She makes one big (and wrong) assumption
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| DarrenR114 Mar 30, 2007 3:40 AM EDT |
Despite how she and Mr. Stallman feel, the FSF != FOSS community. |
| hchaudh1 Mar 30, 2007 6:22 AM EDT |
But the GPL is a pretty big set of FOSS, wouldn't you say. |
| Abe Mar 30, 2007 7:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:Despite how she and Mr. Stallman feel, the FSF != FOSS community. Logically speaking, I would say this is a true statement but, don't you agree that the majority of the FOSS community agree with and support FSF? Like they say, you can't win them all, can you? If you don't agree, please prove it. And don't bother with anecdotal evidence because it is not acceptable. What counts is the "Consensus of the Majority". |
| SFN Mar 30, 2007 7:49 AM EDT |
Seeing as Darren (and let's be honest, anyone) is unable to get a real answer out of the majority, the best that can be done is to get an answer out of those that are available. So.....what.....an LXer vote, maybe? |
| DarrenR114 Mar 30, 2007 7:58 AM EDT |
@Abe, Consensus of the Majority? Are you sure you want to go there? After all, what percentage of desktops out there are running some version of MS Windows. Now I know the vast majority of those don't want the hassle of switching because for them, MS-Windows is "good enough". Now then - the FSF == GPL licensed software. Even on the FSF's own site, only 375 out of thousands of "free" packages, as part of GNU, are licensed under the GPL. You may feel that the FSF is *the* significant representative of FOSS because of the GNU toolchain. Well, it is very possible to build an entire distribution without using the GNU toolchain - the BSD family has its own toolchain which could easily be adapted for use on Linux. The LILO bootloader, for instance, is licensed BSD-style. Maybe you want to look at it from a popularity of package angle: Linux - GPL (v2), Apache (BSD-style Apache Public License), PostgreSQL (BSD-style), PERL (BSD-style Artistic License), PHP (BSD-style), Mozilla (BSD-style MPL), OpenOffice.org (LGPL), X-Windows (the MIT ("X") License). Again, that perception of "GPL is the majority" isn't quite panning out to reality. The more systems that Stallman tries to keep in his fist, the more systems will slip between his fingers. It is because of this reality that I *refuse* to use the term GNU/Linux. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 30, 2007 2:23 PM EDT |
> Despite how she and Mr. Stallman feel, the FSF != FOSS community. I don't see PJ claiming that it is. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 30, 2007 3:31 PM EDT |
@sander, The she shouldn't write like it is - " The company certainly can't any longer after this pretend that the deal has not affected how it is viewed by the FOSS community ..." That's worded as if she feels she's speaking for the whole of the FOSS community. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 30, 2007 3:40 PM EDT |
Food for thought:
While verifying the licensing of PHP, I note that PHP3 was actually dual-licensed, including the GPL. With PHP4, the developers of PHP dropped the GPL license - it is too restrictive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP_License |
| tuxchick Mar 30, 2007 3:54 PM EDT |
what darren said- It definitely sounds like PJ is saying 'we all stand united in saying Novell am teh suck.' Which is not true. Oh crap, we agree on something. *feel forehead* Hmm, I'm not feverish.... At any rate I'm not going to let it distract from the rest of the article. |
| azerthoth Mar 30, 2007 3:55 PM EDT |
Darren that quote actually came from a Novell mouthpiece. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 30, 2007 4:04 PM EDT |
@azerthoth, Actually that quote came from the article at Groklaw ... it's straight from PJ. (second paragraph of the subject article.) |
| azerthoth Mar 30, 2007 4:35 PM EDT |
I'll have to let that go, I know that I have read a very similar quote from some piece of Novell spin, but after 30 minutes of avid digging I cant find it. If I can manage to dig it up over the weekend I'll link it for you ... then again the Alzheimer's could be kicking in too. Wouldn't be the first time. |
| dcparris Mar 30, 2007 6:20 PM EDT |
It resembles the quote from the FSF that I saw in another article. |
| Abe Mar 30, 2007 6:35 PM EDT |
Quoting:that perception of "GPL is the majority" isn't quite panning out to reality. Darren, All you need to do to convince yourself is to go to Source Forge and see what percentage of the apps are GPL. Besides, why do you include Linux among the non-GPL although it is GPL? What is it with you and FSF? I just don't understand why you have this hostile attitude towards them. Gee, I am beginning to believe that you are an MS Lackey. I hope you are not. |
| dcparris Mar 30, 2007 7:12 PM EDT |
Quoting: > Logically speaking, I would say this is a true statement but, don't you agree that the majority of the FOSS community agree with and support FSF? Abe, I have discovered that quite a few people who choose to use the GPL do not necessarily agree with the FSF on a number of issues. So, even though the majority of people seem to be choosing the GPL for licensing, they may not necessarily share the FSF's dim view of Novell. The majority of the people with whom I have interacted over the course of the past 5 years have indicated they do not always see eye to eye with the FSF on many things. That statement does not necessarily mean that your assertion is wrong - the majority may well favor the FSF's views and/or a clause that prohibits such deals. I don't know one way or the other. But choosing a license != agreement with the FSF on anything other than the choice of license for a particular project. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 31, 2007 12:01 AM EDT |
Most people I know that pick the GPL do so specifically because they do not want some company using their source in a closed source product. They want to ensure their code stays free, in the FSF sense, even though they may not agree with FSF or RMS. GPL is a good license, regardless of the views of the FSF. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 31, 2007 3:46 AM EDT |
@Abe, My feelings about the FSF are the same as the PHP developers: the reality of the GPL is that it is too restrictive for so-called "software freedom". That's why they dropped the GPL when they went to PHP4. Stallman does *not* represent the entire FOSS community. He doesn't even come anywhere close to it. There are many, many people who disagree with Stallman's philosophy, including Eric Stallman. And I resent Stallman's presentation as if he does speak for everyone, including me. Personally, I don't like Stallman's "I'm the greatest, and everyone must bow before me" attitude. And if you ever talk to anyone who's met him, or had an email exchange with him, that's exactly what you'll find. I know, years ago I had an email exchange with the guy - he's that big of a jerk in every sense of the word. He'll even eat food off your plate without asking, if you happen to be unfortunate enough to eat dinner with him at a restaurant. Insisting the it be called "GNU/Linux" is to overstate the significance of his GNU project. And I'm not the only one who feels that way, so does Alan Cox. And I don't like how Ms. Jones has repeatedly presented herself as speaking for the entire FOSS community, either. She doesn't, and writing as if she does is dishonest at its core. I also didn't like the "Moral Majority", even though I am a Evangelical Christian, for the same reasons. |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 7:20 AM EDT |
DC said
Quoting:But choosing a license != agreement with the FSF on anything other than the choice of license for a particular project.Darren said Quoting:Personally, I don't like Stallman's "I'm the greatest, and everyone must bow before me" I don't think there is a need to debate each and every single point you bring up, but here is my way of looking at this whole issue. Computer users fill a wide spectrum of opinions and ideas, but you can easily describe them in three major groups that gradually diffuse together. 1) NBM (Nothing But MS) Those are the greedy group, they usually have vested interest in MS success and dominance. They have one or more reasons why they do that. a) Own stocks, sell or develop MS only software products b) They are told to use MS products and don't know anything else c) They are afraid to change or they don't want to change so they wont appear being wrong. d) They have no appreciation or understanding of Freedom 2) Opportunistic/Smart Those are the ones who don't care what they use, they are "go with the flow" They use whatever works without any concern about cost or too lazy to find a better way to do a job IT is just a job nothing more nothing less 3) FOSS developers & Advocates These are the ones who most appreciate and value Freedom. They are the social human beings who enjoy, proud, and satisfied with their accomplishments and contributions They are protective of the Freedom they have with conviction and dedication Now, tell me how you are going to formulate a license that will satisfy all these types of people? It is not easy is it? The developers and advocates are the one group who most count in determining what the license should be, not you, not myself, or anyone else who are mainly benefiting from their contributions. They are the ones who decide what should be or shouldn't be in the GPL license. The FSF was founded to be and continue to be a representative of this group. Many companies realized the potential of FOSS and joined in by contributing like good citizens, but others are not such good citizens (read Novell & others) and began diffusing themselves from one side of the spectrum to the other. The FSF refuses to allow that and taking a lead role in organizing and adopting the GPL to the new IT world. FSF is doing its best in accommodating diverse opinions and trying to create a balance. I think they did a great job so far in accomplishing that. Whether the new terms will protect FOSS from agreements like Novell-MS, I guess we can argue the issues to our hearts content but still wont agree. The only way we would and be sure is when it is tried in the legal system courts. How are they protecting FOSS and be fair at the same time? you ask. Well they are putting everything on the table, and like I said before, they have given Novell a fair chance when they opened the subject for the community to decide whether to grandfather Novell-MS agreement or not. It was a compromise which I personally don't agree with. Now, do you hate me too? Darren, I don't see you giving them any appreciation or credit for doing all of that. All I hear from you is silly "I don't like this and I don't like that". What is it with you? Is it just jealousy or just dislike? RMS done a lot for FOSS and he deserve lots of credit for what he has done and continue to do, if you don't agree with him, let me tell you, I don't agree with him on some issues and I am sure there are many who don't agree with him on everything he says, but credit should be due for all the good things he has done. The FOSS movement has the hawks and doves, and both are needed. To put it simply, without him and people like him, FOSS wouldn't have been what it is today. Sorry for the long post. |
| dcparris Mar 31, 2007 7:56 AM EDT |
Darren, in my own e-mail and phone exchanges with RMS, I found him to be relatively tame, compared to what I've heard from others. I don't see the "bow before me" attitude you describe. I do find his insistence on GNU/Linux *every single time* irritating, but also see other people's insistence on not using GNU/Linux at all as downplaying the GNU project's importance. Yes, there are people who seem to want the GNU project to simply disappear and be forgotten about. Instead of being embarrassed by what many people seem to view as the "red-headed stepchild", many could learn to respect what RMS stands for. Speaking of which, the GPL is not about "software freedom" in general; it is about users' freedom specifically. It empowers users to become developers if they so choose. But let's be honest, RMS has always stood for users' freedom. As far as he's concerned, Copyright law already affords the developers exclusive control over their software. No real need to protect them any further then. Not to mention the fact that he feels reciprocity is vital to ensuring that free software stays free. If the GPL was too restrictive, no one would use it. Yet, it remains the license of choice for the majority of developers. My point is that, while developers may choose the GPL, they certainly do not always support RMS or the FSF. That said, there certainly is a large segment for whom RMS speaks with full agreement. Whether they represent the majority is unlikely, but possible. |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 8:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:Maybe you want to look at it from a popularity of package angle: Linux - GPL (v2), Apache (BSD-style Apache Public License), PostgreSQL (BSD-style), PERL (BSD-style Artistic License), PHP (BSD-style), Mozilla (BSD-style MPL), OpenOffice.org (LGPL), X-Windows (the MIT ("X") License). Again, that perception of "GPL is the majority" isn't quite panning out to reality. My last long post didn't address this issue, here is my take on it. - Linux is under GPL. It is a commodity. It depends on much of the other FOSS software as it depends on it. It makes sense to keep it GPLed as the rest of GPLed FOSS - Apache isn't. It is not a commodity but a specialized application funded by a group of users who influenced or mandated this type of license. They are more comfortable with it. they continue to fund it and sponsor it. It is sort of creating their own sub-community. Nothing wrong with that. - PostgreSQL. Same as Apache - PERL. Same as Apache - PHP. Same plus, Zend has built a business around this licensing. You can't do the same with others but I do anticipate that happening in the future. - Mozilla. Same as PHP. - OpenOffice.org Same as PHP. Sun is building a business around it - X-Windows. Built be educational institution, same as BSD built using public funds and donations. Where is it now? It actually helped MS to strengthen its monopoly. - Kerberos. Same as BSD. Again, It helped MS to build its closed AD to maintain its monopoly. So what is the lesson here! It is right in front of us. MS and others take OPEN Source code and technology and build their own to lock and dominate the IT ecosystem with their monopolies. |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 8:35 AM EDT |
OK. On a different note, Yesterday I received my new spanking HP Compaq nc6320 with XP Pro (company standard). It is Dual processor with 2GB, 60GB disk, 4 USB, FireWire, DVD/CDRW. Very nice unit and all. Using LiveCDs: - I tried Kubuntu 7.04 Beta, no go. I tried Kubuntu 6.10, the same. comes up but takes too long. Some thing was not right. - Tried PCLinuxOS 2007, no go. Boot process was quick but choked on the either USB configuration or Video not supported. - Tried Mepis, it worked good everything was going great with v6.0 then I decide to install v6.5 RC3. the same, everything went good and started to install on HD. To my surprise, it didn't recognize XP and the only choice is to use the whole disk. I went to the existing partitions assuming it will give me a chance to change it, it didn't. Any one knows if Mepis has this option? I have PCLinuxOS 2007 and Kubuntu 6.10 running fine on other desktop/Laptop (older). This one is spanking new hardware and I am assuming with some re-configuration I will get them to work, but it is not worth the effort with beta or RC. I have to keep XP and I am looking for a disk partition tool I can download to prepare the disk for Mepis, could someone recommend good one? I better qualify it, what I mean is a good one to keep XP not to wipe it out!!! lol Thanks, |
| jimf Mar 31, 2007 8:47 AM EDT |
Gparted live. http://gparted.sourceforge.net/livecd.php Just download the latest iso. http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gparted/gparted-livecd-0.3.... |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 8:52 AM EDT |
Jim,
Is that different than what comes with Mepis? Thanks, |
| jimf Mar 31, 2007 9:12 AM EDT |
Not sure what comes with Mepis, you'd have to look. I assume he's probably using qparted, but??? We just used gparted live a few weeks ago to repartition and resize Scott's Debian/XP Dual boot without any harm to XP, so it does work beautifully. I'll be on IRC freenode #mepis, nick R0nin this evening if you want me to walk you through it :) |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 9:28 AM EDT |
I just booted from CD and Gparted didn't find any drives. I can boot XP fine. How weird is that? I think I know what is going on. At my company we use Altiris Desktop Management utilities and it might have something to do with it. Or It might just be a trick HP is playing with MS!!! lol. I will research it, and thanks for the tip. |
| jimf Mar 31, 2007 9:41 AM EDT |
> I just booted from CD The mepis or the gparted live CD? If you're still using the mepis one, I'd get the (newer) gparted live. It is possible that the other management software is using some sort of encription, but, I doubt it. More likely a bios setting. You want to make sure nothing's locked with that. |
| bigg Mar 31, 2007 9:50 AM EDT |
Abe: I believe Mepis RC3 now has gparted (what they were using before was a piece of crap). My wife has a new Compaq laptop, Mepis RC3 was the only live cd that had wireless working out of the box. If the Mepis live cd recognizes the XP partition, you probably want to go with that. |
| jimf Mar 31, 2007 10:09 AM EDT |
Have been checking on Altiris, and it would seem that they just image an install similar to Ghost. I don't see anything that would indicate special encryption, just lots and lots of remote spyware access. Wow, that outfit makes MS look like a sweetheart. |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 10:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:The mepis or the gparted live CD? Gparted v0.3.4-5 (latest) ISO which I downloaded from Source Forge, burned and booted. During the boot sequence, the drive hda is detected but QParted doesn't see it. It is possible that Altiris is protecting the drive some how. Quoting:If the Mepis live cd recognizes the XP partition, you probably want to go with that. Mepis does boot fine and everything works great from LiveCD, but no, Mepis doesn't see XP partition (whole disk). I will research it a little more. I am going to try Knoppix which usually has very good hardware detection. Thanks, |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 10:12 AM EDT |
Quoting:Wow, that outfit makes MS look like a sweetheart. Yes I know. The same happened with my previous laptop and I ended up wiping XP. But this time I have to keep it. |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 10:16 AM EDT |
I am looking at couple Windows based partition managers. I think this is probably the best way going around it. |
| bigg Mar 31, 2007 10:45 AM EDT |
I would be interested to hear what you find out. I've not heard of such a thing. Another option is to install Ubuntu in XP without repartitioning https://wiki.ubuntu.com/install.exe/Prototype |
| jimf Mar 31, 2007 11:16 AM EDT |
If you can find a version of PQmagic, that usually works, However, only use it on the actual xp partition and resizing. You really need to touch that up with gparted afterword. > Another option is to install Ubuntu in XP without repartitioning What an obscenity.... I'd be interested in what the new live Debian does with this. |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 12:27 PM EDT |
I tried Mepis again and it seems like it is working. I am in the process of formatting now. I know I am taking a risk, but the heck, I can have XP installed again if I need to. Any, in Mepis QParted, there an option to select a drive there were two entries one sd0 and the other is /etc/sd0. when I selected sd0 it should be the XP used area. I was able to re-size it and add three more partitions (or in the process of, not sure it is going to work but it seems like it is). I create root (10GB), Swap (2GB), and home (17GB). I will let you know how it goes. If it works, congratulation is in order for Mepis/Warren. |
| jimf Mar 31, 2007 12:47 PM EDT |
Just a note here. With anything 1GB of ram or over, I'd never have over a 1GB swap... maybe even 512meg. My guess is that with 2GB of ram, you'll 'never ever' hit swap, I barely ever use it with 1GB. |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 1:17 PM EDT |
Congratulation to Mepis/Warren, everything seems to work fine. I was able to boot XP and Linux. I am writing this post from Mepis 6.5RC3. What is annoying is, when I boot XP, it wants to put its stamp on the new partitions and it gives you 10 secs to terminate. I have to catch it before it does. I remember having this issue while back and was able to get rid of it. I am not sure what it was but will take care of it in case I forget about it and XP ruins the day. Jim, I understand about the swap but I just gave it enough at least to cover the 2GB memory. I am sure that will change. Everything seems ok except the mouse is not working but the mouse pad is (I don like mouse pads). Network (obviously) worked, sound, battery seem to be working good. Quoting:I would be interested to hear what you find out. Rigg, I Didn't find any Free ones and that is why I went back to try Mepis. Time to resolve mouse and check other things. Thanks guys for your tips. |
| jimf Mar 31, 2007 1:21 PM EDT |
what kind of mouse? i.e. make, model, connection. |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 1:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:what kind of mouse? i.e. make, model, connection. It is a Kensington Optical Elite, Model # 72121, USB with wheel. I am downloading available upgrades, hopefully this will take care of it along with the missing virtual desktops that are missing from the panel. If it doesn't resolve, I will try configuring manually. |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 1:42 PM EDT |
Well mouse is working after either the upgrade or the reboot. Virtual desktops are still not showing up in the panel. |
| jimf Mar 31, 2007 1:46 PM EDT |
For a usb mouse, /etc/X11/xorg.conf should have a mouse configuration like this: Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Configured Mouse" Driver "mouse" Option "CorePointer" Option "Device" "/dev/input/mice" Option "Protocol" "ImPS/2" Option "Emulate3Buttons" "true" EndSection That should work for any optical usb. |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 1:48 PM EDT |
Virtual desktop were set not to show by default, used add to the panel to add them and they are there now. |
| Abe Mar 31, 2007 2:08 PM EDT |
It is basketball time now. I will post later if I encounter any new issues. |
| bigg Apr 02, 2007 6:48 AM EDT |
> I'd be interested in what the new live Debian does with this. You can install Debian without repartitioning the hard drive? |
| jimf Apr 02, 2007 7:42 AM EDT |
> You can install Debian without repartitioning the hard drive? Of course not. Same as with Mepis. You'd still have to repartition. |
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!