Linux in the news
All in one big page
See also: last week's Letters page.
Letters to the editor should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
October 18, 2001
From: "Bill Rugolsky Jr." <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: 2.5 and the -linus/-ac kernel split Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:05:57 -0400 Since Alan Cox has referred to 2.4.10+ as "2.5", and he intends to continue developing the -ac series, the problem seems to mostly be one of naming. Alan can essentially treat -ac as the main line of development once Linus opens the "real" 2.5.x, and "backport" fixes from the Linus tree into -ac, while forward porting features and fixes like standards compliance from 2.4 into 2.5, as he did with 2.2/2.3. If Andrea's VM stabilizes and is a vast improvement over Rik's VM, Alan may integrate it into 2.4. Again there is precedent, as Alan took Andrea's 2.2.x VM changes into 2.2.19. Historians can debate when 2.5 began; the rest of us will just use what works. :-) Regards, Bill Rugolsky
From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: GNOME version 2.0 officially 'not of use to anyone' Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:43:26 +091800 It's a shame that you didn't follow up your link to this story... The Register have already indicated (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/22077.html) that this was a trawl, and that "they were just having a little bit of fun". The GNOME 2 release mentioned was an alpha release of the libraries that developers of GNOME applications can use for porting their applications to the GNOME 2 platform. It was never intended for general consumption. Michael... -- Michael Davies "Do what you think is interesting, do email@example.com something that you think is fun and mirky on irc worthwhile, because otherwise you won't do it well anyway." -- Brian Kernighan ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through SE Net Webmail http://webmail.senet.com.au
From: "Robert K. Nelson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Ultimate Linux Box Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:52:55 -0400 Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Eric Raymond's Article on the Ulitmate Linux Box was great, but it included at least one technical error. It is quite possible to run dual Processor Pentium IV machines under Linux. We are currently running these machines (purchased from ASL, Inc.). Robert K. Nelson Airflow Sciences Corporation 37501 Schoolcraft Road, Livonia, MI 48150-1009 (734) 464-8900 FAX (734) 464-5879 www.airflowsciences.com
From: jerry <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: MicrosoftMonopoly Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Cc: <email@example.com> Regarding your article in law.com.. I think that your perspective hasn't allowed you to understand from where Microsoft Success came. You said that Microsoft is a technically superior system.. That is INCORRECT. Many experts concede that Beos, Macintosh, Solaris, and others are technically superior. Linux is technically superior. Microsoft gained its edge 20 years ago by being more AVAILABLE than other systems. When the IBM pc was introduced (with MS operating system), we had many many brands of computers on the market, but no commonality of standards especially for file and interface standards. None of the popular pcs of the time offered a standard RS232 port, or a standard file format. Hardware and Software was totally incompatible between brands.... Microsoft and IBM clones offered standards. These standards were important at that time, triggered a lot of the popularity. You had CHOICES of hardware, competition in software, and unbelievably large after-market support. Microsoft DOS was widely copied, and when Windows came out, again wholesale plagiarism made it widely available to anybody who wanted to copy it.. Microsoft wasn't better than competition, it was AVAILABLE. And everybody jumped on the bandwagon. Microsoft is still HIGHLY AVAILABLE and easy to acquire. It is very easy to buy a pc with MS OS. All you need is money. Apple and Macintosh computers were very competitive technically, but they existed in an environment where they tried mightily to controll the users... But why pay that much for a pc that had the hood welded shut, when you could build an IBM clone with plagiarized software for 1/3 the cost. Because of the cost of hardware and memory, UNIX was not even considered by home users... And with their bickering and proprietary changes, they splintered the business market.. FreeBSD and Linux have changed the equation......FreeBSD is a technically superior system, with a free'd copyright. Linux is superior not because it is a good UNIX, but more importantly, it is GPL'D. The GeneralPublicLicense is not the answer to everything, but Microsoft is right. It has a viral nature and cannot be stopped. It is enhanced by it's AVAILABILITY. You cannot plagiarize Linux, you cannot hide the OS, you cannot hide "backdoors". There are NO SECRETS. By the open design, it is more secure, and any SA knows security is enhanced by what you know, not by what you don't know. If you reveiw the internet regarding linux security, you find that it is widely supported and continually enhanced. You have ONLY Microsoft's word that they are that active.. Microsoft has an excellent Graphical User Invironment, excellent mulitimedia, and some excellent software, and an incredibily large and diverse choice of software, most of which comes from after-market vendors. Microsoft, has earned much of the market.. But they are becoming more controlling, more arrogant, and more expensive. They are retracting the ACCESSIBILITY that they once enhanced. AND they are hiding the technical detail from the masses. Microsoft technicians are masters of mysticism waving magic wands, speaking incantations, and following very specific practices to install and repair. The 3 R's of MS repair is Reboot, Reboot, and Re-install.. They cannot be allowed to change or even see the underlying source code. The early day plagiarism actually helped Microsoft gain market recognition and share. They are no longer allowing that to happen.. There is legislation being proposed that will be highly detrimental to the GPL movement. Senator Fritz Hollings currently is proposing a bill THAT COULD MAKE LINUX ILLEGAL. Such freedom-robbing legislation is the ONLY thing that will stop the GPL (orLinux).. And that could(?) happen in this country, but it won't stop INDIA, CHINA, or BRAZIL.. Eventually the free software of GPL will win.. The world will go to GPL-Linux..ALL modern and recent platforms have or are having Linux ported to them. Linux is already out the gate in the 64 bit cpu world. The economy cannot stop it, there is no capital investment needed. Microsoft cannot stop it.. GPL opens up the mysteries of computing to anybody who desires it.. Free knowledge cannot be stopped. LINUX or a GPL software WILL achieve world domination because of its AVAILABILITY and ACCESSIBILITY. de Jerry Sharp