Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Free as long as you "give back"

So like, this FOSS shit is supposed to be free right? Like I can take the code and go make a bajillion dollars with it, or make some pretty awesome product with it as long as I release all the source code when I'm asked to, right?


That's what the fucking license says right?

Well, apparently there's some stuff that they might have forgotten to stipulate.


It turns out, with open source code, you can take a free kernel, integrate it into a larger desktop distribution that manages to make like 10 people happy and whole bunch of people wet their panties over Linux, and ship it marginally successfully for several releases. But in the process, you might have just forgotten to "give back" a little. You might have spent your time making the desktop stack work better instead of the kernel or gcc. You might not have sent in thousands of kernel patches because you were more worried about making Xorg work, or codec installation easier.

It doesn't matter. Use the kernel in a media-visible way but don't actively contribute upstream? Bingo! you get a big fat steamer on your doorstep. You get called out at the opening speech of Luserfest 2008.

So you see? maybe the GPL isn't really free. Sure you can take the code, but don't you dare go and do something that makes you seem like you have a bigger dick than everyone else, at least, not without giving your testicles back to the cause. The GPL just talks about the code. What it doesn't talk about is how you also have to follow the "spirit" of open source, or be prepared for incoming PR shit mortars. 

This is fucking amateur hour people. You know what all those big software companies do? They have PR people. Most engineers hate them, mostly because they're yet another layer between you and your customer. Most customers hate them too, because you're trying to explain what you want, and they don't really have any clue what you're talking about. But then once in a while, you see freetard engineers like Mr. KH here make an ass-clown of themselves, and then you understand. 

I'm glad your conference got off to such a great start. You're all gonna talk about how you should improve Linux plumbing, and then spawn off like 20 projects, half-finish all of them, and call it progress. I'm like super serially excited here.

285 flames:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 285   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

your a fucking moron LH

yOSHi314 said...

FOSS is not truly free, if you're thinking about the GPL.

GPL obliges you to give back the changes you make to the code. you can do whatever you want with the product, like sell it for a lot of cash, but you need to contribute the code. this is no marketing hack, it's clearly written in the licence text.

"Free as long you give back" is the exact definition of the GPL.

in that regard the BSD licence is what you would consider more free, because you have no obligation to provide the source code and give back the changes.

you can sum up BSD as "it's free and you don't have to give back", more of less.

thecodewitch said...

The ideals the most frothing at the mouth linux preachers like to shout about are all too often just a flimsy cover to conceal:

- their deep insecurities
- a relentless and bitter paranoia
- raw envy
- an infantile and all consuming greed
- galactic egos
- a basic inability to live in the real world

Keep using linux by all means. Just remember this the next time you read about linux on the bloggo-sphero-interblag/tubeweb.

Anonymous said...

I still haven't figured out the point of the article. Is LH complaining because using GPLed code means you have to give changes back? Seems pretty simple really, if you don't want to give changes back, write the entire thing yourself and don't use code you didn't write.

"It doesn't matter. Use the kernel in a media-visible way but don't send patches?"

What am I missing? You don't think they should have to give the changes back?

Anonymous said...

oh come on guys... the man is a f*g idiot with a lot of time to spent.
I even wonder why all these people read his blog. I admit that in the past i found here one o two good post but nowadays he is full of idiotic, ignorant rants....

Mate..... use the os you like best... whatever suits your needs best.... and shut the f*k up with your pompous rants.

Anonymous said...

Irony: Some moron who comes on to someone elses web site and gives a pompous rant about the owner of that website putting up pompous rants. The icing on the cake is when they imply people should be left to use there own tools for there own jobs despite the whole point of there rant being to tell someone to stop doing just that.

Tilaglar said...

Maybe I misunderstood the GPL. I thought it meant that you had to give back changes to the community if you made any, not that it was compulsory to go round making changes to the kernel before you were allowed to run it. Am I breaking the GPL by having installed Linux without altering the source code?

yOSHi314 said...

"Am I breaking the GPL by having installed Linux without altering the source code?"

of course not. only if you did some modifications to the linux source code and didn't share the source code of your modifications.

nksingh said...

@yoshi:
Not even that.. Google likely has an extremely modified linux kernel that they don't have to give anyone access to at all, since they are not distributing it outside of their organization. GPL allows you to modify code and keep that private as long as you don't distribute the binaries.

freefucker said...

Blaa blaaa blaaaa BSD more free than GPL blaa blaab laaalalaa GPL more free than BSD blaa blaa blaaaa

duh.

Anonymous said...

You don't even have to have made any modifications. You "just" have to (re)distribute it ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary ) - installing/using alone isn't enough. Yeah there's a *whole* bunch of rules that are non obvious/misinterpreted when it comes to the GPL.

Anonymous said...

That's where BSD-style free as in "it'd be nice if you're share your changes, but you don't have to cause we don't like the idea of redefining freedom, hence you're free to do whatever the fuck you want with it, as long as you provide attribution" licenses come into play.

If you want truly free software you go with BSD, where the top concern is writing good code.

If you want religion, you go with GPL where the top concern seems to be propagating the cult.

Anonymous said...

"Free as long you give back" is the exact definition of the GPL.

GPL version 2, yes. GPL version 3 is more like free as long as you submit to the will of the almighty RMS and don't do anything he disapproves of with the code, and don't go making friends with people he doesn't like, and don't believe in owning property or operating your business in ways he dislikes.

Anonymous said...

GPL is for facists.

Alex said...

@nksingh: And think of all the flak Google was getting before it started sharing some of its changes to FOSS systems. Think of that recent article accusing Mark Shuttleworth of Ubuntu fame, for God's sake, of not working closely enough with upstream, Debian and the Linux kernel.

That's what LH seems to mean: if you modify GPL-licensed code, you're morally obliged to go to your source, help him integrate your changes into his codebase, and shrug off any abuse you'll be getting in the process. Which is just dumb, unless you don't value your time at all.

Anonymous said...

alex, it's worse than that. It's more like... if you use our product, and make money out of it, then you have the "moral obligation" to contribute to improve that same code.

That whole "giving back to the community", like you own them something for what you got... like they made you a favour. A kind of slap on your face after they have been shouting how their code is FREE, and all the philosphy of FREEDOM.

GPL: "Do whatever you like with it, but if you make some money, then please give a help to those of us still left in the mud"

insanity said...

Hehe... I'm not quite sure how some of you are missing this. Allow me to paraphrase:

LH's rant is about the fact that programmers in a GPL project such as Linux are bitching because they don't think Canonical does enough "paying back" the community for all the success it is enjoying.

LH is saying that some Linux Dev's are simply being sour, because they feel Canonical is stealing all their work and selling it. This, as LH points out, is utter BS as Canonical is making many improvements in tons of other relevant FOSS areas, JUST NOT THESE PET PROJECTS such as the kernel for example.

So, definitely devs... stop being jealous of other people getting attention. Ubuntu/Canonical has never held back its changes... it has just never made many changes to your code!

Anonymous said...

LH, they don't just have to contribute back to the community, but they have to make some big speech about it and thank them every day and night. At least if you are a commerical entity...

As an example, Apple is often quoted as taking from BSD and not giving anything back. Funny to hear that from the Linux crowd when the BSD developers mention several times in their notes that such and such came from Apple.

Same thing with Webkit: if you mention Webkit in a sentence, you better say that originally it was KHTML. Funny though how when Linux people fork stuff, you often don't read any mention of that (most probably 'cause nobody cares). And don't get me started on the whole "Apple just took KHTML and made Mac-only changes, that are useless for the rest of us", totally forgetting that one of the reason why lots and lots of groups are starting to use Webkit is because Apple REMOVED the Qt specific code and made Webkit platform-agnostic.

And Apple it's just an example. You can mention Google, and how lots of people feel Google has a "moral obligation" to send back patches, and so on.

Basically GPL is _almost_ total freedom (you still have to publish the code). But then if you don't help those whose code you turn into a big thing, then you get shit from all sides. And if you do, you still have to start shouting it to the world... like the world (outside of the few lusers) cares about that kind of thing.

Unbelievable.

Anonymous said...

> GPL is for facists.

and BSD-license is for anarchists liberals...


( Godwin point heavily reached ! )

:)

Alex said...

...Except that, a) it's not about the money at all; I've seen independent forkers being harassed for forking and not contributing directly to the origin, and b) they never say 'please', like in your comment.

You know what, perhaps GPLv4 should include this clause, too: "If you're using the code, and you're big enough for us, you must dedicate a minimum of N man-hours to contributing to your source. Or else you officially suck."

Anonymous said...

I don't get it, Canonical publishes their changed sources so if the kernel people want it they can always grab it.

Oh right, I keep forgetting that the point of this blog is to make personal attacks against obscure developers not to counter points... carry on then.

Anonymous said...

Greg KH is power tripping asshole

Look at this

http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/

Some guy from Philips writes a Linux driver for Philips USB webcams. There's an open source part and a closed source part that Philips won't let him release. It all works well for 3 years.

Then Greg KH removes the hook in the kernel which the closed source part uses to register to force Philips to release the source code to the closed source bit.

The Philips guy pulls his code because he's not allowed to.

At this point everyone with a Philips webcam is shit outta luck. Greg KH has broken the build for customers on purpose, a sackable offense in a commercial software house.

Then someone else comes along with a new driver made by decompiling the original code

http://kerneltrap.org/node/5066

The original Philips guy complains. But tough shit, now not only the bits Philips wanted to release but the whole thing is now open source.

Watch out NVidia I'd say. Once you start to open source stuff, the freetards will force you to open source the lot. And if you get sued by people you signed contracts and NDAs with, tough shit. All property must be transferred into the collective, regardless of what its owners think.

And don't expect to be allowed to stay in the kernel maintainers group unless you allow people like Greg KH to push you around on a whim.

Free software my arse.

Anonymous said...

Have you noticed how no one Diggs your site any more except maybe yourself, LH?

Because like you, it sucks ass.

BTW, I had yet another friend who is a visual effects pro with 20+ years experience install Ubuntu as the OS for his render farm and desktops in his boutique VFX shop. He also has a couple of Macs for Photoshop texture work. The Ubuntu machines work flawlessly I'm told.

Your nothing but another ass hat Windows Fanboi. I suspect you spend all day helping idiot Windows users as a SysAdmin.

It must suck being you.

Arvind said...

This blog used to be so much fun to read , I still remember those good times. Maybe it would be better to wrap up now.

julian67 said...

Let's see, a Novell employee says something unfavourable about Canonical. A Canonical employee doesn't like this and writes a whiny blog.

Is this news?????

It's about human behaviour, not about free software. You can see the same tedious office politics/business gossip scenario played out any where you care to look.

GKH understands that Linux is the kernel and other things such as GNU utils and Gnome/KDE etc go towards making the complete OS, whereas the Ubuntu guy has trouble differentiating these. Canonical passes quite a lot of changes back to Gnome but not many to the kernel.

GKH says publicly that Canonical isn't pulling its weight with contributions to the kernel. Ubuntuguy says "but we pass lots of stuff to Gnome" GKH says hey doofus that's a different thing. Ubuntu guy gets pissy and writes blog.

Obviously a massive story that just has to be reported....yawn

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that "Guy who works for Company X gives talks at conferences where he rags on Competitor Y but doesn't name his employer as Company X" is not a problem specific to Linux, FOSS, etc.

So far as the binary blob issues, LK development is always a steaming pile of OH MY GOD. You've *three months* of binary compatibility for a given release from the kernel developers themselves, and no stability or quality guarantees for a given feature in a given release.

As a result, you've got vendors patching the fuck out of things, so RHEL 2.6.18 actually includes patches that make it work like 2.6.19 in certain areas. As a result, if you're developing drivers, you must devise clever ways to test for the specific feature and behavior you need, because you can't depend on the version number meaning anything outside of the lifecycle of the release.

So RHEL5's 2.6.18 is supposed to remain binary-compatible for the lifetime of RHEL5, but that's RH's guarantee. What RH doesn't guarantee is that what it calls "2.6.18" is the same as what Linus Torvalds, Novel, or Canonical calls "2.6.18".

Anonymous said...

You know what, perhaps GPLv4 should include this clause, too: "If you're using the code, and you're big enough for us, you must dedicate a minimum of N man-hours to contributing to your source. Or else you officially suck."

No, people's freedom to be selfish must be taken away for the greater good.

Maybe it could be like serfdom, for six days a week you'd work for your Baron, perhaps Baron Hartmann. On the seventh you'd be free to work for yourself. You'd swear an Oath of Fealty to Baron Hartman, and he'd swear one to King Torvalds.

Capitalists like Canonical would have to provide a certain number of codeserfs per line of code they used.

ubuwalker31 said...

I think LH has it right. There are hundreds if not thousands of open source USERS who are not developers or programmers who are treated like shit because they can't contribute to the code base. I once asked for a feature to be included in Gaim and was rudely told "why don't you code it" -- well bud, if I could code webcam software, I would have done it myself already.

This isn't about releasing code under the GPL. It is clear that if you make changes to Linux Kernel and keep it inside your company, and you don't distribute it, you don't have to give the modified source code to anyone. Its also clear that if you make changes and distribute the kernel, you have to release the code.

This is about "community involvement" and "open source values". This goes beyond the license into the territory of fairness.

If a company like Ubuntu or Red Hat make a business out of linux, then there is an expectation by the hobby enthusiast community that the moneyed interests will add hundreds if not thousands of patches into their favorite pet projects. Kernel developers want big business support and Gnome wants it too. When favoritism is shown, egos get bruised and tempers flare. Charges of "you aren't doing your part" emerge.

It makes the community look bad.

yippiekiyay said...

I think Linux Hater is just like a gay bashing Republican. Like that Republican he is actually gay. I mean he is actually a closet Linux user. He just doesn't want to admit it. I bet he has to look over his should when he boots his laptop in public hoping no one will see that boot menu, heck he probably user NTLDR and lists Linux under a fake name. He could even use that theme that looks like Vista. He probably uses Ubuntu as favorably as he talks about Shuttleworth (a Linux guy who actually made money). Linux Hater, why that hate when we know you have the love?

antifundies said...

That dickhead got his ass kicked once by Theo from OpenBSD. He and his morale can go take a hike. Canonical doesn't have to do anything other than follow by the license.

Lunix, it's for the crazy fundamentalists.

Anonymous said...

@yippiekiyay

GOLD!!

Anonymous said...

I was using Linux for years but quit due to the zealotry and half-assedness of the projects. Greg Kroah-Hartman's yet another example of why I will never bother with Linux again.

yOSHi314 said...

"Not even that.. Google likely has an extremely modified linux kernel that they don't have to give anyone access to at all, since they are not distributing it outside of their organization. GPL allows you to modify code and keep that private as long as you don't distribute the binaries"
do you have evidence for that?

as for their compliance with gpl and similar licences :
http://code.google.com/opensource/patches.html

when complying with gpl you must provide the source code, by default or whenever anybody requests it.

but you can do whatever you want with binaries. gpl cares about the source code, but not about the final product.

Anonymous said...

How come freetards can't ever understand the difference between "your" and "you're"? And why do you trust such people with your operating systems?

And, "gay bashing Republican?" Dumbest fucking analogy ever. Congrats, you take the stupid cake.

For all you shitheads who can't see the obvious, LH is deeply involved in the Linux community. You can tell by reading his posts that he isn't just some /. ILIEKOOBOOOTOOOTOO douchebag in his mom's basement. The guy is one of you, only not stupid and sheeplike.

He's trying to get the community to get thier shit correct, and the only way he sees to do it is to smack you in your fucking neckbeards. Because you assholes are too fucking wound up in your GPL'd daisy chain you can't see how shit is so fucked up in linuxland.

Ramsees said...

You are so right and Im glad someone finally say it.

GPL is a trap, they talk about the wonders of it, but once you fall they will go for your soul.

Avoid GPL at any cost. It is a trap made by some anarchist who hate the success of the individual.

Anonymous said...

"He's trying to get the community to get thier shit correct, and the only way he sees to do it is to smack you in your fucking neckbeards."

And you don't know how to spell "their"...

Anonymous said...

@julian67

//Is this news?????//

No, it's a blog post. Dumbfuck bollocks licker.

Anonymous said...

A song in tribute to Linux hater:

Click here to play

Anonymous said...

I'm all about criticizing Ubuntu, Canonical, Shuttleworth, et. al, but really, until Ubuntu or Canonical starts making ANY money at all, don't, this jackhole's rant was pretty meaningless. I mean, as it stands, it's just the project of an independently wealthy dude and a bunch of lusers who think that someone Ubuntu is the greatest thing in the history of mankind.

Novell, Red Hat, IBM, etc. make huge amounts of money off of the kernel. Maybe that's why they "give more back."

Frankly, the whole religious zealotry of FOSS and fucking Stallman and his followers is what turns me off of using Linux in any environment outside of a web server. If I'm going to deal with pretentious assholes in a community, I might as well deal with Apple people, at least they bathe.

Anonymous said...

What the fuck is this rant suppose to be about. Linux politics? SHIT LH NOBODY GIVES A SHIT - CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY LINUX SUCKS!

Maybe my perfectly stable and functional Linux system is filtering all juicy crap from this website?

Oh well I guess I'll have to continue using Linux instead of going out to the store and buying three copies of Windows Vista Ultimate.

:(

yippiekiyay said...

To Jackass Above, you proved my exact point with the gay bashing republican comment by saying

"For all you shitheads who can't see the obvious, LH is deeply involved in the Linux community."

No duh, just like a gay Republican, Linux Hater may hate but he lives with Linux. Sorry you fail at Analogies 101. You are either one of the following two

1) a humorless fuck who is unable to see that this blog is a huge trolling ground and LH just loves his trolling.

or my M. Night Shyamalanian twist thatf

2) You are Linux Hater. You are either bipolar or batshit crazy. So when your are between your meds you write this blog/farce.

I think that could be it cause you tried to whore out Adwords (bad idea I am sure all your audience uses Adblock, then you tried some crappy ass cafepress shirts.

I think we should start a PayPal donation link to help LH with his meds.

Renato said...

I think LH has it right. There are hundreds if not thousands of open source USERS who are not developers or programmers who are treated like shit because they can't contribute to the code base.

That's because the freetards devs thinks every user IS or SHOULD be a developer too.

So, when a USER complain a GPL program has a bug or it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, devs answer is always fix it yourself or shut the fuck up.

Just see what KDE4 developers have sad about their users complaints:

"KDE and open source is not ever obligated to please users. We are not obligated to fix bugs. We are not obligated to implement things that you demand.

This is what they call "freedom".

Anonymous said...

Whee ! Another penguin dance..

No duh, just like a gay Republican, Linux Hater may hate but he lives with Linux.

Oh wow, you figured that out all by yourself?

Its obvious to everyone except you, that most people here have had experience with Linux, after listening to the FUD from retards like you. And big fucking surprise, they found out that Linux is a piece of shit.

luser retard.

Anonymous said...

Yep.

It is confirmed. All anonymous luser zealots are all Julian.

Anonymous said...


buying three copies of Windows Vista Ultimate.

In which twisted universe do freetards actually buy stuff?

More of the penguin dance !

Anonymous said...

BeOS FTW!!!

Anonymous said...

"What am I missing? You don't think they should have to give the changes back?"

The point is that Ubuntu spent time making OTHER parts of the OS work (somewhat). You know, things like the user interface and drivers? Rather than waste time breaking all their other software with kernel tweaks, they focused on *gasp* the end user.

A kernel is kinda fucking useless without that stuff, ya know.

Anonymous said...

I think the most telling thing about this rant is how many people -- as evidenced by the comments here -- completely missed the fucking point.

Anonymous said...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx 'Nuff said

Matt said...

If Greg Kroah-Hartman doesn't like the amount of patches that Canonical submits then he's free to join their company and submit more patches in their name. This is a meritocracy. He can either complain or bring a solution to the table. No one is stopping him.

Anonymous said...

"of course not. only if you did some modifications to the linux source code and didn't share the source code of your modifications."

Oh man, 30+ blog posts in and I'm still laughing at the luser's complete ignorance of sarcasm.

Anonymous said...

This place has officially become even worse - and more juvenile than - Slashdot.

You are all insulting each other over computer operating systems!

Anonymous said...

I might as well deal with Apple people, at least they bathe

hmmm, time for my bath, i smell over the internets (or maybe just a quick shower?)

Anonymous said...

blame LH, it's his blog he promotes this hate crap

Kara Thrace said...

Hey, I have a question.

When Canonical makes changes to GPL'd code in their Linux distribution, aren't they giving it back to the community with every CD they press and every copy of Ubuntu that's being downloaded?

What am I missing?

Kmilo said...

you made a mistake LH, so following your standards I will call you a fucking moron: Greg KH work for Novell, not Ubuntu

antifundies said...

Apparently the blog post was harder to comprehend then I thought. Look at all these freetard replies.

LOL

Anonymous said...

LH's rant is about the fact that programmers in a GPL project such as Linux are bitching because they don't think Canonical does enough "paying back" the community for all the success it is enjoying.

Thanks insanity. It honesty wasn't clear what the rant was about. I agree with others, if we stop, drop and roll on every blog where someone whines, we'll never have any time to bash each other properly. :D

Anonymous said...

@Kmilo: Notice the full-stop in between "Enter the infamous GregKH" and "mdz of Ubuntu sums up his keynote speech..."?

You can't even manage to read four paragraphs without fucking up.

Who's the fucking moron?

And there are hundreds more shit-flinging freetards like you who can't read a sentence without frothing at the mouth and getting it wrong yet at the same time is trying to persuade the rest of the world to dump their OS of choice for Linux where stuff like xconf.org and sound not working is considered perfectly normal. It isn't going to happen.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous September 18, 2008 2:58 PM

trying to persuade the rest of the world to dump their OS of choice for Linux where stuff like xconf.org and sound not working is considered perfectly normal. It isn't going to happen.

Exactly. That's what these most fervent of Linux users don't understand. The "Year of the Linux Desktop" isn't coming.

Normal, typical users don't want to join a crusade/cult. They don't want to wage pseudo-ideological war against a corporation.

What they want is to use their computer to do things. Period. They expect sound to work and they expect to be able to install applications.

As has been pointed out by several posters; most of us here have used Linux extensively. Any "Works for Me™" claims will not convince us.

Anonymous said...

"I think Linux Hater is just like a gay bashing Republican. Like that Republican he is actually gay. I mean he is actually a closet Linux user."

No shit. He's even a KDE developer (or has been in the past). The people who truly think Linux is a lost cause can just ignore it, no harm, no foul. People like LH are the ones who criticize it because they desperately want Linux to get a fucking clue.

As always, this thread is full of idiots. First of all, there is no GPL requirement to "give back" any modifications to the source code. You're only required to do that if you are distributing the binaries outside of your organization. Don't take my word for it---ask the guys who wrote it.

Second, Canonical does give back to the FOSS projects that it works on and distributes. The basic gist of the critic was that Canonical is bad because it puts its resources into making Linux something people want to use, instead of hacking the kernel in ways that nobody, ever, is going to care about.

Anonymous said...

Um I don't understand what this blog post has to do with hating Linux.

TWO PEOPLE WHO USE LINUX GET INTO A FIGHT, THEREFORE I HATE LINUX!

Fucking stupid shit LH.

Proud Christian Republician said...

I stoppped subscribing to LinuxHater and started reading this blog:

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/category/education/technical/linux

Her arguments against Linux are much stronger. She shows how Linux is a European & Soviet conspiracy to destroy American and Christian ideals. It's actually very convincing shit.

Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

Um I don't understand what this blog post has to do with hating Linux.

TWO PEOPLE WHO USE LINUX GET INTO A FIGHT, September 18, 2008 4:19 PM


It serves as a perfect metaphor for the disorganized nature of Linux.

Anonymous said...

Linux is shit, by shitty programmers for shitty programmers. Everything and everyone who touches it turns to shit. The people who promote it are shit. Even the people who complain about it eventually turn into shit.

Linux shit has reached critical density. It is now a black hole of shit that sucks in anyone stupid enough to go near it. Friends don't let friends go near shit(Linux).

Anonymous said...

If the Linux community put half as much effort into their code as they do their bitching, there would be no need for a blog like this.

Anonymous said...

If you change gpl 2 code and distribute binaries, you must provide your source code. That's it. Free software as defined by rms.

Everyone that thinks you are morally obligated to work with the community doesn't actually understand the gpl 2. It doesn't require it. There really isn't an argument here and I am right. Read gpl. I have.


Shut the fuck if you disagree. Face it. I am right.

yOSHi314 said...

"Apparently the blog post was harder to comprehend then I thought. Look at all these freetard replies."

that could be because the author seems to have completely missed the point.

btw if you think linux users are zealots - you obviously haven't seen *bsd mailinglists ;-)

about the gpl "trap"

gpl was designed primarily for one thing - so that nobody can take your code, modify it and make a closed-source proprietary product out of it.


gpl is designed so that anybody modyfying the code of your gpl-licensed project is obliged to share the source code of their modifications, so that you can benefit from their work, as they do from yours.

that might seem like a trap because it means that also you, as the original author of the code, cannot make the product closed-source.

on the other hand - if you think that you got trapped in gpl - why did you choose for your own project in the first place? you can only blame yourself.

Anonymous said...

Yoshi, you are still missing the point. The point of this article was that instead of the Linux kernel community praising Ubuntu for making a slightly more usable Linux distribution, they are whining about how Canonical isn't spending time developing patches for the kernel. Ubuntu *is* open-source - just that they never modified the kernel, so they have nothing to give back. But apparently if you use the Linux kernel it means you're expected to become a developer and fix their bugs for them, or otherwise you'll be hit with negative PR. Great way to inspire companies to move to Linux!

Anonymous said...

The guy just suggests Ubuntu to contribute back, that's not mandatory (but a bad PR, I agree).

IMHO, it's better even for Ubuntu long term that they don't have to mantain their patches separately (and help upstream project improve will help them and everyone else long term).

So, stop shittin' :)

Anonymous said...

"It honesty wasn't clear what the rant was about."

OMFG!!!

Can any of you people read? This is high school-level reading comprehension stuff. Basic shit!

LH is going to have to bring out the crayons, construction paper, and glitter pretty soon.

Anonymous said...

"If you change gpl 2 code and distribute binaries, you must provide your source code. That's it. Free software as defined by rms."


the key word -- which seems to have been missed, here, by most -- is "if."

Anonymous said...

"Her arguments against Linux are much stronger. She shows how Linux is a European & Soviet conspiracy to destroy American and Christian ideals. It's actually very convincing shit."


What.

The fuck.

Are you smoking?

Anonymous said...

republicans' homegrown grass...

is 90% of americans utterly dump?

Anonymous said...

I think we're seeing a familiar phenonmenon here. The Linux bums see some slight criticism, and immediately get defensive. This increases their blood pressure, and constricts the blood flow to their brains, causing them to act like morons.

The bums should realize that GPL is not the topic of conversation right now. It's all about being a good open sores citizen. Canonical must patch the kernel left and right. They must not only publish their changes, they must work with the kerneltards to merge them into the 'main line' (or whatever idiotic lingo the bums use). The KHtard is wailing that Canonical is not patching the kernel enough.

Well, may be the Canonical folks do not want to deal with the kerneltards that closely. May be they find that distasteful. I know I would!

Anonymous said...

"It honesty wasn't clear what the rant was about."

OMFG!!!


It was as well written as most grade 9 history papers, rambling and saying lots of things, but no clear line of thought or point. I give it a C- as a grade 9 paper. Any essay that requires following the references to get the gist of the essay is not well written.

I doubt this is the original LH, but a posting by an LH wanna be as part of the call to keep the blog going. It really isn't going anywhere. The sarcasm, the subtlety, the insight, it's dying.

yOSHi314 said...

"The point of this article was that instead of the Linux kernel community praising Ubuntu for making a slightly more usable Linux distribution, they are whining about how Canonical isn't spending time developing patches for the kernel. "

i cannot recall canonical make any significant custom patches for the kernel. but i can't say much in this topic, as i don't use ubuntu and i didn't look under that distro's hood too much .

i thought they (canonical) are merely rebasing off debian, actually with not too much of their own work.

if you compare them to other major distribution vendors - canonical is really doing little (if anything) about the kernel. redhat and novell are software vendors who have some dedicated people helping with kernel development.

so as far as the kernel goes - kernel developers might feel "cheated" by canonical. almost every bigger distro provides some patches for the kernel. that's almost a common practice nowadays. it seems perfectly normal that people assumed that canonical would do exactly the same thing.

but canonical's priority is desktop linux. so they work more in userspace, making things like launchpad, bulletproofx, user-friendly tools, artwork, founding a usability team, etc. and, what's most important - promoting linux.

i don't think any other company contributed that much to linux popularity among casual (non-geek) computer users. ubuntu has been around for merely ~4 years and it's contributed quite a lot already. not in submitted code lines, but in areas that geeks usually have trouble with ;-)

Anonymous said...

How Many of You are 100% Linux?

By that I mean no Windows whatsoever. That means no Wine, no emergency XP partition, which you "hardly ever use", etc.

I see a lot of people in forums who rail against Microsoft, then talk about using Wine. (So they hate Microsoft and Windows so much, they use Windows APIs to run Windows software.)

I would think that people who are all about "GNU/Linux freedom" would eschew all things Microsoft. Finding ways to run Windows software just sounds like selective ideology.

Anonymous said...

I would think that people who are all about "GNU/Linux freedom" would eschew all things Microsoft. Finding ways to run Windows software just sounds like selective ideology.

Indeed. Same way they are free software lovers but install Flash, propietary drivers, propietary codecs, and whenever they need to make their computer half-work. I guess what they really want to say is they avoid propietary software... as long as they don't actually need it.

Primefalcon said...

I ran wine for a little while but I don't any wine windows apps anymore.

there are open source alternatives fo5r everything.

I typicaly search the repo's ask on forums or search osalt.com if I need a open source alternative.

I also find the programs lighter, faster, more stable and more powerful than commercial counterparts

Anonymous said...

there are open source alternatives fo5r everything.

Sure, there are "alternatives". Just like I can find alternatives to driving a car. But many, if not most of them, suck ass ... and make me question why I'd even consider them, given that I have perfectly functional commercial solutions on Windows...

Anonymous said...


I also find the programs lighter, faster, more stable and more powerful than commercial counterparts

Like what?

Anonymous said...

"How Many of You are 100% Linux?"

I'm 100% Linux---no WINE, no secret Windows partition, etc. But fortunately for me, I'm not going to be a douchebag and tell you how proprietary software is the work of the Devil, mostly because I couldn't stomach being that much of a clueless dick.

Anonymous said...

[B]Like what?[/B]

Amarok - best media player, MP3 controller ever. Windows version, due to popular request due soon. You can test the beta.
K3B - Nero's native port to Linux, just not needed, K3B better in all respects.
Compiz - Eye candy (fun to play with if into that kind of thing). Vista's Aero doesn't compete will
FireFox - Pretty popular on Windows too I have heard.
KDENLive - Easier, more powerful MovieMaker choice, supports EVERY export format out of the box. Really is fun to use.
KPDF - Abobe's bloated offering sucks on all platforms. Not a slam of MS, totally Adobe's fault there.
gFTP - Universal GIU transfer program. supports ftp, scp, ssh, etc... None better.
Konqueror - The best file manager of any OS. Does everything. Love mouse over media play, mime type load is 10x faster than windows.
GQView/Kwenview/Kalbum - great photo managers, second to none and very fast.
Gaim - inline support of most protocols simultaneously (available on windows if you want a better IM client to try)

The problem with most proprietary programs is they try to be too much. Yahoo messenger comes with so much crap. Why does HP Photoshop come with 11 other programs and start 5-6 processes. Simply put, there is an arms race on Windows apps to try and be everything to everyone, as opposed to just one thing great. That isn't a slam of Windows, even those who love windows would agree, iTunes with Safari + MobileMe + Quicktime + as the default install, uggghh.

Anonymous said...

I'm 100% Linux---no WINE, no secret Windows partition, etc. But fortunately for me, I'm not going to be a douchebag and tell you how proprietary software is the work of the Devil, mostly because I couldn't stomach being that much of a clueless dick.

Nice to meet you. It's actually refreshingly rare to meet Linux users who are as reasonable. ;-)

primefalcon said...

Look personally I don't like this hate stuff, I read it to keep well open on issues....

I am a web designer/programmer in PHP, c++ amongst others....

If you use and like windows, thats fine, if you use Linux thats fine, I myself prefer Linux, it allows me to do my job more effectively...

I am not against proprietary software if it does the job better for example am living in the states these days while my parents are still in Australia, and well skype is the best tool I've come across for cross platform communication via voice, and honestly it's the best tool I've ever come across for 0 lag and such.

In my opinion I prefer Linux for a lot of reasons. Windows isn't evil like a lot of people think, but I myself prefer Linux because it does give me enhanced security and flexibility.

Use whatever you want but just keep an open mind and try things out....

Anonymous said...

Another great blog LH. I see that the freetards and zealots are still hanging around and getting all worked up. You guys should take a bath once in a while. Cools your head and refreshes the mind.

Anonymous said...

Fuckin' liberals ruin everything!
Software, sporting events, schools, TV, ... fuckin' everything! They say they are all about choice but they're all about not being responsible for themselves and making everyone conform to their ideals. The kind of people who try to kick people off campus because of different ideologies. Fuck you liberals, fuck your software, and fuck your ideals. You're nothing but a bunch of facists.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous September 19, 2008 6:21 PM

What is a "facist"?

Anonymous said...

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/09/19/microsofts_im_a_pc_campaign_created_with_macs.html

First LH in blogger and now this...

I wonder how much of the pseudo-wintards are barking using Linux, we would be surprised.

LeeDB said...

"Fuck you liberals, fuck your software, and fuck your ideals. You're nothing but a bunch of facists."

Amusing - a blatant revealing of ignorance.

Anonymous said...

The post was great. People are just jealous of Ubuntu.

penguinrage said...

is it just me or that the sad impression of linux on the desktop is really true...

Anonymous said...

@anonymous freetard:

//I also find the programs lighter, faster, more stable and more powerful than commercial counterparts//

Well, that's because you're a fucking idiot.

primefalcon said...

The guy makes a personal opinion, and you go insulting.

More likely you haven't even tried different software and just want to spit insulting crap

Tim said...

That is funny, a classic case of the i_dont_want_criticism_from_linus_anywhere_that_google_can_find_it syndrome.

But apparently, Linus is not the only one who gives Ubuntu devs footprints on their asses. First the Mozilla fiasco, now codecs for sale .. I wonder if Shuttleworth wishes that he had just stayed in space? If touring space is cheaper that releasing a goddamn Linux distro .. you must be doing something wrong.

primefalcon said...

Tim its not that....

the standard version will be up for all to download. and you will still be able to install the propierty codecs yourself no problem legal wise.

but Ubuntu can't destribute them already installed.

so as a side measure for people who don't know how to do this, they're offering this version with all those drivers reinstalled, and to cover the licensing fee's of distributing it with restricted drivers they're just offsetting it.

It's not that big of a deal.

Anonymous said...

"Amarok - best media player, MP3 controller ever"

You got to be kidding right? Amarok is bloated and buggy as hell!

Anonymous said...

I've been saying it for months now: Mr. Shuttleworth is too sane and has too much brains to be in Linux land. He just doesn't fit. The clock is ticking until he himself figures out Linux isn't worth the trouble and moves on to greener pastures.

Anonymous said...

"Fuck you liberals, fuck your software..."

Linux, the best Breznev's era operating system released in the Soviet Union...

Funny americans.

julian67 said...

If you change gpl 2 code and distribute binaries, you must provide your source code. That's it. "

Not quite right, and neither is the person who "corrects" you with "the key word -- which seems to have been missed, here, by most -- is "if.""

If you don't modify the binaries but you do distribute them you have to either offer the source code, or pass on the original offer of the source you received when you obtained the binary, or make an offer to distribute the source, valid for three years. This doesn't have to be by same method, i.e. perhaps you distribute binaries via http/ftp but it's OK to offer to distribute source on CD on request.

There's no obligation to offer back changes to upstream if you don't distribute those changes. There's not really any obligation to be co-operative with upstream at all as long as you release source to accompany modified binaries. In fact if you read the license i.e. GPLv2 there's no obligation to notify upstream of changes, you can be lazy and just release your modified binaries and source and let the upstream people find it out for themselves. Not many people do it this way but it's why you can fork a project. GPL doesn't force you to be nice but people do have an expectation that you'll not shoot yourself in the foot by annoying the people who make your work possible. GPL obliges you to make source available, and as long as you do that and meet the other conditions you can be a selfish unco-operative leech to quite a large extent.

As far as I can tell the general bitching about Canonical from within free software is more to do with the scale of the project, its funding and the expectations people had that it might become an important contributor to the kernel, which hasn't happened yet and maybe never will. Mr Shuttleworth's recent initiative to start hiring developers to target specific upstream targets is aimed at X, OpenGL, Gtk, Qt, GNOME and KDE, not the kernel. He can definitely make an impact on some of these areas but if you look at kernel development Canonical wouldn't have that much influence anyway, they'd struggle to have influence amongst much bigger free software companies as well as corporations like IBM, HP and Intel. Canonical are almost as relatively tiny as private individuals compared to these.

Greg Kroah-Hartman has previously made the point that if your company uses Linux and you don't contribute to the kernel then it's assumed you're satisfied with it and that if you're not satisfied you should get involved. To save the hard-of-understanding some trouble: he means companies that use the Linux kernel in their products, not companies that simply have Suse or Red Hat or whatever running in their places of business.

Anonymous said...

@primefalcon

Actually I've used 80% of the software on his list:

Amarok - complete garbage. Bloated, buggy, slower than molasses in January.

Compiz - cute but worthless. Aero Glass is far less buggy (Compiz windows often jiggle uncontrollably after maximizing).

gFTP - slow. Unintutive. Loses connections. Crap.

GQView/Kwenview/Kalbum -- automatic fail for mentioning any app with a "k" in the name. Utter shit.

Next?

primefalcon said...

QUOTE -- Amarok - complete garbage. Bloated, buggy, slower than molasses in January. -- UNQUOTE
Have to agree with you I don't like amorak much either, I use VLC (movies) and rythmbox (general music) myself and just cd extractor if I'm playing directly from a cd

QUOTE -- Compiz - cute but worthless. Aero Glass is far less buggy (Compiz windows often jiggle uncontrollably after maximizing). -- UNQUOTE
I tried it for a while, didn't have any bugs but, Anything like that tends to use up a lot of system resources I prefer not to use it, besides your basic operating system stuff is flashy enough for my liking

QUOTE -- gFTP - slow. Unintutive. Loses connections. Crap. -- UNQUOTE
I couldn't agree with you more, try filezilla

None of that was my point though, I was quoting the below

QUOTE -- @anonymous freetard:

//I also find the programs lighter, faster, more stable and more powerful than commercial counterparts//

Well, that's because you're a fucking idiot. -- UNQUOTE

someone was expressing an opinion, they didn't say a single thing aggressively or attacking and they get insulted like that? That's what I had an issue with

.net jerkface said...


GPL doesn't force you to be nice but people do have an expectation that you'll not shoot yourself in the foot by annoying the people who make your work possible.


The gpl forces you to use the gpl license for any derived works that use gpl software, even if this means that your 1 million line program only uses 5 lines of gpl code. Used a gpl'd unzip library in your program? Open source the whole thing.

I wouldn't call it forcing you to be nice either, I would call it forcing you to put your software in the gpl collective.


Greg Kroah-Hartman has previously made the point that if your company uses Linux and you don't contribute to the kernel then it's assumed you're satisfied with it


Give me a break, the general assumption is that you're a leech and you don't care about the linux community. If MS created a linux distro and ignored the community there would constant nerd screeching about what leechers they are. Stallmanites believe in a 'spirit of the license' which is what LH was talking about.

As for Greg KH he is a 12 year old in a grown man's body who gets upset over ridiculous issues that in no way impede the adoption of the linux kernel. Hopefully Shuttleworth will figure this out at some point and direct his funds that he made from proprietary software towards something else.

Anonymous said...

@primefalcon

//someone was expressing an opinion, they didn't say a single thing aggressively or attacking and they get insulted like that? That's what I had an issue with//

You're new here aren't you?

primefalcon said...

Look I don't see the big deal here, this stuff to keep code from being monopolized by a company and removed from open source effectively.

if you don't want to give back any modifications, and still distribute the modified code, either code it yourself or use pre-existing proprietary code, oh wait, you cant use that under any circumstances for free even if you are willing to contribute back.

Which means if your going to distribute the modified code, either give back or code your own

primefalcon said...

and if you code it yourself, go ahead make it proprietary. it's your initial code, it's your right to do with it as you want

Anonymous said...

@julian67: "There's no obligation to offer back changes to upstream if you don't distribute those changes. There's not really any obligation to be co-operative with upstream at all as long as you release source to accompany modified binaries. In fact if you read the license i.e. GPLv2 there's no obligation to notify upstream of changes, you can be lazy and just release your modified binaries and source and let the upstream people find it out for themselves. Not many people do it this way but it's why you can fork a project. GPL doesn't force you to be nice but people do have an expectation that you'll not shoot yourself in the foot by annoying the people who make your work possible. GPL obliges you to make source available, and as long as you do that and meet the other conditions you can be a selfish unco-operative leech to quite a large extent."

LH isn't talking about the GPL license. He's talking about the FOSS blowhards who criticize people for not "giving back". To which I say, FUCK 'EM. If the Stallmanites want to force people to give back changes, they should just write it into the GPL, rather than bitch and whine and moan about it; otherwise, they should just SHUT THE FUCK UP.

julian67 said...

"GQView/Kwenview/Kalbum -- automatic fail for mentioning any app with a "k" in the name. Utter shit."

GQView doesn't have a K in the name. Complex technical point or what? Does the quality of debate here seem lacking, or am I being harsh?

"The gpl forces you to use the gpl license for any derived works that use gpl software, even if this means that your 1 million line program only uses 5 lines of gpl code. Used a gpl'd unzip library in your program? Open source the whole thing."

If you choose to use GPL code it's because someone is forcing you? Really?

Nobody is forced to choose GPL code for their project but if you choose it you have to respect the license, same as for any copyrighted product.

If you can put together a 1 million line program can you not write 5 lines of your own?

It's not possible to choose something else, i.e. pay a license to reuse proprietary code, use public domain code or use free software which isn't distributed under a copyleft license? BSD, MIT, public domain?

The zip and unzip utilities found in distros aren't under a copyleft license and you can do just about anything you like with them as long as you retain the copyright notice and don't infringe Info-ZIP's trademarks.

If we can ignore all of those things then you're somewhere between sour grapes and nowhere at all.

"Give me a break, the general assumption is that you're a leech and you don't care about the linux community. "

Who is the "you" in your assertion? Without some context or definition there's no meaning there.

To some extent you can be a "leech" and adhere to licensing, but being a leech in an environment modelled on collaboration has only extremely finite benefits, if any. I guess there will always be some hit and run types in any field but most people want to have some influence in projects that are useful to them.

I don't know if Mark Shuttleworth will walk away from Ubuntu frustrated or he'll make a good business of it, maybe neither. I can't help thinking that another reason he isn't targeting the kernel with his wealth is that it's one of the most healthy and adaptable parts of free software and it's doing fine without him. As we can see from GKH's pointed observations the Linux kernel wouldn't really be any different if Canonical/Ubuntu had never existed, but clearly the desktop experience is being affected. He's aiming at the desktop environments (immediately visible to even a casual observer, generates press) and more importantly at X and OpenGL. X.org probably needs it the most, and nobody is going to complain, least of all Novell and Mr K-H, if X.org development gets back up to speed.

Anonymous said...

FOSS zealots = scientologists

Anonymous said...

The original Philips guy complains. But tough shit, now not only the bits Philips wanted to release but the whole thing is now open source.


I love how It's okay for FOSS to violate copyright (because it's evil, and kills innovation, even though innovation requires bringing something new to the table and therby evading ally IP issues to begin with) but Gods forbid you fuck with the GPL.

As much as I dislike the DMCA I do hope Phillips lays a DMCA smackdown on the kernel team for this. I could understand if the code was actually reverse-engineered, that's fair game, and there's legal precedent for it, but decompiling a binary isn't fucking reverse-engineering, it's flat-out theft.

Anonymous said...

Love this blog. You really show Linux for what it is - a pile of crap....sorry "free" crap.

Good job!!

julian67 said...

"As much as I dislike the DMCA I do hope Phillips lays a DMCA smackdown "

Well they've had four years to think about it and don't seem too bothered so far...yup the troll story is from 2004.

And if you check http://lwn.net/Articles/137823/ you can see that Philips and Alan Cox (kernel maintainer) had "a
friendly discussion" and this was all resolved several years ago.

Philips is a Dutch corporation, the original proprietary binary was decompiled by someone in Denmark and the pwc site which hosts the new driver is in France. And you want to see the US DMCA used. Good luck. You win one honorary law degree from teh university of znet.

Decompiling a binary is not in itself illegal, even in the US, where in cases like this it's protected by fair use.

If you can't get hardware specs or source code then decompiling a binary driver is a way to learn enough about the hardware to write a free driver. Sometimes this is done "clean room" style where the team/person that decompiles is separate from the person/team who write a new driver based on discovered hardware specs. They never see the decompiled driver, they don't copy or reuse someone else's code and someone else again audits that. It's not a legal requirement to do it this way but it keeps everyone feeling legally happy and shiny. Apparently there was some doubt about how it was done in this case and Philips and LKM talked to each other and everyone lived happily ever after.

Isn't it shitty how some facts can ruin a perfectly good outbreak of bedwetting bloggerland hysteria?

Anonymous said...

@julian67

//GQView doesn't have a K in the name. Complex technical point or what?//

Hey bollocks chewer, I simply copy/pasted his string of shit program names. Complex use of CTRL-V or what? I guess it would be, with a Linux desktop.

Anonymous said...

"Hey bollocks chewer, I simply copy/pasted his string of shit program names. Complex use of CTRL-V or what? I guess it would be, with a Linux desktop."

Wow, you must be seriously retarded thinking something like that. Such a statement implies you have never used Linux and therefore hate on it without any experience using it.

Primefalcon said...

lol yup, have to agree more senseless insulting there without any counter arguments.

the insult only proves his ignorance, those keyboard shortcuts are universal.

Anonymous said...

@julian67: "Decompiling a binary is not in itself illegal, even in the US, where in cases like this it's protected by fair use."

No, fair use has more narrow limits than you think. It's not intended as a catch-all for any activity where you feel like violating copyright in the privacy of your own home or office. Fair use is for educational or non-profit use. But, it also depends on how much of the work you're using and the economic impact of the use on the affected work. For example, let's say that you rip a DVD and burn your own copy.

Regardless of whether you use it for personal purposes, the fact that you're essentially copying the entire work means the activity doesn't qualify as fair use. The driver issue is exactly the same. You're using the entire decompiled driver code. You're not excerpting it in any way for educational purposes. The use is intended to skirt commercial use. So, it isn't a fair use.

Furthermore, if you examine the license for the driver, you will likely notice that there is an explicit clause which forbids decompilation. Decompilation is very different from reverse-engineering. Reverse-engineering is a strict process where an engineer observes various things about a particular technology, writes a specification, and then implements code which matches the specification. The engineer DOESN'T just decompile the code and then use the decompiled code. That's an explicit violation of copyright. The process is nearly always done in isolation (eg. clean room reverse engineering) to avoid tainting the process.

Granted, it's not EASY to enforce copyright, and that's the reason taht many people feel justified in violating it. But the ease of violating the law should never be a justification for doing so; but, I fear that that's exactly what it has become. Adding a driver to Linux by decompiling a commercial driver is not fair use. It's simple, blatant copyright violation.

Anonymous said...

You are permitted to make back up copies of DVDs and software even if you have to circumvent anti-copying technologies to do so. While the DMCA explicitly states that you cannot a previous law regarding the backing up of software was ruled to override the clause in the DMCA.

.net jerkface said...


If you can put together a 1 million line program can you not write 5 lines of your own?

The zip and unzip utilities found in distros aren't under a copyleft license and you can do just about anything you like with them as long as you retain the copyright notice and don't infringe Info-ZIP's trademarks.

Both the 5 line case and the unzip library were theoretical examples of how impractical the gpl can be in practice. But then you already knew this but chose to reply as if they were real problems. Yawn.
The point is that the gpl is extremely divisive; the derived software must be completely gpl'd or not at all, which is grossly impractical to a myriad of situations where using a small amount of gpl code in a proprietary application would be very useful.


To some extent you can be a "leech" and adhere to licensing, but being a leech in an environment modelled on collaboration has only extremely finite benefits, if any.


Extremely finite benefits as in billions of dollars? Thanks to basement programmers of the world who follow gpl ideology billions of corporate dollars have been saved by using the stallman borg collective for capitalism.

Companies like Google and Ibm that exploit the labor of gpl programmers have even figured out how to get the open-sourcers to like them: just appear nicer than Microsoft.
Greg KH foolishly complains about Shuttleworth of all people while the Google guys roll in billions that was made partly made by being able to leverage open source for profit.

Open source programmers of the world unite! Shareholders of the world depend on your hard work!

primefalcon said...

the fact is if you don't want to abide by open source code, you don't have to use it.

Also if we're talking about one individual whining here about Ubuntu, big deal how much people do other companies have whining about them.

I'm a programmer myself and if I choose to implement gpl'ed software into one of my programs I don't have a problem contributing back....

Ubuntu does contribute back, and so does Google even though Google don't have to since they're not distributing Goobuntu (a modified version of Ubuntu) which is the os used at google.

The gpl was designed to protect the software, if your not willing to go along with it write your own from scratch or pay licensing fee's to a proprietary code base owner, big deal

Anonymous said...

PrimeFalcon, I want your source.

primefalcon said...

if your talking about Goobuntu and google, why don't you just try a lookup at the wikipedia, let me do that for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu

here it is, and it also states that google to give back to Ubuntu

here are the key quotes

quote 1
Goobuntu is a Linux distribution based on Ubuntu that Google uses internally.

quote 2
Mark Shuttleworth has confirmed that Google contributes patches to Ubuntu

quote 3
Google has supported Ubuntu through the Ubucon conferences and in other ways.

read the article for the test of the info

Anonymous said...

The gpl was designed to protect the software, if your not willing to go along with it write your own from scratch or pay licensing fee's to a proprietary code base owner, big deal

Gawd, you lusers are really something. The originating post from LH didn't bring this into question at all: he called out the rather infamous Greg KH for bitching about Ubuntu not contributing enough to kernel development, as if Shuttleworth and crew had a MORAL OBLIGATION transcending the GPL to do so.

It's that stupid sense of entitlement that pisses off so many. Does Canonical have an obligation under the GPL to do more than what it's doing? Absolutely not. Does this stop morons like Greg KH from demanding more? Not at all.

The lesson, lusers, is that you're part of this culture of entitlement that will eventually cripple Linux as a whole. It's already killed desktop Linux by keeping worthy developers out of the ecosystem: there's no way to distinguish yourself among vendors, and you need to deal with a highly dysfunctional developer environment filled with the likes of Greg KH.

That's the whole frickin' point of this. Not yet another endless Talmudic debate over the deeper meanings of the GPL -- but that a purist outfit like Canonical (which adheres strictly to the GPL) is still being called out by marginally talented lusers.

Anonymous said...

if your talking about Goobuntu and google, why don't you just try a lookup at the wikipedia,

Game over. Quoting the highly unreliable wikipedia disqualifies your point from any serious consideration.

Anonymous said...

@julian67: "GPL obliges you to make source available, and as long as you do that and meet the other conditions you can be a selfish unco-operative leech to quite a large extent."

And freetards wonder why more companies aren't eager to play in their sandbox! A company can meet every criteria of the GPL and still be considered a leech by the likes of a complete moron like julian, a luser who's not contributed a single line of code to the Linux environment! There's simply no way to please these morons.

primefalcon said...

then how about mark shuttleworths own blog then........

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/20

quotes


quote 1, proof of goobuntu
“goobuntu” you may have heard of is just a modified version of Ubuntu.

quote 2, proof they contribute
The good news is that the guys there have been good about sending us patches, and we do our best to integrate them into mainstream Ubuntu and push them on to Debian and upstream.

here's another article
http://google.about.com/od/g/g/goobuntudef.htm

Goobuntu exists along with a lot of other modified version, though for internal use only......

primefalcon said...

and since you like to call everything that doesn't fit into your little world unreliable...

this is from the new york times......

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/the-jaunty-jackalope-hops-aboard-ubuntus-ark/

quote
For example, Google uses a customized version of the software called Goobuntu for internal operations.

julian67 said...

"And freetards wonder why more companies aren't eager to play in their sandbox! A company can meet every criteria of the GPL and still be considered a leech by the likes of a complete moron like julian, a luser who's not contributed a single line of code to the Linux environment! There's simply no way to please these morons."

I was re-used the word leech in keeping with the posters I was replying to, such as ""Give me a break, the general assumption is that you're a leech and you don't care about the linux community. " I wouldn't be likely choose that term myself to describe a company or person thats compliant. It's contextual.

There are more ways to contribute in free software than submitting code. If this is your principle or sole criterion then your understanding is narrow and inadequate.

That was the long version.

Here's the easily digestible summary:

You're a blinkered bonehead.

"Both the 5 line case and the unzip library were theoretical examples of how impractical the gpl can be in practice. But then you already knew this but chose to reply as if they were real problems. Yawn.
The point is that the gpl is extremely divisive; the derived software must be completely gpl'd or not at all, which is grossly impractical to a myriad of situations where using a small amount of gpl code in a proprietary application would be very useful."


Hence the LGPL, to allow linking. It's commonly used in exactly this way.

"To some extent you can be a "leech" and adhere to licensing, but being a leech in an environment modelled on collaboration has only extremely finite benefits, if any.

Extremely finite benefits as in billions of dollars? Thanks to basement programmers of the world who follow gpl ideology billions of corporate dollars have been saved by using the stallman borg collective for capitalism.

Companies like Google and Ibm that exploit the labor of gpl programmers have even figured out how to get the open-sourcers to like them: just appear nicer than Microsoft.
Greg KH foolishly complains about Shuttleworth of all people while the Google guys roll in billions that was made partly made by being able to leverage open source for profit.

Open source programmers of the world unite! Shareholders of the world depend on your hard work!"


Which is a much more interesting point than others have made here.

I did use the words "in an environment modelled on collaboration" deliberately. A company like Google can, with its own custom software, to some extent remove itself from that collaborative model and enjoy benefits as long as they don't distribute. People seem to forget custom software and assume there's only publicly available software (free/non-free/public domain). And also to forget that this right to use/re-use the software without redistribution is not an oversight or a deficiency, it's intentional and explicit. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIDemandACopy

"If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?

No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses."


Copyleft isn't irrelevant to custom software but it's less obvious and definitely less visible. RMS actually mentions custom software quite frequently because people frequently have this idea that there's an obligation to redistribute, something that doesn't exist in the GPL and was never intended.

It seems even then that Google do make some contributions back to Ubuntu. The GPL is all about distribution and the rights and responsibilities of distributors and people who obtain binaries and source. It has no prejudice, implied or stated, against people profiting from GPL licensed software. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html "Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost.

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on."

Suggest following link and reading on ;-)

When I read comments like yours I can appreciate there's some reason and thought behind them, but equally clearly there's a whole set of assumptions and preconceptions that don't hold up. If you can get it out of your mind that there's some prejudice against (or endorsement of) business, profit, capitalism, socialism, thisism, thatism, someology, anotherology then you'll get a clearer view. Nothing in the GPL criticises (or endorses) capitalism or any other social or financial model, beyond saying you have the right to sell the software, which as far as I can tell could only be a problem in a society where buying and selling is completely controlled by the state (perhaps something like Cambodia under Pol Pot?).

I'm sure reactionary leftists find it as troubling a document as reactionary rightists because to really get it you have to take a conscious step away from all kinds of rigid and commonly held assumptions and expectations and simply read the document as it stands.

If you can't read it without overlaying the very clear meaning with a whole set of your own/received assumptions it seems you can scan the words but the plain meaning of them is obscured.

If you look at the importance of copyright, its history over the last 300+ years up to events like WTO treaties, WIPO agreements, it's undeniably a very important and a powerful tool whose use has gone far beyond anything that was ever intended, from a mechanism for encouraging innovation and giving an author first to market benefits to one used to lock up content with a view to extending that first to market financial benefit to periods which can even exceed a hundred years. This doesn't square well with "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (from the US constitution). Many people appreciate that the combination of changes to patent law and copyright law mean that intention expressed in the US constitution has been utterly subverted.

For someone to have subverted it in another way by using its own provisions and to place appropriate rights back with people who have been more and more excluded and divided by copyright law is an act of some genius, and something a lot of people find so jarring that they lose their ability to parse plain english.

Anonymous said...

Post from India

Mark shuttleworth can also accuse back others telling they don't contribute as much as ubuntu towards integration, polishing, marketing of linux,etc.

It is like accusing the marketing department of a corporation not contributing anything towards research and developement of the corp.

nigelht said...

It seems that a lot of folks are STILL missing the point that GPL only requires that you distribute code DOWNSTREAM. There's no requirement that you do anything for upstream.

Ubuntu does this. That the blog post is about GregKH whining about Ubuntu not sending a lot of kernel hacks upstream.

Of course, the counter is Ubuntu sends OTHER stuff upstream that's equally important to the linux ecosystem.

That said, I allow GregKH all the whining he'd like to do given that he was one of the few that stood up to the FSF and GPL v3 despite all the peer pressure on the kernel team to knuckle under.

As far as GPL itself goes, there are two primary problems with it:

1) It is one way. Permissive Open Source projects cannot use any GPL code but GPL projects can embrace, extend and extinguish permissive projects. GPL is effectively NO better than the MS-Reference Library license when it comes to reuse by non-GPL projects.

2) GPL v3 is a step too far and incompatible with GPL v2 only code. Which is why I recommend GPL v2 or later to folks looking for strong copyleft. But generally I recommend Apache 2.0 or a weak copyleft like MPL because I disagree with the FSF's primary tenet that proprietary code is "unethical".

Frankly, I find the GPL code to be LESS useful than proprietary code from the perspective of a non-GPL Open Source developer.

nigeltzeng said...

re-used the word leech in keeping with the posters I was replying to, such as ""Give me a break, the general assumption is that you're a leech and you don't care about the linux community. " I wouldn't be likely choose that term myself to describe a company or person thats compliant. It's contextual.

It seems that was the way TiVo was described by the FSF community. The FSF created a whole new license rev to poke TiVO and other hardware companies in the eye for daring to use Linux in a non-approved manner (i.e. with DRM).

I think this won't play out quite as well as the FSF thought it might. The kernel guys said no to GPL v3 and companies might take another look at BSD and the advantages that Apple enjoyed in using that (at least the userland) as a base for their products over Linux as a hedge against the kernel going GPL v3 or later.


There are more ways to contribute in free software than submitting code. If this is your principle or sole criterion then your understanding is narrow and inadequate.


Alas, for better or worse this it the primary measure of contribution for open source projects. Which is often why our documentation and quality control sucks.

Anonymous said...

For someone to have subverted it in another way by using its own provisions and to place appropriate rights back with people who have been more and more excluded and divided by copyright law is an act of some genius

It's always amazing how much history you types leave out in your attempt to justify your inability to work well with others. RMS didn't invent free software, he just wrote a license that was adopted by a mildly popular project that can be a useful tool in certain situations.

Also, Julian67, care to elaborate just how Canonical or Shuttleworth are contributing to the Khronos Group? Are they somehow contributing extensions that nVidia, AMD, Intel, Matrox, etc. can't[1]? Or was the "contributes to OpenGL" crack just another example of you pulling stuff out of your ass to justify a bad software company?

[1] http://www.khronos.org/members/contributors

Anonymous said...

//Wow, you must be seriously retarded thinking something like that. Such a statement implies you have never used Linux and therefore hate on it without any experience using it.//

//those keyboard shortcuts are universal//

Only man-fucking linux users can't detect sarcasm. WHat dumbfucks.

Anonymous said...

There are more ways to contribute in free software than submitting code. If this is your principle or sole criterion then your understanding is narrow and inadequate.

No, really, the only good way is to submit code. Anything else is a sham. It seems this blog is devoted to idiots like you, the addle-brained Linux advocates who try to shame everyone into using their toy operating system and then keep a Windows partition for themselves on the side. Like you, Julian: If you had the courage of your convictions you'd be less of a hypocrite and delete that self-admitted Windows partition.

Anonymous said...

PrimeFalcon, I want your source code. I hope it's more clear this time.

primefalcon said...

source code for what? PHP, C++ or what?

how about this

---------------
#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int main ()
{
cout << "what the hell you want source code for";

return 0;
}
---------------

just compile that using a c++ cpmpiler and run it through a cli.

either way that's irrelevant, and I am not going to post bunches of source code here either, the points which I cited about Goobuntu and the fact that Google does contribute back I have shown very good sources for......

Ubuntu does do plenty of contribution as well I'll agree, and about that Greg guy, so what? Every crowd has it's idiots, that's always been so and will always be that way

Anonymous said...

You have to give it to me if I ask for it.

I want your source code. Upload it and give me a link to it.

primefalcon said...

Any modifications I have made privately don't need to be released publicly so no I don't, Any mods I have chosen to mod back are included or not included per their decision, so again out of my hands

Any work I've done on contract is out of my hands yet again...... except for what I am paid to do

So try again, besides that wasn't the point of what I was saying.......

I was saying that Google do have Goobuntu, for internal use, since they don't distribute they don't have to contribute the changes back to Ubuntu, but they choose to do so in support of Ubuntu.

Anonymous said...

Give me your source now! All of it or I'll sue.

Anonymous said...

u hate this and u hate that......spilling all kind of vulgar words....well it sounds so much like my 5 yrs old children......except that they have not learn vulgar words yet.

Grow up man!!!

As an adult u have your likes and dislikes....but.....****yawn**** this is just part of life....

primefalcon said...

go beg google for the goobuntu source..... you'll have about as much luck.....

Anonymous said...

@julian67: "A company like Google can, with its own custom software, to some extent remove itself from that collaborative model and enjoy benefits as long as they don't distribute."

Sure, but that's not going to stop the Stallmanites from being pissed at anybody who keeps their code private. There has been talk in the FOSS community to expanding the context of the term "distribute" to mean "deploy a service". Which would essentially force Google to open up its custom version of Linux and, perhaps unintentionally, drive a stake through the heart of FOSS forever. I think that the only reason the Stallmanites backed away from that plan is that more sensible minds told them it would kill FOSS.

Anonymous said...

it's a good thing linux is still gpl v2

Bob said...

I want your source code. Upload it and give me a link to it.

Since I'm not actually distributing anything, I'll just tell you to go fuck yourself instead.

Also, in the event that binaries are being distributed, online access to the sources (upon request or otherwise) is a courtesy, not a requirement. GPL2 would actually allow me to demand payment so that I can mail you the source on disk via post, if I wanted to.

Try reading the license, it helps. Then try actually understanding it, perhaps you'll see why so many people dislike it so much.

jc-denton said...

It's really sad how Greg K Hartman lies to the people. As written before in this blog the proprietary Nvidia drivers are the only graphics drivers which really works (try to run google earth and compiz if you think your free driver works)

Writing drivers for Linux would be much easier if there were a stable API. (it works fine like this for Windows) Instead of providing a stable API he wrote "stable_api_nonsense.txt" [1] The txt file sounds as the approach of providing a stable API would be technically almost impossible and not work at all. However we all know that it does.

I don't understand why Novell pays him for this, but I bet that Novell will stop pushing Linux on the desktop sooner or later, if you look at the novell page their "Enterprise Linux Desktop" is not on the top anymore.

[1] http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt

Anonymous said...

Can someone in favour of the current status quo with regards to Linux drivers please explain why a fixed API is not desirable? Why it's okay for userspace but not for kernelspace? Why constant artificial changes to the API in the name of 'efficiency' is cited by the kernel developers when true efficiency is achieved by designing and implementing a planned solution which meets everybody's requirements then staying with it, with later minimal changes.

Why should software developers be forced to cede control of their software to another party if they don't want their software to break and have that software broken if they don't cede control? How is this in keeping with the spirit and letter of the GPL?

Is the current driver model really anything other than a blunt instrument of political control by the kernel developers?

Perhaps what really must happen for Linux to move forward out of constant squabbles is for someone to fork it, develop a stable binary driver API, and copy the other changes checked into the Linux kernel.

Then we'll soon see which solution out of the two Linuxes people choose and which one becomes irrelevant; one, where your binary drivers work update after update for perhaps 5 years or so (at which time it might be necessary to make a major change) and one where everything breaks after every kernel update because the kernel developers want it to break.

Anonymous said...

[1] http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt

from the txt:

(remember we
159 are talking about GPL released drivers here, if your code doesn't fall
160 under this category, good luck, you are on your own here, you leech


Wow. Just wow. So people providing a service to people using Linux are leeches. Fucking ungrateful twits. Remind me to never, ever support Linux.

I do love how he never actually addresses why a stable ABI is bad just why it's be impractical to implement one on Linux with things the way they are, and throws around senseless arguments as well.

a) different cpu archs. Hey buddy, nobody really expects a stable ABI to result in running x86 code on Sparc, you asshat. Runningh on multiple archs doesn't make a stable ABI impossible. Apple does it with OS X, Sun does it with Solaris x86/sparc, MS did it when NT ran on Sparc, ppc and alpha, hell even FreeBSD manages to maintain binary compatibility with Linux, SCOX and earlier releases of FreeBSD across multiple archs.

A stable ABI means you can compile the same binary for different archs and it won't break in the next release, because the interface hasn't changed.

b) different compilers. Standardize on a compiler. It's simple. It still doesn't explain why there's no stable ABI/API. It's not as if anyone writing kernel drivers wouldn't have access to your freely available standardized compiler, and there's no reason a distro couldn't package the compiler it was built with.

c) too much fragmentation amongst distros. And people still insist LSB is going somewhere? That's not a reason for there to be no stable API/ABI on the kernel level. You're still only shipping one kernel, asshat. It's an excuse not to bother, and not a very good one, either. Even so, there's an argument FOR standardization, not against it.

d) give us the code, we won't fix the problem, but we'll maintain your driver for you.

Riiiight, one Nouveau or whetever it's called performs like the actual, first party Nvidia drivers do, developers might have confidence in your ability to maintain their drivers for you. "but they won't release specs!" Then give them a stable API to work with, it isn't rocket science. It's another case where by "colarboration" They mean "give us your source, we have no interest in actually working with you"

These guys have hardware products tied to their drivers. rudimentary functionality (like the kernel being able to see it) might be good enough for you, but it isn't for those who built the fucking device. They're much better suited for developing drivers to the device they built than you are.

e) Maintaining source-level API stability results in vulerability and bug-ridden software.

Right, because all other OSes are steaming piles of festering, bug-ridden poop. You fail.

So in short, the txt sums up to there's no stable ABI/API because we don't want one, we want your source. And you don't really want one either, because we want your source. Gee, I can'tr imagine why the year of Linux never came, and I can't bloody imagine why so few companies actually support it.

Anonymous said...

gregkh has always been a Gentool fidiot, and continues to be a Gentool fidiot. This is reinforced by the fact that Novell employed him.

Novell seems to employ primarily people who were too stupid to be employed by the other companies who sponsor development: the Linux Foundation, Red Hat and IBM.

* Greg Kroah-Hartman, enough evidence in this discussion thread.
* David Reveman, author of Xgl (never quite un-buggy and deprecated in favor of Red Hat developed AIGLX, as well as author of Compiz, which was effectively superseded by community-maintained beryl until reunification as Compiz Fusion)
* The RadeonHD driver authors, who went against conventional programmer wisdom to use common abstraction layers (like AtomBIOS) whenever possible, in order to reinvent the wheel by doing what the firmware already did in trying to program GPU registers directly. As a result, the Red Hat (David Airlie et al) authored ATI driver is at this point stabler, more featureful and more performant than the Novell authored RadeonHD driver.
* Miguel de Icaza, Mono author. Even today after years of development, Mono doesn't have a complete .NET Framework 1.1 implementation, let alone .NET 2.0, .NET 3.0 or .NET 3.5. Forget about running Visual Studio built IL assemblies and code beyond trivial test code. Meanwhile, Red Hat chose to focus on Java, which has more than one complete implementation for Linux.

------

Of more interest would be this cluebie who has decided to show us his insight into why BSD is better than Linux. It's hilarious how little clue he actually has, and it would be totally awesome if you could link to it in your next post, Linux Hater.

Anonymous said...

One thing gregkh doesn't seem to realize is that for all intents and purposes, the kernel is invisible to end users. You can't see or interact with the kernel. It exists only to serve programs that use its services to obtain resources for themselves and to communicate.

As such, Canonical is focusing on exactly the right thing: the user-visible desktop elements. Canonical and Debian also work on the horribly broken bits that matter to desktop users but not to server users, such as UDF packet writing to writable optical discs, working USB support tolerant of cheap marginal hardware that doesn't puke up an OOPS or panic if, say, a USB hard disk jumpered wrong is connected, a nice splashscreen at boot, and so on.

------

Linux 2.6.27-rc5 etc. as used in popular pre-release distros eats Intel ethernet adapters, both discrete PCI express parts and integrated devices used in many, many notebooks, desktops and servers alike. The best part is, there's no guaranteed way to fix the devices once the issue occurs: the EEPROM is corrupted and the device may not be enumerable on the PCI Express bus afterward.

Good job, FailOS!

Anonymous said...

Linux on the server ROCKS.

Linux on the desktop is ASS -- even after 10 years. ASS. POOPY ASS.

julian67 said...

"Like you, Julian: If you had the courage of your convictions you'd be less of a hypocrite and delete that self-admitted Windows partition."

First point: I'm entitled to use whatever I damn well choose, as is everyone using their own hardware.

Second point: I currently have one desktop and two laptops. One laptop was purchased in UK in 2002 and had XP Pro pre-installed. This is the only computer on which I have Windows. Its main OS is Debian. Windows gets 10 GB, Debian gets the other 50. The Windows install persists for the sake of two games I like a lot. Neither runs on wine nor is available for an OS other than Windows or OS X. The XP install is of no other use to me (except maybe curiosity). There was a time when I made money doing builds, installs, upgrades, repairs etc and it was actually beneficial for me to use it and stay familiar. I don't do that kind of work now and I no longer have any practical need for the OS. I like those old skool games, the OS is paid for and legal and while I don't need the space it stays. When I do occasionally need the space it gets wiped and later restored from image when I feel the urge to shoot little pixellated scrolling aliens. The game is Warblade btw and for anyone likes those old style games it might be the best one.

My desktop is self built and has only Debian installed. My main machine is the laptop I'm using now (it's the only reasonably modern one and is considerably more powerful than the others). I purchased it without any OS installed. It came with freedos on a floppy and no floppy drive. This aparently keeps a certain well known US based software vendor from claiming that the hardware vendors are selling OS-free machines which supposedly encourages "piracy", by which I think they mean choice. Or perhaps they're implying that a good proportion of their fans are in fact cheap, lying scumbags as well as suckers. Outside of Europe and North America hardware vendors smile nicely at MS and, so they'll stfu, ship with non-MS OS on CD or floppy. On this computer I have Debian, nothing else. No dual boots with Windows, other distros, BSDs or anything else.

Perhaps you'll feel better knowing I have an external USB drive with FAT and NTFS partitions for when I need to transfer files onto people's computers with Windows or OS X which can't read anything except FAT* or NTFS or HFS*. It's also useful to help out when one person has a Mac and external USB drive dutifully formatted to HFS Plus like Steve says it should be, the other has Windows with external drive NTFS and they can't move files from one to the other. Those systems are so awesome and empowering and user friendly! If they can't figure out networked shared folders, or are prevented from doing this by router/firewall configuration, they're screwed..sat there with the two most expensive and advanced proprietary OS available and can't fucking transfer a file. And there's all us "freetards" who can just get on with it because we've brainwashed ourselves into using something that works.

Proprietary filesystems on proprietary OSs...yay!

Third point: my girlfriend's laptop, also purchased with no OS installed (accompanying Chinese distro on CD as was purchased in Asia) has only Ubuntu installed. No Windows.

As you can see I prefer to build my own or purchase OS free machines. The question for me is nothing to do with formatting C: and switching away from Windows. Windows isn't even a candidate for installation.

Fourth point: you're a tedious prick with shit where other people would have a brain.

"Also, Julian67, care to elaborate just how Canonical or Shuttleworth are contributing to the Khronos Group? Are they somehow contributing extensions that nVidia, AMD, Intel, Matrox, etc. can't[1]? Or was the "contributes to OpenGL" crack just another example of you pulling stuff out of your ass to justify a bad software company?"

Interesting arse obsessed imagery you choose. Surprise.

I didn't mention Khronos but you take issue with me as though I did. Nice.

I mentioned Mr Shuttleworth's plan on funding OpenGL developement because he's announced he has a plan for funding OpenGL development. Complex rationale or what?

In his own words: "Increasingly, though, Canonical is in a position to drive real change in the software that is part of Ubuntu. [...] So we are also hiring a team who will work on X, OpenGL, Gtk, Qt, GNOME and KDE, with a view to doing some of the heavy lifting required to turn those desktop experience ideas into reality."

Reference: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/162

It's been widely reported and is easily found by using one of those new fangled search engines.

That's my 15 minute visit to the chimpanzee house done for the day. kthxbye.

Anonymous said...

@ whoever keeps espousing the "Linux has Open-Source versions of everything... faster, lighter, more powerful, etc, etc." party line:

Such as what? Windows Media Player 11 owns your oft-mentioned, beloved Amarok. Visual Studio (any iteration) > Mono (whose team is feverishly trying to maintain (and rip off) .net 1.5 functionality in a 3.5 world).

Games: ANY > the Atari 7800-era offerings available for Linux.

I bought into all that nonsense last year. I told people how much "better" Linux was, etc. Then I came to my senses.

Zealots; have fun. I'll be the one with working wireless, fully-functional video card, massive library of games, working tools for development, and time to get things done and have a life.

- derChef

Anonymous said...

Why constant artificial changes to the API in the name of 'efficiency' is cited by the kernel developers when true efficiency is achieved by designing and implementing a planned solution which meets everybody's requirements then staying with it, with later minimal changes.

Is it me or is there little design in the Linux kernel? How many papers has the Torvalds guy written about his operating system? None? May be he wrote a book called "Design of the Linux Operating System", perhaps? No?

If Linux doesn't support something, then the users don't need that thing. If the bums lack the knowledge or the talent to do something, then that thing is undesirable. Who needs stable ABI when you can just recompile that half-baked open sores junk?

primefalcon said...

Such as what? Windows Media Player 11 owns your oft-mentioned, beloved Amarok. Visual Studio (any iteration) > Mono (whose team is feverishly trying to maintain (and rip off) .net 1.5 functionality in a 3.5 world).

you know what fuck mono and .net, C++ apps which BTW is open source and platform independent, BTW c base is used to write everything these days even your C# scripting language, yes scripting language since C# is by no means a real language since it relies on the .net to run, which makes it slow and reliant on the .net, as for music give me the rhythmbox. but go ahead have your beloved DRM with windows, not my problem...



Games: ANY > the Atari 7800-era offerings available for Linux.

Ahh fuck here we go again games.... ever heard of Flightgear? or other such games?



I bought into all that nonsense last year. I told people how much "better" Linux was, etc. Then I came to my senses.

Lost them more like.........



Zealots; have fun. I'll be the one with working wireless, fully-functional video card, massive library of games, working tools for development, and time to get things done and have a life.

As well as crashes, and a constant OS upgrade cost, which the rest of us non windows users can miss out on while running faster, more stable, and more secure, and still have better tools, since out tools are designed for use not pretty colors.

Anonymous said...

@primefalcon

Typical Zealot response.

Going by your criteria, I guess (the now open) Java isn't a real language either, since it relies on the JVM to run.

Yes, I've heard of Flightgear. It is pitiful. I run X-Plane 9. You wouldn't know about that, since you don't pay for software.

As far as crashes, my machines (both XP SP2 and Vista) are completely stable. My Ubuntu partition however, crashes in all manner of random ways.

As for DRM, nope. I buy DRM-free mp3s from Amazon. There I go again, talking about actually purchasing things.

Try again.

- derChef

primefalcon said...

My Ubuntu partition however, crashes in all manner of random ways.
<note="I am not attacking here ok">what type of partition did you put it on? it really runs best on ext3</note>

Anonymous said...

@ primefalcon

I only use Ext3.

I'm glad you're "not attacking", after accusing me of losing my senses. It would be great if civility were the norm here.

Ubuntu has its unstable moments on both my desktop and my laptop. Contrary to the prevailing FOSS wisdom, never see the Windows BSOD.

- derChef

primefalcon said...

sorry guess I got into the hostility a bit myself in here.....

MS fixed a lot of their problems with 2k onwards with switching their filesystem and kernal for 2k.

Though I still find Linux systems, at least the major ones, far more stable, I think Ubuntu is somewhat unstable with the wubi installer if you installed with that, not sure I've always used the disc

Anonymous said...

LH, what's up with all the Linux Standard Base hyping posts on Slashdot these days? You gotta say something about that.

Anonymous said...

you know what fuck mono and .net, C++ apps which BTW is open source and platform independent,

OP was talking about the IDE, not the languages. C++, C# and .net can be written (and run) on any platform, the IDE, however is not cross-platform, which was the point.

BTW c base is used to write everything these days even your C# scripting language

Not so much. On Unix, yes, C is the preferred language since Unix itself is written in C. On Windows C++ is preferred for the same reason. It makes sense to write a system-level framework in a low-level language designed for system building (Ritchie has said this about C) such as C, or in the case of .NET, C++ (which although originated as an extension to C has diverged far enough to be a distinct language). For Higher-level application stuff, often it makes more sense to go with a higher-level language/framework specifically designed for such use (like .NET).

yes scripting language since C# is by no means a real language since it relies on the .net to run, which makes it slow and reliant on the .net,

Actually C# itself is a full-fledged programing language. The only real distinction between scripting languages and non-scripting languages is that one is compiled into native assembly code, and the other is fed to an interpreter. C# can be both, so it's deffinetly not "just" a scripting language, and it's really every bit a "real" language than C or the C++ it was written in is, just much of a higher-level language.

Brilliant reasoning there "it relies on .net which means it is reliant on .net" No shit? Seriously? I'd have never guessed!

It's like saying C relies on a compiler to translate it into native assembly which makes reliant on a compiler and slow, LONG LIVE ASSEMBLY!

Sure, it's not as fast as C or C++, but neither of those are as fast as B, which in turn isn't as fast as assembly. Should we be coding everything in assembly, then?

as for music give me the rhythmbox.

Good for you. I'll stick with Winamp for playing stuff when I'm not actually composing and recording.

but go ahead have your beloved DRM with windows, not my problem...

Who said anything about DRM? And good job on the automatic stab at DRM, because it's evil and defective like design and that everyone not using GNU loves it, because the FSF said so, and anyone who disagrees is a shill, because RMS said so! routine.

What exactly is wrong with DRM? Do you understand what DRM is (a mechanism to protect IP, nothing more) and do you realise that licenses, GPL included are forms of DRM? Do you honestly believe that authors should not have the right how to distribute and who gets to copy (and under what terms) content they've created? Are you pretentious to the point that you genuinely believe you're entitled to have more rights over the creator of a work than they do?

Why?

I'm actually curious, as an artist, writer and musician, why I shouldn't have the right to decide who can and cannot copy work that I've created, and why the answer has to be "everyone", and why I should not be able to enforce that decision if I deem it necessary? Am I not entitled to the choice?

Anonymous said...

econd point: I currently have one desktop and two laptops. One laptop was purchased in UK in 2002 and had XP Pro pre-installed. This is the only computer on which I have Windows. Its main OS is Debian. Windows gets 10 GB, Debian gets the other 50. The Windows install persists for the sake of two games I like a lot. Neither runs on wine nor is available for an OS other than Windows or OS X. The XP install is of no other use to me (except maybe curiosity). There was a time when I made money doing builds, installs, upgrades, repairs etc and it was actually beneficial for me to use it and stay familiar. I don't do that kind of work now and I no longer have any practical need for the OS. I like those old skool games, the OS is paid for and legal and while I don't need the space it stays. When I do occasionally need the space it gets wiped and later restored from image when I feel the urge to shoot little pixellated scrolling aliens. The game is Warblade btw and for anyone likes those old style games it might be the best one.

Why are you under the impression that anyone cares about the details? The point was that you keep bantering about how awesome Linux is and how infinitely superior it is to Windows and how it does everything under the sun and everything you'll ever need.
Yet you have a Windows install, which you use for things you can't do in Linux.

Nobody implied that you aren't entitled to run whatever the fuck you want on your own hardware (within the confines of what the law allows, at any rate). You were just called out on being a hypocrite for the reasons mentioned above.

As the saying goes, you talk the talk, but you clearly don't walk the walk. Stand by your claims.

[insert random julian-style personal attack here, as well as a half dozen inane, julian-style comments about cock here]

Anonymous said...

@ primefalcon

No problem. This forum can do that to the best of us.

No, I didn't use Wubi.

-derChef

primefalcon said...

Brilliant reasoning there "it relies on .net which means it is reliant on .net" No shit? Seriously? I'd have never guessed!
You got me that was bad wording, what I meant is personally I think C, C++ really are the ideal they compile down into assembly and don't rely on a framework, so will run faster than pretty much anything else.

The exception would be if we did write in assembly, I'm sure there are major slowdowns from excess code in the compilation that are comparable to coding in HTML or using dreamweaver which creates excess code. Though unlike HTML assembly is so damm painful it's not funny, so I'd say C++ is a required trade off, C# though in my opinion is trading off too far......


as for music give me the rhythmbox
How about XMNNS

About DRM
If I bought the music I should be able to transfer the files where I see fit to listen too, DRM has gotten so bad in some cases you can't play some DRM content on your portable media players.

primefalcon said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ primefalcon

No problem. This forum can do that to the best of us.

No, I didn't use Wubi.

-derChef

Damm all I can really say is check the hardware for known incompatibilities and/or try requesting a new disc through Ubuntu's shipit and install from there the disc that you installed from could corrupted, regardless of arguments here and whether or not you personally like Linux or not it should be very stable

Anonymous said...

@primefalcon

I've installed from different discs after downloading the iso's.

I actually do like Linux. I still dual boot, and it will work perfectly, then I'll get random problems. The same situation I've had with all the other distros I've tried.

I just can't keep putting more time into making the OS work to get functionality I can automatically get from Windows, with no effort. I'd rather put that time into getting work done.

As others have pointed out here; many of us want to like Linux, and have used it. We are just honest enough to point out its flaws.

I would love to see the day it lives up to its promises. I would have nothing against a free OS and no more activations! : ^ )

ps. I'm also a musician, and record with my pc. I can see both sides of the DRM issue. (I've been flamed on Slashdot many times for stating that copyright holders should be compensated.)

However, as a customer, it is ridiculous when you are expected to rent the mp3s you buy and potentially lose them. (iTunes) That's why I buy DRM-free, from Amazon.

primefalcon said...

In that case I'd say your system is simply incompatible with it for whatever reason, probably is a driver issue...

I actually run a dell here and I have never had a crash, though I've also ran it on some custom builts as well.

Linux does have a way to go in a couple of areas. Especially in driver support.

I agree that copyright holders especially the Authors need compensation for their works, personally I think Authors deserver a bigger part of the share than they get

Anonymous said...

You got me that was bad wording, what I meant is personally I think C, C++ really are the ideal they compile down into assembly and don't rely on a framework, so will run faster than pretty much anything else.

I'd say you have no idea what a framework is and you haven't been part of a software project in your life.

Anonymous said...

I didn't mention Khronos but you take issue with me as though I did.

Actually, you did. Scroll back and note your bragging about Ubuntu's support of OpenGL.

Who do you think is driving OpenGL development? Khronos.

Anonymous said...

...As you can see I prefer to build my own or purchase OS free machines....

Shorter Julian: I run Windows.

All that vehemence doesn't hide the fact of your basic hypocrisy: you're a Windows user. If you were serious about your advocacy, you'd dump Windows. But you lack the courage of your convictions, and your advocacy rings hollow: Do what I say, not what I do.

Anonymous said...

There still exists a lot of software that only runs on windows, so having windows compatibility is required for many purposes. I don't see what this has to do with what OS people prefer to use, it is possible to reluctantly use windows, until a better solution is available. I keep a windows VM in case I come across office documents and databases that haven't been ported to linux. This doesn't mean that windows is inherently better than linux, it only means that it has much larger marketshare.

julian67 said...

"Actually, you did. Scroll back and note your bragging about Ubuntu's support of OpenGL.

Who do you think is driving OpenGL development? Khronos."


I didn't recall mentioning Khronos except in reply to you so I scrolled back. I searched the page. I read it again.

My memory hadn't failed me. You're dishonest as well as tedious.

My "bragging" consisted of pointing out that MS (that's Mark Shuttleworth not MicroSoft ha ha) is hiring people to work on areas he wants/needs to see improved, or over which wants some direct infuence. OpneGL is one of those.

If you want to interpret it in some other way, have visions of unstated words being present, that's your problem.

"...As you can see I prefer to build my own or purchase OS free machines....

Shorter Julian: I run Windows.

All that vehemence doesn't hide the fact of your basic hypocrisy: you're a Windows user. If you were serious about your advocacy, you'd dump Windows. But you lack the courage of your convictions, and your advocacy rings hollow: Do what I say, not what I do."


I use Windows for two games, I don't hide it or pretend otherwise and your personal approval is about as important to me as what I flushed down the can this morning. It seems to smell the same too.

The extent of my use of Windows is two games and keeping it patched. That's it. To that extent I'm still a Windows user. In the past 98 and then XP and 2000 were what I used for everything on my own hardware. I paid for boxed editions. I sold those on when it was still legal to do so (afaik Microsoft's EULAs changed and you can't do this anymore). The XP Pro OEM pre-install on my Asus is not transferable and is accompanied by restore CDs specific to a particular series of laptops, not by Microsoft install CDs. If I could legally sell it on I would do so. Meanwhile I do all my work using Debian and occasionally boot XP for pixellated extermination thrills.

I've used 98, 2000 and XP Home, XP Pro, Suse, Debian, Slackware and derivatives on my own hardware. At work I've used BSDs, custom software, Windows 2000, 98 and NT 4. I'm perfectly able to choose what's best and if I wanted to use Microsoft's products in preference to anything else I would buy them and install them. I don't so I don't.

As for advocacy, I really don't care what you run, it's your choice entirely. But somehow advocacy of Microsoft products seems to involve the advocate in swallowing shit and then regurgitating it.

I'm happy to point out that you have very bad breath.

Anonymous said...

As for advocacy, I really don't care what you run, it's your choice entirely. But somehow advocacy of Microsoft products seems to involve the advocate in swallowing shit and then regurgitating it.

The irony is that most folks here don't "advocate" one operating system over another. Doesn't it strike you a bit queer to have such passions for one little bit of the total computing experience?

Like many others here, I find it incredibly hypocritical than you slag on Windows and extol Linux as being the greatest thing since sliced bread. Everything you write about the license is just nonsense: you could delete the partition and not lose the license. Throwing out a bunch of noise doesn't excuse your basic hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

"There still exists a lot of software that only runs on windows, so having windows compatibility is required for many purposes."

That, however, blunts the vast majority of Linux advocacy. It also dims the usefulness of Linux.

The issue, though, is that a self-styled Linux advocate keeps Windows around because it does things he can't do on Linux. Can't tell everyone else to dump Windows when you're keeping it around.

Anonymous said...

I wonder.

Would it be too far a stretch to compare Linux and it's community to Diablo? Torvalds and RMS as two of the Prime Evils and the zealots as the corrupt Elders in Travincal? (Go look it up.)

If you think about it? It fits, though I can't imagine who the third would be.

Anonymous said...

@julian67

//Interesting arse obsessed imagery you choose. Surprise.//

Interesting how you jump on everyday comments like "pulling it out of your ass" or "xxxx is ass" or "you are an ass" and immediately try to flip them to being homo-erotic references.

But, as a man-whore, that's your world.

Anonymous said...

@primefalcon

//As well as crashes, and a constant OS upgrade cost,//

Only a complete fucktard such as yourself or people you know still have crashes with a properly setup Windows box.

And "constant OS upgrade cost" ... like, once every 5 years? You're beyond stupid. Stick with your shit-ass desktop OS. The rest of us will use Linux in it's proper place: servers.

julian67 said...

"Everything you write about the license is just nonsense: you could delete the partition and not lose the license."

I'm assuming you mean the Windows licenses, correct?

You can certainly wipe the OS but you can't transfer the license to someone else, which means you can't sell, or even give away, the software. In the case of an OEM licensed version of Windows you can't even transfer the OS to different hardware that you own.

It's not that difficult to understand but you managed anyway. Congratulations, you're an idiot.

"@julian67

//Interesting arse obsessed imagery you choose. Surprise.//

Interesting how you jump on everyday comments like "pulling it out of your ass" or "xxxx is ass" or "you are an ass" and immediately try to flip them to being homo-erotic references.

But, as a man-whore, that's your world."


I didn't mention homo-eroticism.

But you've moved on from backsides to homo-eroticism and then to male prostitution.

Anything else from your subconscious you'd like to share with us? Just lie down on the couch and tell it in your own way....

Anonymous said...

@julian67

//You can certainly wipe the OS but you can't transfer the license to someone else, which means you can't sell, or even give away, the software. In the case of an OEM licensed version of Windows you can't even transfer the OS to different hardware that you own.//

So who the hell cares? It's just $200. Oh ... you're a poor-ass commie LInux user, who hates paying for stuff. Nevermind.

Anonymous said...

You can certainly wipe the OS but you can't transfer the license to someone else, which means you can't sell, or even give away, the software.

If you were to resell the machine it would be transferred.

Saying the license can't be transferred as a rationale for keeping Windows around is mighty pathetic.

grey_ash said...

you know what's the problem w/ linux/gnu/kde/gnome/etc? it's all about fucking fragile egos and who writes better code. not about the end user experience. but i'm sure im not the first to point that out.

Anonymous said...

Both the 5 line case and the unzip library were theoretical examples of how impractical the gpl can be in practice. But then you already knew this but chose to reply as if they were real problems. Yawn.
The point is that the gpl is extremely divisive; the derived software must be completely gpl'd or not at all, which is grossly impractical to a myriad of situations where using a small amount of gpl code in a proprietary application would be very useful.

idiot use the lgpl!

grey_ash said...

If you look at the importance of copyright, its history over the last 300+ years up to events like WTO treaties, WIPO agreements, it's undeniably a very important and a powerful tool whose use has gone far beyond anything that was ever intended, from a mechanism for encouraging innovation and giving an author first to market benefits to one used to lock up content with a view to extending that first to market financial benefit to periods which can even exceed a hundred years. This doesn't square well with "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (from the US constitution). Many people appreciate that the combination of changes to patent law and copyright law mean that intention expressed in the US constitution has been utterly subverted.

For someone to have subverted it in another way by using its own provisions and to place appropriate rights back with people who have been more and more excluded and divided by copyright law is an act of some genius, and something a lot of people find so jarring that they lose their ability to parse plain english.

i agree!

julian67 said...

"You can certainly wipe the OS but you can't transfer the license to someone else, which means you can't sell, or even give away, the software.

If you were to resell the machine it would be transferred.

Saying the license can't be transferred as a rationale for keeping Windows around is mighty pathetic."


So I'm supposed to sell a computer in order to recoup a small proportion of the cost I bore 5 or 6 years ago? In order to satisfy some fucking blowhard on a blog who objects to me playing a couple of games I like?

You're a fucking knucklehead, a real piece of work.

Exactly how stupid are you? Don't try to answer that, you'll never reach the end before the crayon breaks or you get it stuck up your nose.

The mere fact that somebody arrives at such a fucked up conclusion says all anyone needs to know about the Windows EULA.

Here's a quote I read today from Charles Babbage:"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

That's the old fashioned and well mannered way of saying this:

you are one dumb cunt.

xenon155 said...


So I'm supposed to sell a computer in order to recoup a small proportion of the cost I bore 5 or 6 years ago? In order to satisfy some fucking blowhard on a blog who objects to me playing a couple of games I like?


Lusers truly are gifted at spin and FUD.

@anonymous said if the only reason for you keeping windows is that your license cant be transferred, you can sell the damn thing to transfer it.

Anonymous said...

So I'm supposed to sell a computer in order to recoup a small proportion of the cost I bore 5 or 6 years ago? In order to satisfy some fucking blowhard on a blog who objects to me playing a couple of games I like?

What about all those amazing free Linux games you Zealots are always talking about?

Linux is inadequate. All of you evangelists have to keep using Windows, so you find ways to justify it.

Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing.

Anonymous said...

Windows sucks... but at least I don't need a partition with another OS to do whatever I want to do. Poor lusers.

Anonymous said...

So I'm supposed to sell a computer in order to recoup a small proportion of the cost I bore 5 or 6 years ago?

No. You're supposed to wipe out the Windows partition to prove you're not a hypocrite.

But you are. And you won't.

Anonymous said...

A challenge to all the phony Zealots:

Get rid of your Windows partitions and rely only on the freedom of your GNooooooo/Linux. Don't worry, you can use K this and K that, also you'll be able to use Gnoffice, and play Gnames.

Stop being oppressed by "Windoze" as you call it.

Time to either live up to your phony ideology or stop making everyone hear about it.

Anonymous said...

Time to either live up to your phony ideology or stop making everyone hear about it.

But they won't, because they're hypocrites.

They tend to overlook the fact that Linus Torvalds uses a Mac and does his non-kernel work in Mac OS X. You gotta give Stallman credit: the mann is crazed enough to want a PC lacking any sort of propriety anything, including BIOS.

But most lusers are like Linus: Linux zealots when it's convenient or when it applies to someone else. And our friend julian is the biggest luser of them all.

Anonymous said...

@julian67

//The mere fact that somebody arrives at such a fucked up conclusion says all anyone needs to know about the Windows EULA.//

Wow, that's a retarded statement. Do you enjoy your rides to kindergarten on the short yellow bus?

Fuckwit.

Anon E Moose said...

Okay, it's getting just a *little* weak when you bash the shit out of a guy for admitting to having a single XP install on an old system used for a pair of games.

Could pretty much use that logic to say that anyone who has downloaded and tried Linux since posting here cannot be a true hater.

Meanwhile, I found something else to snigger at:

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3773286/

Propaganda Pie in the Sky~

This fellow hath drunk deeply from Stallmans special Kool-Aid.

free bios indeed. Maybe the grand fosstard himself will want his worshippers to build for him a libre chip fab next, and make free/libre Core2 knockoffs, etc..

No, I don't "hate" linux, but I ~love~ the lunixtics out there in deep left field with their Up The Revolution and all of that XD

...and always pushing for someone else to do the work, like good little hippies.

.net jerkface said...


idiot use the lgpl!


Read the post more carefully, I wasn't asking which type of license I should use. The point was that gpl'd software can be annoying in that it requires that the entire derived work to also be gpl'd.
However a good way to get around the gpl is through a web app. You can mix gpl'd software with proprietary all you want but provide an entirely new software product that can't be copied. The only problem is that building a web app in linux requires using a bunch of third party hacks.

Anonymous said...

Okay, it's getting just a *little* weak when you bash the shit out of a guy for admitting to having a single XP install on an old system used for a pair of games.

Oh, if it were anyone else but Julian it wouldn't matter. But he's such a loud-mouthed (and potty-mouthed) Linux advocate that he should be the last person to keep a Windows partition around.

Remember, we don't hate Linux; we hate lusers and freetards like julian.

Anonymous said...

My "bragging" consisted of pointing out that MS (that's Mark Shuttleworth not MicroSoft ha ha) is hiring people to work on areas he wants/needs to see improved, or over which wants some direct infuence. OpneGL is one of those.

If you want to interpret it in some other way, have visions of unstated words being present, that's your problem.


If julian67 had half a brain and knew what he/she/it was talking about he/she/it would realize how stupid that statement is, but hey, don't let the fact that any and all OpenGL development happens within and through the Khronos Group which conveniently lists all of its contributers online stop you from showing how stupid you are.

anonymous freetard said...

I don't hate Windows, just everyone that uses it.

.net jerkface said...

What is with all the posters here that run windows in a vm? Why wouldn't you run linux in the vm? Especially when vmware server for linux has been broken multiple times by kernel updates.

primefalcon said...

You got me that was bad wording, what I meant is personally I think C, C++ really are the ideal they compile down into assembly and don't rely on a framework, so will run faster than pretty much anything else.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say you have no idea what a framework is and you haven't been part of a software project in your life.

Nice going slinging an insult without knowing a thing.... Ok I'll go into details here so you can at least understand this ok....

The .net framework includes a lot of preprogrammed script to try and make your code easier which on it's own would be cool, but it also has this virtual machine type of thing which they called common language runtime to run programs that are designed for it.

It is this common language runtime that makes the .net framework slow as hell compared to C++, it also makes a huge amount of extra work into the program through processes such as garbage collection, which if your a decent programmer you shouldn't need anyhow, not to mention this adds a limitation on cross platform applications.

As I said this .net frame is an unneeded added step that increases load and introduces unneeded security concerns.

And a note on Java, Java has a virtual machine as well, but this is to ease the use of powerful web based games and applications, so that at least serves a useful purpose.

If you want an easier job, code in your own extra libraries, the extra runtimes are not needed and are just extra garbage and another reason why C++ and the upcoming C++ox are far superior languages.

Anonymous said...

"Only a complete fucktard such as yourself or people you know still have crashes with a properly setup Windows box."

I thought you didn't have to tweak anything in Windows and it all "just works". Guess not.

"What is with all the posters here that run windows in a vm? Why wouldn't you run linux in the vm? Especially when vmware server for linux has been broken multiple times by kernel updates."

Wouldn't it seem a bit more logical to run the OS you use less in a vm? Whatever that OS happens to be.

There are other virtualization programs besides vmware. I've never had problems with VirtualBox.

Anonymous said...

The .net framework includes a lot of preprogrammed script to try and make your code easier

Huh? Script? Anyway, you know that's the reason why it's a framework, don't you.

it also has this virtual machine type of thing which they called common language runtime to run programs that are designed for it.

And which has nothing to do with a framework. That's why I know you have no idea what you're talking about.

It is this common language runtime that makes the .net framework slow as hell compared to C++,

bullshit.

not to mention this adds a limitation on cross platform applications.

More bullshit.

If you want an easier job, code in your own extra libraries,

Ha ha. Now that's productivity talking. I guess you don't use standard libraries or Boost on C++ either, since you are a real macho and coding hero, lol!

Thank you for proving my point: you have never been near a software project in your whole life.

Anonymous said...

"OP was talking about the IDE, not the languages. C++, C# and .net can be written (and run) on any platform, the IDE, however is not cross-platform, which was the point."

That's the problem. It's pretty much the only thing you can use to develop C#. Why not just use Java? C# is a copy of Java more or less, except for that whole cross-platform stuff.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 285   Newer› Newest»