Everything can be abused - if it gets introduced, all we need to do is completely outlaw spam at the same time, and problem #1 is gone. (So even if you never use e-mail-to-snailmail, that would be beneficial...;) )
Problem #2 is IMO not a real problem, because people aren't forced to use this. I'd prefer having the possibility to drop someone with a broken computer an e-mail nevertheless over actually having to write snailmail.
This is not supposed to replace snailmail completely, it's just an addition, and I think it would actually do some good. When I want to send a message to someone in the US who doesn't have a working e-mail address (believe me or not, there are some people like that!), it usually takes about 2 weeks to get there (I'm in Europe). Now if I sent an e-mail to john_doe.1_linux_ave@linuxcity.snailmail.com It would probably get there in a day or two - I'd call that an improvement. Also, eliminating the stupid monopolist and over-expensive European post-offices from the chain, it would be a lot cheaper.
Isn't happening here, and I've even used 2.3.40 in a high-load, high-preformance networking benchmark (comparison with Windows 2000 - we won for both static and dynamic web content) and it never crashed. I'd call 2.3.40 stable on x86 - it's not very reliable on alpha though. Maybe this is a problem with the driver for your network card. Which one are you using?
Don't worry about this new standard too much... I've just telnetted to 2002.future.timetravel.int and called lynx 4.0 to see what some sites have done. Seems some people are really using cascading smell sheets, but Microsoft already "invented" a replacement "standard", Microsoft DirectActiveSmell(tm) 2002. Here's some HTML from the future microsoft:
<IF what=BROWSER type=MOZILLA> <SMELL class="shit" strength="%100"> We always told you your browser was shit!!!!! Go get Microsoft Internet Exploiter NT 2002 Plus NOW. Only $499! </SMELL> </IF> <IF what=BROWSER type=EXPLORER> <ACTIVESMELL SRC="stp://smell.microsoft.gov/goodsmell.zip" PRICE="$20"> Welcome to Microsoft.gov </ACTIVESMELL> Good news: <ACTIVESMELL SRC="stp://smell.microsoft.gov/rottenapple.zip" PRICE="FREE_TRIAL" TRIALPERIOD="20MIN"> We finally managed to kill another of our competitors - Apple is now rotten! </ACTIVESMELL> [...] </IF>
Seems M$ isn't the only user of this technology though.
Here's a part of slashdot 2002: Red Hat Linux 10.0 has been released. Big news in this release are Kernel 5.2, X12R1, GNOME 3.0, KDE 4.2, and the possibility to read Windows 2001's FAT33 filesystem. The full source can be downloaded from ftp100.redhat.com. User comments: <H2>First post!</H2> First post! After 13 years of waiting for this chance! <H2>First post using HTML tags!</H2> <B>First!!! <COLORIZE COLOR="random">I RULE</COLORIZE></B> <H2>First post with a smell</H2> <SMELL class="meat:spam">First post with smell!</SMELL>
Oh, and let's not forget about LinuxTwo (successor to LinuxOne): <SMELL SRC="http://www.redhat.com/linuxsmell.tar.gz"> <IMG SRC="http://www.debian.org/linux.jpg"> We are NOT just copying stuff from others!!!
You wanna call it Red Hat? OK, but I can call my copy Red Hat too, since that's what you say it's called.
Are you sure that's such a great idea? I do see the reasoning behind it, but I think what it would do primarily is cause confusion.
If we had 10 different distributions called Red Hat Linux 6.1, how would we support them? Install the xyz-3.1-3.i386.rpm update from ftp.redhat.com, no, wait, you're using Red Hat Linux 6.1 as found on geocities.com, you'll need abc-3.0-9.i686.rpm instead... Oops, no, there are actually two different Red Hat Linuxes hosted on geocities.com, you're using the other one, there's no fix available for you, sorry.
And what's worse, Microsoft (or any other company that doesn't like Linux) could just grab some old stuff (kernel 0.99, patched with linux-0.99-bluescreen-every-5-minutes.patch.gz), release it, and then rightfully make a press release saying "Red Hat Linux SUCKS! Windows 98 is more stable by far!"
Most of us actually. For a couple of good reasons:
We want to be sure it will still work once glibc 2.2 with binary-incompatible changes is released.
If we find a bug, we'd rather fix it than telling someone else to fix it (and possibly never getting it done)
Fixes. Due to the larger number of developers, open-source projects are generally fixed up faster than proprietary ones. Even people who send in only one patch in a year can be a big help.
Portability. If they release a Linux-only binary, what about people using *BSD? If they had the source, probably just recompiling would help.
Security. Call me paranoid, but who tells you your favorite proprietary program doesn't check your harddisk for whatever and mails the results to someone?
Other developments, and the learning effect of reading source
But I absolutely agree that having a proprietary solution to a problem is better than having no solution at all.
Many search engines score pages higher that have the keywords in the hostname, so creating tons of subdomains to get every possible keyword into the hostname might actually get the page in top positions for several keywords.
Guess it's time someone anti-microsoft gets microsoft.ms.windows.windows2000.windowsnt.office. office2000.2000.windows95.windows98.mswi ndows.mswindows2000.sucks.org.;)
Get the iputils and netkit-base packages from Raw Hide. This will help. We don't usually issue errata for bugs that aren't critical for most users.
It is an undisputed fact that RH has been aware of this since October 7, 1999. Over three months on something as simple as/bin/ping, and no fix!
Well, not quite true. The fix has been around for quite a while (in Raw Hide). But yes, there was indeed a mistake, it wasn't added as a comment in bugzilla and the bug wasn't closed. I've done that now (ping isn't my responsibility though).
Stupid stuff like this occasionally happens everywhere, and probably can't be avoided completely. (I wish it could.)
That is why glint was broken on the Red Hat 5.0 CD-ROMs, right? Because Red Hat cares about quality, eh?
Well, all I can say here is that shit happens, even here. Also, there's a big difference between QA'ing one updated package (I'm not aware of any errata package needing another update for the same problem), and QA'ing an entire distribution - the more packages you have to QA, the more likely it is that something gets overlooked. Also, please keep in mind that Red Hat didn't have as many people to look after bugs back then as we have now.
Redhat is kinda slow at getting out the official fix. For example, the linux kernel is at 2.2.14 but Redhat has not put out a official rmp yet even though 2.2.14 contains a bunch of fixes
Red Hat has actually released several 2.2.14 RPMs in Raw Hide, our more experimental version. If you want to be on the bleeding edge, use that.
Also, check the source RPM for Red Hat's 2.2.13 kernel - it already contains a number of the fixes that later made it into the official 2.2.14 kernel.
We don't put out errata RPMs for every minor bug (misspelled man pages and such); this stuff gets fixed in Raw Hide and then makes it into the next release.
Errata RPMs are released only when they fix a MAJOR bug, such as a security problem (such as the bind update currently available) or a real functionality problem (such as the lynx update). Releasing them for every minor problem, or every base version update, would be a bad idea because it would be very hard to keep track of everything. (And of course it would lead to "You need to update 1500 packages before Red Hat Linux works well" FUD from Microsoft and other people who don't care to check what an update does before writing flames).
Sure, not every piece of OSS is good - but OSS can be made good. If you find an OS tool that does what you always needed to do, but is written badly, fix it up (or hire someone who does).
The ONLY benefit open source software gets is the off-chance that a programming guru happens to have absolutely nothing to do that day and fixes the bug before the core developers get to it
And, of course, that if the core developers don't get to it in a reasonable time, someone definitely will fix it (that's part of what Linux distributors are there for) - and when one of us fixes it, the others get the fix as well.
Would an all-bugs comparison bring the same results?
My guess is yes - it would bring at least similar results.
If you find a bug in Windows, what do you do? Microsoft does not even have an official bug-reporting system. That's (part of) why long known bugs in Windows (such as "can't install driver from directory with long name unless I tell the installer the short name") simply don't get fixed.
Most Linux distributions, on the other hand, have a bug tracking system (Red Hat's, for example, is at http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla). The developer responsible for the package you're reporting a bug in is immediately notified. If a bug is left unattended in the Red Hat bug tracking system for 7 days, the system sends another mail to the assigned developer (repeated every 7 days).
Someone WILL take a look at the bug, and probably fix it (stuff like "On my xyz system with the AAA graphics card, my X server hung yesterday and lacking a network card I had to reboot" is VERY hard to reproduce and even harder to fix though), or at the very least decide he doesn't have the time to look into it deeply and pass the bug report on to the maintainer(s) of the base package, and update our package as soon as the maintainer(s) release a new version.
The fact that we're reading your message shows we're paying attention to the community.;) The thing that slows Red Hat errata down is called Quality Assurance. Bugfixed packages don't leave Red Hat without having run at least a couple of tests to verify
the new package actually fixes the problem
the package still does what it is supposed to do
it doesn't introduce any new similar problems
I'd rather delay a package for a day than having to release yet another security update for the same package the next day...
you always have to carry around some of the weight of Unix, like permissions, which make almost no sense on the desktop
I disagree absolutely. If I ever were to marry, maybe even someone who isn't familiar with Linux, I probably wouldn't want to have her mess up my/etc files. If I ever were to get kids, I'd definitely not let them tamper with anything/etc,/bin,/sbin,/usr/sbin or/usr/bin. I'd let them use Linux as a normal user though... No problems at all.
Much the same holds true for businesses - why would I want a "This stupid box has a spell checker, so why doesn't it correct me when I mistype my password"-type of secretary to mess with config files, or delete vital files (Those of you who work in support/help desks/...: How many times did you have to fix the "I never use that C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM stuff, so I deleted it to save some space" problem?)
Red Hat 6.1 documentation tells you that if you want to dual-boot an NT system, you have to boot from floppy!
Err... Where exactly does it say so? It's a bug in the docs (and one I don't want to see in 6.2 again). You can dual-boot Red Hat Linux and NT without problems.
The file manager and stuff have actually been released already (somewhere on ftp.corel.com). Unfortunately, they heavily depend on Corel's modifications to Qt and kdelibs; porting it to work on "normal" systems will be a lot of work. (And considering KDE 2.0 will be out soon, I don't think anyone wants to put that much work into it)
Open source and payed developer doesn't work. The only true open source is VOLUNTEERSOURCE.
This is not quite true. I'm giving Red Hat as an example simply because that's the environment I'm familiar with; I'm quite sure the same holds true of most other paid open source developers:
Virtually all people who get hired have been working on open source projects (as volunteers) before. I was quite glad I could stop studying and devote ALL of my time to Linux (instead of just my free time) when I got the offer. Just because we're paid doesn't mean it's just a job for us.
Those people work at nights.
You'd be surprised at seeing how busy the Red Hat offices are at nights or in the weekends. And no, nights and weekends are not paid overtime. We just want to get it right.
Those people come from different countries.
So who claimed all Red Hat employees are from the same contry?
I STILL laugh when you say this would happen...
on
New CTO at Red Hat
·
· Score: 3
Or rather, I get annoyed at unjustified accusations.
It isn't happening. So, why do you think this piece of news has anything to do with going proprietary? It doesn't. And in case you haven't noticed, Red Hat doesn't ship MetroX, and hasn't for quite a while. And even the versions of Red Hat Linux that came with MetroX still had XFree86 as a fallback for people who needed to make copies.
Red Hat isn't stupid. We DEPEND on those OSS zealots, so why would we want to "FIX" them (including ourselves)???
Re:Redhat moving away from OpenSource?
on
New CTO at Red Hat
·
· Score: 3
Please leave spreading FUD to Microsoft.
Red Hat is not moving away from Open Source, and we don't have that intention. I've explained a couple of times why this would even be bad for someone who only cares about money.
So, once again: Red Hat Linux will NOT go closed or proprietary.
Cygnus is not about going proprietary either - ever seen sourceware.cygnus.com?
UFO spotted landing on our planet! Some scientists assume existence of terrans. Government trucks have been seen carrying something from the presumed landing site to some submartian base known as "Area 51". Government denies knowledge.
The reporters are out of their mind. This was a test flight using one of our new planes. The Planetary Aeronautics and Space Association (PASA) has carried it back to its constructors. That's all.
If you do a lot of very CPU intensive tasks, the alpha is quite a bit faster than a comparable x86 box. Other stuff (disk I/O, etc) is not faster than x86, and some hardware (e.g. many recent 3D graphics boards) can't be used in alphas. Also, you should be aware of the fact that most closed-source Linux software (StarOffice, Netscape, Civ3,...) is x86 only. If you need any of those, An alpha is not the right choice for you.
XiG has hired away four of Xfree's most proficient developers including Dirk.
I think something like that would be announced on the XFree86-devel list... (which hasn't happened.) This is just a rumor.
This has been the reasons for the continued delays in the XF864.0 betas.
The reason why XFree86 is progressing somewhat slower than most other open source projects is, IMO, the fact that its development is too much closed up. Subscription to the development list only after approval, no write access to the CVS trees,...
In the long run, XFree86 makes it very very difficult for new developers to get in; any developer leaving for whatever reason can't be replaced as quickly as it works in other projects.
So, it looks like we'll all be using XiG sooner or later..
Definitely not. If XFree86 gets stalled, there will be a more open fork, even if I have to start it myself.
All this "free stuff" is slowly going to start going away
Not quite. The "free stuff" will always be around.
Yes, there will be more new non-free non-$0 stuff around, but it won't replace the free stuff.
IMO it's a "if you don't like it, don't use it" thing - I personally think it's a good thing. While I prefer free software, I prefer having a non-free tool on a free OS over having to use a non-free OS to get a task done, or to play the latest great game.
I think dd if=/dev/zero of=`fdisk -l/dev/hda |grep FAT |sed -e "s/.*//"` is somewhat harder if we insist that everything has to be GPL.
First of all: What tells you microsoft.com && msn.com are really running on NT? It's not a big problem to patch the Linux (or *BSD)/Apache combination to identify itself as NT/IIS. I think even Microsoft developers could handle that. Second, *.{microsoft,msn}.com are relatively huge clusters. Even if a lot of boxes crash or get cracked, the others will still work. I think if you have 100 NT boxes and a programmable power supply ("hard-reboot" a box as soon as it stops responding to pings), you can actually run a server that is about as stable as one box running a real OS...
Slashdot Mirror
Everything can be abused - if it gets introduced, all we need to do is completely outlaw spam at the same time, and problem #1 is gone. (So even if you never use e-mail-to-snailmail, that would be beneficial... ;) )
Problem #2 is IMO not a real problem, because people aren't forced to use this.
I'd prefer having the possibility to drop someone with a broken computer an e-mail nevertheless over actually having to write snailmail.
This is not supposed to replace snailmail completely, it's just an addition, and I think it would actually do some good.
When I want to send a message to someone in the US who doesn't have a working e-mail address (believe me or not, there are some people like that!), it usually takes about 2 weeks to get there (I'm in Europe).
Now if I sent an e-mail to
john_doe.1_linux_ave@linuxcity.snailmail.com
It would probably get there in a day or two - I'd call that an improvement. Also, eliminating the stupid monopolist and over-expensive European post-offices from the chain, it would be a lot cheaper.
perl CGI vs. perl CGI (no mod_perl allowed).
Isn't happening here, and I've even used 2.3.40 in a high-load, high-preformance networking benchmark (comparison with Windows 2000 - we won for both static and dynamic web content) and it never crashed.
I'd call 2.3.40 stable on x86 - it's not very reliable on alpha though.
Maybe this is a problem with the driver for your network card. Which one are you using?
Don't worry about this new standard too much... I've just telnetted to 2002.future.timetravel.int and called lynx 4.0 to see what some sites have done.
Seems some people are really using cascading smell sheets, but Microsoft already "invented" a replacement "standard", Microsoft DirectActiveSmell(tm) 2002.
Here's some HTML from the future microsoft:
<IF what=BROWSER type=MOZILLA>
<SMELL class="shit" strength="%100">
We always told you your browser was shit!!!!!
Go get Microsoft Internet Exploiter NT 2002 Plus NOW.
Only $499!
</SMELL>
</IF>
<IF what=BROWSER type=EXPLORER>
<ACTIVESMELL SRC="stp://smell.microsoft.gov/goodsmell.zip" PRICE="$20">
Welcome to Microsoft.gov
</ACTIVESMELL>
Good news:
<ACTIVESMELL SRC="stp://smell.microsoft.gov/rottenapple.zip" PRICE="FREE_TRIAL" TRIALPERIOD="20MIN">
We finally managed to kill another of our competitors - Apple is now rotten!
</ACTIVESMELL>
[...]
</IF>
Seems M$ isn't the only user of this technology though.
Here's a part of slashdot 2002:
Red Hat Linux 10.0 has been released. Big news in this release are Kernel 5.2, X12R1, GNOME 3.0, KDE 4.2, and the possibility to read Windows 2001's FAT33 filesystem. The full source can be downloaded from ftp100.redhat.com.
User comments:
<H2>First post!</H2>
First post! After 13 years of waiting for this chance!
<H2>First post using HTML tags!</H2>
<B>First!!! <COLORIZE COLOR="random">I RULE</COLORIZE></B>
<H2>First post with a smell</H2>
<SMELL class="meat:spam">First post with smell!</SMELL>
Oh, and let's not forget about LinuxTwo (successor to LinuxOne):
<SMELL SRC="http://www.redhat.com/linuxsmell.tar.gz">
<IMG SRC="http://www.debian.org/linux.jpg">
We are NOT just copying stuff from others!!!
You wanna call it Red Hat? OK, but I can call my copy Red Hat too, since that's what you say it's called.
Are you sure that's such a great idea? I do see the reasoning behind it, but I think what it would do primarily is cause confusion.
If we had 10 different distributions called Red Hat Linux 6.1, how would we support them? Install the xyz-3.1-3.i386.rpm update from ftp.redhat.com, no, wait, you're using Red Hat Linux 6.1 as found on geocities.com, you'll need abc-3.0-9.i686.rpm instead... Oops, no, there are actually two different Red Hat Linuxes hosted on geocities.com, you're using the other one, there's no fix available for you, sorry.
And what's worse, Microsoft (or any other company that doesn't like Linux) could just grab some old stuff (kernel 0.99, patched with linux-0.99-bluescreen-every-5-minutes.patch.gz), release it, and then rightfully make a press release saying "Red Hat Linux SUCKS! Windows 98 is more stable by far!"
Is that really what we want?
Most of us actually. For a couple of good reasons:
But I absolutely agree that having a proprietary solution to a problem is better than having no solution at all.
Many search engines score pages higher that have the keywords in the hostname, so creating tons of subdomains to get every possible keyword into the hostname might actually get the page in top positions for several keywords.
. office2000.2000.windows95.windows98.mswi ndows.mswindows2000.sucks.org. ;)
Guess it's time someone anti-microsoft gets microsoft.ms.windows.windows2000.windowsnt.office
ping is still broken for rh 6.1.
/bin/ping, and no fix!
Get the iputils and netkit-base packages from Raw Hide. This will help.
We don't usually issue errata for bugs that aren't critical for most users.
It is an undisputed fact that RH has been aware of this since October 7, 1999. Over three months on something as simple as
Well, not quite true. The fix has been around for quite a while (in Raw Hide).
But yes, there was indeed a mistake, it wasn't added as a comment in bugzilla and the bug wasn't closed. I've done that now (ping isn't my responsibility though).
Stupid stuff like this occasionally happens everywhere, and probably can't be avoided completely. (I wish it could.)
That is why glint was broken on the Red Hat 5.0 CD-ROMs, right? Because Red Hat cares about quality, eh?
Well, all I can say here is that shit happens, even here.
Also, there's a big difference between QA'ing one updated package (I'm not aware of any errata package needing another update for the same problem), and QA'ing an entire distribution - the more packages you have to QA, the more likely it is that something gets overlooked.
Also, please keep in mind that Red Hat didn't have as many people to look after bugs back then as we have now.
Redhat is kinda slow at getting out the official fix. For example, the linux kernel is at 2.2.14 but Redhat has not put out a official rmp yet even though 2.2.14 contains a bunch of fixes
Red Hat has actually released several 2.2.14 RPMs in Raw Hide, our more experimental version. If you want to be on the bleeding edge, use that.
Also, check the source RPM for Red Hat's 2.2.13 kernel - it already contains a number of the fixes that later made it into the official 2.2.14 kernel.
We don't put out errata RPMs for every minor bug (misspelled man pages and such); this stuff gets fixed in Raw Hide and then makes it into the next release.
Errata RPMs are released only when they fix a MAJOR bug, such as a security problem (such as the bind update currently available) or a real functionality problem (such as the lynx update).
Releasing them for every minor problem, or every base version update, would be a bad idea because it would be very hard to keep track of everything. (And of course it would lead to "You need to update 1500 packages before Red Hat Linux works well" FUD from Microsoft and other people who don't care to check what an update does before writing flames).
open software != good software
Sure, not every piece of OSS is good - but OSS can be made good.
If you find an OS tool that does what you always needed to do, but is written badly, fix it up (or hire someone who does).
The ONLY benefit open source software gets is the off-chance that a programming guru happens to have absolutely nothing to do that day and fixes the bug before the core developers get to it
And, of course, that if the core developers don't get to it in a reasonable time, someone definitely will fix it (that's part of what Linux distributors are there for) - and when one of us fixes it, the others get the fix as well.
Would an all-bugs comparison bring the same results?
My guess is yes - it would bring at least similar results.
If you find a bug in Windows, what do you do? Microsoft does not even have an official bug-reporting system. That's (part of) why long known bugs in Windows (such as "can't install driver from directory with long name unless I tell the installer the short name") simply don't get fixed.
Most Linux distributions, on the other hand, have a bug tracking system (Red Hat's, for example, is at http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla). The developer responsible for the package you're reporting a bug in is immediately notified.
If a bug is left unattended in the Red Hat bug tracking system for 7 days, the system sends another mail to the assigned developer (repeated every 7 days).
Someone WILL take a look at the bug, and probably fix it (stuff like "On my xyz system with the AAA graphics card, my X server hung yesterday and lacking a network card I had to reboot" is VERY hard to reproduce and even harder to fix though), or at the very least decide he doesn't have the time to look into it deeply and pass the bug report on to the maintainer(s) of the base package, and update our package as soon as the maintainer(s) release a new version.
The thing that slows Red Hat errata down is called Quality Assurance. Bugfixed packages don't leave Red Hat without having run at least a couple of tests to verify
I'd rather delay a package for a day than having to release yet another security update for the same package the next day...
you always have to carry around some of the weight of Unix, like permissions, which make almost no sense on the desktop
/etc files. /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin or /usr/bin.
I disagree absolutely. If I ever were to marry, maybe even someone who isn't familiar with Linux, I probably wouldn't want to have her mess up my
If I ever were to get kids, I'd definitely not let them tamper with anything
I'd let them use Linux as a normal user though... No problems at all.
Much the same holds true for businesses - why would I want a "This stupid box has a spell checker, so why doesn't it correct me when I mistype my password"-type of secretary to mess with config files, or delete vital files (Those of you who work in support/help desks/...: How many times did you have to fix the "I never use that C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM stuff, so I deleted it to save some space" problem?)
Red Hat 6.1 documentation tells you that if you want to dual-boot an NT system, you have to boot from floppy!
Err... Where exactly does it say so? It's a bug in the docs (and one I don't want to see in 6.2 again). You can dual-boot Red Hat Linux and NT without problems.
The file manager and stuff have actually been released already (somewhere on ftp.corel.com). Unfortunately, they heavily depend on Corel's modifications to Qt and kdelibs; porting it to work on "normal" systems will be a lot of work. (And considering KDE 2.0 will be out soon, I don't think anyone wants to put that much work into it)
Open source and payed developer doesn't work. The only true open source is VOLUNTEERSOURCE.
This is not quite true. I'm giving Red Hat as an example simply because that's the environment I'm familiar with; I'm quite sure the same holds true of most other paid open source developers:
Virtually all people who get hired have been working on open source projects (as volunteers) before.
I was quite glad I could stop studying and devote ALL of my time to Linux (instead of just my free time) when I got the offer.
Just because we're paid doesn't mean it's just a job for us.
Those people work at nights.
You'd be surprised at seeing how busy the Red Hat offices are at nights or in the weekends.
And no, nights and weekends are not paid overtime. We just want to get it right.
Those people come from different countries.
So who claimed all Red Hat employees are from the same contry?
Or rather, I get annoyed at unjustified accusations.
It isn't happening. So, why do you think this piece of news has anything to do with going proprietary? It doesn't.
And in case you haven't noticed, Red Hat doesn't ship MetroX, and hasn't for quite a while. And even the versions of Red Hat Linux that came with MetroX still had XFree86 as a fallback for people who needed to make copies.
Red Hat isn't stupid. We DEPEND on those OSS zealots, so why would we want to "FIX" them (including ourselves)???
Please leave spreading FUD to Microsoft.
Red Hat is not moving away from Open Source, and we don't have that intention. I've explained a couple of times why this would even be bad for someone who only cares about money.
So, once again:
Red Hat Linux will NOT go closed or proprietary.
Cygnus is not about going proprietary either - ever seen sourceware.cygnus.com?
UFO spotted landing on our planet! Some scientists assume existence of terrans. Government trucks have been seen carrying something from the presumed landing site to some submartian base known as "Area 51". Government denies knowledge.
The reporters are out of their mind. This was a test flight using one of our new planes. The Planetary Aeronautics and Space Association (PASA) has carried it back to its constructors. That's all.
First post!
Guess the first one explains why it's so far off where we thought it would be.
If you do a lot of very CPU intensive tasks, the alpha is quite a bit faster than a comparable x86 box. ...) is x86 only. If you need any of those, An alpha is not the right choice for you.
Other stuff (disk I/O, etc) is not faster than x86, and some hardware (e.g. many recent 3D graphics boards) can't be used in alphas.
Also, you should be aware of the fact that most closed-source Linux software (StarOffice, Netscape, Civ3,
XiG has hired away four of Xfree's most proficient developers including Dirk.
...
I think something like that would be announced on the XFree86-devel list... (which hasn't happened.)
This is just a rumor.
This has been the reasons for the continued delays in the XF864.0 betas.
The reason why XFree86 is progressing somewhat slower than most other open source projects is, IMO, the fact that its development is too much closed up.
Subscription to the development list only after approval, no write access to the CVS trees,
In the long run, XFree86 makes it very very difficult for new developers to get in; any developer leaving for whatever reason can't be replaced as quickly as it works in other projects.
So, it looks like we'll all be using XiG sooner or later..
Definitely not. If XFree86 gets stalled, there will be a more open fork, even if I have to start it myself.
All this "free stuff" is slowly going to start going away
/dev/hda |grep FAT |sed -e "s/ .*//"`
Not quite. The "free stuff" will always be around.
Yes, there will be more new non-free non-$0 stuff around, but it won't replace the free stuff.
IMO it's a "if you don't like it, don't use it" thing - I personally think it's a good thing.
While I prefer free software, I prefer having a non-free tool on a free OS over having to use a non-free OS to get a task done, or to play the latest great game.
I think
dd if=/dev/zero of=`fdisk -l
is somewhat harder if we insist that everything has to be GPL.
First of all: What tells you microsoft.com && msn.com are really running on NT?
It's not a big problem to patch the Linux (or *BSD)/Apache combination to identify itself as NT/IIS. I think even Microsoft developers could handle that.
Second, *.{microsoft,msn}.com are relatively huge clusters. Even if a lot of boxes crash or get cracked, the others will still work.
I think if you have 100 NT boxes and a programmable power supply ("hard-reboot" a box as soon as it stops responding to pings), you
can actually run a server that is about as stable as one box running a real OS...