ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   07 Mar 2002  17:14:58
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2002/0307/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] [2][oasisi.php?s=2&w=468&h=60] 
    [LWN.net]
 
    Sections:
     [3]Main page
     [4]Security
     [5]Kernel
     [6]Distributions
     [7]Development
     [8]Commerce
     [9]Linux in the news
     [10]Announcements
     Letters
    [11]All in one big page
 
    See also: [12]last week's Letters page.
 
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [13]letters@lwn.net.
    Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
    well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
    way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
    anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
    March 7, 2002
 From:    Leon Brooks <leon@cyberknights.com.au>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Backslapping, security incidents, kernel versions
 Date:    Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:13:59 +0800
 
 >From [14]http://lwn.net/2002/0228/ :
 > Once again, congratulations are due to the community: we won this one.
 
 Actually, congratulations are also very much due to the W3C, they've been
 more responsive in this case than the vast majority of manufacturers, and
 many nominally independent bodies.
 
 > the last Linux-related vulnerability with a full CVE number is
 > CVE-2001-0489, a format string vulnerability in gftp which was
 > reported in May, 2001. This is a problem: time is often of the
 > essence when dealing with security incidents.
 
 The only obvious solution is to promptly (timescale of at most a few hours)
 allocate numbers to all submitted *reports* and provide a simple means of
 checking whether a report was ever validated or disqualified as an *incident*.
 
 > Now that 2.4 is finally getting truly stable, few people would
 > like to see it be destabilized again. On the other hand, the 2.6/3.0
 > kernel could well still be two years away
 
 Must it? If we stop revolutionising the kernel with new MM, scheduling and FS
 concepts at the end of July, we might have a 2.6 by Christmas. Then we can
 cut loose with a new set of fabulous and totally new features in 2.7 with an
 eye to releasing that in turn at the end of 2003 (Linux 3.0 for 2003?). One
 release a year done like this would help the stable kernel to stay so. If the
 split was done at the start of December, most of the bug-echoes would have
 died down by new year. There are arguments against against deadlines, and
 they should be flexible, but it seems to help many projects along to actually
 have them in the first place. It lends impetus to events like bug-killing
 weekends.
 
 Cheers; Leon
 From:    Leandro Guimaraes Faria Corsetti Dutra <leandrod@mac.com>
 
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: StarOffice goes proprietary
 Date:    Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:56:37 +0100
 
         StarOffice was always proprietary -- it was just a free download, not
 free software.  OpenOffice is free, and will continue to be for the
 foreseeable future, but lacks things like Adabas D that are present
 in StarOffice; by the way it shouldn't be to hard to integrate
 either SAPdb, a direct descendant of Adabas, or any other free RDBMS
 like Interbase (Ph?nis?), GNU SQL or PostgreSQL.
 
         The only thing I think Sun could do to assure us that OpenOffice will
 always be free except by a catastrophe would be to assign the
 copyrights to the FSF or a similar entity.  But at this time it
 doesn't seem that we are really running the risk of a proprietary
 fork of OpenOffice, and even if Sun was dumb enough we could just
 fork it ourselves and keep and develop the last free version.
 
         As you pointed most of this at the end of the relevant section in
 your main page, I trust the headline was only an oversight or at
 worst an eye-catcher, because many people will read only the
 headline and the first two or three paragraphs and will
 inadvertently spread unintended FUD until they are challenged by
 someone who knows better.
 --
  _
 / \ Leandro Guimaraes Faria Corsetti Dutra        +41 (21) 216 15 93
 \ / [15]http://homepage.mac.com./leandrod/        fax +41 (21) 216 19 04
  X  [16]http://tutoriald.sourceforge.net./      Orange Communications CH
 / \ Campanha fita ASCII, contra correio HTML      +41 (21) 644 23 01
 From:    "K.Hayen" <K.Hayen@digitec.de>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Staroffice never was non-proprietary
 Date:    Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:45:27 +0100
 
 You write:
 
 "StarOffice goes proprietary"
 
 Since when was StarOffice not proprietary? Your further
 writing indicates that you understand it was never
 Free Software. So why do you imply news where is no
 news? I am disappointed, this doesn't feel like good
 journalism.
 
 The valid speculation about Sun's motives is that Sun
 recognizes Linux distributions more now as a threat and
 concurrent than it did before. It wants Solaris to have
 an added value over other Unix versions. That's only
 legitimate.
 
 This need not involve a Linux from Sun. But it would
 only be true for a Sun-Linux. I actually like that
 name besides.
 
 I only hope they follow HP and pick Debian as the open
 distribution they can influence through their good
 engineers.
 
 Closed Distributions like Redhat (normal people cannot
 make or participate in decisions, nor contribute) will
 fail just like Closed Source failed.
 
 If Sun wants to turn from a late comer to people who have
 the future, I advise them to make a nice setup. Get their
 QA after a small selection of packages they specifically
 care for (probably Gnome, some servers like Apache, NFS
 stuff, etc) and trust Debian community for the rest.
 
 Oh and yes, I hear you say that only a Closed Group of
 people can do the real thing. That's why Microsoft will
 reign with Windows forever, ... not? ;-)
 
 Yours, Kay Hayen
 From:    Chris Hanson <cph@zurich.ai.mit.edu>
 To:      "Robert A. Knop Jr." <rknop@pobox.com>
 Subject: Cruft has become our life
 Date:    Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:30:24 -0500
 Cc:      letters@lwn.net
 
 Rob,
 
 I couldn't agree more; this is the #1 problem I have with GNOME, which
 in many other respects I like.  I can't count the number of times I've
 had to delete all the GNOME configuration files and directories and
 start again from scratch.  And of course, it's impossible to copy a
 configuration from one machine to another, something that was routine
 with my pre-GNOME configurations.
 
 Not to mention that none of the configuration information is
 programmable, which means it can't be written once in a way that will
 adapt to different machines, different screen sizes, etc.  (As my old
 configuration could be, albeit with difficulty.)
 
 Note that this is in sharp contrast to (the ".sawfishrc" file of) my
 Sawfish window manager configuration, which is completely programmable
 and adapts to each of my machines.  (Unfortunately the Sawfish
 "custom" file suffers from many of the problems of other GNOME
 applications.)
 
 The ideal solution would: define the contents of the configuration
 files in some common language (e.g. XML); document each possible
 setting; allow hand-editing of configuration files; and provid the
 ability to script the files so that they could be adapted to the
 current environment.  None of these is hard to do, and each provides
 clear advantages.
 
 I hope the GNOME developers wake up and understand that the current
 situation is unacceptable to many users.
 
 Chris
 From:    Joe Klemmer <klemmerj@webtrek.com>
 To:      "Robert A. Knop Jr." <rknop@pobox.com>
 Subject: Re: Cruft has become our life
 Date:    28 Feb 2002 13:57:25 -0500
 Cc:      letters@lwn.net
 
 > Perhaps I should just go back to my roots and run FVWM, and get away
 > from the Gnome/KDE/GUI madness.  Alas, I want to have my cake and eat
 > it to; I want the features that come along with the configuration
 > cruft.
 
         Perhaps you might try XFce <[17]http://www.xfce.org>, then.  If you wan
 t
 cake and eat it I think you'll find that XFce might be just what you're
 looking for.
 
 --
 Using Linux since 11/91         |               [18]http://www.linux.org
 Linux user #29402               |               [19]http://counter.li.org
 Red Hat Linux                   |               [20]http://www.redhat.com
 From:    Dick Middleton <dick@lingbrae.com>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Fast Keyword Searching Tool
 Date:    Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:07:15 -0000
 
 I'm not trying to promote this product but I have been using the
 Powermarks bookmark manager from Kaylon for a few weeks now find it is
 remarkably effective tool.  It is different because instead of
 managing a hierarchical data base as most such tools it operates on a
 single list using fast keyword searching to find items of interest.
 The company has also used the technique in a MP3 track manager but
 neither tool is available on Linux (yet).
 
 For me I would really, really like this concept to be used in an
 email manager.  No more filing but nevertheless quick access to
 obscure or long forgotten items.  I think it would transform the email
 experience.
 
 I think such a tool, particularly a generalised one which could handle
 anything (bookmarks, addresses, emails, mp3 etc) and could be
 integrated with standard utilities (emailers, browsers etc) could be
 the killer application for Linux.  It could do for the desktop what
 Apache has done for servers and transform Linux office offerings from
 also-ran to leaders.
 
 Any free software fast keyword search gurus want to bite?
 
 Dick Middleton
 dick@lingbrae.com
 From:    Eric Smith <eric@brouhaha.com>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Microsoft is afraid of the GPL
 Date:    28 Feb 2002 20:42:05 -0000
 Cc:      aek@spies.com, fmc@reanimators.org, ksumrall@pacbell.net,
          hrainnie@marvell.com, mac@wireless.com, ottosen@idcomm.com,
          loren_blaney@idcomm.com, jim@brouhaha.com, Richard_Turk@ous.edu,
          torsten@bookstore.mu.orst.edu, dan@danlindsey.com, phr@nightsong.com,
          ellis@brouhaha.com, venu@nayar.org, bandy@cinnamon.com
 
 Gentlemen,
 
 On 28-Feb-2002, LWN.net daily updates referenced an article in ZDNet
 News which quoted Craig Mundie of Microsoft as saying "The problem with
 General Public License advocates is that they don't understand that
 people need the opportunity to commercialize software."
 
 As usual Microsoft tries to divert attention from the real issue.
 
 Suppose for a moment that Microsoft was right, and that the GPL did
 somehow deny them "the opportunity to commercialize software".  Why
 would this be a problem?  Microsoft isn't exactly well-known for
 allowing other people the opportunity to commercialize the software
 which Microsoft has written.  Surely it is not anyone else's
 responsiblity to provide Microsoft with "the opportunity..."  when they
 themselves don't provide that opportunity to others?
 
 However, in point of fact the GPL does not deny anyone the opportunity
 to commercialize software.  A number of companies have been successful
 doing so; one of the most visible is Red Hat.
 
 What Microsoft really means is that they're afraid of having to compete
 on a level playing field.  They're perfectly happy to take advantage of
 software written by outsiders; they've been doing that for years with
 such things as the BSD TCP/IP networking software.  But when they look
 at software which is GPL'd, they realize that they can't use it and
 still keep their participation strictly in the "only benefits Microsoft"
 direction that they like.  It's fine for volunteers to slave away for
 months and years writing code, but if Microsoft would be forced to
 contribute back a few minor changes and improvements to that code, they
 don't want it.  They want to reap the benefits of free software, while
 not contributing to the process themselves.
 
 Note that even for non-GPL'd free software that Microsoft uses, such as
 the aforementioned TCP/IP software, which was distributed under the BSD
 license, Microsoft has not done a good job of complying with the
 relatively minimal license requirements.  In particular, for many years
 the BSD license required acknowledgement of the use of their code in
 product documentation, which Microsoft never did.  This particular
 instance is no longer an issue because BSD has since dropped the
 advertising clause, but it does demonstrate that Microsoft has no
 willingness to cooperate with the developers of free software to even
 the most minimal extent.
 
 When you look at just how loudly Microsoft decries the GPL, you can see
 how scared they are.  After all, why should they be so vocal about it?
 No one is forcing them to use GPL'd software.  It's simply another
 choice.  Of course, Microsoft doesn't want people to have choices, but
 isn't it strange that they complain that choices are available to
 them?
 
 To illustrate just how ridiculous it is for Microsoft to devote so much
 effort complaining about the GPL, imagine instead that they were
 complaining about something other than software.  Suppose that they
 needed to buy cardboard boxes for their products.  Perhaps one vendor of
 cardboard boxes, MegaBoxCo, would only provide them to Microsoft under
 the Public Box License, with terms Microsoft didn't like.  Would
 Microsoft devote all this effort to convincing the world that the Public
 Box License was bad and that people who offered boxes under the PBL were
 Unamerican?  Of course not.  They'd just buy their cardboard boxes from
 another vendor.  There's no monopoly on cardboard boxes, so there are
 plenty of vendors to choose from.  Similarly, there is no monopoly on
 the GPL'd software Microsoft is complaining about, and there is
 absolutely NOTHING that prevents Microsoft from simply ignoring the
 GPL'd software and instead using non-GPL'd software from other authors.
 Or writing software themselves -- Microsoft is after all a software
 company, isn't it?  Surely they have at least a few programmers on
 staff?
 
 Sincerely,
 Eric Smith
    [21]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2002 [22]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://oasis.lwn.net/oasisc.php?s=2&w=468&h=60
    3. http://lwn.net/2002/0307/
    4. http://lwn.net/2002/0307/security.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2002/0307/kernel.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2002/0307/dists.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2002/0307/devel.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2002/0307/commerce.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2002/0307/press.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2002/0307/announce.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2002/0307/bigpage.php3
   12. http://lwn.net/2002/0228/letters.php3
   13. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   14. http://lwn.net/2002/0228/
   15. http://homepage.mac.com/leandrod/
   16. http://tutoriald.sourceforge.net/
   17. http://www.xfce.org/
   18. http://www.linux.org/
   19. http://counter.li.org/
   20. http://www.redhat.com/
   21. http://www.eklektix.com/
   22. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор