For instance, Linux is an operating system, but GNU+Linux is a fully-working system that allows one to use a computer for all sorts of tasks.
Whatever. I really don't care about semantics. Tell me why the Free Software movement should focus on "the operating system", and forget about "userland". That is what we're talking about here. What those differences are can't even be agreed on obviously so it's a stupid thing to make a distinction over.
Adobe doesn't seem very interested in doing that now do they? So should we continue to support them by doing the work for them and making their software work in Wine? Fuck that, move on to better and more open things.
in which case you have to fork it, which means you now have a huge codebase to maintain by yourself.
Not true. Forking is an option, and by no means should it be maintained by yourself. If it is, it probably isn't worth forking. Something that would be worth forking is something that other people will support.
Most times if you can make a case clearly for something, people will listen. If you post to the mailing list an insane rant about how the developers are all incompetent, you're likely to be ignored at best.
Paint, notepad and workpad are not part of the OS.
I never said they did. That was a question, because some doofus (you) was trying to state that his operating system didn't come with Office or Photoshop. It had nothing to do with the comment you replied to, unless you completely ignore the context of it.
Do we seek to obsolete only the operating system, or all proprietary software? That was the question.
To be clear about this (there seems to be a great amount of confusion about this here today) there are programs which can be classified as part of the operating system. There are programs which cannot be classified as part of the operating system. It makes no difference, only if they are proprietary or free.
The proprietary ones need to go, be they operating system or userland it makes no goddamn difference to me.
I don't think throwing money at the GIMP project will fix everything that is wrong with it.
Well then you are mistaken about how the open source world works. If you want something fixed you have several choices: fix it yourself, pay someone else to fix it, wait for someone else to fix it, or use something else and deal with its shortcomings instead.
Throwing money at a project is about the most effective way to fix what is wrong with it.
So what are you going to do with an operating system which has no shell of any kind?
This is far beyond the point though, you've missed the context of this thread. Obviously there is a subset of software called an operating system and you and I will probably disagree where that line is. It makes no difference to goals of the Free Software movement if a program is operating system, or userland. It's either proprietary or free.
Saying that we will only target the operating system components and leave the proprietary userland tools alone is just pure silliness. You must realize that or you wouldn't keep trying to steer us onto debating semantics.
Which is why that approach to open source can never succeed.
You are assuming that open source isn't already successful. What you're talking about by the way is the "Free Software" movement, not the "Open Source" movement. They are different.
the majority of developers are going to put their effort into proprietary software.
The majority of developers don't have access to the source code of proprietary software. The majority of developers see the benefit of having access to source code and don't really care about the religious aspects of the movement.
Be sure that the open source movement is all about developers, and scaring them off by threatening to put them out of work is the last thing you want to do.
They won't be out of work. They will just have to go work for new companies that understand the new way of doing business. The companies who refuse to change will be out of business.
But if no one uses OSS, how will that be achieved? Refusing to accommodate proprietary software isn't going to help.
Obviously it isn't hurting as proved by Google paying Codeweavers to do something independent of anyone else. The fact that Google is interested in this happening means that people are using OSS already, that doesn't need to be achieved, it already is.
Rule of thumb: If it runs in userland and not in kernel space, it's not part of the operating system.
And how the hell does that work anyway? the file bzImage and the contents of/lib/modules/<version> comprise the operating system? You wouldn't include a shell of any kind? No implementation of the C libraries? No way of actually doing anything with the kernel?
Rule of thumb: If it runs in userland and not in kernel space, it's not part of the operating system.
Good show. Glad you're on the team. Now make us a list of all the projects that make up the operating system of each distribution, and all the ones you figure are userland. We'll contact each contributor to those projects, and organize some kind of understand with each of them that the userland people are to do their own thing, but the operating system people will be hell bent on destruction of the proprietary software world.
It's a simple fact that it is years or decades away from obsoleting Photoshop.
Maybe that is so, I have no idea. The dollars from Google would have helped. I'm pretty sure that's how this thread got started. It's hard to remember.
Google does what it wants with its money. This deal isn't bad for anyone though. It Doesn't change the objective of the free software movement or even the motivations of the Gimp project.
Who if not a Google/Codeweavers combo is going to be motivated to port Photoshop to Linux? It's exactly what should be happening, and the GIMP project will continue to do things that are good for the GIMP project.
I'm going to fork your comment. Therefore I'm in charge. And I'm going to devote minutes of my free time reinventing what you may have posted. But I'm going to do it MY way because I'm MY own boss. And if anyone disagrees with me, you're free to fork my comment and do it how you want. And at the end of the day we'll have X comments saying the same thing, in our own ways and we'll have gotten nothing done. And We can all make our own websites dedicated to our forked comment and we can all fight over the same market because we believe our method of the comment is right.
And other people will sit on the sidelines and yell about how we should be saying what Bill is saying. And we'll look at each other and wonder why the hell we should do that when we like what we are saying and think that Bill is saying rediculous things. And he wants us to pay him money to buy his ideas instead of working on our own.
Obviously you need to get good applications running on Linux, but if you can get closed source ported instead of having to develop a Photoshop-killer and an Exchange-killer and every other big Windows lock-in, I'd say that's a win for open source.
Fine. Just don't expect people and companies heavily invested in free software or open source or whatever you cult you prefer to do the work to bring those applications here. The Wine project does what it does at its own pace until someone like Google comes along and pays someone to do work for them. The Free/Open groups will continue to develop applications which try to make the proprietary ones obsolete. Such is life.
My operating system doesn't include Photoshop or Office
Does it include Paint, Notepad, and Wordpad?
Mine includes a whole bunch of different packages published by different people. They are packaged by someone else, and distributed to me by yet another group along with a whole bunch of applications that are not part of the operating system according to your definition.
You will have a hard time making the argument to me that increasing the amount of software that can run on linux is a bad thing or something I should not care about.
The issue is: The people who care about those things are cheerleaders. The people doing the work have already made the switch. They feel comfortable with GIMP, and find the one-window design of Photoshop weird and awkward like I do.
If some company (Google for instance) wants some software to run in Linux (Photoshop for instance), they should damn well do it themselves or pay someone else to. Oh wait a minute, that's exactly whats happening.
You can't see the difference between making closed source operating systems obsolete and making closed source software obsolete?
Sure there is a difference (one is a subset of the other), but why would you bother making a distinction between one type of software and another? Where would you draw the line? The operating system that is commonly referred to as "Linux" is several hundred small packages maintained by several thousand people.
That's the point... to you. You aren't in charge. Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with making money by selling Linux apps and proprietary stuff.
Nobody is in charge. I have no problem with people making money selling Linux and services for Linux (or any other piece of software) either.
My question was: Who is it that is supposed to care what the proprietary world does? The GIMP developers aren't interested in making a Photoshop clone. They enjoy coding their application the way they think it should be coded.
Exactly how is "Linux" supposed to learn to acknowledge proprietary software without emulating it?
Which is why many developers will steer clear of it.
Who exactly is it that is supposed to be driven to try and bring them into the herd? Why should I care if John Q Public prefers to write applications for Windows? How does that have any bearing on my preference to write applications targetting Linux?
Sooner or later he's going to realize he's just Bill's bitch on his own.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever. I really don't care about semantics. Tell me why the Free Software movement should focus on "the operating system", and forget about "userland". That is what we're talking about here. What those differences are can't even be agreed on obviously so it's a stupid thing to make a distinction over.
Adobe doesn't seem very interested in doing that now do they? So should we continue to support them by doing the work for them and making their software work in Wine? Fuck that, move on to better and more open things.
Not true. Forking is an option, and by no means should it be maintained by yourself. If it is, it probably isn't worth forking. Something that would be worth forking is something that other people will support.
Most times if you can make a case clearly for something, people will listen. If you post to the mailing list an insane rant about how the developers are all incompetent, you're likely to be ignored at best.
The argument was about your assertion that: That's not a simple fact at all. For many many people GIMP is already better than Photoshop. It's your opinion that is true, and I disagree with it.
I never said they did. That was a question, because some doofus (you) was trying to state that his operating system didn't come with Office or Photoshop. It had nothing to do with the comment you replied to, unless you completely ignore the context of it.
Do we seek to obsolete only the operating system, or all proprietary software? That was the question.
To be clear about this (there seems to be a great amount of confusion about this here today) there are programs which can be classified as part of the operating system. There are programs which cannot be classified as part of the operating system. It makes no difference, only if they are proprietary or free.
The proprietary ones need to go, be they operating system or userland it makes no goddamn difference to me.
Well then you are mistaken about how the open source world works. If you want something fixed you have several choices: fix it yourself, pay someone else to fix it, wait for someone else to fix it, or use something else and deal with its shortcomings instead.
Throwing money at a project is about the most effective way to fix what is wrong with it.
So what are you going to do with an operating system which has no shell of any kind?
This is far beyond the point though, you've missed the context of this thread. Obviously there is a subset of software called an operating system and you and I will probably disagree where that line is. It makes no difference to goals of the Free Software movement if a program is operating system, or userland. It's either proprietary or free.
Saying that we will only target the operating system components and leave the proprietary userland tools alone is just pure silliness. You must realize that or you wouldn't keep trying to steer us onto debating semantics.
You are assuming that open source isn't already successful. What you're talking about by the way is the "Free Software" movement, not the "Open Source" movement. They are different.
The majority of developers don't have access to the source code of proprietary software. The majority of developers see the benefit of having access to source code and don't really care about the religious aspects of the movement.
They won't be out of work. They will just have to go work for new companies that understand the new way of doing business. The companies who refuse to change will be out of business.
Obviously it isn't hurting as proved by Google paying Codeweavers to do something independent of anyone else. The fact that Google is interested in this happening means that people are using OSS already, that doesn't need to be achieved, it already is.
And how the hell does that work anyway? the file bzImage and the contents of
Good show. Glad you're on the team. Now make us a list of all the projects that make up the operating system of each distribution, and all the ones you figure are userland. We'll contact each contributor to those projects, and organize some kind of understand with each of them that the userland people are to do their own thing, but the operating system people will be hell bent on destruction of the proprietary software world.
WTF?
Maybe that is so, I have no idea. The dollars from Google would have helped. I'm pretty sure that's how this thread got started. It's hard to remember.
Google does what it wants with its money. This deal isn't bad for anyone though. It Doesn't change the objective of the free software movement or even the motivations of the Gimp project.
What does that have to do with the discussion?
Who if not a Google/Codeweavers combo is going to be motivated to port Photoshop to Linux? It's exactly what should be happening, and the GIMP project will continue to do things that are good for the GIMP project.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I feel better just knowing it, even if I do think its wrong.
And other people will sit on the sidelines and yell about how we should be saying what Bill is saying. And we'll look at each other and wonder why the hell we should do that when we like what we are saying and think that Bill is saying rediculous things. And he wants us to pay him money to buy his ideas instead of working on our own.
Fine. Just don't expect people and companies heavily invested in free software or open source or whatever you cult you prefer to do the work to bring those applications here. The Wine project does what it does at its own pace until someone like Google comes along and pays someone to do work for them. The Free/Open groups will continue to develop applications which try to make the proprietary ones obsolete. Such is life.
Does it include Paint, Notepad, and Wordpad?
Mine includes a whole bunch of different packages published by different people. They are packaged by someone else, and distributed to me by yet another group along with a whole bunch of applications that are not part of the operating system according to your definition.
What was the point again?
The issue is: The people who care about those things are cheerleaders. The people doing the work have already made the switch. They feel comfortable with GIMP, and find the one-window design of Photoshop weird and awkward like I do.
If some company (Google for instance) wants some software to run in Linux (Photoshop for instance), they should damn well do it themselves or pay someone else to. Oh wait a minute, that's exactly whats happening.
It should. The religion behind OSS seeks to destroy their business model by making them obsolete.
You mean like Maya?
P.S. I hate the Motif toolkit.
Sure there is a difference (one is a subset of the other), but why would you bother making a distinction between one type of software and another? Where would you draw the line? The operating system that is commonly referred to as "Linux" is several hundred small packages maintained by several thousand people.
Makes no difference if they don't. They'll just be stuck with Vista, and that won't bother me at all.
Nobody is in charge. I have no problem with people making money selling Linux and services for Linux (or any other piece of software) either.
My question was: Who is it that is supposed to care what the proprietary world does? The GIMP developers aren't interested in making a Photoshop clone. They enjoy coding their application the way they think it should be coded.
Exactly how is "Linux" supposed to learn to acknowledge proprietary software without emulating it?
What the hell is the difference? An operating system is a collection of software.
Who exactly is it that is supposed to be driven to try and bring them into the herd? Why should I care if John Q Public prefers to write applications for Windows? How does that have any bearing on my preference to write applications targetting Linux?
Sooner or later he's going to realize he's just Bill's bitch on his own.