructure. And considering how wealthy Americans are, that shouldn't be an issue. Yes, Japan and Korea might be densely packed smallish countries. But other countries are less so.
The study puts Canada ahead of USA. Are you saying that Canada isn't "large country with more vast, unpopulated areas"? Finland and Sweden are both ahead of USA. And while those countries are smaller, their populations are a lot smaller as well. Both Sweden and Finland have lower population-density than USA does.
Of those, 2 use Gnome by default(Ubuntu and Fedora). 5 use KDE by default (Mandriva, MEPIS, SUSE, Knoppix and Slackware). Ubuntu and Debian use neither by default and Damn Small uses something else.
Of those, 6 use KDE (Xandros, Kubuntu, PCLinuxOS, SLAX, Kanotix and PC-BSD). 1 Uses Gnome (CentOS), while rest (FreeBSD, Vector and Libranet) use something else, or nothing at all be default.
So, the Top20 looks like this:
KDE: 11 Gnome: 3 None/Something else: 6
I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the "but all distros use Gnome by default!"-FUD. clearly, they are NOT!
The majority of applications with "mindshare", like maybe, Mozilla/Firefox?
Neither of those are Gnome-apps.
and singles GNOME out as an 'opponent' when there are other desktop environments, a divisive move that Free Software doesn't have the resources to make.
Funny, considering that I have seen official representatives of Gnome do that exact same stuff.. they talk about "the other desktop" (what is he, a marketdroid who can't say "KDE"?), and how it only has Linspire supporting it. If he wants to be the head of the Gnome Foundation (as he apparently wants to be), he should seriously consider cutting back on BS and FUD. I haven't really seen KDE-developers flame Gnome (users maybe, but that's a different thing), but here we have Gnome-developers downplaying KDE.
What was that you said about "singling someone out as an opponent"? Maybe you should go talk to the Gnome-developers about it.
I found an "Encyclopedia of the Soviet Union" (or something like that) that was written in the seventies in the USSR (it was merely translated in to Finnish). It contained the following humorous claims:
- Winter War was started by imperialistic Finland which tried to invade the peace-loving Soviet Union.
- Oldest citizen of the Soviet Union is 150 years old.
- Common traits of capitalism are immorality, crime, laziness and inefficiency.
- The Baltic states wanted to join the USSR after the WW2, and USSR gratiously allowed them to join the Soviet Union.
- Participants in the Hungarian uprising were agents and provocators from the west, and USSR re-invaded the country only after the people of Hungary asked them to do so.
KDE is not a part of the system and you keep talking about it as if it's the only thing that matters.
Did I claim that it was part of the "Core OS"? No I did not. What I said is that tools like KDE (or Samba, or Apache etc., depending what you are planning to do with the machine) ARE the things that matter, since they are the tools you use to do your job! That "Core OS" alone doesn't do that much.
A GUI is not needed to use the operating system
Did I claim that it is? And this boils down to what is "using the OS". To some it means staring at the CLI. To others it means running Firefox, Evolution and the like. And to some it means running Apache or Samba. And in each of those cases, you would need "third-party crap" you flamed Linux for. Well, maybe you don't need third-party apps to stare at the CLI, but you couldn't do that much with it either. And even with the CLI, you would propably replace/bin/sh with something like Bash. Whoops! That is the exact same "third-party crap" Linux uses!
but rather a third party application that is crammed in on other distributions, like Kubuntu.
Like it is in practice crammed to *BSD? If you want to use a GUI with *BSD, you absolutely must cram that third-party software in to it. That is a fact. Want to use Samba or Apache? Again, you absolutely need that third-party software. If you didn't use any third-party software, you couldn't do much with that OS (Linux or *BSD) now could you? Well, you could have a little "BSD has a clean userland!" circle-jerk, but that's about it.
If you want something like BSD on Linux, Gentoo offers it. By default, it offers nothing but kernel and core set of tools. But you will notice that the moment you want to actually do something with the OS, you need to install third-party apps.
The userland's core has nothing to do with X, you dipshit.
Did I claim that it did? I have explicitly talked about userland that consists of two parts: The "Core OS" and "third-party apps". And what I have said is that the "Core OS" is something that you do not do much with. You do your actually work with that third-party stuff. The servers, GUI's, apps and the like are all third-party stuff. Core OS alone doesn't do that much.
You complained that there is no BSD version of KDE, but that's not relevant to the discussion. That was the entire point - you moron.
I did not complain about it, it was a sarcastic remark. If you want to use a GUI with *BSD, where is the "superiority"? You whined that Linux'es are nothing but collection of third-party-crap. But if you want to do the same things with *BSD that you could do with Linux, you have to use that "third-party-crap" on *BSD as well! That was the entire point, you fucking idiot! I can't believe that you still don't get it! Are you a bit slow or something?
X servers, samba servers, graphical LDAP browsers and other such programmes are all third party, additional software which is not done in-house - that software is called third-party.
I'm well aware of that you dipshit! And like your list quote nicely demonstrates: if you want to DO something with BSD (like use a GUI, interoperate with Windows-network etc. etc.), you HAVE to use third-party software! You know, the exact same crap you flamed Linux for?
Maybe, by default, BSD's do have "clean userland" out-of-the-box. But maybe it's so clean because you can't do much with it? Want to run some graphical app? Sorry, you have to install "third-party crap". Want to interoperate with Windows? Sorry, you have to install "third-party crap". Want to surf the web? you have to install "third-party crap". Want to serve web-pages? You have to install "third-party crap". Want to develop software? You have to install "third-party crap". Want to set up a mail-server? You have t
You don't seem to grasp terms that have been repeated to you more than 3 times, so I know I cannot get through to that empty space between your ears.
You are a complete retard. There is no questioning it, no denying it, the only thing you are good for is converting oxygen into carbon dioxide and food into feces.
Funny thing is, I'm thinking the exact same thing about you;). You conveniently decided to not answer my questions, and resorted to calling me a "retard" instead. I'll take that as a admission of defeat. But do get back to me when you can have a coherent argument, without resorting to personal-attacks, OK?
The fact is you are speaking from the perspective of ignorance. "Large parts" of the BSDs are not GNU, one tiny part consisting of a few related utilties are GNU.
If only tiny amounts of BSD are GNU, why haven't they been replaced by BSD-equivalents? Since the GNU-tools are crap, writing a superior alternative should not be that difficult, right?
I guess it's pretty painful having to rely on something you hate;)?
And yes, you clearly are retarded. Having explained to you over and over again that what your interpretation of "end users" care about is off-topic and irrelivant
What makes it "off-topic"? Because you say so?
. IT DOES NOT MATTER. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.
According to you, not according to me.
Read the fucking question that started this thread
In case you didn't notice, I wasn't replying to the original question, I was replying to YOU. I don't care about the original question, I care about the comments YOU made (you know, the comments I replied to?). If I wanted to answer the original question, I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE ORIGINAL POSTER! I did not, because I wasn't answering his question, I was responding to YOUR comments.
You started talking about how BSD's are a "complete OS", whereas Linux is not. Well, for me, BSD's are not complete OS'es. They have no x-server, no GUI, no servers no nothing that you use to actually DO things. Unless you count that "third-party crap" you flamed Linux for.
You said (and I quote): "The reason I don't use linux is because every distro comes with a messy userland full of random assorted crap from various sources, and most of the core utilities are bloated, poorly documented GNU junk."
So, you don't use Linux because it has a "messy userland full of random assorted crap from various sources". And because "most of the core utilities are bloated, poorly documented GNU junk."
Let's repeat so that even you understand my point:
Messy userland with third-party crap: You mentioned this separately from core utilities. So you were obviously referring to "third-party" software here (X-server, KDE, Apache etc. etc.). THESE THINGS ARE THE EXACT SAME STUFF IN BOTH LINUX AND BSD! Understand? Comprende? They both use the same software! SO HOW EXACTLY IS BSD SUPERIOR HERE? This is the software you actually use to get your work done! BSD's "superiority" doesn't really matter at all, if you can't do your work with it. And in order to do something productive with it, you need those third-party apps, that are same both in BSD and Linux!
Then you talked about "core utilities". This refers to the "GNU-junk" and it's superior BSD-counterpart. I said that most users don't care, they use that "third-party crap" to do their work. And that software is EXACTLY THE SAME IN BOTH LINUX AND BSD! Now you propably start to whine about the "Core OS". But you can't do much with that Core OS. Apart from running that "third party crap". And both Linux and BSD use the exact same crappy third-party-software! Maybe "grep" in BSD has better documentation. Well whoop-de-fucking-do! Color me impressed!
And even your precious BSD-core-tools contain "GNU-junk". Yes, you say that it's only tiny amounts. But apparently they are not that bad since they are deemed worthy to be in the almighty BSD? And if they are crap, then surely those uber-hackers @ BSD could write a replacement? Why haven't they done so already?
If GNU-tools are crap, why are they used in BSD? If they are crap, why haven't the BSD-folks written a replacement? If BSD's only use good tools, and GNU-tools are crap, why does BSD use GNU-tools?
Instead of offering the console in several different versions, why not let the people customize it by themselves? Want a HD with the console? Buy one and add it in! Want better optical-drive? Replace the one that came with the system with a better one! The user could also add better CPU and more RAM to the system.
Since these consoles would be more personal than the identical model they have sold in the past, we need a new name for these consoles. I suggest a "Personal Console", or "PC" for short.
I am an end user too, I just happen to be a unix user, not a windows user trying to avoid paying for windows.
Ah yes, the old "BSD-users love Unix, Linux-users merely hate Microsoft/Windows!". I do use Windows at work (not by choice), but that's about it. At home I have Linux and OS X. I do have W2K on one partition, but I haven't booted in to it in months. So I'm not sure that can you categorise me as a "windows-user".
Your argument consists of bullshit that has nothing to do with the topic at hand,
Topic was the apparent "superiority" of BSD. How BSD is a coherent OS with userland that is a "joy to use", as opposed to Linux'es that are just collection of crap.
Your argument consists of bullshit that has nothing to do with the topic at hand
Just because I disagree with you, does not mean that my argument is "bullshit". You started talking about the superiority of the BSD-userland. I merely pointed out that large parts of that userland (yes, even some of those core-utils you raved about) are that "GNU-crap" you hate so much. And much of it (not the Core OS though) is "various crap from third-parties" that is used on Linux as well. Maybe there are differences is some core-utils like you said, and I said that most users don't care about them, they care about those third-party tools more. Obviously you disagree with me, but that does not make my argument "bullshit".
Yes, there is the "Core OS" you talked about. Maybe that Core OS is an integrated whole. But most users don't care. They care about the things they can actually DO with the system. And they do their stuff with that third-party crap.
But, at this point I think we can merely agree to disagree on this.
don't know how to make this any clearer for you. NOBODY ASKED ABOUT KDE, OR END USERS, OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE BEEN BLATHERING ABOUT.
I talked about KDE, so your claim that "nobody" talked about KDE is pure BS;). But ro re-iterate my point: the original post talked about userland that is "joy to use". Well, KDE and the like are part of the userland. then the discussion shifted to "core OS", whereas KDE and the like are merely third-party apps. And my point was that most users don't give a flying fuck about that "core OS", since they are mostly using those third-party apps. And those third-party apps are same both in Linux and BSD. As I'm writing this post in Konqueror, I care lots about KDE and the apps it offer, whereas I don't care one bit about Ubuntu's implementation of "ls". If I wrote this on a *BSD-machine, I would likewise care about Konqueror, KDE and the apps I'm using at this very moment. I would NOT be marvelling at *BSD's implementation of "grep".
Maybe some BSD-tools have better documentation than their GNU-counterparts do. But most users don't care. they care about those third-party apps more. They do their work with those third-party apps. They surf the net, serve webpages, share files, write emails, run databases etc. etc. All those are "various crap from third-parties". None of it are part of BSD-core. As far as doing something productive with the OS, both Linux and BSD use the exact same stuff.
And why shouldn't end-users be talked about? I mean, they are the ones actually using the system. Do they not matter?
Like I said, read the thread. Someone asked why anyone would care since its just a different kernel, I explained what else was different besides the kernel.
Oh yes, the "core OS". Too bad that most users don't care about it, they care more about that "assorted crap from third parties", and that crap is exactly the same in both Linux and BSD (unless BSD's write their own desktops, X-servers, web-servers and the like). And it seems to me that many of the core utilities in BSD are that terrible GNU-crap.
I don't understand how you can still be confused about this.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, it really is your problem, and no-one elses.
Your posts were purely trying to pretend that the BSDs userlands don't matter and are just like linux's.
Where exactly did I say that their userland are just like Linux'es? I said that there seems to be awfully lot of that "GNU-crap" in BSD. I also said that the userland users care about (that "third-party crap") is same on both BSD and Linux. What you call core OS is propably somewhat different, but I think that even they are not THAT different from each other. And, to me it seems that the BSD's have lots of GNU-tools among their core-utilities. I find it weird that on one hand you disparage GNU-tools, but on the other hand you rely on them to actually use your computer.
And the BSDs only use the GNU toolchain (gcc, gdb, gas), no other GNU utilities are in there.
So BSD's contains "GNU-crap"? So I guess they aren't that bad if they are deemed worthy for the mighty BSD's?
nobody is happy that they have to use gcc, its just such a big undertaking to write a replacement toolchain that nobody has done it.
Oh yes, poor BSD-guys. They are absolutely suffering when someone gives them an industrial-strenght compiler, instead of they having to write one themselves... If they are suffering so much, then surely those uber-hackers could write a replacement? After all, those GNU-tools are "crap", so writing a better alternative shouldn't be that hard, right?
And I actually made it quite clear that linux does not suck. I said the crap that every distro packages with linux sucks.
When people usually talk about "Linux", they are referring to the whole thing. Kernel, and the tools around it (some people use the term GNU/Linux), but I do not). The kernel alone would be next to useless to end-user.
Try reading the thread again, your posts have made no sense, have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and you just insist on repeating your nonsense as if that's somehow a response to criticism.
The post I replied to complained that *BSD has a userland that is a "joy to use", whereas Linux uses "GNU crap" and "assorted crap from various source". But *BSD also uses that "GNU crap", and they also use "assorted crap from various sources". And I fail to see the point about complaining about "GNU crap", since BSD's also use some of that exact same stuff (GCC for example)! Or are the BSD-versions somehow magically better? And FreeBSD's developers handbook talks about using Emacs. That's GNU-junk as well. Debugger is GNU-junk. BSD seems to be full of "GNU-junk".
I explained that its actually a whole coherent OS, not just the kernel. You then made stupid remarks about KDE for no apparent reason.
Stuff like KDE and the like are the things that matter to the end-user. And both Linux and *BSD use the exact same stuff. So I fail to see the superiority of *BSD there. But keep on telling how BSD's "grep" is better than Linux's "grep". Most users don't give a flying fuck, though.
Notice how you as a linux user are actively trashing both BSD and linux distros you don't like in your posts, but complaining about BSD users trashing linux. If you don't want to use BSD that's fine, but don't spread lies and bullshit then, and quit being such a hypocrite.
I do see merits in *BSD's. They do some things better than Linux does (while Linux does some things better than *BSD's do). I do not think *BSD's are crap. I just think that userbase of *BSD needs adjustment. Will they adjust just because I think they should? Nope, they will propably keep on going like they have done untill now.
In this thread, I have not disparaged any of the BSD's. I have called the userbase arrogant, but I have not said BSD's as OS'es suck. But others on this thread have gone to great lengths in telling how Linux sucks and how the tools it sues sucks and how GNU as a whole sucks. Attitude like that is the thing I have been telling about. I don't understand this hostility towards Linux and GNU that comes from BSD-users. Linux is not out to destroy BSD, they have more in common than there are differences between them. Yet BSD-users have this strange need to try to put Linux down all the time.
The original poster talked about "userland". But most users don't care about the userland he was talking about (ls, grep, cat etc.). The userland they care about (Xorg, KDE, Gnome, Samba etc.) is exactly the same in both *BSD and Linux. So where is the superiority on BSD on that area? There is none.
If you understand so very well, then why the stupid comments about KDE and such that obviously have nothing to do with it?
I did know what he meant by "userland". But 98% of users don't give a flying fuck if *BSD's "grep" has better documentation than Linux's version does. ut they DO care about stuff like KDE, Gnome, Apache, Samba, Xorg and the like. And both Linux and *BSD use the exact same stuff! So as far as end-users are concerned. BSD's use the exact same "third-party crap from various sources" that Linux uses! So how exactly is *BSD better? It has a "grep" with better documentation?
And you are seeing what you want to see when comparing linux users and BSD users. There's tons of linux users who constantly trash BSDs despite not understanding them, or having ever even tried any of them
I do seem occasional "BSD is dying!"-jokes on Slashdot, but that's about it. Linux-users I have been talking with all seem to appreaciate the BSD's. And even though they might disagree when it comes to licenses, they acknowledge why someone prefers the BSD-license. But the BSD-users I have seen seem to think Linux is some kind of inferior bastard-child that should have never happened. And not only is Linux crap, it's license is pure crap as well.
So how exactly is the BSD userbase worse?
the superiority-complex seems to be a lot more common with *BSD-users than with Linux-users. Yes, Linux-users dislike Windows and Microsoft. And with good reason, one just has to look at the track-record of both. MS has actively tried to destroy Linux. But Linux has NOT tried to destroy the BSD's in any shape or form, but still, *BSD-users feel the need to disparage Linux at every possible opportunity.
There are plenty of arrogant gentoo users, hell they even trash other linux distros and anyone who doesn't use gentoo. Step back and look at things objectively, there's plenty of shitheads no matter where you go, that's the stupidiest possible reason to not try something.
Yes, there are shitheads everywhere. There just seems to be more shitheads among *BSD-users. Hell, some of those shitheads are the ones who are calling the shots in some of the *BSD's! Debian comes close to *BSD-shitheadedness, but I don't use Debian FWIW.
Yes, the userbase is a valid reason for not using someone. I was EXTREMELY turned off when I associated with Mac-users. They were very intolerant and extreme in their viewpoints. *BSD-users are just plain arrogant. Yes, there might be arrogant Gentoo-users, but looking as a whole, they are very helpful and pleasant. I can't say the same when it comes to Debian. And I can't really say the same when it comes to *BSD.
You have again clearly demonstrated that you do not understand that BSDs have a base system, and then locally installed optional packages.
I understand it very well, thankyouverymuch. But the fact is that the "kick ass" base OS of *BSD would be next to useless for me. I don't care one bit if *BSD's grep is 5% more efficient than the GNU-equivalent.
Or does the attitutude of a tiny fraction of a userbase only matter when deciding about something you already made up your mind not to like without ever trying it?
If I used *BSD, I would have to deal with those people. I would constantly face people who have nothing better to do that to try to put down Linux. I would guess that it is a form of inferiority-complex. *BSD doesn't have the same popularity as Linux does, so they feel that they have to try to diminuate Linux. I guess it's the big dog/small dog syndrome. Small dogs have a need to make noise about themselves, whereas big dogs know they don't have to.
Linux certainly has a lot of arrogant assholes who use it and trash everything that isn't linux all the time. You refuse to use it too?
Perhaps. But it seems to me that Linux-users and developers appreciate *BSD, whereas same can't be said for *BSD-users and developers. They are constantly taking pot-shots at Linux, telling how great *BSD is, and how Linux sucks. Their whole attitude reeks of elitism. Yes, Linux has it's share of those, but they are usually concentrated on specific distros (*cough*Debian*cough*). People using Gentoo for example are very helpful bunch of people.
FreeBSD-users are generally speaking arrogant. Same goes for OpenBSD, with addition of having egomaniac asshole at the projects helm. NetBSD might be different, but it doesn't really offer me anything I don't get with Linux. Well, maybe it would have "grep" with better documentation, but I just don't care.
Userland refers to the non-kernel parts of the OS. Not whatever 3rd party applications that you choose to install.
And what makes you think that X-server or KDE/Gnome are not part of the OS?
Please try a BSD so you understand for yourself before making nonsense comments like this.
No thank you. The uber-leet, arrogant as hell userbase of *BSD has completely turned me off as far as *BSD is concerned. I wouldn't touch it with a 10-feet pole.
KDE, GNOME, X, and GCC are all just applications that run on various operating systems.
Apps like that are referred to as "userland". The original claim was that while Linux uses "messy userland full of random assorted crap from various sources", whereas *BSD uses "The BSDs have sane, useful, documented and functional userlands". So it seems that when Linux uses some userland tools, they are crap, but when *BSD uses the exact same userland-tols, they are somehow magically different? And GCC is not "just" an application. GP even specifically mentioned the "GNU-junk", so apparently GCC is "GNU-junk" as well? Or is it only junk when used by Linux, if *BSD uses it, it's magically transformed in to something better?
KDE, GNOME, X, and GCC are all just applications that run on various operating systems.
The GP did not specify CLI-tools, he talked about userland in general. And besides, last time I checked, GCC IS a CLI-tool!
find me a Linux distro that even understands the concept of base OS
Debian was already mentioned. How about Ubuntu?
Every Linux distro uses programs from 50+ different projects
Yes, thank god that *BSD's write their own X-servers, their own desktops, their own web-servers, their own Samba-servers, their own developement-tools, their own mail-clients etc. etc. Yes, ONLY Linux ships with third-party software, *BSD's write everything in-house!
Now, if you will excuse me, but I have to go ejaculate on some FreeBSD-CD's.
So, does *BSD have a *BSD-GUI that is a "joy to use", or do they use some some "random assorted crap from various sources"? On Linux I use KDE, and I'm toying with Gnome, but apparently those are crap. Could you point me to the *BSD-equivalent?
What compilers do *BSD's use? Is it "GNU junk" or something else? What about X? X.org would be "crap from various sources", so apparently *BSD uses some uber-leet BSD-Xserver, right?
"Then Apple came along and revolutionized the desktop experience."
How exactly did Apple "revolutionize" it? OS X is just more of the same old shit, just in prettier package. Icons? Windows? Menu's? Dialog-boxes? That stuff is ancient. Apple added a nice layer of candy on top of it, but it's fundamentally still the same stuff Mac OS was 20 years ago.
OS X is a nice OS, no question about it. But it's no revolution.
As to "year of the Linux-desktop". That year wont come. Ever. But one day we will suddenly notice that Linux is a widely used desktop-OS. There won't be any monumental change when everyone and their grandma suddenly switches to Linux. But people will continue to do so. And then some more people will do so. And suddenly Linux's market-share on the desktop is over 10%. Then it will be 15%, then 20%. It will happen, it just wont happen overnight.
Re:now before anyone gets started
on
10 Technologies MIA
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The love for Kosmo is an irrational one -- there's no possible way anybody could ever make money providing a service such as Kosmo's (as it was implemented, anyway
So, it's irrational to love something if that something can't make any money? If Kosmo was profitable, then it would be OK to love it, but since it was not, loving it would be "irrational"? Is our liking or disliking some company somehow tied to that company's profit-margin?
If someone started giving away free cars to everyone, would you NOT love it? I mean, the person giving those cars away wouldn't be making any profit from it.
Slashdot Mirror
No you dimwit! You can use Linux just fine! You can distribute Linux just fine! You can hack Linux just fine! No-one is stopping you!
What does this thing mean? It means that companies that use the word "Linux" in their name or in the name of their product are going to have to pay a modest fee. How much? Well, if their revenue exceeds 1 million, they have to pay a whopping $5.000. If the revenues are lower, the price is lower. $5.000 is the amount Red Hat, Novell and the like are expected to pay. For some reason I don't see them going out of business because of that. Nor do I see them raising their prices to get back that $5.000.
An example: Suppose I set up a company called "Car PC Inc." I run my entire business on Linux, and my product (called "Car PC") is based on Linux. How much would I have to pay? Zero. How much would I have to pay if my revenue was 10 billion? Zero. How much would I have to pay if my revenue was 10 billion, and my company was called "Linux Car PC Inc."? $5.000.
Uh, GPL is about the way the software is licenced and distributed. This is a completely different thing. This thing is NOT about licensing or distributing the software at all. It's merely about using a trademarked word "Linux". GPL has nothing to do with this issue.
Exactly. And no-one is preventing anyone from using or distributing software.
Sure you can. Is anyone stopping you? You can also use Linux freely on your servers and workstations, no-one is stopping you. But you could not call your porn-site linux.com (assuming that web-add was still available). Not unless the owner of the trademark (in this case, Linus) agrees to it.
And you can do whatever you want to do with the software. But trademarks are completely different thing. Red Hat wouldn't like if someone used their trademarks, why should it be different in this case?
So MS should be able to trademark the word "Linux", and require anyone wanting to use the word to pay them money? They should be able to rename Vista to Linux?
Well, I just checked. Apparently you have to pay $5000 dollars if your revenue exceed 1 million dollars. For lower revenues, the amount you have to pay is lower. Is that unreasonable? You would be making money from someone else's trademark, after all.
Dude, what the fuck are you blathering about?
Oh for crying out loud! This is abiout PREOTECTING the trademark! if they don't do this, then anyone could use the name "Linux" for just about anything! Like it was said, Microsoft could rename "Vista" to "Linux" if they wanted to. And what if MS then copyrighted the word "Linux", and started charging Red Hat, Novell etc. money for using the word? If you do not protect your trademark, you will lose it.
Linus (nor his representatives) is NOT asking for any money from these companies. The letter mentions that they MAY be required to pay in the future, but it's not asking any money now, nor does that mean that they will be expected to pay in the future! It merely mentions something that may or may not happen in the future.
No he's not. He (or his representative) has not asked for any money from these companies. The letters said that they MIGHT be required to pay in the future, but that does not mean that they are asking for money now, or that they will ever ask for money.
By same logic: Government has no place defining what is theft and what is fraud, much less ensuring that is does not exist.
But government DO define what those are, and they ARE working (at least in theory) to make sure it does not exist. Why do governments do that? Because it helps the society as a whole. Same thing goes with competition. Government SHOULD be making sure that there is healthy competition going on. Why? Because it benefits the society as a whole.
Why should governments be concerned about theft and fraud, but it should NOT concern itself when it comes to competition? And before you say that government should not interfere in business: aren't governments interferening with business right now, when they try to make sure that companies do not steal or defraud others?
Yes it has. In fact, it has surpassed it clearly. If you compare prices over a long period of time, you should take inflation in to account, instead of blindly staring at the dollar-figure. If you take inflation in to account, you will notice that during the oil-crisis in the late 70's, the price of oil was $94.48/bbl in 2005 dollars: link
What matter is the population-density, not the overall size of the country. More people living in the area, more people paying for broadband. Sure, USA might be a big place, but there are also lots of people paying for the infrastructure. And considering how wealthy Americans are, that shouldn't be an issue. Yes, Japan and Korea might be densely packed smallish countries. But other countries are less so.
The study puts Canada ahead of USA. Are you saying that Canada isn't "large country with more vast, unpopulated areas"? Finland and Sweden are both ahead of USA. And while those countries are smaller, their populations are a lot smaller as well. Both Sweden and Finland have lower population-density than USA does.
There are only two distributions in the world? If we look at the top 10 in Distrowatch, we can see this:
1 Ubuntu
2 Mandriva
3 Fedora
4 MEPIS
5 SUSE
6 Debian
7 KNOPPIX
8 Gentoo
9 Damn Small
10 Slackware
Of those, 2 use Gnome by default(Ubuntu and Fedora). 5 use KDE by default (Mandriva, MEPIS, SUSE, Knoppix and Slackware). Ubuntu and Debian use neither by default and Damn Small uses something else.
But hey, let's continue! Places 11-20:
11 Xandros
12 FreeBSD
13 Kubuntu
14 PCLinuxOS
15 SLAX
16 Vector
17 CentOS
18 Libranet
19 KANOTIX
20 PC-BSD
Of those, 6 use KDE (Xandros, Kubuntu, PCLinuxOS, SLAX, Kanotix and PC-BSD). 1 Uses Gnome (CentOS), while rest (FreeBSD, Vector and Libranet) use something else, or nothing at all be default.
So, the Top20 looks like this:
KDE: 11
Gnome: 3
None/Something else: 6
I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the "but all distros use Gnome by default!"-FUD. clearly, they are NOT!
Neither of those are Gnome-apps.
Funny, considering that I have seen official representatives of Gnome do that exact same stuff.. they talk about "the other desktop" (what is he, a marketdroid who can't say "KDE"?), and how it only has Linspire supporting it. If he wants to be the head of the Gnome Foundation (as he apparently wants to be), he should seriously consider cutting back on BS and FUD. I haven't really seen KDE-developers flame Gnome (users maybe, but that's a different thing), but here we have Gnome-developers downplaying KDE.
What was that you said about "singling someone out as an opponent"? Maybe you should go talk to the Gnome-developers about it.
I found an "Encyclopedia of the Soviet Union" (or something like that) that was written in the seventies in the USSR (it was merely translated in to Finnish). It contained the following humorous claims:
- Winter War was started by imperialistic Finland which tried to invade the peace-loving Soviet Union.
- Oldest citizen of the Soviet Union is 150 years old.
- Common traits of capitalism are immorality, crime, laziness and inefficiency.
- The Baltic states wanted to join the USSR after the WW2, and USSR gratiously allowed them to join the Soviet Union.
- Participants in the Hungarian uprising were agents and provocators from the west, and USSR re-invaded the country only after the people of Hungary asked them to do so.
Did I claim that it was part of the "Core OS"? No I did not. What I said is that tools like KDE (or Samba, or Apache etc., depending what you are planning to do with the machine) ARE the things that matter, since they are the tools you use to do your job! That "Core OS" alone doesn't do that much.
Did I claim that it is? And this boils down to what is "using the OS". To some it means staring at the CLI. To others it means running Firefox, Evolution and the like. And to some it means running Apache or Samba. And in each of those cases, you would need "third-party crap" you flamed Linux for. Well, maybe you don't need third-party apps to stare at the CLI, but you couldn't do that much with it either. And even with the CLI, you would propably replace /bin/sh with something like Bash. Whoops! That is the exact same "third-party crap" Linux uses!
Like it is in practice crammed to *BSD? If you want to use a GUI with *BSD, you absolutely must cram that third-party software in to it. That is a fact. Want to use Samba or Apache? Again, you absolutely need that third-party software. If you didn't use any third-party software, you couldn't do much with that OS (Linux or *BSD) now could you? Well, you could have a little "BSD has a clean userland!" circle-jerk, but that's about it.
If you want something like BSD on Linux, Gentoo offers it. By default, it offers nothing but kernel and core set of tools. But you will notice that the moment you want to actually do something with the OS, you need to install third-party apps.
Did I claim that it did? I have explicitly talked about userland that consists of two parts: The "Core OS" and "third-party apps". And what I have said is that the "Core OS" is something that you do not do much with. You do your actually work with that third-party stuff. The servers, GUI's, apps and the like are all third-party stuff. Core OS alone doesn't do that much.
I did not complain about it, it was a sarcastic remark. If you want to use a GUI with *BSD, where is the "superiority"? You whined that Linux'es are nothing but collection of third-party-crap. But if you want to do the same things with *BSD that you could do with Linux, you have to use that "third-party-crap" on *BSD as well! That was the entire point, you fucking idiot! I can't believe that you still don't get it! Are you a bit slow or something?
I'm well aware of that you dipshit! And like your list quote nicely demonstrates: if you want to DO something with BSD (like use a GUI, interoperate with Windows-network etc. etc.), you HAVE to use third-party software! You know, the exact same crap you flamed Linux for?
Maybe, by default, BSD's do have "clean userland" out-of-the-box. But maybe it's so clean because you can't do much with it? Want to run some graphical app? Sorry, you have to install "third-party crap". Want to interoperate with Windows? Sorry, you have to install "third-party crap". Want to surf the web? you have to install "third-party crap". Want to serve web-pages? You have to install "third-party crap". Want to develop software? You have to install "third-party crap". Want to set up a mail-server? You have t
Funny thing is, I'm thinking the exact same thing about you
If only tiny amounts of BSD are GNU, why haven't they been replaced by BSD-equivalents? Since the GNU-tools are crap, writing a superior alternative should not be that difficult, right?
I guess it's pretty painful having to rely on something you hate
What makes it "off-topic"? Because you say so?
According to you, not according to me.
In case you didn't notice, I wasn't replying to the original question, I was replying to YOU. I don't care about the original question, I care about the comments YOU made (you know, the comments I replied to?). If I wanted to answer the original question, I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE ORIGINAL POSTER! I did not, because I wasn't answering his question, I was responding to YOUR comments.
You started talking about how BSD's are a "complete OS", whereas Linux is not. Well, for me, BSD's are not complete OS'es. They have no x-server, no GUI, no servers no nothing that you use to actually DO things. Unless you count that "third-party crap" you flamed Linux for.
You said (and I quote): "The reason I don't use linux is because every distro comes with a messy userland full of random assorted crap from various sources, and most of the core utilities are bloated, poorly documented GNU junk."
So, you don't use Linux because it has a "messy userland full of random assorted crap from various sources". And because "most of the core utilities are bloated, poorly documented GNU junk."
Let's repeat so that even you understand my point:
Messy userland with third-party crap: You mentioned this separately from core utilities. So you were obviously referring to "third-party" software here (X-server, KDE, Apache etc. etc.). THESE THINGS ARE THE EXACT SAME STUFF IN BOTH LINUX AND BSD! Understand? Comprende? They both use the same software! SO HOW EXACTLY IS BSD SUPERIOR HERE? This is the software you actually use to get your work done! BSD's "superiority" doesn't really matter at all, if you can't do your work with it. And in order to do something productive with it, you need those third-party apps, that are same both in BSD and Linux!
Then you talked about "core utilities". This refers to the "GNU-junk" and it's superior BSD-counterpart. I said that most users don't care, they use that "third-party crap" to do their work. And that software is EXACTLY THE SAME IN BOTH LINUX AND BSD! Now you propably start to whine about the "Core OS". But you can't do much with that Core OS. Apart from running that "third party crap". And both Linux and BSD use the exact same crappy third-party-software! Maybe "grep" in BSD has better documentation. Well whoop-de-fucking-do! Color me impressed!
And even your precious BSD-core-tools contain "GNU-junk". Yes, you say that it's only tiny amounts. But apparently they are not that bad since they are deemed worthy to be in the almighty BSD? And if they are crap, then surely those uber-hackers @ BSD could write a replacement? Why haven't they done so already?
If GNU-tools are crap, why are they used in BSD? If they are crap, why haven't the BSD-folks written a replacement? If BSD's only use good tools, and GNU-tools are crap, why does BSD use GNU-tools?
What are you, a retard?
Instead of offering the console in several different versions, why not let the people customize it by themselves? Want a HD with the console? Buy one and add it in! Want better optical-drive? Replace the one that came with the system with a better one! The user could also add better CPU and more RAM to the system.
Since these consoles would be more personal than the identical model they have sold in the past, we need a new name for these consoles. I suggest a "Personal Console", or "PC" for short.
What a nice way to argue you got there.
Ah yes, the old "BSD-users love Unix, Linux-users merely hate Microsoft/Windows!". I do use Windows at work (not by choice), but that's about it. At home I have Linux and OS X. I do have W2K on one partition, but I haven't booted in to it in months. So I'm not sure that can you categorise me as a "windows-user".
Topic was the apparent "superiority" of BSD. How BSD is a coherent OS with userland that is a "joy to use", as opposed to Linux'es that are just collection of crap.
Just because I disagree with you, does not mean that my argument is "bullshit". You started talking about the superiority of the BSD-userland. I merely pointed out that large parts of that userland (yes, even some of those core-utils you raved about) are that "GNU-crap" you hate so much. And much of it (not the Core OS though) is "various crap from third-parties" that is used on Linux as well. Maybe there are differences is some core-utils like you said, and I said that most users don't care about them, they care about those third-party tools more. Obviously you disagree with me, but that does not make my argument "bullshit".
Yes, there is the "Core OS" you talked about. Maybe that Core OS is an integrated whole. But most users don't care. They care about the things they can actually DO with the system. And they do their stuff with that third-party crap.
But, at this point I think we can merely agree to disagree on this.
I talked about KDE, so your claim that "nobody" talked about KDE is pure BS
Maybe some BSD-tools have better documentation than their GNU-counterparts do. But most users don't care. they care about those third-party apps more. They do their work with those third-party apps. They surf the net, serve webpages, share files, write emails, run databases etc. etc. All those are "various crap from third-parties". None of it are part of BSD-core. As far as doing something productive with the OS, both Linux and BSD use the exact same stuff.
And why shouldn't end-users be talked about? I mean, they are the ones actually using the system. Do they not matter?
Oh yes, the "core OS". Too bad that most users don't care about it, they care more about that "assorted crap from third parties", and that crap is exactly the same in both Linux and BSD (unless BSD's write their own desktops, X-servers, web-servers and the like). And it seems to me that many of the core utilities in BSD are that terrible GNU-crap.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, it really is your problem, and no-one elses.
Where exactly did I say that their userland are just like Linux'es? I said that there seems to be awfully lot of that "GNU-crap" in BSD. I also said that the userland users care about (that "third-party crap") is same on both BSD and Linux. What you call core OS is propably somewhat different, but I think that even they are not THAT different from each other. And, to me it seems that the BSD's have lots of GNU-tools among their core-utilities. I find it weird that on one hand you disparage GNU-tools, but on the other hand you rely on them to actually use your computer.
So BSD's contains "GNU-crap"? So I guess they aren't that bad if they are deemed worthy for the mighty BSD's?
Oh yes, poor BSD-guys. They are absolutely suffering when someone gives them an industrial-strenght compiler, instead of they having to write one themselves... If they are suffering so much, then surely those uber-hackers could write a replacement? After all, those GNU-tools are "crap", so writing a better alternative shouldn't be that hard, right?
When people usually talk about "Linux", they are referring to the whole thing. Kernel, and the tools around it (some people use the term GNU/Linux), but I do not). The kernel alone would be next to useless to end-user.
The post I replied to complained that *BSD has a userland that is a "joy to use", whereas Linux uses "GNU crap" and "assorted crap from various source". But *BSD also uses that "GNU crap", and they also use "assorted crap from various sources". And I fail to see the point about complaining about "GNU crap", since BSD's also use some of that exact same stuff (GCC for example)! Or are the BSD-versions somehow magically better? And FreeBSD's developers handbook talks about using Emacs. That's GNU-junk as well. Debugger is GNU-junk. BSD seems to be full of "GNU-junk".
Stuff like KDE and the like are the things that matter to the end-user. And both Linux and *BSD use the exact same stuff. So I fail to see the superiority of *BSD there. But keep on telling how BSD's "grep" is better than Linux's "grep". Most users don't give a flying fuck, though.
I do see merits in *BSD's. They do some things better than Linux does (while Linux does some things better than *BSD's do). I do not think *BSD's are crap. I just think that userbase of *BSD needs adjustment. Will they adjust just because I think they should? Nope, they will propably keep on going like they have done untill now.
In this thread, I have not disparaged any of the BSD's. I have called the userbase arrogant, but I have not said BSD's as OS'es suck. But others on this thread have gone to great lengths in telling how Linux sucks and how the tools it sues sucks and how GNU as a whole sucks. Attitude like that is the thing I have been telling about. I don't understand this hostility towards Linux and GNU that comes from BSD-users. Linux is not out to destroy BSD, they have more in common than there are differences between them. Yet BSD-users have this strange need to try to put Linux down all the time.
The original poster talked about "userland". But most users don't care about the userland he was talking about (ls, grep, cat etc.). The userland they care about (Xorg, KDE, Gnome, Samba etc.) is exactly the same in both *BSD and Linux. So where is the superiority on BSD on that area? There is none.
I did know what he meant by "userland". But 98% of users don't give a flying fuck if *BSD's "grep" has better documentation than Linux's version does. ut they DO care about stuff like KDE, Gnome, Apache, Samba, Xorg and the like. And both Linux and *BSD use the exact same stuff! So as far as end-users are concerned. BSD's use the exact same "third-party crap from various sources" that Linux uses! So how exactly is *BSD better? It has a "grep" with better documentation?
I do seem occasional "BSD is dying!"-jokes on Slashdot, but that's about it. Linux-users I have been talking with all seem to appreaciate the BSD's. And even though they might disagree when it comes to licenses, they acknowledge why someone prefers the BSD-license. But the BSD-users I have seen seem to think Linux is some kind of inferior bastard-child that should have never happened. And not only is Linux crap, it's license is pure crap as well.
the superiority-complex seems to be a lot more common with *BSD-users than with Linux-users. Yes, Linux-users dislike Windows and Microsoft. And with good reason, one just has to look at the track-record of both. MS has actively tried to destroy Linux. But Linux has NOT tried to destroy the BSD's in any shape or form, but still, *BSD-users feel the need to disparage Linux at every possible opportunity.
Yes, there are shitheads everywhere. There just seems to be more shitheads among *BSD-users. Hell, some of those shitheads are the ones who are calling the shots in some of the *BSD's! Debian comes close to *BSD-shitheadedness, but I don't use Debian FWIW.
Yes, the userbase is a valid reason for not using someone. I was EXTREMELY turned off when I associated with Mac-users. They were very intolerant and extreme in their viewpoints. *BSD-users are just plain arrogant. Yes, there might be arrogant Gentoo-users, but looking as a whole, they are very helpful and pleasant. I can't say the same when it comes to Debian. And I can't really say the same when it comes to *BSD.
I understand it very well, thankyouverymuch. But the fact is that the "kick ass" base OS of *BSD would be next to useless for me. I don't care one bit if *BSD's grep is 5% more efficient than the GNU-equivalent.
If I used *BSD, I would have to deal with those people. I would constantly face people who have nothing better to do that to try to put down Linux. I would guess that it is a form of inferiority-complex. *BSD doesn't have the same popularity as Linux does, so they feel that they have to try to diminuate Linux. I guess it's the big dog/small dog syndrome. Small dogs have a need to make noise about themselves, whereas big dogs know they don't have to.
Perhaps. But it seems to me that Linux-users and developers appreciate *BSD, whereas same can't be said for *BSD-users and developers. They are constantly taking pot-shots at Linux, telling how great *BSD is, and how Linux sucks. Their whole attitude reeks of elitism. Yes, Linux has it's share of those, but they are usually concentrated on specific distros (*cough*Debian*cough*). People using Gentoo for example are very helpful bunch of people.
FreeBSD-users are generally speaking arrogant. Same goes for OpenBSD, with addition of having egomaniac asshole at the projects helm. NetBSD might be different, but it doesn't really offer me anything I don't get with Linux. Well, maybe it would have "grep" with better documentation, but I just don't care.
And what makes you think that X-server or KDE/Gnome are not part of the OS?
No thank you. The uber-leet, arrogant as hell userbase of *BSD has completely turned me off as far as *BSD is concerned. I wouldn't touch it with a 10-feet pole.
Made by a third-party, only recently acquired by Google
Linux-users had no need for it because browsers on Linux are clearly superior to IE.
Which is not even available anymore.
Apps like that are referred to as "userland". The original claim was that while Linux uses "messy userland full of random assorted crap from various sources", whereas *BSD uses "The BSDs have sane, useful, documented and functional userlands". So it seems that when Linux uses some userland tools, they are crap, but when *BSD uses the exact same userland-tols, they are somehow magically different? And GCC is not "just" an application. GP even specifically mentioned the "GNU-junk", so apparently GCC is "GNU-junk" as well? Or is it only junk when used by Linux, if *BSD uses it, it's magically transformed in to something better?
The GP did not specify CLI-tools, he talked about userland in general. And besides, last time I checked, GCC IS a CLI-tool!
Debian was already mentioned. How about Ubuntu?
Yes, thank god that *BSD's write their own X-servers, their own desktops, their own web-servers, their own Samba-servers, their own developement-tools, their own mail-clients etc. etc. Yes, ONLY Linux ships with third-party software, *BSD's write everything in-house!
Now, if you will excuse me, but I have to go ejaculate on some FreeBSD-CD's.
So, does *BSD have a *BSD-GUI that is a "joy to use", or do they use some some "random assorted crap from various sources"? On Linux I use KDE, and I'm toying with Gnome, but apparently those are crap. Could you point me to the *BSD-equivalent?
What compilers do *BSD's use? Is it "GNU junk" or something else? What about X? X.org would be "crap from various sources", so apparently *BSD uses some uber-leet BSD-Xserver, right?
"Then Apple came along and revolutionized the desktop experience."
How exactly did Apple "revolutionize" it? OS X is just more of the same old shit, just in prettier package. Icons? Windows? Menu's? Dialog-boxes? That stuff is ancient. Apple added a nice layer of candy on top of it, but it's fundamentally still the same stuff Mac OS was 20 years ago.
OS X is a nice OS, no question about it. But it's no revolution.
As to "year of the Linux-desktop". That year wont come. Ever. But one day we will suddenly notice that Linux is a widely used desktop-OS. There won't be any monumental change when everyone and their grandma suddenly switches to Linux. But people will continue to do so. And then some more people will do so. And suddenly Linux's market-share on the desktop is over 10%. Then it will be 15%, then 20%. It will happen, it just wont happen overnight.
So, it's irrational to love something if that something can't make any money? If Kosmo was profitable, then it would be OK to love it, but since it was not, loving it would be "irrational"? Is our liking or disliking some company somehow tied to that company's profit-margin?
If someone started giving away free cars to everyone, would you NOT love it? I mean, the person giving those cars away wouldn't be making any profit from it.