Well I checked further; there's another 1441.DLLs on my program files directory. And my Win95 partition, which has almost on it except a bare OSR2.1 install, IE5, Cubasis, and some games (eight or so), has a grand total of 869 DLL's.
said it best: "Linux is only free if your time has no value."
Whereas with Windows NT you're stuffed both ways...
Pax,
White Rabbit
+++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
Re:Linux rehashs 70s era OS.. wow, special.
on
A Praise To Unix
·
· Score: 3
I think the real future of Unix looks something like MacOS X, not Linux.
Only if you think Unix becomes a single-vendor prospect. Building a (admittedly very nice, very clever) GUI on top of a Unix core however is not appropriate for all the areas Unix is used in. Desktop/Workstation areas, yes I think the Apple stuff will have an influence, but I dont Apple are about to start competing with the heavy-duty kit SGI, IBM and Sun produce. I dont see Apple's new GUI as being particularly relevant to servers. And thats Unix primt-time.
Gnome and KDE are just the first iteration towards a useful user experience.
Yup, just first iterations. How many iterations of MacOS did Apple do, before they dumped most of it for MacOS X? How many iterations of Windows have there been? I get the impression both KDE and GNOME are progressing far faster than either of these did.
Linux so far is a step sideways at best.
Sideways from what? A GUI is not an OS. You might think that an OS without a fancy GUI isnt useful, but that doesnt make it a fact.
I have 1067.DLL files on my NT systems main drive. I'll bet you a shiny new dollar thats a hell of a lot more than any Linux system.
I am back to using Windows98SE and AmigaOS - why? One runs everything, and is faster for desktop use than *nix. The other is the only OS that had an advanced design and implementation. I really hate those fuckers who found out Unix in the past year or so and think it's fucking brilliant.
Maybe Win98 is faster, maybe it isn't. I work alongside someone who does OpenGL development, and he find Linux far faster running and compiling his code than Windows is, on the same code. So 'is faster' probably isn't true for everything. Linux is more stable. Thats a win for some people, more than speed. Meanhwile, BeOS probably has AmigaOS beaten in terms of implemented advanced design and implementation. Dont get me wrong, I loved my Amiga, and the OS was fantastic, but just because its the newest shiniest, doesnt make it better. I guess you're one of those fuckers who found out the new AmigaOS in the past year or so and think its fucking brilliant, eh?
Linux is the past. It's merely a free implementation of something thats been around for years.
And thats a problem why? Because its not new, it would appear. Sorry, but thats not good enough. Linux provides a solution for a problem. A modern Unix, capable of using a very decent subset of modern hardware, that has an aggressive development policy. Why is that somehow 'not good'? Lack of GUI apps? Sorry, GUI software doesnt make an OS better or worse, it just means you have GUI software. Desktop Linux is in its infancy. So what. Its progressing faster than the Mac or Windows ever did. And meanwhile, the core OS is still exactly what Unix always was; stable, secure, powerful.
Crap name, but I really think this 'brick' implementation is a great idea, and although I don't doubt the backplane/bus adds a certain amount of overhead to the cost, it'd be nice to see this sort of thing on Workstation and Desktop systems. And yes, I know similar things have been tired before (Acorn?)
PC getting slow or out of date? Add a new processor brick, that gets detected and used with just a reboot. Keep the old brick if you want. Graphics too slow? Just bought a second 19" monitor? Add a new graphics brick.
Im not suggesting this is a cheap or easy solution (yet) but its a much nicer one that PCI slots, and a tidier one than USB...
Your next cell may be a complete personal data/communications device that approaches the power of current PDAs, palmtops, or even a laptop.
Personally, I think the convergence should be the other way round. If you need a bog-simple mobile, use one. If you need a 'complete personal data/communications device', buy a full-blown PDA with built in cellphone capabilities.
However, this does put a large corporate consortium in a position of direct influence over an open source product. The jury should be out for quite some time to determine whether this is good or bad for Linux.
Cobblers. I get tired of hearing this lame 'they're going to hijack or steal our OS' line. The point about the Linux develeopment model is that it can't be hijacked, not without serious forkage. Its a benevolent dictatorship, effectively, and if Linus doesnt like it, it wont happen. I dont know how the hell any consortium is going to change that. Swamp the kernel list with excellent patches containing subtle code restructuring the OS to their own nefarious ends? Um, nope.
Now's the time for all of us to be communicating with consortium member companies to make our communal wishes and concerns known.
My main wish is that people thought a wee bit more before they started spouting paranoid nonsense. What exactly is it that causes this kneejerk 'the big boys are gonna steal our toy' reaction? Answers on a postcard...
BDR has a lot of valid points, but I disagree with some of what s/he says. I think there has to be a distinction made between fans of a band, and listeners. The distinction would be this; Fans tend towards rabidity. They go see the band any time they tour, several times. They buy the T-shirt, the CD, the CD singles, the promo stuff, the posters. They might get the MP3's as well, but they want something tangible that ties that band to them. Ever hear "I dont like insert band name here; they've become too commercial." That would have been a Fan who discovered 'his' band wasn't just known by the select few anymore. But up until that point, they have shares in that band, shares they can wear, listen to, show off about. All tangible. All collectable, saleable, profitable. In the days of (ick) 'Madchester' in the UK, James and the Inspiral Carpets probably were making more money from T-shirt sales than albums, and probably to a lot of folk who'd never heard the bands at all. All you need is a good logo, a hip slogan, and sod the CD sales...
BDR sounds like he's talking about Listeners. Listeners are different. They tape albums, borrow them, mooch MP3s, all sorts. Their loyalty doesnt really exist, they just want background music, summat off the radio. It'll always happen. Forget them. Concentrate on the Fans. As long as you don't make the Big Time, they'll still be there in ten years...
There was an item in the UK newspapaper "The Independent" last Sunday which dealt with habitual US usage of Echelon and the American intelligence services to give unfair trade advantages to American companies in competition with European countries.
Are they scared American companies can't succeed on their own merits, or something?
If you want a 'better' dystopian future, ie darker, bleaker, more corporate, try looking at SLA Industries by.
But, really, I think the 'post-Gibson' era has passed. Shadowrun was a munge together of shamanistic magic, Neuromancer, and D&D creatures. Its a pretty damn shabby connection to make, and I can't help but think the only reason Mr Katz chose Shadowrun is because he really would have got laughed at if he'd used the c-word (Cyberpunk). Christ, rather than make an analogy to Shadowrun, why not the Wizard of Oz? Its such a forced comparison. The shoe dont fit.
'Megacorps' are not making my life more difficult. They're just trying to sell me more stuff. Hassle in the workplace doesnt make me a 'rebel Shadowrunner', it just pisses me off until I get distracted elsewhere. When Katz writes In other ways, however, Shadowrun doesn't bear much resemblance to our world. in reference to the existence of magic and trolls, he kind of misses the point. It doesnt bare any resemblance. The analogy sucks.
Maybe Im being dumb, but what the HELL is the 'Smokeless CPU' mentioned as Tier 3 Incompatible and Unsupported CPU. Is this a gag, a real chip, or some bizarre reference to underclocking for heat-disspiation prevention?
The (Note to IDG lawyers : fictional) character Pitr is often found reading a (Note to IDG lawyers : also fictional) book called 'Evil Geniuses for Dummies'. As we all know a certain publisher is (Note to IDG lawyers : allegedly) insanely protective of the name of a particular series of books bearing that series title. But since nice friendly O'Reilly are publishing this, they can use the title of an equally well-known range of computer books... their own Nutshell series.
And everyone knows (Note to IDG lawyers : in my opinion) how much more informative Nutshell books are than the 'For Dummies' series anyway...
XML may be a reasonable compromise, but its very verbose.
Whats verbose about it? An XML DTD doesnt have to be verbose at all. Maybe slightly more verbose than the original/etc file, but we're talking no more than a coupla dozen bytes per line. And if it helps organise the data more succintly, and is more easily parsed, then perhaps its worth the trade-off.
What would probably need to happen is that existing unix code gets adapted to first try the XML datafile, and if that doesnt exist, try a standard config file. A smarter tool would also parse from one form to the other, to build the XML files in the beginning. Best for the code to do it such that if/dev/registry/etc_group exists, use it (via a 'unified XML Configuration Interface'?) or else, use the standard file...
Hell mebbe in Linux you could even make a device for it../dev/registry. That way, if etc/group exists as a link to/dev/registry/etc/group the parsing is done on-the-fly, otherwise its done as normal.
All you'd need in the XML file would be lines, for example, something like...
< BASE_CONFIG_FILE = "/etc/group" > < GROUP_CONFIG_ENTRY GROUP_ENTRY="research" GID="27"/> < GROUP_CONFIG_ENTRY GROUP_ENTRY="development" GID="28"/> < GROUP_CONFIG_ENTRY GROUP_ENTRY="marketing" GID="666"/> </BASE_CONFIG_FILE/> That sound rational or possible to anyone?
Luser unsecurity hype is mostly unnecessary; software developers need to be more conscious.
Bollocks. If is passworded, the developer can do nothing about the user making their password their boyfriend's nickname, or putting it on a post-it note on their monitor.
The uneducated user is the primary flaw in security.
WHy do we have soo many different unix variants. Its time we got all the people stop wasting their time with so many different unices. Time to UNITE. TIMe Join LINUX...... Be a penguin or sit on a Window }:) UTS MOooooooS !
So you're saying we should just shut the forks up?:)
To be honest, I dont see how BSD would 'suffer because everyone instantly associates open-source with Linux'.
I just dont understand that context of 'suffer'. The various flavours of BSD are being developed, much as the Linux kernel, without commercial or other constraints. The Linux kernel isn't being developed for RedHat, or Caldera, or whatever. Its being developed as a communal project, by people scratching a communal itch. And the developers of the BSDs are doing the same thing.
Are there fewer BSD developers because of Linux, then? Maybe, although I'd reckon that there a lot more than there were (say) three years ago. Plus Linux apps tend to be fairly straightforward to get running on BSD systems, so its not as though all that Linux development gives Linux some kind of edge.
So I dont get it. Yeah, Linux gets more press. But who the hell is doing Linux development for the press? And when did lack of press make a difference to bedroom coders?
UK PC magazines almost all carry CDROMs, and now DVD's, and full software turns up on these CDROMs all the time. Borland have been putting older versions of Delphi, C++Builder and other products on theses magazines for years. I have copies of Deplhi from version 1 to version 4.
This has always been a license restriction in the giveaway release of development software they put on the magazines. There is always an offer to obtain a full-development-rights license (and the rest of the retail box stuff) for a nominal sum (about 30 UKP).
This is not new. This is only restricted to coverdisk software. There is nothing unusual here. The software is being released for home use only. And gratis at that...
The following might do as a starting point for an open Letter to Gentus.
Try sending it to johntsai@www.gentus.com and yakumo@www.gentus.com snip from here -->
Dear Gentus,
I am writing to you to formally request information on obtaining the source code to the Gentus Linux distribution.
Since the entire distribution, including the kernel, utilities and other software, is derived from work released under the GPL, I believe I am entitled to request the availability of the source code for all the supplied software, not just the kernel. There appear to be several RPM's included in the Gentus distribution which are Abit-modified versions of previously GPL'd code. I am particularly interested in the source code for these modifications.
It also concerns me that at least one RPM appears to have been derived from a GPL'd product, but has had its license changed to an Abit-specific copyright. As you should be aware, changing the license of code derived from the GPL actually breached the GPL. I would thus also request you to clarify the situation with regard to AbitPermon and its derivation from BP6Mon.
I'm not convinced that they're really violating the GPL anyway. I don't get from the GPL that I have to distribute source to a package I'm distributing in binary form if that package consists of third party source code available elsewhere and thirty party source patches, also available elsewhere.
At the very least, if they're distributing binaries derived from GPL'd code, they must provide the modified source. It is unclear to me yet if these RPMs are Abit-derived, or based on other people's patches, but without source its impossible to tell.
Additionally, it seems that at least one RPM has had the copyright altered from the GPL to Abit-owned. That's also not permitted
Has anyone actually pulled down an ISO and burned a CD?
Yup. It appears to be a bog-standard RedHat 6.1 (Cartman) distro, with certain RPMS replaced by Abit's own versions. In subdirectory/RedHat/RPMS (Yup, unlike LinuxOne, they haven't even sed'd RedHat with Abit in the copyright or anywhere) the following RPMS are Abit-specific
The story is straight, although possibly a bit premature, since there appears to be a possibility that someone cluefull at Gentus has realised the situation (see the last message on the discussion board page).
Ive already emailed Gentus, a few days ago. Their stance appears to be that supply their modified kernel as a source RPM, they are conforming to the GPL. The way is appears to me from the email Ive had is that someone is confusing supplying the kernel source with the distribution source.
As someone who's already raised the issue with Abit, it seems there's a bigmisunderstanding on Abit's part. NB: I have comments posted already on the Gentus discussion page mentioned
Ive already formally requested information on obtaining the source code from the two discussion forum moderators, as well as directly through Abit. Both the forum moderators appear to be of the opinion of the fact that since the Gentus ISO includes the Linux kernel source code, they conform to the GPL. I have not had a reply from Abit themselves.
I havent had a chance to check exactly what's in the kernel source RPM they mention, but from the sound of it, its the Hedricks IDE patches pre-applied to a stock kernel.
I was going to clarify further with Gentus, and re-explain the GPL to them before submitting this story to Slashdot, but it looks as though the story is out before Ive had a chance to get more info from Gentus
It would be nice if folk waited a bit longer and behaved rationally in the meantime, so that we can get a sensible answer, without the shit-slinging.
I'm still pursuing it the 'proper way', so can folks be nice, and just make tens of thousands of polite, formal requests for the source, instead of harassing them. Im sure it'll work better in the long term
Slashdot Mirror
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
said it best: "Linux is only free if your time has no value."
Whereas with Windows NT you're stuffed both ways...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
I think the real future of Unix looks something like MacOS X, not Linux. Only if you think Unix becomes a single-vendor prospect. Building a (admittedly very nice, very clever) GUI on top of a Unix core however is not appropriate for all the areas Unix is used in. Desktop/Workstation areas, yes I think the Apple stuff will have an influence, but I dont Apple are about to start competing with the heavy-duty kit SGI, IBM and Sun produce. I dont see Apple's new GUI as being particularly relevant to servers. And thats Unix primt-time.
Gnome and KDE are just the first iteration towards a useful user experience.
Yup, just first iterations. How many iterations of MacOS did Apple do, before they dumped most of it for MacOS X? How many iterations of Windows have there been? I get the impression both KDE and GNOME are progressing far faster than either of these did.
Linux so far is a step sideways at best.
Sideways from what? A GUI is not an OS. You might think that an OS without a fancy GUI isnt useful, but that doesnt make it a fact.
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
Linux is a mess of different libraries
I have 1067 .DLL files on my NT systems main drive. I'll bet you a shiny new dollar thats a hell of a lot more than any Linux system.
I am back to using Windows98SE and AmigaOS - why? One runs everything, and is faster for desktop use than *nix. The other is the only OS that had an advanced design and implementation. I really hate those fuckers who found out Unix in the past year or so and think it's fucking brilliant.
Maybe Win98 is faster, maybe it isn't. I work alongside someone who does OpenGL development, and he find Linux far faster running and compiling his code than Windows is, on the same code. So 'is faster' probably isn't true for everything. Linux is more stable. Thats a win for some people, more than speed. Meanhwile, BeOS probably has AmigaOS beaten in terms of implemented advanced design and implementation. Dont get me wrong, I loved my Amiga, and the OS was fantastic, but just because its the newest shiniest, doesnt make it better. I guess you're one of those fuckers who found out the new AmigaOS in the past year or so and think its fucking brilliant, eh?
Linux is the past. It's merely a free implementation of something thats been around for years.
And thats a problem why? Because its not new, it would appear. Sorry, but thats not good enough. Linux provides a solution for a problem. A modern Unix, capable of using a very decent subset of modern hardware, that has an aggressive development policy. Why is that somehow 'not good'? Lack of GUI apps? Sorry, GUI software doesnt make an OS better or worse, it just means you have GUI software. Desktop Linux is in its infancy. So what. Its progressing faster than the Mac or Windows ever did. And meanwhile, the core OS is still exactly what Unix always was; stable, secure, powerful.
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
Crap name, but I really think this 'brick' implementation is a great idea, and although I don't doubt the backplane/bus adds a certain amount of overhead to the cost, it'd be nice to see this sort of thing on Workstation and Desktop systems. And yes, I know similar things have been tired before (Acorn?)
PC getting slow or out of date? Add a new processor brick, that gets detected and used with just a reboot. Keep the old brick if you want. Graphics too slow? Just bought a second 19" monitor? Add a new graphics brick.
Im not suggesting this is a cheap or easy solution (yet) but its a much nicer one that PCI slots, and a tidier one than USB...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
Your next cell may be a complete personal data/communications device that approaches the power of current PDAs, palmtops, or even a laptop.
Personally, I think the convergence should be the other way round. If you need a bog-simple mobile, use one. If you need a 'complete personal data/communications device', buy a full-blown PDA with built in cellphone capabilities.
However, this does put a large corporate consortium in a position of direct influence over an open source product. The jury should be out for quite some time to determine whether this is good or bad for Linux.
Cobblers. I get tired of hearing this lame 'they're going to hijack or steal our OS' line. The point about the Linux develeopment model is that it can't be hijacked, not without serious forkage. Its a benevolent dictatorship, effectively, and if Linus doesnt like it, it wont happen. I dont know how the hell any consortium is going to change that. Swamp the kernel list with excellent patches containing subtle code restructuring the OS to their own nefarious ends? Um, nope.
Now's the time for all of us to be communicating with consortium member companies to make our communal wishes and concerns known.
My main wish is that people thought a wee bit more before they started spouting paranoid nonsense. What exactly is it that causes this kneejerk 'the big boys are gonna steal our toy' reaction? Answers on a postcard...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
BDR has a lot of valid points, but I disagree with some of what s/he says. I think there has to be a distinction made between fans of a band, and listeners. The distinction would be this; Fans tend towards rabidity. They go see the band any time they tour, several times. They buy the T-shirt, the CD, the CD singles, the promo stuff, the posters. They might get the MP3's as well, but they want something tangible that ties that band to them. Ever hear "I dont like insert band name here; they've become too commercial." That would have been a Fan who discovered 'his' band wasn't just known by the select few anymore. But up until that point, they have shares in that band, shares they can wear, listen to, show off about. All tangible. All collectable, saleable, profitable. In the days of (ick) 'Madchester' in the UK, James and the Inspiral Carpets probably were making more money from T-shirt sales than albums, and probably to a lot of folk who'd never heard the bands at all. All you need is a good logo, a hip slogan, and sod the CD sales...
BDR sounds like he's talking about Listeners. Listeners are different. They tape albums, borrow them, mooch MP3s, all sorts. Their loyalty doesnt really exist, they just want background music, summat off the radio. It'll always happen. Forget them. Concentrate on the Fans. As long as you don't make the Big Time, they'll still be there in ten years...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
There was an item in the UK newspapaper "The Independent" last Sunday which dealt with habitual US usage of Echelon and the American intelligence services to give unfair trade advantages to American companies in competition with European countries.
Are they scared American companies can't succeed on their own merits, or something?
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
Ooops and oh bugger. Who swapped 'Submit' and 'Preview'.
Apologies, all.
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
If you want a 'better' dystopian future, ie darker, bleaker, more corporate, try looking at SLA Industries by .
But, really, I think the 'post-Gibson' era has passed. Shadowrun was a munge together of shamanistic magic, Neuromancer, and D&D creatures. Its a pretty damn shabby connection to make, and I can't help but think the only reason Mr Katz chose Shadowrun is because he really would have got laughed at if he'd used the c-word (Cyberpunk). Christ, rather than make an analogy to Shadowrun, why not the Wizard of Oz? Its such a forced comparison. The shoe dont fit.
'Megacorps' are not making my life more difficult. They're just trying to sell me more stuff. Hassle in the workplace doesnt make me a 'rebel Shadowrunner', it just pisses me off until I get distracted elsewhere. When Katz writes In other ways, however, Shadowrun doesn't bear much resemblance to our world. in reference to the existence of magic and trolls, he kind of misses the point. It doesnt bare any resemblance. The analogy sucks.
Uninformed. Naive. Tortured logic.
D- must try harder.
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
Looks like it was worth publicising Abit's breach, and pressuring them to do something about it...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
Maybe Im being dumb, but what the HELL is the 'Smokeless CPU' mentioned as Tier 3 Incompatible and Unsupported CPU. Is this a gag, a real chip, or some bizarre reference to underclocking for heat-disspiation prevention?
And you can phone a friend...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
The (Note to IDG lawyers : fictional) character Pitr is often found reading a (Note to IDG lawyers : also fictional) book called 'Evil Geniuses for Dummies'. As we all know a certain publisher is (Note to IDG lawyers : allegedly) insanely protective of the name of a particular series of books bearing that series title. But since nice friendly O'Reilly are publishing this, they can use the title of an equally well-known range of computer books... their own Nutshell series.
And everyone knows (Note to IDG lawyers : in my opinion) how much more informative Nutshell books are than the 'For Dummies' series anyway...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
XML data formats can be precisely definable, which is what you want from parseable text.
As compared to, say, the config files for apache, where certain entires could be anywhere within the file...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
XML may be a reasonable compromise, but its very verbose.
Whats verbose about it? An XML DTD doesnt have to be verbose at all. Maybe slightly more verbose than the original /etc file, but we're talking no more than a coupla dozen bytes per line. And if it helps organise the data more succintly, and is more easily parsed, then perhaps its worth the trade-off.
What would probably need to happen is that existing unix code gets adapted to first try the XML datafile, and if that doesnt exist, try a standard config file. A smarter tool would also parse from one form to the other, to build the XML files in the beginning. Best for the code to do it such that if /dev/registry/etc_group exists, use it (via a 'unified XML Configuration Interface'?) or else, use the standard file...
Hell mebbe in Linux you could even make a device for it.. /dev/registry. That way, if etc/group exists as a link to /dev/registry/etc/group the parsing is done on-the-fly, otherwise its done as normal.
All you'd need in the XML file would be lines, for example, something like...
< BASE_CONFIG_FILE = "/etc/group" >< GROUP_CONFIG_ENTRY GROUP_ENTRY="research" GID="27"
< GROUP_CONFIG_ENTRY GROUP_ENTRY="development" GID="28"
< GROUP_CONFIG_ENTRY GROUP_ENTRY="marketing" GID="666"
<
That sound rational or possible to anyone?
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
Luser unsecurity hype is mostly unnecessary; software developers need to be more conscious.
Bollocks. If is passworded, the developer can do nothing about the user making their password their boyfriend's nickname, or putting it on a post-it note on their monitor.
The uneducated user is the primary flaw in security.
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
WHy do we have soo many different unix variants. Its time we got all the people stop wasting their time with so many different unices. Time to UNITE. TIMe Join LINUX...... Be a penguin or sit on a Window }:) UTS MOooooooS !
So you're saying we should just shut the forks up? :)
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
To be honest, I dont see how BSD would 'suffer because everyone instantly associates open-source with Linux'.
I just dont understand that context of 'suffer'. The various flavours of BSD are being developed, much as the Linux kernel, without commercial or other constraints. The Linux kernel isn't being developed for RedHat, or Caldera, or whatever. Its being developed as a communal project, by people scratching a communal itch. And the developers of the BSDs are doing the same thing.
Are there fewer BSD developers because of Linux, then? Maybe, although I'd reckon that there a lot more than there were (say) three years ago. Plus Linux apps tend to be fairly straightforward to get running on BSD systems, so its not as though all that Linux development gives Linux some kind of edge.
So I dont get it. Yeah, Linux gets more press. But who the hell is doing Linux development for the press? And when did lack of press make a difference to bedroom coders?
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
UK PC magazines almost all carry CDROMs, and now DVD's, and full software turns up on these CDROMs all the time. Borland have been putting older versions of Delphi, C++Builder and other products on theses magazines for years. I have copies of Deplhi from version 1 to version 4.
This has always been a license restriction in the giveaway release of development software they put on the magazines. There is always an offer to obtain a full-development-rights license (and the rest of the retail box stuff) for a nominal sum (about 30 UKP).
This is not new. This is only restricted to coverdisk software. There is nothing unusual here. The software is being released for home use only. And gratis at that...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
Try sending it to johntsai@www.gentus.com and yakumo@www.gentus.com
snip from here -->
Dear Gentus,
I am writing to you to formally request information on obtaining the source code to the Gentus Linux distribution.
Since the entire distribution, including the kernel, utilities and other software, is derived from work released under the GPL, I believe I am entitled to request the availability of the source code for all the supplied software, not just the kernel. There appear to be several RPM's included in the Gentus distribution which are Abit-modified versions of previously GPL'd code. I am particularly interested in the source code for these modifications.
It also concerns me that at least one RPM appears to have been derived from a GPL'd product, but has had its license changed to an Abit-specific copyright. As you should be aware, changing the license of code derived from the GPL actually breached the GPL. I would thus also request you to clarify the situation with regard to AbitPermon and its derivation from BP6Mon.
Thank you
-- to herePax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
I'm not convinced that they're really violating the GPL anyway. I don't get from the GPL that I have to distribute source to a package I'm distributing in binary form if that package consists of third party source code available elsewhere and thirty party source patches, also available elsewhere.
At the very least, if they're distributing binaries derived from GPL'd code, they must provide the modified source. It is unclear to me yet if these RPMs are Abit-derived, or based on other people's patches, but without source its impossible to tell.
Additionally, it seems that at least one RPM has had the copyright altered from the GPL to Abit-owned. That's also not permitted
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
If you got the RedHat 6.1 SRPMS, and added a few (freely available) patches to them, you'd have the Abit distribution...
Not necessarily. There are more RPMs changed than just the kernel. There's no way as yet of knowing what the other changes actually are, Im afraid.
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
Has anyone actually pulled down an ISO and burned a CD?
Yup. It appears to be a bog-standard RedHat 6.1 (Cartman) distro, with certain RPMS replaced by Abit's own versions. In subdirectory /RedHat/RPMS (Yup, unlike LinuxOne, they haven't even sed'd RedHat with Abit in the copyright or anywhere) the following RPMS are Abit-specific
I810X-1.0-3abit.i386.rpmX11R6-contrib-3.3.6-1abit.i386.rpm
gmc-4.5.42-6abit.i386.rpm
gnome-core-1.0.54-2abit.i386.rpm
gnome-core-devel-1.0.54-2abit.i386.rpm
hdparm-3.5-1abit.i386.rpm
indexhtml-6.1-2abit.noarch.rpm
initscripts-4.70-1abit.i386.rpm
kdesupport-1.1.2-3abit.i386.rpm
kernel-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-2.2.13-13abit.i586.rpm
kernel-2.2.13-13abit.i686.rpm
kernel-BOOT-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-doc-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-headers-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-ibcs-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-pcmcia-cs-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-smp-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-smp-2.2.13-13abit.i586.rpm
kernel-smp-2.2.13-13abit.i686.rpm
kernel-source-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-utils-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
lilo-0.22-7abit.i386.rpm
linux_logo-3.01-1abit.i386.rpm
mc-4.5.42-6abit.i386.rpm
mcserv-4.5.42-6abit.i386.rpm
redhat-logos-1.1.0-1abit.noarch.rpm
rhl-gsg-6.1en-2abit.noarch.rpm
rhl-ig-6.1en-1abit.noarch.rpm
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
The story is straight, although possibly a bit premature, since there appears to be a possibility that someone cluefull at Gentus has realised the situation (see the last message on the discussion board page).
Ive already emailed Gentus, a few days ago. Their stance appears to be that supply their modified kernel as a source RPM, they are conforming to the GPL. The way is appears to me from the email Ive had is that someone is confusing supplying the kernel source with the distribution source.
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
As someone who's already raised the issue with Abit, it seems there's a bigmisunderstanding on Abit's part. NB: I have comments posted already on the Gentus discussion page mentioned
Ive already formally requested information on obtaining the source code from the two discussion forum moderators, as well as directly through Abit. Both the forum moderators appear to be of the opinion of the fact that since the Gentus ISO includes the Linux kernel source code, they conform to the GPL. I have not had a reply from Abit themselves.
I havent had a chance to check exactly what's in the kernel source RPM they mention, but from the sound of it, its the Hedricks IDE patches pre-applied to a stock kernel.
I was going to clarify further with Gentus, and re-explain the GPL to them before submitting this story to Slashdot, but it looks as though the story is out before Ive had a chance to get more info from Gentus
It would be nice if folk waited a bit longer and behaved rationally in the meantime, so that we can get a sensible answer, without the shit-slinging.
I'm still pursuing it the 'proper way', so can folks be nice, and just make tens of thousands of polite, formal requests for the source, instead of harassing them. Im sure it'll work better in the long term
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++