Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

ESR Interviewed in Tweak3d 176

Posted by Hemos from the more-coverage dept.
Spud wrote to us with an interview with ESR. Fairly standard material - why Linux is better, and why the Open Source idea works. It's good to see ESR back in the swing of things again, tho'.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ESR Interviewed in Tweak3d More

ESR Interviewed in Tweak3d

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Since we're off topic anyway... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Raymond's statement refers to the policy of the Third Reich to disarm the civilian population. Whether an armed population would have prevented the entire holocaust is unknowable, but it seems reasonable that an armed population would have at least made it more difficult.

    Further aside, though slightly relevant, is the role that arms played in the recent Kosovo conflagaration. I don't watch television ("shoot your tv") but from what I here at the office, it is rare for the popular press to mention that the arming of the KLA over the last ~2 years was the straw the broke the camels back. It is really an interesting story (truth stranger than fiction and all that), so here it goes. You can draw your own conclusions.

    It seems that the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) was sort of the militant wing of the groups that wanted independence for Kosovo. Similar to the IRA/Shen Fein(sp?) in North Ireland. But, for the most part, the KLA was not armed enough to do much, so the political wing which was working on a slow, peacable and exorable move towards independence tended to dominate the situation.

    This all stopped when a pyramid scheme toppled Albania (yes, really, go look up Albania and pyramid on the cnn webserver for some of the details). The Kosovo area is land-locked with little access to foreign trade (i.e. imported weapons), Albania borders the sea. When Albania collapsed, for a while arms became both the only real currency and really cheap. The KLA suddenly had access to a lot of guns from Albania, and they made the most of it.

    Pretty soon, the KLA was raising enough hell in Kosovo that the situation escalated to the point of lots of dirty fighting on both sides. With people getting killed, and a lot of them being Kosovar civilians, the US (aka Albright) felt compelled to do something and the rest is history.

    But, if it were not for those guns coming in through Albania, the situation would probably have never reached the boiling point and there would have been no bombing campaign. Depending on your view of the whole mess, this is either a strong argument for "the right to bear arms" to fight tyranny, or a strong argument against because the KLA didn't have enough strength to succeed, just enough to get Milosevic riled up enough to start really being vicious.

  • Re:More appropriate answer... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Americans equate freedom with guns far too much.

    Guns can't keep you free, only intelligence can.

    The government has done and will do a thousand things to impede on your personal liberty, but you will not see them without intelligence. You will go on thinking that you live in the freest country in the world because you can own a gun. It's simply not true. The dual pressures of social and political conformity in the US are greater than in many places in the world. Yes, you are free - free to be like everyone else.

    If the US government decided to deprive you of guns or any other liberty do you think that a shotgun would help? Answer me this - when has any uprising in US history against the government for any reason succeeded because of armed strength? Never once since the Whiskey Rebellion.

    Wake up. Guns can't keep you free. Only intelligence can. Guns can only give you a false illusion of freedom.
  • It's still a tough sell though. "You can play pod racer and all your favorite games and reboot occasionally" vs. "You never have to reboot but you can only play Quake and Civ:CTP" isn't very favorable towards Linux.
  • An armed German populace would've made very little difference, as the majority of Germans supported the state anyway.
  • I can understand why Jefferson and many others were in favor of a populace whose weaponry could overcome the military if needed, but that doesn't seem to be practical any longer. In those days, that could be achieved by giving everybody rifles, and giving a few people cannons. If somebody misused their weapons, they could kill a few people.

    To overcome to the U.S. government, the firepower you'd need would be extremely dangerous. What happens when one of your nuclear-armed citizens goes crazy and decides to blow up Washington?
  • When you show me a free GPL game that can compete with Starcraft or Master of Orion 2, then we'll talk.
  • I never said that it was no longer necessary. I just said that it was no longer practical.

    I personally would like it to be possible for the citizenry to overcome the military if necessary. However, I also don't want to be killed by rogue members of that citizenry who decide to bomb my house with their F-16s.
  • But what happens when your neighbor (who is somewhat mentally unstable) decides to detonate his nuclear weapons for the hell of it, taking you along with him? All your defense against a tyrannical state is sort of pointless, since you're dead.
  • Of course, that didn't stop Congress from authorizing a standing army anyway...*grumble*
  • Posted by d106ene5:

    Eric has done tremendous things for free and open software. What have you done?

    I've refrained from making moronic statements about the holocaust.

    Eric's statement wasn't a "political view" - it was the naive, absurd notion that somehow pistol weilding jews could have confronted the German Army.
  • Posted by wMaVerick:

    Psycologists are Geek Geek's ;-)
  • Posted by wMaVerick:

    Erm, excuse my ignorance, but what's a jiffy clock? Not a 'use by date' for condoms I take it? ;-)
  • Posted by d106ene5:

    Before you go believing all the tripe Time magazine manufactures for your consumption, consider that before this little conflaguration started, The KLA were considered serious nasties by the US Govt. Its a classic case of terrrorists being recast as freedom fighters once the US decides which side it is on.
  • Australian gun laws were tightened dramatically after that. One local pundit observed that perhaps the massacre wouldn't have happened, if everyone had been armed - Martin Bryant would have been shot dead.

    Actually, I think the more accurate argument would be that he would never had attempted his crime, for fear of being shot.

    --
    Get your fresh, hot kernels right here [kernel.org]!

  • I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. Why do you think Linux became popular? There could be a number of reasons, but considering it started as Linus' personal project, one could very easily believe that it was in fact the GPL that propelled the Linux project into wide acceptance in the first place. BSD projects have certainly been around about as long (remember 386BSD? I tried to install it once around 1993, I think).

    While the BSD crowd certainly has their beliefs about code sharing, consider that many programmers, if they choose to contribute to an Open Source project, want to ensure that their code remains open, and is never used (at least not legally) in proprietary software. In other words, "Feel free to use my code, as long as you let others use yours. If you don't want to share, then don't use my code." The GPL ensures this. BSD-ish licenses, whatever their other strengths, do not. Hence the popularity of GPLd projects like Linux.

    --
    Get your fresh, hot kernels right here [kernel.org]!

  • What companies have made significant enhancements to GPL code? Any of them sell proprietary code?

    What I hate about the GPL is that it plays on an emotion as bad as greed; the fear that someone *else* might make money off of one's code. What makes this particularly inane is that people are making money with the aid of one's code (Red Hat, VA Linux, any commercial website using Apache) anyway, it's just other programmers you are keeping from earning a living.
  • whats a better license than the GPL that *ensures* that the code will always remain free? If you let people start changing the license, there is the possibility that the code will eventually end up legally in a proprietary program.
  • Code licensed under BSD style licenses make up an important part of every GNU/Linux distribution. However, only the GPL was designed to guarantee freedom for the users. The BSD license allows companies to horde the source code and release proprietary software using that code.

    I do not think that the BSD license can compete when the big companies start getting involved in free software. The GPL makes sure everyone stays on an even playing field. Look, Solaris has been based upon BSD, as had BSDi. To my knowledge these companies have not made significant contributions to the BSD community. They have based their operating systems around proprietary improvments to the BSD codebase. Is that what you want to happen to Linux?

    FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD aren't growing as quickly as Linux, at least to my knowledge. I think a very large part of the reason Linux is popular today is because developers *like* the GPL, and users *like* the GPL.

    Kirk

  • free software vs open source (Score:3)

    by kfort ( 1132 ) on Saturday June 12, 1999 @06:34PM (#1852804)
    ESR's attitude worries me somewhat. He seems to say that stability is the only thing linux has going for it. What happens if Windows starts to become more stable? Then there is no reason to use Linux.

    The real reason to use Linux is the GPL. It gives users freedoms that just aren't obtainable in the Windows world. I really wish that ESR would talk about these important freedoms and get people excited instead of just saying "it doesn't crash".

    I suppose this attitude is one of the differences between Open Source and Free software.

    Kirk
  • They were K-12 mail servers at a clients. They had a couple that had been running for over a year. They did just fine until a logfile filled a disk . . .
  • >whats a better license than the GPL that >*ensures* that the code will always remain free?

    Raptor: "You can use this code for anything you damned well feel like, so long as the source code for any modifications that you make are made available at no additional cost when you distribute and such source is covered by this license."

    Keeps the source free, keeps it under the same license, and is willing to play with any other from any license without attempting to assimulate it.


  • then (Score:2)

    by hawk ( 1151 )
    Watch out your window for four horseman, check that the moon hasn't turned to blood, and keep an eye out for other similar Signs. . .

    :)
  • >people are led astray to believe that Linux is the only free and powerful os in existence That's why it's popular.

    Wrong. Linux is popular be cause people care about in ways they've never cared about the BSD's. People who are Linux users are more than willing to take on the Windows-focused trade rags that laughingly say they are focused on "General Interest Computer Issues" and the editors and so-called "tech writers" which make up their staffs, along with the Mindcraft's of the computer industry. How many of the BSD'ers are willing to do the same thing? If past history any indication, not that damn many. In other words the BSD crowd for the most part seems to like to talk the talk, but aren't really willing to walk the walk.
  • First: all current distributions are (on the average) much more unstable than the last generation was. (Reason see below)

    Second: you can't blame Redhat (nor anyone else).

    Reason: All three major core components are in some sort of Beta state right now:

    • the kernel
      2.0 is at patchlevel 36 now and considered stable, 2.2. is at number 9 and much more complex - so it seems it's going to take (a lot?) longer to mature then 2.0 did)
    • the libc
      glibc2.0 was never meant to be used in a distribution (read the glibc mailing list archives). Redhat went ahead and used it anyway, forcing the other distributors to do the same. Same situation with glibc2.1 now. Well, I don't want to blame them, sure there are reasons. There's some interesting new technology there.
    • the compiler
      a new compiler generation is replacing godd ol' 2.7.2.3....

    These changes have two sides: we have a stability problem now (compared to the older distros). On the other hand , using the new stuff NOW leads to faster change, besides, some features of the new stuff are needed. SMP with 2.0 can hardly make anyone switch to Linux (just had a call from a _big_ potential Linux customer who started evaluating Linux, but only after trying 2.2 I could convince them that Linux' performance is good enough for them). So, to summarize, yes, there is a stability problem right now, but personally I don't see how else it could have been done. The new features are _needed_, and others (e.g. logical volume management, e2fsck time down, and lots of stuff I'll remember immediately after submitting this text ;-)) we don't have yet as well. All this stuff takes time we don't have. Maturity (and with it comes stability) takes lots of time and it's only possible when few things change, which is not the case right now. It's a difficult situation.
    --
    Michael Hasenstein
    http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/ [tu-chemnitz.de]

  • Re:Agreed (Score:1)

    by mha ( 1305 )
    That's what I said. I don't see how the much more aggressiv way you both did it can be of any help. Yes, sometimes (more and more often) I get very tired of all this Linux stuff, especially since there are excellent systems out there that already have all the features needed for big(ger) systems and are also a lot more stable than Linux (ok, partly(mostly?) because they run on well-defined, proprietary hardware, not on PCs).
    --
    Michael Hasenstein
    http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/ [tu-chemnitz.de]
  • You made a well reasoned Pro gun control statement so I feel I need
    to explain a few things which aren't apparent to many people.

    Jamaica has some of the strictest Gun control Laws on the planet.
    Here it is a felony to have an unlicensed firearm. If you are found
    with one you can get as much as 10 years in Prison for it. The
    qualifications for getting a lisense are strict. The process is long and
    there is provision for subjective rejection.

    Note : Using it is a separate crime.

    Jamaica has a population of 2.7 Million and a 6,000 member police
    force. Our army ( only slightly smaller than the police force ) needs
    to provide additional manpower nonetheless.

    We had 800+ Murders last year. and 760 The year before. Around 1/2
    with Guns. ( A typical ratio )

    How could this happen ?

    Last year someone offered me a .38 Matic. A few months latter someone
    else asked me to keep a Tech 9 for him. In both cases I refused for
    the simple reason that I don't want to be a criminal.

    A simple rule of thumb is that when guns are illegal only criminals
    will have them. It is impossible to close all the points at which a
    10 lb mechanical device that can be dismantled into an unrecognizable
    pile of scrap can enter. Never mind that a bright High School kid can
    build one and any crack gang can manufacture bullets.

    Another point to note is that the afluent comunities here have very
    few burgleries ( almost none ). If you ask a burgler ( I did ) he
    will tell you that "Dem man de a shata. Some a dem have biga gun dan
    mi". Also "Dog a nuh not'n fi deal wid and alarm only ketch you when
    yu nuh look out fi it".

    Transelations. shata == person with gun.
    The rest is just of kilter spelling to reflect the
    way things are pronounced.
    --
    "THINK" -: former IBM motto.
  • It's a strange kind of math but 10 desperate people fighting for survival can hold off a battalion that just hates them or was ordered to find and kill them ( assuming they are equally armed ). Denying the Jews the right to bear arms was a part of the oppression. It just wasn't noticed until too late.

    For the record the Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust. The Nazis were also careful to slaughter every Black person, Gipsy or person with a disability they could find. Even gays were targeted.

    Unfortunately Jewish Germans outnumbered all these other groups combined.
    --
    "THINK" -: former IBM motto.

  • How come we don't see equal number of gun murders in Canada and Britain then?

    Maybe the people in Jamaica...well, I won't go there.

    You won't so I will.

    People in Jamaica can get away with murder. The number I called typical is the ratio of gun murders to other kinds of murder.

    In places with armed citizens you think before you shoot. In Jamaica you get 4X the crime of New York City. ( Adjusted for population )

    -- "THINK" -: former IBM motto.

  • On a side note, he has released fetchmail 5.0.4, my personal favorite pop3 mail utility.
  • Why is it, that Linux users are always referred to as geeks ? I'm sick and tired of being referred to as a geek, by people who I consider more excentric than myself.

    It seems that someone who writes code, or likes LaTeX, or has the ability to start a piece of software that doesn't have an icon on the desktop for it, are simply ``geeks''.

    Anyone who's interested in anything, and I guess that sort of covers most people, knows something about that thing, that other's maybe don't. If a geek is someone who simply knows something about something which the observer doesn't, then most people are by definition ``geeks''. I wish the non-{Linux,UN*X} users would accept that fact, and stop referring to us as geeks.

    It's damaging for the image of Linux, that people refer to it's user base as geeks, in a way that implies that most other people aren't geeks. They are, and so what. Get over that geek hump. Accept that Linux users knows something about something that non-Linux users don't, but don't imply that Linux is reserved for Linux-geeks only.

    It's sick the way that people tend to put other people in categories, like geeks vs. non-geeks. Show me a non-geek and I'll show you someone who's lying about their interests.
  • How does one get NT not to crash? I tried NT4.0 many moons back and it was a crashing and reinstalling nightmare. I still use it at work and it has a MTBC of 24 hours.

    It must take a support team with top talent to get NT stable. I sure am not that good. I'm only smart enough to keep Linux running.
  • My worthless view is most (business) users don't
    know and, don't care how the box works. Just get
    my work done for me! I'm an electronics/laser
    technician. I'll 'do' my own brake jobs. They
    can have my GNU/LinuX when, they can pry it from
    my cold dead hands! Hell, I like hockey and football! But call me a geek, who cares, call me
    anything but late for supper!
    And Re: the article, I think gaming will help. If you get young people into 'it' they won't even know they're geeks! Way cool!

  • I've read that Linus wants to start/starts the jiffy clock so it rolls over ten minutes after boot up, so that any bad things that happen when the jiffy clock rolls over, happens quickly, and hence gets noticed and fixed.
  • If you grab the gnuwin32 distribution off Cygnus's site, you can have BASH for Windows NT (I haven't gotten it to work right under 95).
  • > "Glad to see ESR back?"

    I am. His slightly egotistic writing grates with
    even me - but I'm an egotist too so I forgive
    him.

    Seriously, he's an accomplished coder, writer and
    ambassador to the movement. His slant on the basic
    precepts of Free Software: "Open Source", have
    caused some internal angst. But shit happens,
    frankly.

    >I'm still reeling from his comments on linux.com about gun control -
    >
    > Personal firearms are the teeth of liberty. A disarmed population is one waiting to be enslaved or massacred at the convenience of
    > tyrants -- as Jefferson knew, Germany's Jews found out

    It surprised me, but not much. Spend some time rummagine through
    ESR's pages on Guns and Gun control and you'll see that he
    believes in this stuff very strongly.

    I had an email debate with him on the topic, not long after
    Australia's horrific Port Arthur Massacre. For the unknowing
    amongst you, a psychopath - a clinical psychopath - legally
    got hold of a military assault weapon and slaughtered dozens
    of holiday-makers.

    Australian gun laws were tightened dramatically after that.
    One local pundit observed that perhaps the massacre wouldn't
    have happened, if everyone had been armed - Martin Bryant
    would have been shot dead.

    Would he though? Would these people *hit* Bryant - armed with
    an automatic weapon - with pistols? Would they be alive?
    Would they hit each other? Would they have known who the
    gunman was? And would they be there - would they have died
    earlier in an impulse murder or impulse suicide?

    The defense of freedom is essential, however. But I do not
    agree with Raymond that I will need guns to defend mine.


    >Oh those silly Jews! If they had only paid up their NRA memberships
    >they would have never got into that mess!

    "And God so loved the world ..."


    Be well;

    JC.
  • While we're slewing off-topic at a rapid pace I'd like to suggest that you check out some statistics with respect to crime in Switzerland. In a country where virtually every household has a firearm the crime rate is very close to nil. Last time I studied this (about 15 years ago in high school) I recall that every home had a rifle and the crime rate was nearly zero.

    As ESR says, if you're that anti-firearm I challenge you to put a sign in your yard/on your apartment door that proclaims "This dwelling is a gun-free zone"

    A fully armed populace may not eliminate all gun crime, but I would venture to hypothesize that a criminal is much less likely to, say, rob a bank, if he thinks there's a better than even chance that most of the people in the bank are capable of taking him out.

    As far as the "illusion" goes, I don't know of a single NRA member that believes the illusion that you will eliminate gun crime by compromising the rights of law-abiding citizens to arm themselves.

    Gun Control means using both hands


    As always, these are my opinions.

    --Kit

  • No, I'm not 100% sure of the facts, which I indicated. I am 100% sure of my beliefs, which, apparently you aren't. At least you aren't sure enough to openly admit what your beliefs are.
    Put that sign in your yard, then we'll talk.

    These opionions are mine.

    --Kit
  • Uptime of greater then 40 days is impossiable with a MS OS 95-NT-?2000?. There is a counte overflow that crashes the system. So you are greatly aggsagerating. I have supported both NT and Unix on the desktop. The only time we had trouble with our unix desktops (Sun & IBM & NCR) was when the network went down. Out NT and 3.1 systems were alway having software problems or OS coruption for no apparent reson!
    "There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
    "SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick, The Tick
  • What happens if Windows starts to become more stable?

    Hahaha, I don't think we need to worry about that. Microsoft is more interested in deploying FUD teams to spread crap about competitors, rather than actually making their OWN product better.

    Then there is no reason to use Linux.

    Of course there is. Linux is a hell of a lot cheaper then Windows, and while Windows prices are going UP, Linux is still free.

    The real reason to use Linux is the GPL. It gives users freedoms that just aren't obtainable in the Windows world. I really wish that ESR would talk about these important freedoms and get people excited instead of just saying "it doesn't crash".

    I agree, however I don't think the GPL is the ONLY reason. I think the interface is intuitive, and the structure of the system is too. The stability is phenominal, etc, etc.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Hey, that's not fair.

    All you'll have to do is buy a couple of books like "The Start Menu (for Computer Beginners)" and "Rebooting in a Nutshell."

    Seriously, though, I'm having trouble separating Microsoft The Platform from Microsoft the Operating System.

    That's not surprising, though, since Microsoft has the same trouble. I wonder if the company is going for a consistent user interface (based on Office toolbars) similar to the Mac interface.

    There's a scary thought... but it may be good for businesses.

    Which wasn't the point of this article. *sigh* And it won't help gamers.

    --
    QDMerge -- generate documents automatically.

  • There is a slippery slope here. Once you start using stability as your litmus test, as soon as MS achieves it, Linux has lost the argument.

    Excellent point!

    However, I have to disagree with your implication that a better argument is that of software morality. People should chose a computer and operating system because it lets them do what they need/want to do.

    The best way to convert non-techie users to Linux is to show them that they can do the things they need to do cheaper/better/faster with Linux (or *BSD, or BeOS) than with their current choice.

    And, if they can't do what they want better on an alternative OS, then you are doing that person a disservice by "converting" them.

    Sorry, venting.

  • Somehow I doubt that GNOME is causing kernel panics. Perhaps GNOME is unstable but who in the hell defined GNOME==Linux? And how the hell did RedHat make GNOME unstable? Perhaps I don't understand or perhaps you are just full of shit.
  • I should have understood that this AC doesn't understand the possessive tense. Linux doesn't inherit instability because GNOME is unstable. You are indicating that Linux is unstable. The only thing that could mark Linux being unstable is a kernel panic. Just because GNOME runs on a Redhat Linux system doesn't mean that the Redhat system or that the Linux kernel is unstable.

    Its always interesting to listen to Linux users who when they don't completely understand something in an argument will say "Well, the common user will think..." instead of "The technical reason is...".

    Its also interesting how AC's (convientiently) forget the sarcasm in any post. AC you are a fscking idiot if you think that an OS inherits the instability of a user program, albeit a window manager, desktop environment.

    Some points:

    1. Yes, exactly... not an argument
    2. RH doesn't inherit the instability of GNOME. You don't have to run a window manager, and if you do, so what.
    3. What uptime are you talking about? System uptime or window manager uptime? Compared to system uptime, wm uptime is trivial. You don't need a GUI up to run httpd, samba, ect. Perhaps its convienient, but its not as if you need to reboot your system because the wm pukes. As a server, it matters little. On a workstation it can be a pain in the ass, but is NOT a Linux or Redhat stability problem.
    4. Linux is stable, GNOME is not.
    5. New user, common users.. its just a cop-out to any real intelligent statement that you might make. If Redhat pisses you of by including GNOME, pick up a different distribution or download KDE, or something else. In my opinion GNOME is still beta quality software (even by non-opensource people) and should never have reached 1.0 before stability was fixed.

    AC, do me a favor and look up the word inheritance in a dictionary. Yes, and then tell me how you decided that Linux inherits all of GNOME's bugs. It'll be amusing to see your answer. Yes, amusing.
  • Intercal? You've GOT to be kidding.
  • keep in mind, the pen is only mightier than the sword at distances greater than one meter.

  • If I recall some news reports correctly, there was an armed guard there, but he (reasonably) ran for safety when the shooting started: The heroic "jump out and shoot the baddies without getting hurt" only works in movies.

    Another case: Policemen in Sweden are armed. Recently, there was an armed robbery where two policemen at a road block were killed by the robbers - it turned out they had been shot by their own service firearms...

  • I think the cause of many world problems is confusion so let me help you guys out with this problem.

    IMHO crashing applications are not usually the OS's fault, it is usually the application programmer's fault. This goes for NT, Linux,etc.
    When we talk about OS stability NT does not cut it. I've seen NT force a reboot on computers many times than I could count.

    Now this A.C. may have a hellova good configuration, NT compliant hardware, or the luck of the Irish because a one year uptime is rare when using NT as desktop in my experience.

    Linux, is more stable because anyone who is having a problem could simply debug it and fix the error (if knowlegeable enough). Or the person can complain and have other programmers or "kernel hackers" help. In NT you cannot do that leaving you with the buggy software you paid hundreds of dollars for. Sure you can complain to Microsoft techsupport but good luck.

    This idea also carries down to Linux applications. Now being a Linux user I have found Corel Word Perfect crashes out of the blue, and since they don't release the source I cannot even begin to fix it. Thus I do not use Corel Word Perfect. Abiword, KOffice, and Gnumeric I hear is alpha software and I've never used it so I will not comment, except to say since the source code is out it will most likely be improved.

    To make a long story short application stablity is fine since ~99% of the non-alpha software works period. And I much prefer being on a OS where I have the power of choice rather than being manipulated into upgrading products based on market trends not unique ideas (i.e. Win98's intergration into the internet. I want folders not web pages damn it).
  • ->>> Note I currently use SuSE 6.0
    The RedHat distribution is broken there is no doubt about that. Try compiling PGP 5.0 with that it dies. Gnome is incomplete and I would not ever concider using it a my desktop until some one proves to me it is as complete as KDE. RedHat does the linux community a disservice. Any RedHat user should honestly consider moving to SuSE, or Slack. When the Gnome people create a complete desktop with simple configuration, and libraries that do not break my current system, I might consider going over.

  • Stability as a marketing message is good for now. One's marketing message must always be simple, and to the point. It's also allowed to change over time. Stability is the buzzword of today because not a lot of people understand GPL or why it's a good thing. Maybe, if Microsloth is up to the task of making their OS stable, GPL can be the message of tomorrow. Or maybe it will be performance.

    The one problem with this is that it can seem disingenuous, and cause people to lose focus on what is really important. Focusing on uptime cause the 'masses' to ignore the GPL message. Worse yet, people who are part of the organization can start believing the uptime message instead of the GPL message.

    I've successfully avoided saying anything here, except for laying out what kinds of problems there are to deal with. :-)

  • Geeks (Score:1)

    by purp ( 12986 )
    I'm a geek.

    In my parlance, a geek is someone who is deeply interested in a particular subject and, because of that interest, knows a lot about it. Conversely, a nerd is someone who geeks on one subject to the exclusion of all else (such as social skills, personal hygeine, etc.)

    I'm really several geeks in one. I'm a computer geek , to be sure; I'm also an art geek who enjoys an afternoon at a gallery or museum every bit as much as a late night spent hacking code. I'm a movie geek, which seems a given as I work in the film industry. I'm a process geek, which is to say that I really enjoy looking closely at the way in which a thing is done and figuring out how to do it better/faster/easier. I'm a people geek, a hiking geek, a perl geek, and a knowledge geek... and I could go on for days.

    Maybe, rather than fighting the geek image, we need to redefine what the public thinks of when they hear "geek."

    And FWIW, I've got the "biting the heads off chickens" definition of geek on my personal business card...right above the more useful definition; it's funny as hell and not the least bit insulting to me. And I don't think Linux should be kept out of the hands of Joe User...I'm working to put it there. =]

    --j, your friendly neighborhood geek
  • >For gun control backers who don't believe or understand this argument, please prove your independence from the guns of hated conservatives and libertarians; put an "unarmed and proud of it" sign in your yard and on your car.

    OK, Done. (Apart from the fact that I don't hate the conservatives and libertarians, and don't own a car). What's your point?

    This post more than anything else I have read has swung me in favour of gun control - if having a culture of guns means living in such a climate of fear that you feel that you need one for defence, then we don't need them here any more than they already are.

    I'm also proud to live in a country where:
    - handguns are illegal (I never saw one till I visited the USA),
    - you need a license to own or use a gun (I don't have a gun license),
    - most gun ownership is for the purpose of hunting,
    - policemen don't carry guns,
    - the airports consider it unecassary to X-ray luggage before getting on a plane.

    There are lots of things about this country (New Zealand) that I am not proud of, but I don't feel the need to go even more off-topic.

    Roy Ward.

    --
    Guns don't kill people - bullets do.
  • Chill out. Now I am not a big fan of ESR myself, but I certainly agree
    with him on the guns issue. I personally believe all weapons including
    nuclear arsenal should be allowed. The principle on which America was
    founded is that the combined military power of the people should be
    overwhelming compared with the entire power of the state, including
    army police and other institutions. Read federalist papers, man.
    As for NADA, it's a bit harsh. I would say that it's a pity speeches
    and interviews for ESR took place of coding. But he did code at one time
    and his stuff (fetchmail) did and does run on Linux, so once again
    NADA is a bit harsh.
  • Which brings us back to nuclear arsenal. Having the ability to blow
    up every army, FBI, CIA and what have you buildings in the X mile
    radius will make local if not federal authorities think twice about
    infringing on your freedom. Now I am not a militia nut, nor do I
    subscribe to their intolerant views, but when it comes to arming
    yourself to achieve personal freedom, I sure agree with them.
  • I do personally think that.
    However (and this is also an answer to
    a post below), nuclear weapons cost a lot
    of money to buy and maintain, so individuals
    will rarely be able to own them. However,
    small communities could band together and
    stockpile such ammo. The way to prevent
    mentally unstable people from taking your
    life is to have a community lock, where
    only a majority could unlock the weapon and use.
    Say each person gets a key and only if more
    that 51% of keys are inserted will the weapon
    detonate. And of course guns will ensure
    freedom within each such nuclear club.
  • because of ESR, I for one will be grateful, and consider him worth having around. I, as a techie, would much rather not have windows on my desk at work, like I do now.

  • The notion of an open source OS (so it's easy to write apps for and tweak to your heart's content) and proprietary apps (so developers have food on the table and can make money with a good idea) works just great with me. There are a lot of proprietary apps that I really like and will continue to use. Obviously, given the choice between having something open sourced or closed, all other things being constant, I would pick the open one. But as we all know, it doesn't work that way, and I'm fine with that.

    My point about ESR is that, while he may get under people's skin and say some off the wall things that many others don't agree with, he is still a very useful person to have around. He did, after all, play a big part in the oss mozilla in his present role, and before that (like many have already pointed out) wrote some very useful code.

    I don't like to let outside issues (like, oh, say, gun control :-) get mixed in with arguements like this one, because they are irrelevant. Do outsiders really think we are all just like him; that he represents us all? Not unless they're stupid (hmmmm, maybe I better not go there).

    I can see one useful goal for linux/oss advocacy. No, it isn't to put it on every countertop of every home. It is to get companies to accept oss as a viable alternative to css (can I make a new acronym?) in certain situations, like device drivers, if the thing you want to sell is the hardware. Or Linux/BSD on a server, if what you really want is to just shut the thing up in a closet and never have to worry about it again.

    Bottom line: ESR has demonstrated an ability to push us closer to those goals. Who cares what kind of PR we get if those goals are met? That's what we really want, isn't it?

  • Name one heavily armed group thats been massacred in large numbers

    France, WWII. Vietnam. In fact, the loosing side of any war.

    Just because they can fight back doesn't mean they're not being oppressed. Removing the means to oppress them, on the other hand might help. A fact all too many people seem all to happy to ignore.
  • Did you ever learn, in history class or otherwise, what happened in Warsaw during the Holocaust?

    A few guns and molotov cocktails enabled one Jewish ghetto to drive off the entire might of the German army around Warsaw for months. They had to raise the entire neighbourhood just to get at them. Read about it here [advanced.org] and realize that you're desperately wrong. Makes me damn glad that side of my family got out of Germany before it was too late - and came back later as members of the US army to crush the Nazis.

    Oh, and do me a favor. If guns don't prevent tyranny, name one heavily-armed group that's been massacred in large numbers.

  • Losing a war doesn't equal massacre. We didn't drag German women and children out and kill them.

    As for France - guess what! They had gun control at the time, including registration of every gun owner and his/her weapons. So when the Nazis went in, they grabbed the lists, found the owners and told them to give up their weapons or die. The French resistance still managed to play a role.

    As for the Vietnamese - are you honestly telling me the average Vietnamese had weapons that he personally owned? No, Ho Chi Minh armed them - and like it or not, they drove off the US Army. I wouldn't call that a massacre.

    Just because they can fight back doesn't mean they're not being oppressed. Removing the means to oppress them, on the other hand might help. A fact all too many people seem all to happy to ignore.

    Just as much as gun control advocates fail to realize that such laws have to be enforced with guns - and governments have killed and oppressed far more than individual citizens. It's not like those weapons are being removed as well. Unless you're advocating global pacifism, this is a bogus argument.

  • Yes, geek is insulting, especially as one definition of a geek is a carnival sideshow performer who bites off the heads of live chickens during a performance (which reminds me of my diet as an undergrad, but we won't go there).

    Of course, you could be called a wonk. Back in the early days of the Clinton administration, both Bill and Al (Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure?) came across as Policy Wonks and Economics Wonks, because they appeared to be able to hold their own against other experts in foreign policy and economics. How would you like to be called a Computer Wonk?

    Of course, after having meet some alledged computer geeks f2f, it's no wonder that people would think they bite off the heads of live chickens at carnivals...

  • The stability issue may be the primary issue for many people to look at Linux and other Windows alternates. Stability is a facet of an even larger issue for Microsoft: quality. If Microsoft OS software were of higher quality (greater stability, better interface consistency and ease of use, better maintainance) Linux, BSD, and other WinOS alternatives would be little more than curiousities. Open source is of little interest to the majority of computer users. They want a platform that works, works all the time, and gets their job done without an inordinate amount of preparation and setup.

    I have a feeling that Linux is at its zenith, and will only decline in the years to come as the real successor to Windows, such as the Palm and other computing appliances, make a lot of the functionality of current desktop PCs irrelevant. And those machines run embedded Java, PalmOS, and ECOS32, just to name three.

  • "Bull. Little handheld devices have been around for years and continue to be nothing but little trinkets that people get on Father's day, play with for a couple of weeks and never use to get any "real" work done."

    Bull to you. The most successful hand-held, highly programmed device on the face of this planet is the mobile phone. You can't run a word processor on it, and people grouse that you can't surf the web or look at your email (although those features are slowly coming), but its heavy dependence on embedded micros (many with more than one), running sophisticated embedded software, can't be characterized as something you get for Father's day and then forget. And there are a lot of other examples.

    Maybe you like sitting in front of Neolithic computing devices (monitor, keyboard, mouse) that have remained essentially unchanged since the late 60's, but I'd love to have a very thin (1/2" or less) 8.5 inch x 11 inch wireless slate with high resolution and color that would allow me to read and respond to email as well as surf the web (such as /.). And the Palm VII is the start of just such a device.

    The internet blew the idea of monolithic and proprietary networking out of the water, making connectivity almost into a utility, like plugging into an electric socket for power. We need to finish the revolution by killing off the PC and creating cheap, powerful computing appliances to fit now-well-known needs. And we need revolutionary software to lead the way, not a bloated OS like Windows, and certainly not a tail-light following OS like Linux. We will certainly never get to the future of computing with Windows. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will be with Linux, either.

  • I'll second that with reservations: 1) too similar to MSNBC. :-) 2) As mentioned by others, the real benefit of Linux and other OS's is openness, and I think it can be argued that its stability is only a side-effect that came about because it was a top priority for the people who wrote it. Not coincidentally, the same priority is shared by the general readership (writership?) of slashdot.

    BTW since Windows is targeted at the average user that does not know that computers really can be stable, it does not seem likely that Microsoft feels any need to enlighten their users. Not while they're rolling in dough, that is. It does not make sense in my mind that Windows will ever become truly stable until M$ is losing money.
  • A sick society is one were hundreds of kids are killed every day in the United States, but we can't do anything about it since the instruments or their murders are already illegal. Uzis are illegal, therefore, officially, the murder of a poor minority child must not have happened. Only when a rich white kid is killed by one of the few legal firearms remaining, so we get outraged.
  • Of course the reason is GPL. None of the BSD or X stuff had anything to do with it!

  • Re:Since we're off topic anyway... (Score:3)

    by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Saturday June 12, 1999 @07:57PM (#1852854) Homepage Journal
    Still reeling? Shocked that someone else in the community might have a different political opinion than you? In case you haven't noticed by now, this is a meritocracy. We don't judge people by their political views, religious beliefs, ethnicity, or anything else like that. The only thing that matters are acts. It is the strength of this community that people with different beliefs can work together to create something better. Eric has done tremendous things for free and open software. What have you done?

    If I can't defend my liberty, then I have no liberty.
  • >I personally believe all weapons including
    >nuclear arsenal should be allowed.

    I would pity the day Americans are allowed to walk the streets with concealed nuclear missiles tucked under their belts. I can imagine interesting scenes of accidental discharge......
  • Help fix the bugs, or report them via: http://bugs.gnome.org [gnome.org]

    Don't complain if you don't contribute.
    Thanks.

  • Check out gnoghurt from RHAD at http://www.labs.redhat.com/gnoghurt [redhat.com] and Video4Linux.
  • It's really upsetting to me when people claim that Linux's uptime should be measured in years. It's a lie, and I think most people realize this, whether they want to admit it or not. I don't think I've ever used a box that has an uptime of years. My personal uptime record is somewhere around 66 or 67 days; I love Linux; I advocate using Linux where appropriate; but I don't lie about it.

    It would be fair to say that Linux's uptime is best measured in days (or maybe even weeks), while Windows' uptimes should probably be measured in hours. Saying that Linux's uptimes should be measured in years is akin to saying that people's heights should be measured in kilometers or miles. (But it's not quite the same -- after all, there are several boxen with multiyear uptimes, but not many. Obviously, there aren't any people who are KMs tall.)

    It just breaks my heart to see the Good Guys (ESR is definitely one of them) lying. Being one of the Good Guys doesn't give you the right to do things that aren't good. It's not only morally corrupt, but intellectually corrupt as well, and it ultimately cheapens the cause you're advocating for.

  • I am not sure, but I think you are saying that the GPL doesn't give you the freedom to restrict other people's freedom from their own modifications. I wouldn't call that freedom. Just like I don't have the freedom to shoot you.

    "Feel free to use my code, as long as you become part of our GPL family. If you don't want to become a part of our GPL family, then don't use my code. I won't share it even if you share your code with others."

    Im sorry but this is very vague. The GPL says you have to share. And I don't know what you mean by the GPL family. If you are saying that you want the right to relisence the software and "not be a part of the GPL family" then you are advocating "I want the freedom to restrict freedom".

    I am not going tell anyone what liscense to use but if you use a liscense that allows you to restrict my freedom, don't expect me to use or enhance your software. And I think a lot of people agree with me.

    --

  • The "GPL family" is the group of projects that are GPL'ed. The GPL projects cannot share code with differently licensed projects. You see, open source projects such as the BSDs are not so stiff necked about letting commercial companies use their code but the GPL projects are. And this difference prohibits the sharing of code between GPL projects and other open source projects. That is really bad.

    No, that is not bad, it simply isn't true.
    I can take a portion of BSD code and incorporate it into GPL program. I have to put that copyright notice, though. I can take a portion of code under artistic licence and put it in my GPL program also without any problem. And code remains free for all to use and share, and GPL enforces that it will always remain that way.

    So GPL certainly can share code with other licences (you don't even have to put that part of shared code under GPL).

    About not letting commercial companies take my code for free and make changes and refuse to contribute back to me, I don't have a problem with that. If they don't want to share with me, I don't want to share with them. That is why I use GPL.

    IMHO, YMMV, etc.
  • Nop, no kidding...it says so at ESR's website, go check it out at www.tuxedo.org somewhere in there it's a list of all the projects he is/has been involved in

    Vox

  • Nothing to do with linux development? I don't know about the kernel itself, but he has created, modified or participated in:

    Fetchmail

    keeper

    sitemap

    harvester

    and some languages, like:

    intercal

    pilot

    cupl

    and a bunch of other stuff...just do a grep for his name or initials in your linux box...you'll find a bunch.

    BTW, I don't even now ESR, and actually don't enjoy the interviews he does much (is always the same one :) but I belive in giving credit where credit is due.

    Vox

  • I always thought the term "geek" referred more often than not to computer enthusiasts.

    This would mean Linux users are geeks because they have something to be enthusiastic about whereas the majority of people using Windows don't.

    Seriously though, geek does have a negative implication but I prefer it over nerd.

  • Uptime of greater then 40 days is impossiable with a MS OS 95-NT-?2000?. There is a counte overflow that crashes the system.

    That bug does not affect Windows NT. It will not affect Windows 2000.

    Our NT and 3.1 systems were alway having software problems or OS coruption for no apparent reson!

    Maybe they weren't being administered correctly. A well-maintained NT box can stay up for months without difficulty.

    Cheers
    Alastair

  • My personal experience is that it is a lot more difficult to get NT stable than linux, but that is just my experience. I like linux because my desktop looks cooler and things can get done more flexibly, especially with the command prompt, and I found NT's command prompt a bit too clunky...

    However, I commend you on the maturity of your post in discussing NT, most posts with your point are very childish....
  • What do you expect when you put people with what they do at home? I've known people who learned the way unix first and they had problems with windows... Mainly problems with not being able to do more sophisticated things... It is mainly a game of which you learn first, especially with things like KDE... But if you judged based on user-friendliness alone, macOS should have won hands down, why didn't it? Bad business decision of keeping the price too high when windows came out... Glad to see a bit of a comeback..
  • First as the subject says, GNOME is NOT a window manager. It is a window environment. It usually runs on top of the window manager enlightenment (which is still in beta/alpha version and has more bugs then GNOME). Also, unfortunately, Red Hat doesn't make it to easy to pick another window manager. I use Red Hat at home, and it took me awhile to use another window manager, because every time I changed it, somehow enlightenment came back!

    I have had GNOME/enlightenment crash, but at least I didn't have to shutdown the machine. (Thanks to Linux). But I still lost important data. And as ESR has noted, that is what is important.

    I mainly use Slackware with fvwm2 at work and at home (I have a multi-boot to RH or Slack). I'm very happy with both (Slack and fvwm) and I usually run for months. I turn off the machine for vacations and electrical storms.

    I do agree that if RH is focusing on the non-server market, it should use another window manager/environment until it works all the bugs out of GNOME/enlightenment. Otherwise distributions such as Caldera that use KDE will probably become the perferred choice.

    Coming from a Unix background, I'll stay with Slack (The REAL Linux distribution!). But I hope RH cleans up its act so that I can help others with something other then the MS stuff.
  • MTBC should be a standard measure, laboratory tested, and included along with all the benchmarks and checkboxes. Maybe if enough of us start using the term, it'll become a standard. ;)
  • ...anyway. The fact that they are armed and interspersed with the rest of the people puts a serious damper on tyrannical actions. The General and his family, friends, relatives, and subordinates have to live somewhere. Possibly next door to a member of the group being oppressed this week.

    An determined man with a rifle is the most dangerous weapon in the world. I can see why dictators aren't fond of citizens owning guns.

    Assassination is, after all, the ultimate heckler's veto.

    Meanwhile, closer to home, the personal safety of gun control nuts depends heavily on the fact that criminals don't know they are unarmed. They are relying on an atmosphere created by their gun-owning neighbors for protection. If criminals knew who was unarmed, burglaries and muggings would go up dramatically for the completely unarmed. For gun control backers who don't believe or understand this argument, please prove your independence from the guns of hated conservatives and libertarians; put an "unarmed and proud of it" sign in your yard and on your car.
  • > ... What happens if Windows starts
    to become more stable? ...

    Haha, good one. ;o)

  • Hmmm. Now you wouldn't expect pre-alpha software
    to be unstable, would you? Duh, you have to wait
    for a released version before you can expect it
    to be stable!
  • This article reads like it was longer, more in depth, and then seriously hacked to pieces by an editor concerned with reaching his target audience. It ended up seeming very content-free, and very simplistic. As someone else said, I could feel my IQ falling as I read it.

    Given the length and content of the interview, I don't really think that ESR were really who they wanted to interview, but that they didn't know it at the time. So it was chopped into something they could use, but wasn't good.

    I think that they would probably have been better off just dropping the article entirely. ESR didn't seem like a good fit for them, period.

    I mean, imagine what they would have done with an interview with RMS!
  • Developing Office Applications is a long way to
    go. The Winbloze versions have a long roadmap,
    and i dont think they are very stable.

    Miguel de Icaza said once upon time:

    Office Applications are only temporare on the
    Linux road, after a few years they are replaced
    by open source apps.

    Check out KOffice, Abiword and Gnumeric in a few
    years and you will *see*...
  • Why do you separate GPL from the issue of stability? By its very nature Linux should end up (note, as someone else pointed out, that you can't expect pre-alpha releases to work - the point of them is to get rid of the bugs) to be much more stable and bug free.

    The way that Microsoft survives is by shipping a single product with or without bugs. They have little incentive to iron out minor bugs, so long as they aren't going to destroy a major companies computers to a suing extent, since people madly pay to get a version that had gone through the sort of testing that linux programs go through before release (cf the 'Y2K bug fix' - Win98).

    With Linux, if you have a problem, by its nature it gets ironed out. If it doesn't, and you find that something doesn't work on your particular computer you can do something about it - rather than just moaning about the fact that they never bothered to consider your personal, eccentric system.

    It may take some work and some knowhow, but that's surely going to be better than having to just put up or shut up. In almost every case if your Linux system at first seems less stable than the NT system it can be tweeked to make Linux more stable and faster. If your program doesn't work, you can fix it (or point out the fault to someone else - I've always found them to be enormously helpful and positive about fixing problems - you try telling a Windows programmer that something doesn't work and, in my experience, you don't get help or courtesy, you get abuse). If that fails, you can always write your own program!

    So basically all I'm trying to say is that GPL is the reason for Linux's stability, not a different point, and it is because of GPL that we don't need to worry about the day Windows gets as stable as Linux - it isn't going to happen!
  • well. Yeah.

    The crux of the article was essentially "why should joe six-pack use linux if he can't play pod racer on it?" GPL issues mean nothing to the average user. Heck, I run all my server stuff off linux (soon to be freebsd, actually) because a) linux performed better for networking activities (duely noted by ESR) and b) the damn thing didn't crash.

    I'm the target market for the advocacy people, and those are common attitudes outside linuxland.
  • "I personally believe all weapons including
    nuclear arsenal should be allowed"

    these kind of remarks really scare me...it
    seems to be something what a lot american
    citizens believe to be good, in the sense that it provides more freedom...but look around, and note that this is definitely not the answer, in fact it only causes more terror. The wild west period is over (right?).....

    J.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close