But I don't know *why* I can't do this with GUI applications. And there may be a good reason, so I don't want to push.
Permitting a program to connect to the X server is a pretty big statement of trust, since it has to have at least the same level of permissions the window manager does. So it's fairly carefully controlled. There are ways of making su work, which hail from back when you used telnet to do remote login and your GUI apps connected directly back to a public TCP/IP port on your terminal to get at the X server, but they're obsolete. These days, the fastest way to do what you want is to substitute ssh for su.
Good point. *Unix* is fun, not just Linux. OTOH, vastly more people use Linux because Unix is fun than use BSD because Unix is fun. So TFA is almost right.
Emacs is the only OS more systematically mis-used than Linux. I think if most VI users tried using Emacs properly, they'd be surprised; in VIM, you end up hitting ESC every time you'd hit Ctrl in Emacs.
OTOH, I can say that switching from KDE to MacOS X is one of the worst mistakes I've ever made. From the feature levels of the default applications --- mail, audio, pretty much everything but the web browser --- it feels like moving back to Windows. The great thing about Linux is that the best applications come right out of the box. If you tell me iTunes is the best audio player for MacOS X, you're lying. Running Amarok in X11 is superior.
This is slightly untrue --- a system with genuine freedom of contract would be set up so that the GPL could be written and enforced as such. All copyright law does that other law cannot is tell you what the default license is if you don't provide one --- it doesn't create any options for what licenses can (or cannot) say that wouldn't exist in a pure contract regime.
Despite Bush's `alienating', John Howard still seems to like us. And, despite his affection for us, Australia still likes him enough to re-elect him. And give him a brand-new majority in the Senate. There's one ally for you.
Our legal system is rife with clear biases. We always admit the use of legal force to protect our interest in eating the chicken we just bought from the store, but never someone's interest in killing and eating the neighbor who just moved in.
In the final analysis, they might not be an issue. But do you want to be the first BigCo that gets sued by some P? I think it's reasonable for BigCos to sit out and wait until some other BigCo pays the legal bills to get that question solved..
Any business model anywhere that leads to Linux deployments = good.
Any business model anywhere that leads to Windows deployments = bad.
So Linux = good, while Windows = bad. But: it's not true that the sales model isn't the issue. Proprietary software is bad in many ways; how, exactly, it will bite you depends on the exact licensing model used. So to discuss Windows = bad at any length, you have to discuss why Windows + (this sales model, whether that be ``sell packaged goods + free support'', subscription sales, or anything else) = bad. That's the only way to be specific.
It would be nice if there was more discussion of why Linux + (this sales model) is better for the customer than Windows + (this sales model), rather than just why Winodws + (this sales model) is bad, couched as (this sales model) = bad. So you've got a point there, although you're too far down in the thread to have a mod:)
IBM gave up on DOS and had a pissing contest w/OS2 (and lost). But did not go away.
Right. They contracted to basically the computer market of the 70s. If we take the desktop, Microsoft can't just contract to the computer market of the 90s---that's precisely what we are taking away. Only if Linux dominates new technology (hand-helds, NCs, etc.) and doesn't gain significant desktop share can MS be like IBM.
And then hidden. In this way its no different than closed source.
Exactly. This is not a failing of open source---because open source procedures weren't followed. Breaking the rules does diminish the likelihood of success.
But what should have prevented it was that more people should, in theory, have found it. The more people who find it, the harder it is to hid it. And this is one of the more popular Open Source projects.
How do you know it wasn't found multiple times, reported multiple times, and hidden multiple times? I'm not saying it was, I'm just asking how you know.
"But its hard to find bugs" does nothing for the argument for open source. How can you argue that its more secure/bug-free if its hard to find bugs in the first place? A thousand eyes missed this one.
Possibly. But, you can't argue that one event makes a statistical trend. There are always exceptions to any rule. The question is: does having more reviewers increase the probability of finding bugs significantly, not does it guarantee finding bugs. Bugginess is a fuzzy property, not a binary one.
My original formulation was that every problem ``will be transparent to somebody''. Linus demurred that the person who understands and fixes the problem is not necessarily or even usually the person who first characterizes it. ``Somebody finds the problem,'' he says, ``and somebody else understands it. And I'll go on record as saying that finding it is the bigger challenge.''
Linus' law depends, in the published formulation, on bug discoveries being published among the entire happy horde of hackers. Remember: it's the published CatB that everything else ESR says refers back to; his public statements are summaries of that position. Sometimes he leaves details out. Every detail is crucial under some circumnstances. This happens to be an occasion on which this detail became crucial.
And the bug wasn't ``missed''. It was found, and filed.
For political power, try e.g. the last section of this page. This page has a list of just their restaurant customers. Highlights: Denny's, Burger King, McDonald's (which I know is an SCO customer), Sonic, etc. These are current or potential SCO customers; if SCO ticks them off, it stands to lose most of what business it currently has.
Well, the original complaint (as in the one I originally replied to) was that there was `weird stuff' in the interface. I asked where it was, and got `I thought I was confused when I used it' and `I didn't bother to actually look at the UI', which I find (all else being equal) much less convincing than `I can prove I didn't find it confusing' and `I did look at the UI, and didn't find any non-standard features more different from (say) Gnome than Windows 95 was from Winodws 3.1'.
Well, I know I was never confused by fetchmailconf, I know my email (including my notification of this message) was delivered by fetchmail configured that way, and I did run fetchmailconf to check the UI for myself. I win.
Slashdot Mirror
Permitting a program to connect to the X server is a pretty big statement of trust, since it has to have at least the same level of permissions the window manager does. So it's fairly carefully controlled. There are ways of making su work, which hail from back when you used telnet to do remote login and your GUI apps connected directly back to a public TCP/IP port on your terminal to get at the X server, but they're obsolete. These days, the fastest way to do what you want is to substitute ssh for su.
Good point. *Unix* is fun, not just Linux. OTOH, vastly more people use Linux because Unix is fun than use BSD because Unix is fun. So TFA is almost right.
True. The internet *is* fun on Windows. But only if every program you use was developed for Linux.
Sure, I have a co-worker who does that. I still don't see how C-[ j i is easier than C-n, though.
Emacs is the only OS more systematically mis-used than Linux. I think if most VI users tried using Emacs properly, they'd be surprised; in VIM, you end up hitting ESC every time you'd hit Ctrl in Emacs.
Maybe we should shoot for more realistic goals. Like acceptance of Emacs' superiority.
Well, there's your problem right there.
Of course, if they `beat' Linux that way, it'll mean people running Linux anyway. Linux is a technology, not a company.
OTOH, I can say that switching from KDE to MacOS X is one of the worst mistakes I've ever made. From the feature levels of the default applications --- mail, audio, pretty much everything but the web browser --- it feels like moving back to Windows. The great thing about Linux is that the best applications come right out of the box. If you tell me iTunes is the best audio player for MacOS X, you're lying. Running Amarok in X11 is superior.
Of course he got modded up. He said he'd get modded down.
This is slightly untrue --- a system with genuine freedom of contract would be set up so that the GPL could be written and enforced as such. All copyright law does that other law cannot is tell you what the default license is if you don't provide one --- it doesn't create any options for what licenses can (or cannot) say that wouldn't exist in a pure contract regime.
Despite Bush's `alienating', John Howard still seems to like us. And, despite his affection for us, Australia still likes him enough to re-elect him. And give him a brand-new majority in the Senate. There's one ally for you.
Our legal system is rife with clear biases. We always admit the use of legal force to protect our interest in eating the chicken we just bought from the store, but never someone's interest in killing and eating the neighbor who just moved in.
You mean like IBM?
Very Machiavellian. But then, Machiavelli was a pretty smart guy.
Any business model anywhere that leads to Linux deployments = good.
:)
Any business model anywhere that leads to Windows deployments = bad.
So Linux = good, while Windows = bad. But: it's not true that the sales model isn't the issue. Proprietary software is bad in many ways; how, exactly, it will bite you depends on the exact licensing model used. So to discuss Windows = bad at any length, you have to discuss why Windows + (this sales model, whether that be ``sell packaged goods + free support'', subscription sales, or anything else) = bad. That's the only way to be specific.
It would be nice if there was more discussion of why Linux + (this sales model) is better for the customer than Windows + (this sales model), rather than just why Winodws + (this sales model) is bad, couched as (this sales model) = bad. So you've got a point there, although you're too far down in the thread to have a mod
Right. They contracted to basically the computer market of the 70s. If we take the desktop, Microsoft can't just contract to the computer market of the 90s---that's precisely what we are taking away. Only if Linux dominates new technology (hand-helds, NCs, etc.) and doesn't gain significant desktop share can MS be like IBM.
Can't speak to the accuracy of your statements about the second Roosevelt and Wilson, but otherwise I agree completely with your assessment.
Exactly. This is not a failing of open source---because open source procedures weren't followed. Breaking the rules does diminish the likelihood of success.
How do you know it wasn't found multiple times, reported multiple times, and hidden multiple times? I'm not saying it was, I'm just asking how you know.
Possibly. But, you can't argue that one event makes a statistical trend. There are always exceptions to any rule. The question is: does having more reviewers increase the probability of finding bugs significantly, not does it guarantee finding bugs. Bugginess is a fuzzy property, not a binary one.
Linus' law depends, in the published formulation, on bug discoveries being published among the entire happy horde of hackers. Remember: it's the published CatB that everything else ESR says refers back to; his public statements are summaries of that position. Sometimes he leaves details out. Every detail is crucial under some circumnstances. This happens to be an occasion on which this detail became crucial.
And the bug wasn't ``missed''. It was found, and filed.
For political power, try e.g. the last section of this page. This page has a list of just their restaurant customers. Highlights: Denny's, Burger King, McDonald's (which I know is an SCO customer), Sonic, etc. These are current or potential SCO customers; if SCO ticks them off, it stands to lose most of what business it currently has.
Well, the original complaint (as in the one I originally replied to) was that there was `weird stuff' in the interface. I asked where it was, and got `I thought I was confused when I used it' and `I didn't bother to actually look at the UI', which I find (all else being equal) much less convincing than `I can prove I didn't find it confusing' and `I did look at the UI, and didn't find any non-standard features more different from (say) Gnome than Windows 95 was from Winodws 3.1'.
Well, I know I was never confused by fetchmailconf, I know my email (including my notification of this message) was delivered by fetchmail configured that way, and I did run fetchmailconf to check the UI for myself. I win.
Where does it stop? The last volume of HoME or bust!
Gimli was (IIRC) 70 at the time of tH.