|
|
| Odds and Ends |
 |
|
Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 06:57 AM EDT
|
"If you would like a copy of the GPL source code in Linksys products on a CD, please send $9.99 to Linksys for the costs of preparing and mailing the CD to you."
As you can see, there is a happy ending to the Cisco-GPL issue. Their Linksys "GPL Code Center" page has the above announcement. Netcraft has some background. Melanie Hollands continues her series on SCO's stock. And Sun's Jonathan Schwartz announces maybe they'll GPL Solaris. Unfortunately, he kept talking.
Here is some of what he had to say:
"Though Sun executives have been cool on the GPL in the past, Schwartz said there was 'not a lot' preventing Sun from releasing Solaris under the GPL. . . . 'We view the GPL as a friend. Remember, (Sun) was built off of BSD and the BSD license,' he said, referring to the open-source Berkeley Software Distribution license. "Still, Sun has its apprehensions. 'What worries us about the GPL is its capacity to encourage forking, because what's happened in Linux is that Red Hat has forked. Not in the sense that the kernel is different ... It's forked because if you write to the Red Hat distribution, you can't go and run on Debian.' . . . "'We are starting to migrate people off Red Hat and on to Sun, and the reason is that our customers have had the epiphany that open source does not mean open standards,' he said, echoing a comment delivered by Mary Hanafin, Ireland's Minister for State, at a recent Microsoft-sponsored conference in Ireland. "'It is important to remember that open standards are not the same as open source,' Hanafin said, according to a report by ElectronicNews.Net. Ireland had been examining the use of open source software for its e-government initiative, but determined that 'the long-term cost of open source may outweigh the short-term savings,' according to Hanafin."
So, the "open standards is better than open source" comes from a Microsoft-sponsored conference. There's a coincidence, that Sun and Microsoft are singing the same song. Weiss says if they don't clarify their position, Sun will lose customers: "Sun's simultaneous embrace and disparagement of Linux and the GPL may ultimately prove confusing to customers who turn to the company for guidance on where Linux might be appropriate, said George Weiss, an analyst with the Gartner Inc. research firm. 'Unfortunately, I think Sun is going to have to be a little bit more thoughtful about the way they articulate their thinking, because they have a lot of users confused,' Weiss said.
"The market has clearly decided that there is a role for Linux, Weiss said, and to hear Sun promote Solaris as a cheaper and better alternative for all roles may ultimately undermine the company's credibility. 'If they don't clarify (their Linux positioning), users are going to be reluctant to use Sun, whether it's Solaris or Linux,' he said." Mr. Schwartz may be a bit confused himself, if he thinks you prove your friendship with the GPL by using a BSD license. That's not an attack on the BSD license, just pointing out that there are significant differences between them. Maybe a crash course is in order. You might be interested to know that the UK has been considering open source and their revised standards are available for download and public discussion. The paper, "Open Source Software -- Use Within UK Government", version 2, details government policy on the use of FOSS within the UK government. It's a draft document, which is still being considered and discussed until June 11, and you can find it here. The main change in the new version is a statement that
"If no commercial or community shared exploitation route is used for
publicly funded R&D software an OSS default will apply. Licences
compliant with the OSI definition will be used". Here's the old version. Then there is SCO, saying they do too think the GPL is unconstitutional. They just don't intend to explicitly say so in a court of law. What better place to say it, if you think you can prove it? Of course, one has to actually prove things in a court of law, unlike in the media or in letters to Congressmen. I've gotten email asking if this means the GPL won't have its day in court. Remember that IBM's counterclaims include a copyright infringement claim against SCO for violation of the GPL, so it's still on the table. Alexander Wolfe had an interesting article on eWeek, "Microsoft Assembles Hefty Patent Arsenal".
He reports that in the last two years, Microsoft has gotten about 1,000 patents, or an average of 10 a week.
"David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of business development for intellectual property, said the company has strongly taken up the licensing mantle. 'We've provided people with a clear sense that we are willing to do outbound licensing. This is now a significant focus for us,' he said. In many cases, Microsoft's licensing model will likely take the form of cross-licensing, rather than simply paying out or taking in cash, Kaefer said.
"'These patent cross-licensing deals signify an industry that's getting more mature,' Zuck said. 'Companies are having to balance customer demands for interoperability with IP protection. So, patents are taking on a more significant role than they have in the past, when companies could rely on trade secrets for protection.'
"Zuck noted that Microsoft recently formalized its model for licensing its patents to other companies. 'The trend going forward is for transparent sharing of portfolios,' Zuck said. 'I think we're going to see a lot of patent cross-licensing, and that's a good thing.'" Good depends on your point of view. Bruce Perens says he is worried that Microsoft will use its patents against Linux like this: "'Say that you need a particular patent to implement a standard,' he said. 'Microsoft sues an open-source developer. The developer has to settle because he doesn't have any money. The result is that open source cannot interoperate with other programs that use the standard.'" A spokesman for Microsoft responds in the article like this:
"'We'll make our IP available to all comers, open-source or not.' Kaefer added that Microsoft isn't focused on what garage-shop developers are doing but that if a major corporation is using its IP, 'We would need to look at it'." And the company isn't just talking about the US. According to the Boston-based Asian American Lawyers Association of Massachusetts, Microsoft is looking to establishing a new IP practice in China:
"The prospectus for an IP attorney job opening reads, 'The Intellectual Property and Licensing group at Microsoft is starting a phase of international expansion and is looking for an outstanding IP attorney to build and develop the IP legal function in greater China. The position is based at Microsoft's new Beijing facilities in the downtown area.'"[emphasis added] Just like SCO, Microsoft doesn't care if you use GNU/Linux in noncommercial settings. They just don't want you using it for your business. Of course, that is where the antitrust analysis could enter the picture. Miguel de Icaza has another area of concern, in an interview by Netcraft: "Q. What do you see as the greatest danger to the continuing adoption and progress of open source?
"A. Microsoft realises today that Linux is competing for some of the green pastures that it's been enjoying for so long; I think that Longhorn is a big attempt to take back what they owned before. Longhorn has kind of a scary technology called Avalon, which when compounded with another technology called XAML, it's fairly dangerous. And the reason is that they've made it so it's basically an HTML replacement. The advantage is it's probably as easy as writing HTML, so that means that anybody can produce this content with a text editor.
"It's basically an HTML Next Generation. A lot more widgets, a lot more flexibility, more richer experience - way, way richer experience. You get basically the native client experience with Web- like deployments. So you develop these extremely rich applications but they can be deployed as easily as the Web is. It's just like going to a URL: you go to Google, and you get the Web page and it works. So it's the same deployment model but the user interface interaction is just fantastic.
"Of course, the only drawback is that this new interaction is completely tied to .Net and WinFX. So we see that as a very big danger. A lot of people today cannot migrate to Linux or cannot migrate to Mozilla because a lot of their internal Web sites happen to use IE extensions. Now imagine a world where you can only use XAML.
"It's massive - I'm so scared." Finally, I can't resist telling you this. I was trying out a new search engine, or new to me, Ujiko.com. Of course, I searched for Groklaw, and I found this: "I have been reading an excellent blog called GROKLAW which is a widely read resource on court cases involving a software company called SCO.
"The various legal actions that SCO has triggered show how the IT landscape is changing. It pitches SCO, with apparent financial backing from Microsoft, against IBM and draws in many of the players in the Linux and open source software worlds.
"Groklaw is a good example of how a blog can be used to present information on a complex legal and technical subject. It is still pretty daunting but Groklaw at least offers a way through it all." The blog is written by Richard Allan, a member of Parliament in the UK.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 08:08 AM EDT |
| Please put corrections in this thread. Thanks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 08:08 AM EDT |
Sun and Microsoft are signing the same song
I'm pretty sure you sing a song unless deaf ; )[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 08:25 AM EDT |
"Schwartz said there was 'not a lot' preventing Sun from releasing Solaris
under the GPL. . . . 'We view the GPL as a friend. Remember, (Sun) was built off
of BSD and the BSD license,' he said, referring to the open-source Berkeley
Software Distribution license." PJ
One benefit for the Sun of releasing Solaris under the GPL license is that
Solaris may end up running on Intel machines the way it was supposed to - I
understand that the driver support for Solaris on Intel is pathetic to close to
non-existent. The Sun is not making any money from Solaris on Intel based on its
EULA. And the Sun won't be making any money from Solaris on Intel based opn the
GPL unless the Sun makes the requisite effort to understand the terms of the
GPL, so that it can take advantage of them and come up with a GPL-based business
model for Solaris on Intel that is profitable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: publius_REX on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
This ought to be good. We've all seen how well the "Java
Standard" held up. Now, if Linus et al. sell out for a
couple billion $$, we'll all be one happy MS family again.
I can hardly wait. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 08:42 AM EDT |
| What do you see as the greatest danger to the continuing adoption and
progress of open source?
My best answer to this question is "application
development". Microsoft maintains their market share because of the massive
developer commitment that exists. I have many customers who would love nothing
more than to run Linux in their business but can't, because none of the
applications they rely on to run their business will work on Linux.
It
is true that there are some alternatives to popular software packages (office
suites, image editors, etc...), but what about the more special purpose
software? Until commercial software developers start writing new Linux
applications and porting existing ones, Linux will stay primarily in the server
room.
The Linux community needs an even stronger developer network,
both commercial and non-commercial in order to continue it's push deeper into
enterprise computing, and eventually the desktop market... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
I for one don't find Sun's recent statements very troubling. They are not
entirely embracing Open Source, as they have the right not to do. They are
trying to make a profit as the have a responsibility to do.
Sun has always been a company which marched to its own music, and I don't see
this as any differant. Sun and it's founders have been a positive, if sometimes
confusing and combative force in the industry.
Sun was leading the call for reigning in Micosoft, I remembering hearing
McNeally speak on it about 10 years ago. In his funny "Scott-ish"
speech.
Sun went to SysVr4 too soon but ultimately Solaris became the benchmark of
server sofware. Microsoft at one point a few years ago admited that it was an
order of magnitude more reliable than Windows.
Much open source software was originally written and compiled on SUNOS 4.x or
Solaris and ported to Linux.
Sun invented NFS and made it fairly easily available.
Sun supported SPARC as an alternative to Intel and it along with the PPC are the
only surviors of the RISC wars.
Sun purchased, and supported and still supports OpenOffice. It is GPL'd and a
significant a factor in making a mainstream Linux desktop possible.
That they are currently having financial difficulties and apparently rethinking
their approach is not surprising nor should we read too much into it.
Sun has a combative culture, both internally and externally, I'm sure they can't
supress it for long.
They have also shown an ability to make bold "bet the company" moves
and I wouldn't bet against them doing something really bold if they see an
opportunity.
I have for a long time thought that SunOS 6.x will be based on a Linux kernel,
but that SUN was waiting for Linux and the market perception to mature enough
support that move.
I'm sure I'm going to be attacked by some here for posting this but as a
developer or reseller I would much rather have Sun as a partner than Microsoft.
They may be difficult and at times arrogant but they don't have the history of
deceit that Microsoft has.
They have been the good guys fo a long time. I don't want to abandon them when
they hit a rough patch of road.
PS PJ, can we get spell check in the comments? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
Given MS's propensity to abuse its dominate marketing position; its plans for
Longhorn and Xaml; and a "cost of doing business" attitude on breaking
the
law; how is this going to affect the antitrust settlements? After all, MS
declared to the public not so very long ago that it was suspending all
development for IE and that because of MacOSX Safari browser, it was
abandoning the Mac Browser Market (therefore no IE mor Mac OS) and we
should all know about IE for Linux (not one).
If MS creates a dominate, patented replacement for HTML and gets it be
widely used, won't that be to the detriment of the rest of the web, and
perhaps even the rest of the world?
I doubt that most of the countries of the world will follow the MS proprietary
line with Xaml. I would also expect the third world to reject this at all;
levaing
perhaps parts of the developed world in the clutches of a proprietary system
that costs far more than it is worth. I see MS with Longhorn and XAML trying
to wall off its customers from the rest of the world to the benefit of MS and
detriment of the customers.
What should the FOSS response be to these long term threats?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Philip Stephens on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
The idea that programs developed and tested on a RedHat Linux distribution would
fail to run on other Linux distributions is completely false. The only thing
that can stop an application running on a given Linux distribution is the
absence of a shared library, and the fix is easy: download and install the
library! Linux has a very robust shared library system that permits multiple
versions of the same library to co-exist peacefully, so there is rarely a
problem in downloading an installing shared libraries.
It is true that RedHat Linux differs from other distributions in regards to how
it organises configuration files, but this hardly has anything to do with
running applications.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nb on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
| MyXaml
runs on
GNU/Linux. XML-based "projected GUIs" for web
applications
are
possible, right
now, in a portable manner, with XWT.
What exactly makes XAML scary,
besides that it comes from MS?
The main concern is that XAML might allow
to integrate application
programs so closely with the web browsing experience
that users of
non-Microsoft
operating systems are locked out from being
first-class internet
citizens.
However, unlike Miguel, I'm not scared.
It'll take quite some time for
Longhorn to get big enough marketshare that
this could become a real
threat. In the meantime, the only place where the
use of something
like XAML really makes sense will be internally in companies,
and
enough of these companies will be using GNU/Linux at least on some
of
their desktops that they'll fund the necessay DotGNU or Mono
development work
so that they'll be able to use their XAML apps
portably. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
PJ, I tried registering last night (from an aol account of all places!), but
haven't seen the email with the password yet. Suggestions?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
Why not put a copy of the GPL online and give distributors the option of
linking to that?
In fact, why not have a depository for source code online, where distributors
can dump their source code?
This would allow for no nonsense distributions and at the same time put the
code in convenient reach for programmers...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
he's simply talking about various packaging methods. what he means is that a red
hat rpm can't be run on a debian system.
What they fail to say is that the "standards" each major distro uses
are OPEN, and software makers can easily write an rpm according to the LSB, and
they can package debs, and they can release source for compiling...whatever.
It's not always a bad thing to have more than one way to do something. It's
about choosing which OPEN STANDARD you want to use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
Microsoft may become a foreign policy problem for the U.S. It buys U.S.
politicians almost at will, as we've seen in the reaction from members of
Congress to the EU penalties.
It may be that we'll see more countermeasures against Microsoft from politicians
that Microsoft cannot buy -- in the U.N. and elsewhere -- that include repealing
IP treaties with the U.S.
Of course, politicians outside the U.S., being plagued with the same human
nature as those inside the U.S., might succumb to Microsoft's money. (Microsoft
cannot win friends; it must buy them.) But it may be that national pride will
trump Microsoft's bribes, as it has begun to do in Latin America.
A pity that the rest of the world may take democracy more seriously than we do.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Simon G Best on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
It sounds like they (Microsoft) are intending to use patents in 'open
standards' to revitalise an old, existing strategy.
Remember when there
was always that issue for office computers of whether or not they were
compatible with IBM PCs? 'better get an IBM just to be sure'-type-thing? There
were Macs, but they were like the exception that proved the 'rule'. That was
back in the days when IBM was Big Bad Blue.
Then it was
followed with 'Gotta have [Microsoft] Windows to do anything,
really'.
It's the old FUD of compatibility. 'Will I be able to access
such'n'such a format of documents?' 'Will I be able to access/use such'n'such a
service?' 'Will I be able to use the software I need to use?' 'What about all
my existing files?' 'Will I get left behind as everyone else marches on in the
march of progress?'
It's not really surprising, I suppose. It's worked
so very, very well in the past that it was just a matter of them finding a new
way instill and cultivate such FUD. 'Open standards' with patents in them will
be like weapons of mass FUD (WMF? WMFUD?). I can just hear Microsoft saying,
'Open Source is all well and good, and it's great to see so many people donating
their code for the common good, but they just don't support open standards.
Open standards are vital for interoperability.'
Software patents must be
destroyed.
---
Open and Honest - Open Source
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
Trying to set up the comparison as "which one is better" is a bit of
evil genius. The truth is, it isn't an either-or question: open standards PLUS
open source is better than either alone. And free and IP-free open standards is
much better still. In fact, its the only one I would endorse. If these people
want to push standards, they should be pushing truly free, unencumbered
standards. Otherwise they should, IMO, shut the heck up because it becomes very
obvious they're not truly interested in the consumer.<p>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
What will happen if Sun releases Solaris to the GPL? Isn't it a Unix as well?
What will SCO say? Or has SCO gave their consent (per contract or otherwise)?
Tho I would have to say I would greatly accept Solaris if it were GPL'ed
(provided there is some type of reasurance against patents and such in possible
future litigation). Diversity is good, monoculture is bad. And I see this as a
way to bring more choice for end-users and less risk of
virus-trojan-worm-cracking attacks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 12:16 PM EDT |
Schwartz has a point about forking. My company is trying to release our product
on Linux, and validating against all the different distros is a nightmare. We
will probably have to restrict ourselves to RHEL and SUSE 9. There are certainly
benefits to having competing distros, but it also creates problems. Improved
interoperability (perhaps certification that binaries that only access certain
packages, etc.) would facilitate vendor support of Linux.
Of course, if you don't care whether commercial software is made available on
Linux, this doesn't matter. Personally, I do care.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Forking - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 01:26 PM EDT
- Forking - Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 01:38 PM EDT
- Forking - Authored by: DebianUser on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 02:46 PM EDT
- Forking - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- Forking - Authored by: mossc on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 10:29 PM EDT
- Forking - Authored by: euvitudo on Sunday, May 02 2004 @ 02:26 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: ABM_rulez on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
Back in 2000 they ran a FUD ad in
German Magazines.
Basically Sun is picking up the same line again.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
First the pushback on the patent directive, now this ...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bphenry on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
| I read this article on ABCNEWS that says SUN should commit corporate euthanasia. My
favorite part of the article is "Why should they fade into the perpetual
twilight of Chapter 11 or in an eternal, shriveled corporate coma sucking on the
life support of patent lawsuits and royalties?. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
| Where Linux distros are still sorely lacking is in the standardized API
department. Try upgrading to the latest SSL package sometime. Most every
version has changed some part of the API from the last release, which is why
you effectively can't have dynamic OpenSSL libraries. As a developer I really
don't want to have to recompile and re-distribute an application each time
OpenSSL (or some other library) is updated. I would much rather have a
stable
SSL interface I can dynamically link against and then let the customer
choose
which SSL library they want to use.
You might argue that the OpenSSL API is
an open standard, because the
source code is available for everyone. I contend
that it is not an open
standard because the API changes with each version which
makes it
impossible for anyone else to write a drop in replacement.
OpenSSL
is an example of just one piece of any modern linux distribution.
It's become
a basic building block for developing many applications, but they
can't seem to
decide if they want round or square pegs... There are many
other areas in
Linux which suffer from the same problem.
An open standard would describe
the API in such a way that both open source
and commercial vendors could
independently write libraries which could be
drop in replacements for one
another. Many Open Source projects have
wishy-washy standards which make it
impossible for a competing versions of
a library to be developed. When Sun
says that Open Source is not the same
as Open Standards, they are
right.
GSS-API is an example of an open standard. There are Open Source and
commercial implementations of this standard, and you can replace one with
the
other without having to recompile applications.
Don't get me wrong here --
this lack of Open Standards with regards to APIs
is hardly Open Source's or the
GPL's fault. The industry in general is to
blame. Sun's SSL implementation is
hardly compatible with Microsoft's or
HP's, etc. But, with those proprietary
platforms the APIs on any given
platform generally don't break across versions.
Linux distributions still don't
have that same level of stability, which
really is a concern when it comes to
attracting the huge number of developers
who currently develop Windows
apps.
If Solaris were GPLed, would there be
multiple distros? I think most everyone
would agree that eventually there
would. Over time, would these
distributions end up with different versions of
these libraries which have
unstable interfaces? I think so. So, I think some
of Sun's fears are well
founded. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
"I was trying out a new search engine, or new to me, Ujiko.com."
Doesn't work for me. Of course, I'm one of those neaderthals who don't
appreciate the "richness" of allowing uninvited plug-ins to take over
my system
---
carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" (IANAL and so forth and so on)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
I think he's quite correct about the open source/open
standards issue, at least as he said it there - though
perhaps he's trying to read more into it than there is.
Many open source apps do not follow established standards,
and often the file formats, protocols, etc are defined
largely or entirely by the source code of the app. While
these protocols/formats are definitely open and typically
unencumbered (patents aside), they're not open standards
and there's usually not much chance that other apps will
work with them.
It's true that you do have more chance of enhancing other
apps to work with the formats/protocols implemented by open
source apps, time and money permitting, or enhancing the
OSS apps to work with the protocls/formats of your choice.
It's also true to say that many open source apps don't
support standard protocols or formats - often because there
is no standard in that application domain, or the standard
is total crap.
These things do not change the truth of his statement, it's
just more complicated than he makes out, and no doubt he
knows that, and knows that most people won't realise it.
So - overall, surely open standards as implemented by open
source are preferable. If I had to pick one or the other,
it'd depend on the application, costs, importance of the
data, expected lifetime of use, and a lot of other things.
Also, IMHO a well documented and fairly well supported
non-standard protocol with an open-source implementation
tends to be "good enough".
Nonetheless, the essential truth stands: Just because it's
open source doesn't mean it implements an open standard.
Exactly how that affects you depends a lot on what your
needs are, what app domain/task/role you're talking about,
and what sort of lifetime you're looking at on the app and
data.
-- Craig Ringer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jeffcobb on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
Interesting article on IBM.com about Stacy Quandt (open
source analyst) <a href="http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/news/
stacey.shtml?ca=dgr-lnxw02StacyQuandt">here</a>. Look down
to the bottom for a very nice nod to PJ and Groklaw.
To heck with the tags:
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/news/
stacey.shtml?ca=dgr-lnxw02StacyQuandt [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
Is cool! I'm glad there's someone like him representing us in government.
Perhaps he could get a position as Liberal Democrat technology spokesperson?
If only MY MP spent more time thinking about open source, and less time forcing
ID cards on us all.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pyrite on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have someone say that in the end, the important
thing is to keep your mind sane even if all those around you are losing theirs.
There might be a huge storm brewing and things might be breaking apart, but the
ability to remain calm in the midst of this is what is going to save us. Uptimes
of five years aren't easily ignored. Let them inspire you; I know they inspire
me.
Forking, for instance, is an adaptive quality; there are also many other ways to
adapt to unforseen changes. That's the important thing - to keep your health, to
keep your sanity regardless of what is going on around you. To "get that
feeling". It probably doesn't hurt to have a little pause for a moment, a
"deep thought" of the day every now and then.
I think that the new software communities we are building will be able to
withstand the obstacles that are thrown at them; I think that we will be able to
maintain our independence from having to use inferior products. Think positive!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John Goodwin on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
The PC architecture only appears to have a single packaging standard--distribute
binary executable.
The illusion that there is a "standard" comes from the fact that there
is a single, very large and important market of i386 etc. desktops.
So all we have to do is drop the "open standard" executable (Intel
physical machine code complying with those oh-so-open Windows ABI standards) and
away we go right?
But of course that executable is by no means tuned to do anything useful--it
will give you nice sub-par performance on the less-than-cutting-edge average
machine that it was compiled for.
Free Software and Open Source shouldn't even play this game. Delivering
pre-compiled executables is not an Open Standard--that's what retail and VAR
channels are for. They *should* be incompatible because we *want* market
segmentation. I want to be able to match my hardware to my software and find a
company that knows how to build and deliver integrated solutions--over the
internet and for free is nice, but paying for value is fine too.
What I also want is the "Open Standard" of source code that I can
compile myself. That means I can inspect it, and tune it, and fix it. There is
one programming standard there for each language, more or less. C code used in
F/OSS had better be portable, and use a portability system like Autoconf--all of
which bootstrap off a toolset we can depend on being there.
There *is* an Open Standard--it's called a working C Compiler and Make program.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 05:25 PM EDT |
So, who volunteers to pay the $9.99 and then post the code to their web site so
everyone who wants it can have it for free? (Legally at that.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: FrankH on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
| 'So, the "open standards is better than open source" comes from a
Microsoft-sponsored conference.' I think that was one of PJ's
comments"
Much as I like Open Source and all that it stands for, I think
that from a personal freedom point of view Open Standards are more
important.
I think I have the right to insist that you communicate with me
using a language that can be understood without me having to buy into some
proprietary system. I don't think I have the right to tell you that you must use
a non-proprietary (open source) system to produce that communication. It's the
assumption that everybody can communicate by WORD, EXCEL and POWERPOINT that is
one of the real dangers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
This is, after all, what open source is all about.
Computers are now so fast that it really isnt a problem to compile every
application your computer uses as part of the install program.
Dependency problems/reliance on fixed versions of glibc etc. pretty much go away
when you use open source as it was meant to be used - get the source code, and
build it.
Distributions like gentoo are the future, where a core system of precompiled
binaries is used to get you up and running, and from that point on everything is
compiled from source.
You can even hand this function off to an independent entity, who will ensure
your systems are always up to date, with the security patches applied, the only
cost being the CPU cycles you never actually use anyway.
And where are all the Java apps that would solve this problem? - if the apps
were available for Java, you could write once, deploy everywhere.
Or have I missed something, and Sun are now claiming that Java is not the
solution, that apps written in C and compiled for a specific version of Linux
are the space they see themselves playing?
Why don't they provide the 'Java/Linux Application Framework' which specifies an
enironment that allows easy Java or native Linux application deployment, a JVM
which supports things like Java <-> GNOME drag n drop, integration with
Linux desktop features.
This would do far more to fix their problem than GPLing Solaris, which i'd say
at this point is basically a dead duck. By all means, GPL it, thats great, i'm
sure we can all learn something from the code, but the time has now passed when
such an effort might have actually meant something as far as improving the state
of operating system technology.
Solaris x86 is wholly outclassed by Linux, and most likely by FreeBSD as well.
Funny they never look at Apple's success as a possible model, when Apple's UNIX
has incredibly simple and flexible application deployment, whos UNIX APIs are
BSD-licensed, who has seamless support for X11, Native, MacOS legacy and Java
applications on their platform, and who's desktop solution makes Sun's JDS look
like a big tatooed guy in a wedding dress.
Beating the Linux community and Redhat up because they are getting on and moving
technology forward in the most open way thats technically feasible for them, is
just a goddamn waste of time. How is Sun offering a solution?
'Don't target RedHat with your RPMs, target the JDS, or maybe target Solaris x86
- not at the same time though, theyre incompatible. But one is GPLed, though the
JDS is proprietary - is that right, or are we saying the opposite this week?
Scott? help me out here?'?
If all they have got is a crufty old UNIX that doesn't even have a desktop, a
desktop that doesnt even run on their crufty old UNIX, and a programming
platform that is supposed to 'run anywhere' but doesn't integrate properly with
either their crufty old UNIX, or their bastard-child desktop, well, I think
Schwartz should stop running his mouth and put his energy into focussing his
organisation around one of these strategies and stick to it for more than a year
at a time.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
I seriously doubt that Solaris will be GPL'd, because it contains SYSV code!
This is just the kind of stuff SCO has been screaming about: that companies
are GPLing their precious proprietary magic IP. Sun isn't stupid enough to do
this.
However they can say that they are "considering" it, because that
means almost as little as saying "we will file copyright charges in no less than
2 weeks."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
Will Microsofts patents withstand challenge ?
The look like a collection of "prior art" speed bumps.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stend on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 09:59 PM EDT |
In the Humor category, UserFriendly has a new sposorship
href="http://adsnew.userfriendly.org/banners/120x600/uf_120x600_cantbuy.gif">ad<
/a> related to our primary topic of discussion. It's an animated GIF, so if you
have those turned off in your browser...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Saturday, May 01 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
| New Docs at Novell-21.pdf
Novell-22.pdf
It's the reply by SCO after Novell's response regarding SCO's motion to remand
the case back to state court. SCO also filed a copy of the press release Novell
issued after SCO found Amendment No 2.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Sunday, May 02 2004 @ 12:31 AM EDT |
| Sun has done a great service explaining why that although there are many truly
Open Source licenses only the GPL (^1) provides the means for a growing body of
Open Source, or, Free, software from the derivatives of that initial released
source code. Sun took the BSD source as its base and, in accordance with the BSD
license, created a closed derivative available under a much more restrictive
license. Microsoft also incorporated BSD code, in accordance with the BSD
license, into its products -- with a much more restrictive license, to say the
least. BSD surely has not, Slashdot trolls' pronouncements aside, died, but
neither has it had the mindshare that GNU/Linux (and I mean GNU as in the GNU
tools and Linux as in the kernel) has received nor has it had the adoption rate
or the attention from developers, third party groups, etc., that GNU/Linux has
(^2). In fact it is FreeBSD that has the ports of Linux-specific packages, not
the other way around (not to the same degree, anyway). I think the reason is
not the penguin, Linus, marketing hype, Slashdot (-1 redundant, I know)...I
think those are factors but their impact is subsequent to and based upon the
success of the license, the GPL. Linus choosing the GPL meant that everyone
could do the same thing they did with BSD, initially, and that was to download
it and check it out. Then, having the source available, they could make changes.
But there the difference begins. With BSD you can turn around and create a
billion dollar hardware/software/services company using the derivative work as a
cornerstone without a second thought about closing the source and thus removing
the changes and improvements your work on the codebase brings to the product
from the community of developers (under the BSD license, anyway). With Linux
under the GPL, if you want to distribute your derivations they need to be
released opened as well. Play fairly. Thus the community begins to benefit from
the growing and improving codebase, by design, by requirement and not by
platonic utopian idealism -- that can be dashed in an instant when someone
decides they want to take advantage of the terms given to them.
Yes, BSD is
Open Source, today. But there is no guarantee that the changes made for tomorrow
will be released under the same terms. The GPL cannot be as easily co-opted and
the open source closed yet again.
^1: When I say "GPL" and "BSD" I am
referring to classes of licenses not necessarily specific documents, so please
allow the greedy expansion of other similar licenses to the GPL and BSD licenses
as is appropriate.
^2: Apple's Darwin aside, of course; I feel justified in
leaving out Apple because most developers and users of Mac OS X only know rumors
of Darwin, nee FreeBSD/MACH lurking beneath the covers, though undoubtably that
is changing -- however I note that the default shell for 10.3.3 is no longer
BSD'ish tcsh but GNU bash...point to the affirmative, thank you! ---
SCO
delenda est! Salt their fields! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chriseyre2000 on Sunday, May 02 2004 @ 02:58 AM EDT |
| Firstly as my first non-anon post I would like to congratulate PJ on her
wonderful site and the community that has formed around it.
The editor of
VSJ magazine, Mike James, (available free in the uk to developers, register at
www.vsj.co.uk) in his May 2004 editorial is titled "Why Open Source?". He
appears not to understand the motivation behind open source (and blurs the
distinction between GPL and open source).
The article closes with the
statement:
If anyone can enlighten me as to the impetus behind the
open source movement, particularly from the perspective of the programmers who
give their time, or perhaps the companies that sponsor such projects, I'd be
interested to hear from you.
mike.james@infomax.demon.co.uk
I
thought that it was only fair to open this up to a wider audience. I will be
adding my reasons as a response. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2004 @ 03:24 AM EDT |
I found myself so distracted by Flash ads on The Inquirer that I completely
removed Flash and the Flash plugin in my Windows version of Mozilla (I never
installed it in Linux). It's removal left me feeling tremendous relief. I can
once again concentrate on text without the stressful distraction of those
cartoons zipping around the margins (or sometimes in blocks within the text).
I felt physically relieved when I no longer had animated ads in my face. I
recommend the experience highly.
Note that you must remove the actual program or websites will reinstall the
plugin for it without asking you.
billwww (formerly addicted to moving pictures)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Flash Is Trash - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2004 @ 03:30 AM EDT
- Flashblock - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 02 2004 @ 05:51 AM EDT
- Flash Is Trash - Authored by: Jude on Sunday, May 02 2004 @ 09:30 AM EDT
- Flash Is Trash - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 03 2004 @ 05:46 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Clay on Sunday, May 02 2004 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
OH My god! I cant go to a Linux or SCO article anymore without a giant add by
these guys telling me "the facts". Hey guys, if your facts are so
convincing why do you have to spend so much money making sure I know about them.
Not only that, why am I reading on the exact same page that your IT total cost
of operation is more?
The old propaganda story, "tell someone the same lie enough times and it
becomes truth", well good thing the greenbacks are actually on the side of
truth. The race to the bottom will be the death of you. The cost of your useless
ad campaigns will just make your software cost more. HA!
Clay
---
---------------------------
newObjectivity, Inc. supports the destruction
of all software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
