Just for your further edification, FreeBSD's SMP support is on a level with Linux2.0's. That means it has one giant kernel lock, and is really only useful up to 2 processors (and really not even then). Whereas Linux has had alot of tuning in this area, it scales up to around 8 processors, and can do 12 or 16 if you're really masochistic. (SGI had it running on 32, but said nothing of efficiency).
For good FreeBSD SMP you're going to have to wait for 5.0.. But that probably wont be out until 2004.
This whole "integration" label is kind of wrong-headed to begin with. Technically calculator is integrated into the OS (bundled, whatever you want to call it).
Browser "integration" into the os isn't risky if it's done intelligently. A Browser now-a-days is an external browser interface, a core html rendering widget, and plugins. It's not ludicrous to put the rendering widget into a system library (like microsoft does) because this doesn't preclude security in any way. (although it is ludicrous to make it non-removable *cough*).
Imo, the correct way to look at this is in the legalistic manner. Monopolies can be found guilty of a method called "Tying" which basicly what MS did. They bolted IE onto the side of windows and made it catastrophic to remove IE functionality (not for very good reasons). Should MS make it possible to remove the browser? Of course. I'm sure there would be many sys admins out there drooling at the chance to do just that. Of course MS would never do that. IE is now their forced-onto-everyone interface to.NET the embraced and extended internet of the future (as they would have it). It's too bad that if people dont want IE it's tough shit for them. Mozilla would be a/much/ better alternative if they were allowed the hooks into the OS that loads it on startup into memory, and makes it persistent, and makes it so it loads the mozilla widget when you type in a url in the explorer application.. Too bad those API's aren't documented. Maybe MS considers them "application specific" and not part of the OS. What nebulous nit picking.
Microsoft is breaking compatability with Winamp win WinXP. So maybe on some other windows os. Or better yet, dont use windows. But I know many of you are addicted to p01nt and c1ick.
Your ignorance is really showing through. The linux usage on mainframes isn't to maintain or increase uptime. It's to increase productivity.
ok, lets say you're running a 500 node linux hosting service on a mainframe. One of the nodes could crash (linux is less stable than mainframe). If it crashes, your hosting mainframe process quickly restarts the linux node in less than 10 seconds.
ok. lets say you're running a 499 node linux hosting service and you want to add another 4 nodes for a customer running web/database/other services. it would take about 10 seconds to create all 4 nodes. And the bandwidth in between nodes (say database and web) would be on the order of 10GigaBytes per second. Sorry. Your sun server farm just doesn't do this kind of thing
Call it a difference of opinion, however I think that the best tool for the job is always the one that should be used. If there is a free-as-in-source replacement on the way that is wonderful
That's good and well. This attitude doesn't rule out trying to advance free software. You say you'd use free software if it gets the job done (weighing in of course cost matters and development concernes). But you haven't said if you think the long term goal of the GNU project is good. To give users like yourself a Free alternative to proprietary software. If you're only a user of software (as you imply) then I would encourage you to try to use Free software and help advance it. If the philosophy of free software is something you don't really care about, then I can understand, and call that a difference of opinion. But you really haven't opined on that.
I forgot the Linux users' mantra. "Free over Useful".
Come on that's pretty much a troll and a mistatement of GNU philosophy. The goal of GNU is to make Free software that is every bit as useful as proprietary software. If everyone just gave up on that vision there wouldn't be any free software. Whenever you give up your freedoms you have to weigh the decision very carefully. Proprietary software is sometimes unavoidable, but the long term goal is to not need it at all.
Proc probably isn't as fast or portable as a system call. But last I checked, system calls are hardly portable as well. Maybe you could help me out on this one, because I probably dont know everything I should. Wouldn't it be just as hard to port a syscall as a filesystem read from/proc?
Maybe NT/2000 really is better for their task (probably because MS has kept the protocol closed)
First of all, what the hell are you referring to with "protocol"? What protocol? Kerberos? win32? What utter nonsense. Not only do you not say what you mean, but even if you did there's no way it could make sense. Having a closed protocol will not help your product be better for a specific task. It will in fact make it worse, less compatabile, less reliable, and less secure. Microsoft has a monopoly so they can use protocols to leverage their market share into other markets like servers and pdas. It's really a shame that people are starting to feel sorry for microsoft and (especially on slashdot) rooting for them as some sort of underdog. What happened to the pioneering spirit? Down with microsoft! -they used to say... sigh. Maybe the youngin's growing up today don't care. Maybe they forgot what digital Freedom really means. Maybe their first OS experience was win95 (most likely if you're younger than 18).... sigh. I will still fight for personal liberty. Call me a myopic old-timer.. whatever. I still know what it's like to be free.
I don't want to start an argument here, but I'd like to point out that there are other reasons for the average user to use Windows.
*yawn*
Another abstract reference to the "average user". The average user is a complete moron and is assimilated into Microsoft's hegemony. The "linux user" has no reason to use windows other than gaming.
You said you didn't want an argument. ok. I wont start one. But I would like to tell a story. I have a father. He is a lawyer. He uses windows and Corel Office. He has been using windows for the past 5 years. Now, I can tell you with 100% certainty that if he had to *start* again with no prior GUI experience, it would be just as easy for him to use linux as windows. I was at his office today reinstalling his windows operating system because the networking was unreliable and windows update refused to work. After waiting an hour for windows to install, I was telling him about linux. I told him that to install linux (in my case debian) the only time-intensive task is unzipping the actual program files, and for the base operating system, would only take 5 to 7 minutes. He seemed utterly amazed. Ok, so we got windows installed. But now we were faced with strange network behavior on a specific url. I knew this was strange and was a result of some misconfiguration. My dad asked why I couldn't fix it, and I told him that Mircosoft doesn't want me to know what's wrong. It's a closed proprietary OS that microsoft wants to keep dumbed-down. I told him that if it were linux and a specific url was no working, it would be simple and deterministic to figure out the problem. With windows such behavior is completely undocumented.
As it relates to the topic at hand, I think it's fair to say that the only reason folks still use windows is because they've invested so much time in figuring out the totally convoluted way to do simple things. oh, and games. Oh, and microsoft has a monopoly.
Your cynicism is dripping from your brow. Want to have sex? I love secksy men like you. So manly and powerful. I bet you impress all the ladies! Just kidding. Alright I think we can call a truce. Ego battles are so tiring. . . I do think the MacOSX sucks though. And Darwin is just a nifty toy. Me? My money is on HURD. You just wait, that baby's gonna take off in a year or two! Go RMS! I love you baby.
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe $800 will buy a horrible MacOS-X experience. Whatever. Read my next comment down to see how I feel about your disingenous leadings astray of the original intent of my post.
maybe you dont care. Maybe you just want to defend apple. I dont consider that noble but it's certainly your perogative...
I guess I'm not l33t enough for you... *runs away crying*
Somewhere along the line, wasn't this supposed to be an argument about 3rd world pricing structure? You completely turned my argument around to try to say that Apple's are cheap and therefor I was "wrong, so there".
What part of my 3rd world availability did you not agree with? That you cant find a used pc+cheapo monitor for around $200?
This article is/supposed/ to be about bring a "Unix desktop to the masses"... well I must conclude that linux is doing a far better job of that than Apple. Maybe you dont get out of your up-scale high-rent offices too much..
What part of "Mac-OS-X ready" did you understand mister know-it-all? That 800 dollar imac aint gonna run MacOSX worth a shit, and apple knows it. that's why it aint mac-os-X ready.
As I've pointed out in other threads. MacOS X has to be the most top-heavy "Unix" ever. Display-PDF? No wonder you need a 600Mhz G4 with Super Velocity Engine. Aqua? barf.
Could any of you really tell the difference between this setup and a 1.2Ghz machine?
I honestly dont think this chip is for people with 1.2 Ghz machines. It's for people like me, with old overclocked celerons who were gonna do their yearly upgrades soon.
Inherent in your rhetorical question is an assumption that 1) Chips aren't any faster than they used to be (noticablely faster) and 2) that the cpu companies like AMD are just marketing fluff -- all Ghz and no substance.
Truth is, chips are significantly faster than they used to be. Moore's law has gotten faster not slower in the past 2 years. You must read alot of review sites, that are constantly comparing the new stuff to the stuff that came out a week earlier:). No wonder you sound so jaded. What would be an interesting review would be: Athlon 1333-DDR against a Celeron 450 (overclocked) against a K6-2-550. now/that/ would be interesting, and would educate me as to how I should upgrade.
I was simply pointing out that Apple consistently prices itself out of the market.
If Steve Jobs had any math experience his Blessed Apple would be the monopoly OS and not Windows.
Ok, Maybe a MacOS-X ready Mac wont cost 3,000. Maybe more like 2,200 to 2,500.
But your one-sided, supposed "counter troll", failed to mention that a x86 computer costs alot, no ALOT, less than $1500. More than 50% less. And this is for a/very/ able computer. Jesus, you can get a used pentium1 computer for around $100, without a monitor -- and you can get a cheap used vga monitor for around $50. I doubt you considered these minor exceptions, in your sancimonous defense of Apple.
So my mathematical (not rigorous - heh) argument about price and availability to 3rd world people is only heightened. $2000 versus $200 ? man..
How many residents of third world countries can afford a $1500 computer?
Simple math tells me: alot more than could afford a $3,000 apple computer. And Im guessing, based on a bell curve distribution, about 5000% more people.
Hahahaha that's the funniest shit I've heard all day. And so true too. It's too bad Rasterman and Mandrake got all high-brow and became anti-GNOME anti-GNU (for their developments anyway). I think they could have contributed alot. E is certainly a contribution, but I think it's usership is probably on level with GNUStep at this point.
The bottom line is this stunt is just a cute bit of number theory, it carries no logical weight whatsoever.
Do you think the senators who created the DMCA will think it's just some curious bit of numerical manipulation that spites the law, or do you think that their relgious instincts will take over. "How could we outlaw a god-given number. One of the foundations of all other numbers when viewed from a factorial basis." Can they forever silence the will of god that primes be expressed? You just gotta phrase it the right way, and the Senators will follow. Us geeks have to convert a few southern preachers, and stop being so liberally partisan. There are always common threads to fundamental rights. (which, btw, is the biggest problem with the environmentalists. Their partisan and not neutral) Come on, Digerati! Lets not go the way of the environmentalists. Let's make our thought the defacto way of thinking, not an opposition to some other way of thinking.
What would be even more insane is if they released it under a BSD license. At least with the GPL you can retain the Freedom of alterations made to the code base.
Under the BSD, someone like SUN could make their own proprietary version of Win2k, mod the hell out of it, and make it a solaris network client.
At least with the GPL, there is an incentive to keep a common code base across platforms and implementations.
Was it so insane when Sun released Star office under lGPL? No. Would it have been insane if they released it under the BSD? Hell yes. GPL is better for businesses to release under than BSD. Although for obvious reasons, the BSD license is better for code that businesses want to stea^H^H^H^Huse *cough*.
1. You can write proprietary applications on top of linux. TiVO seems to be doing pretty well. I don't think they're too bothered about the GPL... Hmm.... 2. It costs nothing to distribute source code in the internet age. Face it. This is not a burden to GPL anymore. 3. BSD software is only free software when you get it from the developer. Saying "why dont they use FreeBSD" is equivelent to saying "why dont they just roll their own OS and never let anyone get close to the source". BSD license doesnt protect software from proprietization. 4. The BSD license seems to encourage fragmentation, which is bad for the community, and dare I say, bad for BSD businesses. this is just my observation, I can't back this up theoretically.
So summing up, I would encourage GPL usage over BSDl usage, but that's all I can do. The choice is yours. But as linux is showing, the GPL might in the end be better for business than the BSDl.
I would be very happy i Ximian would focus on getting their Gnome distribution back on track. There have not been any updates available for a long time.
</I><BR><BR>How did this post get a +2. It's ver <i>un</I>informed. Helix does a great job with the gnome distribution. After all, they're not the only ones doing it. Redhat has one; Debian has one; Mandrake has one; etc. As was mentioned, Gnome 1.4 is on the way, maybe in a week or three.<br><br>Your statement implies that Ximian is working on SOUP, SOAP, Wuteva, to the detriment of their Gnome packages. Well All I have to say is, it takes a genius to implement SOUP, SOAP, whateva, and a trained monkey to package a distro. If Ximian had to choose (which Id say is a fallacy) then Id rahter they build out the infrastructure of the already-good GNOME.<BR><BR>First Corba, Now Bonobo. Tomorrow SOUP AND SOAP. With Nautilus making its way and Evolution having a Cambrian explosion. I think times are looking good for GNOME.
Slashdot Mirror
Just for your further edification, FreeBSD's SMP support is on a level with Linux2.0's. That means it has one giant kernel lock, and is really only useful up to 2 processors (and really not even then). Whereas Linux has had alot of tuning in this area, it scales up to around 8 processors, and can do 12 or 16 if you're really masochistic. (SGI had it running on 32, but said nothing of efficiency).
For good FreeBSD SMP you're going to have to wait for 5.0.. But that probably wont be out until 2004.
This whole "integration" label is kind of wrong-headed to begin with. Technically calculator is integrated into the OS (bundled, whatever you want to call it).
.NET the embraced and extended internet of the future (as they would have it). It's too bad that if people dont want IE it's tough shit for them. Mozilla would be a /much/ better alternative if they were allowed the hooks into the OS that loads it on startup into memory, and makes it persistent, and makes it so it loads the mozilla widget when you type in a url in the explorer application.. Too bad those API's aren't documented. Maybe MS considers them "application specific" and not part of the OS. What nebulous nit picking.
Browser "integration" into the os isn't risky if it's done intelligently. A Browser now-a-days is an external browser interface, a core html rendering widget, and plugins. It's not ludicrous to put the rendering widget into a system library (like microsoft does) because this doesn't preclude security in any way. (although it is ludicrous to make it non-removable *cough*).
Imo, the correct way to look at this is in the legalistic manner. Monopolies can be found guilty of a method called "Tying" which basicly what MS did. They bolted IE onto the side of windows and made it catastrophic to remove IE functionality (not for very good reasons). Should MS make it possible to remove the browser? Of course. I'm sure there would be many sys admins out there drooling at the chance to do just that. Of course MS would never do that. IE is now their forced-onto-everyone interface to
I'll see you in splittsville, MS.
Microsoft is breaking compatability with Winamp win WinXP. So maybe on some other windows os. Or better yet, dont use windows. But I know many of you are addicted to p01nt and c1ick.
Oh. I forgot to mention.
You can plug an Oc-30 into the back of a mainframe.
No more routers. No more switches. No more mazes of wiring. Can you imagine all the routers switches and wiring needed for a 500 node server farm?
Your ignorance is really showing through. The linux usage on mainframes isn't to maintain or increase uptime. It's to increase productivity.
ok, lets say you're running a 500 node linux hosting service on a mainframe. One of the nodes could crash (linux is less stable than mainframe). If it crashes, your hosting mainframe process quickly restarts the linux node in less than 10 seconds.
ok. lets say you're running a 499 node linux hosting service and you want to add another 4 nodes for a customer running web/database/other services. it would take about 10 seconds to create all 4 nodes. And the bandwidth in between nodes (say database and web) would be on the order of 10GigaBytes per second. Sorry. Your sun server farm just doesn't do this kind of thing
Everything you want to know about linux on mainframe. Its history, its purpose, its future. All from the horses mouth. The originator of linus on s/390.
Call it a difference of opinion, however I think that the best tool for the job is always the one that should be used. If there is a free-as-in-source replacement on the way that is wonderful
That's good and well. This attitude doesn't rule out trying to advance free software. You say you'd use free software if it gets the job done (weighing in of course cost matters and development concernes). But you haven't said if you think the long term goal of the GNU project is good. To give users like yourself a Free alternative to proprietary software. If you're only a user of software (as you imply) then I would encourage you to try to use Free software and help advance it. If the philosophy of free software is something you don't really care about, then I can understand, and call that a difference of opinion. But you really haven't opined on that.
I forgot the Linux users' mantra. "Free over Useful".
Come on that's pretty much a troll and a mistatement of GNU philosophy. The goal of GNU is to make Free software that is every bit as useful as proprietary software. If everyone just gave up on that vision there wouldn't be any free software. Whenever you give up your freedoms you have to weigh the decision very carefully. Proprietary software is sometimes unavoidable, but the long term goal is to not need it at all.
Proc probably isn't as fast or portable as a system call. But last I checked, system calls are hardly portable as well. Maybe you could help me out on this one, because I probably dont know everything I should. Wouldn't it be just as hard to port a syscall as a filesystem read from /proc?
Maybe NT/2000 really is better for their task (probably because MS has kept the protocol closed)
First of all, what the hell are you referring to with "protocol"? What protocol? Kerberos? win32? What utter nonsense. Not only do you not say what you mean, but even if you did there's no way it could make sense. Having a closed protocol will not help your product be better for a specific task. It will in fact make it worse, less compatabile, less reliable, and less secure. Microsoft has a monopoly so they can use protocols to leverage their market share into other markets like servers and pdas. It's really a shame that people are starting to feel sorry for microsoft and (especially on slashdot) rooting for them as some sort of underdog. What happened to the pioneering spirit? Down with microsoft! -they used to say... sigh. Maybe the youngin's growing up today don't care. Maybe they forgot what digital Freedom really means. Maybe their first OS experience was win95 (most likely if you're younger than 18).... sigh. I will still fight for personal liberty. Call me a myopic old-timer.. whatever. I still know what it's like to be free.
I don't want to start an argument here, but I'd like to point out that there are other reasons for the average user to use Windows.
*yawn*
Another abstract reference to the "average user". The average user is a complete moron and is assimilated into Microsoft's hegemony. The "linux user" has no reason to use windows other than gaming.
You said you didn't want an argument. ok. I wont start one. But I would like to tell a story. I have a father. He is a lawyer. He uses windows and Corel Office. He has been using windows for the past 5 years. Now, I can tell you with 100% certainty that if he had to *start* again with no prior GUI experience, it would be just as easy for him to use linux as windows. I was at his office today reinstalling his windows operating system because the networking was unreliable and windows update refused to work. After waiting an hour for windows to install, I was telling him about linux. I told him that to install linux (in my case debian) the only time-intensive task is unzipping the actual program files, and for the base operating system, would only take 5 to 7 minutes. He seemed utterly amazed. Ok, so we got windows installed. But now we were faced with strange network behavior on a specific url. I knew this was strange and was a result of some misconfiguration. My dad asked why I couldn't fix it, and I told him that Mircosoft doesn't want me to know what's wrong. It's a closed proprietary OS that microsoft wants to keep dumbed-down. I told him that if it were linux and a specific url was no working, it would be simple and deterministic to figure out the problem. With windows such behavior is completely undocumented.
As it relates to the topic at hand, I think it's fair to say that the only reason folks still use windows is because they've invested so much time in figuring out the totally convoluted way to do simple things. oh, and games. Oh, and microsoft has a monopoly.
Your cynicism is dripping from your brow. Want to have sex? I love secksy men like you. So manly and powerful. I bet you impress all the ladies! Just kidding. Alright I think we can call a truce. Ego battles are so tiring. . . I do think the MacOSX sucks though. And Darwin is just a nifty toy. Me? My money is on HURD. You just wait, that baby's gonna take off in a year or two! Go RMS! I love you baby.
Thanks for your enlightening comments.
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe $800 will buy a horrible MacOS-X experience. Whatever. Read my next comment down to see how I feel about your disingenous leadings astray of the original intent of my post.
maybe you dont care. Maybe you just want to defend apple. I dont consider that noble but it's certainly your perogative...
I guess I'm not l33t enough for you... *runs away crying*
Somewhere along the line, wasn't this supposed to be an argument about 3rd world pricing structure? You completely turned my argument around to try to say that Apple's are cheap and therefor I was "wrong, so there".
/supposed/ to be about bring a "Unix desktop to the masses"... well I must conclude that linux is doing a far better job of that than Apple. Maybe you dont get out of your up-scale high-rent offices too much..
What part of my 3rd world availability did you not agree with? That you cant find a used pc+cheapo monitor for around $200?
This article is
What part of "Mac-OS-X ready" did you understand mister know-it-all? That 800 dollar imac aint gonna run MacOSX worth a shit, and apple knows it. that's why it aint mac-os-X ready.
As I've pointed out in other threads. MacOS X has to be the most top-heavy "Unix" ever. Display-PDF? No wonder you need a 600Mhz G4 with Super Velocity Engine. Aqua? barf.
Could any of you really tell the difference between this setup and a 1.2Ghz machine?
:). No wonder you sound so jaded. What would be an interesting review would be: Athlon 1333-DDR against a Celeron 450 (overclocked) against a K6-2-550. now /that/ would be interesting, and would educate me as to how I should upgrade.
I honestly dont think this chip is for people with 1.2 Ghz machines. It's for people like me, with old overclocked celerons who were gonna do their yearly upgrades soon.
Inherent in your rhetorical question is an assumption that 1) Chips aren't any faster than they used to be (noticablely faster) and 2) that the cpu companies like AMD are just marketing fluff -- all Ghz and no substance.
Truth is, chips are significantly faster than they used to be. Moore's law has gotten faster not slower in the past 2 years. You must read alot of review sites, that are constantly comparing the new stuff to the stuff that came out a week earlier
Troll boy?
/very/ able computer. Jesus, you can get a used pentium1 computer for around $100, without a monitor -- and you can get a cheap used vga monitor for around $50. I doubt you considered these minor exceptions, in your sancimonous defense of Apple.
I was simply pointing out that Apple consistently prices itself out of the market.
If Steve Jobs had any math experience his Blessed Apple would be the monopoly OS and not Windows.
Ok, Maybe a MacOS-X ready Mac wont cost 3,000. Maybe more like 2,200 to 2,500.
But your one-sided, supposed "counter troll", failed to mention that a x86 computer costs alot, no ALOT, less than $1500. More than 50% less. And this is for a
So my mathematical (not rigorous - heh) argument about price and availability to 3rd world people is only heightened. $2000 versus $200 ? man..
How many residents of third world countries can afford a $1500 computer?
Simple math tells me: alot more than could afford a $3,000 apple computer. And Im guessing, based on a bell curve distribution, about 5000% more people.
E... has become the David Lee Roth of Linux.
Hahahaha that's the funniest shit I've heard all day. And so true too. It's too bad Rasterman and Mandrake got all high-brow and became anti-GNOME anti-GNU (for their developments anyway). I think they could have contributed alot. E is certainly a contribution, but I think it's usership is probably on level with GNUStep at this point.
The bottom line is this stunt is just a cute bit of number theory, it carries no logical weight whatsoever.
Do you think the senators who created the DMCA will think it's just some curious bit of numerical manipulation that spites the law, or do you think that their relgious instincts will take over. "How could we outlaw a god-given number. One of the foundations of all other numbers when viewed from a factorial basis." Can they forever silence the will of god that primes be expressed? You just gotta phrase it the right way, and the Senators will follow. Us geeks have to convert a few southern preachers, and stop being so liberally partisan. There are always common threads to fundamental rights. (which, btw, is the biggest problem with the environmentalists. Their partisan and not neutral) Come on, Digerati! Lets not go the way of the environmentalists. Let's make our thought the defacto way of thinking, not an opposition to some other way of thinking.
I think you're confused. the modules/drivers/ directory contains the 2D (along with other various X functions) drivers.
For dri, look in the modules/dri/
here are the contents of mine:
gamma_dri.so
i810_dri.so
mga_dri.so
r128_dri.so
radeon_dri.so
sis_dri.so
tdfx_dri.so
Btw, this was compiled from CVS a week ago (pre 4.0.3).
What would be even more insane is if they released it under a BSD license. At least with the GPL you can retain the Freedom of alterations made to the code base.
Under the BSD, someone like SUN could make their own proprietary version of Win2k, mod the hell out of it, and make it a solaris network client.
At least with the GPL, there is an incentive to keep a common code base across platforms and implementations.
Was it so insane when Sun released Star office under lGPL? No. Would it have been insane if they released it under the BSD? Hell yes. GPL is better for businesses to release under than BSD. Although for obvious reasons, the BSD license is better for code that businesses want to stea^H^H^H^Huse *cough*.
You forgot .S files, and you should also include Makefiles.
So maybe add 50 thousand more lines?
Could someone mod this troll down?
my god...
Why did they choose Linux?
Oh, I don't know. ever hear of video4linux?
There is no BSD counterpart to video4linux.
Ok, time to dispell BSD vs. GPL myths.
1. You can write proprietary applications on top of linux. TiVO seems to be doing pretty well. I don't think they're too bothered about the GPL... Hmm....
2. It costs nothing to distribute source code in the internet age. Face it. This is not a burden to GPL anymore.
3. BSD software is only free software when you get it from the developer. Saying "why dont they use FreeBSD" is equivelent to saying "why dont they just roll their own OS and never let anyone get close to the source". BSD license doesnt protect software from proprietization.
4. The BSD license seems to encourage fragmentation, which is bad for the community, and dare I say, bad for BSD businesses. this is just my observation, I can't back this up theoretically.
So summing up, I would encourage GPL usage over BSDl usage, but that's all I can do. The choice is yours. But as linux is showing, the GPL might in the end be better for business than the BSDl.
I would be very happy i Ximian would focus on getting their Gnome distribution back on track. There have not been any updates available for a long time.
</I><BR><BR>How did this post get a +2. It's ver <i>un</I>informed. Helix does a great job with the gnome distribution. After all, they're not the only ones doing it. Redhat has one; Debian has one; Mandrake has one; etc. As was mentioned, Gnome 1.4 is on the way, maybe in a week or three.<br><br>Your statement implies that Ximian is working on SOUP, SOAP, Wuteva, to the detriment of their Gnome packages. Well All I have to say is, it takes a genius to implement SOUP, SOAP, whateva, and a trained monkey to package a distro. If Ximian had to choose (which Id say is a fallacy) then Id rahter they build out the infrastructure of the already-good GNOME.<BR><BR>First Corba, Now Bonobo. Tomorrow SOUP AND SOAP. With Nautilus making its way and Evolution having a Cambrian explosion. I think times are looking good for GNOME.