Your argument is along the lines of: Since it's unethical to hit someone with a baseball bat, it must be unethical to get hit by a baseball bat.
More by the same logic that makes euthenasia illegal in most countries.
Aren't analogies pathetic?
I seriously doubt the users of close source software see themselves as victims. In fact, I seriously doubt anyone but the FSF does. I furthermore doubt they embrace this notion as part of their moving to source code avliable software. They might we willing to entertain the multiple eyes theory, because its a little easier to stomach. And that's why I'm an Open Source rather than Free Software person.
Re:Last summer, Andy Hertzfeld got a standing ovat
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 2
RedHat don't make money on GPL'd products. They make money on services, training and stuffed penguins.
Ie, thay make money from their GPLed products, but not directly. The basis for the consulting and the training and the OEM deals and the support calls is the GPLed product. How many times have you ever paid directly for commercial television?
For some people software quality matters more than than having the freedom to modify and copy that software. For some other people, it doesn't. It seems you belong to the former, while I belong to the latter sort of people.
I belong to the former, but there's another element you haven't mentioned - I thin kfreedom is an important element of quality. Just not all of it. I think most cumputer users, and soon most Linux users, will be in the same boat.
I do not believe that the FSF has any problems with those.
I believe it does, in that the car and vegetable shops are likely using closed source software. By logical extrapolation, if closed source is unethical, then those who endorse enethical behaviour are in turn unethical.
Actually, I believe the burden of proof is on you. You keep stating that the FSF's position is this or that. Where do you get that from? Can you provide us with some links to official FSF pages that support your claims?
I provided just that in a subling post to the one you're replying to. The implication of that link is that free != commercial, which is false.
The FSF actually encourages selling Free Software. How anti-business is that?
Not anti business at all, but it isn't really related. Its like me saying that `I brush my teeth - how troll-like is that?".
PS: I am fully aware that this is a troll.
No, you believe this to be a troll. There is a large diffference. Asides from this line thugh, a well argued post (much better than the guy on top of you).
I''m trying to work out whether that sentence is badly constucted, or you actually mean what it says - that Apple at some point in the past has released Quicktime for Linux. Methinks the former.
The second part of that questions is much more of a concern. Linux is currently either the number one or two embedded OS, and it seem to me that Apple will release Quicktime for embedded Linux the same way there's 100% functional (ie, with chapter navigation and other features we're still waiting on from the other three)DVD players for embedded Linux. Just as there is a Windows Media Server used on an embedded Linux device (somebody please post the URL). Embedded Linux is simply too great a market to ignore.
But if you have some sort of authority for that statement (i.e, a message from Apple), please respond.
Re:Last summer, Andy Hertzfeld got a standing ovat
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 2
After all, the GPL is intended to cause software companies to fail, and while some are more robust than others they will all eventually fail if they do embrace it. (This isn't a religious argument -- just basic business principles. If you can't charge for your products, you fold.)
There's a serious flaw in your logic. You assume one can't charge for GPLed products? Red Hat made money every quarter until they started doing the Venture Capital thing, have repeatedly exceeded analysts expectations when announcing their results, and are generally thought to be in the black very soon. I've never purchased a boxed copy of their OS. I have however, paid $Au2000 to sit and RHCE, and asked a company I work for to purcahse a Dell system with the OS preinstalled and a support arrangement. True, not everyone does this, but Red Hat's results will speak for themselves.
--Mike MacCana
Re:Well, I guess it didn't work out as I had hoped
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 2
Linux does need a top-notch file manager - and Nautilus showed promise (but from reports I've heard it wasn't quite there yet).
I could have sworn Linux already had a top notch file manager - Konqueror. And the last time I checked, user didn't care about tooolkits as long as their apps behaved consistently (something which definitely needs work, but is OT).
Can't use a TK with a lang it wasn't written in?
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 2
GTK was written in C. Qt was written in C++.
That said, there each has, AFAIK, bindings to C, C++, Python, and more. There's no reason why a developer couldn't use either. IIRC, most OS use a single toolkit or multiple toolkits with a massive amount of fucntionality in a common layer, and developers see no reason to create new toolkits because they don't liek the language the regular toolkit was written in.
Of course the FSF disapproves of what you call closed source software
yes, buts its done for `ethical' reasons. Most businesses don't share or care bour the FSF ethics. Open Source promotes Open Source because, on an engineeering levels, it is often *better*. Quality matters. Ethics don't.
The FSF dissapproving of closed an Open source software interoperting sucks and is not realistic. Most businesses will continue to use what's best, whether that be Apache or MS Word, because it (in their minds) is the bets for the job they are doing. Open Source interoperating with closed is an important part of this. Haven't you ever used Samba?
Agreed more than 110% about the use of commerical. You seem to be repeating what I said, but anyway. `Followers' should actually be more specific - `official web site' is a good replacement.
Correction: I meant Free software in the last paragraph.
But does it work with RPM v3? (the one used in the document)
Yes. RPM 3.05 can install all RPM 4.x packages - the main advantage of RPM 4 is transaction support in the RPM database (somethign which.deb. doesn't have).
As pointed out below, can you suggest or recommend?
Using up2date, a CLU / GUI app that comes with Red Hat since 6.2 (but is updated quite frequently itself)
And do I have to pay to get this to happen with Redhat?
For one machine, its free. For multiples, you should theoretically subscribe (ie pay, but you can simply create a new profile on the Red Hat Network. Or point the second machine at the firsts list of archives and freshen them.
As for the 4500, I can make alot of crappy Packages to inflate my package count number too)
Um, that's actually the number of maintained Debian packages:I was referring to:-). But yes, quality counts no matter what system is used.
Windows is the De Facto OS on the PC" and didn't mention anything about Linux/BSD
Yes, popularity isn't the reason to adopt something, but when two packaging systems offer a very similar rnage of capabilities with no clear advantage, its a definite consideration.
As far as why we were voted off the Human Rights Commision, that is called payback. Payback for being critical of human rights abuses worldwide and not to mention a new administration with a 180 degree different viewpoint than the majority of socialist Europe.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Ahem. The US was voted of the Human Rights commission because
* It has steadfastly refused to apply any pressure to Israel to sign any UN anti-torture agreements that the majority on first world nations, including most of the EU, have signed
* It also refuses to sign any treaties banning the use of land mines in combat
* Various other bits and pieces that escape my mind because its currently overtaken by humor in response to your post.
* In the sense of the FSF dissapproving of closed source software...
* In the sense of the FSF dissapproving of Open Source interoperating with closed source...
* In the sense of many of its followers who generally misuse the term `commercial' to mean non free / Open Source (hah!)...
* In the sense of many FSF supporters and members constantly insistenting that `corporate interests (ie, business in general) and Open Soruce are mutually exclusive...
You obviously don't have a clue about Debian packages or RPM packages
You're obviously a weak pathetic fool who responds to something you find innacurate by flaming the person that posted it. That's okay, I do too... you stupid little itch.
I make RPMs of everything I install and fix broken SRPMS when I encounter them, thank you very much. I do indeed know little about building Debs other than that a few knowledgable people have said building Debs was easier.
But did I say anything definitibe myself? No, I was discussing what others say. How in any logical way can you know this to be innacurate? Have you been following me and know for sure that I have not encountered anyone else that has these opinions.
Thanks you also for providing supporting arguments for your final statement too.
userland files, system utilities, and configuration data
Known by most peeple as the Linux operating system, OS being defined by most people as `the program that loads when I start my computer'.
shouldn't this really be called a "GNU Standard Base", or at the very least, "GNU/Linux Standard Base
No, IMO it should not, as there are many others contributors to this OS who put in effort other than the GNU project, and Richard Stallman has no right claiming to be the `maintainer' of the OS as if such a maintainer actually existed. Firstly that assumes the only software ones uses is the shell and GNU utilties. This is extremely uncommon, and ignores folk who who choose a different layer of abstraction (say, KDE, which is not produced by the FSF).
You still don't respond - APT isn't Debian specific and was designed to be independent of packaging systems.
Debian, Libranet, Progeny, as well as two other distros that don't exist any more., use Debs and APT get, That's great, but OT. APT get isn't easier to use than RPMs, its easier to use than up2date, merely because there's no mirrors or vast quantities of unsupported packages. Which can be fixed pretty easily.
Mandrake and Connective also use APT, and Mandrake likely has more users than all the other distros mentioned here combined.
Every Red Hat machine can update packages with automatic dependencies.
There is nothing specifically tying APT to Deb. However, there are far more than 4500 RPMs that are actively maintained, and far more users of RPM based distributions.
IE: I need to install rpm of package foo. Get package foo, try to install. unmet dependancies, get dependancies, install them, get more unmet dependancies. bitch on irc.
Agreed 100%. But this isn't an RPM complaint and has very little to do with RPM versus Deb packaging formats. They're to do with add on tools and where software is hosted.
Automatic dependencies are already sorted out via up2date. What you need is a large repository of unsupported packages designed to work with your distribution.
I'd like to start something myself in this area. Anyone want to lend me a hand?
The source is brought in, dependancies as needed,
and compiled for your box (See http://www.freebsd.org/ports/ for more info on that)
SRPMs can do the build part for you, and better still, standardize it. All you'd need is a large repository of unsupported RPMs, and a version of up2date to do it. If enough people wanted it, I'm sure its possible.
Debians packaging system is.deb. Its about as good as RPM. Some people say Debian packages ae easier to create, others think RPM has much better package verification options.
APT...
* Is designed to cross platform and packaging system independepndent
* Is both, as of about half a year now.
* Currently popular on Debian and Progeny,also avaliable on Mandrake 8 (this distribution likely has a larger installed base than Debian) and Connectiva.
Compare Deb to RPM, and the difference isn;t that much. There ARE more RPMs about - yes, more than the 4500 deb packages. In case Debian users didn't realize this, their distribution only includes free software. Sometimes commercial software (shock-horror!) is the best tool for the job, and in most cases, Deb's don't exist.
LSB will go RPM. Its inevitable. And every single RPM based distro will have APT or APT like capabilities within a year.
If I was in bugzilla, this one would be labelled 'WORKSFORME'
Basically, using 0.9 on a Athlon 900 w/ 128Mb, this takes an extraordinary amount of time, and doesn't respond at all if I tap the keys fast enough (ie, at my regular speed)until I stop. In the mentime, the mouse cursor sort of twiches as it, bizzarrely, changes my mouse cursor.
Ditto. This happens with *every* browser, on *every* platform, on *every* machine, until the cookie gets installed.
Anyone else? Are any of the Slashcode guys aware of this?
Re:Why i'm still not switching...
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 2
I have to ensure the user has a copy of djbdns installed just so that I can make use of a small part of the program.
I'm not sure about that part, but you do have to make sure the user has installed DJBDNSd, in a way that is different than every other piece of software instlled on their system and which is in violation of the Linux Standards Base.
But he who writes the software gets to choose the license,
Agreed 100%
DJB makes things as free as his own sense of what is right in software allows.
Fine. The problem people have with Qmail is that many users claim that is Open Source, when it is not.
Re:Why i'm still not switching...
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 2
he packagers WANT to change the directory layout - it provides additional support for them.
Bullshit conspiracy theory. The distro's want to chaneg the directory stucture for logic and consistently - ie, to meet the File Heirarchy System (which is used on Linux and Open Source BSD Unix-like OS)s.
Qmail might be great according to some people. Qmail might have source available. Like Windows in both respects. Neither conforms to the Open Soure Definition. The only distribution that includes Qmail packages is Debian, which applies a giant diff as a hack to get around the licensing issue.
Responding to Mozilla and Netscape's claims
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 2
* You compare it to other browsers in your advocacy, so we have the right to respond
* Open Source software should be held up to the same quality standards as closed source software. They way it can improve.
* It replaced something that was being actively maintained and improved, and after 2 years has not seen a major release.
* Netscape users pay for the browser with their eyeballs and the chance that the qality of the clients will make them pay for Netscape servers. Currently that is not the case.
* AOL users (who pay for their browsers directly via sibscriptions) might end up having a modified version of this as their web browser. Their money pays Netscape engineers to work on Mozilla.
Even if you just submit bug reports, it helps greatly.
Basically,evaluating Mozilla in a negative way (if this is how you truly feel) helps Open Source by eliminating wasted effort into what seems a black hole of `wouldn't it be cool if' technologies. It also allows OSS to avoid the pitfalls of this project - ie, trying to design pixel for pixel perfect XML based cross platform GUIs for *all* applications before the web browser that's at the center of the project has been finished.
I'm posting this from Mozilla 0.9. There's no `up button' at the top of this entry form. I can't save this page and keep it intact. The file -> open dialog box displays my files as being in 1970,and takes three seconds to leave my screen when I click `cancel'.
I think its not very good at all.
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 2
I'm hoping my perpetual lack stable mozilla, across multiple machines, OSs, and stable / nighly / beta builds, is some bizzarre coincidence. I'd like to find out. Could you do the following:
1. Click a menu item. Eg, 'Tasks'
2. Hit the left arrow ten times
Doe the web browser fail to provide any response whatsoever for you too?
Mike
Wake up. The emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 2
It has the following
* slicing
* dicing
* an XML term you'll never use
* a 100% cross platform XML GUI, which would be a cool development tool if there was any interest in the browser part of the equation, which still doesn't work
However, it lacks the following features:
* A responsive GUI. I don't care of its runs faster with a different timeslicing value, other apps are responsive without tuning my kernel.
* The ability to save web pages intact. IE has this. Opera has this. Konq will hopefully get it soon.
* Stability, in any nightly or milestone or beta build I have ever tried
Wake up people. Mozilla is a text book case of how NOT to manage an Open Source project. Konq and Opera have a very bright future, as does gecko, sans all the XMS stuff that's been holding up the project forever.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is along the lines of: Since it's unethical to hit someone with a baseball bat, it must be unethical to get hit by a baseball bat.
More by the same logic that makes euthenasia illegal in most countries.
Aren't analogies pathetic?
I seriously doubt the users of close source software see themselves as victims. In fact, I seriously doubt anyone but the FSF does. I furthermore doubt they embrace this notion as part of their moving to source code avliable software. They might we willing to entertain the multiple eyes theory, because its a little easier to stomach. And that's why I'm an Open Source rather than Free Software person.
RedHat don't make money on GPL'd products. They make money on services, training and stuffed penguins.
Ie, thay make money from their GPLed products, but not directly. The basis for the consulting and the training and the OEM deals and the support calls is the GPLed product. How many times have you ever paid directly for commercial television?
For some people software quality matters more than than having the freedom to modify and copy that software. For some other people, it doesn't. It seems you belong to the former, while I belong to the latter sort of people.
I belong to the former, but there's another element you haven't mentioned - I thin kfreedom is an important element of quality. Just not all of it. I think most cumputer users, and soon most Linux users, will be in the same boat.
I do not believe that the FSF has any problems with those.
I believe it does, in that the car and vegetable shops are likely using closed source software. By logical extrapolation, if closed source is unethical, then those who endorse enethical behaviour are in turn unethical.
Actually, I believe the burden of proof is on you. You keep stating that the FSF's position is this or that. Where do you get that from? Can you provide us with some links to official FSF pages that support your claims?
I provided just that in a subling post to the one you're replying to. The implication of that link is that free != commercial, which is false.
The FSF actually encourages selling Free Software. How anti-business is that?
Not anti business at all, but it isn't really related. Its like me saying that `I brush my teeth - how troll-like is that?".
PS: I am fully aware that this is a troll.
No, you believe this to be a troll. There is a large diffference. Asides from this line thugh, a well argued post (much better than the guy on top of you).
Quicktime has and will not be released for Linux.
I''m trying to work out whether that sentence is badly constucted, or you actually mean what it says - that Apple at some point in the past has released Quicktime for Linux. Methinks the former.
The second part of that questions is much more of a concern. Linux is currently either the number one or two embedded OS, and it seem to me that Apple will release Quicktime for embedded Linux the same way there's 100% functional (ie, with chapter navigation and other features we're still waiting on from the other three)DVD players for embedded Linux. Just as there is a Windows Media Server used on an embedded Linux device (somebody please post the URL). Embedded Linux is simply too great a market to ignore.
But if you have some sort of authority for that statement (i.e, a message from Apple), please respond.
After all, the GPL is intended to cause software companies to fail, and while some are more robust than others they will all eventually fail if they do embrace it. (This isn't a religious argument -- just basic business principles. If you can't charge for your products, you fold.)
There's a serious flaw in your logic. You assume one can't charge for GPLed products? Red Hat made money every quarter until they started doing the Venture Capital thing, have repeatedly exceeded analysts expectations when announcing their results, and are generally thought to be in the black very soon. I've never purchased a boxed copy of their OS. I have however, paid $Au2000 to sit and RHCE, and asked a company I work for to purcahse a Dell system with the OS preinstalled and a support arrangement. True, not everyone does this, but Red Hat's results will speak for themselves.
--Mike MacCana
Linux does need a top-notch file manager - and Nautilus showed promise (but from reports I've heard it wasn't quite there yet).
I could have sworn Linux already had a top notch file manager - Konqueror. And the last time I checked, user didn't care about tooolkits as long as their apps behaved consistently (something which definitely needs work, but is OT).
GTK was written in C. Qt was written in C++.
That said, there each has, AFAIK, bindings to C, C++, Python, and more. There's no reason why a developer couldn't use either. IIRC, most OS use a single toolkit or multiple toolkits with a massive amount of fucntionality in a common layer, and developers see no reason to create new toolkits because they don't liek the language the regular toolkit was written in.
Sigh.
Though I might back that up properly:
h tm l
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-world-notes.
There's more I'm sure, if you can be bothered finding the search button.
Of course the FSF disapproves of what you call closed source software
yes, buts its done for `ethical' reasons. Most businesses don't share or care bour the FSF ethics. Open Source promotes Open Source because, on an engineeering levels, it is often *better*. Quality matters. Ethics don't.
The FSF dissapproving of closed an Open source software interoperting sucks and is not realistic. Most businesses will continue to use what's best, whether that be Apache or MS Word, because it (in their minds) is the bets for the job they are doing. Open Source interoperating with closed is an important part of this. Haven't you ever used Samba?
Agreed more than 110% about the use of commerical. You seem to be repeating what I said, but anyway. `Followers' should actually be more specific - `official web site' is a good replacement.
Correction: I meant Free software in the last paragraph.
If this is sad, then refute me. You haven't yet.
But does it work with RPM v3? (the one used in the document)
.deb. doesn't have).
:I was referring to :-). But yes, quality counts no matter what system is used.
Yes. RPM 3.05 can install all RPM 4.x packages - the main advantage of RPM 4 is transaction support in the RPM database (somethign which
As pointed out below, can you suggest or recommend?
Using up2date, a CLU / GUI app that comes with Red Hat since 6.2 (but is updated quite frequently itself)
And do I have to pay to get this to happen with Redhat?
For one machine, its free. For multiples, you should theoretically subscribe (ie pay, but you can simply create a new profile on the Red Hat Network. Or point the second machine at the firsts list of archives and freshen them.
As for the 4500, I can make alot of crappy Packages to inflate my package count number too)
Um, that's actually the number of maintained Debian packages
Windows is the De Facto OS on the PC" and didn't mention anything about Linux/BSD
Yes, popularity isn't the reason to adopt something, but when two packaging systems offer a very similar rnage of capabilities with no clear advantage, its a definite consideration.
As far as why we were voted off the Human Rights Commision, that is called payback. Payback for being critical of human rights abuses worldwide and not to mention a new administration with a 180 degree different viewpoint than the majority of socialist Europe.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Ahem. The US was voted of the Human Rights commission because
* It has steadfastly refused to apply any pressure to Israel to sign any UN anti-torture agreements that the majority on first world nations, including most of the EU, have signed
* It also refuses to sign any treaties banning the use of land mines in combat
* Various other bits and pieces that escape my mind because its currently overtaken by humor in response to your post.
The Free Software Foundation is not anit-business
...
* In the sense of the FSF dissapproving of closed source software
* In the sense of the FSF dissapproving of Open Source interoperating with closed source...
* In the sense of many of its followers who generally misuse the term `commercial' to mean non free / Open Source (hah!)...
* In the sense of many FSF supporters and members constantly insistenting that `corporate interests (ie, business in general) and Open Soruce are mutually exclusive...
They are.
In my and many others opinion anyway.
You obviously don't have a clue about Debian packages or RPM packages
You're obviously a weak pathetic fool who responds to something you find innacurate by flaming the person that posted it. That's okay, I do too... you stupid little itch.
I make RPMs of everything I install and fix broken SRPMS when I encounter them, thank you very much. I do indeed know little about building Debs other than that a few knowledgable people have said building Debs was easier.
But did I say anything definitibe myself? No, I was discussing what others say. How in any logical way can you know this to be innacurate? Have you been following me and know for sure that I have not encountered anyone else that has these opinions.
Thanks you also for providing supporting arguments for your final statement too.
userland files, system utilities, and configuration data
Known by most peeple as the Linux operating system, OS being defined by most people as `the program that loads when I start my computer'.
shouldn't this really be called a "GNU Standard Base", or at the very least, "GNU/Linux Standard Base
No, IMO it should not, as there are many others contributors to this OS who put in effort other than the GNU project, and Richard Stallman has no right claiming to be the `maintainer' of the OS as if such a maintainer actually existed. Firstly that assumes the only software ones uses is the shell and GNU utilties. This is extremely uncommon, and ignores folk who who choose a different layer of abstraction (say, KDE, which is not produced by the FSF).
You still don't respond - APT isn't Debian specific and was designed to be independent of packaging systems.
Debian, Libranet, Progeny, as well as two other distros that don't exist any more., use Debs and APT get, That's great, but OT. APT get isn't easier to use than RPMs, its easier to use than up2date, merely because there's no mirrors or vast quantities of unsupported packages. Which can be fixed pretty easily.
Mandrake and Connective also use APT, and Mandrake likely has more users than all the other distros mentioned here combined.
Every Red Hat machine can update packages with automatic dependencies.
There is nothing specifically tying APT to Deb. However, there are far more than 4500 RPMs that are actively maintained, and far more users of RPM based distributions.
IE: I need to install rpm of package foo. Get package foo, try to install. unmet dependancies, get dependancies, install them, get more unmet dependancies. bitch on irc.
Agreed 100%. But this isn't an RPM complaint and has very little to do with RPM versus Deb packaging formats. They're to do with add on tools and where software is hosted.
Automatic dependencies are already sorted out via up2date. What you need is a large repository of unsupported packages designed to work with your distribution.
I'd like to start something myself in this area. Anyone want to lend me a hand?
The source is brought in, dependancies as needed,
and compiled for your box (See http://www.freebsd.org/ports/ for more info on that)
SRPMs can do the build part for you, and better still, standardize it. All you'd need is a large repository of unsupported RPMs, and a version of up2date to do it. If enough people wanted it, I'm sure its possible.
Debians packaging system is .deb. Its about as good as RPM. Some people say Debian packages ae easier to create, others think RPM has much better package verification options.
APT...
* Is designed to cross platform and packaging system independepndent
* Is both, as of about half a year now.
* Currently popular on Debian and Progeny,also avaliable on Mandrake 8 (this distribution likely has a larger installed base than Debian) and Connectiva.
Compare Deb to RPM, and the difference isn;t that much. There ARE more RPMs about - yes, more than the 4500 deb packages. In case Debian users didn't realize this, their distribution only includes free software. Sometimes commercial software (shock-horror!) is the best tool for the job, and in most cases, Deb's don't exist.
LSB will go RPM. Its inevitable. And every single RPM based distro will have APT or APT like capabilities within a year.
If I was in bugzilla, this one would be labelled 'WORKSFORME'
Basically, using 0.9 on a Athlon 900 w/ 128Mb, this takes an extraordinary amount of time, and doesn't respond at all if I tap the keys fast enough (ie, at my regular speed)until I stop. In the mentime, the mouse cursor sort of twiches as it, bizzarrely, changes my mouse cursor.
If I hold it down, its much worse.
Ditto. This happens with *every* browser, on *every* platform, on *every* machine, until the cookie gets installed.
Anyone else? Are any of the Slashcode guys aware of this?
I have to ensure the user has a copy of djbdns installed just so that I can make use of a small part of the program.
I'm not sure about that part, but you do have to make sure the user has installed DJBDNSd, in a way that is different than every other piece of software instlled on their system and which is in violation of the Linux Standards Base.
But he who writes the software gets to choose the license,
Agreed 100%
DJB makes things as free as his own sense of what is right in software allows.
Fine. The problem people have with Qmail is that many users claim that is Open Source, when it is not.
he packagers WANT to change the directory layout - it provides additional support for them.
Bullshit conspiracy theory. The distro's want to chaneg the directory stucture for logic and consistently - ie, to meet the File Heirarchy System (which is used on Linux and Open Source BSD Unix-like OS)s.
Qmail might be great according to some people. Qmail might have source available. Like Windows in both respects. Neither conforms to the Open Soure Definition. The only distribution that includes Qmail packages is Debian, which applies a giant diff as a hack to get around the licensing issue.
* You compare it to other browsers in your advocacy, so we have the right to respond
,evaluating Mozilla in a negative way (if this is how you truly feel) helps Open Source by eliminating wasted effort into what seems a black hole of `wouldn't it be cool if' technologies. It also allows OSS to avoid the pitfalls of this project - ie, trying to design pixel for pixel perfect XML based cross platform GUIs for *all* applications before the web browser that's at the center of the project has been finished.
* Open Source software should be held up to the same quality standards as closed source software. They way it can improve.
* It replaced something that was being actively maintained and improved, and after 2 years has not seen a major release.
* Netscape users pay for the browser with their eyeballs and the chance that the qality of the clients will make them pay for Netscape servers. Currently that is not the case.
* AOL users (who pay for their browsers directly via sibscriptions) might end up having a modified version of this as their web browser. Their money pays Netscape engineers to work on Mozilla.
Even if you just submit bug reports, it helps greatly.
Basically
I'm posting this from Mozilla 0.9. There's no `up button' at the top of this entry form. I can't save this page and keep it intact. The file -> open dialog box displays my files as being in 1970,and takes three seconds to leave my screen when I click `cancel'.
I'm hoping my perpetual lack stable mozilla, across multiple machines, OSs, and stable / nighly / beta builds, is some bizzarre coincidence. I'd like to find out. Could you do the following:
1. Click a menu item. Eg, 'Tasks'
2. Hit the left arrow ten times
Doe the web browser fail to provide any response whatsoever for you too?
Mike
It has the following
* slicing
* dicing
* an XML term you'll never use
* a 100% cross platform XML GUI, which would be a cool development tool if there was any interest in the browser part of the equation, which still doesn't work
However, it lacks the following features:
* A responsive GUI. I don't care of its runs faster with a different timeslicing value, other apps are responsive without tuning my kernel.
* The ability to save web pages intact. IE has this. Opera has this. Konq will hopefully get it soon.
* Stability, in any nightly or milestone or beta build I have ever tried
Wake up people. Mozilla is a text book case of how NOT to manage an Open Source project. Konq and Opera have a very bright future, as does gecko, sans all the XMS stuff that's been holding up the project forever.