Nope, the submitter just doesn't know the difference between bytes and bits. In France, bits are translated to bits while bytes are translated to "octets". It is indeed 512 MB of both RAM and Flash memory.
It's nice to see the French using Linux here, though I guess it may seem in a clearer decision in light of current Microsoft/EU tensions. The best part is probably the way French people say "Leenoox" which we'll now hear more often than ever.
Actually, French people pronounce Linux just like Linus does.
... which was rejected; Posted here for details. (too many details?)
Neuf, the third French ISP (in terms of subscribers), has announced (in French) today a new offer, "EasyNeuf" (still in French), aiming at reaching people who don't have a PC: a small PC-style "plug-and-play" appliance called NeufGate running GNU/Linux. It will include (optionnally) a monitor (different sizes available), a mice and a webcam for 99euros (with the 14" monitor) and cover most common usages: e-mail, instant messaging (MSN), web browsing (Firefox), videoconferencing (Ekiga), a spreedsheet application (Gnumeric), a word processor (Abiword), an image editor (the GIMP), a movie player (Mplayer), a PDF viewer,... The OS is built from Linux (from scratch), runs kernel 2.6.17.11 and takes less than 100 MB (less than 168 with applications). It will feature 3 different GUIs: for novices ("Easy"), for medium users ("Ergo") and for advanced users (GTK-based with an OS X-style dock, so-called "Expert" mode). A parental control mode will be available, as well as different security features (firewall, antispam, etc). Usage will be restricted by Neuf so that people won't be able to install applications (or viruses!). On the hardware side, it will feature an Intel Celeron M 600Mhz, 512MB of RAM, 512MB of Flash memory and no hard drive. There will be 6 USB and 5 ethernet ports, and acting as a NAT router, it will share the connection with WiFi-enabled devices too. The modular design of the NeufGate will allow future hardware extensions (harddrives? DVR features?). The box will be rented (cost included in the monthly fees): the operating system will be automatically updated and most problems will be remotely fixed (some of them without having to call the hotline, as the box will report errors; it will be remotely controlled by Neuf technicians on demand [you will have to accept, as they won't be able to access anything other than your NAT/router settings otherwise]; and no, you won't be root;)); in case of hardware problems, the box will be replaced within 48 hours (hotline will be free). A 2-hours online tutorial will help new users understand the basics. Of course, it comes with the current Neuf "triple play" offer: 8 Mb/s ADSL (down, 1Mb/s up), Telephony (mostly free, at least to landlines in most Western countries) and IPTV (to be available early 2007). All the software used in the NeufGate will be available as F/OSS on their community website soon. Oh, and the price? 39.90euros/mo, everything included (except the peripherals, ie monitor/mice/webcam which will be sold separately; you can use your own). More pretty pictures here (still, still in French). Now, isn't that what we can call Linux Desktop for Aunt Tillie?:)
This is because F/OSS is not appropriate to them. But how many of this kind of companies (ie: ultra competitive, leader of their respective markets) are there in the world? Maybe 1000 or 2000. Compared to the millions of smaller (or not) companies wishing for leadership and looking how to reduce costs for their non-core activities (including IT). Those companies, collectivities, associations, local governments, they benefit greatly from F/OSS. No, it's not "doing all the work" then release as F/OSS; there's only little benefit here (yet there is for some kind of software, including reaching ubiquity when pushing a protocol/standard/app, and getting feedback/code, etc). The strategy I'm talking about is "keep the old crappy software while we develop a new, better, one".
The question is now: how to develop the new, better one, cheaply? Why pay for an existing proprietary solution which will either (1) not cover the specific needs (2) be extraordinarily expensive because of the customization. And in both case, have license fees, require support , bad scalability and evolutivity. And more than anything else: becoming dependant of one sole supplier. (I'm not talking about these companies which get the source, there aren't that many, and most of them are in the top2000 I was talking about).
And the answer is: find other companies/collectivities/etc with the same need. They don't need to have the exact same core business (in fact, the further one's business is from the other, the best it is). They just need similar software. Create a small group of collectivities with roughly the same software needs, decide a budget and share the funding. Recruit *good* programmers and require the software to be released under (L?)GPL (you don't really need to make money off of the selling of the software anyway).
Results: Cheaper software development (because they can share costs). Software more adequate to the needs of each participant in the funding (because they can check easily if it's OK, or modify). Lower maintenance cost. Easier to update, change OS, whatever. Ability to share the changes and make a better software for everyone.
Now, of course, this may not be adequate for two rival companies, or very specific software (e.g Google's). It doesn't mean it isn't adequate for at least half of the software needs in the world (and I personally think that much more than half could be developped this way).
F/OSS won't replace proprietary software in a day. It is an evolutionary progress. Companies shouldn't change their IT infrastructure just because they want to use F/OSS. But when considering an upgrade, they should definitely look what's most appropriate to them. And in most cases, it's F/OSS.
I understand this was meant to be a joke, but just in case: It won't, ever. Although there are two thesis dividing fans. Some think he's Eru Iluvatar himself, others think he's a Maïa of Yavanna (the Valië of Earth, which seems to be his "element"). I belong to the latter group. I find other theories completely out of place. Goldberry is to me the daughter of Ossë and Uinen.
Balrog is a sindarin (language of the grey-elves aka Sindar) term, coming from the quendi (noble language of the high-elves aka Quenya, who lived in Valinor at some point then returned) term "Valaraukor" meaning "powerful daemon" (vala meaning power, just like in the Valar, the most powerful Ainur [ie, "blessed" beings], and rauk, daemon, just like in "uruk", from which the sindar term "Orch" [plur Yrch] come, translated to Orc or Goblins in Westron (common speech, with roots from the sindarin)) whose plural form is Balryg. There is no such thing as "balrogs". Had to be said for all those times I saw it spelt badly:D
Yes, but the article points towards corporate backing of OSS projects, which means that quite a few people are paid full time to work on it. Take away those jobs, and those people "might" work on OSS for free, but I guarantee you that most of them are going to be spending a lot less time on it... as the kids need to be fed and the rent needs to be paid.
I actually WTFV (Watched the Fine(??!) Video). But I was replying to the parent (you know, a reply generally goes to the parent:)) and not to the article. The parent question's was more or like: why do you consider Free Software ethic vs proprietary bad. And that was my answer, which didn't take account of the business logic behind F/OSS in software companies. So you're reply is out of place. However, I'll answer to you about the video/article.
The microsoftie presents his donut theory as some kind of great new thing he discovered, while it's obvious and basic. Of course, companies won't invest in F/OSS if they can't benefit from it. And F/OSS developers enjoy being paid to work on a Libre project. However, before the Open Source hype, there were "Free Software" developers already. If some companies find an interest in developing F/OSS, fine, if not, no problem. Enough companies already have sufficient interest in developing a full-F/OSS stack, if only to compete with Microsoft to draw people away from the Windows platform because they are sick of the unilateral control Microsoft has over Windows (and that's why the microsoties are now more willing to listen to the industry/governments, because they are afraid of GNU/Linux and all the Open Source market). Now, he thinks that the Microsoft donut includes F/OSS to bring more people to Windows and thinks that it's a "dirty little secret" that most F/OSS apps run Windows. And of course, he's plainly FUDing because I trust him to know that's not it; I trust him to know that if a software is Free, anyone is free to port it to any OS, Windows included (no discrimination clause). I trust him to know that the logic behind porting Free Software to Windows is to use MS strategy against them: addict the user to a particular application (Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org,...) and then, as soon as all of his main applications are F/OSS, there's nothing preventing him from switching to GNU/Linux. And get much, much more applications (and much more seemlessly). Microsoft doesn't want people to understand that the OS is a commodity. Their "assets", as he calls the center of the donut (Windows, MS Office), are/will soon be commodities. Why pay for it when you can get it gratis? (and better, and Free, but that's another debate). Of course, MS tries to tell you that it's not free, but it is, as long as your admins are somewhat competent.
Which leads me to: a company switchs to GNU/Linux (desktops too). Say in 2010 (large estimate, I think it will be earlier in many businesses as long as they are aware of the possibility). Need their internal software ported. Why not go F/OSS? Pay developers to write Free Software code. Share resources with other companies having the same need. Less expensive, more features. Everyone is happy:).
Seriously, are business concepts like salaries, overhead, marketing, distribution, maintenance, ROI, and (gasp) profit that foreign to you? Even I can figure out how much I spent to create a product, how many I might sell, and as such how much I need to charge to break even and then (hopefully) make a profit.
Should a single product pay for half the expenses of the behemoth MS is? MS Office is clearly overpriced.
Woops. My bad, The Apache Software License isn't compatible with the GPL:
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
And OpenSSL isn't under the Apache Software License but under the OpenSSL License! So there was a problem with OpenSSL too:).
The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, One of them being the license of SSLeay. You must follow both. The combination results in a copyleft free software license that is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also has an advertising clause like the original BSD license and the Apache license.
We recommend using GNUTLS instead of OpenSSL in software you write. However, there is no reason not to use OpenSSL and applications that work with OpenSSL.
OK, but then again, trademarks have nothing to do with software Freedom (which is at the copyright level); Linux is trademarked too (and the trademark is actively enforced). And regarding the URL you posted, it has nothing to do, I think, with OpenSSL (which is licensed under the Apache License, which is compatible with the GPL), but with Open H323 which is under the MPL (Mozilla Public License, incompatible with the GPL). And Digium could link with OpenH323 by dual licensing the needed component linking with OpenH323 under another license (eg LGPL), what OpenPBX folks can't do since they must keep the GPL and there will always be the Digium copyleft in their OpenPBX tree preventing them from changing the license. So, there are some licensing "issues", if we can call them issues, but it doesn't change the fact that Asterisk *is* a Free Software. Proof is, OpenPBX forked it:).
Now, about being overprotective of their code, maybe, I don't know. Asking for copyleft is just to be able to dual-license though. And I understand they're not happy with the fork; they can't use the code from the fork (since, of course the fork people forked in the first place to keep their copylefts, so there's no point asking), and OpenPBX can use all the Asterisk code, which they develop full-time in Digium. But forking was a good way to get leverage to have a more community-driven developpment model (even if in the end or at least for now, it seems to have failed as such). Some F/OSS companies using a dual-licensing business model simply refuse contributions to avoid all these problems, though. So Digium's not that bad. Closed-source software offers you control; F/OSS offers you ubiquity. They tried to keep both, and they may lose both in the long run. Once again, the software being Free matters most (or else, there wouldn't be no OpenPBX around:)).
You'll already have tons of replies explaining other points, but my point will be sharing knowledge. When I first got interested in real world programming (ie something like "how to program a graphical application which does something useful" and not "how to program a mathematical algorithm and execute it from a terminal"), I wanted to know how existing applications worked. It was a mystery to me because it involves so many concepts, and I had no book available (I was 12 then; later, I went to get some). My first thought was of course: I'd love to see how it's coded. Not to copy it, to distribute it, but to understand it. I was using Windows at the time and Delphi 1 did all those things for me (GUIs, event programming) but I couldn't understand it all. It takes time. Trying to analyse the source code of a "real world" application is an incredible educative tool.
This is the general "science" sharing ideology. Science wouldn't be where it is today if patents had existed and if knowledge was hoarded. This isn't an analogy. This is the very same thing. Computer software coudln't exist without science. You can duplicate it, just like a math theory or math proof, with no cost. And just like science, it cannot progress if we're condemned to reinvent the wheel each time. Sharing makes the overall progress of software faster (just see how fast the state of Free Software has evolved and now how GNU/Linux has more than catched Windows). Sharing is transfering, distributing and modifying.
And here are all the 4 freedoms of Free Software: freedom to run, freedom to look into, freedom to modify, freedom to redistribute. Because it's a progress for mankind. Because it's the biggest North/South exchange of wealth ever. Because it doesn't *cost* us anything (since people writing F/OSS would do it anyway), the only supposed "cost" is virtual ("I could have earned XXX by selling it"), as virtual as when the RIAA says they lost "XX billions worth" of downloaded music (just like people ever bought as much music as they download). This is a capitalistic idea "find the cash wherever it COULD be". This is what makes rich people richer and poors poorer.
Developping Free Software doesn't condemn you to poverty. Closed-source software is a scam (seriously, how do they come up with the price of MS Office?). Gratis closed-source software is stupid (if it's for free, release the damn code). Free Software just sets things right (but it isn't obligatory adapted for all and every software, but it is for a very large part of the software *distributed* on the Internet; e.g, it has no sense for some very specific sofware like in-house software dependant of your setup). In the end, there will be a Free alternative for every kind of software in the world, and it will be better than the proprietary equivalent. So, why should we hang to the old model?:)
You seem to have a good knowledge of Asterisk, yet I have to correct you on the fact that Asterisk *IS* F/OSS and *IS* released under the GPL. What you're talking about is giving your copyleft to Digium if you want *YOUR CODE* to become part of the official distribution. Nothing new here, it's a common practice, used even by the FSF which *MAY* change the license then, but you can be pretty sure that the FSF won't change it to a non-copyleft license (while Digium uses it to give non-free licenses), but how do you think they'll change all code from GPL 2 to GPL 3 [not counting GPL 2 or later, since some of the GPL'ed software owned by the FSF (ie you give them your copyleft) hadn't the "GPL 2 or Later" clause and they added it later, since the license can only be changed by an agreement of all the copyleft holders, so it's easier if it's a moral entity like the FSF, MySQL AB, Trolltech the Apache Software Foundation (even if they don't use GPL, they still may want to change their license)... or Digium. And they all ask for copyleft transfer.
My point being: yes, Asterisk is "100%" F/OSS. They just don't allow other copyleft holders in THEIR distribution. Nothing would prevent OpenPBX, to sync with each latest version of Asterisk, but as long as Digium wants to hold all copylefts, they can't include code made by OpenPBX folks. Digium wanting to hold all copylefts is a part of their business model (dual-licensing). Of course, it makes it harder for OpenPBX people to sync because of the two development trees (and I understand why they'd want to keep their copyleft). However, Asterisk remains Free Software. Maybe they're not using the "Open Source development model" at its maximum though, but who cares:). As long as it's Free (with a capital F), it's fine with me.
There is a screen resolution chooser, it just won't give you enough options (ie find out what screen resolutions your monitor/gpu is capable of). Because of the monitors database, I guess. Now, of course Apple has the resolution right: they designed the hardware *and* the OS. If you try a laptop with GNU/Linux preinstalled, you can be sure the best resolution will already be set. And any hardware vendor can do it, no need to pay anyone; the problem is that they don't want to deal with the software... yet. It may change soon when the hardware vendors will realize than they, too, can make money off the software (ie: GNU/Linux). But, seriously, this is a detail. I've been running GNU/Linux on my desktop for a long, long time. At first, I used it because it was a great developer environment (on which I learned a lot), but also because I had adopted the Free Software philosophy. I didn't care about ease of use or such. Years have passed by and I am now less tolerant with GNU/Linux than with Windows on ease of use (I even find myself not using the shell anymore). OK, some hardware still isn't properly recognized, if you're unlucky, but it almost never happens nowadays. These last few monthes, I have installed Debian Ubuntu on several machines (all for desktop use) and *everything* was recognized without any input from my part (that's boring;)). GNU/Linux has made *tremendous* progress on the desktop, I think much more than Windows between 95 and Vista. The remaining problems (or bugs, e.g your resolution problem) will be fixed in no time. I too can find things GNU/Linux has done right for 10 years and that Windows still doesn't manage to do properly, even in Vista (the Windows security model is a mess).
And in the corporate environment, such problems are even more *details*. They configure their distribution the way they like once, the hardware support once for each computer sets they have, and they only have to maintain a few images.
I wasn't talking about details here, but about the bigger picture. The next decade will be F/OSS, unless Redmond and associates attack us not on the market but in courts with patents and new laws against Free Software. Because, right now, we're winning. And Vista alone won't change that.
On the contrary, I see Debian Ubuntu, Suse and Fedora/Red Hat more and more on the desktop. Once it has finally catched up with some of the requisites of the corporate environment (eye-candiness for the lame Windows admins, graphical userfriendlyness, + monitoring tools, clients for obscure protocols/formats), it will be shipped OEM by hardware vendors (look, Lenovo will ship Suse soon if not already). And they will offer support.
GNU/Linux adoption can only grow on the desktop. Just look at the trends for the home desktop (Ubuntu gaining on OSX and Windows). The same will come true (with Ubuntu or not) in the corporate environment too. And Apple will remain a niche market, because their "holier than thou" attitude discards them, and OS X is far from GNU/Linux (yep, you read it well; not only XGL/Compiz @ GNOME/XFCE will own Aqua in no time [even if Aqua has some good stuff, most end-users don't care, they only see eye-candiness], but under the hood, GNU/Linux is far more customisable [including "lock-able", that's what companies want] than OS X). It's not only GNU/Linux that will gain share, but all F/OSS.
This Tom Yager is on the same stuff as John Dvorak; instead of their speculations, they should tell us who their dealer is.
What I meant is that in physics or biology, there are competiting theories on a given subject. If you read/., you know that a "no Black Hole" theory pops up regularly and some physicists propose their own theory to explain an *observation* of a natural phenomenon. In mathematics, you can prove things in different ways, but in the end a valid proof is a valid proof. Sometimes, it may be proven using intuitive logic so someone will want to re-do it using constructive logic, etc. There are different schools. But mathematics are purely virtual (sometimes refered to as "imaginary", just like in complex numbers) and theories in maths don't mean that you just guess an explanation. The "Type theory" in Computer Science isn't some kind of wild guess, it's purely the work of the Human mind and it's used in the real world (functional programming,...). Now, of course Fermat last theorem was used in the number theory since it was a conjecture; even if it's not proven, everyone assumed it was true (that's what a conjecture is; and we could ask a computer to find a counter example, it still couldn't). Now that it's been proven, all work relying on Fermat's last theorem, given they're valid and proven, are "really" valid and proven. For each work relying on Fermat's last theorem, there was an edge of the proof-tree that wasn't proven. That's all. That doesn't make it a "theory" in the physics, biology or common speech meaning. My point being: these are totally different meanings, and great grand-parent is still wrong:)
You are wrong. This is true for other fields, but in mathematics, theories are more a like set of definitions, propositions and theorems used in a particular field. Remember, in mathematics everything is proved except conjectures (which are basically theorems you don't have proof for, but you can't find a proof of the contrary either). Mathematics are a purely virtual world governed by logic rules. There is no place for observation or rough suppositions like in physics or biology. For example, the category theory is a set of tools and theorems, which have all been proved.
In mathematics, the word theory is used informally to refer to certain distinct bodies of knowledge about mathematics. This knowledge consists of axioms, definitions, theorems and computational techniques, all related in some way by tradition or practice. Examples include group theory, set theory, Lebesgue integration theory and field theory.
The term theory also has a precise technical usage in mathematics, particularly in mathematical logic and model theory. A theory in this sense is a set of statements in a formal language, which is closed upon application of certain procedures called rules of inference. A special case of this, an axiomatic theory, consists of axioms (or axiom schemata) and rules of inference. A theorem is a statement which can be derived from those axioms by application of these rules of inference. Theories used in applications are abstractions of observed phenomena and the resulting theorems provide solutions to real-world problems. Obvious examples include arithmetic (abstracting concepts of number), geometry (concepts of space), and probability (concepts of randomness and likelihood).
Gödel's incompleteness theorem shows that no consistent, recursively enumerable theory (that is one whose theorems form a recursively enumerable set) in which the concept of natural numbers can be expressed, can include all true statements about them. As a result, some domains of knowledge cannot be formalized, accurately and completely, as mathematical theories. (Here, formalizing accurately and completely means that all true propositions - and only true propositions - are derivable within the mathematical system.) This limitation, however, in no way precludes the construction of mathematical theories that formalize large bodies of scientific knowledge.
Anyway, I'm not sure it would be Poincaré's Theory anyway, since it's more a small part of another theory here.
You should have a look at Qunu. It's a quite new Jabber/XMPP-based service. You go to the ["AJAX"/"Web2.0"/super high-tech] website, select/search a topic (Linux, Apache, Website, Ubuntu, Suse, networking, etc.. it doesn't have to be technical but the site is quite new so I doubt you'll find help for other domains); you'll get a list of experts (ie: people who have registered themselves as experts, you can adjust with multiple domains, eg expert in both Linux and GTK). Qunu supports other languages too. Once you've chosen an expert, you can ask your question, and hope for an answer (but if the expert is on the list, he should be available and answer in a timely manner). It's just like getting help on IRC, except that thanks to some Jabber/XMPP magic you go directly to the point (no need for a client other than your web browser, no need to know where to go, etc).
Now, for the Slashdotters wishing to help (I personally don't yet, since last time I checked it wasn't really finished, but this question reminded me of it, so I may register and help in my spare time -- you decide when you help anyway), you can use your preferred Jabber client, add quser@qunu.com to your roster, and then select your domains of expertise. When you don't want to help, you can simply block the user or change your status (Away, DND, etc). If you want to stop helping completely, just remove the user from your roster (you can actually control user subscription in both ways with Jabber/XMPP, so you can stop when you want).
Qunu is a great idea, so if you have some time to waste (I mean, we're on Slashdot, right, so we do;)), or if you're fed up with helping on IRC (and people asking if they can ask and not asking the fucking question), you should give it a try.
I could just throw a "You must be new here" at you, but there's no fun really. So I'll try to explain why you've already got some bad karma after just 4 messages here on Slashdot. Thank me later.
I'm usually not rude with fellow Slashdotters, I dislike people who flame for nothing, but looking at your limited history, I saw a pattern that I dislike. On your comment which seems racist to me, you may understand that different people have different definitions for racism. You definition seems very limited; mine is that from the moment you start discriminating someone because of his origin or difference with your ideal, you qualify. That doesn't mean that you are racist, but you can say something racist without being racist. You might even not realize that what you say may qualify as 'racist' (but the moderator who modded me 'insightful' may have agreed, so maybe I'm not alone here?).
To quote the first part of the comment in question:
Just kidding, actually in my High School in Canada there are 6 Mohamed's and 3 Ahmad's, my school is almost 1/2 Arab, it would be a cool fight (Arab's vs. Whites & Blacks).
Ok so it's a topic (which I read at that time) about people being discriminated for bank transfers because of their (Arabic sounding) names, and so you "justify" somehow something (I don't know what exactly) because your school is almost "half Arab" (what the Hell does this mean?). And who cares about counting people with Arabic first names? I still fail to see how your message was on-topic and even off-topic, how it is interesting? News flash: there are people who come from North Africa or Middle East in the world! Great; The next part about Whites & Blacks vs Arabs was the worst to me, like you're segregating people already. This is racist to me (read: I'm not saying that you're racist, but that what's your saying is racist, because you're discriminating on the skin color). And now you'd find funny to fight? Greeatt:). To quote Haile Selassie, last Emperor of Ethiopia (who was no saint, as he was a tyrant), at his declaration at the League of Nations (precursor of the U.N) in 1936 (later sang by Bob Marley in his "War" song, a classic): "Until the philosophy, which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally discredited and abandoned well there's a war; until the color of a man skin, is no more significant than the color of his eyes, I say war". I don't think you would have talked of a fight between blue and green eyed people. That's a good "racist test" in my definition.
I didn't even understand what was really your point in the second part of the message (did you mean that terrorists were Arabs raised as Americans? that would be not only racist but also uninformed) but I'll pass on it.
Now, on Mel Gibson: you didn't need to bring the subject. He is maybe antisemitic, and if not he's still a moron. Anyway, when I think Mel Gibson, I think Australia and Lethal Weapon, not The Passion of the Christ (which sucks, imho, but as a movie) nor how some people of the Jewish community took the movie as an insult (anyway, you can't generalize on Jews, just like you can't generalize on anything. Maybe some Jews have enjoyed the movie and not considered it to be biaised. Yet, when Israel acts bad and can't admit to do anything wrong -- they've been persecuted and now, they are persecuting Lebanese people -- most think Jew = Israel even if that's plainly wrong; nothing's 100% white nor 100% dark; there are shades of grey, Jews are just like other people, but that's a complicated matter as it's a religion, a culture, and some say an ethnicity, but that's wrong too since there are black Jews). You see, that's really a complicated matter. You just can't throw anything about "anti-Jews story", especially when it's not the subject, without being fully aware that it may be considered to a declaration akin to "I'm Jew" coming from nowhere with no a
Traditionnally, most of the big players in GNU/Linux distributions have had a bottom-up approach. They get the kernel, a few hundred of common software (GNU utils, desktop environment) they package, they try to get everything to work together and once it's good enough they ship. It's up to the user to set it up regarding his needs (e.g: some users spend some time on seting up the desktop appearance while many others won't care, but will spend some time on installing some scalable fonts and setting X up for dual display and get all their peripherals to work). Major GNU/Linux distributions have required tweaking for years. Now that wasn't really a problem, since most users went to GNU/Linux to discover the OS's internals and learn more about compiling, OS architecture and on. Most LXers/Slashdotters (me included) didn't care, and on the contrary were in fact quite happy with the state of GNU/Linux (using the shell before friends/girls looks like some kind of voodoo, I've always found it fun to mount an USB key with dmesg | tail then mount -t vfat -o uid=1000/dev/sdaX/mnt/usb before friends;)). However, we couldn't expect massive GNU/Linux adoption with this approach. The user should NOT care about the OS.
The great paradigm shift with Ubuntu (and a few others, but I don't know them really) is that they took a top-down approach. Instead of taking the existing software as a starting point, they take the final result: if they want the desktop to behave some way (e.g: have hints for new users, give more visual feedback, make some apps easier to use), they'll modify GNOME appropriately. Mark Shuttleworth has a lot of money so the bounty system works just right. They also have integrated Ubuntu with Launchpad, their bugs/features request/apps discussion database/website (which code is unfortunately proprietary), so that it supports their mantra better (anyone who knows how to fill an HTML form can request a feature). But under the hood, it's still Debian. In fact, it's 90% Debian, 10% Ubuntu (Debian has done 90% of the road up, and the Ubuntu people 10% down). They couldn't do Debian's work better, but most Debian people wouldn't want to do Ubuntu's work (but some of them are both Ubuntu and Debian developers, quite a lot in fact). The accomplishment with Ubuntu is that it was the last piece of the puzzle needed for a community-made distribution (even if it's financed) to go mainstream. It has all the technical greatness of Debian (including the wonderful APT framework) with a great ease of use.
As a Debianist, I used to be quite against the Ubuntu hype. First, with their high dependancies and their oh-too-recent toolchain, they make.deb packages that I couldn't install on my Debian (they even broke some dependancies). Before, about all.deb packages used to work on Debian Sarge (which was at the time still in development). They broke the ABI too, but that I didn't really cared. But my main problem was with the community and all the hype. But well, I can't blame a distribution for its community (not talking about developers but all the forums full of newbies, it feels like Digg or MySpace for Linux;)). And anyway, it was just Debian, no?
Well no, it's Debian plus a bit more. And the bit more is that it can go mainstream for the desktop use (and it has already started). My mom has been using Debian for almost 2 years now (of course I installed it, but she's using it) with no problem. However, she's totally insensitive to computer aesthetics and she doesn't care as long as she can use Thunderbird and Firefox. Some times ago, a friend of mine couldn't upgrade his pirated copy of Windows because of the WGA (maybe he could, but he's not tech-savvy at all, and I told him I wouldn't help him with Windows anyway). So I proposed him to test GNU/Linux, say in a dual-boot. He was like "no, I don't want no fuckin' dual-boot, I just want Linux". I was quite surprised, he doesn't know anything about c
Whoa, way to go sucker. Only 4 posts (at least on this account, including 2 one liners) and already one about Arabs that seems quite racist (and incredibly stupid and childish), and another criticizing an "anti-Jew story" nobody cares about (I don't care if you're Jewish or not, I don't care if you're an Arab or not, I don't care about Mel Gibson; but since you obviously bring the subject voluntarily, it does seem that you're a Jew, and that you're doing a great disservice to all Jews on Earth by demonstrating your stupidity while associating yourself with their religious identity and culture; a friendly advice for you until you're mature: don't talk about ethnicities, religions, and cultures on teh intarweb). I'm afraid you're not a troll, but legitimately stupid. Please go back to Digg. Thanks.
I have a friend who backups his home in svn;). I guess you're doing your rsync thingy on GNU/Linux; well one could code the very same thing that Windows is doing using the dnotify/inotify API to get file changes/new versions and a ReiserFS4 plugin to add the support at the FS layer for the file versioning/"do not show in VFS but keep the file" (finally something to do with the ReiserFS4 plugin support;)) or use rsync instead if you prefer a remote backup, or even both. And that would not take so much time to code, since everything needed is already in place in the kernel or available elsewhere (since ReiserFS4 isn't in the official tree). Not comparing Windows/Linux anyhow (anyway as it's been pointed out already, the technology is old, it has been in VMS and Plan9 for years -- and that's why Plan9 has a delete perm *and* a write/modify perm for files), just saying that if that could be done easily. Now I'm not interested in this at all, but if it gets some success on Windows, I'm sure someone will feel the need to do it for Linux (if it has not already been done).
You can be both a kid from the farm and an alien!
You can even be that, American and fly around the city. It's a bird! it's a plane! No it's a super construction worker!:)
Maybe instead of buying a Mac, you should buy any good Laptop and donate the difference to your favourite Free Software projects if you haven't spent *any* money the past few years:). I'm not trying to be moralist or anything here, but I am in the same position as you (I have been using Free Software for 10+ years and never gave a cent); I am still a student but as soon as I'll get a salary, so I'll donate. For now I have been donating my time in (code) contributions, ideas, bug reports and trying to release my own stuff as much as possible, but when I'll have some money to donate, I'll consider the FSF, the GNOME Foundation, Debian, etc.
Just like you I was considering going Apple for a much needed laptop, but then again, I'd have a hard time not using a full Free Software stack (I tolerate proprietary software when there is no choice only on the top of the stack). I thought about getting a $1100 MacBook and getting OSX refunded, and using Ubuntu, but I'd still have to pay the premium, and some stuff (eg the webcam) isn't supported yet (that's not a problem since I could code it, yet that's a waste of my time). So I think I'll get another laptop (don't know what brand/model yet, I'm investigating) where everything works, and which will be cheaper. Maybe I'll buy a laptop with GNU/Linux preinstalled (even if I reinstall whatever I want) to support a company who actually tries to push GNU/Linux forward.
If I'd get a MacBook, it would only be for its design. That's quite expensive a difference to pay for a design. And the more I think of it, and even if I used to love Apple (my first computer was an Apple IIc!), their practices are no better than MS. If I have money to waste, it should go to the people who actually *develop/support* the Free Software philosophy and the software I have been using for all this time, still use, and will use.
It must be updatedb. It has nothing to do with "defrag". There is no such thing as hard drive defragmentation in the Linux world (at least on ext* or reiserFs, which solve the problem on the fly; if you use a Windows FS, then the problem remains). updatedb updates your locate db (so you can use locate instead of GNU find). It is the poor man's Spotlight. Now, using kernel 2.6's api unotify and inotify, some distros uses Beagle, which is very similar to Spotlight (and is made by Novell in C# using Mono). Beagle is integrated with GNOME. Updatedb is useful but outdated (afaik, it forks GNU Find to explore your disk), I don't know if distributions will continue to use it much longer on the desktop, but it's quite useful on servers (and is usually ran once a day).
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, the submitter just doesn't know the difference between bytes and bits. In France, bits are translated to bits while bytes are translated to "octets". It is indeed 512 MB of both RAM and Flash memory.
This is because F/OSS is not appropriate to them. But how many of this kind of companies (ie: ultra competitive, leader of their respective markets) are there in the world? Maybe 1000 or 2000. Compared to the millions of smaller (or not) companies wishing for leadership and looking how to reduce costs for their non-core activities (including IT). Those companies, collectivities, associations, local governments, they benefit greatly from F/OSS. No, it's not "doing all the work" then release as F/OSS; there's only little benefit here (yet there is for some kind of software, including reaching ubiquity when pushing a protocol/standard/app, and getting feedback/code, etc). The strategy I'm talking about is "keep the old crappy software while we develop a new, better, one".
The question is now: how to develop the new, better one, cheaply? Why pay for an existing proprietary solution which will either (1) not cover the specific needs (2) be extraordinarily expensive because of the customization. And in both case, have license fees, require support , bad scalability and evolutivity. And more than anything else: becoming dependant of one sole supplier. (I'm not talking about these companies which get the source, there aren't that many, and most of them are in the top2000 I was talking about).
And the answer is: find other companies/collectivities/etc with the same need. They don't need to have the exact same core business (in fact, the further one's business is from the other, the best it is). They just need similar software. Create a small group of collectivities with roughly the same software needs, decide a budget and share the funding. Recruit *good* programmers and require the software to be released under (L?)GPL (you don't really need to make money off of the selling of the software anyway).
Results: Cheaper software development (because they can share costs). Software more adequate to the needs of each participant in the funding (because they can check easily if it's OK, or modify). Lower maintenance cost. Easier to update, change OS, whatever. Ability to share the changes and make a better software for everyone.
Now, of course, this may not be adequate for two rival companies, or very specific software (e.g Google's). It doesn't mean it isn't adequate for at least half of the software needs in the world (and I personally think that much more than half could be developped this way).
F/OSS won't replace proprietary software in a day. It is an evolutionary progress. Companies shouldn't change their IT infrastructure just because they want to use F/OSS. But when considering an upgrade, they should definitely look what's most appropriate to them. And in most cases, it's F/OSS.
I understand this was meant to be a joke, but just in case: It won't, ever. Although there are two thesis dividing fans. Some think he's Eru Iluvatar himself, others think he's a Maïa of Yavanna (the Valië of Earth, which seems to be his "element"). I belong to the latter group. I find other theories completely out of place. Goldberry is to me the daughter of Ossë and Uinen.
Balrog is a sindarin (language of the grey-elves aka Sindar) term, coming from the quendi (noble language of the high-elves aka Quenya, who lived in Valinor at some point then returned) term "Valaraukor" meaning "powerful daemon" (vala meaning power, just like in the Valar, the most powerful Ainur [ie, "blessed" beings], and rauk, daemon, just like in "uruk", from which the sindar term "Orch" [plur Yrch] come, translated to Orc or Goblins in Westron (common speech, with roots from the sindarin)) whose plural form is Balryg. There is no such thing as "balrogs". Had to be said for all those times I saw it spelt badly :D
The microsoftie presents his donut theory as some kind of great new thing he discovered, while it's obvious and basic. Of course, companies won't invest in F/OSS if they can't benefit from it. And F/OSS developers enjoy being paid to work on a Libre project. However, before the Open Source hype, there were "Free Software" developers already. If some companies find an interest in developing F/OSS, fine, if not, no problem. Enough companies already have sufficient interest in developing a full-F/OSS stack, if only to compete with Microsoft to draw people away from the Windows platform because they are sick of the unilateral control Microsoft has over Windows (and that's why the microsoties are now more willing to listen to the industry/governments, because they are afraid of GNU/Linux and all the Open Source market). Now, he thinks that the Microsoft donut includes F/OSS to bring more people to Windows and thinks that it's a "dirty little secret" that most F/OSS apps run Windows. And of course, he's plainly FUDing because I trust him to know that's not it; I trust him to know that if a software is Free, anyone is free to port it to any OS, Windows included (no discrimination clause). I trust him to know that the logic behind porting Free Software to Windows is to use MS strategy against them: addict the user to a particular application (Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org,
Which leads me to: a company switchs to GNU/Linux (desktops too). Say in 2010 (large estimate, I think it will be earlier in many businesses as long as they are aware of the possibility). Need their internal software ported. Why not go F/OSS? Pay developers to write Free Software code. Share resources with other companies having the same need. Less expensive, more features. Everyone is happy
Should a single product pay for half the expenses of the behemoth MS is? MS Office is clearly overpriced.
Sorry
OK, but then again, trademarks have nothing to do with software Freedom (which is at the copyright level); Linux is trademarked too (and the trademark is actively enforced). And regarding the URL you posted, it has nothing to do, I think, with OpenSSL (which is licensed under the Apache License, which is compatible with the GPL), but with Open H323 which is under the MPL (Mozilla Public License, incompatible with the GPL). And Digium could link with OpenH323 by dual licensing the needed component linking with OpenH323 under another license (eg LGPL), what OpenPBX folks can't do since they must keep the GPL and there will always be the Digium copyleft in their OpenPBX tree preventing them from changing the license. So, there are some licensing "issues", if we can call them issues, but it doesn't change the fact that Asterisk *is* a Free Software. Proof is, OpenPBX forked it :).
:)).
Now, about being overprotective of their code, maybe, I don't know. Asking for copyleft is just to be able to dual-license though. And I understand they're not happy with the fork; they can't use the code from the fork (since, of course the fork people forked in the first place to keep their copylefts, so there's no point asking), and OpenPBX can use all the Asterisk code, which they develop full-time in Digium. But forking was a good way to get leverage to have a more community-driven developpment model (even if in the end or at least for now, it seems to have failed as such). Some F/OSS companies using a dual-licensing business model simply refuse contributions to avoid all these problems, though. So Digium's not that bad. Closed-source software offers you control; F/OSS offers you ubiquity. They tried to keep both, and they may lose both in the long run. Once again, the software being Free matters most (or else, there wouldn't be no OpenPBX around
You'll already have tons of replies explaining other points, but my point will be sharing knowledge. When I first got interested in real world programming (ie something like "how to program a graphical application which does something useful" and not "how to program a mathematical algorithm and execute it from a terminal"), I wanted to know how existing applications worked. It was a mystery to me because it involves so many concepts, and I had no book available (I was 12 then; later, I went to get some). My first thought was of course: I'd love to see how it's coded. Not to copy it, to distribute it, but to understand it. I was using Windows at the time and Delphi 1 did all those things for me (GUIs, event programming) but I couldn't understand it all. It takes time. Trying to analyse the source code of a "real world" application is an incredible educative tool.
:)
This is the general "science" sharing ideology. Science wouldn't be where it is today if patents had existed and if knowledge was hoarded. This isn't an analogy. This is the very same thing. Computer software coudln't exist without science. You can duplicate it, just like a math theory or math proof, with no cost. And just like science, it cannot progress if we're condemned to reinvent the wheel each time. Sharing makes the overall progress of software faster (just see how fast the state of Free Software has evolved and now how GNU/Linux has more than catched Windows). Sharing is transfering, distributing and modifying.
And here are all the 4 freedoms of Free Software: freedom to run, freedom to look into, freedom to modify, freedom to redistribute. Because it's a progress for mankind. Because it's the biggest North/South exchange of wealth ever. Because it doesn't *cost* us anything (since people writing F/OSS would do it anyway), the only supposed "cost" is virtual ("I could have earned XXX by selling it"), as virtual as when the RIAA says they lost "XX billions worth" of downloaded music (just like people ever bought as much music as they download). This is a capitalistic idea "find the cash wherever it COULD be". This is what makes rich people richer and poors poorer.
Developping Free Software doesn't condemn you to poverty. Closed-source software is a scam (seriously, how do they come up with the price of MS Office?). Gratis closed-source software is stupid (if it's for free, release the damn code). Free Software just sets things right (but it isn't obligatory adapted for all and every software, but it is for a very large part of the software *distributed* on the Internet; e.g, it has no sense for some very specific sofware like in-house software dependant of your setup). In the end, there will be a Free alternative for every kind of software in the world, and it will be better than the proprietary equivalent. So, why should we hang to the old model?
You seem to have a good knowledge of Asterisk, yet I have to correct you on the fact that Asterisk *IS* F/OSS and *IS* released under the GPL. What you're talking about is giving your copyleft to Digium if you want *YOUR CODE* to become part of the official distribution. Nothing new here, it's a common practice, used even by the FSF which *MAY* change the license then, but you can be pretty sure that the FSF won't change it to a non-copyleft license (while Digium uses it to give non-free licenses), but how do you think they'll change all code from GPL 2 to GPL 3 [not counting GPL 2 or later, since some of the GPL'ed software owned by the FSF (ie you give them your copyleft) hadn't the "GPL 2 or Later" clause and they added it later, since the license can only be changed by an agreement of all the copyleft holders, so it's easier if it's a moral entity like the FSF, MySQL AB, Trolltech the Apache Software Foundation (even if they don't use GPL, they still may want to change their license)... or Digium. And they all ask for copyleft transfer.
:). As long as it's Free (with a capital F), it's fine with me.
My point being: yes, Asterisk is "100%" F/OSS. They just don't allow other copyleft holders in THEIR distribution. Nothing would prevent OpenPBX, to sync with each latest version of Asterisk, but as long as Digium wants to hold all copylefts, they can't include code made by OpenPBX folks. Digium wanting to hold all copylefts is a part of their business model (dual-licensing). Of course, it makes it harder for OpenPBX people to sync because of the two development trees (and I understand why they'd want to keep their copyleft). However, Asterisk remains Free Software. Maybe they're not using the "Open Source development model" at its maximum though, but who cares
There is a screen resolution chooser, it just won't give you enough options (ie find out what screen resolutions your monitor/gpu is capable of). Because of the monitors database, I guess. Now, of course Apple has the resolution right: they designed the hardware *and* the OS. If you try a laptop with GNU/Linux preinstalled, you can be sure the best resolution will already be set. And any hardware vendor can do it, no need to pay anyone; the problem is that they don't want to deal with the software... yet. It may change soon when the hardware vendors will realize than they, too, can make money off the software (ie: GNU/Linux). But, seriously, this is a detail. I've been running GNU/Linux on my desktop for a long, long time. At first, I used it because it was a great developer environment (on which I learned a lot), but also because I had adopted the Free Software philosophy. I didn't care about ease of use or such. Years have passed by and I am now less tolerant with GNU/Linux than with Windows on ease of use (I even find myself not using the shell anymore). OK, some hardware still isn't properly recognized, if you're unlucky, but it almost never happens nowadays. These last few monthes, I have installed Debian Ubuntu on several machines (all for desktop use) and *everything* was recognized without any input from my part (that's boring ;)). GNU/Linux has made *tremendous* progress on the desktop, I think much more than Windows between 95 and Vista. The remaining problems (or bugs, e.g your resolution problem) will be fixed in no time. I too can find things GNU/Linux has done right for 10 years and that Windows still doesn't manage to do properly, even in Vista (the Windows security model is a mess).
And in the corporate environment, such problems are even more *details*. They configure their distribution the way they like once, the hardware support once for each computer sets they have, and they only have to maintain a few images.
I wasn't talking about details here, but about the bigger picture. The next decade will be F/OSS, unless Redmond and associates attack us not on the market but in courts with patents and new laws against Free Software. Because, right now, we're winning. And Vista alone won't change that.
On the contrary, I see Debian Ubuntu, Suse and Fedora/Red Hat more and more on the desktop. Once it has finally catched up with some of the requisites of the corporate environment (eye-candiness for the lame Windows admins, graphical userfriendlyness, + monitoring tools, clients for obscure protocols/formats), it will be shipped OEM by hardware vendors (look, Lenovo will ship Suse soon if not already). And they will offer support.
GNU/Linux adoption can only grow on the desktop. Just look at the trends for the home desktop (Ubuntu gaining on OSX and Windows). The same will come true (with Ubuntu or not) in the corporate environment too. And Apple will remain a niche market, because their "holier than thou" attitude discards them, and OS X is far from GNU/Linux (yep, you read it well; not only XGL/Compiz @ GNOME/XFCE will own Aqua in no time [even if Aqua has some good stuff, most end-users don't care, they only see eye-candiness], but under the hood, GNU/Linux is far more customisable [including "lock-able", that's what companies want] than OS X). It's not only GNU/Linux that will gain share, but all F/OSS.
This Tom Yager is on the same stuff as John Dvorak; instead of their speculations, they should tell us who their dealer is.
does it run Linux?
What I meant is that in physics or biology, there are competiting theories on a given subject. If you read /., you know that a "no Black Hole" theory pops up regularly and some physicists propose their own theory to explain an *observation* of a natural phenomenon. In mathematics, you can prove things in different ways, but in the end a valid proof is a valid proof. Sometimes, it may be proven using intuitive logic so someone will want to re-do it using constructive logic, etc. There are different schools. But mathematics are purely virtual (sometimes refered to as "imaginary", just like in complex numbers) and theories in maths don't mean that you just guess an explanation. The "Type theory" in Computer Science isn't some kind of wild guess, it's purely the work of the Human mind and it's used in the real world (functional programming, ...). Now, of course Fermat last theorem was used in the number theory since it was a conjecture; even if it's not proven, everyone assumed it was true (that's what a conjecture is; and we could ask a computer to find a counter example, it still couldn't). Now that it's been proven, all work relying on Fermat's last theorem, given they're valid and proven, are "really" valid and proven. For each work relying on Fermat's last theorem, there was an edge of the proof-tree that wasn't proven. That's all. That doesn't make it a "theory" in the physics, biology or common speech meaning. My point being: these are totally different meanings, and great grand-parent is still wrong :)
Just look what Wikipedia says about it: Anyway, I'm not sure it would be Poincaré's Theory anyway, since it's more a small part of another theory here.
You should have a look at Qunu. It's a quite new Jabber/XMPP-based service. You go to the ["AJAX"/"Web2.0"/super high-tech] website, select/search a topic (Linux, Apache, Website, Ubuntu, Suse, networking, etc.. it doesn't have to be technical but the site is quite new so I doubt you'll find help for other domains); you'll get a list of experts (ie: people who have registered themselves as experts, you can adjust with multiple domains, eg expert in both Linux and GTK). Qunu supports other languages too. Once you've chosen an expert, you can ask your question, and hope for an answer (but if the expert is on the list, he should be available and answer in a timely manner). It's just like getting help on IRC, except that thanks to some Jabber/XMPP magic you go directly to the point (no need for a client other than your web browser, no need to know where to go, etc).
;)), or if you're fed up with helping on IRC (and people asking if they can ask and not asking the fucking question), you should give it a try.
Now, for the Slashdotters wishing to help (I personally don't yet, since last time I checked it wasn't really finished, but this question reminded me of it, so I may register and help in my spare time -- you decide when you help anyway), you can use your preferred Jabber client, add quser@qunu.com to your roster, and then select your domains of expertise. When you don't want to help, you can simply block the user or change your status (Away, DND, etc). If you want to stop helping completely, just remove the user from your roster (you can actually control user subscription in both ways with Jabber/XMPP, so you can stop when you want).
Qunu is a great idea, so if you have some time to waste (I mean, we're on Slashdot, right, so we do
I'm usually not rude with fellow Slashdotters, I dislike people who flame for nothing, but looking at your limited history, I saw a pattern that I dislike. On your comment which seems racist to me, you may understand that different people have different definitions for racism. You definition seems very limited; mine is that from the moment you start discriminating someone because of his origin or difference with your ideal, you qualify. That doesn't mean that you are racist, but you can say something racist without being racist. You might even not realize that what you say may qualify as 'racist' (but the moderator who modded me 'insightful' may have agreed, so maybe I'm not alone here?).
To quote the first part of the comment in question:
Ok so it's a topic (which I read at that time) about people being discriminated for bank transfers because of their (Arabic sounding) names, and so you "justify" somehow something (I don't know what exactly) because your school is almost "half Arab" (what the Hell does this mean?). And who cares about counting people with Arabic first names? I still fail to see how your message was on-topic and even off-topic, how it is interesting? News flash: there are people who come from North Africa or Middle East in the world! Great; The next part about Whites & Blacks vs Arabs was the worst to me, like you're segregating people already. This is racist to me (read: I'm not saying that you're racist, but that what's your saying is racist, because you're discriminating on the skin color). And now you'd find funny to fight? Greeatt :). To quote Haile Selassie, last Emperor of Ethiopia (who was no saint, as he was a tyrant), at his declaration at the League of Nations (precursor of the U.N) in 1936 (later sang by Bob Marley in his "War" song, a classic): "Until the philosophy, which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally discredited and abandoned well there's a war; until the color of a man skin, is no more significant than the color of his eyes, I say war". I don't think you would have talked of a fight between blue and green eyed people. That's a good "racist test" in my definition.
I didn't even understand what was really your point in the second part of the message (did you mean that terrorists were Arabs raised as Americans? that would be not only racist but also uninformed) but I'll pass on it.
Now, on Mel Gibson: you didn't need to bring the subject. He is maybe antisemitic, and if not he's still a moron. Anyway, when I think Mel Gibson, I think Australia and Lethal Weapon, not The Passion of the Christ (which sucks, imho, but as a movie) nor how some people of the Jewish community took the movie as an insult (anyway, you can't generalize on Jews, just like you can't generalize on anything. Maybe some Jews have enjoyed the movie and not considered it to be biaised. Yet, when Israel acts bad and can't admit to do anything wrong -- they've been persecuted and now, they are persecuting Lebanese people -- most think Jew = Israel even if that's plainly wrong; nothing's 100% white nor 100% dark; there are shades of grey, Jews are just like other people, but that's a complicated matter as it's a religion, a culture, and some say an ethnicity, but that's wrong too since there are black Jews). You see, that's really a complicated matter. You just can't throw anything about "anti-Jews story", especially when it's not the subject, without being fully aware that it may be considered to a declaration akin to "I'm Jew" coming from nowhere with no a
Traditionnally, most of the big players in GNU/Linux distributions have had a bottom-up approach. They get the kernel, a few hundred of common software (GNU utils, desktop environment) they package, they try to get everything to work together and once it's good enough they ship. It's up to the user to set it up regarding his needs (e.g: some users spend some time on seting up the desktop appearance while many others won't care, but will spend some time on installing some scalable fonts and setting X up for dual display and get all their peripherals to work). Major GNU/Linux distributions have required tweaking for years. Now that wasn't really a problem, since most users went to GNU/Linux to discover the OS's internals and learn more about compiling, OS architecture and on. Most LXers/Slashdotters (me included) didn't care, and on the contrary were in fact quite happy with the state of GNU/Linux (using the shell before friends/girls looks like some kind of voodoo, I've always found it fun to mount an USB key with dmesg | tail then mount -t vfat -o uid=1000 /dev/sdaX /mnt/usb before friends ;)). However, we couldn't expect massive GNU/Linux adoption with this approach. The user should NOT care about the OS.
.deb packages that I couldn't install on my Debian (they even broke some dependancies). Before, about all .deb packages used to work on Debian Sarge (which was at the time still in development). They broke the ABI too, but that I didn't really cared. But my main problem was with the community and all the hype. But well, I can't blame a distribution for its community (not talking about developers but all the forums full of newbies, it feels like Digg or MySpace for Linux ;)). And anyway, it was just Debian, no?
The great paradigm shift with Ubuntu (and a few others, but I don't know them really) is that they took a top-down approach. Instead of taking the existing software as a starting point, they take the final result: if they want the desktop to behave some way (e.g: have hints for new users, give more visual feedback, make some apps easier to use), they'll modify GNOME appropriately. Mark Shuttleworth has a lot of money so the bounty system works just right. They also have integrated Ubuntu with Launchpad, their bugs/features request/apps discussion database/website (which code is unfortunately proprietary), so that it supports their mantra better (anyone who knows how to fill an HTML form can request a feature). But under the hood, it's still Debian. In fact, it's 90% Debian, 10% Ubuntu (Debian has done 90% of the road up, and the Ubuntu people 10% down). They couldn't do Debian's work better, but most Debian people wouldn't want to do Ubuntu's work (but some of them are both Ubuntu and Debian developers, quite a lot in fact). The accomplishment with Ubuntu is that it was the last piece of the puzzle needed for a community-made distribution (even if it's financed) to go mainstream. It has all the technical greatness of Debian (including the wonderful APT framework) with a great ease of use.
As a Debianist, I used to be quite against the Ubuntu hype. First, with their high dependancies and their oh-too-recent toolchain, they make
Well no, it's Debian plus a bit more. And the bit more is that it can go mainstream for the desktop use (and it has already started). My mom has been using Debian for almost 2 years now (of course I installed it, but she's using it) with no problem. However, she's totally insensitive to computer aesthetics and she doesn't care as long as she can use Thunderbird and Firefox. Some times ago, a friend of mine couldn't upgrade his pirated copy of Windows because of the WGA (maybe he could, but he's not tech-savvy at all, and I told him I wouldn't help him with Windows anyway). So I proposed him to test GNU/Linux, say in a dual-boot. He was like "no, I don't want no fuckin' dual-boot, I just want Linux". I was quite surprised, he doesn't know anything about c
Whoa, way to go sucker. Only 4 posts (at least on this account, including 2 one liners) and already one about Arabs that seems quite racist (and incredibly stupid and childish), and another criticizing an "anti-Jew story" nobody cares about (I don't care if you're Jewish or not, I don't care if you're an Arab or not, I don't care about Mel Gibson; but since you obviously bring the subject voluntarily, it does seem that you're a Jew, and that you're doing a great disservice to all Jews on Earth by demonstrating your stupidity while associating yourself with their religious identity and culture; a friendly advice for you until you're mature: don't talk about ethnicities, religions, and cultures on teh intarweb). I'm afraid you're not a troll, but legitimately stupid. Please go back to Digg. Thanks.
I have a friend who backups his home in svn ;). I guess you're doing your rsync thingy on GNU/Linux; well one could code the very same thing that Windows is doing using the dnotify/inotify API to get file changes/new versions and a ReiserFS4 plugin to add the support at the FS layer for the file versioning/"do not show in VFS but keep the file" (finally something to do with the ReiserFS4 plugin support ;)) or use rsync instead if you prefer a remote backup, or even both. And that would not take so much time to code, since everything needed is already in place in the kernel or available elsewhere (since ReiserFS4 isn't in the official tree). Not comparing Windows/Linux anyhow (anyway as it's been pointed out already, the technology is old, it has been in VMS and Plan9 for years -- and that's why Plan9 has a delete perm *and* a write/modify perm for files), just saying that if that could be done easily. Now I'm not interested in this at all, but if it gets some success on Windows, I'm sure someone will feel the need to do it for Linux (if it has not already been done).
You can be both a kid from the farm and an alien! :)
You can even be that, American and fly around the city. It's a bird! it's a plane! No it's a super construction worker!
Maybe instead of buying a Mac, you should buy any good Laptop and donate the difference to your favourite Free Software projects if you haven't spent *any* money the past few years :). I'm not trying to be moralist or anything here, but I am in the same position as you (I have been using Free Software for 10+ years and never gave a cent); I am still a student but as soon as I'll get a salary, so I'll donate. For now I have been donating my time in (code) contributions, ideas, bug reports and trying to release my own stuff as much as possible, but when I'll have some money to donate, I'll consider the FSF, the GNOME Foundation, Debian, etc.
Just like you I was considering going Apple for a much needed laptop, but then again, I'd have a hard time not using a full Free Software stack (I tolerate proprietary software when there is no choice only on the top of the stack). I thought about getting a $1100 MacBook and getting OSX refunded, and using Ubuntu, but I'd still have to pay the premium, and some stuff (eg the webcam) isn't supported yet (that's not a problem since I could code it, yet that's a waste of my time). So I think I'll get another laptop (don't know what brand/model yet, I'm investigating) where everything works, and which will be cheaper. Maybe I'll buy a laptop with GNU/Linux preinstalled (even if I reinstall whatever I want) to support a company who actually tries to push GNU/Linux forward.
If I'd get a MacBook, it would only be for its design. That's quite expensive a difference to pay for a design. And the more I think of it, and even if I used to love Apple (my first computer was an Apple IIc!), their practices are no better than MS. If I have money to waste, it should go to the people who actually *develop/support* the Free Software philosophy and the software I have been using for all this time, still use, and will use.
It must be updatedb. It has nothing to do with "defrag". There is no such thing as hard drive defragmentation in the Linux world (at least on ext* or reiserFs, which solve the problem on the fly; if you use a Windows FS, then the problem remains). updatedb updates your locate db (so you can use locate instead of GNU find). It is the poor man's Spotlight. Now, using kernel 2.6's api unotify and inotify, some distros uses Beagle, which is very similar to Spotlight (and is made by Novell in C# using Mono). Beagle is integrated with GNOME. Updatedb is useful but outdated (afaik, it forks GNU Find to explore your disk), I don't know if distributions will continue to use it much longer on the desktop, but it's quite useful on servers (and is usually ran once a day).
... but were too afraid to ask.