Nothing say you have to contribute back your work in BSD or even GPL licenses. You can keep it for yourself. If you distribute it however, the GPL asks you to distribute your changes as GPL, but that not the case for BSD and most other open source licenses. And I doubt that their license will allow you to redistribute your modified version, or that would probably qualify as an open source license (and they say it is not). So their statement that their license is not open source but something better is ridiculous.
This article tries to make you believe it will be release under an open source license, but apparently, it will be nothing more than a proprietary license that lets you look at the source code.
It looks like a lame marketing campaign to get people to contribute for free to their proprietary project.
No, dependency hell is not going to get any better soon. Use a newer distribution, or use a statically linked program, or an rpm built for your distribution. Mandriva has a backport repository, where new release for older distributions are built. But it is not possible to build everything, or too much work if it requires too much new libraries.
But Microsoft gives you 5!!!! 10 or more for business versions.
They didn't give a price yet. They give 1 year of support, that doesn't mean they don't give more if you pay more (while still being cheaper than MS for 5 years).
Then you can install a Mandriva, and use the external packages repositories from PLF (you can use easyurpmi for that). Those people provide packages that Mandriva does not want to provide because of legal concerns. Note that they don't provide illegal packages, only packages that could be illegal in some countries (because of patents and things like that), which Mandriva can't do, because they distribute their product worldwide.
Do you think dpkg would work better for them ? No, it's the same. He didn't say everybody should learn how to use rpm and yum, you don't need to do that for basic use, there are simple GUI for installing and removing packages. What he said is that there is no more rpm hell than there is a.deb hell, and people who say rpm sucks just don't know anything about rpm and yum/urpmi/apt-rpm.
Well, that's true, but I also think that part of the problem is people who create packages that don't understand how to use RPM. I can't tell you how many times I've seen installation instructions that include things like "use --force to bypass the version checking..."
That's because making a package that will work on many different distributions is not an easy thing to do at all. And unless you're making a proprietary software, you shouldn't even bother doing this. If you're making an open source software that is interesting, some people will quickly package it for you on most major distributions. You can do it yourself, but build the package on each distribution.
I may be missing something...but if PCLinuxOS is successfully using apt with their RPM-based Linux distro...wouldn't this be an option for this version of Red Hat?
That's totally irrelevant. When you're using packages that are not built for your distro, with wrong dependencies, it doesn't matter that you're using apt-rpm, yum or urpmi, it will fail the same.
Compared to DEB, RPM is a much superior format. The problem with RPM is not RPM itself but the idiots who try to use the rpm command-line tool like apt-get and then complain when it doesn't do what they expect it to do (because that's not what it's supposed to do). You are supposed to use "yum", which works just like apt-get. It even lets you install RPMs that you've already downloaded. E.g. "yum localinstall foo.rpm". It will even download dependencies for you! It's also really fast in fc6 and f7.
I agree. It's even possible to use apt-rpm. And on Mandriva we have urpmi, which is similar to yum...
The only negative I can see is that there aren't as many packages available in the Fedora repositories. That's hardly a fault of RPM, though.
I there's more in the Mandriva repositories, which is using RPM too.
That would work, but doing that would pretty much defeat the advantages of using a binary distribution in the first place- speed of installation of packages.
No, you use already compiled packages for most of the things, and rebuild your packages only for those few packages where you want a different compile option.
Although it is generally accepted that you can link to GPL libraries in closed-source software, it has not been tested in court.
Hell no, what is generally accepted is that you CAN'T link to GPL libraries your closed-source software. Unless the license for the library has an exception that allows you to do that (this is the case for the linux kernel for instance, so that software that runs on Linux do not have to be GPL).
Mandrake had OK management, actually, good management for the pay-version, but the free version had to either hack something together to use their freely accessable but intended for-pay package servers or hunt down updates for every package manually.
After all, it's UNIX sever administration. It's all done remote, and through a text window.
Yes, you do a lot of things remotly, but there's also a few things you might want to do locally. And doing it on Windows is not efficient at all when you're used to Unix.
So you need to first come up with a good reason or reasons as to why a Windows desktop doesn't work for you. Not liking it isn't a good reason, there's plenty about work I don't like, but then they are paying me so I'll do what I'm told.
Not liking it is actually a very good reason if there's something else that you like better, and makes you much more efficient.
Also, since they are standardised on Windows desktops, you presumably have Windows support people. Get them to maintain your desktop and don't worry about it.
Okay, so Gates hired dozens if not hundreds of developers in the 80s and early 90s who were very familiar with the value of the Internet, yet they missed the bandwagon in incorporating TCP/IP features and protocols until it was already commonplace in the market?
Actually they didn't miss it, they just didn't want it. They would have preffered that everybody use their proprietary network controlled by them, instead of that "internet" that nobody control. Fortunatly it didn't go that way.
For five years we were promised all these wonderful technologies that would be part of Windows Vista and the only thing that's coming out next month is a Windows XP upgrade.
Hmm, did you forget about the Palladium part ? They promised it, and we finally got it.
Slashdot Mirror
PCC it 5-10 times faster than GCC when it has been built with GCC or PCC ?
If it produced the best code, why not? People already compile Linux using the Intel compiler.
If it produced the best code AND was open source and patent-free. I don't think it's a good thing to depend on closed source things.
Why do you say that ? Can you explain ?
Nothing say you have to contribute back your work in BSD or even GPL licenses. You can keep it for yourself. If you distribute it however, the GPL asks you to distribute your changes as GPL, but that not the case for BSD and most other open source licenses. And I doubt that their license will allow you to redistribute your modified version, or that would probably qualify as an open source license (and they say it is not). So their statement that their license is not open source but something better is ridiculous.
This article tries to make you believe it will be release under an open source license, but apparently, it will be nothing more than a proprietary license that lets you look at the source code.
It looks like a lame marketing campaign to get people to contribute for free to their proprietary project.
No, dependency hell is not going to get any better soon. Use a newer distribution, or use a statically linked program, or an rpm built for your distribution. Mandriva has a backport repository, where new release for older distributions are built. But it is not possible to build everything, or too much work if it requires too much new libraries.
But Microsoft gives you 5!!!! 10 or more for business versions.
They didn't give a price yet. They give 1 year of support, that doesn't mean they don't give more if you pay more (while still being cheaper than MS for 5 years).
Then you can install a Mandriva, and use the external packages repositories from PLF (you can use easyurpmi for that).
Those people provide packages that Mandriva does not want to provide because of legal concerns. Note that they don't provide illegal packages, only packages that could be illegal in some countries (because of patents and things like that), which Mandriva can't do, because they distribute their product worldwide.
Do you think dpkg would work better for them ? No, it's the same. .deb hell, and people who say rpm sucks just don't know anything about rpm and yum/urpmi/apt-rpm.
He didn't say everybody should learn how to use rpm and yum, you don't need to do that for basic use, there are simple GUI for installing and removing packages. What he said is that there is no more rpm hell than there is a
Well, that's true, but I also think that part of the problem is people who create packages that don't understand how to use RPM. I can't tell you how many times I've seen installation instructions that include things like "use --force to bypass the version checking..."
That's because making a package that will work on many different distributions is not an easy thing to do at all. And unless you're making a proprietary software, you shouldn't even bother doing this. If you're making an open source software that is interesting, some people will quickly package it for you on most major distributions. You can do it yourself, but build the package on each distribution.
I may be missing something...but if PCLinuxOS is successfully using apt with their RPM-based Linux distro...wouldn't this be an option for this version of Red Hat?
That's totally irrelevant. When you're using packages that are not built for your distro, with wrong dependencies, it doesn't matter that you're using apt-rpm, yum or urpmi, it will fail the same.
Compared to DEB, RPM is a much superior format. The problem with RPM is not RPM itself but the idiots who try to use the rpm command-line tool like apt-get and then complain when it doesn't do what they expect it to do (because that's not what it's supposed to do). You are supposed to use "yum", which works just like apt-get. It even lets you install RPMs that you've already downloaded. E.g. "yum localinstall foo.rpm". It will even download dependencies for you! It's also really fast in fc6 and f7.
...
I agree. It's even possible to use apt-rpm. And on Mandriva we have urpmi, which is similar to yum
The only negative I can see is that there aren't as many packages available in the Fedora repositories. That's hardly a fault of RPM, though.
I there's more in the Mandriva repositories, which is using RPM too.
That would work, but doing that would pretty much defeat the advantages of using a binary distribution in the first place- speed of installation of packages.
No, you use already compiled packages for most of the things, and rebuild your packages only for those few packages where you want a different compile option.
Maybe because this would cost a lot of money, and they think being down one or two days every two years is cheaper (if not lucky).
"the OLPC project now requires all submissions to be hosted in the RedHat Fedora project"
As I understand it, submissions are concerned, not the use of OLPC.
At least, the picture of their office is nice !
I'd like to be able to see a mountain like that when looking at the window.
Having said that, every time you use a library, you need to read and understand the licensing terms of that library.
And that is true whatever the license is, this is not specific to GPL or open source licenses.
Although it is generally accepted that you can link to GPL libraries in closed-source software, it has not been tested in court.
Hell no, what is generally accepted is that you CAN'T link to GPL libraries your closed-source software. Unless the license for the library has an exception that allows you to do that (this is the case for the linux kernel for instance, so that software that runs on Linux do not have to be GPL).
I think if Miguel wanted, MS would hire him immediatly, he doesn't have to wait for a call.
Mandrake had OK management, actually, good management for the pay-version, but the free version had to either hack something together to use their freely accessable but intended for-pay package servers or hunt down updates for every package manually.
Then you probably don't know http://easyurpmi.zarb.org/
After all, it's UNIX sever administration. It's all done remote, and through a text window.
Yes, you do a lot of things remotly, but there's also a few things you might want to do locally. And doing it on Windows is not efficient at all when you're used to Unix.
So you need to first come up with a good reason or reasons as to why a Windows desktop doesn't work for you. Not liking it isn't a good reason, there's plenty about work I don't like, but then they are paying me so I'll do what I'm told.
Not liking it is actually a very good reason if there's something else that you like better, and makes you much more efficient.
Also, since they are standardised on Windows desktops, you presumably have Windows support people. Get them to maintain your desktop and don't worry about it.
Many people don't need support for their desktop.
Huhu that's funny.
In France we are required to give a 3 months notice (it depends on what contract you have, but most of the time it's 3 months).
Okay, so Gates hired dozens if not hundreds of developers in the 80s and early 90s who were very familiar with the value of the Internet, yet they missed the bandwagon in incorporating TCP/IP features and protocols until it was already commonplace in the market?
Actually they didn't miss it, they just didn't want it. They would have preffered that everybody use their proprietary network controlled by them, instead of that "internet" that nobody control. Fortunatly it didn't go that way.
Hopefully by 2070, people will have droped Windows for a long time ...
For five years we were promised all these wonderful technologies that would be part of Windows Vista and the only thing that's coming out next month is a Windows XP upgrade.
Hmm, did you forget about the Palladium part ? They promised it, and we finally got it.