Now I was wondering if that really happened or not?
Ubuntu upstreams the bugfixes for the Debian packages they use. It has been implied to me on the official Ubuntu forum that these bug-fixes are not always used by Debian developers.
Another interesting question is why Ubuntu seems to be able to release frequently and Debian doesn't... the size? because the Ubuntu developers are paid for their work? because they're differently managed (managed, tout court)?
Well, first of all, Ubuntu only supports three archs- AMD64, i386, PPC. Debian supports many more. Also Ubuntu only focuses on Gnome as a desktop, and only "officially" supports 4000 packages. The unsupported packages do get some work, but just like in testing for Debian, some the of the obscure packages might be buggy (never happened to me, I install a lot of stuff). The releases are also quicker because there are less decision makers- which means faster resolution of problems. Hoary gained Xorg with much less pain than Sid will acquire it!
You should try Ubuntu when Hoary comes out. If you like Gnome, its a great version of
Debian.
It is really good so far. Its a little buggy (I don't recomend it for most people) but is has lots of software (more than Sarge, a little less than Sid) and the new Gnome looks great.
Anyone that likes Gnome should try out the Preview Release of Hoary coming out in March. All the extra bug reports could make it one of the best distros ever.
It will be a good finished project.
Re:IBM is NOT a 'Linux' company
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 1
IBM merely invest money into Linux, because they use it on some of there systems. NSA created SALinux? Does that make them a Linux company?
No. And IBM isn't a Linux company just because it contributes to it. IBM is a Linux company because they are willing to take on Linux's biggest expense- its legal liability. As IBM works to defend Linux's IP (from SCO), it transforms into a Linux company.
In the eyes of the law, a parent is defined as a parent based apon the legal responsiblities to that child.
Re:wake me up
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But there are more computer users who care about games than there are of computer enthusiasts and computer users who don't care about games. Lots more.
Sure...most desktop users care about games. But only a small percentage of teh market is hardcore gamers. Most are content with small games- solitare, chess, etc. There is a reason that the 3D care market has slowed down a bunch in the past couple years- there are not that many hardcore gamers.
Plus businesses (the places that have most of the computers) REALLY don't care about games (unless they make them). So Linux not having the latest games might be seen as a benefit to them....
(And, of course, there's also this or this, but it's not Apple-supported so it doesn't really count.
Why doesn't that count? Those are just GUI programs to access the Ipod. If Linux could not mount the Ipod, they would be useless...Just like an unmounted sony player is useless.
What's wrong with just letting people save money on their own for their retirement?
The short answer is politics. The long answer is that people about to retire believe that their life's worth of social security is in a bank someone, and its THEIR RIGHT to have it. Since they are the most consistent voting block (backed by the most power special interest group- AARP), they get anything they want. The reason that younger people today cannot just do away with social security is because it is their momney that pays the benefits to old people. Since they run the political show (both parties have to lick the senior citizen boot), they can force us to pay them our taxes for their benfits.
2004 was the year of Linux in the desktop. It didn't happen.
Thats funny you said that. I just switched to Linux last year, mostly because of the creation of Ubuntu. I liked it so much that I am tempted by no OS, and this "new craze" is lasting. I am using the Hoary development version, and it does everything I wish with minimal headache. Thats just what I want out of an OS. Not something odd like brand trollish loyalty.
The more apps that move from Linux to windows, the better! Since most people only want computers for its software (and doesn't know what an OS is), the more people that get hooked on OSS apps the better it is for OSS!
This will also help Linux as well. As soon as more Windows people start using OSS on windows (such as firefox, evolution, beagle, and open office) instead of Microsoft products (IE, Outlook,.NET stuff, MS Office) the easier it is for them to move onto a new OSS OS! Once they are used to the apps, the switch is as easy as "do you want a new software that runs all of your apps, thats built safer than windows and is free like the apps you are used to?"
For those that doubt, please note that this IS a way to help Linux. I recently switched because I knew that my most used software in XP (Firefox) worked great in Linux.
The article looks promising until I see lines of code instead of nice screenshots. Does anyone know a good GUI tool for Linux (built with something like QT or GTK) that is free (like speech) that allows me to find broadcasted SSID's in my area?
Windows users love to rub in how easily their linksys tools do this for them... I want an equivalent for my Ubuntu box.
I am the new wave of Linux users- "the more GUI the better" (TM).
The primary goal of the Fedora project is to develop the OSS tools (such as gnome) that they will one day sell in their commercial software. When the first Fedora came out, it was THE major free Gnome distro- without it Gnome would have developed at a slower pace.
But nowadays the Fedora project is not as crucial. Newer projects such as Ubuntu are now sharing the burden that Fedora has of developing the software. Redhat doesn't care how Gnome and what not gets better as long as it does.
Now that the burden is lifted Redhat does not need absolute control in order to ensure their favorite apps survival. Now there are enough distros out there that Fedora could never have a new release and the tools will still continue to develop at an acceptable rate. So naturally Redhat now wishes to open up the development of Fedora to make it easier on them and to allow new ideas (that are risky) to potentially improve the project.
This does not personally concern me, as I switch away from Fedora on the last release (Yum seems like a hack once you see apt-get work in its native environment IMHO). But I respect Redhat for wanting to give Fedora to the community of users that love it.
Apt-get or urpmi or yum. Your distribution will use one of those, and you will have no problems. It's far easier than windows.
Hmmm. These things require something called a command line- something I haven't had to DEAL WITH in windows since the 98 version. Want to freak Joe-User out, show him the command line.
And sure, there are GUI frontends, but they still don't tell me what programs I need. Lets say I need a photo-editing program. You and I know I need the Gimp, but how is Joe User supposed to find that out? It isn't named something helpful like "Photoshop." What if he doesn't have a net connection, can he buy a package of Gimp in WalMart that will install the program after he inserts the CD and clicks next 80 times? No? Then Linux isn't there yet. Only Click -and-Run comes close, but its in a pay-for distro.
(Note: I'm typing this on Ubuntu now, and I love Apt-get. But I hate finding what programs I need- the package desciptions don't use laymen terms. I'm always forced to use google to find some message board where someone posts the name of the program I need. That is not a practical solution. I love my Linux box, but software installation is the single biggest problem in Linux today!)
Media player software is another doozy. There's no linux software out there right now that's as versatile and fully featured as Windows Media Player, and there are no Linux DVD players that match up to windows apps like PowerDVD.
Actually, I like Xine better than any windows media player. Set it up right and you'll never need to download a codec again.
And you forgot to mention P2P (especially for youths). I think MLDonkey and Sancho do the job.
I read your blog. You tear down one of the best OSS apps ever- Firefox- with made up evidence.
Survey people using FireFox on Windows. How many of them are saying, "I'm so impressed I'm going to switch to a Free Software desktop." Virtually zero. Too many of us in the Open Source community naively expect people to draw conclusions that today's technology consumers are not motivated, let alone empowered, to make.
I call bs. Earlier this year, I recently (finally) switch over to Linux. why? Because I knew that my most used piece of software on windows (Firefox) would be supported. Did I switch to Linux because of the apps? NO! There are many other reasons- XP is a security nightmare. But I wasn't going to switch till I knew that its programs could do what I needed to do. And since I got to try Open Office and Firefox on windows, I knew that the software was there.
If you don't want to spend your time writing Windows apps, then don't! But saying that porting over software, to a very uncontrolled platform, (if Microsoft had the power you say it does XP wouldn't be such a mess) will kill the project is incorrect. OSS will come because Microsoft has lots of problems.
You give them too much credit:
On Windows it's a very different story. As long as Microsoft controls the Windows technology stack (and they will never give that control up) they will have the ultimate ability to out-compete any 3rd party software on Windows that they wish to.
If this is the case then why didn't the new biggest XP update (SP2) stop all those horrible spyware programs from running? Its because Microsoft is doing everything it can just to fix all the leaks in their boat. They don't have time to quash out something small like OSS software on XP (especially because such moves could create more bugs in the process). There is a reason Longhorn keeps getting delayed.
Again, more BS:
Making the situation even worse, by keeping people on Windows we decrease the odds of them getting involved and contributing back to the community. This is because the tools necessary to do so are relatively rare on Windows.
Again, this argument is very false. As a windows user I was able to use great (windows only) tools like Photoshop to create images for small open source projects to use. Or use Dreamweaver to make a great website. Tools are rare on windows? Not at all. Now, what you might be implying is writing some code. But if windows users want to help they can
A: develop on a live CD...or
B: Work on the Windows port. Imagine that. And some stuff they contribute (like stuff I've mentioned), might help the Linux port.
If I was you, I'd stop sounding like I was Linux's marking director and start sounding like an open minded developer. Your better at the second job.
Umm...No he wouldn't. He hated a life of "material confort" that is created by "life corroding competition." He advocated doing things the way they were done thousands of years ago- to stick to a lifestyle forged on the anvil of time.
For the current situation Ghandi would probably say "Those who download inslave their imagination to the whims of popular society. If anything, downloading shows that the participant has learned a poor lesson about life- that someone has to provide entertainment for them and that they must take instead of create."
Outright rejection of the moral lessons imparted by the media that is downloaded would make Ghandi proud.
but I honestly felt like he was just whining and not trying to understand how things work.
hmmm...the parent post stated that soon the "darknet" will cease to exist because large corporations and government will work together to end it. That sounds like the most accurate possible future situation. I mean, corporations hate losing control of distribution channels, and governments (well, mine in the U.S.) hates it when it cannot project its power into somepart of daily life (like boring cable). It almost cannot be doubted that in the future bought and paid for laws will change the nature of computer hardware and the future internet will be as "wild west" as any other corporate distribution network. That situation sucks. Even though I will agree with you, instead of whinning the poster should do something about it: download everything now before the sheriffs come!
I expect the news to observer and report. Leave it to those that read the papers to do the reforming.
Unfortunately the news media (which is very consolidated) determines what will be reformed when they decided to pick things on which to "observe and report." Even an so called unbiased news outlet theoretically can't chose to report on every single item every person in the audience feels is "newsworthy." Instead, they chose what to report on based upon their limited time, and the attention created by the reporting results often in reform. Until the news reports it nowadays, its hard to get an issue into the public sphere to be reformed. Therefore a paper like the NYTimes's power is what it lets on the front page. As a current-event newspaper, it decided to report on the breaking story at Abu Garib rather than reporting stories about Saddam that haven't been relevant since before we invaded.
And I'll be the first one to admit that the fact that the NYTimes continues to harp on such story DOES mean that the organization has a huge bias. The powers that be in the paper want to make sure that the scandal stayed on the American tongue by keeping it on their front page. Even though this is not admirable, the fact is that all new organization (by way of decided what to report about in their limited time/space to do so) have bias. In the modern age, though, I think we are lucky that outlets like the NYTimes and Foxnews are very obvious with their bias. That way people don't get tricked into blindly following one source that claims to not have the bias that it must have. They keep up a front for posterity ("fair and balanced") but the truth is that the CBSs, Foxnewses, and the NYTimeses of the world do use a favor by allowing us to correctly assume what they chose to report on. They way you get the bias you want in your news.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically it works great. And Hoary will have KDE 3.3.
Here my (wordy) opinion of using the universe KDE.
Ubuntu upstreams the bugfixes for the Debian packages they use. It has been implied to me on the official Ubuntu forum that these bug-fixes are not always used by Debian developers.
Another interesting question is why Ubuntu seems to be able to release frequently and Debian doesn't... the size? because the Ubuntu developers are paid for their work? because they're differently managed (managed, tout court)?
Well, first of all, Ubuntu only supports three archs- AMD64, i386, PPC. Debian supports many more. Also Ubuntu only focuses on Gnome as a desktop, and only "officially" supports 4000 packages. The unsupported packages do get some work, but just like in testing for Debian, some the of the obscure packages might be buggy (never happened to me, I install a lot of stuff). The releases are also quicker because there are less decision makers- which means faster resolution of problems. Hoary gained Xorg with much less pain than Sid will acquire it!
You should try Ubuntu when Hoary comes out. If you like Gnome, its a great version of Debian.
Anyone that likes Gnome should try out the Preview Release of Hoary coming out in March. All the extra bug reports could make it one of the best distros ever.
It will be a good finished project.
In the eyes of the law, a parent is defined as a parent based apon the legal responsiblities to that child.
Sure...most desktop users care about games. But only a small percentage of teh market is hardcore gamers. Most are content with small games- solitare, chess, etc. There is a reason that the 3D care market has slowed down a bunch in the past couple years- there are not that many hardcore gamers.
Plus businesses (the places that have most of the computers) REALLY don't care about games (unless they make them). So Linux not having the latest games might be seen as a benefit to them....
Why doesn't that count? Those are just GUI programs to access the Ipod. If Linux could not mount the Ipod, they would be useless...Just like an unmounted sony player is useless.
The short answer is politics. The long answer is that people about to retire believe that their life's worth of social security is in a bank someone, and its THEIR RIGHT to have it. Since they are the most consistent voting block (backed by the most power special interest group- AARP), they get anything they want. The reason that younger people today cannot just do away with social security is because it is their momney that pays the benefits to old people. Since they run the political show (both parties have to lick the senior citizen boot), they can force us to pay them our taxes for their benfits.
Don't like it?
As a natural born PR type, let me warn you- perception is truth. Or at least it matters more.
Thats funny you said that. I just switched to Linux last year, mostly because of the creation of Ubuntu. I liked it so much that I am tempted by no OS, and this "new craze" is lasting. I am using the Hoary development version, and it does everything I wish with minimal headache. Thats just what I want out of an OS. Not something odd like brand trollish loyalty.
And your life will be better...
This will also help Linux as well. As soon as more Windows people start using OSS on windows (such as firefox, evolution, beagle, and open office) instead of Microsoft products (IE, Outlook, .NET stuff, MS Office) the easier it is for them to move onto a new OSS OS! Once they are used to the apps, the switch is as easy as "do you want a new software that runs all of your apps, thats built safer than windows and is free like the apps you are used to?"
For those that doubt, please note that this IS a way to help Linux. I recently switched because I knew that my most used software in XP (Firefox) worked great in Linux.
Windows users love to rub in how easily their linksys tools do this for them... I want an equivalent for my Ubuntu box.
I am the new wave of Linux users- "the more GUI the better" (TM).
But nowadays the Fedora project is not as crucial. Newer projects such as Ubuntu are now sharing the burden that Fedora has of developing the software. Redhat doesn't care how Gnome and what not gets better as long as it does.
Now that the burden is lifted Redhat does not need absolute control in order to ensure their favorite apps survival. Now there are enough distros out there that Fedora could never have a new release and the tools will still continue to develop at an acceptable rate. So naturally Redhat now wishes to open up the development of Fedora to make it easier on them and to allow new ideas (that are risky) to potentially improve the project.
This does not personally concern me, as I switch away from Fedora on the last release (Yum seems like a hack once you see apt-get work in its native environment IMHO). But I respect Redhat for wanting to give Fedora to the community of users that love it.
As a side effect of this setup, I'm much more productive in Linux, if only because playing games requires a reboot.
Hmmm. These things require something called a command line- something I haven't had to DEAL WITH in windows since the 98 version. Want to freak Joe-User out, show him the command line.
And sure, there are GUI frontends, but they still don't tell me what programs I need. Lets say I need a photo-editing program. You and I know I need the Gimp, but how is Joe User supposed to find that out? It isn't named something helpful like "Photoshop." What if he doesn't have a net connection, can he buy a package of Gimp in WalMart that will install the program after he inserts the CD and clicks next 80 times? No? Then Linux isn't there yet. Only Click -and-Run comes close, but its in a pay-for distro.
(Note: I'm typing this on Ubuntu now, and I love Apt-get. But I hate finding what programs I need- the package desciptions don't use laymen terms. I'm always forced to use google to find some message board where someone posts the name of the program I need. That is not a practical solution. I love my Linux box, but software installation is the single biggest problem in Linux today!)
I would pitch in some money to get that off the ground.
Actually, I like Xine better than any windows media player. Set it up right and you'll never need to download a codec again.
And you forgot to mention P2P (especially for youths). I think MLDonkey and Sancho do the job.
Survey people using FireFox on Windows. How many of them are saying, "I'm so impressed I'm going to switch to a Free Software desktop." Virtually zero. Too many of us in the Open Source community naively expect people to draw conclusions that today's technology consumers are not motivated, let alone empowered, to make.
I call bs. Earlier this year, I recently (finally) switch over to Linux. why? Because I knew that my most used piece of software on windows (Firefox) would be supported. Did I switch to Linux because of the apps? NO! There are many other reasons- XP is a security nightmare. But I wasn't going to switch till I knew that its programs could do what I needed to do. And since I got to try Open Office and Firefox on windows, I knew that the software was there.
If you don't want to spend your time writing Windows apps, then don't! But saying that porting over software, to a very uncontrolled platform, (if Microsoft had the power you say it does XP wouldn't be such a mess) will kill the project is incorrect. OSS will come because Microsoft has lots of problems.
You give them too much credit:
On Windows it's a very different story. As long as Microsoft controls the Windows technology stack (and they will never give that control up) they will have the ultimate ability to out-compete any 3rd party software on Windows that they wish to.
If this is the case then why didn't the new biggest XP update (SP2) stop all those horrible spyware programs from running? Its because Microsoft is doing everything it can just to fix all the leaks in their boat. They don't have time to quash out something small like OSS software on XP (especially because such moves could create more bugs in the process). There is a reason Longhorn keeps getting delayed.
Again, more BS:
Making the situation even worse, by keeping people on Windows we decrease the odds of them getting involved and contributing back to the community. This is because the tools necessary to do so are relatively rare on Windows.
Again, this argument is very false. As a windows user I was able to use great (windows only) tools like Photoshop to create images for small open source projects to use. Or use Dreamweaver to make a great website. Tools are rare on windows? Not at all. Now, what you might be implying is writing some code. But if windows users want to help they can
A: develop on a live CD...or
B: Work on the Windows port. Imagine that. And some stuff they contribute (like stuff I've mentioned), might help the Linux port.
If I was you, I'd stop sounding like I was Linux's marking director and start sounding like an open minded developer. Your better at the second job.
Why? If Mr. Too High of Superficial Standards wants to never pass on his seed, who are you to stop him?
Morally opposed to new kinds of cartoons eh? Your sense of values is pretty odd.
Umm...No he wouldn't. He hated a life of "material confort" that is created by "life corroding competition." He advocated doing things the way they were done thousands of years ago- to stick to a lifestyle forged on the anvil of time.
For the current situation Ghandi would probably say "Those who download inslave their imagination to the whims of popular society. If anything, downloading shows that the participant has learned a poor lesson about life- that someone has to provide entertainment for them and that they must take instead of create."
Outright rejection of the moral lessons imparted by the media that is downloaded would make Ghandi proud.
hmmm...the parent post stated that soon the "darknet" will cease to exist because large corporations and government will work together to end it. That sounds like the most accurate possible future situation. I mean, corporations hate losing control of distribution channels, and governments (well, mine in the U.S.) hates it when it cannot project its power into somepart of daily life (like boring cable). It almost cannot be doubted that in the future bought and paid for laws will change the nature of computer hardware and the future internet will be as "wild west" as any other corporate distribution network. That situation sucks. Even though I will agree with you, instead of whinning the poster should do something about it: download everything now before the sheriffs come!
You've got to mod these up. Classics.
There are good movie theatres out there, you just have to be lucky enough to live near one.
Unfortunately the news media (which is very consolidated) determines what will be reformed when they decided to pick things on which to "observe and report." Even an so called unbiased news outlet theoretically can't chose to report on every single item every person in the audience feels is "newsworthy." Instead, they chose what to report on based upon their limited time, and the attention created by the reporting results often in reform. Until the news reports it nowadays, its hard to get an issue into the public sphere to be reformed. Therefore a paper like the NYTimes's power is what it lets on the front page. As a current-event newspaper, it decided to report on the breaking story at Abu Garib rather than reporting stories about Saddam that haven't been relevant since before we invaded.
And I'll be the first one to admit that the fact that the NYTimes continues to harp on such story DOES mean that the organization has a huge bias. The powers that be in the paper want to make sure that the scandal stayed on the American tongue by keeping it on their front page. Even though this is not admirable, the fact is that all new organization (by way of decided what to report about in their limited time/space to do so) have bias. In the modern age, though, I think we are lucky that outlets like the NYTimes and Foxnews are very obvious with their bias. That way people don't get tricked into blindly following one source that claims to not have the bias that it must have. They keep up a front for posterity ("fair and balanced") but the truth is that the CBSs, Foxnewses, and the NYTimeses of the world do use a favor by allowing us to correctly assume what they chose to report on. They way you get the bias you want in your news.