- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Why I'm sticking with Novell's Linux desktop
|
|
|
Comments (27)
finally he's said it
I have to say that I am rather disturbed by that also. Some things just matter more than convenience, and (contrary to many people) I think it's better to "suffer" with a less capable program (doing what you can via programming or feedback or money to make it better) than it is to use a proprietary program that prevents you from doing anything but line the pockets of the owners of the software.
I do think that the more important part, however, is adherence to open standards in the data format. I could stomach people using Word a lot easier if they could save in ODF. That doesn't make Free Software unimportant, and it doesn't mean that Free Software shouldn't be the ultimate goal.
I usually enjoy sjvn's columns. SUSE is a great distribution, but they have cursed themselves in my eyes. I am all for raping the distro of anything usable and leaving the corpse to rot by the side of the road. Interesting thing, can anyone tell me how many distros there are based on SUSE? There are so many based on Debian/Fedora/Red Hat that I lose count, and there are derivatives of the derivatives of the derivatives. I can even name several based on Slackware and Gentoo, but I can't think of one based on SUSE. I guess there must be...right? I think that speaks volumes about SUSE and the rest of the Linux world, and which distros really are the best.
Xubuntu for me at the moment, FYI.
I do think that the more important part, however, is adherence to open standards in the data format. I could stomach people using Word a lot easier if they could save in ODF. That doesn't make Free Software unimportant, and it doesn't mean that Free Software shouldn't be the ultimate goal.
I usually enjoy sjvn's columns. SUSE is a great distribution, but they have cursed themselves in my eyes. I am all for raping the distro of anything usable and leaving the corpse to rot by the side of the road. Interesting thing, can anyone tell me how many distros there are based on SUSE? There are so many based on Debian/Fedora/Red Hat that I lose count, and there are derivatives of the derivatives of the derivatives. I can even name several based on Slackware and Gentoo, but I can't think of one based on SUSE. I guess there must be...right? I think that speaks volumes about SUSE and the rest of the Linux world, and which distros really are the best.
Xubuntu for me at the moment, FYI.
Yoper was a distro based on SuSE (IIRC).
I've never come across any others.
> ...but I can't think of one based on SUSE...
Well, in the beginning, SuSE was just Slackware with KDE, rpm, and Yast (which was, at the time, closed source). Given that, there was never any real reason to work with SuSE itself if you want to fork it's base.
Well, in the beginning, SuSE was just Slackware with KDE, rpm, and Yast (which was, at the time, closed source). Given that, there was never any real reason to work with SuSE itself if you want to fork it's base.
I tried Yoper at one time, and I thought it was quite good, and fast for KDE. Not as fast as PCLinuxOS, IMO, but still a lot faster than most KDE distros. It seems like development has stopped, AFAICT. I hope I'm wrong, I'm not one who says "There are too many distros." I say there can never be too many. The "market" will support what it will support, and the more there are, the quicker we can weed out the weak ones.
Thanks for the info, salparadise.
Thanks for the info, salparadise.
I am not sticking with SUSE and here's why
2 earlier comments in the full thread.
Not. There was some speculation a few months back that Gnome 3 would be Mono powered. It has been thoroughly debunked by now. Google for it.
Gnome sort of plays into this if you consider how much Miguel De Icaza plays into Novell :)
It's just history....
http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html
It's just history....
http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html
Quoting:I would rather use Windows than use Novell because at least MS does not claim to be an Open Source company.If you simply go to:
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/opensuse/distribution/SL-OSS-factory/inst-source/suse/src/
You see all Suse linux packages, available as GPL'd source, freely downloadable. That sort of blows your argument to smithereens, don't it?
As for the whole gnome dealio, I don't use gnome much anyway. I use kde every day. As long as suse linux ships with the nice kde environment, the gnome/mono noise doesn't really bother me.
YMMV of course.
Quoting:Gnome sort of plays into this if you consider how much Miguel De Icaza plays into Novell :)
Sure. I guess what I meant was, how does Novell's use and inclusion of Gnome play into the notion that Novell has always been a divisive force?
@ herzeleid
My point is hyperbole and I stand by it. It does not matter whether Open SUSE is available or not. Judging from Ballmer's latest quotes (check today's /.), MS is getting the exact kind of publicity it was hoping for.
QUOTE: "Microsoft made it clear that only SUSE users and developers, as well as unsalaried Linux developers, are protected. 'Let me be clear about one thing, we don't license our intellectual property to Linux because of the way Linux licensing GPL framework works, that's not really a possibility,' said Microsoft chief executive, Steve Ballmer. 'Novell is actually just a proxy for its customers, and it's only for its customers,' he added. 'This does not apply to any forms of Linux other than Novell's SUSE Linux. And if people want to have peace and interoperability, they'll look at Novell's SUSE Linux. If they make other choices, they have all of the compliance and intellectual property issues that are associated with that.'"
The last sentence is especially important. I am not saying that MS can or will act on this threat, but this threat alone is enough to influence tech decisions made by suits.
OSS has always had a perception problem. First it was for hippies, then it was cancer and then communist. Guess who started that. And this does not help.
I am not saying that Linux/OSS (or even Novell) will disappear/be killed off etc. But come on, how can this be apologized for.
My point is hyperbole and I stand by it. It does not matter whether Open SUSE is available or not. Judging from Ballmer's latest quotes (check today's /.), MS is getting the exact kind of publicity it was hoping for.
QUOTE: "Microsoft made it clear that only SUSE users and developers, as well as unsalaried Linux developers, are protected. 'Let me be clear about one thing, we don't license our intellectual property to Linux because of the way Linux licensing GPL framework works, that's not really a possibility,' said Microsoft chief executive, Steve Ballmer. 'Novell is actually just a proxy for its customers, and it's only for its customers,' he added. 'This does not apply to any forms of Linux other than Novell's SUSE Linux. And if people want to have peace and interoperability, they'll look at Novell's SUSE Linux. If they make other choices, they have all of the compliance and intellectual property issues that are associated with that.'"
The last sentence is especially important. I am not saying that MS can or will act on this threat, but this threat alone is enough to influence tech decisions made by suits.
OSS has always had a perception problem. First it was for hippies, then it was cancer and then communist. Guess who started that. And this does not help.
I am not saying that Linux/OSS (or even Novell) will disappear/be killed off etc. But come on, how can this be apologized for.
There is one other interesting point here. Note that Microsoft is in the process of releasing Vista. How could they pass up a havoc-wreaking offer like this from Novell?
>I am not saying that Linux/OSS (or even Novell) will disappear/be killed off etc. But come on, how can this be apologized for.
I'm not aware that Microsoft has ever apologized for anything, so it's unlikely they'll apologize for this.
As to Novell, I can't remotely see what they have to apologize for.
I'm not aware that Microsoft has ever apologized for anything, so it's unlikely they'll apologize for this.
As to Novell, I can't remotely see what they have to apologize for.
@dinotrac
I am refering to the hand wringing/justifying/wait-and-see over this news that I am seeing from Linux folks that I follow/like/agree-with on Lxer (even some at /.)
I am refering to the hand wringing/justifying/wait-and-see over this news that I am seeing from Linux folks that I follow/like/agree-with on Lxer (even some at /.)
Cheer up, gang. Maybe it's like the end of Rosemary's Baby, where Rosemary finally realizes who her baby's father is ("He has his father's eyes!") and decides that she will fight back by raising him to be good instead of evil.
hchaudh1 -
Whoops!!
Went back for a re-read.
It's been a long-hard day. That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it.
So....never mind.
Whoops!!
Went back for a re-read.
It's been a long-hard day. That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it.
So....never mind.
Not to rain on anybody's parade, but I thought I'd just inject this data point "straight from the horse's mouth" into our little discussion -
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html
Gee, reading it seems to support dino's position (for the most part, anyway). There are two things that I think are interesting.
It just would not make sense for Novell to do something they surely know is in violation of the GPL. That's just stupid. While I did wonder about the possibility, it didn't make sense.
It actually appears as though Novell could still be sued, even if their customers are not, based on their statements as presented in the above link. I say that because the covenant is not between Novell and Microsoft, but between Microsoft and Novell's customers. Novell is just the negotiator.
Glad I didn't rush out and wipe my hard drives in a panic, even if I am still a bit 'un-nerved' by the announcement. ;-)
Dino, you normally have a pretty cool head, and your legal experience, such as it is, seems to serve you fairly well. And you're willing to stick your head out while everyone is running around trying to rid themselves of "the evil thing" to say "look! It's just a block of wood!" O.k., well in this case, it's a piece of paper (whole bunch of pieces of paper) whereupon some folks agreed to something. Still, it's good that we have varying viewpoints in this crowd, or we'd all be using Linux From Scratch to avoid the stigma of the other distros.
I won't suggest that we should trust Microsoft. They have made some nice gestures, but I still don't trust them. I might consider doing so when they release a slew of their patents, such as they are, to the community a la IBM. I am most certainly shocked by Novell's decision. But I don't think I'll ditch (Open)SUSE just yet. I will, though, be watching closely.
It just would not make sense for Novell to do something they surely know is in violation of the GPL. That's just stupid. While I did wonder about the possibility, it didn't make sense.
It actually appears as though Novell could still be sued, even if their customers are not, based on their statements as presented in the above link. I say that because the covenant is not between Novell and Microsoft, but between Microsoft and Novell's customers. Novell is just the negotiator.
Glad I didn't rush out and wipe my hard drives in a panic, even if I am still a bit 'un-nerved' by the announcement. ;-)
Dino, you normally have a pretty cool head, and your legal experience, such as it is, seems to serve you fairly well. And you're willing to stick your head out while everyone is running around trying to rid themselves of "the evil thing" to say "look! It's just a block of wood!" O.k., well in this case, it's a piece of paper (whole bunch of pieces of paper) whereupon some folks agreed to something. Still, it's good that we have varying viewpoints in this crowd, or we'd all be using Linux From Scratch to avoid the stigma of the other distros.
I won't suggest that we should trust Microsoft. They have made some nice gestures, but I still don't trust them. I might consider doing so when they release a slew of their patents, such as they are, to the community a la IBM. I am most certainly shocked by Novell's decision. But I don't think I'll ditch (Open)SUSE just yet. I will, though, be watching closely.
Rev -
>It actually appears as though Novell could still be sued, even if their customers are not, based on their statements as presented in the above link.
However the lawyers had to arrange things to avoid violating licenses is one thing. The practical result is that Novell isn't going to get sued.
>I won't suggest that we should trust Microsoft.
We shouldn't, but some historical perspective may help.
Imagnine everything anybody says about Microsoft. Turn the clock back 30 years, and replace Microsoft with IBM. Nobody would blink.
We think of IBM as good guys these days, but...
Business is a hardball game. IBM plays it, and so do most others. Does anything about Larry Ellison and Oracle give you warm fuzzies? If that's not friendship by "enemy of my enemy", I don't know what is.
Within the continuum of large corporations, IBM is a good citizen and Microsoft is a bad one, but we've got no Pollyannas in this crowd.
The extent to which we can "trust" Microsoft is strictly a matter of Microsoft's self-interest. Once upon a time, Microsoft could do pretty much as it pleased. It owned the desktop. NT and its children were going to give it the server room.
NT was the wave of the future. Unix was toast and those nasty old mainframes were sure to follow.
Darned hubris will get you every time. The federal antitrust suit hurt Microsoft more than most people realize. It cost them money, it cost them attention, and it cost them time. It also meant nobody had to establish that Microsoft has a desktop monopoly. A principle called res judicata (loosely translated: it's already been decided) meant that companies like Novell just had to establish how Microsoft's monopoly hurt them. That's a much easier legal task.
Microsoft's arrogance -- especially price hikes and license restrictions -- hurt them with a number of large customers. I wonder how many companies allowed a few linux installations just to give them more chips in their negotiations with Microsoft?
And that darned free software. It just wouldn't go away and they couldn't kill it. It's everywhere in the freakin' world. Doing business in IT now means operating in an environment where free software is being used, quite possibly Linux.
It's not so much that Microsoft isn't still an 800 pound gorilla. It's just that somebody has reinforced the floor and added on another room to the house. You can't ignore the gorilla, but your house won't fall down and you've got some room to breathe.
Be wary. By all means, be wary. It's a good thing, and Microsoft has earned that reaction. Just don't be the first one jumping out the window when you smell smoke. It might be coming from the fireplace.
>It actually appears as though Novell could still be sued, even if their customers are not, based on their statements as presented in the above link.
However the lawyers had to arrange things to avoid violating licenses is one thing. The practical result is that Novell isn't going to get sued.
>I won't suggest that we should trust Microsoft.
We shouldn't, but some historical perspective may help.
Imagnine everything anybody says about Microsoft. Turn the clock back 30 years, and replace Microsoft with IBM. Nobody would blink.
We think of IBM as good guys these days, but...
Business is a hardball game. IBM plays it, and so do most others. Does anything about Larry Ellison and Oracle give you warm fuzzies? If that's not friendship by "enemy of my enemy", I don't know what is.
Within the continuum of large corporations, IBM is a good citizen and Microsoft is a bad one, but we've got no Pollyannas in this crowd.
The extent to which we can "trust" Microsoft is strictly a matter of Microsoft's self-interest. Once upon a time, Microsoft could do pretty much as it pleased. It owned the desktop. NT and its children were going to give it the server room.
NT was the wave of the future. Unix was toast and those nasty old mainframes were sure to follow.
Darned hubris will get you every time. The federal antitrust suit hurt Microsoft more than most people realize. It cost them money, it cost them attention, and it cost them time. It also meant nobody had to establish that Microsoft has a desktop monopoly. A principle called res judicata (loosely translated: it's already been decided) meant that companies like Novell just had to establish how Microsoft's monopoly hurt them. That's a much easier legal task.
Microsoft's arrogance -- especially price hikes and license restrictions -- hurt them with a number of large customers. I wonder how many companies allowed a few linux installations just to give them more chips in their negotiations with Microsoft?
And that darned free software. It just wouldn't go away and they couldn't kill it. It's everywhere in the freakin' world. Doing business in IT now means operating in an environment where free software is being used, quite possibly Linux.
It's not so much that Microsoft isn't still an 800 pound gorilla. It's just that somebody has reinforced the floor and added on another room to the house. You can't ignore the gorilla, but your house won't fall down and you've got some room to breathe.
Be wary. By all means, be wary. It's a good thing, and Microsoft has earned that reaction. Just don't be the first one jumping out the window when you smell smoke. It might be coming from the fireplace.
There's a simple reason not to use suse linux: sjvn uses it, and that's uncool ;-)
>There's a simple reason not to use suse linux: sjvn uses it, and that's uncool ;-)
That may be the best argument in this thread...
That may be the best argument in this thread...
Hmm... does anyone else have the problem that the right side of the posts in this topic is cut off? It only seems to happen in this thread. Running Ubuntu Dapper, FireFox 1.5 on 1024x768.
Edit: It seems to be caused by the 5th post in this thread by herzileid. The long FTP url expands all posts to the right but an overflow: hidden CSS statement means we don't get to see he expanded part.
Edit 2: It can be fixed by changing the overflow CSS in div#main div#content, but both look a bit ugly. Setting it to "visble" means the text of the posts will run into the right-hand menu. Setting it to scroll will wrap the entore thread (sans menu) in scrollbars making you scroll horizontally.
The best fix is probably auto-hyperlinking ftp:// links in short form, much the same way as now happens with http:// links.
Edit: It seems to be caused by the 5th post in this thread by herzileid. The long FTP url expands all posts to the right but an overflow: hidden CSS statement means we don't get to see he expanded part.
Edit 2: It can be fixed by changing the overflow CSS in div#main div#content, but both look a bit ugly. Setting it to "visble" means the text of the posts will run into the right-hand menu. Setting it to scroll will wrap the entore thread (sans menu) in scrollbars making you scroll horizontally.
The best fix is probably auto-hyperlinking ftp:// links in short form, much the same way as now happens with http:// links.
Or you could just maximise the browser window and see it all.
(worked on my box)
(worked on my box)
I have it maximised. My default system font is 10pt Vera Sans, but I'm sure the site CSS overrides this. Default text size set in FireFox.
>(worked on my box)
Works on mine, too. I have to make the window smaller than I like for the problem to crop up. Still, is shouldn't happen at all. Those buggers are supposed to wrap.
Works on mine, too. I have to make the window smaller than I like for the problem to crop up. Still, is shouldn't happen at all. Those buggers are supposed to wrap.
The core cause of he problem is that the core HTML layout of the site is still based on tables. If it were layed out with div's and CSS positioning then only the post that contains an unbreakable string will expand and all other posts would be unafected.
That's not easily fixed, hence my siggestion to make ftp:// reference into shortened hyperlinks like already happens with http://
That's not easily fixed, hence my siggestion to make ftp:// reference into shortened hyperlinks like already happens with http://
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Now we all know sjvn is just one of these marketingdroids who doesn't care about open source of Free Software, at all. I wonder why he hasn't metamorphed into a mac fanboi yet.