That's funny, I was just thinking how it was interesting to see how flash-bangs really worked. I was observing the "protesting" (at this point in the day, it is mostly just kids turning over dumpsters) and got to see a few thrown into a crowd. They aren't nearly as bright as in the game (although I was 100 feet or so away from them).
CORBA's smallest possible message is several times bigger than X11's smallest possible message.
The idea is that Berlin will send messages like "display dialog X with message Y" instead of doing all the low level drawing. I saw Gettys linux-kernel posting too and he seemed to gloss over that fact.
The great thing about Berlin is that you don't have to define one communication protocol like the X protocol. You can easily move the functionality between client and server in order to get the best latency/bandwidth ratio. Sure, there are X Extensions, but those aren't nearly as easy to add as new CORBA objects. And CORBA objects aren't only for graphics.
The way I see it, Berlin is just different enough that it is worth doing (the rewards could be great), yet based on enough standards that it shouldn't be too hard to get working. I'm exciting to see how it progresses.
Red Hat and E*Trade don't have anything to do with it really. They invited you to participate, but if the SEC won't let you do so, there's nothing else they can do about it.
That is fine, but it would have been nice if they had made it clear what the eligibility requirements were. The only way to find out was to open an account, afaict.
I think this is something that we all need to keep in mind; he is talking non-PC applications of Linux.
But he still goes on to say that MS is more reliable and that Linux is only a backlash against MS. Both are clueless statements in any context.
Personally, I'd love to see KT elaborate on the unreliability of Linux. It would be even better if he released some patches:) Somehow I doubt that is going to happen, though.
...that the programmer is writing code specifically for the TNT, not that the TNT is difficult to write for.
That is a valid point. Hopefully, however, we have a driver architecture flexible enough to work in client or server mode. Meaning that the driver can work in the X server for places where you still want to talk over a socket (AF_LOCAL or AF_INET) but can also talk directly to the card for special programs like Q3.
I don't think our graphics card architecture (XFree drivers, essentially) currently is even close to this, but I'm sure that someone will eventually make it work.
Most programs like things such as acceleration from video cards, at which point no sane programmer wants app->video card
With modern video cards, this is completely reasonable. The TNT has channels that allow up to 127 programs to communicate directly with the hardware. IIRC, the privileged program (X server or kernel) creates a channel by specifying a clipping region and a 64k region of memory that the client can mmap(). The TNT (with help from the kernel - it needs an interrupt handler) the interraction between all these clients.
There are papers out there that describe how good graphics cards should be designed. A good graphics card allows for app->video with accelerated (2d and 3d) features. It is nice to see that these cards are starting to show up for ~$100.
I have read many comments in the media claiming that the Mozilla project has effectively failed to exploit the masses of un-tapped programming talent...
You make it sound like they had one shot and now it is over. Just because Mozilla hasn't been worked on by *that* many people outside Netscape doesn't mean it won't be eventually. As soon as Gecko hits 1.0 and people can start using it, they will start fixing bugs and adding features. Especially if it can easily be downloaded and built.
I think this is an important fact that people often overlook: people need to be able to easily download, debug, edit, recompile, and test the package. It is very easy to do this with most free software packages out there but it definitely isn't the case with Mozilla, last time I checked.
That is a server that, currently, is just running rc5des. But it has been running a variety of databases, from Sybase to DB2 to Oracle to MySQL to PostgreSQL...
It is just a poor Pentium 90 with 64 megs of RAM. It swaps pretty hard some times but keeps going. I've even had to move/usr and/home around a few times because of disk space problems. No rebooting, though...
I have to use NT on my computer at work, and I think it is pretty stable, but the last straw for MS was when I installed IE5.0 beta and it rebooted my machine without asking. Not even a 'rebooting now... ok' dialog. How can they expect people to do serious server tasks with so much rebooting?
But in the real world, you need a voice speaking on your behalf.
Define "need". Are you saying that I need Apple or Microsoft's software? Hardly. Are you saying that free software needs media and commercial interests to succeed?
Sure, people can try to work with commercial interests, but when they do, they should speak for themselves. Not all of us agree with ESR about what makes free software successful and we don't want to be spoken for when it comes to these almost-opensource license things. Look at the names on that list - who better to be speaking?
This is a problem. I am generally turned off by both ESR and RMS. I think Bruce Perens has been making some good arguments lately, maybe he would be a good person to see in the press, but nobody should be the leader of this community. The idea is ridiculous.
A large chunk of people that come to free software do so because they want freedom, not just better software (I don't agree with those that feel that free software is just about a better design process, I feel it is about a feeling of ownership, too). Anyone that tries to speak for them is going to fail.
It is/proc/cpuinfo and dmesg output from a 14 cpu (6927 bogomips) sparc server with 2gigs of ram and a huge chain of scsi disks. There has also been talk of Sun giving kernel hackers access to bigger systems.
My point? Find a system or a market segment that linux doesn't support, then wait a year or so and I bet you it will support it.
Does anyone seriously think that Monterey is going to be any different than SVR4 or OSF/1?
I also seem to be hearing that vendors will release buggy binary drivers. Why? the drivers are the same for every OS. If it works buggy on Solaris it will Work buggy on Tu64 and Linux.
Although there is truth to this statement, it is being a bit optimistic. I remember when Java was going to be the language that all applications are written in because of its portability. "write once, run everywhere"
The problem is that there are many different java virtual machines with lots of unique bugs and most of them are slow. The same (although to a lesser extent, probably) will happen with UDI. After we play with the first few UDI drivers, we'll start to find out that companies only test their driver with a few operating systems and that because of timing issues or bugs, the driver will probably only work well under the 2-3 operating systems it was tested on. Only slightly better than the current situation.
Anyone that has spent some time on software projects knows just how funny it is when people say things like "well, this works with X so it should work with Y". I've only been a programmer (professionally) for about a year and I've learned this lesson 10 times over.
The thing I worry about the most is the way UDI could tie kernel hackers' hands. There are occasionally changes that need to be made to the drivers in order to support new features. This might not be possible if they have to support UDI drivers.
The reactions to this article bespeak appalling historical and political ignorance.
Sure, there are tons of clueless slashdot postings.
If the OS/FS movement is to maintain its much-vaunted freedom, we need political and historical sophistication and organization
Can you give us some reasons why? I'd like to hear some examples of how it will fail, especially with some of the historical and political context that you talk about. Is free software like any other movement?
You will not win against the closed-source types as individual designers, even very talented individual designers.
What does it mean to win? Hasn't Apache won the web server market with its 50%+ market share? Hasn't Linux/*BSD won in certain tasks such as web/ftp servers? Why won't these and other free software projects continue?
What kind of political organization do you propose? I'd love to hear details (I haven't read much of this essay yet...).
I also believe that proprietary software has a place, until you show me otherwise.
Proprietary software will exist for a long time, I'm sure. But it isn't that we have to convince you that it is bad (I don't think it is bad, btw), it is that there won't be much proprietary software around. You can try to make money by selling close source, but eventually nobody will listen because they know they can get better free software for whatever you want to create.
If you want all software to be free, explain how developers can make a living writing free software.
Once free software replaces most commercial software, developers will make money customizing software for companies. Does Amazon just buy Oracle and it works? Of course not, they have quite a few programmers and system administrators customizing it and adding on to it to do what they need. That is where we'll be making our money in the future. It isn't like we are going to find a limit to the things computers can do for us. Besides, it is going to take programmers to do the most interesting things.
RMS essentially requires that developers make only as much as sales clerks, and are funded with a software tax.
This isn't true for the reasons above. RMS and the GPL only make it difficult to sell software, but they make it possible to take existing free software and customize it to create a better solution for your client.
ESR has several business models on the opensource.org site, but very few of them make money for developers, only for tech-support, book and t-shirt sellers.
So, with the advent of free software, the idea of a shrink wrap software company might not be profitable any more? Probably. There are plenty of business models that have become unprofitable over the past hundred years, should we do something to avoid this or move on?
I'm still waiting for an example of a company that sells software, and only software, where all of the software is copyleft, and the company actually makes a profit.
You are never going to find an example. How could it possibly be profitable? I don't see why you think it should be. Step away from the idea that programmers can only make money by selling shrink wrap software - you have to in order to understand why people like me want all software to be free.
I agree - hasn't ESR been on usenet and project mailing lists long enough to realize that there are always going to be arguments and flamers? I haven't been around half as long as he has and have already given up trying to find a solution.
Secondly, I really dislike the way he states some of his points:
...it's because we need to learn not to pull this kind of immature crap in public any more. The stakes are too high now...
Why are the stakes too high? Big companies won't invest in Linux? I don't think so, they already have. Linux won't continue to grow? The self appointed "leaders" will quit their jobs? I don't think that would be a bad thing. I'd like it if someone could give me a good reason why "flamers exist on slashdot - traced back to usenet - film at 11" would be such a damaging story to Linux.
1.People who should have known better (Perens/Akkerman/Jackson, RMS) threw bombs in public instead of approaching OSI and Apple privately with their concerns.
This point really gets me. I thought the free software/open source community was different - that it was a public forum for discussing ideas. I would very much like to see the debate between Apple and the free software community (not just ESR or RMS or Bruce Perens, etc.) before Apple decides. I think many people would start getting disillusioned if all the "important" decisions were debated and resolved before we even heard about them. Why write free software if someone else will be deciding how companies use it, for example?
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny, I was just thinking how it was interesting to see how flash-bangs really worked. I was observing the "protesting" (at this point in the day, it is mostly just kids turning over dumpsters) and got to see a few thrown into a crowd. They aren't nearly as bright as in the game (although I was 100 feet or so away from them).
The idea is that Berlin will send messages like "display dialog X with message Y" instead of doing all the low level drawing. I saw Gettys linux-kernel posting too and he seemed to gloss over that fact.
The great thing about Berlin is that you don't have to define one communication protocol like the X protocol. You can easily move the functionality between client and server in order to get the best latency/bandwidth ratio. Sure, there are X Extensions, but those aren't nearly as easy to add as new CORBA objects. And CORBA objects aren't only for graphics.
The way I see it, Berlin is just different enough that it is worth doing (the rewards could be great), yet based on enough standards that it shouldn't be too hard to get working. I'm exciting to see how it progresses.
That is fine, but it would have been nice if they had made it clear what the eligibility requirements were. The only way to find out was to open an account, afaict.
But he still goes on to say that MS is more reliable and that Linux is only a backlash against MS. Both are clueless statements in any context.
Personally, I'd love to see KT elaborate on the unreliability of Linux. It would be even better if he released some patches :) Somehow I doubt that is going to happen, though.
That is a valid point. Hopefully, however, we have a driver architecture flexible enough to work in client or server mode. Meaning that the driver can work in the X server for places where you still want to talk over a socket (AF_LOCAL or AF_INET) but can also talk directly to the card for special programs like Q3.
I don't think our graphics card architecture (XFree drivers, essentially) currently is even close to this, but I'm sure that someone will eventually make it work.
With modern video cards, this is completely reasonable. The TNT has channels that allow up to 127 programs to communicate directly with the hardware. IIRC, the privileged program (X server or kernel) creates a channel by specifying a clipping region and a 64k region of memory that the client can mmap(). The TNT (with help from the kernel - it needs an interrupt handler) the interraction between all these clients.
There are papers out there that describe how good graphics cards should be designed. A good graphics card allows for app->video with accelerated (2d and 3d) features. It is nice to see that these cards are starting to show up for ~$100.
The final release of IE5 did the same thing, it just provided a 'reboot? ok' dialog first. It still "makes" you reboot, it still sucks...
You make it sound like they had one shot and now it is over. Just because Mozilla hasn't been worked on by *that* many people outside Netscape doesn't mean it won't be eventually. As soon as Gecko hits 1.0 and people can start using it, they will start fixing bugs and adding features. Especially if it can easily be downloaded and built.
I think this is an important fact that people often overlook: people need to be able to easily download, debug, edit, recompile, and test the package. It is very easy to do this with most free software packages out there but it definitely isn't the case with Mozilla, last time I checked.
That is a server that, currently, is just running rc5des. But it has been running a variety of databases, from Sybase to DB2 to Oracle to MySQL to PostgreSQL...
It is just a poor Pentium 90 with 64 megs of RAM. It swaps pretty hard some times but keeps going. I've even had to move /usr and /home around a few times because of disk space problems. No rebooting, though...
I have to use NT on my computer at work, and I think it is pretty stable, but the last straw for MS was when I installed IE5.0 beta and it rebooted my machine without asking. Not even a 'rebooting now... ok' dialog. How can they expect people to do serious server tasks with so much rebooting?
Define "need". Are you saying that I need Apple or Microsoft's software? Hardly. Are you saying that free software needs media and commercial interests to succeed?
Sure, people can try to work with commercial interests, but when they do, they should speak for themselves. Not all of us agree with ESR about what makes free software successful and we don't want to be spoken for when it comes to these almost-opensource license things. Look at the names on that list - who better to be speaking?
This is a problem. I am generally turned off by both ESR and RMS. I think Bruce Perens has been making some good arguments lately, maybe he would be a good person to see in the press, but nobody should be the leader of this community. The idea is ridiculous.
A large chunk of people that come to free software do so because they want freedom, not just better software (I don't agree with those that feel that free software is just about a better design process, I feel it is about a feeling of ownership, too). Anyone that tries to speak for them is going to fail.
I agree completely. This is why I don't use the term Open Source (tm) anymore - I see it as the term to use if you want ESR/OSI speaking for you.
http://linux.u cs.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9812.1/0135. html
It is /proc/cpuinfo and dmesg output from a 14 cpu (6927 bogomips) sparc server with 2gigs of ram and a huge chain of scsi disks. There has also been talk of Sun giving kernel hackers access to bigger systems.
My point? Find a system or a market segment that linux doesn't support, then wait a year or so and I bet you it will support it.
Does anyone seriously think that Monterey is going to be any different than SVR4 or OSF/1?
Although there is truth to this statement, it is being a bit optimistic. I remember when Java was going to be the language that all applications are written in because of its portability. "write once, run everywhere"
The problem is that there are many different java virtual machines with lots of unique bugs and most of them are slow. The same (although to a lesser extent, probably) will happen with UDI. After we play with the first few UDI drivers, we'll start to find out that companies only test their driver with a few operating systems and that because of timing issues or bugs, the driver will probably only work well under the 2-3 operating systems it was tested on. Only slightly better than the current situation.
Anyone that has spent some time on software projects knows just how funny it is when people say things like "well, this works with X so it should work with Y". I've only been a programmer (professionally) for about a year and I've learned this lesson 10 times over.
The thing I worry about the most is the way UDI could tie kernel hackers' hands. There are occasionally changes that need to be made to the drivers in order to support new features. This might not be possible if they have to support UDI drivers.
Sure, there are tons of clueless slashdot postings.
If the OS/FS movement is to maintain its much-vaunted freedom, we need political and historical sophistication and organization
Can you give us some reasons why? I'd like to hear some examples of how it will fail, especially with some of the historical and political context that you talk about. Is free software like any other movement?
You will not win against the closed-source types as individual designers, even very talented individual designers.
What does it mean to win? Hasn't Apache won the web server market with its 50%+ market share? Hasn't Linux/*BSD won in certain tasks such as web/ftp servers? Why won't these and other free software projects continue?
What kind of political organization do you propose? I'd love to hear details (I haven't read much of this essay yet...).
Proprietary software will exist for a long time, I'm sure. But it isn't that we have to convince you that it is bad (I don't think it is bad, btw), it is that there won't be much proprietary software around. You can try to make money by selling close source, but eventually nobody will listen because they know they can get better free software for whatever you want to create.
If you want all software to be free, explain how developers can make a living writing free software.
Once free software replaces most commercial software, developers will make money customizing software for companies. Does Amazon just buy Oracle and it works? Of course not, they have quite a few programmers and system administrators customizing it and adding on to it to do what they need. That is where we'll be making our money in the future. It isn't like we are going to find a limit to the things computers can do for us. Besides, it is going to take programmers to do the most interesting things.
RMS essentially requires that developers make only as much as sales clerks, and are funded with a software tax.
This isn't true for the reasons above. RMS and the GPL only make it difficult to sell software, but they make it possible to take existing free software and customize it to create a better solution for your client.
ESR has several business models on the opensource.org site, but very few of them make money for developers, only for tech-support, book and t-shirt sellers.
So, with the advent of free software, the idea of a shrink wrap software company might not be profitable any more? Probably. There are plenty of business models that have become unprofitable over the past hundred years, should we do something to avoid this or move on?
I'm still waiting for an example of a company that sells software, and only software, where all of the software is copyleft, and the company actually makes a profit.
You are never going to find an example. How could it possibly be profitable? I don't see why you think it should be. Step away from the idea that programmers can only make money by selling shrink wrap software - you have to in order to understand why people like me want all software to be free.
Secondly, I really dislike the way he states some of his points:
Why are the stakes too high? Big companies won't invest in Linux? I don't think so, they already have. Linux won't continue to grow? The self appointed "leaders" will quit their jobs? I don't think that would be a bad thing. I'd like it if someone could give me a good reason why "flamers exist on slashdot - traced back to usenet - film at 11" would be such a damaging story to Linux.
1.People who should have known better (Perens/Akkerman/Jackson, RMS) threw bombs in public instead of approaching OSI and Apple privately with their concerns.
This point really gets me. I thought the free software/open source community was different - that it was a public forum for discussing ideas. I would very much like to see the debate between Apple and the free software community (not just ESR or RMS or Bruce Perens, etc.) before Apple decides. I think many people would start getting disillusioned if all the "important" decisions were debated and resolved before we even heard about them. Why write free software if someone else will be deciding how companies use it, for example?
All of us (up here in Seattle) read the
article and instantly thought Fred Moody.