GNOME is the GNU NETWORK OBJECT MODEL ENVIRONMENT and "GNOME is part of the GNU project".
What is GNU? The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. The GNU system is licensed with the GPL and the LGPL for libraries.
Who heads GNU and founded GNU? Richard M. Stallman.
Now, I'd say that gives Richard M. Stallman all the right in the world to inquire of Miguel Icaza where he intends to go with GNOME. So enough with the inane RMS remarks - if you don't want freedom then go be a slave.
I have said before that I wasn't confident in the meandering course that GNOME was taking. Where is GNOME's basic THEME... what is it's guiding light? One minute GNOME is the White Knight of Freedom and then the next GNOME is going commercial with the Ximian moniker and talking about being based on.NET - the Next Big Microsoft Plan to Take Over the Internet?
I dunno, I was initially and still am in support of GNOME pending further developments. I hope they do The Right Thing(tm).
I mean, it's the longest lasting permanant deepfreeze that comes to my mind.
There are solid rock mountains there that could have caves dug in them and biomass placed there for some future time when more compassionate humanlike people live on earth.
I don't know about you but I don't know if I'd want to live in a world without animals and plants and nature.
The linux-2.4.17 kernel rocks the world. I have had not a single problem since compiling and installing it AND I've also had more things begin working.
Before 2.4.17, I couldn't get sound to work with Return to Castle Wolfenstein... trying to run the game with sound would just put the machine into a probable race state... I'd try to run a program and it would just hang... switch to another virt term login run top and hang...
I'd have to restart the machine because I couldn't even kill the processes. But with 2.4.17, NO MORE PROBLEMS.
> Some of you may disagree with me, but Sun has
> contriubuted a lot to the OpenSource community.
I don't disagree with you.
> Now, ironically, Linux is eating into Sun's
> market share, to the delight of OpenSource
> zealots, who decry Sun simply for being a
> for-profit corporation. I get the sense that
> many OpenSourcers are rooting against Sun, and I
> believe that's an entirely counter-productive
> position to take.
To say that Linux is eating into Sun's marketshare is to say that Sun is primarily a software company. It is my understanding that Sun is a Hardware company that provides certain software that is optimized for their hardware.
So, if Sun drops Solaris and adopts Linux, how can that be a loss? They can, after all, begin putting more of their development efforts into making Linux a more native OS for Sparc CPUs.
> Microsoft is the enemy of OpenSource,
Once again, I have to agree. OpenSource is the anathema of Microsoft's way of thinking.
> OpenSource and Linux will lose a great deal if
> Sun goes out of business, and not vice-versa.
Yep. No doubt about it. I figure that the days of UNIX differentiation are close to an end... the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. A beginning of a new time of easy interoperation which will benefit everyone - after all, Sun, IBM, HP, Compaq/Digital, SGI and all the rest can still make the High-End cutting edge hardware and software applications/middleware optimized for their hardware platform.
Maybe Sun can put even more effort into Java to make it faster - maybe even revisiting the hardware implementation angle. What about a drop-in Java Virtual Machine in hardware implemented on a PCI card or something?
> I guess I thought the point of your original post
> was that MS had a monopoly, they were adding
> things to the OS, and that was bad because other
> people could not compete. Correct?
> If so, then what you suggest above does not help
> that situation at all. If they integrated IIS into
> the kernel, wouldn't that make things worse for
> other companies trying to sell a web server?
Yep, but we can't keep Microsoft from moving things into kernelspace - at least I don't know of a way and I'd probably oppose such prohibition. Which means we may need a better definition of Operating System and Applications than whether or not one or the other runs in kernelspace.
It's a fine line I agree and very hard to define. The main thing is to have the interfaces between components documented so that drop-in replacements would be possible.
The more I think about it the more I begin to believe that Windows is not an OS per se but an Application Framework integrated into an OS.
> My original point (which I did not express very
> well) was that maybe an OS should be defined as
> a set of underlying services upon which other
> companies could compete against.
The definition of the OS is EXACTLY what I was attempting to accomplish.
I see that as an application developer, you wish to have certain canned functionality available to you. I believe you should have your choice of canned functionality. You may wish to drop-in Gekko rather than IE html renderer.
> For example, Windows could include all the DLLS
> nessasery to render Word files (not just the
> subset that word provides); maybe a decent
> quality RDBMS like MSDE (cut down sql server); a
> HTML rendering engine (not a browser); a SMTP
> server; a IIS type server.
> MS would then be required to document all of
> these underlying services; A company could then
> create a full blown web browser using the
> inbuilt Windows HTML rendering engine.
> Another company could create a accounting
> packing that uses the RDBMS for storage (insted
> of JET)
> As part of my job I need to create some VB
> apps/utilities. When I need to render HTML, all
> I do is drop the Microsoft HTML rendering engine
> active X control into my app, and all HTML
> rendering is taken care of for me! Therefor I
> can concentrate on making my app work, not
> rewriting HTML rendering compoents.
> What I am saying is that this concept should be
> taken one step further; Allowing a finance
> package developer to use the inbuild RDBMS not
> having to worry about ADO or JET versions,
> but just knowing that a RDBMS will be there and
> working.
> I think you will then very quickly see an entire
> industry based on taking the OS's engines and
> adding front ends to them. (How easy would it be
> to create tabbed browsing when the HTML
> rendering is included!)
I see you as wanting an Application Framework rather than an Operating System. An Application Framework could be made portable to other Operating Systems (and has) rather than tying it to a particular Operating System and or underlying hardware architecture.
I propose that we separate the underlying Operating System Kernel and kernelspace processes from the userspace applications and their frameworks.
If Microsoft wishes to take the whole or part of the Application Framework into kernelspace then let them - as long as the interfaces are documented so that drop-in replacements are possible for competitors to produce AND competitors are not prohibited from creating competing frameworks.
I said:
>> Microsoft is attempting to coopt the
>> Applications into the Operating System
You said:
> Based on what you said above, if MS designed
> Word or IIS to run in kernelspace, that would
> then be OK with you? Perhaps I am not
> understanding.
Microsoft's definition of the Operating System is likely different from mine. Maybe yours too.
If Microsoft wants to put Word or IIS into kernelspace then that is their prerogative; however, by my stipulation, they'd have to document the interfaces to those components so that interoperation with competitor's components would be possible. If Microsoft wanted to make Word or IIS integral to the kernel then that would be OK too as long as the interfaces were made public - interfaces might include any communication mechanism between processes and components.
> So, a small microkernel, with a huge proprietary
> closed set of fundamental OS functions is OK?
Yes, as long as the interfaces to the functions of the kernel are available and published 6 months prior to their use by the providor of the kernel. Such interface definitions would allow a drop-in replacement for the kernel by competitors and thus competition.
> By that definition a kernel could simply be
> 10 Execute next instruction
> 20 goto 10
I don't see the previous BASIC like code snippet as being a huge proprietary set of fundamental OS functions. I see it as merely an endless loop that could be simplified to this:
10 GOTO 10
Quite useless actually.
> Or what about VMware? With different OSs running
> in different VMware containers, can't those be
> preempted by the VMware software?
VMware is merely a Virtual Machine - which means that it is a MACHINE and therefore a platform for which an Operating System/Kernel is neccessary to gain functions therefrom.
As I understand it, the VMware software doesn't preempt anything; the kernel underlying VMware does. VMware merely provides the same or like raw harware components that a real machine does.
The whole purpose of my idea is to COMMODITIZE and COMPARTMENTALIZE the components of a complete system so that drop-in replacements for functionality can be achieved. To achieve commoditization and compartmentalization, you must first draw well defined lines between components and then the interfaces between those components must be published in a timely manner so that interoperation with competitor's components becomes possible. Unfortunately, such commoditization and compartmentalization is EXACTLY what Microsoft doesn't want.
> Define an OS as a kernel and set of related code
> that provides a set of base level services which
> application developers can leverage as they need.
Very vauge. What does "related" mean in the context of your statement? My whole idea was to attempt to precisely define each component and level of operation.
> For example; web serving; RDBMS; SMTP service;
> HTML rendering engine. (note; not nessaseraly a
> web browser; just a set of DLLS that provide
> standards based HTML rendering; a third party
> application that leverage this rendering engine
> to make a complete browser; like Quatz is for
> Mac OSx)
I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say here.
> By your definition, to get the same features
> that I get out of my $300 copy of WIn2k Server,
> I would have to purchase; A Kernel (os); a
> window manager; a dhcp server; a wins server; a
> web server; a mac server; a file sharing server;
> a print server; a web browser... and the list
> goes on!
But, you ARE purchasing all that in one big interconnected and tied together glob in Microsoft Windows. It's ties so tightly that it's almost impossible for a competitor to offer any components.
It seems to me that Windows is a Swiss Army Knife of components. It has a knife - not the best, it has a can opener - not the best, it has a corkscrew - not the best, it likely has a saw component - once again, not the best. Now how about if you could remove the knife component and replace it with a compatible BETTER knife component? The specifications for size and connectivity of this knife component would need to be published. Maybe you don't WANT a corkscrew - with this hypothetical Swiss Army Knife, you get the corkscrew whether you want it or not AND it's cost is integrated into the cost of the amalgamated product.
Do you like paying for tools you never use?
>...and would I be forced to purchase these from
> seperate companies? How does this affect
> distributions liek RedHat?
You think you are not being FORCED to purchase these items from Microsoft? If so, you are lying to yourself.
Anyway, RedHat doesn't charge money for non-proprietary software, they charge for making the CD, the manuals, marketing and for the provision of services such as support and technical assistance.
> So, you are saying we should make a firm
> definition of an OS, and LIMIT what it can do. How
> is that supposed to increase innovation?
I don't recall my suggestions LIMITING what a Kernel/OS/Non-Preemptable entity could do. If a webserver were to be designed as a pseudo-client/module/driver and it ran in kernelspace then it would be considered part of the running kernel. The interfaces between the pseudo-client/module/driver and the Kernel/OS and any other kernelspace or userspace code would need to be documented. How is that limiting what an OS can do?
Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices.
on
A Quick Peek at Longhorn
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> So let me get this straight. Just
> because putting a database as the filesystem
> backend will give them an advantage over some of
> their competitors, us desktop Windows users should
> be denied the benefits it would afford us?
What benefits? Most Windows users don't even know what a filesystem is much less a relational filesystem. Users just want to run their stuff.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC market in Operating Systems. They are using their power in one market to vie for another market. There are companies out there that would like to compete - they have families to feed, they have dreams and goals too. Shall we deny them the chance to make it by allowing a monopolist to run unchecked?
Are you a monopolist?
Microsoft is attempting to coopt the Applications into the Operating System i.e. tie their applications to the Windows OS so that competition is stiffled. We need firm definitions of what an Operating System and Application IS so that competition can occur and therby stimulate real innovation.
Here is what I think would be a good start on an idea that would provide for both competition and innovation for consumers of Operating Systems:
Define an Operating System as a kernel i.e. that single piece of code that has ultimate programmatic control over the machine and is not preemptable by any other piece of code. The running level of the kernel is to be deemed kernelspace.
Define an Application as a client of the kernel and as receiving services provided by the kernel and that operating environment that is preemptable by the kernel and doesn't run in kernelspace is to be deemed userspace. Require interfaces between clients of the kernel and between clients and the kernel to be documented and published 6 months prior to the Operating System Producers version of same interfaces and any derivatives therof.
Define a module or driver as a pseudo-client of the kernel OS and it's interfaces shall be documented in the same spirit as any code that runs in a particular space. When the pseudo-client/driver/module is present in the kernel i.e. loaded and running in kernelspace, it is to be considered as part of the running kernel and subject to it's benefits and responsibilities. When the pseudo-client/driver/module is running in userspace it is to be considered an application and subject to it's benefits and responsibilities.
Whatever a competitor wants to do inside the black box of the kernel/OS, Application/client or pseudo-client/driver/module can be deemed proprietary insofar as the black-box doesn't try to communicate such proprietary data, information or interfaces between components, interfaces or running levels i.e. kernelspace and userspace.
IANAL and I'm sure others may have better or more concise definitions but.... the definitions should be made and separation of the various pieces should be enforced as well as the publicly available documentation of their interfaces in a timely and competitive manner.
I said:
>>Wholely laudable! However, not very practical in
>>a dog eat dog corporate environment today.
You said:
>BSD is very practical in a corporate environment.
>It is the GPL that is not.
I see where you are going with this one... you are the dog that wishes to be eaten; I am the dog that does not.
Comparing the BSD and GPL licenses is folly. They are two differing ideas... let's leave it at that.
If this story is indeed true about Loki closing...
on
Loki Games Closing?
·
· Score: 2
then I am truely saddened. I liked Loki and the fun games they ported. Even though the games started out as Windows games, they were ports and as such I consider them to be Linux games.
This damned downturned economy has everybody tightening their belts. But, I've purchased some of their ports and I intend to purchase more if I can.
> The sole right the BSD license enforces is the
> attribution, which is the same reason many
> people before have worked without any other
> benefit for themselves.
Wholely laudable! However, not very practical in a dog eat dog corporate environment today. If you wish to give your code away with nothing more in return than a blurb of recognition then you are free to do it. I merely stated that *I* cannot agree with it - I speak for no one else but myself in this regard.
> In particular, Section III, paragraph J. item 1,
> allows Microsoft to restrict access to
> compatibility information that "would compromise
> the security" of certain information.
EXACTLY! Let's look at this shall we?
What has Microsoft so recently decided to designate as the #1 priority? Security. Now, if they put their MS Security(tm) technology into all the relevant API's of their software then... wouldn't you think that all those relevant API's would be excluded from release and exposure to scrutiny?
> Of greater concern is section 2(c) in the
> following section, precluding those who do not
> "meet(s) reasonable, objective standards
> established by Microsoft for certifying the
> authenticity and viability of its business".
BINGO AGAIN! Microsoft decides what software businesses are viable? This PFJ sounds more like a Microsoft Bill of Rights than a judgment against them.
It has also been pointed out that the PFJ excludes Operating Systems other than Microsoft's from benefitting from the majority of the provisions of the settlement. The mis-definitions of Operating System, Middleware and API in the PFJ are especially interesting.
I like Mr. Kegel's one breath summary of the PFJ:
Microsoft agrees to compete somewhat less vigorously, and to let competitors interoperate with Windows in exchange for royalty payments.
I will put my support behind Mr. Kegel's essay when it is finished.
Once again, I must say that I can't agree with the total freeness of FreeBSD.
FreeBSD's license is Throwing your money to the winds.
Linux's license is: Here is a loan. I want intrest on that.
Furthermore, I had no intention of opening a BSD vs. GPL license thread. I merely tried to give BSD it's just acknowledgment as an excellent UNIX OS group.
> So I ask politely, hoping to avoid flames and
> rants... Why choose Linux? It's not the most
> stable, the most secure, the fastest, the most
> free, the easiest.
I like Linux would be the first answer that comes to mind. Linux is very stable, very secure, and quite fast, very free, and once you get to know it - very easy! Linux is all these things and more.
Linux is stable - OpenBSD may be more stable.
Linux is secure - NetBSD may be more secure.
Linux is fast - BeOS may be faster.
Linux is free - FreeBSD may be freer.
Linux is easy - OS-X may be easier.
Linux gives me all these benefits in one package AND the GPL'd codebase keeps getting richer.
I think I saw it written somewhere that Jupiter gives off more light than hits it's surface. I'll have to find that article...
Anyway, maybe that's why there isn't more life in the cosmos - because the explorers were concerned about inadvertantly contaminating potential biospheres.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein MP allows you to work as a team with other players to accomplish a goal. The team not only works together but they actually DEPEND on each other.
If the Lieuts don't give ammo and proper fire support, the team suffers.
If the Engineers don't arm or disarm explosive charges, many objectives can't be achieved.
If the Medics don't take care of the others, the team efficiency suffers dramatically.
If the soldiers aren't proficient with their weapons and deploy with interlocking fields of fire, the enemy gets through to kill the others.
Slashdot Mirror
GNOME is the GNU NETWORK OBJECT MODEL ENVIRONMENT and "GNOME is part of the GNU project".
.NET - the Next Big Microsoft Plan to Take Over the Internet?
What is GNU? The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. The GNU system is licensed with the GPL and the LGPL for libraries.
Who heads GNU and founded GNU? Richard M. Stallman.
Now, I'd say that gives Richard M. Stallman all the right in the world to inquire of Miguel Icaza where he intends to go with GNOME. So enough with the inane RMS remarks - if you don't want freedom then go be a slave.
I have said before that I wasn't confident in the meandering course that GNOME was taking. Where is GNOME's basic THEME... what is it's guiding light? One minute GNOME is the White Knight of Freedom and then the next GNOME is going commercial with the Ximian moniker and talking about being based on
I dunno, I was initially and still am in support of GNOME pending further developments. I hope they do The Right Thing(tm).
I mean, it's the longest lasting permanant deepfreeze that comes to my mind.
There are solid rock mountains there that could have caves dug in them and biomass placed there for some future time when more compassionate humanlike people live on earth.
I don't know about you but I don't know if I'd want to live in a world without animals and plants and nature.
The linux-2.4.17 kernel rocks the world. I have had not a single problem since compiling and installing it AND I've also had more things begin working.
Before 2.4.17, I couldn't get sound to work with Return to Castle Wolfenstein... trying to run the game with sound would just put the machine into a probable race state... I'd try to run a program and it would just hang... switch to another virt term login run top and hang...
I'd have to restart the machine because I couldn't even kill the processes. But with 2.4.17, NO MORE PROBLEMS.
Me is a happy camper.
> Some of you may disagree with me, but Sun has
> contriubuted a lot to the OpenSource community.
I don't disagree with you.
> Now, ironically, Linux is eating into Sun's
> market share, to the delight of OpenSource
> zealots, who decry Sun simply for being a
> for-profit corporation. I get the sense that
> many OpenSourcers are rooting against Sun, and I
> believe that's an entirely counter-productive
> position to take.
To say that Linux is eating into Sun's marketshare is to say that Sun is primarily a software company. It is my understanding that Sun is a Hardware company that provides certain software that is optimized for their hardware.
So, if Sun drops Solaris and adopts Linux, how can that be a loss? They can, after all, begin putting more of their development efforts into making Linux a more native OS for Sparc CPUs.
> Microsoft is the enemy of OpenSource,
Once again, I have to agree. OpenSource is the anathema of Microsoft's way of thinking.
> OpenSource and Linux will lose a great deal if
> Sun goes out of business, and not vice-versa.
Yep. No doubt about it. I figure that the days of UNIX differentiation are close to an end... the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. A beginning of a new time of easy interoperation which will benefit everyone - after all, Sun, IBM, HP, Compaq/Digital, SGI and all the rest can still make the High-End cutting edge hardware and software applications/middleware optimized for their hardware platform.
Maybe Sun can put even more effort into Java to make it faster - maybe even revisiting the hardware implementation angle. What about a drop-in Java Virtual Machine in hardware implemented on a PCI card or something?
> I guess I thought the point of your original post
> was that MS had a monopoly, they were adding
> things to the OS, and that was bad because other
> people could not compete. Correct?
> If so, then what you suggest above does not help
> that situation at all. If they integrated IIS into
> the kernel, wouldn't that make things worse for
> other companies trying to sell a web server?
Yep, but we can't keep Microsoft from moving things into kernelspace - at least I don't know of a way and I'd probably oppose such prohibition. Which means we may need a better definition of Operating System and Applications than whether or not one or the other runs in kernelspace.
It's a fine line I agree and very hard to define. The main thing is to have the interfaces between components documented so that drop-in replacements would be possible.
The more I think about it the more I begin to believe that Windows is not an OS per se but an Application Framework integrated into an OS.
> My original point (which I did not express very
> well) was that maybe an OS should be defined as
> a set of underlying services upon which other
> companies could compete against.
The definition of the OS is EXACTLY what I was attempting to accomplish.
I see that as an application developer, you wish to have certain canned functionality available to you. I believe you should have your choice of canned functionality. You may wish to drop-in Gekko rather than IE html renderer.
> For example, Windows could include all the DLLS
> nessasery to render Word files (not just the
> subset that word provides); maybe a decent
> quality RDBMS like MSDE (cut down sql server); a
> HTML rendering engine (not a browser); a SMTP
> server; a IIS type server.
> MS would then be required to document all of
> these underlying services; A company could then
> create a full blown web browser using the
> inbuilt Windows HTML rendering engine.
> Another company could create a accounting
> packing that uses the RDBMS for storage (insted
> of JET)
> As part of my job I need to create some VB
> apps/utilities. When I need to render HTML, all
> I do is drop the Microsoft HTML rendering engine
> active X control into my app, and all HTML
> rendering is taken care of for me! Therefor I
> can concentrate on making my app work, not
> rewriting HTML rendering compoents.
> What I am saying is that this concept should be
> taken one step further; Allowing a finance
> package developer to use the inbuild RDBMS not
> having to worry about ADO or JET versions,
> but just knowing that a RDBMS will be there and
> working.
> I think you will then very quickly see an entire
> industry based on taking the OS's engines and
> adding front ends to them. (How easy would it be
> to create tabbed browsing when the HTML
> rendering is included!)
I see you as wanting an Application Framework rather than an Operating System. An Application Framework could be made portable to other Operating Systems (and has) rather than tying it to a particular Operating System and or underlying hardware architecture.
I propose that we separate the underlying Operating System Kernel and kernelspace processes from the userspace applications and their frameworks.
If Microsoft wishes to take the whole or part of the Application Framework into kernelspace then let them - as long as the interfaces are documented so that drop-in replacements are possible for competitors to produce AND competitors are not prohibited from creating competing frameworks.
I said:
>> Microsoft is attempting to coopt the
>> Applications into the Operating System
You said:
> Based on what you said above, if MS designed
> Word or IIS to run in kernelspace, that would
> then be OK with you? Perhaps I am not
> understanding.
Microsoft's definition of the Operating System is likely different from mine. Maybe yours too.
If Microsoft wants to put Word or IIS into kernelspace then that is their prerogative; however, by my stipulation, they'd have to document the interfaces to those components so that interoperation with competitor's components would be possible. If Microsoft wanted to make Word or IIS integral to the kernel then that would be OK too as long as the interfaces were made public - interfaces might include any communication mechanism between processes and components.
> So, a small microkernel, with a huge proprietary
> closed set of fundamental OS functions is OK?
Yes, as long as the interfaces to the functions of the kernel are available and published 6 months prior to their use by the providor of the kernel. Such interface definitions would allow a drop-in replacement for the kernel by competitors and thus competition.
> By that definition a kernel could simply be
> 10 Execute next instruction
> 20 goto 10
I don't see the previous BASIC like code snippet as being a huge proprietary set of fundamental OS functions. I see it as merely an endless loop that could be simplified to this:
10 GOTO 10
Quite useless actually.
> Or what about VMware? With different OSs running
> in different VMware containers, can't those be
> preempted by the VMware software?
VMware is merely a Virtual Machine - which means that it is a MACHINE and therefore a platform for which an Operating System/Kernel is neccessary to gain functions therefrom.
As I understand it, the VMware software doesn't preempt anything; the kernel underlying VMware does. VMware merely provides the same or like raw harware components that a real machine does.
The whole purpose of my idea is to COMMODITIZE and COMPARTMENTALIZE the components of a complete system so that drop-in replacements for functionality can be achieved. To achieve commoditization and compartmentalization, you must first draw well defined lines between components and then the interfaces between those components must be published in a timely manner so that interoperation with competitor's components becomes possible. Unfortunately, such commoditization and compartmentalization is EXACTLY what Microsoft doesn't want.
> Define an OS as a kernel and set of related code
...and would I be forced to purchase these from
> that provides a set of base level services which
> application developers can leverage as they need.
Very vauge. What does "related" mean in the context of your statement? My whole idea was to attempt to precisely define each component and level of operation.
> For example; web serving; RDBMS; SMTP service;
> HTML rendering engine. (note; not nessaseraly a
> web browser; just a set of DLLS that provide
> standards based HTML rendering; a third party
> application that leverage this rendering engine
> to make a complete browser; like Quatz is for
> Mac OSx)
I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say here.
> By your definition, to get the same features
> that I get out of my $300 copy of WIn2k Server,
> I would have to purchase; A Kernel (os); a
> window manager; a dhcp server; a wins server; a
> web server; a mac server; a file sharing server;
> a print server; a web browser... and the list
> goes on!
But, you ARE purchasing all that in one big interconnected and tied together glob in Microsoft Windows. It's ties so tightly that it's almost impossible for a competitor to offer any components.
It seems to me that Windows is a Swiss Army Knife of components. It has a knife - not the best, it has a can opener - not the best, it has a corkscrew - not the best, it likely has a saw component - once again, not the best. Now how about if you could remove the knife component and replace it with a compatible BETTER knife component? The specifications for size and connectivity of this knife component would need to be published. Maybe you don't WANT a corkscrew - with this hypothetical Swiss Army Knife, you get the corkscrew whether you want it or not AND it's cost is integrated into the cost of the amalgamated product.
Do you like paying for tools you never use?
>
> seperate companies? How does this affect
> distributions liek RedHat?
You think you are not being FORCED to purchase these items from Microsoft? If so, you are lying to yourself.
Anyway, RedHat doesn't charge money for non-proprietary software, they charge for making the CD, the manuals, marketing and for the provision of services such as support and technical assistance.
> So, you are saying we should make a firm
> definition of an OS, and LIMIT what it can do. How
> is that supposed to increase innovation?
I don't recall my suggestions LIMITING what a Kernel/OS/Non-Preemptable entity could do. If a webserver were to be designed as a pseudo-client/module/driver and it ran in kernelspace then it would be considered part of the running kernel. The interfaces between the pseudo-client/module/driver and the Kernel/OS and any other kernelspace or userspace code would need to be documented. How is that limiting what an OS can do?
> So let me get this straight. Just
> because putting a database as the filesystem
> backend will give them an advantage over some of
> their competitors, us desktop Windows users should
> be denied the benefits it would afford us?
What benefits? Most Windows users don't even know what a filesystem is much less a relational filesystem. Users just want to run their stuff.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC market in Operating Systems. They are using their power in one market to vie for another market. There are companies out there that would like to compete - they have families to feed, they have dreams and goals too. Shall we deny them the chance to make it by allowing a monopolist to run unchecked?
Are you a monopolist?
Microsoft is attempting to coopt the Applications into the Operating System i.e. tie their applications to the Windows OS so that competition is stiffled. We need firm definitions of what an Operating System and Application IS so that competition can occur and therby stimulate real innovation.
Here is what I think would be a good start on an idea that would provide for both competition and innovation for consumers of Operating Systems:
Define an Operating System as a kernel i.e. that single piece of code that has ultimate programmatic control over the machine and is not preemptable by any other piece of code. The running level of the kernel is to be deemed kernelspace.
Define an Application as a client of the kernel and as receiving services provided by the kernel and that operating environment that is preemptable by the kernel and doesn't run in kernelspace is to be deemed userspace. Require interfaces between clients of the kernel and between clients and the kernel to be documented and published 6 months prior to the Operating System Producers version of same interfaces and any derivatives therof.
Define a module or driver as a pseudo-client of the kernel OS and it's interfaces shall be documented in the same spirit as any code that runs in a particular space. When the pseudo-client/driver/module is present in the kernel i.e. loaded and running in kernelspace, it is to be considered as part of the running kernel and subject to it's benefits and responsibilities. When the pseudo-client/driver/module is running in userspace it is to be considered an application and subject to it's benefits and responsibilities.
Whatever a competitor wants to do inside the black box of the kernel/OS, Application/client or pseudo-client/driver/module can be deemed proprietary insofar as the black-box doesn't try to communicate such proprietary data, information or interfaces between components, interfaces or running levels i.e. kernelspace and userspace.
IANAL and I'm sure others may have better or more concise definitions but.... the definitions should be made and separation of the various pieces should be enforced as well as the publicly available documentation of their interfaces in a timely and competitive manner.
Sorry... forgot to turn RANT on.
I said:
>>Wholely laudable! However, not very practical in
>>a dog eat dog corporate environment today.
You said:
>BSD is very practical in a corporate environment.
>It is the GPL that is not.
I see where you are going with this one... you are the dog that wishes to be eaten; I am the dog that does not.
Comparing the BSD and GPL licenses is folly. They are two differing ideas... let's leave it at that.
then I am truely saddened. I liked Loki and the fun games they ported. Even though the games started out as Windows games, they were ports and as such I consider them to be Linux games.
This damned downturned economy has everybody tightening their belts. But, I've purchased some of their ports and I intend to purchase more if I can.
> I'll try to finish it up tonight,
> mainly by filling in or removing the
> sections containing 'TBD'.
If you are indeed Dan Kegel... Thank you.
> The sole right the BSD license enforces is the
> attribution, which is the same reason many
> people before have worked without any other
> benefit for themselves.
Wholely laudable! However, not very practical in a dog eat dog corporate environment today. If you wish to give your code away with nothing more in return than a blurb of recognition then you are free to do it. I merely stated that *I* cannot agree with it - I speak for no one else but myself in this regard.
> In particular, Section III, paragraph J. item 1,
> allows Microsoft to restrict access to
> compatibility information that "would compromise
> the security" of certain information.
EXACTLY! Let's look at this shall we?
What has Microsoft so recently decided to designate as the #1 priority? Security. Now, if they put their MS Security(tm) technology into all the relevant API's of their software then... wouldn't you think that all those relevant API's would be excluded from release and exposure to scrutiny?
> Of greater concern is section 2(c) in the
> following section, precluding those who do not
> "meet(s) reasonable, objective standards
> established by Microsoft for certifying the
> authenticity and viability of its business".
BINGO AGAIN! Microsoft decides what software businesses are viable? This PFJ sounds more like a Microsoft Bill of Rights than a judgment against them.
It has also been pointed out that the PFJ excludes Operating Systems other than Microsoft's from benefitting from the majority of the provisions of the settlement. The mis-definitions of Operating System, Middleware and API in the PFJ are especially interesting.
I like Mr. Kegel's one breath summary of the PFJ:
Microsoft agrees to compete somewhat less vigorously, and to let competitors interoperate with Windows in exchange for royalty payments.
I will put my support behind Mr. Kegel's essay when it is finished.
Is there a finished version of this document?
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
I like the work done by Mr. Kegel and wish to contribute my affirmation of his analysis... I just need a completed document to agree to.
before the gov't throws the whole case.
AOL bought Netscape, they're going for their piece of Microsoft. I'm sure there are other companies that will follow suit (pun intended).
Let the frenzy begin!
Once again, I must say that I can't agree with the total freeness of FreeBSD.
FreeBSD's license is Throwing your money to the winds.
Linux's license is: Here is a loan. I want intrest on that.
Furthermore, I had no intention of opening a BSD vs. GPL license thread. I merely tried to give BSD it's just acknowledgment as an excellent UNIX OS group.
Problem with BSD folks.. (God bless em)... they want to give everything away and not get any return... either pay or code.
It is this philosophy I cannot agree with.
> So I ask politely, hoping to avoid flames and
> rants... Why choose Linux? It's not the most
> stable, the most secure, the fastest, the most
> free, the easiest.
I like Linux would be the first answer that comes to mind. Linux is very stable, very secure, and quite fast, very free, and once you get to know it - very easy! Linux is all these things and more.
Linux is stable - OpenBSD may be more stable.
Linux is secure - NetBSD may be more secure.
Linux is fast - BeOS may be faster.
Linux is free - FreeBSD may be freer.
Linux is easy - OS-X may be easier.
Linux gives me all these benefits in one package AND the GPL'd codebase keeps getting richer.
I think a patent is an intangible asset that can be sold.
Owning the patents gives you control. Having a license just allows you the right to use the patented technology.
Big difference.
I think I saw it written somewhere that Jupiter gives off more light than hits it's surface. I'll have to find that article...
Anyway, maybe that's why there isn't more life in the cosmos - because the explorers were concerned about inadvertantly contaminating potential biospheres.
Joh Postel was the man. Why not vote for another pontificate?
Return to Castle Wolfenstein MP allows you to work as a team with other players to accomplish a goal. The team not only works together but they actually DEPEND on each other.
If the Lieuts don't give ammo and proper fire support, the team suffers.
If the Engineers don't arm or disarm explosive charges, many objectives can't be achieved.
If the Medics don't take care of the others, the team efficiency suffers dramatically.
If the soldiers aren't proficient with their weapons and deploy with interlocking fields of fire, the enemy gets through to kill the others.
RTCW is a great game.