Letters to the editor

Comments re: An Early Look at Ubuntu Hoary

 Hi Ladislav!
   
 Another great article about Ubuntu - thank you. :) One minor correction for
 you:
   
   "We have already mentioned the Ubuntu live CDs, which represent another
   interesting aspect of this distribution. These live CDs are now built by
   the maintainers of Gnoppix, a project that was originally an attempt to
   develop a Knoppix-like distribution for GNOME users."
   
 It turns out that the reverse is true: Gnoppix is now based on Ubuntu.
   
 Our new LiveCD infrastructure uses 'Casper', a fully cross-platform LiveCD
 bootstrap system that runs on top of Ubuntu's standard installer code, and
 exactly the same kernel as installed Ubuntu systems. To do this, we've
 swapped out some of the common, ugly LiveCD kernel extensions and used
 better technologies in the standard Linux kernel, such as the devicemapper
 copy-on-write overlay.
   
 These features, in addition to much needed documentation, have granted
 third parties much greater ability to make minor modifications or entirely
 new LiveCDs. Gnoppix is now an Ubuntu derivative, Kubuntu will soon be
 producing installer and LiveCDs, and there are plans afoot in the GNOME
 Project to use a 'debranded' and customised Ubuntu LiveCD as a GNOME
 marketing tool.
   
 All this talk about LiveCDs papers over one important issue - Casper can be
 used to create any kind of bootable media... DVD, USB, firewire,
 holographic storage... Well, ok, so that one's still "coming soon". ;-)
   
 Thanks,
   
 - Jeff
 
--
GUADEC 2005: Stuttgart, Germany http://2005.guadec.org/
  
     "I guess there's part of me that's always resented it... to be an
   actor, you have to have someone else say yes to you." - Edward Norton

Comments (none posted)

eWEEK, I think you've missed the point of the GPL

Quoting http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1754298,00.asp -
> We agree with Gates' argument that the case for "free" should not
> be oversimplified. Software costs only begin with the acquisition
> of a license, free or otherwise.
 
The reason so many South American, African and Asian countries are
falling over themselves to adopt FOSS is very simple: it gives them
back control of their countries, and their economies.
 
Anyone paying any attention to the South Americans would have noticed
how often they mention that one copy of MS-Office equals so many bags
of this or that export product. This is something that I wish my own
country (Australia) would do.
 
Simple issues like outright cost are overwhelmed by the sheer ability
FOSS grants the locals. Linux, GNOME, KDE and other major items have
already been internationalised for communities with less than one tenth
of the population of the smallest language group ever internationalised
in MS-Windows or MS-Office. Security agencies, the military and so on
can examine and change every byte of the software that their systems
run, without going cap-in-hand to a foreign business and signing their
life away. Locals can work on local projects with rudimentary equipment
and without shelling out several years' wages for any development kits
or distribution rights.
 
These advantages are only representative of the huge number of
advantages to FOSS. Microsoft can never foreseeably be "agile" enough
to meet more than a small number of these needs, or even to publicly
admit that they exist.
 
With a very few showcase exceptions, Microsoft and their customers
assume adversarial positions; with FOSS, the customers _are_ the
developers, the management and the marketing department. They don't
need anyone to ask them where they want to go today, they just go.
 
Cheers; Leon
 
--
http://cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools; traditional dedication
http://plug.linux.org.au/ Member, Perth Linux User Group
http://osia.net.au/ Member, Open Source Industry Australia
http://slpwa.asn.au/ Member, Linux Professionals WA
http://linux.org.au/ Member, Linux Australia

Comments (1 posted)

Misquote/misattribution in your Mercury article?

> The SCO Group says that IBM and other companies inserted its Unix
> code into versions of Linux.
 
Not exactly true. In fact, just far enough from true to get you into
legal trouble. If you'd written it in quotes it would be Mr Moglen's
problem, presuming that such an attribution is correct, but as it
stands it reads more like a misplaced rephrase of something Mr
Kusnetzky is likely to have said.
 
The SCO group does not say that any more - at least, not in any legally
binding forum.
 
What they are actually claiming in court is that IBM dealt unfairly with
them in a contract centring on Monterey. The substance of the claim is
that IBM inserted code _which_IBM_developed_ into all of TSG-owned
UNIX(R), OS/2 and later Linux. The logic to the claim is that because
the code was originally developed for TSG's UNIX(R) codebase (not
actually true), it falls under the same _contractual_ terms as UNIX(R)
proper and therefore could not have been published elsewhere by IBM.
 
It turns out that practically all of their premises are wrong, that
their predecessors-in-interest-once-removed in the contract (AT&T)
clearly didn't intend a remotely similar interpretation of the
contract, that much of their UNIX(R) code is public domain anyway so
they'd be hard pressed to claim legitimate ownership, that they
published the supposedly tainted code themselves for more than a year,
that no copyrights or patents relating to UNIX(R) were ever transferred
to them, that no UNIX(R) code exists in Linux and to cut a long list
short that they don't appear to even be able to find their own
backsides with both hands, a map, a mirror and someone coaching them.
 
The SCO Group are not pressing any copyright or patent claims against
IBM. IBM is counterclaiming (so far) seven patent violations against
The SCO Group. TSG don't even own the trademark on UNIX(R), The Open
Group does. Worse, The SCO Group appear to have included GPLed driver
code from Linux wholesale into UNIXWARE(R) without so much as an
attribution.
 
In short, Open Source generally doesn't need protection from idiots.
Idiots will attack monied interests for the very simple reason that
there's no profit in attacking individual developers, and said monied
interests will typically respond by smacking down said idiots.
 
What Open Source does need legal protection from are short-sighted,
powerful and greedy monopolists like the RIAA and Microsoft, who appear
to be willing to sacrifice almost any principle in the pursuit of
control and the ensuing profits. Open Source generally doesn't have the
concentrations of money needed to go toe-to-toe in courts and
legislatures and under tables with these organisations.
 
Cheers; Leon
 
--
http://cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools; traditional dedication
http://plug.linux.org.au/ Member, Perth Linux User Group
http://osia.net.au/ Member, Open Source Industry Australia
http://slpwa.asn.au/ Member, Linux Professionals WA
http://linux.org.au/ Member, Linux Australia

Comments (none posted)

Page editor: Jonathan Corbet