Obvious troll, but I'll bite. The 32-bit Sempron is nothing more or less than the continuation of the old 32-bit Athlon XP CPU line, and Semprons carrying the same numerical designation as their old Athlon XP counterparts have exactly the same specs. Why they changed the name I'm not exactly sure, but it's still the exact same CPU. Celerons on the other hand are just Pentiums without most of the L2 cache, which makes them heavily crippled since the P4 with its long pipeline depends very much on their on-die cache.
Not exactly true. Some 32-bit Semprons were cut down Athlon64s, with 64-bit extensions disabled. Then there are 64-bit Semprons that are cut down Athlon64s (less cache) but without 64-bit castration.
Even before this happened, SuSE had already announced a move away from it. Reiser will remain a fringe filesystem, along with JFS and XFS
Suse moved away from ReiserFS. The GP was talking about Reiser4. With that said I would hardly call ReiserFS a fringe filesystem considering it was Suse's default filesystem for years and most Gentoo users also use ReiserFS.
Reality is: tech-monkey skills are cheap and easy to acquire, as witnessed by a hundred million perfectly-qualified folks in China, Korea, India etc. IT skills in the US are vastly overpriced, if anything or otherwise the free market wouldn't be moving the demand for these skills away from the US.
You are missing a major part of the equation...standard of living. US tech workers are not overpriced, to use your word. Standand of living and currency value in this country are way above the countries which we outsource to. Eventually what will happen and has happened in the past is that all this outsourcing will have a positive effect on the country that we source for labor until the standards of living, currency value, and other economic measurements raise to the point that it is no longer viable to outsource to that country. Then we move on to the next country. Outsourcing is purely about profit, nothing else and if hospitals could outsource doctors they would.
Plus, getting published increases your equity in yourself and your pay can increase because of them (become noted in your field and you can have your pick of better jobs and more pay).
It works the same way with open source. The best open source programmers end up working for large companies like Google, Redhat, and Novell.
Most, if not all, of the research (and the money that the scientist makes) in an academic facility is funded by contracts with commercial companies.
The OSDL funds Linux kernel development and is comprised of several large commercial companies. This is very similar to payment for research and development.
Then... if you do good enough research and find something interesting, you sometimes have the option to be hired by the company that funded you or you can spin-off from the facility and start your own company doing things similar to what you did for the research (which is what I did).
If you're lucky this can happen in the OSS world too.
Giving away software for free is a choice. Taking away that choice would be worse in any situation, especially when governemnt does it. Governement should be open and auditable and open source is really the only way you can do that effectively with software.
If good programmers want to get paid they will whether or not they write open code or proprietary code. There are already several large open source companies that have hundrends of open source programmers working for them. We still need programmers in the open source world and if their services require payment then someone will pay them. The cat's already out of the bag; open source has already been shown to be viable and it is here to stay. I guess I just don't understand how some governments determine that open source isn't viable when cleary that line of thinking has been outdated for years now.
With Windows, I pop in the CD from the NIC's (or PC's) box; click OK a couple of times; and, I'm done. The whole process takes a perhaps 2-3 minutes and very little effort beyond noticing the "INSERT THIS CD" in 144 point type.
Oh the horror. On Linux you pop in the Windows driver cd and run a utility that extracts the firmware for you. Damn that's difficult.
Finding another PC with a working network connection, downloading fwcutter, printing the how-to, burning the drivers and fwcutter to CD (after finding a blank CD in the closet), going back to the Linux box, following the how-to...
It seems utterly silly to me that anyone would propose this a comparable to Windows.
You're exaggerating the process. There is no need to burn the driver to a cd or print a manual or even download fwcutter if it comes with your distribution.
my friend, who wrote code for the original digital telecom switches in Fortran on punch cards, is hesitant to install Ubuntu because he is comfortable with Windows, MS Office, etc. and is focusing his energy on remodeling his house, not learning a new OS and apps. If he is not willing to give it a go; what "normal user" is?
Like I said, we're almost to the breaking point. People are fed up with Windows. No one enjoys using it. They just have to. I see so many people who would be willing to buy a Mac but don't because of the lack of software, or even just a lack of specific software. Soon Linux will be sporting 1st class applications that will bring users over in droves. Personally I'm already happy with the state of Linux applications but the trick is to make those applications 1st class amongst average users. I think we'll get to that point soon. I have been using Linux exclusively for long time now and following its development for even longer. I have witnessed the maturation of the desktop. Now major corporate backers are pulling all of the pieces together and polishing the end result. Remember that it wasn't until Novell came along that a major software company actually tried to market Linux on the desktop. They've come a long way in a short time, and with other project being worked on simultaneously outside of Novell, the pace has really picked up.
And, why do some feel compelled to suggest that because a task is possible in the FOSS world, that it is automatically comparable to the M$ world. Sorry for the rant; I'm up too late.
Microsoft has its own share of problems. Drivers that don't install. Drivers that have to be force installed (what average user does that?). Drivers that don't work with the current version of windows (damn scanners!). Drivers that can't be found anywhere (isn't it nice when they all come in the kernel). Don't even let me get started on anything else like the totally-devoid-of-information blue screens, black screens, and white screens or the single, and very fragile, point of failure the registry.
Inconsistent applications? Oh PLEASE. Linux is the HOME of the my-way-is-better let's-skin-everything interface-who-needs-an-interface application.
Are you sure you aren't talking about Windows? Windows applications have different themes for every other application out there. With GNOME you have GTK, with KDE you have QT. Choose one theme for all of your applications. That's consistency. Sure there are some oddball FLTK or Motif applications out there but they are fewer and more far between applications on windows. Just look at the Office theme compared to Luna, compared to Media Player, compared to the command prompt. They're all different and they're all made by Microsoft. All Gnome apps are consistent and even have an HIG. All KDE apps are at least more consistent than Windows.
Cluttered? How about the typical desktop I see with a dozen terminal windows all open all at the same time?
What? You don't need a ton of terminal windows in Linux to do anything. I'm talking about application clutter anyway but while you're on the topic at least X has real virtual desktops.
Consistent? Heck, you guys can't even decide on a single desktop.
Microsoft can't even decide on a single theming standard amongst their own apps.
Being free is not good enough as for most users as for them Windows is essentially free being that it comes on their computers. And don't start in on me about how linux is ready for the desktop. I tried to switch an still desperately want to. But I can't get SUSE nor Ubuntu to recognize my Linksys wireless card that windows picks up and installs automatically, Without the need to spend four days fighting with ndiswrappers.
Free is a very motivating factor. Applications for Linux are maturing at a rapid pace. People will switch when they realize they can do everything they want without paying a dime for additional software. They'll also get a kick out of having a simple, clean interface that isn't cluttered with applets, ads, and inconsistent applications. They'll come in droves when the average user has mature and full featured applications that fulfill their needs. This isn't far off. In my opinion OpenOffice, Inkscape, and the GIMP don't have far to go to become 1st class citizens in their respective software categories. Firefox and Evolution already are 1st class citizens. As for your Linksys wireless card, they have broadcom chipsets which are supported for the most part. You'll need the firmware for the card though. Here's a doc for how to install it on Ubuntu. Whatever distribution you use you'll need to use the fwcutter utility and the firmware to get a broadcom card working.
Die size doesn't matter a whole lot to the end user of the product unless we're talking laptops. Then it matters. But when we're talking desktops or servers (as is mostly the case with dual core 64-bit chips today -- few laptops are using 64-bit chips), then the end-user doesn't care so long as the case it's sitting in can keep it cool.
Not true. Most laptops are 64 bit now. All of AMD's present offerings are 64 bit. All of Intel's are too except for a few old Pentium M machines that are still selling in the low end. Most laptop chips are dual core today too.
That's no excuse for the author's total lack of knowledge about the subject he wrote an article about.
The free Linux operating system set off one of the biggest revolutions in the history of computing when it leapt from the fingertips of a Finnish college kid named Linus Torvalds 15 years ago
It's not surprising that the author doesn't even give RMS a shred of credit for the "Linux" operating system, considering the hit job he does on RMS for the rest of the article. RMS was creating the GNU operating system long before Linus.
(GNU, coined in his first manifesto, is pronounced "Ga-NEW" and stands for "Gnu's Not Unix"; the central Linux license is known as the GNU license.)
A cursory review of the FSF website will reveal that the "central Linux license" (whatever the hell that means) is the General Public License. Does the author really not know what GPL stands for?
Stallman and his allies hacked away for nearly a decade but couldn't get GNU to work. In 1991 Torvalds, then an unknown college kid in Finland, produced in six months what Stallman's team had failed to build in years--a working "kernel" for an operating system. Torvalds posted this tiny 230-kilobyte file containing 10,000 lines of code to a public server, dubbing it "Linux" and inviting anyone to use it.
What an amazing revision of history. No mention at all of Stallman's years of effort working on other parts of the operating system. It's as if Stallman did nothing and Linus himself created the entire operating system overnight.
In recent years Stallman and the FSF have been cracking down on big Linux users, enforcing terms of the existing license (GPLv2, for version 2) and demanding that the big tech outfits crack open their proprietary code whenever they inserted lines from Linux. Cisco and TiVo have been targets; Cisco caved in to Stallman's demands rather than endure months of abuse from his noisy worldwide cult of online jihadists.
I don't suppose Forbes contains any articles that call Microsoft, IBM, or even SCO jihadists for protecting their IP. The author acts like we don't have the right to defend free software licenses. If a big company or organization like the RIAA can enforce their copyright on every and anyone, to their sole benefit, I don't see the problem with GPL licensors enforcing their license to the benefit of all users.
Now the Stallman stalwarts are pushing a new version of the Linux license--GPLv3, with its tougher restrictions and a ban on anything that would protect or enforce copyright and other digital rights.
How in the world can anyone possibley come to the conclusion that the GPLv3 attempts to ban copyright protection? The GPL is built around copyright.
Ok. I've had enough. It's clear that the author doesn't have a clue about the subject he is writing about. Move along. Nothing to see here.
This article is garbage. No one is forced to use the GPLv3. If people don't like it they won't use it. If they want to use it then they can't contribute code to the kernel unless they are willing to use the GPLv2 but that's about it. I really don't see this being a big issue. It looks like the FSF is trying to get agreement from a majority on the exact details of the GPLv3. If there isn't a huge consensus it could very well die amounting to absolutely no change from the way things are now.
The article is more of an attack on Stallman himself than the GPLv3. Take the following exceprt:
But then, Richard Stallman rarely is pragmatic--and in some ways he is downright bizarre. He is corpulent and slovenly, with long, scraggly hair, strands of which he has been known to pluck out and toss into a bowl of soup he is eating. His own Web site (www.stallman.org) says Stallman engages in what he calls "rhinophytophilia"--"nasal sex" (also his term) with flowers; he brags of offending a bunch of techies from Texas Instruments by plunging his schnoz into a bouquet at dinner and inviting them to do the same.
Exactly what does this have to do with the GPL or Linux in general?
I hope you're not inferring that exit polls had anything to do with the mistaken "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline. That screwup had more to do with printing deadlines than anything else.
Re:Try a different approach.
on
Oracle Linux?
·
· Score: 1
Not really. Vertical market companies are alive and well.
Just about every restaurant, self storage company, florist, doctors office, and goodness knows what else uses vertical software. And guess what? Odds are pretty good they bought the computer, cash drawer and what ever from the same place.
If technology isn't your business it makes a lot of sense to just buy a package and support so you can go about your job.
Just like buying a Tivo is a better solution for a lot of people that building a MythTV box.
I took me a long time to learn this but for most people a computer is just a thing they have to use to do their job.
While this is true now it is changing. A lot of small business especially are using off the shelf PCs for POS terminals, accounting and CRM. Even a lot or large corporations went from using custom terminals to PCs with WinNT/2000/XP loaded with software from ISVs.
Apparently (according to another poster) it is. So who enables misc binaries in a kernel build and why would they do this? The only people I can think off are mono users but they're fools anyway.
I use mono and I don't have misc binary support enabled. It is not necessary. What's the big deal with mono anyway. Oh no it came from Microsoft!!! So what. Just use F-Spot, Banshee, Beagle, or any of the other very well put together mono apps and you might change your mind. It changed my mind. There is really nothing to fear using mono unless you are using Windows.Forms, which is completely unecessary for Linux native applications.
Yes. But, _after_ he lied under oath. Paula Jones had the right to bring her suit. The President doesn't get to lie under oath just because its a sexual harrasmant case. He was impeached for that, remember?
He was impeached for lying in the Lewinsky case, not about Paula Jones.
Hind sight tells us they were wrong. But, that doesn't mean they lied. I remember the runup to the war. Saddam was acting as if he had WMDs. He was denying access to WMD inspectors, etc. A reasonable person could look at the intelligence, and conclude that he had WMDs. He was playing a dangerous game - and bluffing. The US will go to war to call that bluff in the post 9/11 world.
This has nothing to do with hindsight. The intelligence estimates clearly stated that we didn't know. Saddam wasn't denying UN inspectors. In fact the UN had to pull out because of the impending Iraq war.
Actually, intelligence reports get released to the other party all the time. This is called the Select Intelligence Committee which is made up of a subset of the Intelligence Committee. They get cc'd on much of the same information regardless of who is in power. I think this is a good idea and IIRC has been around since the Church Commission (early 70's).
That's all well and good but you're arguing a point that I didn't make. I said that the White House doesn't share memos. They most certainly share intelligence reports. If they didn't we would be even one step closer to a totalitarian regime.
It wasn't a lie about a blow job. It was one part of a broad effort to deny justice to Paula Jones in her sexual harrasment lawsuit against Bill Clinton.
You do realize that the court dismissed the Paula Jones lawsuit against Clinton on the grounds that no damages could be shown.
And, it wasn't a lie about a war. Although, it certainly was an overly paranoid reading of the facts, and based on facts-at-the-time that turned out not to be true. There is no evidence that the adminstration was deliberately misleading. The intelligence community is bipartisan. The left had access to the same information at the time. Practically all the Washington politicians were on board when the Iraq war started.
It most certainly was a lie. White house memos don't get released to Democrats when Republicans are in power. Those memos show a lot more than just the intelligence estimates, which, by the way were cherry picked by the administration. It is their job to interpret the threats posed by the intelligence agencies and they interpreted it to their benefit, not in an honest way.
You can have mixed tabs. You can even set certain cites to always open in an IE tab. My girlfriend has to log into a web based CRM at home and it doesn't quite work right with Firefox. She uses IE tab and sets that one site to open only in IE and it works like a charm.
I hope you're joking considering how old and outdated your reference is. I have a copy of the UNIX haters handbook and it's funny how most of the issues outlined in it have long since been fixed and a lot of the other ones are a joke.
we should ditch X-windows altogether. there's really no demanding need, at least in the linux world, for X-windows. sure, one could argue that it's a must in thin-client setups, but the overwhelming majority of linux boxes are not thin clients.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. X is being overhauled as we speak (modularization, GLX implementations, etc), but one thing that is staying is the client/server architecture of X. There is nothing wrong with the way it works on a local computer, and it has the added benefit of being able to work across a network. A myth in the FOSS world is that the client/server architecture of X is one of the biggest problems with Unix.
whereas most end users have a rudimentary knowledge of Windows and can fix small things when they break.
I really wonder where people get this impression. Most people can't even change their resolution in Windows, although that seems to be something people bitch about with Linux. Most people don't even realize they are missing drivers when (if) they take the plunge and decide to reinstall windows because "it is slow". A lot of users cannot even install applications in Windows, even if it is the "next, next, finish" type.
What they should focus on is compability. Linux is NOT as compatible as many may think, not even in the x86 arena. Sure most things can run, but not without first going through heaps of config files homepages and forums. I dont think i have ever had an problem-free installation of Linux. And I am not a bad computer use. Sure the "installation part" goes fine and runs. The problems often arrive later at the configuration of the system, or when the system is altered in some way.
I have to utteryly disagree. Linux supports a wide array of hardware, and although it doesn't support every piece of hardware that Windows supports, the opposite is also true. As far as system configuration is concerned it can go either way. GNU/Linux is packaged in a myriad of different ways. As a Gentoo user I expect to set up my system myself. Suse on the otherhand provides a very good default install, as does Ubuntu and Fedora. Windows is a pain to have to setup. First you have to install the OS, and then you have to search for drivers and install them, then you have to install the applications you want, and then you have to search for and install all of your codecs. Most linux distros allow you to choose all of those things and then install them all at once. Even Gentoo is easier in that respect.
I'm still looking forward to a day when I can tell my parents it's finally reasonable to make the switch to Linux. Now, however, I have to point them to pages and pages of instructions on how to download ndis wrapper and recompile the kernel just to be able to use their wireless card
That day is nigh...errr passed I mean. You don't have to recompile your kernel to get drivers working with Linux. This myth just won't quit.
or tell them to purchase a new wireless card that is compatible. It's simply not a reasonable option for those that are not geeks themselves or have ready access to geeks.
Mac users are the furthest things from geeks and they don't seem to have a problem getting hardware that is compatible with their operating system. After all Linux supports much more hardware than OSX does.
Slashdot Mirror
No it still isn't correct. There are at least three different Semprons.
I beleive there is now an AM2 Sempron also but I haven't read about the specs yet.
Not exactly true. Some 32-bit Semprons were cut down Athlon64s, with 64-bit extensions disabled. Then there are 64-bit Semprons that are cut down Athlon64s (less cache) but without 64-bit castration.
Even before this happened, SuSE had already announced a move away from it. Reiser will remain a fringe filesystem, along with JFS and XFS
Suse moved away from ReiserFS. The GP was talking about Reiser4. With that said I would hardly call ReiserFS a fringe filesystem considering it was Suse's default filesystem for years and most Gentoo users also use ReiserFS.
Are you joking? Nvidia makes very good Linux drivers. They are on par with the Windows drivers and have been for years.
You are missing a major part of the equation...standard of living. US tech workers are not overpriced, to use your word. Standand of living and currency value in this country are way above the countries which we outsource to. Eventually what will happen and has happened in the past is that all this outsourcing will have a positive effect on the country that we source for labor until the standards of living, currency value, and other economic measurements raise to the point that it is no longer viable to outsource to that country. Then we move on to the next country. Outsourcing is purely about profit, nothing else and if hospitals could outsource doctors they would.
Plus, getting published increases your equity in yourself and your pay can increase because of them (become noted in your field and you can have your pick of better jobs and more pay).
It works the same way with open source. The best open source programmers end up working for large companies like Google, Redhat, and Novell.
Most, if not all, of the research (and the money that the scientist makes) in an academic facility is funded by contracts with commercial companies.
The OSDL funds Linux kernel development and is comprised of several large commercial companies. This is very similar to payment for research and development.
Then... if you do good enough research and find something interesting, you sometimes have the option to be hired by the company that funded you or you can spin-off from the facility and start your own company doing things similar to what you did for the research (which is what I did).
If you're lucky this can happen in the OSS world too.
Giving away software for free is a choice. Taking away that choice would be worse in any situation, especially when governemnt does it. Governement should be open and auditable and open source is really the only way you can do that effectively with software.
If good programmers want to get paid they will whether or not they write open code or proprietary code. There are already several large open source companies that have hundrends of open source programmers working for them. We still need programmers in the open source world and if their services require payment then someone will pay them. The cat's already out of the bag; open source has already been shown to be viable and it is here to stay. I guess I just don't understand how some governments determine that open source isn't viable when cleary that line of thinking has been outdated for years now.
With Windows, I pop in the CD from the NIC's (or PC's) box; click OK a couple of times; and, I'm done. The whole process takes a perhaps 2-3 minutes and very little effort beyond noticing the "INSERT THIS CD" in 144 point type.
Oh the horror. On Linux you pop in the Windows driver cd and run a utility that extracts the firmware for you. Damn that's difficult.
Finding another PC with a working network connection, downloading fwcutter, printing the how-to, burning the drivers and fwcutter to CD (after finding a blank CD in the closet), going back to the Linux box, following the how-to... It seems utterly silly to me that anyone would propose this a comparable to Windows.
You're exaggerating the process. There is no need to burn the driver to a cd or print a manual or even download fwcutter if it comes with your distribution.
my friend, who wrote code for the original digital telecom switches in Fortran on punch cards, is hesitant to install Ubuntu because he is comfortable with Windows, MS Office, etc. and is focusing his energy on remodeling his house, not learning a new OS and apps. If he is not willing to give it a go; what "normal user" is?
Like I said, we're almost to the breaking point. People are fed up with Windows. No one enjoys using it. They just have to. I see so many people who would be willing to buy a Mac but don't because of the lack of software, or even just a lack of specific software. Soon Linux will be sporting 1st class applications that will bring users over in droves. Personally I'm already happy with the state of Linux applications but the trick is to make those applications 1st class amongst average users. I think we'll get to that point soon. I have been using Linux exclusively for long time now and following its development for even longer. I have witnessed the maturation of the desktop. Now major corporate backers are pulling all of the pieces together and polishing the end result. Remember that it wasn't until Novell came along that a major software company actually tried to market Linux on the desktop. They've come a long way in a short time, and with other project being worked on simultaneously outside of Novell, the pace has really picked up.
And, why do some feel compelled to suggest that because a task is possible in the FOSS world, that it is automatically comparable to the M$ world. Sorry for the rant; I'm up too late.
Microsoft has its own share of problems. Drivers that don't install. Drivers that have to be force installed (what average user does that?). Drivers that don't work with the current version of windows (damn scanners!). Drivers that can't be found anywhere (isn't it nice when they all come in the kernel). Don't even let me get started on anything else like the totally-devoid-of-information blue screens, black screens, and white screens or the single, and very fragile, point of failure the registry.
Inconsistent applications? Oh PLEASE. Linux is the HOME of the my-way-is-better let's-skin-everything interface-who-needs-an-interface application.
Are you sure you aren't talking about Windows? Windows applications have different themes for every other application out there. With GNOME you have GTK, with KDE you have QT. Choose one theme for all of your applications. That's consistency. Sure there are some oddball FLTK or Motif applications out there but they are fewer and more far between applications on windows. Just look at the Office theme compared to Luna, compared to Media Player, compared to the command prompt. They're all different and they're all made by Microsoft. All Gnome apps are consistent and even have an HIG. All KDE apps are at least more consistent than Windows.
Cluttered? How about the typical desktop I see with a dozen terminal windows all open all at the same time?
What? You don't need a ton of terminal windows in Linux to do anything. I'm talking about application clutter anyway but while you're on the topic at least X has real virtual desktops.
Consistent? Heck, you guys can't even decide on a single desktop.
Microsoft can't even decide on a single theming standard amongst their own apps.
Free is a very motivating factor. Applications for Linux are maturing at a rapid pace. People will switch when they realize they can do everything they want without paying a dime for additional software. They'll also get a kick out of having a simple, clean interface that isn't cluttered with applets, ads, and inconsistent applications. They'll come in droves when the average user has mature and full featured applications that fulfill their needs. This isn't far off. In my opinion OpenOffice, Inkscape, and the GIMP don't have far to go to become 1st class citizens in their respective software categories. Firefox and Evolution already are 1st class citizens. As for your Linksys wireless card, they have broadcom chipsets which are supported for the most part. You'll need the firmware for the card though. Here's a doc for how to install it on Ubuntu. Whatever distribution you use you'll need to use the fwcutter utility and the firmware to get a broadcom card working.
Not true. Most laptops are 64 bit now. All of AMD's present offerings are 64 bit. All of Intel's are too except for a few old Pentium M machines that are still selling in the low end. Most laptop chips are dual core today too.
That's no excuse for the author's total lack of knowledge about the subject he wrote an article about.
It's not surprising that the author doesn't even give RMS a shred of credit for the "Linux" operating system, considering the hit job he does on RMS for the rest of the article. RMS was creating the GNU operating system long before Linus.
A cursory review of the FSF website will reveal that the "central Linux license" (whatever the hell that means) is the General Public License. Does the author really not know what GPL stands for?
What an amazing revision of history. No mention at all of Stallman's years of effort working on other parts of the operating system. It's as if Stallman did nothing and Linus himself created the entire operating system overnight.
I don't suppose Forbes contains any articles that call Microsoft, IBM, or even SCO jihadists for protecting their IP. The author acts like we don't have the right to defend free software licenses. If a big company or organization like the RIAA can enforce their copyright on every and anyone, to their sole benefit, I don't see the problem with GPL licensors enforcing their license to the benefit of all users.
How in the world can anyone possibley come to the conclusion that the GPLv3 attempts to ban copyright protection? The GPL is built around copyright.
Ok. I've had enough. It's clear that the author doesn't have a clue about the subject he is writing about. Move along. Nothing to see here.
This article is garbage. No one is forced to use the GPLv3. If people don't like it they won't use it. If they want to use it then they can't contribute code to the kernel unless they are willing to use the GPLv2 but that's about it. I really don't see this being a big issue. It looks like the FSF is trying to get agreement from a majority on the exact details of the GPLv3. If there isn't a huge consensus it could very well die amounting to absolutely no change from the way things are now.
The article is more of an attack on Stallman himself than the GPLv3. Take the following exceprt:
Exactly what does this have to do with the GPL or Linux in general?
I hope you're not inferring that exit polls had anything to do with the mistaken "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline. That screwup had more to do with printing deadlines than anything else.
While this is true now it is changing. A lot of small business especially are using off the shelf PCs for POS terminals, accounting and CRM. Even a lot or large corporations went from using custom terminals to PCs with WinNT/2000/XP loaded with software from ISVs.
Apparently (according to another poster) it is. So who enables misc binaries in a kernel build and why would they do this? The only people I can think off are mono users but they're fools anyway.
I use mono and I don't have misc binary support enabled. It is not necessary. What's the big deal with mono anyway. Oh no it came from Microsoft!!! So what. Just use F-Spot, Banshee, Beagle, or any of the other very well put together mono apps and you might change your mind. It changed my mind. There is really nothing to fear using mono unless you are using Windows.Forms, which is completely unecessary for Linux native applications.
Yes. But, _after_ he lied under oath. Paula Jones had the right to bring her suit. The President doesn't get to lie under oath just because its a sexual harrasmant case. He was impeached for that, remember?
He was impeached for lying in the Lewinsky case, not about Paula Jones.
Hind sight tells us they were wrong. But, that doesn't mean they lied. I remember the runup to the war. Saddam was acting as if he had WMDs. He was denying access to WMD inspectors, etc. A reasonable person could look at the intelligence, and conclude that he had WMDs. He was playing a dangerous game - and bluffing. The US will go to war to call that bluff in the post 9/11 world.
This has nothing to do with hindsight. The intelligence estimates clearly stated that we didn't know. Saddam wasn't denying UN inspectors. In fact the UN had to pull out because of the impending Iraq war.
Actually, intelligence reports get released to the other party all the time. This is called the Select Intelligence Committee which is made up of a subset of the Intelligence Committee. They get cc'd on much of the same information regardless of who is in power. I think this is a good idea and IIRC has been around since the Church Commission (early 70's).
That's all well and good but you're arguing a point that I didn't make. I said that the White House doesn't share memos. They most certainly share intelligence reports. If they didn't we would be even one step closer to a totalitarian regime.
It wasn't a lie about a blow job. It was one part of a broad effort to deny justice to Paula Jones in her sexual harrasment lawsuit against Bill Clinton.
You do realize that the court dismissed the Paula Jones lawsuit against Clinton on the grounds that no damages could be shown.
And, it wasn't a lie about a war. Although, it certainly was an overly paranoid reading of the facts, and based on facts-at-the-time that turned out not to be true. There is no evidence that the adminstration was deliberately misleading. The intelligence community is bipartisan. The left had access to the same information at the time. Practically all the Washington politicians were on board when the Iraq war started.
It most certainly was a lie. White house memos don't get released to Democrats when Republicans are in power. Those memos show a lot more than just the intelligence estimates, which, by the way were cherry picked by the administration. It is their job to interpret the threats posed by the intelligence agencies and they interpreted it to their benefit, not in an honest way.
You can have mixed tabs. You can even set certain cites to always open in an IE tab. My girlfriend has to log into a web based CRM at home and it doesn't quite work right with Firefox. She uses IE tab and sets that one site to open only in IE and it works like a charm.
I hope you're joking considering how old and outdated your reference is. I have a copy of the UNIX haters handbook and it's funny how most of the issues outlined in it have long since been fixed and a lot of the other ones are a joke.
we should ditch X-windows altogether. there's really no demanding need, at least in the linux world, for X-windows. sure, one could argue that it's a must in thin-client setups, but the overwhelming majority of linux boxes are not thin clients.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. X is being overhauled as we speak (modularization, GLX implementations, etc), but one thing that is staying is the client/server architecture of X. There is nothing wrong with the way it works on a local computer, and it has the added benefit of being able to work across a network. A myth in the FOSS world is that the client/server architecture of X is one of the biggest problems with Unix.
whereas most end users have a rudimentary knowledge of Windows and can fix small things when they break.
I really wonder where people get this impression. Most people can't even change their resolution in Windows, although that seems to be something people bitch about with Linux. Most people don't even realize they are missing drivers when (if) they take the plunge and decide to reinstall windows because "it is slow". A lot of users cannot even install applications in Windows, even if it is the "next, next, finish" type.
I have to utteryly disagree. Linux supports a wide array of hardware, and although it doesn't support every piece of hardware that Windows supports, the opposite is also true. As far as system configuration is concerned it can go either way. GNU/Linux is packaged in a myriad of different ways. As a Gentoo user I expect to set up my system myself. Suse on the otherhand provides a very good default install, as does Ubuntu and Fedora. Windows is a pain to have to setup. First you have to install the OS, and then you have to search for drivers and install them, then you have to install the applications you want, and then you have to search for and install all of your codecs. Most linux distros allow you to choose all of those things and then install them all at once. Even Gentoo is easier in that respect.
I'm still looking forward to a day when I can tell my parents it's finally reasonable to make the switch to Linux. Now, however, I have to point them to pages and pages of instructions on how to download ndis wrapper and recompile the kernel just to be able to use their wireless card
That day is nigh...errr passed I mean. You don't have to recompile your kernel to get drivers working with Linux. This myth just won't quit.
or tell them to purchase a new wireless card that is compatible. It's simply not a reasonable option for those that are not geeks themselves or have ready access to geeks.
Mac users are the furthest things from geeks and they don't seem to have a problem getting hardware that is compatible with their operating system. After all Linux supports much more hardware than OSX does.