I once used Boa in a situation where I couldn't get Apache to compile (an old HPUX machine). It ran a pirate web site at Oklahoma Baptist university, and used to run on http://obunix.okbu.edu:2000/ They wouldn't let us CompSci students have our own web space, so I just ran Boa in the background under my own user account, and told everyone how to set up their pages. It was fun:) I had to go and restart the darned thing every time the administrator rebooted, though (the administrator was not particularly UNIX smart - I played some minor pranks on him w/ X11 - tip to the smart - don't put the IP address of an open X server on the command line of a public system). Anyway, other CompSci students kept it up for a year or two after I left. It was kinda fun.
You miss two things. a) channels also have an effect, and b) COPYRIGHT, not just patents, are monopolies.
Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Therefore, since they use copyright to gain wealth, they are responsible to the government and its citizens to give their product at a fair price (morally, not legally - although it should be legally)
I think by usable they mean able to be used, not user-interface work. Linux is usable because of it's great ethernet driver support. Being a networking platform, ethernet support is paramount, and Linux works as a server on pretty much EVERY x86 computer because of Donald Becker's work. I think that's what they mean by "making Linux usable".
Re:Why oh why are you such a snob?
on
Blender Is GPL
·
· Score: 2
You are missing the point of a database. If you need a database to run application X, you don't need a database at all - it will only slow things down. Relational databases are there in order to consolidate _all_ of a company's data into a single, queryable source, which is *application independent*. The point is that your applications today are _not_ your applications tomorrow, but your data still is. A fully relational database will bring you through all of the hoops necessary to get from point A to point B without thoroughly screwing with your data.
Donald Becker is a world-class guy
on
Ask Donald Becker
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
In addition to being extremely smart, Donald Becker is a world-class guy. When I was new to Linux, I had trouble with one of his drivers. I emailed him, and within a day he emailed me back. It was a pretty stupid issue - I needed to download the latest drive:) However, he was very nice about it, didn't send me an RTFM - in fact he included instructions for building and installing it.
Anyway, Donald - thanks for helping me out when I was a stupid newbie, you are truly a world-class fellow.
Actually, it's enough to pay 2 good programmers for one year. I don't know where you get your salary information, but it is no longer the 90s. Programmers now have to work for a living.
Software development also goes much faster when the developers actually spend time programming rather than playing quake.
I agree, the blender package is probably more than 2 programmers could put out in a year, but I think you might be using bad metrics when determining the cost of software development. I.E. - I think you are basing it on overvalued, under-knowledgeable, and lazy programmers. Yes, they may "work" 12 hours a day, but they spend most of it on Slashdot.
Then again, I don't need any computer products period. I bought them because they are cool, and very useful at times.
****
You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that open-source generally (but not always) doesn't bother with "cool" things, but focuses on useful things. Therefore, if it _actually_ makes your life easier, it will likely be implemented. However, if it just looks cool yet causes many problems for you and your system administrator, it isn't.
In addition, for people who don't want to install Linux, they can simply include all of the Microsoft-replacement software in Windows versions. OpenOffice, Dia, Gimp, and maybe even throw in a Windows port of Evolution.
Wouldn't that be great? Windows being nailed into the ground by their own tactic. I like it.
I think it's because Open-Source generally comes out with truly useful features, not just crap. I see no reason why someone would need to move their mouse between their laptop and their desktop. Why not just use a base-station and have them both be the same computer?
The difference between open-source and proprietary software is that open-source solves problems, while proprietary software also creates new problems to solve that weren't problems to begin with.
Think ISA Plug-N-Play. The user already had to be knowledgeable enough to open the case of their box and install the card, so they were usually already smart enough to set jumpers. People who couldn't do this simply hired someone who could to do it for them. Then PnP came along and made _every_ device impossible to install for _everyone_. Luckily, the move to PCI has made this obsolete.
I remember doing tech support for an ISP and having to help people reload their PnP modem drivers every few weeks or so, or helping them reset settings that PnP screwed up for them. Blech.
The comments about developer competence were right on. You would not believe the number of "professional" Windows programmers don't know what COM is. Really. I'm not making that up.
Now, I'm not saying they are all like that - I've met some extremely smart Win32 coders. However, if you were to pick any two random coders from a pool of Linux coders and Microsoft coders, the likelihood of you pulling out a complete idiot from the Microsoft camp is much, much larger.
One point of America is that there are many freedoms which _cannot_ be removed. Basically, if the entire hiring community adopts certain standards that require people to relinquish their rights, how does one find a job? Especially since the contract terms aren't know until late in the process. Therefore, it is reasonable to reject such unreasonable contract terms.
The fact is it's not an open source product; it's a product with open source portions.
***
Most of which are open-source. If something is 99% open-source and 1% not, I don't call it a product with "open source portions". I call it an open-source product that has a minor set of proprietary portions. To say it only has open source portions is quite misleading - especially since all parts that make it "Red Hat" are open-source.
But _none_ of the non-open-source parts are written by RedHat. What this means is simply that Red Hat is an open-source company, but has customers who use non-open-source tools and thus must integrate with those people (i.e. - install those connection libraries, etc.). Almost all distributions do this already, anyway. Did you complain when distros were including Netscape before Mozilla came along?
Advanced Server isn't open source. This deal marks Red Hat's continued transition away from the open source business model.
***
Yes it is. I don't see what's so hard about this for people. They just don't provide it freely on their web servers, and most people who have forked out the $800 don't want to just give it away either.
No, sorry your wrong. Winex was forked because the makers are under NDA.
***
Nope. Sorrry. The fork was done simply to make money. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is the truth.
***
packeteer:
It was forked because the old WINE license required all source to be given away.
***
Again, incorrect. The _old_ WINE license is BSD, which means anyone can use it for any reason.
***
packeteer:
Winex DOES charge money but not for all things. If you dont subscribe you can download the CVS version which contains no copy-protection code and is pure source.
***
Thus destroying your original argument. Remember, the source they give is under the _Alladin_ license, not the LGPL or BSD like Wine (Wine's new license is the LGPL, although I believe they are still maintaining a BSD tree).
***
packeteer:
So really in my opinion Winex is the best thing since emacs (an invention so useful it can almost replace sliced bread but i think thats a few patches away);)
***
I won't disagree with you there. Actually, I think the release of Blender as open-source might be a _bit_ cooler, but maybe not. Also CrossOver Office is pretty cool.
WineX is specifically aimed at the Linux gaming market. It was forked to make money (although they do from time to time re-incorporate patches into the main tree). CrossOver is similar, except that they are more active with their re-incorporation of patches.
The Aqua API hooks are much harder than you make it sound. Aqua _is_ MacOS X. The BSD base is nice, but it's very little of what the non-server applications use.
So just taking people's experience on face value is akin to me listening to someone say they once saw a lemming jump off a cliff, therefore lemmings must be suicidal, and going "Wow they really are".
****
You're right, that is a bad idea. Which is why you should use your own experience, not someone else's.
Therefore I take this as reasonable evidence for people's ability to fool themselves.
****
I'd have to disagree. Experience is the only tool that we actually count on. Everything we do relies on experience. All experimental data - everything - it all comes from experience. People's interpretation of their experience may be incorrect, but an experience itself is always true. That's what makes experience so powerful.
What gets my goat is that so many people confuse what faith and science are _for_.
Imagine we have a crime committed. Let's say Joe stabs Jim while Jane watches. The medical examiner who did an autopsy of Jim was named Jesse.
Now, if we ask Jesse how Jim died, he would say something like "Jim was killed by a sharp cut in his main artery". If we ask Jane how Jim died, she would say "Joe killed him in a mad rage!" Which one is correct? Or are they just talking about different parts of the same thing?
Science deals with mechanism. Religion deals with the relationship between God and man. To say that one has anything to do with the other misunderstands both completely. A great friend and a great scientist are often two different people.
Very wise. Faith MUST be reasonable, not just feelings based.
***
I understand the sentiment behind this, but Paul would disagree with you. Paul said that he came knowing nothing but Christ Crucified and the power of the Cross. He intentionally avoided rational analysis simply because God's power in the lives of individuals is a much better testimony. Any argument for any position I come up with is flawed, but the power that God places in the hands of His people is what He uses to show Himself.
Or perhaps God no longer acts in obvious ways like that is BECAUSE IT'S A BOOK! It's fiction. Parable. Written by men.
***
Actually, a great number of the things written in the Bible have been shown by multiple nonbiblical sources to have happened. It's one thing to disagree with the interpretation of those events, but to argue that the facts portrayed in the Bible is on the same level of fiction is ludicrous.
***
dogo:
And another thing! Jesus is the messenger, not the message.
***
Jesus would disagree. He did not stop people from worshipping Him in the New Testament. The book of John puts Him on the same level as God. Immanuel, one of His titles, means "God with Us". That's who Jesus is.
Slashdot Mirror
I once used Boa in a situation where I couldn't get Apache to compile (an old HPUX machine). It ran a pirate web site at Oklahoma Baptist university, and used to run on http://obunix.okbu.edu:2000/ They wouldn't let us CompSci students have our own web space, so I just ran Boa in the background under my own user account, and told everyone how to set up their pages. It was fun :) I had to go and restart the darned thing every time the administrator rebooted, though (the administrator was not particularly UNIX smart - I played some minor pranks on him w/ X11 - tip to the smart - don't put the IP address of an open X server on the command line of a public system). Anyway, other CompSci students kept it up for a year or two after I left. It was kinda fun.
You miss two things. a) channels also have an effect, and b) COPYRIGHT, not just patents, are monopolies.
Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Therefore, since they use copyright to gain wealth, they are responsible to the government and its citizens to give their product at a fair price (morally, not legally - although it should be legally)
Actually, NetHack the game is independent of it's user interface. Falcon's Eye is a wonderful frontend to Nethack.
However, why does text make a game less fun? Did you have less fun when that was the only thing available? Of course not.
I think by usable they mean able to be used, not user-interface work. Linux is usable because of it's great ethernet driver support. Being a networking platform, ethernet support is paramount, and Linux works as a server on pretty much EVERY x86 computer because of Donald Becker's work. I think that's what they mean by "making Linux usable".
You are missing the point of a database. If you need a database to run application X, you don't need a database at all - it will only slow things down. Relational databases are there in order to consolidate _all_ of a company's data into a single, queryable source, which is *application independent*. The point is that your applications today are _not_ your applications tomorrow, but your data still is. A fully relational database will bring you through all of the hoops necessary to get from point A to point B without thoroughly screwing with your data.
In addition to being extremely smart, Donald Becker is a world-class guy. When I was new to Linux, I had trouble with one of his drivers. I emailed him, and within a day he emailed me back. It was a pretty stupid issue - I needed to download the latest drive :) However, he was very nice about it, didn't send me an RTFM - in fact he included instructions for building and installing it.
Anyway, Donald - thanks for helping me out when I was a stupid newbie, you are truly a world-class fellow.
Actually, it's enough to pay 2 good programmers for one year. I don't know where you get your salary information, but it is no longer the 90s. Programmers now have to work for a living.
Software development also goes much faster when the developers actually spend time programming rather than playing quake.
I agree, the blender package is probably more than 2 programmers could put out in a year, but I think you might be using bad metrics when determining the cost of software development. I.E. - I think you are basing it on overvalued, under-knowledgeable, and lazy programmers. Yes, they may "work" 12 hours a day, but they spend most of it on Slashdot.
Then again, I don't need any computer products period. I bought them because they are cool, and very useful at times.
****
You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that open-source generally (but not always) doesn't bother with "cool" things, but focuses on useful things. Therefore, if it _actually_ makes your life easier, it will likely be implemented. However, if it just looks cool yet causes many problems for you and your system administrator, it isn't.
In addition, for people who don't want to install Linux, they can simply include all of the Microsoft-replacement software in Windows versions. OpenOffice, Dia, Gimp, and maybe even throw in a Windows port of Evolution.
Wouldn't that be great? Windows being nailed into the ground by their own tactic. I like it.
I think it's because Open-Source generally comes out with truly useful features, not just crap. I see no reason why someone would need to move their mouse between their laptop and their desktop. Why not just use a base-station and have them both be the same computer?
The difference between open-source and proprietary software is that open-source solves problems, while proprietary software also creates new problems to solve that weren't problems to begin with.
Think ISA Plug-N-Play. The user already had to be knowledgeable enough to open the case of their box and install the card, so they were usually already smart enough to set jumpers. People who couldn't do this simply hired someone who could to do it for them. Then PnP came along and made _every_ device impossible to install for _everyone_. Luckily, the move to PCI has made this obsolete.
I remember doing tech support for an ISP and having to help people reload their PnP modem drivers every few weeks or so, or helping them reset settings that PnP screwed up for them. Blech.
The comments about developer competence were right on. You would not believe the number of "professional" Windows programmers don't know what COM is. Really. I'm not making that up.
Now, I'm not saying they are all like that - I've met some extremely smart Win32 coders. However, if you were to pick any two random coders from a pool of Linux coders and Microsoft coders, the likelihood of you pulling out a complete idiot from the Microsoft camp is much, much larger.
One point of America is that there are many freedoms which _cannot_ be removed. Basically, if the entire hiring community adopts certain standards that require people to relinquish their rights, how does one find a job? Especially since the contract terms aren't know until late in the process. Therefore, it is reasonable to reject such unreasonable contract terms.
Although I don't own the product, I _believe_ the major differentiating features are:
1) long-term RedHat support (rather than the "every-6-month-release of regular RedHat)
2) Asynchronous I/O as a supported part of the kernel
3) Clustering as a supported part of the kernel
4) Patches to the kernel to provide extra scalability
And all of these are open-source (except #1, which is a business model). There could be other things, but I think these are the biggies.
The fact is it's not an open source product; it's a product with open source portions.
***
Most of which are open-source. If something is 99% open-source and 1% not, I don't call it a product with "open source portions". I call it an open-source product that has a minor set of proprietary portions. To say it only has open source portions is quite misleading - especially since all parts that make it "Red Hat" are open-source.
But _none_ of the non-open-source parts are written by RedHat. What this means is simply that Red Hat is an open-source company, but has customers who use non-open-source tools and thus must integrate with those people (i.e. - install those connection libraries, etc.). Almost all distributions do this already, anyway. Did you complain when distros were including Netscape before Mozilla came along?
It contains a bunch of proprietary modules.
***
Like what?
Advanced Server isn't open source. This deal marks Red Hat's continued transition away from the open source business model.
***
Yes it is. I don't see what's so hard about this for people. They just don't provide it freely on their web servers, and most people who have forked out the $800 don't want to just give it away either.
packeteer:
;)
No, sorry your wrong. Winex was forked because the makers are under NDA.
***
Nope. Sorrry. The fork was done simply to make money. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is the truth.
***
packeteer:
It was forked because the old WINE license required all source to be given away.
***
Again, incorrect. The _old_ WINE license is BSD, which means anyone can use it for any reason.
***
packeteer:
Winex DOES charge money but not for all things. If you dont subscribe you can download the CVS version which contains no copy-protection code and is pure source.
***
Thus destroying your original argument. Remember, the source they give is under the _Alladin_ license, not the LGPL or BSD like Wine (Wine's new license is the LGPL, although I believe they are still maintaining a BSD tree).
***
packeteer:
So really in my opinion Winex is the best thing since emacs (an invention so useful it can almost replace sliced bread but i think thats a few patches away)
***
I won't disagree with you there. Actually, I think the release of Blender as open-source might be a _bit_ cooler, but maybe not. Also CrossOver Office is pretty cool.
WineX is specifically aimed at the Linux gaming market. It was forked to make money (although they do from time to time re-incorporate patches into the main tree). CrossOver is similar, except that they are more active with their re-incorporation of patches.
The Aqua API hooks are much harder than you make it sound. Aqua _is_ MacOS X. The BSD base is nice, but it's very little of what the non-server applications use.
So just taking people's experience on face value is akin to me listening to someone say they once saw a lemming jump off a cliff, therefore lemmings must be suicidal, and going "Wow they really are".
****
You're right, that is a bad idea. Which is why you should use your own experience, not someone else's.
Therefore I take this as reasonable evidence for people's ability to fool themselves.
****
I'd have to disagree. Experience is the only tool that we actually count on. Everything we do relies on experience. All experimental data - everything - it all comes from experience. People's interpretation of their experience may be incorrect, but an experience itself is always true. That's what makes experience so powerful.
Experience corrects theory, not vice-versa.
What gets my goat is that so many people confuse what faith and science are _for_.
Imagine we have a crime committed. Let's say Joe stabs Jim while Jane watches. The medical examiner who did an autopsy of Jim was named Jesse.
Now, if we ask Jesse how Jim died, he would say something like "Jim was killed by a sharp cut in his main artery". If we ask Jane how Jim died, she would say "Joe killed him in a mad rage!" Which one is correct? Or are they just talking about different parts of the same thing?
Science deals with mechanism. Religion deals with the relationship between God and man. To say that one has anything to do with the other misunderstands both completely. A great friend and a great scientist are often two different people.
Very wise. Faith MUST be reasonable, not just feelings based.
***
I understand the sentiment behind this, but Paul would disagree with you. Paul said that he came knowing nothing but Christ Crucified and the power of the Cross. He intentionally avoided rational analysis simply because God's power in the lives of individuals is a much better testimony. Any argument for any position I come up with is flawed, but the power that God places in the hands of His people is what He uses to show Himself.
dogo:
Or perhaps God no longer acts in obvious ways like that is BECAUSE IT'S A BOOK! It's fiction. Parable. Written by men.
***
Actually, a great number of the things written in the Bible have been shown by multiple nonbiblical sources to have happened. It's one thing to disagree with the interpretation of those events, but to argue that the facts portrayed in the Bible is on the same level of fiction is ludicrous.
***
dogo:
And another thing! Jesus is the messenger, not the message.
***
Jesus would disagree. He did not stop people from worshipping Him in the New Testament. The book of John puts Him on the same level as God. Immanuel, one of His titles, means "God with Us". That's who Jesus is.