Is linux free
HalcyonWild
I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
cheap to buy Linux.
How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
sell public code (GNU, kernel). Atleast the MS guys write some of their
own code, some outsourced, and most of it comes from their previous
version of the software. :-)
What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public open source
code, compiling it and selling it. In fact I believe they are worse
than MS. The so called free Fedora is riddled with bugs and it is an
untested beta released for free testing by the public. Redhat then
picks up the tested code from Fedora and sells it in their "enterprise
edition".
I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing all this.
I was following linux for quite some time, and I had installed Redhat 7
Linux on my old P3 machine. I was happy to see linux growing. But this
linux selling business has left be disillusioned.
Before you put me in the line of fire(I have seen anti Linux people
shredded to bits in other forums :) ), I must say that I am not saying
all this just for the sake of saying something, but isnt something very
wrong here.
st...@worldbadminton.com
Linux continues to be free.
_support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,
and sure some probably have commercial content that isn't free,
but I'm not aware of any you can't have for free if you are
just talking about the Linux content itself.
Can you point to any counter examples?
Stan
--
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com
notbob
> linux selling business has left be disillusioned.
I can't imagine why. I can get any linux distro at no cost whatsoever
from many sources on the internet. Sure, they sell commercial copies,
but no one is twisting your arm to buy. Even Redhat 9 is available
for download.
http://iso.linuxquestions.org/version.php?version=10
As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux. It
just not ok to not make it available for free. I do not know of any
linux that is not available at zero cost.
nb
Dances With Crows
and said:
> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc.
This has always been true AFAICT.
> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware.
? Debian and Gentoo are payware now? Son of a bitch.
> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
> sell public code (GNU, kernel)?
Redhat/SuSE/Mandriva make it possible to get the same stuff (minus a few
commercial apps) for free.
> What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public open
> source code, compiling it and selling it.
The terms of the GPL explicitly allow this. Have you read the GPL? Go
do that. It's on your installed systems and on your installation CDs.
Also, when you buy a boxed set of Redhat/SuSE/Mandriva, you typically
get some physical media, a book or 2, and a card that entitles you to 30
days (60 days, 90 days...) of installation support. It costs money to
provide those physical things and that installation support, and some of
what you're paying for those boxed sets goes to defray those costs.
To take this further, Redhat uses some of the money it takes in to pay
kernel developers and GNOME developers to write and debug code. The
stuff those developers write gets released under the GPL. SuSE
contributed a bunch of code to XFree86 in the past, and is probably
paying people to write/debug GPLed KDE code now. This has resulted in
more Free stuff for everyone to use, so in the long term, everybody
wins.
> The so called free Fedora is riddled with bugs and it is an untested
> beta released for free testing by the public.
This surprises you? If you want stable software, there's this thing
called "Debian Stable" that you can use.
> I was happy to see linux growing. But this linux selling business has
> left [me] disillusioned.
The whole "release a mostly-working beta" thing is pervasive in the
software industry. It's not just Redhat doing this, it's also IBM, Sun,
and every game developer everywhere. Bitching at one vendor for
doing something all the vendors are doing is... less than productive.
(Maybe the whole development process is broken, but if so, how could it
be fixed? Specifics, please, and remember to avoid Flag Days and ensure
backwards combatability.)
> Before you put me in the line of fire, I must say that I am not saying
> all this just for the sake of saying something, but isn't something
> very wrong here?
Not AFAICT. Remember, the folks at the FSF used to sell tapes and CDs
containing GPLed software. They charged substantially more than the
cost of a blank tape/CD plus operator overhead. I think they still do
that. I don't think *anybody's* more concerned than the FSF about
complying with the letter and spirit of the GPL.
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / mail: TRAP + SPAN don't belong
http://www.brainbench.com / "He is a rhythmic movement of the
-----------------------------/ penguins, is Tux." --MegaHAL
Michael Heiming
> Hi,
> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
> since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
> cheap to buy Linux.
> untested beta released for free testing by the public. Redhat then
> picks up the tested code from Fedora and sells it in their "enterprise
> edition".
Which can and is (google for "CentOS") freely distributable with
minor changes. Just:
wget http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf
For more recent stuff, KDE/etc I'd suggest downloading Fedora
Core 4, the community version of redhat, which is by no means
beta quality.
> I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing all this.
> I was following linux for quite some time, and I had installed Redhat 7
> Linux on my old P3 machine. I was happy to see linux growing. But this
> linux selling business has left be disillusioned.
> Before you put me in the line of fire(I have seen anti Linux people
> shredded to bits in other forums :) ), I must say that I am not saying
> all this just for the sake of saying something, but isnt something very
> wrong here.
You presumption are completely wrong and it's not unlikely you
could get "shredded to bits" just because of this reason. ;-)
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 408: Computers under water due to SYN flooding.
HalcyonWild
st...@worldbadminton.com wrote:
> Your are mistaken.
>
> Linux continues to be free.
Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc.
See the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test
versions. I have seen fedora to be slow and in some cases, crashing.
> _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
> free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,
Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
downloads. No ISOs are available for download. If it were allowed to
redistribute freely (GNU says that apart from free software, you should
have the freedom to redistribute ), there would be download servers out
there who would allow you to download linux. I did not find any. Only
debian happens to be free, but that again is way behind. If I am
allowed to redistribute after buying linux, I might set set up a
download site myself. Why is nobody doing it.
> and sure some probably have commercial content that isn't free,
> but I'm not aware of any you can't have for free if you are
> just talking about the Linux content itself.
Linux content, just the kernel you mean. Just the OS , without all the
utilities. Is it. What is it good for then. Will anyone bother to
download hundreds of programs and utilities. Many people do not have
access to Internet.
> Can you point to any counter examples?
The websites I mentioned above. I tried Ubuntu and Debian, it left me
unimpressed.
Ok, you cannot have quality without paying for it, you might say. Then
, better we stop using, reporting bugs and testing code for redhat ,
suse and mandrake; let them spend money they earn by selling public
open source code.
SINNER
> Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
> downloads. No ISOs are available for download.
Iso's for all the distros you mention are available for free DL.
--
David
HalcyonWild
notbob wrote:
> but no one is twisting your arm to buy. Even Redhat 9 is available
> for download.
Redhat 9. The shrike edition ! That was way back in 2001 or something!.
Now you wouldnt go back to using win NT 3.5 once you have put your
hands on WinXP.
> As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux. It
> just not ok to not make it available for free. I do not know of any
> linux that is not available at zero cost.
Well then why do they call linux free.
And I repeat, the free ones are unstable. A friend of mine formatted
his HDD after struggling with fedora for bout a week.
If you want to spend money, rather go for a stable unix version from
Sun Microsystems or HP or IBM. My point is that I am not anti-Linux or
pro MS or anything. It is that if you want to spend money, better go
for Sun, HP or MS Win2k(best windows version till date , IMHO), or
MacOS X
Wolfgang Draxinger
> Hi,
>
> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the
> installation cds, distribute with your friends, download from
> the net, etc. But since last one year (or maybe earlier, I
> might not have noticed), I am seeing that most major distros
> are now pay-ware. And it isnt really cheap to buy Linux.
You don't buy Linux, you pay for the media and the service, of
putting a stable and working system together. BTW: SuSE has
become OpenSuSE, with a similair development model like Debian.
Apropos Debian. This distribution never was commercial, but yet
they are selling CDs with Debian on them. This is mainly for the
people who don't have a high bandwidth connection.
> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when
> they sell public code (GNU, kernel).
They don't sell the source code. You can perfectly download the
sources of all Linux related software, compile and install it
yourself. That is then called Linux from scratch. You may even
make an image from the system you created and sell this image,
as long as you provide all sources you may have changed or that
are based on GPL code.
Free in the OSS sense doesn't mean free as in free beer, but
rather free in freedom.
> What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public
> open source code, compiling it and selling it.
Ever did this yourself? You know how long it takes to build a
sane system from the bare sources. Just compiling and linking
the whole thing takes over a week, even on a P4 3GHz machine.
The only way to make it faster is to compile it on a compiler
farm. The other thing is, that there might be bugfixes, patches
etc. that should be merged with the sources before compiling.
Creating a distribution is a really difficult job. Not to
mention the development of the package managers and the actual
maintaince of the package database.
I think this _is_ worth the money to pay BUT you can easyly
download all known distributions from the servers minus the
additional licences third party applications that are not
OpenSource. E.g. VMWare or CrossOver Office or Cedega or... And
you forget that you not only get a OS but also a full set of
user applications, starting from simple text editors, CAD
Programs, Vector Graphics, Image Manipulation, Sound Recording
and Editing, CD/DVD Authoring, a whole bunch of servers etc. And
all this on a neat DVD you get for 70$ comming _with_ support
for everything that is on that CD.
Wolfgang Draxinger
--
notbob
> there who would allow you to download linux. I did not find any.
Maybe not, but I did, and I provided the link. Redhat Enterprise WS
(workstation) is not just the linux distro. It's the distro plus
online/phone support. There is nothing in the GPL that requires a
distro to either provide free support or provide an online download
server.
ray
I believe you have a serious misunderstanding. Basically what they are
selling are some commercial apps and SUPPORT. The free downloads have no
support. You want a free distro, fine - go for it. You want support -
that's available too; for a price.
ray
Linspire? Xandros?
Chris F.A. Johnson
>> What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public
>> open source code, compiling it and selling it.
>
> Ever did this yourself? You know how long it takes to build a
> sane system from the bare sources. Just compiling and linking
> the whole thing takes over a week, even on a P4 3GHz machine.
You must be joking. I compiled a full system, including X on a
PII, 300MHz in less than 24 hours.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
==================================================================
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach, 2005, Apress
<http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html>
HalcyonWild
Dances With Crows got shagged in the gutters and muttered:
>
> ? Debian and Gentoo are payware now? Son of a bitch.
>
I knew I would be shredded.
Well you use Gentoo and Debian. See you at a mental asylum. Or on the
streets with a dog behind you, bitch!!
And read my posts completely , I do say there are free distros out
there.
HalcyonWild
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2005-10-07, Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:
> >> What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public
> >> open source code, compiling it and selling it.
> >
> > Ever did this yourself? You know how long it takes to build a
> > sane system from the bare sources. Just compiling and linking
> > the whole thing takes over a week, even on a P4 3GHz machine.
>
> You must be joking. I compiled a full system, including X on a
> PII, 300MHz in less than 24 hours.
>
Sure he must be joking on this , though I agree with a lot of Wolfgangs
points. I admit I have not done anything like this. But once it is
built, you copy the CDs, you dont compile it again and again. Its the
economics of it all, Wolfgang, charging 50$ for media. Media are
available for less than a $ in China, where probably redhat gets the
CDs produced.
General Schvantzkoph
>> Can you point to any counter examples?
> The websites I mentioned above. I tried Ubuntu and Debian, it left me
> unimpressed.
> Ok, you cannot have quality without paying for it, you might say. Then
> , better we stop using, reporting bugs and testing code for redhat ,
> suse and mandrake; let them spend money they earn by selling public
> open source code.
The difference between the free Mandriva and the paid for Mandriva is the
inclusion of some non-open source drivers and media players (all of which
are available for free elsewhere on the net). The people who pay get the
new release one month earlier, aside from that the free and non-free
versions are identical except that you have to do a little more work with
the free version to get full multimedia support.
Redhat has a free version called Fedora Core and non-free versions called
Redhat Enterprise Linux. Fedora Core is a development platform but as long
as you wait for a few months after a new release it's very solid, I
wouldn't call it bug ridden at all. If you use the version prior to the
current version, which would be Fedora Core 3 at the moment, it's every
bit as solid as Redhat Enterprise Linux. The current version of RHEL, RHEL
4.1, is virtually identical to Fedora Core 3. However if you want to use
RHEL and not pay for it then there are several clones available, CentOS
and Whitebox are the principal ones. The clones are built from the Redhat
sources but have the Redhat logos removed. They are identical in everyway
except for the missing logos and the fact that you don't get any support
from Redhat.
So the bottom line is that Linux really is available for free. Support is
also available for free, it's called newsgroups but you knew that because
you posted to this newsgroup. The price of free is that you are expected
to have some common sense and a certain degree of technical competence. If
you don't have those you probably shouldn't be using Linux at all.
HalcyonWild
notbob wrote:
>
> Maybe not, but I did, and I provided the link. Redhat Enterprise WS
> (workstation) is not just the linux distro. It's the distro plus
> online/phone support. There is nothing in the GPL that requires a
> distro to either provide free support or provide an online download
> server.
I agree, nobody is armtwisting.
But can you get the ISOs, without support. redhat says, "we are
charging for support", and they dont sell without support. we have a
choice, we dont go for redhat. My company uses only Solaris. And I have
not seen any unix/linux better than solaris.
debian is not used anywhere except university students who install in
their labs.
Anyway, I feel many are misunderstanding me.
Michael Black
"HalcyonWild" (Halcyo...@gmail.com) writes:
> Hi,
>
> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
> since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
> cheap to buy Linux.
>
> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
> sell public code (GNU, kernel). Atleast the MS guys write some of their
> own code, some outsourced, and most of it comes from their previous
> version of the software. :-)
>
things out to put in a binder, I had to disassemble the code and figure
out where I needed to patch things, and then patch things.
WIth open source, I can simply look at the source that must be released,
and it is far easier to figure out what needs fixing, and then compile
that code. Plus, I can share that with others, while my modifying that
commercial code probably violated the license agreement (in that case,
there was a clause against disassemblying it).
I can go to the same pool of kernel, utility and applications and
put together my own distribution. With commercial software, if I
needed a special commercial program (such as a run time package), I'd
often have to pay in order to distribute it.
When someone sends me a bloated file that was issued from Microsoft
Word, it is useless to me since I don't run Microsoft software. Microsoft
wants such details secret, so people are forced to buy their products (and
they are fairly successful at this, because too many people are afraid
of using some alternative because they won't be compatible). Open Source
is about being open, using standards that are either standards or become
standards because their makeup is distributed well and anyone can
find the specs and write programs to deal with them.
Way too often in recent years, people who have helped Microsoft become
so monolithic, decide that they've been duped so they look to Linux/GNU
as an alternative. But they make the mistake that the alternative is
simply that they don't have to pay Microsoft for the software. They don't
make the switch because Linux is based on Unix which is a different
operating system with a long history, and they don't switch because Linux
is open source, and they don't switch because there is something inherently
revolutionary when people do become more than consumers.
All they see is "free" and since they aren't all that capable then they
are just as dependent on the commerical distributions of Linux as
they were dependent on Microsoft.
They need to move beyond that in order to see the benefits of Open
Software.
Michael
notbob
On 2005-10-07, HalcyonWild <Halcyo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Redhat 9. The shrike edition ! That was way back in 2001 or something!.
Oops, my mistake. Shrike in Mar 2003.
> Well then why do they call linux free.
Because it is AVAILABLE at ZERO cost. What part of zero cost do you
not understand? No one says they have to make it available in
downloadable iso's. If it can be *OBTAINED* at *ZERO COST*, it is
*FREE*! So far, your claims only buggy versions are available are
unsubstantiated.
nb
Rick Moen
> I thought Linux is free of cost.
Aw, c'mon, guy. You're being intellectually lazy, and asking us to do
your thinking for you. Start here:
1. Oracle RDBMS ships a Linux version. If Oracle shipped its database
on a set of Linux distribution CDs, do you think they'd be obliged to
hand copies to everyone free of charge?
2. A typical Linux distribution will not include Oracle RDBMS, but will
include some hundreds or thousands of other applications. Some will be
open source. Some may be freely redistributable but restrictively
licensed. Some may be _not_ freely redistributable, and restrictively
licensed.
Do you think the publishers of restrictively licensed application
software are obliged to hand out copies to everyone free of charge?
3. Even without significant user-level application software, a Linux
distribution would have to include some libraries, some system
utilities, and one of the implementations of the X Window System -- in
addition to the Linux kernel. Each of those codebases will be available
under some open-source licence: GPL, LGPL, BSD, Perl Artistic License,
MIT-X. Did you _bother_ to read those? Why not? That would have
answered your implied question.
{sigh}
To answer your implied question: The Linux _kernel_ is distributed by
its copyright holders to the public under the terms of the GNU General
Public License (GPL) version 2. That licence _allows_ redistribution
free of charge, _as well as_ allowing distribution for money. People who
do some sorts of redistribution of the Linux kernel or derivative works
thereof are obliged to offer all parties specified sorts of access to
the matching source code.
If someone says to you, "I'm willing to give you a copy of the Linux
kernel, but only if you pay me $5", you have absolutely no cause for
complaint. You remain entirely free to find someone else who'll offer
it to you cheaper, and everyone else remains free to not offer it at
all, or to offer it at the price of their choosing.
If someone puts the Linux kernel onto a CD-ROM with various and sundry
other codebases, he/she will have whatever redistribution rights, and
matching responsibilities, that the various copyright owners have
specified in their licences. That person may have the right to
redistribute some of the constituent codebases, but not others.
> You can freely copy the installation
> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
> since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
> cheap to buy Linux.
>
> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
> sell public code (GNU, kernel).
1. Read the damned licence. They have every right under GPLv2 to sell
GNU codebases and the Linux kernel for whatever price the market will
bear. You are _likewise_ free to do so. Moreover, so is the FSF.
Aren't you aware that FSF has been selling media containing the GNU
codebases since its inception?
2. Do you have any reason to think that Redhat [sic], Suse [sic], or
Mandrake [sic] are failing to provide the required access to third-party
GPLed codebases (from FSF or anyone else) in accordance with GPLv2
clause 3b? Or any other provision?
3. Read the damned licence. Do you honestly believe that it says
anywhere that redistributors are required to furnish even source code,
let alone binaries, without charge?
4. Do you think that Microsoft Corporation (other than its Interix
division) has suddenly become a major developer and redistributor of
open-source code?
5. Read the damned licence. It'd prevent you from running around in
public with your foot in your mouth.
> I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing all this.
Your opinion is noted, and I'm sure will be valued at, at minimum,
acquisition cost. Meanwhile, if you think you can do better than those
other people, you're free to acquire source code to the open-soure
portions of those distributions' codebases, fork off a copy, develop the
hell out of it, and hand out copies free of charge at your own expense.
Good luck.
> Before you put me in the line of fire(I have seen anti Linux people
> shredded to bits in other forums :) ), I must say that I am not saying
> all this just for the sake of saying something, but isnt something very
> wrong here.
Read the damned licence.
Sheesh.
--
Cheers,
Rick Moen Support your local medical examiner: Die strangely.
ri...@linuxmafia.com
Bill Marcum
<st...@worldbadminton.com> wrote:
> Your are mistaken.
>
> Linux continues to be free.
>
> _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
> free mail you CD's,
--
BOFH excuse #259:
Someone's tie is caught in the printer, and if anything else gets
printed, he'll be in it too.
Rick Moen
> I can't imagine why. I can get any linux distro at no cost whatsoever
> from many sources on the internet.
Not lawfully. Example: Xandros Desktop OS -- on account of some
included codebases whose copyright holders have not granted
redistribution rights. There are many other such distributions.
notbob
You are correct, of course. I changed it from "most" to "any" without
verifying my own statement. My bad.
nb
HalcyonWild
General Schvantzkoph wrote:
> >
> >> Can you point to any counter examples?
> > The websites I mentioned above. I tried Ubuntu and Debian, it left me
> > unimpressed.
> > Ok, you cannot have quality without paying for it, you might say. Then
> > , better we stop using, reporting bugs and testing code for redhat ,
> > suse and mandrake; let them spend money they earn by selling public
> > open source code.
>
> Redhat has a free version called Fedora Core and non-free versions called
> Redhat Enterprise Linux. Fedora Core is a development platform but as long
> as you wait for a few months after a new release it's very solid, I
> wouldn't call it bug ridden at all. If you use the version prior to the
> current version, which would be Fedora Core 3 at the moment, it's every
> bit as solid as Redhat Enterprise Linux. The current version of RHEL, RHEL
> 4.1, is virtually identical to Fedora Core 3. However if you want to use
> RHEL and not pay for it then there are several clones available, CentOS
> and Whitebox are the principal ones. The clones are built from the Redhat
> sources but have the Redhat logos removed. They are identical in everyway
Well, I did not know that, Thanks. But I have seen fedora to be low
quality, that is why my experience. Also, I am a programmer and I have
that basic technical skill you talk about, if I want to install linux.
(That is why I had rh 7 on my box while i was in college). But somehow,
when they started selling linux, while I was stuck up with an old
version, I thought, there is no difference between RH and MS. If you
think about it, that selling media and 3 month support for a 100$ is
just a gimmick. I will try Centos.
Basically , I have lost touch with linux world, and now I hardly get
time to experiment with it. Most free distros I tried were hopeless.
They might be good, but I cannot spend 24 hours going from scratch, or
maybe install a distro from CD and keep tweaking it for days, to
finally get everything to work.
With respect to Linux, you can think of me as an average user, with
good technical knowledge. How can linux succeed if they sell the user
friendly versions while , dump the test versions on users. If this is
how a person like me feels about linux, I can imagine the frustation of
a user who just wants to play Quake, or browse the web.
Ever been to the Mysql site, for example. You will see a long long list
of mysql versions for different flavours of Linux. And even amongst a
single flavour, different versions !!. Look at the windows download
list. Just 3 links !! With such confusion in the linux world, with the
players looking only for profits without caring about linux (paying for
linux isnt bad if they give quality stuff, reduce confusion), I do not
think linux can be the much touted future OS. It was, but now the story
has changed. If anyone dreams that rh can be an IBM or MS or apple,
wake up.
I am reminded of "too many cooks spoil the broth" when I see the state
of the linux market. They are repeating Unix's mistakes.
Rick Moen
>> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
>> sell public code (GNU, kernel)?
>
> Redhat/SuSE/Mandriva make it possible to get the same stuff (minus a few
> commercial apps) for free.
The term "commercial" is meaningless in this context.[1] I believe you
mean "non-redistributable proprietary".
The right of redistribution is reserved to copyright owners by default.
Thus, issuing that right to the public requires an explicit licence
grant. Some codebases are issued under proprietary terms but with the
right of public redistribution included (e.g., the xv graphics utility).
Other codebases are issued under proprietary terms that _omit_ the right
of redistribution (e.g., Adobe Acrobat Reader, which may be lawfully
retrieved only from Adobe-authorised distributors).
A Linux distribution that includes non-redistributable proprietary
applications (such as Adobe Acroread) consequently cannot lawfully be
redistributed by members of the public. Those get commonly referred to
as "shrink-wrapped" distros.
A Linux distribution whose installation media are either 100% open
source (e.g., Debian, Gentoo) or include only open source +
redistributable proprietary apps (e.g., distros that include xv) can be
lawfully put on Linux-ISO download sites, etc.
[1] The English word "commercial" means "characterised by being the
object of commerce". If I sell you a CD set of Official Debian 3.1,
that will include 100% open-source codebases only, but our transaction
and the sold media would be by definition commercial.
Jim Strathmeyer
> And read my posts completely , I do say there are free distros out
> there.
Which answers your question.
--
Jim Strathmeyer
jeff
> ...
> And I repeat, the free ones are unstable...
The free "ones"? Which free ones have you tried outside of FC? Debian
(free) is generally considered to be the most reliable distro out there.
How about Ubuntu (free - they'll even send you a CD at no cost)?
SimplyMepis (still free AFAIK)? Mandriva download edition (free)? Open
Suse (free)? Slackware (free)? Gentoo (free)? And I'm sure I'm
missing some other obvious examples. For your own reasons, you may not
like some of these, but there's got to be at least ONE that will meet
your needs.
Jeff
Douglas O'Neal
Nothing in the GPL says that Redhat has to let you have access to their
ISOs. We have servers here that run Redhat Enterprise and since we have
the GPL'ed binaries, they have to give us access to the source also. If
you've never received software from Redhat then they're under no obligation
to give you the source.
You run only Solaris. Have you managed to get a complete (and legal) Solaris
system running from free downloaded ISO's? Since this is your company,
personal download licenses don't count. A substantial amount of the software
provided on the Solaris distributions I have is GPL code and Sun is going
the open-source route on solaris. Why aren't you complaining about Sun
not giving you the full OS?
If you don't like Redhat and don't think any linux is as good as Solaris,
then don't use it. At my institute, we have Redhat on Oracle servers since
we need Oracle to support the installation. We also have Redhat Enterprise
on our 256-CPU cluster, but will probably migrate to Gentoo when the support
contract expires. I don't fault Redhat for trying to make a buck on support
but I'm not going to pay for support that I'm unlikely to ever need.
Doug
Rick Moen
> st...@worldbadminton.com wrote:
>
>> You are mistaken.
>>
>> Linux continues to be free.
>
> Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc.
> See the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test
> versions. I have seen fedora to be slow and in some cases, crashing.
You are basing your ill-informed and intellectually lazy rant on, among
other things, a factual error in this department: All releases of
Mandriva and MEPIS are downloadable at no cost other than the cost of
your bandwidth, time, and CD/DVD media. (Mandriva also makes supersets
of its releases available with non-redistributable apps on extra discs,
through its "Club".)
> Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
> downloads. No ISOs are available for download. If it were allowed to
> redistribute freely (GNU says that apart from free software, you should
> have the freedom to redistribute )....
GPL (not "GNU") says you have the right to freely redistribute _if_
someone is willing to give or sell you a copy. Others who redistribute
are obliged to give one of three forms of source-code access. These
provisions apply, of course, only to the GPL-covered codebases, not to
others that happen to reside on the same discs.
You seem to want this to work out that everyone has the obligation to
give you free-of-charge access to anything that's bundled with the Linux
kernel -- and are going around calling names against those who decline.
Sorry, you lose -- and are making the rest of us look silly by
association with such ignorant whining.
Read the damned licence.
Jean-David Beyer
> Hi,
>
> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
> last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am seeing
> that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really cheap to buy
> Linux.
>
> code, some outsourced, and most of it comes from their previous version
> of the software. :-)
>
> MS. The so called free Fedora is riddled with bugs and it is an untested
> beta released for free testing by the public. Redhat then picks up the
> tested code from Fedora and sells it in their "enterprise edition".
>
employees of Red Hat. As such, Red Hat must make enough money to pay them,
to maintain a battery of computers to support the developpers, to maintain a
support staff to do system tests of all the distributions, to make up the
indidual distributions, to maintain a web and ftp site for downloading the
software, and the updates.
Where do you suppose that money comes from?
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 15:00:00 up 7 days, 8:02, 3 users, load average: 4.36, 4.22, 4.08
Robert Heller
In a message on 7 Oct 2005 10:54:00 -0700, wrote :
"> st...@worldbadminton.com wrote:
">
"> > Your are mistaken.
"> >
"> > Linux continues to be free.
">
"> Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc.
"> See the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test
"> versions. I have seen fedora to be slow and in some cases, crashing.
">
"> > _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
"> > free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,
">
"> Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
"> downloads. No ISOs are available for download. If it were allowed to
"> redistribute freely (GNU says that apart from free software, you should
"> have the freedom to redistribute ), there would be download servers out
"> there who would allow you to download linux. I did not find any. Only
"> debian happens to be free, but that again is way behind. If I am
"> allowed to redistribute after buying linux, I might set set up a
"> download site myself. Why is nobody doing it.
White Box Linux (www.whiteboxlinux.org) has GPL versions of both RHEL
3.0 and RHEL 4.0 available for download
(CentOS) www.centos.org has a GPL version of RHEL 4.0 available for
download.
These two web sites offer (legal) free downloads of what RedHat 'sells'
(RHEL 3.0 and RHEL 4.0). RedHat Enterprise Linux (the 'pay' version)
just has a few added things. WBL and Centos are 'sanitized' versions
of RHEL -- RedHat's trandmarks and a handful of RedHat specific
'extras' have been removed. Otherwise these distros are in fact
exactly what you would pay for if you were to buy what RedHat 'sells'.
What you would be paying for is *direct support services*. RedHat is
not actually selling code itself. All of the *sources* for RHEL 3.0
and RHEL 4.0 (both the base distros and all of the updates) are
available for free download from RedHat's site. The only thing you
have to 'pay' RedHat for is the binaries on CDs, but what you are
really getting for your money is lots of hand holding (support). If you
don't need this level of support, you can download all of the source
RPMS and build your own system. The people at White Box Linux
(www.whiteboxlinux.org) and CentOS (www.centos.org) have downloaded
these source RPMs and built a set of iso images. And they download and
build the update RPMs (from RedHat).
">
">
"> > and sure some probably have commercial content that isn't free,
"> > but I'm not aware of any you can't have for free if you are
"> > just talking about the Linux content itself.
">
"> Linux content, just the kernel you mean. Just the OS , without all the
"> utilities. Is it. What is it good for then. Will anyone bother to
"> download hundreds of programs and utilities. Many people do not have
"> access to Internet.
All of the utilities and support code are available for *free* download
(eg compilers, utilities, libraries, applications, etc.).
">
"> > Can you point to any counter examples?
"> The websites I mentioned above. I tried Ubuntu and Debian, it left me
"> unimpressed.
"> Ok, you cannot have quality without paying for it, you might say. Then
"> , better we stop using, reporting bugs and testing code for redhat ,
"> suse and mandrake; let them spend money they earn by selling public
"> open source code.
RedHat, Suse, and Mandrake don't sell the 'source code', only packaged
binaries with support services. ALL of the source RPMs are available
for download and I know of two groups that have created re-packaged and
re-branded binary distributions from RedHat's source RPMs, that can be
downloaded for free.
">
">
\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: hel...@cs.umass.edu
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller || hel...@deepsoft.com
http://www.deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153
Jean-David Beyer
> Dances With Crows got shagged in the gutters and muttered:
>
>
>> ? Debian and Gentoo are payware now? Son of a bitch.
>>
>
>
> I knew I would be shredded.
>
> Well you use Gentoo and Debian. See you at a mental asylum. Or on the
> streets with a dog behind you, bitch!!
>
spend the money designing, developping, packaging, and testing their
distributions that those who sell distributions do?
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 15:10:00 up 7 days, 8:12, 3 users, load average: 4.13, 4.24, 4.16
Grant Edwards
> Nothing in the GPL says that Redhat has to let you have access to their
> ISOs. We have servers here that run Redhat Enterprise and since we have
> the GPL'ed binaries, they have to give us access to the source also. If
> you've never received software from Redhat then they're under no obligation
> to give you the source.
That's not quite true (according to the FSF). If RedHat gave
you GPL'd binaries and an offer to provide sources, and you
copy those binaries and give them to other people, that offer
goes along with it.
The end result is that RedHat has to provide sources to anybody
that has binaries, regardless of whether they got those
binaries from RedHat or from a third party.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#RedistributedBinariesGetSource
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... Um...Um...
at
visi.com
Keith Keller
It is not necessarily free as in gratis. Read
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC2
In particular:
"[T]he GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom
to share and change free software"
Other licenses differ, but the basis is the same: you can take source
code and modify it if necessary. Whether something must be offered for
no cost is not addressed (though see the below URL for one location
where it is addressed, sorta).
To pick one of your examples, RH complies with the GPL by providing the
source RPMs for its enterprise distro. You can download these sources
yourself, build them, and mostly recreate RHEL. What you can't
recreate is the proprietary software that RH writes itself, and can thus
restrict in any way they want. Whether this is wise or not is a
different question, but whether they can do so is not in question.
> And it isnt really
> cheap to buy Linux.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html#HighOrLowFeesAndGPL
But, since you asked, there are plenty of cheaper distros. Slackware
sells for about US$40. CentOS, which as somebody mentioned is basically
RHEL stripped of proprietary marks/software, is US$10-15 from a few
different vendors. There are plenty of others if you actually take the
time to look.
> Before you put me in the line of fire(I have seen anti Linux people
> shredded to bits in other forums :) ),
Quite frankly, you deserved your shredding. I hope you'll learn from it
rather than grow bitter and grumpy like the rest of us. :)
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Jean-David Beyer
> 5. Read the damned licence. It'd prevent you from running around in
> public with your foot in your mouth.
>
I absolutely _love_ that metaphor. Either he has three legs, a spare foot,
or hops instead of runs.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 15:20:00 up 7 days, 8:22, 3 users, load average: 4.13, 4.19, 4.17
Stephen M. Adams
>st...@worldbadminton.com wrote:
>
>> Your are mistaken.
>>
>> Linux continues to be free.
>
>Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc.
>See the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test
>versions. I have seen fedora to be slow and in some cases, crashing.
Anything can be slow if not setup correctly. Generally, as long as
you install only what you need and apply patches in a reasonable
fashion, any of the major releases are stable and quite usable.
Personally, I prefer Gentoo for non critical systems.
>> _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
>> free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,
>
>Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
>downloads. No ISOs are available for download.
Gentoo (http://gentoo.org) is free, AND has various ISO's available.
It's stable, current and works well. I've loaded it on IBM Thinkpads
(various models), Dell servers, MPC servers and a bunch of different
generic Intel boxes.
While I don't use it, Fedora ISO's are here:
http://fedora.redhat.com/download/
I don't use SUSE either, but ISO's for the open source version are here:
http://www.opensuse.org/Released_Version
How come you had so much trouble finding the ISO's? Or did you quit
looking when you saw the 'pay' (ie directly supported) versions?
For work, I use Red Hat Enterprise, and we pay for the yearly support
agreement. I have no problem with paying for support/updates, given
the regulated releases.
>> and sure some probably have commercial content that isn't free,
>> but I'm not aware of any you can't have for free if you are
>> just talking about the Linux content itself.
>
>Linux content, just the kernel you mean. Just the OS , without all the
>utilities. Is it. What is it good for then. Will anyone bother to
>download hundreds of programs and utilities. Many people do not have
>access to Internet.
The ISO's I noted above have the standard set of utils.
>> Can you point to any counter examples?
>The websites I mentioned above. I tried Ubuntu and Debian, it left me
>unimpressed.
>Ok, you cannot have quality without paying for it, you might say. Then
>, better we stop using, reporting bugs and testing code for redhat ,
>suse and mandrake; let them spend money they earn by selling public
>open source code.
They are selling supported version. But there are plenty of sources
for good releases that do not require payment. See Gentoo as a great
example of this.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Stephen M. Adams
>notbob wrote:
>
>> but no one is twisting your arm to buy. Even Redhat 9 is available
>> for download.
>
>hands on WinXP.
No, but given the choice, I would run Windows 2000 instead of XP. In
fact, I have 2 Windows machines at home (along with 4 Macs and 2 Linux
boxes) - both run Windows 2000, despite the fact that I have access to
WinXP.
And my main Linux box that serves my email, website, my church's website
and some other stuff is running Red Hat 9. Yes, I've updated things like
Apache, OpenSSL, Sendmail, etc, but the kernel and base utils are RH9.
And it works fine. Sometime early next year, I'm going to switch it to
Gentoo (that's what my home test/development Linux box is running ).
>> As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux. It
>> just not ok to not make it available for free. I do not know of any
>> linux that is not available at zero cost.
>
>Well then why do they call linux free.
Because it is! I haven't paid a DIME for any Linux I use at home or at
work, with the exception of RHEL 3 licenses for critical production
boxes, and those licenses are insisted upon by management. I would be
fine without them.
>And I repeat, the free ones are unstable.
I have several stable machines running Gentoo, one running RH9, one
running (free) SuSE.
>A friend of mine formatted
>his HDD after struggling with fedora for bout a week.
Struggling in what way?? What problems? What hardware? Do you know
for a *fact* that the problem was with the software?
>If you want to spend money, rather go for a stable unix version from
>Sun Microsystems or HP or IBM. My point is that I am not anti-Linux or
>pro MS or anything. It is that if you want to spend money, better go
>for Sun, HP or MS Win2k(best windows version till date , IMHO), or
>MacOS X
My personal laptop is a 17" PowerBook with OSX 10.4. But I also have
a Thinkpad running Gentoo - it runs great and cost $0 for the software.
HalcyonWild
jeff wrote:
No I havent tried Debian myself, but others who did told me to go for
MS Win2K.
Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support. No sound at all. No net connection
at home so no free media player downloads. Not easily configurable. No
good system utilities.
Suse is free ??? Wake up.
Slackware ? Most stable AFAIK, but most unfriendly.
Gentoo. Never heard of it.
Mepis? you have to pay.
What I also say, is that at the price which distros supply support and
media , the stuff they provide is not at all worth it. Slow, resource
hungry and bug-ridden is what you will get.
(come on now, do you really still believe that media costs $100, and
support for 3 months means they really gonna give good quality
support).
Also there is another tendency I have noted. People tend to use windows
systems much more "roughly" than they would use linux systems because
they wouldnt know how to fix it. They are scared of linux systems.
Use linux as roughly as you would use windows , and see your hard disk
thrashing.
If you are selling linux, atleast give some good quality stuff.
John Hasler
> As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.
Correct (Linux being the kernel).
> It just not ok to not make it available for free.
Not correct.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
John Hasler
> Because it is AVAILABLE at ZERO cost.
No. Linux is Free because it is libre, not because it is gratis.
John Hasler
> The terms of the GPL explicitly allow this. Have you read the GPL? Go
> do that. It's on your installed systems and on your installation CDs.
Note that much of the software included in most Linux distributions
(including Debian), although Free, is licensed under terms other than those
of the GPL.
HalcyonWild writes:
> Before you put me in the line of fire, I must say that I am not saying
> all this just for the sake of saying something, but isn't something very
> wrong here?
Do you see the people who wrote the software complaining?
John Hasler
> Well you use Gentoo and Debian. See you at a mental asylum. Or on the
> streets with a dog behind you, bitch!!
Now we know you for what you are.
John Hasler
> Apropos Debian. This distribution never was commercial, but yet they are
> selling CDs with Debian on them. This is mainly for the people who don't
> have a high bandwidth connection.
We do not sell CDs (or anything else). For-profit companies such as Cheap
Bytes make and sell Debian CDs and we don't mind at all (in fact we
encourage it). Anyone is welcome to do so.
Joe
>
> No I havent tried Debian myself, but others who did told me to go for
> MS Win2K.
>
> Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support. No sound at all. No net connection
> at home so no free media player downloads. Not easily configurable. No
> good system utilities.
> Suse is free ??? Wake up.
> Slackware ? Most stable AFAIK, but most unfriendly.
> Gentoo. Never heard of it.
> Mepis? you have to pay.
>
>
> Also there is another tendency I have noted. People tend to use windows
> systems much more "roughly" than they would use linux systems because
> they wouldnt know how to fix it. They are scared of linux systems.
> Use linux as roughly as you would use windows , and see your hard disk
> thrashing.
>
> If you are selling linux, atleast give some good quality stuff.
>
Get the facts before you rant. As a Microsoft Registered Partner
I have licenced copies of the full Windows Server 2003 and Small
Business Server 2003. SBS is not bad if you're locked into The
Microsoft Way, but with both of those servers I still choose to
run Debian on my home server. Debian Stable is not a misnomer.
Debian Unstable has the bleeding-edge stuff, and it's only
unstable compared to Stable.
I use FC3 and FC4 on my workstations, dual booting with XP Pro,
and I find FC more efficient for VPN and remote admin of Windows
servers than XP. I don't seem to have these mysterious instability
problems which plague you and your friends, but then I have to say
I never saw that many BSODs, even with Win95. Just clean living, I
suppose.
And as others have said, if you're still not happy with any existing
distribution, compile and sell your own. Let's see you do that with
Windows.
Rick Moen
> Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support.
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/documentation/faq/helpcenterfaq.2004-09-16.3469703387
And if you're not aware of the threat of patent encumbrances such as
Frauenhofer's on MP3, you really need to get out more.
> Suse is free ??? Wake up.
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/suse-product-strategy.html
> Mepis? you have to pay.
ftp://ftp.cise.ufl.edu/pub/mirrors/mepis/testing/MEPISLite-3.3.2.test01.iso
http://www.tlm-project.org/public/distributions/mepis/
You know, you'd embarrass yourself less often if you bothered to check
Distrowatch.
Rick Moen
> notbob writes:
>> As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.
>
> Correct (Linux being the kernel).
>
>> It just not ok to not make it available for free.
>
> Not correct.
Please cite the term of the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates
redistributors making anything whatsoever available without charge.
Please note that clause 3b (one of three ways that some parties may meet
their source-code-access obligations) specifically acknowledges a right
to charge.
Rick Moen
> White Box Linux (www.whiteboxlinux.org) has GPL versions of both RHEL
> 3.0 and RHEL 4.0 available for download
> (CentOS) www.centos.org has a GPL version of RHEL 4.0 available for
> download.
Please do not use "GPL" as a synonym for open source / free-as-in-speech.
You're probably well aware that WBL/CentOS/others include codebases
under numerous _other_ (non-GPL) open source licences.
Michael Heiming
> Rick Moen wrote (in part):
>> 5. Read the damned licence. It'd prevent you from running around in
>> public with your foot in your mouth.
>>
> I absolutely _love_ that metaphor. Either he has three legs, a spare foot,
> or hops instead of runs.
From the thread it looks like M$ has already successfully
off-shored parts of their FUD/troll department?
We'll probably get blasted real soon...
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 52: Smell from unhygienic janitorial staff wrecked
the tape heads
Peter T. Breuer
> John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
>> notbob writes:
>>> As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.
>>
>> Correct (Linux being the kernel).
>>
>>> It just not ok to not make it available for free.
>>
>> Not correct.
> Please cite the term of the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates
> redistributors making anything whatsoever available without charge.
Well, para 3 does.
> Please note that clause 3b (one of three ways that some parties may meet
> their source-code-access obligations) specifically acknowledges a right
> to charge.
They can charge for the medium, not for the source or access to the
source. #3b says:
... a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third
party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing
source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code ...
(so the price is specified, 0 for source and x for medium, for a total
of x). And #1 also affirms:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a
fee.
Does any of this force the distributor to let you have the source code
for free (plus distribution cost)? Yes. #3 enumerates what you may do.
a) give the source code away together on the same shebang as the
progam.
b) promise to give anybody at all the source at cost of medium.
c) point to offers a) or b) or c) in the place you got the prgram
from.
My paraphrasals, of course. In a), the GPL says "accompany [the
program] with", not "give away with", but that's synonymous. And in
(b), it restricts the time of the offer to three years.
But the three possibilities are all there are, and they don't include
"charging for the source" because each of the three possibilities
specifies the price of the source, and it is zero in each. Or are you
looking for a getout via 3c) (the recursion) say pointing back to an
original author who then charges for source?
Peter
Rick Moen
> Rick Moen <ri...@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>
>> Please cite the term of the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates
>> redistributors making anything whatsoever available without charge.
>
> Well, para 3 does.
Sorry, _nowhere_ does paragraph 3 mandate making anything whatsoever
available without charge.
> They can charge for the medium, not for the source or access to the
> source. #3b says:
You've just agreed with me, and contradicted your claim.
NOTE: I did _not_ ask Mr. Hasler to cite a term of the covering licence
that prohibits charging anything at all for all forms of access -- nor
would I, not being a complete idiot. I said: "Please cite the term of
the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates redistributors making
anything whatsoever available without charge."
Hasler had said "Not correct" to "notbob's" claim of "It['s] just not ok
to not make it [the Linux kernel] available for free.
A redistributor satisfying his source-access obligation using the 3b
method may well refuse to ever give access to _anything_ for free -- and
would not infringe anyone's copyright, thereby.
> (so the price is specified, 0 for source and x for medium, for a total
> of x).
You seem to be in strenuous agreement with me.
> Does any of this force the distributor to let you have the source code
> for free (plus distribution cost)? Yes.
The phrase "for free (plus distribution cost)" is a fancy way of saying
"_not_ for free". Please don't play word games: It wastes our time.
General Schvantzkoph
> Ever been to the Mysql site, for example. You will see a long long list
> of mysql versions for different flavours of Linux. And even amongst a
> single flavour, different versions !!. Look at the windows download
> list. Just 3 links !! With such confusion in the linux world, with the
> players looking only for profits without caring about linux (paying for
> linux isnt bad if they give quality stuff, reduce confusion), I do not
> think linux can be the much touted future OS. It was, but now the story
> has changed. If anyone dreams that rh can be an IBM or MS or apple,
> wake up.
>
> I am reminded of "too many cooks spoil the broth" when I see the state
> of the linux market. They are repeating Unix's mistakes.
MYSQL and a host of other server applications come bundled with virtually
all Linux distributions, you don't have to download them from anywhere. As
for commercial applications, those are all targeted at Redhat or SUSE, for
most of the other distributions you are on your own. Although there are
hundreds of Linux distributions there are only a few that matter.
Big corporations primarily use Redhat or SUSE (Novell) because those are
the distributions that the commercial software vendors support. The
commercial software vendors target Redhat and SUSE because their customers
have standardized on them, it's a vicious or virtuous circle depending on
how you look at it.
The primary choices for end users are larger. If you use any commercial
applications you'll want to either use RHEL or SUSE or one of their
cousins like Fedora Core or the RHEL clones. Because FC is closely related
to RHEL you can usually run a commercial application that's targeted at
RHEL and still get the benefits of a cutting edge distribution. If you
only use open source software then you could use any distribution. However
only a few distributions are really popular, Fedora and SUSE of course.
Mandriva is popular as well as Slackware, Debian and some of the Debian
relatives like Ubuntu. Popularity is important for an end user OS because
a large user community makes it easier to get online help. More users also
improves the quality of a distribution because there are more people
finding bugs and it also improves the odds that a particular package is
available for that distribution. The hundreds of others distributions are
mostly irrelevant.
As for the reasons to use Linux, price isn't it. Price is usually a pretty
stupid reason to pick any product let alone an operating system. For price
to be compelling the price difference has to be huge and for OSes it
isn't. XP Pro is only $150 and XP Home is only $99, so neither is very
expensive. The reason to pick an OS is because it serves your needs
better. In the server space Linux has been hugely successful because it's
a vastly more capable OS then XP. Linux scales better and it works much
better in a networked environment. For engineering applications those
things matter also. I'm using a half dozen machines simultaneously, two of
which are dual processor, I simple couldn't do that with a Windows
environment.
For typical home users the advantages aren't nearly as significant and
there are some major disadvantages that aren't going away anytime soon.
For example if what you want to do is play games Linux isn't the OS for
you, there are very few games for Linux vs Windows. Linux does better in
the media space then it does in the game space but it still isn't quite as
capable as Windows. If what you want to do is web surf, do Office type
things and do e-mail then Linux is every bit as good as Windows. However
every bit as good isn't a compelling reason to switch, there has to be
something that's much better. For the typical user the one advantage that
Linux has over Windows is that it's much much safer. The amount of malware
that's out there for Windows is frightening, there is nothing equivalent
in the Linux world. Although it's certainly possible to write a Linux worm
it's much much harder to do then for Windows. Also the huge number of
Linux variations helps to protect the Linux world from viruses in the same
way that genetic variability protects plant and animal populations from
diseases. In natural populations it's pretty much impossible for a disease
to wipe out a whole population, even the black plague only killed 1/3rd of
the human population. With genetically identical populations, like farmed
grapes or bananas for example, a single variant of a disease can wipe out
the whole population. There are only a couple of varieties of Windows, so
it's like bananas, there are hundreds of varieties of Linux (there is a
new kernel every month for example) so it's like a natural population.
Anyway my point is that if you are doing serious computing then Linux is
the obvious choice. If you want to play with a huge array of free
applications then Linux is also a good choice. If you are just a home user
then the one reason to pick Linux is that it's relatively virus proof.
jeff
have pointed out, are just plain incorrect. And you also seem to be
unwilling to at least do the research to get the facts.
Microsoft operating systems are not my first choice, but if used with
care they can be useful and productive tools. My advice to you is to
stick with Windows.
Jeff
Rick Moen
>> Not lawfully. Example: Xandros Desktop OS -- on account of some
>> included codebases whose copyright holders have not granted
>> redistribution rights. There are many other such distributions.
>
> You are correct, of course. I changed it from "most" to "any" without
> verifying my own statement. My bad.
Well, I was also imprecise. ;-> Each release of Xandros Desktop OS is
(as with SUSE Linux) available in several "editions". Starting with
release 2.01, one of those was "Open Circulation Edition", for which
Xandros issued slightly limited redistribution rights as to a couple of
its components that are otherwise non-redistributable. If memory
serves, it's something like: You may not redistribute it for money or
as part of a product.
Peter T. Breuer
> Peter T. Breuer <p...@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>> Rick Moen <ri...@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Please cite the term of the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates
>>> redistributors making anything whatsoever available without charge.
>>
>> Well, para 3 does.
> Sorry, _nowhere_ does paragraph 3 mandate making anything whatsoever
> available without charge.
I quoted it to you, and it says that the source of a GPL program is free
of charge to the person the program is distributed to, and possibly to
others too (at discretion). I gave the reasoning which supports that
conclusion. I suspect that you are pointing out that the cost of
posting it to you isn't required t be borne by the redistributor.
>> They can charge for the medium, not for the source or access to the
>> source. #3b says:
> You've just agreed with me, and contradicted your claim.
I have disagreed with you and supprted my claim. I claim that there is
a clause of the GPL2 that mandates making something available without
charge. That "something" is the source code of a GPLed program that has
been distributed to a second party, and the party it is free to is that
second party, or, at the first party's discretion, any third party
including the second party.
> NOTE: I did _not_ ask Mr. Hasler to cite a term of the covering licence
> that prohibits charging anything at all for all forms of access -- nor
> would I, not being a complete idiot. I said: "Please cite the term of
> the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates redistributors making
> anything whatsoever available without charge."
And I quoted it to you. There is nothing wrong with my logic, I can
assure you. I understand that you are trying to say that because they
give you A+B and charge you for A, then B is not free. I disagree. "A"
is limited to costs for B, so it's not a scam.
> Hasler had said "Not correct" to "notbob's" claim of "It['s] just not ok
> to not make it [the Linux kernel] available for free.
That is an incorrect statement. Let's analyse it:
It['s] just not ok to not make it [the Linux kernel] available for free.
So he says its bad (not OK) to charge (not make available for free) the
linux kernel.
JH disagrees with him ("not correct"), thus saying it's good (not bad,
or at least not not OK) to charge for the linux kernel. While I may not
have an opinion on whether it's definitely good or bad, I certainly
agree that it is not not OK.
> A redistributor satisfying his source-access obligation using the 3b
> method may well refuse to ever give access to _anything_ for free -- and
> would not infringe anyone's copyright, thereby.
That is not the case - under 3b he MUST give access to the source code of
the program "for a charge no more than [the] cost of physically
performing source distribution" [to any third party at all], which
implies that the source code is free, just the postage and packaging is
being charged for.
Hence the redistributor must make the source code available for free.
That's an "anything whatsoever". He can charge for P&P. But not beyond
reason. It has to be "on a medium customarily used for software
interchange".
>> (so the price is specified, 0 for source and x for medium, for a total
>> of x).
> You seem to be in strenuous agreement with me.
No, I am in disagreement. You say that the redistributor (the second
party?) doesn't have to make anything whatsoever available without
charge, and I say that he must make the source code available without
charge. That is a component of what the 3rd party has a right to ask for.
Posting it to you is charged for. So is stamping it on a cd.
>> Does any of this force the distributor to let you have the source code
>> for free (plus distribution cost)? Yes.
> The phrase "for free (plus distribution cost)" is a fancy way of saying
> "_not_ for free". Please don't play word games: It wastes our time.
It's not a word game - it's very precise. The source code is free; the
medium it is sent to you on and the cost of posting it to you is not.
Try buying the source code of ms windows to see the difference between
zero charge and something very else for the source code!
Peter
YouCanToo
> notbob wrote:
>
>
>>but no one is twisting your arm to buy. Even Redhat 9 is available
>>for download.
>
>
> Redhat 9. The shrike edition ! That was way back in 2001 or something!.
> Now you wouldnt go back to using win NT 3.5 once you have put your
> hands on WinXP.
Windows Xtra Problems. Don't want to start using it either
>
>
>>As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux. It
>>just not ok to not make it available for free. I do not know of any
>>linux that is not available at zero cost.
>
>
> Well then why do they call linux free.
Hello, Because you can get it for FREE. What part don't you get about
FREE??
>
> And I repeat, the free ones are unstable.
Please pull your head out your ass. You have to be talking out your
ass, as your mouth is to smart to say stuff like the above line.
A friend of mine formatted
> his HDD after struggling with fedora for bout a week.
Perhaps your friend is the problem. Did he ask for help in a SMART way
or did he (like you) bitch about Linux?
> If you want to spend money, rather go for a stable unix version from
> Sun Microsystems or HP or IBM. My point is that I am not anti-Linux or
> pro MS or anything. It is that if you want to spend money, better go
> for Sun, HP or MS Win2k(best windows version till date , IMHO), or
> MacOS X
>
Funny that Linux works for so many people.
Rick Moen
> You seem to have a number of preconceptions about Linux that, as others
> have pointed out, are just plain incorrect. And you also seem to be
> unwilling to at least do the research to get the facts.
The charitable interpretation would be that HalcyonWild is just a bit
confused. There's a tediously familiar logic to his posts: He used to
be able to download nearly every well-known distribution free of charge.
He now notices that a number of well-known distributions are not
lawfully redistributable, and figures _some_ right of his must be getting
trammeled, though he's a bit unclear on what that right is.
Besides, he doesn't enjoy the perceived quality flaws he thinks he sees
in freely redistributable distributions, and figures he can taunt,
wheedle, and complain that situation out of existence.
So, we see: A vague sense of entitlement, laziness, aggressive
ignorance, a whiney approach to the subject -- and pervasive error. And
he's surprised to get a somewhat dismissive reception?
Guess what, HalcyonWild? Back in the days when you became accustomed to
downloading (e.g.) RH9 ISOs "free", the large amounts of bandwidth and
hosting services required were never free of charge. They were merely
_subsidised_, at a time when vulture capitalists were handing out money
like candy.
Well, it's not 1999, any more. A lot of the places on the Net that used
to underwrite immense bandwidth bills to make dozens of popular Linux
distribution ISOs available to the public got tired of the expense.
And some firms such as Red Hat, Inc., whether wisely or not, decided
that emphasising somewhat restrictive service agreements wrapped around
their (otherwise) open source offerings made for a better likelihood of
business success.
But there do remain a hundred or so freely redistributable, maintained
distributions at any given time. HalcyonWild might enjoy one of those
-- or not. But he really ought to adjust his attitude.
Rick Moen
> I quoted it to you, and it says that the source of a GPL program is free
> of charge to the person the program is distributed to, and possibly to
> others too (at discretion). I gave the reasoning which supports that
> conclusion. I suspect that you are pointing out that the cost of
> posting it to you isn't required t be borne by the redistributor.
You are playing games with words, and are wasting your time and mine.
Which will thus end _now_. I will not argue with someone who whimsically
redefines "at no charge" to encompass charging money.
> There is nothing wrong with my logic....
There's something wrong with your _judgement_ -- as you are attempting to
re-obscure a subject I just took considerable pains to clarify. I do
not appreciate that. Thus: We are done.
YouCanToo
> HalcyonWild wrote:
>
>> ...
>> And I repeat, the free ones are unstable...
>
>
> The free "ones"? Which free ones have you tried outside of FC? Debian
> (free) is generally considered to be the most reliable distro out there.
> How about Ubuntu (free - they'll even send you a CD at no cost)?
> SimplyMepis (still free AFAIK)? Mandriva download edition (free)? Open
> Suse (free)? Slackware (free)? Gentoo (free)? And I'm sure I'm
> missing some other obvious examples. For your own reasons, you may not
> like some of these, but there's got to be at least ONE that will meet
> your needs.
>
> Jeff
YouCanToo
> Rick Moen wrote (in part):
>
>
>>5. Read the damned licence. It'd prevent you from running around in
>>public with your foot in your mouth.
>>
>
> I absolutely _love_ that metaphor. Either he has three legs, a spare foot,
> or hops instead of runs.
>
contest. :)
YouCanToo
Peter T. Breuer
> Peter T. Breuer <p...@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>> I quoted it to you, and it says that the source of a GPL program is free
>> of charge to the person the program is distributed to, and possibly to
>> others too (at discretion). I gave the reasoning which supports that
>> conclusion. I suspect that you are pointing out that the cost of
>> posting it to you isn't required t be borne by the redistributor.
> You are playing games with words, and are wasting your time and mine.
I'm playing no such games, in my judgment. There are many such
situations with which we all have experience. For example, a glass of
water is free in a restaurant - they charge you for the meal, not the
glass of water. If I offer you my old TV "for free", that desn't
include postage and packing or other delivery. I don't see any possible
confusion.
> Which will thus end _now_. I will not argue with someone who whimsically
> redefines "at no charge" to encompass charging money.
I am not redefining it - it has a precise meaning: the cost to you of
the source is zero; the cost of delivering that zero-cost thing to you,
otoh, is not.
>> There is nothing wrong with my logic....
> There's something wrong with your _judgement_
That's a fair comment, and I disagree with your judgment of my judgment.
I understand your point that the complete package of source plus medium
plus delivery to you costs you money, but maintain that (in my judgment)
that is not a charge for the source, but a charge for delivering the
source to you. And the GPL is careful to distinguish the two too.
> -- as you are attempting to
> re-obscure a subject I just took considerable pains to clarify.
It's not been obscured, but clarified. Neither of us have any doubt as
to what is or is not being charged for. There are two things, A and B.
A is zero cost, and B is "at cost". You get A+B, paying zero for A
and the no-profit rate for B. A is the source, B is the cd it comes on
and the cost of making it and sending it to you. You claim that that is
"charging for A".
No it isn't. It's charging for B.
> I do
> not appreciate that. Thus: We are done.
There is no argument! That you wish to call "paying zero for A and cost
for B", where B is the P&P for A, "charging for A" strikes me as
vaguely strange but not a crazy construal. It's just not a description
I'd use for the situation. I understand your motives and even applaud
them, but I see no need to conflate two perfectly clear and separate
items (and their costs/charges). Perhaps it's a regional language thing
- "for free" does not connote to me that I should expect the seller to
also pay for delivery as well as giving ne the item in question for
nothing.
Peter
John Hasler
> It just not ok to not make it available for free.
I wrote:
> Not correct.
Rick Moen writes:
> Please cite the term of the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates
> redistributors making anything whatsoever available without charge.
There is none. That is why I wrote that notbob's assertion that it is not
ok to not make Linux available for free was incorrect.
Dan C
> I am reminded of "too many cooks spoil the broth" when I see the state
> of the linux market. They are repeating Unix's mistakes.
You're a clueless fucking moron. Run along, troll boy.
--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
Dan C
> No I havent tried Debian myself, but others who did told me to go for
> MS Win2K.
Those "others" were stupid.
> Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support. No sound at all. No net connection
Wrong on all counts. You're stupid.
> Suse is free ??? Wake up.
Yes, it is. You're stupid.
> Slackware ? Most stable AFAIK, but most unfriendly.
For stupid half-wits, it is unfriendly.
> Gentoo. Never heard of it.
You're stupid.
> Mepis? you have to pay.
Wrong. You're stupid.
> What I also say, is that at the price which distros supply support and
> media , the stuff they provide is not at all worth it. Slow, resource
> hungry and bug-ridden is what you will get.
OK, you're a moron.
Actually, you're just the latest Win-troll to stop by. It's quite obvious
when you post from Google Groups, using Windoze. Shut the fuck up and get
out of here, doofus.
Rick Moen
Repeated Clue: We're done.
Chris F.A. Johnson
>
> As for the reasons to use Linux, price isn't it.
For some it certainly is.
> Price is usually a pretty stupid reason to pick any product let
> alone an operating system. For price to be compelling the price
> difference has to be huge and for OSes it isn't. XP Pro is only $150
> and XP Home is only $99, so neither is very expensive.
Not to you, perhaps, but to many people it is prohibitive. With
the number of used computers available at no cost, often with the
hard drive wiped, even $99 is a considerable addition.
> The reason to pick an OS is because it serves your needs better.
For the majority of people, any OS will do the job. In which case,
why pay more than necessary?
[snip]
> For typical home users the advantages aren't nearly as significant and
> there are some major disadvantages that aren't going away anytime soon.
> For example if what you want to do is play games Linux isn't the OS for
> you, there are very few games for Linux vs Windows. Linux does better in
> the media space then it does in the game space but it still isn't quite as
> capable as Windows. If what you want to do is web surf, do Office type
> things and do e-mail then Linux is every bit as good as Windows. However
> every bit as good isn't a compelling reason to switch, there has to be
> something that's much better.
E.g., price.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
==================================================================
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach, 2005, Apress
<http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html>
Michael Heiming
> On 2005-10-07, General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>>
>> As for the reasons to use Linux, price isn't it.
> For some it certainly is.
>> Price is usually a pretty stupid reason to pick any product let
>> alone an operating system. For price to be compelling the price
>> difference has to be huge and for OSes it isn't. XP Pro is only $150
>> and XP Home is only $99, so neither is very expensive.
> Not to you, perhaps, but to many people it is prohibitive. With
> the number of used computers available at no cost, often with the
> hard drive wiped, even $99 is a considerable addition.
Exactly, presuming someone would like to setup some PC lab, say
out of older/donated hardware 25 PC + 1 server. 25*99 $US + 1*n
$US > 2475 $US.
In opposite to downloading the distribution of your choice:
0 $US
Head over to http://www.ltsp.org/ and download packages:
0 $US
Looks like >2475! $US against 0 $US!
One can setup a ltsp environment, which will be possible to
maintain at a fraction of time needed to keep all those eXPensive
boxes running. You only have to do things once for your 25 or
more clients. ;-)
>> The reason to pick an OS is because it serves your needs better.
> For the majority of people, any OS will do the job. In which case,
> why pay more than necessary?
In reality, most people don't even know what an OS is, quite a
few will happily admit they'd run "word" on their system...
> [snip]
>> For typical home users the advantages aren't nearly as significant and
>> there are some major disadvantages that aren't going away anytime soon.
>> For example if what you want to do is play games Linux isn't the OS for
>> you, there are very few games for Linux vs Windows. Linux does better in
>> the media space then it does in the game space but it still isn't quite as
>> capable as Windows. If what you want to do is web surf, do Office type
>> things and do e-mail then Linux is every bit as good as Windows. However
>> every bit as good isn't a compelling reason to switch, there has to be
>> something that's much better.
> E.g., price.
Which once again boils down to doze coming preloaded on what most
people buy as new computer and many of them think the OS wouldn't
cost them anything, it was installed already, wasn't it?
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 215: High nuclear activity in your area.
Rolf Arne Schulze
> Your are mistaken.
>
> Linux continues to be free.
>
> _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
> free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,
The most popular distribution today is shipped on cd for absolutely
no cost, namely Ubuntu. The company behind Ubuntu, Canonical, is
funding this. And Ubuntu is always going to be free of charge. Support
in form of help with fixing problems costs money also for ubuntu, but
support in form of software and security updates is free.
But the main thing to point out is that linux, as in the linux kernel,
is free. Linux is not an operating system, it is merely a kernel. Some
vendors basing their operating system on the linux kernel are adding
proprietary software bits to the open source software and charges for
it. The open source licenses also states that you may resell the open
source software, but there are special rules about the changes you do
to the software. If you make changes to open source software, you have
to make these changes publicly available. Free is meant as free to
copy, change and redistribute, not as "free of charge".
Actually you are allowed to install and run RedHat without paying for
it. What you must pay for is high quality updates to keep your system
stable and secure. If you want a RedHat with software updates, you can
install CentOS, which is a blueprint of RedHat. They just recompile
RedHats source code (because it is free) and distributes it under
another name.
--
Rolf Arne Schulze
Min Weblog: http://rolfas.net/
Peter T. Breuer
Saying "we" when you mean "you" is not particularly open ;)!. There is
certainly nothing to argue about in terms of facts or interpretation and
the only thing I can find to demur at in what you said is that you call
A "not for free" (paraphrasing) when the price of A+P&P is x, and the
price of P&P is x. I don't find that label appropriate in those
circumstances, and you do.
I'm trying to see your point - I'm not blowing a gasket trying, but I am
making an attempt - but the logic above gets in the way for me.
As far as I recall your point and your motives, you are trying to
disabuse some person of the notion that SuSE, RH, etc. should provide
him with an ISO image of their distro (or the GPL parts) sitting there
for him to download. We agree that there is no requirement at all for
them to do that, and nowhere in the GPL does it say that they should,
and the person is a lazy ungrateful weak-minded pratt with the attitude
of a brat if he persists in whining that they SHOULD.
Quite the contrary .. it says in the GPL that SuSE, RH. have to make
available the source ("A"), not the programs, for the cost of A+P&P
(interpreting P&P as standing for what it says is allowable to charge in
the GPL #3b).
And they don't even have to that. They can gesture in the direction of
the place they got their source from, and say "get it from there" (GPL
#3c). A list of the references will do.
And they don't even have to do that. They can simply provide the source
of the GPL programs on the same cds simply ONLY to the persons who
actually bought the distro cd (GPL #3a), under whatever conditions were
attached to that.
But all that simply means that linux is FREE, in the sense of liberty -
people who buy linux get the source and hence the freedom to modify it
to fix things they don't like or improve it to fit their needs. That's
what RS intended.
Peter
Jon Martin Solaas
> version, I thought, there is no difference between RH and MS. If you
> think about it, that selling media and 3 month support for a 100$ is
> just a gimmick. I will try Centos.
Good idea. Some linux-vendors are like Microsoft and some aren't. Pick
the one *you* like. Obviously there are enough people that like RH to
keep them in business. I don't see a problem with that.
> Basically , I have lost touch with linux world, and now I hardly get
> time to experiment with it. Most free distros I tried were hopeless.
> They might be good, but I cannot spend 24 hours going from scratch, or
> maybe install a distro from CD and keep tweaking it for days, to
> finally get everything to work.
>
> With respect to Linux, you can think of me as an average user, with
> good technical knowledge. How can linux succeed if they sell the user
> friendly versions while , dump the test versions on users. If this is
> how a person like me feels about linux, I can imagine the frustation of
> a user who just wants to play Quake, or browse the web.
Uh, that's two usecases that has proven to work flawlessly for me on
Fedora ... but that's probably just me.
One thing that *is* a problem is running multimedia stuff on the
entirely free linux distros that choose not to take any chances
regarding multimedia codec licenses. Having Fedora play common formats
like mp3 isn't exactly rocket science, but it doesn't do that out of the
box. Because those functions aren't free, plain and simple. One distro
just can't be entirely free and include commercial software at the same
time.
>
> Ever been to the Mysql site, for example. You will see a long long list
> of mysql versions for different flavours of Linux. And even amongst a
> single flavour, different versions !!. Look at the windows download
> list. Just 3 links !! With such confusion in the linux world, with the
> players looking only for profits without caring about linux (paying for
> linux isnt bad if they give quality stuff, reduce confusion), I do not
> think linux can be the much touted future OS. It was, but now the story
> has changed. If anyone dreams that rh can be an IBM or MS or apple,
> wake up.
Why don't you just stick with Windows? My favourite distro comes with
all the software I need, including mysql (which I most certainly do not
need, by the way, I prefer other alternatives). I see your point,
though. When a software distribution that isn't so mainstream is to be
distributed, the vendor has to support various distros and
package-formats, and the user has to pick the correct download
supporting his/her distro, if such a binary distribution exist. This is
inherently how the free linux community works. To minimize the problem,
just stick with either some common commercial version, like RHEL (which
is equivalent to using commercial Windows), or a derivative like CentOS.
It *is* cumbersome and frustrating to narrow down and settle for the
distribution that suits you best. But that's how it works. It's much
like the best-of-breed-world you have to cope with if you're a Java J2EE
developer. It's just how it is not being a Microsoft customer, I suppose
....
>
> I am reminded of "too many cooks spoil the broth" when I see the state
> of the linux market. They are repeating Unix's mistakes.
Maybe, but Unix is still around, you know... FreeBSD is a viable
alternative to Linux, it's free, and comes in one flavour only. OR you
could go for a BSD-derivative, in which case you would have to settle
for OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Firefly, DesktopBSD ... :-)
--
jon martin solaas
Jon Martin Solaas
> notbob wrote:
>
>
>>but no one is twisting your arm to buy. Even Redhat 9 is available
>>for download.
>
>
> Redhat 9. The shrike edition ! That was way back in 2001 or something!.
> Now you wouldnt go back to using win NT 3.5 once you have put your
> hands on WinXP.
>
>
>>just not ok to not make it available for free. I do not know of any
>>linux that is not available at zero cost.
>
>
> Well then why do they call linux free.
>
> his HDD after struggling with fedora for bout a week.
> Sun Microsystems or HP or IBM. My point is that I am not anti-Linux or
> pro MS or anything. It is that if you want to spend money, better go
> for Sun, HP or MS Win2k(best windows version till date , IMHO), or
> MacOS X
>
To be honest I doubt your friend would be able to install Solaris at
all, but then, it's free too :-)
Have you ever tried to install XP on a computer from scratch, with only
an OEM XP install CD available? It's pretty ugly, and when you have
downloaded and upgraded all needed drivers from third-parties etc. etc.
you've spent much more time than any Fedora install ever will require.
Your point narrows down to: All pre-installed os'es are easy to install.
That's pretty obvious as the work required amounts to nothing.
I've never installed MaxOS X, but I suppose it's the easiest one, as
Apple provides both hardware and OS.
Finally, I've never expirienced any stability issues with Fedora, but
that's just me ... Especially I'd be surprised if any RHEL-derivative is
any more unstable than RHEL, being built from the same source. Also,
most pay-linux'es comes with commercial software, and are available for
free as well, only difference is the absence of some commercial code. I
really don't understand how that could make the free versions less
stable? Could you please explain how that is?
--
jon martin solaas
Jon Martin Solaas
>
>
> No I havent tried Debian myself, but others who did told me to go for
> MS Win2K.
Really? How come you don't? Linux is very simply put, not built for you.
>
> Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support. No sound at all. No net connection
> at home so no free media player downloads. Not easily configurable. No
> good system utilities.
> Suse is free ??? Wake up.
> Slackware ? Most stable AFAIK, but most unfriendly.
> Gentoo. Never heard of it.
> Mepis? you have to pay.
In many cases the only difference between a "free" distro and a "pay"
distro is the inclusion/exclusion of certain commercial software
components (and in many cases access to support and stuff). Those
differences are completely irrelevant when it comes to stability issues.
You claim that free linux is unstable and lists lack of mp3 support as
an example? Clearly you are confused ...
>
> What I also say, is that at the price which distros supply support and
> media , the stuff they provide is not at all worth it. Slow, resource
> hungry and bug-ridden is what you will get.
> (come on now, do you really still believe that media costs $100, and
> support for 3 months means they really gonna give good quality
> support).
>
> Also there is another tendency I have noted. People tend to use windows
> systems much more "roughly" than they would use linux systems because
> they wouldnt know how to fix it. They are scared of linux systems.
> Use linux as roughly as you would use windows , and see your hard disk
> thrashing.
Really? Let me tell you one thing: it's in fact the opposite that's
true. At least that's my experience ;-)
--
jon martin solaas
Jean-David Beyer
> Well, I did not know that, Thanks. But I have seen fedora to be low
> quality, that is why my experience. Also, I am a programmer and I have
> that basic technical skill you talk about, if I want to install linux.
> (That is why I had rh 7 on my box while i was in college). But somehow,
> when they started selling linux, while I was stuck up with an old
> version, I thought, there is no difference between RH and MS. If you
> think about it, that selling media and 3 month support for a 100$ is
> just a gimmick. I will try Centos.
Use whatever distribution you like.
I happen to run Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 ES. I got it for about $175/year,
not $100 (in any case, half price for two years because I had already been a
subscriber to Red Hat Network). It comes with some "installation support" or
some such thing, for three months, but I do not recall needing it because I
could follow the directions of the installation program. But in addition to
that support, they also provide on-line support that works pretty well for
registered customers, and continuous updates for the duration of the
subscription (typically one year, renewable) using RHN and the up2date
program. There is a little blue icon with a white checkmark on the panel
that changes to a red icon with a flashing white exclamation point when
updates are available. Usually the updates are a very small set of rpm
packages, but since RHEL3 came out about 2 years ago, there have been 6
major updates. The little ones are security updates that they bring out as
soon as a problem has been detected and a fix available. The biggies tend to
be fixes of little bugs and other annoyances that they bunch together (e.g.,
total replacement of X Window System, new kernel, libraries, applications).
It is this last feature that I find the most important. Before RHN and
up2date, maintenance required finding out (by rumor, divine revelation,
intuition, etc.) that an update was available and desireable, locating a
source for it, downloading it, and trying to install it with the constant
fear that installing it would require major updating of libraries, etc.,
that when done, would make the system incompatible with other programs. I
was glad to be rid of that.
Now the same kind of thing was available for Fedora Core 2 (the only FC I
ever tried), but it rummaged around on many web sites, some of which were
down, many of which were incompatible with each other so if I downloaded an
updated package from one source (that up2date picked seemingly at random),
it would not install because it needed another package from elsewhere, but
the site it would pick for that had not been updated yet, so it would not
download (since I already had that). This got to be too much. Free just was
not good enough for me.
I had other troubles with FC2 that I have complained about before (e.g. CUPS
so incompatible that FC2 running CUPS as a server would not reliably act as
a print server to RHEL3 machine even though the ame machine running RHL7.3
or RHL9 does). Maybe when FC 5 or FC 6 comes out I will try it again on my
old machine, but not yet.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 08:25:00 up 8 days, 1:27, 3 users, load average: 4.12, 4.17, 4.08
Aragorn
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
> st...@worldbadminton.com wrote:
>
>> Your are mistaken.
>>
>> Linux continues to be free.
>
> Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc.
> See the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test
> versions. I have seen fedora to be slow and in some cases, crashing.
This is incorrect. The free Mandriva version is simply less
feature-rich than the paid-for version, in the sense that it lacks
proprietary software such as nVidia drivers or RealPlayer.
Fedora Core is indeed the testbed for RedHat, but it's pretty reliable.
SuSE and Gentoo are only two of the freely downloadable distributions.
There are plenty more, such as Ubuntu or Kubuntu, Debian, etc.
There are distributions that aren't freely downloadable, this is true,
e.g. TurboLinux. However, this is more of an exception than a rule.
>> _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
>> free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,
>
> Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
> downloads. No ISOs are available for download.
Sure there are freely downloadable /.iso's/.
> If it were allowed to redistribute freely (GNU says that apart from
> free software, you should have the freedom to redistribute ), there
> would be download servers out there who would allow you to download
> linux.
The "free" in Free Sofware means freedom, not "free of charge".
However, most of the software *is* freely available.
> I did not find any.
Then you didn't look. Since you mentioned Mandriva, have a look here:
http://www1.mandrivalinux.com/en/ftp.php3
> Only debian happens to be free, but that again is way
> behind. If I am allowed to redistribute after buying linux, I might
> set set up a download site myself. Why is nobody doing it.
People are. Every distribution has loads of mirrors, and I usually use
a local mirror here that holds all distributions _and_ their upgrade
patches.
I see mirrored repositories for the following distributions on the site
I normally use, which is ftp://ftp.belnet.be. Note that this is only
one of the free mirrors.
The distributions I see repositories for are...
- Mandriva Linux
- Centos Linux
- Gentoo
- Knoppix
- Gnoppix
- Kubuntu
- Ubuntu
- Debian Gnu/Linux
- Mepis
- PCLinuxOS
- Linux From Scratch
- Yoper
- Fedora Core
- RedHat Linux
- Damn Small Linux
- SuSE
- OpenSuSE
- Blue Linux
- Aurora Linux
- Yellow Dog Linux
... and many others. There are also mirrors for OpenOffice, X.Org and
many other Free & Open Source Software projects, such as the Linux
Kernel Project.
>> and sure some probably have commercial content that isn't free,
>> but I'm not aware of any you can't have for free if you are
>> just talking about the Linux content itself.
>
> Linux content, just the kernel you mean. Just the OS , without all the
> utilities.
The kernel alone comes from kernel.org and is not a complete operating
system. Distributions are more than just the operating system.
> Is it. What is it good for then. Will anyone bother to
> download hundreds of programs and utilities. Many people do not have
> access to Internet.
Many distributions and many organizations offer the service of burning
the CD's for you and shipping them to you via snail mail.
>> Can you point to any counter examples?
> The websites I mentioned above. I tried Ubuntu and Debian, it left me
> unimpressed.
Speak for yourself. There is nothing wrong with Ubuntu and Debian.
They are perfectly good distributions.
> Ok, you cannot have quality without paying for it, you might say. Then
> , better we stop using, reporting bugs and testing code for redhat ,
> suse and mandrake; let them spend money they earn by selling public
> open source code.
Somehow, I have a very strong suspicion that you are none other than
Flatfish. It's the same kind of rant, full of the same kind of lies.
You probably heeded the remarks about your ubiquitous Yahoo mail
accounts, and now you're using a G-Mail account instead, but I
recognize you from a long distance away, Flatfish...
Pretty soon you'll post a second and a third thread with this nonsense,
and then you'll start cross-posting again, right?
I have to hand it to you man: you really *are* a professional troll.
Well, whomever signs your paycheck, right?
--
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)
Jean-David Beyer
> Have you ever tried to install XP on a computer from scratch, with only
> an OEM XP install CD available?
I did it twice on the same machine. The first time was easy enough. Of
course I had to reinstall Windows 95 lots of times on the machine I was
running it on, too, so I had experience.
The reason I installed W-XP on the same machine twice is that it's file
system partitions gradually deteriorated and it stopped booting
successfully. It was easier to reinstall than to figure out what went wrong
with the file systems. Furthermore, although I had the whole thing backed up
to tape, I could not restore because W-XP would not boot, so I could not run
the restore program.
I have Red Hat Linux 9 running on the same machine, and it had no problems
at all, so it is unlikely to be a hardware problem. The machine is now a bit
over 5 years old and has had no hardware problems. I did put a bigger air
intake fan in the front (120x38mm instead of the 120x25mm fan it came with).
> It's pretty ugly, and when you have
> downloaded and upgraded all needed drivers from third-parties etc. etc.
> you've spent much more time than any Fedora install ever will require.
I did not need to download any drivers, but I did have to load the driver
for my SCSI mag tape drive that was on CD-ROM from the manufacturer. For
Linux, I did not need to install a driver for the mag tape drive.
I believe I also had to load in the software to monitor my UPS, but I had to
do that with my Linux machines as well.
>
> Your point narrows down to: All pre-installed os'es are easy to install.
> That's pretty obvious as the work required amounts to nothing.
>
> I've never installed MaxOS X, but I suppose it's the easiest one, as
> Apple provides both hardware and OS.
>
> Finally, I've never expirienced any stability issues with Fedora, but
> that's just me ...
Nor have I. I did not like FC2, but it was stable. It just did not work for me.
> Especially I'd be surprised if any RHEL-derivative is
> any more unstable than RHEL, being built from the same source. Also,
> most pay-linux'es comes with commercial software, and are available for
> free as well, only difference is the absence of some commercial code. I
> really don't understand how that could make the free versions less
> stable? Could you please explain how that is?
>
They could be less stable if it took too much time to download all the
source, compile it, make a distribution from it, test it, get the disks
duplicated, etc. If it took too long, the security and other bug fixes
corrected in the meantime would not be there, and since the users of these
disks would not have a subscription to the provider's updates, they would
not be notified of the necessity to upgrade, etc.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:40:00 up 8 days, 2:42, 3 users, load average: 4.18, 4.22, 4.24
Aragorn
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
> Actually, you're just the latest Win-troll to stop by. It's quite
> obvious when you post from Google Groups, using Windoze. Shut the
> fuck up and get out of here, doofus.
It's useless Dan. This is Flatfish again, under a new identity, and
posting from Google Groups through an anonymous proxy, as always.
He/she/it knows he's/she's/it's lying through his teeth. He/she/it is
only here to yank our chains a bit more. He/she/it has been doing this
for months in a row now, and from what I've heard, even for years in a
row.
Even /killfiling/ the troll is pointless. He/she/it will be back with
another identity sooner than you can you can set up a filter, with Yet
Another Sorry "I've Tried Gnu/Linux But..." Tale.
Aragorn
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
>
> Dances With Crows got shagged in the gutters and muttered:
>
>>
>> ? Debian and Gentoo are payware now? Son of a bitch.
>>
>
> I knew I would be shredded.
>
> Well you use Gentoo and Debian. See you at a mental asylum. Or on the
> streets with a dog behind you, bitch!!
>
> And read my posts completely , I do say there are free distros out
> there.
You've been made out, Flatty Boy! You may shift pseudonyms, but your
writing style and posting style - with several follow ups and
side-threads - remains the same.
I think you'll need to shift names again now. I bet you still have a
number of free G-Mail accounts to pick from now?
Dan C
>> Actually, you're just the latest Win-troll to stop by. It's quite
>> obvious when you post from Google Groups, using Windoze. Shut the
>> fuck up and get out of here, doofus.
> It's useless Dan. This is Flatfish again, under a new identity, and
> posting from Google Groups through an anonymous proxy, as always.
Yeah, you're right. I guess I'll save my energy for dealing with
Matt_the_Mouth... :)
Aragorn
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:05:15 +0000, Aragorn wrote:
>
>>> Actually, you're just the latest Win-troll to stop by. It's quite
>>> obvious when you post from Google Groups, using Windoze. Shut the
>>> fuck up and get out of here, doofus.
>
>> It's useless Dan. This is Flatfish again, under a new identity, and
>> posting from Google Groups through an anonymous proxy, as always.
>
> Yeah, you're right. I guess I'll save my energy for dealing with
> Matt_the_Mouth... :)
I've seen you sweat very hard over trying to talk sense into that guy...
I gave that up a long time ago already... <lol>
Seems like Bit Twister is also trying... You guys must like a real
challenge, hehe! ;-)
Rick Moen
> Somehow, I have a very strong suspicion that you are none other than
> Flatfish. It's the same kind of rant, full of the same kind of lies.
No, I'm pretty sure this one's merely a resentful, confused, and
mistaken desktop user. You noticed that he's not crossposting. Trolls
inevitably go for the low-hanging fruit; they don't _want_ to inspire
even-tempered explanations that clarify issues.
Rick Moen
> But the main thing to point out is that linux, as in the linux kernel,
> is free. Linux is not an operating system, it is merely a kernel. Some
> vendors basing their operating system on the linux kernel are adding
> proprietary software bits to the open source software and charges for
> it.
Not all proprietary software has restrictions on redistribution, though.
Thus my distinction into redistributable vs. non-.
> If you make changes to open source software, you have to make these
> changes publicly available.
Not in the general case. You're thinking of copyleft, not open source
as a whole. For example, your claim is untrue of BSD or MIX-X-licensed
code.
If ASCII weren't so unsuitable, I'd draw you a Venn diagram, but let's
see what we can do with a text tree:
All software |- proprietary |- redistributable
| |- non-redistributable
|
|- open source |- copyleft
|- non-copyleft
You'll note that the basically-meaningless term "commercial" isn't part of
that picture, since whether you acquire software through commerce or not
is an issue orthogonal to that of its licensing terms.
(People who are attempting to view that diagram using proportional
typefaces should switch to monospace, and stop confusing Usenet with
page layout. ;-> )
--
Cheers, Mark Moraes: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
ri...@linuxmafia.com and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
The postman hits! You have new mail."
Rick Moen
> Saying "we" when you mean "you" is not particularly open ;)!.
ObDreadPirateRoberts: "Get used to disappointment." We're done.
--
Cheers, Long ago, there lived a creature with a
Rick Moen voice like a vacuum cleaner. We know little
ri...@linuxmafia.com about it, but we do know that it ate cats.
Peter T. Breuer
>> Saying "we" when you mean "you" is not particularly open ;)!.
> ObDreadPirateRoberts: "Get used to disappointment." We're done.
_You_ are done, maybe. _I_ don't take orders in this regard or in
others, I am afraid. So you can say "we" all you like, but you should
expect it to have zero coercive effect on me!
For a moment I wondered whether clause 3c (recursion) in the GPL v2
might allow one an escape by permitting one to point receivers of the
program back to the original author for its source, and refusing to make
any copy of the source available to them directly from oneself, the
redistributor. The author can presumably do anything, including
refusing to give his source code to any passer by who asks.
But more careful reading shows firstly that the recursion can be only
one step at a time (#3b). So provided you received the program from
someone who received it themselves in under GPL, they have to obey the
GPL clauses (3a, 3b) and make source available. Or they can point you
back to where they got it from (3c) but only under the hypothesis that that
distributor got it UNDER GPL (3c). The recursion is
carefully crafted to point backwards only to places that will offer
source code. I think RS thought of that potential dodge.
So the recursion/induction clause 3c appears to be void for people
who receive their program directly from the author. Curious - I can't
figure out if the author, once he SAYS he is distributing the program
under GPL, is obligated to give the source. But I suppose the licence
is on the source code, not the program, in the first instance, so it
makes no sense to wonder. The author gives his source code, other
people compile it int a program annd sell the program, but they are
obligated to pass on the (possibly modified) source code on request to
recipients of their compilation.
But the author can sell his program and SAY it is under GPL, but
refuse to give the source code, can't he? After all, he is binding the
recipients, not himself! That would stop anybody redistributing his
program at all. They are obligated to make the source code available
if they do so, but can't.
Peter
Netocrat
[...]
> So provided you received the program from someone who received it
> themselves in under GPL, they have to obey the GPL clauses (3a, 3b) and
> make source available. Or they can point you back to where they got it
> from (3c) but only under the hypothesis that that distributor got it
> UNDER GPL (3c).
And only if they are distributing it "noncommercially" (3c).
[...]
> But the author can sell his program and SAY it is under GPL, but refuse
> to give the source code, can't he? After all, he is binding the
> recipients, not himself! That would stop anybody redistributing his
> program at all. They are obligated to make the source code available if
> they do so, but can't.
That does seem to be possible. The answer in the GPL FAQ most relevant to
this circumstance seems to be this:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others
to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not
bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a
"violation" of the GPL.
However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if
done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in
the community.
John Thompson
> With respect to Linux, you can think of me as an average user, with
> good technical knowledge. How can linux succeed if they sell the user
> friendly versions while , dump the test versions on users. If this is
> how a person like me feels about linux, I can imagine the frustation of
> a user who just wants to play Quake, or browse the web.
I think this is a misleading depiction of linux. While *some* free
distributions are indeed "test versions" (e.g. Fedora), this is not the
case for all free distributions. Xandros "Open Circulation Edition,"
Knoppix, and Ubuntu come to mind. Knoppix and Ubuntu are also available as
live CDs, from which you can run and use linux without installing anything
on your hard drive.
BTW, you describe yourself as an "average user" with "good technical
knowledge" (e.g. programming experience). I have had exactly one
formal computer class in my life: a semester of Fortran programming I took
in 1972, and do not consider myself to be a programmer by any stretch of
the imagination. But I run several linux distributions at home (Fedora,
Xandros-OCE, Vectorlinux) as well as NetBSD, FreeBSD, and Irix. I think
the assuption that one needs to be a computer scientist to use linux is
specious.
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
John Thompson
> If you want to spend money, rather go for a stable unix version from
> Sun Microsystems or HP or IBM.
FWIW, Solaris-10 (sparc or x86) is available for free from Sun:
Why bother with XP? :-)
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
John Thompson
> Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
> downloads. No ISOs are available for download.
Say what?
Take your pick...
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
John Thompson
> notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't imagine why. I can get any linux distro at no cost whatsoever
>> from many sources on the internet.
>
> Not lawfully. Example: Xandros Desktop OS -- on account of some
> included codebases whose copyright holders have not granted
> redistribution rights. There are many other such distributions.
Xandros at least has their "Open Circulation Edition" which is available
for free:
http://www.xandros.com/products/home/desktopoc/dsk_oc_download.html
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
Aragorn
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
> Aragorn <str...@telenet.invalid> wrote:
Hmm... Flatfish is unpredictable in where the posts are sent to. There
are times he will single out one Gnu/Linux newsgroup, and other times
where he will crosspost to the Mandrake/Mandriva group, the SuSE group,
the advocacy group and the Windows-XP group.
For extra points, he might even throw in the MacIntosh groups as well,
or something that has absolutely nothing to do with computers.
The only thing that's predictable about Flatfish is his style - he will
always represent himself as someone who is interested in Gnu/Linux but
who is forced to give it up because of his University not supporting
it, or because his hardware doesn't support it, etc. - and his frequent
replies, even to his own original post sometimes, complaining about how
intolerant we are.
And then there's the Google Groups posting through an open proxy of
course. Oh yes, and the fact that he'll always be back. That's
predictable too. <grin>
Harold Stevens
[Snip...]
> Flatfish. It's the same kind of rant, full of the same kind of lies.
Bingo. I had this viper pegged from gitgo as such; a backstabbing buddy
in the "Et tu. Brute" tradition.
> accounts, and now you're using a G-Mail account instead, but I
Doesn't matter. The stench eventually leaks from the packaging, as now.
Since it's drifted to advocacy, I suggest Flats get his happyass there.
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
Rick Moen
> _You_ are done, maybe. _I_ don't take orders in this regard or in
> others, I am afraid.
Fear not: You will suffer no damage beyond self-induced logorrhoea.
And we're done.
Rick Moen
[proclaiming something to be licensed under GPL, but never issuing
source code:]
> That does seem to be possible. The answer in the GPL FAQ....
Well, never mind the GPL FAQ: It's obviously more than possible. It's
happened quite a number of times, and is one of those topics we long ago
got did to death on the OSI license-discuss mailing list. Obviously:
A work that is claimed to be open source / free software, but whose
source code has never been released, or is under patent or other legal
encumbrances that prevent exercise of important rights, is _not_
open source / free software regardless of what the licence says.
> Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others
> to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not
> bound by it....
Quite. His/her rights are as close to inherent as statute can contrive.
Rick Moen
> The only thing that's predictable about Flatfish is his style....
Since you mention it, frankly, the writing style in this case doesn't
seem to match.
But, if Flatfish did switch to sending non-crossposted and deliberately
clueless / mildly inflammatory posts to non-advocacy groups, one at a
time, _we wouldn't mind him_: It's actually useful to have a resident
trigger for worthwhile conversations that clear up frequently
misunderstood points, even if that trigger is mildly annoying.
More to the immediate point, that hypothetical Flatfish would be having
_no fun_. The trolls' payoff lies in getting people riled up,
preferrably engaged in pointless warfare with other groups. Which
is why I think this isn't he -- or at minimum is a Flatfish who screwed
up. ;->
--
Cheers, "Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?"
Rick Moen -- Steven Wright
ri...@linuxmafia.com
Peter T. Breuer
> And we're done.
I remind you that YOU are done, not me, so please stop that annoying
and grating terminator from leaving your fingers - thanks.
We have agreed that the only thing to disagree on is the label to
attach to a free-of-cost thing that is delivered for cost of delivery;
"free" or "charged for". The source, as defined by the GPL.
OTfengwehOH, you may simply have been referring to the distribution's
right to charge what they like for their compilation, which is, as we
know, unfettered by the GPL.
Peter
TJ
RIGHT so much of the time. It must be a terrible burden, almost as heavy
as the one the OP of this thread carries.
TJ
Aragorn
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
> Aragorn <str...@telenet.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The only thing that's predictable about Flatfish is his style....
>
> Since you mention it, frankly, the writing style in this case doesn't
> seem to match.
>
> But, if Flatfish did switch to sending non-crossposted and
> deliberately clueless / mildly inflammatory posts to non-advocacy
> groups, one at a
> time, _we wouldn't mind him_: It's actually useful to have a resident
> trigger for worthwhile conversations that clear up frequently
> misunderstood points, even if that trigger is mildly annoying.
>
> More to the immediate point, that hypothetical Flatfish would be
> having
> _no fun_. The trolls' payoff lies in getting people riled up,
> preferrably engaged in pointless warfare with other groups. Which
> is why I think this isn't he -- or at minimum is a Flatfish who
> screwed
> up. ;->
Well, there is the notion over on /comp.os.linux.advocacy/ that Flatfish
may be more than one person. The writing style may differ, but the
posting style is always the same.
The Flatfish posts come in at set intervals. There are different
approaches.
It often starts with a sorry tale about how or why Gnu/Linux just
doesn't work for "him", or how he would like to use Gnu/Linux but he
can't as it's not supported by the educational software from his
University, or that he works at a computer store and tried to sell
computers pre-installed with Gnu/Linux, but people never bought them,
and that Gnu/Linux is just not ready for "prime time" and that we have
to face it, or some similar other drivel.
Then there are the posts that cover the typical Windows point of view.
"My digital camera this or printer that are not supported. Linux is
stupid!".
Another angle is the market share argument. "Linux needs to become more
userfriendly, like Windows. People buy Windows because it's quality."
In every case, the poster will follow up on the replies, and will
eventually post a reply to his own original post, in which he then
complains about how stupid, arrogant, zealous, ignorant or unhelpful we
are.
Also note that the original post - if it is one along the "sorry
tale"-approach - will always contain a remark about how we "are going"
to react to said post, along the lines of "I know I'll get flamed" or
"Please don't flame me".
Replies that fully refute the arguments used by the troll or that give
him technical advice on how to deal with this or that peripheral are
simply ignored. Instead, the troll will focus more on the "apparent"
areas where Gnu/Linux "fails", according to his arguments.
The posts always come in through an open proxy and are posted from
Google Groups. Usually, the post is written in proper colloquial
English, with an American spelling - no, it's not me. <grin>
The use of a gmail.com e-mail address is new now. He previously always
used a Yahoo account, freshly created on the day of the first troll
posts under this identity.
There was a list published on C.O.L.A. with the pseudonyms this person
(or these persons) has (or have) used. It was almost as long in lines
as the chunk of text I am now typing to you, spaces included, and
comprised of a comma-separated list of identities, a great and recent
deal of which were all female.
My belief is that whomever is responsible for this phenomenon must be
doing it for reasons other than simply enjoying himself. I strongly
suspect that we have another Barkto incident on our hands here, with
more than one person typing up these posts.
Aragorn
Indeed... The paranoid are most often far too paranoid to seek out help
or even recognize that they are the ones at fault...
The whole world is against these poor souls... Too out of touch with
reality to even fathom that such a conspiracy would be ludicrous...
Michael Heiming
> On Sunday 09 October 2005 02:05, Rick Moen stood up and spoke the
> following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
>> Aragorn <str...@telenet.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing that's predictable about Flatfish is his style....
[..]
> Well, there is the notion over on /comp.os.linux.advocacy/ that Flatfish
> may be more than one person. The writing style may differ, but the
> posting style is always the same.
[ good write-up! ]
> There was a list published on C.O.L.A. with the pseudonyms this person
> (or these persons) has (or have) used. It was almost as long in lines
> as the chunk of text I am now typing to you, spaces included, and
> comprised of a comma-separated list of identities, a great and recent
> deal of which were all female.
> My belief is that whomever is responsible for this phenomenon must be
> doing it for reasons other than simply enjoying himself. I strongly
Second that and your description matches more or less with my
experience with this phenomena, even if I have kill-filed home
the trolls since some time. Taking the endurance into account,
hardly some school boys, they'd have grown up until now.
> suspect that we have another Barkto incident on our hands here, with
> more than one person typing up these posts.
Support this theory, at least it makes sense and could well
explain the endurance.
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 57: Groundskeepers stole the root password
Rick Moen
> Well, there is the notion over on /comp.os.linux.advocacy/ that Flatfish
> may be more than one person. The writing style may differ, but the
> posting style is always the same.
Of course. Keeping track of individual trolls is pointless, and their
number ultimately really doesn't matter.
> It often starts with a sorry tale about how or why Gnu/Linux just
> doesn't work for "him"[snip]
And this guy did none of those things. He credibly claims to have run
major distributions (notably RH) that were at the time freely
downloadable but no longer are in the same form, is distressed at their
withdrawal, and is reaching blindly for some reason to suppose that he
has cause for complaint.
One certainly needn't be a troll to profess that position: We've seen
it, and variations on it, a great deal over the past 13 years. The
concept of "Certain of this code is freely redistributable, but nobody's
obliged to give you a copy at any price let alone for free, let alone
as downloadable CD images, except some parties have obligations of
access to some matching source code, and not necessarily in the fashion
you prefer" is subtle. Many people never quite get it right, and can't
see past "Hey! I used to be able to download this thing in convenient
form. But it stopped. Doesn't that mean someone's ripping me off?"
In any event, you're perhaps missing my key point: Trolls delight in
causing online havoc. This guy didn't; he just posted some ill-informed
analysis and opinion, and then was quickly and calmly set straight.
That's either no troll or an incompetent one.
> I strongly suspect that we have another Barkto incident on our hands
> here.
Oh, c'mon. That's loopily paranoid, and I say that as a professional
paranoic (system administrator). I've met Microsoft shills -- a couple
of friends and I ran the first Windows Refund Day, after all -- and
they're better briefed.
--
Cheers, Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."