Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On Feb 25, 2007, at 17:22, Ben Scott wrote: However, the "build most things from source" solution is not without issues itself. It it slower than binary packages (imagine installing the first GNOME package this way -- please wait while we build the world from source). For a point of reference, I've got my Mac setup this way with 'fink', a wrapper layer on top of apt-get that makes it feel more yum/RPM- like (background - it's the thing that lets you easily use all of the open source tools on OSX). Starting from a bare system doing 'fink install gnucash' (with all of gtk and its cohorts) took about a day and a half to complete, running on a 2GHz Core2Duo machine with 2GB of RAM and me not using it much. From the aspect of maintainability it does work really well, and empirically doesn't provide much in the way of challenges beyond using a binary-only system. I haven't seen breakage because I wound up with the wrong version of a library or a conflict in about 4 years of using it. Part of this is probably because it keeps itself in a parallel root (/sw) and you have to implicitly install -compat packages to use system library versions rather than its own. I keep hearing about a binary mode that it has, but aside from the initial bootstrapping it hasn't been worthwhile to figure out why it's not on. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 New Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:22:06 -0500 "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In response to the source/binary discussion: > > Building from source *does* bypass a lot of problems. It has been > suggested in the past that something like a cross between BSD ports > and RPM might be a good solution for many problems. Something that, > with one simple command, could automatically download all the needed > source packages, configure, build, and install them, without scary > looking terminal windows or the need to edit configuration files by > hand. Sounds like Gentoo's "Portage" system, accessible either via the CLI or by way of any of a number of GUI frontends, would appeal to you: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=2&chap=1 The simple command in question is "emerge", and anyone familiar with apt-get, urpmi or yum will find that it's very similar to all of those. > However, the "build most things from source" solution is not without > issues itself. It it slower than binary packages (imagine installing > the first GNOME package this way -- please wait while we build the > world from source). It's largely incompatible with the world of > closed-source, binary-only software. Depending on the user, that > might be considered a feature, or a fatal flaw. It can also make > testing/SCM/support a real nightmare, as now every system can have a > slightly different configuration. Slower, definitely, but on recent equipment sporting dual-core CPUs and acres of RAM, it's not as pokey as one might expect it to be. Gentoo also has prebuilt packages available for many apps; if patience isn't your long suit, you could install something like GNOME prebuilt and then recompile it in the background for your specific system's configuration, which pretty much gives you the best of both worlds. This is, in fact, basically how most Gentoo systems are first installed these days. Portage accomodates binary-only packages such as Sun's JRE/JDK fairly well; the ebuild for something like that will fetch the published *.bin file in exactly the same manner as the other ebuilds would sources, and then just install from it rather than configure/build/install, while still providing full dependency management - if binary-only X requires library Y, Y is fetched and built before X is installed. As for the differing configurations, if one adheres to the Gentoo method of using USE flags (found in /etc/make.conf) to enable/disable building in support for specific features and subsystems - as opposed to hacking on the ebuilds directly - then each system's individual configuration eccentricities can be quickly determined by a glance at that file (and frontends exist to assist one in working with these flags, as well). When reporting a bug with an ebuild, one merely also includes the USE flags that are in use on the system having the problem, and that's usually sufficient to account for these sorts of variations. Going back to ESR's beefs, Portage is also not immune to the occasional problem with dependencies, especially if one incorporates a significant number of builds flagged as "testing" (vs. "stable"), but it has a few powerful features (such as slots, arch keywords and package masking) that together tend to keep these sorts of glitches to a minimum, IME. It's still a long ways from being something Grandma can self-admin with ease, but if she's the user and you're the remote admin - an arrangement which makes far more sense to me anyway, without regard to distro, but that there's a whole 'nother discussion - then it's pretty sweet. -- Bill Mullen [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA, USA RLU #270075 MDV2007.0/MDK9.0 "In communities where men build ships for their own sons to fish or fight from, quality is never a problem." -- J. A. Dever ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
"Thomas Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I feel sorry for the ubuntu-devel list when he hits his first dpkg >> circular dependency. > > The dependency couldn't be met. The package maintainer screwed up, > and had it dependent on a version of a package that wasn't available. This illustrates 2 of the things I really like about Debian: 1. There's accountability for every package 2. Things don't make into stable until they've lasted a while in testing without breaking things, and they don't make into testing without going through unstable for a whil. If esr moves to Debian and sticks with stable he won't have *these*[1] problems. [1] Which is intended to indicate that Debian stable has a whole list of other problems I'm sure esr will find to bitch about :) -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
No, that's not what I was referring to as nonsensical - I do understand the legal issues around DVD thoroughly, as much as I detest them. What I was referring to was the quagmire of interdependencies in some packages that make it difficult/impractical to update to new versions conveniently. (I have an even bigger issue with some applications that require the installation of development packages to _run_ them at all, never mind playing with their source code and recompiling them.) Yes, the x64_86 architecture is supposed to be able to run i386/i586/i686 binaries, but that doesn't always mean every such module will be totally comfortable with all others; I foresee some issues along that line that the Linux development community will need to iron out. I know that Windows isn't exactly perfect, either - I've already had a couple of nasty problems with printer drivers that could have been avoided, and I resolved them only by reading some informal forums; neither Microsoft nor HP had any official information about the issue. Thanks, Bayard Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, the DVD issue is far from nonsensical; it's legally mandated by the MPAA (who have bought and paid for said legislation). you. - It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/26/07, Bayard Coolidge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... the last dozen or two that I've tried don't seem to do the trick, and there's no x86_64.rpm available. Good luck with that. A lot of video playback on Linux depends on ripping the libraries out of MS Windows. And since those are all built for x86-32, they're not going to work with an x86-64 binary. Some argue that things like mplayer (which specialize in such ripped libraries) are ultimately counter-productive for this reason. They're only useful if you happen to be running on x86-32. It's these sort of nonsensical integration issues that will ultimately kill Linux, and I suspect it's what ESR was really complaining about. Well, the DVD issue is far from nonsensical; it's legally mandated by the MPAA (who have bought and paid for said legislation). Sure, it's not a technical thing, and it's not something we like, but it is reality. There's very little we (as FOSS users) can do about it. (As constituents, we may have more of a say, but that's another problem domain entirely.) Now, if you buy a commercial, closed-source DVD player for Linux, things will probably improve dramatically. Whether or not that is an acceptable solution is up to you. Going to the bigger binary compatibility picture in general, I suspect this is one of those hard problems. It may be that there simply is not good answer, just like there is no answer for "easy, one-size-fits-all security". Sure, point to MS Windows. Ever notice how MS Windows seems to have, well, stability problems? Guess what: A great deal of that comes from binary compatibility issues. It's just that on MS Windows, there's no mechanism (like RPM or dpkg) to tell you that those dependencies exist. Program A's installer just throws a bunch of DLLs at the system and hopes for the best. That will frequently get Program A to work, but might break program Q that was working fine for two years. I'd rather have Linux tell me that something isn't going to work, then Windows, where I have to hope and pray it will ever work. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On Monday 26 February 2007 09:52 am, Bayard Coolidge wrote: > I'm still trying to get DVDs to play on my x86_64-based SuSE 10.2 > system; Kaffeine complains that the DVD is encrypted, and neither it nor > VLC can make use of libdvdcss-1.2.8-2.network.i386.rpm or > libdvdcss2-1.2.9-1.i386.rpm. I suspect that their files need to be > installed in some arcane directory somewhere, but the last dozen or two > that I've tried don't seem to do the trick, and there's no x86_64.rpm > available. I found that DVDCSS couldn't decrypt encoded discs that were region-specific. By setting a region on my DVD drive, this was resolved, but since a region had never been set on it before, some discs just couldn't be decoded and always gave decoding errors. HTH, -N ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
Nigel Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part: Besides this, I find it quite valuable to be able to download and install something in a short enough timeframe that I havn't already forgotten what I intended to do with it. :-) I must say that I rather agree with that sentiment. I don't know, and won't attempt to speculate on, ESR's specific issues with Fedora but I can understand some of his frustration. Fedora, SuSE, and the other major distros shouldn't be aimed solely at very savvy developers, but should be installable by newbies. I'm not a newbie - I started my UNIX experience back in the mid-80's running ULTRIX[tm] on a VAX-11/780 that we had leftover in our of our field support labs at DEC. I first tried Linux by downloading SLS floppy images off the 'Net and scrambling to find one of the two PCs in the lab, writing the floppies and then taking them home to try on my PC. The Yggdrasil CD didn't come along for another year or so. That said, the various major distributions should be straightforward enough to install so as to provide a reasonably predictable baselevel system. I continue to get VERY irritated when I find that one capability or another can't be added to my SuSE system without going to Packman and then getting caught in dependency hell, because he (Packman) links his builds to whatever else he happens to have in his sandbox(es). (His builds of K3B are a prime example). Is it Packman's fault? NO - because it's perfectly understandable that he wants to keep pushing the envelope on a number of interrelated development projects. BUT, it's VERY annoying that updated versions of, say k3b, can't be obtained from [open]SuSE or other sites without extraneous entanglements. I'm still trying to get DVDs to play on my x86_64-based SuSE 10.2 system; Kaffeine complains that the DVD is encrypted, and neither it nor VLC can make use of libdvdcss-1.2.8-2.network.i386.rpm or libdvdcss2-1.2.9-1.i386.rpm. I suspect that their files need to be installed in some arcane directory somewhere, but the last dozen or two that I've tried don't seem to do the trick, and there's no x86_64.rpm available. It's these sort of nonsensical integration issues that will ultimately kill Linux, and I suspect it's what ESR was really complaining about. Bayard - Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
However, the "build most things from source" solution is not without issues itself. It it slower than binary packages (imagine installing the first GNOME package this way -- please wait while we build the world from source). It's largely incompatible with the world of closed-source, binary-only software. Depending on the user, that might be considered a feature, or a fatal flaw. It can also make testing/SCM/support a real nightmare, as now every system can have a slightly different configuration. I'm also bothered by the general problem of reproduceability with building from source. Installing each package affects the environment in which subsequent packages get built in. The way configure tends to adapt to the environment it finds itself in, GNOME could well be built differently (and exhibit different bugs) on two machines of the same distro, depending on the order. Besides this, I find it quite valuable to be able to download and install something in a short enough timeframe that I havn't already forgotten what I intended to do with it. :-) Nigel ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/25/07, Kjel Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't love the style of ESR's comments, but I think that maybe some folks on the list are missing his point. I believe he is trying to express that as long as installing software has anything to do with how "rusty your cs skills are", adoption of Linux for regular users is going to continue to be low. Actually, I suspect ESR was just pissed that his system was screwed up, and ranted in the general direction of Fedora because that's what he happened to be using. How his system got screwed up, I expect we'll never know. It could be his fault. It could be the fault of some third-party packager. It could certainly be the fault of a Fedora problem. Quite likely, all of the above, and more. If there's one thing I can say for sure about computers, it's that they get screwed up a lot. (If this was some random user, I'd be more willing to assign speculative blame to the distribution, but ESR is certainly an advanced hacker, and I would expect his system has been extensively monkeyed with.) Looking beyond "The Life and Times of Eric Raymond", I do think *your* points are very good ones. The whole point of a distribution is to make things easier (for varying definitions of "easy"). If that's not working, things are broken. In response to the source/binary discussion: Building from source *does* bypass a lot of problems. It has been suggested in the past that something like a cross between BSD ports and RPM might be a good solution for many problems. Something that, with one simple command, could automatically download all the needed source packages, configure, build, and install them, without scary looking terminal windows or the need to edit configuration files by hand. However, the "build most things from source" solution is not without issues itself. It it slower than binary packages (imagine installing the first GNOME package this way -- please wait while we build the world from source). It's largely incompatible with the world of closed-source, binary-only software. Depending on the user, that might be considered a feature, or a fatal flaw. It can also make testing/SCM/support a real nightmare, as now every system can have a slightly different configuration. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
I don't love the style of ESR's comments, but I think that maybe some folks on the list are missing his point. I believe he is trying to express that as long as installing software has anything to do with how "rusty your cs skills are", adoption of Linux for regular users is going to continue to be low. I realize that not everyone thinks this is a bad thing. Also, why have package management if we are just going to justify it's failures by telling users that they should be installing from source? Please don't get me wrong. The email to those various lists was pretty obnoxious. Kjel On 2/25/07, Jason Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nigel Stewart wrote: > Without disagreeing with your points about how open source is > "supposed to work", I think doing better repo quality control > would be a good direction for things to go. There doesn't seem > much point in letting a repo get into a inconsistent state and > letting that flow downstream Yes, you are also correct. I should have put a smiley at the end of my remark as my tongue was in my cheek at that point. If you're going to be dealing with binary packaging, some sort of automatic checking should be in order. With RPM, it shouldn't be too difficult, as you can query an RPM for its dependencies. If you find a package that isn't in the repository, then the package with the bad dependency should be flagged and disabled until the dependency issue is resolved. In the specific case that ESR is whinging about, the packager apparently had a different version of a library installed when he/she built the package. That sort of thing has happened to me in the past, so I switched to installing from code, even though I mostly use ports these days. (Kind of like packages for source code.) I find it somewhat ironic that ESR is complaining so loudly about *binary* package dependencies and that he's "threatening" to switch distros over it. You'd think someone with ESR's credentials and attitude would be running his own, homebrew distro. ;-) (Ha ha! Only serious.) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
Nigel Stewart wrote: Without disagreeing with your points about how open source is "supposed to work", I think doing better repo quality control would be a good direction for things to go. There doesn't seem much point in letting a repo get into a inconsistent state and letting that flow downstream Yes, you are also correct. I should have put a smiley at the end of my remark as my tongue was in my cheek at that point. If you're going to be dealing with binary packaging, some sort of automatic checking should be in order. With RPM, it shouldn't be too difficult, as you can query an RPM for its dependencies. If you find a package that isn't in the repository, then the package with the bad dependency should be flagged and disabled until the dependency issue is resolved. In the specific case that ESR is whinging about, the packager apparently had a different version of a library installed when he/she built the package. That sort of thing has happened to me in the past, so I switched to installing from code, even though I mostly use ports these days. (Kind of like packages for source code.) I find it somewhat ironic that ESR is complaining so loudly about *binary* package dependencies and that he's "threatening" to switch distros over it. You'd think someone with ESR's credentials and attitude would be running his own, homebrew distro. ;-) (Ha ha! Only serious.) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
For somebody whose CS isn't as rusty as mine - I think one should be able to setup a dedicated process to watch a repo and build graphs of dependencies and preemptively find this kind of breakage. Comments? Yes, you probably could, but that's what the million monkeys on the Internet are doing for you when they install stuff and it doesn't work. In this case, people are cheaper than software. Without disagreeing with your points about how open source is "supposed to work", I think doing better repo quality control would be a good direction for things to go. There doesn't seem much point in letting a repo get into a inconsistent state and letting that flow downstream Nigel ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
Bill McGonigle wrote: On Feb 24, 2007, at 10:02, Thomas Charron wrote: The dependency couldn't be met. The package maintainer screwed up, and had it dependent on a version of a package that wasn't available. Ah, OK, thanks for the correction. Still, if I hit that problem I'd go file a bug at bugzilla.redhat.com. Granted I've had mixed success with that avenue. Were I desperate I'd grab an SRPM and edit a SPEC file. That's clearly not something most users know how to do. Fedora is not aimed at "most users." Fedora is not meant to be stable. Go read their mission statement. They're basically the playground for Red Hat's commercial releases. ESR, of all people, should know this. This may be a disadvantage of the open source model in a way. I can edit the SRPM and thus it doesn't get highest priority from the developers. Apple had a parallel problem with a recent security (or was it Airport driver?) update on the PPC architecture. They had it fixed 3 hours later - at least in part because they had to. To me, its an advantage, but then I don't install from binary packages. I install everything from source on my servers and workstations, and then I know it will generally work if it builds. [There has been 1 recent exception to this. See below.] I also use FreeBSD and OpenBSD mostly. (This is at home. At my alleged day job, I have a mix of Windows, FreeBSD, and Fedora servers and workstations to look after.) BTW, sometimes I find ports that are broken on my configuration, or that don't provide an easy way to enable the features that I want. When I encounter these, I fix them and send a patch to the maintainer of the port. I usually get a polite "thank you" and notice that some of my changes end up in the Makefile the next time that I update. I have also found 1 port that would build and install and simply refused to function on one machine. I downloaded the latest package from the developer and installed that. It worked perfectly. The version in ports was two years old apparently, and didn't play well with amd64. I'm only slightly embarrassed to admit that the package in question is imap-uw. I have also been known to change the source of various applications to add features, etc. I usually send patches off to the respective maintainers. This is how "open source" is supposed to work according to ESR. However, I think he's become lazy and has forgotten how his bazaar really works. It sounds to me in his latest ravings that he really wants his software to come perfectly formed from the priests of the cathedral. He's forgotten the freedom and responsibility that comes from having access to the source code, and instead he'd rather be at the mercy of his vendor, just like "most users." Rather, he'd prefer that his vendor got it right in the first place, unfortunately he's forgotten just who his vendor is. For somebody whose CS isn't as rusty as mine - I think one should be able to setup a dedicated process to watch a repo and build graphs of dependencies and preemptively find this kind of breakage. Comments? Yes, you probably could, but that's what the million monkeys on the Internet are doing for you when they install stuff and it doesn't work. In this case, people are cheaper than software. Just my .02 dollars. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/24/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Feb 24, 2007, at 10:02, Thomas Charron wrote: > The dependency couldn't be met. The package maintainer screwed up, > and had it dependent on a version of a package that wasn't available. Ah, OK, thanks for the correction. Still, if I hit that problem I'd go file a bug at bugzilla.redhat.com. Granted I've had mixed success with that avenue. Hehe, problem was, system was unusable in the half upgraded state. So he naturally did what every geek does. Take the safety off. :-D -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
I happen to be an rpm over deb person the same way I prefer scotch over bourbon. The two may be functionally equivalent, but either way, rpm is guilty of stagnation. That combined with a bunch of other factors contributes to myself, and lots of others, thinking (for a long time now) about switching to Ubuntu. I recently switched from Fedora Core to Kubuntu, and so far, so good. I couldn't agree more about the stagnation of rpm. For quite a while I've felt that there souldn't actually be a need to extract all the files into the filesystem. It ought to be a matter of virtualising access to the necessary files in the necessary "rpm"s and leaving it at that. Nigel ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On Feb 24, 2007, at 10:02, Thomas Charron wrote: The dependency couldn't be met. The package maintainer screwed up, and had it dependent on a version of a package that wasn't available. Ah, OK, thanks for the correction. Still, if I hit that problem I'd go file a bug at bugzilla.redhat.com. Granted I've had mixed success with that avenue. Were I desperate I'd grab an SRPM and edit a SPEC file. That's clearly not something most users know how to do. This may be a disadvantage of the open source model in a way. I can edit the SRPM and thus it doesn't get highest priority from the developers. Apple had a parallel problem with a recent security (or was it Airport driver?) update on the PPC architecture. They had it fixed 3 hours later - at least in part because they had to. For somebody whose CS isn't as rusty as mine - I think one should be able to setup a dedicated process to watch a repo and build graphs of dependencies and preemptively find this kind of breakage. Comments? -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 New Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/23/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My translation: "I couldn't figure out a dependency so I went deleting system packages without knowing or checking what the consequences would be and I didn't know how to recover from that point. That's terribly embarrassing, but rather than ask for advice or autodopeslap, I'll make a big frikin' stink and insult a bunch of people to appease my ego." Sounds like he needs to join a user group. I feel sorry for the ubuntu-devel list when he hits his first dpkg circular dependency. The dependency couldn't be met. The package maintainer screwed up, and had it dependent on a version of a package that wasn't available. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
My translation: "I couldn't figure out a dependency so I went deleting system packages without knowing or checking what the consequences would be and I didn't know how to recover from that point. That's terribly embarrassing, but rather than ask for advice or autodopeslap, I'll make a big frikin' stink and insult a bunch of people to appease my ego." Sounds like he needs to join a user group. I feel sorry for the ubuntu-devel list when he hits his first dpkg circular dependency. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 New Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
Jerry, > It is also interesting that the Huffman algorithm was published in a > number of computer science books and was originally published in 1952. As you know, publication of the algorithm has nothing to do with the protection of a patent as long as it was done after the patent was taken. Likewise, it may have been an improvement of the basic patent that was the issue of the suit against Unix. I do remember that the issue happened in the time period of the early to mid eighties, so the original patent should have expired by then. The patent could also have been "pending" for a long time, and finally granted at a much later date. The fact that it caused so much consternation tells me there was an issue in a follow-on patent. There was irony in the fact that the Lempel-Ziv Coding that was implemented in compress(1) was more efficient than the Huffman Coding used in pack(1) in a lot of simple cases. Later an employee of Unisys also made changes to the Lempel-Ziv algorithm and Unisys patented those changes. This patented algorithm, considered by many to be a minor improvement, became the basis of .gif images, and we all know what happened theredon't we? Ogg Vorbis, make it a lifestyle. md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:31:33 -0500 "Jon 'maddog' Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's friggen insane that they're choosing to enforce the patent NOW, > > after so many years. > > > > No, I call it the "Unisys theory". > > Many years ago Hoffman encoding was used for the AT&T pack(1) command. > AT&T used it, BSD used it, Sun used it, etc. and it had been published > in many books. It was a first-year computing problem to write a Hoffman > encoder and decoder. It is also interesting that the Huffman algorithm was published in a number of computer science books and was originally published in 1952. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/22/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh, please. Do you really think Thomson is going to agree to license for perpetual unlimited distribution to other parties? If they did, then *everyone else* could use the same license, and their *entire revenue stream* from MP3 would evaporate. Don't be stupid; it doesn't become you. I'm telling you that yes, they do license it in this manner ... They do destroy their revenue stream? Funny, I seem to recall that you still needed to buy the patent rights. ... depending on the primary purpose of the applications. As in, if it's an end use application, or built into something else. Exactly. If I'm writing some stupid closed-source MP3 playback program for the Commodore 64 that I'm going to sell for $12.95 a pop, then they'll talk for $50K. But they're not going to give away the farm for that amount. An end use application would be something along the lines of a simple MP3 player. And *not* a perpetual, redistributable license for anyone anywhere to implement an MP3 player. Note the distinct lack of a lump-sum payment for an MP3 *encoder* ... I'm not talking about encoders. Maybe maddog was. I'm not. Still aren't. But the only reason why they're looking at such a large judgment ... No. Go RTFA again. Microsoft says they've *already* paid *Fraunhofer* $16,000,000 for their license. (Thomson Multimedia and Fraunhofer IIS are related in some fashion I've never understood.) That payment had nothing to do with the Lucent court battle. I'm guessing that price was arrived at because (1) Microsoft can afford it, but mainly (2) because they ship huge unit volumes which (as you note) anyone can use. Thomson knew that others would use the Microsoft libraries, thus eating into their revenue stream. So the price was considerably higher. Go ahead and send the email to Thomson's licensing team, asking if you can buy an unlimited redistributable perpetual license for open source software for $50,000. If you can get them to agree to that, I will personally put up the $50,000 payment myself. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
> It's friggen insane that they're choosing to enforce the patent NOW, > after so many years. > No, I call it the "Unisys theory". Many years ago Hoffman encoding was used for the AT&T pack(1) command. AT&T used it, BSD used it, Sun used it, etc. and it had been published in many books. It was a first-year computing problem to write a Hoffman encoder and decoder. Soin about the 19th year of the 20-year patent, Unisys (by now the owner of the patent) raised their ugly head and threatened to block shipments of Unix systems because of this. The people at AT&T looked at this, blinked, and then wrote the "compress" command. The compress command decompressed Hoffman encoded files, but when they were re-compressed it used a different (un-patented) algorithm. It seems there was never any patent taken out on the decompression technique, only the compression technique. A lot of patent holders will hold off suing someone until the market is built and companies have a lot to lose. It is easier to get them to pay up that way. Nothing in the law says they can not do that. md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
> Some of > which are local in Massachusetts and are, needless to say, very large. > Yes, and right now I would think they are shaking in their boots. The good news is that the Alcatel/Lucent vs MS battle seems as much a grudge match as a revenue stream at this point. >Alcatel-Lucent's Ambrus declined to say whether the company might >pursue other companies that use MP3 technology in their products. But if I was Alcatel-Lucent's stockholders I would be drooling >Scores of technology companies, including Apple, Intel and Texas >Instruments, license the MP3 technology, according to Thomson's >MP3licensing.com. md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/22/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/22/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html > 50,000$ one time up front fee, and they can solve the issue of an > Open Source MP3 player. For everyone. Oh, please. Do you really think Thomson is going to agree to license for perpetual unlimited distribution to other parties? If they did, then *everyone else* could use the same license, and their *entire revenue stream* from MP3 would evaporate. Don't be stupid; it doesn't become you. I'm telling you that yes, they do license it in this manner, depending on the primary purpose of the applications. As in, if it's an end use application, or built into something else. An end use application would be something along the lines of a simple MP3 player. Note the distinct lack of a lump-sum payment for an MP3 *encoder* which maddog pointed out earlier. That's covered under the codec section. > Ever wonder how Windows can decode MP3s within ANY Windows > application? Ever notice that Windows costs $200 a pop? But the only reason why they're looking at such a large judgment is because Lucent is basically saying that since they didn't pay up, they need to pay the max per-seat cost. If lucent's claim holds up in court, which it has for this 'first round', expect to see much running like hell away from MP3. Basically, after a little research, they have a patent covering OTHER aspects of MP3, such as the use of MPEG framing, which I believe is the one that the court ruled in their favor on today. It's friggen insane that they're choosing to enforce the patent NOW, after so many years. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
> 50,000$ one time up front fee, and they can solve the issue of an > Open Source MP3 player. For everyone. > It was inadvertent that my news article about the $1.5 billion dollar settlement on MP3 technology crossed your email about mp3 licensing, but I did want to point out that I do not think that buying a license for a "freely distributable mp3 library" would be as inexpensive as $50,000. I will bet that as you tried to pursue that path you would find that those figures on that chart were "examples", and that the price for doing what you are talking about would be much higher, if available at all. After all, if it was that easy (and cheap), probably someone would have done it by now. I note from the article about the suit that Microsoft claims to have paid $16,000,000. for their license. Still cheap for them, but then again they track their licenses, whereas Free Software is not tracked. I will also point out that even in the chart the paid-up licenses are only for players (decoders). Encoding is both much more expensive and per-unit only. We will see how much the MP3 license really costs Microsoft, but as one of the people commenting on the article said, no matter how much they have to pay for the patent rights, and who, it is still worse when the patent holder gets an injunction against them shipping. Regards, maddog ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/22/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Speaking of MP3s and "being sued to smithereens". http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6161480.html?tag=nl.e589 And it could not have happened to nicer people... QQ Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that particular news article. I'm researching more, as there are other companies which I'm familiar with that have and are using the license in the same manner. Some of which are local in Massachusetts and are, needless to say, very large. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/22/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html 50,000$ one time up front fee, and they can solve the issue of an Open Source MP3 player. For everyone. Oh, please. Do you really think Thomson is going to agree to license for perpetual unlimited distribution to other parties? If they did, then *everyone else* could use the same license, and their *entire revenue stream* from MP3 would evaporate. Don't be stupid; it doesn't become you. Ever wonder how Windows can decode MP3s within ANY Windows application? Ever notice that Windows costs $200 a pop? -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 17:21 -0500, Ben Scott wrote: > On 2/22/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And be able to do some core desktop features. Like say.. Play MP3 > > files.. :-D > > In order for Red Hat (or the "Fedora Project"; I'm not sure about > legal status there) to include MP3 support in their distribution, they > would have to *buy* a license from Thomson Consumer Electronics. I > think it's a per-unit thing, too. How do you establish per-unit > counts of a free distro? So, legally, they cannot ship MP3 support. > > There is nothing Red Hat can do about this. What you and I can do > and/or get away with in our home is one thing. Red Hat is a big > company enough company that they are a target. They cannot break the > law just because they feel like it, or they'll be sued to smithereens. > > -- Ben Speaking of MP3s and "being sued to smithereens". http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6161480.html?tag=nl.e589 And it could not have happened to nicer people... maddog ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/22/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/22/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And be able to do some core desktop features. Like say.. Play MP3 > files.. :-D In order for Red Hat (or the "Fedora Project"; I'm not sure about legal status there) to include MP3 support in their distribution, they would have to *buy* a license from Thomson Consumer Electronics. I think it's a per-unit thing, too. How do you establish per-unit counts of a free distro? So, legally, they cannot ship MP3 support. http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html There is nothing Red Hat can do about this. What you and I can do and/or get away with in our home is one thing. Red Hat is a big company enough company that they are a target. They cannot break the law just because they feel like it, or they'll be sued to smithereens. 50,000$ one time up front fee, and they can solve the issue of an Open Source MP3 player. For everyone. Hell, RedHat themselves could simply allow the use of their purchased license to other applications by simply purchasing a 'right' to the software, as the royalties specifically mentions it can cover third party applications written for the licensee. Ever wonder how Windows can decode MP3s within ANY Windows application? They have a license for their libraries to decode the MP3 audio via their codec. Let me reiterate, ANY applications can utilize this on Windows. There are solutions. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/22/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And be able to do some core desktop features. Like say.. Play MP3 files.. :-D In order for Red Hat (or the "Fedora Project"; I'm not sure about legal status there) to include MP3 support in their distribution, they would have to *buy* a license from Thomson Consumer Electronics. I think it's a per-unit thing, too. How do you establish per-unit counts of a free distro? So, legally, they cannot ship MP3 support. There is nothing Red Hat can do about this. What you and I can do and/or get away with in our home is one thing. Red Hat is a big company enough company that they are a target. They cannot break the law just because they feel like it, or they'll be sued to smithereens. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/22/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See the above request. How? What is the context? * Effectively abandoning the struggle for desktop market share. * Failure to address the problem of proprietary multimedia formats with any attitude other than blank denial. Fedora as a distribution has stayed pretty "pure" with respect to not shipping what is defined by them to be "free". Other distributions have been a little less restrictive in this sense, and this causes these distributions to be somewhat easier to install and use. And be able to do some core desktop features. Like say.. Play MP3 files.. :-D (Which I believe is the last format issue ESR spoke up regarding). Another point that you've just brought up is that there are, in certain cases, no easy to use alternatives for purely 'free' software, which I also believe is one of the points of contention between ESR and the AC/RMS. > Richard DOES believe in gratis everything. No, I disagree. Richard has never said that a programmer should not be able to make money doing programming. It is just that after the programming is done, the software should be "free" as in "freedom". A side effect of this is that barring any other type of business model this tends to make the software "gratis". There is a lot to his philosophy and it can not be stated in just a few lines. I do not agree with all of it, but I have moved closer to his side over the years. I guess the crux of the issue is the utopian view of the way things could be if we where not in a capitalist world (ok, not the whole world, but our side of it anyway). I always find ESR seems to basically agree, but at the same time say, 'But we're in real life..' > But personally, I > feel that the changes for GPL v3 are changing the terms of a community > license not for the betterment of Open Source and/or Free Software in > general, but to solidify Richards 'new world order'. I also do not agree completely with the way that the GPL V3 license has been done. My personal belief is that there should have been work done on a GPL V2.x to clean it up, bring it into the 21st century and THEN address the issues that Richard is pushing. I do believe that the issues the GPL V3.0 are attacking are legitimate issues in Free Software. I do not agree with the path of treating them, but that is where Richard and I (and a lot of other people) can continue to disagree and discuss. Until he releases it. Do you really feel RMS will give up on some of the changes he's pushed? Personally, I've done work for embedded systems that can run Open Source software. The support nightmare for people who screw with the devices, then 'put back' the stock version of the software would be a nightmare, and would generally cause me to shy away from using ANY such software, which I suspect other developers and hardware manufacturers to do the same, in a sense, killing a growth path twards the 'Utopian' environment. I seriously consider Richard and his supports at the brink of making a catastrophic mistake, which affects all 'open' software, be it Free or Open. > I'm at a loss as to why this would apply to Eric stating to a > community that he feels he's part of that a frustrating mistake was > made, and he's going to another distro. Would it have been a better > approach to unsubscribe, and simply hop on over to Ubuntu lists and > start working? I felt his point was well made, and simular to points > other Linux users have made on lists all over the world for years. Let's just say it is a matter of the style in how he did it, and I think enough people have commented on that, both pro and con. True enough. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
> > > Part of ESR's latest statements in this letter have to do directly with > > this issue. > > See the above request. How? What is the context? > * Effectively abandoning the struggle for desktop market share. * Failure to address the problem of proprietary multimedia formats with any attitude other than blank denial. Fedora as a distribution has stayed pretty "pure" with respect to not shipping what is defined by them to be "free". Other distributions have been a little less restrictive in this sense, and this causes these distributions to be somewhat easier to install and use. The argument, in my opinion, comes down to whether you satisfy the end user with these non-free components, thus helping to make a better desktop (and these are mostly seen in the desktop) market, or do you leave them out to emphasize that the software is still not "free"? > Richard DOES believe in gratis everything. > No, I disagree. Richard has never said that a programmer should not be able to make money doing programming. It is just that after the programming is done, the software should be "free" as in "freedom". A side effect of this is that barring any other type of business model this tends to make the software "gratis". There is a lot to his philosophy and it can not be stated in just a few lines. I do not agree with all of it, but I have moved closer to his side over the years. > But personally, I > feel that the changes for GPL v3 are changing the terms of a community > license not for the betterment of Open Source and/or Free Software in > general, but to solidify Richards 'new world order'. > I also do not agree completely with the way that the GPL V3 license has been done. My personal belief is that there should have been work done on a GPL V2.x to clean it up, bring it into the 21st century and THEN address the issues that Richard is pushing. I do believe that the issues the GPL V3.0 are attacking are legitimate issues in Free Software. I do not agree with the path of treating them, but that is where Richard and I (and a lot of other people) can continue to disagree and discuss. > I'm at a loss as to why this would apply to Eric stating to a > community that he feels he's part of that a frustrating mistake was > made, and he's going to another distro. Would it have been a better > approach to unsubscribe, and simply hop on over to Ubuntu lists and > start working? I felt his point was well made, and simular to points > other Linux users have made on lists all over the world for years. > Let's just say it is a matter of the style in how he did it, and I think enough people have commented on that, both pro and con. md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I find Alan to be too much like ESR to put any stock in his words. This is, afterall, the same guy that censored the kernel changelog back in 2.2.20 because he didn't like the DMCA Oh common, that was friggen hilarious! -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
-- Original message -- From: "Jon 'maddog' Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I could not agree with you more, which is why I sent my email. I like reading the source. It gives it a nice context, and the humor value of the replies is worth the time. > I liked Alan Cox's response the best. I find Alan to be too much like ESR to put any stock in his words. This is, afterall, the same guy that censored the kernel changelog back in 2.2.20 because he didn't like the DMCA Kenny ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/22/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 11:39 -0500, Thomas Charron wrote: > On 2/22/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right up till the: > "That was said by Eric Raymond who belongs to another movement" > - Richard Stallman > Nice to be able to declare things when your self appointed. There actually is some meat behind that statement. I don't personally find that they are different movements, really. Different parties, perhaps, moderate versus radical. The term "Open Source" was created for many different reasons, but the main one being that a group of people thought that "Free Software" was creating a mixed message in that it was taken to mean "gratis software", which would lead to "gratis everything". So they invented the term "Open Source" to try and give it less ambiguity. Which Richard feels isn't even in the same camp. Richard DOES believe in gratis everything. That includes any use of the software should also be free. Completely understandable. But personally, I feel that the changes for GPL v3 are changing the terms of a community license not for the betterment of Open Source and/or Free Software in general, but to solidify Richards 'new world order'. I'm at a loss as to why this would apply to Eric stating to a community that he feels he's part of that a frustrating mistake was made, and he's going to another distro. Would it have been a better approach to unsubscribe, and simply hop on over to Ubuntu lists and start working? I felt his point was well made, and simular to points other Linux users have made on lists all over the world for years. Maddog, you probrably know more background as to why this dig would be specific to this thread, please share. :-D As a pragmatist, I originally found myself in the "Open Source" camp (although I never liked the term "Open Source" either). Over the years, and with careful reflection, I have moved more toward Richard's camp. But the bigger picture is, there will BE differences of opinion, and fighting over disagreements instead of working with them just makes everyone look the bigger fool. I guess it's not the camp that bothers me, it's the direct quotation which seems to say, 'ESR, your not one of us, and never have been'. Part of ESR's latest statements in this letter have to do directly with this issue. See the above request. How? What is the context? -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 11:39 -0500, Thomas Charron wrote: > On 2/22/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I could not agree with you more, which is why I sent my email. > > I liked Alan Cox's response the best. > > Right up till the: > > "That was said by Eric Raymond who belongs to another movement" > - Richard Stallman > > Nice to be able to declare things when your self appointed. > There actually is some meat behind that statement. The term "Open Source" was created for many different reasons, but the main one being that a group of people thought that "Free Software" was creating a mixed message in that it was taken to mean "gratis software", which would lead to "gratis everything". So they invented the term "Open Source" to try and give it less ambiguity. Richard does not like the term of "Open Source" since he feels that it detracts from the real message of "Freedom" in the usage of the software, and anything that takes away from that freedom (DMCA, Software Patents, etc.) is bad. "Open Source" as a phrase does not touch on those things directly, but simply hints that if the "source code is available, it is o.k.", which is not true. As a pragmatist, I originally found myself in the "Open Source" camp (although I never liked the term "Open Source" either). Over the years, and with careful reflection, I have moved more toward Richard's camp. Part of ESR's latest statements in this letter have to do directly with this issue. md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:26:34 -0500 "Chris Linstid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Isn't this the same guy that made such a huge deal a few years ago > about getting a "phone interview offer" from Microsoft? He wrote some > offensive letter back to the recruiter saying he was an idiot for > trying to recruit such an important big cheese of the Linux community. While Eric certainly has contributed to the Linux community, he tends to beat to a different drummer. We've had some interesting dinners together, but at this point he dislikes me because I got lost in Boston trying to find his hotel :-) -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:24:07 -0500 "Jon 'maddog' Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I could not agree with you more, which is why I sent my email. > > I liked Alan Cox's response the best. The whole thing is much adoo about nothing. I loved Alan's response. But, this also points out that the Linux community is a free market. If we don't like SuSE, we can chose Mandrivia, Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, or a number of distros. The free market also exists in the Windows environment, you can get any flavor of Windows as long as it is Microsoft :-) -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On Thursday, Feb 22nd 2007 at 10:51 -0500, quoth Ben Scott: =>On 2/22/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: =>> I prefer to read the original source from the original target: =>> www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01006.html => => His complaints seem rather vague and lacking in any kind of goal. =>More to the point, who cares? "Linux user switches distributions, =>film at 11." Sure, it's ESR. Whoop-de-freaking-do. What, is the =>Linux community so mainstream now that we need to obsess over every =>move of arbitrary celebrity figures? => => What next, Pictures of Linus at a bar make the headlines? Maybe =>Stallman will shave his head... ;-) => =>-- Ben All of the celeb woopdedoo aside... The boy really has a point. First of all, esr really is owed a huge debt by the community. He was the creator of open source. Before that all we had was free software. Politics and semantics aside, the community has grown tremendously because of this carefully executed campaign. Next, besides the fact that he's right, he has a good track record. Last time he bitched in this manner was over how crappy an interface cups has. The point is that the software may be good stuff from some level of functionality, but if people don't have a chance at being able to configure it and run it then what's the point. I happen to be an rpm over deb person the same way I prefer scotch over bourbon. The two may be functionally equivalent, but either way, rpm is guilty of stagnation. That combined with a bunch of other factors contributes to myself, and lots of others, thinking (for a long time now) about switching to Ubuntu. Change happens because people make it happen. Your options are not always limited to "contribute code or shut up about it". Action like ESR's is a valid campaign tactic. -- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/22/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I could not agree with you more, which is why I sent my email. I liked Alan Cox's response the best. Right up till the: "That was said by Eric Raymond who belongs to another movement" - Richard Stallman Nice to be able to declare things when your self appointed. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
Isn't this the same guy that made such a huge deal a few years ago about getting a "phone interview offer" from Microsoft? He wrote some offensive letter back to the recruiter saying he was an idiot for trying to recruit such an important big cheese of the Linux community. - Chris On 2/22/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/22/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I prefer to read the original source from the original target: > www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01006.html His complaints seem rather vague and lacking in any kind of goal. More to the point, who cares? "Linux user switches distributions, film at 11." Sure, it's ESR. Whoop-de-freaking-do. What, is the Linux community so mainstream now that we need to obsess over every move of arbitrary celebrity figures? What next, Pictures of Linus at a bar make the headlines? Maybe Stallman will shave his head... ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
I could not agree with you more, which is why I sent my email. I liked Alan Cox's response the best. md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On 2/22/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I prefer to read the original source from the original target: www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01006.html His complaints seem rather vague and lacking in any kind of goal. More to the point, who cares? "Linux user switches distributions, film at 11." Sure, it's ESR. Whoop-de-freaking-do. What, is the Linux community so mainstream now that we need to obsess over every move of arbitrary celebrity figures? What next, Pictures of Linus at a bar make the headlines? Maybe Stallman will shave his head... ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
One of the responses was pretty good: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01051.html Regards, --kevin -- GnuPG ID: B280F24E Never could stand that dog. alumni.unh.edu!kdc -- Tom Waits ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ARTICLE - ESR gives up on Fedora
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 09:29 -0500, Michael ODonnell wrote: > Eric Raymond rants: > > "After thirteen years as a loyal Red Hat and Fedora user, I reached > my limit today, when an attempt to upgrade one (1) package pitched > me into a four-hour marathon of dependency chasing, at the end of > which an attempt to get around a trivial file conflict rendered > my system unusable." > . I prefer to read the original source from the original target: www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01006.html md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
