Criticizing Sun's Java Desktop System 624
An anonymous reader writes "Uh-oh. PJ is not a happy camper. 'Sun has made its choice and opted for The Way Things Used To Be,' she declares in a Linux Viewpoint at LinuxWorld. 'It's a new world, and Sun is not in it,' she declares. Her gripe is with the Java Desktop System, which she argues is grossly cavalier with the GPL and doesn't properly acknowledge its roots. Her main objection: 'You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have.' Feisty read, as ever, from Groklaw's founder and editor. That Jonesian coinage 'GNU/Linuxy' is worth the read alone!"
Holy shat (Score:5, Funny)
Run for your lives. RMS is pissed
Re:Holy shat (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Holy shat (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Holy shat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Holy shat (Score:4, Insightful)
never gets old (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope he doesn't change though; his stubborness is an important counterforce that keeps commercial software in check.
Re:Holy shat (Score:5, Funny)
You're GNU here, aren't you?
Re:Can someone let me in on the joke? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) never use this sentence anywhere in the real world(tm), especially at parties.
2) the explanation: everything annoyes RMS nowadays. in case your business is to print numbers on rice bags and you use linux for that purpose, don't expect just a comment, expect an essay from RMS if one of your rice bags topples down.
Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally agree with the notion that the Java Desktop (which IS basically a Linux distro) doesn't sufficiently acknowledge its Linux roots. I also think that their licensing of the Java Desktop is WAY too restrictive and closed to fit within the constraints imposed by the GNU-licensed technologies that are part of it. I just don't understand why people are surprised. Why would you expect them to do anything differently than they have in the past? They make pretty good stuff... but to pretend like they are an Open Source advocate is a mistake.
Of course, with that said, Sun has an army of lawyers... I'm sure they are not technically violating the GNU. They know better.
--- JRJ
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
By that Rationalle, Windows is Open Source [microsoft.com].
(Yes, I know you weren't advocating the view point, just pointing it out.)
--- JRJ
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but when I install windows the source isn't sitting there waiting for me to check it out. Not only that, but MS has made it abundantly clear that if you check out there source by other means than those that they provide, then you will get stomped.
(I understand your point, I'm just trying to continue with this thread of conversation)
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is this: Most people think Java is Open Source, and that (over time) dillutes the meaning of Open Source and gives Sun undue credit.
Your point is that most people equate Open Source with the availability of source code for READING as opposed to any specific licensing clause... I agree, but I think we're saying the same thing.
--- JRJ
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
I contend that if a company can (and does) sue you for making a change or an extension to the technology that they don't like then it isn't Open.
--- JRJ
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:3, Informative)
If it makes you feel any better, I'm probably a lousier programmer than you are. :)
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. And this is the reason why Stallman is so vocal about Free software and why he doesn't actively support the Open Source movement. I have nothing against Open Source but it's rejection of political activism is unfortunate in my opinion. Yes, it has had many victories, convincing companies into the fold who might have rejected Free software otherwise (Netscape or IBM being notable examples) but the current Sun debacle demonstrates how the weakening of core beliefs can damage the goals of the movement.
As it stands I don't know if the Open Source split was a good thing or a bad thing. I like to think it is but I'm really not sure.
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
Either you meant "open" or you are mistaken. Open with a capital "O" refers to Open Source, the meaning of which can be found here [opensource.org].
Briefly:
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
2. Source Code
3. Derived Works
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7. Distribution of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
As an example, most of Microsoft's open source work is not Open Source, as it typically places restrictions on derived works and redistribution.
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
The term "open source" never changed meaning: it didn't exist prior to the open source movement. The people who created the term have the right to define it.
And the people who created the term aren't "GNU/Minions" anyway, they are the open source movement. The GNU project and the FSF actually don't like open source licenses, they like free ("libre") licenses. Now, the term "free software" is misleading, but not very: "free (libre)" software is also pretty much "free (as in beer)", but it comes with additional rights for the user.
But there has been a nefarious attempt at changing the meaning of the term "open", namely in "open standard". An "open standard" is a standard that anybody can implement without obligation to anyone else. And there, it is Sun that has been trying to change the meaning, in order to mislead people into thinking of their highly proprietary system as an "open system".
The Sun Java implementation is not open source, nor is the Java platform in any way an open standard. The fact that Sun Java is not open source doesn't really matter much, but the fact that the Java platform is not an open standard is a huge problem because it legally threatens any attempt at open source or even commercial alternatives.
"open source" vs "Open Source" (Score:3, Interesting)
I was using the phrase "open source" in the early 90s to describe changes in the software world. I remember having a conversation with a client around 1991 who wanted me to modify a program. I explained that while many early programs written in interpreted languages (BASIC, DBase3+) were open source, most current programs were closed source, and the effort to modify them was enormous and probably illegal. I
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think one of the reasons the OpenSource community likes Sun is because they are the lesser evil.
In the eyes of the developer community, they are better than say, Microsoft or even IBM simply because Sun's standards are open, or at the very least more open than the competition.
Is it because that they are the underdogs? Maybe so. But be assured that tomorrow if they do come to the top, they will be ostracized even more.
And another thing is that, I do not think we can blame Sun for what they've done. Hey, you give your source out? That in no way means I have to or let you do what you let me do.
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
What was that about more open standards than the competition?
--K
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
And another thing is that, I do not think we can blame Sun for what they've done. Hey, you give your source out?
Quick pop quiz: who makes the most money from Java? Sun, right? Wrong. It's IBM.
Sun sells Java, but IBM sells services around it, and they make a ton of money doing it.
It's difficult to sell the idea, but had Sun completely opened Java and set up a services business around it, they might be farther ahead than they are now. I say "might" because IBM already had a large services business built, etc., but let's face it, they had to start somewhere.
My main problem with Sun is the whole "we're open and you're not" thing, which they started years ago and then segued into a "we're kind of like open source and you're not" when that was the big buzzword. They've always been a proprietary software company and probably always will be. That's fine, that's their gig, I just want them to be honest about it.
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:3, Funny)
No thank God.
*Slackware Rules*
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:4, Informative)
Which is exactly Jonathon Schwartz' point. [eweek.com] Sun supports open standards not open source.
Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets also forget the fact that without Sun's money/effort, Gnome Usability (ie. HIG) would be nowhere near as good as it currently is. Sun is a major backer of Gnome, and a corporate contributor to the Gnome Foundation..
Instead, lets bash Sun for not sufficiently acknowledging it's Linux roots in the JDS. (Something that the GPL does not require)
Why trust them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft = Sauron
Someone should point out to Sun before they get into bed with Microsoft: "There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power"
Re:Here's the comparison (Score:4, Funny)
That guy from Goatse?
The Rings of Power (photo included) (Score:3, Interesting)
http://java.sun.com/features/1998/07/ring-project
Re:Here's the comparison (Score:5, Funny)
"We hates them, the nasty Linuxies!", hissed Darllum. "They STOLE the precious from us. Evil Linuxies! We hates them!"
"But Linuxies helps us!", he wimpered. "They gives us nice IPO...they gives us Kernel Personality. SAMBA is our friend!"
"We don't have any friends!", he spat, eyes glowing with hatred and fury. "Evil, tricksie Linuxies! They STOLE it! We HATES them!"
"OK, Sam", sighed Frodo, "I've changed my mind. You can kill him now."
'GNU/Linuxy'? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well, you're banned for life. (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, PJ isn't really a geek. She's that rarest of creatures: a non-geek who gets it. So even though she may not wear black and big boots (or she may; I have no idea), we adopt her as one of our own.
And I will hug him and pet him and I will call him "George".
Everyone's out to dinner! (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes more and more 4-profit's seem to be using GNU work product without proper acknowledgements.
Perhaps sourceforge can pay the FBI to run a few raids for the GNU violators!!
Where the answers are [technicalknow-how.com]
Please Tell Me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Please tell me where in the GPL does it state that you have to acknowledge its roots or pay its proper respects.
As long as it complies, it's fine. Why does everything have to bow down and act like the GPL is all holy?
This is another example how how un-free the GPL philosphy is, and why BSD licensing is the best way to go.
Re:Please Tell Me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
BSD is best...no gpl is best.. no licence X is best..
get over it. They all have advantages and disadvantages.
BSD is a great licence and fosters innovation, but if the original work is not kept up, spin offs may be non-free and so it does not have a guaranteed lasting effect.
GLP has a guaranteed lasting freedom to it, but at the price that it has trouble combining with other licences.
Non-free stuff works when it's profitable, and the company that owns the code decides they want it proprietary to keep their advantage in the market.
Re:Please Tell Me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM may sell billions in Linux and they definitly contribute to Linux for (among other things) profit, but they also actively promote the community, and their practices.
The article Pamela quoted makes Sun out to be the same old corporate game of playing friendly until you have the upper hand, then locking in like they always have.
If Sun really wants to play with OSS in the long run, they have top start shutting up these inconsistent spouting mouthpieces.
Re:Please Tell Me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Section 2. Specifically section 2c, though the end user is only required to be explicitly informed of the GPL roots under certain circumstances.
I really can't fault Sun for not doing what is not required. Doing so would score brownie points with the community, and would therefore increase its goodwill asset, but Sun is not violating its obligations at this time regarding what PJ brought up.
It sound like Sun desperately wants to alienate the community in the future, though, when the exec talks about including closed Microsoft technology in Sun's distribution.
Re:Please Tell Me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh for god's sake. The GNU GPL doesn't prevent people from making a profit. Where in the "rules of capitalism" does it say that only proprietary software can result in profit? Do you think IBM would have anything to do with the GPL if there was no profit incentive.
For the record, I have nothing against the modified BSD licence and even advocate its application in certain instances, but to compare it to the GNU GPL and claim that it is somehow more sympathetic to capitalism because it permits proprietary derivatives is pure FUD.
Re:Please Tell Me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it does - it allows you to redistribute anything released under the GPL for nothing, or for as low a cost as you like. It doesn't matter how much money the original author wants to sell it for, someone else could buy it and redistribute it for nothing. The only way people really get around this is to use trademarks (you can't resell RedHat as Redhat - it's theirs) or include some proprietary value add with it.
Re:Please Tell Me.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if you can see the obvious conflict in these statements. (Hint: You're not making money using the GPL - you're making it in spite of the GPL by working around it).
Now say I make an application and release it under the GPL. I start to sell this application and also sell support. You come along and try to sell it for half the price. D
Re:Please Tell Me.. (Score:3, Interesting)
How in the world are you working around it? Some customers of MySQL are happen with the GPL and probably just buy support from MySQL. Others want to work out a different license deal with MySQL, so as a company, MySQL accomadates their customers. Do you think MS uses the same license deal for everyone of their customers? No. Partners
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Try again please.
GPL, Linux and commercial distros (Score:5, Informative)
GPL Acknowledgment. (Score:3, Insightful)
she argues is grossly cavalier with the GPL and doesn't properly acknowledge its roots.
The GPL doesn't say "Thou shalt display in bright big banners the license of this software". Yeesh. Why not look for real license violations instead of bitching about this?
Re:GPL Acknowledgment. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if Sun is violating the letter of the GPL, but it sounds like they might be violating the spirit.
Re:GPL Acknowledgment. (Score:5, Informative)
GPL [gnu.org]
The article c) as posted is actually under section 2.
a) and b) also skipped, but still required for actual compliance.Emphasis mine.
This, I think, is why bash and such can get away with not showing a license when run; they normally don't announce their readiness to receive commands, it's assumed and/or self-evident. IANAL and I am not part of the FSF.
I think the more damning portion is actually what comes right after 2c:
Emphasis again mine.
Re:GPL Acknowledgment. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:GPL Acknowledgment. (Score:4, Insightful)
The real thing, is that sun wants to license software like the realplayer, and technology from Microsoft. They want a world where they can charge $x per seat, and lock you in. They want RedHat and everone else to go away.
They want a Sun Java Deskop with licensed technolgy to be the standard. They want the "Linux Desktop" to be considered a toy without this stuff. They want to force the point that RealPlayer should be licensed, not included free. They want to be the "One Distro" that binds them all "with licensed" software.
what is wrong with people (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, why should they know, does it really matter, no. Sun can put it in there if they want. People companies are using linux for what it's worth. Why do some think that if someone is using linux they must spread the virtures of it and be a sales person for it. Also not having mention fo GNU, or GPL doesn't change what it is. In the end it's the software that matters. If you base how good something is on the if it's GPL or not your pretty much out of it.
Does Intel need to show in their end product what brand chairs the engineers at intel sit in? Does GM need to put stickers all over there cars saying what brand steel was used for the fenders?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you know, it's a blog. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, this shouldn't be newsworthy, but these days on Slashdot it would appear the editors consider anything that bashes Sun to be newsworthy. Even if it's a blog post.
Besides, it's interesting. This Java Desktop System is a huge deal. First off, Sun, one of the last few Big UNIX general vendors, is not only making movements toward Linux but actually selling Linux as a new product. This hints at a decent number of things about what the UNIX vs Linux battles of the next ten years are going to look like. Second off, this is an attempt to make a desktop distribution of Linux by a company with the funding and concentration to actually pull it off.. either of these two things makes JDS a crucially important development whether it succeeds or fails, but it's getting very little attention in either the "real world" or the open-source news. I think the whole JDS thing is underreported, honestly. This article might not be the best analysis of JDS out there, but it's something.
PJ does really seem to hate Sun though. I'm not sure why. I think it's probably because they gave a big donation to SCO's legal funds (pretty reasonable reason to hate them, actually).
Re:Well, you know, it's a blog. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I'm seeing lots of comments about the /. submission about what PJ wrote, and very little about what PJ actually said. If you have read Groklaw for a while, you'll know that she distrusts Sun because of some very anti-FOSS statements that spokespersons there have made in the last year. Since she is in favor of FOSS, this worries her. But since Sun makes lots of schizo statements back and forth on the subject, sometimes they sound friendly to FOSS. That makes /. readers think Sun is cool, not to mention they make neat hardware.
But if they are going to turn against FOSS, it's better to know sooner rather than later. That's what PJ is warning about, and answering /.-type critics who keep telling her to shut up about Sun. But she won't, and time may even prove her correct. We'll see. But it isn't about hatred, it's about warning people of a potential threat to FOSS. Since their recent deal with Microsoft, a lot more warning bells should be going off around here.
Why acknowledge? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why acknowledge? (Score:4, Insightful)
You gave it away for free. You're not entitled to money or acknowledgement of any kind.
Excellent point. I would also add that so much high-quality software is available for free it has the effect of devaluing the worth of what programmers do. It's something that a brilliant coder should consider first before giving away their hard work - you have to weigh the advantages with the disadvantages.
Re:Why acknowledge? (Score:3, Insightful)
No worries about that here, bro... this kid's gotta eat! And I've yet to find an open source MEAL... much less free beer.
Right... Proprietary... But so what? (Score:3, Interesting)
As much as I respect RMS this is one area I do disagree with him. This whole branding business started with his insistence on Linux being called GNU/Linux. Honestly, who the hell cares WHAT
Re:Why acknowledge? (Score:5, Interesting)
But I didn't give it away free... (Score:5, Insightful)
What people seem to keep missing about the GPL is that it isn't just "free" - that is a minor point of the GPL. The greater point is that it is "Free" - as in FREEDOM, for both the user and the creator to ensure that the work stays available for future generations, regardless of the hardware. Of great importance to this stance is the availability of GPL or GPL-compatible development toolsets, like gcc or perl. Sure, you can write and GPL VC++ source code - but what is the point when the compiler itself isn't Free? What happens when (not if, someday it will happen) Microsoft ceases to exist as a company? What happens if the assets (VC++, etc) are not transferred to a party who will continue to develop them? Where does that get you in regards to your GPL'd VC++ source code?
The fact is, you are hosed (or the future is hosed) - with the GPL and GPL'd tools, you can have solace in the fact that the source for all will survive.
This is the true point of the GPL...
Re:But I didn't give it away free... (Score:3)
What did you give away
Re:But I didn't give it away free... (Score:3, Funny)
I'd always wondered when/how they'd turn into Weyland-Yutani.
Reminds me of a BSD license (Score:5, Interesting)
I always finds comments like this interesting. One of the GPL complaints regarding the original BSD license was the "advertising clause." [gnu.org] A similar clause in GPL would prevent Sun from doing this.
The real issue seems to be - are people bound by the legal requirements of the GPL or by the moral requirements of giving due credit.
I'm just too old, now.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just too old for all of this misguided zealotry. Sun and Java are one of the (many) reasons Linux based systems are making such tremendous inroads into corporate-land.
And lest we all forget, winning corporates means winning mind-share. Winning mindshare means linux based systems become more of a de facto standad everywhere.
I quite understand why sun wish to leverage Java and Linux - it's a magic combination. I can't understand why the author of the article wishes to leverage this tired, old zealotry.
And? This is Sun as usual. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, that doesn't mean that they won't do good things for open source along the way - their commitment to the GNOME foundation, and open sourcing StarOffice are both major contributions. Both those contributions are offered, of course, in the interests of Sun. MS is never going to port Office to Solaris, and the huge development boost StarOffice has gained in open sourcing has been great for Sun. Likewise, CDE is, in this day and age, a steaming pile of shit. Something new was needed - and if you can get that by providing a little financial support and other assistance to a group of volunteers, well, you do it.
But in a sense this is how open source has to work. Closed source companies that have no interest in open source as a philosophy can still get big gains from contributing to open source - it allows them to develop large projects that they would struggle to fund as a purely internal project. Do you really think IBM, HP et al are providing all the Linux kernel code out of the goodness of their hearts and a belief in open source? Their providing it because it helps stretch the kernel into doing the things they need it to do for their interests. In the meantime, they get all the other kernel developments everyone else supplies for free, and can focus on their own issues.
So, back to the topic - Sun isn't providing a lot of information about what really runs the JDS. Well, they're trying to make it a "Sun" product rather than another Linux flavour. Realistically I don't see it will make much difference in the long run. If the JDS is successful people will learn about what it is pieced together from one way or another.
PJ does have a point though - a little more explicit recognition that this is Linux Powered GPL software probably wouldn't go astray. I suspect you'll find that convincing Sun of that is a very hard task indeed.
Jedidiah.
This is rich. (Score:5, Funny)
"Just remember, ....RealPlayer's not open-source, but its availability certainly enhances the value of our Java Desktop System."
Um... yeah. In the same way installing Gator enhances the value of a Windows system.
How about sucking it up? (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, just like he did with XEmacs and everything else that uses his software in accordance to his license, I'm sure RMS will start calling it "GNU/Java Desktop" whenever he can.
If this woman wants to see some touchy-feely good akcnowledgements from a corporation she (and everyone else) is in for a big disappointment.
This is where the rubber meets the road, and you can't have it both ways. As long as your license is not being violated, suck it up or stop releasing software under it. It's that simple.
are the GPL terms being met? (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL is about Free software and the "software freedoms" defined by the FSF. It is remarkably well-defined, even more well-defined than some closed-source EULAs. It doesn't say anything about advocacy or trademarks (yes, believe it or not, it doesn't say "GNU/Linux" ANYWHERE).
It doesn't say "in order to use this software you must share RMS' political beliefs" or "you must love and cherish Free software" or "you must go above and beyond the terms of the license even if it doesn't make any business sense" or "no profits allowed". It doesn't specify what point type the words "contains Free software" should be printed in, in fact it doesn't have any such requirement at all. Yes, I'm sure RMS would love it if you did all that, but he is wise enough not to put that in the legal text.
One of the great things about the GPL is that it doesn't require any of this stuff. You can ignore it UNLESS you are distributing copies. And once distributing copies, you have some pretty clear rules to follow. You can love the GPL without being a Free software fanatic.
I think it's a great world where you can buy software in a box with commercial support, yet still enjoy the basic rights of viewing the source and making copies for all your machines or friends. It seems to me that in such a world, companies wouldn't go out of their way to advertise the GNU/Linuxy-ness of it, would they?
Just follow the terms of the GPL. Beyond that, do whatever is in your own best interests.
For what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would an employee care that they are using open source software?
Do you know the roots of your car? Who founded the company? If the answer is yes, you like cars and that's why you know it...same reason why you would know about the GPL. If the answer is no, then I make my point.
SUN: Target of Opportunity (Score:3, Interesting)
At one point in time, I believed that SUN was going to take over the server market and squeeze Microsoft out. Don't laugh, it was the
Somewhere along the line, Linux seems to have blindsided both of them. Now SUN wants to market a Linux because their customers ask for it. At the same time, they still have their Solaris. They do hardware, too! They also do an office suite replacement, and they're holding on to that same Java (probably their saving grace).
We were wondering what they were doing -- and how they're spreading themselves thin instead of trying to define who they are by focusing on something and doing it well.
Then they struck that deal with Microsoft and we're left wondering how this whole Linux thing will pan out. Time will tell, but I'm not expecting them to suddenly be all flowery happy about embracing Open Source.
Devils Advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
But let me play devil's advocate.
I know a lot about computers, but over the years I have learned TONS by watching my parrents, neighbors, and sister (all MAJOR computer n00bs) interact with the things.
"I don't care if I can see the source, how can I get to Google?" That's the kind of thing that I'd hear from my parents (especially my dad). Bombarding people with information about how it's all free and it's LINUX and you can do all sorts of stuff like giving parts away that you can't with MS software and it's LINUX and blah blah blah and it's LINUX will get you nowhere. You'll just annoy the hell out of "Aunt Tillie" (to borrow a person). They want it to WORK. They don't want to be told it runs Linux constantly. They don't want to know the source is available. They could care less they could copy the bianary for the Gimp off their PC and give it to a friend because it's F/OSS.
Now, I can understand having the computer tell the user it's Linux. Maybe once (at install, or the first time a user uses their account) is fine. If the user is a power user, they will find that fact out and all the things they can do with it fast through looking on the internet, digging through help files, and poking around the file system. Letting them know that it's Linux when they go off the beaten path is fine. Let them know they have rights and such if you wish.
But please, DON'T BEAT THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT. I can tell you from expiriance the the VAST majority of users won't care. They just want their computer to work. They don't need to know all that stuff. Aunt Tillie doesn't want to know, my parents don't want to know. My neighbors don't want to know, and my little sister could care less (for now, she's getting better). The other side of the Linux desktop that we'll see soon (and are seeing now) is Corporate Linux Desktops.
And you know what? As a boss (assuming I'm one, I'm not), I could CARE LESS if my employees know they're running Linux. I don't care if they know it's all GPL. I want them to DO THEIR JOBS. If they ask "Can I take a copy of this home with me?" of the IT department, THEY can tell the user that stuff (and those questions do get asked in schools and businesses). The IT department will know it's Linux and all the benefits it holds.
In short: The techies will know, don't worry about them. The Aunt Tillies won't care, don't worry about them. The people in the middle should know, but just a notice here or there; don't assult them. For what I understand Sun to be aiming at (Corp. desktops and maybe low cost computers for the Aunt Tillies of the world) I think they're doing fine.
Re:Devils Advocate (Score:3, Insightful)
Xfree86 (Score:5, Insightful)
-Xfree86 is evil because they have a license that forces distributors to acknowledge their work.
-Java Desktop is evil because they don't acknowledge the work they use.
*confused*
Re:Xfree86 (Score:4, Insightful)
-XFree86 is distributed under a license that makes it impossible to re-distribute under the GPL.
-Java desktop may be violating the spirit if not the wording of the GPL.
There, it's quite consistent -- the issue is that the GPL is the favorite license of /.-ers and /.-ers don't like people who violate the GPL.
But does it work ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes yes, I understand all about open source, fairness, and other GNU/Linuxy terms; and I understand that, in theory, I should immediately throw off my chains and start coding stuff gratis, because information wants to be free. However, in reality, Windows' proprietary desktop is still better than whatever Linux currently has to offer -- to speak nothing of OS X. So, I have a choice: become a martyr, and torture myself with GNU/Linux each day, in the name of the OSS ideology; or, forget the slogans and use the best tool for the job. My name is not "Ghandi", so I choose the second option.
I think a major reason why Linux is suffering on the desktop right now is that most OSS hackers expect people to choose the first option. Well, that's not going to happen. Most people are like me: selfish bastards who just want to get some work done, or play some game, or whatever. You can't win them over with just slogans.
Clue-By-Four for previous posters (Score:3, Insightful)
I sense a lot of bitter BSD developers thinking they've caught a Linux advocate in an instance of blatant hypocracy. HA-HA! We had that advertising clause, but you pushy GPL people kept nagging us over that clause until we finally gave in, but now you're bitching about the same thing!!!
THWACK!!!From the GPL, Section 1
Notice that the GPL requires you to display the license agreement, not the names of the developers. The GPL requires that you notify the users and developers who obtain a copy of this code that they have certain freedoms and certain obligations. If Sun is hiding the GPL they may be in violation of Section 1.
For those who are saying that anyone who licenses their work under the GPL and "gives it away" deserves to have their work distributed absent the appropriate copyright notice, grow up. The work is not "given away", it is licensed; placing a work in the public domain is "giving it away" since the author(s) retain no control whatsoever over the work. A rudimentary understanding of copyright law would clue you in. PJ may be a bit zealous in her attack on Sun, but in all likelihood she knows the GPL and copyright law a hell of a lot better than you (or I) do.
PJ's complaint: not about advertising, but about licensing. For those who still can't understand the difference, there are places where you can get help [m-w.com].
-jdm
Clue-By-Four for BSD Zealots (Score:3, Informative)
And where do we have a statemtent that they do not? /. and elsewhere).
PJ claims there's nothing on the cover (I haven't seen it) and then dismisses the EULA (mentioning the GPL in the EULA would be irrelevant, as has been previously overdiscussed on
Every package states its license terms. I'm running JDS at the moment (sorry, /. don't seem to want me to use the PRE tag), and a
Re:Clue-By-Four for previous posters (Score:3, Interesting)
My question is what remedies can be made realistically to enforce this? I assume you can revoke the license but what about compensatory damages? What is the real incentive to adhere to the terms if a company such as Sun has no fear that substantive repurcussions will result?
The GPL is a license to distribute and modify said software. If Sun violates the GPL, it has the same choices as every other group that has violated the GPL:
Sun and GNU/Linux (Score:5, Informative)
A while back I interviewed some people at Sun for content related to reviews on JDS and Solaris 9 x86. During one conversation I made the mistake of referring to JDS as a "Linux distribution" and I was quickly corrected:
"Java Desktop System is not a Linux distribution, it is an Operating Environment."
I asked what the difference was, and the response was something I didn't quite understand -- a lot of talk about desktop philosophy and how Sun didn't really want people to think of JDS as having anything to do with the GNU project or Linux in general.
I have here a folder for JDS version 1. It was based on SuSE 8.1 and it didn't work on any of my modern test machines so I only used it once and decided not to review it because it didn't work all that well and I don't like doing negative bash-fest reviews. Nowhere on the folder or at any point during the installation or in the operating environment itself do you ever see the word "Linux."
And the license agreement governing the whole product is much like the one for Solaris except for the parts that are already under other licenses. No, JDS is not even close to being Free Software, but then again Red Hat EL is along the same lines. I don't see anyone making a bad guy out of them.
-JemGeez, is anyone ever satisfied? (Score:3, Insightful)
some big examples being Java and Open Office.
Sun is also now among the largest Linux success stories,
selling a million new Linux installations to China,
and even more amazingly to consumers at Wal-Mart.
Does it matter if the CD says "GNU" or "Linux inside"
to the Chinese, or Wal-Martese, or end user?
Likely not. As long as Sun honors the GPL--
and Sun does seem to be honoring the GPL--
then how about looking at the positive side?
More Linux installations will lead to better
succes for all of us. I want to see easy installs,
good video drivers, plug-and-play printers, and more.
Sun's success will help us get this, so cheers to them.
Shame on Sun (Score:5, Insightful)
That does it!
I'm going to take a break from writing Java software using Sun's JDK, and boot up OpenOffice, and I'm going to write a letter to Sun, saying they never contribute anything! I'm going to save the document via NFS to my department file server, and get everyone to send their own copy of it to Sun! I'm so mad, I have half a mind to shutdown my x86 machine that runs Solaris!
Those greedy bastards! They never give anything to the community! WE DESERVE FREE HAND-OUTS!
Re:Shame on Sun (Score:3, Insightful)
And before you mods beat me with the troll stick, try to keep in mind my post (above) was sarcasm.
Sun contributes a lot to the community, and continues to do so.
To the fine folks as Sun: Thanks for your contributions! Some of us appreciate it!
Excuse my bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, if it were a post on Slashdot, I'd moderate it redundant, if it weren't at -1 redundant already.
From what I've read at the Sun site, you get something based on SuSe with a hacked up Gnome front end and Java tied into as many things they could think of. Nothing reveloutionary... seems mainly to be an attempt to get StarOffice in front of people who might not otherwise even know it exists.... in fact, isn't this part of the walmart deal? So I guess that would explain it. Sun Java Desktop is for the walmart shopper and not the Linux/OSS initiate.
So in that light, it makes perfect sense to try to put the wizard behind the curtain and let the user deal with the smoke and mirrors, The average Walmart user will generally be too clueless to know what it really is other than that it's not windows.
When looked at in that perspective, it actually makes sense to hide the underpinnings as much as possible, lest the curious and ignorant do something catastrophic since the more advanced users would be able to figure it out anyway.
Personally, if you want a unix-like system with a great desktop UI and productivity/development software, go with Apple if you can afford it. Linux on the desktop is still a few years off, AFAIAC.
Sun, oh Sun, what has happened to you? (Score:5, Insightful)
And now the Sun "Java" Desktop, which presumably comes with Java built in, but does that mean you can double-click on a .jar file and your app starts up? No. You have to write a shell script, or add an icon with a command like "java -classpath foo.jar ..." to get it to work.
Sun, what are you thinking?
Maybe expecting Sun to move from the world of big servers, where expecting users to write a shell script is perfectly acceptable, to the world of desktops, where users should be able to do everything just by clicking in an obvious place and without having to understand the difference between an ELF file and a JAR, is too much to ask.
An authentic Java desktop would be, in my opinion, one in which all the work gets done in Java. That means a Java office suite, a Java window manager, a Java file explorer. This is completely doable, and Java is a fantastic environment for doing those things (I know, you will flame me saying Java sucks, Java is slow, etc, sorry, that isn't true anymore). I would love to see such a desktop environment, and it would have fantastic security and portability advantages. A real Java-based OS is the only thing that has a real chance of competing with Linux, I believe (ok, I will get majorly flamed for that, but it's true).
I think that if Sun is serious about this, the way forward is:
Ok, that's enough ranting, sure to stir up many heated flames about how much Java sucks, and Scott hasn't called me anytime recently to ask for business advice, so I'll leave off here.
-------Create a WAP server [chiralsoftware.net]
author and sun misguided (Score:4, Funny)
I've observed that everytime there is a pain in the ass app( or a lacking app ) and an easy/fun one people will dump the pain in the ass app everytime.......even open source fans.
The good news is that SUN wouldn't know user friendly if it bit them on the ass.
Another company might highjack the open source thing by flooding the community with easier, better apps.......maybe......but it will not be SUN.
I say this as someone who has programmed in Java for the last 5 years and who has seen the level of front end quality SUN is in the habit of giving to people.
No offense to anyone.......that company just does not understand "easy" or "friendly".
Steve
roots.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the way Linux doesn't acknowledge that it has primarily lifted the rc*.d startup methodology from Sun? Or the fact that before Linux came about, the vast majority of the Free Software Foundation's software (and lots of other free/OS Software) was primarily developed on SunOS and Solaris?
Come back when you have a real complaint.
Last I checked... (Score:4, Insightful)
At best, sunw's approach to Linux is scitzophrenic (Score:3)
Linux is a threat to sunw's bread-and-butter business. I absolutely do not trust sunw's commitment to linux.
Oh no! Not enough hand-holding!!! (Score:4, Funny)
So Fucking What?
Where in the beloved GPL does it say, "any use or inclusion of GNU software in any bundle must be accompanied by a thee piece band and six minutes of CGI fireworks on the end user's screen."
I had a lot more respect for the people behind groklaw before this. However, this rant is worthy of Stallman, or even (shudder) Eric Raymond.
What's her point? Sounds like a bunch of whining to me.
C'mon PJ (Score:5, Interesting)
RealPlayer is closed-source, and available with JDS. Don't like it? Don't get it.
Ditto for StarOffice. You've got the Sun-sponsored OpenOffice.org (mainly staffed by Sun developers).
Where is anybody denying the GPL? The GPL expressly allows such an approach, indeed seems, if anything, quite in favour of it. Will you be bashing RMS next for selling tapes of Emacs?
He didn't say "don't add", he said "don't *just* add" - GNOME's internationalisation would be half what it currently is without Sun developers adding their contribution, let alone accessability, which seems to be driven almost entirely by people with @sun.com addresses.
He's stating Sun's view, not claiming that it's MS's view. Where does he say that MS view it that way? He's saying that, whether MS like it or not, Sun's agreement with MS can benefit JDS (seems pretty obvious, and fully in line with the letter and meaning of the GPL).
If you look at the relationship between Sun and MS, it's pretty clear how Sun view the Evil Empire. I don't think they've suddenly bought a pair of rose-tinted glasses.
If that was from RMS, it would be interpreted in the exactly oppsite way that JP interprets it. Granted, "either choice is a safe choice" is quite clearly untrue. Don't know what he'd just smoked at that point.
And isn't that what we really get from F/OSS? Would we all hate MS as much if .DOC was an open standard with closed source? .HTML is an open standard, so we can have Mozilla, Opera, even IE (when it chooses to implement standards).
Yes, there's a significant difference when it comes to certain points - I can incorporate your code into my own "larger" code, but in reality, open standards pretty much allow that already.
One major point of Free/Open Source software is that Sun can take Mozilla, GNOME, improve them, and feed them back to the community (who don't necessarily want *every* change Sun chose to make, but are desperate for the internationalisation and accessibility that Sun need to add to sell it to the standards their customers expect). The GPL means they can do it, and means they have to feed it back.
Are we getting offtopic here? Why do I need to remind PJ what the GPL says? Methinks PJ's got some FUD in her mind.
"'The . in .com' wants to destroy the internet". That's a fine quote. Where did you find it in the previous statements?
The only statement in this paragraph anyone with any knowledge
Compare Sun with Ximian (Score:4, Insightful)
Sun: 35000 employees
Ximian: 70 employees
Sun: has done a couple of usability studies, and contributed StarOffice (then a lousy office suite) four years ago.
Ximian: mono, evolution, GNOME bounties, IRC discussions, Project Utopia, and countless patches to and bug reports to any and every GNOME project.
Same kind of situation applies to Red Hat, which Sun actually has the gall to insult.
Face it: Sun was a thorn in Microsoft's backside so it was kind of seen as a good guy. But now I see no reason for any self-respecting developer to like Sun. At least Microsoft has the honesty to declare a straightforward stance with respect to open-source software. Sun tries to treat the open-source community as some unsuspecting supplier of free goods.
If only Sun were more like Ximian....
Re:Compare Sun with Ximian (Score:4, Insightful)
Sun Java Desktop Shuns it's roots! (Score:3, Interesting)
As the live cd boots, for a brief, and I do mean brief less than 1 second flash on an almost non-existant command prompt as the graphical environment takes over the words GNU/Linux flash on the screen if you look for it closely. Took me three boots to even notice it! Next there is a draconian EULA that appears to have been written, if I didn't know better, with great help from Microsoft as restrictive as it is. It even explicitly forbids copying the eval live cd to share with others. This is the first Linux live distro I have EVER seen with such a restriction. Perhaps the ability to write such draconian EULAs was a portion of the "technologies" that Sun is cross licensing from Micro$oft?
In the EULA there is absolutely NO mention of the GPL in any way shape or form other than a pointer to a directory in which you can find some "various other licenses" that may apply to certain portions of the software provided on the CD. It takes some real searching to find a copy of the GPL on that disk. I am sure that Sun's (M$'s?) lawyers have made sure that they complied to the strict letter of compliance with the GPL but they have not even come close to compliance with the spirit!
I am thoroughly disgusted with the lengths to which Sun has gone to obliterate and hide the true roots of their "Java Desktop System".
Sun Java Desktop roadshow ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Their sales guy are in a real channel conflict, they can't chat on their new JDS without at least saying once solaris ! They see JDS as a short term answer, before having their customer "upgrading" their JDS on Linux to a JDS on solaris. That's the strategy ! That's why they do not market the words GNU, Linux or GPL.
The other issue is the Java brand ! The slide show (staroffice on jds hopefully !) represents layers of software. from bottom to top, you have
hardware : either sparc, intel, or amd
os : either solaris or linux
a full length layer : java
a full length layer : gnome
But in the show room, nearly everybody knew that the demo of JDS has nearly nothing to do with Java ! just a little demo of their java player ( which is ugly ). Once again they "über market" the java brand ! Java has nearly disappeared from the internet as an applet technology ! Even if java has a hudge market share in the enterprise, I know several case, where the IT department face big problems, due to unmanaged deploiement of complex J2EE applications (usines à gaz in french) (I'm not flaming java here, the problem is "unmanaged" not java) . So the Java brand is not that good, and the good reference with respect to the Java brand are shifting from Sun to IBM. For instance, nearly every business developing stuff in Java are now using eclipse. The sales guy of Sun are still marketing NetBeans, I had to give him the reference of Eclipse.
Finally, my experience with respect to this roadshow and the chat with sales rep, is that they are frightened. JDS is a kind of cloud of smoke that tries to hide businesses migrating their oracle on solaris to oracle on a redhat cluster.
Re:And that's bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And that's bad? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah? But how about them AMIGA zealots? :-)
We ain't that bad now are we?
Real Risk (to be the next SCO) (Score:4, Interesting)
So if Sun ever does "go SCO", they will have something to take to court.
Re:Why does anyone even really care? (Score:4, Interesting)
Scenario #1.
CTO: "Linux! I keep hearing about Linux, and how cheap it is. Our competitors across the street are claiming a 200% performance-per-dollar increase over these Unix workstations. Get me some of that!"
IT: "OK, it's looking really good and our vendors are supporting it. What distro do you want?"
CTO: "Huh? What do the vendors support?"
IT: "Well, most of 'em support some version of RedHat, but most of those versions aren't supported by RedHat anymore. This app. vendor promotes SuSE, but this other one uses the Debian packaging system."
CTO: "I...see. OK, what about stepping back and just replacing some of the desktop PCs for the basic users? Email, wordprocessing, and web browsing. Can we do that?"
IT: "Sure. KOffice or OpenOffice? For a browser, we can chose Mozilla's stable or current versions, or Firefox which is really mozilla; or we can go with Opera. Email will depend on if we need to plug into our Exchange servers."
CTO: "Well, this is starting to sound iffy. How long will it take before we can test it to see if it works?"
IT:" We should be able to get a proper pilot test within two months, if things go well. Five if they don't."
CTO: "Fuck that! We're staying AWAY from Linux, and next year we'll buy our poor competitors for $0.10 on the dollar!"
Now, Scenario #2. Sun's answer.
CTO: "Linux! I keep hearing about Linux, and how cheap it is. Our competitors across the street are claiming a 200% performance-per-dollar increase over these Unix workstations that YOU sold me! I'm gonna get me some of that, unless you can talk really fast."
Sun: "Not at all. We can replace your base desktop users (email, office suite, web browsing) with preconfigured Intel/AMD systems. All testing, development, patching, and integration is done by us. We'll provide a pilot by next Tuesday, provide phone support at no cost, and meet with you at the end of it. If you like the pilot, the software bundle including tested, packaged updates will run $100 per desk, less in quantity. We guarantee it will run with your Exchange servers without modification. Hardware contract will be wholescale replacement on a 48 hour turnaround basis."
CTO: "THIS is worth my money! Where do I sign?"