This was a quite thorough, well-written document all until the point he mentioned Bill Gates. Well, actually not Bill Gates himself but the immortalised words from his "Open Letter To Hobbyists".
In particular, the bit about documentation. The thing that Linux lacks these days is decent documentation in alot of areas, in particular things like devfs (which the author even admits is now poorly documents (the instructions that are available are now out of date)).
Coming from a BSD background (no, this isn't an excuse for a platform war - just hear me out), documentation is just as important as the code itself. This sometimes means that availability of certain features in BSD are a generation behind that of Linux, but when they arrive, the documentation is top notch, containing correct spelling and grammar, notes what bugs are present, provides examples of correct usage (this is especially relevent in documenting programming functions whose incorrect usage may have a security impact) and so on. Overall, it's an issue of documentation quality.
The author of the paper may scoff in the direction of Bill Gates, noting the ability of the Linux community to create and maintain an operating system, but what he's done in the process is brought the whole paper down by exposing the single thing that Linux as a "disparate sources, one distribution" model operating system can never have as what Microsoft products and, from my perspective, the BSD operating systems have - documentation that exists in a single form and written in a style that is consistent across the entire operating system. (This is not the case with Linux. Some things use manpages, others use "info", others use textfiles, others use html documentation. Heaven knows how a new user on Linux (advocacy is about attracting new users, right?) is supposed to navigate this mess without a considerable level of pain and/or persistence).
And before you let the flames begin, have a poke around on say, the NetBSD/OpenBSD/FreeBSD sites' manual page listings on their website and compare them to the ones you see on RedHat and so on.
The restriction on Linux usage for the creation of the logo seems a bit nonsensical if you're wanting to use a plugin for something like Adobe Photoshop that (for whatever reason) isn't available on Linux and has no similar utility to create the same effect. I'd give the example of some of the Flaming Pear plugins for Photoshop on the Mac (They're located at: http://www.flamingpear.com/download.html). The one that makes planets, especially.
Although the comparison in this IRC quote isn't exactly along the lines of what's going on here with this nonsensical requirement, I think it sums up the point well enough:
<Saty> look at this way
<mobtek> saty is drunk
* mobtek grins
<Saty> openbsd is an organised army with fuhrer theo leading the reich
<Saty> linux is a band of trotskyites making sure every battle they commit to has the correct marxist implications
Actually, the reason it was "down" for about 10 minutes this morning (4:30am AEST, Mon 11th) was because the core couter at our upstream was rebooted and the BGP routes inbound from the USA were screwed for about 30 minutes following this.
Regardless of the fact that these guys appear to have gone out of their way to abuse Mindcraft, I do have to admit I laughed hard at the one accusing them of being "incompetent boobs at best".
Did they seriously think they would get away with not having some email responses like this (probably in the small minority of all the other ones that they received describing the flawed methodology in their first test)?
I note that the Wired article says they've put most of their computing power into webservers to handle the demands of people downloading the software and not enough into data block allocations.
Have they ever heard of mirroring? They do host the main download site at ftp.cdrom.com, but the other 4 or so sites are all their own. Why not just ask for support from some of the main FTP sites around the world and have them serve everything except the blocks?
It's nice to flail about worrying about the license, but has anyone looked at the source with a desire to have it compile on x86 Linux or even LinuxPPC?
I had a quick look at it, but the Makefile appears to be heavily slanted towards only working with the NeXTStep compiler/development management system.
>If I had Linux on my laptop I'd have to NFS export >the directory. That would require knowing what >machines are likely to be used by the people I >want to share files with. On NT if I grant "fred" >access to one of my directories, "fred" can access >it from any NT machine on the network as long as >he logs in a "fred". If "fred" normally logs in to >a machine called "tophat" I could export an nfs >mount to "tophat", but if "tophat" died one day >and "fred" went over and logged into someone >else's machine he wouldn't be able to nfs mount my >directory from that machine. He'd have to call me >and ask me to add that machine to the nfs exports >(which I couldn't do even if I were in the office >instead of at an all day off site meeting, I'd >have to call an administrator).
And this is a GOOD thing?
Hows about I just walk into your office with a new laptop with a "fred" user account on it and login to your machine.
I'd much rather apply a network-address based control than a login-based one.
It seems that this type of security model is based more on convenience than anything else...
The saddest part of your story is when you make the comment that the needs of the newbie are sometimes (always?) placed ahead of the technologically influential.
What is sad about this is that you appear to think producing for both audiences is a mutually exclusive proposition.
The example I cite to prove that it is not is Apple Computer's Mac OS. It endears itself to the beginner yet has enough tweaks in it for the experienced graphic designer or Quark operator to be able to produce just about every ad in mainstream media around the world today.
With a mindset such as that which you appear to have, it's no surprise at all that people who appreciate quality in their software bash Microsoft in public forums such as this any every opportunity that arises, misguided and as hate-filled as the term "bashing" might imply.
Linux may not be a true competitor to your operating systems and products at this time, but with the technologically influential already catered for in Linux, I believe you face a much harder task scaling up your newbie product to suit for the technologically influential than we will have scaling down for the newbie.
Well, I run the MacOS on my client machines and Linux on the servers (headless servers, too).
I consider myself a Linux person, but I can't say I'm prone to having to deal with non-scalable fonts of a lack of anti-aliasing. Heck, you Microsoft boys even stole that from Apple...
As the topic suggests, they're coming from a different mindset - one of closed source. I just hope that whatever improvements they'll allegedly bring to Linux and it's brethren (read: *BSD), they'll pick up on the GNU/GPL culture and run with it rather than fight it by releasing software for the platform and coming up with brain-dead licensing schemes to prevent the software from advancing as it does now on Free/Open Source platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
This was a quite thorough, well-written document all until the point he mentioned Bill Gates. Well, actually not Bill Gates himself but the immortalised words from his "Open Letter To Hobbyists".
In particular, the bit about documentation. The thing that Linux lacks these days is decent documentation in alot of areas, in particular things like devfs (which the author even admits is now poorly documents (the instructions that are available are now out of date)).
Coming from a BSD background (no, this isn't an excuse for a platform war - just hear me out), documentation is just as important as the code itself. This sometimes means that availability of certain features in BSD are a generation behind that of Linux, but when they arrive, the documentation is top notch, containing correct spelling and grammar, notes what bugs are present, provides examples of correct usage (this is especially relevent in documenting programming functions whose incorrect usage may have a security impact) and so on. Overall, it's an issue of documentation quality.
The author of the paper may scoff in the direction of Bill Gates, noting the ability of the Linux community to create and maintain an operating system, but what he's done in the process is brought the whole paper down by exposing the single thing that Linux as a "disparate sources, one distribution" model operating system can never have as what Microsoft products and, from my perspective, the BSD operating systems have - documentation that exists in a single form and written in a style that is consistent across the entire operating system. (This is not the case with Linux. Some things use manpages, others use "info", others use textfiles, others use html documentation. Heaven knows how a new user on Linux (advocacy is about attracting new users, right?) is supposed to navigate this mess without a considerable level of pain and/or persistence).
And before you let the flames begin, have a poke around on say, the NetBSD/OpenBSD/FreeBSD sites' manual page listings on their website and compare them to the ones you see on RedHat and so on.
Although the comparison in this IRC quote isn't exactly along the lines of what's going on here with this nonsensical requirement, I think it sums up the point well enough:
(Quotes from: http://www.2600.org.au/logs/quotes.txt)
ftp://ftp.ausmac.net/pub/mac/Quicktime-Movies/
Enjoy!
Actually, the reason it was "down" for about 10 minutes this morning (4:30am AEST, Mon 11th) was because the core couter at our upstream was rebooted and the BGP routes inbound from the USA were screwed for about 30 minutes following this.
Nothing I could do about it...
Dogcow
Regardless of the fact that these guys appear to have gone out of their way to abuse Mindcraft, I do have to admit I laughed hard at the one accusing them of being "incompetent boobs at best".
Did they seriously think they would get away with not having some email responses like this (probably in the small minority of all the other ones that they received describing the flawed methodology in their first test)?
Dogcow
I note that the Wired article says they've put most of their computing power into webservers to handle the demands of people downloading the software and not enough into data block allocations.
Have they ever heard of mirroring? They do host the main download site at ftp.cdrom.com, but the other 4 or so sites are all their own. Why not just ask for support from some of the main FTP sites around the world and have them serve everything except the blocks?
Anyone have any idea what the beeping is over the RealAudio version of the press conference?
It's damn annoying...
It's nice to flail about worrying about the license, but has anyone looked at the source with a desire to have it compile on x86 Linux or even LinuxPPC?
I had a quick look at it, but the Makefile appears to be heavily slanted towards only working with the NeXTStep compiler/development management system.
Anyone having any luck with it?
>If I had Linux on my laptop I'd have to NFS export >the directory. That would require knowing what
>machines are likely to be used by the people I
>want to share files with. On NT if I grant "fred"
>access to one of my directories, "fred" can access
>it from any NT machine on the network as long as
>he logs in a "fred". If "fred" normally logs in to
>a machine called "tophat" I could export an nfs
>mount to "tophat", but if "tophat" died one day
>and "fred" went over and logged into someone
>else's machine he wouldn't be able to nfs mount my
>directory from that machine. He'd have to call me
>and ask me to add that machine to the nfs exports
>(which I couldn't do even if I were in the office
>instead of at an all day off site meeting, I'd
>have to call an administrator).
And this is a GOOD thing?
Hows about I just walk into your office with a new laptop with a "fred" user account on it and login to your machine.
I'd much rather apply a network-address based control than a login-based one.
It seems that this type of security model is based more on convenience than anything else...
You should'nt forget those people that actually buy a Macintosh from Apple because it HAS the MacOS preinstalled/bundled....
I did, and I'm happy with it.
Dear sir,
The saddest part of your story is when you make the comment that the needs of the newbie are sometimes (always?) placed ahead of the technologically influential.
What is sad about this is that you appear to think producing for both audiences is a mutually exclusive proposition.
The example I cite to prove that it is not is Apple Computer's Mac OS. It endears itself to the beginner yet has enough tweaks in it for the experienced graphic designer or Quark operator to be able to produce just about every ad in mainstream media around the world today.
With a mindset such as that which you appear to have, it's no surprise at all that people who appreciate quality in their software bash Microsoft in public forums such as this any every opportunity that arises, misguided and as hate-filled as the term "bashing" might imply.
Linux may not be a true competitor to your operating systems and products at this time, but with the technologically influential already catered for in Linux, I believe you face a much harder task scaling up your newbie product to suit for the technologically influential than we will have scaling down for the newbie.
I look forward to your response,
Grant Bayley
Well, I run the MacOS on my client machines and Linux on the servers (headless servers, too).
I consider myself a Linux person, but I can't say I'm prone to having to deal with non-scalable fonts of a lack of anti-aliasing. Heck, you Microsoft boys even stole that from Apple...
That one still baffles me, because I always ask the question - in what human context is the error that this program has performed illegal?
It might be in Redmond, WA, but it sure wouldn't be in Australia, where we have different laws entirely.
Someone should give the boys and girls a Microsoft a copy of "Tog on Interface".
As the topic suggests, they're coming from a different mindset - one of closed source. I just hope that whatever improvements they'll allegedly bring to Linux and it's brethren (read: *BSD), they'll pick up on the GNU/GPL culture and run with it rather than fight it by releasing software for the platform and coming up with brain-dead licensing schemes to prevent the software from advancing as it does now on Free/Open Source platforms.
Twas interesting to note the likely March release date for distributions (which I assume includes RedHat etc)...
The LinuxPPC folks are as close if not a smidge ahead from what I can tell on getting things 2.2.0 ready for both online release and CD release....