The package count is not the measure of a bloated OS. Windows, is not the consumate 'OS' with 'minimal' packages.
Take Windows, or office. Sure, they're one 'package', but think about the options you get when installing them? Let's look at Windows ('cuz it's smaller than Office)....
In the Add/Remove programs for Windows Setup, you have the following 'packages':
Accessability
Accessories
Address Book (why isn't this an accessory?)
Communications
Desktop Themes
Internet Tools
Multilanguage support
Multimedia
Online Servies (also not an accessory, nor an Internet Tool)
System Tools (somehow, this is differnet than acessories)
Web TV for Windows
Now, in each of those, you have the following 'sub packages':
Accessibility - 2
Accessories - 12
Address Book - 0
Communications - 8
Destop Themes - 17
Internet Tools - 5
Multilanguage Support - 5
Multimedia - 9
Online Services - 4
System Tools - 10
Web TV for Windows - 2
Now, in Accessories, there are 3 screen savers
That's a total of 85 packages, just for Windows.
Wanna do Office?
So, what's a packages? In RPM terms, KDE is not a package, it's multiple RPMs. Hell, the Kernel isn't even a package, because it has several RPMs (source, headers, kernel, pcmcia, and etc.)
So, saying that Distro A is 'bloated' because it has more packages that Distro B is just stupid. The best they could complain about is that the package management system has been implemented with packages that are too small or too fragmented.
But, when you start bundling these things into one, you get yourself into the DLL HELL that is Windows.
I hear you say things like "The people want the law", and "the law is answering a growing concern"... Exactly what is that concern? If the people WANT the law is blocking, aren't you doing them a dis-service by creating the law? If they DON'T want want the law is forbidding, they why is there a need for the law?
could you imagine how boring the World would be if it were all entirely Americanised
I can tell you one thing... there's nothing boring about living here...
We should concentrate on SHARING our culture with people who immigate
What is the point of learning something if you don't use it? Knowledge is nothing if it never gets used. Knowing that France has good food does me no good what so ever. On the other hand, learning how the French cook, and using those techniques in my own cooking is a good idea? You seem to feel that by my doing that, the French are somehow diminished. Seems like that's a bit of a purist attitude, don't you think?
If the world had evolved as a single culture, obivously, we would not be having this discussion, but, you're saying that that world, in whatever form it would have taken, would be boring.... and that I find hard to believe.
Everyone wants the Americans to accept their culture for what it is, and yet no-one is willing to except our culture... and that is because our culture is too diverse.
In this era of globalization, why protect any one culture? Who are you protecting it from? Who do these laws serve?
If the laws are there to protect the people, then you're protecting an idea that is appearently not desired by the people. If it was desired, then there'd be no need to protect it, because the people would protect it themselves.
In some way, isn't protecting a culture somewhat similar to interferring with what could be a natural evolution process? What if someone proteced you from the automobile, or from the Internet? If someone was there to protect the existance of that lizard that crawled out of the primortial ooze, where would we be? (apologies to the creationists)
Also, I hope your culture is defined by more than your language, your football teams, and your books. A culture should be defined by as how you inter-relate with yourselves and with other, and what you contribute to the common good. (thanks for the fries?)
I like to think that the thing that defines Americans is our ability to adapted, adjust, and expand, in a fraction of the time that other cultures have. We incorporate things from other cultures in an effort to enhance our own. I hope NO ONE tries to protect us from that.
NOTE: I'm not claiming that we don't make mistakes, but in only 224 years, we've accomplished quite a bit...
IMHO, as long as you're not profiting from someone elses work, or depriving them of profit, it should be fair use.
The flip side would be to follow the Calvin and Hobbes example: All those stickers on the back of the trucks that have Calvin urinating on company "X's" logo are not actually Calvin. It is similar, but it has some specific thing that makes it different, and therefore, marketable. People just THINK it's Calvin.
I am FRANTICALLY searching for a point to running LINUX on Dreamcast.... I think we need to spend a little less time trying to run LINUX on obscure platforms, and spend more time to make LINUX more commercially ready, whether that be through a desktop-focus, or a (even more) robust server platforms....
Wow, did we both see the same original movie? When I saw the original movie, it was before I had read the book. I actually kind of enjoyed it.
Then, I read the book, and was totally let down by the original movie (in retrospect).
The original movie completely removed the idea that Paul was in doubt of his role. He was afraid of the tests, the challenges, and etc. In a word, that he was human.
The original movie, while filled with excellent effects, really lacked in providing any depth to the characters.
I'm hoping the new miniseries will provide that missing peice... (yep, I haven't seen it yet. It's sitting on my TiVo waiting to be viewed!)
Ok. I actually read the article, and it's about as deep as a puddle. It's is three short web pages of text whining that linux people don't like them because it's not free, and it's Sun.
First, 'Use' and 'Like' are not necessarily the same thing. I definately don't use many things that I don't like, but there are acceptions to the rule. I use Windows. Hell, I even BUY Windows. But to assume that I don't like something because I don't use it is a bad assumption.
As for the embedded market, 'stable' and 'changing' are two different things. To exist in an embedded market, you have to be stable. A 'changing' environment does not factor in that at all, if for no other reason, 'unattended' includes the idea of NO UPGRADES. I have heard a of lot of people that run Linux 1.0.36 as a router/fw because it it is stable, and the don't feel the need to upgrade, even though Linux has changed a lot since then...
All this article tells me is that they person doesn't understand the Linux Market, doesn't understand the difference between open source, free software, and open/free software, doesn't understand embedded/realtime environments, and can't figure out that Linux people don't have huge corporate budgets, and that cost effective is the key to non-free software in the Linux universe.
This all comes down to the question that no one seems to be able to answer: Is Linux a kernel, or is Linux a distribution.
The kernel has showed no signs of fragmenting, something that I really attribute to Linus.
RH made some interesting/debatable decisions with RH 7.0. Is that a fragementation? Only if Linux is an operating system.
To be honest, in a 'commercial' OS environment, I'm starting to think that the definition of Linux has to be a combination of the kernel AND a set of libraries.
Perhaps a system that mimicks the RFC process should be created and a 'reference standard' implementation of the 'core' operating system should be defined. By 'core' I'm thinking things like the Kernel and a set of libraries and compiler(s) (i.e.- gcc, libc glibc, gtk, etc.). Call it the GNU/Linux Reference Implementation.
That would allow app developers a reference point when stating compatability. It still leaves room for the distro manufacturers to 'value add' to the product, but it's a little better than just saying '2.2.x compatible'.
On the Limited Warrenty page, it says (and I paraphrase) "If you want to get it repaired under our Limited Warrenty, pack it carefully, and send it back to us. If you want to return it...."
And yet I could not find ANY reference to what that warranty really is.
Plus, I'm leary of a company that uses PayPal. Why don't they take credit-cards directly?
I agree with the others... looks like shameless advertising to a 'captive' geek market.
I hope that Allison read some of these threads. You can't sell software to this community blind. Not when there's free stuff that can be used. It's a pretty simple equation:
Free w/ 'flaws' > Pay For unseen.
Staroffice is a memory monster. If ApplixWare was more efficient, and supported similar features, I'd gladly pay the $80-100 (?) bucks for it.
Have you ever tried to install a commercial application on a non-redhat box? It's not pretty.
I downloaded the iPlanet Messaging Server just to test it. I tried to put it on a Mandrake 7.0 distribution.
It didn't work. Unknown library references, and etc.
When I installed in on a RH6.2 system, it worked.
So if RedHat ain't it, what does the world do? Is there NO room for commerical linux apps? If so, do they have to develope against RH, Debian, Slackware, Mandrake, Turbolinux,.... what else? At some point, for an OS to become mainstream, it needs to provide a stable base for developers without having to build/maintain/support 10 variants.
They've been coming up with a new version every 2 years, and companies feel compelled to upgrade just to get the bug fixes when the new version comes out. Divide the money for office over 2 years, and you have a yearly fee.
Who it's gonna hurt are us poor schmucks that use it at home...
Forget VMWare. If all you want to do is run Win9x w/ Office like apps, try Win4Lin. It's 1/2 the price of VMware/Plex86, and so far, I've got it running Office2k(w/ Outlook to an Exchange Server), Project2k, McAfee AV/Vshield, and EasyZip. I can surf w/ IE, and print via LINUX printers(using windows drivers). File storage uses the UNIX tree structure (accessable through LINUX)-- no big-virtual drive.
So far, the only thing it can't do is MS Networking (browse fileshares, access resources, log into domains, and etc.). It also doesn't have Sound, and it can't play DirectX games. It also only supports Win9x.
I'm SUPER impressed with it. (Acutally, McAfee blew me away!
I'm sure they'll have no problem getting back in, provided that they don't have an EXCLUSIVE agreement w/ nVidia.
Remember, these companyies already have the support/marketing model in place, they don't have to worry about 3D engineering, and (in theory) they're already making money at it. Adding another 'variant' should only help that picture...
I mean, sure, they were fast computers back in the late 80's and early 90's, but that Microchannel architecture was to limiting. I mean, it was almost impossible to find MC versions of adapter cards, and even when you did, they were twice as much as the ISA equivilent. Sure, they were 32-bit, but since the OS was still 16-bit, I'm not sure that made a big difference... so...
what?
Oh... what do you mean they're not talking about THAT PS/2? What would they be...
Word and Excel are good apps, esp. because of the incompatibility in all office products import/export features. I've NEVER seen an import that worked all the time, especially when using some really advanced features of the product.
Of course, then there's the other 'lost app'. One to which there is no comperable version available for Linux (at least not what that I've found).
MS Project.
Being a manager, I can probably get away with Star Office for a lot of stuff. Hell, most of my stuff is in e-mail anyway. What I really need is a decent project-management package. Something with good task management, GANTT chart support, and maybe even some workload capabilities.
Let's face it, the corporate world is not comfortable with open source and free (as in beer) software. Commercial products that are not open source, selling them, and supporting them, may be the kick-in-the-pants that the Linux-on-the-Desktop movement needs to really take off....
If for one, would love a choice in Browsers. Something that has the support of Macromedia, Real, (and maybe even QuickTime!) and etc. and all the other things that make web-browsing 'fun'...
I actually like this 'restriction', although it doesn't go quite far enough. For any new 'TLD' to be affective, you need to restrict the allocation of them. If we're running out of TLD's because the Coca-Cola company has register hundreds of permutations of their name, adding a new TLD will only force them to register the.web permutations as well.
You need to restrict them to registering within a single TLD.
If you're a for-profit company, you can get.com.
If you're a web-portal, you can get.web.
If your a network provider, you can get.net.
If you're not-for-profit, you can get.org.
Just like you can't get a.gov unless your a government, or a.mil unless you're military.
In the article, it says 'A naked PC is bad for the customer, and therefore bad for you'.
Exactly HOW is it bad for the reseller? They're not breaking any laws, because last time I checked, it wasn't a law that a PC had to come with an OS. If the customer breakes the law, how is that the reseller's fault?
Slashdot Mirror
New movie...
Heavy UNIX ties...
Gnome Desktop...
and a trailer in a format that can't be played on UNIX.
Maybe they're just trying to make a point...
Oooo... I think I like it... an unresolvable circular news reference....
Yeah... just like IE.
The package count is not the measure of a bloated OS. Windows, is not the consumate 'OS' with 'minimal' packages.
Take Windows, or office. Sure, they're one 'package', but think about the options you get when installing them? Let's look at Windows ('cuz it's smaller than Office)....
In the Add/Remove programs for Windows Setup, you have the following 'packages':
Accessability
Accessories
Address Book (why isn't this an accessory?)
Communications
Desktop Themes
Internet Tools
Multilanguage support
Multimedia
Online Servies (also not an accessory, nor an Internet Tool)
System Tools (somehow, this is differnet than acessories)
Web TV for Windows
Now, in each of those, you have the following 'sub packages':
Accessibility - 2
Accessories - 12
Address Book - 0
Communications - 8
Destop Themes - 17
Internet Tools - 5
Multilanguage Support - 5
Multimedia - 9
Online Services - 4
System Tools - 10
Web TV for Windows - 2
Now, in Accessories, there are 3 screen savers
That's a total of 85 packages, just for Windows.
Wanna do Office?
So, what's a packages? In RPM terms, KDE is not a package, it's multiple RPMs. Hell, the Kernel isn't even a package, because it has several RPMs (source, headers, kernel, pcmcia, and etc.)
So, saying that Distro A is 'bloated' because it has more packages that Distro B is just stupid. The best they could complain about is that the package management system has been implemented with packages that are too small or too fragmented.
But, when you start bundling these things into one, you get yourself into the DLL HELL that is Windows.
I hear you say things like "The people want the law", and "the law is answering a growing concern"... Exactly what is that concern? If the people WANT the law is blocking, aren't you doing them a dis-service by creating the law? If they DON'T want want the law is forbidding, they why is there a need for the law?
could you imagine how boring the World would be if it were all entirely Americanised
I can tell you one thing... there's nothing boring about living here...
We should concentrate on SHARING our culture with people who immigate
What is the point of learning something if you don't use it? Knowledge is nothing if it never gets used. Knowing that France has good food does me no good what so ever. On the other hand, learning how the French cook, and using those techniques in my own cooking is a good idea? You seem to feel that by my doing that, the French are somehow diminished. Seems like that's a bit of a purist attitude, don't you think?
If the world had evolved as a single culture, obivously, we would not be having this discussion, but, you're saying that that world, in whatever form it would have taken, would be boring.... and that I find hard to believe.
Everyone wants the Americans to accept their culture for what it is, and yet no-one is willing to except our culture... and that is because our culture is too diverse.
Ok, it may be flame-bait, but I have to ask:
In this era of globalization, why protect any one culture? Who are you protecting it from? Who do these laws serve?
If the laws are there to protect the people, then you're protecting an idea that is appearently not desired by the people. If it was desired, then there'd be no need to protect it, because the people would protect it themselves.
In some way, isn't protecting a culture somewhat similar to interferring with what could be a natural evolution process? What if someone proteced you from the automobile, or from the Internet? If someone was there to protect the existance of that lizard that crawled out of the primortial ooze, where would we be? (apologies to the creationists)
Also, I hope your culture is defined by more than your language, your football teams, and your books. A culture should be defined by as how you inter-relate with yourselves and with other, and what you contribute to the common good. (thanks for the fries?)
I like to think that the thing that defines Americans is our ability to adapted, adjust, and expand, in a fraction of the time that other cultures have. We incorporate things from other cultures in an effort to enhance our own. I hope NO ONE tries to protect us from that.
NOTE: I'm not claiming that we don't make mistakes, but in only 224 years, we've accomplished quite a bit...
IMHO, as long as you're not profiting from someone elses work, or depriving them of profit, it should be fair use.
The flip side would be to follow the Calvin and Hobbes example: All those stickers on the back of the trucks that have Calvin urinating on company "X's" logo are not actually Calvin. It is similar, but it has some specific thing that makes it different, and therefore, marketable. People just THINK it's Calvin.
Just make Goku blonde, and call him kuGo.
I am FRANTICALLY searching for a point to running LINUX on Dreamcast.... I think we need to spend a little less time trying to run LINUX on obscure platforms, and spend more time to make LINUX more commercially ready, whether that be through a desktop-focus, or a (even more) robust server platforms....
Didn't miss 'em either.
Guess I won't watch the next 5 either.
Put the Olympics against 'Who wants to be a millionaire', and see who wins....
Wow, did we both see the same original movie? When I saw the original movie, it was before I had read the book. I actually kind of enjoyed it.
Then, I read the book, and was totally let down by the original movie (in retrospect).
The original movie completely removed the idea that Paul was in doubt of his role. He was afraid of the tests, the challenges, and etc. In a word, that he was human.
The original movie, while filled with excellent effects, really lacked in providing any depth to the characters.
I'm hoping the new miniseries will provide that missing peice... (yep, I haven't seen it yet. It's sitting on my TiVo waiting to be viewed!)
What's up with that? At the least, you'd think he would know how to be persuasive, if not informed.
Ok. I actually read the article, and it's about as deep as a puddle. It's is three short web pages of text whining that linux people don't like them because it's not free, and it's Sun.
First, 'Use' and 'Like' are not necessarily the same thing. I definately don't use many things that I don't like, but there are acceptions to the rule. I use Windows. Hell, I even BUY Windows. But to assume that I don't like something because I don't use it is a bad assumption.
As for the embedded market, 'stable' and 'changing' are two different things. To exist in an embedded market, you have to be stable. A 'changing' environment does not factor in that at all, if for no other reason, 'unattended' includes the idea of NO UPGRADES. I have heard a of lot of people that run Linux 1.0.36 as a router/fw because it it is stable, and the don't feel the need to upgrade, even though Linux has changed a lot since then...
All this article tells me is that they person doesn't understand the Linux Market, doesn't understand the difference between open source, free software, and open/free software, doesn't understand embedded/realtime environments, and can't figure out that Linux people don't have huge corporate budgets, and that cost effective is the key to non-free software in the Linux universe.
This all comes down to the question that no one seems to be able to answer: Is Linux a kernel, or is Linux a distribution.
The kernel has showed no signs of fragmenting, something that I really attribute to Linus.
RH made some interesting/debatable decisions with RH 7.0. Is that a fragementation? Only if Linux is an operating system.
To be honest, in a 'commercial' OS environment, I'm starting to think that the definition of Linux has to be a combination of the kernel AND a set of libraries.
Perhaps a system that mimicks the RFC process should be created and a 'reference standard' implementation of the 'core' operating system should be defined. By 'core' I'm thinking things like the Kernel and a set of libraries and compiler(s) (i.e.- gcc, libc glibc, gtk, etc.). Call it the GNU/Linux Reference Implementation.
That would allow app developers a reference point when stating compatability. It still leaves room for the distro manufacturers to 'value add' to the product, but it's a little better than just saying '2.2.x compatible'.
On the Limited Warrenty page, it says (and I paraphrase) "If you want to get it repaired under our Limited Warrenty, pack it carefully, and send it back to us. If you want to return it...."
And yet I could not find ANY reference to what that warranty really is.
Plus, I'm leary of a company that uses PayPal. Why don't they take credit-cards directly?
I agree with the others... looks like shameless advertising to a 'captive' geek market.
I hope that Allison read some of these threads. You can't sell software to this community blind. Not when there's free stuff that can be used. It's a pretty simple equation:
Free w/ 'flaws' > Pay For unseen.
Staroffice is a memory monster. If ApplixWare was more efficient, and supported similar features, I'd gladly pay the $80-100 (?) bucks for it.
Have you ever tried to install a commercial application on a non-redhat box? It's not pretty.
.... what else? At some point, for an OS to become mainstream, it needs to provide a stable base for developers without having to build/maintain/support 10 variants.
I downloaded the iPlanet Messaging Server just to test it. I tried to put it on a Mandrake 7.0 distribution.
It didn't work. Unknown library references, and etc.
When I installed in on a RH6.2 system, it worked.
So if RedHat ain't it, what does the world do? Is there NO room for commerical linux apps? If so, do they have to develope against RH, Debian, Slackware, Mandrake, Turbolinux,
How does LINUX do that?
They've been coming up with a new version every 2 years, and companies feel compelled to upgrade just to get the bug fixes when the new version comes out. Divide the money for office over 2 years, and you have a yearly fee.
Who it's gonna hurt are us poor schmucks that use it at home...
Oh wait... Isn't that an argument for StarOffice?
Forget VMWare. If all you want to do is run Win9x w/ Office like apps, try Win4Lin. It's 1/2 the price of VMware/Plex86, and so far, I've got it running Office2k(w/ Outlook to an Exchange Server), Project2k, McAfee AV/Vshield, and EasyZip. I can surf w/ IE, and print via LINUX printers(using windows drivers). File storage uses the UNIX tree structure (accessable through LINUX)-- no big-virtual drive.
So far, the only thing it can't do is MS Networking (browse fileshares, access resources, log into domains, and etc.). It also doesn't have Sound, and it can't play DirectX games. It also only supports Win9x.
I'm SUPER impressed with it. (Acutally, McAfee blew me away!
I'm sure they'll have no problem getting back in, provided that they don't have an EXCLUSIVE agreement w/ nVidia.
Remember, these companyies already have the support/marketing model in place, they don't have to worry about 3D engineering, and (in theory) they're already making money at it. Adding another 'variant' should only help that picture...
40 fps. Is that a trick question?
I mean, sure, they were fast computers back in the late 80's and early 90's, but that Microchannel architecture was to limiting. I mean, it was almost impossible to find MC versions of adapter cards, and even when you did, they were twice as much as the ISA equivilent. Sure, they were 32-bit, but since the OS was still 16-bit, I'm not sure that made a big difference... so...
what?
Oh... what do you mean they're not talking about THAT PS/2? What would they be...
Who makes it?
Ne-ver mind....
Word and Excel are good apps, esp. because of the incompatibility in all office products import/export features. I've NEVER seen an import that worked all the time, especially when using some really advanced features of the product.
Of course, then there's the other 'lost app'. One to which there is no comperable version available for Linux (at least not what that I've found).
MS Project.
Being a manager, I can probably get away with Star Office for a lot of stuff. Hell, most of my stuff is in e-mail anyway. What I really need is a decent project-management package. Something with good task management, GANTT chart support, and maybe even some workload capabilities.
Let's face it, the corporate world is not comfortable with open source and free (as in beer) software. Commercial products that are not open source, selling them, and supporting them, may be the kick-in-the-pants that the Linux-on-the-Desktop movement needs to really take off....
If for one, would love a choice in Browsers. Something that has the support of Macromedia, Real, (and maybe even QuickTime!) and etc. and all the other things that make web-browsing 'fun'...
I actually like this 'restriction', although it doesn't go quite far enough. For any new 'TLD' to be affective, you need to restrict the allocation of them. If we're running out of TLD's because the Coca-Cola company has register hundreds of permutations of their name, adding a new TLD will only force them to register the .web permutations as well.
.com.
.web.
.net.
.org.
.gov unless your a government, or a .mil unless you're military.
You need to restrict them to registering within a single TLD.
If you're a for-profit company, you can get
If you're a web-portal, you can get
If your a network provider, you can get
If you're not-for-profit, you can get
Just like you can't get a
In the article, it says 'A naked PC is bad for the customer, and therefore bad for you'.
Exactly HOW is it bad for the reseller? They're not breaking any laws, because last time I checked, it wasn't a law that a PC had to come with an OS. If the customer breakes the law, how is that the reseller's fault?