Commercialization of Linux 256
m3.142 writes "Author J.S. Kelly in his LinuxWorld article says [summarized]
'In 1999, Linux became the Next Big Thing. Linux grew in market share and mindshare, in users and in servers, in support from hardware companies, software companies, and software vendors, in media coverage and in stock valuation. J.S. Kelly isn't convinced that the people who so badly wanted Linux to become the Next Big Thing knew precisely what they were wishing for, and thinks they may be in for an unwelcome lesson ...'"
That often happens (Score:1)
When the underdog becomes big.
If it would have been the other way, Linux being big and Windows small, you never know, maybe then we would all be laughing at Linux and cheering at Windows for being the small but way much 'cooler' OS.
Linux WILL be big, and lotsa people will be using it in the future. And when that happens, I think alot of people that are now running Linux because it's cool and special, will go out and find something 'new'. For instance Be or HURD.
Arno
Am I missing something? (Score:2)
I didn't realise that the goal of Linux was to "beat" anybody. I thought the goal of Linux, in its role as part of the Free Software Foundation's vision, was to provide a free (libre) UNIX-like operating environment that people who valued their freedom had an alternative to closed-sourced environments.
Or am I missing something?
Cheers,
Alastair
PS - and what's up with /.'s Extrans post mode? It's outputting HTML tags as plain text instead of interpreting them (at least in my browser)... I had to post this as "HTML Formatted".
Where are the Pirate Ships? (Score:2)
But really, how many of the scam IPO's have been successful? How much harm has been done to the Linux marketplace by new distributions or software?
If someone writes a new distribution with the intent of using it as a basis for a business instead of out of the love of it, where is the harm?
The article also assumes that if one works on some technology other than Linux then one stops using and developing for Linux. A lot of developers fool around with Linux at home and will use it regardless.
Red Hat employees who quit to go work elsewhere will take their Linux-using habits with them and possibly entrench Linux use in their new organizations. That is not a bad thing at all.
The rising tide which the article speaks of has lifted boats. Has it really sunk any yet?
Hmph. (Score:2)
In other words, I couldn't care less whether it makes it big or not.
Kinda what I've been arguing with friends all alon (Score:2)
I went to the Paris Linux-Expo yesterday. (Score:1)
Only slightly related:
RMS was speaking. He pointed that a lot of companies (if not most) with booths were selling proprietary software. Indeed, it sucked. For example, there was a booth for "Wooooshhh ...", a surf accelerator. I tried to explain the demonstrator that I would not install their Java client (nor their Win32 client since I don't do 'doze), and that should they decide to open-source their client, it could be integrated into other browsers for everybody's benefit. But the loser was just a salesperson and did'nt understand shit to what I was saying.
Size doesn't matter... (Score:3)
Re:Where are the Pirate Ships? (Score:2)
If a rising tide lifts all boats, does a lowering tide (e.g. the shady dealings surrounding LinuxOne) lower all boats?
That is, does one dodgy operation affect the credibility of all?
Cheers
Alastair
Misses the point - we can't be hurt (Score:3)
We're not here to get big, make money and go home with the girl. No the folk who are acutally making a difference.
This guy is talking as if open source was a scarse resource.
Its only exists
I guess sucks if you were looking to get rich out of linux. But if you just wanted an OS that got the job done - no ones taking that away.
Moneys nice - but it's not really the goal is it? If it's your goal you deserve what you get.
One word. GPL! (Score:1)
The source of the basic infrastructure of the operating system will _allways_ be free for Linux.
That is a big improvement in freedom.
javier
Commercialization allows expansion.. (Score:2)
One of the things that has held Linux back has been the fact that it wasn't a buzzword or considered acceptable for commercial applications by a large number of companies and IT departments around the world. Two years ago, suggesting using Linux for something considered mission critical wouldn't even be tolerated. Now marketing wants to issue a press release when it happens.
To me, this has been the greatest benefit for all the hype. We don't have to do things in closets in so much anymore! And once end users of these types of systems see the extra performance and stability they start asking about Linux on their workstation...Eventually they'll take it home as well if we don't drop the ball! Watching it trickle down is a great thing.
Case
What I want from Open Source (Score:5)
I want software that doesn't suck. It's as simple as that.
Open source, while it has philsopical points that I think are important, main attraction is that it is the best long term means of accomplising that - for me at least.
Who cares is Linux is just the current "big thing", and in a years time all these companies that have jumped on the bandwagon have gone?
Provided they have open-sourced their stuff, the source will still be around to integrate (licence allowing) into things that we/I will find useful.
Not only that, but no longer do we need to put up with crappy software and feel powerless to do anything about it. Hate Windows? Contribute to Gnome/KDE. Think ASP sux? There's PHP for you.
Remember back in say '93 or '94 how bad Windows 3.11 was? Remember the first time you tried Linux and - after installing everything you could find, then deinstalling half of it - that it still didn't crash!
That's what it is about for me. I don't care if all these companies abandon Linux - provided the source is still around, no company can afford to put out crappy software anymore.
This is how it works (Score:5)
The reason why many open source projects work and continue to survive is because they offer
1) better quality
2) respect the business community
3) listen to their clients
Here are examples of this in action, Linux, Apache and Perl. Each of these three projects do not attempt to force the world to open source. They do their thing and let the business community be as it is.
To be quite honest I would think a VAT or Open Source society tax should be started. Companies that profit from Open Source should be required to donate some money to the Open Source community. The Open Source community would then spread that money to developers working on Open Source projects.
I know this sounds socialist, but I think the Open Source community as a whole would benefit. I would even ammend the GPL as follows.
"If you intend to not distribute the sources to this project, then you are required to donate a reasonable amount of the profts back into the Open Source community."
As much as the Open Source community hates this, but it makes a business of Open Source. Instead this will make interesting for the business community to use the vast number of sources available. And if the business community does use the sources then the Open Source community will benefit. The Open Source community can then continue and do their favourite thing, hack at code...
I think it is a very attractive business model. A small business could compete against the big players. To be quite frank this is a great way of breaking the hold of the big software companies on the software community.
If you think that this will only attract leeches and pirates, think again. Developing a product is one thing. Making it stable, creating effective documentation, creating a marketing campaign, providing extensive support is quite a bit of work and should not be underestimated. And as we all know, this part of the work sucks!!!
Superior Operating System, that's all. (Score:1)
RHAT and VA don't have much to fear from LinuxOne (Score:2)
A couple of things strike me as funny with these statements. For starters, I don't see very many more "successful" linux IPO's coming down the pike. Redhat and VA have solid reputations and put out respected products, and they were "first movers" as far as most of the people on the stock market are concerned. Anyone that would decide not to work for RHAT because they've missed the IPO better find a start up that has more to it's buisness plan than the word linux scatterred around, because this whole blind bidding up of anything linux isn't going to last. The current tech IPO fever probably won't last either. You're better off working for a company that has a solid future and that you enjoy working for. And I don't think that the current open source companies are too woried about losing the types of employees that would try to cash in on this market hype.
I'm sure the director of HR at RedHat doesn't lose sleep worying about how he'll be able to compete with LinuxOne for new talent.
He does not understand.... (Score:2)
I'm walking the floor of LinuxWorld and seeing all of the excitement, etc....It's fun, lots of cool stuff, etc... Reminds me of the old USENET and Uniforum conferences in the mid to late 1980s when UNIX was the next big thing.
Yes, some of those companies died or if luckier were bought at a nice price (Apollo comes to mind). Some though went on to become very successful (e.g. Sun, Oracle) *despite* the IBMs and the DECs of the world getting into the UNIX world.
I'm not sure what the lesson OSS leaders are going to learn as implied by this article is, but it certainly appears that they are in a much more upbeat mood and excited and having more fun with cooler SW than say the Windows 2000 development team?!? Even if Win2000 is not a "train wreck" as ESR says, many in the development team must be so burnt out by now and depressed from all the negative press that *they* will feel like they were *in* a train wreck.
The OSS leaders do not have to fear this fate for reasons stated in other replies.
Army of Northern Virginia
Re:Hmph. (Score:1)
I didn't - I've got it running Linux/m68k now. What's your point?
The tragedy of Linux (Score:2)
The GPL deters standardization by creating an unnecessary and harmful split between open and closed source. It is already hurting the trend toward standardization brought about by the BSD-licensed, freely reusable TCP/IP stack that brought us the Internet. We may soon live in a fissured world: the GPL on one side, commercial programmers on the other.
It didn't have to happen this way. But because Linux was unfortunately licensed under the GPL, the battle lines are already being drawn. And, as usual, it's the little guy -- the small programmer trying to make a decent living -- who will be caught in the crossfire. The GPL will prevent him from leveraging and improving upon publicly available code to make money, while large software houses such as Microsoft will shut him out of commercial markets.
And, as usual, innovation will lose.
Those who favor open source need to wake up and realize that the GPL hurts their cause. In fact, it does not even meet the requirements laid out in the Open Source Definition, because it discriminates against a field of endeavor: the creation of commercial software. The OSD explicitly states that this sort of discrimination disqualifies a license from being a legitimate license for open source.
--Brett Glass
Even if the "gold rush" ends, you loose nothing. (Score:3)
- all the nice linux companies go completely bust.
- huge nasty companies attempt to take over and their marketing machine convinces the public that linux == some uglycorp software.
- the public interest falters and dies.
It would be nice for the interest to maintain and the existing "nice" companies to retain their ethos and go from strength to strength, that way we get ports of commercial software easier, some games say, and a much easier ride in convincing bosses to allow us to use linux at workBut even take the worst case scenarios and examine them for a while, its still a win win situation. You still have your free linux, that source is stil free to use, you loose nothing. Whatever you had before the "commercialization" doesn't get erased when the "gold rush" ends. Sure a period of die back while the companies run away as fast as they can, but those of us who only wanted an os that they could afford that didn't suck and allowed them to plink around with some code don't loose anything.
Just rein back that panic and general frothing at the mouth and get on with it. Write some code it's very soothing and actually achieves something constructive. I'd recommend it to anyone.
C.
Growth is Innevitable (Score:1)
Once a product shows potential, enterprising companies latch on to it and try to develop their own little "baby" as I call it. Of course this is what most
I say let the companies duke it out and then let a true winner appear. The added competition only makes the product better.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com [npsis.com]
Open Source and IPO's (Score:2)
How many times have you found a bug in a closed source piece of software, and were told to upgrade to the next release at "minimal" cost?
Open source gives us the options of fixing the bugs ourselves or talking directly to the developers that wrote it.
As long as the IPO companies remember this, things will be good, but they have to remember this. If they don't remember that the community is first, then the community would walk away from them.
Imagine for a second that a linux vendor called Purple Cap decides that its shares are falling because someone has a better product. Purple Cap decides to try the corporation approach: It tries to buy out the product, and fails. Next it hacks together a lamer copy of the product (even forking the source) and uses its IPO revenue to advertise it as the greatest thing since Babbage. Their lamer product ends up on the cover of magazines and is given away at Starbucks with each coffee sold.
How would the Open Source community react to this? I think that people would lose faith in that company. There would be a ground swell of opinion against them, people would stop using thier products, sending them code patches, downloading thier version of packages.
As long as there is Open Source there is another alternative. As long as there is another alternative, no company can control everything.
There will always be rogue comanies, such as Linux One. There will always be people that try to fairly or unfairly dominate a market.
As long as there is an alternative the Open Source community will follow what it feels is right.
Re:Where are the Pirate Ships? (Score:2)
Not to any significant extent. Everyone knows that money attracts scam artists, so nobody is surprised to find that a few are sniffing around Linux now. This has no effect on the reputation of the rest of the Linux world. In fact it might even enhance it slightly: people have made a point of publicising suspected scams and warning potential investors off. This should increase confidence in the other enterprises.
Paul.
linux distros help distribute free software! (Score:2)
[GNU/]Linux distritributions are such a forum for free software. Historically, if you wrote some good code, you could post it on web sites, or newsgroups, but only people who were proactively interested would find out. You'd have to wait for the program to emerge in people's consciousness. Now if you can write something which gets included in a distribution, millions of people who would never have looked for source code on a newsgroup can instantly install the binary from CD or ftp. This improves people's information levels about the free software marketplace, and makes it very hard for a propriatory program to survive if there's a better free program.
Let me contrast the situation with Windows, which doesn't have this distribution thing. Suppose you wanted to get Windows software together with equivalent functionality as, say, Debian's "main" CD. How would you do it? Trawl through thousands of pages of shit on www.shareware.com? Search using altavista 1000 times? Look in a catalogue (this wouldn't work cos some of the stuff in Debian would never achieve wide distribution if sold alone)?
With linux, you can think one day, "hmmm I need a music typesetting program" and instantly find the best free offering, available on your CD / the ftp site. "I want a Pascal beautifier." "I want the cursor on X to disappear after a few seconds inactivity." Because any linux user can do this so easily, it adds an order of magnitude to the weight that will get behind any free software offering. Linux distributions have undoubtably helped free software.
Me too! (Score:1)
I wonder how common this is? Maybe more amongst Debian users, since debian makes a big thing of "freedom" as opposed to "coolness" of software.
Re:One word. GPL! (Score:2)
Are you so sure that the GPL will protect us like a shiny gold shield? Suppose some giant evil corporation (sorry I can't think of an example right now) decides to take Linux, slightly mutate it, and use every mass distribution channel it controls to force it down the throats of consumers without opening the source. And when someone cries "hey you're violating the GPL!" the company says "go screw yourself."
Then it ends up in court, where the open source community's 10-million-dollar hired-gun lawyer has to go up against EvilCorp's team of a dozen 100-million-dollar lawyers. Do you think just saying "GPL" is going to mean anything? Much smaller companies have managed to lobby the U.S. Congress into turning Article 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution on its head. A license dispute would be peanuts in comparison.
Not that any of that would kill Linux, because the freedom-loving user base is still there. But it might take the wind out of all the big-corporate hardware and software support we've recently begun enjoying. They can't bomb us back to the stone age, but they might put us back where we were four years ago.
Oh shut up! (Score:3)
*That's* what commercialisation means.
As for loyal employees, ethical companies, etc., well I doubt you'd see those whether or not Linux even existed. I hate to rain on anyone's parade but employees and companies are out to make cash. The rest is just frosting tomake everyone involved feel all warm and cuddly - and quite a few people don't care for warmth or cuddles.
The current state of Linux and free software is that it has a wider range of acceptance, it has a license that keeps it free (speech not beer), and beyond that I don't much care. If you *really* are concerned about free software do the world a favor and send your two cents to somewhere useful: http://www.fsf.org/
Re:That often happens (Score:1)
I don't think so. It still would be the crappy OS, just fewer people using it, and more developers producing Linux apps (hopefully free software, as in open source).
Goldrush (Score:1)
Whilst I think companies/ distributions such as Red Hat, Debian et al may lose some market share Linux is shaping up to be a big market with room for both 'niche' people/ companies and mainstream companies. I see Red Hat losing market share in terms of proportion, but still growing in terms of numbers.
The only thing I can see which would really shake the market would be if a certain 800lb gorilla tagged MSFT jumped into it with both feet. If Linux (and possibly Hurd) keep growing at the same rate as they have done then I suspect that this will happen sooner rather than later. People still forget that Microsoft had a large share of the Unix market at one time.
Re:What I want from Open Source (Score:3)
I'm not one of those people (cough-journalists-cough) that simply sits around wondering if Linux will become the #1 OS while browsing Slashdot with IE under Win98. I've been using it since 1993. It wouldn't really make sense to just drop it and start using Win2K. I can actually get work done on my computer. I remember working for a while at an NT shop and discovering that Linux has spoiled me. If I try to use it in the same way I use X, the damn thing crashes, running less applications at the same time, with more memory.
There's also little things, like the way Windows resets the position of a document when I'm dragging a scrollbar and let the mouse stray a dozen pixels to the left or right. Windows users are used to that. I'm not.
Though the major reason why I'm sticking with it is that the apps can only get better. I've been playing with KDE2 cvsups, and Konqueror is the first ever filemanager that makes me rethink using mc (not the disappointing gmc) for absolutely everything (wow, I remember when it was called 'Mouseless Commander," I feel old).
Ok, so I have a small W98 partition on my hard drive. It's not bootable, though. I'll never actually use it. It's there just in case I need to use Wine for something and want to use the MS libraries, which appears to be very rare for me. I had to use it to get some some entries from someone's address book application when his power supply failed. I plugged it into mine, and ran the app. Then I backed up his data. It didn't screw up my system, my "drive letters" didn't change, it used the registry on his Windows partition, not mine.
I'm not a zealot or anything. Linux simply makes more sense for me. I'm not deleting it from my desktop anytime soon.
Now all I have to do is get this Kurta 12x17 digitizer I just got sans documentation to work in X...
Please do improve on the GPL! (Score:1)
I'm not sure you can make it binding on developers in the way you describe, whilst preserving the right to modify. It could be counterproductive if you wip out someone's right to make unrelated propriatory software, because many people do not want to give up that right. How will you stop companies having IPOs?
But if you can manage all that you claim, and your instincts really are to help, then go ahead: write a better version! Post a URL here, that way many people will read it. Also you might want to explain in plain english the advantages of your new version. If it genuinely is significantly better, then there's no reason why people won't start using it, including the FSF.
Re:I went to the Paris Linux-Expo yesterday. (Score:1)
Why should *all* software be open-source? People have to make a living, and that includes those who write commercial software.
That's not really my point. But the example I gave was about a software that would benefit immensely from being freeed. Personally, there's no way I'll use it until it gets free.
That being said, RMS made comments about how we should only use Free Software. I thought, foolish, and then I realized, I do only use free software, except Netscape 4.x, and it's going to change soon. Oh yeah and MySQL, which is not completely free, but almost is (at least I can change it, redistribute it, patch it ... you can't just sell it the way you want).
Re:What I want from Open Source (Score:3)
I sure like having Creative Labs write drivers for their high end sound cards, but I could live without it. I lived without for many years. Back when I first ran Linux, it didn't support anything but a handful of IDE, SCSI, and Ethernet adapters. Now, I can't find a single adapter that isn't supported unless I try very hard (ie, esoteric USB hardware and off-brand UDMA/66 chipsets).
Whatever happens to us, we can learn from and become better as a result of it.
GPL breach not likely soon (Score:1)
Re:The tragedy of Linux (Score:1)
(I don't want to discuss the relative merits of the two licenses with you; I know we disagree. I'm just saying that many people use the GPL without really understanding it, and it would be better if they did).
When you wish you get what you asked for *damn* (Score:1)
My Take
So many people say everybody should move to Linux, BSD etc. Many people want to and some give it a go. They hear about the great support you can get in newsgroups and around the net. They give it a try. What happens next?....
Many of these people run into minor problem or are just not confident. They head out on to the net seaking help. They start posting in NGs and other forums. Then if anybody replies it is mostly derision for being a newbie. They want to give it a go but most don't want to help them. They get frustrated and give up. I have seen this happen on numerous occasions.
RESULT
RedHat etc produce things like rpm, graphical auto install routines etc. The user no longer has to know anything to get their system usable. Some would argue this is a good thing. However, for someone who wants experiment and play with their system this is no good. They have everything up and running but don't know a thing about it, thus can't use it to it's potential. I have seen this too often and it is a terrible shame. These are the next people we need to get involved as they will convert the rest.
Do we really want these people using Linux etc? I say yes but I think it turns off some of the real geek types who think they are superior because they use Linux. This is a very sad thing indeed. Personally I make the time whenever possible to help newbies. Im no expert but there is a serious lack of people willing to help.
In conclusion I think the poularity is annoying many people who once thought they were superior.
"Linux for all"
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
Re:The tragedy of Linux (Score:1)
Stopping people unfairly 'leveraging' our code is precisily what the GPL is
You can argue that the goals are not worthwhile but arguing that it achieves what it sets out to do is a bit pointless.
Re:This is how it works (Score:3)
I don't think that this would work for a number of reasons:
No, I really believe that it is a bad idea to allow any sort of loophole, even for money, to the concept that the source code must be available.
Let's try to get to the point (Score:2)
This is really unlikely, but let's consider it.
Well, this could have happened before the big linux hype and is more unlikely today because there are many resources nowadays to fork linux.
This is analogous to the famous "what if gets hit by a bus." and therefore doesn't pose a huge threat.
This is perhaps the biggest threat, now that there's a lot of money in the business there's the danger of individuals/corporations trying to get a piece of the cake and of rivals in the os-market trying to stop linux' growth into their territory.
The big players in the market which depend more or less solely on linux should see their role here.
Redhat, SuSE, Caldera, Turbo Linux should look at such events like DeCSS and try to find ways to position themselves as defenders of open source/linux. The same goes for a possible future court case in conjunction with the gpl. I think they should fund a institution whose purpose is to give legal advice and pays lawyers for an open source programmer in legal trouble.
But once again it shows that the success of linux gives a real chance to fight against these threats.
I don't think someone should force all kernel programmers (and opens source advocates) to see a hair stylist and get a comb
And many journalist give a fsck whether their writings make sense or not, as shown above.
Another example is "Linux update is behind schedule", huh?
Ask yourself, what's better, proprietary applications on a proprietary os or proprietary applications on an open source os where everyone has (theoratically) the same chance of competing because the API's are open for all?
After linux has gone it's way in a commercial os world, there's the a bigger chance then ever for open source applications to do the same, because they have more chances to evolve on an open os.
If there are types of applications where open source doesn't find it's way in, then open source is not the better alternative there, let the market decide.
The important point is, now that linux "is there", there are less artificial hurdles for non-proprietary applications left, for the remaining ones, which are non-technical, see point 2.
So what? There are many suspicious companies in any emerging business, hell there are many pirates in any business. This has happend in software industry (remember this "memory doubler" thingy for win95?), bio-technology, financial businesses and so on.
Did the markets suffer? No.
This thing is dangerous when there's only one company riding on the hype (amiga anyone?), but doesn't matter w.r.t linux. Or does anyone think that ibm, sgi, redhat, suse will drop linux when linux one might bomb?
I personally expect the whole IT-industry stocks to implode, but that is no specific linux problem.
Re:This is how it works (Score:2)
We'll post it on freshmeat as soon as we vest.
Re:The tragedy of Linux (Score:1)
They went to a company I will call C (which was known for its compilers) and said, "We need a compiler for our cool new OS. Will you sell us one?"
Company C said "Yes, of course. Here you go." . And now company B as nice new C and C++ compilers from their OS.
Would you define the compiler sold to company B as "Comercial software"?
Re:Misses the point - we can't be hurt (Score:2)
Speak for yourself!
Bad Mojo
Commercialized Linux can be good (Score:1)
Re:One word. GPL! (Score:1)
The source of the basic infrastructure of the operating system will _allways_ be free for Linux.
Except Linux (the kernelis *NOT* realised under the normal GPL. Linus made an exception so that modules weren't covered (which they normally would be due to being dynamically linkable libraries in a sense)
He owns the copyright and he could close source any new versions! I know he won't but i'm sure there are some people who wrote module related code who aren't happy and wish they still had control (ie. hadn't handed over copyright)
Re:Hmph. (Score:2)
Re:One word. GPL! (Score:1)
Actually, contributors to the kernel don't hand over copyright, Linus himself said that this was so the kernel would remain free (libre), since even he couldn't relicense it closed source.
Also, the modules thing isn't an exception to the GPL, it's Linus' interpretation of a grey area in the GPL, since kernel modules don't actually _use_ GPL code, simply link.
--
VA/Linux to buy Andover.net! (Score:4)
ESR sez open source == free software (Score:2)
And for my part I think it's a laudable goal. I think we should continue to emphasise the importance of software freedom - and I'd recommend French speakers to stick to the term "software libre" - but in English, the term "free software" creates a misunderstanding in the mind of the listener that the term "open source" avoids.
--
Oh, I'm supposed to use Linux out of idealism? (Score:1)
Seriously though, Rasterman's fvwm hack and then Enlightenment have probably got more Linux installs than you'd care to know.
Linux is everything to all people (Score:3)
Why?
Because freedom is model-neutral. As such, you can bung freedom into any model and it will still work in exactly the same way as if you'd bunged it into any other model.
All this talk about commercialisation of Linux being bad for it implies that the model is greater than the substance. Whilst this may be true for individuals ("power corrupts"), it can't be true of concepts. Concepts can't be corrupted, because concepts have no physical existance -to- corrupt. You might as well corrupt "pink".
You can throw orange paint at pink wallpaper, and "damage" the wallpaper. Sure. I could equally go in and delete the Makefiles from the Linux source on my hard-drive. What does that corrupt? Nothing! All it does is make a mess. In the paint example, "Pink" remains exactly the same, no matter WHAT you do to that poor, wretched wallpaper. Likewise, the GPL and Linux aren't affected by what I do to the contents of my hard-drive.
You CAN corrupt people, because people exist in the real world, with minds of their own. You cannot corrupt a concept or a vision, because these have no physical components to attack, or minds to destroy.
Any journalist who argues otherwise is having troube seperating physical reality from their imagination, and should take up a career as a senior Government official.
Re:Superior Operating System, that's all. (Score:2)
Never knock on Death's door:
Re:I went to the Paris Linux-Expo yesterday. (Score:1)
Kudos to you. However, what works for you might not work for everyone.
Re:ESR sez open source == free software (Score:1)
I'll drink to that!
--
" It's a ligne Maginot [maginot.org]-in-the-sky "
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Mmmmm...yes you are missing something.
Sure that was the original goal. But when the media started drooling over our freedom OS, and Linus Torvald's started joking (HHOS) about "World Domination (TM)", well, quite a few people in the community began getting a thirst for blood -- Microsoft's.
This isn't going away. Everyday, Linux look more and more like a solid competition for Windows NT and Windows 2000. We're going to have to FACE it: Linux is going to be compared time and time again against Microsoft's products, and more and more people are viewing this as competition.
If you can't stand commercialization and competition, then go install FreeBSD -- and stop whining.
Perfect Squelch (Score:1)
Anyway, there is no reason to belive The Next Big Thing is _better_.
Re:The tragedy of Linux (Score:1)
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Now we just have to wait for the day when there is so much GPL code floating around that any CS student who cracks a book will be unable to write software without GPLing it.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1)
Re:Commercialized Linux can be good (Score:2)
Re:ESR sez open source == free software (Score:1)
Re:Size doesn't matter... (Score:1)
Blessings and Curses (Score:1)
Sure, a buncha "suits" can waltz in and do as they please, but if we don't like where they take us ("That's not where we want to go today"), we strike off in another direction.
The code is out there for everyone. If "they" wish to use it to manifest their corporate black-magick, so be it. We don't have to use their products... we can build our own. We can VOTE WITH CODE.
Linux will never be windows! (Score:2)
Some bad things (Score:2)
LinuxOne is a pretty good example of the dumbing-down of the Open Source world, they are leaching off the efforts of other companies and individuals without contriubting anything useful.
Things will level off eventually, and several main-stream "pundits" will pronounce Linux to be a failure because it did not manage to take over the computing world. Fortunately, there are enough true-believers around. The true-believers can sit back and laugh at the suits and scarves as they flock around The Next Big Thing.
Re:VA/Linux to buy Andover.net! (Score:2)
VA absorbs themes.org.
VA absorbs sourceforge.
Andover absorbs slashdot.
Andover absorbs freshmeat.
VA absorbs Andover.
/me starts looking for a bigger fish.
If we could cram a distro in there as well, we'll be well on our way towards a giant amorphous Linux blob.
hummer
Interesting news (Score:2)
JS Kelly has some facts wrong (Score:4)
He claims Andreesen used the Mosaic code to "float netscape". Wrong. The Mosaic code was, in fact, the most valuable piece of code around at the time. It was licensed - to Microsoft. They then gave it away making it totally worthless to the people who invented the graphical browser.
Netscape rewrote the browser de novo.
Kelly makes other errors as well, but he misses the important commercialization point made at Linus' recent keynote. Big companies have done a LOT to make linux end user friendly in a short period of time, They've done a lot of menial bug chasing - the kind of code writing that is easiest done by paying someone. Redhat and VA linux especially do a lot. SGI is bringing some nfs work to linux, as well as the best file system in existence. IBM brought its (closed source) Java implementation. And on and on.
Yeah, big business is really affecting linux. Just not as JS Kelly thinks it is. Maybe he should actually try using it sometime.
Mindshare and the right to fork a project (Score:2)
Yes, this is true as far as it goes. The change in the Linux marketplace does change who open source companies can find as employees and the terms on which they can hire them. It raises the stakes. It means that open source businesses will be competing on a business playing field.
But that is a separate issue from what is so dear to many of us. The code, the future of Linux, and GNU, and FreeBSD, does not live or die with a single open source company. The GPL isn't magic. Just because we have it won't make the future of free software be what we want it to be. The one thing that it does guarantee is the option to fork any GPL'd project. If it isn't going the way you want it to, you can take the source and go work on it yourself.
That means that mindshare can't be won by claims to owning the code. Some big company can certainly put out a Linux release of its own, with proprietary software running on it. They may grab a dominant position in the market that way. And it is still a smart move for them to play nice with the rest of the open source developers on the kernel and other free tools. Their other choice is to do all the work themselves, on software that anyone else can tweak and release a cheap copy of.
Yesterday... (Score:2)
Re:I went to the Paris Linux-Expo yesterday. (Score:2)
And I'm a 20 year old computer science student who wants to make a good living working on/with Free Software. Can you give me, and others like me, any advice?
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
VA Linux acquires Andover.net (Score:2)
The VA Linux press release is over there [valinux.com]. ANDN share prices have jumped through the roof on pre-trading, apparently.
...j
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
And I thought the goal of Linus was to play with his new (at the time) 386, and fill a need that he felt wasn't properly being addressed at the time. I believe his goal was an UNIXalike style OS with some technical merit. To me this still seems like his goal. I could be way off here though. I also applaud Linus' resolve in the face of the growing fracas the surrounds Linux anymore. Quite a stabilizing element in the scheme of things. Now the FSF and their goals are another story. They and their jumping on Linux for their agenda. Maybe these are some of those pirates that the article made mention of?
"Or am I missing something?"
I don't think so. I feel it's a question with no right or wrong answer. Linux can be all things to all people. I believe this is where Linux's flexible nature comes into play. One inflexibility that has been pointed out many times is the GPL. There isn't any perfect solution for the issue the GPL addresses, I feel it was picked as an off the shelf component that could work for it's intended task. Basically because Linus realized something was needed. and he knows he's no lawyer. This could go back to the old issue of coding is sexy, but ancillary tasks (documentation, support, licensing) aren't. I wonder if he still wonders if this was a very good decision? Really it's the most equitable choice though. A Linux system is built of GNU tools. It does seem to have caused some problems along the way so far. For example the recent Corel uproars. Or the whole QT (trolltech) licensing issue. What great fodder for flamewars these have made. Then again the polarizing nature of volatle issues could be considered fuel for the entire process. Greater minds than yours and mine are at play here perhaps? Whatever's going on so far it's been fun! Personally I'm intrigued at what the future holds in store. Seeing Linux on the evening news, and in billboards I must admit are possibilities I hadn't considered when I started.
World domination! It's not just an inside joke anymore.
Re:Sadly, the GPL sucks ass. (Score:2)
In the legal world, "I have X" means "Let's make a deal".
In the legal world, "Let's make a deal" means "I have information that you might need".
In the legal world, "I have information that you might need" means "I do believe I am in a position to screw you".
In the legal world, "I do believe I am in a position to screw you" means "Give me a lot of fucken money, now, you putz".
And that's why I'm in the Free Software world, not the legal world. I'd much rather live in a world of cooperation and mutual respect than in one where the fundamental driving force is hostility and greed. I like associating with people who don't let money rule their lives!
And, Mr. Montoya -- if you're looking for someone to offer you money to share that information, Slashdot is the wrong place to be posting about it. Try getting in touch with the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/ [fsf.org]); there you might be able to talk to people who could offer you a deal.
Of course, they're likely to turn you down, and I would do the same if I was in their shoes. See, this is our ballpark, and we play by our own rules. Those rules happen to include sharing and playing nice, not trying to hoard all the toys so the other children can't have them. If someone comes along who refuses to play nice, we just ignore them.
So good luck trying to make a deal, but I just don't think it's going to happen.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Stock Markets (Score:2)
thought this would be a good point to interject this, from US Early Radio History [ipass.net]:
It took many years before radio's financial returns would match its great potential. In the United States, this resulted in a series of companies which sold stock at vastly inflated prices, backed mostly by vastly inflated visions of the companies' prospects. Frank Fayant was in the middle of a multi-part series about stock fraud -- Fools and Their Money -- when he stumbled across the shenanigans going on in radio stocks. The result was a two-part exposé, The Wireless Telegraph Bubble, which details the sorry state of much of the U.S. radio industry during its first decade--Fools and Their Money/The Wireless Telegraph Bubble, Success Magazine, January, 1907 through July, 1907. However, in spite of Fayant's articles, the fraudulent practices would actually accelerate.
And like I mentioned there's all these aging "baby boomers" socking away retirement money and it has to be invested somewhere. The emphasis should be on "it took many years" - look at how long it took msft to get where they are - those in for the long haul will make out, while the "get in/get out" superficial jump-on-the-latest fad & bandwagon crowd will, well, a few might make it and most won't.
Agent 32
Re:I went to the Paris Linux-Expo yesterday. (Score:2)
More to the point, why should I trust J random
Corperation enough to run proprietary binaries
on my machine. I have no idea what they do.
What have they done to get that level of trust
from me?
> People have to make a living, and that includes
> those who write commercial software.
There are lots of ways to "Make a living". I am
not aware of any universal right to have your
favored way of making money be viable.
> Would you expect Ford to give away their cars?
> Or Intel give away processors?
Well im not a proponent of capitalism and believe
production should be for use not profit. So in
essense, yes I would prefer that they did, it
would make money obselete. About time if you ask
me.
> This crusade by some folks to deprive me and
> tens of thousands of other software engineers of
> their livelihoods
It is not a crusade to deny you livelyhood. It
is a crusade to better the software "industry".
It is a crusade to further the rights of the
person using the system.
Again. It is espousing production for USE. When
I write free software, I am not writting it
because I want money, I write it because it fills
a need. I write it for use. If others use it then
thats great.
I LOVE to hear from users telling me that some bug
I fixed, or some software that I worked on is
making their life easier. That is all the profit I
need. Knowing that something I worked on is making
the world a better place. Thats more incentive
to write code then all the money in the federal
reserve banks.
And yes...I do write code for a living. I write
code to solve the problems our group has. I
expect to be asking for permission (and knowing
my boss and the people I work with, expect to get
it) to release some of the stuff I have written
under the GPL.
Also, RMS and the other Free Software advocates
tend to be anything but "14-year old" kids
-Steve
Why Linux Has Reached Its Plateau (Score:3)
In test after test, Linux has been shown to suck at networking after a certain threshold. This threshold is what seperates the men from boys, IMHO.
And IT professionals know about this.. They are very leary to use Linux for anything less than a print manager because of the headaches, hassles and slow downs it will cause due to scalability.
What Linux really needs, and I mean _REALLY_ needs, is dedicated developers to the kernel that will make it more suitable for larger purposes. Granted, it's already reliable as all get-out, but it needs to be fast.
Then, and only then, will the rest of the server market wake up and smell the coffee. (this is the portion of the market that actually have $$$ to spend) When this happens, there will be a great windfall for all.
Another key problem that could make or break our favorite kernel is the desktop usability factor. Even with Gnome/KDE/Your favorite WM it all still reeks of a bad hack. (no offense to the developers, but you need to consult UI experts)
Please note- I am not BASHING linux in anyway.. I am just restating what has been said numerous times-- the programmers need to take heed and make their software useful, the Kernel developers need to take heed and make it faster (this will probably involve changing the scheduling process around etc), and the Linux user group needs to stop making asses of themselves. (i.e., Slashdot posts)
So, in the words of the worst computer movie ever, "Hackers of the World Unite!" (or give up and switch to BSD)
Thanks
Open Source software is fundamentally poor (Score:2)
here are some facts:
linux is a great OS, true. but is a direct rip of the research efforts of AT&T. it is not a great open source design.
there are only a handful of quality software, namely: sendmail, apache, BIND, and a list of others that have been under development since the dark ages.
if you look at freshmeat, you will find that most of the projects are in beta, or alpha. they do not claim to be high quality.
my personal belief is that people are jumping to open source as a way to show there disgust for Microsoft. why do people hate Microsoft? because there rich. for instance, Americans do not hate Canadians. but a lot of Canadians hate Americans.. as a matter of fact most of the world has a poor view of the states. basally its human nature not to like your "rich neighbor".
another reason open source software is poor is the lack of incentive to do the "un sexy work" i remember just the other day Linus (yes Linus) saying "the problem is, we need people to do the unsexy work". that's what makes real "quality software". does anyone honestly belive something like Windows 2000 could have come out of an open source project? no way! there would be lots of loose ends where the work would not have been that much fun.
however, in the next ten years or so i think something will kill Microsoft, and there will be another OS that takes up 90% of the home market. it might be linux, i really don't know. but if you look at the history of consumer computer technology you will see that monopolies rule. for instance, look at the evolution of the floppy drive, first it's 8 (and something), then 5 1/2, then 3 1/4. and every time, one floppy was "it".
look at LP, to tapes, to CD's. or VHS, to DVD. or the 3dfx to TNT.. one tech must rule.
the way i see it the "Next Big Thing" will be "a server in every home". linux and it's flavors are a good choice. that could be a catalyst that takes it to the future.
i also see the open source failing miserably after it peaks. which is going back to my first point, that open source software is of poor quality. eventually another company will rise and dominate, much like Microsoft.
-Jon
Debian!! Think!! (Score:2)
You have this silly vision that a small programmer could release a commercial app and become wildly successful? Don't bet on it. The world has now become "spoiled" by the GPL--others would quickly write an open-source alternative, which would most likely surpass the original in a short amount of time.
There is also plenty of software (MySQL being a very notable example) which is open-source, yet commercial (check out their licensing fees).
Sorry, but the only tragedy brought on by the spread of the GPL will be to closed-source commercial software, which is destined to eventually suck. Yes, it will--if someone were to attempt to take Perl and make a commercial, closed-source product of it, how long do you think they'd be able to maintain it, and keep it in sync (or even as good) as the real Perl? One of 2 things will happen to closed-source software:
1. The product isn't that complex, and so someone will easily code an open-source replacement.
2. The product is VERY complex, and so eventually a finite number of programmers will be unable to maintain it adequately. When it starts to suck and people get tired of it, someone will start an open-source project to replace it. This project won't be as good as the original at first, but in a short time will be perfectly useable to many, and given enough time may even surpass the orignal.
Linux still needs some high-level standardization (Score:2)
Despite the increasing popularity of Linux, I think that if you want it to be popular, it needs two things:
1. A single, common graphical user interface with a common Application Programming Interface (API). This drastically reduces the cost of programming, because you only need to write to one API spec, especially when it comes to writing things like drivers.
2. Automatic system configuration, so when you change system hardware or add external peripherals, the system will automatically add the driver or prompt you to install the driver.
Yes, I know is sounds too much like Windows 95/98/2000, but let's face it: the current state of driver installation in Linux is too obtuse for most computer users. And we will need automatic system configuration sooner than you think, because Intel has already said they will kibosh serial ports, the parallel port and the PS/2 keyboard and mouse ports in future motherboard designs in favor of USB and possibly IEEE-1394 I/O connectors. Right now, only Windows 98 and Windows 2000 can support such a motherboard design fully, despite what SuSE thinks.
It should be noted that common API design and the automatic configuration will have to be written under the GNU General Public License.
Re:Linux is everything to all people (Score:2)
However, the ideas themselves - from RMS's vision of de facto freedom to ESR's images of Cathedrals and Bazaars - are unchanged, and will remain unchanged if every single person on the planet were to buy into Reaganomics/Thatcherism tomorrow.
How do you explain "pink" to someone who has never seen the colour? That's a very difficult question.
(Philosophers have long asked a variant on that - how do you explain "sight" to someone born blind. Even if you gave non-stop tutorials and lectures on biology, physics, optics, photons, reflection, refraction, wavelengths, the retina's cones and rods, image processing and image recognition, the person would still not know what you experienced when you gazed at a meadow of buttercups and daisies on a summer's afternoon.)
The answer lies in understanding what you're =not= doing. You're =not= trying to tell people how to think or how to perceive. You're =not= trying to tell people how to understand something, or how to interpret your words.
But what's left? Easy. By not focussing on how the other person thinks, or "should think", you can focus on yourself! And how YOU think! By presenting your experiences, rather than theirs, your audience is less likely to be hostile and more likely to be trying to connect with what you're saying, by relating how you connect with an idea, with how they connect to things.
In other words, I wouldn't dream of telling a company how to run it's business. I wouldn't dream of telling it that it's practices are "bad" and mine are "good". Rather, I'd present the company with my experience of unfettered development. Of working whilst aware of what I'm doing and of what the tools I'm using are doing. Of being inter-dependent, rather than co-dependent.
THESE are concepts managers and accountants can relate to. They don't require me to distort my understanding of the GPL or what it means, because I'm simply describing my experience with the GPL. How they choose to interpret those concepts, that experience, is up to them. But these are all concepts that are well-established in business as sound, which suggests that business people would be able to relate to such experiences.
If Linux, the FSF, Eric Raymond, Richard Stallman, et al, have made any mistakes, it's in believing that (almost) everyone thinks the same way, or "should" do. They won't, they can't, and they shouldn't. We're all different.
*CUT TO LIFE OF BRIAN*
"Yes, we are all different!"
"I'm not!"
If the focus was shifted away from personal ideals (which nobody can relate to, and which cause more friction than understanding) to The Ideal (which is freedom bounded by freedom itself), you'd find companies much more able to comprehend how it could work in the workplace, and much more willing to try it.
An example of this is IBM, amazingly enough. Starting with the use of their logo on Slashdot, and moving quickly on to Apache updates, Postfix, Jikes, many XML toolkits and a Linux Kernel port to their S/390, they have demonstrated that this approach =CAN= work in the workplace.
Another is SGI, equally amazingly. This has included their OpenGL software release, their assorted kernel patches, their Apache patches and their (slow!) release of XFS. For a company to just give away software where even credit would be hard to come by (people don't usually look through the CREDITS file for all the folks who worked on the scheduler, each time the computer runs more than one process efficiently), SGI has openly embraced the concept of giving with no expectation of return, BEYOND THE VALUE OF GIVING.
IMHO, that is a staggering leap for any company to make, and puts them into a whole new realm of possibilities, where returns exist precicely because you don't seek them.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Linux's Future... (Score:2)
The hacker community who liked being outsiders will get fed up with the commercialized Linux and they will start their own distributions. Actually, they even go beyond having alternative distributions and start writing alternative Kernels that eventually become incompatible with Linux. Because it is all GNU, it is all good.
Another five years down the line, this alternative Linux now has all sorts of strange and possibly useful features that Linux doesn't have (the need to be stable will slow its evolution). All of these hackers are suddenly out there looking for jobs that will pay the bills and guess what, they are experts on this alternative Linux. So, some of them go to work for RedHat, others start their own distributions, Linux evolves, they evolve, and the cycle begins again.
Oh, and as for those AOL folks, they'll all be using Playstation 3's. If you can get web and e-mail with it, why on god's earth would you want to put up with the complexity of a PC? They'll watch their DVD's on their HDTV's (without regional encoding because that's going away). Of course they'll be running linux on their Playstation's but they'll never realize it nor care and that's exactly the way it should be.
---
Revenge of the Geeks (Score:2)
No, there should *not* be "one GUI". There has to be choice like there is today between QT & GTK+ and all that - your machine should run both happily at the same time, of course, like me currently running X, sawmill, kfm and gnome-panel all together even right now; however this is desirable flexibility, not a downer at all.
"Automatic system configuration"? That's for weenies, plain and simple. If you don't know what numbers to specify where for your new sound card, don't install it, as you certainly don't deserve to be using it. Whether you know *everything* about "what is an IRQ" is not quite the point, but some working knowlege or ability and willingness to experiment are essential.
It might be "too obtuse" but why is "for most computer users" something we should tailor it for?
Give me quality (cluefulness) instead of quantity (hordes of lusers) any day.
Re:The tragedy of Linux (Score:2)
But probably what you want to know is whether or not it is proprietary software. And the answer to that is 'mabye'. It depends on the license; If the compiler is licensed under the GPL, then it is free software. Similarly for other free software licenses - X, LGPL, BSD, etc. If it is under a proprietary license, then it is proprietary. :)
It's made Andover quite wealthy... (Score:2)
So, the commercialization pays for some, eh?
Re:What I want from Open Source (Score:2)
This is one hundred percent on target.
The Open Source Movement could have just as easily been called the Stable Software Movement. Linux and other open source products are better not because of who's on board or the quality of its people (though that's been tremendously helpful). It is just a better way of making software.
We've got MS and others who tried an experiment with computers: sell software the way Ford sells cars. It did pretty well, but eventually, that business model has to give way to something more mature and appropriate for what a business needs. And the success of Linux companies isn't because some journalist on the sidelines is cheering for the team-- it is because selling software the way a doctor sells healthcare is more appropriate. So now programmers are making better products, and making more money. Chicken and egg-- the media like Linux because it is successful; not the other way around.
This is a young field. Software as a product is fairly new, since until the 80's software was considered part of the hardware platform. It took a decade to improve the model, but that isn't too bad. I'm sure there's some other way of making software that is even better, and in ten years we'll all be doing that.
Reading that article reminded me of punk rockers who can't stand it when their favorite band becomes popular. Sure, Open Source is filled with parasites, con artists and Big Corporations. But the motto "show me the code" applies here. The parasites don't have anything to contribute, and will go to the next Next Big Thing. The con artists will eventually get caught (they almost always do). And if the Big Corporations can show me the code, I say welcome aboard. I hope someday to lead one-- and I refuse to be jealous if they someday manage to make better stuff than the startups.
That's the great thing about markets. Journalists, pundits, Jon Katz, marketting experts, strategic analysts-- none of them really make a difference. They're just kibbitzers. As long as the sourcecode remains open and free, we'll do just fine.
Re:This is how it works (Score:2)
Don't let the majority's political views get you down. You don't need to qualify yourself like that. My comments are always "socialist" (as people here would define it) and thats fine with me. I get flamed sometimes but not usually. My karma is pretty high. Whats wrong with socialism anyway? Isn't that like a libertarian with a heart? hehe....well, I'm opening myself to flaming with that comment.
Re:The tragedy of Linux (Score:2)
Now we just have to wait for the day when there is so much GPL code floating around that any CS student who cracks a book will be unable to write software without GPLing it.
Yeah, in much the same way that there are so many books around just now, that no-one can write a novel without paying out copyright fees to large numbers of authors....
dylan_-
--
Re:Incoming... (Score:2)
In case you've forgotten, a libertarian does not believe in the initiation of force for political means. To put it in playground terms, you can't throw the first punch. If it's wrong for an individual to take my money without my consent, then it's still wrong for a group to do the same. Even though it's legal, taxation is still extortion.
Re:JS Kelly has some facts wrong (Score:2)
He claims Andreesen used the Mosaic code to "float netscape". Wrong. The Mosaic code was, in fact, the most valuable piece of code around at the time. It was licensed - to Microsoft. They then gave it away making it totally worthless to the people who invented the graphical browser.
Netscape rewrote the browser de novo.
Which is why c. 1996, Netscape Communications Corp. paid the NCSA a large chunk of change, and why Netscape v1.0 had a number of identical bugs to Mosaic, I guess...
Of course, it could just have been that Andreesen was feeling generous, and that he also made exactly the same programming errors twice.
Simon
Re:Aaaargh!! (Score:2)
Aaaargh!! Stop that or I'm going to have to whap you upside the head! This is supposed to be FREE SOFTWARE. Don't you understand that?
Everywhere in the free software community, licensing fees are decried as "evil". Software that has available and modifiable source code, but still requires a licensing fee would never be considered Free or Open Source. Yet this is the exact thing you are advocating.
If you want to put such a clause in your own software, go ahead. At least it will still be voluntary. But don't expect anyone to use it. But should you ever get an actual tax levied on Open Source, you will have betrayed everything you say you are for in the foulest way.
Before you start calling for taxes to support Free Software, go pick up a dictionary and look up "free".
Re:Incoming... (Score:2)
Taxation can be extorsion (and with our governement it often is) but we DO need it, otherwise we don't have schools, roads, libraries, etc. Turning these institutions over to corporate interests is far worse than having them run by the gov't. At least the gov't has a shred of interest in our rights, corporations have none. They just want money.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Of course, if you make it work like a rock that means that you get something which:
1. has a crude user interface.
2. is hard for the elderly to pick up & use easily.
3. isn't much use when what you really need is a wrench...
It's sad really that many of the young developers have no respect for the "Unix way" (make things small that work and are able to work with other small working programs...ie. grep foo *.c | less )and are falling into the "Windows way" (more features/bloat make it do everything that we can think of..) trap that they think is so evil.
The code works this way inside the Windows program, if its been developed by anyone with any nouse. And if they did it right, they'll have done it all as COM objects, which means that you get the same Unix benefits (pluggable program components that can be used separately) without the limitations (piping and chaining bazillions of apps through a command processor to get anything done).
Contrary to popular belief,
grep foo *.c | less
isn't all that easy to type with your mouse.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - KDE and GNOME suffer from being too close to the Unix paradigm as they stand (both appear to be most at their user friendly when used as hosts for xterm). They don't cut it - but they're the best that's out there.
The scary thing is, you think they're going to far when it's obvious and apparent to others that they don't go far enough.
Simon
what? (Score:2)
Why some people will turn their back on Linux (Score:2)
Watch, the bigger Linux gets, the smaller its faction of die-hard anti-Microsoft fans will get. What will be left is the new businesses infusing Linux with actual innovation, and the Open Source teams around the net.... who will mostly be disgruntled because they remember the good ole days when you could write a utility, generate a readme, and you were good to go. Now the users demand a GUI, a graphical install, and hiding of the OS. Users always ruin everything
Esperandi
Re:Incoming... (Score:2)
But we do have schools without government and taxation. In fact, government schools only came into being this century in the US. And the US citizens of the 18th and 19th centuries were by no means illiterate. When the typical private school charges much less per year for tuition than the government spends for educating the very same child, I'm not thinking of the government as very enlightened.
Couldn't we turn these institutions over to private interests instead of governments or corporations?
All the nonconformists look alike ... (Score:2)
(And that's a very comforting feeling -- heck, being on the side of the penguins, intellectual freedom, etc is a big reason I like it!) But please consider whether the "commercial folks" are really ruining Linux, or just changing its nature in ways that are not necessarily bad. GPL is GPL, after all, and I'm confident that the GPL will hold its own when the inevitable test arises.
While it's neat to think about the PDP-10 with only Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie playing spacewar, the growth of UNIX and similar (not to mention *other*) OSes is what allows us here to play with them at all. I for one am glad that Messers Thompson and Ritchie didn't say "Ah geez - when we let other people play with this OS, they might change and RUIN it!"
And as one of my all-time-favorite angry childhood retorts has it, "Everybody wants to be a martyr."
Just a thought,
timothy
Re:Summary of article (Score:2)
While you wouldn't know it from the .com hype, most companies do not have IPOs that run up to hundreds of dollars per share. Picking winners ain't that easy.
(If I had that sort of crystal ball, I would have gone into debt to buy all the TIS options I was entitled to (this was years before they went public) then sold out when they got bought out by Network Associates and NETA peaked, and I would have netted about a quarter million dollars in profit. The fact that I am still hacking for food may inform you that this did not happen. (Though I did make a few dollars off the deal.)
Re:Incoming... (Score:2)
Your private school sounds good, because it wasn't run by a corporation. There are a number of companies out there now that are running schools as a for profit operation. I worry that they will cut corners in order to keep profits up. Most private schools are run by individuals or organizations like the catholic church which might make money but there isn't shareholder level pressure on them to do it.
Another fact is at this time there simply aren't enough private schools to go around, and if there was enough, will there guarantees that EVERY student will be able to go to one NO MATTER what?
Look, in my ideal world all schools would be run by the community, and it wouldn't be on a mind numbing schedle and the course work wouldn't be either, everyday citizens could come in and teach real life lessons, etc. Right now, this isn't possible. Therefore I take the best solution, public schools, which are bad, over corporate run school that have even less interest in students learning, your type of school not included in that category. In the long run I'd fight for my type of solution.
So say we take away the government. People always assert that corporations don't exist without government intervention. Whats to stop them from becoming totalitarian instituions when government controls stop? The government can give them enormous benefits (as they do) but they can stop them from commiting other acts as well like environmental damages, labor rights, etc.
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
It's not a bad way to earn my daily bread. So go ahead and be Mr. Windows...you just make less competition for me. B-)
Re:I went to the Paris Linux-Expo yesterday. (Score:2)
I don't see how your comment has any real
relevance. Yes, the country which values
profit the most has the highest standard of
living. And?
As for France...
When some french citizens opposed the ways of
capitalism and tried to setup a community in
Paris based on production for Use and solid
socialist ideas, the french government put
a quick stop to it by slaughtering 20,000 people.
That was a long time ago, I am not sure to what
extent things have changed since, I supose maybe
they ar ebetter now?
Re:I went to the Paris Linux-Expo yesterday. (Score:2)