If by some odd quirk of fate this question actually gets submitted, could someone please replace "unambiguously" with "ambiguously"? Usually I would consider the chances slim, but since without that mild correction I would look like even more of a fool than I probably do already..;) Silly typos.
I found the paranthesized section of the "Linux" entry of the Jargon File to be rather curious. The original reason for wanting to refer to the system as whole as GNU/Linux and the kernel as Linux was far from the reason given by the Jargon File (or, more specifically, that the term "Linux" not be used unambiguously.. which isn't precisely the same thing). Richard Stallman simply wanted to promote understanding, not recieve more credit. I'm not sure how this could be considered "trivial learning" unless we are all content to live in a world where the truth is hidden behind a veil of misconceptions and lies.. What was the rationale behind the inclusion of such a slanted view in this particular entry of the Jargon File?
"The accusations of communism really are not justified, even hard core free software people like RMS are NOT communists."
I believe he once described himself as a combination of a leftist anarchist and a (?) libertarian (sp?).;)
"It is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The "Free Software" "OSS" movement comes directly from the modern scientific method of peer review."
Actually, the free software movement is a direct result of Richard Stallman's ethical views. Yes, it's also a matter of practical concerns, but RMS would rather have free software even if it was technically inferior. See: Why Software Should Be Free (a shorter version can be found here).
The open source movement stems from those like ESR who are.. well, I won't go into detail on my thoughts. The original advocates thought that the term free software scared big business. And it did. However, now the term is corrupted beyond recognition (by.. guess who!? big business..), and also appears to have become the norm these days. How sad. See: Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''.
Perhaps "slave" is a rather strong term in this case, and I can't recall if Stallman ever described it that way or not, but it's closer to the truth than most. The free software movement, however, was/not begun due to practical concerns, but rather ethical ones!!/. See: The GNU Project.
As was probably mentioned before (this post got a lot of responses.. ugh), GNU/Linux is modular. Windows is monolithic. Once a program gets too big (such as Win2k), being monolithic really sucks. It's easier to run a small program and test it extensively than a huge program because there are fewer variables.. not as many things that can go wrong.. less trash to run through the debugger.;) It has been considered "proper form" to code modularly for quote some time now. The particular "edges" that Microsoft gives itself relies somewhat on being monolithic, however.
Now, as far as Windows instability goes.. I happen to know a few people from good old Redmond, and though I obviously can't substantiate this claim past that (I don't trust MS programmers as far as.. well.. let's just say I don't;).. From what I understand, Microsoft doesn't really do much of/any/ bug-testing "in-house". That's what their limited beta releases are for. If you ask me, that's kind of silly, but then again.. 1) It's always better to have people test your software that aren't "close to the source".. however.. 2) Since Windows is so monolithic, any one programmer at MS is only likely to know a very small part of it. No one person could hold all that information in their brain (unless they have a photographic memory.. yes I know that's not the correct term for it..).
With free software (I refuse to use the term "open source") most developers release a stable version and a devel version.. That way people who are interested can get the devel version, see if it runs, poke around at the code.. And since they aren't the primary developers, they may notice a number of bugs that the people who actually designed it missed.. And since this happens on such a widespread level, you get a number of different points of view all staring at the same thing from different angles, each with their own coding style, skill level, etc. This kind of development squashes bugs at a rather, well, phenomenal rate. And since it is open to anyone, not just people who sign some kind of beta test agreement, it's a lot more likely to get a good number of interested volunteers helping out.:)
With the Microsoft way(tm), most of the bug-testing is done by, you guessed it, the end-user! (Those limited beta tests just don't cut it..) Not something Joe Public is very fond of these days..;) Especially when they charge a $100 for a bug-fix upgrade! Argh..
"We all know that the free software movement only benefits the upper(-IQ) crust of internet users. Those of us who are intelligent enough to know how to download Mandrake 6.1 from the FTP site."
Um.. You don't have to be able to download GNU/Linux from an FTP to benefit from free software (which is how you would benefit from the free software movement), as you make implicitly clear in your next sentence:
"The masses will continue to buy software which is where companies like Red Hat and Mandrake will make their money."
Are you confusing free with gratis? Because even though Joe Public is spending some dough, that doesn't mean he isn't getting a better deal because of free software (it's not like free beer! ugh..). I know a lot of (mostly) clueless people who rather like having shell accounts (on GNU/Linux or *BSD systems), benefit from pine (most other email programs that Joe Public is aware of really suck..), etc. etc.
So I'm not sure how you mean that the FSM isn't benefitting anyone but the most intelligent of us. Besides, you don't have to have a certain IQ to know the ins and outs of the free software community. You just have to be aware of it. Even people with low IQs can learn pretty much anything if they apply themselves. Learning comes down to dedication. You can't discriminate just because of some score on a piece of paper. Do we really look at people and guess their IQ? It never comes to mind for me. Ever. How creative they are? Maybe. How smart they/seem/? Perhaps. But an exact rating of their intelligence? No, because you never know..
And my cheap shot of the day: Don't most of the "upper crust" use Debian?;)
How many of the movement leaders actually have a 200+ IQ? How would these people know? And since when did our movement leaders get labeled as being dicks? They always seemed to be pretty nice people, for the most part, if you ask me..;)
That said, I naturally agree with Signal 11 (what, you thought I wouldn't?:)
Surprising for someone who loves to rip into "journalists" every chance I get.. Anything with a license can not be considered public domain because public domain is a legal term with a very specific definition: not copyrighted. Copyleft or any other "free software" license.. hardly counts..
I think it's interesting that they actually noted two different factions amidst the community, as there clearly are. Personally, I fall somewhere between Torvalds and Stallman, which still puts me closer to Stallman than Raymond (ugh). I think the idea of applying free software to games is pretty silly, especially since if I design a whole crew of personalized characters, I'll be damned if I GPL them along with the entire game itself.:)
At any rate, I doubt rivalries or other factional disputes between various groups in the free software community are likely to cause anything to collapse. We all have our personal beliefs (or lack thereof), disagreements, whatever. But that's to be expected of something as anarchic as this. Sure, a lot of Stallman's original message gets clouded a lot of the time, but the point is: it still works. And no one is likely to lay down and let their ideas go unnoticed, so each group is likely to remain rather formidable as far as numbers of people with like-minded beliefs go.
In the end, however, we have better things to do than bicker and argue over the finer points: like code.;)
I think it amusing that they made such a point to mention Stallman, then completely neglected to talk about the deeper relationship between Linux and GNU. That's clueless.;)
As mentioned before, they mean free as in freedom, or free speech, not free beer. It seems as if fewer and fewer people realize what the term "free software" means these days.. See: What is Free Software?.
Well, obviously, you can't. Let me put it this way.. I don't have a problem with anyone awarding Linus. He's a good guy, he's a good hacker, and he's contributed.. a lot. The same reasons why I think it's cool that Richard Stallman and Larry Wall got awards for their contributions. I simply think they could phrase the reasons for awarding him a little better. I like and support all of the above parties, but the misconceptions and outright lies are getting to be a little too much.
I can see us reading books decades from now that mention vague references to "an earlier inventor of what we all came to know and love as Linux..".. Like the forgotten pages of history or something.;)
Mmm. Intelligent discourse. A nice change from the usual responses I've gotten (not all of them, but enough for me to have altered my threshold;).
"Lil' secret here: I don't think they are courting the hardcore Debian guys or Slackers. I bet if you looked at the number of people dual booting there would be a big difference by distribution. Corel is going after that crowd. ..the ones now using RH and Mandrake."
I concur wholeheartedly. I was simply responding to the article itself, not any intelligent thoughts that may have lain between the lines.;) I think that would be the most insightful course of action they could possibly take. Something they might be able to succeed at as well..
"I can't see any reason why in 2-5 years you shouldn't have a $200 box that browses the web, checks mail, and lets you type up a paper (that's it, nothing else). ..the thing most people use computers for."
Possibly.. I'm a little skeptical. Even Joe Public likes all the bells and whistles every once in a while.. Not that I'm saying there wouldn't be a market for such a thing, just that I don't think it's likely to consume the market, either.
"Okay, this comes down to the fact that Linux is a KERNEL, not an OS (GNU/Linux debate aside). Again, for 95% of the people, forget X, bash, vi, etc. Write a webrowser-as-the-desktop directly over the kernel to surf the web, check your hotmail, and type up papers with your StarOffice account (or whatever they are planning to do with S.O. over the web). Now it is simple."
I tip my hat off to you. Hopefully someone who came here looking for ideas in this arena is taking some notes..;)
"Again. ..think future. The impression is what Linux could excel at, even Dominate the World with. Sure, the happy hackers will still be using vi et. al. on Linux for the foreseeable future, but this is about what Joe Computeranxiety wants. Remember, setting your VCR's clock is too complex for the majority of the population. ..Keep It Simple Stupid!"
I don't think that there's too much that it/couldn't/ excel at within the next few years. Once it gets all the way to the point where Joe Whatthehellisthisshellthingie can point and click his way through Linux and the hacker-types can still get at the computer (i.e., no MacOS-style crap;), I'll be a little happier. However, I'll grant that Joe Public probably doesn't care about nor necessarily need powerful, advanced editors, compilers, etc.:)
So.. which part of that quote were you referring to in your statement..? Just in case, I'll examine the whole thing..
"He's just a really good hacker."
There are a lot of those around. They aren't considered rebellious, they're considered to "have a bright future" or "we need more of them".
"He doesn't care much about software politics."
Ok, now he's been lumped in with Joe Public and the rest of the "real world". I kind of doubt that would make him a rebel in the average person's eyes (unless you consider the average person to be someone who participates whole-heartedly in the BSD vs. GPL licensing holy war).
"He prefers free software, because he gets annoyed at not being able to fix bugs."
Maybe, at a stretch, you could consider this rebellious. Not when you consider the context, however. The point is, he doesn't care one way or the other. He isn't out to change anything. Therefore, he's not much of a rebel, now is he? If that/does/ make him a rebel, you should get a dictionary from a more *ahem* established source.
Richard Stallman, on the other hand, is mostly known for being a rebel at this point (even more than for his programming ability, one might say, even though he gave us the gift that is Emacs).
So, care to explain? I tire very easily of vague assertations, especially when they appear to be bereft of a stable foundation of/any/ kind..
If you say so.. I guess. I don't think I "almost" have anything. I'm pretty well versed on the relavent facts. My point being that Linus is hardly the main contributor. No one is the main contributor. Unless you count the community as a whole. Some individuals have contributed more than others, but/no one person/ has single-handedly developed 51% of the GNU/Linux system. Not even close. Not by a mile.
A "semi-local" ISP, Texas.net, doesn't really care what OS you use. Yeah, they only do tech support for Windows and I think Mac, but do you really need some annoying registration process that requires certain software? They don't seem to think so. Personally, I've found that it's quite simple to set up dial-up on Windows without knowing a damn thing about their configuration or anything else besides the phone number.:)
You don't have to spend money on tech support, you just say that Linux is not supported, but that we don't require you to use something else. Registration doesn't have to be all complicated. It's ridiculously easy, in fact. At least it is with ISPs like Texas.net, since they don't dick you around.:)
I think it rather odd that they chose Linus of all people to refer to as a "rebel". I don't think there's anything particular "rebellious" about him. He's just a really good hacker. He doesn't care much about software politics. He prefers free software, because he gets annoyed at not being able to fix bugs, but he's not against proprietary software either. He doesn't really care. People can use whatever.
If someone would care to explain why this makes him a rebel, please feel free.:)
They got the "computer genious" part thing right though.. Though I could have done with the obligatory Transmeta plug..
Warning: The opinions expressed herein are strong, and may warrant others to label it "flame bait" or "troll".. However, you may want to pause and consider a few moments before rendering a verdict.;)
"A small element, but essential - where would the open-source movement be today without a favourite OS underneath it?"
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm skeptical about the Hurd, although I'm confident that if the Linux kernel hadn't stolen the spotlight, it would have been ready long ago (not much interest in developing it since we already have a GPL'ed kernel, after all).
"(No, I'm not saying open-source wouldn't exist, nor that it's only linux that's open-source. But there is a 'certain relationship' between the d00ds at the FSF and, say, Debian...)"
That registers even less. So who are we blaming for the GNU/Linux OS here..? Are we calling the kernel the OS..? It just doesn't.. add.. up.. Not how it was stated, anyway. Of course, I can't help but wonder if you are implying that the FSF is a bunch of warez d00dz of not..;)
Also, who the hell cares where the "open source movement" would be? That's the most idiotic thing anyone ever came up with. Personally, I think that ESR is a fool, even though he is a big contributor. "Open source", indeed. That term is sooo easily corrupted. The thought of trademarking it to avoid such corruption is completely ridiculous. Open source means less than nothing. It certainly doesn't imply "free software". The SCSL is open source. So is the NPL. Does that make them good licenses? Don't worry, you won't have to put your thinking caps on for this one: The answer is NO!
At least the BSD license doesn't try to sucker you. It lets you know up front that it's just a step away from being "public domain". There wouldn't even be an open source movement if not for the free software movement, the original and other faction in the community. Free software is also a little bit ambiguous, thanks to the "intricacies" of the English language.. However, it's a little harder for companies to corrupt, don't you think? After all, not all "open source" products are necessarily zero-cost, so the other meaning of the term wouldn't apply too well on those. Even if it did, you wouldn't be so easily suckered because you would realize there was a couple definitions. Just look at the license. The term "open source" is a lot easier to rip apart through the media. Everyone can get a warm fuzzy feeling about the latest "open source" project..
Everything in this day and age revolves around politics and PR issues, however. Most people seem to ignore the fact that Richard Stallman begat the GNU Project, which began this whole thing. And more importantly, that it wasn't just Stallman or Torvalds who put the entire thing together. There are many key contributors.. And beyond the more "well-known", there are thousands of hackers who have added something here or there.. Without the assistance of all of these different people from all over the world, nothing would have been possible.
Anyway, to add a little sense into my usual rant, if you always asked Torvalds for help when you had a problem with your OS, you'd get the stick. Big time.;) It sort of depends on what the problem is in regards to as to who you should ask.. The GNU Project is usually a good default for someone to bother (especially if it's GNU software.. not much of that floating around these days, is there..?).
(As an aside, all of those "Stallman-slammers" who think he's an egotistical bastard who never did anything to deserve credit.. credit being something he doesn't seem to care about anyway.. I wonder what compiler you use..?;)
I had originally intended on ignoring the lack of attention to detail.. However.. The man who set down the rather expansive foundation for this great accomplishment, perhaps..?
Of course, if you really get down to it, no one person should recieve all the credit for creating the GNU/Linux system. Yes, Richard Stallman started it all, gave us Emacs, GCC, and so much more, gave us the GPL, and began a philosophical movement (which has now been factionized and corrupted). Yes, Linus Torvalds gave us the Linux kernel. Yes, this is all very good. The reality of it, however, is despite the fact that the GNU Project held it together until Linus gave them a final piece to their creation (and the rest being history, as they say..), it took a vast array of individuals all over the world to really bring all of this into being.
One person, or even a small group of people, can't put an entire OS together from scratch (well, not in any/sane/ amount of time). With the contributions of like-minded people from far and wide, however.. Well, we all know what can be accomplished when/that/ happens.:)
The true accomplishment, then, is the community's. Of which people like Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds are a part. Yes, they are widely renowned and respected (and even famous enough to be otherwise..;), but they are still a part of the community, and the entire community deserves the credit.
I swear these things are more rabid than mosquitoes in the Texas heat. Ugh.. That shall, let the beatings continue!
"In the latest round of developments, Microsoft is increasing support for Unix and Windows NT interoperability while Corel is entering the desktop operating system market with its own release of an application-oriented version of Linux."
Hmm. I just can't wait to run my Unix programs on Window NT! It will cost me more, and I'll lose efficiency as well..? That's sooo cool.
Anyway.. Application-oriented version of Linux? What is that supposed to mean? The only thing they can really do to it is add in some more applications. It's not like they had to write an OS from scratch. I mean, what else would they come out with? A stripped-down version of Linux?
"In contrast to a similar 1997 survey that didn't produce conclusive results about Linux usage, 13 percent of those surveyed now say they use Linux."
Does the media have to force this same quote down my throat with almost every single article? Even Joe Public can repeat these figures ad nauseam by now.
"Linux is seen as a potential competitor to Unix and Windows NT for some server applications, according to Dan Kusnetzky, program director for IDC's Operating Environments and Serverware research programs."
Some? NT just flat out sucks.. Anyone who actually/wants/ to use that thing, well, for anything (much less as a/server/) probably has no clue what Unix is (and if they do, doesn't think it has a GUI.. yes, still). And most Unices use archaic code since they are direct descendants of the original Unix. GNU/Linux has already come a long way, and before long (at the rate it gets developed), most Unices won't seem so damn slick anymore (especially with that price tag.. ooh.. ouch).
"Linux is also making inroads in the desktop market because of the increased availability of Linux applications such as Corel WordPerfect 8, Sun's StarOffice, and a host of new offerings promised for the next year."
Most of this stuff seems aimed toward Joe Public. Is he really buying GNU/Linux like crazy already? Somehow, I just can't see him having a fun time trying to install it, even if it's Red Hat. Maybe others find interest in this stuff, but I'm not particularly excited. Most of what I need is already/in/ GNU/Linux (if it has a shell, a compiler, and a debugger, and all of which/work/, then it is good), and since not many computer companies make GNU/Linux desktops with modems.. Anyone know if Joe Public is actually getting all excited and putting Linux on his desktop..? Otherwise I can't see that comment making much sense, because most people I know of that have Linux are hackers who could care less about WordPerfect..
"A lot of our customers are interested in moving to the Windows platform from mixed environments that include the Unix platform. This acquisition will help us provide a subsystem in Windows that will let you run native Unix applications on the same machine," says Craig Beilinson, lead product manager for Windows 2000."
Straight from the people who say that Linux/will not run/ on a multi-processor system. You saw it here first.. a liar in action.
" "Lots of users are moving from Windows and Unix to Linux because it has a very particular value proposition: It fits into some specific areas where users are very task-specific, Web-oriented, and in need of performance stability," says Derik Belair, manager for Corel Linux."
"Some specific areas"? As in.. Linux is only "good for a few things"? Or perhaps, "Linux is a one- or two-trick pony"? I'd like someone to please tell me what Windows has that Linux doesn't (and that you'd actually/want/).
"According to Belair, most Linux enthusiasts are currently running Linux on a partition in their desktop. Corel sees its version of Linux as complementary to Windows rather than a replacement for it."
I wonder where these people get their figures and estimates from.. Who does their intelligence for them? Do they go around calling people who run Linux and interrogate them? Personally, I'd rather have Windows on an entirely different box, if for no better reason than I'd rather it not corrupt the hard drive that Linux is on.;)
"Corel believes the future of Linux as an independent operating system is in the sub-$500 PC market and the increased range of Web-connected appliances that will be available to consumers in the near future."
Corel.. not as smart as they think. I'm all for cheap computers, but I've yet to see one that costs less than $500 that I'd actually want to/use/ for any significant amount of time. Sure, Linux scales down well.. but do you really want to waste it like that? It could do.. so much more.. Personally I'll be all excited when Debian gains support for all of the planned architectures. An almost unrestricted choice of hardware platform makes me one happy camper.
" "Forty percent of people in the U.S. are not yet in the PC market. The last thing these people want is more complexity. In the long term, Linux makes technology easier to use," says Belair. Since Linux can be pared down to very simple levels with a great degree of stability, it's a very appealing option for people who just want to switch something on and have it work rather than have to deal with operating system complexity."
What..? Point and click is complex? I.. guess.. Then again, I think someone here mentioned the other day some ad that said "Clicking is hard work" in a serious manner.;) Why does Corel seem to think that Linux is the epitome of simplicity? "Simple" is not the word that comes to mind. "Efficient, fast, functional" do, however.
In summary, one might get the impression from this article that no one would want to use Linux except for specific tasks where you really just want stability.. Does this mean that most people would/hate/ to have stability for/everything/, and that Linux is not any good for "general computing purposes"!? I'm pretty sure I can send email, browse the Web, and.. well, what else does the average end-user use their computer for, anyway?;) I guess they think that Joe Public is more addicted to Wincandy's visual attractiveness than a computer that doesn't crash 4-5 times a day.
Personally, I'm not so sure. My mom, once a diehard Windows supporter, has had the oppurtunity to actually use her computer since I moved out a while back. Before she used to blame anything that went wrong with it on me, but since she bought a new computer, the reality has hit her pretty hard. Now she can't wait for Linux to hit the desktop, easy to use and fully functional.. and stable! Windows 98, despite it's attractive look, apparently doesn't hold too much appeal for her anymore.
By the way, since I've never actually used CorelDraw, anyone care to explain to me what you can do with it, and why I would bother with it instead of something like the GIMP? Remember, I've not looked into it in the slightest.:)
Well, obviously. My point being that the grand majority of people who sit on here long enough to get moderator access probably don't run Windows (at least not as their OS of choice:).
I was suggesting conspirators of a different brand.. Ones who run an OS comporable to Linux, not one that is more popular with the average end-user (guess which..?).
So far I have concocted a couple of theories: 1) this is such a well-crafted troll that only one moderator has thus far noticed.. the others got suckered in or 2) there is an anti-Linux conspiracy at work.. I suspect the latter. Ha!
At any rate, could someone please define for me "the big time"? I remember reading an article not too long ago mentioning that Linux is now being deployed to monitor the phone lines in/two whole states/ in order to make sure they stay up and all that (by the phone company, of course..), and that they have a couple of "hot boxes" (their words, not mine) "just in case".. but that they've never had to use them. This seems a/little/ like "the big time" to me. Anyone care to disagree? Or are your phone lines just not a big deal anymore?
Yes, I forgot the silly link to the article. It was called "Linux Babysits Phone Lines" or something like that. I think I saw it on Linux.com, though I could be entirely mistaken (if I saw it on Slashdot, like I said, I forgot where I saw it, so leave me alone:). If anyone cares to post the link, it might prove.. helpful.
As far as spokespeople getting terminology wrong.. They/still/ call crackers the one name they certainly do/not/ deserve. If they get anything else wrong on top of that, I won't be too damn surprised, if you know what I mean.
Let's see.. "Linux minions".. Yup, definitely a conspiracy..
Most corporate business works the same way. It's a method to avoid wasting money.. For example, say you're the manager of a bakery in a grocery store, and corporate gives you the numbers you have to conform to in order to stay "within budget".. You have to meet goals for sales, profit margin, and labor. Say your corporate man wants you to stay under 20% labor (just an example), and the first quarter you end at around 19.96% or something. You made it, but just barely. This encourages your corporate man to keep the goal the same (go over your goal.. bad things happen). You end the next quarter with 18%, however, and your corporate man thinks you have become "more efficient", and he could better deploy that money elsewhere. Hence, next quarter your goal is, you guessed it, 18%.
Not to say that this kind of mentality is necessarily all that intelligent (the people who decide the budgets other people should conform to rarely have/any/ experience doing the job of the people they are slapping these "goals" with, but hey.. that's life), but it's certainly not all that uncommon, and definitely not restricted to the government hive-mind.:)
I believe there is a mild difference between "more powerful encryption software" and "powerful encryption software". Of course, every part of the U.S. government will use just about any excuse to get more funding, from what I've noticed. What do you expect from the same country where members of Congress decide upon their own salary? Ugh.
Slashdot Mirror
If by some odd quirk of fate this question actually gets submitted, could someone please replace "unambiguously" with "ambiguously"? Usually I would consider the chances slim, but since without that mild correction I would look like even more of a fool than I probably do already.. ;) Silly typos.
I found the paranthesized section of the "Linux" entry of the Jargon File to be rather curious. The original reason for wanting to refer to the system as whole as GNU/Linux and the kernel as Linux was far from the reason given by the Jargon File (or, more specifically, that the term "Linux" not be used unambiguously.. which isn't precisely the same thing). Richard Stallman simply wanted to promote understanding, not recieve more credit. I'm not sure how this could be considered "trivial learning" unless we are all content to live in a world where the truth is hidden behind a veil of misconceptions and lies.. What was the rationale behind the inclusion of such a slanted view in this particular entry of the Jargon File?
"The accusations of communism really are not justified, even hard core free software people like RMS are NOT communists."
I believe he once described himself as a combination of a leftist anarchist and a (?) libertarian (sp?). ;)
"It is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The "Free Software" "OSS" movement comes directly from the modern scientific method of peer review."
Actually, the free software movement is a direct result of Richard Stallman's ethical views. Yes, it's also a matter of practical concerns, but RMS would rather have free software even if it was technically inferior. See: Why Software Should Be Free (a shorter version can be found here).
The open source movement stems from those like ESR who are.. well, I won't go into detail on my thoughts. The original advocates thought that the term free software scared big business. And it did. However, now the term is corrupted beyond recognition (by.. guess who!? big business..), and also appears to have become the norm these days. How sad. See: Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''.
Perhaps "slave" is a rather strong term in this case, and I can't recall if Stallman ever described it that way or not, but it's closer to the truth than most. The free software movement, however, was /not begun due to practical concerns, but rather ethical ones!!/. See: The GNU Project.
As was probably mentioned before (this post got a lot of responses.. ugh), GNU/Linux is modular. Windows is monolithic. Once a program gets too big (such as Win2k), being monolithic really sucks. It's easier to run a small program and test it extensively than a huge program because there are fewer variables.. not as many things that can go wrong.. less trash to run through the debugger. ;) It has been considered "proper form" to code modularly for quote some time now. The particular "edges" that Microsoft gives itself relies somewhat on being monolithic, however.
Now, as far as Windows instability goes.. I happen to know a few people from good old Redmond, and though I obviously can't substantiate this claim past that (I don't trust MS programmers as far as.. well.. let's just say I don't ;).. From what I understand, Microsoft doesn't really do much of /any/ bug-testing "in-house". That's what their limited beta releases are for. If you ask me, that's kind of silly, but then again.. 1) It's always better to have people test your software that aren't "close to the source".. however.. 2) Since Windows is so monolithic, any one programmer at MS is only likely to know a very small part of it. No one person could hold all that information in their brain (unless they have a photographic memory.. yes I know that's not the correct term for it..).
With free software (I refuse to use the term "open source") most developers release a stable version and a devel version.. That way people who are interested can get the devel version, see if it runs, poke around at the code.. And since they aren't the primary developers, they may notice a number of bugs that the people who actually designed it missed.. And since this happens on such a widespread level, you get a number of different points of view all staring at the same thing from different angles, each with their own coding style, skill level, etc. This kind of development squashes bugs at a rather, well, phenomenal rate. And since it is open to anyone, not just people who sign some kind of beta test agreement, it's a lot more likely to get a good number of interested volunteers helping out. :)
With the Microsoft way(tm), most of the bug-testing is done by, you guessed it, the end-user! (Those limited beta tests just don't cut it..) Not something Joe Public is very fond of these days.. ;) Especially when they charge a $100 for a bug-fix upgrade! Argh..
"We all know that the free software movement only benefits the upper(-IQ) crust of internet users. Those of us who are intelligent enough to know how to download Mandrake 6.1 from the FTP site."
Um.. You don't have to be able to download GNU/Linux from an FTP to benefit from free software (which is how you would benefit from the free software movement), as you make implicitly clear in your next sentence:
"The masses will continue to buy software which is where companies like Red Hat and Mandrake will make their money."
Are you confusing free with gratis? Because even though Joe Public is spending some dough, that doesn't mean he isn't getting a better deal because of free software (it's not like free beer! ugh..). I know a lot of (mostly) clueless people who rather like having shell accounts (on GNU/Linux or *BSD systems), benefit from pine (most other email programs that Joe Public is aware of really suck..), etc. etc.
So I'm not sure how you mean that the FSM isn't benefitting anyone but the most intelligent of us. Besides, you don't have to have a certain IQ to know the ins and outs of the free software community. You just have to be aware of it. Even people with low IQs can learn pretty much anything if they apply themselves. Learning comes down to dedication. You can't discriminate just because of some score on a piece of paper. Do we really look at people and guess their IQ? It never comes to mind for me. Ever. How creative they are? Maybe. How smart they /seem/? Perhaps. But an exact rating of their intelligence? No, because you never know..
And my cheap shot of the day: Don't most of the "upper crust" use Debian? ;)
How many of the movement leaders actually have a 200+ IQ? How would these people know? And since when did our movement leaders get labeled as being dicks? They always seemed to be pretty nice people, for the most part, if you ask me.. ;)
That said, I naturally agree with Signal 11 (what, you thought I wouldn't? :)
Surprising for someone who loves to rip into "journalists" every chance I get.. Anything with a license can not be considered public domain because public domain is a legal term with a very specific definition: not copyrighted. Copyleft or any other "free software" license.. hardly counts..
I think it's interesting that they actually noted two different factions amidst the community, as there clearly are. Personally, I fall somewhere between Torvalds and Stallman, which still puts me closer to Stallman than Raymond (ugh). I think the idea of applying free software to games is pretty silly, especially since if I design a whole crew of personalized characters, I'll be damned if I GPL them along with the entire game itself. :)
At any rate, I doubt rivalries or other factional disputes between various groups in the free software community are likely to cause anything to collapse. We all have our personal beliefs (or lack thereof), disagreements, whatever. But that's to be expected of something as anarchic as this. Sure, a lot of Stallman's original message gets clouded a lot of the time, but the point is: it still works. And no one is likely to lay down and let their ideas go unnoticed, so each group is likely to remain rather formidable as far as numbers of people with like-minded beliefs go.
In the end, however, we have better things to do than bicker and argue over the finer points: like code. ;)
Actually, with that statement, they hit the nail right on the head. See: Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' for more information.
I think it amusing that they made such a point to mention Stallman, then completely neglected to talk about the deeper relationship between Linux and GNU. That's clueless. ;)
As mentioned before, they mean free as in freedom, or free speech, not free beer. It seems as if fewer and fewer people realize what the term "free software" means these days.. See: What is Free Software?.
"As rumored in previous reports, the entire custom system software pack is indeed code-named "Borg." "
Do I really have to explain why I think this is funny..?
To take on a more "conventional" definition.. I always thought those pesky iMacs looked like they were built by space aliens..
Well, obviously, you can't. Let me put it this way.. I don't have a problem with anyone awarding Linus. He's a good guy, he's a good hacker, and he's contributed.. a lot. The same reasons why I think it's cool that Richard Stallman and Larry Wall got awards for their contributions. I simply think they could phrase the reasons for awarding him a little better. I like and support all of the above parties, but the misconceptions and outright lies are getting to be a little too much.
I can see us reading books decades from now that mention vague references to "an earlier inventor of what we all came to know and love as Linux..".. Like the forgotten pages of history or something. ;)
Mmm. Intelligent discourse. A nice change from the usual responses I've gotten (not all of them, but enough for me to have altered my threshold ;).
"Lil' secret here: I don't think they are courting the hardcore Debian guys or Slackers. I bet if you looked at the number of people dual booting there would be a big difference by distribution. Corel is going after that crowd. . .the ones now using RH and Mandrake."
I concur wholeheartedly. I was simply responding to the article itself, not any intelligent thoughts that may have lain between the lines. ;) I think that would be the most insightful course of action they could possibly take. Something they might be able to succeed at as well..
"I can't see any reason why in 2-5 years you shouldn't have a $200 box that browses the web, checks mail, and lets you type up a paper (that's it, nothing else). . .the thing most people use computers for."
Possibly.. I'm a little skeptical. Even Joe Public likes all the bells and whistles every once in a while.. Not that I'm saying there wouldn't be a market for such a thing, just that I don't think it's likely to consume the market, either.
"Okay, this comes down to the fact that Linux is a KERNEL, not an OS (GNU/Linux debate aside). Again, for 95% of the people, forget X, bash, vi, etc. Write a webrowser-as-the-desktop directly over the kernel to surf the web, check your hotmail, and type up papers with your StarOffice account (or whatever they are planning to do with S.O. over the web). Now it is simple."
I tip my hat off to you. Hopefully someone who came here looking for ideas in this arena is taking some notes.. ;)
"Again. . .think future. The impression is what Linux could excel at, even Dominate the World with. Sure, the happy hackers will still be using vi et. al. on Linux for the foreseeable future, but this is about what Joe Computeranxiety wants. Remember, setting your VCR's clock is too complex for the majority of the population. . .Keep It Simple Stupid!"
I don't think that there's too much that it /couldn't/ excel at within the next few years. Once it gets all the way to the point where Joe Whatthehellisthisshellthingie can point and click his way through Linux and the hacker-types can still get at the computer (i.e., no MacOS-style crap ;), I'll be a little happier. However, I'll grant that Joe Public probably doesn't care about nor necessarily need powerful, advanced editors, compilers, etc. :)
So.. which part of that quote were you referring to in your statement..? Just in case, I'll examine the whole thing..
"He's just a really good hacker."
There are a lot of those around. They aren't considered rebellious, they're considered to "have a bright future" or "we need more of them".
"He doesn't care much about software politics."
Ok, now he's been lumped in with Joe Public and the rest of the "real world". I kind of doubt that would make him a rebel in the average person's eyes (unless you consider the average person to be someone who participates whole-heartedly in the BSD vs. GPL licensing holy war).
"He prefers free software, because he gets annoyed at not being able to fix bugs."
Maybe, at a stretch, you could consider this rebellious. Not when you consider the context, however. The point is, he doesn't care one way or the other. He isn't out to change anything. Therefore, he's not much of a rebel, now is he? If that /does/ make him a rebel, you should get a dictionary from a more *ahem* established source.
Richard Stallman, on the other hand, is mostly known for being a rebel at this point (even more than for his programming ability, one might say, even though he gave us the gift that is Emacs).
So, care to explain? I tire very easily of vague assertations, especially when they appear to be bereft of a stable foundation of /any/ kind..
If you say so.. I guess. I don't think I "almost" have anything. I'm pretty well versed on the relavent facts. My point being that Linus is hardly the main contributor. No one is the main contributor. Unless you count the community as a whole. Some individuals have contributed more than others, but /no one person/ has single-handedly developed 51% of the GNU/Linux system. Not even close. Not by a mile.
Hence, three cheers for the community.
A "semi-local" ISP, Texas.net, doesn't really care what OS you use. Yeah, they only do tech support for Windows and I think Mac, but do you really need some annoying registration process that requires certain software? They don't seem to think so. Personally, I've found that it's quite simple to set up dial-up on Windows without knowing a damn thing about their configuration or anything else besides the phone number. :)
You don't have to spend money on tech support, you just say that Linux is not supported, but that we don't require you to use something else. Registration doesn't have to be all complicated. It's ridiculously easy, in fact. At least it is with ISPs like Texas.net, since they don't dick you around. :)
I think it rather odd that they chose Linus of all people to refer to as a "rebel". I don't think there's anything particular "rebellious" about him. He's just a really good hacker. He doesn't care much about software politics. He prefers free software, because he gets annoyed at not being able to fix bugs, but he's not against proprietary software either. He doesn't really care. People can use whatever.
If someone would care to explain why this makes him a rebel, please feel free. :)
They got the "computer genious" part thing right though.. Though I could have done with the obligatory Transmeta plug..
Warning: The opinions expressed herein are strong, and may warrant others to label it "flame bait" or "troll".. However, you may want to pause and consider a few moments before rendering a verdict. ;)
"A small element, but essential - where would the open-source movement be today without a favourite OS underneath it?"
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm skeptical about the Hurd, although I'm confident that if the Linux kernel hadn't stolen the spotlight, it would have been ready long ago (not much interest in developing it since we already have a GPL'ed kernel, after all).
"(No, I'm not saying open-source wouldn't exist, nor that it's only linux that's open-source. But there is a 'certain relationship' between the d00ds at the FSF and, say, Debian...)"
That registers even less. So who are we blaming for the GNU/Linux OS here..? Are we calling the kernel the OS..? It just doesn't.. add.. up.. Not how it was stated, anyway. Of course, I can't help but wonder if you are implying that the FSF is a bunch of warez d00dz of not.. ;)
Also, who the hell cares where the "open source movement" would be? That's the most idiotic thing anyone ever came up with. Personally, I think that ESR is a fool, even though he is a big contributor. "Open source", indeed. That term is sooo easily corrupted. The thought of trademarking it to avoid such corruption is completely ridiculous. Open source means less than nothing. It certainly doesn't imply "free software". The SCSL is open source. So is the NPL. Does that make them good licenses? Don't worry, you won't have to put your thinking caps on for this one: The answer is NO!
At least the BSD license doesn't try to sucker you. It lets you know up front that it's just a step away from being "public domain". There wouldn't even be an open source movement if not for the free software movement, the original and other faction in the community. Free software is also a little bit ambiguous, thanks to the "intricacies" of the English language.. However, it's a little harder for companies to corrupt, don't you think? After all, not all "open source" products are necessarily zero-cost, so the other meaning of the term wouldn't apply too well on those. Even if it did, you wouldn't be so easily suckered because you would realize there was a couple definitions. Just look at the license. The term "open source" is a lot easier to rip apart through the media. Everyone can get a warm fuzzy feeling about the latest "open source" project..
Ugh.
Everything in this day and age revolves around politics and PR issues, however. Most people seem to ignore the fact that Richard Stallman begat the GNU Project, which began this whole thing. And more importantly, that it wasn't just Stallman or Torvalds who put the entire thing together. There are many key contributors.. And beyond the more "well-known", there are thousands of hackers who have added something here or there.. Without the assistance of all of these different people from all over the world, nothing would have been possible.
Anyway, to add a little sense into my usual rant, if you always asked Torvalds for help when you had a problem with your OS, you'd get the stick. Big time. ;) It sort of depends on what the problem is in regards to as to who you should ask.. The GNU Project is usually a good default for someone to bother (especially if it's GNU software.. not much of that floating around these days, is there..?).
(As an aside, all of those "Stallman-slammers" who think he's an egotistical bastard who never did anything to deserve credit.. credit being something he doesn't seem to care about anyway.. I wonder what compiler you use..? ;)
I had originally intended on ignoring the lack of attention to detail.. However.. The man who set down the rather expansive foundation for this great accomplishment, perhaps..?
Of course, if you really get down to it, no one person should recieve all the credit for creating the GNU/Linux system. Yes, Richard Stallman started it all, gave us Emacs, GCC, and so much more, gave us the GPL, and began a philosophical movement (which has now been factionized and corrupted). Yes, Linus Torvalds gave us the Linux kernel. Yes, this is all very good. The reality of it, however, is despite the fact that the GNU Project held it together until Linus gave them a final piece to their creation (and the rest being history, as they say..), it took a vast array of individuals all over the world to really bring all of this into being.
One person, or even a small group of people, can't put an entire OS together from scratch (well, not in any /sane/ amount of time). With the contributions of like-minded people from far and wide, however.. Well, we all know what can be accomplished when /that/ happens. :)
The true accomplishment, then, is the community's. Of which people like Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds are a part. Yes, they are widely renowned and respected (and even famous enough to be otherwise.. ;), but they are still a part of the community, and the entire community deserves the credit.
I'm not so sure that I disagree this time.. ;)
(warning: mildly inside joke..)
This has been covered already.. If you don't believe me, check this post on that "previous discussion".. It even includes the same link.. Ha! ;)
I swear these things are more rabid than mosquitoes in the Texas heat. Ugh.. That shall, let the beatings continue!
"In the latest round of developments, Microsoft is increasing support for Unix and Windows NT interoperability while Corel is entering the desktop operating system market with its own release of an application-oriented version of Linux."
Hmm. I just can't wait to run my Unix programs on Window NT! It will cost me more, and I'll lose efficiency as well..? That's sooo cool.
Anyway.. Application-oriented version of Linux? What is that supposed to mean? The only thing they can really do to it is add in some more applications. It's not like they had to write an OS from scratch. I mean, what else would they come out with? A stripped-down version of Linux?
"In contrast to a similar 1997 survey that didn't produce conclusive results about Linux usage, 13 percent of those surveyed now say they use Linux."
Does the media have to force this same quote down my throat with almost every single article? Even Joe Public can repeat these figures ad nauseam by now.
"Linux is seen as a potential competitor to Unix and Windows NT for some server applications, according to Dan Kusnetzky, program director for IDC's Operating Environments and Serverware research programs."
Some? NT just flat out sucks.. Anyone who actually /wants/ to use that thing, well, for anything (much less as a /server/) probably has no clue what Unix is (and if they do, doesn't think it has a GUI.. yes, still). And most Unices use archaic code since they are direct descendants of the original Unix. GNU/Linux has already come a long way, and before long (at the rate it gets developed), most Unices won't seem so damn slick anymore (especially with that price tag.. ooh.. ouch).
"Linux is also making inroads in the desktop market because of the increased availability of Linux applications such as Corel WordPerfect 8, Sun's StarOffice, and a host of new offerings promised for the next year."
Most of this stuff seems aimed toward Joe Public. Is he really buying GNU/Linux like crazy already? Somehow, I just can't see him having a fun time trying to install it, even if it's Red Hat. Maybe others find interest in this stuff, but I'm not particularly excited. Most of what I need is already /in/ GNU/Linux (if it has a shell, a compiler, and a debugger, and all of which /work/, then it is good), and since not many computer companies make GNU/Linux desktops with modems.. Anyone know if Joe Public is actually getting all excited and putting Linux on his desktop..? Otherwise I can't see that comment making much sense, because most people I know of that have Linux are hackers who could care less about WordPerfect..
"A lot of our customers are interested in moving to the Windows platform from mixed environments that include the Unix platform. This acquisition will help us provide a subsystem in Windows that will let you run native Unix applications on the same machine," says Craig Beilinson, lead product manager for Windows 2000."
Straight from the people who say that Linux /will not run/ on a multi-processor system. You saw it here first.. a liar in action.
" "Lots of users are moving from Windows and Unix to Linux because it has a very particular value proposition: It fits into some specific areas where users are very task-specific, Web-oriented, and in need of performance stability," says Derik Belair, manager for Corel Linux."
"Some specific areas"? As in.. Linux is only "good for a few things"? Or perhaps, "Linux is a one- or two-trick pony"? I'd like someone to please tell me what Windows has that Linux doesn't (and that you'd actually /want/).
"According to Belair, most Linux enthusiasts are currently running Linux on a partition in their desktop. Corel sees its version of Linux as complementary to Windows rather than a replacement for it."
I wonder where these people get their figures and estimates from.. Who does their intelligence for them? Do they go around calling people who run Linux and interrogate them? Personally, I'd rather have Windows on an entirely different box, if for no better reason than I'd rather it not corrupt the hard drive that Linux is on. ;)
"Corel believes the future of Linux as an independent operating system is in the sub-$500 PC market and the increased range of Web-connected appliances that will be available to consumers in the near future."
Corel.. not as smart as they think. I'm all for cheap computers, but I've yet to see one that costs less than $500 that I'd actually want to /use/ for any significant amount of time. Sure, Linux scales down well.. but do you really want to waste it like that? It could do.. so much more.. Personally I'll be all excited when Debian gains support for all of the planned architectures. An almost unrestricted choice of hardware platform makes me one happy camper.
" "Forty percent of people in the U.S. are not yet in the PC market. The last thing these people want is more complexity. In the long term, Linux makes technology easier to use," says Belair. Since Linux can be pared down to very simple levels with a great degree of stability, it's a very appealing option for people who just want to switch something on and have it work rather than have to deal with operating system complexity."
What..? Point and click is complex? I.. guess.. Then again, I think someone here mentioned the other day some ad that said "Clicking is hard work" in a serious manner. ;) Why does Corel seem to think that Linux is the epitome of simplicity? "Simple" is not the word that comes to mind. "Efficient, fast, functional" do, however.
In summary, one might get the impression from this article that no one would want to use Linux except for specific tasks where you really just want stability.. Does this mean that most people would /hate/ to have stability for /everything/, and that Linux is not any good for "general computing purposes"!? I'm pretty sure I can send email, browse the Web, and.. well, what else does the average end-user use their computer for, anyway? ;) I guess they think that Joe Public is more addicted to Wincandy's visual attractiveness than a computer that doesn't crash 4-5 times a day.
Personally, I'm not so sure. My mom, once a diehard Windows supporter, has had the oppurtunity to actually use her computer since I moved out a while back. Before she used to blame anything that went wrong with it on me, but since she bought a new computer, the reality has hit her pretty hard. Now she can't wait for Linux to hit the desktop, easy to use and fully functional.. and stable! Windows 98, despite it's attractive look, apparently doesn't hold too much appeal for her anymore.
By the way, since I've never actually used CorelDraw, anyone care to explain to me what you can do with it, and why I would bother with it instead of something like the GIMP? Remember, I've not looked into it in the slightest. :)
Well, obviously. My point being that the grand majority of people who sit on here long enough to get moderator access probably don't run Windows (at least not as their OS of choice :).
I was suggesting conspirators of a different brand.. Ones who run an OS comporable to Linux, not one that is more popular with the average end-user (guess which..?).
So far I have concocted a couple of theories: 1) this is such a well-crafted troll that only one moderator has thus far noticed.. the others got suckered in or 2) there is an anti-Linux conspiracy at work.. I suspect the latter. Ha!
At any rate, could someone please define for me "the big time"? I remember reading an article not too long ago mentioning that Linux is now being deployed to monitor the phone lines in /two whole states/ in order to make sure they stay up and all that (by the phone company, of course..), and that they have a couple of "hot boxes" (their words, not mine) "just in case".. but that they've never had to use them. This seems a /little/ like "the big time" to me. Anyone care to disagree? Or are your phone lines just not a big deal anymore?
Yes, I forgot the silly link to the article. It was called "Linux Babysits Phone Lines" or something like that. I think I saw it on Linux.com, though I could be entirely mistaken (if I saw it on Slashdot, like I said, I forgot where I saw it, so leave me alone :). If anyone cares to post the link, it might prove.. helpful.
As far as spokespeople getting terminology wrong.. They /still/ call crackers the one name they certainly do /not/ deserve. If they get anything else wrong on top of that, I won't be too damn surprised, if you know what I mean.
Let's see.. "Linux minions".. Yup, definitely a conspiracy..
Most corporate business works the same way. It's a method to avoid wasting money.. For example, say you're the manager of a bakery in a grocery store, and corporate gives you the numbers you have to conform to in order to stay "within budget".. You have to meet goals for sales, profit margin, and labor. Say your corporate man wants you to stay under 20% labor (just an example), and the first quarter you end at around 19.96% or something. You made it, but just barely. This encourages your corporate man to keep the goal the same (go over your goal.. bad things happen). You end the next quarter with 18%, however, and your corporate man thinks you have become "more efficient", and he could better deploy that money elsewhere. Hence, next quarter your goal is, you guessed it, 18%.
Not to say that this kind of mentality is necessarily all that intelligent (the people who decide the budgets other people should conform to rarely have /any/ experience doing the job of the people they are slapping these "goals" with, but hey.. that's life), but it's certainly not all that uncommon, and definitely not restricted to the government hive-mind. :)
I believe there is a mild difference between "more powerful encryption software" and "powerful encryption software". Of course, every part of the U.S. government will use just about any excuse to get more funding, from what I've noticed. What do you expect from the same country where members of Congress decide upon their own salary? Ugh.