...[If] Open Source is getting some publicity, that seems to be a bad thing because of potential "confusion". But then, "free software" is incredibly confusing, but he doesn't have a problem with that[...].
The bad thing (at least in this article) isn't that Open Source is getting some publicity, but that Sun's announcement is being misrepresented: Sun isn't Open Sourcing (in the GPL/BSD sense) Java, although that might be in the works. Sun is announcing a change in license that allows distributions to package Java a little easier.
Note that it's perfectly possible to have a Linux completely without Linus by forking the Kernel. Note that it's NOT possible to have a Gnu/Linux without any trace of Gnu tools (which DO exist, by the way).
Let me reiterate, for clarification. Your initial statement was that RMS pushes for GNU/Linux because it will bring in more publicity for GNU, with the downside that some people might assume that GNU was responsible for the "entire Linux package" (emphasis mine). My response was that, given the two options "Linux" and "GNU/Linux," the former is much more likely to make people assume that Linus is responsible for the entire package, whereas the latter gives each a pretty equal share.
If your argument is that GNU is an organization, where Linux is a "product" (GNU/Linux ~~ Microsoft Windows), then I can see that being a problem. I've always seen GNU as the project to make free software tools (as in, GNU == [glibc; gcc;...]), where the Free Software Foundation was the organization.
FSF/Linux isn't very fair, definitely, so I agree with you if that's your problem with it.
If you are having memory issues with an app that can run in only few tens of megabytes of memory, you need to seriously upgrade your PC.
Azureus needs tens of megabytes? There is a client out that needs less than 160KB. Java is definitely not as bad as the GP puts it, but there are quite a few languages out there that are better on memory usage.
But the point was that if one actually did call it "X11/[KDE|Gnome]/GNU/Linux," you wouldn't be at risk of assuming that the X group did most of the work, right?
[the cost of being non-free] means absolutely BUPKIS.
He's writing this article to NewsForge. You know, the self-described Online Newspaper for Linux and Open Source? I think that the main audience for this piece might understand (and perhaps even care about) the subject matter.
As for "careless readers", Stallman doesn't seem to mind Gnu/Linux, even though the "careless reader" may assume Gnu wrote the entire Linux package.
You're not helping your point. Given "Linux," the reader is more likely to assume that Linus wrote the entire thing. Given "GNU/Linux," the reader is given the two main sources of code for the core operating system. Perhaps you don't think that GNU deserves that much credit, but you at least have to realize that there's a difference here.
With his title, RMS is quoting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story, "Silver Blaze," where the exchange between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson goes as follows:
Watson: "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." Watson: "The dog did nothing in the night-time." Holmes: "That was the curious incident."
I'm pretty sure that Canute (from James Baldwin's "The Book of Virtues:" King Canute on the Seashore, among other places, I'm sure) was attempting to prove to his officers that the world didn't obey him, which isn't exactly the image you were trying to call up.
That said, the essay really had just one topic (reflected by the title): there's a mistaken identity problem with Sun's change in licensing. It's not "Free Software," nor even open source. Now, it doesn't seem like you disagree with his thesis, so what's the problem?
With his title, RMS is quoting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story, "Silver Blaze," where the exchange between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson goes as follows:
Watson: "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." Watson: "The dog did nothing in the night-time." Holmes: "That was the curious incident."
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to say there's always a way, just that for most common-or-garden websites, it's not as hard as often suggested.
Absolutely. Sorry if I came off a bit harsh back there - I had to do that for work, and it was a beast. (legacy app with multiple embedded frames. it's ugly as all else)
That's the thing, too - good designers (like this guy, for instance) who actually know a little about the language you're designing to are wonderful. If you are taking design advice (read: orders) from a client who doesn't understand the underlying language yet still wants it pixel-perfect, get ready for mind-bending hacks.
What about if you want a table where the body scrolls independently of the header (which is fixed)? If this table is large (say, 600 rows or so), the only way to do it without huge drops in speed is by making two tables and doing a bunch of hacks to align the columns correctly.
In good browsers that follow the standards, there are several ways of fixing the thead and scrolling the tbody, each of which is nice and clean and fast.
If you know how to do this nicely (no Javascript, my table's too big) in IE, let me know.
If it's my own personal site, I want it compliant. Must be the OCD in my family, but I also feel like if you "compile" the site it should return with no errors.
If it's for work, I'll get it done so it works in IE and Firefox. I'm not getting paid for adhering to the standards, and writing a standards-based site that will look right in freaking IE takes longer than it's worth.
Yeah - sound is always a problem. However, it wasn't like you had to build the entire system from scratch, right? Perhaps there's a better metaphor: Windows is an automatic, Linux is a stick-shift beater Mustang (takes a little work to get going, but has a lot of potential)
Slashdot Mirror
q=Hillary+Clinton:
q=Tom+DeLay:
...[If] Open Source is getting some publicity, that seems to be a bad thing because of potential "confusion". But then, "free software" is incredibly confusing, but he doesn't have a problem with that[...].
The bad thing (at least in this article) isn't that Open Source is getting some publicity, but that Sun's announcement is being misrepresented: Sun isn't Open Sourcing (in the GPL/BSD sense) Java, although that might be in the works. Sun is announcing a change in license that allows distributions to package Java a little easier.
Words are confusing enough as it is.
Note that it's perfectly possible to have a Linux completely without Linus by forking the Kernel. Note that it's NOT possible to have a Gnu/Linux without any trace of Gnu tools (which DO exist, by the way).
...]), where the Free Software Foundation was the organization.
Let me reiterate, for clarification. Your initial statement was that RMS pushes for GNU/Linux because it will bring in more publicity for GNU, with the downside that some people might assume that GNU was responsible for the "entire Linux package" (emphasis mine). My response was that, given the two options "Linux" and "GNU/Linux," the former is much more likely to make people assume that Linus is responsible for the entire package, whereas the latter gives each a pretty equal share.
If your argument is that GNU is an organization, where Linux is a "product" (GNU/Linux ~~ Microsoft Windows), then I can see that being a problem. I've always seen GNU as the project to make free software tools (as in, GNU == [glibc; gcc;
FSF/Linux isn't very fair, definitely, so I agree with you if that's your problem with it.
If you are having memory issues with an app that can run in only few tens of megabytes of memory, you need to seriously upgrade your PC.
Azureus needs tens of megabytes? There is a client out that needs less than 160KB. Java is definitely not as bad as the GP puts it, but there are quite a few languages out there that are better on memory usage.
You need to go one layer deeper.
[RMS] was once supposedly a good engineer (emphasis mine)
Um, perhaps you're thinking of a different Stallman, but I was pretty sure that RMS's ability was pretty well established.
Linux = Linus (Torvalds) + *nix.
Yes, I'm pretty sure Linus never figured it would become such a big deal, but he's definitely getting the credit for it.
One problem: this is Slashdot - we don't have infinitely many friends. :)
But the point was that if one actually did call it "X11/[KDE|Gnome]/GNU/Linux," you wouldn't be at risk of assuming that the X group did most of the work, right?
You didn't recognize it. :)
[the cost of being non-free] means absolutely BUPKIS.
He's writing this article to NewsForge. You know, the self-described Online Newspaper for Linux and Open Source ? I think that the main audience for this piece might understand (and perhaps even care about) the subject matter.
As for "careless readers", Stallman doesn't seem to mind Gnu/Linux, even though the "careless reader" may assume Gnu wrote the entire Linux package.
You're not helping your point. Given "Linux," the reader is more likely to assume that Linus wrote the entire thing. Given "GNU/Linux," the reader is given the two main sources of code for the core operating system. Perhaps you don't think that GNU deserves that much credit, but you at least have to realize that there's a difference here.
It's Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
He actually uses this quote in the essay.
I'm pretty sure that Canute (from James Baldwin's "The Book of Virtues:" King Canute on the Seashore, among other places, I'm sure) was attempting to prove to his officers that the world didn't obey him, which isn't exactly the image you were trying to call up.
That said, the essay really had just one topic (reflected by the title): there's a mistaken identity problem with Sun's change in licensing. It's not "Free Software," nor even open source. Now, it doesn't seem like you disagree with his thesis, so what's the problem?
He actually uses this quote in the essay.
I've never had to reactivate - how long are the periods?
Just look at Guild Wars.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to say there's always a way, just that for most common-or-garden websites, it's not as hard as often suggested.
Absolutely. Sorry if I came off a bit harsh back there - I had to do that for work, and it was a beast. (legacy app with multiple embedded frames. it's ugly as all else)
That's the thing, too - good designers (like this guy, for instance) who actually know a little about the language you're designing to are wonderful. If you are taking design advice (read: orders) from a client who doesn't understand the underlying language yet still wants it pixel-perfect, get ready for mind-bending hacks.
What about if you want a table where the body scrolls independently of the header (which is fixed)? If this table is large (say, 600 rows or so), the only way to do it without huge drops in speed is by making two tables and doing a bunch of hacks to align the columns correctly.
In good browsers that follow the standards, there are several ways of fixing the thead and scrolling the tbody, each of which is nice and clean and fast.
If you know how to do this nicely (no Javascript, my table's too big) in IE, let me know.
If it's my own personal site, I want it compliant. Must be the OCD in my family, but I also feel like if you "compile" the site it should return with no errors.
If it's for work, I'll get it done so it works in IE and Firefox. I'm not getting paid for adhering to the standards, and writing a standards-based site that will look right in freaking IE takes longer than it's worth.
Yeah - sound is always a problem. However, it wasn't like you had to build the entire system from scratch, right? Perhaps there's a better metaphor: Windows is an automatic, Linux is a stick-shift beater Mustang (takes a little work to get going, but has a lot of potential)
What's the last distro you used, and when?