Two Percent of Desktops? Who cares?
Konan
Stephenson. Very interesting, if a little dated (1999).
But it brings up a "who cares" question for Linux users. That is, why do
we care if Linux overtakes Windoze? If it did/does then most of the users
will be the same clueless mouse clickers that use the other two OS's. 99%
will have no usable input to give back.
If Linux were struggling to gain a critical mass so that enough technical
users and programmers would be attracted, that would be one thing. But
Linux is far beyond any danger of just dying off as a baby. I use a
totally stable Debian system on a homebrew PC. I use it all day, every
day and it gets the work done. If my neighbor down the street with a Dell
and XP changes to Ubuntu for some reason, how does that affect me? Or
you, for that matter?
Now you know and I know that if he did change, then he would save quite a
bit of money. On blood pressure medicine, software and not having to haul
the box into town three times yearly to have it de-wormed. But again,
what would that change do for the Linux community? If he can't, or won't
learn to update anti-virus sigs or check for patches weekly, then he
certainly isn't going to add to the Linux knowledge.
So. Who cares? Specifically?
Konan
Kier
> Just finished reading "In the beginning was the Command Line" by Neal
> Stephenson. Very interesting, if a little dated (1999).
>
> But it brings up a "who cares" question for Linux users. That is, why do
> we care if Linux overtakes Windoze? If it did/does then most of the users
> will be the same clueless mouse clickers that use the other two OS's. 99%
> will have no usable input to give back.
Fewer viruses, less malware, and better harware support. And no whining
Windows users telling how crap Linux is supposed to be.
Actually, fifty-fifty would be enough for me, with a sprinkling of other
OSen to liven up the mix.
--
Kier
John Bailo
> If my neighbor down the street with a Dell
> and XP changes to Ubuntu for some reason, how does that affect me? Or
> you, for that matter?
If having a better desktop OS is truly an advantage to someone, then
over time a Linux user would end up "better off" than his neighboor as
you point out.
The Linux user would be accruing a yearly benefit that his Windows
neighboor would not have, and his Windows neighbor may be incurring some
deficits.
Given that, is someone were truly competitive, he would not /advocate/
Linux -- he would hide it and keep his advantage.
--
Texeme Construct
Roy Schestowitz
GNU/Linux occupies _far_ more than 2%. Companies with vested interests spend
a lot of money spreading disinformation and hiding this fact. This includes
acquition of media, use of reporters as puppets and, corruption of Web
standards, which forces people to use false identity, much like shamed (Net)
citizens.
Apart from the prevalance dual-head machines, Web statistics would indicate,
based on HTTP headers that are diverse or spoofed (e.g. Opera, Konqueror,
Firefox with Agent Switcher), that Linux held over 3.5% of market share
quite some time ago. If you consider the fact that about 10% of the headers
cannot be determined, e.g. because Squid is used or because they are
irregular (Apple and Microsoft header are uniform, but 450 distros and many
browsers lead to untraceable diversity), everything changed. Add to this the
fact that many users pretend to be IE/Windows for convenience (zealous
sites) and then the market share (installed base) of Linux could be argued
to have exceeded 10%. This aligns with what I see here. Almost all the
computers here (a medical-oriented division) have dual-boot setups. It's the
same all across the CS department and I see a lot of dual-boots all around
me, even at home of technophobes. I don't know how these regional statistics
generalise to the world, or even your hometown (this is related to
perspective), but given that Finland's Firefox market share is 3+ times
higher than that in the US, it would be wrong to make conclusions based on
what you hear/see. Linux has made/is making huge progress in businesses and
home alike. But, being a non-product, it cannot be quantified. And rich
companies will always wish to instill fear in the prospective customer's
mind.
Do not forget that the very same companies would argue that only 1 in 50
machines suffers from malware whereas all other studies say it's 8 or 9 in
10! And a gaming machine such as the XBox is reported to have failure rates
of 30-50% while its maker lowers this estimate an _entire order of
magnitude_.
So sure... the XBox is a birlliant piece of harware, Windows viruses are a
rarite, the market share of Linux is below 0.5% and Iraq has huge arsenals
with weapons of mass destruction.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Those who can, Open-Source
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 19.2% user, 2.7% system, 0.9% nice, 77.2% idle
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
Oliver Wong
"Konan" <no...@outhouse.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.09.12....@outhouse.com...
Specifically? Well, I could name names... but that might get me into
trouble...
But companies DO look at the market when considering whether to invest
in the development of a new product. Should we develop this game for
Windows? That's almost a given, as the vast majority of the PC gaming market
is Windows. Should we port it to Linux? Well, how much extra cost will that
involve? And how much extra profit are we likely to make? If we're probably
only going to end up selling 10 or 100 copies of our Linux port, then it's
definitely not worth it. What if we end up selling 10000? 1000000?
There are always pains associated with being a minority. Generally,
they're tolerable, but they're not non-existent.
- Oliver
casioc...@gmail.com
I sort of agree, with limitations.
First; I think governments should convert to open source. Taxpayers
shouldn't give so much money to corporations where an equivalent free
solution exists. Public data shouldn't use proprietary formats. Voting
machines should be open source too.
Second; schools should use open source. There's no ifs, ands, or buts
about it. The kids should be brought up on using open source solutions,
not Microsoft's. I wholeheartedly feel about this one.
Third; charitable computing should use open source. It should be a
stipulation that charities use open source and projects they support
use open source too.
As for corporations, it's up to them. They know better.
What's left?
Small businesss and individuals.
They can perhaps be divided into two segments; tech-savvy and not. I
think for the tech-savvy, it's really up to them. For those who are
not, they'll usually request help from others. I would think that it's
advisable, at this time, to recommend open source, as I really, really,
really... (really to the nth) find ubuntu a much better system than
winxp; stable, secure, fast, comprehensive.
So, if anyone would ask me, I would recommend it, for sure, no doubt,
but i don't think it's worth getting riled up over. For the government,
schools, and charities, however, no way; imho, this is a point for
activism, especially the schools.
JDS
> So. Who cares? Specifically?
You do, as a Linux user.
Critical mass of Linux users will lead to what I see as improvements:
* Adobe Photoshop, Flash Player, Illustrator, etc. ported to run on Linux
natively
* Other best-of-breed, defacto standard, commercial applications ported to
Linux
* Better hardware support (not that there isn't already remarkably
fantastic hardware support)
* Niche-market and semi-niche applications can be developed for Linux.
Quickbooks anyone? Accounting apps tailored to a specific industry?
It would be nice, for example, if my wife's salon could be run on Linux
100% but it can't. Period. The desktop and management software she
*needs* simply will not run on Linux, period.
etc. etc.
Being able to go into Best Buy or CompUSA and buy some shrink-wrapped
software that I will run on my system is not a bad thing, IMO. I think
the Linux community is generally and stubbornly and *wrongly* against this
sort of reality -- a mixed reality of Open Source and Closed Source shrink
wrapped software targeted towards Joe Q Public.
--
JDS
Ray Ingles
> most of the users
> will be the same clueless mouse clickers that use the other two OS's. 99%
> will have no usable input to give back.
Far less than 1% of the users of Ostiary, an OSS utility I wrote, have
provided feedback or contributions. I'd say less than 0.1%, actually.
But those contributions have been quite valuable. Even a bug report can
be helpful if it's for a situation you didn't think to test for.
I'm not at all sure the current figure is really 2%, anyway. I'd
believe significantly more, particularly in areas that aren't serviced
by North American hit counters.
> If my neighbor down the street with a Dell
> and XP changes to Ubuntu for some reason, how does that affect me?
The larger the Linux market is, the more interesting apps and games are
made available for it. And the more hardware makers release specs and/or
drivers for Linux.
But there are indirect effects as well. Fewer zombies to propagate
spam. Lower hardware costs as OEMs stop paying a Windows tax. Innovation
in a large number of areas on top of open standards. Less intrusive DRM
and such. Etc., etc.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Spammers seem to assume that you are heavily in debt, under-endowed,
impotent, jobless, without a college diploma, without insurance, in
need of prepaid legal representation, and need to investigate those
closest to you. In other words, they are selling to themselves!
billwg
John Bailo wrote:
>
> If having a better desktop OS is truly an advantage to someone, then
> over time a Linux user would end up "better off" than his neighboor as
> you point out.
>
> The Linux user would be accruing a yearly benefit that his Windows
> neighboor would not have, and his Windows neighbor may be incurring some
> deficits.
>
> Given that, is someone were truly competitive, he would not /advocate/
> Linux -- he would hide it and keep his advantage.
>
So, since that is clearly not the case, what further conclusions can be
drawn from this premise? For one thing, the COLA commandos are a
vociferous lot, which would imply that they are not seeing any
advantage and are rather in a desperate quest for vindication of their
ill-starred choice of desktop.
The flip side is the apparent fact that Windows fans are rarely if ever
moved to tout Windows in newsgroups. As proof, witness the very few
posting here compared to the hundreds of millions of Windows users that
there are. So they are trying to keep a good thing to themselves
although the cat is certainly out of bag and the tactic of silence
faces a sharply diminishing return.
John Bailo
> So, since that is clearly not the case, what further conclusions can be
> drawn from this premise? For one thing, the COLA commandos are a
> vociferous lot, which would imply that they are not seeing any
> advantage and are rather in a desperate quest for vindication of their
> ill-starred choice of desktop.
>
> The flip side is the apparent fact that Windows fans are rarely if ever
> moved to tout Windows in newsgroups. As proof, witness the very few
> posting here compared to the hundreds of millions of Windows users that
> there are. So they are trying to keep a good thing to themselves
> although the cat is certainly out of bag and the tactic of silence
> faces a sharply diminishing return.
>
Using my own logic, that would be correct -- somewhat. You might be
overestimating the knowledgebase and stance of each group.
Linux Advocates could be mistakenly preaching, when they should be quiet
-- keeping the benefits to themselves.
Windows users, not being aware of what they're missing, might riot in
the streets if they found out.
Therefore, Linux users, advocate to Windows users.
--
Texeme Construct
billwg
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2006-09-12, Konan <no...@outhouse.com> wrote:
> > most of the users
> > will be the same clueless mouse clickers that use the other two OS's. 99%
> > will have no usable input to give back.
>
> Far less than 1% of the users of Ostiary, an OSS utility I wrote, have
> provided feedback or contributions. I'd say less than 0.1%, actually.
> But those contributions have been quite valuable. Even a bug report can
> be helpful if it's for a situation you didn't think to test for.
>
comment, ray? Where do you get the notion there are that many?
> I'm not at all sure the current figure is really 2%, anyway. I'd
> believe significantly more, particularly in areas that aren't serviced
> by North American hit counters.
>
You want to believe, so maybe if enough COLA folk help you, you can
make it happen. It worked for Tinker Bell.
billwg
John Bailo wrote:
>
> Linux Advocates could be mistakenly preaching,
Well, I can agree with that!
> when they should be quiet keeping the benefits to themselves.
>
In any case, yes.
> Windows users, not being aware of what they're missing, might riot in
> the streets if they found out.
>
The Windows users care not a fig for computers, john. They just use
them. Hardly a cause to riot.
> Therefore, Linux users, advocate to Windows users.
>
That, is patently nonsense. The linux fans here in COLA complain
mostly about "Wintrolls", "Wintards", and even worse. They seem to
mostly want to only advocate among themselves. They don't seem to have
the desire to be missionaries at all.
Hadron Quark
> Just finished reading "In the beginning was the Command Line" by Neal
> Stephenson. Very interesting, if a little dated (1999).
>
> But it brings up a "who cares" question for Linux users. That is, why do
> we care if Linux overtakes Windoze? If it did/does then most of the users
> will be the same clueless mouse clickers that use the other two OS's. 99%
> will have no usable input to give back.
>
> If Linux were struggling to gain a critical mass so that enough technical
> users and programmers would be attracted, that would be one thing. But
> Linux is far beyond any danger of just dying off as a baby. I use a
> totally stable Debian system on a homebrew PC. I use it all day, every
> day and it gets the work done. If my neighbor down the street with a Dell
> and XP changes to Ubuntu for some reason, how does that affect me? Or
> you, for that matter?
If its not obvious to you, then there probably no point expaining it
since you are "all right Jack".
>
> Now you know and I know that if he did change, then he would save quite a
> bit of money. On blood pressure medicine, software and not having to haul
> the box into town three times yearly to have it de-wormed. But again,
never ever had to have my Windows pc "dewormed". He might get blood
pressure when he discovers that the apps he covets much are,
depressingly, windows only though.
> what would that change do for the Linux community? If he can't, or won't
> learn to update anti-virus sigs or check for patches weekly, then he
> certainly isn't going to add to the Linux knowledge.
I think you've lost your train of thought.
>
> So. Who cares? Specifically?
>
The people who make the distros? The people who need a distro to be
popular so that its worth supporing it and releasing new features for
it?
Err, just about anyone with a vested interest in Linux remaining viable
desktop option into the future I would have thought.
> Konan
--
What's this script do?
unzip ; touch ; finger ; mount ; gasp ; yes ; umount ; sleep
Hint for the answer: not everything is computer-oriented. Sometimes you're
in a sleeping bag, camping out with your girlfriend.
-- Contributed by Frans van der Zande
Kier
>
> John Bailo wrote:
>
>>
>> If having a better desktop OS is truly an advantage to someone, then
>> over time a Linux user would end up "better off" than his neighboor as
>> you point out.
>>
>> The Linux user would be accruing a yearly benefit that his Windows
>> neighboor would not have, and his Windows neighbor may be incurring some
>> deficits.
>>
>> Given that, is someone were truly competitive, he would not /advocate/
>> Linux -- he would hide it and keep his advantage.
>>
> So, since that is clearly not the case, what further conclusions can be
> drawn from this premise? For one thing, the COLA commandos are a
> vociferous lot, which would imply that they are not seeing any
> advantage and are rather in a desperate quest for vindication of their
> ill-starred choice of desktop.
There's nothing watever ill-starred about Linux.
--
Kier
Konan
>>
> The Windows users care not a fig for computers, john. They just use
> them. Hardly a cause to riot.
>
That is probably the most lucid statement I have seen on this group. I
think you hit it dead on.
Anyone who wants to be a techie, hacker, geek (fill in the blank) is
probably already on Linux, or Unix or whatever because you can't
really hack on Windows. People who just want to compute are on Windows
since all they have to do is click on setup and start using.
WE like to see the dmesg input scroll past on boot - it means something.
THEY (the 99%) not only don't care, they would prefer not even to know it
exists.
Kind of like communications. Ham radio operators like the equipment with
wires, dials, and buttons along with the talk. The vast majority of
everyone else just wants to talk and won't even remember what the color of
the phone was that they just used.
Neither is wrong or bad. It just IS.
Konan
JDS
> That, is patently nonsense. The linux fans here in COLA complain mostly
> about "Wintrolls", "Wintards", and even worse. They seem to mostly want
> to only advocate among themselves. They don't seem to have the desire to
> be missionaries at all.
That doesn't even make any sense.
This is comp.os.linux.advocacy, yes? So by its very charter (if there is
one) this group should contain mostly Linux advocacy posts posted by Linux
advocates.
But that does not exclude or even imply exclusion of advocacy occuring
outside the scope of COLA.
So duh! Of course COLA is advocacy amongst ourselves! DUH DUH DUH!!!
And duh2, of course we don't want wintrolls here!! IT IS A ***LINUX***
ADVOCACY GROUP!!! Get that into your thick head. sheesh.
I would go as far as to say that a goodly portion of the Linux advocates
here don't even completely hate Windows and don't even mind if someone
else is using it, just not me thankyouverymuch.
--
JDS
Kier
> And duh2, of course we don't want wintrolls here!! IT IS A ***LINUX***
> ADVOCACY GROUP!!! Get that into your thick head. sheesh.
He never will.
>
> I would go as far as to say that a goodly portion of the Linux advocates
> here don't even completely hate Windows and don't even mind if someone
> else is using it, just not me thankyouverymuch.
I don't hate it, I just find it boring and restricted after using Linux.
Even if I wanted to use it, at the moment I can't, because the PC it's on
has developed an overheating problem. The only thing I keep it for is
running a video capture card, given to me by a friend, which at the
moment isn't (AFAIK) supported under Linux. It's quite a good one, and I
basically bought the PC to go with it.
--
Kier
Ray Ingles
>> Given that, is someone were truly competitive, he would not /advocate/
>> Linux -- he would hide it and keep his advantage.
>>
> So, since that is clearly not the case, what further conclusions can be
> drawn from this premise?
That the premise is wrong from scratch, of course. Linux works better
and develops faster the *more* widespread it is. The user of Linux
benefits when more people are using and working with Linux, because then
there are more people working *on* Linux.
> The flip side is the apparent fact that Windows fans are rarely if ever
> moved to tout Windows in newsgroups.
There're plenty of Windows users denigrating it, though:
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication,
every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out
about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use
it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is
characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society..."
- George Radwanski, Privacy Commissioner of Canada
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/information/ar/02_04_10_e.asp
Ray Ingles
> comment, ray? Where do you get the notion there are that many?
The number of downloads since I released it. The activity on
Freshmeat.net, which forms only a fraction of my referrals, etc.
Just a guess of course, but if you want to argue the other way, it's
actually *worse* for you.
Because then you're saying that the proportion of users who provide
useful feedback is *far* larger than the original poster said...
>> I'm not at all sure the current figure is really 2%, anyway. I'd
>> believe significantly more...
> You want to believe, so maybe if enough COLA folk help you, you can
> make it happen. It worked for Tinker Bell.
Says the guy who specifically claims that "[t]he joy is in the holding
and asserting of one's opinions", regardless of their support.
On the other hand, if it's only on 2% of desktops, then my website
alone gets a very large fraction of the total Linux desktop traffic.
That seems... unlikely.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Anybody who has ever seen a photograph showing the kind of damage that
a trout traveling that fast can inflict on the human skull knows that
such photographs are very valuable. I paid $20 for mine." - Dave Barry
Ray Ingles
> probably already on Linux, or Unix or whatever because you can't
> really hack on Windows. People who just want to compute are on Windows
> since all they have to do is click on setup and start using.
Now, explain why Linux can't happily service *both* types of users.
What distribution do you use? Have you played with Ubuntu, for example?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas
are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
- Howard Aiken
JEDIDIAH
>> them. Hardly a cause to riot.
It is when your car explodes on the motorway and kills some
innocent bystander. It is when you can't get a car that suit you
because the market is such that it can only support some Chevy piece
of crap.
[deletia]
The pain caused by the crappiness of Microsoft based solutions
just isn't great enough to motivate the average end user. They also
don't seem to have any problem with shopping at Walmart for food either.
The same mentality that drives Walmart sales also drives Microsoft.
The same market dynamic that blunts Walmart sales into upscale neighborhoods
doesn't exist for software.
My flight crosstown to some "foodie" grocery that wont sell me seafood
that is quite literally rotting (bad allergies, no sense of smell) is done
completely at liberty with no concern about where I went for canned beans
yesterday or where I might go for fresh blueberries tomorrow.
--
Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,
is genuinely new: culture, like science and |||
technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \
building on the works of those that came before.
Judge Alex Kozinski
US Court of Appeals
9th Circuit
John Hastings
>
> So. Who cares? Specifically?
>
> Konan
Well, I agree mostly. I enjoy helping the occasional person get started
on Linux. Most stay, a few give up. But like you I really don't
care if an individual uses Windows or Linux or Mac. Or an 8080 ALtair for
that matter.
But as to who cares about market share. All Linux users should want the
base to grow. I don't see Linux bankrupting MS anytime soon, but the
history of corporations is littered with the bodies of companies who were
"On Top" and came to assume that it was the natural state of things. You
never know.
For that matter, some freshman in some obscure college may right now be
testing his/her hobby OS that will someday make both Win and Lin look like
Dos2.1 I believe it has happened before:)
But for now it is important to have enough Linux user base so that the
hardware manufacturers consider us to be a valuable customer asset. So
when the RIAA and Microsoft try to persuade computer manufacturers that
all hardware should have DRM, Flags, and Call Homes built in, and the
OS has to participate or not run, that we can still get standard
uncrippled Mobo's, drives and stuff. For that we have to have numbers.
Nobody is going to crank up a printed circuit line to make two hundred, or
even two thousand Mboards just for Linux.
JH
Sophie Kowalski
More proof that lienux do not support as much hardware as Windows.
Tim Smith
Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> But there are indirect effects as well. Fewer zombies to propagate
> spam. Lower hardware costs as OEMs stop paying a Windows tax. Innovation
If Linux were a mass-market OS, there would be plenty of people who
would respond to "run this attachment to get a cool GLX screen saver!"
emails and the like, turning their machines into spam zombies.
--
--Tim Smith
flatfish+++
Exactly.....
or.....
Something like this:
1. They download Maria Sharapova.naked and click on it.
2. They get a half naked picture with text that says something like:
Run as root to see the rest of maria.
or execute sudo bla bla bla........
Most fools will go for it and trash their systems.
The vast majority of attacks are due to fools at the keyboards.
The reason Linux has not been attacked is because Linux servers ARE pretty
much secure and are typically managed by people who know what they are
doing.
Same for most of the nixs....
And nobody attacks the Linux desktop because there IS NO linux desktop
market.
However, many of these spambots are simply Windows desktop machines hooked
to broadband and the idiots at the keyboards have no clue.
Nothing is going to change, if Linux ever reaches the desktop.
Stupid users will still be stupid and still do stupid things.
Hadron Quark
> On 2006-09-12, billwg <bi...@magnoliaplantation.net> wrote:
>>> Given that, is someone were truly competitive, he would not /advocate/
>>> Linux -- he would hide it and keep his advantage.
>>>
>> So, since that is clearly not the case, what further conclusions can be
>> drawn from this premise?
>
> That the premise is wrong from scratch, of course. Linux works better
> and develops faster the *more* widespread it is. The user of Linux
What do you mean by develops faster? The way I am looking at is that one
of the big hurdles for Liux is that people dont know what do develop in
or even with!
Q : you have a killer app idea. You want to aim it at "Linux" (inverted
commas on purpose) - what API will you use for this app? You want to
integrate it with the desktop. Which desktop or Window Manager?
This is the problem and will continue to be.
> benefits when more people are using and working with Linux, because then
> there are more people working *on* Linux.
>
>> The flip side is the apparent fact that Windows fans are rarely if ever
>> moved to tout Windows in newsgroups.
>
> There're plenty of Windows users denigrating it, though:
>
> http://srom.zgp.org/
As there are Linux users doing the same : and much as I hate it when,
being realistic, I'm labelled as a "windiot" etc, the only people
seeming to do it with any case are myself, DFS, Erik, Flatfish and
Markzoom.
Admittedly some with more zeal than others.
But, its ridiculous when so called "advocacy" turns into "windows is
shit" and "linux is perfect". It makes the whole cause look like, well,
ridiculous.
I *want* Linux to work : but this whole "choice" thing ties its shoes
together at the whistle.
Linux is great : but there are many failings, and the sooner these are
addressed for the common "user" then the sooner it will fins itself on
the average users desktop.
A good example are lunatics like Köhlmann and Rick proclaiming that
administering a stable desktop doesnt require the commandline : when
even 2 seconds browsing any Linux forum assures one that it is indeed
necessary in many, many cases.
--
This is a scsi driver, scraes the shit out of me, therefore I tapdanced
and wrote a unix clone around it (C) by linus
-- Somewhere in the kernel tree
Hadron Quark
> On 2006-09-12, Konan <no...@outhouse.com> wrote:
>> Anyone who wants to be a techie, hacker, geek (fill in the blank) is
>> probably already on Linux, or Unix or whatever because you can't
>> really hack on Windows. People who just want to compute are on Windows
>> since all they have to do is click on setup and start using.
>
> Now, explain why Linux can't happily service *both* types of users.
> What distribution do you use? Have you played with Ubuntu, for
> example?
I have. And do. And I have spent more time at the command line compiling,
modprob'ing etc etc etc than I care to think.
It took me 2 months to get smtp-send-maill to work from Gnus for fex sake!
--
Why use Windows, since there is a door?
(By fac...@galileo.rhein-neckar.de, Andre Fachat)
Hadron Quark
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:53:46 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <slrnegdqff....@localhost.localdomain>,
>> Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>> But there are indirect effects as well. Fewer zombies to propagate
>>> spam. Lower hardware costs as OEMs stop paying a Windows tax. Innovation
>>
>> If Linux were a mass-market OS, there would be plenty of people who
>> would respond to "run this attachment to get a cool GLX screen saver!"
>> emails and the like, turning their machines into spam zombies.
>
> Exactly.....
>
> or.....
>
> Something like this:
>
> 1. They download Maria Sharapova.naked and click on it.
> 2. They get a half naked picture with text that says something like:
>
> Run as root to see the rest of maria.
> or execute sudo bla bla bla........
>
> Most fools will go for it and trash their systems.
And this has happened.
>
> The vast majority of attacks are due to fools at the keyboards.
>
And anyone with any real knowledge of the average "office" knows this to
be true.
The best example was out friend Rick : just "right click and set the
executable bit". ROTFL. No idea what it might bring.
Want to install latest "sendmail"? Heres what you do:
ftp it down
./config
make
sudo make install
Now, that last line could effectively fuck your system up badly. It
doesnt take a genius to realise that many fools would get an email from
"root@sendmail" telling them to install the latest "patch" ....
flatfish+++
> Q : you have a killer app idea. You want to aim it at "Linux" (inverted
> commas on purpose) - what API will you use for this app? You want to
> integrate it with the desktop. Which desktop or Window Manager?
>
> This is the problem and will continue to be.
>
>
> As there are Linux users doing the same : and much as I hate it when,
> being realistic, I'm labelled as a "windiot" etc, the only people
> seeming to do it with any case are myself, DFS, Erik, Flatfish and
> Markzoom.
The bozos in COLA will never accept anything less than the "Linux is
wonderful and Microsoft sucks" mantra.
To most people an operating system is just another program.
To most people, Linux doesn't even exist.
> Admittedly some with more zeal than others.
>
> But, its ridiculous when so called "advocacy" turns into "windows is
> shit" and "linux is perfect". It makes the whole cause look like, well,
> ridiculous.
Welcome to COLA.
These bozos are so rabid, so full of the Linux religion that they have no
idea how the rest of the earth functions.
> I *want* Linux to work : but this whole "choice" thing ties its shoes
> together at the whistle.
With 350+ and distributions, and increasing daily, Linux is one huge
clusterfsck!
Commercial companies are afraid of comitting to Linux because they ask
themselves the question:: Which Linux?
> Linux is great : but there are many failings, and the sooner these are
> addressed for the common "user" then the sooner it will fins itself on
> the average users desktop.
The common user has no interest in Linux unless someone shows it to them,
sets it up for them and holds their hand when they can't find equivilants
for the applications they will miss using under Windows.
> A good example are lunatics like Köhlmann and Rick proclaiming that
> administering a stable desktop doesnt require the commandline : when
> even 2 seconds browsing any Linux forum assures one that it is indeed
> necessary in many, many cases.
The COLA Gang are nothing more than a bunch of vigilantes that actually
denigrate Linux.
People laugh at that bunch and have been doing so for many years.
Then you have maniacs like Shestowhich, Poaster and Kent.
Anybody can easily see that these people are nutsacks obsessed with Linux
to the core.
They do little to help Linux and more to hurt it.
Gregory Shearman
How so?
To do any real damage the program would need administrator/root priviledges.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"
Gregory Shearman
I don't do anything to install the latest Sendmail. Gentoo installs it for
me. It get the md5 sum from my trusted portage sync server then gets the
download from my ISP's Gentoo distribution Mirror.
It downloads, compiles and installs automatically 3 times a week, keeping my
machine up to date.
Run a proper distribution and it will automatically keep your machine tidy
and new.
I even have the choice of stability. I can run it untested or stable.....
> Now, that last line could effectively fuck your system up badly. It
> doesnt take a genius to realise that many fools would get an email from
> "root@sendmail" telling them to install the latest "patch" ....
Fools will do anything. They'll stick knives in toasters, go swimming in
thunderstorms, believe used car sales clerks... real estate agents, kooky
religions....
Fools will probably even forget their passwords, or even run their computers
logged in as "root".
William Poaster
17:08:52 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <slrnegdqff....@localhost.localdomain>,
>> Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>> But there are indirect effects as well. Fewer zombies to propagate
>>> spam. Lower hardware costs as OEMs stop paying a Windows tax.
>>> Innovation
>
>> If Linux were a mass-market OS, there would be plenty of people who
>> would respond to "run this attachment to get a cool GLX screen saver!"
>> emails and the like, turning their machines into spam zombies.
>
> How so?
>
> To do any real damage the program would need administrator/root
> priviledges.
It's the same old M$ FUD which has been shot down by security experts time
& again. Seems Smith doesn't do any checking before oepning gob.
--
Linux is not a desktop OS for people
whose VCRs are still flashing "12:00".
That eliminates a lot of wintrolls then.
Jamie Hart
> I *want* Linux to work : but this whole "choice" thing ties its shoes
> together at the whistle.
>
> Linux is great : but there are many failings, and the sooner these are
> addressed for the common "user" then the sooner it will fins itself on
> the average users desktop.
>
If that's truly the case, stop wasting your time here whining about it
and go post where you can do some good.
If you don't I'll assume that you're not really here to help linux, just
to troll. Your choice.
> A good example are lunatics like Köhlmann and Rick proclaiming that
> administering a stable desktop doesnt require the commandline : when
> even 2 seconds browsing any Linux forum assures one that it is indeed
> necessary in many, many cases.
>
I'll let you in on a secret, even when there's a fix that can be done
completely in the GUI, people prefer to give advice based on the command
line.
Why? Glad you asked.
Describing a solution using the GUI takes a lot more words and is far
more likely to be ambiguous.
for example, in mandriva, you can install stuff in the GUI or in the
command line (I know that it's a poor example, gimme a break here)
From the Gui it goes like this;
[Start]
From the menu go to "system/Configuration/Packaging" and click on
"Install Software", you'll be asked for your root password, type it in
and you'll be taken to the main screen.
In the search box, type in "postfix" and press enter. if more than one
package is shown, select the one for the main postfix distribution and
click install
[End]
The command line version goes like this;
[Start]
As root from the command prompt, type "URPMI POSTFIX" (without the
quotes) and press enter.
[End]
Guess which one most people will choose when they're giving advice.
For an extra point, guess which one will cause the most problems for the
poor shmuck trying to follow it.
Konan
polished article.
http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=15811
Konan
Kier
Interesting article. Not sure I believe everything he says, but there's
certainly a core of truth there. Making Linux fit for everyone's desktop
would involve making it into another kind of Windows. That's not really
desirable - and I'm not talking about it becoming an insecure platform, or
anything like that, but simplifying it too much, taking away the great
power and flexibility it now has. Hobbling it, if you like. Making it more
ordinary-user friendly is possible, IMO, but that shouldn't be at the
expesnce of what makes Linux such an excellent OS.
Once set up correctly, Linux *is* easy to use, IMO. But sometimes thee
set-up part can (not always, but at times) be a pain in the bum.
many of the percieved problems that Linux has, like issues with sound, or
video, are being ironed out even as we speak. In the three or so years
I've been using it, the differences are enormous. And it keeps on
improving.
I think it's capable of getting a decent share of the desktop, say twenty
percent. That would be plenty.
--
Kier
yttrx
No, that last line cant effectively fuck your system badly, dingus. You
still have to TURN IT IN AND SET IT TO START ON BOOT AFTER YOU DO THAT.
STOP PRETENDING YOU KNOW WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT.
God I hate you.
-----yttrx
billwg
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2006-09-12, Konan <no...@outhouse.com> wrote:
> > Anyone who wants to be a techie, hacker, geek (fill in the blank) is
> > probably already on Linux, or Unix or whatever because you can't
> > really hack on Windows. People who just want to compute are on Windows
> > since all they have to do is click on setup and start using.
>
> Now, explain why Linux can't happily service *both* types of users.
> What distribution do you use? Have you played with Ubuntu, for example?
>
provide the level of support that comes with a pre-install of Windows
on, say, an H-P machine. But why bother? Do you think the OEM will
change his price? No. Will the ubuntu machine be able to use the
user's legacy Windows applications? No. The common user would have to
go through some non-zero effort to get back to even with no promise of
any benefit whatsoever and the specter of being hostage to the whimsy
of the OSS amateurs.
Kier
> Ubuhtu could probably service a non-technical user if someone were to
> provide the level of support that comes with a pre-install of Windows
> on, say, an H-P machine. But why bother? Do you think the OEM will
> change his price? No. Will the ubuntu machine be able to use the
> user's legacy Windows applications? No. The common user would have to
> go through some non-zero effort to get back to even with no promise of
> any benefit whatsoever and the specter of being hostage to the whimsy
> of the OSS amateurs.
Calling them amatuers doesn't strengthen your case one bit. All that
matters is how good they are at the what they do. Are the programmers of
Windows any better at their work simpl;y because they get paid to sit at
the Redmond campus?
--
Kier
billwg
Kier wrote:
>
> There's nothing watever ill-starred about Linux.
>
taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; omitted, all the voyage of
their life iIs bound in shallows and in miseries. I think what this
means is that, if you choose linux in lieu of Windows, you are going to
be stuck with wishy-washy apps and miserable fonts the rest of your
life.
billwg
selection process to qualify for such a position, you have been much
more thoroughly vetted than the wannabe that wanders into the typical
OSS project. Look at the lists on sourceforge with an open mind, kier!
They are the epitome of bumbling amateurish effort going nowhere. It
is a vanity press kind of thing, IMO, and not much will ever come of
it.
The litmus test for a good idea has always been to see if anyone will
pay money for it. If a consumer sees a definite benefit, they will be
willing to buy into the idea. If there is no benefit perceptible,
either you haven't managed to show what is there or it really does not
exist. Either way you have some more work to do.
Casting pearls before the swine, as the OSSers seem to favor, doesn't
prove anything about the pearls and only confuses the situation.
Kier
>
> Kier wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 06:16:46 -0700, billwg wrote:
>>
>> > Ubuhtu could probably service a non-technical user if someone were to
>> > provide the level of support that comes with a pre-install of Windows
>> > on, say, an H-P machine. But why bother? Do you think the OEM will
>> > change his price? No. Will the ubuntu machine be able to use the
>> > user's legacy Windows applications? No. The common user would have to
>> > go through some non-zero effort to get back to even with no promise of
>> > any benefit whatsoever and the specter of being hostage to the whimsy
>> > of the OSS amateurs.
>>
>> Calling them amatuers doesn't strengthen your case one bit. All that
>> matters is how good they are at the what they do. Are the programmers of
>> Windows any better at their work simpl;y because they get paid to sit at
>> the Redmond campus?
>>
> I think so, don't you really? After all, if you have been through a
> selection process to qualify for such a position, you have been much
> more thoroughly vetted than the wannabe that wanders into the typical
> OSS project. Look at the lists on sourceforge with an open mind, kier!
Look at any site where free Windows programs are offered. Now *that's*
amateur.
And what makes you think that the developers who work on Ubuntu are simply
wander in off the street. It doesn't work that way. But of course you know
that. You call them wannabes without having the least idea who they are or
what they can really do.
> They are the epitome of bumbling amateurish effort going nowhere. It
> is a vanity press kind of thing, IMO, and not much will ever come of
> it.
There will always be apps that go nowhere. That proves nothing about the
skills of buntu's excellent developers, or indeed OSS programmers in
general.
>
> The litmus test for a good idea has always been to see if anyone will
> pay money for it. If a consumer sees a definite benefit, they will be
In your world, maybe. Buit you are not everyone.
> willing to buy into the idea. If there is no benefit perceptible,
> either you haven't managed to show what is there or it really does not
> exist. Either way you have some more work to do.
>
> Casting pearls before the swine, as the OSSers seem to favor, doesn't
> prove anything about the pearls and only confuses the situation.
As usual, you talk a lot of hot air, and say nothing of value.
--
Kier
Kier
No, this is not what it means in the slightest, you liar.
--
Kier
flatfish+++
> I think so, don't you really? After all, if you have been through a
> selection process to qualify for such a position, you have been much
> more thoroughly vetted than the wannabe that wanders into the typical
> OSS project. Look at the lists on sourceforge with an open mind, kier!
> They are the epitome of bumbling amateurish effort going nowhere. It
> is a vanity press kind of thing, IMO, and not much will ever come of it.
>
> The litmus test for a good idea has always been to see if anyone will
> pay money for it. If a consumer sees a definite benefit, they will be
> willing to buy into the idea. If there is no benefit perceptible,
> either you haven't managed to show what is there or it really does not
> exist. Either way you have some more work to do.
>
> Casting pearls before the swine, as the OSSers seem to favor, doesn't
> prove anything about the pearls and only confuses the situation.
Well said!!!!
Take a look at today's title page from freshmeat.net
WTF?
Would anyone pay money for this crap?
It seems like everyone and his cousin is a wannabe Linux programmer and
spends all kinds of time re-inventing the wheel in order to see their name
in lights.
EJBCA 3.3.0 (Development)
by Tomas Gustavsson - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 05:48 PDT
About: EJBCA is a fully functional Certificate Authority in Java using
J2EE technology. It builds on the J2EE platform to create a robust, high
performance, platform independent, flexible, and component-based CA to be
used standalone or integrated in any J2EE app. EJBCA comes with a flexible
and powerful Web-based admin GUI.
Changes: An external RA API, certificate suspension, a load balancer
health check service, support for subject directory attributes, an
approval mechanism for the internal RA, a framework for user data sources,
support for German in the administration GUI, and many other improvements
were added.
Focus License URLs
Major feature enhancements GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
Homepage Zip Subscribe Ignore Rate
XINS 1.5.0-beta1 (Development)
by Ernst de Haan - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 05:45 PDT
About: XINS is a technology used to define, create, and invoke remote
APIs. XINS is specification-oriented. When API specifications are written
(in XML), XINS will transform them to HTML-based documentation and Java
code for both the client-side and the server-side. The communication is
based on HTTP. XINS competes with the complex SOAP technology. Main design
goals include simplicity, scalability, and testability. XINS is not only a
specification technology, but also an application development framework.
It offers transaction logging, unique log documentation, and active code
generation.
Changes: Support for default values has been implemented, along with the
_list and _set types. JMeter support has been added, and NetBeans
integration has been extended. XIFF, the XINS front-end framework, was
improved further. Some bugs, including JMX-related issues, were resolved.
Categories Focus License URLs
Communications
Internet :: WWW/HTTP
Software Development :: Build Tools Minor feature enhancements BSD
License (revised) Homepage Tar/GZ Changelog Subscribe Ignore Rate Hosted
on SourceForge.net
Generic JavaScript Validator 1.0
by Vikas - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 05:44 PDT
About: Generic JavaScript Validator is a cross-browser JavaScript library
that combines DOM and regular expressions for client-side validation of
forms. It can validate any number of forms on HTML documents. It also
supports user-defined JavaScript functions.
Focus License URLs
Initial freshmeat announcement GNU General Public License (GPL) Homepage
Zip Subscribe Ignore Rate
Klaverjas Score 0.1
by Menno Lodder - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 05:43 PDT
About: Klaverjas Score is a program to keep track of the scores during a
game of klaverjas (a Dutch card game). The program is meant to replace
written score keeping, making accurate score listing much easier. It also
keeps track of previous games. It is very suitable for small groups of
people that play together regularly and that would like to have a record
and comparison of their games.
Categories Focus License URLs
Games/Entertainment Initial freshmeat announcement GNU General Public
License (GPL) Homepage Zip Subscribe Ignore Rate Hosted on
SourceForge.net
AutoScan 0.99_R1
by thierry lagarde - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 05:42 PDT
About: AutoScan is an application designed to explore and manage your
network. Entire subnets can be scanned simultaneously without human
intervention. It features OS detection, automatic network discovery, a
port scanner, a Nessus client, a Samba share browser, and the ability to
save the network state.
Categories Focus License URLs
Security
System :: Networking
System :: Networking :: Monitoring Minor bugfixes GNU General Public
License (GPL) Homepage Tar/GZ Subscribe Ignore Rate
vp-usb-lock 0.2.1
by PeZ2001 - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 05:42 PDT
About: vp-usb-lock is a Linux kernel driver and PAM module that utilizes
the PC wireless USB lock and makes it possible to use it as authentication
method for your Linux box. It is easy to install, but needs access to the
sources of the kernel and PAM to build correctly. It has been tested under
Fedora Core 2 with a custom made 2.6.7-1.494.2.2 kernel, but it should
also work with other kernel versions and distributions.
Changes: A lock daemon was added. A compilation error that was introduced
lately by some changes to the Linux kernel was fixed. Support for kernel
2.4.x versions was added.
Categories Focus License URLs
System :: Operating System
System :: Shells
System :: Systems Administration Minor bugfixes GNU General Public
License (GPL) Homepage Tar/BZ2 Subscribe Ignore Rate
Apache .NET Ant Library 1.0 Beta 1
by Stefan Bodewig - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 05:33 PDT
About: Apache .NET Ant Library is a library of Apache Ant tasks that
support development for the .NET platform. It supports Microsoft's
frameworks as well as Mono. The library contains tasks to run common .NET
development tools like NUnit, NAnt, or MSBuild. In addition, it contains a
task to create Windows MSI installer packages using the WiX toolkit. The
"old" .NET development tasks of Ant's core have found a new home here as
well, and further development of those tasks will happen inside of this
Ant Library.
Categories Focus License URLs
Software Development :: Build Tools
Software Development :: Testing
System :: Software Distribution Initial freshmeat announcement The
Apache License 2.0 Homepage Tar/GZ Subscribe Ignore Rate
SLMotion 1.1
by csgib36 - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 05:31 PDT
About: SLMotion is a program which applies a particular kind of special
effect to video data. The effect first slows down a section of the video
and then speeds up a section immediately afterward.
Changes: A ping pong option was added. If you select this option, when the
video is totally slowed down, the video will go back.
Categories Focus License URLs
Multimedia :: Video Initial freshmeat announcement Free To Use But
Restricted Homepage Tar/GZ Subscribe Ignore Rate
Lybniz 1.2
by sam - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 05:01 PDT
About: Lybniz is a simple desktop graph plotter. It can currently plot
three functions and allows you to navigate the plot. Functions are entered
in Python notation, eg sin(x)/x 2*x**2 + 3*x - 4.
Changes: Colored plotting, automatic scaling, and scale labelling were
added. Rounding error bugs in the drawing code were fixed.
Categories Focus License URLs
Scientific/Engineering :: Mathematics Major feature enhancements BSD
License (revised) Homepage Tar/GZ Changelog Subscribe Ignore Rate Hosted
on SourceForge.net
audio-checker 0.3
by hadji - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 05:01 PDT
About: The aim of auch is to visualize harmonics in musical recordings and
the effect of analog/digital filters on the spectrum. There are plenty of
tools that visualize the spectrum. The difference here is that one or two
octaves can be focused on, so that notes, chords, and harmonics become
clear. Another feature is that this tool is aimed comparing audio out (eg.
a .wav file) with audio in. This way, external filters added between the
audio output and input of your sound card can be studied.
Changes: Code cleanup was done, and several bugs were fixed. This is an
intermediate release, and the Win32 installer was not updated.
Categories Focus License URLs
Education
Multimedia :: Graphics :: 3D Modeling Multimedia :: Sound/Audio ::
Analysis Code cleanup GNU General Public License (GPL) Homepage Tar/GZ
Subscribe Ignore Rate
Rubyforger/visualforge 0.03
by fred - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:56 PDT
About: Rubyforger is a raw packet manipulation tool. It allows you to
easily send, receive, and modify Ethernet, ARP, IP, TCP, UDP, and ICMP
packets. Creating and modifying packets is easily done by adding layers
and changing their parameters. Visualforge is a GUI packet crafter based
on Rubyforger create, send, and receive packets and export the Ruby code
in just a few clicks.
Changes: The GUI was rewritten.
Categories Focus License URLs
Security
System :: Networking Major feature enhancements GNU General Public
License (GPL) Homepage Tar/GZ Subscribe Ignore Rate
C++ Sockets 2.0.8
by Grymse - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:55 PDT
About: C++ Sockets is a C++ wrapper for BSD-style sockets. Its features
include transparent SOCKS4 client support and asynchronous DNS. It
implements the TCP, UDP, ICMP, HTTP (GET, PUT, and POST), and HTTPS (using
OpenSSL) protocols.
Changes: gethostbyname_r is only used if the symbol LINUX is defined. The
sctp protocol is disabled by default. It can be enabled by defining
USE_SCTP. Warnings about GetSocket/handler in connect and disconnect
situations were fixed.
Categories Focus License URLs
Communications
System :: Networking Minor bugfixes GNU General Public License (GPL)
Homepage Tar/GZ Changelog Subscribe Ignore Rate
BuGLe 0.0.20060913
by Bruce Merry - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:54 PDT
About: BuGLe combines a graphical OpenGL debugger with a selection of
filters on the OpenGL command stream. The debugger allows viewing of
state, textures, framebuffers, and shaders, while the filters allow for
logging, error checking, free camera control, video capture, and more.
Changes: Many minor bugfixes and improvements were made, mostly to the GUI
debugger. The GUI debugger has almost achieved feature-parity with the
text debugger (run-time enabling and disabling of filter-sets being one
missing feature).
Categories Focus License URLs
Multimedia :: Graphics
Software Development :: Debuggers
Software Development :: Libraries Minor feature enhancements GNU General
Public License (GPL) Homepage Tar/GZ Changelog Subscribe Ignore Rate
Hosted on SourceForge.net
OpenMONI second
by Paul Sonkoly - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:53 PDT
About: OpenMONI is a semi-transparent on-desktop system monitor for
OpenBSD. It does not require anything additional on a standard OpenBSD
installation (any port or package). It is fully scriptable, and has a
simple, easy-to-understand Lisp-like scripting language (OML). You can
fully control OpenMONI's behaviour and style from OML. OpenMONI comes with
a pack of OML scripts ready to use.
Changes: This version comes with a completely new build process which is
fully modularized. The virtual machine's code has been completely
rewritten and simplified, and the virtual machine became faster and
smaller.
Categories Focus License URLs
Desktop Environment :: Tools
System :: Monitoring Code cleanup BSD License (original) Homepage
Subscribe Ignore Rate Hosted on SourceForge.net
GNU Libidn 0.6.7
by Simon Josefsson - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:50 PDT
About: GNU Libidn is an implementation of the Stringprep, Punycode, and
IDNA specifications defined by the IETF Internationalized Domain Names
(IDN) working group. It is used to prepare internationalized strings (such
as domain name labels, usernames, and passwords) in order to increase the
likelihood that string input and string comparison work in ways that make
sense for typical users throughout the world. The library contains a
generic Stringprep implementation that does Unicode 3.2 NFKC
normalization, mapping and prohibition of characters, and bidirectional
character handling. Profiles for iSCSI, Kerberos 5, Nameprep, SASL, and
XMPP are included. Punycode and ASCII Compatible Encoding (ACE) via IDNA
are supported.
Changes: A build failure of idn-int.h on C99 platforms was fixed. The
manual includes the GPL license for the command-line tools. The function,
variable, and concept index was moved to the end of the manual. The gnulib
files were updated.
Categories Focus License URLs
Internet :: Name Service (DNS)
Software Development :: Libraries
Text Processing Minor bugfixes GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
Homepage Tar/GZ Changelog Subscribe Ignore Rate
AWFFull 3.7.1-beta3
by Steve McInerney - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:48 PDT
About: AWFFull is a Web server log analysis program, forked from
Webalizer. It adds a number of new features and improvements, such as
extended frontpage history, resizable graphs, and a few more pie charts.
Changes: Lots of fixes were made in this release. A nasty segfault was
stopped. Updates were made to the GeoIP usage to stop inadvertant DNS
calls. An issue with GCC compilation was fixed, which can speed processing
by about 13%. The auto log detection was fixed to no longer give
precedence to Domino logs.
Categories Focus License URLs
Internet :: Log Analysis Major bugfixes GNU General Public License (GPL)
Homepage Tar/GZ Subscribe Ignore Rate
PHP Image Manipulation Class 1.0.3
by Stefan Gabos - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:45 PDT
About: PHP Image Manipulation Class can be used to perform several types
of image manipulation operations. It can rescale images to fit in a given
width or height keeping (or not) the original aspect ratio, flip images
horizontally or vertically, and rotate images by a given angle while
filling the empty spaces with a given color. All operations preserve
transparency. The class does all the error checking for the source and
target files. The class supports loading and saving images in the GIF,
JPEG, and PNG formats.
Changes: If invalid sizes were specified for resizing (i.e. string or
negative numbers) the script would crash. Resizing of transparent PNG24
files was not working. Working with PNG files would always make the value
of the "error" property equal to 5, even if everything went well. When
resizing, interpolation was not used and the resulting images were rough.
Resizing was not working correctly in some cases. All of these bugs have
been fixed. The imagecopyresampled() function is now used instead of
imagecopyresized().
Categories Focus License URLs
Software Development :: Libraries :: PHP Classes Major feature
enhancements Free for non-commercial use Homepage Subscribe Ignore Rate
DTC-Xen 0.2.2
by Thomas Goirand - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:38 PDT
About: DTC-Xen is a Xen dom0 application and SOAP server (with
authentication and SSL) through which a Domain Technologie Control (DTC)
Web hosting panel can be connected to manage your VMs. It supports remote
start, shutdown, and destroy of your virtual machines, fsck, and OS
reinstallation (Debian, CentOS, Gentoo, and NetBSD are supported), as well
as SSH login in the physical console (with the ability to remotely change
the SSH password). It also displays CPU and network graphs that can be
used to analyze the performance of your virtual machines.
Changes: This version brings the possibility to do fsck and full
reinstallation of an operating system (Debian, CentOS, NetBSD, or Gentoo).
It also automaticaly changes the default Debian sshd_config to remove port
forwarding, which could be a security issue if running dtc-xen (since
somebody with a login could have access to all the VMs). DTC-Xen is now
production ready, as it has been fully tested and works with both Xen 2
and 3 and on the amd64 architecture. Note that you have to manually fix a
bug in python-soappy if using amd64 to have it fully functional.
Categories Focus License URLs
System :: Monitoring Major feature enhancements GNU Lesser General
Public License (LGPL) Homepage Subscribe Ignore Rate
PHP MIME Mail decoder class 2006.09.12 by Manuel Lemos - Wed, Sep 13th
2006 04:32 PDT
About: PHP MIME Mail decoder class is a PHP class to parse and decode MIME
email messages. It supports decoding single RFC 2822 MIME messages or
archives that aggregate multiple messages in the mbox format. It can
decode messages read from files or data strings. The bodies of multipart
messages can be decoded into distinct sub-messages. Optionally, the
message body data can be saved to separate files, so the class can handle
messages larger than the available memory.
Changes: A bug in the detection of message end when parsing messages from
string data was fixed. A workaround was added to handle messages that do
not have a line break at the end. A unit test script was added to verify
that the class can correctly parse all kinds of messages.
Categories Focus License URLs
Communications :: Email :: Filters
Software Development :: Libraries :: PHP Classes Major bugfixes BSD
License (revised) Homepage Subscribe Ignore Rate
Globaldocs 1.9.1
by Zeev (Vladimir) Belkin - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:25 PDT
About: Globaldocs allows you to conveniently browse multiple Javadoc sets
simultaneously, using a single packages/classes hierarchy tree and a
searchable index. It supports local and remote docsets, including the
local docsets, packed as JAR/ZIP-files.
Changes: A drag & drop bug was fixed. Drag & drop support was added to the
viewer content pane.
Categories Focus License URLs
Internet :: WWW/HTTP :: Browsers
Software Development :: Documentation Utilities Minor feature
enhancements Artistic License Homepage Tar/GZ Changelog Subscribe Ignore
Rate
TimeTrex 1.2.0-beta1
by IpSo - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:24 PDT
About: TimeTrex is a complete Web-based payroll and time management suite
that offers employee scheduling, attendance (time clock), job costing,
invoicing/accounts receivable, and payroll in a tightly integrated
package. With the ability to interface with hardware such as iButtons,
barcode readers, and cell phones, employees are able to efficiently track
their time at the office or on the road. It can automatically calculate
complex over time and premium time business policies, and is immediately
able to identify labor costs attributed to projects by employee, branch,
department, task-type and quantities produced. It can process your payroll
by calculating withholding taxes (US/Canada), generate detailed electronic
pay stubs, and even print paychecks or direct deposit funds.
Changes: This release contains a new reporting engine and greater
flexibility for large installations. It also contains several bugfixes and
the first preparations for MySQL support.
Categories Focus License URLs
Office/Business :: Financial
Office/Business :: Scheduling Major feature enhancements Mozilla Public
License (MPL) Homepage Zip Subscribe Ignore Rate
ufdbGuard 1.9
by UFDB support - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:21 PDT
About: ufdbGuard is a URL filter. The URL filter blocks access to sets of
Web sites on the Internet and is designed to be used with the popular Web
proxy server, Squid. The multithreaded daemon uses a fast algorithm that
does 25,000 URL verifications/sec on an Intel 2.8 GHz CPU.
Changes: A rare message overflow in log function was fixed. Linux 2.2 and
2.4 is now supported correctly. ufdbguardd.pid is used in ufdbUpdate. Some
fatal errors are also logged with syslog(). A new "administrator" keyword
was added for inclusion in error messages. Hostnames are not included
without domainname in uncategorized URLs. The analyse-uncategorised-urls
option is on by default. Sockets are closed with a 2 second linger. The
API was extended for categorization of URLs.
Categories Focus License URLs
Internet :: WWW/HTTP Minor bugfixes GNU General Public License (GPL)
Homepage Tar/GZ Subscribe Ignore Rate
VetTux 3.5
by Ross - Wed, Sep 13th 2006 04:18 PDT
About: VetTux is a modern animal clinic management and POS system. It aims
to provide the veterinarian with a complete solution for running a clinic.
Changes: Cash-Up supports no printing, so it's now possible to print,
process, or email the documents. Searching for a patient by breed and
color is supported.
Categories Focus License URLs
Office/Business Minor feature enhancements Other/Proprietary License
with Free Trial Homepage Changelog Subscribe Ignore Rate
Buddi 1.7.3 (Development)
by Wyatt - Tue, Sep 12th 2006 22:11 PDT
About: Buddi is a simple budgeting program targeted for users with little
or no financial background. It allows users to set up accounts and
categories, record transactions, check spending habits, etc.
Changes: Strong encryption was added to the data files. A limit was added
for overdraft on debit accounts (comparable to a credit limit). Some UI
work was done. Some minor bugs were fixed.
Ray Ingles
> If Linux were a mass-market OS, there would be plenty of people who
> would respond to "run this attachment to get a cool GLX screen saver!"
> emails and the like, turning their machines into spam zombies.
Yes and no. In day-to-day operation on Linux, you just don't *need* to
sudo. Maybe a couple times a week, to install security updates. That's
about it.
So getting an email that suddenly asks for your password (or root's
password) is an unusual event. It sticks out. (Unlike Vista's UAC, from
all reports.) There will be people who will do that anyway, sure - *any*
system that depends on humans will be occasionally unreliable.
But that won't be the common case. The malware writers will have to
settle, in the main, for running as a standard user. This is definitely
not good - you can still send spam in the background, or create
ransomware, etc. - but the operating system itself isn't suborned in
these cases.
This makes malware infections (a) more noticeable and (b) easier to
eliminate. It's a much harsher environment for malware writers than
Windows, where they effectively take over the entire machine. There
still will be malware - I didn't say "no zombies", I very specifically
said "Fewer zombies" - but it won't be the epidemic we're currently
seeing.
There is still room for improvement in Linux desktop security, too. I
think Ubuntu's current sudo window is *way* too long (15 minutes? I have
mine set to 1 minute, and I might close that 'window' completely in the
future), for example. But as it stands it's orders of magnitude better
than Windows.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The man scarce lives who is not more credulous than he ought to be...
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and
experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it
enough." - Adam Smith
JEDIDIAH
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:07:45 +0000, Konan wrote:
>
>> Here's another dude who has written on the same topic, but in a much more
>> polished article.
>>
>> http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=15811
>>
>
> Interesting article. Not sure I believe everything he says, but there's
> certainly a core of truth there. Making Linux fit for everyone's desktop
> would involve making it into another kind of Windows. That's not really
Nah. It just requires turning it into anotehr kind of MacOS.
[deletia]
Windows is nothing special in the usability department and never
has been. I just happens to be the successor to MS-DOS that won
the market by being considered the "safe bet" early on.
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
JEDIDIAH
> Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> writes:
>
>> On 2006-09-12, Konan <no...@outhouse.com> wrote:
>>> Anyone who wants to be a techie, hacker, geek (fill in the blank) is
>>> probably already on Linux, or Unix or whatever because you can't
>>> really hack on Windows. People who just want to compute are on Windows
>>> since all they have to do is click on setup and start using.
>>
>> Now, explain why Linux can't happily service *both* types of users.
>> What distribution do you use? Have you played with Ubuntu, for
>> example?
>
> I have. And do. And I have spent more time at the command line compiling,
> modprob'ing etc etc etc than I care to think.
>
> It took me 2 months to get smtp-send-maill to work from Gnus for fex sake!
You're trying to use emacs as an OS and then complain about Linux
arcana. Get real...
Ray Ingles
> It took me 2 months to get smtp-send-maill to work from Gnus for fex sake!
How many of the 'newbie' users we're discussing here are going to want
to use Gnus (the newsreader extension to Emacs)? Seriously?
For people who want a text-only newsreader built into an editor, Gnus
is there, and for all I know it's that hard to set up. But most people
are going to want a graphical one like Knews, Thunderbird, or even xrn.
If people want text-only, there's nn, pine, slrn, etc.
Like I said, why *can't* Linux happily server both newbies and advanced
technical users? In the worst case, we might have 'newbie' distributions
and 'technical' ones, but I don't see even that as necessary.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need
to do so, most people get busy on the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith
Ray Ingles
>> Now, explain why Linux can't happily service *both* types of users.
>> What distribution do you use? Have you played with Ubuntu, for example?
>>
> Ubuhtu
(Do you *really* think you're fooling anyone with your pretended
inability to capitalize 'Linux' or spell 'Ubuntu' - particularly when
it's right there in front of you? All it does is make you look petulant
and childish. If you want that, okay, but it seems counterproductive...)
> could probably service a non-technical user if someone were to
> provide the level of support that comes with a pre-install of Windows
> on, say, an H-P machine. But why bother? Do you think the OEM will
> change his price? No.
Why not? Computer purchasing is *extremely* price-sensitive (look at
sites like Pricegrabber.com and Froogle, etc.) and being able to cut the
price by even a few dollars is a big incentive. Windows costs the OEM,
say, $70. They can charge $35 less and still make $35 extra profit on
each unit.
[Snip the rest of his claims that have been dealt with before.]
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"There is not a single state in the U.S. where medical malpractice
OR health insurance premiums have come down by $0.01 since the
introduction of any tort 'reform' measure." - Webhund
Ray Ingles
> selection process to qualify for such a position, you have been much
> more thoroughly vetted than the wannabe that wanders into the typical
> OSS project.
Please describe, in detail, the experience and expertise you have that
allows you to make any pronouncements about "the typical OSS project".
Which ones have you audited, contributed to, evaluated, developed with
or for, or otherwise interacted with in any way?
If you were correct that open-source projects are written by
'amateurs', can you explain why all evaluations of open-source vs.
closed-source software have found lower defect density and fewer bugs
than in commercial code written to do the same tasks?
E.g. here:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985221.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/03/open_source_safety_report/
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~bart/fuzz/fuzz.html
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Men often believe - or pretend - that the "Law" is something
sacred, or at least a science - an unfounded assumption very
convenient to governments." - Robert Heinlein
Rick
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 06:43:44 -0700, billwg wrote:
>
>
>> I think so, don't you really? After all, if you have been through a
>> selection process to qualify for such a position, you have been much
>> more thoroughly vetted than the wannabe that wanders into the typical
>> OSS project. Look at the lists on sourceforge with an open mind, kier!
>> They are the epitome of bumbling amateurish effort going nowhere. It
>> is a vanity press kind of thing, IMO, and not much will ever come of it.
>>
>> The litmus test for a good idea has always been to see if anyone will
>> pay money for it. If a consumer sees a definite benefit, they will be
>> willing to buy into the idea. If there is no benefit perceptible,
>> either you haven't managed to show what is there or it really does not
>> exist. Either way you have some more work to do.
>>
>> Casting pearls before the swine, as the OSSers seem to favor, doesn't
>> prove anything about the pearls and only confuses the situation.
>
>
> Well said!!!!
>
> Take a look at today's title page from freshmeat.net
>
> WTF?
>
> Would anyone pay money for this crap?
>
> It seems like everyone and his cousin is a wannabe Linux programmer and
> spends all kinds of time re-inventing the wheel in order to see their name
> in lights.
>
Yup... PCLinuxOS sure sucks, doesn't it? Well, flatty, maybe you should
write textsar and tell him how amateurish you think he is.
(snip)
--
Rick
Rick
... and you are wrong, as usual.
--
Rick
Kier
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 06:43:44 -0700, billwg wrote:
>
>
>> I think so, don't you really? After all, if you have been through a
>> selection process to qualify for such a position, you have been much
>> more thoroughly vetted than the wannabe that wanders into the typical
>> OSS project. Look at the lists on sourceforge with an open mind, kier!
>> They are the epitome of bumbling amateurish effort going nowhere. It
>> is a vanity press kind of thing, IMO, and not much will ever come of it.
>>
>> The litmus test for a good idea has always been to see if anyone will
>> pay money for it. If a consumer sees a definite benefit, they will be
>> willing to buy into the idea. If there is no benefit perceptible,
>> either you haven't managed to show what is there or it really does not
>> exist. Either way you have some more work to do.
>>
>> Casting pearls before the swine, as the OSSers seem to favor, doesn't
>> prove anything about the pearls and only confuses the situation.
>
>
> Well said!!!!
>
> Take a look at today's title page from freshmeat.net
>
> WTF?
>
> Would anyone pay money for this crap?
>
> It seems like everyone and his cousin is a wannabe Linux programmer and
> spends all kinds of time re-inventing the wheel in order to see their name
> in lights.
<snip>
And this prick wants us to think he is a Linux advocate? Sheesh!
--
Kier
flatfish+++
> Like I said, why *can't* Linux happily server both newbies and advanced
> technical users? In the worst case, we might have 'newbie' distributions
> and 'technical' ones, but I don't see even that as necessary.
Because then the *nix elitists who have no function in life other than
their perceived superiority over us peon normal users won't have a
purpose in life.
People like Shysterwitch and Kent would be out of business.
That's why they scream and rant at distributions like freespire etc that
make things easy for the users.
Kind of like the iceman did when refrigeration was invented.
Ray Ingles
>> and develops faster the *more* widespread it is. The user of Linux
>
> What do you mean by develops faster?
Um, gets more programs and more features for programs and better polish
and more support and so forth?
> Q : you have a killer app idea. You want to aim it at "Linux" (inverted
> commas on purpose) - what API will you use for this app? You want to
> integrate it with the desktop. Which desktop or Window Manager?
All of them: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/
> But, its ridiculous when so called "advocacy" turns into "windows is
> shit" and "linux is perfect". It makes the whole cause look like, well,
> ridiculous.
I'm sorry, I won't do it again. Oh, wait, I've never done that. Why do
you keep berating *me* for things you yourself say *other* people do?
> I *want* Linux to work : but this whole "choice" thing ties its shoes
> together at the whistle.
Bull. It's entirely possible to offer a good, complete, useful
out-of-the box environment while still allowing choice and flexibility.
> Linux is great : but there are many failings
You haven't listed that many. And of the ones you have that I've seen,
all are being addressed.
> A good example are lunatics like Köhlmann and Rick proclaiming that
> administering a stable desktop doesnt require the commandline
It doesn't for the average user. *Installing* a desktop *can* require
the command line, I agree. Note: it's not any more complicated than
installing Windows (indeed, it's a good deal *less* complicated) but
yes, it can require using the cli.
*Administration* is entirely different. Installing new software?
Updates and patches? All can be done via GUI tools.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Science is not a religion. If it were, it would have a lot more
funding." - Anonymous
Kier
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:21:25 -0400, Ray Ingles wrote:
>
>
>> Like I said, why *can't* Linux happily server both newbies and advanced
>> technical users? In the worst case, we might have 'newbie' distributions
>> and 'technical' ones, but I don't see even that as necessary.
>
> Because then the *nix elitists who have no function in life other than
> their perceived superiority over us peon normal users won't have a
> purpose in life.
Bullshit liar.
>
> People like Shysterwitch and Kent would be out of business.
What business do you claim they're in, liar?
> That's why they scream and rant at distributions like freespire etc that
> make things easy for the users.
A large number of Linux advocates and users seem to dislike
Linspire/Freespire. Why? Because they perceive it as trying to be too much
like Windows, and with the same faults. Personally, I don't see that
there's anything much wrong with either distro, but it would never be my
choice to use it.
I don't recall Mark or Roy talking much about it at all. But if you're
allowed to scram and rant about SUSE, they can criticise Linspire.
--
Kier
Oliver Wong
sendmail]
"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:PmONg.12702$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> I don't do anything to install the latest Sendmail. Gentoo installs it for
> me. It get the md5 sum from my trusted portage sync server then gets the
> download from my ISP's Gentoo distribution Mirror.
>
> It downloads, compiles and installs automatically 3 times a week, keeping
> my
> machine up to date.
>
> Run a proper distribution and it will automatically keep your machine tidy
> and new.
FYI, MD5 might not be very secure.
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/patches/article.php/3446071
<quote>
"This is an excellent vector for malicious developers to get unsafe code
past a group of auditors, perhaps to acquire a required third-party
signature," Kaminsky wrote. "Alternatively, build tools themselves could be
compromised to embed safe versions of dangerous payloads in each build. At
some later point, the embedded payload could be safely 'activated' without
the MD5 changing."
[...]
"The attacks are not wildly practical, and in most cases exposure remains
thankfully limited for now," Kaminsky wrote. "But the risks are real enough
that responsible engineers should take note. This is not merely an academic
threat; systems designed with MD5 now need to take far more care than they
would if they were employing an unbroken hashing algorithm, and the problems
are only going to get worse."
</quote>
I'd recommend manually approving updates to your machine (this is what I
do on Windows), but take with a grain of salt, as I don't know much about
Linux.
- Oliver
Oliver Wong
"yttrx" <yt...@yttrx.net> wrote in message
news:6oTNg.25$vv2...@fe66.usenetserver.com...
> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Want to install latest "sendmail"? Heres what you do:
>>
>> ftp it down
>>
>> ./config
>> make
>> sudo make install
>>
>> Now, that last line could effectively fuck your system up badly. It
>> doesnt take a genius to realise that many fools would get an email from
>> "root@sendmail" telling them to install the latest "patch" ....
>>
>
> No, that last line cant effectively fuck your system badly, dingus. You
> still have to TURN IT IN AND SET IT TO START ON BOOT AFTER YOU DO THAT.
I think Hadron is implying that the makefile might be trojan. Not
familiar with the makefile language, so I don't know what is possible or
what isn't, but presumably overwriting files or deleting files is possible.
If you study the makefile before running it, you're a bit safe, but I
imagine most people don't bother to read the makefile before running it. And
if you "only get from a trusted source", note my comment on MD5 to Gregory
Shearman elsewhere in this thread.
- Oliver
Oliver Wong
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <slrnegdqff....@localhost.localdomain>,
>> Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>> But there are indirect effects as well. Fewer zombies to propagate
>>> spam. Lower hardware costs as OEMs stop paying a Windows tax. Innovation
>
>> would respond to "run this attachment to get a cool GLX screen saver!"
>> emails and the like, turning their machines into spam zombies.
>
>
> To do any real damage the program would need administrator/root
> priviledges.
Deleting all my files is a form of "real damage", and to do that, you
only need the same priviledges as I do.
But in the context of Tim Smith's suggestion, I thought non-root users
could still listen on ports above 1024. And non-root users can send e-mail.
Taken together, this means a non-root user can be a vector for a
remote-controlled spam producing machine.
- Oliver
Ray Ingles
>> To do any real damage the program would need administrator/root
>> priviledges.
>
> Deleting all my files is a form of "real damage", and to do that, you
> only need the same priviledges as I do.
Correct, and I pointed out already that 'ransomware' (encrypt a user's
files and demand money in exchange for the key to decrypt them) is
entirely possible with user privileges.
> Taken together, this means a non-root user can be a vector for a
> remote-controlled spam producing machine.
Yes, but without root access this can't be concealed anywhere near as
effectively, and is cleaned up far more easily.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
One of the real motives for the invasion of Iraq was to give the
world a demonstration of American power. It's a measure of how
badly things have gone that now we're told we can't leave because
that would be a demonstration of American weakness. - Paul Krugman
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> A large number of Linux advocates and users seem to dislike
> Linspire/Freespire. Why? Because they perceive it as trying to be too much
> like Windows, and with the same faults. Personally, I don't see that
> there's anything much wrong with either distro, but it would never be my
> choice to use it.
>
> I don't recall Mark or Roy talking much about it at all. But if you're
> allowed to scram and rant about SUSE, they can criticise Linspire.
because they support patent encumbered and DRMish closed source
components in order to provide popular multi-media features right out of
the box. Personally, I am not so bothered. I don't particularly like
DRM or the current patent mess, but I see no problem with using open
source Linux as a platform for closed source applications... as long as
the customer knows what they are buying and what the limitations are. I
am equally unphased when Oracle sells a linux box with their database
software already bundled on it. Ultimately, it's the customer's choice.
If a vendor tries to mimic Microsoft to closely and drags along too
many faults... well, the marketplace will sort that out and that
distribution will not catch on. Ultimately, the chaotic darwinism of
the open source 'ecosystem' will assure that the good distributions
rise to the top.
Later,
Thad
Ray Ingles
>> Like I said, why *can't* Linux happily server both newbies and advanced
>> technical users? In the worst case, we might have 'newbie' distributions
>> and 'technical' ones, but I don't see even that as necessary.
> That's why they scream and rant at distributions like freespire etc that
> make things easy for the users.
Um... no. There are only two major objections I've seen to Freespire.
The first is running everything as root, which is objectively stupid,
and *deserves* criticism. The second is the payment structure of "Click
and Run", and I can see reasons for that. I, for example, wouldn't
bother. I haven't seen *anyone* object to Freespire for making things
"easy". Can you point out an example?
Conversely, I've seen nothing but praise here for how easy modern
distributions are for people to install and use - Ubuntu, SLED,
PCLinuxOS, etc. If you were right, all of these distros would be
horribly reviled, and I don't see Linux advocates doing that. Again, can
you point to an example?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The Nevada Supreme Court has said police may plant tracking
devices on or underneath people's cars without a search
warrant." - http://www.politechbot.com/p-03452.html
Kier
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> A large number of Linux advocates and users seem to dislike
>> Linspire/Freespire. Why? Because they perceive it as trying to be too much
>> like Windows, and with the same faults. Personally, I don't see that
>> there's anything much wrong with either distro, but it would never be my
>> choice to use it.
>>
>> I don't recall Mark or Roy talking much about it at all. But if you're
>> allowed to scram and rant about SUSE, they can criticise Linspire.
>
> PJ of groklaw.net had a rant against Linspire on her blog a while back
> because they support patent encumbered and DRMish closed source
> components in order to provide popular multi-media features right out of
> the box. Personally, I am not so bothered. I don't particularly like
> DRM or the current patent mess, but I see no problem with using open
> source Linux as a platform for closed source applications... as long as
> the customer knows what they are buying and what the limitations are. I
> am equally unphased when Oracle sells a linux box with their database
> software already bundled on it. Ultimately, it's the customer's choice.
Exactly. And while the Linspire/Freespire choice may not suit advocates,
it obviously suits the customers who buy/download it. I don't know just
how popular is is compared to say, Ubuntu.
> If a vendor tries to mimic Microsoft to closely and drags along too
> many faults... well, the marketplace will sort that out and that
> distribution will not catch on. Ultimately, the chaotic darwinism of
> the open source 'ecosystem' will assure that the good distributions
> rise to the top.
Agreed. After all, who would have predicted Ubuntu's swift rise to the
top? Removing that free-for-all choice might have stifled it at birth.
--
Kier
billwg
Kier wrote:
> >
> > The litmus test for a good idea has always been to see if anyone will
> > pay money for it. If a consumer sees a definite benefit, they will be
>
> In your world, maybe. Buit you are not everyone.
>
they are interested in working on and get paid well. Even run of the
mill developers can develop things that interest them and still get
paid well. Who would choose to not be paid when they can do the same
thing and be paid, too? I'm sure there are some such folk about, but
they are odd balls and there is no escape from that notion.
What you are left with are the shrinking violets who may have an
emotional desire to do software development, but lack the credentials
and/or ability to present themselves as such. They flock to the OSS
projects because beggars can't be as discriminating in their range of
choices as the commercial projects.
To date, I will admit that a some of the contributors to OSS are simply
socially inept professional developers who don't have any real life
outside of writing code. They go home from their day job and write
code all night for some project. But as linux starts to eat up the
unix system money, these guys find themselves with less and less of an
opportunity during the day due to their self-destructive activities at
night. There are some sort of laws of developer thermodynamics at work
here causing what was once a sweet deal to degrade into chaos.
Kier
>
> Kier wrote:
>> >
>> > The litmus test for a good idea has always been to see if anyone will
>> > pay money for it. If a consumer sees a definite benefit, they will be
>>
>> In your world, maybe. Buit you are not everyone.
>>
> Well, kier, be realistic. Talented developers can develop things that
> they are interested in working on and get paid well. Even run of the
> mill developers can develop things that interest them and still get
> paid well. Who would choose to not be paid when they can do the same
> thing and be paid, too? I'm sure there are some such folk about, but
> they are odd balls and there is no escape from that notion.
Yes, there is, because you are simply lying.
>
> What you are left with are the shrinking violets who may have an
> emotional desire to do software development, but lack the credentials
> and/or ability to present themselves as such. They flock to the OSS
> projects because beggars can't be as discriminating in their range of
> choices as the commercial projects.
Again, you're using slander to make your arguement, because you have
nothing else.
>
> To date, I will admit that a some of the contributors to OSS are simply
> socially inept professional developers who don't have any real life
Some, perhaps, but that is true of any walk of life. Don't make the
mistake of assuming they're all like that.
> outside of writing code. They go home from their day job and write
> code all night for some project. But as linux starts to eat up the
> unix system money, these guys find themselves with less and less of an
> opportunity during the day due to their self-destructive activities at
> night. There are some sort of laws of developer thermodynamics at work
> here causing what was once a sweet deal to degrade into chaos.
What is self-destructive about writing code for an outside project? Why do
you assume, dishonestly, that the code so produced will be inferior? This
dishonest smearing of developers is just one of the reasons why you're
considered a troll here.
--
Kier
Ray Ingles
> thing and be paid, too?
Perhaps they are already being paid to do one thing. They want to do
something else, too, but don't want or need the overhead of setting up a
business to commercialize it.
Perhaps they really want a particular feature to be in a particular
application that they already use. It's not one that would appeal to
everyone but it's something useful to some, and they have the knowledge
to develop it. They can contribute it to the application and reap the
benefits of the feature, and they don't have to go to the extra effort
of keeping their patch in sync with later releases. (This applies to
bugfixes as well.)
Perhaps they want to encourage contributions and extra development, the
way OSS demonstrably does. They can make a closed-source app and derive
some monetary recompense for it, at the expense of spending their own
time fleshing out all of the features, performing or paying for
marketing, managing licenses, etc. Or they can encourage collaboration
with other interested developers and conserve their development time for
more pecuniary endeavors. Simple cost-benefit, risk-reward evaluation,
really.
I've put out two minor open-source applications and submitted a driver
to the Linux kernel. All three of these motivations applied. In
addition, they provided me with money and career opportunities I would
not otherwise have had.
> But as linux starts to eat up the unix system money
It's earning its own money, thank you very much. Linux revenue is
growing very nicely (more than 1/3 of Window's server revenue, over $1.5
billion per quarter) and that can pay for a lot of development. Besides
which, the vast majority of development is *not* code for sale, it's for
in-house code, and those jobs don't go away regardless of what OS or
applications are in vogue.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out
of the weapons provided for defence against real, pretended, or
imaginary dangers from abroad." -- James Madison
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
> Well, kier, be realistic. Talented developers can develop things that
> they are interested in working on and get paid well. Even run of the
> mill developers can develop things that interest them and still get
> paid well. Who would choose to not be paid when they can do the same
> thing and be paid, too? I'm sure there are some such folk about, but
> they are odd balls and there is no escape from that notion.
Hmmmm. Judging by sourceforge and the volume of traffic on some of
the dev lists I subscribe to... there are a lot of those 'odd balls'
about. Should we be frightened? >:)
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
> To date, I will admit that a some of the contributors to OSS are simply
> socially inept professional developers who don't have any real life
> outside of writing code. They go home from their day job and write
> code all night for some project. But as linux starts to eat up the
> unix system money, these guys find themselves with less and less of an
> opportunity during the day due to their self-destructive activities at
> night. There are some sort of laws of developer thermodynamics at work
> here causing what was once a sweet deal to degrade into chaos.
development jobs. A browsing of dice.com seems to reinforce this bizarre
phenomenon. The very foundations of reality must be coming unglued! :-o
Later,
Thad
Gregory Shearman
> [Context: Hadron gives an example of installing a trojan masquerading as
> sendmail]
>
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:PmONg.12702$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>> I don't do anything to install the latest Sendmail. Gentoo installs it
>> for me. It get the md5 sum from my trusted portage sync server then gets
>> the download from my ISP's Gentoo distribution Mirror.
>>
>> It downloads, compiles and installs automatically 3 times a week, keeping
>> my
>> machine up to date.
>>
>> Run a proper distribution and it will automatically keep your machine
>> tidy and new.
>
> FYI, MD5 might not be very secure.
>
> http://www.esecurityplanet.com/patches/article.php/3446071
> <quote>
> "This is an excellent vector for malicious developers to get unsafe code
> past a group of auditors, perhaps to acquire a required third-party
> signature," Kaminsky wrote. "Alternatively, build tools themselves could
> be compromised to embed safe versions of dangerous payloads in each build.
> At some later point, the embedded payload could be safely 'activated'
> without the MD5 changing."
So, for example, a malicious developer presents code to be included in
Gentoo portage... the source... BTW... this source gets past the auditors
and the testers and finds it's way into the stable portage.
I suppose it COULD happen... but that "malicious developer" would then be
tarred and feathered and shoved up a drainpipe. You could not do such a
thing anonymously.
md5 prevents source / binaries being altered by SOMEONE ELSE...
Malicious developers could also do the same within the Windows closed
source ...ie leave backdoors etc... and there would be far less auditing of
the source.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"
Au79
He's considered a troll at home too, I'm told.
--
....................
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
billwg
Ray Ingles wrote:
>
> I've put out two minor open-source applications and submitted a driver
> to the Linux kernel. All three of these motivations applied. In
> addition, they provided me with money and career opportunities I would
> not otherwise have had.
>
Why would that be true?
> > But as linux starts to eat up the unix system money
>
> It's earning its own money, thank you very much. Linux revenue is
> growing very nicely (more than 1/3 of Window's server revenue, over $1.5
> billion per quarter) and that can pay for a lot of development. Besides
> which, the vast majority of development is *not* code for sale, it's for
> in-house code, and those jobs don't go away regardless of what OS or
> applications are in vogue.
>
I don't think you are thinking very clearly, ray! Linux server
revenues, which are mostly based on the hardware prices, are that high,
but linux software revenues are in the toilet compared to unix or
Windows. The linux server suppliers are not paying in-house developers
at all, just farming the problem out to RHAT and NOVL who get their
development for next to free from the dumb smucks who play in that
game. A lot of them were once unix developers during the day and are
now able to devote a lot more time to linux.
Ray Ingles
> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> I've put out two minor open-source applications and submitted a driver
>> to the Linux kernel. All three of these motivations applied. In
>> addition, they provided me with money and career opportunities I would
>> not otherwise have had.
>>
> Why would that be true?
Why are you asking again?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/776e4041a285e67a
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f3030fc4016f19c7
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0bb6bccfa730d2aa
>> It's earning its own money, thank you very much. Linux revenue is
>> growing very nicely (more than 1/3 of Window's server revenue, over $1.5
>> billion per quarter) and that can pay for a lot of development.
> I don't think you are thinking very clearly, ray! Linux server
> revenues, which are mostly based on the hardware prices
Can you support this assertion with any evidence?
>> Besides which, the vast majority of development is *not* code for
>> sale, it's for in-house code, and those jobs don't go away regardless of
>> what OS or applications are in vogue.
> The linux server suppliers are not paying in-house developers
> at all
Not true, but that wasn't what I was talking about anyway. I was very
specifically talking about code "*not*... for sale" (the words are right
there, 9 lines up, I'll wait here while you go read them) and this forms
over 90% of the coding jobs out there.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/82af1f9d3d970675
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"I say we scrap the current Social Security system and replace
it with a system wherein you add your name to the bottom of a
list, and then you send some money to the person at the top of
the list, and then you... Oh, wait, that IS our current system."
- Dave Barry
billwg
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2006-09-14, billwg <bi...@magnoliaplantation.net> wrote:
> > Ray Ingles wrote:
> >> I've put out two minor open-source applications and submitted a driver
> >> to the Linux kernel. All three of these motivations applied. In
> >> addition, they provided me with money and career opportunities I would
> >> not otherwise have had.
> >>
> > Why would that be true?
>
> Why are you asking again?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/776e4041a285e67a
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f3030fc4016f19c7
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0bb6bccfa730d2aa
>
of lame to me. Your efforts were rewarded because you consequently
qualified for participation in one of the IPO frenzies of the .COM era?
That is pretty much out of the picture these days, ray, and not likely
to inspire any more contributors. Besides, if you made a bunch on
LNUX, didn't you have to violate the anti-flipping pledge that was part
of that deal?
If you are going to obtain a "career opportunity" as a software
engineer at a conventional software company or even as an in-houseboy
at companies that still try to roll their own, the best thing to have
is some good academic credentials, for entry levels, or academics and
pertinent work experience at another conventional software company for
more senior positions. Wannabe experience is only good at wannabe
companies or for technician jobs not requiring the academic background.
> >> It's earning its own money, thank you very much. Linux revenue is
> >> growing very nicely (more than 1/3 of Window's server revenue, over $1.5
> >> billion per quarter) and that can pay for a lot of development.
>
> > I don't think you are thinking very clearly, ray! Linux server
> > revenues, which are mostly based on the hardware prices
>
> Can you support this assertion with any evidence?
>
Are you suggesting that linux server pricing is a function of the
software costs?
> >> Besides which, the vast majority of development is *not* code for
> >> sale, it's for in-house code, and those jobs don't go away regardless of
> >> what OS or applications are in vogue.
>
Not a very good business to be in, ray. I know. If a company sells
product software that you are the developer for, you are seen as a
corporate asset and cherished and rewarded to the extent that your
works brings a profit. That can be quite a lot of reward if you are in
at the start. There are thousands of multi-millionaires who were at
Microsoft in the 90's along with several billionaires.
If you are an in-house software developer, you are seen as an expense
and are always on the bubble, subject to the whiles and whimsy of the
bean counters who, given a lower cost choice, will gleefully toss you
out on the street. Perot Systems and EDS are famous for coming in and
cleaning out these in-house rat's nests of local yokel programmers.
Systems jobs with companies that sell these services are much more
stable, but they are still limited by the natural need to control the
system company's direct cost of sales, i.e. your salary and benefits.
They are selling engineering by the pound and their profits have to
come out of your hide.
The best business to be a part of is product software sales where the
leverage is in finding customers who can benefit from your work over
and again and are willing to pay for the benefits received rather than
just paying labor costs for service.
> > The linux server suppliers are not paying in-house developers
> > at all
>
> Not true, but that wasn't what I was talking about anyway. I was very
> specifically talking about code "*not*... for sale" (the words are right
> there, 9 lines up, I'll wait here while you go read them) and this forms
> over 90% of the coding jobs out there.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/82af1f9d3d970675
>
Well, ray, if you are devotee of that idiot, then there is little hope
for you! LOL!!!
Stallman is hardly in touch with the real world.
Ray Ingles
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/776e4041a285e67a
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f3030fc4016f19c7
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0bb6bccfa730d2aa
>>
> I'd forgotten about this little anecdote, ray, but it still seems kind
> of lame to me. Your efforts were rewarded because you consequently
> qualified for participation in one of the IPO frenzies of the .COM era?
That's only one route. There are others:
"Consider Teodor Danciu. Three years ago the Romanian coder wrote
JasperReports, a business analytics program that several hundred
thousand companies have downloaded. He was updating it on nights and
weekends when its popularity became too much for him to handle. So he
sold to a Silicon Valley startup, which renamed itself JasperSoft Corp.
and hired him as part of the deal. He says it was the perfect
opportunity for him to do what he loves: working on the code full-time
while making money. Meanwhile, the business arm can invest more
resources in support and training than he could on his own."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_11/b3975100.htm
> didn't you have to violate the anti-flipping pledge that was part
> of that deal?
Um... no. The "anti-flipping" applied to people who *worked* at the
company. And I still own 20 shares or so. They aren't worth so much now,
but I'm happy with what I made.
> If you are going to obtain a "career opportunity" as a software
> engineer at a conventional software company or even as an in-houseboy
> at companies that still try to roll their own, the best thing to have
> is some good academic credentials, for entry levels, or academics and
> pertinent work experience at another conventional software company for
> more senior positions.
Where did I say that was the *only* desiriable item for employment? For
a few people like Teodor above, it's enough. But even for others... lots
of people have the credentials and so forth you mention, too. Working on
open source is a wonderful resume differentiator, and it allows
potential employers to see actual examples of your code - not usually
possible with the code you write for another company.
If your code is good, that's a plus. If your code is bad, well, I can
understand why you'd want to hide it.
> Are you suggesting that linux server pricing is a function of the
> software costs?
Are you suggesting that software costs aren't relevant in the server
world?
>> >> Besides which, the vast majority of development is *not* code for
>> >> sale, it's for in-house code, and those jobs don't go away regardless of
>> >> what OS or applications are in vogue.
>>
> Not a very good business to be in, ray. I know.
Not that you seem to actually support that with the slightest bit of
evidence. You're very good at unsupported assertions, though.
> There are thousands of multi-millionaires who were at
> Microsoft in the 90's along with several billionaires.
There are also plenty of multi-millionaires that won the Lotto. But I
wouldn't suggest that as your retirement plan. Anyway, as the case of
Teodor shows, open-source programmers can get into that area if they
want.
> If you are an in-house software developer, you are seen as an expense
Only in a limited sense - most of that software is vitally necessary
for the business and without it, profit cannot be made at all. I'm sure
Pepsi spends a fair amount of money on water so they can flavor it, but
they aren't going to switch to ammonia or something. And rewards are
allocated in that sphere, too, y'know.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/82af1f9d3d970675
>>
> Well, ray, if you are devotee of that idiot, then there is little hope
> for you! LOL!!!
>
> Stallman is hardly in touch with the real world.
Even if you were right about that... I wasn't referencing Stallman. For
someone who claims such broad business and technical knowledge, your
typing skill and reading comprehension are remarkably weak.
Not only that, all you have to offer here is ad hominem. You don't make
even a token effort to dispute the point, you just call the author (whom
you don't even properly identify) an 'idiot'. Even if the charge were
true (and you offer no support whatsoever of this, even if you were
insulting the correct author) that wouldn't mean the point itself was
invalid.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need
to do so, most people get busy on the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith
billwg
Ray Ingles wrote:
>
> That's only one route. There are others:
>
> "Consider Teodor Danciu.
>
catches on can cash it in and have a sweet time doing what they like to
do. That's not particularly on topic here. This isn't a way to just
get a job, even a good job. And it can be done even easier without
tying up your company with a lot of GPL stuff.
>
> > If you are going to obtain a "career opportunity" as a software
> > engineer at a conventional software company or even as an in-houseboy
> > at companies that still try to roll their own, the best thing to have
> > is some good academic credentials, for entry levels, or academics and
> > pertinent work experience at another conventional software company for
> > more senior positions.
>
> Where did I say that was the *only* desiriable item for employment? For
> a few people like Teodor above, it's enough. But even for others... lots
> of people have the credentials and so forth you mention, too. Working on
> open source is a wonderful resume differentiator, and it allows
> potential employers to see actual examples of your code - not usually
> possible with the code you write for another company.
>
> If your code is good, that's a plus. If your code is bad, well, I can
> understand why you'd want to hide it.
>
your pedigree and experience record and interview you personally and
decide if you look like a solid hire. Then you get canned in 90 days
if you're bogus.
> > Are you suggesting that linux server pricing is a function of the
> > software costs?
>
> Are you suggesting that software costs aren't relevant in the server
> world?
>
Well you were trying int imply that the the 1.5B of revenue for linux
servers was cash available to pay the linux dweebs, but there is none
of that money going that way.
> >> >> Besides which, the vast majority of development is *not* code for
> >> >> sale, it's for in-house code, and those jobs don't go away regardless of
> >> >> what OS or applications are in vogue.
> >>
> > Not a very good business to be in, ray. I know.
>
> Not that you seem to actually support that with the slightest bit of
> evidence. You're very good at unsupported assertions, though.
>
It's called "argument", silly. Maybe if you have no answer you can try
to belittle it with your labels, but I don't think that is much more
than whistling past the graveyard.
> > There are thousands of multi-millionaires who were at
> > Microsoft in the 90's along with several billionaires.
>
> There are also plenty of multi-millionaires that won the Lotto. But I
> wouldn't suggest that as your retirement plan. Anyway, as the case of
> Teodor shows, open-source programmers can get into that area if they
> want.
>
I don't think "want" has anything to do with the OSS opportunities,
ray. At MSFT, you could be a working stiff and get a couple of mil
after a few years. That wasn't the only place either.
> > If you are an in-house software developer, you are seen as an expense
>
> Only in a limited sense - most of that software is vitally necessary
> for the business and without it, profit cannot be made at all.
Well, ray, if some company gains an edge in the market because of
something that their in-housers come up with, they are not going to be
tossing it into the common weal anyway. I.e. this is not OSS software
in the current sense.
> Pepsi spends a fair amount of money on water so they can flavor it, but
> they aren't going to switch to ammonia or something. And rewards are
> allocated in that sphere, too, y'know.
>
Totally specious argument, ray. Pepsi buys their water from somewhere,
I bet. They don't have any wells.
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/82af1f9d3d970675
> >>
> > Well, ray, if you are devotee of that idiot, then there is little hope
> > for you! LOL!!!
> >
> > Stallman is hardly in touch with the real world.
>
> Even if you were right about that... I wasn't referencing Stallman. For
> someone who claims such broad business and technical knowledge, your
> typing skill and reading comprehension are remarkably weak.
>
Well, they all blend into the same background, ray, I'm hardly a fan of
Raymond either.
> Not only that, all you have to offer here is ad hominem. You don't make
> even a token effort to dispute the point, you just call the author (whom
> you don't even properly identify) an 'idiot'. Even if the charge were
> true (and you offer no support whatsoever of this, even if you were
> insulting the correct author) that wouldn't mean the point itself was
> invalid.
>
The whole thing is just as much of an "unsupported assertion" as
anything I have ever proposed, too. Raymond offers no "proof" either,
just a colorful analogy that you dweebs seem to love.
If I were to do an ad hominem on Raymond, I would mention his
pronouncements that blacks are genetically inferior and that he favors
exterminating the Islamic peoples to put an end to terrorist
activities. He's kind of a nut along with whatever other credentials
he might have. For that matter, he seems to have been fooling around
with LNUX, too.
Are you guys in cahoots?
Ray Ingles
> Heck, ray, "consider Bill Gates...". Anyone with a great idea that
> catches on can cash it in and have a sweet time doing what they like to
> do.
And the GPL doesn't interfere with that. Look at the companies making
money off GPL software.
Granted, they don't make *monopoly* levels of profits. But frankly, it
looks like monopolies are starting to go extinct in the software area.
>> If your code is good, that's a plus. If your code is bad, well, I can
>> understand why you'd want to hide it.
>>
> Nobody looks at code, ray.
Funny, the people who have employed me have. Paid off for them, too -
you should try it.
>> Are you suggesting that software costs aren't relevant in the server
>> world?
>>
> Well you were trying int imply that the the 1.5B of revenue for linux
> servers was cash available to pay the linux dweebs, but there is none
> of that money going that way.
Sure, some of it is. It doesn't even have to be a large percentage -
even 1% is $60 million a year - but you don't seriously think the OS is
only 1% of the cost of a Linux server, do you? You'd be as naive as you
accuse me of being...
>> > Not a very good business to be in, ray. I know.
>>
>> Not that you seem to actually support that with the slightest bit of
>> evidence. You're very good at unsupported assertions, though.
> It's called "argument", silly.
Anyone else flash to Monty Python?
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements
intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
> At MSFT, you could be a working stiff and get a couple of mil
> after a few years. That wasn't the only place either.
Let's see. I and thousands of others made tens of thousands of dollars
each from the stock market from our OSS endeavors, and you say that's
past and can't ever happen again. Then you bring up a few dozen MS
millionaires? Gee, who's living in the past?
>> Only in a limited sense - most of that software is vitally necessary
>> for the business and without it, profit cannot be made at all.
>
> Well, ray, if some company gains an edge in the market because of
> something that their in-housers come up with, they are not going to be
> tossing it into the common weal anyway.
Actually, quite a few companies are open-sourcing their useful
software. It's not a profit center for them, per se, though it can be
very important for their business. With open-source, they can benefit
from improvements made by others while preventing competitors from
gaining any unfair advantage.
>> Pepsi spends a fair amount of money on water so they can flavor it, but
>> they aren't going to switch to ammonia or something. And rewards are
>> allocated in that sphere, too, y'know.
>>
> Totally specious argument, ray. Pepsi buys their water from somewhere,
> I bet. They don't have any wells.
Exactly, the water's a necessary expense for their business, and the
water suppliers are not going to go hungry. Most in-house software is
exactly like that.
>> Even if the charge were true (and you offer no support whatsoever of
>> this, even if you were insulting the correct author) that wouldn't
>> mean the point itself was invalid.
>>
> The whole thing is just as much of an "unsupported assertion"
Did you actually look at the want ads as he suggests? Have you done any
surveys of the proportion of software for sale vs. software for use in
the industry? He's offered actual evidence (as I linked to) but if it's
so false, it should be easy for you to shoot down, right?
> If I were to do an ad hominem on Raymond, I would mention his
> pronouncements that blacks are genetically inferior
Um, no. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=142
> and that he favors exterminating the Islamic peoples to put an end to
> terrorist activities.
And clearly not. He's down on *Islam*, sure, and he's written plenty
against it. (I personally agree; I'd like to see the end of *all*
religion. But not by force, and ESR hasn't advocated that either.) I'll
mail you a check for $50 if you can find writings where he's advocated
anything *like* "exterminating the Islamic peoples". Go ahead, get
digging.
Now, even if you were right... why would that automatically mean that
his argument and evidence regarding the proportion of development jobs
would be mistaken?
The fact that I avoid ad-hominem is the only reason you get any
responses from me. You are objectively snide and deceitful, but, well,
see my .sig...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Before impugning an opponent's motives, even when they legitimately
may be impugned, answer his arguments." - Sydney Hook
billwg
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2006 14:56:05 -0700, billwg <bi...@magnoliaplantation.net> wrote:
> > Heck, ray, "consider Bill Gates...". Anyone with a great idea that
> > catches on can cash it in and have a sweet time doing what they like to
> > do.
>
> And the GPL doesn't interfere with that. Look at the companies making
> money off GPL software.
>
over the life of the products.
> Granted, they don't make *monopoly* levels of profits. But frankly, it
> looks like monopolies are starting to go extinct in the software area.
>
You can wish and pray, ray, as I said before, the rumor is that it
worked for Tinker Bell. It could work for linux about the same way.
> >> If your code is good, that's a plus. If your code is bad, well, I can
> >> understand why you'd want to hide it.
> >>
> > Nobody looks at code, ray.
>
> Funny, the people who have employed me have. Paid off for them, too -
> you should try it.
>
You say. Do you work for a company on a long term basis or for
"people" who need some work done on spot projects?
> >> Are you suggesting that software costs aren't relevant in the server
> >> world?
> >>
> > Well you were trying int imply that the the 1.5B of revenue for linux
> > servers was cash available to pay the linux dweebs, but there is none
> > of that money going that way.
>
> Sure, some of it is. It doesn't even have to be a large percentage -
> even 1% is $60 million a year - but you don't seriously think the OS is
> only 1% of the cost of a Linux server, do you? You'd be as naive as you
> accuse me of being...
>
Well, ray, you don't need to infer anything. Just read the disclosures
from Red Hat and Novell. That is pretty much the whole enchilada. Not
much of a boon to the developers if you look at how much cash they
actually get.
> >> > Not a very good business to be in, ray. I know.
> >>
> >> Not that you seem to actually support that with the slightest bit of
> >> evidence. You're very good at unsupported assertions, though.
>
> > It's called "argument", silly.
>
> Anyone else flash to Monty Python?
>
> M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
> A: It can be.
> M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements
> intended to establish a proposition.
> A: No it isn't.
> M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
> A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
> M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
> A: Yes it is!
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
>
> > At MSFT, you could be a working stiff and get a couple of mil
> > after a few years. That wasn't the only place either.
>
> Let's see. I and thousands of others made tens of thousands of dollars
> each from the stock market from our OSS endeavors, and you say that's
> past and can't ever happen again. Then you bring up a few dozen MS
> millionaires? Gee, who's living in the past?
>
A lot more than a few dozen, ray. There were a couple of thousand
people in that happy circumstance at our place alone and we are tiny
compared to Mr. Softee.
> >> Only in a limited sense - most of that software is vitally necessary
> >> for the business and without it, profit cannot be made at all.
> >
> > Well, ray, if some company gains an edge in the market because of
> > something that their in-housers come up with, they are not going to be
> > tossing it into the common weal anyway.
>
> Actually, quite a few companies are open-sourcing their useful
> software. It's not a profit center for them, per se, though it can be
> very important for their business. With open-source, they can benefit
> from improvements made by others while preventing competitors from
> gaining any unfair advantage.
>
Baloney. They can prevent competitors from gaining an advantage by
keeping them in the dark a lot easier. An unfair competitor isn't
going to give you anything back anyway.
> >> Pepsi spends a fair amount of money on water so they can flavor it, but
> >> they aren't going to switch to ammonia or something. And rewards are
> >> allocated in that sphere, too, y'know.
> >>
> > Totally specious argument, ray. Pepsi buys their water from somewhere,
> > I bet. They don't have any wells.
>
> Exactly, the water's a necessary expense for their business, and the
> water suppliers are not going to go hungry. Most in-house software is
> exactly like that.
>
You are confused as to the analogy, ray. Water is needed, sure.
Software is needed, sure. Pepsi buys their water, they don't keep
their own wells. The majority of commercial companies buy their
software from an outsider, they don't develop very much in-house. They
may develop some specialty item that is crucial to their LOB
administration, and they will certainly not leak that out to the world.
And that kind of software is not the OSS pap that you are talking
about in any case.
> >> Even if the charge were true (and you offer no support whatsoever of
> >> this, even if you were insulting the correct author) that wouldn't
> >> mean the point itself was invalid.
> >>
> > The whole thing is just as much of an "unsupported assertion"
>
> Did you actually look at the want ads as he suggests? Have you done any
> surveys of the proportion of software for sale vs. software for use in
> the industry? He's offered actual evidence (as I linked to) but if it's
> so false, it should be easy for you to shoot down, right?
>
> > If I were to do an ad hominem on Raymond, I would mention his
> > pronouncements that blacks are genetically inferior
>
> Um, no. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=142
>
Well, maybe I was too hasty, ray. He is only saying that they are
genetically stupid. White men can't jump, but that is not necessarily
inferior and being genetically stupid is just another characteristic.
I'm sure Jesse will forgive him.
> > and that he favors exterminating the Islamic peoples to put an end to
> > terrorist activities.
>
> And clearly not. He's down on *Islam*, sure, and he's written plenty
> against it. (I personally agree; I'd like to see the end of *all*
> religion. But not by force, and ESR hasn't advocated that either.) I'll
> mail you a check for $50 if you can find writings where he's advocated
> anything *like* "exterminating the Islamic peoples". Go ahead, get
> digging.
>
Well, ray, you can soft-pedal all you want, but things like:
"I've been warning since 2002 that the West really is in a war to
defend civilization against Islamic barbarians, and had better face up
to that fact before the consequences of whitewashing Islam as a
"religion of peace" get worse."
don't sound like he is espousing peaceful coexistence. What part of
"barbarians" or "war" don't you understand? I think he's a nut. You
look kind of silly defending that.
> Now, even if you were right... why would that automatically mean that
> his argument and evidence regarding the proportion of development jobs
> would be mistaken?
>
As I pointed out, I am not using that argument. I only called him an
idiot and you are the one that seems to think that is ad hominem. I
left out the really ugly part and only mentioned it as a reply to your
claim.
Linonut
> Granted, they don't make *monopoly* levels of profits. But frankly, it
> looks like monopolies are starting to go extinct in the software area.
Not yet, Ray, not yet.
--
MCSE. Must Consult Someone Else.
Ray Ingles
>> Look at the companies making money off GPL software.
>>
> They are not making very much money, ray, and they are still negative
> over the life of the products.
Trolltech, JBoss, MySQL, RedHat, et. al. are making tens to hundreds of
millions of dollars per year, and you have the gall to say that? Please
present evidence for your claim that all of the above are 'negative over
the life of the products'.
> You can wish and pray, ray
Or I could read financials.
>> Funny, the people who have employed me have. Paid off for them, too -
>> you should try it.
>>
> You say. Do you work for a company on a long term basis
Yup. Pretty well recompensed, too.
> Well, ray, you don't need to infer anything. Just read the disclosures
> from Red Hat and Novell. That is pretty much the whole enchilada.
Um... no, but even there they're making tens of millions per quarter
and growing with high double digit percentages.
> A lot more than a few dozen, ray. There were a couple of thousand
> people in that happy circumstance at our place alone and we are tiny
> compared to Mr. Softee.
Like I said, who's living in the past? Were you one of those
millionaires? If so, why are you still working there?
>> Actually, quite a few companies are open-sourcing their useful
>> software.
> Baloney.
How many examples would it take to convince you? Give me a number...
> The majority of commercial companies buy their
> software from an outsider, they don't develop very much in-house.
But... but... I thought that OpenOffice didn't stand a chance because
so many operations had such critical business logic coded up in VBA?
> "I've been warning since 2002 that the West really is in a war to
> defend civilization against Islamic barbarians
> don't sound like he is espousing peaceful coexistence.
There's a difference between "in a war" and "exterminate". There were
some trials in Nuremberg over that, remember? If you want to discuss
ESR's *non-Linux* positions further, take it to email. (I know you know
how to find my address.) You misrepresent his positions the way you do
that of the Linux advocates here, but only the latter is relevant to
this group.
> As I pointed out, I am not using that argument. I only called him an
> idiot and you are the one that seems to think that is ad hominem.
"Gee, I ignored the actual content of the statement, sure, but I didn't
insult him as badly as I wanted so it wasn't ad hominem!"
Thanks for the laugh, that was really precious!
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles sorce...@gmail.com
"These modern kids don't know the simple joy of saving four bytes of
page-0 memory on a 6502 box." - isomeme
billwg
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2006 20:21:18 -0700, billwg <bi...@magnoliaplantation.net> wrote:
> >> Look at the companies making money off GPL software.
> >>
> > They are not making very much money, ray, and they are still negative
> > over the life of the products.
>
> Trolltech, JBoss, MySQL, RedHat, et. al. are making tens to hundreds of
> millions of dollars per year, and you have the gall to say that? Please
> present evidence for your claim that all of the above are 'negative over
> the life of the products'.
>
> > You can wish and pray, ray
>
> Or I could read financials.
>
LOL!!!
If you bother to go to the RHAT site, you can find archives of their
10Ks going back to 2000. The FY2K report has prior years back to 1997.
To summarize RHAT:
lost $54M aggregate from their start to the end of FY2000.
lost $107M in FY2001
lost $140M in FY 2002
lost $7M in FY 2003
made $14M in FY2004
made $45M in FY2005'
made $80M in FY2006
Now that puts them some $170M or so in the hole to-date, ray, but maybe
you can read something different with your eagle eye.
Didn't RHAT buy JBoss recently?
>
> > A lot more than a few dozen, ray. There were a couple of thousand
> > people in that happy circumstance at our place alone and we are tiny
> > compared to Mr. Softee.
>
> Like I said, who's living in the past? Were you one of those
> millionaires? If so, why are you still working there?
>
A million bucks doesn't go as far as it used to, ray. For one thing
you owe the IRS around $350K for each mil you pull down. And if you
quit working alltogether, you have to make what's left generate
something that looks like an annual salary plus fringes and benefits,
which is tough to do, even with a couple of million working for you.
Any money that you put into equity in a house isn't doing much of a
job either, unless you sell the house, but then you have to find
somewhere equally snazzy to live and end up paying a lot more.
> >> Actually, quite a few companies are open-sourcing their useful
> >> software.
>
> > Baloney.
>
> How many examples would it take to convince you? Give me a number...
>
Well start with just one meaningful example, ray. The company has to
be developing software in-house that is crucial to its business success
and yet is handing it out to the world as open source.
Now don't come up with some hand waving crap where IBM or somebody gave
away a file system or two. IBM is trying to poison the well for the
rest of its unix competitors, sort of trying to cut off their air
supply. Their efforts are a whole lot like MS giving away browsers and
media players.
> > The majority of commercial companies buy their
> > software from an outsider, they don't develop very much in-house.
>
> But... but... I thought that OpenOffice didn't stand a chance because
> so many operations had such critical business logic coded up in VBA?
>
I never said they did it themselves, ray! Where do you get these
ideas? They buy these systems from the horde of consultants out there.
The consultant army might use Java, might use .NET, might use a lot of
OSS products, even. Any old port in a storm and anything for a buck is
their motto. But VBA and MS Office were heavy hitters in years gone by
and companies are still using parts if not all of these purchased
systems.
I did it myself for a couple of years before going back to the big
company mode.
> > "I've been warning since 2002 that the West really is in a war to
> > defend civilization against Islamic barbarians
>
> > don't sound like he is espousing peaceful coexistence.
>
> There's a difference between "in a war" and "exterminate". There were
> some trials in Nuremberg over that, remember? If you want to discuss
> ESR's *non-Linux* positions further, take it to email. (I know you know
> how to find my address.) You misrepresent his positions the way you do
> that of the Linux advocates here, but only the latter is relevant to
> this group.
>
Oh, ray, you are splitting hairs and you know it. ESR is a loony and
Stallman is a pompous ass. Linus himself seems to be a sweet, humble
sort and he has done wonders. But he doesn't need the audacity, he has
the formal eductation, at least.
> > As I pointed out, I am not using that argument. I only called him an
> > idiot and you are the one that seems to think that is ad hominem.
>
> "Gee, I ignored the actual content of the statement, sure, but I didn't
> insult him as badly as I wanted so it wasn't ad hominem!"
>
> Thanks for the laugh, that was really precious!
>
I'm sure you didn't really mean that, but I understand. If my side had
so many flakes and nuts, I would be touchy, too.
Ray Ingles
> lost $54M aggregate from their start to the end of FY2000.
> lost $107M in FY2001 lost $140M in FY 2002 lost $7M in FY 2003
> made $14M in FY2004 made $45M in FY2005 made $80M in FY2006
>
> Now that puts them some $170M or so in the hole to-date, ray, but maybe
> you can read something different with your eagle eye.
Good show. Now present evidence for the other three. BTW, what do you
think of that trend line? Can you tell me what they are on track to make
this FY?
> A million bucks doesn't go as far as it used to, ray.
Uh-huh.
>> How many examples would it take to convince you? Give me a number...
>>
> Well start with just one meaningful example, ray. The company has to
> be developing software in-house that is crucial to its business success
> and yet is handing it out to the world as open source.
Um... that's not what I said. I said "useful", not "crucial to its
business success". Companies don't tend to open-source that stuff if
it's developed in-house, that's true. They open-source other things that
they find useful but that are not central to their business. (How many
examples do you want of that?)
What's far more common, particularly these days, is for companies to
*build* something based on open-source that becomes central to their
business. Tiny companies like, e.g., Google.
> IBM is trying to poison the well for the rest of its unix competitors
Um... they are making plenty of money off of Linux.
>> But... but... I thought that OpenOffice didn't stand a chance because
>> so many operations had such critical business logic coded up in VBA?
>>
> I never said they did it themselves, ray! Where do you get these
> ideas? They buy these systems from the horde of consultants out there.
No, no, many companies not in IT have IT departements, and they
actually have programmers on the payroll.
(Oh, and BTW:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VBA
...don't expect VBA to be a stumbling block, even a minor one, for
long.)
>> "Gee, I ignored the actual content of the statement, sure, but I didn't
>> insult him as badly as I wanted so it wasn't ad hominem!"
> I'm sure you didn't really mean that, but I understand. If my side had
> so many flakes and nuts, I would be touchy, too.
Better be careful with that ad-hominem bit. It'll get dull from
overuse. Actually, it already has.
Are you ever actually going to address the point - that by far the vast
majority of programming jobs do *not* involve programs for sale, and so
your worries about profit (which are already invalid anyway) are
entirely beside the point?
billwg
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2006 17:24:53 -0700, billwg <bi...@magnoliaplantation.net> wrote:
> > lost $54M aggregate from their start to the end of FY2000.
> > lost $107M in FY2001 lost $140M in FY 2002 lost $7M in FY 2003
> > made $14M in FY2004 made $45M in FY2005 made $80M in FY2006
> >
> > Now that puts them some $170M or so in the hole to-date, ray, but maybe
> > you can read something different with your eagle eye.
>
> Good show. Now present evidence for the other three. BTW, what do you
> think of that trend line? Can you tell me what they are on track to make
> this FY?
>
margin and is the pure play for selling support for an OSS product.
JBoss is apparently gonzo as an independent concern and is wholely
owned by RHAT. Plus, linux is kind of a one-trick pony for OSS. Who's
making money off anything else?
Trolltech ASA says they are listed, but E-Trade can't find it, so I
can't buy any shares. It looks like a minor player tools company and
in any event is developing software for commercial sale. MySQL
develops theirs for commercial sale, too. The fact that they will give
away a light version of their bread and butter is no different from MS
giving away the Express editions of Visual Studio and SQL Server. Free
trial sample marketing.
>
> >> How many examples would it take to convince you? Give me a number...
> >>
> > Well start with just one meaningful example, ray. The company has to
> > be developing software in-house that is crucial to its business success
> > and yet is handing it out to the world as open source.
>
> Um... that's not what I said. I said "useful", not "crucial to its
> business success". Companies don't tend to open-source that stuff if
> it's developed in-house, that's true. They open-source other things that
> they find useful but that are not central to their business. (How many
> examples do you want of that?)
You are proposing to find examples of companies giving away stuff that
has no value to them as proof of what? If the software they develop
in-house gives them a perceptible advantage in their own product
markets, it is not being handed out. Period.
>
> What's far more common, particularly these days, is for companies to
> *build* something based on open-source that becomes central to their
> business. Tiny companies like, e.g., Google.
>
I don't know that Google's software is one bit "based" on anything open
source, ray. It runs, I understand, on linux, but that is far from
"based". Google's stuff is based on their own proprietary technology.
> > IBM is trying to poison the well for the rest of its unix competitors
>
> Um... they are making plenty of money off of Linux.
>
> >> But... but... I thought that OpenOffice didn't stand a chance because
> >> so many operations had such critical business logic coded up in VBA?
> >>
> > I never said they did it themselves, ray! Where do you get these
> > ideas? They buy these systems from the horde of consultants out there.
>
> No, no, many companies not in IT have IT departements, and they
> actually have programmers on the payroll.
>
My experience is that there are very few of them compared to the
companies that they buy software from. I spent 15 years selling
manufacturing system control and data acquisition software to the likes
of GM, Ford, Caterpillar, General Dynamics, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing,
and a hundred others and the only persons who could remotely be classed
as software engineers were writing the purchase specs. We were a minor
player in this business, which was dominated by IBM, EDS, and Perot
Systems. Also DEC before their demise.
>>
> Are you ever actually going to address the point - that by far the vast
> majority of programming jobs do *not* involve programs for sale, and so
> your worries about profit (which are already invalid anyway) are
> entirely beside the point?
>
Well, ray, I have addressed the point. You merely point to something
that someone else has asserted without any substantiation and claim
that as proof of the opposite.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> lost $54M aggregate from their start to the end of FY2000.
> lost $107M in FY2001
> lost $140M in FY 2002
> lost $7M in FY 2003
> made $14M in FY2004
> made $45M in FY2005'
> made $80M in FY2006
>
> Now that puts them some $170M or so in the hole to-date, ray, but maybe
> you can read something different with your eagle eye.
You do realize of course that most business or products take several
years to become profitable, right? You do realize that this shows
increasing profits for the last three years, don't you?
Really now, by your measure, XBox is an abysmal failure for not
generating profits right out of the gate (it is still not
profitable BTW).
Later,
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>>
>> No, no, many companies not in IT have IT departements, and they
>> actually have programmers on the payroll.
>>
> My experience is that there are very few of them compared to the
> companies that they buy software from. I spent 15 years selling
> manufacturing system control and data acquisition software to the likes
> of GM, Ford, Caterpillar, General Dynamics, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing,
> and a hundred others and the only persons who could remotely be classed
> as software engineers were writing the purchase specs. We were a minor
> player in this business, which was dominated by IBM, EDS, and Perot
> Systems. Also DEC before their demise.
Actually, there are surveys galore that show that most software
development is custom work and not for general resale. That certainly
matches with my experience. I've done my share of work on embedded
projects that were resold, but the rest of my work has been
implementation of internal business logic.
Take a look at this report:
http://ebusiness.mit.edu/research/papers/178_Cusumano_Intl_Comp.pdf
A few years old but very comprehensive and still pertinent. It shows
that most software falls into the custom or semi-custom category. Less
than one quarter falls into the application category that most consumers
think of when you mention software, and even less falls into the system
and embedded space. The Enterprise market dwarfs all other categories,
which is hardly a surprise to me as that is still where most of my
business comes from. On a related note, the enterprise market continues
to be where Linux enjoys its strongest growth.
The take away here is that most software development is custom
development work for big enterprise clients and not the final-form
shrinkwrap stuff that gets the most attention in the press.
Cheers,
Thad Phetteplace
billwg
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
>
> The take away here is that most software development is custom
> development work for big enterprise clients and not the final-form
> shrinkwrap stuff that gets the most attention in the press.
>
from somebody and do not develop it in-house, which was the original
bone of contention. Those who sell custom development software as a
service, for example IBM, EDS, or Perot, along with a huge number of
"consultants", are not likely to give anything away, either because it
dilutes their own stock in trade or because their output is a work for
hire and the customer is not likely to disclose it either.
billwg
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
> billwg <bi...@magnoliaplantation.net> wrote:
> >
> > lost $54M aggregate from their start to the end of FY2000.
> > lost $107M in FY2001
> > lost $140M in FY 2002
> > lost $7M in FY 2003
> > made $14M in FY2004
> > made $45M in FY2005'
> > made $80M in FY2006
> >
> > Now that puts them some $170M or so in the hole to-date, ray, but maybe
> > you can read something different with your eagle eye.
>
> You do realize of course that most business or products take several
> years to become profitable, right? You do realize that this shows
> increasing profits for the last three years, don't you?
>
Ray said that GPL software companies were making a lot of money and I
pooh-poohed that, saying that they were not making all that much money
and had yet to fill in for the losses that they have created to date.
Now the results at Red Hat, taken over a decade of Red Hat operations
shows that clearly. Their profits, even today, are still chump change
compared to those at Microsoft, Symantec, Oracle, CA, IBM, and the many
others who have built businesses on proprietary software sales.
> Really now, by your measure, XBox is an abysmal failure for not
> generating profits right out of the gate (it is still not
> profitable BTW).
>
Nowhere did I say failure, thad. Merely that OSS-based business wasn't
very exciting and that it was mired in the muck. XBox has never made a
profit at all and has cumulatively lost a fair amount of money, some
$400+ million in the last year alone according to the SEC filings by
Microsoft. Whether it was a good decision or a bad decision to get
into that business can be argued all day long, but it has nothing to do
with OSS vs proprietary products.
Tim Smith
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote:
> Actually, there are surveys galore that show that most software
> development is custom work and not for general resale. That certainly
> matches with my experience. I've done my share of work on embedded
> projects that were resold, but the rest of my work has been implementation
> of internal business logic.
Another way to see this is to note the popularity of Java. Java is almost a
no-show in the world of software for resale, but it is one of the most
widely used languages, with plenty of Java jobs available.
--
--Tim Smith