well, you might use gentoo with 2.6, and you may be lucky, but what prevents my friend here of updating is the fact that gentoo _has_ problems with it - check how many problems are reported on gentoo-forums about installing 2.6
I agree with assessment of parent: system upgrade was always hard under RH, gentoo-forums speak for themselves. Although I sympathise with gentoo (I use FreeBSD afterall, so i know how much fun a ports based system can be) its not as stable as some 'fans' would have it. Just last night, when my friend installed alsa on a newly built gentoo system, sound stopped working on certain cards. (The card in questin is a VIA VT82xx, but I don't know which one. Hardware probe during boot on my BSD box shows it as VT8235 while the sound module used is vt8233, while gentoo does the opposite: shows a 8233 chip at boottime, while alsa tries to use vt8235 driver).
Back to topic: I would tend to agree with those who recommend Slackware to try out the new kernel - you may try it out on gentoo, and you may be lucky, but saying that under gentoo using 2.6 is "unbelievably" easy and "painless" is simply misleading: some people might hose their system you know. I can understand your enthusiasm (and I got used to gentoo ads in every discussion), but on the long run, sincerity pays off. (In fact, what prompted me to write this is that I'm quite fed up with the hype, seeing how gentoo's emerge system errored out more times in a week than my fsbd ports in 3 months (last week: fluxbox, compilation error, mplayer: checksum mismach), and generally, getting sound to work - and we tried an sb128 as well- was a major pain in the butt even without the proken alsa port.
This is no place for bsd adds either (and I just love linux as much as I like BSD) - so I don't agree with parent bringing bsd into this discussion (gentoo warranted me to do so) - all I wanted to say is this: use a distro that had no problems with 2.6 (SLACKWARE, or ) - but don't say that gentoo didn't have problems: problems with 2.6 and gentoo are all over the place (gentooforums).
Hey I am not saying that SCO has a valid claim.
I understand that, I'm just curious how far the GPL can be taken. Anyhow, quick replacability as proof of insignificance is also a good point:)
" 24 hours after the data is released there will be a new Linux distribution with the fragments eliminated."
Code shouldn't be necessarily removed, for2 reasons:
1) It can turn out that whatever they show was coming from a common source (BSD) or was already public knowledge.
2) Even if it turns out, that the code in Linux derives from SCO's SystemV code, we shouldn't abandon the issues with the GPL. Of course, they would plead ignorance, but I believe it would be difficult to convince the judge given their one time slogan of 'bringing unix and linux closer' - or something like that. Not to mention their LKP and already known contributions to the linux kernel.
The difficult part of this decicion is that yes, you can clear out any code that SCO claims is infringing, but doing so, you acknowledge that there was merit to their claims, and you also acknowledge a weakness in the GPL. SCO used the work of thousands of developers when making money selling linux under the GPL. They should not get off that easily (oh, but we didn't know! what? didn't read the licence? didn't know what your employees were doing? didn't know what you were selling?)
hmmm..../ readers feeling touchy today? I don't see your post as flamebait either. In fact, there is an irony to being modded as flamebait - but it is hopeless that the one modding it will ever get it;)
Well, not quite. Solaris incorporated a large chunk of BSD in their codebase. So Solaris is a mix of SystemV and BSD code. (That's why so many solaris admins are also BSD fans).
Besides, many linux newbies begin their adventure into linux-land by tweaking the hell out of the UI - for they know that its one thing that it is not 'dangerous' to experiment with.
Seriously, it surprises me that no one mentions this, although I think this is not a negligible aspect - changing colors, widgets, icons, sounds, shortcuts, blah yields immediate and _visible_ results, and a sense of accomplishment (a very small sense, but it still feels like you did something, and it worked, and - gasp! - it was on linux!). I believe this is the reason why so many newbies prefer KDE: they can browse through kcontrol and try out things (and read a lot of excellent description) - and get somewhat confortable with the system.
The main reason for so many people not trying out (or not staying with) linux is simply fear: what if I break something? But playing around the UI won't break any serious things for them. Now try to play around with GNOME: in a few hours you would have tried out everything that is possible in its 'simplified' menus, config tools, options, and then... what? Switch to KDE of course;) - that's how it happened with this one time noob (and I spoke to other people who had the same experience).
So, are these options _really_ intimidating/confusing? That's bs. No noob who tentatively tries out 'the other' OS would go like: I want that up button out from the file-manager! The usual rant of Eugenia (it is getting rather old) displays a total incapability of understanding how a newbie might feel before an alien environment... hence she was never able to explain how, for all its 'terrible' flaws KDE managed to harness the largest user base, despite corporate support for the other DE.
portage port to freebsd? freebsd has a ports system:
portinstall mplayer
... and watch it download, compile and install mplayer with all the dependencies. I read about portage on genntoo's website when looking for help while my friend's puter was offline - its almost the same as FreeBSD's ports system. We have prebuilt packages as well, which work like debian's apt-get: "pkg_add -r kdebase" and watch it fly!:)) Also the portinstall/upgrade system and package management work hand in hand. What u installed from ports by either typing in "portinstall whatever" or cd-ing into the directory (/usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer for instance) and typing "make install clean" can be removed via the package management as well (pkg_deinstall -d mplayer will remove it). It is easier to configure it too (no freaking XFree86 dependency for 'emerge mc') - yet it is as powerful.:)
Look, I don't mean to start a flamefest, but GNOME on my system is only faster to start up - KDE is as responsive when it is started as GNOME... And I speak about KDE 3.1.4...
Given the fact that they promised optimalisation for 3.2 (when 3.1 was coming out, they said it would be a top priority only in 3.2), I can very well imagine 3.2 being faster than GNOME 2.4.x (don't know about 2.5). Oh, and there is no need to get that angry, after all its only a DE, not a religion (or am I wrong?)
System: AMD Duron 700, 256 SDRAM, TNT2 video.
Output of top while running KDE:
There is one constant in the universe: Eugenia "I'm an UI expert" Loli-Queru" beating the same old "too many features" drum.
Yes, she might be right on certain points (Cervisia in context menus by default?), but saying the KDE has no HIG and GNOME has one is just plain BS. Of course, we were witness to her flamefest fith mosfet over UI issues a while back... Anyhow, I just finished reading the comments when I saw the review posted on/. I was surprised to see how many people hated konqueror (well, all GNOME users of course) - IMHO konqi is the pinnacle of UI design and consistency. An application flamework, that comes as close to the power of CLI as gui-wise is possible. You can mold Konqueror into anything - and this seems to impress even OS X users: check out this review.
Anyhow, I don't expect osnews to change its bias towards (but I was surprised at the review, it was more level headed than usually it is) - and I'm not going to point out every flaw in the criticism (well, I shall point out only two: 1) its the same old argument on part of eugenia 2) check out the screenshots - and tell me: how many of the applications in the menus were KDE specific?... talking about clutter...) but I want to say this: Keep up the good work KDE developers! And listen to your users (as I know you do) not these so called UI "experts" who think GNOME (don't take me wrong, I like some aspects of GNOME) has the leading edge in usability, despite overwhelming odds (if it is more usable, why do more newbies stay with KDE???)
Ok, sorry. My roommate uses gentoo btw - portage seems to be fun, but compilation/dependency-checking is fully automated, so you don't have that much control over what goes into your system... Just like in *BSD. Of course, you can look into the source code, or check the makefiles, but that's true of most open-source systems.
If I wasn't using FreeBSD, I think I would try out gentoo myself:) (I'm going to install a linux, probably slack, cause I don't want to duplicate the time I wait for a port to build). My only gripe with gentoo is its nightmarish sysv init system. If they used BSD (and Slackware's) much much simpler init, gentoo would be the linux distro of my dreams... but still, because of portage, it seems to be the distro that is the most fun to use. But it is certainly not the most secure, just because it compiles progs locally, and you can custom build it!!!
What everyone seems to forget is that the code Mr. Aivazian submitted might have nothing to do with SCO's source. Most of the comments I have read so far speak of A's contributions as being SCO's contributions: "This article is interesting because it shows that some of the code allegedly added by IBM was in fact added by SCO itself."
From the article:
"For example in the case of BFS filesystem the matter was as follows. I did NOT use any of the UnixWare (or other) proprietary code for the implementation, of course. However, despite this fact, I still (for courtesy and generally being cautious) requested permission from Wendy (Development director) before the release under GPL and she confirmed that SCO has no claims to this work whatsoever and has no objections to its release under GPL, because it is not connected to UnixWare source code in any way."
The same goes for microcode, in fact, he mentions SCO's implementation as an example for a different implementation from the one we find in linux.
I'm not sure about SMP - the article doesn't say whether it derived from SCO's implementation, or it is an entirely separate work...
Hehe. I see a pattern here.
[CONSPIRACY]Every time there is bad news in the media for SCO, sco.com goes down, then they issuse a press release of being DDOSed.[/CONSPIRACY]
;)
This is devastating news for SCO, for they can no longer claim to have protected they 'trade secrets' appropriately, thus they might loose rights to whatever they did on jfs in the courts.
On the other hand, they failed to cough up any sensible evidence so far, and my guess is that they are clueless about the affairs at 'old' SCO. This relevation might point them to the right direction - they can pinpoint precisely where code exchange between unixware and linux took place. They can either submit this as new evidence (deadline: jan 8?) and loose, or disregard it and... loose. Good.
Re:Solaris X86 is no different than a Linux distro
on
Solaris 9 x86 Review
·
· Score: 0, Troll
"absolute lowest TCO" - dont' be ridiculous.
1) Enterprise servers?? lol. You can only use the 'free' version on 1 cpu configurations.
Application availability: 9800+ in the ports tree (FreeBSD) - and its absolutely FREE. Can you say the same of Solaris x86? (KDE 3.1.4, GNOME 2.4.1, the latest and greatest of almost every apps running rock solid on 5.1 - a "technology preview" version of FreeBSD)
... and I thought there is nothing worse than gentoo/osx zealotry... (don't take me wrong, I like linux - my roommate uses gentoo - and admire os x, its just that...)
This is not their first brush with open source. After acquiring BSDi, they encouraged BSD/OS users to move to FreeBSD, than dropped support entirely (or rather. they transferred FreeBSD sponsorship to FreeBSD MALL). Anyway, the point is, that back then, when this announcement was made, I saw the usual argument of BSD licence being more "liberal" than GPL. It seems that this might not be the case after all.
I don't want to bash BSD - in fact I use it both as a desktop and on a server, and I love it. I like it better than linux, while I like the licence of Linux better than BSD. The moment a company adopts a software under the BSD licence, it has too choices. It can keep it open source (in which case it would use it almost as if it were GPL) or make it closed source (relinquishing the advantages of the Open Source development model). I believe the two balance each other out, but the BSD licence makes code exchange between linux development and BSD development (both excellent and cutting edge softwares) a one way road, which is not a good thing in the long run imho.
Anyhow, this news confirms that the favorite claims of BSD users, that is to say, the BSD licence is more corporate friendly, is not necessarily true. Wind River was known to be a BSD company (they still sell BSDi 5.0) but they are on the way of becoming a linux company (well, not a linux company per se, but a company that supports - and favors - linux instead of BSD, despite the licence.) It seems that the embedded BSD project (link) is not quite flourishing.
What also really holds back the desktop is an outdated X. See how many enhanchements are planned on kde-look, and how many times you see X mentioned as the bottleneck (you'll also notice some pleas to Keith. P to hurry up with his work:))
I think it would be best if all these projects that left Xfree86.org united - the Cygwin/Xfree86 folks, Keith Packard, and pull their resources to come up with a workable development model (yeah, and a workable X - all major projects - Gnome, KDE - are waiting for long promised features that all modern graphical subsystems exhibit except for X.)
bah.
The only point that can give pause is module selection - even if you mess that up, you can have it installed. But: configure X (you have an optical wheel mouse connected to the usb port) and run the latest KDE.
Anyhow, module selection: I only needed my network card, here is a howto: write down everything you see on the chip and do a google search for xxxxx kernel module - select the module.
btw - First X would not start: no mouse. Then after googling: install hotplug. Now X started, but crashed immediately (yeah, I used testing) - but at least I saw the mouse cursor. That's when I intalled FreeBSD instead.
Slashdot Mirror
well, you might use gentoo with 2.6, and you may be lucky, but what prevents my friend here of updating is the fact that gentoo _has_ problems with it - check how many problems are reported on gentoo-forums about installing 2.6
I agree with assessment of parent: system upgrade was always hard under RH, gentoo-forums speak for themselves. Although I sympathise with gentoo (I use FreeBSD afterall, so i know how much fun a ports based system can be) its not as stable as some 'fans' would have it. Just last night, when my friend installed alsa on a newly built gentoo system, sound stopped working on certain cards. (The card in questin is a VIA VT82xx, but I don't know which one. Hardware probe during boot on my BSD box shows it as VT8235 while the sound module used is vt8233, while gentoo does the opposite: shows a 8233 chip at boottime, while alsa tries to use vt8235 driver).
Back to topic: I would tend to agree with those who recommend Slackware to try out the new kernel - you may try it out on gentoo, and you may be lucky, but saying that under gentoo using 2.6 is "unbelievably" easy and "painless" is simply misleading: some people might hose their system you know. I can understand your enthusiasm (and I got used to gentoo ads in every discussion), but on the long run, sincerity pays off. (In fact, what prompted me to write this is that I'm quite fed up with the hype, seeing how gentoo's emerge system errored out more times in a week than my fsbd ports in 3 months (last week: fluxbox, compilation error, mplayer: checksum mismach), and generally, getting sound to work - and we tried an sb128 as well- was a major pain in the butt even without the proken alsa port.
This is no place for bsd adds either (and I just love linux as much as I like BSD) - so I don't agree with parent bringing bsd into this discussion (gentoo warranted me to do so) - all I wanted to say is this: use a distro that had no problems with 2.6 (SLACKWARE, or ) - but don't say that gentoo didn't have problems: problems with 2.6 and gentoo are all over the place (gentooforums).
Hey I am not saying that SCO has a valid claim. I understand that, I'm just curious how far the GPL can be taken. Anyhow, quick replacability as proof of insignificance is also a good point :)
" 24 hours after the data is released there will be a new Linux distribution with the fragments eliminated."
Code shouldn't be necessarily removed, for2 reasons:
1) It can turn out that whatever they show was coming from a common source (BSD) or was already public knowledge.
2) Even if it turns out, that the code in Linux derives from SCO's SystemV code, we shouldn't abandon the issues with the GPL. Of course, they would plead ignorance, but I believe it would be difficult to convince the judge given their one time slogan of 'bringing unix and linux closer' - or something like that. Not to mention their LKP and already known contributions to the linux kernel.
The difficult part of this decicion is that yes, you can clear out any code that SCO claims is infringing, but doing so, you acknowledge that there was merit to their claims, and you also acknowledge a weakness in the GPL. SCO used the work of thousands of developers when making money selling linux under the GPL. They should not get off that easily (oh, but we didn't know! what? didn't read the licence? didn't know what your employees were doing? didn't know what you were selling?)
hmmm... ./ readers feeling touchy today? I don't see your post as flamebait either. In fact, there is an irony to being modded as flamebait - but it is hopeless that the one modding it will ever get it ;)
Hellooo?
Well, not quite. Solaris incorporated a large chunk of BSD in their codebase. So Solaris is a mix of SystemV and BSD code. (That's why so many solaris admins are also BSD fans).
Besides, many linux newbies begin their adventure into linux-land by tweaking the hell out of the UI - for they know that its one thing that it is not 'dangerous' to experiment with.
... what? Switch to KDE of course ;) - that's how it happened with this one time noob (and I spoke to other people who had the same experience).
... hence she was never able to explain how, for all its 'terrible' flaws KDE managed to harness the largest user base, despite corporate support for the other DE.
Seriously, it surprises me that no one mentions this, although I think this is not a negligible aspect - changing colors, widgets, icons, sounds, shortcuts, blah yields immediate and _visible_ results, and a sense of accomplishment (a very small sense, but it still feels like you did something, and it worked, and - gasp! - it was on linux!). I believe this is the reason why so many newbies prefer KDE: they can browse through kcontrol and try out things (and read a lot of excellent description) - and get somewhat confortable with the system.
The main reason for so many people not trying out (or not staying with) linux is simply fear: what if I break something? But playing around the UI won't break any serious things for them. Now try to play around with GNOME: in a few hours you would have tried out everything that is possible in its 'simplified' menus, config tools, options, and then
So, are these options _really_ intimidating/confusing? That's bs. No noob who tentatively tries out 'the other' OS would go like: I want that up button out from the file-manager! The usual rant of Eugenia (it is getting rather old) displays a total incapability of understanding how a newbie might feel before an alien environment
Blame your distro for shipping it on by default. On my system (FreeBSD 5.1) is off by default.
portage port to freebsd? freebsd has a ports system:
... and watch it download, compile and install mplayer with all the dependencies. I read about portage on genntoo's website when looking for help while my friend's puter was offline - its almost the same as FreeBSD's ports system. We have prebuilt packages as well, which work like debian's apt-get: "pkg_add -r kdebase" and watch it fly! :)) Also the portinstall/upgrade system and package management work hand in hand. What u installed from ports by either typing in "portinstall whatever" or cd-ing into the directory (/usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer for instance) and typing "make install clean" can be removed via the package management as well (pkg_deinstall -d mplayer will remove it). It is easier to configure it too (no freaking XFree86 dependency for 'emerge mc') - yet it is as powerful. :)
portinstall mplayer
Given the fact that they promised optimalisation for 3.2 (when 3.1 was coming out, they said it would be a top priority only in 3.2), I can very well imagine 3.2 being faster than GNOME 2.4.x (don't know about 2.5). Oh, and there is no need to get that angry, after all its only a DE, not a religion (or am I wrong?)
System: AMD Duron 700, 256 SDRAM, TNT2 video.
Output of top while running KDE:
There is one constant in the universe: Eugenia "I'm an UI expert" Loli-Queru" beating the same old "too many features" drum.
/. I was surprised to see how many people hated konqueror (well, all GNOME users of course) - IMHO konqi is the pinnacle of UI design and consistency. An application flamework, that comes as close to the power of CLI as gui-wise is possible. You can mold Konqueror into anything - and this seems to impress even OS X users: check out this review.
... talking about clutter...) but I want to say this: Keep up the good work KDE developers! And listen to your users (as I know you do) not these so called UI "experts" who think GNOME (don't take me wrong, I like some aspects of GNOME) has the leading edge in usability, despite overwhelming odds (if it is more usable, why do more newbies stay with KDE???)
Yes, she might be right on certain points (Cervisia in context menus by default?), but saying the KDE has no HIG and GNOME has one is just plain BS. Of course, we were witness to her flamefest fith mosfet over UI issues a while back... Anyhow, I just finished reading the comments when I saw the review posted on
Anyhow, I don't expect osnews to change its bias towards (but I was surprised at the review, it was more level headed than usually it is) - and I'm not going to point out every flaw in the criticism (well, I shall point out only two: 1) its the same old argument on part of eugenia 2) check out the screenshots - and tell me: how many of the applications in the menus were KDE specific?
Ok, sorry. My roommate uses gentoo btw - portage seems to be fun, but compilation/dependency-checking is fully automated, so you don't have that much control over what goes into your system... Just like in *BSD. Of course, you can look into the source code, or check the makefiles, but that's true of most open-source systems.
:) (I'm going to install a linux, probably slack, cause I don't want to duplicate the time I wait for a port to build). My only gripe with gentoo is its nightmarish sysv init system. If they used BSD (and Slackware's) much much simpler init, gentoo would be the linux distro of my dreams ... but still, because of portage, it seems to be the distro that is the most fun to use. But it is certainly not the most secure, just because it compiles progs locally, and you can custom build it!!!
If I wasn't using FreeBSD, I think I would try out gentoo myself
"This pointless blathering about security shoudl convince no one of anything, especially, when zealots are concerned...."
:-p
And yet...
the only computer that i would fully trust to protect my stuff would be a gentoo linux box custom made for a specific purpose
not that I have anything against gentoo zea..., ehmm... I mean folks putting in a good word for gentoo, even if it is unrelated to the article
From the article:
The same goes for microcode, in fact, he mentions SCO's implementation as an example for a different implementation from the one we find in linux.
I'm not sure about SMP - the article doesn't say whether it derived from SCO's implementation, or it is an entirely separate work...
Hehe. I see a pattern here.
;)
[CONSPIRACY]Every time there is bad news in the media for SCO, sco.com goes down, then they issuse a press release of being DDOSed.[/CONSPIRACY]
This is devastating news for SCO, for they can no longer claim to have protected they 'trade secrets' appropriately, thus they might loose rights to whatever they did on jfs in the courts.
... loose. Good.
On the other hand, they failed to cough up any sensible evidence so far, and my guess is that they are clueless about the affairs at 'old' SCO. This relevation might point them to the right direction - they can pinpoint precisely where code exchange between unixware and linux took place. They can either submit this as new evidence (deadline: jan 8?) and loose, or disregard it and
"absolute lowest TCO" - dont' be ridiculous.
... and I thought there is nothing worse than gentoo/osx zealotry... (don't take me wrong, I like linux - my roommate uses gentoo - and admire os x, its just that ...)
1) Enterprise servers?? lol. You can only use the 'free' version on 1 cpu configurations.
2) Help/Guides: Handbook.
3)Patches/Updates: Security advisories..
Application availability: 9800+ in the ports tree (FreeBSD) - and its absolutely FREE. Can you say the same of Solaris x86? (KDE 3.1.4, GNOME 2.4.1, the latest and greatest of almost every apps running rock solid on 5.1 - a "technology preview" version of FreeBSD)
This is not their first brush with open source. After acquiring BSDi, they encouraged BSD/OS users to move to FreeBSD, than dropped support entirely (or rather. they transferred FreeBSD sponsorship to FreeBSD MALL). Anyway, the point is, that back then, when this announcement was made, I saw the usual argument of BSD licence being more "liberal" than GPL. It seems that this might not be the case after all.
I don't want to bash BSD - in fact I use it both as a desktop and on a server, and I love it. I like it better than linux, while I like the licence of Linux better than BSD. The moment a company adopts a software under the BSD licence, it has too choices. It can keep it open source (in which case it would use it almost as if it were GPL) or make it closed source (relinquishing the advantages of the Open Source development model). I believe the two balance each other out, but the BSD licence makes code exchange between linux development and BSD development (both excellent and cutting edge softwares) a one way road, which is not a good thing in the long run imho.
Anyhow, this news confirms that the favorite claims of BSD users, that is to say, the BSD licence is more corporate friendly, is not necessarily true. Wind River was known to be a BSD company (they still sell BSDi 5.0) but they are on the way of becoming a linux company (well, not a linux company per se, but a company that supports - and favors - linux instead of BSD, despite the licence.) It seems that the embedded BSD project (link) is not quite flourishing.
What also really holds back the desktop is an outdated X. See how many enhanchements are planned on kde-look, and how many times you see X mentioned as the bottleneck (you'll also notice some pleas to Keith. P to hurry up with his work :))
This mirror (OFFICIAL, check mirror list on openbsd site) has the ISOs. GOOD ADVICE btw!
WOW! Thanks for that link - interesting!
Yeah, but how does Xouvert relate to Y?
I think it would be best if all these projects that left Xfree86.org united - the Cygwin/Xfree86 folks, Keith Packard, and pull their resources to come up with a workable development model (yeah, and a workable X - all major projects - Gnome, KDE - are waiting for long promised features that all modern graphical subsystems exhibit except for X.)
FreeBSD jails?
quote"In return for receiving FREE software..."
:o)
What? Does RMS know about this?
Seriously though... when would we see a linux port (and a *BSD port)? Huh? Huh?
Seriously though... Opera's just great
------------------ Opera/7.21 (X11; FreeBSD i386; U) [en]
bah. The only point that can give pause is module selection - even if you mess that up, you can have it installed. But: configure X (you have an optical wheel mouse connected to the usb port) and run the latest KDE.
Anyhow, module selection: I only needed my network card, here is a howto: write down everything you see on the chip and do a google search for xxxxx kernel module - select the module.
btw - First X would not start: no mouse. Then after googling: install hotplug. Now X started, but crashed immediately (yeah, I used testing) - but at least I saw the mouse cursor. That's when I intalled FreeBSD instead.