digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]

digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/)
-   Computers (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/computers/)
-   -   Linux distributions - Where to download, where to buy. (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/computers/5649-linux-distributions-download.html)

japie 09-20-2003 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
ReiserFS is excelent, but I'm not sure it will ever reach the performance of XFS. It wasn't designed the same way, and it's still fairly new, compared to XFS.

At the moment I've build my systems, XFS kernel support wasn't that stable as ReiserFS, on my following system XFS will be the default :) (special since reiser and samba together is a slow combo)
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
There is a loose (VERY loose) coupling between all OS binaries in Linux, because there's no one center source tree (except for the kernel).
snip/snap
This is the main complaint in the industry about linux, and this will probably never be corrected, because of the "non-centralized" development nature of Linux.

The linux world is pretty split up, but since projects as LSB I beleive that's a good start. (altough time has to prove that, linux is anarchy (I love anarchy))
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
If you look at "Darwin", you'll see that Apple has contributed almost everything they have created (and modified) back to Open Source. So the BSDs are actually integrating things that Apple has done for their core OS.

I doubt if there was a lot to modify ;-)
But they also contributed to the kde-project via konqueror, but what I meant was that taking the fact they used a complete existing os, they "payed back" with only some modifications to the things they used, without adding an extra value (unless in there own advantage). In my opinion apple got the best end of the "deal". (and under linux I still don't have a real quicktime)
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
Only Apple's propietary things (AQUA, IB, etc. ) won't make it to the public, for obvious competitive edge reasons.

If an open source product like bsd allready lived on for somany years without silently intergrating in microsoft os, I doubt that if Aqua etc. where opensource they would find there way into redmond too. (yust an example company, don't sue me Bill)
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
It's clearly stated on the license, unless your modifications are for internal company use. If you modify anything, then you must release "the modified sources" to the world.

That doesn't mean they have to be on-line, months agoo I contacted gnu to ask some questions about lindows (I was a bit pissed of because I couldnt download the thing legaly) As long as you use unmodified gpl software, mentioning the use and version of that piece is enough, the source is available somewhere, the user (lindows) doesn't have to spread it themself.
In case of modifications THEY have to provide the sources to that, but that doesn't mean they have to put it open like on a public ftp site. It is alowed to provide the source after asking for it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
It's simple. You modify a GNU source, and you make "hooks" in the sources to call "your" propietary sources. Now what happens: Your application compiles, and you distribute it. You give out the modified sources but you don't have you give out "your" sources (that's clearly specified in the license). Now the sources are crippled, because nobody can compile them

Yes thats possible, but who wanna do that?
There is no benefit, you end up with something that works, on that moment, with that version you used to adapt. No one other than you will ever use it, and everytime you start using another version of what you adapted will require adapting it again! If that's still possible, since the original developers have no intention to keep it usefull to you, and maybe will block your chance of adapting it again (by acsident or not)
No company will take that risk...
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
Yes, and for G5s, Yellowdog Linux is the BEST right now :D
No wonder the US Navy bought a bunch of Apple servers, and is installing YellowDog on them :cool:
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/news/2003-08-06.shtml

-kwag

That prooves ones more that the only thing they do in the army is playing, or else they used another os ;-)

kwag 09-20-2003 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by japie
The linux world is pretty split up, but since projects as LSB I beleive that's a good start.

You bet it is :!: :D
Quote:

(altough time has to prove that, linux is anarchy (I love anarchy))
:lol:
Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
It's simple. You modify a GNU source, and you make "hooks" in the sources to call "your" propietary sources. Now what happens: Your application compiles, and you distribute it. You give out the modified sources but you don't have you give out "your" sources (that's clearly specified in the license). Now the sources are crippled, because nobody can compile them

Yes thats possible, but who wanna do that?
Anyone who wants to take propietary advantage of GNU sources, and doesn't want easy competition ;)
Quote:

There is no benefit, you end up with something that works, on that moment, with that version you used to adapt. No one other than you will ever use it, and everytime you start using another version of what you adapted will require adapting it again!
Not necessarily :!:
You can use the original sources as the basic building blocks, and build on that, with no need to ever see the original developer's code.
As a true example, "MovieStacker". It was originally ( and a lot of the core is still ) based on FitCD. But it was released with "hooks" as I described above, so that it would be maintained by muaddib, the developer. If muaddib would have released all his sources, then other developers could have taken that code and either make another free better version ( good for all ), or do what muaddib did, and start selling it ( like the original developer of FitCD did, which now requires purchasing). That's where BSD license really shines, because there are no "strings" attached :). I'm pretty sure the developer of FitCD didn't like a bit when he tried to compile the sources of MovieStacker, and found out that he couldn't because of missing modules :!:
But it's perfectly legal, because muaddib followed the GNU license, and released the modified sources, but not his modules. So if someone really wants to release free code, then make it "Free" as in free, and not GNU.
Quote:

If that's still possible, since the original developers have no intention to keep it usefull to you, and maybe will block your chance of adapting it again (by acsident or not)
No company will take that risk...
As above. you can build on the original building block, and leverage against the competition. That's why my personal choice has always been the BSD license, just because of that. I can share it, modify it, or do whatever I want with it, as long as I leave the credits on the sources and credits on my target application. For commercial developers, this is priceless :D
Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
Yes, and for G5s, Yellowdog Linux is the BEST right now :D
No wonder the US Navy bought a bunch of Apple servers, and is installing YellowDog on them :cool:
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/news/2003-08-06.shtml

-kwag

That prooves ones more that the only thing they do in the army is playing, or else they used another os ;-)
:lol:
Yes. Their sonar system will now run on Linux, but their guided missiles are probably controlled by embedded BSDs :mrgreen:

-kwag

japie 09-22-2003 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
As a true example, "MovieStacker". It was originally ( and a lot of the core is still ) based on FitCD.

Now I understand what you ment. I was more thinking in things like a web or mailserver wich is evolving every month. (but it's still possible then, as you discribed)
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
For commercial developers, this is priceless :D

For people like Stallman it's a nightmare ;)
But I stop fighting now, I think we shown allready enough how splitup the unix world is with our little flame fight, lets hug now :)

kwag 09-22-2003 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by japie
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
For commercial developers, this is priceless :D

For people like Stallman it's a nightmare ;)

Well, he's another (hippie) story :mrgreen:
Quote:

But I stop fighting now, I think we shown allready enough how splitup the unix world is with our little flame fight, lets hug now :)
Not at all :!:
This is not a fight. It's actually a very good discussion, with different points of view :D
We've shown that both BSDs and Linux are excelent, with different licenses.
So they both can be mixed and matched, depending on the situation.
I use them both, and I'm VERY happy with both ;)

-kwag

japie 09-22-2003 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:

Originally Posted by japie
lets hug now :)

Not at all :!:

No hug? :(
Actualy you have shown me a view I didn't see before (or maybe unwilling to see?) and story's like moviestacker are a nice learning experience.
But that the unix world is split up is a fact (unfortunatly), there are a whole bunch off professional unix flavours, different linux distro's and a couple off bsd versions around wich are in some sort off way compatible but it will take another couple of decades before they have enough uniformaty to beat the redmont giant. The step from Apple to adopt bsd as base is nice, but if I compare the price of a powermac/osX to i386/M$ that won't change much by the big public. (Maybe os-X for i386 could change that)
But if a "standard" windows user is reading our previous treath, he's probebly so scared to get lost in a bush he won't try unix for the next 20 years or so... :)

kwag 09-22-2003 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by japie
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:

Originally Posted by japie
lets hug now :)

Not at all :!:

No hug? :(

Shake hands :?: :lol:
Quote:

but it will take another couple of decades before they have enough uniformaty to beat the redmont giant.
I hope it doesn't take that long :!: :lol:
Quote:

(Maybe os-X for i386 could change that)
The problem is that Steve Jobs doesn't want OS X on any other platform. He's too jealous with his hardware :!:
It would be GREAT to have OS X on Intel. That would make a big dent on M$ for sure :!:
Quote:

But if a "standard" windows user is reading our previous treath, he's probebly so scared to get lost in a bush he won't try unix for the next 20 years or so... :)
:hihi: That's possible. But then again, this thread might give them some hints as to what's available out there, and they can venture into new horizons :idea: ;)

-kwag

rhino 09-22-2003 03:05 PM

Quote:

Quote:

But if a "standard" windows user is reading our previous treath, he's probebly so scared to get lost in a bush he won't try *nix for the next 20 years or so... icon_smile.gif
hihi.gif That's possible. But then again, this thread might give them some hints as to what's available out there, and they can venture into new horizons icon_idea.gif icon_wink.gif
To the average windows based used, *nix will always be a programmers, geeks, <insert your own description> operating system and therefore to use it, you need to be one on the list.

When things work in *nix, then the average windows user could work quite happily in the windowed world of Gnome, KDE or whatever you want. When things go wrong, the quickest fix and generally the only fix is to bring up your favourite terminal or drop down to console mode and fix the problem.

OS X may have gone a long way to address this, but then you still bring in the choice of hardware and and who has created it.

Cheers,

totonho03 09-24-2003 04:41 PM

This is for the folks not familiar with linux (like myself, and even then I do not understand it that much), but it has excellent tips

http://www.geocities.com/tipsforlinux/index-linux.html

Totonho03


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 PM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd

Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.