I stand corrected on both. Although, they were forks of a project, some of which were/are maintained individually, others that got merged back with the original parent, or replaced the original.
Yes, it's starting as an experimental branch from XFree. Other experimentals include:
GCC/EGCS
Emacs/XEmacs
Minix/Linux
BSD4.4/OpenBSD/NetBSD/FreeBSD
See a pattern yet? They are doing their own source tree, their own code control, etc. This is not a branch of the official XFree86 project. This is a fork, which will be maintained independently of XFree86. It seems that one of two things will happen here.
The graphics development community splits, with some supporting this project, others supporting XFree (thus reducing the amount of development getting done)
One of these projects will die out either from a mass exodus of developers (everyone leaves the XFree project) or lack of interest (no one moves to this new project)
While I'm not against going out on a limb and doing something innovative, I just wonder if it would have been better to try and accomplish this within the project that currently exists?
It seems that this group wants to push the envelope of features in X. Why not just do something like the Linux kernel numbering? e.g. 2.4 -> stable, 2.5 -> testing. Then, people could make a decision as to if they wanted to run the bleeding edge in an attempt to use new features. It'd also save the hassle of building for 2 graphics systems, and merging patches between the two code bases.
The two days of training may not seem significant. But you have to realize that most people already know how to use MS office/outlook by using it at home or school, so by the time they get in the workforce they don't need training. For Linux, they will need a day or two of training.
From the article (my emphasis):
That's why testing was conducted with "secretaries and managers, not IT people." McNutt believes that the Ximian desktop and application suite, running on either SuSE or Red Hat, requires two days of training,
which is the same as what most enterprises budget for a Windows/MS Office version upgrade: one day to acquaint users with the desktop, and one day to introduce the OpenOffice suite.
Therefore, when it comes time to move from Office 2000/Windows 2000 to Office XP/WinXP, you could consider moving instead to a Linux solution. You're going to need to spend 2 days getting people used to the new Microsoft system, and it takes the same amount of time to get them used to using a well-setup Linux system. This opens the door to free future upgrades, and a move away from proprietary software.
Isn't the point of Guinness to pour the beer as slowly as possible? Wouldn't this just cause the beer to foam up more, thus causing you to serve flat beer?
P.S. I'm not a beer drinker, so if any of these questions seem stupid, I'm sorry.
My guess would be, hang on for nostalgia value. Also, if the SCO police come to hunt you down, you can use them as evidence that you are exempt from paying their extortion. IIRC, IANAL, YMMV, HAND, (other acronyms)
Correct. I fscked the pooch there. Although, it only makes the point that much more clear. With the Hubble project only taking 1.4% of the operating budjet, it's a drop in the bucket. There's no reason at all to take down Hubble. Go ahead and put a new telescope up. Compare the data from the new one to the Hubble. View different things at the same time.
Did you know that every day the Hubble Space Telescope archives 3 to 5 gigabytes of data and delivers between 10 and 15 gigabytes to astronomers all over the world?
Ok, $220 million out of a budget which is projected for 2004 to be $15.47 billion or about 14%. For 3-5 GB of data per day (1.095-1.825 TB/year), this doesn't sound like that bad of a return on investment to me. Any word on how much data the new telescope will collect, and at what cost?
I didn't see anything on the Hubble page linked above as to what it costs to keep the telescope in orbit. Other than a little maintainence, it can't be that much, can it? I know that a "little" is a relative term, but still. I'd say leave it up there for as long as possible.
Would this system possibly be the type of propulsion that produced the infamous "doughnut on a rope" vapor trail? If so, then this technology has been in development for quite a while. </fox_mulder>
Since I don't run an FTP server, I couldn't tell you for sure. I believe that ProFTP is supposed to be fairly capable. I also note that OpenBSD seems to lean toward PureFTP. Not sure what to make of that, but given the OpenBSD philosophy towards security, I'd say it's probably not a bad choice.
So, in other words, Apple stupidly shipped wu-ftpd instead of a better FTP server with OS X and now has to deal with the vulnerabilities. Thanks Steve.
Oh well, at least they used Apache for a web server.
Ok, I have to ask. Do you want a section on SCO so that you can easily check it for updates, or so that you can filter it out of your/. frontpage? All the SCO stories seem to be posted under the Caldera topic, since that was the parent company previously. You could just filter out Caldera.
Ah, but you're talking about Slashdotters bitching. Those people are just that: Slashdot flamers. They're not the developers behind GNOME and GTK+.
You are correct, and I didn't make that point very clearly. I'm not criticizing the GNOME developers for not breaking backward compatability. I'm criticizing the/. community for having a double standard as it pertains to projects like this. Sorry for the confusion.
The current GTK+ file dialog *cannot* be changed without breaking compatibility.
This double standard about compatibility really gets to me. On one hand, you have projects like Gnome which use the same convention as a previous version to insure backward compatability. Then, when a company like Microsoft keeps DOS in its Win95,98,ME line, everyone bitches about the relic, and how they should remove it. Either we want projects to maintain backward compatability, or we don't. Which is it?
This might however be the case with other systems but I doubt that satisfied Debian pioneers actually switched.
I guess the Gentoo-ers are mostly former SuSe-ists or RedHat-ters[sic]
Or, believe it or not, Slackware users. I switched a server at work from Slack to Debian because it was a fairly slow machine, and building Slackware packages on it was a pain, and I wanted something easier to maintain. Surprisingly, moving to Debian wasn't that big of a deal, and I couldn't be happier about the system, for a server
Slashdot Mirror
The mystery is solved! Thank you! All further 1, 2, n, n+1 Profit jokes are now obsolete.
I stand corrected on both. Although, they were forks of a project, some of which were/are maintained individually, others that got merged back with the original parent, or replaced the original.
Yes, it's starting as an experimental branch from XFree. Other experimentals include:
- GCC/EGCS
- Emacs/XEmacs
- Minix/Linux
- BSD4.4/OpenBSD/NetBSD/FreeBSD
See a pattern yet? They are doing their own source tree, their own code control, etc. This is not a branch of the official XFree86 project. This is a fork, which will be maintained independently of XFree86. It seems that one of two things will happen here.While I'm not against going out on a limb and doing something innovative, I just wonder if it would have been better to try and accomplish this within the project that currently exists?
It seems that this group wants to push the envelope of features in X. Why not just do something like the Linux kernel numbering? e.g. 2.4 -> stable, 2.5 -> testing. Then, people could make a decision as to if they wanted to run the bleeding edge in an attempt to use new features. It'd also save the hassle of building for 2 graphics systems, and merging patches between the two code bases.
s/Brahm/Bram
Why is it that when I read this, the first thing that came to mind was Bittorrent? Maybe we should get Brahm to work with the electric companies.
You said:
From the article (my emphasis):
Therefore, when it comes time to move from Office 2000/Windows 2000 to Office XP/WinXP, you could consider moving instead to a Linux solution. You're going to need to spend 2 days getting people used to the new Microsoft system, and it takes the same amount of time to get them used to using a well-setup Linux system. This opens the door to free future upgrades, and a move away from proprietary software.
Isn't the point of Guinness to pour the beer as slowly as possible? Wouldn't this just cause the beer to foam up more, thus causing you to serve flat beer?
P.S. I'm not a beer drinker, so if any of these questions seem stupid, I'm sorry.
My guess would be, hang on for nostalgia value. Also, if the SCO police come to hunt you down, you can use them as evidence that you are exempt from paying their extortion. IIRC, IANAL, YMMV, HAND, (other acronyms)
BEEP - Can you hear me now?
BEEP - Yes.
[Verizon guy takes 2 steps]
BEEP - Can you hear me now?
BEEP - Yes.
Continue ad infinitum
Correct. I fscked the pooch there. Although, it only makes the point that much more clear. With the Hubble project only taking 1.4% of the operating budjet, it's a drop in the bucket. There's no reason at all to take down Hubble. Go ahead and put a new telescope up. Compare the data from the new one to the Hubble. View different things at the same time.
From NASA's about page
Ok, $220 million out of a budget which is projected for 2004 to be $15.47 billion or about 14%. For 3-5 GB of data per day (1.095-1.825 TB/year), this doesn't sound like that bad of a return on investment to me. Any word on how much data the new telescope will collect, and at what cost?
I didn't see anything on the Hubble page linked above as to what it costs to keep the telescope in orbit. Other than a little maintainence, it can't be that much, can it? I know that a "little" is a relative term, but still. I'd say leave it up there for as long as possible.
Would this system possibly be the type of propulsion that produced the infamous "doughnut on a rope" vapor trail? If so, then this technology has been in development for quite a while. </fox_mulder>
Since I don't run an FTP server, I couldn't tell you for sure. I believe that ProFTP is supposed to be fairly capable. I also note that OpenBSD seems to lean toward PureFTP. Not sure what to make of that, but given the OpenBSD philosophy towards security, I'd say it's probably not a bad choice.
Well then, Mr. Gates, go ahead and purchase as many licenses as you see fit.
Q: Should I buy a license from SCO?
A: No
So, in other words, Apple stupidly shipped wu-ftpd instead of a better FTP server with OS X and now has to deal with the vulnerabilities. Thanks Steve.
Oh well, at least they used Apache for a web server.
Robin Williams on GWB Search this page for the word "kitty". Your post reminded me of this bit.
Ok, I have to ask. Do you want a section on SCO so that you can easily check it for updates, or so that you can filter it out of your /. frontpage? All the SCO stories seem to be posted under the Caldera topic, since that was the parent company previously. You could just filter out Caldera.
You are correct, and I didn't make that point very clearly. I'm not criticizing the GNOME developers for not breaking backward compatability. I'm criticizing the /. community for having a double standard as it pertains to projects like this. Sorry for the confusion.
Warning: small rant follows
This double standard about compatibility really gets to me. On one hand, you have projects like Gnome which use the same convention as a previous version to insure backward compatability. Then, when a company like Microsoft keeps DOS in its Win95,98,ME line, everyone bitches about the relic, and how they should remove it. Either we want projects to maintain backward compatability, or we don't. Which is it?
Anarchy Online? Isn't everything online basically Anarchy? Especially with MSBlast, Melissa, Code Red, Sircam, skript kiddez running around, etc.
If that doesn't define anarchy, I challenge you to tell me what does.
Or, believe it or not, Slackware users. I switched a server at work from Slack to Debian because it was a fairly slow machine, and building Slackware packages on it was a pain, and I wanted something easier to maintain. Surprisingly, moving to Debian wasn't that big of a deal, and I couldn't be happier about the system, for a server
Happy 10th to Ian and the entire Debian crew.
<voice char="Martha Stewart">And that's a good thing</voice>