Ubuntu

[welo]

@thaimite

Yes, the user should have the choice, and the home user definitely DOES have the choice.

I do not defend Microsoft and its practices (but I do defend its products against unreasonable bashing sometimes).

I do oppose simplifying and generalizing of problems, and to judge the commercial software industry based on the wrongdoings of Microsoft is unfair.

I do think that a free open source operating system has huge advantages. I do believe that Linux has become very strong and will become even stronger in the future, and I'm looking forward to this. There is a huge interest in a free open source OS, not only by enthusiastic idealists but also by commercial companies. For this reason Linux is and will be successful.

I agree that software quality and ease of use should be the main criteria, and mostly is for the average home user, and neither license model does guarantee high quality. My experience however tells me that in many areas the user has a greater choice with Windows than with Linux. That is however my personal experience and I don't claim to have done an extensive review and comparison of software. And my opinion is based on not the current situation but on the past years, which might distort the pictur

I am not sure I'm ready to descend into this discussion now, because there are so many aspects to it - that might come across a bit unfair, sorry for that.

If I had the possibility I would have setup a dual boot system already a view months ago, but having a Laptop I'm very limited in harddisk space. And I'm not ready to abandon Windows yet, and I don't think it's a good idea to run Linux with a graphical UI in a VM (at least on my system).

welo

[siamect]

@Martin

While you (Martin) obviously find it desirable to push companies to provide access to the software source code in order to be able to analyze the software...

So if the Apache Server had been released under the GPL or any other copyleft license (copyleft = "requiring that the same rights be preserved in modified versions of the work", wikipedia), it most likely would not have been that successful. Or Facebook would most likely not have used Apache as their platform (do they actually use Apache?).

My ideas:

• Keep educating users and lobbying for less restrictive software license terms - but no need to condemn and demonize proprietary software
• Improve laws to forbid unfair license terms - what we know as 'free market' is actually regulated by the state, so why consumer protection laws should not be able to aid here?
• As a company purchasing software: negotiate better license terms, e.g. access to source code for security audits, terms of use when product is discontinued, etc

welo

@Welo

What you write makes very much sense and I'm happy that you take your time to go through the licensing free/non-free, copyleft/non-copyleft giving others knowledge about a subject that really is a jungle for most people.

My desire to push companies to release copyleft software is less than my desire to inform users about their right to choose software that are open to public review. I think the users should use their right to know what software is running one their computer for privacy reasons.

I feel the same way about other products.I want to know the contents of the canned food I eat because I care about my health, allergies etc.

If Facebook is using Apache or not I don't know. I know they are using other GPL software but they are to my knowledge not distributing this software. They are just running it on their servers which is allowed by GPL. So if Apache had been copyleft it would mean no difference for this particular case.

I know it's not the point of the discussion but for correctness, Apache v1.1 license is non-copyleft and Apache v2 license is copyleft...

Apache License, Version 1.1 This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license. It has a few requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL, such as strong prohibitions on the use of Apache-related names.

Apache License, Version 2.0 This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL.

Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in the older version. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions.

If you want to know what your web applications are doing you should look for applications that are using A-GPL licesnse. http://www.gnu.org/l...s/agpl-3.0.html

AGPL is making it necessary for the service providers to publish their software even though it is not distributed but only running as a server application.

http://gitorious.org/ is a successful example of this. The goal with the AGPL is to let users know what the web application they are using is really doing. Secondary effect is that all users and service providers benefit from each other because they all have to publish their changes as well.

But you are right that copyleft licenses in some can be a pain in the butt for companies who want to use copyleft software in their products but are not prepared to give the same rights to the users of their products.

However I see this as a pure egoistical kind of view. If you get a copylefted piece of software and benefit from it, why would you not let others have the same right? If you want to release your software under non-copyleft license then don't use any copylefted software in your products.

I fully agree of your three ideas, I think they are of great value, not only in this forum, but I think the "pain levels" of individuals may differ slightly.

I think you accept more restrictions as a user than what i do.

Martin

[welo]

I feel the same way about other products.I want to know the contents of the canned food I eat because I care about my health, allergies etc.

The difference is that while it is possible to list the ingredients of food to satisfy your wish (which is obviously shared by many and therefore required by law in many countries), this does not disclose the exact recipe and procedure of producing the product. Furthermore human health is surely a more important concern than privacy matters.

I however agree that privacy might be a more important matter than commercial interests So we are back to the question how to achieve one thing (better privacy) without more or less abolishing another thing (commercial software products).

If Facebook is using Apache or not I don't know. I know they are using other GPL software but they are to my knowledge not distributing this software. They are just running it on their servers which is allowed by GPL. So if Apache had been copyleft it would mean no difference for this particular case.

I know it's not the point of the discussion but for correctness, Apache v1.1 license is non-copyleft and Apache v2 license is copyleft...

That's probably correct. I just remember from previous discussions and researches on the subject that 'distribution' - yet again - is a very fuzzy term. Javascript code for instance is distributed to the client when a website is rendered, hence activating the part of the GPL that requires to release the whole application under GPL.

A previous post of yours comes up in my mind, when you complained about how complicated it sometimes is to select from the many different purchase options that some software companies offer. I guess you know about the endless discussions on license (in)compatibilities, and what is considered a 'derivative work' and what not, what is 'linking' and what 'distribution'

Btw the Apache License is not copyleft even in v2, but now considered 'compatible' with GPL v3 by the FSF. I tried to understand what that actually means in one sentence but I couldn't, and to be honest I'm not sure I understand it LOL

Furthermore...

It should be noted, however, that there is a one-way incompatibility between the Apache version 2 and GPL version 3 licenses, in that you cannot include GPL version 3 code in an Apache project without activating the requirement that the entire project be relicensed under the GPL version 3.

source:wikipedia

Great Free (Software) World!

My desire to push companies to release copyleft software is less than my desire to inform users about their right to choose software that are open to public review. I think the users should use their right to know what software is running one their computer for privacy reasons.

Why on earth - if one wants more privacy and better security - does one also require the right of free modification and redistribution??

welo

[siamect]

Why on earth - if one wants more privacy and better security - does one also require the right of free modification and redistribution??

welo

If that's your opinion, you should not use copyleft licensed software. It is up to you,

The "requirement" is really not a requirement at all. The copyright holder is giving this right to the users if the releases his software under a copyleft license...

[siamect]

Javascript code for instance is distributed to the client when a website is rendered, hence activating the part of the GPL that requires to release the whole application under GPL.

Not sure if the definition for distribution is like that, even though you are right if it is... the receiver in this case is not accepting the license and that would complicate the situation even more for websites that runs from proprietary software frameworks.

Many websites have CSS that are licensed under proprietary licenses as well as JavaScript. Pictures and other works of art has the same problem. Google redistribute pictures and are also telling you that this picture may be subject to Copyright restrictions.

With that in mind that the AGPL license exist, I think that the GPL license accept that you distribute JavaScript and other Client side software without requiring the whole pack to be released. That is the whole point of having two licenses.

Later on I found it: it is called the ASP loophole and it was decided to keep it in GPL V3

http://www.opensource.org/node/152

Martin

[welo]

Why on earth - if one wants more privacy and better security - does one also require the right of free modification and redistribution??

If that's your opinion, you should not use copyleft licensed software. It is up to you,

The "requirement" is really not a requirement at all. The copyright holder is giving this right to the users if the releases his software under a copyleft license...

My statement was both an expressed opinion as well as a question? Do I get an answer? Meanwhile I can come up with an answer, but I want to hear yours.

I asked the question because I still believe that Free Software is not the 'only answer' to privacy and security concerns with software.

And it is a 'requirement' because the FSF promotes the GPL, which is 'all or nothing' (open source plus redistribution enforcements).

Linux is GPLed, is it?, still not sure what this means for commercial software development on Linux and linking against system libraries. Didn't find any info on that, but I guess it can be done because there are closed-source applications available on Linux - just wonder why it's not a problem...

You personally might not be interested in closed-source development on Linux, but if you think about Linux as a desktop OS the gaming industry will come to your mind - one often cited reason why people still dual boot.

I found a couple of interesting articles on closed-source software development and open-source business models. I assume a lot of things said there are not news to you, but I do think that they show well why I as software developer question your 'the only way' argument in favor of Free Software.

I just post 3 articles here dealing with different aspects. As with many articles/blog posts, reading the comments section is a must and will balance the opinion expressed in the original posts.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/technology_at_work/archives/2009/07/the_failure_of.html

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2351328/closed-source-applications-for-linux

http://www.swaroopch.com/blog/closed-for-business/

welo

[volk666]

Ubuntu is by far the most popular version of Linux (they are called distros, short from distributions) but it doesn't mean it's the best. Linux Mint, or even Kubuntu might be better alternatives for a newbie.

Mint is basically Ubuntu+non open source but free software, codecs to play dvds or downloaded videos and such. You can get all of that on ubuntu, too, but it has to be done manually, with a few clicks here and there.

Kubuntu is Ubuntu but with a different desktop, called KDE. In my opinion it is far closer to Windows than Ubuntu - it has ONE start button and menus for programs and documents spread from there, and the start panel is at the bottom of the screen, not at the top, like on Ununtu.

KDE has tons of bells and whistles, animated menus, extra information, previews of file content, WIndows aero-like "plasma" effects and so on. It also needs about 1GB or Ram to work smoothly.

Personally I'm going to install the latest OpenSuse with KDE and then download nonOpenSource CD that should install all free software that can't be included with "pure" open source distributions. Opensuse is supported by Novell and they have some drivers, like for graphic cards, straight from nVidia and Ati installed right away.

Kubuntu would be my second choice but from the reviews I gather it's not as well thought out visually as Ubuntu. Ubuntu now is all purple, Kubuntu is like a rainbow. OpenSuse is all green but not as bright as Mint, which is Irish in origin.

Of course all the colors and themes can be changed manually to anything you want.

Oh, and installing programs is very different in Linux. There are online "repositories", you run a kind of "add-remove" program that lists all the software available in those "repos" , search for what you need, mark it to install and then click "apply". Linux then downloads your applications and automatically installs them. You don't normally need to go to a website and download an installer yourself. If you do, choose carefully which version you should install on your distro. There could 32bit and 64bit variants, and Ubuntu uses .deb installers while uses OpenSuse .rpm.

[welo]

Did you really just turn the discussion back to the original question asked? How boring!

(maybe a good opportunity for me to apologize for the hijack, sorry!)

[siamect]

My statement was both an expressed opinion as well as a question? Do I get an answer? Meanwhile I can come up with an answer, but I want to hear yours.

I asked the question because I still believe that Free Software is not the 'only answer' to privacy and security concerns with software.

And it is a 'requirement' because the FSF promotes the GPL, which is 'all or nothing' (open source plus redistribution enforcements).

Linux is GPLed, is it?, still not sure what this means for commercial software development on Linux and linking against system libraries. Didn't find any info on that, but I guess it can be done because there are closed-source applications available on Linux - just wonder why it's not a problem...

You personally might not be interested in closed-source development on Linux, but if you think about Linux as a desktop OS the gaming industry will come to your mind - one often cited reason why people still dual boot.

I found a couple of interesting articles on closed-source software development and open-source business models. I assume a lot of things said there are not news to you, but I do think that they show well why I as software developer question your 'the only way' argument in favor of Free Software.

I just post 3 articles here dealing with different aspects. As with many articles/blog posts, reading the comments section is a must and will balance the opinion expressed in the original posts.

http://www.businessw...failure_of.html

http://stackoverflow...tions-for-linux

http://www.swaroopch...d-for-business/

welo

don't worry I'm keeping it strictly off-topic...

The question you asked is not relevant because it is stating a requirement. FSF promotes a number of licenses but if none of these are according to your taste, use something else... it's up to you. FSF is not the only one you ca follow. You can even create your own little society and publish licenses too if you want. So there are no requirements.

If you want to use free software but you are not willing to obey the will of the copyright holders, then it may be received as a requirement. If that is the case you have the same problem with all licenses. not only copyleft ones.

Basically I don't understand what your point is. Free software is here. Use it if you like. It doesn't make anyone sick, it is not dangerous. There are probably people who want to make it illegal, but I assume you are not one of them. Free software is not forcing itself into any computer.

When it comes to security and encryption related software you simply cannot do it without open source... No one in his right mind would trust a security system without knowing how it works. You can try but...

I'm not an expert in licensing but GPL's definition of distribution is very narrow. If you include the Linux kernel in the package yes you have to use GPL. but most of the time you release your package without the Linux kernel in the same package... at least that's how I understand it. Some routers are using the linux kernel embedded and most of them have the sources under GPL.

Gaming industry is... well not exactly what is should be... I know a couple of now employed gaming programmers and they are underpaid compared to what they would make if they worked as freelance programmers in other fields. They have tried to sell their own games, some of those are innovative but unfortunately the resources for marketing are lacking. Nothing wrong with the products except they used proprietary libraries as they were taught in the university. They are now in a situation that they have to pay runtime licenses for those libraries if they sell their own games or even if they give them away... nice!... had they used free software libraries they could start selling or giving away their software as much as they like. They could dump the prices and made some nice names and in the end made money on nicely packaged distributions and accessories to their games.

I don't want to comment on the links you sent more than I think they all are twisting reality, introducing untrue statements to start with and the rest of the articles are based on that...

Martin

[welo]

Basically I don't understand what your point is.

Well, to be honest, I guess I don't know yet what my point is. I'm still in the process of making up my mind. To be even more honest, radical and cult-like attitudes turn me off, and trigger a natural instinct to oppose that opinion

I repeatedly encounter Linux advocates who simplify and/or deny real world problems related to Linux (in various fields, not only licensing), and I don't like it. (Of course this attitude is not solely owned by Linux groupies and can be found on the Windows side as well).

I want to point out that I found your posts to be knowledgeable, reasonable and moderate, but I occasionally see this kind of attitude 'break through'.

I don't want to comment on the links you sent more than I think they all are twisting reality, introducing untrue statements to start with and the rest of the articles are based on that...

This is a very irritating reaction. Complete denial and refusal to discuss what I'd consider valid concerns.

One link is merely a question(!) of a guy who wants to develop a closed-source application for Linux (actually cross-platform) and asks for advise since there are certain aspects of Linux that make this more complicated compared to other OSes.

Another link is on the experiences of a developer who ported a closed source application to Linux, and his feedback to the Linux community based on this experience.

The first link is definitely a biased and emotional article, albeit from somebody who was frustrated from his experience of leading a commercial Open-Source company. That's why I explicitly mentioned the comments section, because to me the whole read (article plus comments with counter-arguments) was very informative.

Agreed, all articles deal with closed-source / commercial aspects around Linux software which I dare say is not your main concern and maybe also not your area of expertise.

I, however, think that Linux and its users would benefit from an Open Source operating system that not only allows but also encourages both business models, open- and closed source, to allow a greater choice of software and competition, and hopefully quality.

Commercial applications are not really thriving on the Linux platform, and for me this is unfortunate, since this is a major reason why Linux as a desktop OS is still behind Windows in terms of acceptancy and adoption.

That's why I brought up those articles, and mentioned the Linux gaming industry which had a major setback in 2002 when the only major commercial gaming company for Linux (Loki) filed bancruptcy. And I'm not talking about Flash games and alike, I'm talking about the real stuff

There is definitely an interest in some parts of the Linux community to keep closed-source and commercial applications out - you might actually be better informed about the ongoings around closed-source packages in some distros, I remember something about NVIDIA drivers, etc. This article expresses that intention more clearly.

I'm not an expert in licensing but GPL's definition of distribution is very narrow. If you include the Linux kernel in the package yes you have to use GPL. but most of the time you release your package without the Linux kernel in the same package... at least that's how I understand it. Some routers are using the linux kernel embedded and most of them have the sources under GPL.

If it just were that simple...

http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=8988738

http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread87052.html

http://www.the-source.com/2010/04/more-on-gpl-and-derivatives/

Maybe after the lecture of those articles you understand why I repeatedly blamed the GPL to 'enforce' restrictions/requirements, namely that to publish any derivative work under more or less the same (aka compatible) license. The matter is that even using the C header files of a (Linux GPLed) library during compilation will make your project a derivative work, which 'enforces' the GPL (or compatible license) on your project and basically kills the possibility to sell the software.

I've been studying the articles for the past 30 minutes (or more) and conclude that while the legal interpretation is unclear, the intention of the Linux developers (Linus Torvald) is to allow closed-source development on Linux, but 'protect' modifications to the kernel.

peace,

welo

[siamect]

peace,

welo

What is the point of discussing this anyway, we are off topic I get tired and we waste time.

You will never have the same opinion as I do anyway.

We are both much happier trying to help other people instead of messing around this subject....

Martin

[volk666]

In case the OP is still reading this, installation is a breeze with Linux, with most distros you get "live" CD that can let you play with it without installing the thing. Ubuntu can be even installed as a windows program if you start the CD from windows and then you can uninstall it like a windows program.

If you decide to really install it as a dual boot it will detect the existing operating systems, analyze your hard disks and propose install configuration - where Linux should go, how much space it will need, how to adjust your existing partitions and so on. You can either accept the proposal or tweak it if you know what you want.

Then it will replace Windows boot loader with "Grub" and give you a list of boot options, it would have your Linux, your Linux in a safe mode and your Windows entry. You can change which OS will load by default and the delay time, depending on a distro you can also change the look of the boot loader. OpenSuse had a Christmas animation last year, with falling snow and little Santa Claus.

Your existing windows partition will be visible to Linux and you can copy paste and move around whatever files you want, but not vice versa - Windows needs a driver to read Linux partitions, it's free and easy to install, just google it.

If you decide to delete Linux all you'll have to do is to reformat Linux partitions into NTFS or FAT32. You should also recover windows boot loader, from recovery console on windows installation disk, but that's not really necessary - Grub can still start windows even if your fancy menus are gone, it just needs a few commands to find and load windows and then it will remember it and never bother you again.

Edit: What's wrong with Fast Reply editor that leaves div and break tags everywhere?

[welo]

What is the point of discussing this anyway, we are off topic I get tired and we waste time.

You will never have the same opinion as I do anyway.

We are both much happier trying to help other people instead of messing around this subject....

Well, what is the point of ANY discussion then?

Is the goal of a discussion only to convince the other of your own opinion? I guess that attitude is the reason why many discussions ultimately fail.

Another goal could be to get a better understanding of the discussed topic, to clarify misassumptions, misunderstandings, and adopt my own opinion where it turns out to be wrong.

I personally learned quite a bit during our discussion, surely a lot from your statements, but also from my own research that was encouraged by our discussion. My understanding of the subject is much better now than before, and whereas I still don't agree with everything you said (and probably what you will say in the future), I surely adopted my opinion in quite a view points.

What about you? If you continue to present yourself as an advocate of Free Software I find it hard to understand why you consider this discussion wasted time. If it helps, please consider that you convinced a Windows user to think more positively about Free Software and increased my urge to give Linux as a desktop OS another try (even though I can't at the moment due to hardware restrictions). I even keep reflecting about business models around Free Software, and how Free Software might affect my role as software developer (positively) in the future, and TBH this is of course still a major concern of mine.

I apologize for bringing up non-fact aspects into the discussion in my previous post - the reason why I did this is because said attitude is one (other) major reason why I still eye the Linux community suspiciously. The longing for tolerance and openness is one of my major character traits. The Linux community's embrace of the words 'freedom' and 'openness', however, does in my opinion not reflect the intolerant attitude of some of its members

However, I do understand that these in-depth discussions take up a lot of time, it definitely did on my side. So I can accept that there has to be an end to it at one point... for now

over and out!

welo

[pwm]

Linux is GPLed, is it?, still not sure what this means for commercial software development on Linux and linking against system libraries. Didn't find any info on that, but I guess it can be done because there are closed-source applications available on Linux - just wonder why it's not a problem...

For what it's worth, the main reason why this is "not a problem" is because libraries are often licensed under the LGPL (Lesser GPL, previously known as the Library GPL). Basically, provided the closed source application is linking against libraries licensed with the LGPL (or other licenses which permit equivalent terms), the library's license does not "infect" the new software.

You're quite right that if it were not for this alternative licensing arrangement, closed source software would be just about impossible to develop or distribute for a platform employing the GPL (given that such fundamental elements such as the standard C library or equivalent are near-as-dammit mandatory for most software).

Interestingly, the usual suspects continue to strive to make all software free (as in freedom). My personal view is that this ideology is flawed for much the same reasons as its economic predecessor, and that if it were not for the good grace of multiple private and public institutions subsidising the effort, it would have less of a purchase than it does today. That's not to say that it does not have a place - it clearly does, however by the same token, I strongly believe other licensing models should and will persist.

Regards,

Pat.

[thaimite]

What is the point of discussing this anyway, we are off topic I get tired and we waste time.

You will never have the same opinion as I do anyway.

We are both much happier trying to help other people instead of messing around this subject....

Well, what is the point of ANY discussion then?

Is the goal of a discussion only to convince the other of your own opinion? I guess that attitude is the reason why many discussions ultimately fail.

Another goal could be to get a better understanding of the discussed topic, to clarify misassumptions, misunderstandings, and adopt my own opinion where it turns out to be wrong.

I personally learned quite a bit during our discussion, surely a lot from your statements, but also from my own research that was encouraged by our discussion. My understanding of the subject is much better now than before, and whereas I still don't agree with everything you said (and probably what you will say in the future), I surely adopted my opinion in quite a view points.

What about you? If you continue to present yourself as an advocate of Free Software I find it hard to understand why you consider this discussion wasted time. If it helps, please consider that you convinced a Windows user to think more positively about Free Software and increased my urge to give Linux as a desktop OS another try (even though I can't at the moment due to hardware restrictions). I even keep reflecting about business models around Free Software, and how Free Software might affect my role as software developer (positively) in the future, and TBH this is of course still a major concern of mine.

I apologize for bringing up non-fact aspects into the discussion in my previous post - the reason why I did this is because said attitude is one (other) major reason why I still eye the Linux community suspiciously. The longing for tolerance and openness is one of my major character traits. The Linux community's embrace of the words 'freedom' and 'openness', however, does in my opinion not reflect the intolerant attitude of some of its members

However, I do understand that these in-depth discussions take up a lot of time, it definitely did on my side. So I can accept that there has to be an end to it at one point... for now

over and out!

welo

Welo, Siamect

For what it is worth your discussions are not a waste of time, because I and possibly others who are reading this thread have learnt from your discussions. I certainly have found these (off topic) discussions interesting and informative.

For my part I am now very happy with Linux, although I will admit it is infuriating when I find something important I cannot do (edit Visio files or use Autocad) and I have to revert back to Windows for that one operation. I know many problems can be solved using WINE but that is avoiding the problem, and not solving it so I try to stay away from that route unless I have to.

I also find that many things are harder than they should be. However after nearly 30 years of using M$ products (since M$ DOS 2.0) it is only to be expected that old habits will die hard.

Linux needs help to grow, and unless we give it a try it will never improve. I have certainly noticed that since Microsoft let Vista escape (It certainly was not ready for release) from their programmers many people are looking for alternatives to the bloated resource hungry monster and there is now much more interest in the various flavours of Linux. Certainly when I bring my laptp in to wrk and people see the Ubuntu desktop there is a lot of interest so see how it looks and works.

However Welo, I do find your statement about not being in a position to try Linux again a bit of a cop out. Large hard drives for laptops are now very cheap and using something llke Acronis it only takes a few minutes to clone the old drive, and even if for some reason you do not want to go down that route you can install Linux on a portable USB hard disk, or even a Thumb drive with full functionality very easily

Anyway, thanks for the ingesting discussion guys, and see you again on another thread

[welo]

Thanks for your comments, Pat and Thaimite.

For my part I am now very happy with Linux, although I will admit it is infuriating when I find something important I cannot do (edit Visio files or use Autocad) and I have to revert back to Windows for that one operation.

One might argue that the problem here are proprietary file formats, and rightly so to some extent. But the real problem is that the user should have the choice between closed and open source software on Linux. Inferior closed-source software will not hold a chance anyway. And by allowing and encouraging closed-source on Linux you will actually help desktop Linux succeed.

Of course there are downsides to it, and there are factions within the Linux community who actually don't care about the mainstream market at all, and rather want to uphold the principles of the Free Software movement. And principles are of course important, but this is the real world and life taught me that compromises have to be made, nothing is black or white.

So I do understand the idealists within the Free Software movement (and I guess I would consider Martin one of them ), but at the same time I love to challenge them with a 'reality check'. I am still confident that Martin will forgive me my nagging and provoking one day, at the same time I promise that I will not let him off the hook easily

However Welo, I do find your statement about not being in a position to try Linux again a bit of a cop out. Large hard drives for laptops are now very cheap and using something llke Acronis it only takes a few minutes to clone the old drive, and even if for some reason you do not want to go down that route you can install Linux on a portable USB hard disk, or even a Thumb drive with full functionality very easily

Well, that's obviously.... right. JIB lists a 320 GB drive with 1430 THB!!! TBH time is not the constraining factor, money is But prices are definitely lower than I thought.

I have enough experience with Linux as a server OS and from my peeks at Desktop Linux that I know what awaits me. So it is either a complete switch (at least for a view weeks) or nothing at all. Booting from USB is not an option for the very same reason, and its slow.

But it's not a 'cop out' for sure, on a Desktop PC I would have given it another shot long time ago.

welo

[welo]

For what it's worth, the main reason why this is "not a problem" is because libraries are often licensed under the LGPL (Lesser GPL, previously known as the Library GPL). Basically, provided the closed source application is linking against libraries licensed with the LGPL (or other licenses which permit equivalent terms), the library's license does not "infect" the new software.

You're quite right that if it were not for this alternative licensing arrangement, closed source software would be just about impossible to develop or distribute for a platform employing the GPL (given that such fundamental elements such as the standard C library or equivalent are near-as-dammit mandatory for most software).

Thanks for the clarification!

I know about the LGPL and GPL with linking expcetion. I also read about the standard C library being LGPL. Having never developed desktop software for Linux, I wonder whether you run into situations where functionality that should be provided by the platform cannot be used because of programs/libraries being under GPL. And while I understand that as a closed-source developer you cannot expect to take advantage of other people's (free) work, a platform has to provide certain 'infrastructure' to prevent having a developer re-invent the wheel every time. With the Linux community being so eager to spread and encourage Free Software, and the common negative attitude towards commercial/closed-source applications, I see a certain risk.

I honestly don't know, and this is a question not a statement (admittingly from a critical standpoint), and I'm not trying to find something 'wrong'.

Interestingly, the usual suspects continue to strive to make all software free (as in freedom). My personal view is that this ideology is flawed for much the same reasons as its economic predecessor, and that if it were not for the good grace of multiple private and public institutions subsidising the effort, it would have less of a purchase than it does today. That's not to say that it does not have a place - it clearly does, however by the same token, I strongly believe other licensing models should and will persist.

That is probably my point of view as well. Martin's view and what I read during my research actually challenged me to think about a software market without commercial software products (or a lot less), and what this would mean

• for me as a software developer
  
• for the software market as a whole
  
• in terms of innovation and progress
  
• in terms of software quality for the end user
  
• etc
  

I've read an article a couple of days ago (can't find it anymore, used a different PC), where the author basically described the future employment, production and somewhat 'life' style of software developers to those of artists (a reference to artists was found on this thread as well). He basically suggested that only a view software developers will actually be paid to write code. A small number of ingenious software artists will make a living out of it, others will have a daytime job (not as coders) and write code in their free-time, out of pleasure.

I don't think that this is ever going to happen, but the discussion about software development as art is not an uncommon one. And while I always point out that software development can be a very creative process (one reason why I like it), it is more often a very technical and labor-intensive job. I don't think you can compare it to other arts like painting, where you have a creative aspect and a technical aspect (like handling the material, painting techniques, etc). Human resources required to produce a quality piece of software are enormous. Just because there are success stories of small pieces of software written by one or two ingenious coders with a brilliant idea doesn't mean the whole industry is like that.

Let's maybe look at the gaming industry again. There are technical rather simple yet ingenious games (Pacman style, nowadays coded in a view days), but who could come up with a full-blown real-time strategy or 3D shooter game with a team of just 2-3 people?

Of course this is one rather extreme view, and there are many other more realistic scenarios and business models. If I remember correctly Martin's point was that most software development will be done on a project bases and not as a 'product'. I hope I am not misinterpreting him here.

I find this discussion of 'business models' of course of great interest, because I'd like to do software coding as profession, not unpaid and (only) out of pleasure For the end user this is only of interest as far as the result, the availability, choice and quality of software is concerned.

My experience as a server-side Java developer taught me that a market with both open- as well as closed-source solutions might be the best future for all of us (users, developers, business men etc)

welo

[thomo]

I've never used linux but want to try ubuntu on my netbook.

http://www.ubuntu.com/netbook/get-ubuntu/download

I DL'd it on my computer at home, put it onto my external HDD, created the USB drive that they said to do, and nothing. Cannot open it or do anything with it.

All it's done is change the name of my external HDD from my name to 'Pendrive' and fill it full of odd files and folders.

I want to try it as I hear it's faster than Win 7.

[siamect]

I've never used linux but want to try ubuntu on my netbook.

http://www.ubuntu.co...ubuntu/download

I DL'd it on my computer at home, put it onto my external HDD, created the USB drive that they said to do, and nothing. Cannot open it or do anything with it.

All it's done is change the name of my external HDD from my name to 'Pendrive' and fill it full of odd files and folders.

I want to try it as I hear it's faster than Win 7.

You are supposed to boot from the USB stick. Go to the setup, can be the DEL button of F2 or F8 or something right after power on... and change the boot order to use the UBS HD first... Then reboot the Computer...

Martin

[thomo]

Just in that now thanks - Setup Utility.

Just has 'main advanced security boot exit' as the options.

In 'Boot' it has 'Boot Device Priority' and a list of Boot priority order.

1 USB CD

2 IDE HDD

No. 6 is USB HDD :General External.

But nothing else happens. Just beeb sounds if I try to change them.

[siamect]

Just in that now thanks - Setup Utility.

Just has 'main advanced security boot exit' as the options.

In 'Boot' it has 'Boot Device Priority' and a list of Boot priority order.

1 USB CD

2 IDE HDD

No. 6 is USB HDD :General External.

But nothing else happens. Just beeb sounds if I try to change them.

mark USB HD and move it up can be either plus of F5 I think

Martin

[thomo]

Thanks, I'll try that when I get home.

I'm a bit apprehensive about fiddling around inside my notebook and changing how things work.

If I change USB : HDD to number one, what should happen? Will Ubuntu start to load automatically?

And the next time I turn on the computer, do I have to change it back to the previous setting if I want it back on Win 7?

Thanks.

[siamect]

Thanks, I'll try that when I get home.

I'm a bit apprehensive about fiddling around inside my notebook and changing how things work.

If I change USB : HDD to number one, what should happen? Will Ubuntu start to load automatically?

And the next time I turn on the computer, do I have to change it back to the previous setting if I want it back on Win 7?

Thanks.

The answer is yes on both questions... but if you keep the normal hd on row number two then you will boot win7 if you don't have the usb stick connected...

Martin

[thomo]

Edit... finally got into the setup utility, gonna try it out now.

...and nope. Changed the USB :HDD to priority 1, and it still just loads Win 7 on start up.

Mai pen rai, think I'll just forget it.

Cheers.

[dharmabm]

Edit... finally got into the setup utility, gonna try it out now.

...and nope. Changed the USB :HDD to priority 1, and it still just loads Win 7 on start up.

Mai pen rai, think I'll just forget it.

Cheers.

If you are really interested in this, don't give up. You didn't say how you copied the ubuntu to your usb drive, usually you have to use something like unetbootin to make the drive bootable, you can't just copy the iso file to the drive and expect it to work. It really isn't that difficult, and once it works you can actually run ubuntu from the usb drive without installing it or changing anything about your computer setup. Another option is to install ubuntu into your win7 operating system, I think Ubuntu is the only distro that gives you that option. If you are curious, keep trying, if you have any interest in experimentation you will never regret it (and may give up windoze alltogether). I would suggest starting a new thread though, and describe exactly what you are trying, there are lots of experienced people here who will walk you through the process in a very detailed step-by-step manner.

k

ps. ubuntu also has a build specifically designed for netbooks, i would use that one instead of the standard build.

<edit> sorry, i just looked at the link you posted and see that you followed the correct instructions (and even chose the netbook option). try hitting f12 at boot which often gives you a menu to manually choose which drive to boot from. the only other thing i can think of is you wrote "I DL'd it on my computer at home, put it onto my external HDD, created the USB drive that they said to do, and nothing. Cannot open it or do anything with it.

All it's done is change the name of my external HDD from my name to 'Pendrive' and fill it full of odd files and folders. "

When you ran the universal USB installer, did you extract it to the same drive that you downloaded the iso to? the objective is usually to use a usb thumbdrive as the boot medium, as the process overwrites everything on the target drive. i'm not sure what the result would be if you extracted to the same drive as the iso file was on, but it would likely wipe out all of the data on that drive. i hope that isn't what happened!

[siamect]

I had som problems like this on an Acer a few weeks ago... I had to press x to exclude the HD in order for it to boot from the USB...

Martin

[thomo]

usually you have to use something like unetbootin to make the drive bootable,

thanks, decided to give it a last shot as I had only saved it onto the external HDD, without making it bootable.

DLing this unebootin and it crashed the computer.

Went to try again, crashed again. Went to delete the semi-DL'd file from my Downloads folder and when I select the file, yup, it crashes the computer.

Having to reboot my comp 5 times in the last 30 mins is enough.

Easier to leave things as they are.

Thanks all.

[siamect]

usually you have to use something like unetbootin to make the drive bootable,

thanks, decided to give it a last shot as I had only saved it onto the external HDD, without making it bootable.

DLing this unebootin and it crashed the computer.

Went to try again, crashed again. Went to delete the semi-DL'd file from my Downloads folder and when I select the file, yup, it crashes the computer.

Having to reboot my comp 5 times in the last 30 mins is enough.

Easier to leave things as they are.

Thanks all.

But hey,,, why don't you do it exactly the way they describe it in the ubuntu homepage. If you don't do it the way they describe it, you cannot expect it to work ..

There is no reason to use anything else than the procedures they recommend you...

Then I believe you have more problems if your computer crashes when you download a file.... are you sure you dl the real unbootin?

Martin

[thomo]

There is no reason to use anything else than the procedures they recommend you...

Yes, it seems the problem was me canceling the transfer to my external HDD upon it declaring that everything on it would be wiped!

Wiping out 150gigs of movies, photos and music just to transfer it onto the HDD wasn't going to be worth it.

Then I believe you have more problems if your computer crashes when you download a file.... are you sure you dl the real unbootin?

Google 'Unbootin' and the first page up is the one used.

[dharmabm]

There is no reason to use anything else than the procedures they recommend you...

Yes, it seems the problem was me canceling the transfer to my external HDD upon it declaring that everything on it would be wiped!

Wiping out 150gigs of movies, photos and music just to transfer it onto the HDD wasn't going to be worth it.

Then I believe you have more problems if your computer crashes when you download a file.... are you sure you dl the real unbootin?

Google 'Unbootin' and the first page up is the one used.

the ubuntu instructions do not actaully say to use unetbootin, they use the 'universal usb installer' (not the same, although unetbootin will do the same thing) and the link to download is right in the instructions. their instructions are fairly explicit, but if you don't follow them exactly you are bound for trouble. like i said before, you should not use your regular external usb hard drive for the install, but a 1gb or bigger thumbdrive which is completely empty (or has junk on it you do not care about). if you are really interested in checking this out but don't want to go through the trouble, i suggest you try WUBI first, it installs like a normal windows program and can be uninstalled just as easily. you can find it at http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/windows-installer