is not whether a single distro survives as the dominant one, but whether there can be an established standard, a specification for ISVs to refer to when they want to deploy on GNU/Linux distributions. The fact that many distributions have different configurations/places to store their prefs, have different package management systems and so on, makes it difficult for ISVs to test their stuff and deploy on a platform. For instance, if I wanted to release Photoshop on Linux what do I tell my clients? Requires glib v2.4 and above, GTK 2.12 and above, GNOME 2.22 or later, blah blah... isn't it easier to say Fedora 11 and above? or is it better to say requires LDB (Linux Desktop Base) 1.1 (like LSB only more desktop oriented). The LDB should even define some way for the app to list its dependencies so they can be automatically installed by packagekit, aptitude, or whatever. I could then, just test the product on a single LDB platform and presto! I have a single platform to support, no problems (ok I am simplifying this a little).
Anyway, say no to a single distro, say no to a single desktop; diversity is the strength of libre/open source.. there just needs to be some work on interoperability and we are done.
Thanks
In the Red Hat world, you install Fedora to try it. You find a problem and want support, tough. If you want Red Hat Enterprise Linux for free, get CentOS. Red Hat contributes more to free software than Canonical.
You are right. Sometimes the story arc becomes so long that it is not easy for new viewers to jump in. But that continuity and sense of character development is what creates dedicated fans for the show. That is what makes the show special and if you ask the people who watched it, they wouldn't have it any other way.
--That is also what makes all of us fans feel cheated from the cliffhanger ending. We need closure and hopefully we will get it some day.
I could answer some of that:
"LGPL allows corporations like Novell and Sun to have propeitry forks and lock away their changes from the user. "
No it doesn't. The LGPL allows you to link proprietary code against it but if you make changes on the LGPL'd file, you have to return them to the community. Unlike the GPL though, you do not have to open up all your code though. That is why if you link against Qt libs (which are licenced under the GPL) you either open up the rest of your code (under the GPL) or you pay for a licence at Trolltech. No such requirement exists for GTK (which is LGPL).
" forget about being able to have a decent file dialog.." Konqueror is great, but so is Nautilus! You are trolling too much in this paragraph so let me just say that the file selection dialog has nothing to do with Nautilus. It is the default Gtk dialog which has everything to do with the Gtk libs. For the record, it is possible to alter the default one, like Ximian did for their desktop (XD2).
"Gnome is easier to use" Both desktops are easy to use. It largely depends on how you set them up. It is possible to set up KDE in such a way that it seems like a convoluted mess, but most distributions get this right. KDE can have too many options for some things and GNOME too few but both have striken a reasonable balance I think.
"it dosen't allow bookmark folders. It also crashes like a crazy!" Yes it does, and no it doesn't.
"Gnome is themeable" It is and so is KDE. Both Desktops are ok in this respect.... the other two "arguments" are so lame I am not even going to bother.
But the last one merits a response...
Gnome is GNU software.
Yes, it started as such and is to this day. So?
I shout at thee troll!!! go back to your cave!
How exactly did it create a revolution in the industry? The movie was crap but it did make loads of money. The sequel proved to be more of the same crap but still proved very succesfull in the box office. It seems to me that people do not want to accept this plain fact: People are predictable and marketing research (movie wise) works; give the people a weak story line and loads of marketing spin and they will fall for it every time.
Before you start pointing out exceptions to this rule consider all the cases that verify it:)
Shut up! Let the mozilla group work they way they have been for years. They made the best browser by themselves, they don't need your help. A page and a half, guidelines do not make.
Go on now, mod me down. But you know that I speak the truth.
This is not much of an interview. It reads more like a mix of a biography chapter and tabloid junk.
"Torvalds opted for a version of the GPL that forbade anyone from making money selling modified versions of Linux."
erm what? Redhat, SUSE anyone? What?
I believe that both Mr Torvalds and Mr Stallman are great leaders. The former's strength lies in keeping quite and speaking sparingly while the latter is more outspoken and definitely more controversial. But both are necessary, I believe, to get the message across. The new software development paradigm is now firmly established and will flourish in the following years. The SCO case (i.e. SCO's blunder) should send out a shockwave to the industry players: change your ways or face decline. Courts dispense justice, not gold.
Download a nightly build.... click on Help->About Mozilla Marvel at the information: Mozilla 1.6a Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031012
I have a feeling that the team is not ready yet to promote Firebird (Mozilla Browser) as their flagship product (even though it is very usable). Heck, I don't even care much anymore... mozilla has been stable for ages and serves all my browsing needs.
"You may ask money for your software, but you cannot stop someone else from giving your software away for free (beer)"
That is only part of it, though. Whoever is redistributing has to pass on the right to make modifications and redistribute to others. That is what makes the GPL and LGPL licences special and different from the BSD variety. The charge for support and the box business model has more merit than is immediately apparent. Consider a medium sized business that needs to deploy software over a number of machines. Would they choose a well-established brand to buy from or would they deploy "Jim's GNU/Linux" and "Duncan's repackaged GIMP".
If the Linux licence was not GPL how many people would have "showed him the code?" Would there be a rally by companies to create an open platform if it could become propriatery at any time? Think about it.
Wine is licenced under the LGPL (www.winehq.org), not the GPL. Apps can link to it (libwine) and remain closed source. The really interesting thing about this development is: Is this what the subscribers' money is funding? How does this improve windows games compatibility? (that is where transgaming gets most of their funding from; they promised subscribers to make windows->Gnu/Linux gaming transition transparent). I think Transgaming's model may be breaking up.
Slashdot Mirror
is not whether a single distro survives as the dominant one, but whether there can be an established standard, a specification for ISVs to refer to when they want to deploy on GNU/Linux distributions. The fact that many distributions have different configurations/places to store their prefs, have different package management systems and so on, makes it difficult for ISVs to test their stuff and deploy on a platform. For instance, if I wanted to release Photoshop on Linux what do I tell my clients? Requires glib v2.4 and above, GTK 2.12 and above, GNOME 2.22 or later, blah blah... isn't it easier to say Fedora 11 and above? or is it better to say requires LDB (Linux Desktop Base) 1.1 (like LSB only more desktop oriented). The LDB should even define some way for the app to list its dependencies so they can be automatically installed by packagekit, aptitude, or whatever. I could then, just test the product on a single LDB platform and presto! I have a single platform to support, no problems (ok I am simplifying this a little). Anyway, say no to a single distro, say no to a single desktop; diversity is the strength of libre/open source .. there just needs to be some work on interoperability and we are done.
Thanks
You are right. Sometimes the story arc becomes so long that it is not easy for new viewers to jump in. But that continuity and sense of character development is what creates dedicated fans for the show. That is what makes the show special and if you ask the people who watched it, they wouldn't have it any other way.
--That is also what makes all of us fans feel cheated from the cliffhanger ending. We need closure and hopefully we will get it some day.
I could answer some of that: "LGPL allows corporations like Novell and Sun to have propeitry forks and lock away their changes from the user. " No it doesn't. The LGPL allows you to link proprietary code against it but if you make changes on the LGPL'd file, you have to return them to the community. Unlike the GPL though, you do not have to open up all your code though. That is why if you link against Qt libs (which are licenced under the GPL) you either open up the rest of your code (under the GPL) or you pay for a licence at Trolltech. No such requirement exists for GTK (which is LGPL). " forget about being able to have a decent file dialog.." Konqueror is great, but so is Nautilus! You are trolling too much in this paragraph so let me just say that the file selection dialog has nothing to do with Nautilus. It is the default Gtk dialog which has everything to do with the Gtk libs. For the record, it is possible to alter the default one, like Ximian did for their desktop (XD2). "Gnome is easier to use" Both desktops are easy to use. It largely depends on how you set them up. It is possible to set up KDE in such a way that it seems like a convoluted mess, but most distributions get this right. KDE can have too many options for some things and GNOME too few but both have striken a reasonable balance I think. "it dosen't allow bookmark folders. It also crashes like a crazy!" Yes it does, and no it doesn't. "Gnome is themeable" It is and so is KDE. Both Desktops are ok in this respect. ... the other two "arguments" are so lame I am not even going to bother.
But the last one merits a response...
Gnome is GNU software.
Yes, it started as such and is to this day. So?
I shout at thee troll!!! go back to your cave!
How exactly did it create a revolution in the industry? The movie was crap but it did make loads of money. The sequel proved to be more of the same crap but still proved very succesfull in the box office. It seems to me that people do not want to accept this plain fact: People are predictable and marketing research (movie wise) works; give the people a weak story line and loads of marketing spin and they will fall for it every time. Before you start pointing out exceptions to this rule consider all the cases that verify it :)
Shut up! Let the mozilla group work they way they have been for years. They made the best browser by themselves, they don't need your help. A page and a half, guidelines do not make.
Go on now, mod me down. But you know that I speak the truth.
This is not much of an interview. It reads more like a mix of a biography chapter and tabloid junk.
"Torvalds opted for a version of the GPL that forbade anyone from making money selling modified versions of Linux."
erm what? Redhat, SUSE anyone? What?
I believe that both Mr Torvalds and Mr Stallman are great leaders. The former's strength lies in keeping quite and speaking sparingly while the latter is more outspoken and definitely more controversial. But both are necessary, I believe, to get the message across. The new software development paradigm is now firmly established and will flourish in the following years. The SCO case (i.e. SCO's blunder) should send out a shockwave to the industry players: change your ways or face decline. Courts dispense justice, not gold.
The future is open. The future is free.
Download a nightly build....
click on Help->About Mozilla
Marvel at the information:
Mozilla 1.6a
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031012
I have a feeling that the team is not ready yet to promote Firebird (Mozilla Browser) as their flagship product (even though it is very usable). Heck, I don't even care much anymore... mozilla has been stable for ages and serves all my browsing needs.
"You may ask money for your software, but you cannot stop someone else from giving your software away for free (beer)"
That is only part of it, though. Whoever is redistributing has to pass on the right to make modifications and redistribute to others. That is what makes the GPL and LGPL licences special and different from the BSD variety.
The charge for support and the box business model has more merit than is immediately apparent. Consider a medium sized business that needs to deploy software over a number of machines. Would they choose a well-established brand to buy from or would they deploy "Jim's GNU/Linux" and "Duncan's repackaged GIMP".
If the Linux licence was not GPL how many people would have "showed him the code?" Would there be a rally by companies to create an open platform if it could become propriatery at any time? Think about it.
the project abandons you!!!
The only winning move is not to play.
yah yah you like dat... you have been naughty SCO!!!
"it used to be behind the iron curtain and under communistic influence."
Life in front of the iron curtain is not that hot either...
Wine is licenced under the LGPL (www.winehq.org), not the GPL. Apps can link to it (libwine) and remain closed source.
The really interesting thing about this development is: Is this what the subscribers' money is funding? How does this improve windows games compatibility? (that is where transgaming gets most of their funding from; they promised subscribers to make windows->Gnu/Linux gaming transition transparent). I think Transgaming's model may be breaking up.