Call for a new operating system
Mike Darrett
against BSD; see http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/3110981),
perhaps it is time to develop a NEW, completely independent
open-source operating system?
If it has the following features, perhaps it would be more marketable:
1. Needs to be fully compatible with Windows, Linux, AND MS-DOS
applications.
2. Needs to be consistent (note there are different flavors of Linux;
once upon a time, there were different flavors of CP/M... anyone
remember what happened next?)
3. Needs to be platform-independent (although time-critical code
could have cpu-dependent modules)
4. Needs to be idiot-friendly (Windows users won't know to type
"mount /dev/cdrom" to access the CD-ROM)
5. Needs to be written completely from scratch, so that infringement
lawsuits will be more difficult to prosecute.
Any other suggestions?
Thanks in advance
Mike Darrett
Sybren Stüvel
> With the current SCO legal battle against Linux, perhaps it is time
> to develop a NEW, completely independent open-source operating
> system?
SCO's claims are completely bullshit. Linus has showed that already.
They (SCO) are even stupid enough to claim ownership of files that
Linus Torvalds wrote himself.
> 1. Needs to be fully compatible with Windows, Linux, AND MS-DOS
> applications.
Even windows isn't compatible with windows, nor with msdos.
> 2. Needs to be consistent (note there are different flavors of
> Linux [...])
Freedom of choise is good. Microsoft has a monopoly - see how crap
their software is?
> 3. Needs to be platform-independent (although time-critical code
> could have cpu-dependent modules)
Linux is already cross-platform.
> 4. Needs to be idiot-friendly (Windows users won't know to type
> "mount /dev/cdrom" to access the CD-ROM)
Cars aren't idiot-friendly, you need lessons first. There are a lot
of things you need to learn how to use before you can use it
properly. Why should things as complex as computers be anything
different?
> 5. Needs to be written completely from scratch, so that
> infringement lawsuits will be more difficult to prosecute.
Linux *is* free from copyrighted code.
> Any other suggestions?
Yes, get a clue.
Sybren
--
The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a
capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
Robert Newson
...
> 5. Needs to be written completely from scratch, so that infringement
> lawsuits will be more difficult to prosecute.
Linux was written completely from scratch; SCO is claiming it got tainted
with their IP via a contractual breech by IBM - so I can see they have no
recourse to require licence fees off end users: their beef is with IBM, and,
possibly, the distributors (one of whom was themselves - requiring them to
sue themselves and pay for both plaintiff and defence lawyers...).
> Any other suggestions?
Read the SCO debacle properly?
M2@M
> With the current SCO legal battle against Linux (and now possibly
> against BSD; see http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/3110981),
> perhaps it is time to develop a NEW, completely independent
> open-source operating system?
Why? Linux already exists, and it is very verstaile. It makes an effective
webserver, development platform, even desktop. SCO's claims are BS.
>
> If it has the following features, perhaps it would be more marketable:
>
> 1. Needs to be fully compatible with Windows, Linux, AND MS-DOS
> applications.
You're trying to avoid lawsuits, and you call for Windows compatibility.
Here's an idea: if you need Windows, use Windows. If you need Linux, use
Linux. Problem solved. No need for emulators or anything.
Maybe a better idea would be writing some software for Linux that replaces
some common windows programs, such as Quicken, or even games. If you're
talking about coding a whole new OS, surely you could code a money
manager ;) Or add to an existing one?
>
> 2. Needs to be consistent (note there are different flavors of Linux;
> once upon a time, there were different flavors of CP/M... anyone
> remember what happened next?)
Choice is one reason I love Linux. I don't want to be told "you must use
Gnome" or "Konqueror is the required webbrowser." One size does not fit
all. I personally like having a choice of window managers and shells.
Again, it comes to using the right tool for the job. I can run something
like fluxbox on a older slower system, and KDE on a new, fast machine. I
can run bash or tcsh for a normal system, or ash if I'm working off a
single floppy disk.
>
> 3. Needs to be platform-independent (although time-critical code
> could have cpu-dependent modules)
Have you looked at everything Linux can run on? 386, 486, Pentium Classic,
Pentium MMX, Pentium II, Pentium III, Celeron, Pentium IV, K-6, Duron,
Athlon, Athlon MP, Athlon XP, Athlon 64, Itanium, Opteron, Cyrix and Xeon
to name a few. Not to mention completely different archs, like PowerPC.
Also, it supports a ton of network cards, motherboard chipsets, video cards,
etc.
>
> 4. Needs to be idiot-friendly (Windows users won't know to type
> "mount /dev/cdrom" to access the CD-ROM)
There are programs to automatically mount CD-ROMs. Also, WTF is wrong with
expecting users to know how to use the computer? Like any tool, people
have to know how to use it. Perhaps instead of coding a new manual, you
could write a HOWTO on howto do common tasks, like mounting a CD-ROM, or
installing a printer. If that's not user-friendly enough, perhaps write
some software to automate it a little.
>
> 5. Needs to be written completely from scratch, so that infringement
> lawsuits will be more difficult to prosecute.
>
Linux is leagal, OK. Linux is nice because people coming from a UNIX
background can make a fairly easy transition. That's probably how it
became so popular. If Linus had decided to make a "completely new and
different compatable with everything" OS, it wouldn't be nearly as popular
as Linux.
>
> Any other suggestions?
Why don't you work on improving an existing great operating system
enviroment. A lot of your concerns can be addressed with a little coding
on your part.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Mike Darrett
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus didn't just save the world, He made weekly offsite backups.
nick
>
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
>
I think you should call it "OS/2"
nick
6. Waste mountains of resources and R/D time that could have used for
developing just about any of the other alternative OS's (Linux, BSD, MAC
OS..)
Agron
This Linux is here to stay and grow old with us.
Agron Ujkani
M2@M
> Make this call somewhere else, like on MS Win XP or IBM OS/2 newsgroups.
>
> This Linux is here to stay and grow old with us.
>
> Agron Ujkani
>
Seriously, this is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard since Paul
Lutus.
Jeroen Geilman
>
> Seriously, this is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard since Paul
> Lutus.
Some arguments would not come amiss... (though I agree with you on the
Lutus).
Jeroen Geilman
> Linux *is* free from copyrighted code.
Absolutely not true.
*Every line* of the Linux kernel is copyrighted by its creator, who have
(by virtue of the GPL) given up PART of that copyright (as the law
defines it) to the GNU/FSF community (also by virtue of the GPL).
Sorry Syb, couldn't let that one go past...
Jeroen Geilman
Thomas
overflowing with nitrogenous metabolic waste matter, but then, so is
microsoft.
Whatever...
Anyway, if you want another open-source OS, you could also consider
Darwin. I haven't tried it myself, but I hear one can build a complete
open-source system of any flavor (desktop, server,...) starting with
Darwin. You might consider trying to put together a distro based on it
if you are sufficiently excited about it.
mike-...@darrettenterprises.com (Mike Darrett) wrote in message news:<d945119c.04011...@posting.google.com>...
Maurits van de Kamp
> *Every line* of the Linux kernel is copyrighted by its creator,
Yes, and so is every line of any operating system you'll ever write.
Because as soon as you write code, it is copyrighted by you. GPL is as
close as you can come to "free of copyright" (and in fact is preferable
over having no rights at all because it prevents misuse of your code by
monopolists).
Maurits.
Tobias Skytte
>
> > 4. Needs to be idiot-friendly (Windows users won't know to type
> > "mount /dev/cdrom" to access the CD-ROM)
>
> Cars aren't idiot-friendly, you need lessons first. There are a lot
> of things you need to learn how to use before you can use it
> properly. Why should things as complex as computers be anything
> different?
>
IMHO there is a big problem that is preventing linux from becomming
mainstream and that is the difficulty in installing applications.
Normal users will never be able to compile code and edit textfiles.
And even worse, quite often when reading INSTALL txtfiles there will
be instructions like 'make sure you are using version x of this and
that', without giving instructions on how to check that.
You can say alot about windows, but it is very easy to use. To install
a program you usually just click on the installation file and follow
instructions from the install wizard.. easy peasy, 10 secs later you
are using it (and 20 secs later it bluescreens, but that's another
story.. :-) )
I don't see why computers shouldnt be made easy to use. I think that
the above mentioned install nightmares are often because the
programmer is too lazy to make a installation script that takes care
of checking dependencies and so on. In the windows world people go
through great lengths to make good installation programs for their
software. Why not for linux?
Regards,
Tobias Skytte
M2@M
> I don't see why computers shouldnt be made easy to use. I think that
> the above mentioned install nightmares are often because the
> programmer is too lazy to make a installation script that takes care
> of checking dependencies and so on. In the windows world people go
> through great lengths to make good installation programs for their
> software. Why not for linux?
I don't see why people shouldn't be expected to gain a little knowledge of
something before they try to use it. There are all sorts of documentation
on how to install things under Linux. Yes, I agree, some of the docs are a
little on the technical side. I think what we really need is a website
that indexes and links to as many docs, tutorials, HOWTOS, etc. as
possible. TLDP makes a good start, but theres only a handful of docs, in
comparasson too everything else out there. My point here being that
instead of undertaking the writing of a whole new OS, perhaps we should
focus on making improvements to an already existing OS.
Sybren Stüvel
> IMHO there is a big problem that is preventing linux from becomming
> mainstream and that is the difficulty in installing applications.
On my system: "emerge mozilla-firebird" downloads, compiles and
installes Mozilla Firebird. How hard is that?
> Normal users will never be able to compile code and edit textfiles.
Not be able to edit textfiles? Come on, if you can't do that you
shouldn't touch the damn thing.
> And even worse, quite often when reading INSTALL txtfiles there
> will be instructions like 'make sure you are using version x of
> this and that', without giving instructions on how to check that.
That's because that's different for each distribution. It's up to the
distribution's documentation to explain how to use it's packaging
system.
> You can say alot about windows, but it is very easy to use. To
> install a program you usually just click on the installation file
> and follow instructions from the install wizard.. easy peasy, 10
> secs later you are using it (and 20 secs later it bluescreens, but
> that's another story.. :-) )
But then you have to upgrade the software every now and then, because
of various reasons. Some programs you can just overwrite with the new
version. Other programs need to be uninstalled first. Every program
has to be upgraded individually. On my system, I just do "emerge
sync; emerge --update world" and it's done.
> I don't see why computers shouldnt be made easy to use.
They are very complex things, and some aspects aren't simply easy.
You need lessons before you can drive a car, especially when you're
driving a stick. Why should every moron be able to handle a computer?
What makes computers so special they should be about the only complex
thing on the planet that a moron can use? Just follow some computer
lessons if you can't even edit a textfile.
> I think that the above mentioned install nightmares are often
> because the programmer is too lazy to make a installation script
> that takes care of checking dependencies and so on.
Again: that's too distribution-specific. The README/INSTALL files
contains what versions are required. Any human being with a little
bit of brains can find out how to deal with it. Someone who can't do
that, shouldn't be maintaining a computer and installing software in
the first place.
> In the windows world people go through great lengths to make good
> installation programs for their software. Why not for linux?
My girlfriend can install, upgrade and remove all the programs on her
computer, using Debian's apt-get command. If she can do it, why can't
someone else?
Gary Schenk
<snip>
> IMHO there is a big problem that is preventing linux from becomming
> mainstream and that is the difficulty in installing applications.
<snip>
> I don't see why computers shouldnt be made easy to use. I think that
> the above mentioned install nightmares are often because the
> programmer is too lazy to make a installation script that takes care
> of checking dependencies and so on.
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html
<snip>
> Regards,
> Tobias Skytte
Robert Newson
> Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>
>> *Every line* of the Linux kernel is copyrighted by its creator,
>
> Yes, and so is every line of any operating system you'll ever write.
> Because as soon as you write code, it is copyrighted by you. GPL is as
> close as you can come to "free of copyright"
Isn't the BSD licence even closer, but isn't Public Domain closer still - ie
you can do absolutely whatever you want with it; nobody has any/everybody
have all rights over it?
> (and in fact is preferable
> over having no rights at all because it prevents misuse of your code by
> monopolists).
But BSD & PD fall down on this 8-(
Robert Newson
> Sybren Stüvel <sybr...@YOURthirdtower.imagination.com> wrote in message news:
>
>>>4. Needs to be idiot-friendly (Windows users won't know to type
>>>"mount /dev/cdrom" to access the CD-ROM)
>>>
>>Cars aren't idiot-friendly, you need lessons first. There are a lot
>>of things you need to learn how to use before you can use it
>>properly. Why should things as complex as computers be anything
>>different?
>>
...
> I don't see why computers shouldnt be made easy to use.
Using the car analogy, cars have become easier to drive, but harder to
repair - they've become complex beasts: compare my computer controlled
modern car vs my Morris Minor Traveller; I know with which I can tinker
installing/repairing things without worrying (too much) about breaking it.
Similarly computers: the OS home users now have it extremely complex (when
compared with the micros of the '80s). Thus, I don't think it is
unreasonable for computers to require more professional servicing.
> I think that
> the above mentioned install nightmares are often because the
> programmer is too lazy to make a installation script that takes care
> of checking dependencies and so on. In the windows world people go
> through great lengths to make good installation programs for their
> software. Why not for linux?
Just think how much more carnage there would be if modern cars were like
Windoze with easy to install/repair gadgets (that can easily mess up the
rest of the car).
Tobias Skytte
> Tobias Skytte wrote:
>
> > I don't see why computers shouldnt be made easy to use. I think that
> > the above mentioned install nightmares are often because the
> > programmer is too lazy to make a installation script that takes care
> > of checking dependencies and so on. In the windows world people go
> > through great lengths to make good installation programs for their
> > software. Why not for linux?
>
> I don't see why people shouldn't be expected to gain a little knowledge of
> something before they try to use it. There are all sorts of documentation
Because it isn't necessary on the competitions' OS (i.e. windows).
> on how to install things under Linux. Yes, I agree, some of the docs are a
> little on the technical side. I think what we really need is a website
> that indexes and links to as many docs, tutorials, HOWTOS, etc. as
> possible. TLDP makes a good start, but theres only a handful of docs, in
> comparasson too everything else out there. My point here being that
Yes but even if we have better docs, tutorials, howto's etc etc. then
the competition is still better (i.e. easier to install stuff onto).
IMHO regular people will not cope with even the best written INSTALL
file. We have to look at what the market wants (and not what *we*
want), and the market consists mainly of people that don't care how a
computer works, they just want to use it. Offcourse this is assuming
we want linux to be a mainstream OS.
> instead of undertaking the writing of a whole new OS, perhaps we should
> focus on making improvements to an already existing OS.
Yes, I do agree with that completely.
Best regards,
Tobias Skytte
Robert Newson
...
>>>I don't see why computers shouldnt be made easy to use. I think that
>>>the above mentioned install nightmares are often because the
>>>programmer is too lazy to make a installation script that takes care
>>>of checking dependencies and so on. In the windows world people go
>>>through great lengths to make good installation programs for their
>>>software. Why not for linux?
>>>
>>I don't see why people shouldn't be expected to gain a little knowledge of
>>something before they try to use it. There are all sorts of documentation
>
> Because it isn't necessary on the competitions' OS (i.e. windows).
Funny - I've often found I've needed to try and do owt in Windoze, only to
be stymied by a total lack of documentation on how to achieve it; tearing
out my hair when the help provided doesn't.
Sybren Stüvel
> Because it isn't necessary on the competitions' OS (i.e. windows).
Oh yes, you need knowledge to install stuff on Windows. It's just
that we've all grown accustomed to doing things the windows way.
Something that everybody knows how to use doesn't mean it's the best
nor the easiest way.
> Yes but even if we have better docs, tutorials, howto's etc etc.
> then the competition is still better (i.e. easier to install stuff
> onto).
How's that? Installing a piece of software on windows doesn't check
the dependencies, and download those as well. How many times did you
download something which then bombed with some cryptic error message
because you didn't download some VB DLL file?
> IMHO regular people will not cope with even the best
> written INSTALL file.
Then they are simply way too stupid to even be installing software.
Again: if you are such a brainless moron that you can't follow
clearly written instructions, you are way too dumb to be managing
software on a computer.
> We have to look at what the market wants (and not what *we* want),
> and the market consists mainly of people that don't care how a
> computer works, they just want to use it. Offcourse this is
> assuming we want linux to be a mainstream OS.
Most people that drive a car don't know how it works. Yet, they have
to get instructions on how to start and drive it. Written
instructions aren't enough - you have to be taught how to drive by
exercise and practice. Simply installing a bit of software by doing
./configure; make; make install is a lot easier. Still, driving cars
is a mainstream activity, isn't it?
Maurits van de Kamp
>>I don't see why people shouldn't be expected to gain a little knowledge of
>>something before they try to use it. There are all sorts of documentation
>
> Because it isn't necessary on the competitions' OS (i.e. windows).
It is. Windows just pretends you can use it without knowledge (which by
the way, accounts for 90% of all open relays and other security
annoyancies on the Internet). But no complete computer illiterate has
ever set up and seriously used Windows successfully without getting help.
Besides, it's not possible to make an operating system powerful,
flexible and dumb-newbie-proof at the same time. I've seen a lot of
"calls for new OSes" like these and there is a simple reason one was
never created: It's a contradiction.
> Yes but even if we have better docs, tutorials, howto's etc etc. then
> the competition is still better (i.e. easier to install stuff onto).
I find dpkg and rpm a lot easier than the average Windows install
wizard. Howto's about installing are only needed for installing things
an installer isn't written for yet. Try THAT in Windows. (I can already
see the howto's.. "now open regedit, create a key called...")
It's funny to see how Linux still suffers from the prejudice that you
need to have a degree in computer science to get anything done. Have you
looked at SuSE, Mandrake or RedHat lately?
> IMHO regular people will not cope with even the best written INSTALL
> file. We have to look at what the market wants (and not what *we*
> want), and the market consists mainly of people that don't care how a
> computer works, they just want to use it.
People who don't care about how a computer works, shouldn't use one. You
don't need to know its internals (you don't need to know that for Linux
either), but you should at least know a bit about what it's doing.
The thing a lot of people get confused, is having "no computer
knowledge" with "having DOS knowledge". Only people who grew up with
ms-dos find Linux confusing. People who never used a computer before,
have no more difficulty with Linux than with Windows. (I mean come on,
the time you had to install everything manually is really long ago).
Maurits.
Maurits van de Kamp
> How's that? Installing a piece of software on windows doesn't check
> the dependencies, and download those as well. How many times did you
> download something which then bombed with some cryptic error message
> because you didn't download some VB DLL file?
Actually, the reason this doesn't happen very much is because every
Windows "package" mostly comes with its own proprietry set of DLLs,
which kinda defeats the purpose of shared libs. :) (And generic DLLs
like VB stuff will usually be installed by the
everyone-has-this-software-so-you-should-too-virus).
Even funnier is the Windows component manager itself. It is too lazy to
check for installed components, so every time you change something in
your IP settings for example, it wants the Windoze CD and installs all
network components from scratch (and experienced windowsers "avoid" this
problem by copying all CAB-files to their harddrive). Now I've got two
remarks about that:
1. How does one explain this behaviour to a newbie?
2. If this is the way to make an OS "intelligent" enough to use without
knowledge, I don't want Linux to go there.
> Then they are simply way too stupid to even be installing software.
> Again: if you are such a brainless moron that you can't follow
> clearly written instructions,
..Or type apt-get or rpm -Uvh .. :)
> Most people that drive a car don't know how it works. Yet, they have
> to get instructions on how to start and drive it.
Not only that, but they need a few months of training before they can
use a car without being a hazard to themselves or others. Despite the
fact that the controls of a car are very simple.
An even better example we can get by zooming in on one activity of car
driving: Using the gears. You don't learn that unless you understand
what's happening. And I don't mean the physics of the gearbox, but the
fact that the engine only has a limited rpm (pun not intended) range and
needs gears to get a usable speed range. And that you need to uncouple
the engine from the wheels before you can change gears. You don't need
to be a car mechanic to use gears, but just remembering when to make
what movement, isn't enough. Just like you can't manage a computer just
by remembering when to click where.
Maurits.
ArWeGod
news:d945119c.04011...@posting.google.com...
> With the current SCO legal battle against Linux (and now possibly
> against BSD; see http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/3110981),
> perhaps it is time to develop a NEW, completely independent
> open-source operating system?
Let's call it DWIM.
Do What I Mean.
It will figure out what the user wants to do, and what the file format is,
and do the appropriate thing with it. If it's compacted, it will un-compact
it; if it's a document or text file it will open an editor, but if it's a
source code module it will bring up an IDE, if it's some known music format
it will play the music or rip it or burn it (depending on what you meant to
do); if it is an unknown file format, it will search the internet and figure
it out....
And all the world will live in peace.
-- Rev. Paul
ArWeGod
news:a30b8dd6.04011...@posting.google.com...
The advantage of being a monopoly and having billions to spend are
inter-related.
1. Every device manufacturer wants their device to work with Microsoft. They
go out of their way to court MS engineers (and try not to be bought out - a
risk of being TOO good).
2. Do you realize HOW MUCH usability it takes to figure out what idiots are
capable of?! Remember that nothing can be made idiot-proof because idiots
are so ingenious! This means $$$ spent on idiots banging on the keys.
3. There is ONE contact point. If I make a new widget, who do I talk to in
"Unix" to make it work with their product? Who do I sell my soul and 27% of
my profit to? Where is the Unix CEO?
It is not only in Hell that it is better to rule than be one of the masses -
business demands it for products. They will use the Freebie stuff for a mail
server or firewall, but when someone has a question about how to print a
slideshow they want Powerpoint Tech support. And they will pay for that.
Monopolies and Unions are often disparaged and seen as anachronisms, but
they have their place in a new, changing world. Then they must be destroyed,
of course, and I hate them both. But don't expect things to get better from
their absence.
<steps of soap box>
" >
Take the new find in explorer, asks you if you want to search the net
and has a bloody animated dog!
When you plug your camera it interupts you asking what you want to do-
And shortened manus- I have the screen space (21" monitor) so show me
the whole menu!
I dont like this kindof stuff at all, Its a pain in the arse
;)
</rant>
" >
Thats quite user friendly?
I dont know but if there was a front end then it would be just if not
more easy then many windows installers.
-Cam
ArWeGod
AT THE BOTTOM, not on top (see, now I'm doing it wrong, too). It's, like,
the way it is done on the interweb. But thanks for your wonderful comments
that related so exactly to the subject at hand!
"@(none)" <""root\"@(none)"> wrote in message
news:400cea24$0$1751$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
M2@M
> ..Or type apt-get or rpm -Uvh .. :)
>
The only problem I can see there is what are you to apt-get? For example,
Joe Windows-Convert User decides he wants a program to burn CD. Now, there
are several programs for doing that - xcdroast, k3b, cdrecord, etc. How
can the user find which program name to type in? Obviously, google can
help then, and apt-cache search, too. But, again my point is that perhaps
we should focus on making a searchable index of programs available for
install/download, that's easy for people without a clue to use. Just a
thought.
Jacob Westenbach
> Maurits van de Kamp wrote:
>
>
> > ..Or type apt-get or rpm -Uvh .. :)
> >
>
> The only problem I can see there is what are you to apt-get? For example,
> Joe Windows-Convert User decides he wants a program to burn CD. Now,
there
> are several programs for doing that - xcdroast, k3b, cdrecord, etc. How
> can the user find which program name to type in? Obviously, google can
> help then, and apt-cache search, too. But, again my point is that perhaps
> we should focus on making a searchable index of programs available for
> install/download, that's easy for people without a clue to use. Just a
> thought.
See synaptic.
JW
M2@M
> See synaptic.
>
> JW
Yes, a search of "CD Burning" returns no results ;-). Now, a search of CD
does infact return cdrdao as its first result, but what will a user do with
that, assuming he thinks to search CD, when he wants to _burn_ them?
Sybren Stüvel
> Yes, a search of "CD Burning" returns no results ;-). Now, a
> search of CD does infact return cdrdao as its first result, but
> what will a user do with that, assuming he thinks to search CD,
> when he wants to _burn_ them?
Yeah, as if a newbie windows user will know he has to search for
either "Easy CD creator" or "Nero burning rom"...
M2@M
> Yeah, as if a newbie windows user will know he has to search for
> either "Easy CD creator" or "Nero burning rom"...
>
One of the two probably came with his computer when Windows was
pre-installed, or a copy came with his CD Burner.
Jeroen Geilman
No idea why you wrote that in response to my post; maybe you meant to
respond to something/someone else ?
Maurits van de Kamp
>>> *Every line* of the Linux kernel is copyrighted by its creator,
>>
>> Yes, and so is every line of any operating system you'll ever write.
[snip]
>
> No idea why you wrote that in response to my post; maybe you meant to
> respond to something/someone else ?
Only partially. :) I meant the copyright of Linux isn't a reason to
write another OS, which is also a response to the original poster. :)
Maurits.
Sybren Stüvel
> One of the two probably came with his computer when Windows was
> pre-installed
And cdrecord will be pre-installed as well when you buy a computer with
Linux and a burner. Your point is?
Jeroen Geilman
Yes, but - that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Sybren stated blandly that Linux, as GPL'ed software, has no copyright.
This is an often misunderstood concept, and I tried to elucidate.
Nowhere did I give an opinion on the matter under discussion - I merely
stated some facts.
And yet you partially reiterate what I said, and go on to explain to me
something about the GPL which I didn't mention (because it wasn't
pertinent to Sybren's claim), but which you discuss as if I disagreed ?
Weird... really.
--
Jeroen Geilman
Analog bits courtesy of adaptr.
M2@M
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 06:36:30 -0600, M2@M wrote:
>
>> One of the two probably came with his computer when Windows was
>> pre-installed
>
> And cdrecord will be pre-installed as well when you buy a computer with
> Linux and a burner. Your point is?
>
But we're talking about using apt-get and/or synaptic to search for suitable
software.
Maurits van de Kamp
> And yet you partially reiterate what I said, and go on to explain to me
> something about the GPL which I didn't mention (because it wasn't
> pertinent to Sybren's claim), but which you discuss as if I disagreed ?
Sigh.. sometimes newsgroups look like people enjoy feeling offended.
I was explaining to any reader, not necessarily to you (that's basically
the idea of posting to a newsgroup instead of mailing someone
personally). Just adding my two cents to the discussion as a whole.
Anyone is free to take any element personally when appliccable and desired.
Maybe I should make this a standard disclaimer to put under my postings..
Maurits.
Sybren Stüvel
> But we're talking about using apt-get and/or synaptic to search for
> suitable software.
Sure, but then you have to compare it to searching for suitable
software on a windows system. When you start comparing it to
pre-installed software, I start comparing it to pre-installing
software as well.
Sybren
Sybren Stüvel
> Sybren stated blandly that Linux, as GPL'ed software, has no copyright.
Yeah, that was a mistake. I ment to say that Linux doesn't have code
that is copyrighted by someone else, like SCO is claiming now. I do
understand the GPL, though - I merely expressed myself rather poorly.
Mike Darrett
> I agree with sentiments posted by others to the effect that SCO is
> overflowing with nitrogenous metabolic waste matter, but then, so is
> microsoft.
>
> Whatever...
>
> Anyway, if you want another open-source OS, you could also consider
> Darwin. I haven't tried it myself, but I hear one can build a complete
> open-source system of any flavor (desktop, server,...) starting with
> Darwin. You might consider trying to put together a distro based on it
> if you are sufficiently excited about it.
Very interesting, thanks! After googling arond a bit, I see that
Apple has also based their OS on Darwin/BSD.
I wonder if Apple will make future hardware backwards-compatible with
older software.
Mike Darrett
www.darrettenterprises.com
M2@M
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:35:19 -0600, M2@M wrote:
>
>> But we're talking about using apt-get and/or synaptic to search for
>> suitable software.
>
> Sure, but then you have to compare it to searching for suitable
> software on a windows system. When you start comparing it to
> pre-installed software, I start comparing it to pre-installing
> software as well.
>
> Sybren
Ok, you win.
Sybren Stüvel
> Ok, you win.
Thanx ;-)
I had a discussion about the ease of using Linux at my work today. Most
people there only know Linux from a command prompt, because they SSH to a
server. They think it's overly complicated and all. When I showed a
colleague what Ximian Evolution can do, he was amazed and called "I'm
going to install Linux!". We'll see what the future will bring. For now,
I'm glad that Linux is the OS for smart people, since that saves a lot of
trouble.
Mike Keithley
with a graphical OS will not be attractive in the Blind community.
Although Screen-readers are much better than they used to be on
Windows platforms, the fact that the Windows OS is completely graphical
from the ground up still gives a blind user more of a "I can't run" feeling as
many applications one would love to use are not accessible and the OS is,
basically, a hostile environment. Application-accessibility is can be a
problem in Linux, too, when it comes to X but one can still get at the
power of the OS from a console without fuss and complexity.
Sybren Stuvel
> I wouldn't want the core Linux OS become graphical.
Me neither. There are plenty of Linux boxes on the planet that don't
need any graphics what so ever. Spending memory and CPU time on them
would be a waste.
Thomas
and APL were the latest innovations in programming languages, I
remember studying the subject of "software engineering" wherein basic
principles of good software organization were developed at an abstract
level, by very brilliant minds.
One of the concepts I learned about is called "layered architecture."
The bone-headed idea of bluring the user interface with the OS, which
rightly should be two completely separate architecture layers, is a
blunder made by Apple in their original graphical interface, and which
His Royal Gatesness stupidly imposed on windoze, as I understand it,
because keeping them separate gave the unenlightened user the
impression that windows was a "thing on a thing" rather than a "real
OS." (That quote is from a "Windows Secrets" book.)
This violation of the layering concept means that one if stuck with
whatever interface comes with the OS. This may be viewed as an
advantage to a supplier, to simplify their product support, but it
decimates the user's freedom to configure the system how he wants it.
Apple finally got it right when they went back to a sane, better
layered architecture with OS X. And unix and linux have always been
layered this way, even before there was a graphical interface. (Think
of the assortment of command-line "shells" you can choose from.)
VAX/VMS is another example where the user interface (DCL) was layered
over the OS.
This concept of layering is nearly universal in every non-trivial
software project you are ever likely to work with, with the glaring
exception of a couple of very market dominant dumb designs where the
boundary between GUI and OS has a fractal topology, or is nonexistant.
Remember, the OS interfaces the applications to the processor. The
user interfact interfaces the human with the applications.