PDA

View Full Version : i moved from ubuntu to fedora



arnieboy
August 26th, 2005, 01:36 PM
I have used Redhat products since 1999 on my computers. For the past 6 months, I have been using Ubuntu, falling head over heels in love with it and especially with this forum inspite of atleast one of its moderators (but no love lost because of that). The thing that has been frustrating me of late and I have mentioned atleast a couple of times is the speed at which backports (which seems to be the only repo for updating beyond the final release of any version of ubuntu) is updated. Its become painfully slow of late and its almost reached a point where I thought : "hey what the heck.. lemme get back to fedora.. they have a atleast 6 different repos nicely synced all the time and i will get all the updated software." and true enough, so after a 6 month layoff I went back to fedora yesterday and within 3 hours, I had the latest offerings in the open source community on my desktop thru yum.
in fact in also the same time, I had the whole thing setup just the way it was in ubuntu.
well so much said, I must say I love ubuntuforums for the things that I have been able to get from it and more because of what I have been able to give it back. so I will continue to offer techical and troubleshooting support on these forums. thats something I promise.
ciao and good luck guys!

EDIT: Now I am back to Ubuntu! heh.

Lovechild
August 26th, 2005, 01:47 PM
welcome back in the fold, we missed you.. I hug fedora to.

blackant
August 26th, 2005, 01:48 PM
I am a newbie, tried ubuntu then fedora.
Now back to ubuntu for again..hehehe

I find that the support here is better.
But I notice I can't update or download packages too... sigh.

az
August 26th, 2005, 02:17 PM
inspite of atleast one of its moderators (but no love lost because of that). The thing that has been frustrating me of late and I have mentioned atleast a couple of times is the speed at which backports (which seems to be the only repo for updating beyond the final release of any version of ubuntu) is updated. Its become painfully slow of late


Sorry to hear you felt that way.

As for the backports, what applications did you want? Did you ask for them on the backports forum? Or are you refering to a slow repository because of high bandwith use?

rolfotto
August 26th, 2005, 02:35 PM
Heck,

If you are gonna stay - don't say goodbye^^

Anyway, Fedora is one of the few major distros I haven't really used - tried to install it way back when I was just learning linux and kicked it off when it didn't get my monitor right (my fault of impatience more than Fedora's lack of anything).

So I just want to ask, aside from backports, how does it compare to Ubuntu in terms of size/bloat/generalspeed/easeofuse?

Knome_fan
August 26th, 2005, 02:35 PM
Bye and have fun in Fedoraland! :grin:

Make sure to come back once breezy is out, maybe the backports situation will improve then.

tom-ubuntu
August 26th, 2005, 02:36 PM
I have to agree with speed of the backports. But this needs manpower. So if not more people will help out, nothing will happen.

Fedora has a huge support because it exists way longer then Ubuntu. These repos have come a long way until they reached the size they are now. Ubuntu needs just a little bit more time I would say *keepsfingercrossed*

manicka
August 26th, 2005, 02:51 PM
I agree that backports is a concern at the moment. Is jdong still supporting it?
I read in another thread that he's besotted by OpenSuSE at the moment.

earobinson
August 26th, 2005, 02:52 PM
I was thinking of going back to fedora to but breezy kept me with ubuntu, I still use the fedora fourms, and there are always more people on them so maybe fedora is the more popular os, or maybe it is just harder to use lol.

KingBahamut
August 26th, 2005, 03:47 PM
fedora.....I keep one Fedora box on my arch to remind me why I dont like to use it. While I admit that there might be some pangs with how fast backports updates software, I personally dont have an issue. Older versions mean more stability in my opinion. Id take stable over untested anyday.

But thats just me.

On the plus side for Fedora current release, 4 , Eclipse is built configured and runnable. That makes it somewhat desireable. That coupled with Anjuta, Bluefish, Nvu, Kdevelop and a few other odd nick nacks and you have a decent development box.

arnieboy
August 26th, 2005, 04:58 PM
Sorry to hear you felt that way.

As for the backports, what applications did you want? Did you ask for them on the backports forum? Or are you refering to a slow repository because of high bandwith use?
I am referring to the speed at which the backports are being updated these days (not the bandwidth speed). There are zillions of libs and apps which need to be updated (too numerous to mention). I did not ask for any specific app to be updated because I could see the number of requests which were being unheeded and I decided not to join in.

arnieboy
August 26th, 2005, 05:06 PM
Heck,

If you are gonna stay - don't say goodbye^^

Anyway, Fedora is one of the few major distros I haven't really used - tried to install it way back when I was just learning linux and kicked it off when it didn't get my monitor right (my fault of impatience more than Fedora's lack of anything).

So I just want to ask, aside from backports, how does it compare to Ubuntu in terms of size/bloat/generalspeed/easeofuse?
size is much larger (4 cd's) but that all depends on how much u want to install. (u can keep it down to 2 cd's as well if u want). ubuntu basically depends on a net based install and thus keeps it down to one cd.. but anyway in my case thats not an issue because I have got a T3 connection.
speed of booting up is much faster in fedora compared to ubuntu.
ease of use: well depends on whats easy for u and whats not. but for starters, u dont have to compile things like the latest version of mplayerplug-in. its already in the repositories. in fact most apps that u compile and install (or create ur own debs) on ubuntu (read as latest versions of softwares) are already there in the fedora repos. Its a pity Dag Wieers has discontinued creating rpms for fedora core 4. Hez one guy who used to create an rpm the same day an app was released. backports developers need to pick a tip or two from him. His was a one man show. but anyway, there are other repos like dries which are doing the job for now.

xequence
August 26th, 2005, 05:06 PM
Despite not knowing what backports are... Heh, I heard fedora wasnt good, debian is better... BUt they both take up like 4 CDs which I dont like, wasted CDs and downloading time :P

Well, Fedora Core is one cool name :P

Anyway, have fun. Linux is about choosing distros :P

arnieboy
August 26th, 2005, 05:07 PM
I have to agree with speed of the backports. But this needs manpower. So if not more people will help out, nothing will happen.

Fedora has a huge support because it exists way longer then Ubuntu. These repos have come a long way until they reached the size they are now. Ubuntu needs just a little bit more time I would say *keepsfingercrossed*
more than manpower, it needs a little more commitment.. cuz to tell u the truth too many people depend on it. I am looking forward to breezy though.

az
August 26th, 2005, 05:15 PM
To donate to the backports project:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/ubuntu-bp/donate/index.php


To help out the backports project:

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=47
http://backports.ubuntuforums.org/

Backports complaint department:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=60051

arnieboy
August 26th, 2005, 05:15 PM
and hey guys one more thing: fedora core 4 comes installed with the latest version of the openoffice beta 1.9+. and u can always yum update to get to the latest when its released. here on ubuntu we have atleast 500 posts in a thread which tried to look into this problem of creating openoffice debs and trying to install them and creating update scripts and what not and half the time they would not work.

sophtpaw
August 26th, 2005, 05:18 PM
Well, Fedora Core is one cool name :P

Anyway, have fun. Linux is about choosing distros :P[/QUOTE]


The name never particularly resonated with me. And its Avatar/logo that mafioso hat?! makes me think of starchy ties and suits too, yuck! O:) i never like that at all. But functionally, coming from SuSE as a newbie i thought yum made things easier.

But now that i have found apt-get/deb i don't think i'll ever go back to rpm's So, good bye SuSE ( how i loved the gecko!) Fedora, Mandrivia et all.

Plus Ubuntu! now that is a name! that both means something and ties into the philosophy of free software and open source :grin:

--
sophtpaw

xequence
August 26th, 2005, 05:23 PM
The name never particularly resonated with me. And its Avatar/logo that mafioso hat?! makes me think of starchy ties and suits too, yuck! O i never like that at all. But functionally, coming from SuSE as a newbie i thought yum made things easier.

I think it sounds really high tech and powerful. Just the name though, I havnt accually used it.

The name ubuntu doesent really make me think of anything. It sounds unique, like noone would mistake it for another distro.

az
August 26th, 2005, 05:34 PM
more than manpower, it needs a little more commitment.. cuz to tell u the truth too many people depend on it.

That is the most disrespectful thing I have ever read about Jdong and the backports team.

I think it is a testament to any volunteer project when it becomes so appreciated that it becomes taken for granted. This is what this thread is about, isn't it?

Let's all take the backports team for granted some more.




That will help.



Let's turn this thread into something productive, please.

super
August 26th, 2005, 05:48 PM
meh... fedora is a'right.

i used core 3 before coming to ubu and i was fairly satisfied with it. i just think debian based distros are a bit better that rpm based ones. (i've always had library incompatibility issues with fedora) although i have been meaning to check out core 4.


i think that your op speaks to a bigger issue - it looks like ubuntu is bleeding valuable linux veterans. i've noticed a few posts in the forum where people are mentioning leaving ubuntu. :( (save the e17 repo!!)
also, although i don't use the backports much i can understand how a lack of current packages could be annoying.

anyways have fun in fedora-land
i'm gonna wait alleast 'til breezy release before i check out anymore distros. :)

EDIT: read the post by azz :-k he is absolutely right. it's unfair to judge\question the work of volunteers.

npaladin2000
August 26th, 2005, 05:52 PM
Hmm, this is funny, I went from Fedora back to Ubuntu (I was around when Warty first came on the scene but had too much trouble with it). While Fedora is a bit big (4 CDs...ugh) it's a pleasant enough distro to use, in general. Having easy access to installing APT makes up for yum not having a decent frontend in GNOME, and yum itself is a decent clone/descendant of apt-get also.

I've also found that if an app is packaged for one distro, it's going to be Fedora (Luckily, if it's packaged for 2, the second is usually Debian ;) ) So application availability is much better than Ubuntu, even though longevity is worse (except for the legacy projects).

I'd probably still be on Fedora if I hadn't hit a wall with Treo syncing, but it's very broken, and they've been unable to fix it (something about udev not adding some Palm devices fast enough and causing gpilot to crash I believe). They're working on it, and I don't fault them, since it's impossible to test the distro with EVERY piece of hardware in existence, but since that function is a necessity...oh well. I still hang out in the Fedora forums, and will end up trying Core 5 to compare with Breezy. May the best distro win, but I think the two complement each other rather well. And I've always believed that competition is the best way toward improvement, unlike a certain CEO that I won't name but we all know and love :---)

npaladin2000
August 26th, 2005, 05:55 PM
That is the most disrespectful thing I have ever read about Jdong and the backports team.

I think it is a testament to any volunteer project when it becomes so appreciated that it becomes taken for granted. This is what this thread is about, isn't it?

Let's all take the backports team for granted some more.




That will help.



Let's turn this thread into something productive, please.

I HOPE we misunderstood him, and he meant more commitment as in more volunteers stepping up to assist the project or something...

banjo04414
August 26th, 2005, 06:04 PM
I'm new to Ubuntu. Only used it a couple of weeks now. I'll just say that I have found nothing but a helpful community here. It seem's eveyone is willing to give a newbie a hand. I'm not new to computers but I have used MS always brfore. Just got tired of MS deciding what my OS should be for me. Sure, I'm having a little trouble with the backports and installing things. I'm sure I will learn how! Tried Fedora 3, Mandriva, Arch, etc. before finding Ubuntu. Love it! My thanks go out to the developers, the volunteers that maintain these forums and last not least to the "veterans" that help us new guys out. THANK-YOU ALL.

arnieboy
August 26th, 2005, 06:13 PM
Having easy access to installing APT makes up for yum not having a decent frontend in GNOME, and yum itself is a decent clone/descendant of apt-get also.
in case u meant a gui frontend try gnome-yum http://gnome-yum.sourceforge.net/
its not of the same genre as synpatic but it does a pretty good job.

arnieboy
August 26th, 2005, 06:16 PM
I HOPE we misunderstood him, and he meant more commitment as in more volunteers stepping up to assist the project or something...
yes thats what I meant.. more manhours spent on backports.

KingBahamut
August 26th, 2005, 06:17 PM
Most of Arnie statements are premature.

And honestly, if you really want OOo that badly, go out and compile it yourself. To depend so heavily on others to do what you yourself can do is a sign of lacksadasical attitude. Its just Laziness. It would seem that you have some technical ability Arnie, why dont you contribute your efforts?

I laud the backports team and their ability to perform. They do fine for me.

arnieboy
August 26th, 2005, 06:39 PM
Most of Arnie statements are premature.

And honestly, if you really want OOo that badly, go out and compile it yourself. To depend so heavily on others to do what you yourself can do is a sign of lacksadasical attitude. Its just Laziness. It would seem that you have some technical ability Arnie, why dont you contribute your efforts?

I laud the backports team and their ability to perform. They do fine for me.
I can compile all the softwares that there are out there right now but that does not change the fact that the backports need to be updated more regularly. Try not to miss the main point next time :)

I contribute to these forums much more productively than most people out here. If I had more time, I would have probably contributed actively to the backports.

I have not taken any credit away from anyone and I do not wish to either. However, when u undertake a project which hundreds of thousands of people depend on (most of whom by the way cannot compile their own apps), then u automatically entail certain responsibilities which u cannot just shed one fine day on the excuse that u were doing it voluntarily. Most of the project called "linux" is a voluntary undertaking. Consult Torwalds for more details and a lecture on responsibilities.

Please dont misunderstand my words as anything against jdong and his group. I think what they have done till now is a superhuman effort and it will continue to be one. but somehow it fell short of my expectations somewhere.

poofyhairguy
August 26th, 2005, 06:41 PM
Most of Arnie statements are premature.

And honestly, if you really want OOo that badly, go out and compile it yourself.

Or even better.....take the backporters script, backport the new stuff and give it to everyone.

blastus
August 26th, 2005, 08:23 PM
Even though I am a Linux newbie I have installed Red Hat 6, Fedora Core 1 and Fedora Core 3. I used Red Hat 6 in a course I had to take and we didn't get into X or anything like that. FC 1 was an improvement over Red Hat 6. FC 2 (which I haven't used) apparently had a nasty bug that would trash a Windows XP partition. Then FC 3 wouldn't even install on my main machine (it would install on a really old machine though) due to this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=138430 bug. The solution was to download an update image (using Windows of course), create an update floppy disk, and then type in "linux updates" just so that the FC3 installer would work.

Then my modem doesn't work, of course. But I managed to get an old ISA modem to work. I tried to look for a simple guide on using yum because I had no idea what a repository was or why it was necessary or how to use one or anything--remember I'm a total Linux newbie! I even found a starter guide to using FC but it was of little help. All I remember is typing in some yum command and then having it run for like over an hour (on I'm on dialup) and not being able to tell what the hell it was doing. No progress meter, no status, nothing except some useless ASCII art so I had no idea what it was doing and as far as I was concerned it was doing nothing but tying up what little bandwidth I actually had. After spending about a couple of hours looking on the Internet for info on this I just gave up.

So then I tried out Ubuntu. I had lots of frustration also, with my PCI modem not working, but then I actually managed to get my PCI modem to work! That gave me a huge morale boast to continue with Linux! Then I found the Ubuntu Starter Guide (http://ubuntuguide.org/) and that was more complete and more useful and simplier than any guide or instructions I ever saw for FC. I actually managed to get stuff working, like playing MP3s and all kinds of stuff for the very first time on Linux. I type in "apt-get update" or "apt-get install..." and it actually tells me what it is doing and everything. Even though I don't understand the details, it's nice to have a progress meter and some useful info about what's going on as opposed to just some ASCII art gibberish that yum produced for me.

I do have DVD playback problems, problems with RAM (I have 1Gb), and TrueType fonts not quite looking like they do in Windows, but hopefully Ubuntu will resolve this issues in the future. Right now I'm using Mepis for my main OS, but I use Ubuntu also because I like the community behind Ubuntu and, as a COMPLETE LINUX NEWBIE, it was Ubuntu that really got me into Linux.

Also, I'm on dialup so the idea of having to download 5 CD's for Fedora is not feasible. I can however manage the 1 CD that Ubuntu and Mepis come on as I have download both these distributions on dialup. I was only able to download FC because I had access to a machine before that had high speed lite. The FC installer is also not that intelligent. If you goto to install some software from the distribution CDs, it may prompt you like half a dozen times to switch CDs...insert CD 1 now, insert CD 2 now, insert CD 1 now, insert CD 3 now, insert CD 1 now and stuff like that.

The final thing I don't like about FC is that I don't see it as a *real distribution*. I just see it as a testbed or guiny pig for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and that's all. From a NEWBIE PERSPECTIVE, I found Ubuntu friendlier.

KingBahamut
August 26th, 2005, 08:26 PM
Thanks Poofy, I was fairly sure I wasnt utterly crazy to say that.

aysiu
August 26th, 2005, 08:34 PM
TrueType fonts not quite looking like they do in Windows, but hopefully Ubuntu will resolve this issues in the future. So MSTTCOREFONTS didn't do it for you?

http://ubuntuguide.org/#extrafonts



Right now I'm using Mepis for my main OS, but I use Ubuntu also because I like the community behind Ubuntu and, as a COMPLETE LINUX NEWBIE, it was Ubuntu that really got me into Linux. That's funny--I'm the exact opposite. Mepis is what got me into Linux; then, I switched over to Ubuntu.

Knome_fan
August 26th, 2005, 08:50 PM
Thanks Poofy, I was fairly sure I wasnt utterly crazy to say that.

Nope, not crazy, but you probably never compiled OpenOffice yourself, let alone the developement version, or you wouldn't have made this suggestion. ;-)

KingBahamut
August 26th, 2005, 08:57 PM
Nope, not crazy, but you probably never compiled OpenOffice yourself, let alone the developement version, or you wouldn't have made this suggestion. ;-)
While compiling the source could be a pain, and creating a uby likened deb file harder, id hardly call it something so frustrating that one wouldnt want to do it. I love a good challenge at times.

autocrosser
August 26th, 2005, 08:57 PM
Its funny--I went from A Red-Hat Distro (YellowDog--I'm A PPC person) & Ubuntu felt like a breath of fresh air--Offerings for PPC seem to always lag behind x86:-? (must be the numbers--sigh---Yes I know I'm out-numbered 20 to 1) & YellowDog was a "safe" distro (Gnome 2.6!!)--I contributed for a while on the Garnome project (A BIG hats off to those people--real bleeding edge!!) until one day that they were talking about the "new" distro---UBUNTU.

In any case--I downloaded 5.04 & have not looked back (except to remember how bad it was in YellowDog)---I'm a "normal" user, sort'of. I do graphic design & webwork--wanted currect versions of GIMP-Inkscape-Bluefish & Screem--couldn't get them without depend hell in YellowDog 4.01 & was pleased to have versions that were "almost" new in Ubuntu......

I too will look at newer versions of Red-Hat type & Debian-type distros--BUT, I think that my stable work system is going to stay Ubuntu.

My 2cents worth--

KiwiNZ
August 26th, 2005, 09:50 PM
.....
I have not taken any credit away from anyone and I do not wish to either. However, when u undertake a project which hundreds of thousands of people depend on (most of whom by the way cannot compile their own apps), then u automatically entail certain responsibilities which u cannot just shed one fine day on the excuse that u were doing it voluntarily. Most of the project called "linux" is a voluntary undertaking. Consult Torwalds for more details and a lecture on responsibilities......
.

With respect, remember volunteers also have a life away from the plastic, they to have mouths to feed, bills to pay and paid jobs to do as well.

KingBahamut
August 26th, 2005, 09:52 PM
Well My days as a Tom Schneider-like High Paid ManHo do me ok at night.
So that during the day I can sit here and help everyone out. =)

tseliot
August 26th, 2005, 09:55 PM
in case u meant a gui frontend try gnome-yum http://gnome-yum.sourceforge.net/
its not of the same genre as synpatic but it does a pretty good job.
Actually there's a way to install Synaptic in Fedora. I did ot in Fedora Core 3. I read a HOWTO somewhere. However I had only used it for 3 days (I didn't realise kernel 2.6.10 was my real problem, but at the time I didn't even know what a kernel was).

blastus
August 26th, 2005, 11:04 PM
So MSTTCOREFONTS didn't do it for you?

http://ubuntuguide.org/#extrafonts

I have installed msttcorefonts, though in all honesty, I haven't looked into the font thing in much depth. The hinting thing confuses me. In Mepis if I turn off antialiasing and the TrueType fonts work like magic and are rendered just as well as they are in Windows. I know because I took a screenshot of some Tahoma text in Windows XP then booted into Mepis and used GIMP and typed in some Tahoma text on the image and the rendering quality seems to be identical.

In Ubuntu, if I set hinting = none (not sure if that is the same as antialiasing?) the fonts look really bad. I have to set hinting = slight. There's also the monitor thing (I use a CRT monitor)...the horizontal or vertical refresh rate is not properly set in Ubuntu, consequently my screen is kind of squished (i.e. it doesn't extend to the borders of the monitor.) This is probably affecting the display of the fonts too I'm not sure. I know I need to edit the xorg.conf file but I haven't looked too deep into it. From the GNOME menu I'm running at 1024x768 at 60Hz but I need it at 75Hz but I can only set it to a maximum 60Hz from the GNOME menu. I'm kind of scared of touching xorg.conf because I heard changing the horizontal refresh rate can ruin a monitor. This is something I want to work on. It's probably not an issue in Ubuntu...just that I don't know exactly what I'm doing yet!

arnieboy
August 26th, 2005, 11:11 PM
Actually there's a way to install Synaptic in Fedora. I did ot in Fedora Core 3. I read a HOWTO somewhere. However I had only used it for 3 days (I didn't realise kernel 2.6.10 was my real problem, but at the time I didn't even know what a kernel was).
synaptic is a front end for apt-get on fedora as it is on debian systems, the only difference being that on fedora it handles rpms rather than debs.
I was talking about a GUI frontend for yum (not apt-get).

tseliot
August 26th, 2005, 11:20 PM
synaptic is a front end for apt-get on fedora as it is on debian systems, the only difference being that on fedora it handles rpms rather than debs.
I was talking about a GUI frontend for yum (not apt-get).
Oh, sorry I didn't get it.

drizek
August 27th, 2005, 12:45 AM
So MSTTCOREFONTS didn't do it for you?

http://ubuntuguide.org/#extrafonts

That's funny--I'm the exact opposite. Mepis is what got me into Linux; then, I switched over to Ubuntu.
me too, although i used mandrake suse and fedora for a week(combined) before learning about mepis. i stuck with mepis for about 3 months then went to yoper. then yoper stopped getting updated regularly so i went to fcore 3 then i broke that, went to warty, hated it, went back to mepis, then they take forever to release kde 3.4.0 debs(they still havent) and the unofficial reps were still only 3.4.1, so i went to kubuntu which had 3.4.2 debs the day they were released. actually, the reason why i went from mepis to yoper was because yoper had kde 3.3 rpm's the day they were released and i was so sick of waiting for them to go on the mepis reps. however, yoper still uses kde 3.3, so that advantage is now gone.

right now im running both kde and gnome in breezy and it kicks ass. im downloading suse 10.0 but im not sure when/if/where i will install it. KDE is still at version 3.4.2, but 3.5 should be added in sometime soon once they start releasing RC's and betas in a few weeks.

the backports issue is not an issue with breezy obviously, although there is the possibility of it being unstable. it hasnt crashed once yet though, so im not complaining.

arnieboy
August 27th, 2005, 01:03 AM
Oh, sorry I didn't get it.
hey no problem :)

npaladin2000
August 27th, 2005, 01:13 AM
in case u meant a gui frontend try gnome-yum http://gnome-yum.sourceforge.net/
its not of the same genre as synpatic but it does a pretty good job.

There's actually quite a lot going on on packaging these days....I'm gonna respond, but I'm gonna split off into a new thread first. ;) http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=320180#post320180

racecat
August 27th, 2005, 01:21 AM
One of the first things I did after getting broadband was to start downloading Linux distros. I was itching to start and the tiniest live distro would fail to download completely with dialup.

A friend had given me Mandriva 10.0 a couple of weeks before. It seemed to be pretty complete, but I wanted to make comparisons. I've now downloaded and tried about a dozen distros with varying degrees of success. Wow, has it only been 2 months?

Anyway, the point is, it SEEMS to me that, with exception of Ubuntu, there is an underlying commercial ambition to all of the larger distros. Not to say commercialism is bad, but it felt like I would be limited in how far I could go and what would be accessible for me learn and use. With Ubuntu, it's all there and with no feeling that there is anything being held back.

And the forums are the BEST!!!

Am I completely off base with this observation?

Bill

byen
August 27th, 2005, 01:31 AM
One of the first things I did after getting broadband was to start downloading Linux distros. I was itching to start and the tiniest live distro would fail to download completely with dialup. me too!!!

I've now downloaded and tried about a dozen distros with varying degrees of success. Wow, has it only been 2 months?
hey! me too..but 4 months

Anyway, the point is, it SEEMS to me that, with exception of Ubuntu, there is an underlying commercial ambition to all of the larger distros. Not to say commercialism is bad, but it felt like I would be limited in how far I could go and what would be accessible for me learn and use.
here I have to disagree.take fedora for instance. its for the community and has always been a cornerstone for linux as a whole...im sure there are tons of others too.

With Ubuntu, it's all there and with no feeling that there is anything being held back.
And the forums are the BEST!!! ooh yeah...this forum is the best ever! the main reason why Ubuntu is what it is today! But the only thing that dissapoints me is the fact that Ubuntu is best if you have a broadband connection.Packages need to be downloaded one by one (though this has its own advantages) and for noobs this can be a hassle. I am at a position where I can help a lot of people get help with linux but though Ubuntu is usually my first suggestion...i tend to lean towards goodies filled distros such as fedora and (now) Suse. They are packed with a lot of goodies and god enough to keep noobs busy for a while! wonder if add on cds would be a part of Breezy?

racecat
August 27th, 2005, 01:44 AM
Sorry, the jury's still out on FC4. I could never get it to boot up right on any machine I have. Same kind of problems with Mandriva 10.2, but Mandriva 10.0 and Hoary load on everything I throw their way.

The cartoon penguins with stars for eyes bugs me. I know it's petty, but it helped propel my search. Funny how it's always the little things. I don't know how many times I have chosen one distributor over another when I buy parts for work because they have coffee.

See how I am?

Bill

az
August 27th, 2005, 01:49 AM
While compiling the source could be a pain, and creating a uby likened deb file harder, id hardly call it something so frustrating that one wouldnt want to do it. I love a good challenge at times.

A special note about openoffice builds. While java is an optional component at runtime, with the application just running with reduced functionality in that case, you need java to *build* the thing.

You cannot just ./configure, make, make install openoffice.org.

Debian and hence Ubuntu do not ship with a proprietairy java, since this would mean not being able to ship any other implementation of java runtime so they have made it possible to use the GPL classpath java implementation to build openoffice in debian.

How does Fedora build openoffice? Do they hold the same standards when it comes to Free Libre Software?

I know they have apretty good record when it comes to FLOSS, but I wonder how they can get Openoffice out the door like this so fast without cutting corners?

npaladin2000
August 27th, 2005, 01:51 AM
Actually, I agree with the commercial bit....it's a system that has worked out very well recently. Red Hat and Mandriva always base their Enterprise Linux Servers on their community based distros...the enterprise servers are for sale, the commmunity jobbies are free. SUSE was doing similarly with their paid SUSE 9.3 Pro, but now they're making a community based OpenSUSE, which will likely become the base for a future Novell Linux Desktop and Novell Open Enterprise Server. Debian's "unstable" and "testing" distros has always been a testbed for the future stable distro, they just happen to not sell it.

It basically turns us into beta testers, but I don't mind it. Linux "betas" still tend to be more stable than Windows. ;)

npaladin2000
August 27th, 2005, 01:58 AM
How does Fedora build openoffice? Do they hold the same standards when it comes to Free Libre Software?

I know they have apretty good record when it comes to FLOSS, but I wonder how they can get Openoffice out the door like this so fast without cutting corners?

They have to, it's part of their charter. They don't even include the ipw2200 firmware by default because it's closed-source.

I think it's getting to the point of silly sometimes. Certain things HAVE to be closed, some of them by law. Any wireless driver is going to have a closed-source component; FCC regulations require it here. And something being closed source doesn't mean it can't follow open standards in the spirit of open-ness while keeping the source closed. Take NVIDIA and ATI...they give away the drivers, they're trying to support open-source software by providing drivers for open-source OSes, but they're worried that if they open the source on their drivers it'll give away too much about the architechture of thair GPUs to the other guy. It's a valid worry; they make money off of those GPUs, and if one goes out of buisness we'd be in a lot of trouble (OS monopoly? Try GPU monopoly!).

There's certain situations where we should consider closed-source apps as acceptable, rather than demanding it be opened. Closed source apps that follow open standards would be a start.

KingBahamut
August 27th, 2005, 02:30 AM
A special note about openoffice builds. While java is an optional component at runtime, with the application just running with reduced functionality in that case, you need java to *build* the thing.

You cannot just ./configure, make, make install openoffice.org.

Debian and hence Ubuntu do not ship with a proprietairy java, since this would mean not being able to ship any other implementation of java runtime so they have made it possible to use the GPL classpath java implementation to build openoffice in debian.

How does Fedora build openoffice? Do they hold the same standards when it comes to Free Libre Software?

I know they have apretty good record when it comes to FLOSS, but I wonder how they can get Openoffice out the door like this so fast without cutting corners?


Good question Azz....and thats one I dont have an answer for. Fedora and its retail counterparts RHEL and RHD, cant fall under the same umbrella as Uby for the mere reason that they are driving at a retail product, as a result, many of the things that they couldnt do normally, dont often apply. Szulik is odd that way I guess. Im sure that Messman is the same way. Most CEOs are. One of these days Ill start a thread on that. Have to earn some credibility first though.

az
August 27th, 2005, 03:15 AM
They have to, it's part of their charter. They don't even include the ipw2200 firmware by default because it's closed-source.

I think it's getting to the point of silly sometimes. Certain things HAVE to be closed, some of them by law. Any wireless driver is going to have a closed-source component; FCC regulations require it here. And something being closed source doesn't mean it can't follow open standards in the spirit of open-ness while keeping the source closed. Take NVIDIA and ATI...they give away the drivers, they're trying to support open-source software by providing drivers for open-source OSes, but they're worried that if they open the source on their drivers it'll give away too much about the architechture of thair GPUs to the other guy. It's a valid worry; they make money off of those GPUs, and if one goes out of buisness we'd be in a lot of trouble (OS monopoly? Try GPU monopoly!).

There's certain situations where we should consider closed-source apps as acceptable, rather than demanding it be opened. Closed source apps that follow open standards would be a start.

I could not dissagree with you more. You are not a free software advocate.

Do they not include the ipw2200 firware because of it's source or because the firmware is not licened for distribution. There is a big difference there.

There never has been a law which requires something to be closed source.

Nvidia's binary driver is a negative strike for me. I would not buy one of their cards for one of my boxes. I prefer to use the DRI GPLed drivers for ATI or other manufacturers who provide full GPL sourcecode.

There are no situations where a closed source app is better than demanding it to be opened. I agree that you are hard-pressed to find a truly 100 percent free GPL'ed box anywhere, but that does not mean that upholding the ideal that software is not property is invalid. Sometimes you just have to wait, or work on the project yourself.

It's actually all-or-nothing. If it is acceptable for one proprietairy application to never become free and never have a free counterpart, then there is no point to free software. You either agree with the principles or you do not.

There is nothing stopping someone who beleives in proprietary software from using and enjoying linux. You do not have to be millitant to find the software useful. There is nothing wrong with feeling that way either. Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

The only real difference between operating systems is the values on which they are based. The thing that makes linux better than windows is not how it is built or distributed, but that it is Free Libre open source at the core.

Proprietairy software's usefulness pretty much ends when you buy it, only getting better in small quantities and at a fixed timeframe. FLOSS gets better and better with use.

KingBahamut
August 27th, 2005, 03:19 AM
Im glad you said that Azz because I dont have it in me to do it.

arnieboy
August 27th, 2005, 04:06 AM
Proprietairy software's usefulness pretty much ends when you buy it, only getting better in small quantities and at a fixed timeframe. FLOSS gets better and better with use.
WRONG!
1) Open source is what becomes better in small increments because people work on it in their free time which diminishes as the main guy in charge gets older and busier.
Closed source actually gets better by leaps and bounds because people who work on it get paid and are accountable. Most windows third party apps are way way better than their open source counterparts even though u might have to pay through your nose for them. NO ONE can contest that fact.
2) Please dont make false claims abt FLOSS. u shd love FLOSS for the right reasons.

drizek
August 27th, 2005, 04:14 AM
i dont disagree, but would you really rather support ATI than nvidia?

the ATI DRI drivers arent very good i would imagine, not as good as the fglrx ones at least.

but drivers aside, nvidia support opengl with their hardware whereas ATI builds their cards around MS's direct3d. Under windows, midrange nvidia cards can outperform ATI's highend in openGL games. This has an impact on game developers choosing between direct3d and opengl. this means that in the future, we will see less and less games being ported to linux as a result.

ATI may provide opensource drivers, but nvidia supports the opensource community and opensource projects, which i think is much more important(in the short term at least).

Edit: to the post above this, i think you misunderstood azz. he is right. i can download an ubuntu iso built _today_ 24/7/365. I can download a devel version of an app 5 minutes after bug 1/15 is fixed whereas with windows, you would have to wait for 1.0.1 to be released with all 15 bugfixes.

aysiu
August 27th, 2005, 04:19 AM
WRONG!
1) Open source is what becomes better in small increments because people work on it in their free time which diminishes as the main guy in charge gets older and busier.
Closed source actually gets better by leaps and bounds because people who work on it get paid and are accountable. Most windows third party apps are way way better than their open source counterparts even though u might have to pay through your nose for them. NO ONE can contest that fact. I buy your reasoning on one level, but it's not true all across the boards, really. For one thing, I find Firefox a far superior browser to Internet Explorer. Also, I have yet to find a closed source FTP program that's as easy to use and powerful as FileZilla. It all depends on the program.

And, if you really believe what you're saying, why are you using an open source operating system?

I happen to very much agree with what this article (http://www.neilgunton.com/open_source_myths/) says about closed v. open source. Here's a snippet: "I think it's true to say that while many Open Source projects are superior to their close-source counterparts (Apache being a prime example), it's also true to say that a closed-source approach to a problem can have some benefits. Some of these benefits include having a more focused direction for the team, given the fact that there is (usually) just one manager and team leader, firmer schedules and deadlines, tighter management, profit incentives, salaries and bonus motivations. While this can also be true for open source projects, the "design by committee" that goes on with community projects often results in a more bloated and less focused product that tries to be all things to all people. Also, sometimes a simple lack of funds on the part of the developer can hamper the development."

Actually, even better than that article is this list of pros and cons of open source by the same guy:

http://www.neilgunton.com/open_source_pros_cons/

arnieboy
August 27th, 2005, 04:31 AM
I buy your reasoning on one level, but it's not true all across the boards, really. For one thing, I find Firefox a far superior browser to Internet Explorer. Also, I have yet to find a closed source FTP program that's as easy to use and powerful as FileZilla. It all depends on the program.

And, if you really believe what you're saying, why are you using an open source operating system?
READ before replying.
Internet Explorer is not a "third party app" on windows. Its a crappy windows homegrown product which has become a web standard and unfortunately so.
There are a million (believe me a million) FTP programs on windows and some of them u gotta pay for. but an FTP program is not where comparisons set in. Comparisons set in things like office suites!graphics softwares!sophisticated scientific apps!
am spent and the list hasnt even started.
I use FOSS (as I like to call it) for the kick of using something which was built on a vessel of intrepid arrogance consummately focused towards proving the fact that a product can me made with the power of collective intellect whose sole intention is NOT monetary benefit but a dream to challenge those who wish to monopolize the implementation of their intellectual capacities solely based on their drive to become wealthier.

aysiu
August 27th, 2005, 04:34 AM
READ before replying.
There are a million (believe me a million) FTP programs on windows and some of them u gotta pay for. but an FTP program is not where comparisons set in. Comparisons set in things like office suites!graphics softwares!sophisticated scientific apps!
am spent and the list hasnt even started. Sorry. I didn't read in your original post that FTP programs don't count. Next time I'll be telepathic.

npaladin2000
August 27th, 2005, 04:38 AM
I could not dissagree with you more. You are not a free software advocate.

I'm a freedom advocate. If I create something, it's my choice to give it to the world or not. 999 times out of 1000 I'll just open the thing and set it loose; it's nto a big deal for me. But everyone is entitled to choose what they do with something they have created (Software is a creation, like a painting or a piece of music, and a lot of hard work needs to go into it). If you want people to not be able to choose what they can do with their own creations, then you are taking away their freedom to choose. Incidentally, the GPL, on the other hand doesn't take away a choice...if they make a choice to fork or improve a piece of GPL source then they are making a choice to abide by the terms of the agreement. The GPL IS a choice. Choise is wonderful. Choice is freedom. Choice is nirvana with big icy-cold kegs of beer and free satellite HDTV, all channels included.

Incidentally, I also advocate your freedom to hate closed-source software in favor of open-source only. Just so we're starting off on the right foot. ;) I just don't advocate forcing ALL software to be FOSS, because that takes away the freedom of choice.


Do they not include the ipw2200 firware because of it's source or because the firmware is not licened for distribution. There is a big difference there.

There never has been a law which requires something to be closed source.

From the madwifi project's FAQ Wiki:



Why is the HAL closed source?

The Atheros chipsets can tune to a wide range of frequencies, part of them being outside the bands that are permitted for unlicensed use (ISM-bands). Non-ISM-frequencies are licensed by various regulatory agencies for different purposes, such as military or civil radar use, military communications, wireless local loop installations, and so on.

Since the Atheros chipsets are designed to work world wide, the HAL enforces limitations in regards to accessible frequencies, transmit power and so on, in order to comply to the local regulations in a given region.

If you are in a region that limits the number of frequencies, say, Japan, it is illegal to broadcast out of those assigned channels, even though the chip is capable of operating outside of the limited frequency band assigned by Japan. One of the reasons for limiting access to the source of the HAL layer is exactly to the purpose of limiting circumvention of the regional regulations that may apply.

It has to be closed to keep from violating federal communications regulations in the US, and other localities; it's not a thing to do about licensing. Unless you'd like them to design cards and transmitters specifically for each locality so they can open up the source? I hope you're ready for the price of wifi cards to at least double because of the manufacturing inefficiency involved. Personally, I think that would suck.


There are no situations where a closed source app is better than demanding it to be opened. I agree that you are hard-pressed to find a truly 100 percent free GPL'ed box anywhere, but that does not mean that upholding the ideal that software is not property is invalid. Sometimes you just have to wait, or work on the project yourself.

It's actually all-or-nothing. If it is acceptable for one proprietairy application to never become free and never have a free counterpart, then there is no point to free software. You either agree with the principles or you do not.

Nothing in this world is ever 100% good or evil, right or wrong, best or worst, black or white. The world is a bunch of grey areas.


There is nothing stopping someone who believes in proprietary software from using and enjoying linux. You do not have to be millitant to find the software useful. There is nothing wrong with feeling that way either. Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

Glad you feel that way...at least you acknolwedge my right to disagree too (I was getting worried until I read this part). But we have a huge difference of opinion (and it is ALL opinion...well, except for the bit about closed source components of wifi drivers..hehe). ;) I just hoope this doesn't get violent like the way vi/emacs discussions usually get (TASTES GREAT! LESS FILLING!)


The only real difference between operating systems is the values on which they are based. The thing that makes linux better than windows is not how it is built or distributed, but that it is Free Libre open source at the core.

Proprietairy software's usefulness pretty much ends when you buy it, only getting better in small quantities and at a fixed timeframe. FLOSS gets better and better with use.

Again, grey area. I can think of a couple of nice FOSS (Where are you getting the freaking L? Floss gets used on teeth :-P ) packages that died. There are times when it's better for some (safer-feeling) when a big company that depends on making money on that software to put food on the table standing behind it rather than a community that might one day just up and decide to go on permanent vacation. And yes, I know that even then it could be open-source software that the big company stands behind. Or it might not be...I'd say that's up to the people who created the software.

I just think that allowing only one way of doing things will NEVER be the right way. Everyone's different, which means a one-size-fits-all approach applied to any part of humanity will forever be doomed. :) Heck, even though i think there's too many distros out there, I'd NEVER advocate coming down to only ONE. Just 10 or 15 or so. (Adding the main derivations of each one would probably bring that number to about 40 choices or so).

And shouldn't we split this into another thread? ;)

npaladin2000
August 27th, 2005, 04:41 AM
Internet Explorer is not a "third party app" on windows.


Actually, wasn't MSIE originally illegally forked/stolen from a copy of NCSA Mosaic? Wouldn't that make it a 3rd party app? ;)

Must lighten up the mood....

drizek
August 27th, 2005, 04:43 AM
READ before replying.
Internet Explorer is not a "third party app" on windows. Its a crappy windows homegrown product which has become a web standard and unfortunately so.
There are a million (believe me a million) FTP programs on windows and some of them u gotta pay for. but an FTP program is not where comparisons set in. Comparisons set in things like office suites!graphics softwares!sophisticated scientific apps!
am spent and the list hasnt even started.
I use FOSS (as I like to call it) for the kick of using something which was built on a vessel of intrepid arrogance consummately focused towards proving the fact that a product can me made with the power of collective intellect whose sole intention is NOT monetary benefit but a dream to challenge those who wish to monopolize the implementation of their intellectual capacities solely based on their drive to become wealthier.
did you not get the memo? what is the largest, most complete encyclopedia on earth?

oh, right, wikipedia.

as for graphics apps, digikam is better than iphoto or adobe photoshop albums, both of which are crap. as for advanced photo editing, krita is new but it already has some features even photochop does not have.

openoffice is fine for every possible use. the only thing it lacks are templates(will come naturally with increased adoption). the only thing stopping OOo from being installed on 100% of home computers is proprietary formats.

arnieboy
August 27th, 2005, 04:46 AM
Actually, wasn't MSIE originally illegally forked/stolen from a copy of NCSA Mosaic? Wouldn't that make it a 3rd party app? ;)

Must lighten up the mood....
The recursive acronym GNU itself is a tongue in cheek rebuke to similar accusations. If Linux itself is not stolen from Unix then I am Rupert Murdoch.

arnieboy
August 27th, 2005, 04:50 AM
Sorry. I didn't read in your original post that FTP programs don't count. Next time I'll be telepathic.
u can quote me from the rest of my post that u conveniently omitted. Dont worry! I wont frame u for a million dollars on that one. It's GPL-ed.

aysiu
August 27th, 2005, 04:54 AM
openoffice is fine for every possible use. the only thing it lacks are templates(will come naturally with increased adoption). the only thing stopping OOo from being installed on 100% of home computers is proprietary formats. Yes and no. I'd say, for the most part, yes. I mean, what does the average home (or even office, in most offices) user use Microsoft Office for? They type, occasionally bold, spellcheck, and do a simple formula or two in Excel. However, OO lacks a built-in grammar checker, which I know a lot of people use. Honestly, though, I haven't had any problems saving documents in the .doc format with OO. It's a perfect substitute for me...

npaladin2000
August 27th, 2005, 05:03 AM
Yes and no. I'd say, for the most part, yes. I mean, what does the average home (or even office, in most offices) user use Microsoft Office for? They type, occasionally bold, spellcheck, and do a simple formula or two in Excel. However, OO lacks a built-in grammar checker, which I know a lot of people use. Honestly, though, I haven't had any problems saving documents in the .doc format with OO. It's a perfect substitute for me...

It's also missing an Outlook equivalent. I think they're working on some Firefox extensions that will do the same job as MSOffice in IE, but I haven't seen anything yet.

Evolution and Kontact are nice Outlook competitors except each one is missing a piece or two and both of them are too DE-specific. Kontact actually jumped a little ahead of Outlook and Evolution with it's last release; Evolutions next release should catch it up (or someone will release a full RSS plugin for Evolution).

OpenOffice's best shot is probably to co-opt Thunderbird and assist with the project to convert it into a full PIM along the lines of Kontact and Evolution. Unfortunately, I think they're working on their own instead. ;)

drizek
August 27th, 2005, 05:22 AM
why does thunderbird need to be in the suite?

Productivity and PIM should remain independent. its not like koffice cant merge with kontact or OOo cant take thunderbird under its wing, but there really just isnt a reason to.

MS charges for Office, and most people want both PIM and productivity, so they "bundle" them together.

npaladin2000
August 27th, 2005, 05:28 AM
why does thunderbird need to be in the suite?

Productivity and PIM should remain independent. its not like koffice cant merge with kontact or OOo cant take thunderbird under its wing, but there really just isnt a reason to.

MS charges for Office, and most people want both PIM and productivity, so they "bundle" them together.

Never said it needed to be IN the suite....it could be ASSOCIATED with the suite, however..some sort of mutual backing agreement or something.

And it's a better choice than associating with either Evolution or Kontact, since you alienate the other half of the Linux desktop environments whichever one you pick. ;)

drizek
August 27th, 2005, 05:38 AM
Never said it needed to be IN the suite....it could be ASSOCIATED with the suite, however..some sort of mutual backing agreement or something.

And it's a better choice than associating with either Evolution or Kontact, since you alienate the other half of the Linux desktop environments whichever one you pick. ;)
thunderbird is a gtk app, so it still alienates the bigger half ;)

OOo has good integration with both KDE and gnome, so i think if it will actually get a PIM suite, it would have to be home grown to work well with both without any problems.

also, kontact is not available for windows, and evolution isnt either ATM afaik. Its best to just let gnome users use evolution, kde users use kontact and windows users use thunderbird(or pay a hundred bucks for a standalone copy of outlook, lol).

Knome_fan
August 27th, 2005, 08:26 AM
Wow, this thread really has descended into a stupid flamewar.

Some comments:
1. About Fedora, OpenOffice and Java:
I'm quite sure that Ubuntu being able to ship OO without a propietary Java is largely due to the work RedHat has done to make this possible. RedHat has probably done the most work of all Free Software companies when it comes to setting up a free Java stack that allows programs like OO and Eclipse to run natively without a propietary Java. So instead of doubting RedHats commitment to free software here, a simple Thank You Red Hat is probably in order.

2. About Backports:
I agree with a lot of people that the OP should have chosen his words more wisely. What he said sure sounded like a bashing of the backports developers, even if it wasn't intended that way. But, and as so often there is a but, I think he has a valid point. If you take a look at the backports forum there are quite a lot of people frustrated with the current speed, or lack thereof, of backports and I think it's a valid to point out that Ubuntu might be behind other projects when it comes to the latest and greatest being easily available.

3. About open and closed source software
You guys are really engaging in a rather, dare I say, uninformed debate. Claiming that one inherently produces better software than the other is simply stupid. If anything my experience shows me that there are instances where the open source software is better and instances where the closed source software is better.

This of course doesn't mean that I don't think that a software being open source isn't a merit in itself, though.

And arnieboy, your description of open source software as something being developed by some guy in his free time is an argument that hasn't been true for a long time now. Sure there are those projects, as there are closed source projects that work this way, but there are a lot of open source projects that get developed professionally. To make it short, contrary to what some people here still seem to believe, open source does not mean not commercial.

GeneralZod
August 27th, 2005, 09:41 AM
I think it's getting to the point of silly sometimes. Certain things HAVE to be closed, some of them by law. Any wireless driver is going to have a closed-source component; FCC regulations require it here. .

I don't think this is true at all. Isn't orinoco part of the default kernel? What about the drivers here (rt2x00.serialmonkey.com)?

Edit:



So instead of doubting RedHats commitment to free software here, a simple Thank You Red Hat is probably in order.


Couldn't agree more. People don't seem to appreciate just how much Red Hat have contributed to Free Software (for example, they are very heavy contributers to the GNU toolchain. Actually, the list goes on and on so I'm not even going to attempt to list their contributions). So a big Thank You to Red Hat from me :D



And arnieboy, your description of open source software as something being developed by some guy in his free time is an argument that hasn't been true for a long time now. Sure there are those projects, as there are closed source projects that work this way, but there are a lot of open source projects that get developed professionally. To make it short, contrary to what some people here still seem to believe, open source does not mean not commercial.

Hear hear. Far too many people conflate "open source" with "hobbiest" development, which serves only to muddy the debate.

npaladin2000
August 27th, 2005, 10:45 AM
I don't think this is true at all. Isn't orinoco part of the default kernel? What about the drivers here (rt2x00.serialmonkey.com)?

What drivers there? That apears to be a dead link. :)

And as for the Orinoco/Prism drivers, I think those older hards used hard firmware; all the source I looked at indicates the firmware modules are firmware LOADERS. So they must be loading it from the card itself.

Some of the newer WLAN cards have soft firmware. Kinda like back when someone had the bright idea for Winmodems ;)

GeneralZod
August 27th, 2005, 10:50 AM
What drivers there? That apears to be a dead link. :)

Grrr...site's down at the moment! They are the drivers for these cards:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=53035&highlight=167g

Knome_fan
August 27th, 2005, 11:56 AM
About the FCC regulations requiring closed source code.

IANAL, but from what I understand there is indeed a provision by the FCC that gets interpreted by some vendors to require closed source, though this also seems to be up for debate.

For the actual regulation take a look here:
http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2001/fcc01264.pdf
In appendix A, page 2, it defines a new paragraph, 2.932(e). Also see the earlier "discussion" section, paragraphs 30-32.
Link found here:
http://lists.bawug.org/pipermail/wireless/2003-July/027522.html

For a take on this issue by the madwifi project take a look here:
http://madwifi.sourceforge.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=hal

For some more information:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/4118

P.S.: This is really getting off topic, I think.

angkor
August 27th, 2005, 03:00 PM
So it does! One guy decides to go to Fedora and it ends up being a discussion about oss vd closed source... :? :)

Btw, I couldn't agree more with your earlier statement about the thread, KnomeFan.

az
August 27th, 2005, 08:51 PM
Wow, this thread really has descended into a stupid flamewar.

Actually, I think this is a great conversation!



Some comments:
1. About Fedora, OpenOffice and Java:


Well, then great! I was only asking because I did not know. I am sorry for insinuating something about fedora, when they have such a good track record.


2. About Backports:

I think the problem is that there is no upstream packaging for some applications. The rule is if it is in Debian Sid, it can coaxed into Backports.


3. About open and closed source software


I have an allergic reaction to anyone who argues that Proprietairy software is neccessary. I know I hold an extremist point of view, when compared with the regular "it just works!" ubuntu user. I would never expect that everyone should share the same views.

However, the facts are that there is no argument for saying that some software *must* be proprietairy. There may be practical reasons to use proprietary software (for example, the LGPL) but one cannot say that there will always be a need for proprietary software.

I want to be clear on on this. I am not saying that proprietairy software is evil and should go away., I am saying that no software ever *has* to be proprietary. That is what I am calling black-or-white. You cannot say that you beleive in open source software and not beleive that.

So, K-Fan, other than that I think you are bang on.

mstlyevil
August 27th, 2005, 09:28 PM
And arnieboy, your description of open source software as something being developed by some guy in his free time is an argument that hasn't been true for a long time now. Sure there are those projects, as there are closed source projects that work this way, but there are a lot of open source projects that get developed professionally. To make it short, contrary to what some people here still seem to believe, open source does not mean not commercial.


I have to agree with you on this point Knome_fan. Mozilla was started and funded by Netscape who's parent company is AOL who's parent company is Time-Warner. The idea of going open-source was to bring improvements and refinements for the Netscape Navigator package that was developed and tested in the real world. Netscape hopes to one day take back it's position as the prefered browser by developing Mozilla and Firefox and incorporating the best features of these browsers in their application. So commercial and open sourced projects can and do benefit each other. If there was no way to make money with open source software, then there would be no open source software. that is just the ultimate fact of life that it is money that makes the world go around.

floppy
August 27th, 2005, 09:49 PM
... one cannot say that there will always be a need for proprietary software... I am saying that no software ever *has* to be proprietary..

Imagine you own a company that needs to have software to oversee a process dependent on a new line of machinery that will give you a competitive edge and perhaps allow you to expand your workforce. At a minimum, you know it will keep you in business for a while. Without it, you might not.

You can:
1) Write the software, thereby taking time, thereby potentially losing your advantage.
2) Buy it and get on with your real business.
3) Go into another business.

There will always be a need and a place for proprietary software. One doesn't always have the luxury of waiting and developing.

That's just economics.

arnieboy
August 28th, 2005, 03:32 AM
just for the record and the fact that I started this thread, I am back to ubuntu. Fedora's implementation of SDL has become quite buggy of late due to conflicts with the latest libc packages.
Long live Ubuntu (backports or no backports)! :D

arnieboy
August 28th, 2005, 03:36 AM
And arnieboy, your description of open source software as something being developed by some guy in his free time is an argument that hasn't been true for a long time now. Sure there are those projects, as there are closed source projects that work this way, but there are a lot of open source projects that get developed professionally. To make it short, contrary to what some people here still seem to believe, open source does not mean not commercial.
admitted: quite a few open source projects are dealt with professionally (examples: kernel, mozilla, openoffice, apache to name a few). However, there is still a large chunk of open source software which is the "gets done in my freetime" kind. Thats where it loses out in part to closed source software.

drizek
August 28th, 2005, 03:58 AM
admitted: quite a few open source projects are dealt with professionally (examples: kernel, mozilla, openoffice, apache to name a few). However, there is still a large chunk of open source software which is the "gets done in my freetime" kind. Thats where it loses out in part to closed source software.
KDE is mostly developed by people in their free time. QT is made by trolltech, but KDE itself is a huge community driven project and it is unparalleled on any OS IMO.

Lately however, there have been a number of KDE devs being hired by companies and payed fulltime to work on KDE. like linspire who are sponsoring a kopete developer and trolltech who employed the head kicker/plasma developer.

Personally, i think governments and hardware companies should be the ones sponsoring opensourece developers. more eyecandy means more sales for nvidia, and better photo management means more sales for kodak. better audio players means more sales for iriver, etc.

arnieboy
August 28th, 2005, 04:09 AM
KDE is mostly developed by people in their free time. QT is made by trolltech, but KDE itself is a huge community driven project and it is unparalleled on any OS IMO.
the KDE base system is managed by a highly professional team. However most of the apps as u said are developed by people in their free time. As a result apart from amarok and k3b (both of which are maintained professionally again) not too many KDE apps stand out against closed source competitors.
My main point is that the involvement has to be professional and dedicated be it open source or closed source.

az
August 28th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Imagine you own a company that needs to have software to oversee a process dependent on a new line of machinery that will give you a competitive edge and perhaps allow you to expand your workforce. At a minimum, you know it will keep you in business for a while. Without it, you might not.

You can:
1) Write the software, thereby taking time, thereby potentially losing your advantage.
2) Buy it and get on with your real business.
3) Go into another business.

There will always be a need and a place for proprietary software. One doesn't always have the luxury of waiting and developing.

That's just economics.

Actually, that is not a reason to say that there will always be a place for proprietairy software. In the above scenario, the software is proprietary, but nothing says that it has to be. People distribute software under proprietary licences, but that is usually because they do not know the advantages of making it FLOSS.

They do it because there is a tendancy to do it, not because it *has* to be that way. There are in fact a great many dissadvantages to running a business while depending on one vendor's proprietary software. They got you right where they want you.

Your story is a lot like the Richard Stallman anectode about a printer he bought which came with proprietairy drivers. The company refused to give him the source code so that he could improve it. This was the catalyst for him to write the GPL.

Another example, along the same vein as your's are the heart-lung machines at my workplace. They come equiped with the most embarrasingly obsolete and disfunctional software. We paid something like $200 000.00 per machine and another $15 000 per machine for a licence to that stupid software (win95-based: purchased in 2002!)

Now, if this software was open sourced, I could improve it. I could add features and fix bugs. As it is, the software is worked on by one engineer in Germany who can only devote a few hours per week to it's development because the company has him working on other projects.

As you say, that's just economics.

My life is made more difficult because the software is proprietary and the company will not consider changing their policy. What is worse, these machines have a five to ten year lifespan, after which they are typically send to underpriviledged countries.

in the same way I can extend the usefulness of a PIII, 700Mhz box running linux, I could probably extend the usefulness of those heart-lung machines if the software was opened. It would cost the company next to nothing.

poofyhairguy
August 28th, 2005, 10:38 PM
just for the record and the fact that I started this thread, I am back to ubuntu. Fedora's implementation of SDL has become quite buggy of late due to conflicts with the latest libc packages.
Long live Ubuntu (backports or no backports)! :D

Ever tried Sid?

drizek
August 29th, 2005, 03:18 AM
"dependent on a new line of machinery that will give you a competitive edge"

<idealist>companies shouldn't have a competitive edge. any advancements they make should be available to the public in order to aid human progress</idealist>

anyway, back to KDE. neither amarok nor k3b are developed professionally. IIRC, k3b is only developed by one person. amarok has a few people working on it, but they dont get paid for it.

also, what do you mean by the "kde base system"? the only part of KDE that is developed by professionals is hte QT toolkit. kdebase and kdelibs are community driven as well.

as for kde apps not standing out against closed source ones, go back to around 2001, when kde 2 was around. compare the quality of those apps to the quality of teh apps in kde 3.5, 4 years later. Then, take a look at some windows software from 2001 and compare it to the software today. same crap, different look.

the point is that KDE and FOSS in general are advancing at a much faster pace than the closed source world. so while linux might not have a huge upperhand today, a few years or even months from now, we will start to see a distinct difference between FOSS software and proprietary software. Also, OS is steadily picking up steam, the improvements from here on out will be even more numerous and higher quality than they were in the past.

jdong
August 29th, 2005, 03:38 AM
Of course I'm still maintaining Backports :). With the formation of the official Backports team, we've shifted stability to be the highest priority. As a result, we're urging people to move to the hoary-backports tree on archive.ubuntu.com, and for interest folk to sign up for the Backports mailing list!


With Official backports, Mez has been coordinating much of the upstream communication, and the Ubuntu autobuild system has helped us to work on stability rather than wasting time actually building packages.



As far as why Backports isn't 100% up to date with, say, Fedora or Gentoo, well, it's because Backports strives for production stability. First of all, each release of Ubuntu is a reference platform for developers: If I compile a package for Hoary, I expect it to work on everyone's Hoary, regardless of what updates they've installed. Imagine the confusion if I needed to make 3 separate, incompatible packages for Hoary because I decided to track glibc's CVS patches! So, Libraries are out of the question for Backports.

The remaining apps, well, there's 15,000+ packages in Universe. (are there even 15,000 packages in Fedora+RpmForge? NO) To keep up to date with them all, I need to enter the matrix and clone myself... As a result, I only package what people ask me to, via the many support channels. However, many new programs also demand new libraries, which is an impossibility.


I've released autobuild scripts that I personally use for Backports, so anyone with a bit of courage can attempt to build Backported packages for themselves, as I can't release potentially incompatible packages into Ubuntu...

poofyhairguy
August 29th, 2005, 07:57 AM
However, there is still a large chunk of open source software which is the "gets done in my freetime" kind.

The one that amazes me is enlightenment and Rasterman. That guy is the best programer I have ever known. E17 is SOOOO fast and SOOO pretty. To know taht the default WM for Gnome was Enlightenment at one point, then switched to horrible, awful Metacity makes me wanna cry.

arnieboy
August 29th, 2005, 08:06 AM
Ever tried Sid?
nopes never tried sid or any debian flavor before ubuntu. been a redhat guy for 6 years. I had ony heard about the rock hard stability of debian. now i can actually see it. :)

arnieboy
August 29th, 2005, 08:24 AM
The one that amazes me is enlightenment and Rasterman. That guy is the best programer I have ever known. E17 is SOOOO fast and SOOO pretty. To know taht the default WM for Gnome was Enlightenment at one point, then switched to horrible, awful Metacity makes me wanna cry.
sheer commitment.. as i had put it earlier. closed or open, it always makes a difference.

poofyhairguy
August 29th, 2005, 08:30 AM
sheer commitment.. as i had put it earlier. closed or open, it always makes a difference.

You might like Sid, it seems to fit your personality.

Rasterman has produced 500000 lines of code for e17 the last few years. that is commitment. His job is not even related. He did that FOR FUN!

arnieboy
August 29th, 2005, 08:35 AM
You might like Sid, it seems to fit your personality.

Rasterman has produced 500000 lines of code for e17 the last few years. that is commitment. His job is not even related. He did that FOR FUN!
when Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, it wasnt related to his job either. It was for "fun" as well. and he also was committed. being committed and doing something for fun are not necessarily mutually exclusive in nature... but when they are, then they make a poor example of the philosophy that they try to represent (in this case open source).

poofyhairguy
August 29th, 2005, 08:54 AM
being committed and doing something for fun are not necessarily mutually exclusive in nature... but when they are, then they make a poor example of the philosophy that they try to represent (in this case open source).

Yeah, good thing Linus is not like that.