To rebut this idiot's claims about the kernel
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ryan_ Dec 26, 2004 10:41 AM EDT |
Ignore this fool, he is a troll. He doesn't research anything he types. Groklaw and Andrew Morton shall rebut this idiot for me. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041121124609671 |
| spuzzzzzzz Dec 26, 2004 11:52 AM EDT |
My favourite bit was the one about SCO's patent lawsuits :) The whole "API's are evil because M$ uses them" bit was pretty funny too. |
| sbergman27 Dec 26, 2004 12:37 PM EDT |
I just finished the article, and I am dumbfounded. This article is even more bizarrely misinformed than the first one. I don't even know where to start on correcting the factual errors, let alone addressing differences of opinion. Devnet, let me ask you a question. How long have you been involved with FOSS? |
| devnet Dec 26, 2004 12:55 PM EDT |
sbergman27, Since 1995 when I was a sophomore at a liberal arts college. We had Solaris 2.0 servers there that I learned *nix systems....I then switched to Slackware until Red Hat 7.2 enticed me over. From there I've settled on Red Hat 9 and Debian...although I do love some of the new desktops such as MEPIS, Xandros, and Lycoris. As far as the misinformed and non-fact, which parts are you referrign to? I truly thought out the responses to the numbered items...all those numbered items I addressed were either things pointed out in comments of the first article or asked via email...Thanks for the clarification. Devnet |
| sbergman27 Dec 26, 2004 1:14 PM EDT |
For starters, you might study the history of Linux kernel development. Specifically, you might pay attention to the even/odd numbering scheme that has traditionally been used. |
| devnet Dec 26, 2004 3:04 PM EDT |
I am aware of kernel development... ...I'm aware that there are two branches currently with 2.4 and 2.6 and that odd releases are generally testing releases. Of course, if you're referring to my 'Linux Fork' comment in the post...I've gone back and underlined the two main points of the section...which consequentially are the first two sentences of the paragraphs. These do not point toward an internal...but an external induced one. In the first paragraph I'm trying to show that any fork within LInux would be of unknown outcome...but in the second paragraph, I'm trying to think about business induced forks. Notice the final paragraph also under that section. I'm not saying that these things are intevitable or that we're doomed. I'm just stating that perhaps we should rethink the positions we take. |
| incinerator Dec 26, 2004 3:12 PM EDT |
Lol, if the threats and dangers this guy depicts are so real, why hasn't it happened yet? A while I've made the decision to generally suspect people talking about "open source" instead of "free software" because they are not getting the big picture. The author of this article doesn't, either. Second bad strike, third time's the charm. Meanwhile, lol and please read more anti-fud. |
| devnet Dec 26, 2004 3:43 PM EDT |
FUD? Dude you truly are uninformed...you probably didn't even make it past the first or second paragraph before you let yourself get worked up because someone's opinion didn't match that of your own. Dangers can be real and not directly effect things. There might be an open manhole outside of your flat that poses a real threat to you aka danger yet it won't happen unless you walk directly over it. But would you walk directly over it if you were informed that it was there? That's what I attempted to do with this series of entries INFORM PEOPLE...not enrage people. I figured people would be intelligent enough to figure out, "oh crap, he just might be on to something there...BUSINESS is BUSINESS...whether or not it is compatible with FOSS. So if some business wanted to influence things...they could (through various actions on their part)." I didn't want people to LASH out with silly claims of FUD and trolling. Go back and lookup the definitions of both of these phrases and you'll notice that NEITHER fit in this case. As for getting the big picture...I'm not sure you actually know what you're talking about there. It seems you have a negative opinion to offer anyone who even challenges Open Source. Perhaps you should try and look at things in an unbiased nature before you swoop in to bash them. It might help out in all aspects of your life :) Regards, Devnet |
| PaulFerris Dec 26, 2004 5:16 PM EDT |
Devnet, Please understand, some of us work for "companies", and have for years in the enterprise space. Linux-based solutions are derailing _enourmous_ inertia by other vendors -- it's a huge win. Maybe "open source" has not been successful at whatever company you work for. Ok, that's "too bad" -- it's not that way for many of us elsewhere. Many of us are enjoying real career success implementing Linux solutions in enterprise-class settings. Read on, I have some insight as to why people are flaming you. Please don't take this as a flaming. There are some pearls of wisdom here, and I think maybe this might clear up some of your bewilderment (if that is indeed what it is). Your article starts out by saying: "There is a crossroads in today's enterprise OS" You then embark upon something I'll refer to here as "support speculation". You know what? Companies buy support, with contracts, for specific periods of time. Sometimes the companies that offer this support dry up and blow a way. These companies that are buying that support understand that that's life. They're fully aware of the risks. Linux isn't much of a risk, as most of us that have been in the IT industry for more than a couple of decades (that'd be me, by the way) have seen stuff come and go, and the sheet-metal doesn't even get dented. You might -- Might -- end up with something a couple of years from now that's "unsupported". Big fat hairy deal, man. This isn't an issue -- this is something that any decent IT manager worth his weight in salt, knows. If something like this keeps him up worried nights, he should be doing something else -- making donuts, managing a photomat -- something that doesn't involve software, if you get my drift. Another thing about the Linux community -- it's been here, getting stronger, for what? going on 15 years? Come on. If the community was in danger of drying up and blowing away, we'd see something in the way of danger signs. No one would be bothering to post to this forum, for example, or take you to task for basically an opinion piece fronting itself as a fact-based article. That, by the way, was your first major mistake with this "article" you posted. Why didn't you pick something more inflamatory as a headline? Something like "Why Richard Stallman sucks!" would probably net you a few more hits. You wrote an opinion piece with a title "Why open source isn't succeeding..." . Look, that's an opinion -- not a fact. It should have been entitled "Why I (devnet, or whoever I am) think that open source is not succeeding" -- that's a legitimate title and it sets the right tone for your work. Do this in the future -- if it's opinion, make it so. Say "Joe Blows -- your name here -- opinion about why Linux is going to sink with a big sucking sound." Then we can all easily ignore it, at least. That's what people do that don't want to read what I have to say -- I don't present opinion as fact, it's a mistake -- your main one here, believe it or not. For what it's worth, I'm not being critical of you posting an opinion piece -- I'm being critical of you posting it with a fact-leading headline. Almost everything I write is an opinion piece of some sort -- it's practically unavoidable :) They're all labeled as such -- that's necessary. Some other advice while I'm at it. If you want to be taken seriously, refer to Microsoft as Microsoft -- not Micro$oft -- it looks unprofessional, and you're going to come off as a minor. My general feeling from looking at your posts here, and the article in general, is that you want to be taken seriously. Don't post it as Devnet -- post it as yourself. Stuff posted by Devnet is mostly going to go to devnull, unfortunatley. Who is Devnet? some professional reader (your audience, I presume?) is going to say. Post it as a human being with an obvious email address of a person attached. Put a bio at the end, and maybe some context -- it will help a great deal. You may think that all of this is petty. Trust me, it's not petty. What you think is cool might impress your friends -- but it's likely not going to make a dent in the eye of the suits (again, my perception is that you want it to be taken seriously -- if this is a misperception, I apologize in advace). In case your wondering, these are two mistakes I made really, really long ago (1997, actually). People corrected me then -- I'm correcting you now. I don't agree, for the record, with what you have to say. I do, however, respect diversity, and you're entitled to your opinion (for whatever that's worth). Now, you can ignore my advice -- that's the beauty of the net and a public forum. But you'll be sorry if you do, because over time you'll find that the opinion of someone whose posted a ton of articles for quite some time has some valuable advice to offer. And I truly am sincere when I say better luck next time... Sincerely, --Paul Ferris |
| peragrin Dec 26, 2004 5:34 PM EDT |
If your Going to spread your opinion try getting some facts right >>We have a patent system that is corrupt. Anyone can sue anyone for patent violation even if they do not own the rights to what they are suing over. Think SCO on this one |
| peragrin Dec 26, 2004 5:38 PM EDT |
The Mambo Case?? never yet to court. The Dumb ass who started making a big deal out of it, talked to SCO's PR director Blake Stowell before he actually FOUND EVEDIENCE that a crime had been commited. So as i said get your FACTS straight before you spread your opinion. Because the FACTS will destroy your opinion in no time. I tried to do what you did once as well, not sure if I will write again. I got ripped apart. |
| devnet Dec 26, 2004 6:39 PM EDT |
Peragrin, >>If your Going to spread your opinion try getting some facts right >>We have a patent system that is corrupt. Anyone can sue anyone for >>patent violation even if they do not own the rights to what they are >>suing over. Think SCO on this one Think SCO...suing someone OVER NOTHING. Anyone can sue. I think this is garbage. Hence siting SCO. I bring up Mambo because an idiot was ALLOWED to even bring accusations and the media enflamed them to high pitch status. Imagine if he actually would have brought that to court...yet another BOGUS case based on a faulty patent system. When INTERNET STANDARDS can be patented...you know you have a jacked up system. Nuff Said. Devnet |
| devnet Dec 26, 2004 7:10 PM EDT |
PaulFerris, >>Linux-based solutions are derailing _enourmous_ inertia by other >>vendors -- it's a huge win. Maybe "open source" has not been successful >>at whatever company you work for. Ok, that's "too bad" Actually, I'm glad that Linux is having successes. I'm happy that FOSS is succeeding...on a minor scale.. However, you've got to read what I post man! I'm not saying it can't win...I'm saying it isn't winning ON THE WHOLE...right now. I'm taking the entire scope of things into consideration here. I live in a town of 200 thousand people. Guess how many open source vendors there are here? NONE. Microsoft? About 20. Now you see my point. Perhaps FOSS is making headway...but in my opinion, it isn't succeeding on the whole and it hasn't arrived to mainstream. >>You wrote an opinion piece with a title "Why open source isn't >>succeeding..." . Look, that's an opinion -- not a fact. It should have been >>entitled "Why I (devnet, or whoever I am) think that open source is not >>succeeding" -- that's a legitimate title and it sets the right tone for your >>work. >>Do this in the future -- if it's opinion, make it so. Say "Joe Blows -- your >>name here -- opinion about why Linux is going to sink with a big sucking >>sound." Last I checked, blog entries didn't require this. I would look like a schizophrenic arse if I posted things like this. I wish I had titled things a bit different as evident in my first paragraph of this current entry. However, you've got to stick with things after you've done them...you reap what you sow. So the rebuttle to my first blog entry editorial just added a 'part II" to avoid confusion. >>I'm being critical of you posting it with a fact-leading headline Since when did the 'Editorial' category require facts as a prerequisite? Why wasn't I informed? Damn! 10 years of collegiate education down the tubes! >> Some other advice while I'm at it. If you want to be taken seriously, >>refer to Microsoft as Microsoft -- not Micro$oft -- it looks unprofessional, Opinions vary and it's my blog entry. If I want to add the ampersand to the third letter of every word, it's my perogative. If people want to take what I have seriously...great. If not, I'm not worried. My OPINION will not suffer terribly if a couple of old IT dudes think I'm ametuerish or unknowledgeable. One thing is certain in IT....if you get 4 IT people in the same room...each one of them thinks they're the smartest. I get tired of comparing brainpans with everyone I run across. I hope sometime you do as well. It's rather refreshing when you finally arrive at that point in your life. >>Don't post it as Devnet -- post it as yourself. Stuff posted by Devnet is >>mostly going to go to devnull, unfortunatley. Who is Devnet? some >>professional reader (your audience, I presume?) is going to say. Post it >>as a human being with an obvious email address of a person attached. >>Put a bio at the end, and maybe some context Once again, your speaking as if I want to go on and write for newsforge. I'm not a journalist, nor will I ever attempt to be one. I am a man with an opinion...one that I posted in BLOG FORMAT. Last I checked that wasn't the hotbed of journalistic activity nor the official format for the New York Times. >>Now, you can ignore my advice -- that's the beauty of the net and a >>public forum. But you'll be sorry if you do, because over time you'll find >>that the opinion of someone whose posted a ton of articles for quite >>some time has some valuable advice to offer. No...I'm going to take your advice if I ever decide to write for an online journal or some sort of newspaper/magazine. As for blogging, I'm afraid I'll do things as they feel comfortable and continue to do things as they feel comfortable. But thanks for your honest opinion and your input. I will take this to heart if future endeavors lead me toward developing professional articles. Devnet |
| ryan_ Dec 26, 2004 7:28 PM EDT |
Devnet, you just don't get it. I am not mad that you are saying Open Source will fail. I don't think it will, you do. Difference of opinion. Big deal. But you present your opinions like you are god and they are facts. You dodge around the direct questions being asked to you. Answer these questions for me please. 1) You say Andrew Morton is "worried" about a kernel fork. The link I gave to Groklaw at the beginning of this thread not only rebuts this, but Morton himself says it has happened numerous times. I will quote him here. "Paul has misinterpreted the word 'fork'. I was referring to the software engineering process of branching off a stable release of your product so that development can continue against the tip-of-tree codebase. "We did this for the 2.0 kernel series, the 2.2 series and the 2.4 series. One day we'll do it for the 2.6 series." I presented this to rebut your arguement, and again, like other people presenting arguements, you completely ignore them and "rebut" their facts with your opinions. 2) You say there is a danger of the kernel forking. It is a danger, yes. Why, because of fragmentation. Then your second arguement is against the LSB!?!? Something designed (by a non-profit i might add) to prevent fragmentation. You say the LSB's API's are bad, and that they will lock people in, and then even compare them to Microsoft's (not Micro$oft I might add) APIs. Where do you get off comparing the APIs of a greedy convicted monopolist who's primary goal is vendor lock-in to a non-profit who's primary goal is preventing Linux from going the way of Unix, and fragmenting?? Compare Apple's with Apple's please. Also, if I don't have the resources to conform to the LSB...then how would I have the resources to write a program in the first place??? 3) You seem to miss one of the greatest aspects of Open Source. If Microsoft goes bankrupt, what happens to your documents in .doc format when it comes time to upgrade??? With open source, there is no need to worry. All it takes is 2 or 3 full-time developers and a couple more contributors to continue another company's discontinued open source product. Considering there are 6 billion people in the world, chances are someone will be willing to do the work. Why is it such a worry that some company will withdraw their support? Linux will go on if Novell withdraws their support, it was doing just fine without them. Same with IBM. Linux had scaled up to 16 processors with the release of kernel 2.0, just over 2 years before IBM began getting involved with Linux. 4) You say open source isn't succeeding because it isn't on all of our desktops yet. Well, if I understand you correctly then Microsoft isn't succeeding because it isn't on all web servers yet. Am i Correct here? Adobe isn't succeeding because it isn't on all desktops. Your view of the word succeed is very skewed. I think the word you are looking for is monopoly. You don't need to dominate a market in order to be successful. Definition of the word succeed: To accomplish something desired or intended: “Success is counted sweetest/By those who ne'er succeed” Don't see anything in that definition that suggests you need to dominate a market or be a monopoly like Microsoft in order to be successful. |
| ryan_ Dec 26, 2004 7:43 PM EDT |
Sorry, forgot this piece. " Let's set up a hypothetical situation. Say that Tom is a software developer who writes a stellar program for Linux that starts to garner him some attention. His software is quickly adopted in both KDE and Gnome desktop environments and begins to be included in default installs for Linux distros. However, Tom does not have the resources to port his application over to LSB 2.0 compliance. So, company X comes in and takes the code that Tom developed and re-releases it for their own OS. Will they give that code back to Tom? Will they employ Tom to develop for them? Will they donate to HIS original cause (i.e. developing HIS software)? Or will they just take this and say that "well, we give enough back to the community because we donated X lines of code or Y applications as open source." In this instance, the fact that Tom wasn't able to get up to LSB 2.0 standards inhibited his program from fully realizing its potential. Will these situations make developers look into adopting a different Licensing scheme such as the creative commons or others? Only time will tell. One thing is certain; the danger of things like this happening because of LSB 2.0 is there. " A couple of things. For one, if company X takes the code without contributing back, unless it is under a BSD style license, that is something called copyright infringement. That is illegal. All Tom has to do is either sue the company, or assign his copyrights to the Free Software Foundation. They are more than happy to accept other's copyrights (as long as they are free software of course...or as long as they can release the software as free software) and they are more than happy to bring companies violating their copyrights back into line. They have done this time and time again. They have never had to go to court, they can usually accomplish their goals through negotiation. So now, assuming company X doesn't commit copyright infringement, Tom has full access to the source, can download the new source conformed to the LSB and go right on coding. Also, explain to me how Tom is going to have the resources to write this "stellar program" but not have the resources to conform to the LSB??? It's not like it is a task requiring thousands of hours of coding. Also, the danger of a company STEALING someone else's code is there, with or without the LSB. You did realize this not only was possible, but has OCCURRED BEFORE THE LSB WAS CREATED, right? Saying the LSB opens up this possibility is insane. Also, if I am Sun Microsystem's, and I release a non open source version of the Linux kernel and IBM, Red Hat and co. sue me for infringeing their copyrights, do you think the arguement "well, we give enough back to the community because we donated X lines of code or Y applications as open source" would actually hold up in court? That arguement is ludicrous...at best. Everyday I see companies switching to Open Source, more people becoming aware of Firefox, Open Office, etc. and no amount of your non-facts and opinions and hypothetical situations is going to change that. |
| devnet Dec 26, 2004 9:56 PM EDT |
ryan_, >>I am not mad that you are saying Open Source will fail. I don't think it will, you do Actually, I don't think it will fail. I just don't think it is at the level where people think it is right now. I don't think it is successful at this point in time. I tried to bring awareness at this point...obviously you missed it. I guess I should have made a shorter entry so you might have put the entire article together as a whole instead of taking small pieces out of context and applying your own meaning to them. >>1) You say Andrew Morton is "worried" about a kernel fork. Get off the Kernel fork dude...I was addressing issues that people brought up to me. That's not my opinion...and if it does fork internally, who gives a crap? It's still going to survive. Look at my article again (did you even read it?). I've taken the 'hard part of thinking' out of it by UNDERLINING the main points of the "linux kernel fork" section you are having a hissy over. Read it nice and slow and sound it out...maybe then you'll understand. I'm not worried about an internal fork...but an external induced one. Well, you wasted half of your time debating a kernel fork that I didn't even address in my entry. Wow. And I'm the uninformed one. Try reading something before you go and bash it. I read the entire .pdf of LSB 2.0 before I posted. What's your excuse? >>You say open source isn't succeeding because it isn't on all of our desktops >>yet. When Open Source is as common as Microsoft APPLICATIONS...not just servers and OS...but apps too...(think office, SQL, etc.) THEN and only THEN will open source succeed. No you don't need to dominate a market to succeed...but you need to be present enough to win. FOSS isn't there yet. Lance Armstrong didn't dominate by not even showing up...or only partially showing up. Man, you sure didn't think very much before your response eh? |
| ryan_ Dec 26, 2004 10:38 PM EDT |
Actually, in my last 2 responses, I posted 4 sentences (excluding quotes) about the kernel fork. Go back and count for yourself. I obviously read your whole post, as I responded to the LSB statement, the kernel statement (with 4 sentences, not half my posts like you said), you thinking that succeeding means domination (which is how you came off in your previous posts), your hypothetical situation and you talking about companies cutting off support for OS apps. Again, you ignored what I had to say about your hypothetical situation (which took up more of my post then the kernel fork btw...count sentences if u want), all you mentioned about the LSB is you reading a PDF, you didn't cover why I said companies cutting off support don't matter and again brought up your skewed definition of success. Apparently you didn't read my posts as you didn't respond to 3/4 of the stuff in them. You say I wasted half my post about the kernel fork (which i didnt) and then you go back to the FIRST sentence and tell me to get off the kernel fork....hmmm, i didn't think 4 sentences was that long for a topic personally. Also, you brought up the article written by Paul Krill and then stated that there were concerns since November of a kernel fork and cited the article as evidence, when clearly Paul Krill didn't do his research. That's what I was rebutting Again, success does not equal dominate. It doesn't even mean your products have to be common. If I am a start-up and within a year I've managed to sell products to 1% of all businesses in America, I would consider that a success. Whether Open Source is successful or not is a matter of personal opinion, not fact, so on to the next topic. Please present an arguement about the LSB to rebut mine. I couldn't give two shits whether you read a PDF or not. Please answer question 3 about companies ending support. I don't think it is a problem. Groups like Fedora Legacy can continue support for EOL F/OSS. You didn't even respond to this. You also didn't respond to my next post about your hypothetical situation. Please give your thoughts as to why my analysis is incorrect. I responded to almost everything in your article, and was going to finish but I had to run out. You barely responded to any of my points I made. You just chose to ignore them, like I pointed out you had a tendancy to do when I opened this thread. " Look at my article again (did you even read it?) " Come on, don't be a hypocrite. You didn't even make it far enough through my posts to notice I had a second one and you read so little that you thought 4 sentences was half of my response. |
| incinerator Dec 27, 2004 2:55 AM EDT |
devnet: In my post I recommended you should read some more anti-fud. I never said you are spreading F.U.D., so maybe you should starting reading thoroughly "before you get yourself worked up."
I did recommend that because imho you were clearly being suckered by F.U.D. You have probably read all that stupid stuff written by Laura Didio etc. and I cannot help to say it but you actually seem to believe it. That is exactly the way these people work, they want you to feal uncertain about free/open source software and want to discourage you from using it.
Oh, these people would never say anything bad about open source software, it's all good and rosy but "hey people, there are dangers there which could cost us many jobs".
These people would rather want you to pay a truckload of money for a piece of s/w which they dictate the usage restrictions for. I don't want to do that, that's why I use free software, and it indeed it is making me more free not only because I can spend that truckload of money for something else but also because I am free to do more things with that free s/w, like analysing the source code, fixing bugs meself, giving a copy to my neighbour etc. And that is the big picture you are not getting. Free software does not exist to make comanies lifes cheaper. Its primary cause of existence is to promote freedom and make people free. Even if all the so-called big companies would pull out of free s/w, the s/w itself would still be there and people could still use it. If a big company forks the Linux kernel there is still competition, and we could always start backmerging the fork or parts of it, exactly because it is free software. In conclusion, all the dangers you point out in your article are not that dangerous as you would like us to see them. On the contrary, these so-called threats are made up and spread by people like Laura Didio who want you to feel f(ear), u(ncertainty) and (d)oubt. And yes, you got suckers, otherwise you would not have written that article. I recommend reading groklaw and especially RMS interviews and speech transscripts, maybe you'll get the big picture. |
| peragrin Dec 27, 2004 4:33 AM EDT |
Devnet_ I bring up Mambo because an idiot was ALLOWED to even bring accusations and the media enflamed them to high pitch status. This is the United States, I am allowed to sue you for anything I damn well want to. I can make all the noise in the world aobut it as well. BUT if I can't back up noise with facts I am going to have to pay, and pay alot. Where is the Mambo guy today? Heck were is SCO today, Discovery ends in a month and SCO has YET to show one Infringing line of code. You sound a lot like a guy I know from Yahoo SCOX. it's not that you are wrong, it's just that you can't wrap your mind around the facts of how to give people freedom but not to allow abuse as well. You either give up the freedom , or be abused. It's tough to find a balance in a society were money is worth more than people. Note I updated this sice part of it got erased. |
| TxtEdMacs Dec 27, 2004 10:01 AM EDT |
devnet: If your intent was to "inform", it would help a bit if you really bothered to inform yourself. Reading just the opening paragraph is proof enough that you are badly misinformed. I am going to make this simple and short - I have others things to do of more import. Before Linux was even projected to even hold anywhere near 1% of the market the talk of "World Domination was afoot as it seems to be your prime criteria for measuring the success of Linux, Open Source (and I assume Free) software. It was a JOKE! [Read some of the old interviews with Linus.] Why do it think it even desirable to have one OS run everything? Simply stated, Linux (including other free and open software) need NOT dominate to succeed wildly. There are dangers true, but those even close to MS do not think it can control the entire world. Moreover, if they succeed in blocking the options locally they will build the opposition elsewhere. Furthermore, that elsewhere is where the major market expansions are occurring. Indeed, that 's where MS wants to gain market. Danger, sure but not just for the so called backers of the open source option. If Linux (and other options) take even a quarter of the market the days of hegemony are over for MS. The world is not as simplistic are you perceive nor are your insights as perceptive as you imagine. |
| sbergman27 Dec 27, 2004 10:28 AM EDT |
Since the first glaring error that I mentioned seems now to be fixed in the editorial, I'll select another at random: > "Let's set up a hypothetical situation. Say that Tom is a software developer who writes a stellar program for Linux that starts to garner him some attention. His software is quickly adopted in both KDE and Gnome desktop environments and begins to be included in default installs for Linux distros. However, Tom does not have the resources to port his application over to LSB 2.0 compliance. So, company X comes in and takes the code that Tom developed and re-releases it for their own OS. Will they give that code back to Tom? Will they employ Tom to develop for them? Will they donate to HIS original cause (i.e. developing HIS software)? Or will they just take this and say that "well, we give enough back to the community because we donated X lines of code or Y applications as open source." Explanation of the fallacy: His software is adopted by KDE and Gnome, so we can say that the important bits are maintained under GPL or LGPL licensing. Company X is then required to make their mods to said code available to anyone to whom they distribute binaries, without further restriction. Those people are then free to make the code available to anyone, via ftp or whatever. Tom gets their mods back and can include them in the next release of his code. You have demonstrated, here, a lack of understanding about how the (L)GPL works. Even if things worked as your "hypothetical situation" describes, I hardly see what this has to do with LSB 2.0, which makes me wonder about your understanding of that. Note1: If the code is LGPL, then it is possible that company X could write their own proprietary code which links against Tom's code, and they would not have to make the source for their proprietary code available. That would not be possible with GPL. (Any modifications to Tom's code *would* have to be released, in both cases.) Choose your license wisely and you are covered. Note2: If Tom's own source tree was covered under the BSD license, or some other very permissive license, Tom would be delighted that GNOME and KDE found it useful in their open-source projects, and also delighted that company X found his code useful for their proprietary project. -Steve Bergman |
| ryan_ Dec 27, 2004 2:03 PM EDT |
Why are we even argueing anymore? He clearly shows he doesn't care what we say. Read his response right after I posted twice in a row. Do you think I am guilty of the things he accused me of? He just ignores 99% of your response that you backed up with facts and picks on the 1% where you failed to do that. This is evident where he sat there and picked at me for wasting "half of my response" on the kernel fork, even though I spent very little time talking about it and more about the other issues which he failed to respond to to. OH, forgive me, he responded to my LSB statement by stating he had read a PDF. |
| sbergman27 Dec 27, 2004 2:24 PM EDT |
Ryan_, We are helping to improve the editorial piece. Devnet is making changes to it based upon our responses. e.g. the statement that "there is talk about forking the kernel" and the link to the "Chicken Little" piece about the impending kernel fork has now been removed. After the factual errors have been whittled away, we (and others viewing it) can all get down to a productive discussion of the actual opinions expressed... based upon *facts* and not misinformation. It seems a worthwhile goal. I believe that there is some kernel of truth (sorry ;-) to the idea that working with large corps has some potential dangers. That said, it is not like these issues have not been discussed incessantly^Wmany times. But the cost of freedom *is* eternal vigilence, right? :-) Live Long and Prosper. Steve Bergman |
| ryan_ Dec 27, 2004 5:27 PM EDT |
"
I believe that there is some kernel of truth (sorry ;-) to the idea that working with large corps has some potential dangers.
" Yes, obviously this can be true (think of SCO). But without large corporations, where would OpenOffice, Cloudscape, a lot of the SMP code in the kernel and Mozilla have come from??? You have to take the good with the bad. If *all* companies pulled support for Open Source at once, the effects would be devastating to some projects. But, it wouldn't kill open source. One company pulling support would be no big deal (hell, Caldera turned on us and it didnt hurt that much). And I very highly doubt all companies would turn on us at once....so for the mean time I don't think we have much to worry about. And like was pointed out, devnet makes a kernel fork sound devastating. BUT...code from the forked kernel could always be placed back in the mainstream kernel to keep them compatable. The LSB issue has been discussed to death without much response, so I won't bring that up. |
| gstrock Dec 28, 2004 1:50 AM EDT |
I think there's a problem with these linux
aggregator newsites in that they collect
any article with Linux or Open Source in the
title without any filtering. A lot of these articles would otherwise go unread and just sit on some back water web server. Previously there was the security company that published their review that windows was more secure than Linux, and they didn't include viruses and trojans that were windows specific. I think a lot of these articles are after PR. - greg s. |
| devnet Dec 28, 2004 4:34 AM EDT |
sbergman27 Just to clarify. There's been 2 and only 2 changes to the article since it went public. I've taken out reference the second kernel (as you stated above) fork article because it wasn't needed....the first one is still there. The only other item edited was the underlining of the two main points under the 'Forking' section. I was trying to draw people into paying attention to what those paragraphs are about...but it seems that the only thing people can see is the word 'Fork' and 'Linux' and they draw their own conclusions. It's odd how when someone's opinion isn't mainstream it is shot down quick, fast, and in a hurry. If it doesn't agree with what 'normal' people think...its untrue, ignorant, stupid, FUD, and trolling. That's ok though...everyone has an opinion. |
| sbergman27 Dec 28, 2004 4:53 AM EDT |
Your opinion piece is being criticized because it is fraught with disinformation which people are trying to call to your attention. (A fact which you seem to be trying to ignore or deny.) Of *course* that reduces your credibility. No need to appeal to persecution theories, here. You have not answered the points about "Tom's code in KDE and Gnome" that ryan_ and I have raised. It is useless to debate the opinion part until the facts are nailed down. And until then, your opinions will (rightly) continue to be considered of dubious validity. -Steve Bergman P.S. Please do read Paul Ferris' reply carefully. There is much good advice in it. He knows what he is talking about. |
| devnet Dec 28, 2004 5:08 AM EDT |
sbergman, I didn't originate the idea that the GNU is bad for programmers...I am just echoing this notion. http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html and this is interesting as well: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/28/business/code.html edit: The reason I point the above out is because it isn't my job to defend EVERY single idea posted in my entry...that's what an editorial is about...if each editorial ever written required the author to go back in and become an expert on each and every single idea or point of view inside it...we'd have a TON of people with massive IQ's that also have breadth of wisdom that everyone would be envious of. About Tom and the GPL: The GPL is not compatible with any license out there...but demands that every other license be compatible with it. Very exclusive. If anyone decides to make changes to software (according to the GPL) they must do it publically right? What if they don't? In business, no one is out to make friends and they don't care if they step on toes. The only thing that is preventing someone from robbing source code (aka Tom's program) is a little label from the FSF that states it is GPL. They could close it down if they wanted to. Is Tom going to sue them? If so will he win? Who knows? But he'll waste a ton of money and his progression in programming will suffer due to it. On a side note: The FSF can 'suggest' that people not use a license as being incompatible with the GPL (as evident when Apache 2.0 came out and the fit hit the shan). It doesn't stop with the Apache License...it can be applied to any license deemed incompatible with the GPL. This being the case, we already see where a foundation or business can sway public opinion and other companies toward doing what they want. That's really against what the GPL originally tried to accomplish. We're taking steps backwards instead of forwards. The ultimate goal of the GPL is to provide free software for all right? How does this mix with Linux becoming more and more commercialized? When you add these into the mix, how can a company that has tons of proprietary code sitting next to code ripe for the picking? Who is going to police the GPL violations? We're wagging a bone in front of companies dog mouths and one of these days...they'll bite. Just my 2 cents...crap...now I sound like a BSD user...not something I was going for. Oh well, I agree with them on these last few points I guess. |
| peragrin Dec 28, 2004 8:55 AM EDT |
devnet: This is where your being a stupid idiot. I am sory but that is the ONLY description for what your saying. I have this nice freshly painted bridge for sale. It even comes with it's own island for only $200k . I find your opinions & statements to be as convincing as the previous sentence. I want you to go grab a copy of MSFT Windows Source code, modify Internet Explorer, and try publishing just the binaries. You CAN'T. It's NOT yours. You can't do want you want with it. If you spend enough you might be able to get a license from MSFT for it just as you can get a different license from the GPL contributors. It's a lot harder to do with GPL software, but it isn't impossible. MySQL is a good example. It's under mulitple licenses. The only real concerns for software companies is that programmers like to take shortcuts, and having a library of source code for an entire OS just floating around the Internet is to tempting a target, for people without morals. Closed source companies must make sure that their programmers don't use Open Source code in their stuff, and when they do that the divisions are very clear. I only really learned all of this since SCO. I READ and COMPREHENDED the GPL only after I tried to sort out SCO's claims. Of course being able to comprehend what is read is very important. Something that a large segment of the population fails to do. Not just you i can site examples with in my own company, and Goverment annoucements that they don't understand. Try reading your local editorial section on a regular basis. Listen to what the people are complaining about, and then try to see if they actually have a valid point or they don't understand what is going on and are just yelling. As I said in the beging this may seem mean, but I never could understand how people can misconstrue facts. How can they not go look at the other side and see if the claims are true. Why do you believe everything someone tells you with out first asking the other people involved? |
| devnet Dec 28, 2004 9:20 AM EDT |
wow! I see the light. You've convinced me! Companies are ALWAYS true to their word and will NEVER NEVER steal code from anyone who protects it with any kind of license...especially the GPL because IT is secure :) thanks man! I've reached zen! Well, the Zen for stupid people anyways. ;) |
| cjcox Dec 28, 2004 9:32 AM EDT |
My thought: You can 'what if' almost anything to death. We don't live in Utopia, but without trust, nobody can be trusted (there's a sic). AND... I mean... NOBODY. (I know that sounded stupid... but I think you know what I'm getting at) Paranoia isn't a great business plan. (that's probably a better statement) |
| peragrin Dec 28, 2004 10:11 AM EDT |
Devnet Okay that was funny :-) The License is the legal shield. Whether it's MSFT EULA, the GPL, IBM's CPL, etc. It doesn't stop anybody, it just provides a framework, so when you go to court you can determine if the shield was broken, and how much it will cost to repair it. |
| PaulFerris Dec 28, 2004 11:50 AM EDT |
Devnet,
sorry this has to go answered, since I've seen it missed many, many times: > bout Tom and the GPL: The GPL is not compatible with any license out > there...but demands that every other license be compatible with it. Very > exclusive. If anyone decides to make changes to software (according to the > GPL) they must do it publically right? No, they don't. This is really clear, look here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods You're not alone in this misconception, by the way. Might do you some good to take a look at a lot of the questions and answers on that page. It will likely clear up a lot of the noise you've been subjected to (and hopefully you aren't adding to that noise -- we need signal here -- ok :) Best of luck there, --Paul |
| sbergman27 Dec 28, 2004 12:24 PM EDT |
Paul Ferris wrote: -- we need signal here -- ok :) ----------- I would just like to join in this sentiment. I believe that this can be a productive thread *IF* people will let it be. Name calling, personal attacks, and other irrelevant unpleasantness turn it into a useless shouting match. That said, I disagree that a piece's status as an editorial absolves the author of the responsibility to adhere to facts. I do not see it as a license to spread misinformation. It should be made clear what material is being presented as *fact*, and what material is being presented as opinion, as even an opinion piece cannot exist in a vacuum. There must be facts to support the opinion, or the opinion falls of its own weight. -Steve Bergman |
| sbergman27 Dec 28, 2004 12:55 PM EDT |
gstrock, LXer does not aggregate news without filtering. Dave, our votes, and Dave's bayesian filtering utilities are all involved in deciding what gets posted. My personal opinion is that we (as people knowledgeable of FOSS's history and "current events") are the very people who need to know about about any sites which are offering that which we might consider misinformation. I don't think that keeping disinformative material hidden in darkness is necessarily helpful. -Steve Bergman |
| PaulFerris Dec 28, 2004 2:37 PM EDT |
And I agree wholeheartedly with sbergman27 -- this is truly what _all_ of this is about -- meaningful discussion. We're a community -- communities revolve around agreement and when that can't be had, space to have differing points of view. The alternative is something else. As to the effectiveness of what Dave (Whitinger, site creator and more) has going here, don't kid yourself and think it's just a web site. Dave (along with Dwight Johnson, later myself and an entire community) created and maintained something just like LXer.com a long time ago. It hasn't died in concept, it's just been waiting to come back. The old site is a memory. This one has all of the markings of it in it's prime. A bit of democracy (in the postings) and a bit of sheer gut dictatorship (in the editorial descisions, such as what to post and what not to post). I could pontifcate on what destroyed the old site, but that'd be a waste of good posting space. The ingredients needed are here at LXer. It's what's needed to make something like this work. Everyone with an open mind is welcome to join in. What we're not about, and never will be about, is censorship and exclusionism. Dave (and others like myself) understand that intuitively. Any digital system setup to catch the bad guys is going to fail (do I need to mention other places where this can be seen as an example?). I have a recommendation here: make LXer.com a community site -- the magic is us, folks. This is a ton of work for somebody like Dave and making it an attempted flaming ground would be such a waste of what it can (and, mark my words, or I wouldn't be contributing to it) what it will be. All the best! --Paul (FeriCyde) Ferris |
| AnonymousCoward Dec 29, 2004 12:10 AM EDT |
PaulFerris, it's not just Linux. People are starting to discover that PostgreSQL's every bit as useful as Oracle, MS-SQL Server etc for 95% of applications and better for some. PostFix and accomplices (AMaViS, ClamAV, greymail etc) are starting to get noticed. Linux is being adopted by people who want Samba and need something to run it on. FireFox, OpenOffice, The GIMP (the name doesn't have so much of the obvious negative connotation in Oz that the Yanks seem to place on it) and so on are starting to see real uptake on the other end of the pipe. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!