You have that problem no matter what. This method gives you the benefit of how the brain works normally. Usually, the examples themselves limits the context of the law. The way you keep this from getting out of control is to appoint good judges, and, well, that has always been the case. This differences is, with U.S. law, its hard to tell what the lawmakers were thinking, and therefore hard to rule on what the law is trying to say. With "law-by-example", it is much easier for an honest judge to understand the intent of the law. A dishonest judge will not work well in either case.
1) actually, most people who write Linux apps get jobs writing linux apps.
2) compiling from source is a blessing, not a curse. Why? because I can build it with whatever optimization I please, and even build it for my specific chipset. You can't do that with binaries, because everyone has different chipsets. There are a lot of other advantages to building from source, but I won't enumerate them here.
3) If you don't want to compile from scratch, DONT! Use a popular distribution, and just get binaries.
4) In an enterprise setting, having the source is absolutely necessary. You need it both to (a) make changes if necessary, and (b) see how it actually works underneath, to improve your understanding of the product so you can use it more effectively.
5) Many people really like the GNOME interface, me being one of them.
As for the advantages of Linux, try these out:
a) not tied to a particular hardware platform, can use the one most suited to your needs
b) easy implementation of load-balancers
c) common operating platform for routers, load-balancers, server, and workstation machines. Makes maintenance easier
d) very fast
e) prunable - its easy to remove everything you don't need. Nothing is hidden from you
f) plays well with others - almost every moderately-sized environment is a mixed environment. Contrary to what the commercials say, W2K does not play nicely in such an environment.
g) lock-in - it doesn't matter how good W2K is now, because you've locked yourself in with a single company, and you are now dependent on that company. no such lockin exists for Linux
h) Linux is easier-to-use and faster in real-world situations, especially in the server room. Not easier to learn, easier to use.
I'm actually hoping that AA will have an option to turn it off. AA is the most annoying and overhyped feature, ever. I actually like using Linux better because it doesn't have AA fonts.
First of all, using GNOME with Enlightenment, although at one time was a common practice, has showed to usually be a bad idea. Why? because of many duplicated features. Enlightenment is more than a Window Manager, and GNOME is more than a panel. I prefer using SawFish - it's pretty much _just_ a window manager. As for the rest of GNOME, it has most of the same benefits as KDE - consistency, common libraries, object embedding, etc. The panel is cool, too. I like GNOME over KDE for several reasons:
1) I like the look better
2) I think it is better thought-out
3) It seems to focus on solving technical issues irst, rather than just making it look pretty
4) I think using C has long-term technical advantages
5) I like coding for the API (haven't done that much of it, but what I have done was really fun)
If you like KDE better, more power to ya. However, GNOME _is_ bloated if used in combination with Enlightenment, because they duplicate each other's features. If you do use GNOME, grab Ximian GNOME, because its easy to update, and does a good job of it.
The best law I've seen in dealing with this subject is Old-Testament law (and probably other laws from that period/area). What they do, is, instead of trying to give a precise description, is they give several for-instances, and let the human mind do what it does best - generalize. Instead of trying to write down the generalizations (which are never properly understood), you have several instances, and the situation-at-hand is matched against the given instances to find which it best correlates with. Some may find this archaic, but it is much better because it keeps the spirit of law much better. Now, there are always bad judges and poor interpretations, but this method of law I think gives the best framework.
I think you forget the reason why right-wingers are right-wing. They don't do so simply to promote businesses, they do so because they want full freedom, which includes freedom to businesses. Left-wingers tend to want to reduce the freedom of some to enhance the freedoms of others. This is an overgeneralization, of course. And, it is true that recently the Republican party has been catering more to the big businesses than to the general public, which is why some of us are defecting to libertarianism.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that BSD developed almost all of the TCP/IP suite. They definitely provided the standard implementation of both the protocol and the suite. Also, I think the OSI model came afterward.
Actually, from all accounts Win2K seems to be the first decent piece of software MS produced. One thing to be careful of when doing line counts is that usually they compare the MS distribution to the Linux kernel. This is not a fair comparison. Now, Win2K does have problems of its own, but lets be fair - its pretty for a desktop/server combination.
Now, having said that, I prefer Linux for both the desktop and server.
About the article, it seemed like Allchin was doing a "halfspeak". What it sounded like he said and what he actually said were two different things. That way, he could give everyone the impression that Open Source should be banned, without actually having said that, so later he can say, "well, I never said _that_"
I actually had a short conversation with RMS about this. He said the reason "free" was picked over "freedom" was because "freedom" isn't properly an adjective. He said that too much work has been to do emphasize "free software" that to change the name now would just cause confusion.
I think you are also missing the point that just because you believe in free software doesn't mean that you aren't making money off of it. Free software is great for the small-time consultant, because he is on equal footing with everyone else.
I see this as a naming problem. I could package the FreeBSD kernel with incompatible libraries. What do I have? A new OS. Same thing with Linux. The distribution is the operating system, and everything needs to act accordingly. Noone should say, "I run Linux", they should only say "I run RedHat" or "I run Debian", because, in reality, they are different operating systems, that just happen to share components.
I agree. I also failed to see what he meant by saying he wouldn't do glibc-compat for a production server. Why not? It doesn't have as many features as glibc-2.2, but that's what the program was made for. Did anyone else see what the big deal is for glibc-compat?
It's tough to say what's a fork and what's "just patches". Was it a fork when someone introduced USB support to the 2.2 series? What about removing the MMU component for ucLinux? Real-time support? On each of these, are they patches, or actual forks? I consider them forks, because they are independently maintained (generally). Alan Cox basically has his own kernel tree. It can takes months for a patch to move from Alan's tree to Linus's, if at all. Now, all these people tend to sync up every once in a while. This happens because (a)they can, (b) it would be stupid not to use someone else's technical advances, and (c) their common ancestry makes it easier to do so than porting from the BSDs or whatnot (that happens too, though). However, I don't think that a fork necessitates something becoming a completely different product. Think of the egcs fork of gcc, and things of that nature. With free software, eventually the best stuff will be used by all, and the sucky stuff will eventually be left in disuse or transformed into something better (note I said eventually).
Ummm.... its actually only by the good graces of people that any of the architectures stay in decent condition. They don't pop out of thin air. I've used LinuxPPC for over a year now, with no problems/reboots except to upgrade my machine. I run Ximian GNOME with no problems whatsoever. I've never use PPC on a server, however, so I can't comment there
Actually, the kernel has forked several times over, and has been doing so for many years. The forks I can think of are:
MOSIX
MontaVista Real-Time
ucLinux
There's another real-time platform I'm forgetting
Each distribution
Each architecture
Yes, each distribution basically has its own kernel tree, because the users of each distribution are different. Of course, this kind of forking has typically only helped Linux, and I don't see that changing.
It is Linus's project, and he's free to do with his code as he pleases. If his needs don't match everyone else's, they are completely free to fork. This actually happens quite a bit, as none of the distributions use a pure Linus kernel.
I think a lot of people are _greatly_ misinformed about Linux forking. The truth is, there are at least tens of forks of Linux. Every major distribution has it's own kernel tree - no major distribution has ever shipped one of Linus's kernels. They all have at least one patch or another applied on them. Then there are projects like ucLinux, which are pretty major Linux forks. And then you have the real-time Linux forks, of which there are several. So, the LinuxPPC forking is really not a new thing. Linus is generally pretty slow about applying patches for other architectures. If you are not on an x86 box, you _need_ to not be running a Linus kernel - you almost have to run a forked version. It's not that Linus doesn't like the other architectures or that the other architectures are trying to be rebels. They just have different goals and emphases. Linus can't validate every patch that comes in for every architecture, so he generally just does the x86 stuff. Also, Linus doesn't like large patches, because he can't validate them. And the patches for other architectures tend to be large. Anyway, kernel forking is a regular part of Linux, it's been happening for years with no ill effects (all the good stuff from each fork is shared). In fact, it's rather positive.
Slashdot Mirror
You have that problem no matter what. This method gives you the benefit of how the brain works normally. Usually, the examples themselves limits the context of the law. The way you keep this from getting out of control is to appoint good judges, and, well, that has always been the case. This differences is, with U.S. law, its hard to tell what the lawmakers were thinking, and therefore hard to rule on what the law is trying to say. With "law-by-example", it is much easier for an honest judge to understand the intent of the law. A dishonest judge will not work well in either case.
I know this is a troll, but I'm a sucker.
1) actually, most people who write Linux apps get jobs writing linux apps.
2) compiling from source is a blessing, not a curse. Why? because I can build it with whatever optimization I please, and even build it for my specific chipset. You can't do that with binaries, because everyone has different chipsets. There are a lot of other advantages to building from source, but I won't enumerate them here.
3) If you don't want to compile from scratch, DONT! Use a popular distribution, and just get binaries.
4) In an enterprise setting, having the source is absolutely necessary. You need it both to (a) make changes if necessary, and (b) see how it actually works underneath, to improve your understanding of the product so you can use it more effectively.
5) Many people really like the GNOME interface, me being one of them.
As for the advantages of Linux, try these out:
a) not tied to a particular hardware platform, can use the one most suited to your needs
b) easy implementation of load-balancers
c) common operating platform for routers, load-balancers, server, and workstation machines. Makes maintenance easier
d) very fast
e) prunable - its easy to remove everything you don't need. Nothing is hidden from you
f) plays well with others - almost every moderately-sized environment is a mixed environment. Contrary to what the commercials say, W2K does not play nicely in such an environment.
g) lock-in - it doesn't matter how good W2K is now, because you've locked yourself in with a single company, and you are now dependent on that company. no such lockin exists for Linux
h) Linux is easier-to-use and faster in real-world situations, especially in the server room. Not easier to learn, easier to use.
Anyway, just some anti-trolls.
I'm actually hoping that AA will have an option to turn it off. AA is the most annoying and overhyped feature, ever. I actually like using Linux better because it doesn't have AA fonts.
First of all, using GNOME with Enlightenment, although at one time was a common practice, has showed to usually be a bad idea. Why? because of many duplicated features. Enlightenment is more than a Window Manager, and GNOME is more than a panel. I prefer using SawFish - it's pretty much _just_ a window manager. As for the rest of GNOME, it has most of the same benefits as KDE - consistency, common libraries, object embedding, etc. The panel is cool, too. I like GNOME over KDE for several reasons:
1) I like the look better
2) I think it is better thought-out
3) It seems to focus on solving technical issues irst, rather than just making it look pretty
4) I think using C has long-term technical advantages
5) I like coding for the API (haven't done that much of it, but what I have done was really fun)
If you like KDE better, more power to ya. However, GNOME _is_ bloated if used in combination with Enlightenment, because they duplicate each other's features. If you do use GNOME, grab Ximian GNOME, because its easy to update, and does a good job of it.
Actually, if you use XHTML and CSS, your page will display just fine in older browsers, just not quite as pretty.
The best law I've seen in dealing with this subject is Old-Testament law (and probably other laws from that period/area). What they do, is, instead of trying to give a precise description, is they give several for-instances, and let the human mind do what it does best - generalize. Instead of trying to write down the generalizations (which are never properly understood), you have several instances, and the situation-at-hand is matched against the given instances to find which it best correlates with. Some may find this archaic, but it is much better because it keeps the spirit of law much better. Now, there are always bad judges and poor interpretations, but this method of law I think gives the best framework.
I think you forget the reason why right-wingers are right-wing. They don't do so simply to promote businesses, they do so because they want full freedom, which includes freedom to businesses. Left-wingers tend to want to reduce the freedom of some to enhance the freedoms of others. This is an overgeneralization, of course. And, it is true that recently the Republican party has been catering more to the big businesses than to the general public, which is why some of us are defecting to libertarianism.
Try postfix (at postfix.org). It's being developed by IBM, is super-fast, super-secure, free software, and kicks butt.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that BSD developed almost all of the TCP/IP suite. They definitely provided the standard implementation of both the protocol and the suite. Also, I think the OSI model came afterward.
Actually, from all accounts Win2K seems to be the first decent piece of software MS produced. One thing to be careful of when doing line counts is that usually they compare the MS distribution to the Linux kernel. This is not a fair comparison. Now, Win2K does have problems of its own, but lets be fair - its pretty for a desktop/server combination.
Now, having said that, I prefer Linux for both the desktop and server.
About the article, it seemed like Allchin was doing a "halfspeak". What it sounded like he said and what he actually said were two different things. That way, he could give everyone the impression that Open Source should be banned, without actually having said that, so later he can say, "well, I never said _that_"
I actually had a short conversation with RMS about this. He said the reason "free" was picked over "freedom" was because "freedom" isn't properly an adjective. He said that too much work has been to do emphasize "free software" that to change the name now would just cause confusion.
I think you are also missing the point that just because you believe in free software doesn't mean that you aren't making money off of it. Free software is great for the small-time consultant, because he is on equal footing with everyone else.
I see this as a naming problem. I could package the FreeBSD kernel with incompatible libraries. What do I have? A new OS. Same thing with Linux. The distribution is the operating system, and everything needs to act accordingly. Noone should say, "I run Linux", they should only say "I run RedHat" or "I run Debian", because, in reality, they are different operating systems, that just happen to share components.
How do you use symbol versioning?
Also, under the LGPL, you can't distribute statically-linked versions of an executable without also distributing the unlinked .o files as well.
I agree. I also failed to see what he meant by saying he wouldn't do glibc-compat for a production server. Why not? It doesn't have as many features as glibc-2.2, but that's what the program was made for. Did anyone else see what the big deal is for glibc-compat?
I don't understand your question. There are several points here:
1) the kernel _is_ the hardware abstraction
2) some things (notably drivers and VM) are abstracted as well
However, every tree needs tweaks/testing/changes
Does that answer your question?
I've had 3 from different vendors in the last two years on my home computer. Server equiptment lasts much longer than PC
It's tough to say what's a fork and what's "just patches". Was it a fork when someone introduced USB support to the 2.2 series? What about removing the MMU component for ucLinux? Real-time support? On each of these, are they patches, or actual forks? I consider them forks, because they are independently maintained (generally). Alan Cox basically has his own kernel tree. It can takes months for a patch to move from Alan's tree to Linus's, if at all. Now, all these people tend to sync up every once in a while. This happens because (a)they can, (b) it would be stupid not to use someone else's technical advances, and (c) their common ancestry makes it easier to do so than porting from the BSDs or whatnot (that happens too, though). However, I don't think that a fork necessitates something becoming a completely different product. Think of the egcs fork of gcc, and things of that nature. With free software, eventually the best stuff will be used by all, and the sucky stuff will eventually be left in disuse or transformed into something better (note I said eventually).
Ummm.... its actually only by the good graces of people that any of the architectures stay in decent condition. They don't pop out of thin air. I've used LinuxPPC for over a year now, with no problems/reboots except to upgrade my machine. I run Ximian GNOME with no problems whatsoever. I've never use PPC on a server, however, so I can't comment there
Actually, the kernel has forked several times over, and has been doing so for many years. The forks I can think of are:
MOSIX
MontaVista Real-Time
ucLinux
There's another real-time platform I'm forgetting
Each distribution
Each architecture
Yes, each distribution basically has its own kernel tree, because the users of each distribution are different. Of course, this kind of forking has typically only helped Linux, and I don't see that changing.
It is Linus's project, and he's free to do with his code as he pleases. If his needs don't match everyone else's, they are completely free to fork. This actually happens quite a bit, as none of the distributions use a pure Linus kernel.
I think a lot of people are _greatly_ misinformed about Linux forking. The truth is, there are at least tens of forks of Linux. Every major distribution has it's own kernel tree - no major distribution has ever shipped one of Linus's kernels. They all have at least one patch or another applied on them. Then there are projects like ucLinux, which are pretty major Linux forks. And then you have the real-time Linux forks, of which there are several. So, the LinuxPPC forking is really not a new thing. Linus is generally pretty slow about applying patches for other architectures. If you are not on an x86 box, you _need_ to not be running a Linus kernel - you almost have to run a forked version. It's not that Linus doesn't like the other architectures or that the other architectures are trying to be rebels. They just have different goals and emphases. Linus can't validate every patch that comes in for every architecture, so he generally just does the x86 stuff. Also, Linus doesn't like large patches, because he can't validate them. And the patches for other architectures tend to be large. Anyway, kernel forking is a regular part of Linux, it's been happening for years with no ill effects (all the good stuff from each fork is shared). In fact, it's rather positive.
How is not participating in government admirable?
GWB does appoint justices, but every justice that is appointed is there for life. So, he can only replace justices that have retired.