You guys said the same thing about Linux. Time will prove you wrong.
And members of the Linux camp have said the same thing about BSD.
Considering BSD will run BSD, Windows and Linux binaries, it either sucks the most because it runs the most binaries, or sucks the least, because no matter what OS binary you got, BSD has the ability to run it.
To see Netscape BSD, Linux and Windows at one time, go here.
>Is that license really in Corel Linux? At this point, no one even knows if the Corel app in question is Corel specific...its VAPORWARE still. The press release can be read to interpret that it is a corel only feature. (It could also be market-speak)
You are asking if a licensing restriction that is the only legal way they can stop the use of their code on system that aren't theirs, on software that is vaporware, exists.
>What are they going to do if I run the app in another Linux? They can sue you. If the software is licensed ONLY for Corel Linux and you are running it someplace else, you would be in violation.
>Monitor me? Its their software. They can put in monitoring code if they wish.
>Bust me? If you violated the license, then you have to stop using the software or do what it takes to become back in license compliance.
>Sue me? Yes. What part of license violation are you having a hard time understanding? What part of contract violation are you not groking?
>Please. Let 'em try. Odds are however it is not worth the time of Corel to "Take some license breaking Anonymous Coward to court and have a judge explain to her the ideas behind contract law, and bust the arrogant, in their face software pirate."
1) This announcement is just re-stating Darwin. 1a) Darwin was re-worked to be compliant with the term OpenSource 2) No, its not BSD or GPLed licenced code. It's Apple's own licence. Go read it if you care. 3) Apple has made other statements at keynote time. So, until you have what they promise in your hand, take it with a grain of salt. (This applies to ALL vendors, not just Apple)
If you want that OS X feeling on your PC, go get windowmaker and load it. On FreeBSD, the software works just fine, and it looks enough like Mac OS X server that one can't tell the difference on 1st glance.
Given the technical acumen you have shown in the past (the funky graphics mode on the Apple ][ as the result of a gate saving design change, the mouse re-design to save silicon, etc) and your present place in life, will we see you re-invent yourself and return to doing great hardware? Or, is that part of your life, hacking great hardware for us consumers, over.
Do you see Apple's abandonment of the PDA as a long term blunder, given the money to be made in developing and deploying embedded platforms?
Do you see parallels in the Apple Red Book/Interger BASIC source/Schematics (how open Apple hardware once was) and the OpenSource Movement?
As others are asking about GNU/Linux and if you have used it....how about BSD?
Any comments about BSD as a sourcecode base for Mac OS X?
You have to understand, Mr. Plant is a dyed in the wool Linux advocate. So, from his perspective, if it's not using GNU/Linux its not cool. (And if it happens to be cool, it MUST be an accident.) So, keep this in mind when he writes on a topic.
The comment "What? An advance in cinematography that doesn't involve a farm of Linux machines?" was a jab at FreeBSD. Note the only OpenSource-Matrix reference commonly published is the BSD farm used for graphic rendering.
Given this quote from TimeTrack s own web page: "We even have an optional mechanical shutter system which requires no electrical power." It would seem the use of GNU/Linux technology for this camera system is a situation where the extra technology is not needed.
Trying to put your choice of technology where it is unneeded is the hallmark not of advice, but the same kind of tactic Microsoft uses....that of "All problems look like a nail(microsoft part number x-095687-002) and you hit it with a hammer(microsoft part number 94374)"
For him, the OpenSource movement is Linux, and not the OpenSource movement has Linux as a part of the movement.
(For everything bad said about Mr. Stallman, at least he has respect for others. When Mr. Stallman was looking for his access badge, Mr. Plant told him that he should tell the guard "he was Richard fucking Stallman, and didn t need a badge." Mr. Stallman pointed out that why should he make the guard s life difficult. The guard is only doing his job.)
>Unsurprisingly, they say that Linux will be used in embedded devices. Well, it's kind of hard to say that Linux has "faded" if it's going to dominant the most important computer market coming up.
Embedded *IS* important.
But the embedded world is loaded with IP companines want to protect.
The GNU licence is all about releasing IP. The BSD allows you to protect IP.
Now, if you are building an embedded device, what version of OS will you take if you have concerns about protecting your IP? BSD!
Linux has an up-hill battle in the embedded market BECAUSE of the GPL and the desire to protect IP.
>We, members of the Linux community and the computing population in general, believe that you, the manufacturers of pc computing devices, should make available to Linux developers full specifications of your devices, so that Linux compatible device drivers can be produced for your products. If you feel this information is confidential, then we ask you to write, and make freely available, drivers for your products.
And the REST of the OpenSource OS market doesn't matter?
If you are going to make a petition, or sign one, why not sign one that is can work for ALL the OpenSource OSes? Or, how about ALL the Unix market?
Why does the Linux community want to replace Micro$oft as the new monopoly?
>Oracle IMHO are even worse than Microsoft when it comes to pricing structure, aggressive marketing, and FUD,
Oracle, like Apple or Microsoft is no one's friend. They are a big company, bent on making money.
At least the price sheet (70% discounts for large or to price out the other guys) for Oracle has been published by the NY Times, so we all know what they are willing to discount/how much they make.
The investment style is called momentum investing. This style has NOTHING to do with what the company actually does. What you try to do is jump on the same bandwagon as everyone else.
It comes from the concept of technical analysis. You don't care what the company does, only how it has performed.
As for the parents/grandparents crack, the majority of the population doesn't have computers. (Unlike the readers of/.) So the majority don't GIVE A DAMN about this site, Linux or OpenSource. And for most brokers, OpenSource is as remote to them as biotechnology, sub-micron lithography, or FPGA's. The people who are analysts care, but your average broker doesn't. The people who read the analyst don't grok the technology, just what the analyst says.
Again, the MAJORITY of investors read what some analyst says. Look at what you have read about OpenSource or Linux or BSD in the 'mainstream' and ask yourself: Do these 'experts' understand?
From the Fool message board: VA Linux date: 12/09/1999 author: gliptak I heard this IPO was cancelled, as the underwriters did not anticipate enough interest [VA Linux IPO wasn't canceled]
message board: VA Linux date: 12/10/1999 author: JeanDavid In the Linux market, the biggest two databases are probably MySQL and Oracle. [And PostgreSQL was voted #1 database, with MySQL as #2. Lack of facts (again)]
That is 2 pages in.
I'd post some of the tech analysts from the broker, but:
1) I don't have them at hand 2) Posting facts on/. Is rather useless....especially if it conflicts with Linux-based religious zelotry.
Popular is when my parents and grandparents ask "What is Linux?"
That happened AFTER the billion dollar IPO. Not before. I don't have it backwards.
Things like a billion+ help your popularity. Being popular because you have a billion+ isn't the best reason to be popular, but its still a reason for popularity.
People who've chosen a new-style BSD licence (happy RMS?) over all the other licence models have no desire to take GPLed code and infect the BSD code.
So GPLed code is as useless as SCSL code. For neither option allow the FREEDOM TO DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH THE CODE. For the BSD camp, its about the rights of humans to make code use choices, and not about the rights of code to 'be free'.
>It would be better if Debian and Slackware would just go away and convert to BSD, so that Linux can remain free of that crap,
If BSD is crap...why are you not working on removing all BSD-derived source code from Linux? How dare your GNU/Linux be contaminated with such BSD crap.
(What? That would be work, and you don't believe in work...just mindless flames?)
At The Bazaar, Mr. Raymond said over dinner that the BSD kernel was cleaner.
And Mr. Perens expressed a similar view. If I'm lucky, that I have on tape, and need to get it off the camcorder.
Want "proof" of a BSD kernel being better than Linux at task X, or Linux being better than BSD at task Y? Then help create a Debian GNU/BSD. Because that is the only way anyone will be happy with the benchmark.
(And I'm itred of the 1st posts, the fornicate-esque, and the BSD is dead posts. But because its cold out I wear a hat and so no one sees my point)
Take some time to examine the history of Apple and Rhapsody.
Note how Apple (one of the most closed companines in existance due to thier past with Apple ][ cloning) has submitted bug fixes to BSD. Note also how Apple had no intention of OpenSourcing the code now called Darwin, and yet here we are today....with even Apple SUPPORTING OpenSource.
Also note, how the BSD code writer considers SUPPORT of the code as USE of the code.
If you can't grok the above views of support, perhaps you need to think different?!?
There is no billion dollar IPO backing the hype about BSD.
The hype will come when: 1) There is a billion dollar BSD IPO. 2) When the BSD community starts explaining the biggest advantage of the BSD licence to Multinational corporations. That advantage is, you can choose to HIDE your own source code if you wish. (Get them to at least start supporting OpenSource. Once they find its not as bad as Microsoft says, they will keep coming back for more. Like drugs...the first hit, we'll give ya free.) 3) Some cleaver BSDers (Hi Pat!) start whispering in Wall Streets ears "Feel that you mised out on the Linux IPO frenzy? Take heart, here is BSD...the next big IPO launchpad. It runs Linux binaries, its OpenSourced, AND the licencing difference over Linux doesn't cause the heads of the lawyers in your IP departments to spin about."
When the first IPO of BSD is successful, then you will see the people who use Linux instead of the word OpenSource, refer to BSD as OpenSource...and Linux also. And, the more OpenSource is out there, the better for BSD, Linux, Apache, Sendmail, vi, NO CARRIER
It seems everyone is forgetting that this *IS* just a game.
Something you do for entertainment.
Now, if some people find creating an auto-aming robot, or even a fully AI player entertaining, then fine. (after you have killed so many mobs, so many ways, writing a program to do it can be entertaining)
And if you find aiming by hand to be entertaining, fine.
No one says you have to play with Bender, the auto-gunning robot. Or Tinny-Timmy, the manual-aimer. Go play with people who agree to paly the same way you do.
The mud community has for years had issues with bots or response-enhanced scripted players. In the end, rather than create an ulcer for yourself over these issues, its better to just remember:
But we *ARE* talking about a game here. Soemthing people do for entertainment.
And, for some, having the computer do some of the helping (like aming/shooting/scripting) is how they get entertainment.
This "robot problem" is one that has existed for YEARS in the mudding community. And, rather than get an ulcer over a game, its better to just play the game the way YOU enjoy to play it, rather whan worry about how everyone ELSE is playing.
If you use Micro$oft code as a basis for your product, and your product doesn't work (because of Micro$oft code) and you are sued, here's a clause:
(c) indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorney's fees, that arise or result from the distribution of the Redistributable Component
Think it can't happen? Anytime there is a loss, the lawyers take a shotgun approach. Sue EVERYONE who was involved. That means you, the software developer, Micro$oft, etc la.
We humans CAN make error free software. We have missles that fly through the air, make tight corners, fly through windows and blow up. As opposed to software that is on windows that just blow up. Yet, the 'market' won't 'buy' software that is bug-free. Personally, I believe the market won't buy it because it hasn't been convinced to buy it.
The second problem is software doesn't match the assembly-line mass production model, more of an artist crafting a work. So the relability we have come to expect of mass producted items *koff koff* doesn't apply to the software world.
And until we move beyond the lone artist and more assembly line, we will have bug-ridden large software releases.
Who's to blame for the 'virus'? I can say its not me. I don't buy M$, and don't write viruses.
The consumers (for buying insecure software), the writers of the insecure software, and the virus writers are all able to take the blame.
As OpenSource delivers what M$ (and others) can't, the consumers will make the demands of good software, M$ will have to deliver or die.
BOTH human-machine interfaces matter for handhelds.
For most of the present users of unix, the machines are large and in charge, and have keyboards. So voice is a larger market for TODAY. (handwriting -> keyboard -> voice in order of ease)
And, as voice can exist on handhelds (when handhelds become powerful enough), people will use the voice interface over writing. (because writing is more work than talking)
Voice on handhelds exists as demo-software. The Newton 2000 had voice software from Dragon Systems. (20 or so words)
Linux is an OS. As your version of GNU/Linux talks AND has a male gender, I'd like the source. (I know a couple of people who are transgendered and I'm sure they'd like to take male source and figure out to go to female source.)
From a Linus interview.
HY: About the GNU/Linux argument; have you talked with Richard Stallman about this?
Linus: rms asked me if I minded the name before starting to use it, and I said "go ahead".
And your proof about Linux (the speaking, male OS) or even Linus hating RMS is documented exactly where?
For Linus HIMSELF has said the official name is GNU/Linux. (He then went on to call it Linux)
If it helps, consider Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing. Most people call it 3M. But the name it REALLY is called is Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing.
Slashdot Mirror
Time will prove you wrong.
And members of the Linux camp have said the same thing about BSD.
Considering BSD will run BSD, Windows and Linux binaries, it either sucks the most because it runs the most binaries, or sucks the least, because no matter what OS binary you got, BSD has the ability to run it.
To see Netscape BSD, Linux and Windows at one time, go here.
At this point, no one even knows if the Corel app in question is Corel specific...its VAPORWARE still. The press release can be read to interpret that it is a corel only feature. (It could also be market-speak)
You are asking if a licensing restriction that is the only legal way they can stop the use of their code on system that aren't theirs, on software that is vaporware, exists.
>What are they going to do if I run the app in another Linux?
They can sue you. If the software is licensed ONLY for Corel Linux and you are running it someplace else, you would be in violation.
>Monitor me?
Its their software. They can put in monitoring code if they wish.
>Bust me?
If you violated the license, then you have to stop using the software or do what it takes to become back in license compliance.
>Sue me?
Yes. What part of license violation are you having a hard time understanding? What part of contract violation are you not groking?
>Please. Let 'em try.
Odds are however it is not worth the time of Corel to "Take some license breaking Anonymous Coward to court and have a judge explain to her the ideas behind contract law, and bust the arrogant, in their face software pirate."
At this time there is no proof the App is restricted *IN CODE* to Corel's linux. This is speculation.
But there *IS* a restriction none of you can get around. A licence restriction that says you are only licenced for Corel's linux.
In case someone from the future is researching the hi-end imaging/computers
http://www.smpte.org/
Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers
1) This announcement is just re-stating Darwin.
1a) Darwin was re-worked to be compliant with the term OpenSource
2) No, its not BSD or GPLed licenced code. It's Apple's own licence. Go read it if you care.
3) Apple has made other statements at keynote time. So, until you have what they promise in your hand, take it with a grain of salt. (This applies to ALL vendors, not just Apple)
If you want that OS X feeling on your PC, go get windowmaker and load it. On FreeBSD, the software works just fine, and it looks enough like Mac OS X server that one can't tell the difference on 1st glance.
Given the technical acumen you have shown in the past (the funky graphics mode on the Apple ][ as the result of a gate saving design change, the mouse re-design to save silicon, etc) and your present place in life, will we see you re-invent yourself and return to doing great hardware? Or, is that part of your life, hacking great hardware for us consumers, over.
Do you see Apple's abandonment of the PDA as a long term blunder, given the money to be made in developing and deploying embedded platforms?
Do you see parallels in the Apple Red Book/Interger BASIC source/Schematics (how open Apple hardware once was) and the OpenSource Movement?
As others are asking about GNU/Linux and if you have used it....how about BSD?
Any comments about BSD as a sourcecode base for Mac OS X?
You have to understand, Mr. Plant is a dyed in the wool Linux advocate. So, from his perspective, if it's not using GNU/Linux its not cool. (And if it happens to be cool, it MUST be an accident.) So, keep this in mind when he writes on a topic.
The comment "What? An advance in cinematography that doesn't involve a farm of Linux machines?" was a jab at FreeBSD. Note the only OpenSource-Matrix reference commonly published is the BSD farm used for graphic rendering.
Given this quote from TimeTrack s own web page:
"We even have an optional mechanical shutter system which requires no electrical power."
It would seem the use of GNU/Linux technology for this camera system is a situation where the extra technology is not needed.
Trying to put your choice of technology where it is unneeded is the hallmark not of advice, but the same kind of tactic Microsoft uses....that of "All problems look like a nail(microsoft part number x-095687-002) and you hit it with a hammer(microsoft part number 94374)"
For him, the OpenSource movement is Linux, and not the OpenSource movement has Linux as a part of the movement.
(For everything bad said about Mr. Stallman, at least he has respect for others. When Mr. Stallman was looking for his access badge, Mr. Plant told him that he should tell the guard "he was Richard fucking Stallman, and didn t need a badge." Mr. Stallman pointed out that why should he make the guard s life difficult. The guard is only doing his job.)
If you had been tracking that poll for the last weeks.
OS/2 was #1, with BSD as #2, Linux #3
Then BSD was #1, with Linux as #4
Then Windows was on top, BSD #2 and Linux as dead last.
Anyone who things that poll says ANYTHING useful, is delusional.
>Unsurprisingly, they say that Linux will be used in embedded devices. Well, it's kind of hard to say that Linux has "faded" if it's going to dominant the most important computer market coming up.
Embedded *IS* important.
But the embedded world is loaded with IP companines want to protect.
The GNU licence is all about releasing IP.
The BSD allows you to protect IP.
Now, if you are building an embedded device, what version of OS will you take if you have concerns about protecting your IP? BSD!
Linux has an up-hill battle in the embedded market BECAUSE of the GPL and the desire to protect IP.
>We, members of the Linux community and the computing population in general, believe that you, the manufacturers of pc computing devices, should make available to Linux developers full specifications of your devices, so that Linux compatible device drivers can be produced for your products. If you feel this information is confidential, then we ask you to write, and make freely available, drivers for your products.
And the REST of the OpenSource OS market doesn't matter?
If you are going to make a petition, or sign one, why not sign one that is can work for ALL the OpenSource OSes? Or, how about ALL the Unix market?
Why does the Linux community want to replace Micro$oft as the new monopoly?
>Oracle IMHO are even worse than Microsoft when it comes to pricing structure, aggressive marketing, and FUD,
Oracle, like Apple or Microsoft is no one's friend. They are a big company, bent on making money.
At least the price sheet (70% discounts for large or to price out the other guys) for Oracle has been published by the NY Times, so we all know what they are willing to discount/how much they make.
The investment style is called momentum investing. This style has NOTHING to do with what the company actually does. What you try to do is jump on the same bandwagon as everyone else.
/.) So the majority don't GIVE A DAMN about this site, Linux or OpenSource.
/. Is rather useless....especially if it conflicts with Linux-based religious zelotry.
It comes from the concept of technical analysis. You don't care what the company does, only how it has performed.
As for the parents/grandparents crack, the majority of the population doesn't have computers. (Unlike the readers of
And for most brokers, OpenSource is as remote to them as biotechnology, sub-micron lithography, or FPGA's. The people who are analysts care, but your average broker doesn't. The people who read the analyst don't grok the technology, just what the analyst says.
Again, the MAJORITY of investors read what some analyst says. Look at what you have read about OpenSource or Linux or BSD in the 'mainstream' and ask yourself: Do these 'experts' understand?
From the Fool
message board: VA Linux
date: 12/09/1999 author: gliptak
I heard this IPO was cancelled, as the underwriters did not anticipate enough interest
[VA Linux IPO wasn't canceled]
message board: VA Linux
date: 12/10/1999 author: JeanDavid
In the Linux market, the biggest two databases are probably MySQL and Oracle.
[And PostgreSQL was voted #1 database, with MySQL as #2. Lack of facts (again)]
That is 2 pages in.
I'd post some of the tech analysts from the broker, but:
1) I don't have them at hand
2) Posting facts on
Popular is when my parents and grandparents ask "What is Linux?"
That happened AFTER the billion dollar IPO. Not before. I don't have it backwards.
Things like a billion+ help your popularity. Being popular because you have a billion+ isn't the best reason to be popular, but its still a reason for popularity.
As you said Ugh.
People who've chosen a new-style BSD licence (happy RMS?) over all the other licence models have no desire to take GPLed code and infect the BSD code.
So GPLed code is as useless as SCSL code. For neither option allow the FREEDOM TO DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH THE CODE. For the BSD camp, its about the rights of humans to make code use choices, and not about the rights of code to 'be free'.
Again, as you said Ugh.
>It would be better if Debian and Slackware would just go away and convert to BSD, so that Linux can remain free of that crap,
If BSD is crap...why are you not working on removing all BSD-derived source code from Linux? How dare your GNU/Linux be contaminated with such BSD crap.
(What? That would be work, and you don't believe in work...just mindless flames?)
As opposed to taking GPLed code and folding it back into your BSD work.
Ugh.
Thanks
M.R.
Hrmmm.
At The Bazaar, Mr. Raymond said over dinner that the BSD kernel was cleaner.
And Mr. Perens expressed a similar view. If I'm lucky, that I have on tape, and need to get it off the camcorder.
Want "proof" of a BSD kernel being better than Linux at task X, or Linux being better than BSD at task Y? Then help create a Debian GNU/BSD. Because that is the only way anyone will be happy with the benchmark.
(And I'm itred of the 1st posts, the fornicate-esque, and the BSD is dead posts. But because its cold out I wear a hat and so no one sees my point)
Take some time to examine the history of Apple and Rhapsody.
Note how Apple (one of the most closed companines in existance due to thier past with Apple ][ cloning) has submitted bug fixes to BSD. Note also how Apple had no intention of OpenSourcing the code now called Darwin, and yet here we are today....with even Apple SUPPORTING OpenSource.
Also note, how the BSD code writer considers SUPPORT of the code as USE of the code.
If you can't grok the above views of support, perhaps you need to think different?!?
There is no billion dollar IPO backing the hype about BSD.
The hype will come when:
1) There is a billion dollar BSD IPO.
2) When the BSD community starts explaining the biggest advantage of the BSD licence to Multinational corporations. That advantage is, you can choose to HIDE your own source code if you wish. (Get them to at least start supporting OpenSource. Once they find its not as bad as Microsoft says, they will keep coming back for more. Like drugs...the first hit, we'll give ya free.)
3) Some cleaver BSDers (Hi Pat!) start whispering in Wall Streets ears "Feel that you mised out on the Linux IPO frenzy? Take heart, here is BSD...the next big IPO launchpad. It runs Linux binaries, its OpenSourced, AND the licencing difference over Linux doesn't cause the heads of the lawyers in your IP departments to spin about."
When the first IPO of BSD is successful, then you will see the people who use Linux instead of the word OpenSource, refer to BSD as OpenSource...and Linux also. And, the more OpenSource is out there, the better for BSD, Linux, Apache, Sendmail, vi,
NO CARRIER
It seems everyone is forgetting that this *IS* just a game.
Something you do for entertainment.
Now, if some people find creating an auto-aming robot, or even a fully AI player entertaining, then fine. (after you have killed so many mobs, so many ways, writing a program to do it can be entertaining)
And if you find aiming by hand to be entertaining, fine.
No one says you have to play with Bender, the auto-gunning robot. Or Tinny-Timmy, the manual-aimer. Go play with people who agree to paly the same way you do.
The mud community has for years had issues with bots or response-enhanced scripted players. In the end, rather than create an ulcer for yourself over these issues, its better to just remember:
It *IS* a game.
I hate to break this to you all.
But we *ARE* talking about a game here. Soemthing people do for entertainment.
And, for some, having the computer do some of the helping (like aming/shooting/scripting) is how they get entertainment.
This "robot problem" is one that has existed for YEARS in the mudding community. And, rather than get an ulcer over a game, its better to just play the game the way YOU enjoy to play it, rather whan worry about how everyone ELSE is playing.
If you use Micro$oft code as a basis for your product, and your product doesn't work (because of Micro$oft code) and you are sued, here's a clause:
(c) indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorney's fees, that arise or result from the distribution of the Redistributable Component
Think it can't happen? Anytime there is a loss, the lawyers take a shotgun approach. Sue EVERYONE who was involved. That means you, the software developer, Micro$oft, etc la.
We humans CAN make error free software. We have missles that fly through the air, make tight corners, fly through windows and blow up. As opposed to software that is on windows that just blow up. Yet, the 'market' won't 'buy' software that is bug-free. Personally, I believe the market won't buy it because it hasn't been convinced to buy it.
The second problem is software doesn't match the assembly-line mass production model, more of an artist crafting a work. So the relability we have come to expect of mass producted items *koff koff* doesn't apply to the software world.
And until we move beyond the lone artist and more assembly line, we will have bug-ridden large software releases.
Who's to blame for the 'virus'? I can say its not me. I don't buy M$, and don't write viruses.
The consumers (for buying insecure software), the writers of the insecure software, and the virus writers are all able to take the blame.
As OpenSource delivers what M$ (and others) can't, the consumers will make the demands of good software, M$ will have to deliver or die.
BOTH human-machine interfaces matter for handhelds.
For most of the present users of unix, the machines are large and in charge, and have keyboards. So voice is a larger market for TODAY. (handwriting -> keyboard -> voice in order of ease)
And, as voice can exist on handhelds (when handhelds become powerful enough), people will use the voice interface over writing. (because writing is more work than talking)
Voice on handhelds exists as demo-software. The Newton 2000 had voice software from Dragon Systems. (20 or so words)
Linux is an OS. As your version of GNU/Linux talks AND has a male gender, I'd like the source. (I know a couple of people who are transgendered and I'm sure they'd like to take male source and figure out to go to female source.)
From a Linus interview.
HY: About the GNU/Linux argument; have you talked with Richard Stallman about this?
Linus: rms asked me if I minded the name before starting to use it, and I said "go ahead".
And your proof about Linux (the speaking, male OS) or even Linus hating RMS is documented exactly where?
Then please puke on Linus.
For Linus HIMSELF has said the official name is GNU/Linux. (He then went on to call it Linux)
If it helps, consider Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing. Most people call it 3M. But the name it REALLY is called is Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing.
http://www.3m.com/legal.html