Like father like son
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| rexbinary Mar 20, 2007 9:13 AM EDT |
So Novell releases 'Service Packs' now. How pathetic. Why don't they just sell out to Microsoft and get it over with? |
| cjcox Mar 20, 2007 10:08 AM EDT |
I'll take your ignorance as just that.... SUSE has been doing service packs since way before the Novell acquisition. And... since this doesn't appear to be known.... service packs ARE NOT a Microsoft creation. |
| tuxtom Mar 20, 2007 10:38 AM EDT |
Service Packs...Patches...Updates...who cares what you call it. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 20, 2007 10:39 AM EDT |
cjcox - I agree with your sentiment, but the way the announcement is worded in the first paragraph, it does sound like a new practice for Novell. However, I'll provide a link to a similar announcement for Service Pack 3 for SLES 8: http://listserv.sap.com/pipermail/linux.announce/2004-March/... I think this may be the first service pack for SUSE since they became part of the Novell Umbrella. Poorly worded announcement is what this is. Too bad so many people are jumping at the bit to find fault in everything that Novell does. Of course it should tell them something when their worst nightmares about Novell remain simply dreams in their head. |
| Abe Mar 20, 2007 11:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:I'll take your ignorance as just that.... Quoting:Service Packs...Patches...Updates...who cares what you call it. No ignorance at all and no one should really care, but the thing though, it seems like Novell is starting to use MS lingo. Things must be rubbing off, that is all. One wonders what will be next. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 21, 2007 6:49 AM EDT |
@Abe, Novell is *NOT* taking on MS lingo - look at the one link I provided to SuSE releasing SP3 for SLES 8. This was an announcement by SAP from back in 2004. Here's one from SUSE dated in November of 2003 (before Novell completed the deal for acquisition): http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3113891 SUSE was calling it a Service Pack even way back when. And think about it - for there to be a SP3 there had to be a SP1 and SP2 from even earlier. |
| Abe Mar 21, 2007 6:18 PM EDT |
Quoting:This was an announcement by SAP from back in 2004. That shows how long the planning for the agreement has been going on. I suspected, but wasn't sure, that Novell was planning its move way back then when they purchased Ximian and then Suse. I always suspected that Ximian was an MS lackey (venture capitalist after big money) and they will sell to MS. They are the big influence that drove Novell to consummate the agreement. Back then, I named them the "Ximian Gang". It is all clear now. This is the same tactics that Compaq board used to purchase Digital (with the help from Intel, MS & HP). It is a long subject but there were valid reasons for greedy CEOs who made millions out of those deals. You might say "it is outrageous", but I will explain when I have the time. In the mean time, think about it. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 21, 2007 8:38 PM EDT |
@Abe - So what about Service Pack 1 for SLES 8?? You don't suppose that maybe, just maybe, the terminology was actually a carryover from UnitedLinux 1.0 SP1, which is what SLES 8 is based on? Or are you prepared to claim that the TurboLinux people must be in cahoots with MS as well? |
| tuxchick Mar 21, 2007 8:41 PM EDT |
I think the lesson here is anything associated with Microsoft is suspect and distasteful! |
| dcparris Mar 21, 2007 9:38 PM EDT |
Well, in that case, I'm mud. My brother, now a former MS employee, only left to get a different view of the MS ecosystem. He's my brother. Therefore I'm really an MS mole. Shhhh.... Don't tell anyone - especially not those Linux Aficionados I saw in the MS brochure! |
| tuxchick Mar 21, 2007 9:51 PM EDT |
ew don. I knew there something not right about you. Is there anything worse than a brother devoted to stealing FOSS secrets? sheesh. |
| tuxtom Mar 21, 2007 9:55 PM EDT |
Who actually coined the term "Service Pack"? Was it Microsoft? Is it that distasteful? Is the term "Control Panel" distasteful? How about "Window"? How about "Office", with or without the "Open" or the "K"? "Updates"? "Software"? "Service"? "Server"? (OK, those last two ARE oxymorons, but they throw them around a lot.) I guess my keyboard is distasteful. It's a Microsoft Ergonomic 4000. It's the only one my massive paws can tolerate. It's ironic that MSFT makes some of the best keyboards available. ( I suppose carpal tunnel syndrome would be in better taste...call me trash. ) I also use a Microsoft mouse on one of my machines...I have no excuse for that other than I got it for free, it works just fine, none of the cheaper mice have survived my savage attacks and I'm too cheap to buy a Logitech. Besides, I kinda have a soft spot for them now that they have completely humiliated the firm with Vista. * * The author's writings do not necessarily reflect the author's opinion (Ergonomic 4000 excluded). The author in no way endorses sympathy for Microsoft in any way, shape or form. The author has hated Novell since being forced to use NetWare 3/4 in a restrictive corporate environment...any assimilation of Suse has not altered this stance. Do not try this at home. Do not huff canned air. |
| dinotrac Mar 22, 2007 12:10 AM EDT |
> That shows how long the planning for the agreement has been going on Heck, this is nothing. It really goes back to when Microsoft helped NASA fake the moon landings. Sure, Microsoft didn't exist at the time -- or, at least, that's the public position -- but a young Bill Gates was fully aware that NASA was in a very public race to the moon. A young geek like Gates would also have known that the spacecraft carried (for the time) sophisticated on-board computers. He would also have wished that he could program them. With 2k ram, and 35k ram, the computers would never be certified for any version of Windows, so the entire mission had to be faked. That's what happens when you deal with a monopolist. |
| Abe Mar 22, 2007 7:06 AM EDT |
With all due respect to your inteligence, it is not the tiny little things like a mouse and a keyboard, neither the big things like faking the moon landing, it is the actions, coordination and their sequence that need to be focused on. Silly me, and I thought some people had insight. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 22, 2007 8:49 AM EDT |
@Abe, I think we all agree that MS needs to be watched closely. What I (and a couple of others) are trying to say here is that don't assume that the shadow you see is a duck because it may be someone using their hands to create the silhouette. Now if you hear quacking - then it might be a duck. Service Pack is a term used by MS to identify their software updates. But it is not a term used exclusively by them. It seems to me that the use of "Service Pack" is actually a good way to reach "novice" users who may not be familiar with the term "software patch", which may be why UnitedLinux used it *years* ago - before Novell acquired SUSE even. |
| Abe Mar 22, 2007 9:17 AM EDT |
Quoting:Service Pack is a term used by MS to identify their software updates Using the same terminology is catering to MS. Like many other things that eventually novice were lead to believe it is MS invention. Software Patch (SP) is more accurate, but MS changed it to Service Pack as a marketing deception. We don't have to cater to them do we? As I said before, this is trivial and un-important. What is important is not to cater to MS when they change everything to suite their business marketing schemes. If you read my original post, the point I was making is, yeah we start catering with terminology and end up catering in everything else. That is what I see Novell doing in the name of cooperation and coordination for customer's benefit. |
| dinotrac Mar 22, 2007 9:22 AM EDT |
>Using the same terminology is catering to MS. Gosh, to think I thought they might be catering to their customers. Silly me. But...if what you say is true, we've got more issues than service packs. Let's see... Microsoft calls their stuff software. Maybe we can call ours Lady Pascal's revenge. Microsoft calls the Internet, well, the Internet. Perhaps we should start calling it the "Great Outthere". Microsoft calls computers computers. I kinda like "Funky little trouble boxes." There's a whole lot more to deal with, but I think I've got us off to a good start. |
| swbrown Mar 22, 2007 9:26 AM EDT |
> Service Pack is a term used by MS to identify their software updates. And their software cripples. Like the 10 SYN/sec limit they forced on us in XP SP2 that causes all sorts of problems for p2p-over-infrastructure apps. |
| Abe Mar 22, 2007 11:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:But...if what you say is true, we've got more issues than service packs Let's not be silly about the issues either. There are a lot more serious ones than what you cited. I am not saying we should not use, or change what we use just to be different than MS. Just let's not give MS the chance to dictate changes. Protocols and standards are more serious issues. ODF vs OpenXML is an example. Why the heck Novell jumped on supporting OpenXML while everyone else is refusing it? |
| jdixon Mar 22, 2007 11:13 AM EDT |
> Why the heck Novell jumped on supporting OpenXML while everyone else is refusing it? That's easy. Because their current customers, and people they hope will become customers, have asked them to. They want interoperability between their Windows software and any Novell software they install. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 22, 2007 11:14 AM EDT |
@Abe, Because the *customer* doesn't know any better. And the vast majority of potential business customers definitely won't even give OpenOffice.org a try if they can't interchange documents with *their* customers. It's using OpenOffice.org as a "loss leader" - a way to get in the door at more customers. "Sure, Mr. Customer, our SUSE-based solution will do everything you need with no major disruption to your business." |
| bigg Mar 22, 2007 11:34 AM EDT |
Guess I'll jump on the pile as well...interoperability is a good thing. My wife's got hundreds of documents she made in MS Office, so one reason she sticks with Windows - and I get stuck maintaining Windows :( - is because of that problem. I know at least two others who won't consider giving up Windows not because they want to use Office, but because they don't want to deal with the hassles of document formats. It is a hassle when formatting is important. |
| Abe Mar 22, 2007 3:54 PM EDT |
Quoting:Because the *customer* doesn't know any better.And the vast majority of potential business customers definitely won't even give OpenOffice.org a try... You would be surprised how much customers know. Don't under estimate consumers. I hate to break to you but, unless you have perfect interoperability, business customers will not adopt OpenOffice.org. OpenOffice is not the reason why business customers want to convert, it is the ODF ISO standard that is enticing them. MS careless about interoperability, if it wasn't for MA, TX, MN, CA, IO, EU & the far east countries, MS wouldn't even bother hiring couple outfits to develop OOXML to ODF coverter. If you think Novell will be able to develop an acceptable converter without MS patents included, think again, it is not going to happen. Novell agreeing to support OOXML gave MS a breathing room. It is touch now to convert business whole sale, but it is happening. Eventually, MS has to fully support native ODF format to keep its office application salable. Novell is promising their customers a pie in the sky and will always be under the mercy of MS. When MS feels the time has come, they will pull the plug and Novell will be dead. Don't misunderstand me, interoperability is essential. But unless it is coming from MS, whether willingly or otherwise, it will never happen. MS will not allow it until they start losing market share. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 23, 2007 5:40 AM EDT |
@Abe, I'm not underestimating customers - I'm giving you *exactly* the sort of resistance I *actually* run into in real life. And if you'll look at bigg's last post, it sounds like he runs into exactly the same thing at home. |
| Abe Mar 23, 2007 7:11 AM EDT |
Quoting:I'm giving you *exactly* the sort of resistance I *actually* run into in real life. I understand and I appreciate the difficulty that FOSS is facing in gaining more converts and quicker adoption, but that doesn't mean we have to bow to MS's demands and in the process compromise on FOSS's principles. Let me summarize where I stand in case it hasn't been clear yet. MS is a multi-times convicted monopolist. They play hardball and have been trying to crack the FOSS nuts some how and for a long time. They failed until the agreement with Novell. With that agreement, MS is trying to chisel on Linux distributors. We have got to show them whose balls are harder. When you are in the right, there is no compromise on the right thing. Who is right you say? Well, we all know MS pretty well, don't we? Yes MS, with the help from Novell, were able to find a little hole in the nut, but the new coming GPL3 hopefully will plug that hole and MS will not be able to crack it. The only way commercial companies should be allowed to use FOSS is through the GPL and adoptable GPL for that matter. Without the GPL, we can kiss FOSS final days good bye. Those who want to play by the rules, they have everything to gain and use, those who don't, it is their choice. FOSS doesn't need to bend its rules for the sake of commercial companies, FOSS doesn't need to dominate the world, and FOSS is for everyone who wants to comply and benefit from. It is simple, Love it or leave it don it. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 26, 2007 6:46 AM EDT |
@Abe, Before there was GPL, there was BSD. Apache is not GPL. Mozilla Firefox is not GPL. OpenOffice.org is not GPL. PostgreSQL is not GPL. The majority of the FOSS community disagrees with your statement: Quoting: The only way commercial companies should be allowed to use FOSS is through the GPL and adoptable GPL for that matter. Without the GPL, we can kiss FOSS final days good bye. Before there was Richard Stallman (as a programmer), or the FSF, or the GPL, there was free software with the most agreed upon moment of birth being 1961 when the Signals and Power committee of MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club adopted the PDP-1 as their favorite tech-toy and invented programming tools, slang, and an entire surrounding culture that is still with us today. |
| tuxtom Mar 26, 2007 7:44 AM EDT |
"The only way commercial companies should be allowed to use FOSS is through the GPL and adoptable GPL for that matter. Without the GPL, we can kiss FOSS final days good bye." I would really say that without commercial companies we can "kiss FOSS final days goodbye". |
| Abe Mar 26, 2007 7:44 AM EDT |
Quoting:Before there was GPL, there was BSD. Apache is not GPL. Mozilla Firefox is not GPL. OpenOffice.org is not GPL. PostgreSQL is not GPL. Darren, It is the prerogative to use whatever license they want, it is their code. One question though, why didn't they use BSD license? I guess they are aware and cautious of the freeloaders and opportunistic companies. Quoting:The majority of the FOSS community disagrees with your statement: I wouldn't be so sure about the majority especially the developers of the community who write the code, otherwise, they would have released their code under licenses other than the GPL. As you know, most of FOSS code (Linux & what have you) is released under the GPL. Quoting:Before there was Richard Stallman Although it is true that free code was being exchanged back in the sixties, but the community at that time mainly consisted of educational researches and developers. There weren't many people outside the educational circles (which is a true FREE ecosystem for science and such) or companies involved as we have today. FOSS software advanced, grew, flourished, and proliferated because everyone in the community believes that the GPL is a fair guideline to established fair use and good license to protect FREE code. RMS didn't invent the FOSS concept. This concept existed centuries ago. But he created the GPL to establish the guidelines and rules for sharing and protecting FOSS code. Before the GPL, there were no licenses to prevent freeloaders, Leeches and code theives. The GPL is what made FOSS what it is today. That is a fact that can't be ignored nor forgoten. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 26, 2007 7:48 AM EDT |
Considering the success of projects like Apache and PostgreSQL, I'd say that it isn't true that Quoting:Before the GPL, there were no licenses to prevent freeloaders, Leeches and code theives.seeing as their license are base on BSD licensing which predated the GPL. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2007 7:55 AM EDT |
Darren - Might as well try talking to a wall. The GPL has benefitted mightily from marketing and the network effect. RMS has preached his little self up a storm. Linux is GPL'd, and Linux is the free software superstar. Put those together, and what do you think budding projects are likely to use? |
| dcparris Mar 26, 2007 8:35 AM EDT |
Non-copyleft licenses don't prevent others from using libre code in a non-libre-licensed project, which is Abe's point. I would also wonder about the strength of your majority argument, Darren, given that the GNU GPL remains the most-used FOSS license. You're obviously correct that the BSD/X-11 style licenses don't allow people to make the libre code non-libre. That doesn't, however, prevent - as Abe is trying to point out - people from using that same code in a non-free project. It may be true that some who use the GPL don't consider non-free developers as leeches when using the BSD-licensed code. However, a good many people choose the GPL specifically because it prevents 'leeching'. |
| bigg Mar 26, 2007 8:42 AM EDT |
> a good many people choose the GPL specifically because it prevents 'leeching'. It's the only license I would ever consider. GPL code helps build the free software community, and that benefits me. BSD code is charity. I know I'm not alone in this viewpoint. Of course, I also know other developers who don't care. |
| Abe Mar 26, 2007 8:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:Might as well try talking to a wall. it is a copout, and no further comments from me. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2007 9:24 AM EDT |
>it is a copout Hardly. Sometimes the truth is simply the truth. |
| swbrown Mar 26, 2007 2:02 PM EDT |
> The GPL has benefitted mightily from marketing and the network effect.
> RMS has preached his little self up a storm.
> Linux is GPL'd, and Linux is the free software superstar.
>
> Put those together, and what do you think budding projects are likely to use? Or maybe it's because, you know, there's an evolutionary reason the GPL thrives? Because it's more fit? Btw, I'm still waiting for a straight answer from you as to "can you think of a /relicensed/ fork that turned out well for the Free Software version?" over here: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/24879/ . It seems like you're avoiding giving any justification for what you say. If you're having a hard time coming up with examples, maybe you should start asking yourself why you think the GPL doesn't succeed naturally due to reducing the negative pressure on Free Software projects rather than repeating the claim that it's mainly just momentum as above? > Might as well try talking to a wall. Pot + kettle? |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2007 4:28 PM EDT |
>Or maybe it's because, you know, there's an evolutionary reason the GPL thrives?
Could be >Because it's more fit? More fit at what? What does "more fit" mean in this context? Better publicized, for sure...and yet...I would bet (don't know) that some percentage of people licensing their software under the GPL don't fully understand it, which, to my way of thinking, means that the details of the license itself wasn't very important in their choice. >Btw, I'm still waiting for a straight answer from you as to "can you think of a /relicensed/ fork that turned out well for the Free Software version?" Why are you waiting? Your asking a question (and then restricting the potential answers -- there's a great approach to free speech -- "Give me an answer you like so long as it's the one I want") doesn't obligate me to answer, especially since I never made the claim that forks benefit the original project. Most of the forks I've seen happen because people are dissatisfied in some way with the original project. X.org is the example. X.org is doing fine, xfree86 is not. By your definition -- at least as I understand it, that was a destructive fork because it seriously hurt the original project. You might disagree. After all, you're the one making up this "destructive fork" thingie that I don't even believe in. |
| swbrown Mar 29, 2007 1:16 AM EDT |
> "Give me an answer you like so long as it's the one I want") doesn't obligate me to answer I eliminated the BS answers up front rather than wind up seeing them in a reply. For that to restrict your reply, you would have to believe some of those BS answers were valid answers to the question. Do you? It seems from your reply you wanted to pick the "Argue the wrong question" choice, the "Well, x.org and XFree86 are effectively related by a relicensed fork, and the GPL-compatible version is doing great". x.org was not a relicensed fork of XFree86. x.org retained XFree86's license, and XFree86 changed its own license after the effective date of the fork. As such, that would be arguing the wrong question. > especially since I never made the claim that forks benefit the original project. Let's review what the actual question is: My statement: "Wine switched to the LGPL later in the game (from a BSD-like permissive license) as they got fed up with the growth issues stemming from the destructive forks (relicensed forks)" Your reply: "So, the BSD license didn't keep anybody from developing WINE. Developers who were working on it decided to switch to something else. Sounds reasonable to me, but I fail to see how it supports a hypothesis that BSD inhibits growth any more than the article can support a hypothesis that GPL inhibits growth." So there are two issues in that reply related to the hypothesis of the BSD license inhibiting growth: 1) That since it can be abandoned, it does not inhibit growth. That's an extremely weak argument for four reasons: * It can be said about /any/ license. * The period while it was active is still inhibited. * Transitions between licenses take a lot of effort that could have been spent on code (i.e., growth). * There is a lasting harm from ever using it: I gave an example of WINE still competing against itself even after it went LGPL, as proprietary forks were produced from the BSD code. 2) That relicensed forks do not inhibit growth. So for what I said about relicensed forks to not support a hypothesis that BSD inhibits growth, relicensed forks would have to be not significantly harmful to the BSDed projects. However, I showed specific examples of large, significant projects such relicensed forks had significantly harmed, and people in harmed projects that agreed it inhibited their growth. So, I have provided support for the hypothesis that the BSD inhibits growth due to (for one) allowing relicensed forks, and I have asked you to give counter examples to that to the same degree as my examples for it (large, significant projects), yet you evade giving a straight answer. If you can't provide counter examples, then doesn't that mean I have successfully argued that the BSD inhibits growth due to allowing relicensed forks as I have shown those relicensed forks inhibit growth? |
| dinotrac Mar 29, 2007 3:41 AM EDT |
swbrown - Good to see that you enjoy arguing with yourself. |
| jdixon Mar 29, 2007 4:48 AM EDT |
> I eliminated the BS answers You eliminated answers you don't agree with. Whether they are BS answers is another matter entirely. |
| dinotrac Mar 29, 2007 7:24 AM EDT |
jdixon - Proving once again that you are smarter than the average bear. Got to give swbrown credit, though... It's hard to lose any argument where the ground rules eliminate disagreement. |
| swbrown Mar 29, 2007 11:20 PM EDT |
> You eliminated answers you don't agree with. Whether they are BS answers is another matter entirely. I did not eliminate answers I do not agree with, I eliminated answers that are not answers at all. E.g., if someone asks you what your favorite color is, and you say "I like cartoons!", that is not an answer. Feel free to argue that one of the three /was/ an actual answer to the question and not just a way to evade it. Let's try now: From the previous thread, The question: can you think of a /relicensed/ fork that turned out well for the Free Software version? The thread context: Do relicensed forks, permitted by the BSD license, inhibit growth of a project? The answers that are not answers that I listed follow (I'll annotate each of these to explain why they are not answers if it's not clear): 1) Argue semantics with something like "Well, Apple's Darwin is Free Software, and so was FreeBSD, so they're both the Free Software version". - This decides to word-play with the definition of "Free Software version" instead of answering, despite it not being relevant to the question in the context of the thread. Essentially, it's a smart-ass response. If you honestly felt you didn't understand what the question in context of the thread was asking for, I'll apply the context for you and phrase it as such: "can you think of a /relicensed/ fork that turned out well for the project that permitted the relicensed fork?". - Now you see, this again leaves it open to a smart-ass response: "Yes, I can think of one". However, arguing like this is pointless, evasive, and childish, which is why people generally won't put up with it. The meaning of the question is understood, and it waits to be answered. 2) Argue misdirection with something like "Well, Konqueror was GPL, but by publishing changes as part of a huge blob with no comments, it was effectively a 'destructive' fork too by your standards". - This is an answer to a different question, as if there was any destructive behavior it was not due to relicensing, as it was not relicensed. The question was about relicensed forks. Changing the subject is not a valid way to answer a question. 3) Argue the wrong question with something like "Well, x.org and XFree86 are effectively related by a relicensed fork, and the GPL-compatible version is doing great". - x.org was not a relicensed fork of XFree86, so also has nothing to do with the question. |
| swbrown Mar 29, 2007 11:31 PM EDT |
> Good to see that you enjoy arguing with yourself. I'm still waiting for you to respond with an answer. By your evasiveness, I take it you can't justify your position and are uncomfortable with challenging your own beliefs. The bar is intentionally set low - a single, significant counter-example. Surely if relicensed forks do not inhibit the growth of projects that allow them, it should be easy to come up with significant counter-examples of such relicensed forks. If not, then it would seem they do inhibit, and as such, the BSD license does inhibit. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 30, 2007 1:01 AM EDT |
swbrown: Darwin hasn't had a destructive effect on the BSD's. Sure, the BSD noosphere is smaller than Linux's, and that is caused in part by the BSD license. But that is unrelated to Apple forking BSD to create Darwin. |
| dinotrac Mar 30, 2007 2:57 AM EDT |
>I'm still waiting for you to respond with an answer. And I'm still waiting for you to don a tutu and do a little jig for the lions at the zoo. |
| jdixon Mar 30, 2007 3:35 AM EDT |
> I did not eliminate answers I do not agree with, I eliminated answers that are not answers at all. You can repeat that all day long, and it still translates to "answers I don't agree with". Whether you're willing to recognize that or not is immaterial. If you want to have a debate with another person, you don't get to set the terms they're going to use. You can try to negotiate terms beforehand, but you can't set them unilaterally. |
| dinotrac Mar 30, 2007 6:25 AM EDT |
jdixon - >If you want to have a debate with another person It's worse than that. Not only does he want to set my arguments for me, but he insists that I should support a claim that I never made. Which is why I think it's reasonable for me to ask that he don the tutu... |
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!