Wow, this whole post is trolling. How in the world can anyone compare an application developed full time and that has $1,000's of dollars spent on its development vs. an application that is developed in peoples spare time?
I am a programmer and not a graphics guy, with that being said, there is nothing that Photoshop has for non-professional graphics work that is not in the gimp. Oh, and the gimp is considerably less money. Some people like Photoshops UI and some like gimps. I personally like the gimp's with one window and multiple tabs for all the dialogs vs. Photoshops UI. Some people will feel the opposite.
A quick summary of this whole thread:
The gimp sucks, photoshop is better Photoshop sucks gimp is better Photoshop has feature X and the gimp does not Photoship cost X hundreds of dollars, gimp is free and so on and so on
How in the world do you have 700 windows open? Gimp supports tabs for its UI, I have one main gimp window open with multiple tabs and then just one window per image. I am a developer and have very limited artistic ability : ) However, I just like the gimp so much more then Photoshop. For non-professionals, Photoshop has nothing over gimp IMO.
Huh? OK, lets see you run Oracle, MS SQL Server, PeopleSoft HR, SAP, etc, etc on DOS, or Win 3.1 or Win 9X. The OS is the most critical part, it is the foundation that the applications sit above and where those applications get all their functionality. Those big server type apps would not be very useful on an OS that had a poor VM, slow context switching, low memory support, no SMP support, etc. Oh, and how valuable will the apps be on an unstable OS?
I take it you have never worked with regular expressions? You could create a regex that just blocks certain things from the server, such as gif, jpg, etc from a certain directory or with a certain name pattern. It would be pretty easy to work around these types of ads.
I agree. OOo beats WP4Linux hands down for looks and features. This "new" WP4Linux is dog ugly. It looks like they are using the dog ugly Motif. I cannot stand Motif, did I mention that it is dog ugly? Oh, and what is up with all the outdated features of Motif? How hard is it to support a freakin mouse wheel? I could never use this "new" WP4Linux with out something as basic as a scroll whell.
I'd like to know what Corel was thinking releasing this new WP4Linux. I could see doing it if it was monderized and had similar features to their MS Windows version or OOo, but this outdated, dog ugly version just will not sell. So in the end, they will see little to no commercial interest in this and then blame it on the lack of Linux users willing to pay for software. Software like this for Linux actaully hurts commercial support for Linux. I have a great idea, I am going to write a nice application for MS Windows, and then release an outdated version for Linux with 1/4 the features and a GUI that looks like someone had a bowel movement on it. Then I will sit around and scractch my head wondering why there was no commercial interest in the Linux version.
AdBlock is the best. You just enter a regex such as *.ads.* and any content from a site in that form will be blocked. I don't see how this company thinks they will work around this. For example, say that they start to overlay an image with some ad, you just block the server where that image is coming from and your done.
Another simple trick is that many ads are common sizes, so with Mozilla and Firefox, you can do this to block images of certain sizes.
It could just be the FreeBSD version? Under Fedora MPlayer and Xine work very well for me. There are also other front-ends to xine such as totem for GNome which is very nice as well.
I wonder if you can see the obvious conflict in these statements. (Hint: You're not making money using the GPL - you're making it in spite of the GPL by working around it
How in the world are you working around it? Some customers of MySQL are happen with the GPL and probably just buy support from MySQL. Others want to work out a different license deal with MySQL, so as a company, MySQL accomadates their customers. Do you think MS uses the same license deal for everyone of their customers? No. Partners get different deals, just like large enterprises can get different deals.
That's how a market works - I can offer the same product at a reduced rate.
Yes, but the software marke is also based on reputation. If you can along and offered my software at a reduced rate, it would take you a long time to show how you are adding value or that your support was just as good, etc. And with a simple trademark, you could not sell the same software under the same name, so you would have to build up the product, which can take a long time.
In terms of offering support, support is a really shitty way of making money from software development. You've got a lot of costs to recover if you're only charging for support, and it only works on a large scale (e.g. RedHat).
Stop smoking crack : )
Do you have any idea how much money MS makes from support contracts? I have been a senior programmer for the past 8 years for three fortune 500 companies. All three companies paid MS an annual licence fee for all the support/software. Even if no software is updated, the price is still the same because of the support. The same thing with Oracle. You pay X amount for the product and then X per year for "maintenence" and support and those prices almost never include updates. Then there are "enterprise" class applications like portals, CRM, etc. SAP, PeopleSoft and Microsoft charge you X for the software and then so much each year for suppport and then so much each year to continue using the software. There are _tons_ of ways to make big bucks off of software besides the selling price of the software. Actaully, for many large enterprise type applications, the software is the least expensive part of the deal.
No it is not. The installing of the packages is the same since that is more dependant on the speed of your hard disk. However, apt kills yum in downloading the required info for packages and dependency handling. Again, one test I did was 15 minutes or so for yum vs 20 seconds or so for apt.
If I'd have to make a guess, RH/Fedora chose it because they love all things Python
Yes, that was my bad. I remember there was some reason why the people at RH picked yum by default. Though I personally wish they picked apt. Apt is faster and has a much better front-end GUI (synaptic) where yum has none.
This is comlete FUD. Look at MySQL or QT. You can use them both free of charge. If you want to make proprietary software with QT, you buy a license and Troll Tech seems to be doing fine. If want to use MySQL in proprietary software, you can buy a license and you can also buy support. The GPL allows you to make as much money as your talents will allow.
There are a bunch of Open Source licenses, each one has its pros and cons. The BSD doesn't guarantee you any chance at selling software either. If I write some application and release it under the BSD, you can come along and make it proprietary and add feature FOO and sell it. I can turn around and add feature FOO to the BSD version. So why would someone pay you for your additions when they are available in the BSD version?
Now say I make an application and release it under the GPL. I start to sell this application and also sell support. You come along and try to sell it for half the price. Do you think people would buy a non-official version from you? Maybe a few, but I doubt many. Also, where do you think all new version will be released first? My version. Look at MySQL as an example. If I want to buy support or purchase a license for proprietary use, I go to MySQl. I wouldn't go and buy your version of MySQL or buy support from you.
Your argument just doesn't hold water. You also came up with a very simple solution, get a trademark. I can try to sell MySQL, though I would have to call it LSQL or some other name. And guess what, no one would have heard of it, and it would not have the same reputation as MySQL. There are a bunch of Red Hat Enterprise Linux knock-offs. Guess what, they don't take any significant share of Red Hat's business. Why? Because when an enterprise wants RHEL, they go and buy RHEL, they don't go and use White Hat Linux or some of the other ones.
I agree that Sun has put some very good contributions into the Open Source community. However, I have a problem with the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. Where can one download the sources to their Java desktop from Sun, especially any modifications? What is up with funding SCO? What is up with bad mouthing Linux as a server to try to push their slowaris? Also, I think most of Sun's Gnome contributions were because they wanted to use it as their desktop in newer versions of Solaris. The desktop on Solaris 8 and earlier is just anceint and lacks many modern features. On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, they push Linux, on Tuesday and Thursday, they push Solaris x86. Why didn't they use Solaris x86 as their Java Desktop? Because it has sucky device support. I think Sun could be a good company and a strong member of the Open Source community if they got a new leader. Someone who can help Sun focus their business on where they want to go. Sun currently seems very confused IMHO. Oh, and what is up with Sun not allowing end users to distribute Java Desktop? Most of the code in Java Desktop is under the GPL and an end user has a right to distribute it. To me it looks like Sun wants to try to make Java Desktop as proprietary as they can and prevent distribution. It is corporate games like this that offend Linux community members.
Did you grab your torrents from here? I started the binary torrent about 1 hour ago and have only 1 hour left. I have had a constant 2Mbs or so on my cable modem. I am on the tampabay.rr.com network.
Why wait? Slap Fedora Core 1 on your parents box. I have been using FC1 and it is very stable for me. It will have everything they need. The first few weeks after FC2 is released, there should be a bunch of updates as more users come aboard and find more bugs. So fith FC1, they will have a very nice system now. Though Gnome 2.6 is nice! You can also update to FC2 from FC1 with apt or yum once it has become very stable.
Yum lacks a GUI front-end, apt has synaptic, which makes searching through 1,000's of packages much easier. Also, apt is about 100x faster them yum. Try to install about 50 packages with yum and you wil see what I mean. I tried to install about 100 packages with yum and it took about 15 minutes just to hanlde the dependencies before it even started to install anything! Trying the same 100 packages with apt, the dependencies were done in about 20 seconds before the install started. I think the only reason Fedora went with yum by default over apt is because yum came out of Redhat. apt is far better overall IMHO.
Wront. The test releases of Fedora is where all the testing happens. Once it gets to an official release it is pretty darn stable. Fedora Core 1 is rock solid for me.
Also, just how in the world do you figure Fedora Core users are testing a product they will have to pay for? Fedora Core will always be open and free, and just why would a Fedora Core user pay for RHEL? Most/all RHEL users are not running Fedora on thier servers if they paid for RHEL. Please explain your logic where you think a Fedora user will ever have to pay money? Fedora is geared for home users or users that do not want to pay for RHEL. RHEL is for paying users that want the support. The two are totally different. A Fedora user will never have to pay RH and upgrade to RHEL.
Redhat also has some of their top developers very active in Fedora development. In exchange for the community helping in that development, they get a free OS, called Fedora. Again, Fedora users will never have to pay RH a dime. Your post is way off base.
RedHat is showing itself to be a less reliable distribution vendor, by canning one distribution (free RedHat) and unleashing the unstable Fedora betas which one day will become a product which you must pay for.
And just how is that being less reliable? RH has chosen to to concentrate on the enterprise market and slow down their release cycles. The more active development is happening in Fedora. Fedora Core 1 is extremely stable for me. Fedora Core 2 is still in testing, so you cannot expect it to be totally stable yet.
Gentoo has become a major player
While Gentoo is nice and scratches a certain itch for a certain type of user, I would not call it a major player. When it comes to "big" industry support you have Red Hat or SuSE that other companies like IBM, Oracle, HP, People Soft, SAP, etc are supporting. It all comes down to your needs. Pick which distro fits your needs. You could run some enterprise apps under other Linux distros, though you would not get support. For example, you can get Oracle to run under Gentoo, though it would be silly since after paying all that money for Oracle, you would be wasting your support contract.
I wonder why modinfo is pulling the second part of the string and not showing GPL while the kernel reads the first string and only sees GPL and does not mark the module as tainted?
Yes, the command is modinfo. For example, here is what I get from the command: modinfo ext3
$ modinfo ext3 filename:/lib/modules/2.4.9-e.38smp/kernel/fs/ext3/ext3.o description: "Second Extended Filesystem with journaling extensions" author: "Remy Card, Stephen Tweedie, Andrew Morton, Andreas Dilger, Theodore Ts'o and others" license: "GPL" parm: do_sync_supers int, description "Write superblocks synchronously"
If you want to just see the license, you can pass the -l (that is a lower case L) option such as: modinfo -l ext3
$ modinfo -l ext3 "GPL"
While I do not have the dirver from Linuxant, their module would in fact show up to an end user as "GPL". I would think this could be a legal issue for Linuxant, since they are lying to end users of their product about the license.
While Linux kernel developers most likely will not handle a bug report because of a tainted module, they will if the bug is reproduceable without that module. If the bug is in the module, why in the world would someone who is not responsible and cannot get the source code try to fix it. For example, I am a programmerm, if I write an app that causes problems under MS windows, do you think MS will fix and debug it for me when they cannot get the source code? Now, if my application triggered a bug in MS Windows, I am sure MS will fix the bug on their side, just as Linux kernel developers will fix the bug on their side if a binary only module happens to trigger a bug that is in the Linux source code. However, if some bug only ever happens with some binary only module, the problem probably is in that binary only module.
Most drivers/modules that are not GPL, only release a small wrapper that is GPLed. For example, the NVidia driver for Linux has a small wrapper module that is GPL and that wrapper uses a binary only library where all the real stuff happens and has the code that NVidia wants to keep proprietary. There is nothing wrong with this method. NVidia correctly marks their modules.
Why isn't any support for Linux welcomed? More stuff, open or closed, can only help the "cause" it seems to me...
This is not an issue for not wanting the extra drivers. Even if those drivers are binary only. As I mentioned this is what NVidia does and their drivers are most welecomed for many Linux users becuase of their quality. ATI also does this, as well as others. The problem lies in the fact that this company is lying about thier modules being released under the GPL. Imagine if this was happening to MS, they would have a team of lawyers on this in no time. Also, as an end-user, you have the right to know what licence different parts of the software are licenese under. This product is trying to obscure its license.
As a long time desktop Linux user, I would prefer to have all the dirvers I ever needed to be Open Source. However, I would not turn down a quality closed source driver that is easy to install such as those provided by NVidia for their graphics cards. In fact, I only purchase NVidia because of their support for Linux and the quality of their Linux drivers. Their Linux drivers have every feature that their MS Windows drivers do thanks to their unified driver approach.
They are trying to fool the Linux kernel into thinking that the module is a GPL module. The Linux kernel will log a message that this module (or any non-GPL module) is "tainted". There are Linux users that want a completely Open Source OS and do not want to use software that is not released with a license that is approved by the FSF.
They are releasing a non-GPL module with a small GPL wrapper and there is nothing wrong with that. That is what NVIDIA does. However, in the source code for the GPLed wrapper, they are marking their binary only driver as GPLed software. They include \0 in their license string and pass that to the Linux kernel. The \0 in C terminates a string, so the Linux kernel only sees the part of the string that comes before the \0, which in this case is only "GPL". So basically the Linux kernel loads up the module thinking it is GPLed which is not good for the types of users I explained above and I would think it could have some legal issues. How do you think MS would react if I wrote software that played around with their license or lied to their subsystems? I bet they would have a flock of lawyers on me in a heart beat.
Again, it is no big deal that the module is not GPLed. There are a bunch of binary only drivers/modules for the Linux kernel. I use some of them like the NVIDIA drivers. The issue is that this company is lying about their software license.
And why did no moderators mod this parent up? You guys/girl(s?) mod up unreleated, completley false posts and let this one sit unmoderated?
Anyway, the tainted message is not even an issue to most-end users if you have your modules auto-loaded and boot into X, you would not see the message. You would only see this if you manually load the module. The installer for this driver could just add an entry to/etc/modules.conf and be done with it. Tainted messages will just get logged, it is not like they pop up on your desktop. This was just a stupid move by this company. It is a shame since their product fills in a need for wireless users that have an unsupported card.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a programmer and not a graphics guy, with that being said, there is nothing that Photoshop has for non-professional graphics work that is not in the gimp. Oh, and the gimp is considerably less money. Some people like Photoshops UI and some like gimps. I personally like the gimp's with one window and multiple tabs for all the dialogs vs. Photoshops UI. Some people will feel the opposite.
A quick summary of this whole thread:
The gimp sucks, photoshop is better
Photoshop sucks gimp is better
Photoshop has feature X and the gimp does not
Photoship cost X hundreds of dollars, gimp is free
and so on and so on
How in the world do you have 700 windows open? Gimp supports tabs for its UI, I have one main gimp window open with multiple tabs and then just one window per image. I am a developer and have very limited artistic ability : ) However, I just like the gimp so much more then Photoshop. For non-professionals, Photoshop has nothing over gimp IMO.
Huh? OK, lets see you run Oracle, MS SQL Server, PeopleSoft HR, SAP, etc, etc on DOS, or Win 3.1 or Win 9X. The OS is the most critical part, it is the foundation that the applications sit above and where those applications get all their functionality. Those big server type apps would not be very useful on an OS that had a poor VM, slow context switching, low memory support, no SMP support, etc. Oh, and how valuable will the apps be on an unstable OS?
I take it you have never worked with regular expressions? You could create a regex that just blocks certain things from the server, such as gif, jpg, etc from a certain directory or with a certain name pattern. It would be pretty easy to work around these types of ads.
I'd like to know what Corel was thinking releasing this new WP4Linux. I could see doing it if it was monderized and had similar features to their MS Windows version or OOo, but this outdated, dog ugly version just will not sell. So in the end, they will see little to no commercial interest in this and then blame it on the lack of Linux users willing to pay for software. Software like this for Linux actaully hurts commercial support for Linux. I have a great idea, I am going to write a nice application for MS Windows, and then release an outdated version for Linux with 1/4 the features and a GUI that looks like someone had a bowel movement on it. Then I will sit around and scractch my head wondering why there was no commercial interest in the Linux version.
Another simple trick is that many ads are common sizes, so with Mozilla and Firefox, you can do this to block images of certain sizes.
If it is a G4, then yes it would ; )
It could just be the FreeBSD version? Under Fedora MPlayer and Xine work very well for me. There are also other front-ends to xine such as totem for GNome which is very nice as well.
There are a bunch of Open Source licenses, each one has its pros and cons. The BSD doesn't guarantee you any chance at selling software either. If I write some application and release it under the BSD, you can come along and make it proprietary and add feature FOO and sell it. I can turn around and add feature FOO to the BSD version. So why would someone pay you for your additions when they are available in the BSD version?
Now say I make an application and release it under the GPL. I start to sell this application and also sell support. You come along and try to sell it for half the price. Do you think people would buy a non-official version from you? Maybe a few, but I doubt many. Also, where do you think all new version will be released first? My version. Look at MySQL as an example. If I want to buy support or purchase a license for proprietary use, I go to MySQl. I wouldn't go and buy your version of MySQL or buy support from you.
Your argument just doesn't hold water. You also came up with a very simple solution, get a trademark. I can try to sell MySQL, though I would have to call it LSQL or some other name. And guess what, no one would have heard of it, and it would not have the same reputation as MySQL. There are a bunch of Red Hat Enterprise Linux knock-offs. Guess what, they don't take any significant share of Red Hat's business. Why? Because when an enterprise wants RHEL, they go and buy RHEL, they don't go and use White Hat Linux or some of the other ones.
I agree that Sun has put some very good contributions into the Open Source community. However, I have a problem with the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. Where can one download the sources to their Java desktop from Sun, especially any modifications? What is up with funding SCO? What is up with bad mouthing Linux as a server to try to push their slowaris? Also, I think most of Sun's Gnome contributions were because they wanted to use it as their desktop in newer versions of Solaris. The desktop on Solaris 8 and earlier is just anceint and lacks many modern features. On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, they push Linux, on Tuesday and Thursday, they push Solaris x86. Why didn't they use Solaris x86 as their Java Desktop? Because it has sucky device support. I think Sun could be a good company and a strong member of the Open Source community if they got a new leader. Someone who can help Sun focus their business on where they want to go. Sun currently seems very confused IMHO. Oh, and what is up with Sun not allowing end users to distribute Java Desktop? Most of the code in Java Desktop is under the GPL and an end user has a right to distribute it. To me it looks like Sun wants to try to make Java Desktop as proprietary as they can and prevent distribution. It is corporate games like this that offend Linux community members.
Did you grab your torrents from here? I started the binary torrent about 1 hour ago and have only 1 hour left. I have had a constant 2Mbs or so on my cable modem. I am on the tampabay.rr.com network.
Why wait? Slap Fedora Core 1 on your parents box. I have been using FC1 and it is very stable for me. It will have everything they need. The first few weeks after FC2 is released, there should be a bunch of updates as more users come aboard and find more bugs. So fith FC1, they will have a very nice system now. Though Gnome 2.6 is nice! You can also update to FC2 from FC1 with apt or yum once it has become very stable.
Yum lacks a GUI front-end, apt has synaptic, which makes searching through 1,000's of packages much easier. Also, apt is about 100x faster them yum. Try to install about 50 packages with yum and you wil see what I mean. I tried to install about 100 packages with yum and it took about 15 minutes just to hanlde the dependencies before it even started to install anything! Trying the same 100 packages with apt, the dependencies were done in about 20 seconds before the install started. I think the only reason Fedora went with yum by default over apt is because yum came out of Redhat. apt is far better overall IMHO.
Also, just how in the world do you figure Fedora Core users are testing a product they will have to pay for? Fedora Core will always be open and free, and just why would a Fedora Core user pay for RHEL? Most/all RHEL users are not running Fedora on thier servers if they paid for RHEL. Please explain your logic where you think a Fedora user will ever have to pay money? Fedora is geared for home users or users that do not want to pay for RHEL. RHEL is for paying users that want the support. The two are totally different. A Fedora user will never have to pay RH and upgrade to RHEL.
Redhat also has some of their top developers very active in Fedora development. In exchange for the community helping in that development, they get a free OS, called Fedora. Again, Fedora users will never have to pay RH a dime. Your post is way off base.
According to this post it looks like 2.6.6-rc2 & 1.0-5341 on FC2-t2 is working.
I wonder why modinfo is pulling the second part of the string and not showing GPL while the kernel reads the first string and only sees GPL and does not mark the module as tainted?
While Linux kernel developers most likely will not handle a bug report because of a tainted module, they will if the bug is reproduceable without that module. If the bug is in the module, why in the world would someone who is not responsible and cannot get the source code try to fix it. For example, I am a programmerm, if I write an app that causes problems under MS windows, do you think MS will fix and debug it for me when they cannot get the source code? Now, if my application triggered a bug in MS Windows, I am sure MS will fix the bug on their side, just as Linux kernel developers will fix the bug on their side if a binary only module happens to trigger a bug that is in the Linux source code. However, if some bug only ever happens with some binary only module, the problem probably is in that binary only module.
As a long time desktop Linux user, I would prefer to have all the dirvers I ever needed to be Open Source. However, I would not turn down a quality closed source driver that is easy to install such as those provided by NVidia for their graphics cards. In fact, I only purchase NVidia because of their support for Linux and the quality of their Linux drivers. Their Linux drivers have every feature that their MS Windows drivers do thanks to their unified driver approach.
They are releasing a non-GPL module with a small GPL wrapper and there is nothing wrong with that. That is what NVIDIA does. However, in the source code for the GPLed wrapper, they are marking their binary only driver as GPLed software. They include \0 in their license string and pass that to the Linux kernel. The \0 in C terminates a string, so the Linux kernel only sees the part of the string that comes before the \0, which in this case is only "GPL". So basically the Linux kernel loads up the module thinking it is GPLed which is not good for the types of users I explained above and I would think it could have some legal issues. How do you think MS would react if I wrote software that played around with their license or lied to their subsystems? I bet they would have a flock of lawyers on me in a heart beat.
Again, it is no big deal that the module is not GPLed. There are a bunch of binary only drivers/modules for the Linux kernel. I use some of them like the NVIDIA drivers. The issue is that this company is lying about their software license.
Anyway, the tainted message is not even an issue to most-end users if you have your modules auto-loaded and boot into X, you would not see the message. You would only see this if you manually load the module. The installer for this driver could just add an entry to /etc/modules.conf and be done with it. Tainted messages will just get logged, it is not like they pop up on your desktop. This was just a stupid move by this company. It is a shame since their product fills in a need for wireless users that have an unsupported card.