Could anyone offer some inputs to these queries below, from Mayur of E&TC, Pune?
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, mayur m wrote:
Hello Mr. Fredrick Noronha I am an engineering student of e&tc branch from pune writing u this letter.... I am greatly interested in opensource and free software. i would like to make a career in open source but i have some doubts which i think u can clear:
- There are so many versions of linux so how do the
common people come to know what is best for them. 2)in linux community is there someone controls the development and expansion of the open source free software(someone who is the pathfinder).if there isn�t anyone don�t u think ultimately there will be fragmentation of linux like it happened in the past with Unix. Secondly why is there no democratic body at the core which oversees development of software in open source arena I am talking especially about linux development.A democratic body if formed would not only help development of software and oversee it but at the same time convenience people that linux is not going to get fragmented like Unix did and rise confidence in minds of the common user about linux and open source which could further be strengthened by the participation of linux user groups.
3)The companies supporting free software&open source are supporting with what motives is quite questionable. .Is it to bring down a monopoly or make their own (this refers to the current battle between big blue & Redmond giant.and the takeover of SUSE Linux by IBM and NOVELL)
4)After the SCO case I think developers who develop open source software and especially linux must come together ,sit and decide that further such an event does not happen.(it may not affect linux and open source community but it does drive out companies who are ready to embrace linux by bringing suspicion in their minds.)
- Why is everyone trying to make a new package
(distribution) of linux by adding or deleting some applications and some core requirements .Do people need more distributions of linux or applications. The same goes with applications. How many music players is a person supposed to install on his pc.then why develop so many players instead come togethar and develop a music player which is absolutely mind boggling in terms of features. Wouldn�t this be more preffered? What do you think please do tell me ur remarks and do correct me if my line of thinking was wrong somewhere. I would like to have a word from u please do send me a mail.
Yours faithfully; Mayur (Opensourcelover@yahoo.com)
Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
2)in linux community is there someone controls the development and expansion of the open source free software(someone who is the pathfinder).if there isn�t anyone don�t u think ultimately there will be fragmentation of linux like it happened in the past with Unix.
There is strength in diversity, it is better not having someone control free software top down.
In fact GPL was created by FSF to give each individual the freedom to do whatever it is that pleases them, free software is the anti-thesis of centrailzation, and the reason for its success.
Unix cannot be compared to GNU/Linux because of its closed nature, lockins etc.
Secondly why is there no democratic body at the core which oversees development of software in open source arena I am talking especially about linux development.A democratic body if formed would not only help development of software and oversee it but
at the same time convenience people that linux is
not
going to get fragmented like Unix did and rise confidence in minds of the common user about linux and open source which could further be strengthened by the participation of linux user groups.
There are plenty of groups trying to take GNU/Linux in various directions, to meet various needs. One size does not fit all.
3)The companies supporting free software&open source are supporting with what motives is quite questionable. Is it to bring down a monopoly or make their own (this refers to the current battle between big blue & Redmond giant.and the takeover of
SUSE Linux by IBM and NOVELL)
You are right in questioning the motivations of those companies. Corporations have only one motive, and that is profit. I would not be paying so much attention to their antics. The code is still under free software licenses and as long as we avoid their closed software they cannot enslave us in another monopoly.
4)After the SCO case I think developers who develop open source software and especially linux must come together, sit and decide that further such
an event does not happen.(it may not affect linux
and
open source community but it does drive out
companies
who are ready to embrace linux by bringing suspicion in their minds.)
Reminds me of a quote by Gandhi
"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
SCO has $$$, and the media will print whoever has $$$.
The free software people have done and continue to do what they can, see my website for Eben Moglen's speech that is periperally about SCO. There is a lot of awareness that needs to be spread, please join and help the free software movement, by being a torch bearer.
- Why is everyone trying to make a new package
(distribution) of linux by adding or deleting some applications and some core requirements .Do people need more distributions of linux or applications.
There are two reasons one good and one bad. The bad one is that the corporations want to sell something, remember "profits". And differentiation (brands) is one of the ways that they use to convince people to shell out money. The good one is that different people have different needs and I think having a diversity of distributions that meet these needs is a good thing.
The same goes with applications. How many music players is a person supposed to install on his pc.then why develop so many players instead come togethar and develop a music player which is absolutely mind boggling in terms of features. Wouldn�t this be more preffered?
Again it comes down to needs and diversity. Different people find different things as useful. Monopolies and monocultures are not good from a long term point of view.
A few general remarks.
I think that you have not fully understood the value of Freedom, I found that reading "Free Software Free Society" by RMS to be a great influence on my understanding of Freedom of software.
Also I see that you have intermixed Free Software and Open Source, they are completely different philosophies. Open Source folks believe that knowledge can be owned, whereas Free Software movement believes that knowledge should not be owned, and that everybody should have the freedom to use knowledge in any way they see fit.
Thanks Krishna
===== To Reflect, to Inspire and to Empower http://www.employees.org/~krishnap/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Frederick Noronha (FN) said on Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:24:34PM +0530,:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, mayur m wrote:
- There are so many versions of linux so how do the
Yes. If you check ftp.kernel.org, you will find several versions, starting from pre 1.00 to 2.6.6 pre-release.
Take your pick. :-)
common people come to know what is best for them.
Does a software student require same things a lawyer like me needs?? Does a sysadmin require same software as a journalist?? No????
Which is why we have different distros.
And to help me and you to choose between distros, we have friends and gurus. If you do not have access to a friend / guru who will do this free of cost (and law permits him to do it), you certainly can hire a consultant ( and law permits this too). Neither the friend/guru nor consultant option is available in the non-free world.
2)in linux community is there someone controls the development
His name is Linus Torvalds. He controls the kernel development process.
and expansion of the open source freesoftware(someone who is the pathfinder).if there isn�t anyone don�t u think ultimately there will be fragmentation of linux like it happened in the past with Unix.
There are several other persons working on the Kernel ... Andrea Arcangeli, Andrew Morton, Alan Cox, ... (that is only the `A's ...)
Where is the fragmentation???
Seriously, we have well defined standards (think of the filesystem hierarchy standards, LSB, the zillion RFCs, etc) and if you write code compliant with these standards, every app. will be a drop-in substitute for another.
Secondly why is there no democratic body at the core
It *IS* democratic. See above.
If you meant the whole operating system and not the kernel, start from www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html.
Also see debian.org.
A democratic body if formed would not only help development of software and oversee it but at the
See above.
3)The companies supporting free software&open source are supporting with what motives is quite questionable. .Is it to bring down a monopoly or make their own (this refers to the current battle between big blue & Redmond giant.and the takeover of SUSE Linux by IBM and NOVELL)
It is not possible to have monopoly over code if you put it under a strong copyleft license. Why bother with the corporates??
4)After the SCO case
Uhhh?? *after*?? Is it over??? <grin>
For best info on the SCO v. IBM, SCO v. Novell, SCO v. RH, see http://www.groklaw.net/
I think developers who develop open source software and especially linux must come together ,
Ummm ... hang around awhile .... and you will eat these words ... <grin> Especially after visiting gnu.org and groklaw.
sit and decide that further such an event does not happen.(it may not affect linux and open source community but it does drive out companies who are ready to embrace linux by bringing suspicion in their minds.)
There is already one project which does this. Read more at www.gnu.org/copyleft/why-assign.html
- Why is everyone trying to make a new package (distribution) of
linux by adding or deleting some applications and some core requirements .
Coz. people's requirements vary. It is result of what marketing MBAs call FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
then why develop so many players instead come togethar and develop a music player which is absolutely mind boggling in terms of features. Wouldn�t this be more preffered?
I want a music player which just plays music when I am alone. I want another which a beautifully useless interface while demo'ing my desktop. I want one to go with X-windows. Another to run in console. Yet another to invoke from GNU Emacs. Obviously, one-size-fits-all will not fit me. How will it fit everybody???
(Opensourcelover@yahoo.com)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Umm..
Ya know what happened to a company called DaimlerChrysler??
Long time back, they purchased a (few) license(s) to an OS called Unix. They (DC) got the binaries. They got the source. They got the right to modify the source. They got the right to deploy unlimited copies, modified or not. IMHO, this license qualifies as an Opensource license.
Then DC decided Unix was not for them. They stopped using it (Unix, that is).
They are now being sued by a company called SCO -- on basis of that old license for Unix, which DC does not use any more. The suit is for not disclosing information about the software DC uses in-house.
`opensource'??? `viral??'
I will keep it as short as I can since the questions have already been answered quite satisfactorily.
I am greatly interested in opensource and free software.
Good. But these are two distinct ideas, and it is a good idea to read up on their philosophies. http://www.gnu.org/ http://www.opensource.org/
http://wahgnube.org/links/#fs for related links I find useful.
i would like to make a career in open source but i have some doubts which i think u can clear:
Noble and brave. Good luck sir.
- There are so many versions of linux so how do the
common people come to know what is best for them.
By Linux, I guess you are referring to the various distributions of GNU/Linux present today. Yes, there are many, but the really major ones are just a handful actually. Some of the big ones are listed here: http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major . The "common people" will know what is best for them based on their needs. You should read up about who the distribution is designed for, from pages like I just listed and make an informed decision. All the major ones are simple enough to use. As a new user, you could first try Mandrake. It is pretty, and it almost "just works". The term 'Linux' is usually used for the kernel of the OS itself, available at kernel.org as pointed out. In general you will use the latest stable version of this.
2)in linux community is there someone controls the development and expansion of the open source free software(someone who is the pathfinder).if there isn?t anyone don?t u think ultimately there will be fragmentation of linux like it happened in the past with Unix.
The answer to this and a lot of other questions, is just one word - meritocracy. It is the fundamental basis of the development model. In the community, there are "project leaders" such as Linus Torvalds for the linux kernel that control the general direction of the project. But usually, they get to be in that state by founding the project, and retain it with their technical ability. If someone is better, they will come along and do a better job. Then that software will become the standard version adopted by everyone. So to answer your question, there is a lot of fragmentation, as different people are involved in projects doing similar things, but this turns out to be a good thing. First, there are many choices for the end user, and the "best choice" is purely based on a meritocracy. Therefore the programs that end up on your distribution are usually the best of breed. Since this is a technical decision, everyone usually adopts similar/the same things, which reduces fragmentation.
Secondly why is there no democratic body at the core which oversees development of software in open source arena I am talking especially about linux development.A democratic body if formed would not only help development of software and oversee it but at the same time convenience people that linux is not going to get fragmented like Unix did and rise confidence in minds of the common user about linux and open source which could further be strengthened by the participation of linux user groups.
Again, though democracy is a nice word, meritocracy is how all of this functions. Choosing the best of breed, since that is all you need to get the job done usually, reduces fragmentation. Sure, there are some competing projects of comparable level of quality, for instance GNOME and KDE. This results in most distributions bundling them both or choosing one. This sort of '"fragmentation" is ok, as the competition ensures they both become as good as they can be.
There are some standards in place (which not everybody necessarily follow), such as the Linux standard base project: http://www.linuxbase.org/ which attempt "To develop and promote a set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for Linux."
I think this is the sort of thing you are worrying about.
3)The companies supporting free software&open source are supporting with what motives is quite questionable. .Is it to bring down a monopoly or make their own (this refers to the current battle between big blue & Redmond giant.and the takeover of SUSE Linux by IBM and NOVELL)
Every company aims to make money through the course of their business. So their motives will always be "questionable". But employing highly skilled developers costs money, and they are willing to do it, to make sure the changes they want in the codebases be added. Of course, they primarily do this to forward their own interests, but since the code is free from that point, everyone benefits. Arguably, the software projects with a lot of corporate backing progress faster than other "hobby projects" in general. Plus, for instance, such backing gives the developers access to expensive and high end machines to test their cool code, which they would otherwise not have access to or been able to afford. So it does have its benefits.
4)After the SCO case I think developers who develop open source software and especially linux must come together ,sit and decide that further such an event does not happen.(it may not affect linux and open source community but it does drive out companies who are ready to embrace linux by bringing suspicion in their minds.)
There are some fundamental advantages to the development model being open. There is no need to sit down and talk. Everything is very well documented and everyone knows who put what in when and so on. Any source control mechanism is fairly sophisticated. Any questions regarding the origin of code can be traced back to the author who committed it fairly easily.
- Why is everyone trying to make a new package
(distribution) of linux by adding or deleting some applications and some core requirements .Do people need more distributions of linux or applications. The same goes with applications. How many music players is a person supposed to install on his pc.then why develop so many players instead come togethar and develop a music player which is absolutely mind boggling in terms of features. Wouldn?t this be more preffered?
To scratch an itch. Maybe existing software or distributions doesn't do exactly what you want it to do, how you want it to do it. To learn. Don't you think some people might find it a fun and learning experience writing an ogg vorbis decoder, or rolling out their own distribution? I know I did. To try something new. Nothing like technical minded people without social lives, and resulting free time and infinite curiosity. To implement something differently, or for philosophical reasons. Sure, KDE existed, and did a good enough job. But at one point, QT wasn't free software. GNOME was born. Though on the surface it was a redundancy, its existence ensured the freeing of QT on X and other platforms. There are many more I could add to this list, but the common theme is, "a need exists" which might not be apparent to everyone.
No one is forcing you to use or install any of it. Again, it is a meritocracy. The ones that aren't so good (be it distribution or music player) will die a natural death as everyone uses, and forwards development of, the other better ones.
What do you think please do tell me ur remarks and do correct me if my line of thinking was wrong somewhere. I would like to have a word from u please do send me a mail.
Yours faithfully; Mayur (Opensourcelover@yahoo.com)
Welcome, Harish
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, mayur m wrote:
<>
- There are so many versions of linux so how do the
common people come to know what is best for them.
Try www.distrowatch.com
2)in linux community is there someone controls the development and expansion of the open source free
fragmentation of linux like it happened in the past with Unix.
The 'Linux Standards Base' by www.freestandards.org aims to do that.
Secondly why is there no democratic body at the core which oversees development of software in open source arena
Generally open source software is a meritocracy - you get more votes or more influence on one particular project by contributing more/better to the project. It seems fair to me that Linus Torvalds has much more influence in the future direction of Linux than I have.
3)The companies supporting free software&open source are supporting with what motives is quite questionable. .Is it to bring down a monopoly or make their own
Theoretically, you cannot have a monopoly with open source since the source code will always be available to stop this. IBM and Novell know that a portion of a large pie is better than most of a tiny crumb. So they are both working aggresively to increase the size of the pie (open source).
4)After the SCO case I think developers who develop open source software and especially linux must come together ,sit and decide that further such an event does not happen.(it may not affect linux and open source community but it does drive out companies who are ready to embrace linux by bringing suspicion in their minds.)
An increased awareness of copyright law, patent law, fair use etc. is necessary for all software developers, both open source and proprietary. Hopefully this will be a positive outcome of SCO.
- Why is everyone trying to make a new package
(distribution)
Diversity vs duplication of effort - you could argue both ways. A Linux distribution is unlike a traditional engineering project - it's easy to create a new one, a few days' work, and a huge financial burden to keep it alive. So, many people start distros then they slowly die unless they can reach a critical mass.
Yours faithfully; Mayur (Opensourcelover@yahoo.com)
Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Regards Imran William Smith Malaysia
Secondly why is there no democratic body at the core which oversees development of software in open source arena
Generally open source software is a meritocracy - you get more votes or more influence on one particular project by contributing more/better to the project.
While browsing through: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.html :
<quote> These files were obtained via FTP from the UUNET server in 1992 and 1993 (that is, at times approximately corresponding to the dates encoded in their names). I picked up all the things that seemed relevant. Similarly, UUNET may have chosen documents, from those publicly available, that seemed relevant to them. UUNET and BSDI had significant relationships.
The files are as I found them. There are some strange characters in them; whether these result from an OCR process or character-set strangeness in computer originals I do not know. </quote>
We are not very far away from 1992-93, and of course, in spite of `some strange characters' all the documents are substantially clear. We should be concerned if our works would be readable and usable with 100% accuracy after years, decades, centuries or milleniums down the line.
It is important to have a minimum standard for text files and for program code, so that they are readable and usable down the years.
Existing organisations have pointed objectives. For instance, http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/overview/overview.aspx?menuid=3 would say that the `ANSI Federation’s primary goal is to enhance the global competitiveness of U.S. business and the American quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and ensuring their integrity.'
Probably FSF could draw up an inflexible and rigid minimum standard, for text and program code, and promote its use to enable continuity and stability where it is need the most - like for instance in legal documentation.
-
Frederick Noronha (FN) -
Harish Narayanan -
Imran William Smith -
Krishna Pagadala -
Mahesh T. Pai -
Ramanraj K