Some people feel that it is still a superior client (not me, anymore), because:
It has an easy-to-use, yet very powerful object-oriented GUI shell (the Wor kplace Shell).
It is compatible with older Windows programs (pre-Win32s 1.25).
It is great at multitasking DOS programs (not such a big deal anymore)
It has a nice multiple-inheriting object model (SOM)
There are some rudimentary remote administration abilities (telnet and ftp daemo ns are included with the operating system).
Sadly, IBM has neglected it for so long, that it has been basically dead for years. I still have it on one machine at home (my wife uses it for email--PMMail is a nice email client), but I switched to Linux full time (I had been dual-booting OS/2 and Linux for a while before that) a couple of years ago.
This is why I will not use any proprietary software, unless I have no other choice; you are at the mercy of the company who holds the source. Never again! If it's not open source, I avoid it, to the extent possible/practical.
Thanks, IBM, for teaching me the greatest benefit of open source.
Although...they would redeem themselves in my mind somewhat if they would GPL SOM and the WPS.
at least as a bsd user i'll know i can take a box from unsecure to hardened twice as fast and easy as an equally competent linux user. SysV inits BLOW.
What?!? This is sheer idiocy. All modern UNIXes use SysV init, because it's hands-down better. You have the ability to use the backwards, old-fashioned BSD way by lazily sticking stuff into rc.local, rc.sysinit, etc.
How can you seriously argue that the flexibility that runlevels provide is somehow a disadvantage?
Sheesh. It's stuff like this that makes me think less of BSD advocates. Crabby old men, indeed.
I'd really like to attend some of these shows, but I haven't seen one yet in the Pacific Northwest. I just can't afford to go to NYC or NC, and I doubt my company would want to foot the bill. Still, you never know until you ask, eh?
Anyhow, when will there be a Linux show in the Pacific Northwest? We have lots of computer-related industry here, trees, ocean, mountains...as well as tons of microbreweries. What more could you ask for?
First, even it might be impossible to track down all of the people who contributed and somehow get them all to agree to a new license. Do you think Linux could do the same? Everyone must agree, and then even after that there's likely some other legal tidbits to work out. Its just crazy.
I don't think this is correct. Since you can already take the code and stick it into whatever you want, proprietary or otherwise, there is no reason whatsoever that you could not redistribute it under the GPL. You're not changing the copyright; you're just adding licensing terms, which the BSD license allows you to do.
The biggest obstacle in the past was the advertising clause, but even that is being removed now.
As for why some people think this would be a good idea, this is my guess:
People have many theories as to why Linux has achieved the popularity among users and companies that it has. Usually among these theories is the idea that volunteer programmers are more likely to contribute to a project that forbids the proprietarization of their code than to one that does not. This may or may not be true; it's a tough one to prove.
So, if you buy that theory, the thought goes...by going to the GPL, BSD would lose some hackers (the hard-core BSDL advocates), but pick up more in return. Of course, it's just that a theory, and an untested one at that. I don't really know that things would work out that way. A reasonable counter argument is that there are only so many hackers of the GPL persuasion, and Linux is already using those resources.
My guess is that with the removal of the advertising clause, someone is going to try to start a GPL BSD project. That will be the true test; we'll just see how many developers they pick up, and whether developers are lost from Linux, the BSDs, or neither.
His theory is that the single-user system is tighter without a root account, and you can tighten things down without ever having to worry about someone getting root. Not sure I can totally buy it.
That's a heck of a weird theory. On a single-user system, *everything* runs as root.
I've used WebStar and Pictorius before on a Mac (prefer the latter, myself), and it's not half bad as a web server, but I wouldn't put anything stressful on 'em, as I'd be afraid of stability problems.
Remember, Apple was the last big OS vendor to fix the ping-o-death problem (took 'em until MacOS 8).
Now that/. has a spot to put your public key, I may just have to get GPG and start using encruption again.
I never expected such quick service from Rob. *big grin*
Anyhow, the above comment is exactly what I was hoping would happen.
The people who were a bit hesitant about the idea yesterday have a very good point: you should use keyservers. I have had my keys up on keyservers for some time.
But I still think that having a Public Key display on Slashdot is a useful thing, and am glad Rob thought so, too, if only for further publicity of PGP and GnuPG.
Really? That's strange. I have been reading/posting to Slashdot since late 1997/early 1998, have a high Karma, read what I think would be an average amount, but have never moderated. Once, I had moderator status, but then Slashdot crashed, and when it came back up, my points were gone.
Thank you for providing the links. I've only been able to scan through quickly, but there appears to be a great deal of excellent information, particularly at the first link. I'd suggest others take a look.
Linus' views on microkernels are, of course, well known. I think he's right, to a point, and in the context of where computing is today. Projects like the Workplace OS, ambitious as they were, I think reflected the hopes of many of where the microkernel could take us (I certainly was all caught up in the hype for the project at the time). Perhaps they still will. I can only dream.
Linux is not the solution to every computing problem
Research into new operating systems needs to continue, and perhaps be accelerated
Looking at some of the comments from developers working on embedded systems, it sounds like we can, however, take one thing from the "Linux experience:" we perhaps don't need a whole lot of new proprietary operating systems, tiny or not.
You even used the example of eCos, an open source RTOS for embedded systems.
It's certainly an arguable point, as many, many people still support the proprietary software model. Even open source advocates support it for certain applications. But to suggest that open source is a model that should be followed, in the interest of consumer and developer alike, is at least a legitimate view, whether one agrees with it or not.
BTW, I found your comments about the Workplace OS of great interest, as I had not heard about that particular event (Microsoft hiring away an important developer) before. Do you know where I can read more about that?
But by releasing it as GPL or BSD, they could potentially lose all control of it (at least in their minds if not in reality)
Agreed. Although I think that it (a GPL or BSD release) would still achieve their prime objective here, which is to do damage to Microsoft's primary revenue stream.
But I would like to see them give up control on the distribution side of things, while perhaps retaining some control on the modification side.
That's really the only beef I have with the current plan; it doesn't accomplish Sun's (apparent) goals, because it will not achieve sufficient distribution if people have to download StarOffice seperately.
A QPL-type license would get the job done.
-- Posting this with Sun StarOffice, BTW! Not a half bad browser, if you have the RAM. I don't even think it leaks memory nearly as bad as Netscape.
I'm operating on an assumption here, but one that I think is not terribly daring: that Sun purchased StarOffice not to try to generate direct revenue, but to put the hurt on Microsoft..."cutting off their air supply"...by attacking their largest revenue stream: Office.
If that's correct, then going truly open source with StarOffice is clearly the right thing to do. It would mean that StarOffice would be distributed with pretty much every Linux CD. It would also mean that their would be numerous distribution points, instead of one.
Truly open-sourcing StarOffice would be a punch to Bill Gates' gut. As it is, the SCSL release will be little more than a slap to his face.
I fondly recall those days (not all *that* long ago) when Slashdot (almost) resembled 80's Usenet. Clued-in folks knowlegeably discussing the stuff they're interested in.
I would note, however, that many who are here now would see threads like the one you pointed us to as representative of a banal Linux admiration society. Perhaps. But it was a lot more fun then than it is now. I'm still here, so it's still fun, interesting, valuable, etc. It's just that it used to be moreso.
There wasn't much bickering in those days; I think that's what I miss most. But there was still lots of valuable content.
I realize that banning ACs wouldn't make things back the way they were. I don't know that there is an answer. Once something has become as popular as Slashdot is, I'm afraid there's no hope in preserving/restoring its contributors' high quality.
I still wonder if separating comments by user agent and/or OS might not keep some of the sniping down. But, then you'd miss out on good comments by people who are on different platforms than yourself. Maybe if only comments of 2 or better broke the "platform barrier?" Hmmm...
Sometimes I think that Perens has a starting level of 5. And I just don't understand that. Maybe the moderators worship him unduly.
Actually, if you look at his User Info, you will see that he starts off with a 2, like all other "good karma" posters.
There may a certain amount of moderator worship for him, but I did see one of his posts moderated down once (and left that way) to a 1, as "flamebait."
As long as people saying something like "The BSD license is more free/less restricted than GNU's GPL" are moderated down and others writing "BSD is a failure/dying" not, the moderation system is useless.
OK...I realize that you may be trolling me, but, given that you have what appears to many to be a legitimate beef, I will address it.
I have seen this complaint posted over and over and over and over, and every time I ask for evidence of such behavior, it is met with deafening silence.
Why don't we take a gamble, and actually look at some evidence?
You gave the example of BSD vs. GPL licensing; let's look at the most two recent threads involving BSD:
In this thread, contrary to your claims, the highest rated comments are neither pro- or anti- either license (at least not strongly.
Lower down in the thread, we see a post that was moderated down which celebrates the license change and suggests GPLing BSD. It was borderline; it didn't really have any content, so I think it was properly moderated.
On the other hand, Brett Glass (or an AC posting as him) went on a trollfest, starting with an attack on the FSF. Not one of his anti-GPL ravings (which included red-baiting) was moderated down.
I would simply say that inflammatory advocacy does not generally work.
I, for one, don't have any particular axe to grind. I like the BSD license, but I generally prefer the GPL license, because it discourages forking and keeps source code open.
BSD license is more favorable (at least under certain circumstances) to software developers. GPL license is more favorable to software users.
Pick the one you like. If something is released under a license/policy you don't like, don't use it. That's what I do, and is why I generally avoid closed-source software.
Yeah, like open sourcing Netscape Communicator made Netscape become a succesful company again, completely changed the face of web brwoser scene, and totally kicked Microsoft's butt.
Apples and oranges. Netscape release a pile of largely useless source code, which wouldn't even compile. It is only now, over a year later, that it is even beginning to approach some semblance of usability. That is not the kind of project that is likely to attract developers or users.
StarOffice, on the other hand, is already pretty solid, and Sun probably wouldn't need to remove much code before releasing the source code.
My point is that since they're releasing under the SCSL, they're basically conceding that they're not going to make money from StarOffice. So, since they've already decided that, they might as well go ahead and Open Source(tm) it, to gain the additional benefit of wide distribution.
There's just no point in doing it half way.
Either way, I've (actually my company) already paid for my copy of StarOffice, so it's not going to affect me personally.
Red Hat puts Sun Star Office on their CD set; Red Hat is then obliged to pay a fee to Sun for every set sold, but presumably the fee is small, and they can add it into their shelf price. But lo! All those other cheapbytesey copiers of Red Hat discs run into a problem.
That's very disappointing; I was afraid there was some commercial distribution catch. I understand that Sun wants to recoup their investment, but...
If they stick to this type of licensing, StarOffice will remain a relatively insignificant piece of software. If they Open Source(tm) it, it could change the face of desktop computing, and could generate more hardware sales for Sun than they can ever hope to make from distribution fees.
I really hope ESR and Bruce Perens can have a chat with Sun, and talk some sense into them.
The computer makers would love to offer an alternative to Microsoft Office; but if they tried Microsoft would punish them by charging them full price for Windows.
Indeed they would. However, we need to look at what is tying the users to Windows: it is largely Microsoft Office (yes, games are important, but individual games have significantly less staying power than Office, and are presumably not used heavily in offices).
If RedHat, Caldera, and the rest (apart from Corel, naturally) bundle StarOffice (I don't know if RedHat or Debian's policies allow this, given the SCSL), you suddenly have a relatively easy to use office platform that has software licensing fess of $0. Windows is no longer a "must have" under circumstances like this.
So, let's see: Microsoft's solution for a 20-seat office is, oh, $5000 (at least; that's assuming no NT server, no Exchange, etc.). This, combined with Linux, costs roughly $0. Gee, tough decision, especially given StarOffice's compatibility with Microsoft Office file formats, and relative operational similarity (read: trivial training costs).
This is IE vs. Netscape all over again, except the revenue is larger, and it's happening to Microsoft this time.
C'mon, you must know as well as I do, that IS people all over the world are just looking for an excuse to introduce Linux on the desktop. They're tired of having to deal with Microsoft's crap, and are just bored with it all. This gives them a solid piece of ammunition that they can use to argue for Linux/UNIX on the desktop.
This in itself might not accomplish that, but a very large piece of the puzzle just got put into place.
Yes, like others here, I don't much care for Sun's license, but...
Even though it might not do exactly what we want it to do, let's look at what it may otherwise accomplish.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAICT, the license does allow you to use the product, even commercially, free of charge (as long as you don't use more than 500 copies, if the picoJava rules apply to this).
In the past, StarOffice was free to use for non-commercial use, but you had to pay if you wanted to use it legitimately for work (my company bought it for me, $169, not bad, really). This meant that there was insufficient incentive to migrate from Microsoft Office.
Free, however, is a nice price...especially when you have 10, 20, 100 people using Office. This could definitely put the hurt on Microsoft by "cutting off their air supply," since Office is their cash cow.
Normally, this would be a bad thing; however, right now, with the desktop monopoly Microsoft holds, anything that reintroduces competition into the desktop market is a Good Thing, IMO.
Perhaps Microsoft will now get a taste of what they did to Netscape.
Maybe in a few years, AOL will buy them, too. He he he.
I'd still like to see Sun reconsider, and offer StarOffice under a GPL-, X11-, or MPL/QPL-type license.
KDE (A number of KDE programs could make up this whole list, actually, if you want to get picky about what is and isn't "enduser software.")
XEmacs
ncftp
MiniVend
PHP
GNUTar
samba
IMO, of course. And, yes...I also use a Mac occasionally.
And, because all this stuff is GPLd, I can hack on it, or ask others to hack on it for me. And I need not worry about someone else's "business decision" orphaning my software (happened to me with OS/2; not gonna happen again because I refuse to chain myself to proprietary software when free alternatives exist).
Slashdot Mirror
Some people feel that it is still a superior client (not me, anymore), because:
- It has an easy-to-use, yet very powerful object-oriented GUI shell (the Wor kplace Shell).
- It is compatible with older Windows programs (pre-Win32s 1.25).
- It is great at multitasking DOS programs (not such a big deal anymore)
- It has a nice multiple-inheriting object model (SOM)
There are some rudimentary remote administration abilities (telnet and ftp daemo ns are included with the operating system).Sadly, IBM has neglected it for so long, that it has been basically dead for years. I still have it on one machine at home (my wife uses it for email--PMMail is a nice email client), but I switched to Linux full time (I had been dual-booting OS/2 and Linux for a while before that) a couple of years ago.
This is why I will not use any proprietary software, unless I have no other choice; you are at the mercy of the company who holds the source. Never again! If it's not open source, I avoid it, to the extent possible/practical.
Thanks, IBM, for teaching me the greatest benefit of open source.
Although...they would redeem themselves in my mind somewhat if they would GPL SOM and the WPS.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
What?!? This is sheer idiocy. All modern UNIXes use SysV init, because it's hands-down better. You have the ability to use the backwards, old-fashioned BSD way by lazily sticking stuff into rc.local, rc.sysinit, etc.
How can you seriously argue that the flexibility that runlevels provide is somehow a disadvantage?
Sheesh. It's stuff like this that makes me think less of BSD advocates. Crabby old men, indeed.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Anyhow, when will there be a Linux show in the Pacific Northwest? We have lots of computer-related industry here, trees, ocean, mountains...as well as tons of microbreweries. What more could you ask for?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I don't think this is correct. Since you can already take the code and stick it into whatever you want, proprietary or otherwise, there is no reason whatsoever that you could not redistribute it under the GPL. You're not changing the copyright; you're just adding licensing terms, which the BSD license allows you to do.
The biggest obstacle in the past was the advertising clause, but even that is being removed now.
As for why some people think this would be a good idea, this is my guess:
People have many theories as to why Linux has achieved the popularity among users and companies that it has. Usually among these theories is the idea that volunteer programmers are more likely to contribute to a project that forbids the proprietarization of their code than to one that does not. This may or may not be true; it's a tough one to prove.
So, if you buy that theory, the thought goes...by going to the GPL, BSD would lose some hackers (the hard-core BSDL advocates), but pick up more in return. Of course, it's just that a theory, and an untested one at that. I don't really know that things would work out that way. A reasonable counter argument is that there are only so many hackers of the GPL persuasion, and Linux is already using those resources.
My guess is that with the removal of the advertising clause, someone is going to try to start a GPL BSD project. That will be the true test; we'll just see how many developers they pick up, and whether developers are lost from Linux, the BSDs, or neither.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Neither of them fit very well to describe what is happening in the free software world. It's sharing, and voluntary, so it's really its own thing.
It's not even really anarchist, as there is a legal structure (copyright) that enforces what you can and cannot do with source code.
Sort of libertarian or communitarian, maybe. The important point is that it's voluntary, at the individual level.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
That's a heck of a weird theory. On a single-user system, *everything* runs as root.
I've used WebStar and Pictorius before on a Mac (prefer the latter, myself), and it's not half bad as a web server, but I wouldn't put anything stressful on 'em, as I'd be afraid of stability problems.
Remember, Apple was the last big OS vendor to fix the ping-o-death problem (took 'em until MacOS 8).
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I never expected such quick service from Rob. *big grin*
Anyhow, the above comment is exactly what I was hoping would happen.
The people who were a bit hesitant about the idea yesterday have a very good point: you should use keyservers. I have had my keys up on keyservers for some time.
But I still think that having a Public Key display on Slashdot is a useful thing, and am glad Rob thought so, too, if only for further publicity of PGP and GnuPG.
Thanks, Rob!
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Really? That's strange. I have been reading/posting to Slashdot since late 1997/early 1998, have a high Karma, read what I think would be an average amount, but have never moderated. Once, I had moderator status, but then Slashdot crashed, and when it came back up, my points were gone.
Hmmm....I wonder if my account is broken somehow.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Linus' views on microkernels are, of course, well known. I think he's right, to a point, and in the context of where computing is today. Projects like the Workplace OS, ambitious as they were, I think reflected the hopes of many of where the microkernel could take us (I certainly was all caught up in the hype for the project at the time). Perhaps they still will. I can only dream.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
- Linux is not the solution to every computing problem
- Research into new operating systems needs to continue, and perhaps be accelerated
Looking at some of the comments from developers working on embedded systems, it sounds like we can, however, take one thing from the "Linux experience:" we perhaps don't need a whole lot of new proprietary operating systems, tiny or not.You even used the example of eCos, an open source RTOS for embedded systems.
It's certainly an arguable point, as many, many people still support the proprietary software model. Even open source advocates support it for certain applications. But to suggest that open source is a model that should be followed, in the interest of consumer and developer alike, is at least a legitimate view, whether one agrees with it or not.
BTW, I found your comments about the Workplace OS of great interest, as I had not heard about that particular event (Microsoft hiring away an important developer) before. Do you know where I can read more about that?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
This seems to be a rapidly increasing problem. I've only noticed it over the past month or so, but many comments are now being moderated down because the moderator disagrees with the ideas expressed in the post. See this post from today. Not mine; just a post I happened to see. Was it off topic? Certainly no more than its parent post, which was not moderated.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Agreed. Although I think that it (a GPL or BSD release) would still achieve their prime objective here, which is to do damage to Microsoft's primary revenue stream.
But I would like to see them give up control on the distribution side of things, while perhaps retaining some control on the modification side.
That's really the only beef I have with the current plan; it doesn't accomplish Sun's (apparent) goals, because it will not achieve sufficient distribution if people have to download StarOffice seperately.
A QPL-type license would get the job done.
-- Posting this with Sun StarOffice, BTW! Not a half bad browser, if you have the RAM. I don't even think it leaks memory nearly as bad as Netscape.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
If that's correct, then going truly open source with StarOffice is clearly the right thing to do. It would mean that StarOffice would be distributed with pretty much every Linux CD. It would also mean that their would be numerous distribution points, instead of one.
Truly open-sourcing StarOffice would be a punch to Bill Gates' gut. As it is, the SCSL release will be little more than a slap to his face.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I fondly recall those days (not all *that* long ago) when Slashdot (almost) resembled 80's Usenet. Clued-in folks knowlegeably discussing the stuff they're interested in.
I would note, however, that many who are here now would see threads like the one you pointed us to as representative of a banal Linux admiration society. Perhaps. But it was a lot more fun then than it is now. I'm still here, so it's still fun, interesting, valuable, etc. It's just that it used to be moreso.
There wasn't much bickering in those days; I think that's what I miss most. But there was still lots of valuable content.
I realize that banning ACs wouldn't make things back the way they were. I don't know that there is an answer. Once something has become as popular as Slashdot is, I'm afraid there's no hope in preserving/restoring its contributors' high quality.
I still wonder if separating comments by user agent and/or OS might not keep some of the sniping down. But, then you'd miss out on good comments by people who are on different platforms than yourself. Maybe if only comments of 2 or better broke the "platform barrier?" Hmmm...
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Actually, if you look at his User Info, you will see that he starts off with a 2, like all other "good karma" posters.
There may a certain amount of moderator worship for him, but I did see one of his posts moderated down once (and left that way) to a 1, as "flamebait."
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
OK...I realize that you may be trolling me, but, given that you have what appears to many to be a legitimate beef, I will address it.
I have seen this complaint posted over and over and over and over, and every time I ask for evidence of such behavior, it is met with deafening silence.
Why don't we take a gamble, and actually look at some evidence?
You gave the example of BSD vs. GPL licensing; let's look at the most two recent threads involving BSD:
The most recent was: Berkeley removes Licensing Clause.
In this thread, contrary to your claims, the highest rated comments are neither pro- or anti- either license (at least not strongly.
Lower down in the thread, we see a post that was moderated down which celebrates the license change and suggests GPLing BSD. It was borderline; it didn't really have any content, so I think it was properly moderated.
On the other hand, Brett Glass (or an AC posting as him) went on a trollfest, starting with an attack on the FSF. Not one of his anti-GPL ravings (which included red-baiting) was moderated down.
In the next most recent thread, Clearing up FreeBSD confusion, which, if it were a post rather than an article, would qualify as borderline flamebait, the most highly rated comment, Try it, then decide for yourself...I know I will is mildly anti-Linux (at least anti-Linux-user).
In summary, the most recent evidence contridicts your claims, and shows that anti-Linux comments are indeed being moderated up, not down.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Really, this bogus "blame everything on Linux users" thing is really grating on the nerves.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
It's apparently the "hip" thing to bash on Linux and Linux users now, and the trolling is just a part of this.
The only real solution is to eliminate AC posting once and for all.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I, for one, don't have any particular axe to grind. I like the BSD license, but I generally prefer the GPL license, because it discourages forking and keeps source code open.
BSD license is more favorable (at least under certain circumstances) to software developers. GPL license is more favorable to software users.
Pick the one you like. If something is released under a license/policy you don't like, don't use it. That's what I do, and is why I generally avoid closed-source software.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
It's spelled G-P-L. Please grow up.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Apples and oranges. Netscape release a pile of largely useless source code, which wouldn't even compile. It is only now, over a year later, that it is even beginning to approach some semblance of usability. That is not the kind of project that is likely to attract developers or users.
StarOffice, on the other hand, is already pretty solid, and Sun probably wouldn't need to remove much code before releasing the source code.
My point is that since they're releasing under the SCSL, they're basically conceding that they're not going to make money from StarOffice. So, since they've already decided that, they might as well go ahead and Open Source(tm) it, to gain the additional benefit of wide distribution.
There's just no point in doing it half way.
Either way, I've (actually my company) already paid for my copy of StarOffice, so it's not going to affect me personally.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
That's very disappointing; I was afraid there was some commercial distribution catch. I understand that Sun wants to recoup their investment, but...
If they stick to this type of licensing, StarOffice will remain a relatively insignificant piece of software. If they Open Source(tm) it, it could change the face of desktop computing, and could generate more hardware sales for Sun than they can ever hope to make from distribution fees.
I really hope ESR and Bruce Perens can have a chat with Sun, and talk some sense into them.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Indeed they would. However, we need to look at what is tying the users to Windows: it is largely Microsoft Office (yes, games are important, but individual games have significantly less staying power than Office, and are presumably not used heavily in offices).
If RedHat, Caldera, and the rest (apart from Corel, naturally) bundle StarOffice (I don't know if RedHat or Debian's policies allow this, given the SCSL), you suddenly have a relatively easy to use office platform that has software licensing fess of $0. Windows is no longer a "must have" under circumstances like this.
So, let's see: Microsoft's solution for a 20-seat office is, oh, $5000 (at least; that's assuming no NT server, no Exchange, etc.). This, combined with Linux, costs roughly $0. Gee, tough decision, especially given StarOffice's compatibility with Microsoft Office file formats, and relative operational similarity (read: trivial training costs).
This is IE vs. Netscape all over again, except the revenue is larger, and it's happening to Microsoft this time.
C'mon, you must know as well as I do, that IS people all over the world are just looking for an excuse to introduce Linux on the desktop. They're tired of having to deal with Microsoft's crap, and are just bored with it all. This gives them a solid piece of ammunition that they can use to argue for Linux/UNIX on the desktop.
This in itself might not accomplish that, but a very large piece of the puzzle just got put into place.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Even though it might not do exactly what we want it to do, let's look at what it may otherwise accomplish.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAICT, the license does allow you to use the product, even commercially, free of charge (as long as you don't use more than 500 copies, if the picoJava rules apply to this).
In the past, StarOffice was free to use for non-commercial use, but you had to pay if you wanted to use it legitimately for work (my company bought it for me, $169, not bad, really). This meant that there was insufficient incentive to migrate from Microsoft Office.
Free, however, is a nice price...especially when you have 10, 20, 100 people using Office. This could definitely put the hurt on Microsoft by "cutting off their air supply," since Office is their cash cow.
Normally, this would be a bad thing; however, right now, with the desktop monopoly Microsoft holds, anything that reintroduces competition into the desktop market is a Good Thing, IMO.
Perhaps Microsoft will now get a taste of what they did to Netscape.
Maybe in a few years, AOL will buy them, too. He he he.
I'd still like to see Sun reconsider, and offer StarOffice under a GPL-, X11-, or MPL/QPL-type license.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
- Linux
- Exim
- ProFTPd
- KDE (A number of KDE programs could make up this whole list, actually, if you want to get picky about what is and isn't "enduser software.")
- XEmacs
- ncftp
- MiniVend
- PHP
- GNUTar
- samba
IMO, of course. And, yes...I also use a Mac occasionally.And, because all this stuff is GPLd, I can hack on it, or ask others to hack on it for me. And I need not worry about someone else's "business decision" orphaning my software (happened to me with OS/2; not gonna happen again because I refuse to chain myself to proprietary software when free alternatives exist).
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page