We have compromised. Those who want to use propritary drivers and not suffer instability, don't use Linux. Compromise complete.
Linux, at least as envinished by Linus, is not some corporate drone designed to attract users. It is designed to be open. To be a learning tool. Something fun to work on. Just because some corporate interests want to make a profit off of it doesn't mean it needs to cave to them. If they can figure out how to deliver binary drivers that work, so be it. Better for them. We aren't going to go out of the way to help. Neither help nor hinder.
There are already open source, free, and feature complete Java Virtual Machines. There are also open source and nearly complete class libraries. Check out kaffe, gcj and classpath.
These can run most non-Swing applications perfectly. They are distributed By Default in Redhat and Ubuntu. Eclipse runs on them, Tomcat runs on them. Most Java applications run on them. This is old news.
It is not under question how "java works". It's easy. It's well published and well known.
"""A group of developers could split off from the main Java community and form a second, independent group that follows an independent course. This could lead to confusion with developers and cause Java to lose focus."""
Am I the only one tired of hearing nonsense like this? Java has already been forked. Multiple times. There are already open source implementations of both the VM and the base class libraries. These implementations are distributed by default in most big Linux distributions: RedHat, Ubuntu, at least. I know. I started the port of Eclipse 3.0 to Ubuntu/Debian. It runs on GCJ and Kaffe or IKVM. All very high quality *FREE AND OPEN SOURCE* virtual machines. It uses Classpath as it's base class libraries.
Exactly what more is there to fear? There are ALREADY other entities out there who have "forked". Why don't most people realize this?
"External modules". Not sure what you mean there. Nvidia's code loads into the kernel, it's just bridged by a OSS piece of code that compiles against the kernel.
And what's wrong is the same thing that made people work on Linux in the first place. We want a stable cutting edge system which we can support. ATI's drivers are not stable. NVidia's are not ALWAYS stable. We can't support either. If my install of Linux breaks because of ATI's drivers, I can't do anything, except degrade my HW performance by switching to the open source versions.
First off, this is slightly inaccurate.
There are lots of different program with different requirements for MP3 support. XMMS, as shipped by default, at least for me, plays MP3s. GStreamer based programs, such as Totem and Rhythmbox, do not. However gstreamer is a plugin framework, and the mp3 plugins (gstreamer-mad) are available in alternate locations (non-US).
Ubuntu mirrors this for the most part, except their non-US stuff is in multiverse.
So, you can install MP3 stuff with the click of a few buttons in the package manager, but it isn't installed by default, because it isn't clearly legal to ship it on CDs.
So, yes, it doesn't have MP3 stuff in everything by default, but no, it being a "binary distro" doesn't really factor into this at all. Either way, it's not a binary distro.
A simple command will download and recompile the source for any binary package on the system. apt-get source.
>>> To Microsoft's advantage, Window's code similarity means that a bug found in Windows 2003 can be traced and squashed in Windows 2000 and XP. This results in the bug being removed in all flavors of Windows simultaneously. However, that would be impossible with the various *nixes.
Quite false. Last I checked the majority of the applications in most Unix apps were the same apps: Linux, libc, same zlib, same glibc, same gtk, same Gnome, same KDE. For the most part, a bug found in RedHat, gets fixed in Ubuntu pretty easily.
You're right. But that was a *long* time ago. It's crazy somebody rememebers that.
X drivers have been.so's for awhile. Now they're.so's which are built seperately from the main program and each other.
This is a hard one. At one side I see what Linus is trying to do. He's trying to make it HARD to maintain binary drivers, and for good reason. He likes the stability it offers, and frankly, it forces the FOSS hand.
But on the other hand, I can see how a stable binary interface would be good for FOSS driver developers too. There are a lot of instances where I think a open source driver would be better maintained outside of the standard tree. Different development cycles, etc.
But no, I don't want to give binary drivers a free pass. It's bad enough the situation we have with NVidia and ATI. I don't want that with my NIC or with my sound card.
Until you want to scale and realize you can no longer just farm data logic servers, or web servers, and instead have to invest in large scale databaes clustering. Oops.
I found that I couldn't use it. I am a free software user. My requirements are pretty simple. I need to be able to install the software, well, for $0. I need to be able to fix the problems as they arise. My reasons for this are the same for anybody who would choose Linux over Windows, at least on the server.
Cost matters to me. I don't have the money to pay for the platform... but I'd like the services. Is this wrong? Not really.
DotNetNuke was a neat project. I liked it on it's technical merits. I really considered using it. But then I quickly realized I couldn't get it running on Linux at all. It won't run with Mono.
This leaves me in the position to pay for the MS Server OS to run it on. This is a $800 cost. We've blow my budget of $0 by quite a bit already. Additionally, I loose a lot of the benefits I have perceive in running it on MY platform of choice: Linux.
All this comes down to something pretty simple. The cost of implementing a DotNetNuke solution is not $0. Sure, the code for DotNetNuke is free and open source, but the cost of the entire solution is not.
All of this is fine though. Since it's open source, hopefully it will be running on Mono soon anyways.;) Until then though, I just don't have time for it.
I have been searching for a solution for this as well. My current thought is that iSCSI is most appropiate. I plan to set up a number of small linux boxes, with as much storage space as a single system can accomidate, MD them so that each system is itself redundant. Each system will export an iSCSI target of the MD device. A single large node will then mount all the iSCSI devices and add anothe rlayer of raid (so that a single node failure doesn't result in down time), and export the file system as NFS to clients. I plan to just start with XFS for the on disk structures with an out-of-band journal.
The proper way is to use/etc/environment in conjunction with pam_env.
Pam, being responsible for the initialization of all login sessions is in hte perfect position to do this./etc/environment is not a shell script however, and for good reason... what you are launching when you launch gnome is not a shell script. You are launching a binary named gnome-session. There is no bash involved.
A lot of you are missing the point. A "locked down" machine may not have physical access. There are circumstances where the machine itself IS locked down, by virtue of security cameras, monitoring equipment, or simply not having the physical box in the viscinity.
However, this USB exploit lets anybody defeat all that with just plugging in a USB device. This should be fixed. It is serious IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.
We force RDP on all our workstations through group policy. It would be sort of like the stone ages to have to walk to each desktop to support it, don't you think?
That's impossible simply because of the organization of Debian. It is not designed to be a supported commercial quality distro. Each maintainer has pure authority over their own packages.
Ubuntu strives to put together a cohesive distro without the infighting that happens so frequently. You must remember, time is money for these people. All the improvements on software that Ubuntu makes are available for Debian to pick up. Usually even submitted into Debian's bug system.
Slashdot Mirror
We have compromised. Those who want to use propritary drivers and not suffer instability, don't use Linux. Compromise complete.
Linux, at least as envinished by Linus, is not some corporate drone designed to attract users. It is designed to be open. To be a learning tool. Something fun to work on. Just because some corporate interests want to make a profit off of it doesn't mean it needs to cave to them. If they can figure out how to deliver binary drivers that work, so be it. Better for them. We aren't going to go out of the way to help. Neither help nor hinder.
This has been discused to death on the Darwin mailing lists. Apple doesn't want people recompiling the kernel for non-Apple hardware.
From the markets point of view, they are functionally equivelent.
There are already open source, free, and feature complete Java Virtual Machines. There are also open source and nearly complete class libraries. Check out kaffe, gcj and classpath.
These can run most non-Swing applications perfectly. They are distributed By Default in Redhat and Ubuntu. Eclipse runs on them, Tomcat runs on them. Most Java applications run on them. This is old news.
It is not under question how "java works". It's easy. It's well published and well known.
"""A group of developers could split off from the main Java community and form a second, independent group that follows an independent course. This could lead to confusion with developers and cause Java to lose focus.""" Am I the only one tired of hearing nonsense like this? Java has already been forked. Multiple times. There are already open source implementations of both the VM and the base class libraries. These implementations are distributed by default in most big Linux distributions: RedHat, Ubuntu, at least. I know. I started the port of Eclipse 3.0 to Ubuntu/Debian. It runs on GCJ and Kaffe or IKVM. All very high quality *FREE AND OPEN SOURCE* virtual machines. It uses Classpath as it's base class libraries. Exactly what more is there to fear? There are ALREADY other entities out there who have "forked". Why don't most people realize this?
"External modules". Not sure what you mean there. Nvidia's code loads into the kernel, it's just bridged by a OSS piece of code that compiles against the kernel. And what's wrong is the same thing that made people work on Linux in the first place. We want a stable cutting edge system which we can support. ATI's drivers are not stable. NVidia's are not ALWAYS stable. We can't support either. If my install of Linux breaks because of ATI's drivers, I can't do anything, except degrade my HW performance by switching to the open source versions.
Outlook
This AJAX stuff sucks.
First off, this is slightly inaccurate. There are lots of different program with different requirements for MP3 support. XMMS, as shipped by default, at least for me, plays MP3s. GStreamer based programs, such as Totem and Rhythmbox, do not. However gstreamer is a plugin framework, and the mp3 plugins (gstreamer-mad) are available in alternate locations (non-US). Ubuntu mirrors this for the most part, except their non-US stuff is in multiverse. So, you can install MP3 stuff with the click of a few buttons in the package manager, but it isn't installed by default, because it isn't clearly legal to ship it on CDs. So, yes, it doesn't have MP3 stuff in everything by default, but no, it being a "binary distro" doesn't really factor into this at all. Either way, it's not a binary distro. A simple command will download and recompile the source for any binary package on the system. apt-get source.
>>>
To Microsoft's advantage, Window's code similarity means that a bug found in Windows 2003 can be traced and squashed in Windows 2000 and XP. This results in the bug being removed in all flavors of Windows simultaneously. However, that would be impossible with the various *nixes.
Quite false. Last I checked the majority of the applications in most Unix apps were the same apps: Linux, libc, same zlib, same glibc, same gtk, same Gnome, same KDE. For the most part, a bug found in RedHat, gets fixed in Ubuntu pretty easily.
You're right. But that was a *long* time ago. It's crazy somebody rememebers that. X drivers have been .so's for awhile. Now they're .so's which are built seperately from the main program and each other.
On Debian X has been built as a large tree, but torn apart and packaged into modules, for a long time. I believe this is true about RH too.
xfonts-base, xfonts-75dpi, xserver-xfree86, few more.
What they've done now is break apart the upstream source.
What is superiour about KDE's localization? Just curious. I use GTK and as far as I can tell it's exceptional with that.
Hasn't anybody ever heard of a mailing list?
This is a hard one. At one side I see what Linus is trying to do. He's trying to make it HARD to maintain binary drivers, and for good reason. He likes the stability it offers, and frankly, it forces the FOSS hand.
But on the other hand, I can see how a stable binary interface would be good for FOSS driver developers too. There are a lot of instances where I think a open source driver would be better maintained outside of the standard tree. Different development cycles, etc.
But no, I don't want to give binary drivers a free pass. It's bad enough the situation we have with NVidia and ATI. I don't want that with my NIC or with my sound card.
> and where it can run fast.
Until you want to scale and realize you can no longer just farm data logic servers, or web servers, and instead have to invest in large scale databaes clustering. Oops.
I found that I couldn't use it. I am a free software user. My requirements are pretty simple. I need to be able to install the software, well, for $0. I need to be able to fix the problems as they arise. My reasons for this are the same for anybody who would choose Linux over Windows, at least on the server.
;) Until then though, I just don't have time for it.
Cost matters to me. I don't have the money to pay for the platform... but I'd like the services. Is this wrong? Not really.
DotNetNuke was a neat project. I liked it on it's technical merits. I really considered using it. But then I quickly realized I couldn't get it running on Linux at all. It won't run with Mono.
This leaves me in the position to pay for the MS Server OS to run it on. This is a $800 cost. We've blow my budget of $0 by quite a bit already. Additionally, I loose a lot of the benefits I have perceive in running it on MY platform of choice: Linux.
All this comes down to something pretty simple. The cost of implementing a DotNetNuke solution is not $0. Sure, the code for DotNetNuke is free and open source, but the cost of the entire solution is not.
All of this is fine though. Since it's open source, hopefully it will be running on Mono soon anyways.
Mono doesn't have a good IDE for either of those platforms, and doesn't have full 2.0 support yet.
Also you can't use Integrated AUthentication with the Mono runtime. Also you can't use Impersonation. Also System.Windows.Forms sucks.
I have been searching for a solution for this as well. My current thought is that iSCSI is most appropiate. I plan to set up a number of small linux boxes, with as much storage space as a single system can accomidate, MD them so that each system is itself redundant. Each system will export an iSCSI target of the MD device. A single large node will then mount all the iSCSI devices and add anothe rlayer of raid (so that a single node failure doesn't result in down time), and export the file system as NFS to clients. I plan to just start with XFS for the on disk structures with an out-of-band journal.
The proper way is to use /etc/environment in conjunction with pam_env.
/etc/environment is not a shell script however, and for good reason... what you are launching when you launch gnome is not a shell script. You are launching a binary named gnome-session. There is no bash involved.
Pam, being responsible for the initialization of all login sessions is in hte perfect position to do this.
Still doesn't make it illegal to talk about it.
A lot of you are missing the point. A "locked down" machine may not have physical access. There are circumstances where the machine itself IS locked down, by virtue of security cameras, monitoring equipment, or simply not having the physical box in the viscinity.
However, this USB exploit lets anybody defeat all that with just plugging in a USB device. This should be fixed. It is serious IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.
How is it fundamentally flawed, again? BUffer over flow, dude.
We force RDP on all our workstations through group policy. It would be sort of like the stone ages to have to walk to each desktop to support it, don't you think?
Every company I've worked at has done this.
In a modern Linux distro, it's not.
In Debian for instance, there is one zlib package that everything uses, and compiling static is against policy. I assume redhat is similar.
That's impossible simply because of the organization of Debian. It is not designed to be a supported commercial quality distro. Each maintainer has pure authority over their own packages.
Ubuntu strives to put together a cohesive distro without the infighting that happens so frequently. You must remember, time is money for these people. All the improvements on software that Ubuntu makes are available for Debian to pick up. Usually even submitted into Debian's bug system.