It's a small step on it's own, but that's really good news:) Hopefully some of the countries who were unsure about it but ultimately pressured into agreement will now start to think twice about their choices, and maybe refuse to accept the motion, or abstain, removing the majority that the motion otherwise has.
It'd be better if they had outright voted no, but an abstention is still better than a vote in favour.
A very interesting article overall, showing that Darl was involved in many other situations before SCO where he was involved in trying to make revenue by nothing but IP violation claims and other lawsuits. It tends to focus on a lot of the linux stuff (obviously) but I find the earlier history much more interesting.
In 1998, Ikon fired McBride (and as late as 2001 was still writing off his acquisitions). McBride turned around and sued his former employer for $10 million, claiming breach of contract, nonpayment of wages, and fraud. It was the first instance of McBride using lawsuits to hack through a thicket of business problems.
From these "humble beginnings" to intentionally thinking up ideas to patent, simply to take people to court over infringement, we can see that clearly he was the best man to pull SCO's slumping sales up with the last-resort tactic of trying to enforce some concocted IP violations. Only this time, he appears to have bitten off more than he can chew.
with legal fees mounting in his battle with Ikon, he faced bankruptcy. McBride eventually dropped his lawsuit, and, as part of the settlement, walked away from his startup.
I'm thinking there's a very good chance we'll see history repeat itself.;)
And as much as it's the position I would normally take, you're taking the open source / free software opinion which in this case is somewhat biased.
But to get MS Office means sending a lot more of your money to MS
The application in question is *not* free software. It is closed source, and it requires payment for it. One way or the other, you have to spend money on each, so that arguement is moot.
And if you do buy MSOffice you're going to start spreading MSOffice documents.
You're assuming, of course, that the user or business in question cares about spreading MSOffice documents. I would rather that open standards were universally applied, rather than the proprietary standards enforced by Microsoft and other companies, many (most?) users and businesses don't give a rat's ass about proprietary document formats, so once again, this is a moot point.
If you install some cross-platform MSOffice alternative you'll be one (giant) step closer to moving to a free OS.
Again, you're assuming that the person or business in question has any desire whatsoever to move closer to a free OS. Many businesses and individual users are perfectly content with Windows systems, and with Microsoft. I think it's a foolish notion myself, and I would prefer more widespread adoption of a free operating system, but it's narrow-minded to assume that everyone would hope for the same.
Give some thought to your arguement in future, and don't let your desire for open source and standards bias your opinion, so you flame anyone for suggesting that *considering* a Microsoft program on their own platform.
"Andy Hunt and Dave Thomas are The Pragmatic Programmers, two experienced and intelligent software developers with impressive experience, including the authoring of the popular The Pragmatic Programmer and the well-regarded Programming Ruby."
Wow, they certainly give a complimentary introduction! "Experienced and *intelligent* software developers" seems to be more on the opinion side, rather than a standard background introduction.
With that said though, it's an interesting enough article, and a few interesting points are raised, if a few do state the obvious a little. The interview focuses on technical issues covered in the book, as well as the publishing firm itself, so it is quite broad in scope.
This is true, but if you're limited to Windows, there's a case to just use MS Office. If you're looking for cheap (free) implementations, OpenOffice is certainly the way to go, and PlanMaker is certainly something to consider, but if you're going to go with a closed-source application on a Windows platform *anyway*, it makes sense (as much as it's uncharacteristic to admit it) to consider MS Office as a full office package. After all, if you're on Windows, you won't necessarily have too much issue with the concept of proprietary software, especially as a business, so why fight with emulation and whether your alternatives can handle all the Excel stuff properly? Why not use MS Office, where you don't have compatibility issues? You've got the choice to use something else, which is good, but on the Windows platform, you also have the choice of considering MS Office.
Well they have a comparison page with screenshots of Excel, OOo and their product, choosing every example to ensure that OOo messes it up, and makes their product look better... wouldn't look so good if the free GNUMeric could do everything that their closed-source equivalent could do, would it?;) Yes it would be a fair test, but if you're going all out to slam other products and make yours look like it's the best, clearly a biased test is in order. Although if they wanted it done properly, they could have asked the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution to set up the tests for them;)
That or "The Thing" in any case... find some desolate icy wasteland, that nasty bugger is guaranteed to be lurking in the wings somewhere;P
Tip to the researchers: If you see a crazy guy shooting at a husky, just shoot them both to be on the safe side;P
Not quite of course, but it's certainly another example of how Microsoft are being forced along in directions they would never have considered in the past, just to try and stay competitive with open source alternatives.
Anyone who read the article which was recently slashdotted, about windows "losing the API war" will have read that MS seem so desperate for developers on the.NET platform, that they are distributing a free version of the C++ compiler used in Visual Studio.NET, with no distribution restrictions on applications you create with it. This move would have been considered ludicrous in the past, but now it is simply yet another example of how they have been forced to try and encourage external innovation, rather than stifle it, to try and make their platform more attractive to developers.
This Shared Source initiative is an absolute nonsense as many people have pointed out already. First and foremost, they are not going to release any core code, simply a few bits and pieces that they attribute no real commercial value to. The code can be viewed, and worked on/patched, but it can not be reused, it can not be distributed commercially, and it is an IP minefield for anyone who later goes on to work on open source applications. It is simply giving MS free developers, because they will simply incorporate the best changes back into their proprietary operating system, and lock it back up. Before you know it, you'll have helped a proprietary system that you received no payment for, and no real benefit from. Meanwhile they laugh all the way to the bank.
It illustrates an important point though. For years, any code to come from MS was the most closely guarded secret. These days, they are forced to try and release some of it to stay competitive with true open source, albeit small amounts of largely unimportant code; but it is a concession nevertheless.
They are sending utterly mixed messages, which proves that they consider linux and open source just as much of a threat as they did when the first of the "Halloween Documents" were leaked. They are running around extolling the virtues of their "Shared Source" program, right in the middle of a "roadshow" to "get the facts" about Linux, where they pull up all sorts of MS funded lackies to talk at length about how wonderful MS products are, and how much more cost effective they are than linux. They try to be more open about things, then they patent yet more closed standards. It's clear that they are just as archetypal and proprietary as they always were.
I for one will be just sitting back and laughing as MS make concession after concession against Linux, because it's obvious that they are *very* concerned about the need to stay competitive, and with good reason.
There's also a tutorial on the forums on Linuxiso.org Here which details how to download a copy of the FTP mirror, and create a full bootable DVD from the mirror, which contains everything the professional DVD has, barring the proprietary stuff.
...how people lay down such importance on qualifications. Some of the most skilled and technically minded people I have met have had no university level qualifications, or at the very least none in the IT field. Yes, it's nice to be qualified in certain aspects of a field, and it looks good on paper, but where does it really get you? I mean, I'm sure MCSEs have been hired for administering Unix systems before, just for having some generic IT qualifications...
If you read any books like "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution", or "Crypto: How the Code Rebels Beat the Government - Saving Privacy in the Digital Age" by Steven Levy, you tend to see that *many* of the real pioneers of computing (and cryptography) were either people who didn't care too much about their actual studies and dropped out of university, or never went there to study in the first place. It's not to say that you don't *need* higher level education, but that example tends to imply that in many cases, people can get on just fine without it.
I think it's getting just a little off topic to start ragging on (or on behalf of) the French.
Granted there's some debates about some of those issues, and I agree with previous statements that the relationship between the US and France isn't exactly at an all time high, but that's no reason to start making broad generalisations, one way or the other.
That aside, I think that it's a good idea that they are at least considering different software alternatives, and not just because of open source.
When the first antitrust problems came up, it was then said that Microsoft software was on 95% of home computers, and I would say that the current figure is still extremely high. Microsoft is, and always has been, an almost total monopoly, and I don't think that it is by any means the best way to be. It is never a good idea to be utterly at the mercy of a monopoly, whether it's for support, or patches, or upgrades.
Open source is simply the best way to achieve this. The "Release early, release often, and listen to your customers" mantra of the open source movement *generally* ensures that software is patched quickly, and updated often. If you want to make changes to that code in the interim period, you are more than free to do so, either yourself, or by hiring people to do that for you.
And for the people claiming that the price is not in the license fees, it's in educating people... Well that's certainly true to a degree, but there's also another important point. Someone who is moving from a standard office job using Microsoft Word, to an open source alternative like Abiword or OpenOffice, is *not* going to require a lot of training to use alternative packages. You open the word processor, you type your document in an application which is intentionally set out *very* similarly to Word, and you click File -> Save, and you save your document. If you are running these programs on windows, it's practically identical to normal, you just save it in your "My Documents" directory, and you're finished. It's not rocket science. Even on a full switch to Linux, if they are provided with a customised KDE/Gnome desktop, the process is also much the same. You click the "Start" button, you go to applications, your office tools, and you click on the application you want to run. This is not going to involve going on a week long course to learn, even for the least technically minded people on staff. Yes, some people will need training, especially in the more technical roles, and it will take some getting used to, but I think that on occasion, the "training" arguement is pulled out a little too readily.
I think it's ultimately a good idea that it's being considered, even if not adopted, because even if they don't choose it, it can simply be thought of as it not being right for their own personal needs. Linux has started from a single person, distributing it for free, and has grown into an operating system which can be considered alongside Microsoft, and that is an astonishing achievement.
I've been using both Firefox (since 0.7) and Thunderbird (since 0.4) for a while now, and I've recently upgraded. I seem to have hit a bit of a bug with having too many FireFox extensions installed, but beyond that slight problem, FireFox and Thunderbird seem to be going from strength to strength these days.
Anyone who is still on OE or IE should seriously consider a switch, because they include things which you should really have by default in your software. Firefox has tabbed browsing and integrated popup blocking, and Thunderbird has built in encryption, supports PGP extensions, and has integrated "smart" spam filtering.
As 0123456 so rightly points out, many of the policies implemented within the United States are ultimately forced through in other countries as a direct result, so that American corporations can protect their "Intellectual Property" and copyright overseas as well as domestically.
And for the record, I'm more than aware that there is a world outside the USA. As a matter of fact, I don't live in the US. But that does not stop me from desparing at the actions of a government who appears to be utterly controlled by the big corporations, and who will systematically remove more and more personal freedoms from ordinary people, once coerced into doing so by the big businesses. Forgive me for feeling some amount of sympathy for people who are at risk of being arrested, fined or even jailed for the most minor copyright infringements.
The USA is one of the biggest countries in the world, and it's certainly one of, if not *the* most influential, so to see actions like these is ultimately depressing on a global scale, no matter what country you come from.
Sigh. Is anyone actually surprised anymore by yet another attempt to remove more freedoms? I thought progress was being made with the bill to remove the more dangerous elements of the DMCA, and now a new "Free Speech Killer"...
The world's going to hell in a handbasket.
At the risk of sounding like a spokesman, if you think OpenOffice takes a while to load up (it *can* be kinda slow at times) or you don't like the various releases of Word, you can always use Abiword.
It is quite lightweight (only needs a 486 and 16mb of RAM to run) despite looking very similar in style and operation to the latest versions of both OOo and MS Word. It's also compatible with both Word and OOo, and supports many other formats both internally and via plugins, such as WordPerfect etc.
Personally, I have OOo and Abiword installed, so that I can use Abiword for word processing, and OOo for spreadsheets and powerpoint presentations whenever I need to. I also run Abiword on my old 300MHz laptop, and it runs with no lag whatsoever, unlike when I tried running OOo on it.
"AIM, while proprietary, is free as in both beer and speech for the time being..."
Without attempting to go off on a Stallman-esque rant, "proprietary" and "free as in speech" are contradictions in terms. The software *is* "free as in beer", but without the source code and permission to modify and redistribute it, it cannot be considered to be free software.
I am currently running Slackware 9.0 on my old laptop, and it's currently running the 2.6.6 linux kernel. 9.1 was verified offically to be "2.6 ready", and Slackware-current has a 2.6 kernel in the testing section, I think it's fairly safe to assume that you'll be catered for if you're willing to put in a bit of work to get it;)
But lets face it, if you're the sort of person who would use Slackware in the first place, you're probably going to be confident enough to at least read up on a few tutorials and try a kernel upgrade, even if you've never done it before. Provided you have at least a fairly good idea of what hardware is in your system, a kernel upgrade really isn't all that difficult. Most of the selectable options specifically have a short help section to explain what the setting is for, and whether you would normally need to enable it or not.
Well the basic premise, based on projects such as both UnrealIRCd and UltimateIRCd (to name but two open source projects):
Alpha - Very buggy, many features being added, highly inadvisable to use on production level servers. Mostly for the dedicated community who almost *plan* on finding bugs.
Beta - A lot of the bugs have been fixed, features may still be added, but not drastic changes necessarily.
Release Candidate - No more feature requests will be accepted until later versions, and developer time is fully focused on bugfixes. Bugs may still be present, but it's the stage where they will be mostly weeded out, to ensure that less technically minded people will (*should*) be able to use the product without issue.
At this point the final is released, which *to their knowledge* is bug free, and ready for production level use.
Yes, it's nitpicking over terminology, but it's simply a *candidate* for release, namely something which they consider to be pretty much the final product, unless some other bugs come up. They are not adding more features at that point, so it is generally assumed that the number of bugs left to find is a static value, and after some amount of testing, it is classified as final. If you're going to nitpick over that, you may as well claim that you can't release a beta, because it's being released.
"Isn't is just fair to say that the old strategy wasn't working (as evidenced by the 20% drop in revenue), so they're trying something new? That's what they say -- they're coming out with new products to try and be more competitive..."
They could have done that in the first place, before the decided it was more fun to try and make their money by single-handedly attempting to destroy the linux community. If they'd spent all that money on improving their products and services instead of wasting it all on legal fees, they wouldn't be one of the most hated companies on the internet, they wouldn't look like lying, incompetent fools, and they might just possibly have a product that's worth at least *considering* as a business alternative to... well, anything. Anyone who is considering using a Unix system over a linux one, is clearly going to opt to work with a "secure" company, not one who:
Seems to be basing it's entire business strategy on litigation,
Is experiencing a steady decline in it's stock values, now people are beginning to realise that all of it's talk is just bullshit posturing, and
Is potentially in serious risk of being counter-sued by not only Big Blue and Novell over issues of libel/slander, but by anyone it has demanded money from, or has been taken to court over these issues.
They know that Linux is the big thing in the market these days for servers, they can see that their lawsuit isn't going anywhere, so they are quickly trying to cut their losses by advertising their products, and saving face by a refusal to admit (at this stage at least) that they are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a small step on it's own, but that's really good news :) Hopefully some of the countries who were unsure about it but ultimately pressured into agreement will now start to think twice about their choices, and maybe refuse to accept the motion, or abstain, removing the majority that the motion otherwise has.
It'd be better if they had outright voted no, but an abstention is still better than a vote in favour.
A very interesting article overall, showing that Darl was involved in many other situations before SCO where he was involved in trying to make revenue by nothing but IP violation claims and other lawsuits. It tends to focus on a lot of the linux stuff (obviously) but I find the earlier history much more interesting.
From these "humble beginnings" to intentionally thinking up ideas to patent, simply to take people to court over infringement, we can see that clearly he was the best man to pull SCO's slumping sales up with the last-resort tactic of trying to enforce some concocted IP violations. Only this time, he appears to have bitten off more than he can chew.
I'm thinking there's a very good chance we'll see history repeat itself. ;)
And as much as it's the position I would normally take, you're taking the open source / free software opinion which in this case is somewhat biased.
The application in question is *not* free software. It is closed source, and it requires payment for it. One way or the other, you have to spend money on each, so that arguement is moot.
You're assuming, of course, that the user or business in question cares about spreading MSOffice documents. I would rather that open standards were universally applied, rather than the proprietary standards enforced by Microsoft and other companies, many (most?) users and businesses don't give a rat's ass about proprietary document formats, so once again, this is a moot point.
Again, you're assuming that the person or business in question has any desire whatsoever to move closer to a free OS. Many businesses and individual users are perfectly content with Windows systems, and with Microsoft. I think it's a foolish notion myself, and I would prefer more widespread adoption of a free operating system, but it's narrow-minded to assume that everyone would hope for the same.
Give some thought to your arguement in future, and don't let your desire for open source and standards bias your opinion, so you flame anyone for suggesting that *considering* a Microsoft program on their own platform.
Just fit the camera with a parachute, and you're sorted ;) Not using a really expensive camera would also probably be top of the list :P
This is true, but if you're limited to Windows, there's a case to just use MS Office. If you're looking for cheap (free) implementations, OpenOffice is certainly the way to go, and PlanMaker is certainly something to consider, but if you're going to go with a closed-source application on a Windows platform *anyway*, it makes sense (as much as it's uncharacteristic to admit it) to consider MS Office as a full office package. After all, if you're on Windows, you won't necessarily have too much issue with the concept of proprietary software, especially as a business, so why fight with emulation and whether your alternatives can handle all the Excel stuff properly? Why not use MS Office, where you don't have compatibility issues? You've got the choice to use something else, which is good, but on the Windows platform, you also have the choice of considering MS Office.
Well they have a comparison page with screenshots of Excel, OOo and their product, choosing every example to ensure that OOo messes it up, and makes their product look better... wouldn't look so good if the free GNUMeric could do everything that their closed-source equivalent could do, would it? ;) Yes it would be a fair test, but if you're going all out to slam other products and make yours look like it's the best, clearly a biased test is in order. Although if they wanted it done properly, they could have asked the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution to set up the tests for them ;)
A decision made to *prevent* monopolies? What's the world coming to! We'll be disbanding Microsoft before you know it!
That or "The Thing" in any case... find some desolate icy wasteland, that nasty bugger is guaranteed to be lurking in the wings somewhere ;P
Tip to the researchers: If you see a crazy guy shooting at a husky, just shoot them both to be on the safe side ;P
I think Linus has proven the effectiveness of that one, and Eric S. Raymond happens to agree with me ;)
Not quite of course, but it's certainly another example of how Microsoft are being forced along in directions they would never have considered in the past, just to try and stay competitive with open source alternatives.
Anyone who read the article which was recently slashdotted, about windows "losing the API war" will have read that MS seem so desperate for developers on the .NET platform, that they are distributing a free version of the C++ compiler used in Visual Studio .NET, with no distribution restrictions on applications you create with it. This move would have been considered ludicrous in the past, but now it is simply yet another example of how they have been forced to try and encourage external innovation, rather than stifle it, to try and make their platform more attractive to developers.
This Shared Source initiative is an absolute nonsense as many people have pointed out already. First and foremost, they are not going to release any core code, simply a few bits and pieces that they attribute no real commercial value to. The code can be viewed, and worked on/patched, but it can not be reused, it can not be distributed commercially, and it is an IP minefield for anyone who later goes on to work on open source applications. It is simply giving MS free developers, because they will simply incorporate the best changes back into their proprietary operating system, and lock it back up. Before you know it, you'll have helped a proprietary system that you received no payment for, and no real benefit from. Meanwhile they laugh all the way to the bank.
It illustrates an important point though. For years, any code to come from MS was the most closely guarded secret. These days, they are forced to try and release some of it to stay competitive with true open source, albeit small amounts of largely unimportant code; but it is a concession nevertheless.
They are sending utterly mixed messages, which proves that they consider linux and open source just as much of a threat as they did when the first of the "Halloween Documents" were leaked. They are running around extolling the virtues of their "Shared Source" program, right in the middle of a "roadshow" to "get the facts" about Linux, where they pull up all sorts of MS funded lackies to talk at length about how wonderful MS products are, and how much more cost effective they are than linux. They try to be more open about things, then they patent yet more closed standards. It's clear that they are just as archetypal and proprietary as they always were.
I for one will be just sitting back and laughing as MS make concession after concession against Linux, because it's obvious that they are *very* concerned about the need to stay competitive, and with good reason.
There's also a tutorial on the forums on Linuxiso.org Here which details how to download a copy of the FTP mirror, and create a full bootable DVD from the mirror, which contains everything the professional DVD has, barring the proprietary stuff.
...how people lay down such importance on qualifications. Some of the most skilled and technically minded people I have met have had no university level qualifications, or at the very least none in the IT field. Yes, it's nice to be qualified in certain aspects of a field, and it looks good on paper, but where does it really get you? I mean, I'm sure MCSEs have been hired for administering Unix systems before, just for having some generic IT qualifications...
If you read any books like "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution", or "Crypto: How the Code Rebels Beat the Government - Saving Privacy in the Digital Age" by Steven Levy, you tend to see that *many* of the real pioneers of computing (and cryptography) were either people who didn't care too much about their actual studies and dropped out of university, or never went there to study in the first place. It's not to say that you don't *need* higher level education, but that example tends to imply that in many cases, people can get on just fine without it.
I think it's getting just a little off topic to start ragging on (or on behalf of) the French.
Granted there's some debates about some of those issues, and I agree with previous statements that the relationship between the US and France isn't exactly at an all time high, but that's no reason to start making broad generalisations, one way or the other.
That aside, I think that it's a good idea that they are at least considering different software alternatives, and not just because of open source.
When the first antitrust problems came up, it was then said that Microsoft software was on 95% of home computers, and I would say that the current figure is still extremely high. Microsoft is, and always has been, an almost total monopoly, and I don't think that it is by any means the best way to be. It is never a good idea to be utterly at the mercy of a monopoly, whether it's for support, or patches, or upgrades.
Open source is simply the best way to achieve this. The "Release early, release often, and listen to your customers" mantra of the open source movement *generally* ensures that software is patched quickly, and updated often. If you want to make changes to that code in the interim period, you are more than free to do so, either yourself, or by hiring people to do that for you.
And for the people claiming that the price is not in the license fees, it's in educating people... Well that's certainly true to a degree, but there's also another important point. Someone who is moving from a standard office job using Microsoft Word, to an open source alternative like Abiword or OpenOffice, is *not* going to require a lot of training to use alternative packages. You open the word processor, you type your document in an application which is intentionally set out *very* similarly to Word, and you click File -> Save, and you save your document. If you are running these programs on windows, it's practically identical to normal, you just save it in your "My Documents" directory, and you're finished. It's not rocket science. Even on a full switch to Linux, if they are provided with a customised KDE/Gnome desktop, the process is also much the same. You click the "Start" button, you go to applications, your office tools, and you click on the application you want to run. This is not going to involve going on a week long course to learn, even for the least technically minded people on staff. Yes, some people will need training, especially in the more technical roles, and it will take some getting used to, but I think that on occasion, the "training" arguement is pulled out a little too readily.
I think it's ultimately a good idea that it's being considered, even if not adopted, because even if they don't choose it, it can simply be thought of as it not being right for their own personal needs. Linux has started from a single person, distributing it for free, and has grown into an operating system which can be considered alongside Microsoft, and that is an astonishing achievement.
I've been using both Firefox (since 0.7) and Thunderbird (since 0.4) for a while now, and I've recently upgraded. I seem to have hit a bit of a bug with having too many FireFox extensions installed, but beyond that slight problem, FireFox and Thunderbird seem to be going from strength to strength these days.
Anyone who is still on OE or IE should seriously consider a switch, because they include things which you should really have by default in your software. Firefox has tabbed browsing and integrated popup blocking, and Thunderbird has built in encryption, supports PGP extensions, and has integrated "smart" spam filtering.
What more could you ask?
As 0123456 so rightly points out, many of the policies implemented within the United States are ultimately forced through in other countries as a direct result, so that American corporations can protect their "Intellectual Property" and copyright overseas as well as domestically.
And for the record, I'm more than aware that there is a world outside the USA. As a matter of fact, I don't live in the US. But that does not stop me from desparing at the actions of a government who appears to be utterly controlled by the big corporations, and who will systematically remove more and more personal freedoms from ordinary people, once coerced into doing so by the big businesses. Forgive me for feeling some amount of sympathy for people who are at risk of being arrested, fined or even jailed for the most minor copyright infringements.
The USA is one of the biggest countries in the world, and it's certainly one of, if not *the* most influential, so to see actions like these is ultimately depressing on a global scale, no matter what country you come from.
Sigh. Is anyone actually surprised anymore by yet another attempt to remove more freedoms? I thought progress was being made with the bill to remove the more dangerous elements of the DMCA, and now a new "Free Speech Killer"... The world's going to hell in a handbasket.
At the risk of sounding like a spokesman, if you think OpenOffice takes a while to load up (it *can* be kinda slow at times) or you don't like the various releases of Word, you can always use Abiword.
It is quite lightweight (only needs a 486 and 16mb of RAM to run) despite looking very similar in style and operation to the latest versions of both OOo and MS Word. It's also compatible with both Word and OOo, and supports many other formats both internally and via plugins, such as WordPerfect etc.
Personally, I have OOo and Abiword installed, so that I can use Abiword for word processing, and OOo for spreadsheets and powerpoint presentations whenever I need to. I also run Abiword on my old 300MHz laptop, and it runs with no lag whatsoever, unlike when I tried running OOo on it.
Without attempting to go off on a Stallman-esque rant, "proprietary" and "free as in speech" are contradictions in terms. The software *is* "free as in beer", but without the source code and permission to modify and redistribute it, it cannot be considered to be free software.
I am currently running Slackware 9.0 on my old laptop, and it's currently running the 2.6.6 linux kernel. 9.1 was verified offically to be "2.6 ready", and Slackware-current has a 2.6 kernel in the testing section, I think it's fairly safe to assume that you'll be catered for if you're willing to put in a bit of work to get it ;)
But lets face it, if you're the sort of person who would use Slackware in the first place, you're probably going to be confident enough to at least read up on a few tutorials and try a kernel upgrade, even if you've never done it before. Provided you have at least a fairly good idea of what hardware is in your system, a kernel upgrade really isn't all that difficult. Most of the selectable options specifically have a short help section to explain what the setting is for, and whether you would normally need to enable it or not.
Patched local DoS (CAN-2004-0554).
Patched asm-i386/i387.h.
Patched local DoS (CAN-2004-0554).
Well the basic premise, based on projects such as both UnrealIRCd and UltimateIRCd (to name but two open source projects):
At this point the final is released, which *to their knowledge* is bug free, and ready for production level use.
Yes, it's nitpicking over terminology, but it's simply a *candidate* for release, namely something which they consider to be pretty much the final product, unless some other bugs come up. They are not adding more features at that point, so it is generally assumed that the number of bugs left to find is a static value, and after some amount of testing, it is classified as final. If you're going to nitpick over that, you may as well claim that you can't release a beta, because it's being released.
They could have done that in the first place, before the decided it was more fun to try and make their money by single-handedly attempting to destroy the linux community. If they'd spent all that money on improving their products and services instead of wasting it all on legal fees, they wouldn't be one of the most hated companies on the internet, they wouldn't look like lying, incompetent fools, and they might just possibly have a product that's worth at least *considering* as a business alternative to... well, anything. Anyone who is considering using a Unix system over a linux one, is clearly going to opt to work with a "secure" company, not one who:
They know that Linux is the big thing in the market these days for servers, they can see that their lawsuit isn't going anywhere, so they are quickly trying to cut their losses by advertising their products, and saving face by a refusal to admit (at this stage at least) that they are wrong.