RE: Linux stifles innovation...

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Torrey Hoffman]

Dennis wrote:
>At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
>>
>> > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be
ones
>> > to comment on it as such.
>>
>>What truth?  I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
>>than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.
>You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice, 
>thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not 
>innovation.
>
>Designing something differently to make it better is innovation.  I suppose

>you could argue that redesigning linux every few  years is innovation, but 
>unfortunately its the same cast of characters doing it, so its not very 
>innovative.

Reality check:

1.	The Open Source / Free Software communities have produced 
	more innovative software in the last 4 years than Microsoft 
	has in the same time, despite Microsoft's _vast_ advantages 
	in money, manpower, and hardware manufacturer relationships.

2.	Where Microsoft is "innovating", those changes are usually
	intended to lock the customer in to Microsoft's products,
	and are not in the best interests of their own customers.

3.	Far from Open Source being a threat to innovation, it is 
	actually Microsoft that stifles innovation.  Also, Free 
	software helps the developers who use it to do innovative
	things, while Microsoft has endless restrictions.

What has Microsoft done since 1996?  Good and bad?
What has Free Software done in the same time?  

Most of Microsoft's best ideas were more than 5 years ago, and
since then they've mostly been integrating and marketing.  
They have done a few interesting things, but not nearly as much 
as they could have.

Some things to consider, in no particular order:

- Innovative new hardware devices are more likely to be based on
Linux than any Microsoft OS. For example, the TiVO, the coolest 
improvement to television since the VCR.

- ECN, IPv6, other RFC-standard improvements standard protocols
- File systems: cramfs, reiserfs, Tux2, ext3, etc.
- MS' new C# language. Java. Kaffe. Perl. Ruby. Python.
- Cross platform support from System 390 to iPaq
- Ogg Vorbis
- Beowulf vs. that pathetic Microsoft beowulf-wanna-be.
- Microsoft's "innovative" extensions to Kerebos.
- Software for building community web sites, like Slashdot, 
	Freshmeat, SourceForge, etc.
- Mozilla
- Integrating Internet Explorer into Windows.
- RTLinux (does Microsoft have a hard real-time OS? Why not?)
- Embedded Linux vs. Windows CE
- Gnome and KDE user interfaces - works in progress, but lots
	of innovation there.
- Gimp. Apache.
- PHP, ModPerl, etc. vs ASP.
- Jabber XML messaging platform
- Handwriting recognition.  MS has an edge here.
- Scanner software APIs: TWAIN vs. SANE. 
- Direct3D vs OpenGL
- XML-based, open file formats vs. proprietary file formats
- Windows Update vs. apt-get, rpmfind, etc.
- OpenSSH vs.  ummm... BackOrfice?
- IP over Firewire and other crazy, cool ideas
- OpenBSD and line-by-line code audits.
- .NET
- Innovative new ways to spread viral documents and mail
- In-kernel web server/accelerator, fastest in the world

Don't forget Microsoft's latest innovation: integrating copy 
protection for music into the upcoming Windows XP OS, preventing 
people from fully controlling their own computer hardware. Feh.

On the other hand, they make excellent mice.  The mouse wheel and
the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
commended for them. 

Yours truly,

Torrey Hoffman 
- a relative nobody in the world of free software. But I use it.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Ben Ford]

> 
> On the other hand, they make excellent mice.  The mouse wheel and
> the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> commended for them. 
> 
The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15 years old with 
optical mice.  It wasn't MS's idea.

-b

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

torrey.hoffman@myrio.com (Torrey Hoffman) writes:

[...]
>Some things to consider, in no particular order:
[...]

Uniform support from most of the hard- and software vendors on this
planet. Support for 50.000+ different hardware expansions with all
their features from grabber cards to color printers and network cards
to 3D graphics accelerators for their whole product line.

That's not innovation, you're correct. But that's 99% of what users
care about.

I still have no really well working Linux driver for the modem in my
notebook. And it is not even a WinModem. I have a 95% working
closed-source, binary only driver patched to my kernel version, which
at least for me is better than nothing.

>- Innovative new hardware devices are more likely to be based on
>Linux than any Microsoft OS. For example, the TiVO, the coolest 
>improvement to television since the VCR.

Because it is cheaper to use. Linux has no license fee. That's what
the TiVO vendor cares about.

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

ben@kalifornia.com (Ben Ford) writes:

>> On the other hand, they make excellent mice.  The mouse wheel and
>> the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
>> commended for them. 
>> 
>The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15 years old with 
>optical mice.  It wasn't MS's idea.

Abstracting the graphics API from the hardware wasn't M$ idea,
either. But they succeeded where Amiga failed. Having an idea is 99%
of the innovation and 1% of the success.

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Alan Cox]

> Don't forget Microsoft's latest innovation: integrating copy 
> protection for music into the upcoming Windows XP OS, preventing 
> people from fully controlling their own computer hardware. Feh.

Thank people like IBM and the big movies companies like Sony for that. 

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Francis Galiegue]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:

> 
> Uniform support from most of the hard- and software vendors on this
> planet. Support for 50.000+ different hardware expansions with all
> their features from grabber cards to color printers and network cards
> to 3D graphics accelerators for their whole product line.
> 
> That's not innovation, you're correct. But that's 99% of what users
> care about.
> 

Yeah, which means: users don't care whether the driver is closed- or
open-source. Why not making it open source, then?

No matter how hard one will yell it around - vendors don't lose anything in
releasing open source drivers and/or specs; on the opposite, they gain broader
support.

-- 
Francis Galiegue, fg@mandrakesoft.com - Normand et fier de l'être
"Programming is a race between programmers, who try and make more and more
idiot-proof software, and universe, which produces more and more remarkable
idiots. Until now, universe leads the race"  -- R. Cook

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:15:08PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> > 
> > On the other hand, they make excellent mice.  The mouse wheel and
> > the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> > commended for them. 
> > 
> The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15 years old with 
> optical mice.  It wasn't MS's idea.

	I think their "innovation" was not requiring the optical cross
grid mouse pad common on Sun workstations over the years.  The Microsoft
optical mouse uses variations in the surface characteristics of whatever
it's on to perform it's function.  The old optical mice just used two
different colors of LED's (red and IR) and a special pad.  This would
actually have to scan and track the surface below it.  Don't know that
I've seen anyone do that before.

> -b

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  mhw@WittsEnd.com
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Andre Hedrick]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:

> >- Innovative new hardware devices are more likely to be based on
> >Linux than any Microsoft OS. For example, the TiVO, the coolest 
> >improvement to television since the VCR.

Henning,

When you begin to learn that OpenSource is the way and that some of us
will work with companies on an as needed bases.  At this point if you came
to me I would put you through the same grinder that I do every other use
of the ATA/ATAPI subsystem for commerial purpose.  I have the duty and
right to protect that which was entrusted to me and that which I create.
If you do not like that rule, LEAVE!  Henning, if I catch you abusing the
privildge of use of my work, I will pursue you in terms defined as
actionable.  It is not a game.

> Because it is cheaper to use. Linux has no license fee. That's what
> the TiVO vendor cares about.

Henning,

And you do not have the knowledge or authority to comment on this subject
where "I do".  Maybe it you would bother the take you shoe out of your
mouth one more time than you put it in you could not sound more like a
fool, today.

TiVO came to Linux and Linux went back to TiVO in a working relationship.


**************************************************
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:10:42 -0700
From: Mike Klar <mfklar@tivo.com>
To: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: non-PCI IDE DMA in Linux IDE driver

The 2.3-based tree is not in a releaseable state at his point, and
doesn't have the AV stuff in it yet, anyway.  The 2.1-based code (which
is what our shipping units currently use) is available, I can inquire
into the release mechanism for that if you're interested.

Mike Klar
TiVo Inc.

Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> Greetings Mike,
>
> Can I see the source tree under the rules of GPL?
> I know that you are doing AV streams and that is the hot topic at t13.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> The Linux ATA/IDE guy
**************************************************

Once Linux decides to adopt and support AV Streams, it will be in the best
interrest of TiVO to work with me so that they do not have to work against
me.  This is how you work with industry.  You load share the work.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Gregory S. Youngblood]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:15:08PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> > >
> > > On the other hand, they make excellent mice.  The mouse wheel and
> > > the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> > > commended for them.
> > >
> > The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15 years old with
> > optical mice.  It wasn't MS's idea.
>
> 	I think their "innovation" was not requiring the optical cross
> grid mouse pad common on Sun workstations over the years.  The Microsoft
> optical mouse uses variations in the surface characteristics of whatever
> it's on to perform it's function.  The old optical mice just used two
> different colors of LED's (red and IR) and a special pad.  This would
> actually have to scan and track the surface below it.  Don't know that
> I've seen anyone do that before.

I remember being at a computer show in Minneapolis where a small company
was showing off this mouse that worked on a variety of surfaces without a
ball. I'm trying to remember if the mouse was optical or used yet another
method of functioning -- I think it was optical, though I could be
mistaken. This was in 1992/1993.

The point is, I really do not believe Microsoft made the "leap" to provide
opitcal mice without the need of the mousepad grid. Their "innovation" was
in marketing it on a wide scale though.

I could be mistaken - if so then let's give them their credit - but I have
a hard time believing it was their idea without some serious proof.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:00:03PM -0600, Gregory S. Youngblood wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:

> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:15:08PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, they make excellent mice.  The mouse wheel and
> > > > the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> > > > commended for them.
> > > >
> > > The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15 years old with
> > > optical mice.  It wasn't MS's idea.

> > 	I think their "innovation" was not requiring the optical cross
> > grid mouse pad common on Sun workstations over the years.  The Microsoft
> > optical mouse uses variations in the surface characteristics of whatever
> > it's on to perform it's function.  The old optical mice just used two
> > different colors of LED's (red and IR) and a special pad.  This would
> > actually have to scan and track the surface below it.  Don't know that
> > I've seen anyone do that before.

> I remember being at a computer show in Minneapolis where a small company
> was showing off this mouse that worked on a variety of surfaces without a
> ball. I'm trying to remember if the mouse was optical or used yet another
> method of functioning -- I think it was optical, though I could be
> mistaken. This was in 1992/1993.

	I think you are correct here.  I seem to recall mention of some
of those earlier devices at the time of the Microsoft announcement.  I
seem to also recall some of the reliability problem they had.  I believe
they were extremely fussy about the surface they were on.

> The point is, I really do not believe Microsoft made the "leap" to provide
> opitcal mice without the need of the mousepad grid. Their "innovation" was
> in marketing it on a wide scale though.

	I would agree there.  They did something to improve the reliability
on a wider variety of surface textures, though.  Is that innovation or
merely getting a good idea, that's been around, to finally work?  Don't
know.  I didn't find the idea itself particularly innovative.  The fact
that they did get it to work reliable is something to be said.

	The marketing is a given, of course.  Particularly in the face
of the preception in some camps that this style of optical mouse was
unreliable.

> I could be mistaken - if so then let's give them their credit - but I have
> a hard time believing it was their idea without some serious proof.

	Agreed.

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  mhw@WittsEnd.com
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Henning P . Schmiedehausen]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:50:17AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:

[...]
> If you do not like that rule, LEAVE!  
[...]
> if I catch you abusing the privildge of use of my work, I will
> pursue you in terms defined as actionable.
[...]
> And you do not have the knowledge or authority to comment on this subject
> where "I do".
[...]

Bla, bla, bla. The usual Andre Hedrick rant about how superior you're
to all other, threats and the cited hostility of "open source advocats" 
about everyone not their opinion.

You may be a really talented software developer with a deep under-
standing of the ATA subsystem. That does not give you the right to
insult all other people that are not your opinion.

> When you begin to learn that OpenSource is the way and that some of us
> will work with companies on an as needed bases.  At this point if you came

Andre, I do this since quite a few years. I can live quote good from
it in my small vertical market and I love using free software for the
flexibility that I get. But this does not mean, that I will never ever
touch again a program where I have no source. I do this all the time
without and ideological prejudice.

> Once Linux decides to adopt and support AV Streams, it will be in the best
> interrest of TiVO to work with me so that they do not have to work against
> me. 

I see the fine point of you using the word "me". Not "the Linux community".

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Peter Svensson]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Gregory S. Youngblood wrote:

> I remember being at a computer show in Minneapolis where a small company
> was showing off this mouse that worked on a variety of surfaces without a
> ball. I'm trying to remember if the mouse was optical or used yet another
> method of functioning -- I think it was optical, though I could be
> mistaken. This was in 1992/1993.
>
> The point is, I really do not believe Microsoft made the "leap" to provide
> opitcal mice without the need of the mousepad grid. Their "innovation" was
> in marketing it on a wide scale though.

I believe I read about an optical mouse that worked on any surface by
tracking surface constrast movement in an old issue of Byte. I think it
was an Xerox invention, but my memory may be off.

Peter
--
Peter Svensson      ! Pgp key available by finger, fingerprint:
<petersv@psv.nu>    ! 8A E9 20 98 C1 FF 43 E3  07 FD B9 0A 80 72 70 AF
<petersv@df.lth.se> !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, Luke, your source will be with you... always...

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Andre Hedrick]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:

> Bla, bla, bla. The usual Andre Hedrick rant about how superior you're
> to all other, threats and the cited hostility of "open source advocats" 
> about everyone not their opinion.
> 
> You may be a really talented software developer with a deep under-
> standing of the ATA subsystem. That does not give you the right to
> insult all other people that are not your opinion.

Mr. Schmiedehausen,

I have not insulted you, just stated the facts.
Those are not threats they are terms to enforce the License you agreed
upon the very act of editing the source code that you are using in the
kernel.  It is you that would be violating the rules, and that makes me
"hostile"?  What about the issue you doing the initial terms and actions
to harm me by willfully disregarding the the terms and usage?

Please note that "you" refers to a generalixed individual.
It is not intended to imply, state, charge, or any other means of accusing.

> > When you begin to learn that OpenSource is the way and that some of us
> > will work with companies on an as needed bases.  At this point if you came
> 
> Andre, I do this since quite a few years. I can live quote good from
> it in my small vertical market and I love using free software for the
> flexibility that I get. But this does not mean, that I will never ever
> touch again a program where I have no source. I do this all the time
> without and ideological prejudice.

We agree that user-space programs that are value add are binaries.
I also use programs that I have not source code for; however, you are now
parsing the difference between user-space and kernel-space.

I do not have a strong point of view on user-space open-source, however,
if I got the source, hey no big deal.

> > Once Linux decides to adopt and support AV Streams, it will be in the best
> > interrest of TiVO to work with me so that they do not have to work against
> > me. 
> 
> I see the fine point of you using the word "me". Not "the Linux community".

Well, I would find very few that would not define "me" as part of
"the Linux community".  In fact these that have been charge with the task
or have voluteered to the task of maintaining a supporting a subsystem are
generally viewed as the contact point for that sub-system.

./drivers/net/		Don Becker
./drivers/scsi/		Justin Gibbs
./drivers/char(serial)	Ted Ts'o
./drivers/usb/		The USB gang of Matt, Johannas, etc..
./arch/arm/		Russel King
./arch/ia64/		Walt Drummond
./arch/sparc(64)	David Miller
./arch/ppc		Paul Mac.
./arc/m68k		Geert U.

The point being, there are people designated as point or leaders.
If you have an issue with me, you are free to submit it to Linus, Alan,
or the List.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Steve VanDevender]

Andre Hedrick writes:
 > Those are not threats they are terms to enforce the License you agreed
 > upon the very act of editing the source code that you are using in the
 > kernel.

Get it right, Andre.  The mere act of editing a file that is part of a
GPL-licensed source distribution doesn't bind anyone to anything.
Anyone can download GPLed source and edit it all they want without
restriction, and they can also produce binaries for private use from
those edited sources without restriction.  However, if they want to
distribute binaries derived from that source, edited or not, then the
GPL requires that they also distribute the source.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Andre Hedrick]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Steve VanDevender wrote:

> Andre Hedrick writes:
>  > Those are not threats they are terms to enforce the License you agreed
>  > upon the very act of editing the source code that you are using in the
>  > kernel.
> 
> Get it right, Andre.  The mere act of editing a file that is part of a
> GPL-licensed source distribution doesn't bind anyone to anything.
> Anyone can download GPLed source and edit it all they want without
> restriction, and they can also produce binaries for private use from
> those edited sources without restriction.  However, if they want to
> distribute binaries derived from that source, edited or not, then the
> GPL requires that they also distribute the source.
> 

Steve,

You are correct in the expanded definition and stand corrected; however, I
assumed that we were already beyond the personal use issue.  Because we
were describing the situation of commerial issues.  If this is all about
personal use of the source and not redistribition for commerial purpose
then why has it even used this much time of mailing list?

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Jonathan Morton]

>> > On the other hand, they make excellent mice.  The mouse wheel and
>> > the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
>> > commended for them.
>> >
>> The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15 years old with
>> optical mice.  It wasn't MS's idea.
>
>	I think their "innovation" was not requiring the optical cross
>grid mouse pad common on Sun workstations over the years.  The Microsoft
>optical mouse uses variations in the surface characteristics of whatever
>it's on to perform it's function.  The old optical mice just used two
>different colors of LED's (red and IR) and a special pad.  This would
>actually have to scan and track the surface below it.  Don't know that
>I've seen anyone do that before.

I doubt Micro$oft actually did the innovation there.  After all, Apple now
sell an optical mouse with similar capabilities, but with an innovative
overall design (almost the entire upper surface forms the button!).
Optical mouse technology has been developed continuously (with a fairly low
profile) since the early models found on those Sun workstations, and both
Micro$oft and Apple simply put said technology into their latest products.
Maybe I'm biased, but I think Apple did a better job of it.

--------------------------------------------------------------
from:     Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail:     chromi@cyberspace.org  (not for attachments)
big-mail: chromatix@penguinpowered.com
uni-mail: j.d.morton@lancaster.ac.uk

The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.

Get VNC Server for Macintosh from http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/vnc/

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GCS$/E/S dpu(!) s:- a20 C+++ UL++ P L+++ E W+ N- o? K? w--- O-- M++$ V? PS
PE- Y+ PGP++ t- 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D G e+ h+ r- y+
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Gregory S. Youngblood]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:00:03PM -0600, Gregory S. Youngblood wrote:
>
> > I remember being at a computer show in Minneapolis where a small company
> > was showing off this mouse that worked on a variety of surfaces without a
> > ball. I'm trying to remember if the mouse was optical or used yet another
> > method of functioning -- I think it was optical, though I could be
> > mistaken. This was in 1992/1993.
>
> 	I think you are correct here.  I seem to recall mention of some
> of those earlier devices at the time of the Microsoft announcement.  I
> seem to also recall some of the reliability problem they had.  I believe
> they were extremely fussy about the surface they were on.

In the demo I saw, they had about 6 sample surfaces ranging from
a mirror to blue jeans. I also got to play with the mouse on the demo
system and it worked very well. At the time, mice were about $25 to $35
dollars, and theirs were like $79 or $99. I remember thinking it was a
cool toy, but the price difference was going to keep it from mass market
potential.

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dr. Kelsey Hudson]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
> On the other hand, they make excellent mice.  The mouse wheel and
> the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> commended for them. 

The idea of an optical mouse is nothing new: I've got an optical mouse
sitting to the side of my keyboard as we speak, dated ::turns mouse
over:: 1987. Produced for Sun Microsystems by Mouse Systems. Microsoft
being innovative? Hell no... They stole that idea from someone else, as
they have for decades (and will undoubtedly continue to do). It also
wouldn't surprise me if MS is mimicing someone else's idea with the
wheel... I can remember purchasing a Logitech mouse with that wheel long
before I had seen a Micros~1 equivalent.



 Kelsey Hudson                                           khudson@ctica.com 
 Software Engineer
 Compendium Technologies, Inc                               (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------     

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:14:48AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > > - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> > > state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> > > 2.4.<whatever> besides me?)
> > 
> > Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x > 13 on an m68k mac or 2.4.x on an
> > m68k mac?  doesn't happen.  The patches I found for 2.2 didn't work, kernel
> > oopsed on loading the network driver.
> 
> Have you submitted patches to Alan (for v2.2.x) or Linus (for v2.4.x)
> to fix this?!

Linux/m68k 2.4.x runs on some platforms. Also note that Linux/m68k is not 100%
merged with Linus/Alan yet. The mac-specific patches in the m68k tree that
weren't merged are on hold until all issues are sorted out[*], cfr. the
linux-m68k list.

Note to Wakko: feel free to join the project! As usual, we can use the
manpower!!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

[*] This includes, but is not limited to:
      - reports that they work
      - reports that they work after applying patch foo
      - drivers shared with the PPC folks must be sorted out with them first
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dennis]

At 03:47 PM 02/17/2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that
> > they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that
> > it is problematic.
>
>I've been technical director of an ISP. I help manage sites that have not
>insignificant loads and no eepro100 driver problems. For that matter there
>are porn sites using eepro100 drivers.
>
> > Intel doesnt sell the e100.o driver, so they couldnt give a rats ass if it
>
>Your information is wrong. But then it usually is. If you are large 
>corporation
>and would care to talk to Intel they will be happy to discuss it further.

I can lock both of them up in 10 seconds with a simple test.

Why would anyone want to "discuss" paying intel when the license allows you 
to distribute it for nothing? Its clearly designed as an alternative to GPL 
for commercial vendors.

There have been ongoing complaints and discussions over eepro100 problems 
on many of the lists that I know you monitor, so why are you in denial 
about it?


>Of course the single biggest problem with the eepro100 is closedness, and 
>people
>in Intel with attitudes like yours who refuse to release full documentation.


LINUX has no formal documentation, so are you guilty of "closedness" also? 
(ie "where is the 2.4 device driver spec?"), You have source to the e100 
driver (which handles initialization properly,  unlike the eepro driver), 
so what more documentation do you need? it seems that intel is being as 
"open" as the LInux camp, actually more so. At least with the eepro you can 
get the docs under non-disclosure. Under LInux you have no chance unless 
someone feels like helping you.

DB

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Alan Cox]

> Why would anyone want to "discuss" paying intel when the license allows you 
> to distribute it for nothing? Its clearly designed as an alternative to GPL 
> for commercial vendors.

Because if you bother to talk to Intel about your problems Im sure they will
give you a quote to work on it

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[David Weinehall]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:14:48AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> > state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> > 2.4.<whatever> besides me?)
> 
> Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x > 13 on an m68k mac or 2.4.x on an
> m68k mac?  doesn't happen.  The patches I found for 2.2 didn't work, kernel
> oopsed on loading the network driver.

Have you submitted patches to Alan (for v2.2.x) or Linus (for v2.4.x)
to fix this?!


/David
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Project MCA Linux hacker        //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Wakko Warner]

> - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> 2.4.<whatever> besides me?)

Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x > 13 on an m68k mac or 2.4.x on an
m68k mac?  doesn't happen.  The patches I found for 2.2 didn't work, kernel
oopsed on loading the network driver.

-- 
 Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dr. Kelsey Hudson]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Leif Sawyer wrote:
> > From: Dr. Kelsey Hudson [mailto:kernel@blackhole.compendium-tech.com]
> > 
> > 'good' in this case was meant to mean working properly, well-coded,
> > does-what-it's-suppossed-to-do, eg not broken in one way or
> > another. English should have a better word that 'good...' 
> > 
> 
> Functional, perfect, clean, documented, readable, understandable,
> tight, tuned, grok-able.

exactly what i meant, with the exception possibly of 'grok-able' as i'm
not familiar with that term.

> Don't use one word to mean multiple things if you're trying to make
> a clear case.  Otherwise you sound like a Micro$oft lawyer. :-)

How dare you compare me to that scum-of-the-earth! :) 
I do agree, though... I should have been more clear.

> Really, this thread should just DIE already.

It should!

> We now return you to your regularly scheduled kernel bashing.

Let the flames begin. :)

 Kelsey Hudson                                           khudson@ctica.com 
 Software Engineer
 Compendium Technologies, Inc                               (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------     

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Leif Sawyer]

> From: Dr. Kelsey Hudson [mailto:kernel@blackhole.compendium-tech.com]
> 
> 'good' in this case was meant to mean working properly, well-coded,
> does-what-it's-suppossed-to-do, eg not broken in one way or
> another. English should have a better word that 'good...' 
> 

Functional, perfect, clean, documented, readable, understandable,
tight, tuned, grok-able.

Don't use one word to mean multiple things if you're trying to make
a clear case.  Otherwise you sound like a Micro$oft lawyer. :-)

Really, this thread should just DIE already.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled kernel bashing.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dr. Kelsey Hudson]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:00:26PM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> > By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
> > the GPL are 'good' pieces of code.
> 
> If you want to rephrase it like that, ok, but then you must not forget
> why these pieces of code are 'good' : because everybody have access to the
> source code and may debug or improve it as needed.

'good' in this case was meant to mean working properly, well-coded,
does-what-it's-suppossed-to-do, eg not broken in one way or
another. English should have a better word that 'good...' 

 Kelsey Hudson                                           khudson@ctica.com 
 Software Engineer
 Compendium Technologies, Inc                               (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------     

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Alan Cox]

> - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> 2.4.<whatever> besides me?)

Yes it compiles beautifully. Just remember to get it from the ppc tree
because its not merged yet

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Jonathan Morton]

At 11:00 pm +0000 21/2/2001, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
>
>> 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
>
>By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
>the GPL are 'good' pieces of code. I can give you several examples of code
>where this is not the case; several I have written for my own use, as a
>matter of fact.
>
>Software is only as 'good' as the effort the programmer who wrote it put
>into it. Spend an hour writing a device driver while watching TV, eating
>food, and after a couple dozen beers, and release it under the GPL. Is it
>good code? probably not. :p
>
>This isn't, however, to say that I think commercial code is better than
>GPL code... They both have their merits and deficiencies, so I value both
>equally based upon this (although all software *should* be free...)

I was going to stay out of this after a few days back, but I'll put in one
last point in favour of this:

I have seen good commercial software and extremely bad GPL software.  Here
are some examples:

Good commercialware:
- CorelXARA, by Computer Concepts, which totally blew CorelDRAW out of the
water on release (but then Corel failed to market it and instead nabbed all
the good ideas, tsk tsk)
- the assembler/programmer/emulator for my Motorola 68HC08 microcontroller

Both of these were developed by relatively small companies which don't have
to kowtow to shareholders every 5 minutes.

Terrible GPLware:
- VNC Server for Macintosh, AT&T version 3.3.2 (I tried to debug this and
eventually gave up and rewrote it from scratch)
- Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
2.4.<whatever> besides me?)

In the former case, I was able to take the few useful pieces of code and
re-use them in the replacement - which I was *paid* to write, but is still
GPL'ed in the spirit of the VNC project.  In the latter case, people can
see and experience the problem, and get on with fixing it as and when they
need to and/or get time to.  This is somewhat different in nature to, say,
WinNT which dumped the Alpha platform overnight...

I'll shut up now, especially as this isn't exactly the right place for this
discussion...

--------------------------------------------------------------
from:     Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail:     chromi@cyberspace.org  (not for attachments)
big-mail: chromatix@penguinpowered.com
uni-mail: j.d.morton@lancaster.ac.uk

The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.

Get VNC Server for Macintosh from http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/vnc/

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GCS$/E/S dpu(!) s:- a20 C+++ UL++ P L+++ E W+ N- o? K? w--- O-- M++$ V? PS
PE- Y+ PGP++ t- 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D G e+ h+ r- y+
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dr. Kelsey Hudson]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> "You keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it
> means."

 ...To quote Indigo Montoya, speaking to Vuzinni, from "The Princess
Bride" :)

One hell of a story :)

 Kelsey Hudson                                           khudson@ctica.com 
 Software Engineer
 Compendium Technologies, Inc                               (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------     

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Augustin Vidovic]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:00:26PM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> 
> > 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
> 
> By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
> the GPL are 'good' pieces of code.

If you want to rephrase it like that, ok, but then you must not forget
why these pieces of code are 'good' : because everybody have access to the
source code and may debug or improve it as needed.

To the contrary, the commercially distributed closed software may be
nicely coded (sometimes), but how can you know ? You don't have acess to
the source code. All you can do if you want to modify it is to disassemble
it. In some countries this solution is even illegal.

That's why a GPLed piece of code, whatever ugly it may look, is far better,
because you have the _liberty_ to modify it. That's the exact contrary of
crap, because there is no reason to throw it into the trashcan. A GPLed
code has the potential of living as long asd there exists a need to ru it.
A closed code can live only on one architecture, and thus is doomed to
the dumpster.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dr. Kelsey Hudson]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:

> 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap

By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
the GPL are 'good' pieces of code. I can give you several examples of code
where this is not the case; several I have written for my own use, as a
matter of fact.

Software is only as 'good' as the effort the programmer who wrote it put
into it. Spend an hour writing a device driver while watching TV, eating
food, and after a couple dozen beers, and release it under the GPL. Is it
good code? probably not. :p

This isn't, however, to say that I think commercial code is better than
GPL code... They both have their merits and deficiencies, so I value both
equally based upon this (although all software *should* be free...)

Just my .02.

 Kelsey Hudson                                           khudson@ctica.com 
 Software Engineer
 Compendium Technologies, Inc                               (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------     

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Bob Taylor]

In message <96o9uf$j4h$1@forge.intermeta.de>, "Henning P. 
Schmiedehausen" write
s:
> greg@linuxpower.cx (Gregory Maxwell) writes:
> 
> >when you said commercial above) drivers for Linux, including the steaming
> >pile of garbage your company ships.
> 
> "hostile behaviour of the open source community towards people that
> don't agree to their ideas".

As I am a member of this community and have not exhibited such 
behavior to you, please include me *out* of such general 
condemnation.
BTW, your conclusion is *false*

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Taylor             Email: brtaylor@inreach.com            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| Like the ad says, at 300 dpi you can tell she's wearing a     |
| swimsuit. At 600 dpi you can tell it's wet. At 1200 dpi you   |
| can tell it's painted on. I suppose at 2400 dpi you can tell  |
| if the paint is giving her a rash. (So says Joshua R. Poulson)|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Stefan Smietanowski]

Hi.

Thought I'd toss my 0.02sek into the discussion.

> > > objective, arent we?
> >Nope. Are you claiming to be?
> >
> > > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> >... Rant deleted
> >
> >I had a problem with eepro100.
> >It was fixed same night cause I had the source.
> >Don't even try to compare with MickyS**t.
> 
> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.

Ok, tell that to my SBLive that absolutely loves jumping and jittering
on my SMP box under Win2k. Creative have been notified. Ever since they
released their first driver for it...

So if they would've had their driver out in the open I'm sure SOMEONE,
if not me, would've squashed the bug already.

So you're right, good commercial drivers don't need fixing.
Also, good open-source drivers don't need fixing.
Good drivers don't need fixing! Of course they don't!

But crap coding is crap coding no matter what license/distribution form
you put it under, be it open source, closed source or whatnot.

// Stefan

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

greg@linuxpower.cx (Gregory Maxwell) writes:

>when you said commercial above) drivers for Linux, including the steaming
>pile of garbage your company ships.

"hostile behaviour of the open source community towards people that
don't agree to their ideas".

q.e.d. Thanks.

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

mhw@wittsend.com (Michael H. Warfield) writes:

>	No...  Close Source and proprietary protocols are then anthema to
>BOTH progress and innovation.  When innovation is done in a close arena, it

These are two different things! Proprietary protocols are the death to
variety and customer choice! 

I personally are perfectly happy with closed source and open
protocols. Show me a compareable product to BEA WebLogic, which is
free. But if I consider this closed source program to suck, I can
still take my application and deploy it on a free EJB container with a
free servlet engine. I don't lose with closed source here. And the
closed source vendor is forced to compete with open source
products. Which in the end gives me a better product. I'm happy with
upgrades and release cycles where I get one new release and some bug
fixes in six months. Not a new release all two days. And I'm happy
that I can call a support line or open a bug ticket with a
vendor. Yes, there are vendors which care about bug tickets and fix
bugs in their products.

The division "Open Source - all bugs are fixed in shortest time"
vs. "Close Source - no bugs are fixed at all and only updates are
sold" is IMHO plain wrong. And e.g. in Germany, where there is
something called "Gewaehrleistungsfrist" which is six months after
selling a product, vendors are held by the law (!) to fix bugs. And
again, companies like M$ try to circument this with "EULAs" which,
according to some lawyers do not uphold in court. But according to my
knowledge, noone in Germany has ever tried to sue M$ to force them to
comply to this law.

Microsoft tries to circumvent this competition with proprietary
protocols and non-interchangeablity. Why do they bash Java? Why do
they push something like C#? Because they don't want _NO_
competition. They "embrace and extend". And the patent the extensions.

Many other companies take the challenge of open source and open
protocols and try to compete with open source products. And they do it
really well! I have to see Oracle to lose a significant percentage of
their Enterprise RDBMS to free software (And please don't quote me the
"Nasa switches to MySQL" article. This is fine but then again for them, 
Oracle wasn't a good choice in the first place. ;-) )

Innovation today happens with protocols. With ideas. With interoperability.  
On the Internet. Open Source and Closed Source are competitors and
open source and free software _forces_ company to make better software
if they want to compete.

Microsoft tries to avoid the competition and wants to lock their
customers into the Windows - IIS - ASP - .NET - C# cycle with
proprietary protocols, languages and platforms, because then they know
that for these customers, changing into _any_ other environment (be it
the LAMP, FreeBSD-PostgreSQL-Python, Zope, Oracle, Cold Fusion or
anything _else_) is so hard, that the customers won't do. 

Setting up a network of "Microsoft certified professionals" which
repeat the ideology from Redmond on and on, really helps here. It is
almost like the roman-catholic church. ;-)

Microsoft don't really care about "Open Source", "Closed Source", GNU,
Linux, BSD and all the stuff. They only care about "Competition" and
"Market share". Anything that endangers their market share is a
threat.

>	Without Open Source and it's predecessors, we would not have the
>Internet as we know it today.  Companies back then (and I worked for

No. Without Cisco and Sun, we wouldn't have a working internet at
all. And they do closed products with open protocols. And that's IMHO
the point.

>some of them) could not envision a network as we know it now.  Several
>of them saw no future what so ever in the "Internet".  One of them even
>went so far as to proclaim that Novell was the be all and end all of
>networking and nothing would ever amount to anything on this petty worthless
>Internet thing.

>	History has proved them wrong and history has proved that Open
>Source is the provider of choices not the limiter of choices.

No. Open protocols and Open ideas are. Open source is just a part of
the whole picture. Every company that tries to lock their customers
into their products, are a threat to the Internet and to users and
customers. That's where Novell from your example failed. They failed
because of IPX and their inability to adjust to the emerging IP
environment.

Novell failed because they tried to push a small vertical, expensive
product (file and print serving) when a competitor started to give the
"peer-to-peer" and server network away with their baseline product
("Windows"). Not because they made a close source product.

"We give away for free, what you sell". Microsoft got Novell with
this. They got Netscape with this. They will try to get the next
competitor with this, too. They can't get Linux with this and that's
why they're afraid. And that's where such a Linux-bashing article
comes from.

	Regards
		Henning
-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Torrey Hoffman]

Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:

> ... If you
> write for Windows, you have an ugly and complicated API with lots of
> bugs

Yes, that is true.

> , but the API itself is stable since six (!) years.  You can write
> programs that run on 95/98/ME/NT/2000 unchanged. 

That is not always true, as I learned by painful, repeated experience.

My previous job, and some contract work I have done, involved writing 
software for Windows.  My WORST problems were incompatibilities between 
Windows NT and Windows 95.  The APIs do NOT, I repeat NOT! NOT! NOT! 
work the same on the various Windows flavors, as soon as you start 
doing non-trivial applications.  Three times at least, portability
problems from NT to Win95 cost me sleepless nights.  Debugging stuff
like that is hell when you don't have the source.

And when things break on Win95 where they ran on NT, what do you do,
run a debugger on Win95, where a crash can (and will) bring down the 
whole system?  Ugh, the horror.

Linux is not perfect yet, and there may be incompatibilities between 
library versions. But with the source, I have always been able to 
debug and fix the problems I've run into with much less pain than 
I ever had on Windows.  I'm never going back.

Yours, 

Torrey Hoffman

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Peter Samuelson]

[Dennis]
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed
> ethernet drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one
> to buy..perhaps with different "features" that were of value to
> you. Instead, you have crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and
> its not worth spending corporate dollars to fix it because you have
> to give away your work for free under GPL. And since there is a
> "free" driver that most people can use, its not worth building a
> better mousetrap either because the market is too small. So, the
> handful of users with problems get to "fit it themselves", most of
> whom cant of course.

You may have a point but device drivers are a piss-poor example.  Say
Linux does take over the world, and eepro100 continues to lock up under
load.  Who loses?  Intel.  People will quit buying their motherboards
and PCI cards.  So for whom is it worth spending corporate dollars
fixing eepro100?  Again, Intel.  If word were to get out "avoid Intel
network cards, the driver is crap", you can bet they will fix it.

If this hasn't happened yet, it's because Intel doesn't see enough
market in Linux to bother.  And if so, so what?  There are plenty of
motherboards with pcnet32 and 3c9xx chips.

Peter

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:19PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> > good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing 
> > that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.

> > You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But 
> > requiring that all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation. 
> > Its as simple as that.

> And when your customer gets screw because you refuse to update your binary
> driver because you do not know or have had the chance to follow any
> evolving API, you are going to blame us in OPEN source, right.

	At our office, we actually had a sysadmin suggest that the reason
we had problems with viruses propagating was because they couldn't put
everyone on Exchange (some of us use Unix/Linux) and that was causing the
problems.  Of course...  Operating systems which are immune to these things
are to blame for the epidemics on the ones that are suceptible.  That
makes sense.  Grrrr....  Of course the availablity of quality drivers with
sources are the reason for crappy closed source drivers...  I can see his
reasoning (isn't that scary).  <;-/=/

	Actually, it does make a perverted sort of sense.  If we didn't
have systems that didn't have these problems, nobody would think that
there was anything wrong.  They would just think that "of course, this
is what you expect from suppliers".  They would have no yardstick to
measure against, so rebooting a computer once a day or having a blue
screen would just be part of the normal experience.  So we DO contribute
to his problems!  We provide a standard which he can not live up to or
even pursue given the manpower and talent he may have (or not have).
How is he suppose to innovate when the Open Source community is setting
such a high standard for him?  :->=>

> Meanwhile the API changes may have boosted the performance factor and you
> have screw yourself and customer base because you are to lame to see the
> value of open source.
> 
> Some time ago I proposed CLAPI, and you are one of the venders that would 
> benefit from such a beast.  This model would have required you to LGPL a
> kernel library that would have all the functional IP (that is not IP) that
> is to lame to be placed into the hardware.  If your hardware is so flakey
> that you have to pump/prime it for operations....well....you get the
> point.
> 
> If I recall you and your company on one of the worst offenders of taking
> code (GPL or not) and changing it and putting it out as binaries.  I am
> surprized that you have not been taken down yet.  Then if someone asks for
> the return of the code base and changes because they can under the terms
> of the license that you removed from that code, you charge them a fee and
> suggest actionable terms if any disclosure into the public form from
> where it came.

	Well...  Yeah...  Of course, Andre.  Can you see how that stiffles
his innovation.

> Regards,

	Later!

> Andre Hedrick
> Linux ATA Development

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  mhw@WittsEnd.com
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Andre Hedrick]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:

> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing 
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
> 
> You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But 
> requiring that all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation. 
> Its as simple as that.

And when your customer gets screw because you refuse to update your binary
driver because you do not know or have had the chance to follow any
evolving API, you are going to blame us in OPEN source, right.

Meanwhile the API changes may have boosted the performance factor and you
have screw yourself and customer base because you are to lame to see the
value of open source.

Some time ago I proposed CLAPI, and you are one of the venders that would 
benefit from such a beast.  This model would have required you to LGPL a
kernel library that would have all the functional IP (that is not IP) that
is to lame to be placed into the hardware.  If your hardware is so flakey
that you have to pump/prime it for operations....well....you get the
point.

If I recall you and your company on one of the worst offenders of taking
code (GPL or not) and changing it and putting it out as binaries.  I am
surprized that you have not been taken down yet.  Then if someone asks for
the return of the code base and changes because they can under the terms
of the license that you removed from that code, you charge them a fee and
suggest actionable terms if any disclosure into the public form from
where it came.

Regards,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Felix von Leitner]

Thus spake Dennis (dennis@etinc.com):
> You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice, 
> thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not 
> innovation.

This is bizarre.

Please name one innovation in the history of mankind that could not be
seen as expanding on a different idea or even cloning an idea from
someone else (for example, nature).

Dennis, do you have a single argument or are you going to post bizarre
statements like this forever?  Please just say so, so people cann
killfile you now.

Felix

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Alan Cox]

> When is that specification for 2.4 drivers going to be available? Talk 
> about "stifling the marketplace"!!! Vendors cant even write reliable 
> drivers if they want to.

Its called the source code, which includes example driver skeletons. WHere
is the documentation for writing your own etinc drivers

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Alan Cox]

> both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that 
> they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that 
> it is problematic.

I've been technical director of an ISP. I help manage sites that have not
insignificant loads and no eepro100 driver problems. For that matter there
are porn sites using eepro100 drivers.

> Intel doesnt sell the e100.o driver, so they couldnt give a rats ass if it 

Your information is wrong. But then it usually is. If you are large corporation
and would care to talk to Intel they will be happy to discuss it further.

Of course the single biggest problem with the eepro100 is closedness, and people
in Intel with attitudes like yours who refuse to release full documentation.

Alan

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:08:48PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing 
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.

Too bad we havn't seen much (any?) good closed-source (what you ment to say
when you said commercial above) drivers for Linux, including the steaming
pile of garbage your company ships.
 
> You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But 
> requiring that all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation. 
> Its as simple as that.

Like Microsoft you seem to confuse 'innovation' with 'being able to dictate
the terms of how I will extort money from others'.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Alan Olsen]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:

> At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> >
> > > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > > to comment on it as such.
> >
> >What truth?  I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
> >than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.
> 
> You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice, 
> thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not 
> innovation.

"You keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it
means."

alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
    "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:08:48PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:10 PM 02/16/2001, rjd@xyzzy.clara.co.uk wrote:
> >Dennis wrote:
> >...
> > > objective, arent we?
> >Nope. Are you claiming to be?
> >
> > > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> >... Rant deleted
> >
> >I had a problem with eepro100.
> >It was fixed same night cause I had the source.
> >Don't even try to compare with MickyS**t.


> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing 
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.

	Then good commercial drivers == blivit.

	Ain't no such critter.  They are always late and buggy and then
take forever to get fixed.  Nature of the close source development cycle
with deadlines and project managers that say "we can afford to wait any
longer, we have to ship it now and fix the bugs after release".

> You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But 
> requiring that all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation. 
> Its as simple as that.

	Sorry but it's time to pull it out, smell the air, and buy a clue.
There are people out there right now delivering binary modules and binary
pieces for device drivers in the kernel.  I'm working with one right now.
They are providing partial sources with a binary library (this is the
Lucent WaveLan wvlan2_cs drivers).  Nothing is required.  But binary drivers
don't get the support from the open source people that the open source
drivers get.  Sounds reasonable to me.  There are other binary only drivers
(to say nothing of applications) both freeware and payware out there.  I've
got people working on some myself.  So your arguement that "requiring that
all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation" fails on it's
premise because it's NOT REQUIRED.  Just don't expect us to kiss your merry
ass and fall over backwards meeting your demands when you DO deliver a
binary only driver.  If people like it, fine.  If they don't, whose problem
is that?  The idea that nobody will pay for OpenSource software is a myth.
I buy software for Linux all the time.  I buy closed source software and
I buy open source software.  The only difference is the presence of the
sources.  So what.  Tell me how that makes those products less innovative?

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  mhw@WittsEnd.com
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:05:36PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:

> > > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > > to comment on it as such.

> >What truth?  I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
> >than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.

> You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice, 
> thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not 
> innovation.

	I think you are obviously the one who is confused.  You are right.
If there is only 1 choice, that's not innovation.  And that's what closed
source is.  Open source is typically castigated because it HAS SO MANY
choices.  We are often overwhelmed by choices.  Sometimes, those choices
narrow through natural selection and evolution, and that's a good thing too.
Close source is the mono-choice.  You take what the vendor gives you and
that's it.  If it doesn't work, tough, wait for the next release cycle
and pay us again to fix our bugs.  That's real innovative.

> Designing something differently to make it better is innovation.  I suppose 
> you could argue that redesigning linux every few  years is innovation, but 
> unfortunately its the same cast of characters doing it, so its not very 
> innovative.

	I think I agree with the comment that I've seen more innovation in
the open source movement than anything that has come out of closed source.
One could very safely argue that the entire Internet grew out of a form
of Open Source movement.  Closed source gave us things like EDI and SNA
and SDLC and a host of other proprietary ideas and networks that have been
buried by the Internet.  "Profs" (IBM's idea of E-Mail) was swamped by SMTP.
The Web originated in Open Source.  Entire markets have sprung up where
there was none before out of Open Source.

	No...  Close Source and proprietary protocols are then anthema to
BOTH progress and innovation.  When innovation is done in a close arena, it
gets done for closed limited ideas and tightly restricted to what profits
the inventors and nothing more.  It's when it becomes more open that the
real innovation occurs and things are created that the original inventors
never envisioned.

	Without Open Source and it's predecessors, we would not have the
Internet as we know it today.  Companies back then (and I worked for
some of them) could not envision a network as we know it now.  Several
of them saw no future what so ever in the "Internet".  One of them even
went so far as to proclaim that Novell was the be all and end all of
networking and nothing would ever amount to anything on this petty worthless
Internet thing.

	History has proved them wrong and history has proved that Open
Source is the provider of choices not the limiter of choices.

> DB

> >I don't see how having the source open removes "intelectual property",
> >except by showing that huge portions of the concept are flawed.
> >
> > > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> > > crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> > > corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> > > free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> > > use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the 
> > market is
> > > too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> > > themselves", most of whom cant of course.
> >
> >Strange.  I have not heard of any problems with that driver, except for
> >issues where the original hardware vendor kept implimentation details from
> >the open source community.  (Citeing "IP issues".)
> >
> > > Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
> > > because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code. 
> > The
> > > 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence 
> > of that.
> >
> >You must be looking at a different kernel.
> >
> >I have seen little in the kernel that was "half baked".  There have been
> >some things put in to test if they were good ideas.  That is far different
> >than half-baked.  Most of the bad ideas never get to the kernel.  Linus or
> >Alan kick them out before they ever get that far.
> >
> > > The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> > > bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> > > "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> > > when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> > > run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> > > innovate will stay away.
> >
> >You claim that "open source solutions are wholely inferior to closed
> >source solutions".
> >
> >Hmmmm...
> >
> >Then why does everyone run with Apache instead of IIS?  Could it be that
> >IIS is a piece of crap?
> >
> >Feature for feature I would rather use PHP 4 over ColdFusion any day.
> >
> >Sendmail is MUCH more stable than Exchange.  (Even if it has config files
> >that look like they were designed by Carlos Castanada on a bad day.) If
> >not Sendmail, there are a couple of other Open Source mail programs that
> >are much superior in quality than the closed source counterparts.
> >
> >As for the Linux kernel being "shoddy"...
> >
> >Since when?
> >
> >I can leave my Linux box running over night and actually have it do
> >things!  I cannot say the same for Windows.  I leave that running (same
> >hardware, different OS) and it is usually dead by dawn.
> >
> >But your argument is even more bogus than that.
> >
> >It seems that you argument boils down to a couple of thing...
> >
> >"Closed source is better because you pay money for it."
> >
> >"Closed source is superior because we have a company name and you don't."
> >
> >Sorry, but most of the people who develop Open Source are profesional
> >programmers.  They just have a different motivation.
> >
> >Open Source is motivated by pride in what you can do and a desire to help
> >others by sharing that. They don't hide behind a wall of lawyers to keep
> >people from finding out what they did wrong.
> >
> >I found out a long time ago that most "Trade Secret" claims were bogus.
> >It was either a common technique that had been adapted to a particular
> >purpose or it was being used as an excuse to hide how bad the code really
> >was.
> >
> >But my experiences with Open Source, as well as the others I know who use
> >it are quite telling.
> >
> >If I have a problem with an Open Source program I can look at the code and
> >fix it.  Or I can report the bug and it will get fixed soon after. The
> >programmers involved put the effort into it because their name is
> >attached.
> >
> >My experiences with closed source companies are not as good.
> >
> >In many cases, I was ignored because I did not represent a fortune 500
> >company.  If the problem got fixed at all, it would be months before I saw
> >it and usually in a later release that I would have to pay for.  (Usually
> >having features added that I neither wanted or would ever use.)  In some
> >cases (like Microsoft security bugs) it would be treated like a public
> >relations problem instead of a software and quality issue.
> >
> >I have also seen cases where problems were buried in development because
> >"no one will find out and if they do, we will just blame Microsoft".
> >
> >I understand your desire to make money off what you do for a living. I do
> >object to you taring what I do as somehow damaging to the software
> >industry as a whole.  (Especially since the closed source software
> >industry has been poaching off the open source community for years.
> >Microsoft seeking enlightenment with WinXP is only a minor example.)
> >
> >I don't see how hiding how something works adds value to the process.
> >
> >alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
> >Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
> >     "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  mhw@WittsEnd.com
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[James A. Sutherland]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Michael Bacarella wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:29PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> > >It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
> > >Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
> > >misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
> > >unexpected. And to the comment "It is not American to steal", well,
> > >it may not be "American", but it's for sure been part of the way of
> > >doing business in this country for years. It's not right, it's not
> > >ideal, but it IS the way it's done in too many cases.
>
> > Its not a "stealing" issue. Its about whether its worthwhile, dollar-wise,
> > to finance innovation. With free source, its not, because you have to give
> > away  your investment and then anyone can use it equally.
>
> Untrue.
>
> Ogg Vorbis is a perfect example of free software innovation. It is one
> of the most advanced audio codecs available to date. The libraries are
> LGPL'd and the specifications are now and forever public. An audio
> codec is only the beginning.

Yes, Ogg Vorbis is an excellent example.

> The fact that it's freely available and patent unencumbered can only
> be good for it's investors, who happen to be hardware vendors and
> content providers (among others).

It's a shame those investors didn't invest in a WWW site for it: it was
being run on someone's DSL line at home. Their ISP has now folded, leaving
them offline without a site to host www.vorbis.com on...

> Funding free software innovation is only a bad idea if the principle way you
> plan to make money with it is by controlling it's use (such as MP3).

Yes. The people who "developed" CSS had to keep it proprietary because
that was all they had: if they were able and willing to make money by
selling real products for a reasonable price, they wouldn't need
"security" through obscurity and court cases.

> > Secondly, the
> > "open-source" community openly shuns binary distributions (A. Cox never
> > misses an opportunity), so there is no avenue for commercial innovation
> > that is "worthwhile".
>
> As they should. Binary distributions are always inferior.

Not really. Souce availability does not automatically make a piece of
software good, nor does a lack of source make it bad. Having the source
code is a good thing, but it doesn't affect the quality of the software
itself.

> I'm glad to have a binary instead of nothing, but I really should've
> had the foresight to buy better supported hardware.

Yes. I just wish it were a bit easier to determine which hardware that
is...


James.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dennis]

At 07:10 PM 02/16/2001, rjd@xyzzy.clara.co.uk wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>...
> > objective, arent we?
>Nope. Are you claiming to be?
>
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
>... Rant deleted
>
>I had a problem with eepro100.
>It was fixed same night cause I had the source.
>Don't even try to compare with MickyS**t.


good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing 
that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.

You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But 
requiring that all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation. 
Its as simple as that.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[James A. Sutherland]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:

> At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> >
> > > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > > to comment on it as such.
> >
> >What truth?  I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
> >than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.
>
> You are confusing "progress" with "innovation".

Not necessarily: both exist in open source projects.

> If there is only 1 choice, thats not innovation.

You are confusing "innovation" with "competition".

> Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not innovation.

Correct. Having the idea in the first place is innovation.

> Designing something differently to make it better is innovation.  I suppose
> you could argue that redesigning linux every few  years is innovation, but

Not really. Changing Linux to take advantage of some new concept would be
innovation. Adding a new feature would be innovation.

> unfortunately its the same cast of characters doing it, so its not very
> innovative.

There is no need for innovation to involve different/new PEOPLE, just new
IDEAS.


James.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dennis]

At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
>
> > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > to comment on it as such.
>
>What truth?  I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
>than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.

You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice, 
thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not 
innovation.

Designing something differently to make it better is innovation.  I suppose 
you could argue that redesigning linux every few  years is innovation, but 
unfortunately its the same cast of characters doing it, so its not very 
innovative.

DB




>I don't see how having the source open removes "intelectual property",
>except by showing that huge portions of the concept are flawed.
>
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> > crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> > corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> > free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> > use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the 
> market is
> > too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> > themselves", most of whom cant of course.
>
>Strange.  I have not heard of any problems with that driver, except for
>issues where the original hardware vendor kept implimentation details from
>the open source community.  (Citeing "IP issues".)
>
> > Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
> > because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code. 
> The
> > 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence 
> of that.
>
>You must be looking at a different kernel.
>
>I have seen little in the kernel that was "half baked".  There have been
>some things put in to test if they were good ideas.  That is far different
>than half-baked.  Most of the bad ideas never get to the kernel.  Linus or
>Alan kick them out before they ever get that far.
>
> > The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> > bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> > "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> > when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> > run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> > innovate will stay away.
>
>You claim that "open source solutions are wholely inferior to closed
>source solutions".
>
>Hmmmm...
>
>Then why does everyone run with Apache instead of IIS?  Could it be that
>IIS is a piece of crap?
>
>Feature for feature I would rather use PHP 4 over ColdFusion any day.
>
>Sendmail is MUCH more stable than Exchange.  (Even if it has config files
>that look like they were designed by Carlos Castanada on a bad day.) If
>not Sendmail, there are a couple of other Open Source mail programs that
>are much superior in quality than the closed source counterparts.
>
>As for the Linux kernel being "shoddy"...
>
>Since when?
>
>I can leave my Linux box running over night and actually have it do
>things!  I cannot say the same for Windows.  I leave that running (same
>hardware, different OS) and it is usually dead by dawn.
>
>But your argument is even more bogus than that.
>
>It seems that you argument boils down to a couple of thing...
>
>"Closed source is better because you pay money for it."
>
>"Closed source is superior because we have a company name and you don't."
>
>Sorry, but most of the people who develop Open Source are profesional
>programmers.  They just have a different motivation.
>
>Open Source is motivated by pride in what you can do and a desire to help
>others by sharing that. They don't hide behind a wall of lawyers to keep
>people from finding out what they did wrong.
>
>I found out a long time ago that most "Trade Secret" claims were bogus.
>It was either a common technique that had been adapted to a particular
>purpose or it was being used as an excuse to hide how bad the code really
>was.
>
>But my experiences with Open Source, as well as the others I know who use
>it are quite telling.
>
>If I have a problem with an Open Source program I can look at the code and
>fix it.  Or I can report the bug and it will get fixed soon after. The
>programmers involved put the effort into it because their name is
>attached.
>
>My experiences with closed source companies are not as good.
>
>In many cases, I was ignored because I did not represent a fortune 500
>company.  If the problem got fixed at all, it would be months before I saw
>it and usually in a later release that I would have to pay for.  (Usually
>having features added that I neither wanted or would ever use.)  In some
>cases (like Microsoft security bugs) it would be treated like a public
>relations problem instead of a software and quality issue.
>
>I have also seen cases where problems were buried in development because
>"no one will find out and if they do, we will just blame Microsoft".
>
>I understand your desire to make money off what you do for a living. I do
>object to you taring what I do as somehow damaging to the software
>industry as a whole.  (Especially since the closed source software
>industry has been poaching off the open source community for years.
>Microsoft seeking enlightenment with WinXP is only a minor example.)
>
>I don't see how hiding how something works adds value to the process.
>
>alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
>Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
>     "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Michael Bacarella]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:29PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> >It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
> >Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
> >misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
> >unexpected. And to the comment "It is not American to steal", well,
> >it may not be "American", but it's for sure been part of the way of
> >doing business in this country for years. It's not right, it's not
> >ideal, but it IS the way it's done in too many cases.
 
> Its not a "stealing" issue. Its about whether its worthwhile, dollar-wise, 
> to finance innovation. With free source, its not, because you have to give 
> away  your investment and then anyone can use it equally.

Untrue.

Ogg Vorbis is a perfect example of free software innovation. It is one
of the most advanced audio codecs available to date. The libraries are
LGPL'd and the specifications are now and forever public. An audio
codec is only the beginning.

The fact that it's freely available and patent unencumbered can only
be good for it's investors, who happen to be hardware vendors and
content providers (among others).

Funding free software innovation is only a bad idea if the principle way you
plan to make money with it is by controlling it's use (such as MP3).

> Secondly, the 
> "open-source" community openly shuns binary distributions (A. Cox never 
> misses an opportunity), so there is no avenue for commercial innovation 
> that is "worthwhile".

As they should. Binary distributions are always inferior. I'm glad to
have a binary instead of nothing, but I really should've had the
foresight to buy better supported hardware. 


-- 
Michael Bacarella <mbac@nyct.net>
Technical Staff / System Development,
New York Connect.Net, Ltd.

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dennis]

At 08:34 PM 02/16/2001, Neal Dias wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
>Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
>misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
>unexpected. And to the comment "It is not American to steal", well,
>it may not be "American", but it's for sure been part of the way of
>doing business in this country for years. It's not right, it's not
>ideal, but it IS the way it's done in too many cases.


Its not a "stealing" issue. Its about whether its worthwhile, dollar-wise, 
to finance innovation. With free source, its not, because you have to give 
away  your investment and then anyone can use it equally. Secondly, the 
"open-source" community openly shuns binary distributions (A. Cox never 
misses an opportunity), so there is no avenue for commercial innovation 
that is "worthwhile".

Dennis


>Neal Dias
>UNIX Systems Administrator, Sunglass Hut International, MIS Dept.
>office: (305) 648-6479  wk. email:NDias@sunglasshut.com
>mobile: (786) 368-5742  pvt. email:emperor.1@netzero.net
>**********************************************************************
>Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does
>not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also
>looks into you. -Nietzsche
>
>Any opinions expressed above or below are entirely my own and may not
>reflect those of my employers. The information contained in this
>e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the receipt and use
>of the individual(s) or entity(s) named above. If the reader of this
>email message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
>responsible for its delivery to the intended and or addressed
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,
>distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited
>except at the express consent of its author.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
>iQA/AwUBOo3VDsUVRGLQ1PaaEQKnWwCcCb+J3BbV/AQLCB20mzLn/1e8HmkAoK+u
>zXoDl5pPc5Z1uihfhOMrQy+I
>=wE+Z
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Francois Romieu]

Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> écrit :
[...]
> When is that specification for 2.4 drivers going to be available? Talk 
> about "stifling the marketplace"!!! Vendors cant even write reliable 
> drivers if they want to.

May be said vendors should give a look at l-k between 2.2 and 2.4 instead
of spending their time ranting at low quality of source code on l-k, 
FreeBSD-hackers and elsewhere, shouldn't they ?

-- 
Ueimor

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dennis]

At 05:31 PM 02/16/2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> > The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> > bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> > "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> > when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> > run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> > innovate will stay away.
>
>So I take it you support M$ on the legislation bit also...


No. You conveniently snipped the part where I said that Microsoft is not 
one to talk. They "stifle the market" in other ways, like not completely 
documenting the OS for their own advantage.

DB


>-Dan

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dennis]

>
>Fortunately despite your best efforts there is now a choice in 2.4

When is that specification for 2.4 drivers going to be available? Talk 
about "stifling the marketplace"!!! Vendors cant even write reliable 
drivers if they want to.

db

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Mohammad A. Haque]

I'm using these drivers just fine on a couple of streaming servers that
get hit pretty hard.

Dennis wrote:
> both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that
> they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that
> it is problematic.

-- 

=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque                              http://www.haque.net/ 
                                               mhaque@haque.net

  "Alcohol and calculus don't mix.             Project Lead
   Don't drink and derive." --Unknown          http://wm.themes.org/
                                               batmanppc@themes.org
=====================================================================

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dennis]

At 05:20 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> > crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
>
>Umm I find the driver very reliable. And actually I have choice of two
>eepro100 drivers eepro100.c and e100.c so you cant even pick an example.

both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that 
they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that 
it is problematic.

Intel doesnt sell the e100.o driver, so they couldnt give a rats ass if it 
doesnt perform. Note that the DO sell the drivers for other platforms, and 
they support them, a win for the other platforms.

DB

Emerging Technologies, Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.etinc.com
ISA and PCI T1/T3/V35/HSSI Cards for FreeBSD and LINUX
Multiport T1 and HSSI/T3 UNIX-based Routers
Bandwidth Management Standalone Systems
Bandwidth Management software for LINUX and FreeBSD

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Henning P . Schmiedehausen]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:58:45PM +0100, Jean Francois Micouleau wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> 
> > If IBM, Intel, Compaq, HP, Dell, SGI and other companies would
> > wholeheartedly drop their Windows support in favour of Linux, that I
> > would call "a move". If HP would spent only 5% of their driver writing
> > buget for Windows into Linux driver development, that I would call "a
> > move". 
> 
> I'm wondering if the $600 000 HP gave to VA linux and myself last year is
> only 5% of their driver budget.

> Henning, HP is supporting linux and the open source movement. They are
> paying people to port linux to the ia64 platform and the hp-pa risc.

Yes. They want to sell the IA64 and the HP-PA hardware. So it is
logically for them to fund people and companies that port the kernel
or build OS software for their hardware.

> They are supporting the open source movement by paying people like me to
> improve Samba.

Yes. They want to sell products which use this special piece of software.

I don't see HP supporting software authors to write CD-ROM burning
software for all CDROM writers just to be able to bundle Linux
software with their CDROM writers [just watching an HP commercial on
TV].

IMHO, this is no "basic change in company policy". HP and many other
companies understood that they have two ways to conduct their business
in the future: Being dependent on a company that dictates how to write
software, being forced to live with the way that company wants future
products to be and the fact that this company will always have an edge
over their competitors. Or the will support open _protocols_ like
CORBA, TCP/IP, XML and the like to keep their closed source products
working on many (especially their own) platforms and avoid the
strangle hold of a single company.

Linux is ideal for them because no company has "a grip" on the OS. 
This is good!

But is it "commitment to open source"? Or just "keeping all options
open"? Because these companies still support their products on M$. 

Most of the programs are in newer, larger and more mature versions for
Windows. Why? Did you ever try to write a non-web based GUI program
for Linux? For which Linux? Which desktop (besides using statically
linked motif applications or bare metal X11)? Which version of the
desktop? What tools do you get? How mature are the tools, especially
GUI builders and IDEs? Most developers in bigger companies are not
kernel wizards but just average run-of-the-mill-have-a-grip-on-c++
developers who code after specs.

Most companies simply use Java and leave the details to the VM. If you
write for Windows, you have an ugly and complicated API with lots of
bugs, but the API itself is stable since six (!) years.  You can write
programs that run on 95/98/ME/NT/2000 unchanged. Writing them sucks
but it is possible. For Linux to do so, you must use almost bare X11.

Don't get me wrong. I am _happy_ that there are big companies
recognizing, funding and supporting Linux. But then it is for Linux to
grow mature and recognize that these companies don't do it because
they think "Linux is cool". They do it because they think "Linux is
business. Linux is profit. Linux helps us to avoid the strangle hold
of M$" No news here. No basic direction change here. They do Windows
and anything else for exactly the same reasons.

And they don't do desktop applications besides java applications and
Web stuff.

	Regards
		Henning


-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Robert Read]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:41:57PM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> ....
> If HP would spent only 5% of their driver writing
> buget for Windows into Linux driver development, that I would call "a
> move". 

Have you seen this: http://hp.sourceforge.net/ 

I certainly don't know what the percentage is (or care), but I'd call
that "a move."

robert

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Francois Romieu]

Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> écrit :
[...]
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet 
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps 
> > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have 
> > crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending 
> 
> Umm I find the driver very reliable. And actually I have choice of two
> eepro100 drivers eepro100.c and e100.c so you cant even pick an example.
> 
> Of course your keenness to let people write alternative free drivers for
> your etinc pci card is extremely well known. Fortunately despite your best
> efforts there is now a choice in 2.4

Some words from the Ural mountains...
I wouldn't suggest to use my code in a production environment today (that's
why it's labelled 'EXPERIMENTAL' :o) ):
- I'm bad at handling Receive Data Overflow events. Here I suffer
from the lack of ability to trigger it. Now that I'm sharing my flat
with a (decent) traffic analyzer, I should be able to fix that.
- there are issues with the upper layers (I must do some more test
and document the whole). 
- the current way to handle the 'DSCC4 sometime forgets events' failure is
really gross and sub-optimal.

I've found time to buy a brand new computer and it should *really* help for 
these two points.

So far, my driver hasn't the required reliability that one expects to 
build a 4 ports router. Etinc's one may be better at this now*.
Well, I'll fix it. No need to be a genius.

Dennis, thanks to your closed source vision, I found an opportunity to 
fill a gap. Now, some people are willing to make $$$ with me.


*but it's not that difficult to find a way to crash it. A "Don't do that"
section on Etincs site would nicely replace the "Mine is bigger than yours" 
pages.

-- 
Ueimor

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Roeland Th. Jansen]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:46:30PM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
> 
> No. A license doesn't automatically make good code.

true but at least with GPL, people can work on crap GPL code and make
it good. that's an option you don't have with closed source.

-- 
Grobbebol's Home                   |  Don't give in to spammers.   -o)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bengel       | Use your real e-mail address   /\
Linux 2.2.16 SMP 2x466MHz / 256 MB |        on Usenet.             _\_v  

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

vido@ldh.org (Augustin Vidovic) writes:

>1- GPL code is the opposite of crap

No. A license doesn't automatically make good code.

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

mhw@wittsend.com (Michael H. Warfield) writes:

>	But wasn't that Xerox that had that?  Yeah, the same ones that
>screwed us over with the compression patent that shot .gif images out
>of the sky.  There was inovation for you.

Wrong company. You may want to check your facts before bashing.


-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

mharris@opensourceadvocate.org (Mike A. Harris) writes:

>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:

>>The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
>>bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
>>"sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
>>when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
>>run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
>>innovate will stay away.

>Try telling that to IBM, Intel, Compaq, Hewlett Packard, Dell,
>SGI, and a handful of other _major_ computer companies that now
>realize the importance of open source.

No. They spent some small money on it and wait and see how it works
out. If it doesnt't, well, life goes on.

If IBM, Intel, Compaq, HP, Dell, SGI and other companies would
wholeheartedly drop their Windows support in favour of Linux, that I
would call "a move". If HP would spent only 5% of their driver writing
buget for Windows into Linux driver development, that I would call "a
move". 

Everything else is just "Keeping our options open".

In this market, there are IMHO only two companies that have themselves
openly and clearly committed: SUN and Microsoft.

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[James Sutherland]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:35:02PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Carlos Fernandez Sanz wrote:
> > > I did some research on the patent database and found nothing regarding such
> > > a patent. There's patent on word processors (not the concept but related to)
> > > and uses tab on the description...and that patent is from 1980.
> 
> > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
> 
> 	But wasn't that Xerox that had that?  Yeah, the same ones that
> screwed us over with the compression patent that shot .gif images out
> of the sky.  There was inovation for you.

That was Unisys, and it is certainly more innovative than XOR. (Or even
FFT, which is also now patented in one form...)


James.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[James Sutherland]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Carlos Fernandez Sanz wrote:

> I did some research on the patent database and found nothing regarding such
> a patent. There's patent on word processors (not the concept but related to)
> and uses tab on the description...and that patent is from 1980.

Perhaps that's it, then. Or maybe the story is a little distorted. No
doubt you've spotted that IBM does have quite a significant portfolio of
patents, though!


James.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Vesselin Atanasov]

Hahahaha.
Dennis, the only linux network drivers that I have had serious problems
with were yours. They caused kernel panic on 2.0.30+ every 6 hours. Of
course I did not have the source to fix them. In comparision eepro100
works rock solid on all of my machines that use it.

Will I use some binary only drivers again? No thanks!

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:

> At 02:48 PM 02/16/2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrew Scott wrote:
> > >On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
> > >
> > >> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> > >> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> > >> repeated exposition to Linux...
> > >> 
> > http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
> > >> g=ltnc
> > >
> > >That's about as self-serving a statement as I've ever seen. If this
> > >'Jim Alchin' actually believes what he's saying, he's got to be one
> > >of the worlds biggest fools, and if he doesn't believe what he's
> > >saying, well there aren't too many words that would accurately
> > >describe what he is.
> > >
> > >It's pretty funny in some ways, e.g. "We can build a better product
> > >than Linux...", which begs the question, "Well, why don't you?".
> > >Perhaps it costs too much?
> 
> objective, arent we?
> 
> There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones 
> to comment on it as such.
> 
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet 
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps 
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have 
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending 
> corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for 
> free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can 
> use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the market is 
> too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it 
> themselves", most of whom cant of course.
> 
> Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel 
> because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code. The 
> 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence of that.
> 
> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to 
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about 
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even 
> when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long 
> run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to 
> innovate will stay away.
> 
> DB
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Mike Pontillo]

>
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the market
is
> too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> themselves", most of whom cant of course.
>

     Assuming I am a corporate entity and I need to spend a few bucks to fix
a GPL driver, just because I fix it and deploy my fix on my corporation's
internal network machines -- and quite possibly benefit the hell out of
myself and my company -- that does not mean that I have to release my work
for free under the GPL. Of course, the *nice* thing to do would be to
release it under the GPL even if I was only using the fix internally -- but
I am under no obligation to do that, if, say, I just wanted to keep ahead of
my competitors. Maybe I was planning to wait awhile so I could get ahead in
my market. Maybe I'm just an IP freak and I want to keep my code to myself.
Whatever. My understanding is that the only restrictions I have is that I
can't sell or distribute the darned thing. If, say for example I needed to
fix that driver so that it would work on my new WhizBang 2001 Corporate
Server that is about to hit the market, then I would be making money on the
hardware, and as an added bonus my company looks good because it has an
"open" driver for its server. (no matter that it "had" to under the GPL)

Mike Pontillo

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Augustin Vidovic]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:27:31PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet 
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps 
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have 
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending 

1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
2- in that case, it's not the software, but the hardware which
   was locking up under load

In addition, it would have been impossible to fix the problem if the code
was not GPL.

-- 
Augustin Vidovic                   http://www.vidovic.org/augustin/
"Nous sommes tous quelque chose de naissance, musicien ou assassin,
 mais il faut apprendre le maniement de la harpe ou du couteau."

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Werner Almesberger]

Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> Actually I do.  Perhaps I should define enterprise as "big iron".  In
> that way, enterprise kernels would be far more innovative than a
> secure kernel (which cares less about performance gains and large
> features and more about just being "secure").

Hmm, and if you want a secure "big iron" ? Do you then start another
branch merging from both lines, or try to merge all the "enterprise"
enhancements into the "secure" system or vice versa ? If the latter
is easy, why was the split needed in the first place ? If it isn't
easy, will you succeed ? After all, you're facing the integration of
a large portion of code, and you only have a probably small "special
interest" group of people for it.

> In fact, I think
> if some of these vendors created their own kernel trees, it would
> inevitably lead to inclusion of the best features into the primary
> kernel tree.  Where's the harm in that?

Temporary splits or "private" add-ons are not a problem. In fact,
this happens all the time. If there are more fundamental and
permanent splits, I would expect it to become increasingly difficult
to maintain compatibility for components. This should affect drivers
first, then deeper regions of the kernel (e.g. networking, then MM).

Actually, there is a live experiment of this nature going on: with
BSD, you have several specialized lines. I'm not following their
development, but maybe somebody who does could comment on how they
compare in terms of compatibility among themselves, and in terms of
features/drivers with Linux.

Also, code that is supposed to run on multiple platforms easily
degenerates into a wild collection of #ifdefs, or requires the
addition of further abstraction layers. (*) Again, the quality of BSD
drivers (both in readability and efficiency) should be indicative for
whether my assumption is true.

(* Further abstraction layers can sometimes be very efficient, e.g.
   the UP/SMP support in Linux. The hard part is to put them at the
   right place. If your kernels are sufficiently different, you may
   end up with translation modules at fairly deep layers, e.g.
   instead of, say, VFS in all kernels providing the same set of
   functions, you'd translate between VFS variants in your file
   system driver, which is probably less efficient, and much more
   likely to result in bugs.)

In my personal experience, it's already painful enough to maintain
a piece of software that should run in 2.2 and 2.3 kernels, despite
rather good compatibility support.

> And I don't think that convergence happens quickly or efficiently
> enough, despite all the great work Linus and Alan do.

One of the largest obstacles to covergence that I've seen so far is
that some groups isolate their work too much. Rapid convergence is
only possible if all relevant parties understand what's going on, at
least at the point of what happens at interfaces. This means that
large projects should be done openly, with occasional announcements
on linux-kernel. Building that killer subsystem in-house until
perfection is reached, and then submitting a multi-megabyte patch
isn't going to make anybody happy.

- Werner

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________________
 / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH           Werner.Almesberger@epfl.ch /
/_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dan Hollis]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
> 	But wasn't that Xerox that had that?

US Patent #4,197,590 held by NuGraphics, Inc.

> Yeah, the same ones that screwed us over with the compression patent
> that shot .gif images out of the sky.  There was inovation for you.

That wasn't Xerox. That was Unisys (due to LZW).

-Dan

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Neal Dias]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
unexpected. And to the comment "It is not American to steal", well,
it may not be "American", but it's for sure been part of the way of
doing business in this country for years. It's not right, it's not
ideal, but it IS the way it's done in too many cases. 

Neal Dias
UNIX Systems Administrator, Sunglass Hut International, MIS Dept.
office: (305) 648-6479  wk. email:NDias@sunglasshut.com
mobile: (786) 368-5742  pvt. email:emperor.1@netzero.net
**********************************************************************
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does
not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also
looks into you. -Nietzsche

Any opinions expressed above or below are entirely my own and may not
reflect those of my employers. The information contained in this
e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the receipt and use
of the individual(s) or entity(s) named above. If the reader of this
email message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible for its delivery to the intended and or addressed
recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited
except at the express consent of its author.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOo3VDsUVRGLQ1PaaEQKnWwCcCb+J3BbV/AQLCB20mzLn/1e8HmkAoK+u
zXoDl5pPc5Z1uihfhOMrQy+I
=wE+Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Matt D. Robinson]

Werner Almesberger wrote:
> 
> Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> > My feeling is we should splinter the kernel development for
> > different purposes (enterprise, UP, security, etc.).  I'm sure
> > it isn't a popular view, but I feel it would allow faster progression
> > of kernel functionality and features in the long run.
> 
> "enterprise" XOR security ? I think you understand the problem with
> your approach well ;-)

Actually I do.  Perhaps I should define enterprise as "big iron".  In
that way, enterprise kernels would be far more innovative than a
secure kernel (which cares less about performance gains and large
features and more about just being "secure").  Unless you meant
something else and I'm misinterpreting what you've stated. :)

> Linux scales well from PDAs to large clusters. This is quite an
> achievement. Other operating systems are not able to match this.
> So why do you think that Linux should try to mimic their flaws ?
> Out of pity ?

I always considered SGI's kernels, from the low-end system up to
the large server configurations, to scale well.  Certainly it didn't
work on PDAs. :)  If you consider it a flaw for vendors to be able
to create their own Linux kernels based on optimizations
for their hardware and their customers, then that's a horrible
perspective on overall open source progression.  In fact, I think
if some of these vendors created their own kernel trees, it would
inevitably lead to inclusion of the best features into the primary
kernel tree.  Where's the harm in that?

> BTW, parallel development does happen all the time. The point of
> convergence in a single "mainstream" kernel is that you benefit
> from all the work that's been going on while you did the stuff
> you care most about.

Agreed.  It's great to have a "primary" kernel.  I'd like to see
more splintered kernels (not smaller project efforts), that's all.
And I don't think that convergence happens quickly or efficiently
enough, despite all the great work Linus and Alan do.

> - Werner (having pity with the hungry looking trolls)

--Matt

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:35:02PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Carlos Fernandez Sanz wrote:
> > I did some research on the patent database and found nothing regarding such
> > a patent. There's patent on word processors (not the concept but related to)
> > and uses tab on the description...and that patent is from 1980.

> You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).

	But wasn't that Xerox that had that?  Yeah, the same ones that
screwed us over with the compression patent that shot .gif images out
of the sky.  There was inovation for you.

> -Dan

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  mhw@WittsEnd.com
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dan Hollis]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Carlos Fernandez Sanz wrote:
> I did some research on the patent database and found nothing regarding such
> a patent. There's patent on word processors (not the concept but related to)
> and uses tab on the description...and that patent is from 1980.

You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).

-Dan

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Werner Almesberger]

Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> My feeling is we should splinter the kernel development for
> different purposes (enterprise, UP, security, etc.).  I'm sure
> it isn't a popular view, but I feel it would allow faster progression
> of kernel functionality and features in the long run.

"enterprise" XOR security ? I think you understand the problem with
your approach well ;-)

Linux scales well from PDAs to large clusters. This is quite an
achievement. Other operating systems are not able to match this.
So why do you think that Linux should try to mimic their flaws ?
Out of pity ?

BTW, parallel development does happen all the time. The point of
convergence in a single "mainstream" kernel is that you benefit
from all the work that's been going on while you did the stuff
you care most about.

- Werner (having pity with the hungry looking trolls)

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________________
 / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH           Werner.Almesberger@epfl.ch /
/_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Matt D. Robinson]

"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> 
> >The day the Linux kernel splinters into multiple, distinct efforts is the
> >day I'll believe the kernel is fully into progress over "preference".  Right
> >now, Alan accepts what he thinks should go into stable kernels, and Linus
> >accepts what he thinks should go into future kernels.  I'm not saying they
> >aren't doing the right things, or that the system doesn't work, but it's
> >hardly what I would call a progressive movement.  It's simply long,
> >drawn-out evolution at best.
> >
> >I'm surprised the major vendors haven't created their own consortium
> >by now to create a Linux kernel they think is best suited for their own
> >hardware.  But then again, they probably still spend all their time worrying
> >about whether their efforts will be "accepted" into the mainstream Linux
> >kernel.  Now _that's_ what I consider to be stifling innovation and
> >progression.
> >
> >Kind of off-topic, but whatever ...
> 
> Basically it boils down to this.. By continuing this thread here,
> I'm preaching to the choir, and I'd rather not waste my time on
> those with no clue of the open source movement.  The other
> alterative is to stick up for open source, and debate you until
> I'm blue in the face - and you wont change your mind anyways,
> and considering you're the minority here.. who cares?
> 
> Thread == dead.

Mike, next time, read someone's post before responding, okay?
If you think I don't care about open source, perhaps you weren't
paying enough attention.  I'd like to see open source evolve even
faster than it does now.  If you somehow missed that, then go back
and read what I wrote again.  And I'm sure you can find much
more positive ways to defend open source than responding in the
way you just did -- your tone projects the kind of animosity that
causes these closed vs. open source debates in the first place.

My feeling is we should splinter the kernel development for
different purposes (enterprise, UP, security, etc.).  I'm sure
it isn't a popular view, but I feel it would allow faster progression
of kernel functionality and features in the long run.  And that's
simply a different view than you have.  It's certainly not one
that is against the open source movement (as you've implied).

--Matt (http://oss.sgi.com/projects/lkcd)

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[rjd]

Dennis wrote:
...
> objective, arent we?
Nope. Are you claiming to be?

> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet 
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps 
... Rant deleted

I had a problem with eepro100.
It was fixed same night cause I had the source.
Don't even try to compare with MickyS**t.

> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to 
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about 
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even 
> when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long 
> run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to 
> innovate will stay away.

When companys with less than a dozen people think it's worth while paying
someone like me to develop code exclusivly for Linux we've got to have a
chance. Source to binary ratio is probably 70/30 mainly because of code
tied up in previous companys but they are trying.

The project they're funding now is more like 90% GPL. Of course I could be
producing crap code. 20 years kernel hacking and a cybernetics degree can't
mean as much as being an MSCE.


ps. This is definately a message from home and a bottom of a glass of whisky.
-- 
	Bob Dunlop	rjd@xyzzy.clara.co.uk

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[LA Walsh]

"David D.W. Downey" wrote:
> 
> Seriously though folks, look at who's doing this!
> 
> They've already tried once to sue 'Linux', were told they couldn't because
> Linux is a non-entity (or at least one that they can not effectively sue
> due to the classification Linux holds), ...
---
	Not having a long memory on these things, do you have an article
or reference on this -- I'd love to read about that one.  Sue Linux?  For
what?  Competing?  

	Perhaps by saying Open Source is a threat to the "American Way", they
mean they can't effectively 'sue', buy up or destroy it?  

-l

-- 
L A Walsh                        | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI
law@sgi.com                      | Voice: (650) 933-5338

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Carlos Fernandez Sanz]

I did some research on the patent database and found nothing regarding such
a patent. There's patent on word processors (not the concept but related to)
and uses tab on the description...and that patent is from 1980.

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Sutherland" <jas88@cam.ac.uk>
To: "David D.W. Downey" <pgpkeys@hislinuxbox.com>
Cc: "Rik van Riel" <riel@conectiva.com.br>; "Alan Olsen"
<alan@clueserver.org>; "Mark Haney" <mhaney@info4cars.com>;
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 15:18
Subject: RE: Linux stifles innovation...


> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, David D.W. Downey wrote:
>
> > Would someone tell me where you get all this lovely information on
> > patents held by M$? I can't find anything.
>
> Sorry, it's *IBM* who are said to hold a patent on the tab key.
>
> Legend has it Microsoft once found a patent of theirs which IBM appeared
> to have infringed, and were very excited at the possibility of something
> to hold over IBM, so their lawyers met IBM's lawyers. The MS lawyers
> beamed "look at our patent you've infringed!" IBM's lawyers replied "look
> at this pile of our patents YOU'VE infringed... let's start with this
> one. A Tab key." MS suddenly realised they were outlawyered...
>
> No idea how accurate it is, but just the thought of MS's lawyers getting a
> nasty shock like that has a certain appeal :-)
>
>
> James.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Alan Olsen]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:

> objective, arent we?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

> There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones 
> to comment on it as such.

What truth?  I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.

I don't see how having the source open removes "intelectual property",
except by showing that huge portions of the concept are flawed.

> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet 
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps 
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have 
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending 
> corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for 
> free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can 
> use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the market is 
> too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it 
> themselves", most of whom cant of course.

Strange.  I have not heard of any problems with that driver, except for
issues where the original hardware vendor kept implimentation details from
the open source community.  (Citeing "IP issues".)

> Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel 
> because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code. The 
> 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence of that.

You must be looking at a different kernel.

I have seen little in the kernel that was "half baked".  There have been
some things put in to test if they were good ideas.  That is far different
than half-baked.  Most of the bad ideas never get to the kernel.  Linus or
Alan kick them out before they ever get that far.

> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to 
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about 
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even 
> when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long 
> run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to 
> innovate will stay away.

You claim that "open source solutions are wholely inferior to closed
source solutions".

Hmmmm... 

Then why does everyone run with Apache instead of IIS?  Could it be that
IIS is a piece of crap?

Feature for feature I would rather use PHP 4 over ColdFusion any day.

Sendmail is MUCH more stable than Exchange.  (Even if it has config files
that look like they were designed by Carlos Castanada on a bad day.) If
not Sendmail, there are a couple of other Open Source mail programs that
are much superior in quality than the closed source counterparts.

As for the Linux kernel being "shoddy"...  

Since when?

I can leave my Linux box running over night and actually have it do
things!  I cannot say the same for Windows.  I leave that running (same
hardware, different OS) and it is usually dead by dawn.

But your argument is even more bogus than that.

It seems that you argument boils down to a couple of thing...

"Closed source is better because you pay money for it."  

"Closed source is superior because we have a company name and you don't."

Sorry, but most of the people who develop Open Source are profesional
programmers.  They just have a different motivation.  

Open Source is motivated by pride in what you can do and a desire to help
others by sharing that. They don't hide behind a wall of lawyers to keep
people from finding out what they did wrong.

I found out a long time ago that most "Trade Secret" claims were bogus.
It was either a common technique that had been adapted to a particular
purpose or it was being used as an excuse to hide how bad the code really
was.

But my experiences with Open Source, as well as the others I know who use
it are quite telling.

If I have a problem with an Open Source program I can look at the code and
fix it.  Or I can report the bug and it will get fixed soon after. The
programmers involved put the effort into it because their name is
attached.

My experiences with closed source companies are not as good.

In many cases, I was ignored because I did not represent a fortune 500
company.  If the problem got fixed at all, it would be months before I saw
it and usually in a later release that I would have to pay for.  (Usually
having features added that I neither wanted or would ever use.)  In some
cases (like Microsoft security bugs) it would be treated like a public
relations problem instead of a software and quality issue.

I have also seen cases where problems were buried in development because
"no one will find out and if they do, we will just blame Microsoft".

I understand your desire to make money off what you do for a living. I do
object to you taring what I do as somehow damaging to the software
industry as a whole.  (Especially since the closed source software
industry has been poaching off the open source community for years.
Microsoft seeking enlightenment with WinXP is only a minor example.)

I don't see how hiding how something works adds value to the process.

alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
    "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Mike A. Harris]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Matt D. Robinson wrote:

>The day the Linux kernel splinters into multiple, distinct efforts is the
>day I'll believe the kernel is fully into progress over "preference".  Right
>now, Alan accepts what he thinks should go into stable kernels, and Linus
>accepts what he thinks should go into future kernels.  I'm not saying they
>aren't doing the right things, or that the system doesn't work, but it's
>hardly what I would call a progressive movement.  It's simply long,
>drawn-out evolution at best.
>
>I'm surprised the major vendors haven't created their own consortium
>by now to create a Linux kernel they think is best suited for their own
>hardware.  But then again, they probably still spend all their time worrying
>about whether their efforts will be "accepted" into the mainstream Linux
>kernel.  Now _that's_ what I consider to be stifling innovation and
>progression.
>
>Kind of off-topic, but whatever ...

Basically it boils down to this.. By continuing this thread here,
I'm preaching to the choir, and I'd rather not waste my time on
those with no clue of the open source movement.  The other
alterative is to stick up for open source, and debate you until
I'm blue in the face - and you wont change your mind anyways,
and considering you're the minority here.. who cares?

Thread == dead.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mike A. Harris  -  Linux advocate  -  Free Software advocate
          This message is copyright 2001, all rights reserved.
  Views expressed are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Hat Linux:  http://www.redhat.com
Download for free:  ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/redhat-6.2/

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Matt D. Robinson]

The day the Linux kernel splinters into multiple, distinct efforts is the
day I'll believe the kernel is fully into progress over "preference".  Right
now, Alan accepts what he thinks should go into stable kernels, and Linus
accepts what he thinks should go into future kernels.  I'm not saying they
aren't doing the right things, or that the system doesn't work, but it's
hardly what I would call a progressive movement.  It's simply long,
drawn-out evolution at best.

I'm surprised the major vendors haven't created their own consortium
by now to create a Linux kernel they think is best suited for their own
hardware.  But then again, they probably still spend all their time worrying
about whether their efforts will be "accepted" into the mainstream Linux
kernel.  Now _that's_ what I consider to be stifling innovation and
progression.

Kind of off-topic, but whatever ...

--Matt

"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> 
> >The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> >bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> >"sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> >when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> >run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> >innovate will stay away.
> 
> Try telling that to IBM, Intel, Compaq, Hewlett Packard, Dell,
> SGI, and a handful of other _major_ computer companies that now
> realize the importance of open source.
> 
> Seriously, get a copy of Eric S. Raymond's book, "The Cathedral
> and the Bazaar" (or view it online at http://www.opensource.org),
> and read through it.  It is very well written and covers all
> aspects of what you are fearing - in a positive way.
> 
> Linux is one of the most stable operating systems ever written.
> That's not just advocacy, that is fact.  Drivers marked
> experimental are not just experimental - some are, but a lot are
> not, they just have not had anyone send in loud positive
> feedback, and so the maintainers left them that way.
> 
> If you think the various crud commercial OS's out there are
> stable and have no experimental code in them, and that drivers do
> not crash or have bugs, you haven't been computing for long.
> 
> At any rate, nobody has a gun to your head - go use something
> else that works for you.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Hristo Doichev]

On the surface you seem to make some good points.
In reality ... ?? 
Money doesn't buy the ability to innovate!
OSS doesn't, magically, enhance the ability to innovate, aither!
No one can predict where and why an innovation occurs.

The only thing that OSS does to MS is to prohibit them for capitalizing
on ideas that are born within the OSS community. This must hurt them (MS)
since there are a lot of cool ideas they (MS) would like to snatch. Just take
a look at the list of companies acquired by MS. Considering the amount of 
money MS puts into software R&D there should be nothing left for the rest of 
the world to discover or invent?! :-0 
If anything, MS is the prime example of immature and unreliable code 
(applications). Money doesn't even guarantee stability and usability of your
applications. Perhaps you are one of those rare souls that has absolutely 
no problems with MS products which, mind you, up until now were not 
experimental. On the other hand Windows XP stands, obviously, for Windows 
eXPeriment. 

Innovations by hackers that developed KDE and Gnome can change the way you 
use your computer. For instance, have you been to www.eazel.com? While
Nautilus is of no interest to me you can run an entire Linux Desktop over the 
internet by just using your browser. Try the demo ... pull up a console and 
fire off some commands, try GnuCash or something!!!! 
It is super cool and it is great technology that comes for free with just 
about all Linux distributions. I bet MS would like to be able to do the same 
...

regards.
Hristo Doichev



On Friday 16 February 2001 14:27, Dennis wrote:
> At 02:48 PM 02/16/2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrew Scott wrote:
> > >On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
> > >> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> > >> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> > >> repeated exposition to Linux...
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html
> >?ta
> >
> > >> g=ltnc
> > >
> > >That's about as self-serving a statement as I've ever seen. If this
> > >'Jim Alchin' actually believes what he's saying, he's got to be one
> > >of the worlds biggest fools, and if he doesn't believe what he's
> > >saying, well there aren't too many words that would accurately
> > >describe what he is.
> > >
> > >It's pretty funny in some ways, e.g. "We can build a better product
> > >than Linux...", which begs the question, "Well, why don't you?".
> > >Perhaps it costs too much?
>
> objective, arent we?
>
> There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> to comment on it as such.
>
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the market is
> too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> themselves", most of whom cant of course.
>
> Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
> because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code. The
> 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence of
> that.
>
> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> innovate will stay away.
>
> DB
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Mike A. Harris]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:

>The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
>bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
>"sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
>when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
>run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
>innovate will stay away.

Try telling that to IBM, Intel, Compaq, Hewlett Packard, Dell,
SGI, and a handful of other _major_ computer companies that now
realize the importance of open source.

Seriously, get a copy of Eric S. Raymond's book, "The Cathedral
and the Bazaar" (or view it online at http://www.opensource.org),
and read through it.  It is very well written and covers all
aspects of what you are fearing - in a positive way.

Linux is one of the most stable operating systems ever written.
That's not just advocacy, that is fact.  Drivers marked
experimental are not just experimental - some are, but a lot are
not, they just have not had anyone send in loud positive
feedback, and so the maintainers left them that way.

If you think the various crud commercial OS's out there are
stable and have no experimental code in them, and that drivers do
not crash or have bugs, you haven't been computing for long.

At any rate, nobody has a gun to your head - go use something
else that works for you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mike A. Harris  -  Linux advocate  -  Free Software advocate
          This message is copyright 2001, all rights reserved.
  Views expressed are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Press every key to continue.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[David D.W. Downey]

ROTFL, man this guy is funny.



On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:

> At 02:48 PM 02/16/2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrew Scott wrote:
> > >On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
> > >
> > >> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> > >> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> > >> repeated exposition to Linux...
> > >>
> > http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
> > >> g=ltnc
> > >
> > >That's about as self-serving a statement as I've ever seen. If this
> > >'Jim Alchin' actually believes what he's saying, he's got to be one
> > >of the worlds biggest fools, and if he doesn't believe what he's
> > >saying, well there aren't too many words that would accurately
> > >describe what he is.
> > >
> > >It's pretty funny in some ways, e.g. "We can build a better product
> > >than Linux...", which begs the question, "Well, why don't you?".
> > >Perhaps it costs too much?
>
> objective, arent we?
>
> There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> to comment on it as such.
>
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the market is
> too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> themselves", most of whom cant of course.
>
> Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
> because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code. The
> 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence of that.
>
> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> innovate will stay away.
>
> DB
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-- 
David D.W. Downey - RHCE
Consulting Engineer
Ensim Corporation - Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dan Hollis]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> innovate will stay away.

So I take it you support M$ on the legislation bit also...

-Dan

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Dennis]

At 02:48 PM 02/16/2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrew Scott wrote:
> >On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
> >
> >> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> >> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> >> repeated exposition to Linux...
> >> 
> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
> >> g=ltnc
> >
> >That's about as self-serving a statement as I've ever seen. If this
> >'Jim Alchin' actually believes what he's saying, he's got to be one
> >of the worlds biggest fools, and if he doesn't believe what he's
> >saying, well there aren't too many words that would accurately
> >describe what he is.
> >
> >It's pretty funny in some ways, e.g. "We can build a better product
> >than Linux...", which begs the question, "Well, why don't you?".
> >Perhaps it costs too much?

objective, arent we?

There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones 
to comment on it as such.

For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet 
drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps 
with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have 
crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending 
corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for 
free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can 
use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the market is 
too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it 
themselves", most of whom cant of course.

Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel 
because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code. The 
50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence of that.

The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to 
bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about 
"sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even 
when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long 
run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to 
innovate will stay away.

DB

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Alan Cox]

> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet 
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps 
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have 
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending 

Umm I find the driver very reliable. And actually I have choice of two
eepro100 drivers eepro100.c and e100.c so you cant even pick an example.

Of course your keenness to let people write alternative free drivers for
your etinc pci card is extremely well known. Fortunately despite your best
efforts there is now a choice in 2.4

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[James Sutherland]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, David D.W. Downey wrote:

> Would someone tell me where you get all this lovely information on
> patents held by M$? I can't find anything.

Sorry, it's *IBM* who are said to hold a patent on the tab key.

Legend has it Microsoft once found a patent of theirs which IBM appeared
to have infringed, and were very excited at the possibility of something
to hold over IBM, so their lawyers met IBM's lawyers. The MS lawyers
beamed "look at our patent you've infringed!" IBM's lawyers replied "look
at this pile of our patents YOU'VE infringed... let's start with this
one. A Tab key." MS suddenly realised they were outlawyered...

No idea how accurate it is, but just the thought of MS's lawyers getting a
nasty shock like that has a certain appeal :-)


James.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Jesse Pollard]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrew Scott wrote:
>On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote: 
>
>> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
>> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
>> repeated exposition to Linux...
>> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
>> g=ltnc
>
>That's about as self-serving a statement as I've ever seen. If this 
>'Jim Alchin' actually believes what he's saying, he's got to be one 
>of the worlds biggest fools, and if he doesn't believe what he's 
>saying, well there aren't too many words that would accurately 
>describe what he is. 
>
>It's pretty funny in some ways, e.g. "We can build a better product 
>than Linux...", which begs the question, "Well, why don't you?". 
>Perhaps it costs too much? 

Actually, the question should be "Well, why didn't you?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: jesse@cats-chateau.net

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[David D.W. Downey]

Would someone tell me where you get all this lovely information on
patents held by M$? I can't find anything.


On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, James Sutherland wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >
> > > I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get
> > > patents on key portions of their protocols and then start
> > > enforcing them.
> >
> > If Microsoft would start pissing off IBM and other major
> > companies which have big business interests in Linux by
> > invoking their patents, I can just imagine IBM coming down
> > on Microsoft with their own patents ...
> >
> > "Hey you!  Stop flipping those bits!  Hold it right there!
> >  ... Don't you flip any more bits, read this patent first..."
> >
> > (and I'm sure they must have patents on _setting_ bits as
> > well ;))
>
> Apparently they DO have a patent on the tab key - you thought Amazon's
> "one click shopping" patent was bad?!
>
>
> James.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-- 
David D.W. Downey - RHCE
Consulting Engineer
Ensim Corporation - Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Joseph Pingenot]

>> On the other hand:
>> ''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this 
>> for the software business and the intellectual-property business.''
>Linux IS (part of) the software business, though! That's like saying
>Walmart is bad for shops - it is bad for OTHER, COMPETING shops.

Actually, I'd contend that it's more like Wal-Mart (oder Aldi) claiming that 
  the Mom-n-Pop store (Tante Emma Laden) down the street is ruining their
  business.  It's the big Goliath coming out once again.

[Unfortunately, I only know the German equivalents of the xlat'ed phrases]
-- 
Joseph==============================================jap3003@ksu.edu
"I felt a great disturbance in the force.  As if a significant plot
  line suddenly cried out in terror... and was suddenly silenced."
                        -Torg in "Sluggy Freelance" www.sluggy.com.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Byron Albert]

A good article on linux today about this.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-02-15-003-20-OP

Byron


fsnchzjr wrote:

> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> repeated exposition to Linux...
> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
> g=ltnc
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Wayne.Brown]

Actually, in today's "User Friendly" comic strip (http://www.userfriendly.org)
one of the characters asks exactly that same question.

Wayne




"Andrew Scott" <A.J.Scott@casdn.neu.edu> on 02/16/2001 08:25:20 AM

Please respond to A.J.Scott@casdn.neu.edu

To:   linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
cc:    (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)

Subject:  Re: Linux stifles innovation...



On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:

> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> repeated exposition to Linux...
> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
> g=ltnc

That's about as self-serving a statement as I've ever seen. If this
'Jim Alchin' actually believes what he's saying, he's got to be one
of the worlds biggest fools, and if he doesn't believe what he's
saying, well there aren't too many words that would accurately
describe what he is.

It's pretty funny in some ways, e.g. "We can build a better product
than Linux...", which begs the question, "Well, why don't you?".
Perhaps it costs too much?





------------------Mailed via Pegasus 3.12c & Mercury 1.48---------------
A.J.Scott@casdn.neu.edu                    Fax (617)373-2942
Andrew Scott                               Tel (617)373-5278   _
Northeastern University--138 Meserve Hall                     / \   /
College of Arts & Sciences-Deans Office                      / \ \ /
Boston, Ma. 02115                                           /   \_/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Mark Haney]

Oh God.  You're right.  But who's going to patent the patent on the patent?
*ad infinitum*


-----Original Message-----
From: David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2@redhat.com]On Behalf Of David
Woodhouse
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 11:26 AM
To: Mark Haney
Cc: James Sutherland; Rik van Riel; Alan Olsen; David D.W. Downey;
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux stifles innovation...



mhaney@info4cars.com said:
> Okay, so if we are going to get real stupid about the whole thing, I
> wonder if Microsloth is going to patent the patent?

Filing nuisance patents for obvious stuff which shouldn't ever get granted
is a viable business method and as such is patentable in the US.

After all, what patent officer is going to point out the prior art?

:)

--
dwmw2

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[David Woodhouse]

mhaney@info4cars.com said:
> Okay, so if we are going to get real stupid about the whole thing, I
> wonder if Microsloth is going to patent the patent?

Filing nuisance patents for obvious stuff which shouldn't ever get granted
is a viable business method and as such is patentable in the US. 

After all, what patent officer is going to point out the prior art?

:)

--
dwmw2

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Mark Haney]

Okay, so if we are going to get real stupid about the whole thing, I wonder
if Microsloth is going to patent the patent?


-----Original Message-----
From: James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@hermes.cam.ac.uk]On Behalf Of James
Sutherland
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 10:11 AM
To: Rik van Riel
Cc: Alan Olsen; David D.W. Downey; Mark Haney;
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Linux stifles innovation...


On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
>
> > I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get
> > patents on key portions of their protocols and then start
> > enforcing them.
>
> If Microsoft would start pissing off IBM and other major
> companies which have big business interests in Linux by
> invoking their patents, I can just imagine IBM coming down
> on Microsoft with their own patents ...
>
> "Hey you!  Stop flipping those bits!  Hold it right there!
>  ... Don't you flip any more bits, read this patent first..."
>
> (and I'm sure they must have patents on _setting_ bits as
> well ;))

Apparently they DO have a patent on the tab key - you thought Amazon's
"one click shopping" patent was bad?!


James.

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[James Sutherland]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> 
> > I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get
> > patents on key portions of their protocols and then start
> > enforcing them.
> 
> If Microsoft would start pissing off IBM and other major
> companies which have big business interests in Linux by
> invoking their patents, I can just imagine IBM coming down
> on Microsoft with their own patents ...
> 
> "Hey you!  Stop flipping those bits!  Hold it right there!
>  ... Don't you flip any more bits, read this patent first..."
> 
> (and I'm sure they must have patents on _setting_ bits as
> well ;))

Apparently they DO have a patent on the tab key - you thought Amazon's
"one click shopping" patent was bad?!


James.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Andrew Scott]

On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote: 

> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> repeated exposition to Linux...
> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
> g=ltnc

That's about as self-serving a statement as I've ever seen. If this 
'Jim Alchin' actually believes what he's saying, he's got to be one 
of the worlds biggest fools, and if he doesn't believe what he's 
saying, well there aren't too many words that would accurately 
describe what he is. 

It's pretty funny in some ways, e.g. "We can build a better product 
than Linux...", which begs the question, "Well, why don't you?". 
Perhaps it costs too much? 





------------------Mailed via Pegasus 3.12c & Mercury 1.48---------------
A.J.Scott@casdn.neu.edu                    Fax (617)373-2942
Andrew Scott                               Tel (617)373-5278   _
Northeastern University--138 Meserve Hall                     / \   /
College of Arts & Sciences-Deans Office                      / \ \ /
Boston, Ma. 02115                                           /   \_/

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:

> I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get
> patents on key portions of their protocols and then start
> enforcing them.

If Microsoft would start pissing off IBM and other major
companies which have big business interests in Linux by
invoking their patents, I can just imagine IBM coming down
on Microsoft with their own patents ...

"Hey you!  Stop flipping those bits!  Hold it right there!
 ... Don't you flip any more bits, read this patent first..."

(and I'm sure they must have patents on _setting_ bits as
well ;))

cheers,

Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

		http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/	http://distro.conectiva.com.br/

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Helge Hafting]

James Sutherland wrote:

> > I see no problem with that though.  And those who want to get
> > paid for computing work?  No problem.  There is always support.
> 
> Hrm. Getting paid to write code is preferable, IMHO...

You can still get paid for writing something new.  I have heard about
businesses that write open source software on order.  I.e. customer
pay for customizing an open source package the company knows well,
then they release the extensions too.

Helge Hafting

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[James Sutherland]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Helge Hafting wrote:

> They are wrong about linux stifling innovation, there is plenty of
> innovation in linux itself.

Indeed. If Linux did nothing new, what do they have to fear?!

> On the other hand:
> ''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this 
> for the software business and the intellectual-property business.''

Linux IS (part of) the software business, though! That's like saying
Walmart is bad for shops - it is bad for OTHER, COMPETING shops.

> Sure.  Linux *is* bad for the IP business.  Open source outcompetes it!

Eh? Linux IS intellectual property! OK, those in the OSS community are
rather less litigious AFAICS, which is bad for IP *lawyers* - in much the
same way antibiotics are "bad" for diseases...

> I see no problem with that though.  And those who want to get
> paid for computing work?  No problem.  There is always support.

Hrm. Getting paid to write code is preferable, IMHO...


James.

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Helge Hafting]

They are wrong about linux stifling innovation, there
is plenty of innovation in linux itself.

On the other hand:
''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this 
for the software business and the intellectual-property business.''

Sure.  Linux *is* bad for the IP business.  Open source outcompetes it!
I see no problem with that though.  And those who want to get
paid for computing work?  No problem.  There is always support.

Helge Hafting

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[William T Wilson]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Bill Wendling wrote:

> With the horrid (pro-Microsoft) Aschroft in office, who knows what MS
> can get away with. Not to mention all of the pro-business, anti-human
> cronies in Washington running the Presidency (cause \/\/ just can't do
> it).

Most of the pro-business people in the Bush administration are also
anti-regulation.  I think the net effect on free software will be a
wash.  While there wouldn't be any Microsoft antitrust case, there
probably wouldn't be any WIPO, either...

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Bill Wendling]

Also sprach Alan Olsen:
} I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get patents on
} key portions of their protocols and then start enforcing them.
} 
Which protocols would that be? TCP/IP wasn't invented by them.

} I wonder what kind of law they will try to push to outlaw Open Source?
} 
With the horrid (pro-Microsoft) Aschroft in office, who knows what MS can
get away with. Not to mention all of the pro-business, anti-human cronies
in Washington running the Presidency (cause \/\/ just can't do it).

-- 
|| Bill Wendling			wendling@ganymede.isdn.uiuc.edu

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 dave@kd0yu.com wrote:

> 
> "I'm an American, I believe in the American Way, I worry if the 
> government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done 
> enough education of policy makers to understand the threat."
> 

It is not American to steal. The first "Flight Simulator" was
published on the PROGRAM EXCHANGE BBS System in the '70s. I know,
with the help of some Turbo Pascal wizards for the graphics, and
my state-machine, written in assembly, I did it. The original idea
was started, and ran in text-mode under CP/M.

The first flight simulator was also very difficult to fly. This
is because I incorporated all the quirks of airplanes, spiral
instability, long-mode oscillations, adverse yaw, etc. I had just
gotten my Commercial Pilot's license at the time and joined AIAA.
Every quirk I could find was built into that simulator.

When M$ copied it, their first releases were also difficult to fly.
Eventually, they understood enough about the code so that they were
able to remove the instabilities and any kid could fly it. Their
introduction into "games" brought them enough money to do anything
they wanted, including continuing to steal.

Again, this is not "American". This is Microsoft.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson

Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).

"Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
obtained from the Micro$oft help desk.

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[dave]

"I'm an American, I believe in the American Way, I worry if the 
government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done 
enough education of policy makers to understand the threat."


He believes in the "Golden Rule" too...

Can you say "NSA" or "Secure Linux"?

I believe they are truly worried.  It's all about money and control,
both of which they are leaking badly.

I have faith in the policy makers at large.  A certain judge
understood M$'s policy all to well.  A lot of parallels can be drawn
between this latest volley and their current legal predicament.

I'm rambling, but this has got me a bit upset.
-- 
Dave

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Helton, KD0YU    - dave@realworldcomputing.net  - http://www.kd0yu.com

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Alan Olsen]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, David D.W. Downey wrote:

> Seriously though folks, look at who's doing this!
> 
> They've already tried once to sue 'Linux', were told they couldn't because
> Linux is a non-entity (or at least one that they can not effectively sue
> due to the classification Linux holds), and now they can't use their
> second favorite tactic for stifling NON-M$ product lines.
> 
> How? They can't BUY the linux code base OR any GPL's software to the point
> that they can bury it by buying and freezing the code from public use.
> 
> We sort HAD to expect something like THIS to come. Though what DOES
> concern me is how effective this current ploy may be if they get ANY sort
> of backing from the government. (I doubt they will, but What If?)

I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get patents on
key portions of their protocols and then start enforcing them.

With the various IP laws that have been passed in the last few years in
the US (and through WIPO) they will have a large brick to try and hit us
with. (IMHO these laws pretty much allow large entities to buy their
markets and are the biggest threat to innovation out there.)

> Let's hope EFF and FSF stay on their toes for this one. M$ doesn't have to
> win to really wipe our nose in stuff. They got the cash whereas we don't.
> ALTHOUGH, spending money to fight an idea or concept has never proven
> successful. And since the RESULTS of that idea or concept (in this case
> source code) are not suable AFAIK. So we got the upper hand there.

Actually I am sending copies of his rant out to all of my friends who
still use Microsoft products.

If that is the attitude they have towards their customers and the
development community then it is time to get away while you still can.

Of course, the reason I moved over all my development to Linux in the
first place what that I did not have to worry about being screwed over by
a "corporate strategy" or have the license terms changed on the next
release or have to pay for something over and over again in the vain
attempt to get something to work.

With Linux I can read the source.  There are no hidden interfaces. No
mystical archane knowledge that you have to pay the company to learn get
the job done.  It is all there and it all works.  (Or if it does not, then
the tools exist to make it work.)

I wonder what kind of law they will try to push to outlaw Open Source?

If this is his idea of "The American Way" then he needs to take a basic
civics course.  He obviously slept through the last one.

alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
    "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[David D.W. Downey]

Seriously though folks, look at who's doing this!

They've already tried once to sue 'Linux', were told they couldn't because
Linux is a non-entity (or at least one that they can not effectively sue
due to the classification Linux holds), and now they can't use their
second favorite tactic for stifling NON-M$ product lines.

How? They can't BUY the linux code base OR any GPL's software to the point
that they can bury it by buying and freezing the code from public use.

We sort HAD to expect something like THIS to come. Though what DOES
concern me is how effective this current ploy may be if they get ANY sort
of backing from the government. (I doubt they will, but What If?)

Let's hope EFF and FSF stay on their toes for this one. M$ doesn't have to
win to really wipe our nose in stuff. They got the cash whereas we don't.
ALTHOUGH, spending money to fight an idea or concept has never proven
successful. And since the RESULTS of that idea or concept (in this case
source code) are not suable AFAIK. So we got the upper hand there.


-- 
David D.W. Downey - RHCE
Consulting Engineer
Ensim Corporation - Sunnyvale, CA

RE: Linux stifles innovation...

[Mark Haney]

>> repeated exposition to Linux...
Hey isn't that _exposure_ to Linux?  Or one of Dubya's words?  Like
strategery?

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of fsnchzjr
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:49 PM
To: 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'
Subject: Linux stifles innovation...


Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
repeated exposition to Linux...
http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
g=ltnc
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Stephen Frost]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 354 bytes --]

* fsnchzjr (fsnchzjr@zxmail.com) wrote:
> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> repeated exposition to Linux...
> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc

	Just remember, the tag is 'ltnc' --> 'long-time, no clue'.

		Stephen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Linux stifles innovation...

[fsnchzjr]

Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
repeated exposition to Linux...
http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
g=ltnc