I kept hearing this statement, so I decided to test it once. At work I have a dual boot Win2K and FreeBSD machine. Booting from powerup to login to the first rendering of the Slashdot site in a web browser. FreeBSD/KDE/Konquer was ten seconds faster than than Windows2K/IExplorer.
But you're talking about responsiveness. Under normal circumstances, you shouldn't be seeing any differences between the two. And I don't under normal circumstances. But start putting the pinch on resources, and Windows starts to stutter quick. Run a lot of background (or foreground) processes, and Windows loses its responsiveness. Under FreeBSD, I get full responsiveness under extremely heavy CPU loads, while Windows will stall when doing a mere compile.
There is no comparison between the two. If you're finding that Windows is more responsive on the same machine, then you have a serious misconfiguration under XFree86.
We already have an interesting, viable alternative(FreeDesktop)
Of the software hosted at FreeDesktop, the site has this to say: "None of this is "endorsed" by anyone or implied to be standard software, remember that freedesktop.org is a collaboration forum, so anyone is encouraged to host stuff here if it's on-topic." The software section of FreeDesktop is in essence a "sourceforge" for desktop related software.
There's no one talking about the "Sourceforge" replacement for AOL Instant Messenger, even though Sourceforge hosts the Gaim project (currently the most active project there). Ditto for the software at FreeDesktop. The purpose of FreeDesktop is not to create an X replacement, even though it happens to host some independent projects that seem to lean in that direction.
You're probably talking about the X server software that Kieth Packard is developing there. This is not a full X implementation. It's just the server. You also need X libraries. This is another project at FreeDesktop, but it's just getting started. And beyond this you still want the X clients, X fonts and servers, etc....and it's got heavy involvement with the major developers of Gnome and KDE, the two most popular desktop systems.
It's got minor involvement with those desktops. Originally FreeDesktop was meant to be a collaboration zone, and for a while it worked well to get some common standards for icons and desktop entries. But it's become quite muddled of late. Some people have gotten the impression that any software hosted on FreeDesktop (such as D-BUS) is some sort of standard that must be used by both Gnome and KDE. This is simply not true.
Of certaintly, neither Gnome nor KDE are actively involved in any X11 replacement.
An X server is still nice for remote display situations, but honestly: Who does that anymore?
I do it all the time, and I consider it the single most import feature of X11. If you only ever have access to a single machine, then it won't do you much good. But for everyone else it's supremely useful. Who needs a KVM switch when you can have the interface for each machine in a separate X11 session?
Let me translate your question into Slashdotspeak: "I only play Quake and Doom, and my grandma only reads her email, so why are you elitist types holding us back with your insistance on remote displays? Don't you know Linux won't achieve world domination until we dumb it down to the lowest common denominator?"
(and could they not be accomodated with VNC)
Think of every advantage VNC gives you, and those are the advantages remote displays under X11 gives you, plus a few more. If Windows used X11, there would be zero need for VNC. After all, who uses VNC to export a Linux/XFree86 display to Solaris?
will we all have to run some Hurd variant soon to be fully compliant?
Yes. This is not just the "GPL", it is the "GNU GPL". The goal of the license is to make everything GNU. You will not be truly free until every piece of software on your system is under the GPL with copyright held by the FSF.
Hopefully the new license for the alternative xfree86 version we will all start using will be gpl.
Tell me again why Qt is bad because it uses the GPL, but XFree86-Fork will be good if it uses the same license?
Bruce Perens imitating a Slashdot poster: "Oh horrors! No commercial company will be able to use UserLinux if it includes KDE! Tooth gnashing anguish! And oh, by the way, we need to fork off XFree86 and put it under the GPL..."
This GPL incompatibility that everyone is shitting their pants over isn't about the X server. Nothing links to the X server. So the GPL doesn't care.
Re:Enough with C++/C/Java books! We need wider top
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 1
Gee, I wish there were more books on those topics as well! There are some skills that are rapidly becoming lost arts. Who the heck writes a linked list or quicksort these days? Who still knows how to write an efficient hash function? Most of the current crop of developers couldn't write a balanced binary tree if their careers depended on it.
Re:C++ had its day
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Rule One: The closer you program to the "metal", the closer to the "metal" the language you use needs to be.
Ever seen a workable kernel or device driver written in Java? Of course you haven't! You get down to the that level and you'll see C interspersed with assembly. Move up a step to low level system software and it's all C with a smattering of C++. You don't find mid to high level languages until you get to the application level. (I'm not counting high level interpreted languages performing remedial scripting duties).
we pretty much abhorred change across desktops as it was a pain in the ass to maintain.
As the system administrator, you're correct. But that still doesn't imply that the user abhors choice. (and of course, "change" is a far different thing that "choice")
Read the 4.4 license. There is no requirement to negotiate anything. There is an attribution requirement, but absolutely no requirement to negotiate contracts. Why do you anonymous cowards keep making stuff up?
Since no one is able to answer my simple question honestly, I must assume that this whole brouhaha is nothing more than FUD.
While the power of choice is attractive to geeks, it more often than not puts normal people off.
Where the heck did you get that factoid? From the Encyclopedia Slashdotica? It's clearly false. While some people abhor choice, the vast majority want it.
Go into MacDonalds and find twenty different kinds of hamburgers, plus chicken and fish sandwiches. Odds are they'll have a specialty sandwich for the month. A far far cry from the John Belushi "cheeseburger cheeseburger pespi" world. Restaurants have dozens of selections. Even those that cater to the non-geek.
Grocery store commercials advertise new larger selections. Automobile commercials advertise new makes, models and a huge range of colors and options. Ditto for just about any other kind of store I can think of. "LiquorMegaSuperMart! Now with three hundred of your favorite microbrews!"
"But," I hear you say, "it's different when it comes to computers!" Nonsense. I walk around my work and I see that at least nine out of ten Windows users have their own wallpaper.
Please post mockup of desktop that does not mimic something else, that is still usable... It's much easier to tell other people to be creative than to be creative yourself.
Since XFree86 is a replaceable module, I suspect the answer is that the "customary" exception does not apply.
Actually, OpenWindows is a replacable module for Solaris as well. It falls under the "system library" exception (if indeed it even needs one) solely because it ships with the OS. If Mandrake is the OS, and it ships with XFree86-4.4, then there is no problem.
Linux and BSD distros need to be legally compliant when they distribute binaries.
Linking GPLed source with the new XFree86 is no problem provided you do it yourself. Distributing the binaries is.
You haven't answered my underlying question. Why is it legal to distribute a GPL binary linking to OpenWindows or any other proprietary X11, but at the same time illegal to distribute a GPL binary linking to XFree86-4.4?
So you're saying Sun is in violation of the GPL by distributing GNOME for use on Solaris?
You might want to read the very same answer to the very same question you provided a link to. In case you haven't, I'll quote the relevant section here: "Thus, if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them without any conditions."
If linking to an X11R6 library creates a derivative of the library, there is not a problem because it is a system library. If it doesn't create a derivative work, then again there's no problem. Either way there is no problem.
Remember that the GPL, unlike the LGPL, doesn't make a distinction between static and dynamic linking.
Neither does it define "linking" whatsoever. In fact, the word "link" doesn't even appear in the actual text of the GPL. The definition of "link" as "derivate" is completely outside the scope of the GPL. Neither does Copyright law define linkage this way. Dynamic linkage as derivation is purely a FSF interpretation. Other Free Software licenses which attempt to regulate linkage do so by EULA-type means of regulating actual *usage* of the software.
p.s. The word "link" does appear once in the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" addenda to the GPL, but this is not part of the legal text of the GPL.
At least, if the GPL'ed software was considered in some way derivative of the XFree86 licensed software.
Three scenarios:
A) GNOME is a derivative work of the underlying X11R6 implementation. Sun's X11R6 implementation is proprietary. However, OpenWindows is considered to be a "system library", and covered by the GPL. No problem. Likewise, no problem for Mandrake XFree86-4.4 system libraries.
B) GNOME is not a derivative work of the underlying X11R6 implementation, since it only links to the generic standardized API. There is no problem using GNOME with Solaris OpenWindows. Likewise there is no problem using GNOME with Mandrake XFree86-4.4.
C) GNOME is a derivative work of the underlying X11R6 implementation. Sun's X11R6 implementation is proprietary. OpenWindows is NOT a system library. GNOME on Solaris is therefore illegal, and those responsible for putting GNOME on Solaris are criminals.
Unless your interpretation is "C", there is not problem. Let me repeat: there is no problem. However, if your interpretation is "C", then why aren't you making any stinks about Solaris using GNOME for its next desktop?
Who the fsck came up with this stupid interpretation of the GPL? This needs to be quashed!
KDE links with Qt links with Sun's proprietary OpenWindows... no problem. Done all the time.
KDE links with Qt links with XFree86-4.4... people are shtting their pants like its the end of the world or something.
If Sun can legally ship with GPL software that links to proprietary GPL-incompatible system libraries, then Mandrake can certainly ship GPL software that links with Free Software XFree86-4.4.
Or, more to the point, people wanting to use XFree86 libraries in GPL software. That is a problem.
It's only a problem if they wish to statically link such GPL software. In all other cases, all they are linking to is the X11R6 API. There is no problem with GPL programs linking to Sun's proprietary OpenWindows, so why would there by linking with XFree86's Free Software implementation?
This may affect some embedded developers, but it doesn't affect Mandrake, except as an excuse to engage in politics.
My understanding of this is that "free" means "compatible with GPL" in this context
There is nothing in the Free Software definition, as published by the FSF and GNU, that refers to a requirement to be compatible with the GPL.
Even GPL compatibility is a red herring in this regards. There's no problem linking GPL code to non-free X11 implementations, such as OpenWindows, so why would there be a problem linking it with a Free X11 implementation like XFree86-4.4?
Every UNIX book distinguishes between BSD and SysV flavors. But no UNIX (in name or otherwise) is 100% BSD or SysV. That's because there's this thing called "POSIX" containing BOTH BSD and SysV APIs and facilties.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but SCO is suing IBM, claiming they copied SVR4 code from AIX into Linux.
Their claims changes from day to day. I would hardly trust a company that publicly displays a portion of 4.3 BSD source code and calls it their proprietary property, to be the final arbiters as to what is "UNIX". Last I checked, JFS and NUMA were not in SVR4 for IBM to "steal".
In all but name, BSD is every bit as much UNIX as Solaris. In fact, Solaris's precessor, SunOS, was directly derived from BSD. If you're hung up on names and trademarks, than BSD is not UNIX. But in every other sense it is.
What a strange question. I guess I've been using FreeBSD too long that I take it for granted.
Just about everything you would ever need is in the default (GENERIC) kernel. It's excellent at detecting what you have. If you have old ISA hardware, you might have to fiddle with interrupts and stuff, but otherwise it's a piece of cake. Don't worry about it being too large though, because most of it is loadable modules. The only thing I have ever had to add was the sound driver (pcm). Under the old 4.x kernels, I had to also manually add the PCI serial driver (puc), but no longer.
It's really a good system. It's significantly easier to configure than Linux, despite its lack of a "user friendly" GUI.
Slashdot Mirror
I kept hearing this statement, so I decided to test it once. At work I have a dual boot Win2K and FreeBSD machine. Booting from powerup to login to the first rendering of the Slashdot site in a web browser. FreeBSD/KDE/Konquer was ten seconds faster than than Windows2K/IExplorer.
But you're talking about responsiveness. Under normal circumstances, you shouldn't be seeing any differences between the two. And I don't under normal circumstances. But start putting the pinch on resources, and Windows starts to stutter quick. Run a lot of background (or foreground) processes, and Windows loses its responsiveness. Under FreeBSD, I get full responsiveness under extremely heavy CPU loads, while Windows will stall when doing a mere compile.
There is no comparison between the two. If you're finding that Windows is more responsive on the same machine, then you have a serious misconfiguration under XFree86.
We already have an interesting, viable alternative(FreeDesktop)
...and it's got heavy involvement with the major developers of Gnome and KDE, the two most popular desktop systems.
Of the software hosted at FreeDesktop, the site has this to say: "None of this is "endorsed" by anyone or implied to be standard software, remember that freedesktop.org is a collaboration forum, so anyone is encouraged to host stuff here if it's on-topic." The software section of FreeDesktop is in essence a "sourceforge" for desktop related software.
There's no one talking about the "Sourceforge" replacement for AOL Instant Messenger, even though Sourceforge hosts the Gaim project (currently the most active project there). Ditto for the software at FreeDesktop. The purpose of FreeDesktop is not to create an X replacement, even though it happens to host some independent projects that seem to lean in that direction.
You're probably talking about the X server software that Kieth Packard is developing there. This is not a full X implementation. It's just the server. You also need X libraries. This is another project at FreeDesktop, but it's just getting started. And beyond this you still want the X clients, X fonts and servers, etc.
It's got minor involvement with those desktops. Originally FreeDesktop was meant to be a collaboration zone, and for a while it worked well to get some common standards for icons and desktop entries. But it's become quite muddled of late. Some people have gotten the impression that any software hosted on FreeDesktop (such as D-BUS) is some sort of standard that must be used by both Gnome and KDE. This is simply not true.
Of certaintly, neither Gnome nor KDE are actively involved in any X11 replacement.
An X server is still nice for remote display situations, but honestly: Who does that anymore?
I do it all the time, and I consider it the single most import feature of X11. If you only ever have access to a single machine, then it won't do you much good. But for everyone else it's supremely useful. Who needs a KVM switch when you can have the interface for each machine in a separate X11 session?
Let me translate your question into Slashdotspeak: "I only play Quake and Doom, and my grandma only reads her email, so why are you elitist types holding us back with your insistance on remote displays? Don't you know Linux won't achieve world domination until we dumb it down to the lowest common denominator?"
(and could they not be accomodated with VNC)
Think of every advantage VNC gives you, and those are the advantages remote displays under X11 gives you, plus a few more. If Windows used X11, there would be zero need for VNC. After all, who uses VNC to export a Linux/XFree86 display to Solaris?
will we all have to run some Hurd variant soon to be fully compliant?
Yes. This is not just the "GPL", it is the "GNU GPL". The goal of the license is to make everything GNU. You will not be truly free until every piece of software on your system is under the GPL with copyright held by the FSF.
Hopefully the new license for the alternative xfree86 version we will all start using will be gpl.
Tell me again why Qt is bad because it uses the GPL, but XFree86-Fork will be good if it uses the same license?
Bruce Perens imitating a Slashdot poster: "Oh horrors! No commercial company will be able to use UserLinux if it includes KDE! Tooth gnashing anguish! And oh, by the way, we need to fork off XFree86 and put it under the GPL..."
This GPL incompatibility that everyone is shitting their pants over isn't about the X server. Nothing links to the X server. So the GPL doesn't care.
Gee, I wish there were more books on those topics as well! There are some skills that are rapidly becoming lost arts. Who the heck writes a linked list or quicksort these days? Who still knows how to write an efficient hash function? Most of the current crop of developers couldn't write a balanced binary tree if their careers depended on it.
Rule One: The closer you program to the "metal", the closer to the "metal" the language you use needs to be.
Ever seen a workable kernel or device driver written in Java? Of course you haven't! You get down to the that level and you'll see C interspersed with assembly. Move up a step to low level system software and it's all C with a smattering of C++. You don't find mid to high level languages until you get to the application level. (I'm not counting high level interpreted languages performing remedial scripting duties).
we pretty much abhorred change across desktops as it was a pain in the ass to maintain.
As the system administrator, you're correct. But that still doesn't imply that the user abhors choice. (and of course, "change" is a far different thing that "choice")
Sigh...
Read the 4.4 license. There is no requirement to negotiate anything. There is an attribution requirement, but absolutely no requirement to negotiate contracts. Why do you anonymous cowards keep making stuff up?
Since no one is able to answer my simple question honestly, I must assume that this whole brouhaha is nothing more than FUD.
done!
While the power of choice is attractive to geeks, it more often than not puts normal people off.
Where the heck did you get that factoid? From the Encyclopedia Slashdotica? It's clearly false. While some people abhor choice, the vast majority want it.
Go into MacDonalds and find twenty different kinds of hamburgers, plus chicken and fish sandwiches. Odds are they'll have a specialty sandwich for the month. A far far cry from the John Belushi "cheeseburger cheeseburger pespi" world. Restaurants have dozens of selections. Even those that cater to the non-geek.
Grocery store commercials advertise new larger selections. Automobile commercials advertise new makes, models and a huge range of colors and options. Ditto for just about any other kind of store I can think of. "LiquorMegaSuperMart! Now with three hundred of your favorite microbrews!"
"But," I hear you say, "it's different when it comes to computers!" Nonsense. I walk around my work and I see that at least nine out of ten Windows users have their own wallpaper.
Please post mockup of desktop that does not mimic something else, that is still usable... It's much easier to tell other people to be creative than to be creative yourself.
As a Senator, he's voted in favor of just about everything that Slashdotters despise. Why do you people like this guy?
Kerry is not SCO, Microsoft or Bush. 'Nuff said. Do you actually expect us to engage our brains?!?!?
Since XFree86 is a replaceable module, I suspect the answer is that the "customary" exception does not apply.
Actually, OpenWindows is a replacable module for Solaris as well. It falls under the "system library" exception (if indeed it even needs one) solely because it ships with the OS. If Mandrake is the OS, and it ships with XFree86-4.4, then there is no problem.
Linux and BSD distros need to be legally compliant when they distribute binaries.
So does Sun, by the way.
Linking GPLed source with the new XFree86 is no problem provided you do it yourself. Distributing the binaries is.
You haven't answered my underlying question. Why is it legal to distribute a GPL binary linking to OpenWindows or any other proprietary X11, but at the same time illegal to distribute a GPL binary linking to XFree86-4.4?
So you're saying Sun is in violation of the GPL by distributing GNOME for use on Solaris?
You might want to read the very same answer to the very same question you provided a link to. In case you haven't, I'll quote the relevant section here: "Thus, if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them without any conditions."
If linking to an X11R6 library creates a derivative of the library, there is not a problem because it is a system library. If it doesn't create a derivative work, then again there's no problem. Either way there is no problem.
Remember that the GPL, unlike the LGPL, doesn't make a distinction between static and dynamic linking.
Neither does it define "linking" whatsoever. In fact, the word "link" doesn't even appear in the actual text of the GPL. The definition of "link" as "derivate" is completely outside the scope of the GPL. Neither does Copyright law define linkage this way. Dynamic linkage as derivation is purely a FSF interpretation. Other Free Software licenses which attempt to regulate linkage do so by EULA-type means of regulating actual *usage* of the software.
p.s. The word "link" does appear once in the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" addenda to the GPL, but this is not part of the legal text of the GPL.
At least, if the GPL'ed software was considered in some way derivative of the XFree86 licensed software.
Three scenarios:
A) GNOME is a derivative work of the underlying X11R6 implementation. Sun's X11R6 implementation is proprietary. However, OpenWindows is considered to be a "system library", and covered by the GPL. No problem. Likewise, no problem for Mandrake XFree86-4.4 system libraries.
B) GNOME is not a derivative work of the underlying X11R6 implementation, since it only links to the generic standardized API. There is no problem using GNOME with Solaris OpenWindows. Likewise there is no problem using GNOME with Mandrake XFree86-4.4.
C) GNOME is a derivative work of the underlying X11R6 implementation. Sun's X11R6 implementation is proprietary. OpenWindows is NOT a system library. GNOME on Solaris is therefore illegal, and those responsible for putting GNOME on Solaris are criminals.
Unless your interpretation is "C", there is not problem. Let me repeat: there is no problem. However, if your interpretation is "C", then why aren't you making any stinks about Solaris using GNOME for its next desktop?
Who the fsck came up with this stupid interpretation of the GPL? This needs to be quashed!
KDE links with Qt links with Sun's proprietary OpenWindows... no problem. Done all the time.
KDE links with Qt links with XFree86-4.4... people are shtting their pants like its the end of the world or something.
If Sun can legally ship with GPL software that links to proprietary GPL-incompatible system libraries, then Mandrake can certainly ship GPL software that links with Free Software XFree86-4.4.
Or, more to the point, people wanting to use XFree86 libraries in GPL software. That is a problem.
It's only a problem if they wish to statically link such GPL software. In all other cases, all they are linking to is the X11R6 API. There is no problem with GPL programs linking to Sun's proprietary OpenWindows, so why would there by linking with XFree86's Free Software implementation?
This may affect some embedded developers, but it doesn't affect Mandrake, except as an excuse to engage in politics.
My understanding of this is that "free" means "compatible with GPL" in this context
There is nothing in the Free Software definition, as published by the FSF and GNU, that refers to a requirement to be compatible with the GPL.
Even GPL compatibility is a red herring in this regards. There's no problem linking GPL code to non-free X11 implementations, such as OpenWindows, so why would there be a problem linking it with a Free X11 implementation like XFree86-4.4?
Every UNIX book distinguishes between BSD and SysV flavors. But no UNIX (in name or otherwise) is 100% BSD or SysV. That's because there's this thing called "POSIX" containing BOTH BSD and SysV APIs and facilties.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but SCO is suing IBM, claiming they copied SVR4 code from AIX into Linux.
Their claims changes from day to day. I would hardly trust a company that publicly displays a portion of 4.3 BSD source code and calls it their proprietary property, to be the final arbiters as to what is "UNIX". Last I checked, JFS and NUMA were not in SVR4 for IBM to "steal".
Solaris is based off SysV UNIX now, however.
What difference does that make? There are several "official" UNIX systems that are BSD instead of SysV. AIX is one example.
Linux and BSD aren't really UNIX
In all but name, BSD is every bit as much UNIX as Solaris. In fact, Solaris's precessor, SunOS, was directly derived from BSD. If you're hung up on names and trademarks, than BSD is not UNIX. But in every other sense it is.
What a strange question. I guess I've been using FreeBSD too long that I take it for granted.
Just about everything you would ever need is in the default (GENERIC) kernel. It's excellent at detecting what you have. If you have old ISA hardware, you might have to fiddle with interrupts and stuff, but otherwise it's a piece of cake. Don't worry about it being too large though, because most of it is loadable modules. The only thing I have ever had to add was the sound driver (pcm). Under the old 4.x kernels, I had to also manually add the PCI serial driver (puc), but no longer.
It's really a good system. It's significantly easier to configure than Linux, despite its lack of a "user friendly" GUI.