What gets me, is Windows is designed for dummies. It is designed for the person who's never used a computer before to get on and start using a computer immediatly. If you design a product that is meant to be used by people with little/no knowledge, how can you blame them when they open attachments or download viruses.
For example, kmail has html email disabled by default. If you attempt to enable it, you get many strong warnings explaining why it's a bad idea and the possible consequences. The same thing when you try and open an attachment. Why doesn't outlook do this? Why has it taken them all these years to enable a firewall by default. Red Hat has been doing it at least 4 years now. They didn't wait until worms took down 85% of their users on multiple occasions.
On most other OS's you can blame the user. You can not blame people using an operating system that was meant for the most computer illiterate people on earth.
I swear, Fox doesn't know good shows if they spanked 'em on their asses. Fox constantly pre-empts the Simpsons for all kinds of crap. It's gotten to the point where only about 1/2 of the time I turn to Fox on a Sunday night a 8 I'm actually going to see the Simpsons. Yet the midget wedding show was right on time; and all their other wedding crap shows right on time. If Fox doesn't want the simpsons, they should sell it. From the way they treat it, it would seem they don't want it.
> Why in the world would you HAVE lib-whatever-3.1.18 on your system, yet have compiled AGAINST lib-whatever-3.1.17?
Because the rpm package maintainer compiled it against lib-whatever-3.1.17.
While I agree, I think half the people using Gentoo have no business using it. Most people don't understand gcc optimization flags, don't make their own ebuild files, don't set up their own esync server, etc. etc. They might as well be using GRP packages, yet they compile their whole OS with default flags.
When I compile a package against lib-whatever-3.1.17, the rpm will not work unless you have lib-whatever-3.1.17 EXACTLY. This is annoying as hell, because I may have lib-whatever-3.1.18, but it won't work. Yay, fun with symlinking time. With rpms you need the EXACT lib, down to the minor version. With the Gnu build system, you almost never need the same minor version, and in many cases (e.g. Gtk) you don't even have to have the same major version.
>That just means that you'll have to store the dependancy databases in your head.
Many people who use binary packages make this argument, but it's simply not true. The gnu build system (despite what many people say) is VERY good at finding deps. I've used linux from scratch for a lot of speciality servers for a long time. Anytime my libs have been out of date,./configure has told me. Red Hat is dependency hell. They take single packages like Xfree86 and break them up. So you may think you have Xfree86 installed, but you may not have the particular library a package needs. When I compile XFree86, I compile XFree86. Not some stripped down version that's going to cause problems later. Maintaining packages you compiled yourself is not difficult or dangerous and many would like you to believe. If I download gaim and build it with./configure, make, make install, that's how the original progammers meant it to be built. When you get an rpm, you are getting it through the grapevine with red hat patches and modifications the original authors never intended.
When you use binary packages you are generally at the mercy of how the maintainer decided to build the package. Want mysql with --with-lo-mem? You're stuck either without it or stuck trying to find someone else's build. I understand the need for binary packages. How many people would need coreutils with a specific build option? OTOH, how many people need Apache built a certain way. If you're using a binary package with something like apache that probably needs to be built for your needs, you done missed the boat.
As far as pure functionality goes, you can do anything in linux that you can with Nero. A lot of them are seperate tools, however there are a plethora of front ends that bring them all together. And if not, they script very easily.
The current numbers are about 2-3% which may not seem all that big of a difference, but that's very close to Mac OS's market share. Many predict linux on the desktop will hit 5-6% within the year which would pass Mac OS.
As correct as your argument is, it's pointless on slashdot. Half the people you are trying to convince a) have never even visited trolltech.com to read the license let alone read through it throughly. b) programmed using either QT or Gtk. c) Worked on a project using QT that fell under the commercial license d) ever had to compile gnome from source (with it's 5,000 packages) e) understand that the only reason closed source software can link to Gtk is because it's LGPL and in fact the GPL DOES NOT allow closed source apps to link to it.
Many slashdotters don't understand that the world will never be 100% open source and that dual licenses are the best compromise we have. QT's license is one of the most open of these dual licenses because in fact it is GPL, unlike Gtk+ which is LGPL.
Read the QPL and GPL documentation on trolltech's site. It refers to software as either open or closed source. Not whether profit is gained from that software.
From trolltech.com...
Based on the "Quid Pro Quo" principle, if you wish to derive a commercial advantage by not releasing your application under an open source license, you must purchase an appropriate number of commercial licenses from Trolltech.
Your point quite frankly is moot because the GPL does not allow linking of closed source software to GPL software at all. LGPL does however. And your comparason of SCO couldn't apply here. QT is open source. If there were ever an instance of Trolltech accusing anyone of illegally linking, it would be an accusation to a closed source project. Just like busybox has accused certain companies of using their code in closed source projects.
99.99999999999999% of the time QT is free, no cost, nada. KDE doesn't fall under a situtation where it would need to pay for using QT. By no stretch of the imagination. If a situtation comes up where you want to write closed source code to make money off of QT, why shouldn't they be paid for their superior product and hard work? QT is possibly one of the best graphical libraries around. It's mature, portable, clean, GPL. Can anyone here actually name 5 linux applications they use in their day to day life that falls under the situtation where they'd need to pay Trolltech? Frankly, I think they _should_ be paid if you are going to make money off of their work. They are encouraging programmers to write GPL compatable code, and if you are so opposed to writing GPL compatable code, you will be charged for it. More than anything there are a lot of people talking about a lot of hypothetical situations that will arise less than 1% of the time and will not apply to KDE as long as it stays open source.
Has anyone here ever dealt with MS "support"? Their "support" is someone on the phone reading down a trouble shooting list. Usually they do nothing more than ask you a preset list of questions and ask you to do what's written for them. Not exactly what I call support.
This myth that you can not get quality support for linux is such bullshit. Novell, Sun, IBM, Oracle, Red Hat, Suse, Hp, Dell, Compaq, various consulting agencies, ALL have support contracts. In fact, I consider all those companies support considerbly higher quality than MS's. 7 years ago you might have been stuck getting your support from irc and mailing lists, but this is simply not the case in 2004. MS would love more than anything to keep people believing this is 1997, but in 2004 the only thing keeping Linux from the masses is MS's commitment to vender lock-in that makes it nearly impossible to use technically superior products.
At one point OSS was a merry band of hackers writing code in their free time. With support from IBM, HP, Novell, Dell, SGI, Sun, and many other large companies, A LOT of oss code is from companies. I would like to see a survey of some sort of how much is actually from companies because I'm willing to bet it's past the 50% mark. Look at the linux kernel changelog. Many of these email addresses are from large companies. and while it doesn't necessarly mean the code is coming from the company itself, a good deal of it is. Also, a good deal is coming out of Universities. Many people write OSS code 25+ hours a week. Some employed full time doing it. A good example is slashdot. Aren't some of you guys employed full time working on slashdot and slashcode? The image MS wants to give oss is a korean 13 year old writing software between homework assignments. The reality is, today, OSS is highly backed and supported by many large companies and Universities.
>But which formerly "open source" software has RedHat made proprietary?
Their entire OS! On top of that, although RHAS is GPL, they've made it known they do not want people copying it.
>What's your metric for "buggy"?
An OS that on older systems can not make it through the installer. I've never had an installer die like anaconda. Almost every other distribution I use, LFS, Gentoo, sometimes debian, Beehive when it was still around, Slackware, and many others, all the programs work after an install. I've never had programs randomly segfault immediatly after an install. It seems like a regular occourence on Red Hat systems.
>RHCE is a _practical_ hands-on certification which shows that the holder can actually do something other than make marks on a bit of paper
So is the Novell Linux cert. And it will attempt to be distribution neutral.
And for the record, I'm not some huge Suse supporter who only uses Suse. I've administered most major distributions at one time or another and use LFS at home and Gentoo on servers. I call 'em as I see 'em.
Red Hat will very likely lose it's #1 spot as far as sales in the commercial linux distro market(if they are even still #1). First, Red Hat hasn't exactly been friendly to the Linux community. They write kernel patches all the time for Red Hat and don't submit them to kernel.org That doesn't seem like very friendly community behavior to me.
#2) Their support contracts are outrageous. I've talked with people who work at various Universites and from what they've told me, Red Hat wouldn't give them any sort of discount as far support. The contract was so expensive there was no way they could buy it. Novell is the support contract and certification kings. Which brings me to point
#3) RHCE is worthless. OTOH, Novell is recommending LPIC alongside their own linux cert. LPIC attempts to be distribution neutral (except for package managers). RHCE is strictly Red Hat.
Novell is attempting to make Suse more open (with recent moves of open sourcing Yast and a lot of Novell software), while Red Hat is going the other direction. Red Hat has historically used a lot of software still considered beta and has been the buggiest linux distro out there.
It's Red Hat's own fault really. They have done very little in the past few years to keep customers. While Novell is doing A LOT for the community. They are going to not only snatch up Windows/Netware converts, but disgruntled Red Hat supports as well.
If it were only that easy. The only major supplier that sells Linux desktop systems is HP. The problem is MS has strict restrictions on OEM's not selling their PC's with windows preinstalled. It's in many of their contracts their not even allowed to sell OS less systems. Wanna be a rebel and not sign a contract? Ok, but MS won't give you any OEM discounts. You can pay retail for ALL your copies of Windows. If that's not monopolistic and flat out bullying I don't know what is.
Most important is whether MS has to take the imposed actions during appeals. i.e. will they have to sell windows w/o Media Player during the appeals process (which could take years to complete).
Slashdot Mirror
What gets me, is Windows is designed for dummies. It is designed for the person who's never used a computer before to get on and start using a computer immediatly. If you design a product that is meant to be used by people with little/no knowledge, how can you blame them when they open attachments or download viruses.
For example, kmail has html email disabled by default. If you attempt to enable it, you get many strong warnings explaining why it's a bad idea and the possible consequences. The same thing when you try and open an attachment. Why doesn't outlook do this? Why has it taken them all these years to enable a firewall by default. Red Hat has been doing it at least 4 years now. They didn't wait until worms took down 85% of their users on multiple occasions.
On most other OS's you can blame the user. You can not blame people using an operating system that was meant for the most computer illiterate people on earth.
I swear, Fox doesn't know good shows if they spanked 'em on their asses. Fox constantly pre-empts the Simpsons for all kinds of crap. It's gotten to the point where only about 1/2 of the time I turn to Fox on a Sunday night a 8 I'm actually going to see the Simpsons. Yet the midget wedding show was right on time; and all their other wedding crap shows right on time. If Fox doesn't want the simpsons, they should sell it. From the way they treat it, it would seem they don't want it.
> Why in the world would you HAVE lib-whatever-3.1.18 on your system, yet have compiled AGAINST lib-whatever-3.1.17? Because the rpm package maintainer compiled it against lib-whatever-3.1.17.
While I agree, I think half the people using Gentoo have no business using it. Most people don't understand gcc optimization flags, don't make their own ebuild files, don't set up their own esync server, etc. etc. They might as well be using GRP packages, yet they compile their whole OS with default flags.
When I compile a package against lib-whatever-3.1.17, the rpm will not work unless you have lib-whatever-3.1.17 EXACTLY. This is annoying as hell, because I may have lib-whatever-3.1.18, but it won't work. Yay, fun with symlinking time. With rpms you need the EXACT lib, down to the minor version. With the Gnu build system, you almost never need the same minor version, and in many cases (e.g. Gtk) you don't even have to have the same major version.
>That just means that you'll have to store the dependancy databases in your head. ./configure has told me. Red Hat is dependency hell. They take single packages like Xfree86 and break them up. So you may think you have Xfree86 installed, but you may not have the particular library a package needs. When I compile XFree86, I compile XFree86. Not some stripped down version that's going to cause problems later. Maintaining packages you compiled yourself is not difficult or dangerous and many would like you to believe. If I download gaim and build it with ./configure, make, make install, that's how the original progammers meant it to be built. When you get an rpm, you are getting it through the grapevine with red hat patches and modifications the original authors never intended.
Many people who use binary packages make this argument, but it's simply not true. The gnu build system (despite what many people say) is VERY good at finding deps. I've used linux from scratch for a lot of speciality servers for a long time. Anytime my libs have been out of date,
When you use binary packages you are generally at the mercy of how the maintainer decided to build the package. Want mysql with --with-lo-mem? You're stuck either without it or stuck trying to find someone else's build. I understand the need for binary packages. How many people would need coreutils with a specific build option? OTOH, how many people need Apache built a certain way. If you're using a binary package with something like apache that probably needs to be built for your needs, you done missed the boat.
As far as pure functionality goes, you can do anything in linux that you can with Nero. A lot of them are seperate tools, however there are a plethora of front ends that bring them all together. And if not, they script very easily.
pic here
From that picture it sure seems like, well...you decide...
The current numbers are about 2-3% which may not seem all that big of a difference, but that's very close to Mac OS's market share. Many predict linux on the desktop will hit 5-6% within the year which would pass Mac OS.
Everytime MS tries to push their search engine forward, google smacks them down like a couple of bitches.
As correct as your argument is, it's pointless on slashdot. Half the people you are trying to convince a) have never even visited trolltech.com to read the license let alone read through it throughly. b) programmed using either QT or Gtk. c) Worked on a project using QT that fell under the commercial license d) ever had to compile gnome from source (with it's 5,000 packages) e) understand that the only reason closed source software can link to Gtk is because it's LGPL and in fact the GPL DOES NOT allow closed source apps to link to it.
Many slashdotters don't understand that the world will never be 100% open source and that dual licenses are the best compromise we have. QT's license is one of the most open of these dual licenses because in fact it is GPL, unlike Gtk+ which is LGPL.
Read the QPL and GPL documentation on trolltech's site. It refers to software as either open or closed source. Not whether profit is gained from that software.
From trolltech.com...
Based on the "Quid Pro Quo" principle, if you wish to derive a commercial advantage by not releasing your application under an open source license, you must purchase an appropriate number of commercial licenses from Trolltech.
Your point quite frankly is moot because the GPL does not allow linking of closed source software to GPL software at all. LGPL does however. And your comparason of SCO couldn't apply here. QT is open source. If there were ever an instance of Trolltech accusing anyone of illegally linking, it would be an accusation to a closed source project. Just like busybox has accused certain companies of using their code in closed source projects.
>If someone pays me to make changes to KDE does that count?
No it doesn't. It applies to closed source code only.
99.99999999999999% of the time QT is free, no cost, nada. KDE doesn't fall under a situtation where it would need to pay for using QT. By no stretch of the imagination. If a situtation comes up where you want to write closed source code to make money off of QT, why shouldn't they be paid for their superior product and hard work? QT is possibly one of the best graphical libraries around. It's mature, portable, clean, GPL. Can anyone here actually name 5 linux applications they use in their day to day life that falls under the situtation where they'd need to pay Trolltech? Frankly, I think they _should_ be paid if you are going to make money off of their work. They are encouraging programmers to write GPL compatable code, and if you are so opposed to writing GPL compatable code, you will be charged for it. More than anything there are a lot of people talking about a lot of hypothetical situations that will arise less than 1% of the time and will not apply to KDE as long as it stays open source.
Has anyone here ever dealt with MS "support"? Their "support" is someone on the phone reading down a trouble shooting list. Usually they do nothing more than ask you a preset list of questions and ask you to do what's written for them. Not exactly what I call support.
This myth that you can not get quality support for linux is such bullshit. Novell, Sun, IBM, Oracle, Red Hat, Suse, Hp, Dell, Compaq, various consulting agencies, ALL have support contracts. In fact, I consider all those companies support considerbly higher quality than MS's. 7 years ago you might have been stuck getting your support from irc and mailing lists, but this is simply not the case in 2004. MS would love more than anything to keep people believing this is 1997, but in 2004 the only thing keeping Linux from the masses is MS's commitment to vender lock-in that makes it nearly impossible to use technically superior products.
Xmove is supposed to be able to do exactly that.
They can make this but they still can't make me a decent jetpack? I'm begining to think we will never get our flying shark we were promised
Or better yet...
Now who am I going to tea bag with my brand new 50 pound balls
I hope you're trying to be funny...
At one point OSS was a merry band of hackers writing code in their free time. With support from IBM, HP, Novell, Dell, SGI, Sun, and many other large companies, A LOT of oss code is from companies. I would like to see a survey of some sort of how much is actually from companies because I'm willing to bet it's past the 50% mark. Look at the linux kernel changelog. Many of these email addresses are from large companies. and while it doesn't necessarly mean the code is coming from the company itself, a good deal of it is. Also, a good deal is coming out of Universities. Many people write OSS code 25+ hours a week. Some employed full time doing it. A good example is slashdot. Aren't some of you guys employed full time working on slashdot and slashcode? The image MS wants to give oss is a korean 13 year old writing software between homework assignments. The reality is, today, OSS is highly backed and supported by many large companies and Universities.
>OK. Cite some actual examples to back that up please.
The first few paragraphs
>But which formerly "open source" software has RedHat made proprietary?
Their entire OS! On top of that, although RHAS is GPL, they've made it known they do not want people copying it.
>What's your metric for "buggy"?
An OS that on older systems can not make it through the installer. I've never had an installer die like anaconda. Almost every other distribution I use, LFS, Gentoo, sometimes debian, Beehive when it was still around, Slackware, and many others, all the programs work after an install. I've never had programs randomly segfault immediatly after an install. It seems like a regular occourence on Red Hat systems.
>RHCE is a _practical_ hands-on certification which shows that the holder can actually do something other than make marks on a bit of paper
So is the Novell Linux cert. And it will attempt to be distribution neutral.
And for the record, I'm not some huge Suse supporter who only uses Suse. I've administered most major distributions at one time or another and use LFS at home and Gentoo on servers. I call 'em as I see 'em.
Red Hat will very likely lose it's #1 spot as far as sales in the commercial linux distro market(if they are even still #1). First, Red Hat hasn't exactly been friendly to the Linux community. They write kernel patches all the time for Red Hat and don't submit them to kernel.org That doesn't seem like very friendly community behavior to me.
#2) Their support contracts are outrageous. I've talked with people who work at various Universites and from what they've told me, Red Hat wouldn't give them any sort of discount as far support. The contract was so expensive there was no way they could buy it. Novell is the support contract and certification kings. Which brings me to point
#3) RHCE is worthless. OTOH, Novell is recommending LPIC alongside their own linux cert. LPIC attempts to be distribution neutral (except for package managers). RHCE is strictly Red Hat.
Novell is attempting to make Suse more open (with recent moves of open sourcing Yast and a lot of Novell software), while Red Hat is going the other direction. Red Hat has historically used a lot of software still considered beta and has been the buggiest linux distro out there.
It's Red Hat's own fault really. They have done very little in the past few years to keep customers. While Novell is doing A LOT for the community. They are going to not only snatch up Windows/Netware converts, but disgruntled Red Hat supports as well.
If it were only that easy. The only major supplier that sells Linux desktop systems is HP. The problem is MS has strict restrictions on OEM's not selling their PC's with windows preinstalled. It's in many of their contracts their not even allowed to sell OS less systems. Wanna be a rebel and not sign a contract? Ok, but MS won't give you any OEM discounts. You can pay retail for ALL your copies of Windows. If that's not monopolistic and flat out bullying I don't know what is.
Most important is whether MS has to take the imposed actions during appeals. i.e. will they have to sell windows w/o Media Player during the appeals process (which could take years to complete).