MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-05-19 |
| FROM | Billy
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Its a sorry day for The Linux Journal
|
On May 19, 2006, at 5:49 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> /etc/rant - The Spirit of Open Source
> By Nicholas Petreley
> Created 2006-02-23 02:00
>
>
> How dare Linus Torvalds recommend that people use what's best?
> Dang. I had intended to rant about wikis this month, but Dave Taylor
> covered the topic thoroughly and did a much better job than I would
> have. See his article "Why I Don't [strike]Like[/strike] [edit: Get]
> Wikis" in this issue.
>
> There's plenty of other things to rant about, however. There's the
> schizophrenic, religious and hypocritical zealotry of free/open-source
> advocates that often gets more ink than the sane attitudes that are
> more
> prevalent in the development community itself.
>
> Take the irrational fear of Java and its gatekeeper, Sun, as an
> example.
> Do you realize there are people who still insist that the only
> acceptable version of Java is a clean-room open-source implementation
> that (they presume) cannot be controlled by Sun? Did you also know
> that,
> according to Evans data, the vast majority of Linux developers uses
> Java-based Eclipse as their favorite integrated development
> environment
> (IDE)?
He's an idiot. Eclipse can run on non-Sun JVMs, and it's open source.
He has no point here.
>
> I'm using the Java-based Jedit to write this column. I use Jedit
> because
> I think it is the best editor on the planet. Ask me if I'm afraid that
> Sun will send the Java police after me to collect a license fee.
> No, ask
> me what I would do if Sun did that? I'd gladly pay up. Why? I told
> you.
> I think Jedit is the best editor on the planet and I want to use it.
Sun doesn't control JEdit. Again, nonsense.
JEdit is a kid's toy of a text editor, btw. He's hemorraging
credibility.
> Do you know what Linux developers named as their second favorite IDE?
> KDevelop. That's right, the KDE-based IDE that depends upon the
> evil Qt.
> Sure you can use the GPL version of Qt, which requires you to share
> your
> code. But Qt is evil because you have to pay license fees to its
> creator, Trolltech, if (and only if) you want to sell a closed-source
> proprietary application based on Qt.
> GTK, on the other hand, is good, because you can sell closed-source
> proprietary applications based on GTK without having to give anything
> back to the people whose work you exploited in order to make your
> money.
> Don't take my word for it. When I talked to Ximian's Miguel de
> Icaza, he
> named the LGPL license as the reason why people should choose GTK and
> GNOME over Qt and KDE. And it is the LGPL that allows people to
> exploit
> the work of the developers of GTK and GNOME without having to
> compensate
> them with money or source code.
> In view of this, it is beyond me how GTK and GNOME remain the poster
> children of open source for so many open-source advocates.
He doesn't even know the difference between open-source and free
software.
> What is the spirit of open source? It is the GNU General Public
> License.
> The idea is that if you publish software that integrates someone
> else's
> publicly available work (work licensed under the GPL), you are
> required
> to make your additional work available to the public as well.
>
> The Linux kernel is based on the GPL. NVIDIA violates the GPL
> because it
> keeps some of its Linux kernel driver code secret. The end result is
> that you will "taint" the kernel if you use NVIDIA's closed-source
> kernel module. Shame on NVIDIA. It isn't sharing like it's supposed
> to.
>
> Fine. I agree with that. But how can you go from there to saying
> GTK is
> good because it allows--no, invites--you to do what NVIDIA does? The
> whole point of the LGPL is to allow you to add something to GTK
> without
> having to compensate the GTK developers with either money or source
> code.
bzzzzt. Writing apps in GTK isn't 'adding to' GTK.
> Don't get me wrong. Personally, I couldn't care less what motivates
> people to use Qt, GTK, Java, Python or the practically useless GCJ
> (GNU
> Java compiler).
Clearly!
> What irks me is when someone advocates inferior
> solutions purely in the name of open source, especially when those
> so-called open-source solutions so clearly violate the spirit of open
> source.
>
> If you want a good example of the right attitude, look no further than
> Linus Torvalds, Linux creator. You don't have to agree with his
> methods
> or his decisions, but I don't see how anyone can impugn his motives.
>
> Here is a man who cares about what's right and what has practical
> value.
But not in that order!!!! :)
> So what are we to make of the fact that Linus Torvalds criticized
> GNOME
> and recommended KDE? Here we have the creator of the Linux kernel
> criticizing what many see as the poster child of open source and
> recommending the evil Qt-based KDE. Why would our open-source hero say
> such a thing? Because in his opinion (an opinion I share), the GNOME
> design is so bad it should be considered a disease.
He's putting words into Linus's mouth. Bad journalist. Bad.
Linus seems to have a problem with GNOME's rigidity, which
isn't the same thing.
> You don't have to agree with him, but it's plain that his
> recommendation
> is based on his opinion of what works best. There's no sign of
> misguided
> zealotry or religion in that recommendation. Use what's best. What a
> concept. Linux developers seem to get it. It's about time the
> open-source zealots got it too.
Stunned.
> Nicholas Petreley is Editor in Chief of Linux Journal and a former
> programmer, teacher, analyst and consultant who has been working with
> and writing about Linux for more than ten years.
|
|
