The Benefits Of Radiation On Linux 84
roblimo pointed out this article in Business 2.0 by one Clay Shirky, a professor of New Media at Hunter College. Shirky goes into the idea of "adaptive radiation," and makes some pointed observations about its effect on software, Linux specifically. An excerpt: "This will keep Linux out of the best of breed competition because it is never perfectly tailored to any particular environment, but it also means that Linux avoids the best of breed trap. For any given purpose, best of breed products are either ideal or useless." Shirky is an insightful commentator as well; he also set up a "Web Pay Phone" outside his office at Hunter a few years back. Now go mutate!
Anti-Linux?! Whaaaaa? (Score:2)
More the opposite -- yes, he makes the claim (I disagree) that Linux "isn't ready for the desktop," but it appears to be because he is expecting some pretty great things out of Linux, not because he dislikes it in any way -- but on the whole, he makes the argument that Free software is often / usually the best thing *overall* even if there's some place for non-Free.
Windows doesn't have the same sort of freedom to radiate.
I guess we read this totally different ways.
timothy
Re:Linux will begin to adapt to every environment. (Score:2)
Re:Two footnotes. (Score:2)
He was just BSing his way thru a performance review. I would guess that it went something like this:
Reviewer#1: Looks like this Clay Shirky guy spends all day chatting on AIM, downloading MP3s on Napster, and surfing porn sites. We will have to fire him.
Reviewer#2: Mr. Shirky, can you give us a good reason for your behavior?
Shirky: Ummmm....It's is because....I want to...be...a professor of New Media? Yeah, that's it.
Reviewer#2: Is that a position we have?
Reviewer#1: Well, if he lets us help surf the porn sites, we could make one.
Shirky: Deal!
Re:What is he talking about? (Score:1)
Re:A Darwinian reason not to forget about the Desk (Score:1)
Not nearly as universally as that statement implies; the PE-gradualism debate still continues. Just because Gould has a tall soapbox doesn't mean he's necesssarily right.
Re:Two footnotes. (Score:1)
Shouldn't that be "scare" quotes?
How about OS as Language? (Score:1)
I'd like to put forward another Linux analogy - its like English (or Lingua Franca, or whatever your language of choice). That's why Linux users take it personally. How would you like it if some corporation (say M$) owned your language (OS), and you couldn't coin your own words or expressions (apps) but rather you'd have to use only what the corporation provides? You could say that OS'es like Windows restrict our expression like "newspeak" did in Huxley's Brave New World. "Newspeak" was a limited language designed by the government to restrict thought and expression.
<ramble on>
I've always had the impression that Windows was designed to suit Microsoft first, second and third. It was designed to overwhelm programmers with an overly complex interface. After the programmer has mastered all the books, journals and training, the constant stream of new Microsoft APIs and initiatives he would have no spare time to learn a competing platform. The programmer would not even have time to learn about the app he's supposed to program. Windows, which should have made the programmer's job easier, has instead become his job.
Thus only large organizations could gather the number of specialized programmers necessary build any significant application. I find it very encouraging that relatively small informal teams can produce GNU/Linux software approaching the complexity formerly only attempted by commercial ventures. I think that fact speaks to the superiority of GNU/Linux to Windows for app development.
Yada yada ..
</ramble off>
out of best of breed competition? (Score:1)
ease of use and desktop environment are usually things that go together well. the section titled "where 'good' beats 'best'" doesn't make much sense either. if 'good' beats 'best', then 'best' is no longer 'best'... 'good' is now 'best'.
maybe i'm just confused from too much nethack, and too little sleep.
Re:darwinian perspective (Score:1)
For background reading on "punk eek", I recommend The Dynamics of Evolution [dannyreviews.com].
Danny.
Re:To extend that analogy, though ... (Score:1)
It is possible from the same consistent basis to conclude that: A is better than B, B is better than C, and C is better than A.
Something like scissors, rock, paper?
Re:Two footnotes. (Score:2)
In any case, I am on leave from Hunter, but the New Media program goes on apace.
-clay
Re:Let me get this out... (Score:2)
With that said, I have to pick your point about "One License, one GUI, one Platform". To be sure, "One GUI" and "One Platform" are counterproductive, but "One Liscense" has its benefits. Some of the biggest problems and fights in the open-source movement have come from the selection of different and incompatible liscenses -- a defacto standard (like the GPL or LGPL) would ensure that if your efforts on your neat project and my efforts on my neat project don't have to be mutually exclusive or incompatible.
I'll even go so far as to say we should stop arguing about forks and mutations altogether. As long as the source (and therefore the structure) is disclosed, any incompatibility can be overcome within a single generation. It's just not a problem.
Re:KDE is a beautiful desktop environment... (Score:1)
*shrug* what can you do?
-- Michael Chermside
Cancer therapy (Score:2)
Try, an old technique and still the most effective on it's own. Radio therapy is still more effective than chemo! Combined they are even better. Radio therapy may not work for all cancers, but where it's appropriate it's your best chance. Look up Mecical Physics some time.
darwinian perspective (Score:2)
To extend that analogy, though ... (Score:3)
Which would you rather have as a pet?
Mutts tend to be better behaved, healthier and smarter than the blue-bloods, at least when it comes to dogs.
Yeah, he's got a barb about Linux / Free software being unable to be "best of breed" ok, but it depends on what your context is to determine what "best" means. If your requirements include future flexibility and lack of royalties etc, then it could easily be the best.
timothy
He's either half right, or totally wrong. (Score:2)
His second point is obviously incorrect: if Linux on x86-based PCs attracts more coder-hours of work than Microsoft can hire for Windows, Windows will eventually be enough worse than Linux that buying Windows will be an obvious bad idea, not just the bad-idea-you-can-gloss-over it is now. At that point, Windows' market share will start dropping.
His first point MAY be incorrect, and he presents no evidence that it is not. Just because billions of Linux variants are being created for new platforms doesn't mean that the core portions of Linux itself, the ones that don't change from one platform to another, are being improved. For example, I suspect that the majority of these ports are doing absolutely nothing for the window managers. Also, there is the question of whether any changes at all are leaking back from these efforts into the larger community; if the people doing a port don't bother to tell anybody about the changes they've made in a useful way, none of their work benefits Linux itself.
Radiation and Linux? (Score:5)
--
I don't understand this (Score:1)
Re:You realize what this means (Score:5)
"It means humans, while versatile, will never be the best at anything because of the way we are built and designed. By extension, this also applies to ANY organism which can survive outside of specialized niches: primates makes likeable apes instead of Bengal tigers."
I may be nuts, but I think it's very possible for a "likeable mutt" to wind up being the best overall, far and away, because these "likeable mutts" have no real Achilles' heels. The Bengal tiger is nearly extinct; human beings are still undergoing population explosion.
A Darwinian reason not to forget about the Desktop (Score:3)
As we have seen in many biological environments, evolution does NOT happen at a continous rate. Instead, species tend to evolve very significantly in a very short amount of time, and then stay pretty much the same untill this happens again. This theory is known as Punctuated Equilibruum, and is currently accepted in the world of biology. WHen mapped to software, each brief occurance of rapid evolution can be thought of as a software release.
Throughout History, these punctures usually result in an extremely rapid power shift. (Think of the chimps when Homo Erectus first showed up.) In the end, that species that wins is the most able to adapt. In other words, if this evolutionary model works (which it sure does seem to!) than the new release of a distro might cause the dominant OS to change extremely rapidly. Further, given the change in useability between Linux PPC 2.5 years ago, and Linux PPC right now, I think we are certainly on the right track.
Although the author of this article would surely disagree, Linux has the potential and will, become the dominant desktop (as well as server, and every other market) in the extremely near future. So don't give up!
Ok, I'll stop rambling now,
--Alex the Gnome Fish
Re:same thing about humans, too (Score:2)
Let me get this out... (Score:5)
Well frankly I am a mutator partisan. Paraphrasing Zhirinovskii, the reactionary political radical schizo here: "Mutate linux. Mutate the progs, the scripts, the source. Mutate the kernel! Everything should mutate, even the Tux the penguin and Torvalds." Maybe this is tooo radical. But still sounds good. As what makes linux is its capabilty to mutate. Think about what would happen if we sticked to "One License, one GUI, one Platform". That is exactly what M$ does. And that is what most companies do willingly or unwillingly.
If Linux had stucked into a strict environement then it would be never what it is now. Linux is the most multiplatform of all systems, from 86 to S/390. Meanwhile it is the systems that carries most of the Old and New World. In fact it is not only a continuation of UNIX but also of DOS and old Windows platforms. It even carries enough power to carry/emulate software from platforms that are long forgotten, such as ZX Spectrum or Commodore. Or to hold up emulation of weird platforms like Nintendo or Palm. It is a system capable of being a server or a desktop system. In this last point I should note that the author of the article is deeply wrong. linux is already ready for many desktops. I have seen/participated on the implementation of desktop systems for Internet & Office appliances. 68% of people don't want Windows back. And only a few stubbornly decry Linux as an Office system.
In one point I would still declare Linux a drawback. On vector design systems. Here Linux is still a way to go, even if Corel 9 is already out. On the rest Linux is already conquering. Yes, it is HARD to install it. To professionaly and carefully install it. But it is a system that works on the base "fire & forget". Once fired, technical support becomes miserable. So technicians are kicked to R&D, making its progress even faster and smoother.
It is mutation that makes this. And this is what M$ should be afraid of. Because this system is capable of inveding every computer and make it much more faster and reliable for a wide range of tasks.
However this should be taken with a few grains of pepper. Mutations are good if we can control them. If we change things too much then we may face future incompatibilities. But this does not mean keeping the kernel in one piece or flaming someone for choosing BlackBox against Gnome or KDE. The problem are not the changes but the rules of conduct to implement them. some sort of comitemments that would allow every program/mutation/patch/fix/implementation to live peacefully side by side. and to be used when they are needed, where they are needed. This is much better than having an abstract "Unity" on Linux.
Re:Radiation also kills: an analogy? (Score:1)
A decent definition of adaptive radiation:
http://fig.cox.miami.edu/Faculty/Tom/bil160/06_
And yes! the article was all positive treacle about Linux. He is saying that MS is not the competition for Linux; more specifically Linux is not competition for the desktop, MS may be (is) "Best of Breed" when it comes to the desktop...
...God, what kind of breed is that anyway... 'don't get too close to that breed, honey, it eats the other dogs...'
Anyway, Windows certainly cannot adapt as fast as Linux could. The question then becomes one of how fast is the hardware industry growing? Where are all those Internet appliances I have been hearing about? Am I gonna have to buy MS House someday? Will my house crash? Will I get the blue screen door of death? What if I can't find a device driver for my Amana Range?
Linux should be poised for the forseeable future, not the known past; the first 'appliance' other than a desktop and the various PDAs is gonna be the Sony PlayStation 2 (I am talking only about massively-accepted as criteria for home appliance, sure there are things out there, but they aren't ubiquitous), and that ain't gonna run off Linux. But other stuff should.
That's strange... (Score:2)
Re:You realize what this means (Score:4)
As far as generalizing this to all Open Source project, though, I'd have to disagree. It really depends on how focused the project leader is and how much 'me too' syndrome there is hovering around it.
If the project is fairly low-key, or the developers are strict, the project will get the features it needs and people itching to implement something unnecessary will either not know about the project in the first place or go find something else to do. (or maybe even make a fork)
With more lenient project leaders, it's much more succeptible to "feeping creaturism" [everything2.com]. Instead of becoming specialized for one area, it gets the kitchen sink.
I'm not saying either method is bad, just that it is possible for open source to produce the "blue bloods". I'm a code optimization / embedded systems junkie, so I like to use code size as an example. IIRC, Linux was first coded on a 386, then as the hardware got faster and the features creeped in, Linux grew. It still works on the older machines, but probably not as well as it used to. XFree86 is another of those quite spread-out projects. It works on diskless terminals, big SMP machines, and it can even be crammed into an embedded system like the iPaq. But, a GUI specially designed for small systems will always be better at running on small systems and there's no reason it can't be open source too.
Ack! I've been rambling!
Re:That's strange... (Score:1)
So you're saying windows runs better in the dark... And it's usually dark in server closets! Heresy!
;-)
Re:Radiation and Linux? (Score:1)
like me when I'm angry."
Chris Mattern
Re:out of best of breed competition? (Score:1)
The basic thought here is that Linux might not be the "best" OS for any specific task; desktop, mainframe, server, palmtop, etc. There might be a better OS for any particular task.
In all of these tasks Linux is at least "good".
we then change change perspective and see that Linux is the "best" all around OS.
Think Olympics.. Decathalon, Gymanastics, Pentathalon, Track and field, heck even think of the Tour De France. In Gymanstice you might have some one really ggod at balance beam, another really good at floor, a third at bars and maybe horse. These folks get the gold in their specific area, but unless there' pretty good at all of them they won't get the gold for all around performance.
The Tour De France might be a better example; You can have people that are the best in different areas; best in mountains, best in sprints, best in time trials, etc. They can win the stage they are in and good at, but the winner of the race is the best overall, even if they never win any of these areas. Coming in 2nd, 3rd even 4th consistently will win yellow jersey and hold it.
In any of these, there might be someone who is best in a particular event, but that doesn't mean they'll win the gold. That goes to the best all around person or OS.
Re:So basically... (Score:1)
Most of the time, yes. Just for a dorky example, I'll compare a suite of M$ products versus RH. Set up the server ... well, actually, in most quantifiable tests, RH outperforms NT, at least as we were benchmarking it ... plus the RH went for $70 vs over a thou for the NT. Then there's the machines ... each one requiring their own little M$ license ... vs using the same RH CD. Now, depending on how you want to look at it, one could argue that the M$ bunch (NT, Win 95, 98) were better. Personally, I value stability and the low low low cost, hence preferred the RH. Then there's the whole 'office' suite. Let's just say that there are more than enough easy to use free and inexpensive linux suites to make coughing up a couple of hundred per 'M$ Office' package laughable. Now, as to superior, again, I value stability. The ability to seamlessly interface with the gazillions of M$ users out there is nice, but conversely, not having a team dedicated to fighting off M$-specific viruses every other week is also kind of nice.
It all depends on what one defines as 'best'. You want a glossy POS that costs an arm and a leg, crashes on a regular basis, and needs 3-10 times the number of people to support it, just because it IS glossy? Go M$.
While I liked the general gist of the argument, there were a couple of specific lines that I disagreed with, and though they were put in more for shock value than for accuracy.
Linux as Almost Ready for the Desktop. It is not What defines 'ready for the desktop' in Mr.Shirky's mind? Currently running Suse at home and Solaris at work. Both are damn fine desktops.
For any given purpose, best of breed products are either ideal or useless. Say what?!?! Best of breed products may not do everything you want, but to call them useless for anything else is way off base. I play with free agent for news groups. It isn't the best for displaying graphics. But it is the fastest, easiest and one of the best designed newsgroup readers out there. Netscape and IE both do better on the graphics, but suck on any other comparison I can think of (excluding picking up and running hostile code ... IE is neck-and-neck with Outlook in that race, leaving all others far behind).
The description of Linux as '...an also-ran desktop OS.' is also a little insulting, and I think a little too certain. There are a number of reasons why Linux _could_ take off as a desktop OS of choice. I believe that some of them (such as being a platform for games, much more network friendly) will probably lead in *nix becoming dominant in 5-10 years.
Overall, I thought the article well thought out, and generally on the money, but these few points needed jumping on.
Re:What box? (Score:2)
NT slams linux at SMP. Believe it. Though I'm sure that won't be the case forever.
Seriously.. I'd like to see the NT kernel open sourced.. as well as NTFS. They *are* good, and have *great* potential. Microsoft just keeps making these godawful operating systems with them!
I mean, originaly, when NT was called the 'unix killer'... from a kernel perspective, it was quite true. NT is superior.. but MS keeps building these shit OS things with it.
Linux doesn't try to be everything (Score:1)
Linux is still a server platform and not a desktop platform, it doesn't try to be everything. Linux is still too complex and has too many non-standard features between distributions. It's just too hard for the average user to use as a desktop OS and so it's focus is being a server platform.
Linux already has the stability and speed* to be used everywhere and beat out most competition, but unless everyone has the ability to use it, Linux won't make it into all corners of the market.
*speed in the average case for most applications, yes I know this has been arguable...
Re:That's strange... (Score:2)
Re:You realize what this means (Score:1)
Translate that into the computer world would be akin to making every user a Linux geek by a variety of means.
Benefit of Radiation, #224 (Score:4)
More radiation and he'll gain the power of speech: "Hello, Mr. Gates..."
- M
Re:A Darwinian reason not to forget about the Desk (Score:1)
Please don't say "Homo Erectus" here. I'm tired of having to go get the librarian to turn off CyberPatrol.
Re:That's strange... (Score:1)
Don't you sport a fine monitor tan?
X-Linux (Score:2)
Re:Linux doesn't try to be everything (Score:2)
I don't think you can say that Linux was designed as a server OS. After all, Linus started it for his own desktop.
What the deal is, Linux just tries to be an operating system. You can layer server software or desktop software on top of it. Or both.
And that, IMO, is what is allowing Linux to "radiate" into virtually every computational niche known to humaniti.
Addition (Score:1)
I'de like to see distributions focuced on entertainment. Multimedia Linux or something like that. If you want linux to be run everywhere, you need to slice up all the computers, and focus a distro on each thing. Servers, IT professionals, Graphics professionals, office workers, home users (entertainment =]), industrial users..
Ok hope I made just a little sense.
SoLo
-
why have a
Adaptive Radiation... (Score:1)
Re:So basically... (Score:2)
Yes. Think of it like the OS Olympics, where Linux grabs a silver in fifteen events, while Windows, Solaris and BeOS each get five gold medals. I'd rather go home knowing I was the best all-around athlete than knowing I could only throw a discus farther than anyone else.
You realize what this means (Score:3)
Best-of-breed desktop? (Score:1)
In any case, I don't think the author really understands what an OS does, or where an OS ends and a GUI begins.
And they ignore the effect of the GPL (Score:2)
If the GPL remains toothless, then these issues won't matter. If RMS and FSF ever get around to suing some people WRT the GPL, then the embedded world will rush to BSD.
(Richie can't win....if RMS sues as he should be, then no one will use the GPL. If RMS doesn't sue, people will use the GPL but RMS sells out on his principles.)
Re:Radiation and Linux? (Score:2)
"There seems to be a descrepanc...naw, well within paramters.."
"Segmentation faulAAHHHHH!@H#H!@H#!@H#"
Re:Two footnotes. (Score:3)
The missive you reference was written by Tim Cavanaugh. Tim does a bunch of writing for Suck magazine [suck.com], which is one of the few consistently good web 'zines out there (and in which, there ran an entire article about what Tim refers to as scare quotes [suck.com]. Don't know if he wrote it, though.)
Re:That's strange... (Score:1)
One time I had an audio cable hooked up to my line-in, but the other end wasn't hooked up to anything. Oddly enough, a strange beeping came from my speakers, perfectly synchronized to my home-made LCD clock.
I'm sure the FCC would lock me up if they knew.
Re:That's strange... (Score:2)
You are actually on the money (Score:2)
I may be nuts, but I think it's very possible for a "likeable mutt" to wind up being the best overall, far and away, because these "likeable mutts" have no real Achilles' heels. The Bengal tiger is nearly extinct; human beings are still undergoing population explosion.
From a genetics standpoint you are correct. I used to work at a company that delt in selective breeding. While working on one project, I was looking at the genetics charts and came to a sudden realization. The perfect animal is the perfectly average animal. This was quickly confirmed to me by several of the geneticists.
You see, genetics is a bit like a balancing scale. You can't make something physically stronger and then expect that it won't be at a disadvantage in say its immune system. Or make it prettier, but not expect that its feet and legs will get softer. This is how genetics works. In order to create an animal that is as perfect as possible in all areas, it must be completely average. Of course no such thing exists in nature or really in captivity because the environment affects 80% of the animal's genetic outcome.
What box? (Score:1)
Re:Radiation also kills: an analogy? (Score:1)
Re:That's strange... (Score:1)
But it's in the basement. Would it still work then?
Ah, I love the look of alligator clips and signal junctions duct-taped to the wall. Not to mention all the nice blinkenlights on the hubs. (can't wait till I get DSL!)
Re:That's strange... (Score:2)
You gotta figure that all that EM radiation would degrade your DSL performance, right? All I know is that my network goes spaz when I'm putting out 100 watts....
Re:Let me get this out... (Score:3)
Besides GPL is a philosophy. And most licenses, in one way or the other reflect some sort of philosophy. Are you telling me that everyone should go to the ONE philosophy? Well I am a GPL partisan. Because I know on how to live with it. But should I enforce GPL on everywhere I go? NO! That's raw communism. That's the Wonderful New World, the Animal Farm. GPL should be presented as one of the best type of licenses but not the ONE license. I prefer to have Microsoft alikes roaming around here than building a new "Stalin skyscrapper" of ideals that are far from being perfect. To use GPL in full force you need to be a hacker. On all aspects. But not everyone wants/can be such.
Licenses should be many. Yes there should be interagreements between them. But let's hope no one manages to enforce a "ONE" license.
Re:To extend that analogy, though ... (Score:3)
//rdj
So that Win is degenerative? Make a nice ad for it (Score:1)
Re:And they ignore the effect of the GPL (Score:1)
I don't think you've accurately reflected Stallman's thinking. This is no dilemma in RMS-land, where principles always win over practicalities. Just look at his attitude to the Open Source movement, he recognises their approach is more practical but rejects it as unprincipled.
And it is lucky for us. The only reason there exist any alternatives to closed, proprietary software is because he is such a stubborn, uncompromising bastard.
Re:And they ignore the effect of the GPL (Score:1)
Last time *I* checked, the BSD software license is free and open, and was in existance before the RMS concieved GPL.
>he is such a stubborn, uncompromising bastard.
Methinks that is the point of the AC in question....there is bound to be infringements.
An example:
on a GPL violation/and a lack of action. [kenseglerdesigns.com]
Here's an udpate for everyone on the Virgin Webplayer
/ Merinata GPL violation.
This is in response to my original posting to the
Linux kernel mailing list; I'm including that post
here:
>I've read through months of archives, trying to find
a
>good place to report this, but have not been able to
>find anything.
>
>Where is a good place to report GPL violations
>concerning the Linux Kernel?
>
>I recently got a virign webplayer
>(http://www.virginconnectme.com/). It runs Linux as
>it's operating system. There's no mention of Linux or
>the GPL in the license that is included in the
manual.
>In fact the license in the manual concerning the
>"Software" is rather restrictive. And there's no
>mention of how to obtain the source for the kernel.
>
>The people who sell the machine to virgin, is Merinta
>(http://www.merinta.com/). You can verify that the
>machines virgin use are running linux
>(http://www.merinta.com/news/release000411.html)
>Merinta, from what I understand from posts by
>(presumedly) employees of Boundless (their mother
>corporation) have many GPL violations according to:
>http://www.kenseglerdesigns.com/cgi-bin/UltraBoa
I like the idea of all these new Internet devices
>coming out, running Linux. But it worries me that
>they'll all ignore the GPL as they go. Making it more
>difficult for fututre improvements in the kernel
code.
>
>
>
>I'm not on the Linux kernel mailing list. So please
CC
>me directly at jelwell@yahoo.com.
>
>Thanks,
>Joseph Elwell.
In my investigation to determine whether Virgin's
Webplayer, manufactured by Merinta, I've documented
the section of the License Agreement that deals with
the Software installed; that ships with the Virgin
Webplayer.
Section 2.2 of the member agreements reads as follows:
2.2 Webplayer Software License. Subject to the
provisions of this Agreement, we grant to you a
limited, non-exclusive, personal, non-transferable
license to use and display the Webplayer Software in
object code form only, solely as part of and as
necessary to use the Webplayer and the Virginconnect
Services. Except for the license granted to you above,
we (or our licensors) retain all right, title and
interest, including all intellectual property rights,
in and to the Webplayer Software. You may not attemp
(or authorize any attempt) to defeat, obstruct or
block any or all of the Webplayer Software
functionality, or to decompile, reverse engineer or
disassemble the Webplayer or the Webplayer Software.
Below is a listing of the filesystem that is currently
(roughly 7/28/2000); some sections I've not filled in
due the immensity of the files listed in those (and
subdirectories of those). If someone asks me nicely
-with reason - I'll fill those sections in:
Some highlights of the filesystem (which make me
believe they're also running a GNU system (which
wasn't mentioned on their press release - but is of
course heavily implied when they say the machine runs
the "Linux operating system".):
Radiation also kills: an analogy? (Score:1)
One can draw an analogy: would the radiation in mutating Linux also call to kill it?
KDE is a beautiful desktop environment... (Score:1)
KDE's features are so powerful, slick, and incredibly accessable. I've configured it such for some users that they couldn't tell the difference between KDE2 and the Windows UI (other than the fact that it's look *so* much better!) - which is important because it gives such a seamless transition between Windows and Linux.
KDE's internal model is also great. Unlike those *other* desktop environments, it's written in a language that supports objects directly - rather than using something hacked together. (Sorry for the jab - I love KDE! :-) I foresee it as being incredibly extensible and incredibly powerful for rapid application development (which is really good for commercial applications to take hold on the platform).
If you're using GNOME or haven't switched over yet, I *highly* recommend doing so. KDE2 is definitely worth it and a HUGE milestone for Linux on the desktop.
Props and thanks to the KDE2 teams! :-)
Linux will begin to adapt to every environment. (Score:1)
When Linux becomes this modular, then having a custom modual to process certain resources a certain way will no longer require a fork. At this point companies will be able to totally customize Linux for their environment and still be running Linux.
Standard Linux with custom moduals equals best of breed performance, wholesale price!
No Forking Allowed!!!
What is he talking about? (Score:2)
Re:same thing about humans, too (Score:1)
-Chris
Re:You realize what this means (Score:1)
I don't really see where that analogy was drawn from... The only place it mentioned Open Source was the first sentance, and that was to describe LinuxWorld, not Linux.
If you're going to draw that kind of conclusion, it should read something more like:
Reason for that is that he went on and on about Linux the OS, not Linux the model of OS ideals. But, he also took that argument down, in the bit about Solaris, and how it's great at high-availability, but not a game machine at all..
Re:Anti-Linux?! Whaaaaa? (Score:2)
I guess the same goes for the Apple articles as well.
Penguins and mutations (Score:1)
Re:To extend that analogy, though ... (Score:1)
then there's the full-breed poodle. fur cut to look nice and win prizes at dogshows. basically just stands around looking pretty.
Damn, a good analogy goes a long way, and this one is getting better and better
//rdj
Now go moderate someone who actually has something to contribute to the discussion.
Re:Two footnotes. (Score:1)
poor assumptions in article (Score:1)
A number of events could derail constant radiation: a slow-down in the radiation of available platforms, or a high incentive to improve on one platform.
New platforms without an established OS present the best opportunity for high incentive to continue evolution on one platform.
Since windows is so entrenched in the desktop environment, and does a "good enough" job for the vast majority of its user base, there is currently little pressure to force linux to surpass windows as a GUI OS.
Re:You realize what this means (Score:1)
It also makes a few dislikeable mutts. But hey, if you don't like it, write your own!
Re:Radiation and Linux? (Score:1)
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Penguins"
Adaptive radiation == kernel fork (Score:1)
Read this quick summary [xrefer.com].
Methinks Clay's been reading the popular science books and jotting down the interesting words again...
8 weeks? (Score:1)
That way you can change the schedualling without having to rewrite your device drivers!
Hurd? Oh yeah, that project that never was... (Score:1)
I don't want my schedualler to run in user space, I want it to run in protected mode.
Oh yeah, the Huuuurl isn't even Linux binary compatible... the new standard for UNIX systems...
MS Linux anyone? (Score:1)
This way Windows apps would all still run just fine on their OS, as well as all the Linux binaries.
Kinda like the way that Apple is running freebsd under their OS X.
I expect to see MS do this around 2003.
Re:Let me get this out... (Score:2)
Well, that's a sad statement if true. If the only way for you and me to get along is for us to violate each others rights consistently, then that can hardly be called civilization.
First that many people if not most people would like to have a more direct rewarding system.
Besides GPL is a philosophy. And most licenses, in one way or the other reflect some sort of philosophy. Are you telling me that everyone should go to the ONE philosophy?
No, but everyone must have compatible philosophies if we are to coexist and accomplish anything together. To take your example of communism, if you are an ardent communist and therefore believe that everything I own belongs to us both in common and so you're free to take it without my permission, whereas I'm an ardent believer in Lockean property interests and will defend my personal property to the last breath, then can we possibly coexist? If you are a BSD fanatic and ardently believe that everyone should be free to steal your code and incorporate it into closed software, whereas I'm a GPL fascist and demand that only other GPL fascists use my code, then can we possibly coexist? We'd be constantly violating each other's rights and biting each other's heads off.
Yes there should be interagreements between them. But let's hope no one manages to enforce a "ONE" license.
By the nature of these liscenses, no interagreement is possible. The only solution is to agree on a common liscense that neither side likes but is willing to accomodate, like the LGPL or maybe the Artistic liscense. To do otherwise is to pursue your own bigoted political ends at the expense of meaningful progress.
Re:Radiation also kills: an analogy? (Score:1)
kashani
SHIT (Score:1)
Two footnotes. (Score:3)
2) How does one become a "professor of New Media"? I guess I'm just surprised to see academes recognize a movement [outside their own].
--
Re:Radiation also kills: an analogy? (Score:1)
same thing about humans, too (Score:2)
So basically... (Score:1)
I dunno. That means that Linux has to compete with several other OS's on different areas. So whenever someone's thinking about some new application in any area, they'll think "Hey, we could use so-and-so. Or we could use Linux". Is it really better to be second best in several areas than to be number one in a few areas?
Re:You realize what this means (Score:3)
That's not necessarily so. Take a look at OpenBSD, for instance. It's certainly Open Source (and Free Software for you FSFers), but it's also aimed quite narrowly at enhanced security applications rather than general utility. There are plenty of projects out there that are quite narrowly focused; it's just that their narrow focus tends to prevent them from getting the kind of really big publicity that Linux gets. You could even argue that OSS/Free Software is a perfect solution for the large number of problems that have too narrow a userbase to support a commercial product. If anything, I'd say that most OSS/Free Software projects tend to be too narrowly focused, since they tend to start out as attempts to scratch a particular programmer's itch rather than to be a generally useful program for a large enough group of customers to justify for profit development.