Looping link
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Dec 02, 2007 11:51 AM EDT |
The link for this article is looping back to the LXer main page. |
| tracyanne Dec 02, 2007 12:11 PM EDT |
does for me too. |
| ColonelPanik Dec 02, 2007 12:51 PM EDT |
Works here |
| azerthoth Dec 02, 2007 12:58 PM EDT |
working for me now ... strange |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 02, 2007 1:04 PM EDT |
Q: If this is being offered from site X, isn't the source code required to be distributed from there also? Isn't that the crap Warren went through at Mepis, where he distributed binaries but tried to get out of distributing source code because it was all the same as Debian and you could get it there? Isn't it a GPL violation to simply point users to PCLinuxOS.com for the source code, especially since there is no affiliation there? |
| azerthoth Dec 02, 2007 2:24 PM EDT |
Source does not need to be available at the same site. IIRC GPL states that source must be available upon request, nor does it say that those sources MUST be free of charge. I do have one issue though, watching the video, in big glaring letters on the boot up is "GPL3". To me this implies that the entire contents of the distro is GPL3. This is something that it most definitely can not be. According to http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss currently less than 1% of Open Source projects are using or have adopted GPL3. Most specifically for a Linux distro, the kernel itself is explicitly under GPL2. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 02, 2007 2:54 PM EDT |
There was no http:// in front of the URL. That may have caused the problem for some people. I have added it. All fixed? |
| usacomputertec Dec 02, 2007 5:39 PM EDT |
In answer to the GPLv3. It states in the READ ME FIRST which you must not have that I am releasing everything under the GPLv3 that I have the right to release under the GPLv3. Any other programs such as Skype are released under their own licenses and if any company wants their programs removed I ask that they report it to me. If I download a Linux Kernel under the GPLv2 that says it can also be released under a later version of the GPL then can't I? I don't see any problem with the way I'm doing things and if anyone questions me they need to read my notes first. They explain it all. Although I give credit to the PCLinuxOS community to ease their anger I also state (according to what they asked me to state) that you should not use their support. Also tonight just before writing this post I had a customer that uses PCLinuxOS (I'm going to upgrade him soon) come to my door and tell me that the people in the PCLinuxOS IRC haven't been nice to him and wont answer his questions and ask him to go away. So as a responsible member of the Linux community I am gladly going to switch him so he can divert his support requests to my forum or IRC. I just want to reiterate that here to remind you all that the PCLinuxOS people don't want you asking them questions about Ultumix. Also if you read the readme (or at least the new one on the mirror FTP) It says that all source code can be found in the PCLinuxOS repositories and Packman Repo. I understand your concern and all these claims so far I'm glad to hear. Thanks for asking the questions. On the other hand If people start making ridiculous claims that I can't release my distro for absurd legal reasons that have all ready been addressed in my readme I'm going to stop responding after a while. I hope you understand. :) |
| azerthoth Dec 02, 2007 10:45 PM EDT |
Actually I stated I got it from the video that was posted, and I'm in your corner for this. I'll support what your doing but have no interest at all of even spinning your distro up in a VM. On to my concern and your comment on it. No, you are not allowed to relicense, even if you make changes to the source code. GPLv2 or later is not explicitly GPL3, it is both not one or the other, and any changes made must correspondingly be licensed as such. Something licensed under GPLv2 or later and I do something allowed under GPL2 but not 3, it is still legal for me to use and do what I wish with it. Because GPL2 is listed specifically and GPL3 is only inferred. The changes I make though must still be licensed as GPLv2 or later. Many of the packages including the kernel itself as GPLv2 ONLY. Regardless the only person(s) allowed to relicense any of it are the original authors themselves. This has been proven repeatedly. Anyone can change the code, improve, modify, what have you, but only the original author can change the license. I hope that helps clear things up. p.s. where would I find a copy of your readme. |
| azerthoth Dec 02, 2007 11:17 PM EDT |
nm I found a copy.Quoting: 5. Is this software legally free? Dude, you have with that one paragraph in reference to and EULA for your distro violated nearly every license that the software was released under, and thats not just the GPL. With that one comment you have in effect tried to relicense EVERYTHING, and some of the developers are nearly militantly against the GPLv3. I would suggest that you pull your distro immediately from circulation and then begin discussing things with people who really understand the GPL before trying to proceed again. Otherwise you may well end up discussing it with lawyers involuntarily. As much as I hate to defend the PCLOS control freaks, your distro as it stands is whole seconds away from trademark violations as well. I love the fact that you wanted to do something positive, and support your decisions for what to use for it's base, it truly is a good distro that has some human issues it needs to deal with. You have though gone about it in a very very wrong way, and while not a lawyer even I can see where you are a very fine hair away from landing in court. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 03, 2007 8:40 AM EDT |
Quoting:GPLv2 or later is not explicitly GPL3 Actually, it is. You can take a "GPLv2 or later" package, make some changes to it and release it as "GPLv3 only". Legally speaking it's fine. Morally speaking it's not right and you'll probably catch a lot of flak for it. Just checkout the recent issue with Wifi drivers in the kernel were licensed as GPLv2 only when the original was GPL/BSD dual licensed. Legally it's fine but morally wrong. Note that it really only works if you *change* something in the package. Because what you're really licensing is your *changes*, not the original package. If a package is GPL2+ and your changes to it are GPL3 then the package becomes GPL3. But the original parts are still GPL+. I could download your GPL3 package, undo your changes and release the original back as GPL2+. That's what the real issue with the BSD wifi drivers was about. The Linux guys not only released the package as GPLv2 only (which is legal) but they also removed the dual GPL/BSD statement from the files. Thereby preventing anyone from figuring out what parts of the file were GPL2 only and what parts were dual GPL/BSD. And that's probably not legal. Quoting:Many of the packages including the kernel itself as GPLv2 ONLY. That is indeed a big problem. Quoting:I would suggest that you pull your distro immediately from circulation and then begin discussing things with people who really understand the GPL before trying to proceed again. I agree. That would be the best. usacomputertec is obviously not well-versed enough in open source licensing to be running his own distro. He's opening himself up to heaps of legal trouble. Sorry usacomputertec. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 03, 2007 1:03 PM EDT |
My understanding of what Warren at Mepis went through was this: 1) He took some Debian source code, modified it, released it under the GPL, and made the source code available. Good, no problems. 2) He also used unmodified Debian packages, released them under the GPL, did not make the source code available because it was already available from Debian. BAD!! He got in some trouble for it...he made GPL binaries available, he is responsible for making the GPL source available. The fact that it was available elsewhere, and that he made no modifications, was completely irrelevant to the argument. And why should PCLinuxOS bear the bandwidth responsibility for Ultimix users getting their source code? I have given money to Tex to help support PCLOS, why should my money go to support Ultimix? Of course, he may have the full blessing of PCLOS and my argument would be with Tex and not with usacomptertec in that event. And if there is blessing from PCLOS for that, then the source code distribution requirements may be met, I dunno. However, if there is no blessing from PCLOS, then this is a rather identical situation to what Warren went through at Mepis. And I am not trying to be a wet blanket and discourage people from releasing their own visions of Linux, I think it's great. But CYA, my friend, CYA. |
| usacomputertec Dec 03, 2007 3:20 PM EDT |
Actually I never have gotten a message from Tex and would love to communicate with him. PCLOS has not given me any blessing and is giving me the very same shakedown they gave Granular OS. As for taking it down right now and redoing it. The best I can do today is post on my site that the packages under the GPLv2 are still under the GPLv2 and not the GPLv3. Hopefully either later today or tomorrow I can simply change the release notes to better appease everyone and upload them to my server and remaster the iso again. The only problem with doing this is torrent issues. The torrent sites get very angry when I take down a torrent quickly after releasing it and some of them have strict agreements about it. So I'll just have to make an announcement on my site and make a new torrent and change the link on my site to that torrent. I hope this will make everyone happy. I know it won't make the PCLinuxOS people happy but nothing I do will make them happy. I got banned after asking questions on what they wanted me to do and making the changes and then asking if it was ok. For some reason they just plain hate me. I might even go so far as to say they may be jealous that I got this out before they did. I really don't know for sure so as for the rest of you I will try to do what makes you happy. |
| usacomputertec Dec 03, 2007 3:25 PM EDT |
You will now see that my main page and the release notes found on the FTP server have been updated. This note below has been added to each of them at the beginning and before the GPLv3. "Also some have pointed out that I will make people angry if I release this under the GPLv3 so as of this moment on 12/03/07 at 04:23 PM Pacific Standard Time any software that is released under the GPLv2 will stay under the GPLv2. Also any software I created or released myself will be under the GPLv3." As for the .iso file and the torrent. I can't get to those right now. I hope you understand. |
| azerthoth Dec 03, 2007 4:14 PM EDT |
usacomputertec, your just did the same thing but in reverse. Your safest and ultimately most legal course of action is not to refer to any license at all. Each of the individual packages is licensed on its own individually, let the license issue alone completely. As it stands not all the packages are released under the GPL at all, but rather come other comparable license. So your statement is still attempting to relicense those. Just dont make a license statement at all except on source code you personally modify, and make those statements in the source code itself. Making blanket statements is going to land you in hot water. I understand what your trying to do and why ... but you can't safely or legally do it, save yourself the headache and just don't do it at all. Like I said before, I'm not working against you, just trying to make sure that you do it in a way where you dont shoot yourself in the foot. I have a few other odds and ends that could be discussed, however IRC would probably be the easiest way. you can catch me on irc.freenode.net #sabayon sometime, I can probably help you with those branding issues your having as well. |
| usacomputertec Dec 03, 2007 6:38 PM EDT |
azerthoth thanks for your help. I will remove the GPLv3 from the readme all together tomorrow. Tonight however I have work to do. I'll keep you guys up to date on the changes made. I don't think I will change the version number. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 03, 2007 8:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:I don't think I will change the version number. That way you'll have two versions of your distro with different contents but the same version number. Not smart. Up the version for every release you make. I still don't think that what you're doing is smart. You're clearly too inexperienced to run your own distro. If I were you I'd stop right now before you get yourself into trouble and start getting some experience by helping maintain another distro under the wing of someone who knows what they're doing. There are several other distros that do what you attempt to do. Check out Linux Mint for example. |
| usacomputertec Dec 04, 2007 1:48 PM EDT |
Ok Ok. I will change the version number Sander_Marechal. I'm starting to wonder what too inexperienced means. I thought Linux was a system for tinkering around with until you had something you and others could use and then you released it. I don't mean to make you mad with my sarcasm but where do you get experience if you don't try? |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 04, 2007 3:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:I thought Linux was a system for tinkering around with until you had something you and others could use and then you released it. It's not. You still have to play by the rules. It's just that our rules are a lot better than e.g. Microsoft's rules. From a licensing (rules) point of view, a distribution is a very complex beast. You should know that by now because every time you upload an Ultumix version, you get flamed for license violations left-and-right. Do you realize that every one of those complaints could have been a lawsuit instead of just a complaint? There's a reason that most distributions have people dedicated to legal issues. For a taste, try reading the debian-legal archives: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ Quoting:where do you get experience if you don't try? Like I said in my previous post. Work on someone else's distro where there are mentors available to teach you. |
| usacomputertec Dec 04, 2007 4:28 PM EDT |
First I would love to have someone help me with this. Your doing a great job right here so far and I thank you for that. Second I can't work on another Linux project because there is no other Linux project that I can contribute to. My skills are too limited. If people like my distro as they have suggested then I need them to help me with it. I can't be expected to single handedly work on the distro with no outside input in my forums and come out with something that is pleasing to everyone's eye. I am getting help with my CVS, graphics, and some limited help with testing. No one is entering the support forums or joining my project to help the support forums. The thing is I use to use other distros. In my opinion it's either Ubuntu (the next Microsoft), Fedora Core (bleeding edge unstable), PCLinuxOS (that banned me), or Vector Linux (very nice for slow machines) but I don't think I would be any good to any of them because all I have is ideas (www.mindblowingidea.com) and no one is brave enough to try to make them happen. My idea is a distro that every Windows user will want to switch to. Not because it's debian, or mandrake, or whatever or because it's free (which it is), or because it has a catchy name, but because it's applications and UI meet the demand of the average Windows user, leaving them without an excuse not to switch. What I will do is Go to my SF.net project and recruit some Legal advisers. Hopefully that will get everything out there in the open once and for all so that no one has hurt feelings. I appreciate the Linux community's mature attitude about warning me of a violation before acting. Thats how everyone should act. Treat others as you would yourselves. But if your the only ones helping me just in these forums and you expect me to know all these things before I even get started then no amount of experience will be enough. What I really need is someone from the FSF to help me. I hope you understand my point of view. Respectfully yours. |
| usacomputertec Dec 04, 2007 6:37 PM EDT |
Once I get the approval of the majority of the Linux community I will then launch my Christian Edition, Gamer Edition, Sports Edition, and Media Center Edition. Hopefully the Media Center Edition can have LinuxMCE installed on it. Thats something I would like to see happen. I also would like someone to come up with better instructions than I have for using Ultumix. I'm going to redo the video for Ultumix tonight. I'm still uploading my new 0.0.1.1 to replace 0.0.1.0. I'm also having the qwest guy come over tomorrow to figure out why my 800 kbs upload speed is only working at a maximum of 400 kbps and my upload is only working at 1.5 when it's 7 Meg. But thats another story. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 04, 2007 9:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:I can't work on another Linux project because there is no other Linux project that I can contribute to. My skills are too limited. So, you don't have the skill to contribute to another distro but you somehow magically expect to have the skill to maintain one yourself? Hehehe. This, in a nutshell, is exactly why you will fail. Quoting:I can't be expected to single handedly work on the distro with no outside input in my forums and come out with something that is pleasing to everyone's eye. Uh. Yes. That's exactly what's expected of you. Just ask PCLinuxOS's Texstar. It's either that or a large wad of money to hire developers that do the work for you (like Mark Suttleworth did). People won't magically flock to your distro and do all the work for you. You have to prove to other people that (a) your project has potential and (b) that you have the skill to make it happen. This is FOSS. It's a meritocracy. Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy Quoting:all I have is ideas and no one is brave enough to try to make them happen Ideas are worthless. Everyone has millions of them. The only valuable idea is one with a good implementation. If you don't have the skill to implement an idea yourself (you obviously don't) then there are only two options: 1) Learn the skills (in your case: go contribute at another distribution and learn from other people) 2) Get rich and hire someone to implement your ideas. Quoting:[if] you expect me to know all these things before I even get started then no amount of experience will be enough. The fact that there are over 500 distributions out there proves otherwise. What experience *do* you have? Have you maintained packages for other distributions? Created Free Software yourself? Successfully contributed patches to existing projects? |
| usacomputertec Dec 04, 2007 9:54 PM EDT |
Look Sander_Marechal your starting to sound more and more like the PCLinuxOS people. There are hundreds of those over 500 distrobutions that started out the same way I am. I'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to announce that I released a remaster of PCLinuxOS that I feel will bennifit everyone. There is not Linux community anywhere near me. I am the leader of a LUG in my town that is trying to get people interested. If I need to go to some kind of Linux school and get a diploma of approval to tell others about Linux then I feel that it's a hopeless cause. Look at Vixta. It's a distro that is just a remaster of Fedora Core without so much server bloat ware. I'm not too worried about releasing a distro that needs improvement for a while. As long as it's not legally wrong which you pointed out and I'm changing as soon as the upload is complete I don't see a problem. Maybe I'm in the wrong here but I get the impression that people who release linux distros are suppoes to point their nozes up in the air and look down on everyone else and tell them that untill they can measure up to their standards they should not even try. thats the impressing I'm beginning to get. What ever happened to the scruffy hacker? Where did the Linux community go from having fun to restricting production? |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 05, 2007 7:21 AM EDT |
I give up... It's useless... |
| tuxchick Dec 05, 2007 7:33 AM EDT |
Presumably the scruffy hacker learns, instead of stubbornly continuing to violate copyrights and copylefts, and poach other distribution's resources, and ignore kind helpful advice, and gosh knows what other rules. You get the benefit of gigabytes of great free/libre code to use that was all written by someone else. The least you can do is respect the hard work of others, and follow the rules. That's not looking down on you- that's how it is. If you don't want to play by the rules, then don't use other people's stuff. It is true that in the privacy of your own computer, you can do anything you want with GPL code. When you distribute it that changes everything- then you have rules to follow, and they are rules with teeth, as many people have had to learn the hard way. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 05, 2007 8:34 AM EDT |
usacomputertec, your heart is in the right place, but I don't know where your head is. Listen to Sander and TC, take a little time to get the I's dotted and the T's crossed, then start distributing the remasters. PCLOS will still be around to build from and your legal fees won't eat you alive. |
| Abe Dec 05, 2007 8:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:I give up... It's useless...It's about time you did. :) He either thinks it is easy to fork a distro, or doesn't appreciate how hard it is to maintain and support a good one. Either way, he will find out if he persists. |
| thenixedreport Dec 05, 2007 11:03 AM EDT |
Wow. I can't believe some of the comments on here. I understand the licensing concerns, but sheesh. Look, it's not what you say so much as how it's being said. I've glanced over this entire thread and have seen people who are acting in a not so humane manner. Here's the deal. 1.) KNOPPIX was essentially Debian. The main difference was that it booted and ran off the entire CD. Klaus Knopper went through the trouble of setting up the CD-based system to automatically detect the hardware every time the computer booted the CD. The idea of starting something based off something else isn't new. Mepis would be an example, and the way they got around their woes was to use the repositories of the distribution that they had their base on. I believe their latest release has a Debian Etch base. There's also Linux Mint as well, which (currently) uses Ubuntu as their base. They have plans on making a Fedora-based Mint as well. 2.) The phrases and catchwords such as poach, etc.... aren't helpful at all. If you don't like what the person is doing, don't download and don't run the blasted thing! Sorry, chewing somebody out and treating them like an idiot isn't helpful or generous. 3.) What happened to jumping in and learning without getting crucified? What is this? Tech Square back in the '50s and '60s, where anybody who wasn't good enough was called a loser? The person has ideas and they are trying to implement them. Perhaps instead of calling this person a failure and that they're taking the wrong path (or is it that they are taking a path that's not socially approved?), it would have been a good idea to explain it this way: "Justin, What you are doing is interesting, but there could be licensing issues. Perhaps it would be best to remove the graphic that says GPL3 from the boot splash and change the read me to where it simply states that the entire product consists of software released in GPL 2 and in some cases GPL 3 and that these licenses essentially allow for the copying of said software and giving it to people for them to run, but that no restrictions on copying and distributing can be made as dictated by the licenses. Why not provide the exact terms for both licenses? Additionally, you may want to have source code available for your sourceforge page so that people can browse the code and suggest changes. This would make it much easier for others who are interested to come on board of your project. It would also be to your benefit to look at the source itself to get an idea of how the software is currently being put together, especially the coding for anything related to package management tools. Finally, remember to take things one step at a time. Once you have figured out all the cosmetic changes, try getting more into the coding aspect itself. The final step would be to have repositories of your own to work from (which could be a ways off). Don't give up, but keep in mind that this is going to take plenty of hard work." |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2007 12:04 PM EDT |
Justin: I'll second the critics in saying that you need to iron out your licensing issues before doing anything else. If necessary, take down your downloads for a few days until you do so. You can start by simply mirroring the PCLinuxOS code on your server (this can be a machine on a DSL or cable modem if necessary, the GPL says the code has to be available, it doesn't say the link has to be fast), then add/change any code you've modified, with the proper licenses and contributions noted. As to the rest, I agree with thenixedreport above. Keep working and make it better, just make sure you're legal first. Alternatively, if you really think your remix is better, but this seems like far too much work, just document the changes you've made to PCLinuxOS and provide them as a howto for anyone who wants to recreate your work. Instant non-distro distro. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 05, 2007 12:19 PM EDT |
@thenixedreport Re 1) and 2) I have absolutely no problem with people deriving their distro from another distro. See my previous messages on this subject. For example http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/26364/ on Nov 28, 2007 9:33 AM My beef is that he doesn't understand the GPL or any of the other Free Software licenses involved. Quoting:it would have been a good idea to explain it this way. Your example would have been bad advice. Quoting:Perhaps it would be best to remove the graphic that says GPL3 from the boot splash Not perhaps. It's a license violation and a massive one to boot. He should have removed that version's bittorrent seed immediately and fix the issue. Quoting:change the read me to where it simply states that the entire product consists of software released in GPL 2 and in some cases GPL 3 But it's not GPL2 plus a bit GPL3. There are dozens of licenses and combinations of licenses involved. Saying it's GPL2 plus a bit GPL3 is just as bad as saying it's all GPL3. Quoting:you may want to have source code available for your sourceforge page I'm assuming here that you mean "on the sourceforge page" because after that you talk about the distro sources and package management and all that, not the actual source of his website. Again bad advice. It's not "you may want to". It's "you must". Multiple distro's have been lambasted for this, inlcuding Mepis and (oh the irony) the MPAA just yesterday. Legal issues aren't like technical issues where you can put buggy software out and fix bugs as they come in. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 05, 2007 12:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:Alternatively, if you really think your remix is better, but this seems like far too much work, just document the changes you've made to PCLinuxOS and provide them as a howto for anyone who wants to recreate your work. Instant non-distro distro. Even better: roll it into a package. There's even special software for it. I don't remember exactly what it's called. We discussed it here on LXer when Ubuntu Christian Edition came out. Quite a few people thought it wasn;t smart to respin/fork an entire distro over just a couple of packages and configuration changes and they pointed to a tool that lets you maintain an easily usable changeset to a distro. |
| newmikey Dec 05, 2007 12:53 PM EDT |
Sander, good advice with one problem: there is nothing to roll into a package, no added scripts, no translations, no documentation. Nada, nichts, zip. At this stage JDixon's advice seems to be the best thing. Justin might even say he's doing a HowTo on turning PCLOS vanilla into "The Ultumix PCLOS Remaster", I even think he could do it without too much trouble IF he can win some trust back with Tex & gang. He should just stay away from advertising anything like a distro as he is obviously only getting deeper in trouble as he goes along. It would be beneficial to his customers as they would have no problem in getting support from either Justin or the PCLOS forums. He can even supply a remaster made according to his own recipe to his customers, it would after all still be PCLOS with standard repo packages added and possibly a desktop theme changed. Nothing wrong with that. Eventually, when the HowTo becomes so extensive, non-PCLOS content gets added, he could migrate support for the remaster to his own forums and who knows? It may grow into a distro after all, but in a controlled way where Justin's knowhow keeps tred with what he advertises. It basically buys him time to learn and grow and be the distromaster he so aspires to be. Justin: have a look how PCFluxBoxOS and TinyMe are inching away from their parent, all the while continuing from full support and setting up forums to cover the differences only and sharing some of the repos. Now, how's that for a reasonable, non-inflammatory response? |
| usacomputertec Dec 05, 2007 1:48 PM EDT |
I even think he could do it without too much trouble IF he can win some trust back with Tex & gang. He should just stay away from advertising anything like a distro as he is obviously only getting deeper in trouble as he goes along. I think I've crossed the point of no return when I started asking questions before I even distributed it because that was when people got cranky. If Tex would tell me exactly what he wants me to do or even communicate with me at all I would try my best to comply with his demands but when you just ban someone without giving them any instructions on what to do it's kind of pointless to expect them to be able to come back and rebuild the bridge they burnt. The main problem with making a how to make Ultumix is that defies one of the purposes of Ultumix. That purpose is this: Not to have to download all those extra programs and updates. It takes 1 - 3 hours on a high speed connection. The DVD contains them all so you don't have to download them. Installing Windows XP takes about 2 hours. Installing PCLinuxOS with the updates takes 2 - 5 hours. This is crazy. Ultumix takes the burden off of PCLinuxOS's repos by giving the end user the updates and programs they need without needing to go to the Synaptic to get them. Maybe you will need a few extra programs but this still greatly benefits the PCLinuxOS bandwidth. I had a qwest issue last night. It's fixed now though. My mirror FTP is working now and I will replace the older versions with the new one. That should take care of everything. I'm also going to redo my web site a bit and I've already taken the GPLv3 out of the OS and the readme. There is no license anywhere. After 0.0.1.1 is available I will shut down my other torrents. So you don't need to talk to me any more about GPL problems unless you have tried 0.0.1.1. Again thanks for the advice and thanks nixed report for defending me. |
| tuxchick Dec 05, 2007 1:49 PM EDT |
Oh good, shoot the messenger! That's real polite, nixedreport. Our budding hacker got all kinds of polite, correct advice, and instead of accepting it, argued with it. Then the responses got a bit sterner, but nowhere near rude or incorrect. And then you get all bent because we're too mean. Mmmkay. You don't like the word poach? I don't like people who misuse other people's software and resources. Maybe you would prefer words like "steal" and "ethically challenged"? |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 05, 2007 1:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:After 0.0.1.1 is available I will shut down my other torrents. You should have shut them down as soon as you found out about the license trouble. |
| newmikey Dec 05, 2007 2:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:Not to have to download all those extra programs and updates. It takes 1 - 3 hours on a high speed connection. The DVD contains them all so you don't have to download them.There is nothing new there. MyPCLinuxOS already has a DVD project with technically savvy people. This is (again) not renewing or adding to the mix, but badly replicating. If you are spending as you say 2-5 hours on an install, you ARE definitely doing something wrong. It is not the distro, it is your inability to analyze the underlying root causes for your failure and your inability to recognize failure when it bites you in the nose. As to nixedreport, quit playing the reasonable party. You are in this with Justin up to your neck right from the beginning and you have allowed him to make a fool of himself much like you yourself with a forum no one but the two of you ever visits and your so-called "radioshows" on Linux. There are some guys on this thread right here that have forgotten more about Linux and FOSS than you or I will ever be able to learn. Get real and get a life! Justin, there always IS an option to turn back and do the right thing. I think at this stage I'll throw in the towel on this one, so much good advice from so many people falling on two such deaf ears is too much. Good luck, whatever you do. I remain unconvinced there is any real value in what you are doing and will continue to be very critical about this. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 05, 2007 2:52 PM EDT |
newmikey (and everyone else): Let's not degenerate into personal attacks and get this thread closed. There's plenty to discuss here without going down to that level. |
| usacomputertec Dec 05, 2007 4:37 PM EDT |
Ok guys. I'm not going to be paying attention to this thread very often. I started a new one because it's a new version release that should make all of you as happy as clams. () |
| Abe Dec 05, 2007 6:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:I remain unconvinced there is any real value in what you are doingI believe this sums it all up. |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2007 6:18 PM EDT |
> I believe this sums it all up. Pretty much so, doesn't it. I, on the other hand don't see any problem with what he's doing as long as he meets the license requirements. It doesn't matter whether any of us finds what he's doing useful or not. If he finds it useful and is learning something, that's reason enough to do it. If anyone else finds it useful, that's a bonus. He does have to make sure he's meeting the licensing requirements though. |
| azerthoth Dec 05, 2007 6:38 PM EDT |
There is value in any endevour, it is not up to any outside party to validate that value by seeing a reason for it. Linus originally made the kernel as a project to teach himself about the architecture of the cpu he had. That was it's value to him, and he admitted at the time he did not expect anyone else to see any useful application for his work other than perhaps a handful of tinkerers. I'm not saying that we have the next Torvalds on our hands here (although you never know, this just might be the spark needed). We have an obligation to point out when things are not right and hopefully suggest a solution. As we have done here with the licensing issues. The rest is moot, I pointed out before that there can be no controls over the decision to use PCLOS as the base to use, if someone cares to make the case that there is I need only point out that in turn the Mandriva crowd would in turn have the same rights. He (they) have the RIGHT to do this regardless of opinions. While I personally have no use for their distro, and only suggest it's parent to new linux users as the most friendly and easy to use that I have seen to date, there is no reason what so ever to stomp on these ambitions. There are technical and (hopefully solved) license issues that can be resolved in a polite and supportive manner. While we do not have any obligation to help, the GPL itself gives them the absolute rights to try. No moral objections can be made to their right to try without also denying the GPL in it's entirety. Success or failure is immaterial, I wish them the best and will lend my knowledge such as it is in the hopes that something is learned in the process. Personally I give terrible odds of this going terribly far, but one never knows. It is the voyage, not the destination, that is truly the important part. |
| azerthoth Dec 05, 2007 6:39 PM EDT |
darn you dix, you posted that while I was writing :) |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2007 6:45 PM EDT |
> ...you posted that while I was writing :) That's what you get for being so wordy. :) |
| usacomputertec Dec 05, 2007 9:55 PM EDT |
Thanks for your support azerthoth. Many of you don't see a use for an OS that has completely given in to the Windows user to help them make the transition but it seems to be increasing the ratio of Windows to Linux converts that I present it to. My biggest critic is my Father and the second is my Mother. They both don't use Linux more than a few seconds a month but they are not my customers now are they? I think that what I'm doing is reinventing Linspire all over again but this time I'm not commercializing it and setting it up to be absorbed by Micro$oft's FUD department. At least thats the most accurate thing i can think of to say. Linspire was a great OS when it came out and started using WINE and giving Windows users what they wanted. They had the right idea there. I myself use to sell Linspire for a while. Then Linspire got too out of date and was not hardware friendly. Now they are owned by M$. I think that if we all applied their original tactic of giving the customer / user what they want they will have more Linux converts. You attract more bees with honey than you do with pollen. Sure the pollen might be better for the bees but they are attracted to honey. Or it might be better to say that you can give a man Linux but you can't make him use it. What you have to do is eliminate all excuses not to use Linux first. Then you can start showing advantages. If you just try to scare customers by showing them the Vista EULA your only going to make them think your crazy. I've lost customers because they think I'm nuts for suggesting Linux. But if you show them a "new" operating system that has "more" features and the "same" features for "free" they will listen to you more often than not. Our window of opportunity to convert frustrated Windows users is closing. As soon as they get back in the thought process that you must use Micro$oft and that Vista isn't that bad and there are always some problems with everything we have lost our edge. We can't hope to save any more lost soles. thats why we need to strike now while the iron is hot. More and more people are realizing what Vista is every day and looking for something else. A lot of these people buy new Macs and whaste money and even throw away their old PCs. :( this is just wastefull. We need to pull together and share information with one another rather than fighting to climb to the top and crush all the other Linux distros. It's fine if someone switches to another distro as long as that distro is not so confusing that they want to switch back. I have had a lot of people tell me that they can't stand Linux. I ask them what version did you use? Most of them say red hat, Fedora, or Ubuntu. After I show them PCLinuxOS or Ultumix they say "I can learn this". It's not enough to provide a stable system that runs good or tons of free software but a UI that makes users feel welcome. Also they don't need to do all kinds of advanced set up after they get the iso and burn it to a CD / DVD because we all know how hard that is for the average Windows user to figure out on their own. lol :) No one has bought a DVD from me yet and I don't expect them to any time soon. I know my distro has flaws. I know that it lacks some of the things that Linux users want. But as for me and my purpose it will serve me and my customers just fine. |
| thenixedreport Dec 06, 2007 12:39 AM EDT |
Perhaps enough has been said in this thread. Hopefully the issues have been ironed out. For those who keep arguing that things are being "stolen" etc.... Take a look here: http://shiftlinux.net/ Shift is listed on distrowatch. They do what Justin and contributors are doing with Ultumix (except the Neowin crowd's been at it longer... about a year to be precise). They are Morphix-based at the moment with plans to switch to Ubuntu. Are they stealing from Morphix and Debian? When going over to Ubuntu, will they be stealing from Canonical? http://www.tapioneer.com/ Pioneer also does a similar thing as well. They are primarily based on Kubuntu and use Automatix2 as an included feature. Are they stealing from Canonical? http://www.linux.com/articles/61243 Just to clarify, my issue wasn't with everyone's response. Azerthoth has been the most constructive, and I never had an issue with him. What I do have an issue with is the name calling and accusations of being a thief. When one is told, "You HAVE to do this!" the conversation is taking a forceful tone. What I was trying to demonstrate through the suggestions (via quotation marks) was how to things a bit more diplomatically. If something comes off as a suggestion rather than a command, then it is more likely to be listened to and followed. Perhaps I have been too harsh. It seems to me that things have been getting tense over the last several weeks, and I'm not talking about Ultumix alone either. It appears that there is stress over the new opportunity afforded those who are in the FOSS arena due to Vista not going over really well with the consumer. It reminds me of reading about how people on the ninth floor of Tech Square at MIT used to throw chairs not out of anger at each other, but out of frustration concerning the most productive and best way to move forward as a group of hackers. Then again, I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time). |
| newmikey Dec 06, 2007 1:43 AM EDT |
Quoting:Pioneer also does a similar thing as well. They are primarily based on Kubuntu and use Automatix2 as an included feature. Are they stealing from Canonical?The webpage you quoted says: "Techalign fails to provide any compelling reason to choose Pioneer Linux over Kubuntu" [quote]Shift is listed on distrowatch. They do what Justin and contributors are doing with Ultumix (except the Neowin crowd's been at it longer... about a year to be precise)[quote] From another review, this time on Shift: "But it seems so much like Morphix and I couldn't stop asking myself, is it Morphix-2 or ShiftLinux. The developers from Neowin have really not changed much..." and "But more than a year later, is it what the developers were expecting?" Is that the outlook you want to provide to Justin, his users, the "Windows" users? This is not about stealing, you are allowed to "steal" code if you want to call it that. This is about having something unique to offer. Ultumix doesn't have it and Justin doesn 't have the know-how to add it. The advice given above was solid: join another distro team and learn what it takes, before you roll your own. As to stealing time, ideas and trust...every user will make up his mind. I personally am not impressed by a website that is focussed on selling a product it knows little about, along with the branded T-shirts, mugs, mousemats and all other stuff. |
| jdixon Dec 06, 2007 2:29 AM EDT |
> This is about having something unique to offer. Ultumix doesn't have it... Immaterial. As long as Justin follows the licensing rules, he can offer Ultumix regardless of what you, I, or anyone else thinks. > ...and Justin doesn 't have the know-how to add it. You have no way of knowing that. For all we know, Justin may be the next Patrick Volkerding. From what I've read, the SLS folks weren't too happy with his contributions either. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 06, 2007 2:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:You have no way of knowing that. Actually, he said so: Quoting:I can't work on another Linux project because there is no other Linux project that I can contribute to. My skills are too limited. |
| jdixon Dec 06, 2007 2:42 AM EDT |
> ...Actually, he said so: That still a statement about the current state, Sander. The fact that Justin's skills are limited now says nothing about what he can accomplish in the future. And skills aren't exactly the same thing as know-how. |
| newmikey Dec 06, 2007 3:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:And skills aren't exactly the same thing as know-how.What point, if any, are you making? Nobody says he shouldn't learn, develop and grow. Off-course he can offer whatever he wants within the confines of the licensing rules, but does that mean that he must do so? I can follow his reasoning on remastering to avoid rework and wasting time on installs. That is more or less what everyone does, taking a solid, fully update install and turning it into a liveCD/DVD for backup purposes as well as installs for others.(at least for those distros that allow remastering a running system) It seems that he is soliciting help for his forums, CVS, themes and programming as he lacks those skills. Soliciting help implies building a community and that's where he goes wrong. He started out by projecting a "profit first" image. Who in his right mind would help somebody else make money without a return on investment, financially or otherwise? He started out by making bloated claims that he couldn't make good on and then goes on to break every rule in the book. If there's anything I learned in 25 years of Customs & Tax related legislation, it is that lack of knowledge does not provide excuses for not abiding by the law, ever. The only user I have seen on his forum has been crying out for help because the bloody thing will not even run from the liveDVD - he has not received any reply yet. Not a good way to lure in volunteers. So what do we have? A guy who has remastered a running PCLOS installation, claims it is a full-blown distro which he sells at an inflated price but offers no support of any kind on? A guy who opportunistically expects us to buy placemats, mousemats, mugs and baseball caps imprinted with the logo of a non-existing distribution? I'm sorry, but that rates high on my scam-scale and should not be good news for anybody that has FOSS high on his personal list either. Heck, even Tex started out building packages for Mandrake waaaay before he carefully released the first tryout of what would become PCLOS. There is no case here, not a community and certainly not a business case! |
| jdixon Dec 06, 2007 6:46 AM EDT |
> What point, if any, are you making? See my last comment below. > Nobody says he shouldn't learn, develop and grow. Sure sounds like it to me. > Off-course he can offer whatever he wants within the confines of the licensing rules, but does that mean that he must do so? No. But it means it's none of our business if he does. > There is no case here, not a community and certainly not a business case! No. There is a person trying to do something he wants to do. As long as he abides by the licensing requirements, that's all there needs to be. What you, I, or anyone else thinks about it is immaterial. I use Slackware. I have no use for Ultumix. For all I know it could be utter and complete trash or the best thing since sliced bread. That's all beside the point. As long as he abides by the licensing requirements, Justin has the right to do what he wants with it. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!