the ubuntu developers pissed me off when they decided to patch the kernel to prevent any access to /dev/kmem, /dev/mem, and /proc/kcore. use to be able to grab dumps out of those devices to retrieve files after an application had crashed...but not any more... they hacked the code so even root is denied access...
Skryking
if you are going to be that type of stuff you don't need to be using ubuntu in the first place. most advanced users would be more off with debian or if you are really into linux, slackware!
ubuntu is the best thing linux has going for it. It isn't ready for mainstream yet, but at the rate it is going it could be very soon. Device detection and support is getting pretty good... not perfect... but better than it was on any other distro a year ago
Feal free to call up your microsoft rep and ask him/her yourself.(Asuming you or where you work deals microsoft software) Becuase I really don't have the time to read over 100+ pages of licencing information and judging by that post you don't either.
edit: I remember them refering to pc's that wern't loaded with windows xp as Naked Pc's.
But I was the one that asked for some proof first. Saying "it's too much work to do it..." and just assuming it's there is what causes rumors. Specifically, when jimbowen is saying that without proof.
But I was the one that asked for some proof first. Saying "it's too much work to do it..." and just assuming it's there is what causes rumors. Specifically, when jimbowen is saying that without proof.
Accuraly I have read it (Last year when I started my old job), It was over 100 pages hence why I don't want to read it again.
if you are going to be that type of stuff you don't need to be using ubuntu in the first place. most advanced users would be more off with debian or if you are really into linux, slackware!
ubuntu is the best thing linux has going for it. It isn't ready for mainstream yet, but at the rate it is going it could be very soon. Device detection and support is getting pretty good... not perfect... but better than it was on any other distro a year ago
cheers
well its sort of interesting how I got to ubuntu... here I was a happy gentoo user...just enjoying life when blam, ram chip went bad...caused the laptop to crash and subsequently start fscking the fricking disk...well being as the chip was bad, every cluster that returned from the disk returned as bad...so fsck being the dumb tool it was just started lopping them off...ouch... this occured 2 or 3 days before I started class for the fall semester... so I needed a quick install... alas gentoo isn't a quick install on my laptop so I thought since ubuntu was at the top of the distrowatch list I'd tinker... now that I've tinkered I'm disappointed.
I need to build a dev station for work and was thinking of going with kubuntu but after your responses I'm thinking debian would be a better choice. I love gentoo but I really need to be up and running with a minimum of configuration.
If you could put the windows XP gui and API layers on top of the linux kernel, you'd have - to the end user - THE EXACT SAME OS. Apple pulled it off once - they COMPLETELY CHANGED THEIR KERNEL from something in house to BSD. They just so happened to also change the gui while they were at it, but they theoretically could have introduced the darwin kernel in a "classic" environment, and the general end users would have not noticed one whit.
Actually, they've done it twice. The first time produced an OS named A/UX which presented a MacOS 7 (System7) UI on top of a BSD-ish System V kernel.
well its sort of interesting how I got to ubuntu... here I was a happy gentoo user...just enjoying life when blam, ram chip went bad...caused the laptop to crash and subsequently start fscking the fricking disk...well being as the chip was bad, every cluster that returned from the disk returned as bad...so fsck being the dumb tool it was just started lopping them off...ouch... this occured 2 or 3 days before I started class for the fall semester... so I needed a quick install... alas gentoo isn't a quick install on my laptop so I thought since ubuntu was at the top of the distrowatch list I'd tinker... now that I've tinkered I'm disappointed.
Skryking
Ouch.. @_@
That ounds like you were using ext2 or maybe ext3 though.. I'd be very surprised if ReiserFS did that..
The main issue with Linux is software. Most things are more complicated because they are programs hacked together by nerds for most devices or peripherals simply because companies can't be bothered to support their hardware on anything other than Windows. There is then the lack of games/programs due to companies not thinking it's worth it.
ubuntu is the best thing linux has going for it. It isn't ready for mainstream yet, but at the rate it is going it could be very soon. Device detection and support is getting pretty good... not perfect... but better than it was on any other distro a year ago
That's complete crap. 'Device Detection' is just the kernel and UDev, same as on most other distros. All Ubuntu does is compile pretty much every single device available in the kernel as a module so when something is plugged in the kernel and uDev set it up. I know Gentoo has been like this for a long time and I'm sure other distros have too.
I like Linux simply because Linux is made for the user with no outside influences of profit or having "issues" like DRM shoved in your face. It's made to do what the user wants, not what a company would like the user to do and what would be most profitable and that is why I use it.
Sure, Linux is lacking in a lot of areas, but that is mainly the fault of 3rd parties, not the OS itself, as said earlier.
That sort of computer I think WOULD be suited to your auntie josephine, who just wants to read her email and surf the web, and clearly this company agrees with me.
It'll be interesting to see if they get anywhere with that.. Offering free hardware is rather brave of them... lol
But I think that a customised (read: simplified) linux distro is easily made usable to idiots. Take my Nokia 770 for example, it has web, email, IM, in nice little apps with a GUI that "just works". From looking at it you'd have no idea at all that it runs Linux. Debian even.
I think that the main (or maybe even only) reason that your usual Linux distros might not be ready for the end user, is because they ARE ready for the geek/hacker. If you leave all the config options and root prompts that geeks and hackers love exposed, then the users will run for the hills.
If you hide them in order to make something that "just works", the geeks get annoyed.
It is impossible to make a default configuration that works both ways.
"It looks a bit like a bread maker, and it is not clear what sort of word processing software, if any, you will get to run on it."
OpenOffice of course. Someone at the Inq isn't clued up :rolleyes2.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited September 2006
It'll be interesting to see if they get anywhere with that.. Offering free hardware is rather brave of them... lol
Bold indeed. My respect for the audacity and willingness to experiment. That's amazing.
Enverex, couldn't agree more with you. Open office would be a great compliment to software-bare machine. I rather like Open Office. Does the license allow for mass installation from a single computer distributer? Maybe they could get away with it since they aren't technically selling those computers.
Bold indeed. My respect for the audacity and willingness to experiment. That's amazing.
Enverex, couldn't agree more with you. Open office would be a great compliment to software-bare machine. I rather like Open Office. Does the license allow for mass installation from a single computer distributer? Maybe they could get away with it since they aren't technically selling those computers.
OpenOffice is LGPL.
AFAIK there is nothing to stop you selling LGPL (or GPL for that matter) software, as long as you freely make the software and it's source code available to the public without charge.
So I could sell you Linux on a disc, but you could just as easily download it for free from my website.
as far as I know, you cant charge for the software, but you can charge for the delivery, such as you provide it already installed or on media. So I suppose supplying it to the masses for free would be perfectly fine.
(This is really interesting discussion, I've been following it)
You can charge all you want, as long as you provide the source code for free or a nominal handling charge.
Think of RHEL. You cannot download it freely, but the source code for everything is available on their FTP server. That's how the GPL works with charging.
Or how it 'should' work. Theft and exploitation is showed well by the company 'Transgaming'.
I thought you used Cedega? It was my understanding though that the fees were incurred because Transgaming paid for official licenses rather than trying to reverse-engineer them like wine.
Transgaming hasn't paid anyone for anything (they used Wine's codebase and built on that, promising to give code back, which they did for a short time and then stopped, despite the fact they keep continually using new bits of Wine as well, they also try and buy Wine developers and then tell them that they can never have anything to do with the Wine project ever again. They did originally do it legally by running a free to access CVS but now that is years out of date and afaik doesn't even compile anymore, which violates the standing). They just charge because they are trying to get a monopoly on things which is why I hate them so much. They have also been telling game companies not to bother making Linux ports as people can buy Cedega and use that instead (!!).
So yeah, Transgaming doesn't pay any companies, it's all still reverse engineered. Wine also now excells in most areas other than a few games now anyway.
Linux is not a replacement for windows. Sometimes, yes. Usually, no.
I have to agree Schwaip. I work with Linux every day, doing development etc. There are just some things that Linux does not do easily enough. I agree with Prime's post. Windows is for those who "need" user friendly OS's. Linux is definitely for more advanced users. Linux works best for our application because we need to keep prices low and we need OS source code access. I don't hate nor love either one. I have to keep Windows machines safe and secure every day and then I have to field phone calls from people who think Linux is hard to use, aarrrrrghhhh! There are benefits and drawbacks to each one.
I have to agree Schwaip. I work with Linux every day, doing development etc. There are just some things that Linux does not do easily enough. I agree with Prime's post. Windows is for those who "need" user friendly OS's. Linux is definitely for more advanced users. Linux works best for our application because we need to keep prices low and we need OS source code access. I don't hate nor love either one. I have to keep Windows machines safe and secure every day and then I have to field phone calls from people who think Linux is hard to use, aarrrrrghhhh! There are benefits and drawbacks to each one.
There's no reason why Linux can't be just as easy as Windows. If you ask me, Linux is a house built on a solid rock but lacks a paint job and nice furniture. Microsoft is a house built on sand with a great paint job and nice furniture. As time goes by obviously the foundation is going to be much harder to fix then lack of furniture and a paint job. And don't forget Linux is free - Vista will cost you a fortune by itself and you'll probably have to upgrade your computer for it as well. I don't think Linux will ever really replace Microsoft but we'll definately see it emerge as a mainstream OS. It will also open the door for other companies who have been blocked by Microsoft all these years...
There's no reason why Linux can't be just as easy as Windows. If you ask me, Linux is a house built on a solid rock but lacks a paint job and nice furniture. Microsoft is a house built on sand with a great paint job and nice furniture. As time goes by obviously the foundation is going to be much harder to fix then lack of furniture and a paint job. And don't forget Linux is free - Vista will cost you a fortune by itself and you'll probably have to upgrade your computer for it as well. I don't think Linux will ever really replace Microsoft but we'll definately see it emerge as a mainstream OS. It will also open the door for other companies who have been blocked by Microsoft all these years...
Agreed on that fatsheep, the cost factor that is. That's why we use Linux. It's hard to beat little to no cost at all and I already believe it's a mainstream OS, well at least it is in my business. The problem is that the power struggle will no doubt shift focus to open source OS's and the same problems we see in Windows will no doubt rear their ugly heads in Linux. Granted that will be far in the future but I see it happening and it is entirely possible.
Agreed on that fatsheep, the cost factor that is. That's why we use Linux. It's hard to beat little to no cost at all and I already believe it's a mainstream OS, well at least it is in my business. The problem is that the power struggle will no doubt shift focus to open source OS's and the same problems we see in Windows will no doubt rear their ugly heads in Linux. Granted that will be far in the future but I see it happening and it is entirely possible.
I don't believe that to be true. Linux is a gigantic community. The people who make the desktop environment are not the same people that make the kernel and the people that make the distrobutions are not the same people that make the applications. And people that make the applications are not the people who control the open source licenses. All of these branches are dependant on each other. If the developers of a quality open source project got greedy and went commercial then the GNU project will just take the last released open source code and create a new project. Just look at what has happened to Firefox. They got pissed off over the fact that Debian and Ubuntu wasn't using their (proprietary) logo and now the GNU project has created Iceweasel (which I am using right now) and Gnuzilla based off the Firefox source code.
Just look at what has happened to Firefox. They got pissed off over the fact that Debian and Ubuntu wasn't using their (proprietary) logo and now the GNU project has created Iceweasel (which I am using right now) and Gnuzilla based off the Firefox source code.
That's also not true (I'm in the Ubuntu Masters of the Universe so I've been watching the Ubuntu devel lists).
What happened was that Mozilla was getting pissy that Debian was applying their own patches to Mozilla (not to do anything bad, just to make it work) and Mozilla basically said this isn't acceptable and the only patches allowed to touch their products are ones from upstream (Mozilla themselves) but that defeats the idea because the Debian patches exist BECAUSE there is no upstream patches to fix the issue the Debian patch addresses (these are patches to fix large issues or to even make it build properly, nothing like changing logos or anything like that).
Because of this Mozilla said "NO U" and disallowed Debian from using their names/trademark anymore (Mozilla or Firefox) so they made their own mini-fork (I assume they aren't going to develop the fork, they just fork each version, apply needed fixes then release that) and called it IceWeasel.
Yes, Mozilla foundation has been pissing off lots of people in the open source community lately and lots of people are switching to a different browser due to Mozilla kind of removing its "look, we're free and cool and stuff and we love the community" stance and becoming a bit petty.
That's also not true (I'm in the Ubuntu Masters of the Universe so I've been watching the Ubuntu devel lists).
What happened was that Mozilla was getting pissy that Debian was applying their own patches to Mozilla (not to do anything bad, just to make it work) and Mozilla basically said this isn't acceptable and the only patches allowed to touch their products are ones from upstream (Mozilla themselves) but that defeats the idea because the Debian patches exist BECAUSE there is no upstream patches to fix the issue the Debian patch addresses (these are patches to fix large issues or to even make it build properly, nothing like changing logos or anything like that).
Because of this Mozilla said "NO U" and disallowed Debian from using their names/trademark anymore (Mozilla or Firefox) so they made their own mini-fork (I assume they aren't going to develop the fork, they just fork each version, apply needed fixes then release that) and called it IceWeasel.
Yes, Mozilla foundation has been pissing off lots of people in the open source community lately and lots of people are switching to a different browser due to Mozilla kind of removing its "look, we're free and cool and stuff and we love the community" stance and becoming a bit petty.
Thanks for the info. The news reached me after Mozilla had disallowed the use of their names and trademarks so I thought that this was what had created the dispute. Anyways, it was just meant as an example of what the GNU project will do once a dev team of a good application start being difficult with the rest of the open source community.
I can't cogently respond to either Enverex or Fatsheep regarding both posts because I don't consider myself a part of the Linux community, but with that said and as I've stated before I see more and more businesses migrating to Linux, mostly Fedora, and I believe this will eventually cause a power struggle. You can't keep things free forever and that's the real shame of it. Our Linux developers work very long hours perfecting the kernel and our application. It's a very tedious process. In my job I see Linux and Windows working side by side every day in perfect harmony. It would be difficult for me to change my opinion on either OS. Windows is full of holes, but is easier for most people to use. Linux is rock solid but most people are not familiar with it and don't care or don't want to learn (laziness if you ask me). If you worked in my business you would quickly see what I'm talking about. You should know I'm not a Linux hater and am completely sympathetic to the open source cause, just look at my avatar, and I use Firefox exclusively for my web browser, and any other open source stuff I can get away with. I'm even thinking about re-configuring my home PC into a dual boot machine running both Gentoo and Windows. I'm just saying that Linux has gone commercial, sadly, in many cases but you wouldn't know that unless you worked in a commercial environment whose structure relied on Linux based machines.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited October 2006
Linux is rock solid but most people are not familiar with it and don't care or don't want to learn (laziness if you ask me).
I build my own computer because I get a better product for my money and it is more stable...
I don't consider those who purchase off the shelf computers to do so because they are lazy. They aren't interesting in building their own computers because most of them already have enough activities in their life. Linux will not make any impact on the desktop until it is as easy to install and use as Windows. It's reality. (Business is another matter, because there are people there paid to administer the automation and because multiple systems see a monetary savings to the business owner who will adopt freeware.) No amount of zeal and sermons from the true believers will change that. I have no doubt that Linux is an excellent OS and more secure than Windows. I just don't have time in my life for another hobby. With that said, I have great respect for all those who are working to make Linux ready for the home user who does not wish to devote a lot of time to it.
Comments
if you are going to be that type of stuff you don't need to be using ubuntu in the first place. most advanced users would be more off with debian or if you are really into linux, slackware!
ubuntu is the best thing linux has going for it. It isn't ready for mainstream yet, but at the rate it is going it could be very soon. Device detection and support is getting pretty good... not perfect... but better than it was on any other distro a year ago
cheers
edit: I remember them refering to pc's that wern't loaded with windows xp as Naked Pc's.
well its sort of interesting how I got to ubuntu... here I was a happy gentoo user...just enjoying life when blam, ram chip went bad...caused the laptop to crash and subsequently start fscking the fricking disk...well being as the chip was bad, every cluster that returned from the disk returned as bad...so fsck being the dumb tool it was just started lopping them off...ouch... this occured 2 or 3 days before I started class for the fall semester... so I needed a quick install... alas gentoo isn't a quick install on my laptop so I thought since ubuntu was at the top of the distrowatch list I'd tinker... now that I've tinkered I'm disappointed.
Skryking
-drasnor
-drasnor
Ouch.. @_@
That ounds like you were using ext2 or maybe ext3 though.. I'd be very surprised if ReiserFS did that..
That's complete crap. 'Device Detection' is just the kernel and UDev, same as on most other distros. All Ubuntu does is compile pretty much every single device available in the kernel as a module so when something is plugged in the kernel and uDev set it up. I know Gentoo has been like this for a long time and I'm sure other distros have too.
I like Linux simply because Linux is made for the user with no outside influences of profit or having "issues" like DRM shoved in your face. It's made to do what the user wants, not what a company would like the user to do and what would be most profitable and that is why I use it.
Sure, Linux is lacking in a lot of areas, but that is mainly the fault of 3rd parties, not the OS itself, as said earlier.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34635
That sort of computer I think WOULD be suited to your auntie josephine, who just wants to read her email and surf the web, and clearly this company agrees with me.
It'll be interesting to see if they get anywhere with that.. Offering free hardware is rather brave of them... lol
But I think that a customised (read: simplified) linux distro is easily made usable to idiots. Take my Nokia 770 for example, it has web, email, IM, in nice little apps with a GUI that "just works". From looking at it you'd have no idea at all that it runs Linux. Debian even.
I think that the main (or maybe even only) reason that your usual Linux distros might not be ready for the end user, is because they ARE ready for the geek/hacker. If you leave all the config options and root prompts that geeks and hackers love exposed, then the users will run for the hills.
If you hide them in order to make something that "just works", the geeks get annoyed.
It is impossible to make a default configuration that works both ways.
OpenOffice of course. Someone at the Inq isn't clued up :rolleyes2.
Enverex, couldn't agree more with you. Open office would be a great compliment to software-bare machine. I rather like Open Office. Does the license allow for mass installation from a single computer distributer? Maybe they could get away with it since they aren't technically selling those computers.
OpenOffice is LGPL.
AFAIK there is nothing to stop you selling LGPL (or GPL for that matter) software, as long as you freely make the software and it's source code available to the public without charge.
So I could sell you Linux on a disc, but you could just as easily download it for free from my website.
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html
(This is really interesting discussion, I've been following it)
Think of RHEL. You cannot download it freely, but the source code for everything is available on their FTP server. That's how the GPL works with charging.
-drasnor
So yeah, Transgaming doesn't pay any companies, it's all still reverse engineered. Wine also now excells in most areas other than a few games now anyway.
-drasnor
I have to agree Schwaip. I work with Linux every day, doing development etc. There are just some things that Linux does not do easily enough. I agree with Prime's post. Windows is for those who "need" user friendly OS's. Linux is definitely for more advanced users. Linux works best for our application because we need to keep prices low and we need OS source code access. I don't hate nor love either one. I have to keep Windows machines safe and secure every day and then I have to field phone calls from people who think Linux is hard to use, aarrrrrghhhh! There are benefits and drawbacks to each one.
There's no reason why Linux can't be just as easy as Windows. If you ask me, Linux is a house built on a solid rock but lacks a paint job and nice furniture. Microsoft is a house built on sand with a great paint job and nice furniture. As time goes by obviously the foundation is going to be much harder to fix then lack of furniture and a paint job. And don't forget Linux is free - Vista will cost you a fortune by itself and you'll probably have to upgrade your computer for it as well. I don't think Linux will ever really replace Microsoft but we'll definately see it emerge as a mainstream OS. It will also open the door for other companies who have been blocked by Microsoft all these years...
Agreed on that fatsheep, the cost factor that is. That's why we use Linux. It's hard to beat little to no cost at all and I already believe it's a mainstream OS, well at least it is in my business. The problem is that the power struggle will no doubt shift focus to open source OS's and the same problems we see in Windows will no doubt rear their ugly heads in Linux. Granted that will be far in the future but I see it happening and it is entirely possible.
Not true. The main reason I use Gentoo is unification, ease of global updating and lack of corporate exploitation.
I don't believe that to be true. Linux is a gigantic community. The people who make the desktop environment are not the same people that make the kernel and the people that make the distrobutions are not the same people that make the applications. And people that make the applications are not the people who control the open source licenses. All of these branches are dependant on each other. If the developers of a quality open source project got greedy and went commercial then the GNU project will just take the last released open source code and create a new project. Just look at what has happened to Firefox. They got pissed off over the fact that Debian and Ubuntu wasn't using their (proprietary) logo and now the GNU project has created Iceweasel (which I am using right now) and Gnuzilla based off the Firefox source code.
That's also not true (I'm in the Ubuntu Masters of the Universe so I've been watching the Ubuntu devel lists).
What happened was that Mozilla was getting pissy that Debian was applying their own patches to Mozilla (not to do anything bad, just to make it work) and Mozilla basically said this isn't acceptable and the only patches allowed to touch their products are ones from upstream (Mozilla themselves) but that defeats the idea because the Debian patches exist BECAUSE there is no upstream patches to fix the issue the Debian patch addresses (these are patches to fix large issues or to even make it build properly, nothing like changing logos or anything like that).
Because of this Mozilla said "NO U" and disallowed Debian from using their names/trademark anymore (Mozilla or Firefox) so they made their own mini-fork (I assume they aren't going to develop the fork, they just fork each version, apply needed fixes then release that) and called it IceWeasel.
Yes, Mozilla foundation has been pissing off lots of people in the open source community lately and lots of people are switching to a different browser due to Mozilla kind of removing its "look, we're free and cool and stuff and we love the community" stance and becoming a bit petty.
Thanks for the info. The news reached me after Mozilla had disallowed the use of their names and trademarks so I thought that this was what had created the dispute. Anyways, it was just meant as an example of what the GNU project will do once a dev team of a good application start being difficult with the rest of the open source community.
I don't consider those who purchase off the shelf computers to do so because they are lazy. They aren't interesting in building their own computers because most of them already have enough activities in their life. Linux will not make any impact on the desktop until it is as easy to install and use as Windows. It's reality. (Business is another matter, because there are people there paid to administer the automation and because multiple systems see a monetary savings to the business owner who will adopt freeware.) No amount of zeal and sermons from the true believers will change that. I have no doubt that Linux is an excellent OS and more secure than Windows. I just don't have time in my life for another hobby. With that said, I have great respect for all those who are working to make Linux ready for the home user who does not wish to devote a lot of time to it.