I've installed Solaris on SPARCs and one PC. I'd say that RedHat Linux, at least, is more user-friendly. Installation is a wash. Although Solaris/Intel has that funky boot disk. I had to give it the hardware address for an internal modem.
Once up and running, though, I find Linux to be much easier. With Solaris, I still have *lots* of work to do, adding miscellaneous packages, before I have what I consider to be a usable system. Under Solaris, after you dig around in CDE (yuk) or OpenLook (which honestly, I do not despise...no, really) a while, you find the shells, and the default shell is/bin/sh.
Don't get me wrong; I like Solaris, but only after it has been sufficiently GNUified...
--
Re:How long can a company guard a product's featur
on
iMac Clone Gets Sued
·
· Score: 1
'73 Bug had fuel injection. I know; I had one; it sucked. Wish it had been a '72...
Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't up to typing all that much at the time.
Your point is correct: direct manipulation is what really sets OS/2 and MacOS apart from Windows' UI.
One of the really neat things about OS/2 from a programmer's point of view (I never did WPS programming; I say this based on what others have told me) was the ability to reuse components very readily. There were a number of free/shareware tools that did take advantage of WPS/SOM. And IBM employees (both officially and unofficially) developed some neat stuff like Excal and FTP folders.
Direct manipulation is how I like to interact with a computer when I'm not at a command line. I don't really care for the application-centric view of Windows. For this reason, I'm excited about what the KDE guys are doing with CORBA/KOM/Open Parts.
I don't really think a web browser is the be-all, end-all interface for all tasks. I keep hoping that people will tire of it, and get back to innovating user interaction.
Oh, and before someone chimes and in and points to compilers like GCC as an example of complex software in the OSS community, keep in mind that compilers are taught as a standard course for CS students and there are well known textbooks on how to produce compilers (Dragon Book).
How about Emacs?
Really, I think people are jumping to too many conclusions on the basis of one project which has not *failed*, but has just dragged on a bit.
There are many, many problems that occurred in the Mozilla project which either could not be helped, needed solutions that make things better in the long run, or were a result of bad coordination/management.
Junking the rendering engine, for instance, occurred a ways into the project, and definitely delayed the release of usable code, but in the long run, will be much better for all, and easier to maintain. That's what Open Source is all about; it does things *right*, not necessarily *fast* (and here I'm talking about initial development, not bugfixing, which is fast).
I really don't think anyone should be drawing conclusions about Open Source at large from the difficulties of *one* project. If we were to see a number of these, perhaps we should look at that, but one example is insufficient, especially considering the circumstances.
Certainly not. There are a certain number of people here whose hobby (or profession, perhaps) is to cause trouble. They should be ignored whenever possible. Although, I'm betting he wasn't counting on you replying personally.:-)
Good luck, Raster. Glad to see you working with a class act like VA.
An Open Source devotee will run Linux, and load KDE, WordPerfect, and Navigator on it, and consider that a win. A Free Software follower will run Linux, but call it GNU/Linux (regardless of the damage to their tongue it can cause...), GNOME, and use emacs for everything but web browsing (and maybe even that).
Ironically, GNOME, because it depends on the LGPLd Gtk libraries, could be described as less free than KDE, which depends on the QPLd Qt libraries. The QPL forbids binary-only distribution, and in many ways acts suspiciously like the GPL.
Now, I'm not going to say that people using GNOME are anti-Free Software. But, then again, it's just as silly to claim that KDE users are less committed to Free Software, as you did.
--
Re:undurable goods? they're not free either
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
You proved my point. Most of your examples are, in fact, services, and are sold as such.
--
Software is not a durable good
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
You are making a bogus comparison. You are comparing a tangible, physical object, with a data stream. The data stream can be reproduced over and over again, without ever having to part with the original. *That* is what makes software fundamentally different than just about any other "good." Software isn't really a "good." It is in actuality a service, but is being sold as a good.
No business has a right to stay in business because it relies on a dated distribution method. If and when Free Software puts proprietary software houses out of business, that's the way the cookie crumbles. I would suggest that software houses get ready for the Open Source model now, or be prepared to face the consequences later.
You just can't seem to understand that Free Software is simply a different business model. It may be one that you don't like, but it is nonetheless a business model. If companies operating under the old paradigm cannot adapt, they will die, and there is nothing that can be done about that.
--
Nice try, but no cigar
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
You can't easily duplicate food.
You can easily duplicate software.
And, my point stands regardless: Free Software is beneficial to most businesses. It is only a threat to the minority of businesses that rely on proprietary software sales.
The problem with free food is that no one would produce food under those circumstances, so no food would exist. Free Software, on the other hand, exists, and is growing at a rapid pace.
--
Companies and Software
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
Most companies don't write software.
Of the companies that do write software, most don't sell it directly.
Most companies however use software. For these companies, Free Software increases their profits, since they need not buy exorbitant multi-user license packs.
Yes, but you need to detect the port scan first, unless you want the port always closed, but then you might as well not run a service on that port, since no one will be able to use it.
That's where PortSentry comes in handy. It watches traffic, and when it sees a pattern that looks like a port scan in progress, it uses ipfwadm, ipchains, or other methods to disable that route.
Very unstable?!? Please, stop trolling. KDE's simply had more time to mature, so it is bound to be a little more stable.
Besides, I'm not slagging GNOME; I'm suggesting that if he tried GNOME, and didn't like it, he try KDE, to see if it suits his taste better.
Incidentally, KDE 1.1.2 will be released soon (1-2 months, I think), and among various fixes/improvements, it will have a new high-color icon set that is quite slick looking.
You could run the service on a different port than the usual one. Or try PortSentry. It can detect and respond to port scans in real time. You can set it up to disable routes to a machine that is port scanning you. I think that might do the trick.
You just have to be careful with it, so that you aren't vulnerable to a DOS attack.
Get xfstt from Metalab. Copy whatever TrueType fonts you want into/usr/ttfonts. Run/usr/X11R6/bin/xfstt --sync Run/usr/X11R6/bin/xfstt & Problem solved. And try KDE. --
Running any kind of server is against @home's TOS. I know; I looked into this, and when I found that they prohibit even a mail server, I decided against using their service, as it is of little value to someone with any kind of Unix box.
They do occasional port scans, and then tell violators to turn off services or get their service terminated, so they're not ignoring the problem. It's just that it's probably just too hard to police, in the long run, so they turn to defrauding all their customers instead.
I think perhaps you misread what I had written. Let's try substituting "customer" for "user."
What I am simply trying to say is that it is up to the customers ultimately. What they buy/download/etc., is what will be used. Whether proprietary software vendors like that is irrelevant; it will still be the deciding factor for licensing.
I'm just trying to point out that we're not in a command economy where the vendor can decide what they are going to sell, for how much, etc., in a vacuum. They have to take into account what the customers want. And if the customers decided they want open source, that is what the vendors will have to provide, if they want to survive.
And I disagree with your statement that if you want the source, you are a developer. Please read up on the various open source stuff; there are many, many reasons someone may want source code, other than for direct hacking value.
Well, FWIW, I hope I don't come across as intolerant; I have at least attempted to remain civil, Mr. LongDong.
:-)
I don't think Linux is perfect. I don't think people are dumb or evil if they use other operating systems (heck, I do it every day). I do think Linux and the GPL have a lot of potential, and can be used for a lot of things right now. I also think they may indeed bring in a whole new way of selling/supporting/distributing software, that can be beneficial to both buyer and seller.
I do not think that Linux (or its users) need to be yelled at, insulted, etc., because they believe (albeit sometimes strongly) that their way of doing things is the best. Pretty much all OS advocates feel that way.
I'm not even really a Linux advocate, per se. I see a lot of potential in the Hurd, although right now, Linux works best for me in most situations. It would be fair to say that I am an Open Source advocate, however. Having lived throught the OS/2 debacle, I'm not likely to embrace proprietary operating systems as an optimal solution anytime soon.
And yes, I do believe that had Be open sourced their operating system, they would be bringing in more money than they are right now. It's certainly an arguable point, but BeOS would definitely have a larger market share, probably enough that the loss in per-user sales would be more than made up for by sheer volume (a given percentage of the total userbase is likely to purchase a boxed set for documentation, installation convenienece, and phone support).
I started reading Slashdot a long time ago because it was a "news for nerds" site. In my eyes, it has slowly turned into a Linux advocate love nest, with lots of "Linux is perfect and the rest of the world sux" posts.
I recall those early days. There wasn't a whole lot of bashing of anything then. Well, a bit of Microsoft-bashing, to be sure, but otherwise...
I really want to see all these "Linux is perfect" posts. I haven't seen them. Are you saying that the people raising any question about various benchmark tests are saying "Linux is perfect?" I'd say that's a bit of a strech.
The vitriol lately has indeed been from the anti-Linux crowd. Am I against anything other than Linux? Hardly. I use MacOS, BSD, Solaris and NT on a daily basis. Yes, I use Linux the most, but I am hardly blind to other OSs.
I do question, however, if Linux is really deserving of the *hatred* and *anger* it seems to inspire in some people that post here (a lot) lately.
I suspect it's really fueled by fear of the GPL, which is surely a threat to proprietary software over the long term.
Slashdot Mirror
Once up and running, though, I find Linux to be much easier. With Solaris, I still have *lots* of work to do, adding miscellaneous packages, before I have what I consider to be a usable system. Under Solaris, after you dig around in CDE (yuk) or OpenLook (which honestly, I do not despise...no, really) a while, you find the shells, and the default shell is /bin/sh.
Don't get me wrong; I like Solaris, but only after it has been sufficiently GNUified...
--
'73 Bug had fuel injection. I know; I had one; it sucked. Wish it had been a '72...
--
I've been using FreeBSD for four months, and I still prefer Linux and Solaris.
But, to each his own, y'know?
--
A BSD derived syntax
Yes, but if you get the latest procps, you can make it work the right way... :-)
ps -ef
--
Your point is correct: direct manipulation is what really sets OS/2 and MacOS apart from Windows' UI.
One of the really neat things about OS/2 from a programmer's point of view (I never did WPS programming; I say this based on what others have told me) was the ability to reuse components very readily. There were a number of free/shareware tools that did take advantage of WPS/SOM. And IBM employees (both officially and unofficially) developed some neat stuff like Excal and FTP folders.
Direct manipulation is how I like to interact with a computer when I'm not at a command line. I don't really care for the application-centric view of Windows. For this reason, I'm excited about what the KDE guys are doing with CORBA/KOM/Open Parts.
I don't really think a web browser is the be-all, end-all interface for all tasks. I keep hoping that people will tire of it, and get back to innovating user interaction.
--
How about Emacs?
Really, I think people are jumping to too many conclusions on the basis of one project which has not *failed*, but has just dragged on a bit.
There are many, many problems that occurred in the Mozilla project which either could not be helped, needed solutions that make things better in the long run, or were a result of bad coordination/management.
Junking the rendering engine, for instance, occurred a ways into the project, and definitely delayed the release of usable code, but in the long run, will be much better for all, and easier to maintain. That's what Open Source is all about; it does things *right*, not necessarily *fast* (and here I'm talking about initial development, not bugfixing, which is fast).
I really don't think anyone should be drawing conclusions about Open Source at large from the difficulties of *one* project. If we were to see a number of these, perhaps we should look at that, but one example is insufficient, especially considering the circumstances.
--
And preferably in that order... B)
--
Certainly not. There are a certain number of people here whose hobby (or profession, perhaps) is to cause trouble. They should be ignored whenever possible. Although, I'm betting he wasn't counting on you replying personally. :-)
Good luck, Raster. Glad to see you working with a class act like VA.
--
Ironically, GNOME, because it depends on the LGPLd Gtk libraries, could be described as less free than KDE, which depends on the QPLd Qt libraries. The QPL forbids binary-only distribution, and in many ways acts suspiciously like the GPL.
Now, I'm not going to say that people using GNOME are anti-Free Software. But, then again, it's just as silly to claim that KDE users are less committed to Free Software, as you did.
--
You proved my point. Most of your examples are, in fact, services, and are sold as such.
--
No business has a right to stay in business because it relies on a dated distribution method. If and when Free Software puts proprietary software houses out of business, that's the way the cookie crumbles. I would suggest that software houses get ready for the Open Source model now, or be prepared to face the consequences later.
You just can't seem to understand that Free Software is simply a different business model. It may be one that you don't like, but it is nonetheless a business model. If companies operating under the old paradigm cannot adapt, they will die, and there is nothing that can be done about that.
--
You can easily duplicate software.
And, my point stands regardless: Free Software is beneficial to most businesses. It is only a threat to the minority of businesses that rely on proprietary software sales.
The problem with free food is that no one would produce food under those circumstances, so no food would exist. Free Software, on the other hand, exists, and is growing at a rapid pace.
--
- Most companies don't write software.
- Of the companies that do write software, most don't sell it directly.
- Most companies however use software. For these companies, Free Software increases their profits, since they need not buy exorbitant multi-user license packs.
Your point, again?--
It's horrid compared to MacOS or OS/2.
I understand why they do the Windows look, though. It's *familiar* to the most people.
Still, I'd like to see more imitation of MacOS and OS/2 than of Windows.
--
That's where PortSentry comes in handy. It watches traffic, and when it sees a pattern that looks like a port scan in progress, it uses ipfwadm, ipchains, or other methods to disable that route.
--
KDE 2.0 is going to add *lots* of functionality to the Unix desktop, including an integrated office suite. Should be ready early next year.
--
Besides, I'm not slagging GNOME; I'm suggesting that if he tried GNOME, and didn't like it, he try KDE, to see if it suits his taste better.
Incidentally, KDE 1.1.2 will be released soon (1-2 months, I think), and among various fixes/improvements, it will have a new high-color icon set that is quite slick looking.
--
You just have to be careful with it, so that you aren't vulnerable to a DOS attack.
--
Get xfstt from Metalab. /usr/ttfonts. /usr/X11R6/bin/xfstt --sync /usr/X11R6/bin/xfstt &
Copy whatever TrueType fonts you want into
Run
Run
Problem solved.
And try KDE.
--
KDE 2.0 is a vast improvement over KDE 1.x, and will have an integrated office suite.
--
They do occasional port scans, and then tell violators to turn off services or get their service terminated, so they're not ignoring the problem. It's just that it's probably just too hard to police, in the long run, so they turn to defrauding all their customers instead.
--
Back to remedial training with ya...
--
What I am simply trying to say is that it is up to the customers ultimately. What they buy/download/etc., is what will be used. Whether proprietary software vendors like that is irrelevant; it will still be the deciding factor for licensing.
I'm just trying to point out that we're not in a command economy where the vendor can decide what they are going to sell, for how much, etc., in a vacuum. They have to take into account what the customers want. And if the customers decided they want open source, that is what the vendors will have to provide, if they want to survive.
And I disagree with your statement that if you want the source, you are a developer. Please read up on the various open source stuff; there are many, many reasons someone may want source code, other than for direct hacking value.
--
I don't think Linux is perfect. I don't think people are dumb or evil if they use other operating systems (heck, I do it every day). I do think Linux and the GPL have a lot of potential, and can be used for a lot of things right now. I also think they may indeed bring in a whole new way of selling/supporting/distributing software, that can be beneficial to both buyer and seller.
I do not think that Linux (or its users) need to be yelled at, insulted, etc., because they believe (albeit sometimes strongly) that their way of doing things is the best. Pretty much all OS advocates feel that way.
I'm not even really a Linux advocate, per se. I see a lot of potential in the Hurd, although right now, Linux works best for me in most situations. It would be fair to say that I am an Open Source advocate, however. Having lived throught the OS/2 debacle, I'm not likely to embrace proprietary operating systems as an optimal solution anytime soon.
And yes, I do believe that had Be open sourced their operating system, they would be bringing in more money than they are right now. It's certainly an arguable point, but BeOS would definitely have a larger market share, probably enough that the loss in per-user sales would be more than made up for by sheer volume (a given percentage of the total userbase is likely to purchase a boxed set for documentation, installation convenienece, and phone support).
--
I recall those early days. There wasn't a whole lot of bashing of anything then. Well, a bit of Microsoft-bashing, to be sure, but otherwise...
I really want to see all these "Linux is perfect" posts. I haven't seen them. Are you saying that the people raising any question about various benchmark tests are saying "Linux is perfect?" I'd say that's a bit of a strech.
The vitriol lately has indeed been from the anti-Linux crowd. Am I against anything other than Linux? Hardly. I use MacOS, BSD, Solaris and NT on a daily basis. Yes, I use Linux the most, but I am hardly blind to other OSs.
I do question, however, if Linux is really deserving of the *hatred* and *anger* it seems to inspire in some people that post here (a lot) lately.
I suspect it's really fueled by fear of the GPL, which is surely a threat to proprietary software over the long term.
--