This reminds me of the classic math joke about a mathematician at a conference. After attending a number of presentations on number theory, abstract algebra, and so on, he was starting to feel that his knowledge was too esoteric, too divorced from the real world. So when he saw a talk entitled The Mathematical Theory of Gears, he thought, "This looks like something that'll help me get in touch with concrete applications."
So he went into the auditorium and sat down. The lecturer began: "The theory of gears with a finite number of teeth is well-understood. However..."
In fact, the lead developer Jack Moffit of the Icecast project is also working on Ogg Vorbis, and the main developer of Ogg, Christopher Montgomery, is working with Jack on Icecast. So we should expect to see Icecast supporting Vorbis streams very early.
In this recent Advogato interview with Christopher Montgomery, he notes that the Vorbis libraries themselves are in the final cleanup stages towards a 1.0 release, and that what they need now are developers to add application support.
Re:Cost for PPC Systems
on
SuSE For PPC
·
· Score: 1
PowerMacs and PowerMac clones from the 603/604 era had the processor on a daughtercard. This daughtercard controls the bus speed of the machine, so that a replacement processor card can up the speed of the bus (within limits, of course). Many of the third-party PPC upgrade cards let users very easily experiment with the speed of not only the processor but also the main bus and the backside bus to the L2 cache.
Memory speed is of course an issue, but starting the PPC750, level 2 cache is located on the daughtercard with the processor and is on a separate backside bus running at up to 1:1 with the processor clock. Combined with the large caches typically used by 750 systems, this can aleviate some of the bottleneck created by memory.
The Mozilla Public License is similar in some ways to the LGPL in that it requires modifications to the source code to be released under the same license, but has provisions to allow MPL code to be combined with non-MPL code in "larger works." It is also similar to the Artistic License because it requires that differences between original and derived works be clearly documented. The MPL is designed for general use; it is not specific to the Mozilla project. Developers looking for a less-restrictive license that still has the "viral" properties of the GPL/LGPL might well consider the MPL for their own works.
The NPL (the particular MPL-based license used by Netscape for the Mozilla release) grants special rights to the initial developer (in the case of Mozilla, this is Netscape). Specifically: If you release modifications to NPL-covered code, Netscape can use your code in non-NPL products for up to two years following its release (after that, the normal requirements of the MPL apply to Netscape and to everyone else). In addition, Netscape can make their own modifications to NPL-covered code without these modifications falling under the NPL.
Read the licenses yourself if you want the details.
Note that the GPL was not really an option for the Netscape source release, as it is too restrictive to allow Netscape to base their browser on an open-source project while still fulfilling their contractual and legal obligations with regard to licensed, patented, or export-controlled code that is included in the final product. You may complain about some of the terms in the MPL/NPL, but remember that many of them were absolutely necessary for the Mozilla source release to take place.
My school (Harvey Mudd College, a small engineering school) uses Sun hardware for nearly all of its Unix machines. In particular, the CS department runs non only a 6-processor Ultra Enterprise 3000 as its main server but also has a lab with about two dozen single-processor UltraSparc workstations that are used for graphics and networking projects in particular, as well as for general student use.
While SunOS is certainly a better choice than Linux for the big server, I think it would be nice to have Linux available on at least some of the graphics workstations. Not only does Linux have some advantages over SunOS, especially on a workstation (I personally would rather have the GNU tools available by default than Sun's proprietary versions), it would also provide a more diverse environment and allow us to develop programs on multiple OSs and architectures.
Regarding the chrome/skins/UI
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 3
Terminology: In Mozilla-speak, chrome is a package which changes the XUL that defines the interface for Mozilla. Chrome changes not just the look but also the feel and even the functionality of the browser. Within just one chrome package, however, users will also be able to use skins, which in Mozilla refer to packages which simply change the look of the widgets.
The chrome that Mozilla has been using since around milestone 12 is chrome that was designed by Netscape for Communicator 6. Hence Communicator 6 will look much like M14.
Mozilla developers have assured us that the grey strip under the buttons will go away. (There's even a bugzilla entry for it.)
In any case, it is likely that once the skinnability support in mozilla has settled down, the open-source mozilla browser will begin using a distinct skin, separate from the netscape skin. The following was posted to netscape.public.mozilla.ui by Matthew Thomas:
...This would actually be of little relevance to Mozilla itself, were it not for the fact that Mozilla has been wearing Netscape's skin for the past few months. That's not really anyone's fault, it's just that the Mozilla chrome isn't properly skinnable yet -- it has a few too many hard-coded values, boxes with incorrect wrapping properties (so when the font is changed some of the text disappears off the edge of the window), and other problems like that. So maintaining multiple skins during this period of development, when a lot of the chrome was being fiddled around with to add features, would have been difficult.
But skinnability is also going to be fixed by Ben during the chrome cleanup after beta 1 (go, Ben!), and Mozilla will be able to start using its own default skin distinct from the one used in Netscape. And that, in my humble opinion, can't come a moment too soon.
For now, you can download new chrome to use with M14 or with the latest nightlies at mozillazine's chromeZone.
Pangea's new title Bugdom (which has replaced their earlier Nanosaur in the software bundled with iMacs) is actually a much more entertaining (not to mention cute) game, as well as being a decent demo of the graphics hardware.
Both games seem intended for fairly young children; neither kept my attention for very long. However, it is interesting to at least one game company doing something other than car racing, one-on-one fighting or shoot-em-ups with modern 3D hardware.
Apple has their own, mozilla-style license called the Apple Public Source License. By "mozilla-style," I mean that Apple is granted special rights to all covered code.
It meets the Open Source Definition, which means (among other things) that it probably meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines. On the other hand, I personally don't like its restrictions and would hesitate to modify covered software.
On the other hand, Apple has already revised the license once, mostly due to their work with OSI. If they get enough feedback on how the APSL could be improved, we might see it changed again, for the better.
Will this "diversification" include any hardware architecture besides x86-PC? Will it include any Unix other than Linux? The Opera web page says that they are "experimenting" with FreeBSD and Linux/sparc support. When will we see the results, and why such a small range of platforms?
The advantages of free/open software go beyond cost, stability, and features. Nearly every major open software project (with a few notable exceptions, such as FreeBSD) is portable to a wide variety of hardware and software systems. I don't deny that commercial software has certain pros, but almost all of it has one huge disadvantage which completely cancels out any of those advantages. Closed software for Linux is fine, as long as it is for Linux, and not just for Linux/x86, or RedHat Linux, etc.
Can I install Wordperfect 8 on my PowerPC 603e box? How about Opera? [No; neither the BeOS or Linux ports have been compiled for PPC.] Heck even free (beer) closed-source projects---like the MIT Scheme interpreter, which runs on Linux and NetBSD---are distributed in x86 binary form only.
I don't have an Intel box, so I haven't even had the chance to test these programs. In the meantime, I've gotten along just fine with free alternatives. With open-source software, I don't need the maintainers to develop on my specific platform; I can simply compile myself from code if no binaries are available. In the rare case that there is a problem, I can work with the authors to fix it.
I applaud anyone bringing software to free operating systems. But until they unlearn their old habits from growing up in the Wintel duopoly, they will never compete with open source software.
Cosm is distributed.net ex-president Adam Beberg's current project. It's a distributed computing architecture which is sort of a generalization of the distributed.net software. This is the project formerly known as distributed.net "v3", for those of you who remember it.
It's being designed to work with a keyserver/proxy/client model, like the existing d.net structure but somewhat more flexible. Anyone will be able to set up their own network for private projects. Clients will be driven by drop-in "cores" that contain the actual processing code for specific projects. There are also features planned not currently in d.net, like a distributed filesystem and built-in security through cryptographic signatures.
The project is in design/early implementation stages currently. It's being developed under a quasi-open source license (it wouldn't meet the Open Source definition, because it's restricts modification too much). The CVS tree is open to anonymous access.
A software company illegally uses GPL code in their product. A computer user downloads an illegal copy of a song. One of these actions causes hundreds of Slashdot users to post irate comments, while the other happens every day, and the only protest comes from record industry lawyers. Yet in both cases the same principles are broken: the rights of the copyright holder have been ignored.
No Linux user who ignores artists' intellectual property rights every day by playing pirated music should be outraged by violations of free software licenses. By engaging in piracy---or by tolerating it---we are undermining the very laws and principles we rely on to keep our software free.
Instead of flagrantly stealing music sold on CDs, we should support alternate distribution channels like mp3.com. We should help musicians and record companies find ways to truly open up their licensing, in the same ways we've worked with computer companies to make their software free. The ubiquitous piracy which exists today will only hurt our chances for a more open environment in the future.
Music piracy is a problem, and we need to work to solve it with constructive methods, before the RIAA "solves" the problem in their own way. We need tougher community standards against music piracy, and community support for better ways to legitimately use digital music. Ideally, more music and more software could be truly free. Music pirates and software pirates will always exist, but they should fall into the same category as the script kiddies---disdained by respectable free software users and developers.
Slashdot already carries about three times more "Linux in the Mainstream Media" stories than actual stories about Linux technology or development. To me, this is a disturbing trend. The latter should interest us so much more.
If some of the massive effort that so many geeks are putting into evangelizing Linux to the masses would be put into improving it instead, we would probably have a less popular OS---but we might also have a better one.
Sure, popularity helps Linux by attracting more developers, more money, and more projects. But it's as important as you might think. FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD have built very useful and robust systems in relative obscurity (with regard to the mainstream). And more of the BSD community seems to hold a new kernel patch in higher regard than a new press release, which is sure to attract geeks away from the increasing PR-happy Linux camp.
Linux can be successful without being popular. It doesn't need to become a Windows replacement in order to be useful to the geeks who use it today. And if you do want your favorite free software to become more popular: write code, not propaganda. Make the software good enough and eventually users will decide for themselves.
---mbrubeck
When's the last time you heard anyone talk about "the Windows community"?
Slashdot Mirror
So he went into the auditorium and sat down. The lecturer began: "The theory of gears with a finite number of teeth is well-understood. However..."
In this recent Advogato interview with Christopher Montgomery, he notes that the Vorbis libraries themselves are in the final cleanup stages towards a 1.0 release, and that what they need now are developers to add application support.
Memory speed is of course an issue, but starting the PPC750, level 2 cache is located on the daughtercard with the processor and is on a separate backside bus running at up to 1:1 with the processor clock. Combined with the large caches typically used by 750 systems, this can aleviate some of the bottleneck created by memory.
The NPL (the particular MPL-based license used by Netscape for the Mozilla release) grants special rights to the initial developer (in the case of Mozilla, this is Netscape). Specifically: If you release modifications to NPL-covered code, Netscape can use your code in non-NPL products for up to two years following its release (after that, the normal requirements of the MPL apply to Netscape and to everyone else). In addition, Netscape can make their own modifications to NPL-covered code without these modifications falling under the NPL.
Read the licenses yourself if you want the details.
Note that the GPL was not really an option for the Netscape source release, as it is too restrictive to allow Netscape to base their browser on an open-source project while still fulfilling their contractual and legal obligations with regard to licensed, patented, or export-controlled code that is included in the final product. You may complain about some of the terms in the MPL/NPL, but remember that many of them were absolutely necessary for the Mozilla source release to take place.
While SunOS is certainly a better choice than Linux for the big server, I think it would be nice to have Linux available on at least some of the graphics workstations. Not only does Linux have some advantages over SunOS, especially on a workstation (I personally would rather have the GNU tools available by default than Sun's proprietary versions), it would also provide a more diverse environment and allow us to develop programs on multiple OSs and architectures.
Terminology: In Mozilla-speak, chrome is a package which changes the XUL that defines the interface for Mozilla. Chrome changes not just the look but also the feel and even the functionality of the browser. Within just one chrome package, however, users will also be able to use skins, which in Mozilla refer to packages which simply change the look of the widgets.
The chrome that Mozilla has been using since around milestone 12 is chrome that was designed by Netscape for Communicator 6. Hence Communicator 6 will look much like M14.
Mozilla developers have assured us that the grey strip under the buttons will go away. (There's even a bugzilla entry for it.)
In any case, it is likely that once the skinnability support in mozilla has settled down, the open-source mozilla browser will begin using a distinct skin, separate from the netscape skin. The following was posted to netscape.public.mozilla.ui by Matthew Thomas:
But skinnability is also going to be fixed by Ben during the chrome cleanup after beta 1 (go, Ben!), and Mozilla will be able to start using its own default skin distinct from the one used in Netscape. And that, in my humble opinion, can't come a moment too soon.
For now, you can download new chrome to use with M14 or with the latest nightlies at mozillazine's chromeZone.
Both games seem intended for fairly young children; neither kept my attention for very long. However, it is interesting to at least one game company doing something other than car racing, one-on-one fighting or shoot-em-ups with modern 3D hardware.
It meets the Open Source Definition, which means (among other things) that it probably meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines. On the other hand, I personally don't like its restrictions and would hesitate to modify covered software.
On the other hand, Apple has already revised the license once, mostly due to their work with OSI. If they get enough feedback on how the APSL could be improved, we might see it changed again, for the better.
Will this "diversification" include any hardware architecture besides x86-PC? Will it include any Unix other than Linux? The Opera web page says that they are "experimenting" with FreeBSD and Linux/sparc support. When will we see the results, and why such a small range of platforms?
The advantages of free/open software go beyond cost, stability, and features. Nearly every major open software project (with a few notable exceptions, such as FreeBSD) is portable to a wide variety of hardware and software systems. I don't deny that commercial software has certain pros, but almost all of it has one huge disadvantage which completely cancels out any of those advantages. Closed software for Linux is fine, as long as it is for Linux, and not just for Linux/x86, or RedHat Linux, etc.
Can I install Wordperfect 8 on my PowerPC 603e box? How about Opera? [No; neither the BeOS or Linux ports have been compiled for PPC.] Heck even free (beer) closed-source projects---like the MIT Scheme interpreter, which runs on Linux and NetBSD---are distributed in x86 binary form only.
I don't have an Intel box, so I haven't even had the chance to test these programs. In the meantime, I've gotten along just fine with free alternatives. With open-source software, I don't need the maintainers to develop on my specific platform; I can simply compile myself from code if no binaries are available. In the rare case that there is a problem, I can work with the authors to fix it.
I applaud anyone bringing software to free operating systems. But until they unlearn their old habits from growing up in the Wintel duopoly, they will never compete with open source software.
Seriously, all three contain a lot of information and links. Have fun!
Cosm is distributed.net ex-president Adam Beberg's current project. It's a distributed computing architecture which is sort of a generalization of the distributed.net software. This is the project formerly known as distributed.net "v3", for those of you who remember it.
It's being designed to work with a keyserver/proxy/client model, like the existing d.net structure but somewhat more flexible. Anyone will be able to set up their own network for private projects. Clients will be driven by drop-in "cores" that contain the actual processing code for specific projects. There are also features planned not currently in d.net, like a distributed filesystem and built-in security through cryptographic signatures.
The project is in design/early implementation stages currently. It's being developed under a quasi-open source license (it wouldn't meet the Open Source definition, because it's restricts modification too much). The CVS tree is open to anonymous access.
A software company illegally uses GPL code in their product. A computer user downloads an illegal copy of a song. One of these actions causes hundreds of Slashdot users to post irate comments, while the other happens every day, and the only protest comes from record industry lawyers. Yet in both cases the same principles are broken: the rights of the copyright holder have been ignored.
No Linux user who ignores artists' intellectual property rights every day by playing pirated music should be outraged by violations of free software licenses. By engaging in piracy---or by tolerating it---we are undermining the very laws and principles we rely on to keep our software free.
Instead of flagrantly stealing music sold on CDs, we should support alternate distribution channels like mp3.com. We should help musicians and record companies find ways to truly open up their licensing, in the same ways we've worked with computer companies to make their software free. The ubiquitous piracy which exists today will only hurt our chances for a more open environment in the future.
Music piracy is a problem, and we need to work to solve it with constructive methods, before the RIAA "solves" the problem in their own way. We need tougher community standards against music piracy, and community support for better ways to legitimately use digital music. Ideally, more music and more software could be truly free. Music pirates and software pirates will always exist, but they should fall into the same category as the script kiddies---disdained by respectable free software users and developers.
If some of the massive effort that so many geeks are putting into evangelizing Linux to the masses would be put into improving it instead, we would probably have a less popular OS---but we might also have a better one.
Sure, popularity helps Linux by attracting more developers, more money, and more projects. But it's as important as you might think. FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD have built very useful and robust systems in relative obscurity (with regard to the mainstream). And more of the BSD community seems to hold a new kernel patch in higher regard than a new press release, which is sure to attract geeks away from the increasing PR-happy Linux camp.
Linux can be successful without being popular. It doesn't need to become a Windows replacement in order to be useful to the geeks who use it today. And if you do want your favorite free software to become more popular: write code, not propaganda. Make the software good enough and eventually users will decide for themselves.
---mbrubeck
When's the last time you heard anyone talk about "the Windows community"?
There are tons of parodies (including some very good ones at the Computer Songs and Poems page. Check it out!
Given the number of "authors" that have worked on Linux, and will work on it in years to come, that date could be a long, long way off...