If there is anything worse than listening to Americans talking about Ireland, it is listening to Brits do so. You're part of the problem pal -- get out of our country. That's the solution, period. And any American who points that out here is damn' right.
All the site was designed to show was, how much of a typical Linux system is actually GNU code. Because Stallman claims that more or less all the important stuff save for the kernel is GNU. Now, it seems to me they didn't do a bad job of showing that there is a lot of other code there that has nothing to do with GNU. They weren't arguing what Linux should be called; just that the justification for Stallman's claim was off-base.
I don't think one can argue that GPL'ed code becomes part of GNU. The GPL is just what it says, a license. Am I wrong in thinking that FSF = GNU, and vice versa? Anyway, the kernel itself is GPL'ed, so by that logic, we should just call it GNU.
I recall seeing an analysis of an actual Linux system not so long ago, that displayed the percentage of programs orginating from each code base -- GNU, BSD and so on. What struck me was, that while some of the most important stuff was GNU, it was by no means even the largest %. Anyone see this too? Got a URL maybe?
Looks like you weren't the only one. It did get me for a few seconds too, I'll admit. But then I remembered "kremvax". Those peskie Russkies have done this before.
Yes, but a lot of people neither want nor need a "general-purpose information-processing engine". They want an appliance to do e-mail, or to look at Web sites, or whatever. Nothing wrong with that. I think it is a mistake to try "one size fits all" here. I love the power and flexibility that Linux gives me. Other people may not want it, and may not need it. I think it is a shame that those people are not better served, and have to use wretched kludges such as Windows.
Also, there is no way we should be saying "Linux needs more newbies". Linux is the last thing a newbie needs, unless they actually want to buy in to the whole "power at a price" thing. Some sort of GUI system built on top of Linux, maybe.
Isn't the whole thing very simple really? Microsoft now produce the OS and the applications. The control this gives them is harmful to the market. So, they should be compelled to make *either* OSes *or* applications, but not both.
I think the changes to/. are great, and I like to hear about them. BUT... on the subject of filtering out stuff you don't like, I tried this for Katz, but his stuff is still on my custom page. What gives?
Netfuture is a very good list indeed, always worth reading. It's provocative in the good sense of the word, provoking thought rather than heat and light. Talbott cottoned on to Katz rather sooner than some people around here, too -- see Netfuture #61.
What is the point of posting links to shit like this? All it causes is yet another Linux sucks/Linux rules flamewar -- like, we really need another one of those.
Attention! This is a reality check! Eudora has been knocked out my Outlook Express being free, no? That is, by Microsoft. That MS is a big supporter of OSS is news to me -- must have missed that one. Is the announcement on/.?!
Well, I'm sure some Linux users want or need Windows apps. But I don't. Generalisations like yours are always wrong. It's impossible to say what all Linux users want, because we don't all want the same thing. Having said that, no-one will be forced to use these hypothetical apps developed by this hypothetical horde of Windows programmers, so, sure, let them go ahead and code. It's no big deal. Someone else made the point that whether there is a whole lot to be learned from the Windows world about GUI design is questionable, and that is true. Perhaps what we need for Linux is a whole re-examination of the human/computer interface, rather than copying old designs. Here's a good article on this: The Anti-Mac Interface
Eat less, burn your cells out slower
on
AAAS under way
·
· Score: 1
Do you have any sources for this? I am interested in doing a bit of reading about it.
Slashdot Mirror
If there is anything worse than listening to Americans talking about Ireland, it is listening to Brits do so. You're part of the problem pal -- get out of our country. That's the solution, period. And any American who points that out here is damn' right.
Response object error 'ASP 0158 : 80004005' Missing URL /goto.cl, line 33 A URL is required. At least Amazon works.
Browser Problem I'm sorry, but this site is not viewable with Lynx. Thank you for your understanding.
Says it all...
All the site was designed to show was, how much of a typical Linux system is actually GNU code. Because Stallman claims that more or less all the important stuff save for the kernel is GNU.
Now, it seems to me they didn't do a bad job of showing that there is a lot of other code there that has nothing to do with GNU. They weren't arguing what Linux should be called; just that the justification for Stallman's claim was off-base.
I don't think one can argue that GPL'ed code becomes part of GNU. The GPL is just what it says, a license. Am I wrong in thinking that FSF = GNU, and vice versa? Anyway, the kernel itself is GPL'ed, so by that logic, we should just call it GNU.
I recall seeing an analysis of an actual Linux system not so long ago, that displayed the percentage of programs orginating from each code base -- GNU, BSD and so on. What struck me was, that while some of the most important stuff was GNU, it was by no means even the largest %. Anyone see this too? Got a URL maybe?
Quite so. Must remember to check my memory against the Jargon File before posting in future.
Looks like you weren't the only one. It did get me for a few seconds too, I'll admit. But then I remembered "kremvax". Those peskie Russkies have done this before.
Check the date...
Galileo, surely? "epur si muove" or something like that. But I think he only said that in Brecht's play, anyway.
Yes, but a lot of people neither want nor need a "general-purpose information-processing engine".
They want an appliance to do e-mail, or to look at Web sites, or whatever.
Nothing wrong with that. I think it is a mistake to try "one size fits all" here. I love the power and flexibility that Linux gives me. Other people may not want it, and may not need it. I think it is a shame that those people are not better served, and have to use wretched kludges such as Windows.
Also, there is no way we should be saying "Linux needs more newbies". Linux is the last thing a newbie needs, unless they actually want to buy in to the whole "power at a price" thing. Some sort of GUI system built on top of Linux, maybe.
Isn't the whole thing very simple really? Microsoft now produce the OS and the applications.
The control this gives them is harmful to the market.
So, they should be compelled to make *either* OSes *or* applications, but not both.
I think the changes to /. are great, and I like to hear about them.
BUT... on the subject of filtering out stuff you don't like,
I tried this for Katz, but his stuff is still on my custom page.
What gives?
Netfuture is a very good list indeed, always worth reading.
It's provocative in the good sense of the word, provoking thought rather than heat and light.
Talbott cottoned on to Katz rather sooner than some people around here, too -- see Netfuture #61.
What is the point of posting links to shit like this? All it causes is yet another Linux sucks/Linux rules flamewar -- like, we really need another one of those.
> A capitalist by definition is not one who exchanges goods for other
> goods using money, but one who exchanges money for more money using
> goods.
Oh, yeah? I think *you* need to read some Marx.
I've always taken "humanoid" in sci-fi to mean
"us humans and others who resemble us physically".
Attention! This is a reality check! Eudora has been knocked out my Outlook Express being free, no? That is, by Microsoft. That MS is a big supporter of OSS is news to me -- must have missed that one. Is the announcement on /.?!
Bollocks. No change there, then.
Well, I'm sure some Linux users want or need Windows apps.
But I don't. Generalisations like yours are always wrong.
It's impossible to say what all Linux users want, because we don't all want the same thing.
Having said that, no-one will be forced to use these hypothetical apps developed by this hypothetical horde of Windows programmers, so, sure, let them go ahead and code. It's no big deal.
Someone else made the point that whether there is a whole lot to be learned from the Windows world about GUI design is questionable, and that is true. Perhaps what we need for Linux is a whole re-examination of the human/computer interface, rather than copying old designs.
Here's a good article on this:
The Anti-Mac Interface
Do you have any sources for this?
I am interested in doing a bit of reading about it.