This was discussed on the Slashdot coverage of the original story.
The smoking gun you are looking for is "widelinks" being set to false. This is not the default, because it detriments performance. Had they tested with and without it, they'd have seen this and left it at the default. So either they didn't test either way, they changed it arbitrarily, or they changed it deliberately.
Let's be careful here: we're talking about being standards-friendly, which is a Good Thing, not being lynx-friendly. Obviously, being friendly to some specific browser is not a good thing, since you should be friendly to them all.
Being text-mode friendly would be nice, but it might cripple a few things. If you designed your site sanely it wouldn't matter though.
Whatever you may think about government's role in the Internet, mandating certain standards levels is a Good Thing.
They made TCP/IP compulsory for Milnet and Arpanet. Was this a bad decision? Nope.
Now let's just hope that no-one can subvert w3c. Otherwise the government will have to ratify each w3c standard instead of leaving w3c to work things out itself.
That sort of comparison is best dealt with by sites like www.linuxhq.com - I think there's a blow by blow "what's new in 2.2" thing by Jason Pravenich (sp?) there. At any rate, all you need to know is linked from linuxhq.
Widelinks is by default set to True, so they must have turned it off deliberately. Either they did this in error, they did it knowing it would hurt Linux's perceived performance or did it suspecting as much (i.e., they didn't test it both ways).
One of these three possible scenarios must be true, and all of them mean that they're not playing fair.
Well, actually, most people don't choose Excel, they're forced to use it because everyone else is using XLS files. So the file format IS important - but not its internals, of course, just the compatibility issue.
What's going on here is that we have three different things: the kernel, the operating system, and the operating environment, and the *distributions* build around the Linux kernel are changing the borderline between operating system and operating environment.
What do I mean by "operating environment" as distinct from the OS? Well, it's the set of stuff you need to remain sane - compilers, editors, LaTeX -- all this stuff comes on CDs from RedHat and Debian and Slackware and friends. If you take away any bit of this, the system carries on - it can just do less.
So what's in the OS? Stuff like mount, grep, libc, fsck, ls, bash, sed, et cetera. Remove one of these things, and who knows what will happen.
Traditionally, Unix vendors have deliniated the OS by sticking all the OTHER stuff in/usr/local, or not even selling it. Linux distributions have put the OE in/usr, not in/usr/lib, cause/usr/local doesn't mean "stuff that's OE, not OS", it means "stuff that didn't come from the vendor".
Now, no-one is ever going to dare claim that GNU wrote most of the OE you get in psychotically huge distros like Debian. What is arguable, though, is that they wrote the most important parts of the OS: libc, and the toys in/bin. They also made most of the rest of the stuff possible through gcc. They wrote the important parts of the OS, except the kernel.
If the name Linux were not entrenched as a term encompassing any or all of the kernel, the OS and the OE, then sure, you might be able to make a case for calling it GNU/Linux. There are two reasons you might want to do this: one, to give credit, and two, to emphasise what GNU and the FSF stand for.
However, the name Linux no longer means the kernel. When people want to talk about what vmlinux is, they say either "the Linux kernel" or "the kernel". They don't say Linux.
The name Linux, however, is, in the minds of non-techie people, the embodiment of everything the FSF stands for anyway, so there's no need to further emphasise the GNU aspect. It's already there, shouting to the rooftops.
The question of credit where it's due is the unfortunate one. The GNU project's contribution to the Linux OS is not going to be recognised in the name. This is a pity. But names are important and valueable, and the Linux name is too valuable to the community to screw it around now. The FSF will have to grin and bear it.
Besides, it's possible to replace most of the GNU stuff in the OS (gcc is part of the OE), with BSD tools - all of their stuff may eventually be replaced, so calling it GNU/Linux wouldn't be futureproof.
ESR bashes the GPL in this new version. Not impressed. How many other instances can we find of his self-aggrandizement or subtle manipulations? The more explicit Microsoft bashing, and the assumption that most hackers are libertarians are worrying too.
Through their cockup, the Gore2000 campaign have highlighted one interesting thing: there's a high degree of commonality, especially in mentality, between the Web and software whose source is viewable and reproducible.
Both rely on and encourage open standards and openness in general. No hypertext system whose renderers and browsers prohibited viewing source could ever have taken off the way the Web has.
SourceWare a good replacement for Open Source
on
Java for EGCS
·
· Score: 2
Those who think Open Source is now a misnomer and want to call it "viewable source" should look at the name SourceWare.
Incidentally, Cygnus is a good example of how to make money from free software.
Another event in Germany this summer is the Linuxbierwanderung. It's now under new management, and they're threatening to charge $750 for going, supposedly to provide, inter alia, Linux instructors. Does this sound like a rip off to anyone else?
I think there may be a place for these organisations, but as you say, the people trying to set them up are newbies. The orgs which are needed and which will actually work will spring into existence, bazaar-style, and be filled with the right people, if necessary.
Basically, cathedrals, bazaar-style, or what Cox might have called the Town Council.
If this H2O thing creates more useful software, who can possibly complain? I think people's fears of "centralisation" and "bureaucracies" are exaggerated: the Internet and OSS work because they're not centralised bureaucracies, and couldn't work if they were, therefore, any attempt to impose such a thing will fail, and so we don't need to worry:)
What might be useful is taking the "peer review" principle from the scientific world, and applying it to OSS even more than it is being applied already. This is, have a body of people who review code on a volunteer basis, rather than a fragmented community with no crossover between the different development groups (except for Alan Cox, who seems to do everything)
This should serve as a wakeup call not for AOL but for the free software community; if we don't contribute, we're never going to have another decent browser to use.
We have a lot for which to thank ESR. He's accelerated acceptance of free software, by fighting the suits with their own weapons. Unfortunately, he drank way too much of their coffee, and degenerated at times into a self-publicist.
Many of us have been banging on about the benefits of open source code (as opposed to totally free software) for some time, but it was ESR who stuck his head out, took the flak, and stuck the phrase "Open Source" on the map.
The two things to learn from ESR are: free software, if it's to be adopted more widely, needs a "mainstream" image, even if that image is a little off-beat, and secondly, you have to build that image without alienating the people you're trying to help - many of whom may want their software how it is, and don't care whether it's embraced by a wider world.
Katz a very different voice that should stay
on
Assorted Katz Hype
·
· Score: 1
Katz exposes/. readers, some of whom I'm afraid to say don't read much else, to viewpoints by which they'd not normally be challenged. I happen to loathe a lot of what he says - especially some of his pieces in W*red, but the benefit of having an independent voice saying "how about THIS" is too great to lose by chucking him just cause he doesn't fit in.
Who cares if he doesn't fit in? Vive la difference!
The ideological rivalry between KDE and GNOME has spurred on both projects, and thus helped the community. Of course a freer qt library would be useful, so, if these guys want to do that, let them.
I should have said "Look at the University of Cambridge". This does seem to be a widespread situation. I was considering setting up a Linux users group for students here; maybe we should have a worldwide Linux students group - aimed at getting Linux as an option in computing rooms, providing support, getting saner management policies, etc.
Whereas IPP seems to offer some value, I'm getting worried that it falls into the same class of questionable "standards" and first-to-market incumbencies that we're seeing rushed through nowadays. Close adherence to standards is one of the things which puts open systems and the OSS/free software movement ahead of the rest.
Traditionally, the standards which can get themselves accepted and widely adopted by multiple vendors/systems (which is one of the things we still have in the non-MS world) tend to have the great benefit of simplicity: they only try to do one thing at a time. The IPP, though built on HTTP (at least they've figured out the idea of composing standards from smaller building blocks), seems to want to do several things: printing, platform independence, security, printer management.
It runs the risk of becoming another mongrel like SMB.
It threatens to get more people using his company's product and Linux, and will provide evidence to rebut Microsoft's suicidal Linux defence.
BBC coverage subtly noted the political element
on
Windows Refund Wrapup
·
· Score: 2
The BBC news website spoke of "supporters" of Linux, rather than "users", and wrote the whole thing up very much as some sort of political rally. Nothing wrong with that - OS choice *is* political. We'll be written up as freedom fighters next time.
Moore's law meets Murphy's law: prices of computer bits remain constant whilst the parts get better. I remember trying to get a Cyrix CPU for about 50 pounds, only for it to be taken off the market the next day because a new version had come out at the high end.
Sure 486s cost less than $100 today - but you can only get them second hand.
Slashdot Mirror
The smoking gun you are looking for is "widelinks" being set to false. This is not the default, because it detriments performance. Had they tested with and without it, they'd have seen this and left it at the default. So either they didn't test either way, they changed it arbitrarily, or they changed it deliberately.
You choose.
Being text-mode friendly would be nice, but it might cripple a few things. If you designed your site sanely it wouldn't matter though.
They made TCP/IP compulsory for Milnet and Arpanet. Was this a bad decision? Nope.
Now let's just hope that no-one can subvert w3c. Otherwise the government will have to ratify each w3c standard instead of leaving w3c to work things out itself.
That sort of comparison is best dealt with by
sites like www.linuxhq.com - I think there's
a blow by blow "what's new in 2.2" thing by
Jason Pravenich (sp?) there. At any rate, all
you need to know is linked from linuxhq.
One of these three possible scenarios must be true, and all of them mean that they're not playing fair.
Some of this might be to defend the integrity
of their benchmarking suite, probably most of
it is that it's a story they feel they ought
to run.
Well, actually, most people don't choose Excel,
they're forced to use it because everyone else
is using XLS files. So the file format IS
important - but not its internals, of course,
just the compatibility issue.
What do I mean by "operating environment" as distinct from the OS? Well, it's the set of stuff you need to remain sane - compilers, editors, LaTeX -- all this stuff comes on CDs from RedHat and Debian and Slackware and friends. If you take away any bit of this, the system carries on - it can just do less.
So what's in the OS? Stuff like mount, grep, libc, fsck, ls, bash, sed, et cetera. Remove one of these things, and who knows what will happen.
Traditionally, Unix vendors have deliniated the OS by sticking all the OTHER stuff in /usr/local, or not even selling it. Linux distributions have put the OE in /usr, not in /usr/lib, cause /usr/local doesn't mean "stuff that's OE, not OS", it means "stuff that didn't come from the vendor".
Now, no-one is ever going to dare claim that GNU wrote most of the OE you get in psychotically huge distros like Debian. What is arguable, though, is that they wrote the most important parts of the OS: libc, and the toys in /bin. They also made most of the rest of the stuff possible through gcc. They wrote the important parts of the OS, except the kernel.
If the name Linux were not entrenched as a term encompassing any or all of the kernel, the OS and the OE, then sure, you might be able to make a case for calling it GNU/Linux. There are two reasons you might want to do this: one, to give credit, and two, to emphasise what GNU and the FSF stand for.
However, the name Linux no longer means the kernel. When people want to talk about what vmlinux is, they say either "the Linux kernel" or "the kernel". They don't say Linux.
The name Linux, however, is, in the minds of non-techie people, the embodiment of everything the FSF stands for anyway, so there's no need to further emphasise the GNU aspect. It's already there, shouting to the rooftops.
The question of credit where it's due is the unfortunate one. The GNU project's contribution to the Linux OS is not going to be recognised in the name. This is a pity. But names are important and valueable, and the Linux name is too valuable to the community to screw it around now. The FSF will have to grin and bear it.
Besides, it's possible to replace most of the GNU stuff in the OS (gcc is part of the OE), with BSD tools - all of their stuff may eventually be replaced, so calling it GNU/Linux wouldn't be futureproof.
It also contains the amusing quote:
We remarked on how obviously Microsoft NT didn't fit the bill as the operating system at the time of Intel's announcement, and we remain right.
ESR bashes the GPL in this new version. Not
impressed. How many other instances can we find of
his self-aggrandizement or subtle manipulations?
The more explicit Microsoft bashing, and the
assumption that most hackers are libertarians
are worrying too.
Both rely on and encourage open standards and openness in general. No hypertext system whose renderers and browsers prohibited viewing source could ever have taken off the way the Web has.
Those who think Open Source is now a misnomer
and want to call it "viewable source" should
look at the name SourceWare.
Incidentally, Cygnus is a good example of how
to make money from free software.
Another event in Germany this summer is
the Linuxbierwanderung. It's now under new
management, and they're threatening to charge
$750 for going, supposedly to provide, inter
alia, Linux instructors. Does this sound like
a rip off to anyone else?
Basically, cathedrals, bazaar-style, or what Cox might have called the Town Council.
What might be useful is taking the "peer review" principle from the scientific world, and applying it to OSS even more than it is being applied already. This is, have a body of people who review code on a volunteer basis, rather than a fragmented community with no crossover between the different development groups (except for Alan Cox, who seems to do everything)
This should serve as a wakeup call not for AOL but for the free software community; if we don't contribute, we're never going to have another decent browser to use.
Many of us have been banging on about the benefits of open source code (as opposed to totally free software) for some time, but it was ESR who stuck his head out, took the flak, and stuck the phrase "Open Source" on the map.
The two things to learn from ESR are: free software, if it's to be adopted more widely, needs a "mainstream" image, even if that image is a little off-beat, and secondly, you have to build that image without alienating the people you're trying to help - many of whom may want their software how it is, and don't care whether it's embraced by a wider world.
to say don't read much else, to viewpoints by
which they'd not normally be challenged. I
happen to loathe a lot of what he says -
especially some of his pieces in W*red, but the
benefit of having an independent voice saying
"how about THIS" is too great to lose by chucking
him just cause he doesn't fit in.
Who cares if he doesn't fit in? Vive la difference!
The ideological rivalry between KDE and GNOME
has spurred on both projects, and thus helped
the community. Of course a freer qt library
would be useful, so, if these guys want to do
that, let them.
I should have said "Look at the University
of Cambridge". This does seem to be a widespread
situation. I was considering setting up a
Linux users group for students here; maybe we
should have a worldwide Linux students group -
aimed at getting Linux as an option in
computing rooms, providing support, getting saner
management policies, etc.
Traditionally, the standards which can get themselves accepted and widely adopted by multiple vendors/systems (which is one of the things we still have in the non-MS world) tend to have the great benefit of simplicity: they only try to do one thing at a time. The IPP, though built on HTTP (at least they've figured out the idea of composing standards from smaller building blocks), seems to want to do several things: printing, platform independence, security, printer management.
It runs the risk of becoming another mongrel like SMB.
It threatens to get more people using his company's product and Linux, and will provide evidence to rebut Microsoft's suicidal Linux defence.
The BBC news website spoke of "supporters" of
Linux, rather than "users", and wrote the whole
thing up very much as some sort of political
rally. Nothing wrong with that - OS choice *is*
political. We'll be written up as freedom
fighters next time.
I had just been memorising Tom Lehrer's chemical elements song when this story came up!
Sure 486s cost less than $100 today - but you can only get them second hand.