I bet there's so many people trying to take this site down that they wind up interfering with each other.
I know that cooler heads here will caution against any sort of illegal activity that will give SCO further ammunition, but frankly, I don't think it will matter much, since they so obviously manufacture their facts out of thin air anyways.
Besides, the results might be hilarious if the right person or persons (or dozens of groups of persons) manage to 0wn the proscum site. They could have competitions for the funniest and most clever defacement.
If I were the fool responsibel for maintaining this site I would have a live person viewing the site (with constant screen refreshes) 24/7.
Virtually every discussion involving KDE or gnome branches into the old argument about freedom of choice versus duplication of effort.
However...
I have yet to see anybody talk about this in terms of just how much extra effort is required.
For example:
IIRC, Mozilla was originally written using
the GTK toolkit... right?
The Trolltech people, with volunteer assistance,
ported it to KDE as an example of what can be done with KDE, although it is unsupported (and presumably dead).
So...
Realistically speaking, how much duplication of effort is there? Does it take twice as developer effort to have gnome plus 200 applications *and* KDE plus 200 applications?
Or would GPL code sharing allow the effort required to be 1.5X or 1.3X instead of 2.0X?
Wouldn't the *amount* of duplication of effort be a valid consideration in this old argument?
In the past few months we've seen quite a bit of waffling from Sun regarding Linux. They seem to go from lukewarm to cold on a regular basis.
The thing that concerns me, however, is the way Sun has behaved regarding the SCO lawsuit.
Does anybody know exactly what Sun got when they gave millions of dollars to SCO?
I don't know if Sun was genuinely obligated to ante up money to SCO, but I have no doubt that the money Sun provided contributed mightily to SCO's BS campaign and to their ability to wage a litigation war against fans of Linux and the GPL.
Microsoft is notorious for leveraging their dominance in one market in order to force their way into another.
It strikes me that Google can do the same - and do it in a way that could potentially hurt Microsoft a lot.
I know there will be those who will not react favorably to this idea...
Google should create YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution). Call it "Google Weblinux" (tm...)
Base it on Knoppix-Debian-Muskox/Linux. Add a much more user-friendly HD install (with *lots* of warning about overwriting hard disk partitions, and what this means). Add everything internet-related that they can - especially commercial, well-known stuff like Flash (sorry) Realmedial (sorry), Acrobat Reader, lotsa Java-related toys, ez-firewall stuff, ez-internet sharing. Add a super-easy, customized synaptic (or synaptic replacement) with (optional) auto-updating. Put in every plugin known to Linuxkind. Make sure everything just works, just like that.
Tie it all together through the google homepage. Naturally the default homepage will be Google, and the default list of links will include the fine commercial and non-commercial folks Google has made deals with in the process of creating the CD.
Perhaps they could mirror apt-get repositories or add their own for updates.
Advertise Google WebLinux on their homepage, with links to more info.
If they wanted to the Google folks could become sort of a focal point for mindshare for all of Microsoft's commercial competitors - every commercial business who has to compete with Microsoft's own bundled applications - especially if Google manages to convince everybody that they won't try to get into competing with Macromedia/Sun Java/Adobe/Real.
Would that be an effective counterfud/return fire against Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
I bet there's so many people trying to
take this site down that they wind up
interfering with each other.
I know that cooler heads here will caution
against any sort of illegal activity that
will give SCO further ammunition, but
frankly, I don't think it will matter much,
since they so obviously manufacture their facts out of thin air anyways.
Besides, the results might be hilarious if
the right person or persons (or dozens of
groups of persons) manage to 0wn the proscum
site. They could have competitions for the
funniest and most clever defacement.
If I were the fool responsibel for maintaining this site I would have a live person viewing
the site (with constant screen refreshes) 24/7.
Virtually every discussion involving KDE or gnome branches into the old argument about freedom of choice versus duplication of effort. However... I have yet to see anybody talk about this in terms of just how much extra effort is required. For example: IIRC, Mozilla was originally written using the GTK toolkit... right? The Trolltech people, with volunteer assistance, ported it to KDE as an example of what can be done with KDE, although it is unsupported (and presumably dead). So... Realistically speaking, how much duplication of effort is there? Does it take twice as developer effort to have gnome plus 200 applications *and* KDE plus 200 applications? Or would GPL code sharing allow the effort required to be 1.5X or 1.3X instead of 2.0X? Wouldn't the *amount* of duplication of effort be a valid consideration in this old argument?
In the past few months we've seen quite a bit
of waffling from Sun regarding Linux. They seem to go from lukewarm to cold on a regular basis.
The thing that concerns me, however, is the way Sun has behaved regarding the SCO lawsuit.
Does anybody know exactly what Sun got when they gave millions of dollars to SCO?
I don't know if Sun was genuinely obligated to
ante up money to SCO, but I have no doubt that the money Sun provided contributed mightily to SCO's BS campaign and to their ability to wage a litigation war against fans of Linux and the GPL.
Somewhat OT, sorry...
Microsoft is notorious for leveraging their dominance in one market in order to force their way into another.
It strikes me that Google can do the same - and do it in a way that could potentially hurt Microsoft a lot.
I know there will be those who will not react favorably to this idea...
Google should create YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution). Call it "Google Weblinux" (tm...)
Base it on Knoppix-Debian-Muskox/Linux. Add a much more user-friendly HD install (with *lots* of warning about overwriting hard disk partitions, and what this means). Add everything internet-related that they can - especially commercial, well-known stuff like Flash (sorry)
Realmedial (sorry), Acrobat Reader, lotsa Java-related toys, ez-firewall stuff, ez-internet sharing. Add a super-easy, customized synaptic (or synaptic replacement) with (optional) auto-updating. Put in every plugin known to Linuxkind. Make sure everything just works, just like that.
Tie it all together through the google homepage.
Naturally the default homepage will be Google, and the default list of links will include the fine commercial and non-commercial folks Google has made deals with in the process of creating the CD.
Perhaps they could mirror apt-get repositories or add their own for updates.
Advertise Google WebLinux on their homepage, with
links to more info.
If they wanted to the Google folks could become sort of a focal point for mindshare for all of Microsoft's commercial competitors - every commercial business who has to compete with Microsoft's own bundled applications - especially if Google manages to convince everybody that they won't try to get into competing with Macromedia/Sun Java/Adobe/Real.
Would that be an effective counterfud/return fire against Microsoft?
I would love to be able to use
one monitor for console and another for
X...
Can anybody point me in the right direction
to do this?
Please?