These people are not free market economists; they have a very basic misunderstanding of the concept of value. Value is not measured strictly in dollars; it can take many forms. As ESR has discussed in the past, there are several non-monetary currencies in the Free Software marketplace.
They argue that Linux isn't suitable as a replacement for massively scalable systems.
But few, if any, are claiming that it is.
Linux is primarily catching on as a workgroup, or light-to-medium duty web server, and is very well suited for such a role; better suited, in fact, than Windows NT.
By changing the subject, and supplying a convenient straw man to knock down, D.H. Brown avoids having to confront Linux's strengths.
If people decide they have a need for a massively-scalable Linux, it will come to pass. For the time being, to argue against Linux on this basis is intellectually dishonest at best, and out-and-out FUD at worst.
Yes, it was irritating, yes it was malicious, but so is country music
ITYM "Hip-hop." HTH.
...
I agree with you though that as annoying as this was for people, they should put most of the blame on themselves. Of course, Microsoft deserves quite a bit of blame, too...
It's a pity. One thing I would like to see, actually, is a Linux distro that comes secure out of the box (read: no damn inet services started by default!)
I think that's an excellent idea, and one that has been discussed from time to time. I haven't seen much come of it, though, unfortunately.
But a distribution that had an easy install (like Redhat), with a nice, easy X setup as part of the initial install, and set up no services by default (other than perhaps telnet), could be very useful for people that want to try out Linux, but are intimitated by the idea of becoming their own sysadmin. The system could be set to run xdm, so they go right into their warm, fuzzy GUI (probably KDE, as it is pretty familiar looking to people used to Windows/OS/2/Macintosh).
Whatever happened to the SEUL (Simple End User Linux) project? Anyone know?
This is not news.admin.net-abuse.misc. You are not (presumably) Grub*r. Please, don't bring that "Freedom Knights" stuff to Slashdot.
There is absolutely nothing wrong about filtering garbage posts, especially considering that Rob has even provided a means for people to view such posts. The default *should* be to filter that rubbish.
There is a menu to change the filtering right at the top of the comments section. I think that is more than reasonable consideration. People do have a right to speak (although not necessarily on someone else's site or equipment); they certainly do *not* have a right to be heard or listened to.
Although I think the Harmony project is not a bad idea, I must disagree with this:
Anything that makes proprietary development more expensive for KDE than GNOME will prevent it from competing successfully, so even a GPLed Qt at this point would not be good enough to save KDE from irrelevance.
Commercial proprietary software developers are not going to sneeze at $5000 or so for a commercial Qt license. Sure, a shareware author might, but I don't see much of a market for Linux/UNIX shareware these days anyhow. The only proprietary apps that really matter anymore are the big ones, and the companies that develop those have plenty of cash for the measly $5000.
Although I expect both KDE and Gnome to continue no matter what happens, a dominant desktop *will* emerge over time, with the other desktop being marginalised.
Quite frankly, I think that has already happened. That desktop is KDE. Most major Linux distributions are shipping with it as the default WM/DE. GNOME still has a chance, with the support by RedHat, but it has some catching on to do, as far as momentum goes.
I think you are absolutely right. I used to be of the view that RMS was just trying to horn in on the fame surrounding Linux, but now I think it's just that he is just trying to use Linux's popularity to advance the cause he's been working on for many years: freeing software.
I won't call Linux "GNU/Linux," just because it's kinda silly, and there are plenty of others (yes, the BSD and X11 people, even if I don't like their licenses), who are responsible for significant portions of what people commonly refer to as "Linux." Still, I am more and more sympathetic to RMS's plight, and am convinced that he's just trying to do the right thing, as he sees it.
It is, in my opinion, stable enough for non-critical work; it runs more software than Linux, most of which is of better quality, strictly because it has commercial support.
I work with a lot of Free/Open Source software every day, and quite frequently, with proprietary Windows software (usually on a few NT servers I deal with). The Free/Open Source software is solid, dependable, and generally works like it's supposed to. Most of the Windows stuff is shoddy, unstable, and unpredictable. And since it doesn't come with source, you don't have much of a chance of trying to hack/recompile.
Some of us don't like that sort of thing, even for home use. I prefer to use software that is not rubbish, even if it doesn't have "Wizards." I prefer decent logging, so that when something does go wrong, I have some hope of pinpointing it and fixing it. Not much chance of that with the "black box" that is NT.
Linux might not be ready for *your* desktop, but it's certainly ready for mine.
Sadly, that doesn't surprise me. As opposed as the BSD people are to the GPL, I am as opposed to the BSD license, after seeing what can happen to BSD-licensed code. X11R6.4, anyone?
GPL keeps the software Free, which is what really counts in the end. IMHO, of course. I just hate the idea of people proprietarizing others' contributed code. Something doesn't smell right about that to me.
A number of them I hate with a passion; the Emacs editor is horrible, for example. While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it needs to be.
I'm really sorry to hear Linus say this. First of all, calling Emacs an "editor" is a bit dishonest. Yes, it is an editor, but it is *so* much more. It is a file manager, an IDE, a gaming platform, etc.
I was using Emacs long before I was using Linux, and will continue to use it for many years to come; it is my Swiss Army knife. Just the other day, I had horked myself experimenting with some arguments to tar. I ended up with a huge file with a name that started with "--". How did I delete it? That's right: DirEd! Thank you, Emacs.
As for the size of Emacs, if you really only want an editor, there is micro Emacs.
Personally, I am the worst of pig-editor users: I use XEmacs. And I like it that way.
If you wanna use vi, fine. But know that Emacs is a great, multi-faceted tool, not just an "editor."
Even when RMS is right he gets dissed :`(
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Come now, you must admit that there have been times when RMS has made statements that were a bit off the deep end, no?
This time, he is very clearly correct, and made his case in a straightforward, sane manner. This has not always been the case.
When they release the *full* source...
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Just focus on scrapping Windows, 'kay?
Why? If the result is to be simply a different proprietary solution, and one that proprietarizes the hardware also, I don't see the point.
As long as part of the OS is proprietary, the whole thing might as well be proprietary. The practical effect is the same.
When they release the *full* source...
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 3
...for MacOS, then we'll know they're serious about joining the Free Software movement. Until then, my view is that they are simply seeking some publicity, and perhaps a little help fixing bugs.
The whole point of Free Software is that everyone has equal freedom to use and modify the software; no one has veto power. That doesn't seem to be the case with Apple's license.
The termination clause is the killer for me.
I don't usually side with RMS in these RMS/ESR debates, but on this one I think RMS is 100% right, and ESR is 100% wrong. Sorry, Eric.
Slashdot Mirror
These people are not free market economists; they have a very basic misunderstanding of the concept of value. Value is not measured strictly in dollars; it can take many forms. As ESR has discussed in the past, there are several non-monetary currencies in the Free Software marketplace.
They argue that Linux isn't suitable as a replacement for massively scalable systems.
But few, if any, are claiming that it is.
Linux is primarily catching on as a workgroup, or light-to-medium duty web server, and is very well suited for such a role; better suited, in fact, than Windows NT.
By changing the subject, and supplying a convenient straw man to knock down, D.H. Brown avoids having to confront Linux's strengths.
If people decide they have a need for a massively-scalable Linux, it will come to pass. For the time being, to argue against Linux on this basis is intellectually dishonest at best, and out-and-out FUD at worst.
ITYM "Hip-hop." HTH.
I agree with you though that as annoying as this was for people, they should put most of the blame on themselves. Of course, Microsoft deserves quite a bit of blame, too...
It xfstt (X Font Server -- True Type)) has made my web browsing easier on the eyes.
I think that's an excellent idea, and one that has been discussed from time to time. I haven't seen much come of it, though, unfortunately.
But a distribution that had an easy install (like Redhat), with a nice, easy X setup as part of the initial install, and set up no services by default (other than perhaps telnet), could be very useful for people that want to try out Linux, but are intimitated by the idea of becoming their own sysadmin. The system could be set to run xdm, so they go right into their warm, fuzzy GUI (probably KDE, as it is pretty familiar looking to people used to Windows/OS/2/Macintosh).
Whatever happened to the SEUL (Simple End User Linux) project? Anyone know?
With such a penchant for accuracy, I'm guessing Mr. Shuman must be on the NT kernel team.
There is absolutely nothing wrong about filtering garbage posts, especially considering that Rob has even provided a means for people to view such posts. The default *should* be to filter that rubbish.
There is a menu to change the filtering right at the top of the comments section. I think that is more than reasonable consideration. People do have a right to speak (although not necessarily on someone else's site or equipment); they certainly do *not* have a right to be heard or listened to.
If you don't know the meaning of that, you haven't been listening to Wesley Willis CDs...
Anything that makes proprietary development more expensive for KDE than GNOME will prevent it from competing successfully, so even a GPLed Qt at this point would not be good enough to save KDE from irrelevance.
Commercial proprietary software developers are not going to sneeze at $5000 or so for a commercial Qt license. Sure, a shareware author might, but I don't see much of a market for Linux/UNIX shareware these days anyhow. The only proprietary apps that really matter anymore are the big ones, and the companies that develop those have plenty of cash for the measly $5000.
Although I expect both KDE and Gnome to continue no matter what happens, a dominant desktop *will* emerge over time, with the other desktop being marginalised.
Quite frankly, I think that has already happened. That desktop is KDE. Most major Linux distributions are shipping with it as the default WM/DE. GNOME still has a chance, with the support by RedHat, but it has some catching on to do, as far as momentum goes.
I won't call Linux "GNU/Linux," just because it's kinda silly, and there are plenty of others (yes, the BSD and X11 people, even if I don't like their licenses), who are responsible for significant portions of what people commonly refer to as "Linux." Still, I am more and more sympathetic to RMS's plight, and am convinced that he's just trying to do the right thing, as he sees it.
I work with a lot of Free/Open Source software every day, and quite frequently, with proprietary Windows software (usually on a few NT servers I deal with). The Free/Open Source software is solid, dependable, and generally works like it's supposed to. Most of the Windows stuff is shoddy, unstable, and unpredictable. And since it doesn't come with source, you don't have much of a chance of trying to hack/recompile.
Some of us don't like that sort of thing, even for home use. I prefer to use software that is not rubbish, even if it doesn't have "Wizards." I prefer decent logging, so that when something does go wrong, I have some hope of pinpointing it and fixing it. Not much chance of that with the "black box" that is NT.
Linux might not be ready for *your* desktop, but it's certainly ready for mine.
GPL keeps the software Free, which is what really counts in the end. IMHO, of course. I just hate the idea of people proprietarizing others' contributed code. Something doesn't smell right about that to me.
I'm really sorry to hear Linus say this. First of all, calling Emacs an "editor" is a bit dishonest. Yes, it is an editor, but it is *so* much more. It is a file manager, an IDE, a gaming platform, etc.
I was using Emacs long before I was using Linux, and will continue to use it for many years to come; it is my Swiss Army knife. Just the other day, I had horked myself experimenting with some arguments to tar. I ended up with a huge file with a name that started with "--". How did I delete it? That's right: DirEd! Thank you, Emacs.
As for the size of Emacs, if you really only want an editor, there is micro Emacs.
Personally, I am the worst of pig-editor users: I use XEmacs. And I like it that way.
If you wanna use vi, fine. But know that Emacs is a great, multi-faceted tool, not just an "editor."
This time, he is very clearly correct, and made his case in a straightforward, sane manner. This has not always been the case.
Why? If the result is to be simply a different proprietary solution, and one that proprietarizes the hardware also, I don't see the point.
As long as part of the OS is proprietary, the whole thing might as well be proprietary. The practical effect is the same.
The whole point of Free Software is that everyone has equal freedom to use and modify the software; no one has veto power. That doesn't seem to be the case with Apple's license.
The termination clause is the killer for me.
I don't usually side with RMS in these RMS/ESR debates, but on this one I think RMS is 100% right, and ESR is 100% wrong. Sorry, Eric.
Too many inodes and shit.
And it's not that I can't necessarily afford to spend $300. It's just that it's not *worth* $300, IMO.
- Is closed-source
- Won't run OS/2
- Doesn't work with mcopy or traditional disk images/disk tools
$300 is just way too much. I don't need it that bad.Name one story Drudge got wrong.
mod_perl seems cool, but it prevents mod_ssl from linking for some reason.
I'll take Linux. It's already superior, and is only going to get better.
And decisions about it are going to be made by the user/developer base, for technical reasons.
I'll take Linux. It's already superior, and is only going to get better.
And decisions about it are going to be made by the user/developer base, for technical reasons.
The 1994 thing is probably referring to AOL reaching Usenet.
If they buy Corel, they *will* cancel all Linux versions of Corel software.
They are shills for Microsoft.