Okay, so some business users DO use these products. But the majority of desktop Linux users are actually trying to not have MS software on their machine and use OpenOffice.Org (or Star Office, if they want the paid, "more advanced" version) or another open-source alternative - and the majority of business users are probably using Linux as a server, in which case I don't see why they'd want to open Word docs on it.
And WINE can be used for just about any Windows program - it's not specifically for Office.
Well by "lots" I mean quite a bit compared to what most open-source-using companies do (other than the ones who make open-source products, like Red Hat and Mandriva do). It's not really a whole ton of actual software, but they have plenty of open-source code - including APIs for ALL their services - available at http://code.google.com/.
Yes, MS has been publishing APIs for years, but you're only allowed to USE it, not redistribute it. I can write a Windows app that uses the Windows API, but I can't give it to a Mac or Linux user because it's MS's intellectual property. If I write a Windows program that technically should be able to run on Windows 98 but can't because it uses a certain feature of WinXP's API, I can't just have Windows 98 users download the updated version of the Windows API. And like I said, Google has more than just APIs, too - check out the site, there's about 10 different open-source projects there, too.
That's why I said "Unix/Linux". They didn't make it specifically for Linux, but most Unix programs can be compiled to run Linux (or any other Unix-type OS).
So what if the first generation sucks? They'll improve it for the next version of the firmware or when they make the next version of the phone. They'll say "OK, here's why consumers didn't like it, and here's what we can do about it."
No, what alternatives you have ISN'T beside the point. MS is completely exempt from making MS Office for Linux because no one would want it - people switch to Linux to get away from MS products (this is why they stopped making IE for Unix/Linux - it sucks, and no Linux user would want to use it). Likewise, Google is exempt from making Linux versions of some of their products because Linux already has more powerful programs that do the same thing - and then some - and are already in your distro and that you probably use every day anyways.
It's fine by me that Google didn't make Desktop Search and Gmail Notifier for Linux because I don't want them, as I already have programs that serve the same purpose. Likewise, it's fine by me that MS doesn't make MS Office for Linux because I would never buy it anyway.
It's not that Google is focusing solely on Windows apps, it's that they're prioritizing and they realize that they shouldn't waste time making Linux programs that Linux users wouldn't use, and that, while they should try to please the Linux and Mac users, they have more to benefit from pleasing the Windows users. Obviously they do plan on porting some of their software to Mac and Linux, though - why else would they use the Qt toolkit for Google Earth? Qt is used mostly for Linux programs.
Not really. How is Google going to force you into anything? So far the only way to get in on Google's projects is by your own choice. Unlike with MS where it's pretty much if you want a PC, you're stuck with MS. For search engines, though. . . which one you use is still your own choice. There's still PLENTY of people who use Ask Jeeves, Yahoo!, and others.
What if they had GoogleOS? It wouldn't matter unless everybody used it. If they made it like Linux, most Linux users would probably still stick with their own distros.
"Not to be picky, but $4500 for a summer of work isn't pretty darn good. Most companies factor a summer as 12 weeks * 40 hrs/week = 480 hours. This is $9.37 / hour pretax. If the students were going to do the projects anyways, out of the goodness of their hearts, than this was a nice gesture, but it is not the same as an internship where the pay is normally twice that of google, and an internship which will have mentoring and allow a student to learn a companies culture."
Since when do companies pay $18+? No, I highly doubt that many companies pay THAT much. If you ask me, $9.37/hr is REAL good (it's $9.37/hr more than I made:) ). And, if they wanna become programmers, it gave them good experience and pretty good pay.
Google's "Summer of Code" wasn't really meant to "hire" these programmers, it was just meant to teach them about programming and the open-source community, and that programming open-source software can have real benefits (Torvalds may not be as rich as Bill Gates, but from what I hear, he isn't doing too bad, either - especially for not actually making any money from individual users).
"Google still isn't that open source friendly. Sure, they use Linux for servers but that's simply because there is little competition in the market for 100,000 PC 'clusters' with zero license fees."
No. The reason Google uses Linux is simply because they always have. Even since before they called it "Google" it's run off of Linux servers because they couldn't afford anything else.
"Where is Google Desktop Search for Linux? Where is an official Google Talk client for Linux (yes, I know about Jabber, but it doesn't integrate with your gmail contact list)? Where is the Gmail notifier for Linux?"
The reason we don't have any of these is because they're in touch with the OS community. Where's Google Desktop Search for Linux? I don't care, and from what I've seen and heard in the Linux community, no one else using Linux does either. We keep track of our files, and if we really need it, we've got Beagle and KFind. Same for these other programs. EVERY distro already comes with either Kopete or GAIM, both of which can handle AIM/ICQ, Jabber, MSN, and other chat protocols. And as for the GMail notifier. . . all it is, is an aggregator that retrieves an RSS feed from Google. If you really want your "GMail Notifier" you can set up Firefox, Konqueror, or Kontact - or any other program that can handle RSS feeds - for the same function. Since you'll likely be using these programs anyway, why would you want another program?
"Until that changes, I don't really think that you can consider Google anything more than an open source user, not a contributor."
You can't be serious. Even with the 400+ programmers they just brought into the open-source community, many of whom may have otherwise never even TOUCHED open-source software?
Google does plenty for the Linux community. It may not seem like much to you, but it really is - they open-source LOTS of code, and they're even using Qt (the basis for KDE) for Google Earth (even on the Windows verson! And I hear they're going to make Linux and Mac versions!) Not only are they spreading code, but they're spreading word about the beauties of open-source. That's a lot more than MS ever did - and back in the mid-90's, Hotmail ran completely off of open-source software (yes, they bought it off someone else, but still, it ran open-source software for a while when it was in MS's possession).
If you're trying to point out the fact that Google is using open-source to their advantage, so what? We'd be writing code with or without Google. I'm glad they support us, it's more than most people do. Plus, whether they profit or not from open-source, they ARE giving back to the OS community by open-sourcing their own code and, with "Summer of Code", bringing new people into the open-source programming community. And they're helping Mozilla out, too, by making GMail fully compatible with Firefox and Mozilla (instead of making it work only on IE, like many sites do) and hosting Firefox's start-up page.
Like I said, these may all seem like small things to you, but that's what the open-source community is like. Everyone contributes in their own way - whether it's contributing code, spreading the word about open-source, or contributing ideas - and, while each individual contribution may not be much, all of these contributions together work make a HUGE difference.
I don't know anyone who uses MSN Messenger OR Windows Messenger. Everyone I know of uses either AIM or Yahoo!. As far as the actual programs themselves go, I don't know what they use, but I'm certain it's not Windows/MSN Messenger. I use Kopete (for those of you who use Windows, it's KDE's IM program and can handle AIM/ICQ, Jabber, Yahoo!, and supposedly MSN, among others).
Re:And yet Europe seems to be doing fine
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
I don't know where you live, but here in So Cal, the stigma has been dead for 30 years. Condemn? You won't even get a frown. In fact, people would think you're a little wacky for waiting for marriage.
That's California, though. People in California are generally much more liberal-minded than people in the rest of the US. There's a reason why Cali's leading the push for medicinal marijuana, and why Cali's known for having a higher gay population than most of the other states. And why they've got "The Governator".
Re:And yet Europe seems to be doing fine
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
we do it the most, but don't need to see it everywhere
That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the fact that here, if you have sex before marriage, everyone frowns upon you and it's sort of a stigma. In Europe, though, they may frown upon it but they're not going to condemn you for it.
Re:And yet Europe seems to be doing fine
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Mod +1 Insightful
That's so true - over in Europe, they don't condemn you so much for having sex or looking at porn. In fact, I think you can buy it at 16 over there. And they even have nudie beaches and everything, while over here in the US we make a big deal over nothing.
Not only does it have the VCR/DVD/Internet technologies, but I've heard there's an app (or maybe a service, rather?) made by Playboy for iPod Photo.
Also, let's not forget the gaming industry. Sure, everyone talks about GTA and stuff, but what about games like "Leisure Suit Larry" or "BMX XXX?" I don't know how many people actually buy these titles, but plenty of teens at least talk about them.
MS won't kill Google. If anything, I think the opposite will happen because Google has one important thing that MS doesn't: friends.
MS has made enemies with everyone in the industry. They've pissed off Netscape, Opera, many of the long-time Linux users (saying "Linux is a cancer" - that's right, Ballmer, I remembered), Sony, Nintendo, Apple, IBM. . . the list goes on and on. Who's Google got to worry about? MS.
Google is everything MS wants to be and everything MS promises to be. They're big and powerful, but they promote open standards and ease of use, are friendly to their users, and play nice. While just about everyone uses Google, they aren't doing it because they're forced to, they're doing it because they like Google and actually prefer it to other search engines - whereas most people use MS only because they need to for work. Also, Google has released their APIs and has Google Code, both of which make them more of a friend to the open-source community. I don't think I even need to tell you about MS's relationship with the OS community.
Google believes in the future of science and technology, too - Larry Page gave a speech this spring at the FIRST competition in Atlanta and donated HUGE amounts of money to FIRST.
For those of you who think Google is a monopoly. . . here's something interesting - try this: go to Google and search for "search engine". Now do the same thing at "search.msn.com". Notice how some of Google's biggest competitors in the search business are on the first page - Excite, HotBot, Altavista. . . whereas MS's search engine has none of these - or Google - on the first page.
And they can't kill Linux either - the best they can do is prevent current Windows users from switching over. What are they gonna do, sue RedHat? There's too many distros for MS to kill off ALL of them. Plus, we have the freedom to create more distros.
Look, the truth is that the reason game publishers are sticking to the "tried and true" methods and genres is that that's what most people will buy. Also, personally, I like the sweet graphics of today's games (I think that how fun the game is is more important, but still. ..) Plus, the programmers don't really have anything to do with the game's textures - the artists do all that - and the modeling. And there are still games that don't follow this "tried and true" method - for example, Darwinia. Problem is, not enough people like these sorts of games - from what I hear, the game's maker, Introversion Software, is pretty broke and considering filing for bankruptcy.
If you wanna see some more creative games, check out open-source games. Although I think you'll find that a lot of the most popular ones are a lot like today's proprietary games (or at least proprietary games from a few years ago).
"'we're indebted to the FSF for their efforts. And they are right to insist upon credit for themselves.'"
The folks at FSF get no less (in fact, maybe even more) credit for their work than any other company/organization would get for theirs. If I release my program through Sun's open-source license, I'd say it on the program's main page. If it's released through the GNU GPL I'd do the same thing. And then maybe I'd explain a bit about the GPL.
Not to say that they don't deserve credit, but to do much more than maybe link to their homepage and explain about the GPL and its benefits would be overkill for the average consumer - more than a brief explanation might make them completely disinterested. If more in-depth info is to be given, it shouldn't be on the main page.
Also, quite often, info on GNU/Linux such as a brief history and explanation of the GPL is on the distro's website. Take, for example, Mandriva's website - there's a link right there to learn more about GNU/Linux. I don't know of any other licenses - or pro-free-software groups - that get that much attention. I've never seen projects that brag about Sun's open-source license on their website. NetHack, Mozilla, and RealNetworks' licenses don't get bragged about that much either.
"The trademark issue is different. I would hate to see Microsoft own that trademark, regardless of whether or not it was "relevant"."
That's what I'm saying - that's why the Linux trademark is important. If the Linux name weren't trademarked - or the trademark weren't enforced - ANYONE could use the Linux name. MS could make "Microsoft Linux" and not even have it use the Linux kernel. People who aren't familiar with Linux wouldn't know, and their impression of Linux could be based entirely off of MS's new product.
I don't see what that has to do with whether you can run GNU without Linux and Linux without GNU, which is what the pst I replied to was talking about.
I said that because the poster said that "if you're going to call it by a single thing, that should be GNU, not Linux".
So you do agree with Stallman, at least on the main issue. He doesn't see a problem with Linus trademarking Linux and neither do you.
But why does he say that trademarking Linux is unimportant? This is my main point - that Linux played a VERY important role for GNU. It opened people's eyes to the world of GNU and the FSF. GNU and the FSF certaintly wouldn't be as well-known and successful as they are today without Linux. Who's he to go so far as to say that Linux trademarking is unimportant? Otherwise people and companies could hurt the Linux name/reputation by using the Linux name for their own products.
Stallman's right that GNU was/is important for Linux, *BUT* Linux is just as (if not more) important for GNU and the FSF. Yes, the FSF and GNU existed before Linux, but it never really took off until Linux - up until that point, the goal was "let's make a free UNIX alternative" but once Linux was released under the GNU GPL, people really started to take it seriously and release their projects under the GPL.
You're arguing about whether you call it "GNU/Linux", it seems - I'm arguing about Stallman saying that the Linux trademark doesn't matter. I could care less about whether companies are forced to call it "GNU/Linux" or not. "GNU/Linux", "Linux", whatever, as long as it's still the same great product.
I do agree that the FSF is a good thing and helped the development of Linux a LOT, but I still don't think that Stallman should be too quick to say "it doesn't matter if companies defile the Linux name" because Linux is what really made GNU so popular. Also, in a way, they kind of owe it to Linus - originally I don't think Linux was GNU software, and he could've easily kept it for his own. Plus, they couldn't have completed their goal of making a completely open-source UNIX replacement kernel without Linus (they tried with HURD, but, from what I hear, it failed miserably).
Not only that, but, hey, it IS Linus' trademark. HE should be the one to say "hey, you can't make money off the Linux name".
I wasn't arguing their right to demand that it be called "GNU/Linux" - I was contradicting Stallman's thought that the Linux trademark doesn't matter. The article is about the fact that Linus is starting to tell businesses not to use the Linux name for their own benefit unless they plan to pay. If you ask me, that's fair enough - it's his trademark, he has every right to protect it.
"If you want to call it GNU/MIT/KDE/..., go on, but if you're going to call it by a single thing, that should be GNU, not Linux."
Are you sure about that? Let me ask you this - why? Other than Linux being released under the GNU GPL, they have no real connection - Linux could run without GNU programs (for example, by running the original UNIX programs) just as GNU programs don't necessarily require (or even use) Linux (yes, many of them do, but a lot of them don't, too - for example, the filesharing program Gnucleus).
That's so true - have you ever looked back at cartoons and been like, "Oh my god!"
Cartoons have SO much violence. Ever seen reruns of the old "Looney Tunes" and stuff? They've got like Bugs Bunny making racist comments about Asians and stuff. And "Road Runner" is pretty violent by its very nature. Think about it - the whole cartoon is Wile E. Coyote trying to kill Road Runner. And Pepe LePew - wow. . .
And yet people don't do things that they see cartoons. I liked Bugs Bunny, but I never wanted to run anyone off a cliff like he did to Elmer Fudd. I liked Pepe LePew but I'm not that. . . forceful with women. Just like I like playing DOOM 3, Half-Life, WWII sims, etc. but I don't go around killing people.
Slashdot Mirror
And WINE can be used for just about any Windows program - it's not specifically for Office.
Yes, MS has been publishing APIs for years, but you're only allowed to USE it, not redistribute it. I can write a Windows app that uses the Windows API, but I can't give it to a Mac or Linux user because it's MS's intellectual property. If I write a Windows program that technically should be able to run on Windows 98 but can't because it uses a certain feature of WinXP's API, I can't just have Windows 98 users download the updated version of the Windows API. And like I said, Google has more than just APIs, too - check out the site, there's about 10 different open-source projects there, too.
That's why I said "Unix/Linux". They didn't make it specifically for Linux, but most Unix programs can be compiled to run Linux (or any other Unix-type OS).
So what if the first generation sucks? They'll improve it for the next version of the firmware or when they make the next version of the phone. They'll say "OK, here's why consumers didn't like it, and here's what we can do about it."
It's fine by me that Google didn't make Desktop Search and Gmail Notifier for Linux because I don't want them, as I already have programs that serve the same purpose. Likewise, it's fine by me that MS doesn't make MS Office for Linux because I would never buy it anyway.
It's not that Google is focusing solely on Windows apps, it's that they're prioritizing and they realize that they shouldn't waste time making Linux programs that Linux users wouldn't use, and that, while they should try to please the Linux and Mac users, they have more to benefit from pleasing the Windows users. Obviously they do plan on porting some of their software to Mac and Linux, though - why else would they use the Qt toolkit for Google Earth? Qt is used mostly for Linux programs.
What if they had GoogleOS? It wouldn't matter unless everybody used it. If they made it like Linux, most Linux users would probably still stick with their own distros.
Since when do companies pay $18+? No, I highly doubt that many companies pay THAT much. If you ask me, $9.37/hr is REAL good (it's $9.37/hr more than I made :) ). And, if they wanna become programmers, it gave them good experience and pretty good pay.
Google's "Summer of Code" wasn't really meant to "hire" these programmers, it was just meant to teach them about programming and the open-source community, and that programming open-source software can have real benefits (Torvalds may not be as rich as Bill Gates, but from what I hear, he isn't doing too bad, either - especially for not actually making any money from individual users).
No. The reason Google uses Linux is simply because they always have. Even since before they called it "Google" it's run off of Linux servers because they couldn't afford anything else.
"Where is Google Desktop Search for Linux? Where is an official Google Talk client for Linux (yes, I know about Jabber, but it doesn't integrate with your gmail contact list)? Where is the Gmail notifier for Linux?"The reason we don't have any of these is because they're in touch with the OS community. Where's Google Desktop Search for Linux? I don't care, and from what I've seen and heard in the Linux community, no one else using Linux does either. We keep track of our files, and if we really need it, we've got Beagle and KFind. Same for these other programs. EVERY distro already comes with either Kopete or GAIM, both of which can handle AIM/ICQ, Jabber, MSN, and other chat protocols. And as for the GMail notifier. . . all it is, is an aggregator that retrieves an RSS feed from Google. If you really want your "GMail Notifier" you can set up Firefox, Konqueror, or Kontact - or any other program that can handle RSS feeds - for the same function. Since you'll likely be using these programs anyway, why would you want another program?
"Until that changes, I don't really think that you can consider Google anything more than an open source user, not a contributor."
You can't be serious. Even with the 400+ programmers they just brought into the open-source community, many of whom may have otherwise never even TOUCHED open-source software?
Google does plenty for the Linux community. It may not seem like much to you, but it really is - they open-source LOTS of code, and they're even using Qt (the basis for KDE) for Google Earth (even on the Windows verson! And I hear they're going to make Linux and Mac versions!) Not only are they spreading code, but they're spreading word about the beauties of open-source. That's a lot more than MS ever did - and back in the mid-90's, Hotmail ran completely off of open-source software (yes, they bought it off someone else, but still, it ran open-source software for a while when it was in MS's possession).
If you're trying to point out the fact that Google is using open-source to their advantage, so what? We'd be writing code with or without Google. I'm glad they support us, it's more than most people do. Plus, whether they profit or not from open-source, they ARE giving back to the OS community by open-sourcing their own code and, with "Summer of Code", bringing new people into the open-source programming community. And they're helping Mozilla out, too, by making GMail fully compatible with Firefox and Mozilla (instead of making it work only on IE, like many sites do) and hosting Firefox's start-up page.
Like I said, these may all seem like small things to you, but that's what the open-source community is like. Everyone contributes in their own way - whether it's contributing code, spreading the word about open-source, or contributing ideas - and, while each individual contribution may not be much, all of these contributions together work make a HUGE difference.
I don't know anyone who uses MSN Messenger OR Windows Messenger. Everyone I know of uses either AIM or Yahoo!. As far as the actual programs themselves go, I don't know what they use, but I'm certain it's not Windows/MSN Messenger. I use Kopete (for those of you who use Windows, it's KDE's IM program and can handle AIM/ICQ, Jabber, Yahoo!, and supposedly MSN, among others).
That's California, though. People in California are generally much more liberal-minded than people in the rest of the US. There's a reason why Cali's leading the push for medicinal marijuana, and why Cali's known for having a higher gay population than most of the other states. And why they've got "The Governator".
That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the fact that here, if you have sex before marriage, everyone frowns upon you and it's sort of a stigma. In Europe, though, they may frown upon it but they're not going to condemn you for it.
That's so true - over in Europe, they don't condemn you so much for having sex or looking at porn. In fact, I think you can buy it at 16 over there. And they even have nudie beaches and everything, while over here in the US we make a big deal over nothing.
Also, let's not forget the gaming industry. Sure, everyone talks about GTA and stuff, but what about games like "Leisure Suit Larry" or "BMX XXX?" I don't know how many people actually buy these titles, but plenty of teens at least talk about them.
MS has made enemies with everyone in the industry. They've pissed off Netscape, Opera, many of the long-time Linux users (saying "Linux is a cancer" - that's right, Ballmer, I remembered), Sony, Nintendo, Apple, IBM. . . the list goes on and on. Who's Google got to worry about? MS.
Google is everything MS wants to be and everything MS promises to be. They're big and powerful, but they promote open standards and ease of use, are friendly to their users, and play nice. While just about everyone uses Google, they aren't doing it because they're forced to, they're doing it because they like Google and actually prefer it to other search engines - whereas most people use MS only because they need to for work. Also, Google has released their APIs and has Google Code, both of which make them more of a friend to the open-source community. I don't think I even need to tell you about MS's relationship with the OS community.
Google believes in the future of science and technology, too - Larry Page gave a speech this spring at the FIRST competition in Atlanta and donated HUGE amounts of money to FIRST.
For those of you who think Google is a monopoly. . . here's something interesting - try this: go to Google and search for "search engine". Now do the same thing at "search.msn.com". Notice how some of Google's biggest competitors in the search business are on the first page - Excite, HotBot, Altavista. . . whereas MS's search engine has none of these - or Google - on the first page.
And they can't kill Linux either - the best they can do is prevent current Windows users from switching over. What are they gonna do, sue RedHat? There's too many distros for MS to kill off ALL of them. Plus, we have the freedom to create more distros.
It was Steve Ballmer in the MS headquarters with a chair.
(About that picture, though. . . WTF is Ballmer doing with his hands? Looks like he's playing some messed-up invisible violin or something. . .)
Look, the truth is that the reason game publishers are sticking to the "tried and true" methods and genres is that that's what most people will buy. Also, personally, I like the sweet graphics of today's games (I think that how fun the game is is more important, but still. . .) Plus, the programmers don't really have anything to do with the game's textures - the artists do all that - and the modeling. And there are still games that don't follow this "tried and true" method - for example, Darwinia. Problem is, not enough people like these sorts of games - from what I hear, the game's maker, Introversion Software, is pretty broke and considering filing for bankruptcy.
If you wanna see some more creative games, check out open-source games. Although I think you'll find that a lot of the most popular ones are a lot like today's proprietary games (or at least proprietary games from a few years ago).
The folks at FSF get no less (in fact, maybe even more) credit for their work than any other company/organization would get for theirs. If I release my program through Sun's open-source license, I'd say it on the program's main page. If it's released through the GNU GPL I'd do the same thing. And then maybe I'd explain a bit about the GPL.
Not to say that they don't deserve credit, but to do much more than maybe link to their homepage and explain about the GPL and its benefits would be overkill for the average consumer - more than a brief explanation might make them completely disinterested. If more in-depth info is to be given, it shouldn't be on the main page. Also, quite often, info on GNU/Linux such as a brief history and explanation of the GPL is on the distro's website. Take, for example, Mandriva's website - there's a link right there to learn more about GNU/Linux. I don't know of any other licenses - or pro-free-software groups - that get that much attention. I've never seen projects that brag about Sun's open-source license on their website. NetHack, Mozilla, and RealNetworks' licenses don't get bragged about that much either.
"The trademark issue is different. I would hate to see Microsoft own that trademark, regardless of whether or not it was "relevant"."
That's what I'm saying - that's why the Linux trademark is important. If the Linux name weren't trademarked - or the trademark weren't enforced - ANYONE could use the Linux name. MS could make "Microsoft Linux" and not even have it use the Linux kernel. People who aren't familiar with Linux wouldn't know, and their impression of Linux could be based entirely off of MS's new product.
I said that because the poster said that "if you're going to call it by a single thing, that should be GNU, not Linux".
So you do agree with Stallman, at least on the main issue. He doesn't see a problem with Linus trademarking Linux and neither do you.
But why does he say that trademarking Linux is unimportant? This is my main point - that Linux played a VERY important role for GNU. It opened people's eyes to the world of GNU and the FSF. GNU and the FSF certaintly wouldn't be as well-known and successful as they are today without Linux. Who's he to go so far as to say that Linux trademarking is unimportant? Otherwise people and companies could hurt the Linux name/reputation by using the Linux name for their own products.
Stallman's right that GNU was/is important for Linux, *BUT* Linux is just as (if not more) important for GNU and the FSF. Yes, the FSF and GNU existed before Linux, but it never really took off until Linux - up until that point, the goal was "let's make a free UNIX alternative" but once Linux was released under the GNU GPL, people really started to take it seriously and release their projects under the GPL.
I do agree that the FSF is a good thing and helped the development of Linux a LOT, but I still don't think that Stallman should be too quick to say "it doesn't matter if companies defile the Linux name" because Linux is what really made GNU so popular. Also, in a way, they kind of owe it to Linus - originally I don't think Linux was GNU software, and he could've easily kept it for his own. Plus, they couldn't have completed their goal of making a completely open-source UNIX replacement kernel without Linus (they tried with HURD, but, from what I hear, it failed miserably).
Not only that, but, hey, it IS Linus' trademark. HE should be the one to say "hey, you can't make money off the Linux name".
I wasn't arguing their right to demand that it be called "GNU/Linux" - I was contradicting Stallman's thought that the Linux trademark doesn't matter. The article is about the fact that Linus is starting to tell businesses not to use the Linux name for their own benefit unless they plan to pay. If you ask me, that's fair enough - it's his trademark, he has every right to protect it.
Are you sure about that? Let me ask you this - why? Other than Linux being released under the GNU GPL, they have no real connection - Linux could run without GNU programs (for example, by running the original UNIX programs) just as GNU programs don't necessarily require (or even use) Linux (yes, many of them do, but a lot of them don't, too - for example, the filesharing program Gnucleus).
I don't know - it's been a while since I played, and I never got past the training (got angry at it - couldn't figure out where I needed to go).
Whoops - thought I was already logged in!
Cartoons have SO much violence. Ever seen reruns of the old "Looney Tunes" and stuff? They've got like Bugs Bunny making racist comments about Asians and stuff. And "Road Runner" is pretty violent by its very nature. Think about it - the whole cartoon is Wile E. Coyote trying to kill Road Runner. And Pepe LePew - wow. . .
And yet people don't do things that they see cartoons. I liked Bugs Bunny, but I never wanted to run anyone off a cliff like he did to Elmer Fudd. I liked Pepe LePew but I'm not that. . . forceful with women. Just like I like playing DOOM 3, Half-Life, WWII sims, etc. but I don't go around killing people.