Militantly FREE software support.
Militantly FREE software support.
NavigationUser loginSpam?See spam posts on this site? If so, please don't reply to the spam! Instead, just report the URL to the webmaster. |
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?Hi, -- Bookmark/Search this post with: |
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On 11/30/06, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Hi,
> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
Howdy,
Well, in my opinion a "killer" app is a useful app. Something that you
would have a hard time living without. My "killer" app is the humble
and often overlooked StarDict.
Cheers,
Brian
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 12:22 +0100, Brian Durant wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> [...] a "killer" app is a useful app. Something that you
> would have a hard time living without.
> [...]
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
>
Octave for me, no doubt!
--
Szia:
Nyizsa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior Design Degree, 100% online
Westwood College offers online bachelor degrees in interior design
http://tagline.bidsystem.com/fc/BgLEQfI7gWh5QgQjFFqXhRgLICroVhVid9JE/
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
The classic definition of the killer app is the one program that justifies the entire cost of the computer. Nyizsnyik Ferenc <nyizsa@bluebottle.com> wrote: On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 12:22 +0100, Brian Durant wrote:> On 11/30/06, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:> [...] a "killer" app is a useful app. Something that you> would have a hard time living without. > [...]> Cheers,> > Brian> > Octave for me, no doubt!-- Szia:Nyizsa.----------------------------------------------------------------------Interior Design Degree, 100% onlineWestwood College offers online bachelor degrees in interior designhttp://tagline.bidsystem.com/fc/BgLEQfI7gWh5QgQjFFqXhRgLICroVhVid9JE/-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Francis Healy wrote:
> The classic definition of the killer app is the one program that
> justifies the entire cost of the computer.
NICE answer. Wish more people in business would figure that one out.
Nate
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/01/06 12:31, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Francis Healy wrote:
>> The classic definition of the killer app is the one program that
>> justifies the entire cost of the computer.
>
> NICE answer. Wish more people in business would figure that one out.
They did. It was called /Lotus 1-2-3/. A *huge* productivity boost.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFcIYOS9HxQb37XmcRAmG0AJ0Qmus1K9c8dzmbk8hDN2Hi/4rAJACcD55J
JA4pxx8ePVrIjgv6rsd2esE=
=A9it
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
[OT] what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 03:39:55PM -0800, Francis Healy wrote:
> The classic definition of the killer app is the one program that justifies
> the entire cost of the computer.
The only ones I can think of were "Visi Calc" for the Apple II
and Pagemaker for the Mac.
AFA GNU/Linux is concerned I don't know. Maybe the answer lies in the
question:
What was the killer app for Unix?
--
Chris.
======
" ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of
rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government
conspiracy of `X-Files' proportions and insidiousness."
Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005.
--
[OT] what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/06 06:42, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 03:39:55PM -0800, Francis Healy wrote:
>> The classic definition of the killer app is the one program that justifies
>> the entire cost of the computer.
>
> The only ones I can think of were "Visi Calc" for the Apple II
> and Pagemaker for the Mac.
>
> AFA GNU/Linux is concerned I don't know. Maybe the answer lies in the
> question:
> What was the killer app for Unix?
"Unix" is so broad, running on such a huge range of hardware, and
for 35 years, that asking that is an invalid question.
Text processing (at Bell Labs) was it's original killer app.
Source code was it's next killer "app", since Universities could get
it for a song from AT&T, and teach their CompSci students *much*
cheaper that they could by licensing VAX/VMS and it's source code.
Portability came soon afterwards.
Then came TCP/IP and sendmail and, eventually, NFS.
By the 1980s, "whatever workstation apps that PCs and Macs were too
underpowered to perform".
Graphics was SGI's killer app.
"Cost compared to VAX/VMS" was Sun's killer "app".
And then x86 systems got "fast enough" and along came Windows NT,
which was cheaper than SparcStations and, via Win32, open up a
larger market.
As I see it, the Unix/Linux killer "apps" now are:
- - Size. 16x, 32x & 64x SMP systems powering high TPS systems.
- - Security. Not too many Unix/Linux viruses and botnets floating
around. And there's always OpenBSD.
- - Flexibility. *ix scales from tiny Gumstix up thru 128x Sun
monsters, and from busybox thru KDE/GNOME.
- - Economics. Keep what you have, longer. And Debian BSD let you take your really old PCs and squeeze more
productive work out of them.
- - Low overhead. WinNT can do the same things, but you need to throw
much more hardware and labor at it.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFcX0NS9HxQb37XmcRAqHAAKCWDMHameoLI4ue7r76fsWIBghy8wCfbYMO
XwLEdksdP0VBuywIiAjgIU0=
=ZhlQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
aptitude, of course, if one has to name but one.
just compare that to yast, windoze-update, whatever...
Johannes
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe escribe:
> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
You can compile GNOME using Cygwin on Windows and also on OS X, so
it's not a happy example of "killer app" that forces you to use Linux.
IMHO the "killer app" is ALSA plus JACK. ALSA are drivers for audio
cards allowing profesional like low latency even using low grade
soundcards embedded on motherboards. JACK allows to interconnect audio
applications, where audio output of any app can be used as audio input
of any other. Audio software lovers can think of it as a system-wide
Reason.
AFAIK JACK can be used on OS X systems. ALSA is Linux specific.
Cross-OS interoperability is nowadays a trend so less and less apps
can be considered "killer" on this sense.
Cordially, Ismael
--
Ismael Valladolid Torres
http://lamediahostia.blogspot.com/ m. +34679156321
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ivalladt j.
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/30/06 05:14, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Hi,
> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
No killer *app*. Security is killer, but that's hard to see.
For me, the CLI is killer.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFbtjmS9HxQb37XmcRAtMZAJ9zfEanfPa81QwygvVySoL+5le44wCaAyQr
R3AteI0Zu4tgx41C+O7jVSE=
=YsV9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Ron Johnson writes:
> No killer *app*. Security is killer, but that's hard to see.
>
> For me, the CLI is killer.
I'm not sure CLI could be considered a killer for GNU/Linux systems,
since the *BSD systems have no more or less powerful CLI.
I would thinkg a killer app for a system would be unique for that
system. I can't really think of an app that would be unique to GNU/Linux
(that wouldn't also work on other unix systems). Maybe something like
FUSE?
--
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
For me, the "killer app" for Linux is its ability to be a very secure proxy/gateway system. Take an older system, two different fast ethernet net cards, a linux distribution, and a firewall script for IPtables and you have a proxy gateway system that allows you to run a network off a single DSL or cable modem connection. After doing this, I became interested in Linux as a desktop. After learning how to configure should with Alsaconf, I have set up a system to burn CDs with Gnometoaster (usefull when your older hardware has a cd-burner but no roxio to go with it) and rip CDs with GRIP. Linux also has security tools like ,Nessus, NMAP and other so you can make sure that the rest of your systems are secure. You even have OpenOffice so you can do some work from you MS dominated job environment in a pinch.John L Fjellstad <john-debian@fjellstad.org> wrote: Ron Johnson writes:> No killer *app*. Security is killer, but that's hard to see.>> For me, the CLI is killer.I'm not sure CLI could be considered a killer for GNU/Linux systems,since the *BSD systems have no more or less powerful CLI.I would thinkg a killer app for a system would be unique for thatsystem. I can't really think of an app that would be unique to GNU/Linux(that wouldn't also work on other unix systems). Maybe something likeFUSE? -- John L. Fjellstadweb: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/30/06 08:19, John L Fjellstad wrote:
> Ron Johnson writes:
>
>> No killer *app*. Security is killer, but that's hard to see.
>>
>> For me, the CLI is killer.
>
> I'm not sure CLI could be considered a killer for GNU/Linux systems,
> since the *BSD systems have no more or less powerful CLI.
Well, sure. If FreeBSD had been easy to install in year 2000, had a
large community, and apps like Netscape (or was Mozilla released by
then?) then I maybe would have tried FreeBSD.
> I would thinkg a killer app for a system would be unique for that
> system. I can't really think of an app that would be unique to GNU/Linux
> (that wouldn't also work on other unix systems). Maybe something like
> FUSE?
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFbwICS9HxQb37XmcRAi07AJ9G9HZS7EtC4OHFgKe0StHT6cb5lACffCSV
hlk7wkhn3RBE8wHek3Uwmi8=
=aKcQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Linux is the killer application. That being said, there
are lots of things I like. Cron and the ability to do timed
automation jobs is wonderful. I use cron, mplayer and a shell
script or two to capture on-line "radio" programs like an audio
Tivo. For anyone interested, the concept is to use mplayer in
the dumpstream mode, sync your computer using ntpd, let mplayer
start at the prescribed time in the background with &, and then
kill $! N seconds later where N is the number of seconds to sleep
while mplayer is dumping to the file. I can get really tight
recordings as long as the source station is also accurate in its
time and most are quite accurate.
A Linux system makes a darn-good "tape recorder," so to
speak. I have gotten good recordings, even at 44.1 KHZ sampling
from a 250-MHZ Dell though it doesn't take much to make it too
busy to record properly. At lower sampling rates, it is as good
as anything.
As I told one other person recently, if people knew how
well even 250-MHZ systems do, there would be fist fights over
them rather than people tossing out perfectly good equipment. On
the slower stuff, more RAM usually helps and not running X if you
can help it also frees more CPU cycles for the important stuff.
As a computer user who happens to be blind, linux has
been a life saver in my job. If not for Linux and also FreeBSD,
I would be forced to run Microsoft Windows, deal with "Patch
Tuesdays" and hope to goodness that each new patch didn't kill
the screen reader. Trust me. It happens. Under Linux, there
are several possibilities for screen-reader access, all free and
all good in their own way. I simply feel like I am still in
control of what the system is doing and only limited by my
knowledge and imagination rather than what some suit in a far-off
office thought I needed or should have.
I am big on automation because those of us in networking
work most efficiently when we can automate the donkey work and
concentrate on the things that humans are best at. Cron, at and
expect are true gems and the people who wrote them and made them
available to all truly left the wood pile higher than they found it.
Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK
Systems Engineer
OSU Information Technology Department Network Operations Group
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On 11/30/06, Martin McCormick wrote:
> Linux is the killer application. That being said, there
> are lots of things I like. Cron and the ability to do timed
> automation jobs is wonderful. I use cron, mplayer and a shell
> script or two to capture on-line "radio" programs like an audio
> Tivo. For anyone interested, the concept is to use mplayer in
> the dumpstream mode, sync your computer using ntpd, let mplayer
> start at the prescribed time in the background with &, and then
> kill $! N seconds later where N is the number of seconds to sleep
> while mplayer is dumping to the file. I can get really tight
> recordings as long as the source station is also accurate in its
> time and most are quite accurate.
>
> A Linux system makes a darn-good "tape recorder," so to
> speak. I have gotten good recordings, even at 44.1 KHZ sampling
> from a 250-MHZ Dell though it doesn't take much to make it too
> busy to record properly. At lower sampling rates, it is as good
> as anything.
>
> As I told one other person recently, if people knew how
> well even 250-MHZ systems do, there would be fist fights over
> them rather than people tossing out perfectly good equipment. On
> the slower stuff, more RAM usually helps and not running X if you
> can help it also frees more CPU cycles for the important stuff.
>
> As a computer user who happens to be blind, linux has
> been a life saver in my job. If not for Linux and also FreeBSD,
> I would be forced to run Microsoft Windows, deal with "Patch
> Tuesdays" and hope to goodness that each new patch didn't kill
> the screen reader. Trust me. It happens. Under Linux, there
> are several possibilities for screen-reader access, all free and
> all good in their own way. I simply feel like I am still in
> control of what the system is doing and only limited by my
> knowledge and imagination rather than what some suit in a far-off
> office thought I needed or should have.
>
> I am big on automation because those of us in networking
> work most efficiently when we can automate the donkey work and
> concentrate on the things that humans are best at. Cron, at and
> expect are true gems and the people who wrote them and made them
> available to all truly left the wood pile higher than they found it.
>
> Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK
> Systems Engineer
> OSU Information Technology Department Network Operations Group
Gorgeous stuff... Shouldn't this kind of stuff be posted to some
advocacy site somewhere?
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Gorgeous stuff... Shouldn't this kind of stuff be posted to some
> advocacy site somewhere?
Sure. Why not? Go ahead.
Nate
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 10:08 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Well, sure. If FreeBSD had been easy to install in year 2000, had a
> large community, and apps like Netscape (or was Mozilla released by
> then?) then I maybe would have tried FreeBSD.
They had, actually. I remember going to an internet cafe while on
holiday in December 2000. I was surprised to see they were running some
flavour of BSD (I think FreeBSD but I'm not sure) with Netscape
Navigator.
Hans
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Amarok off course... and I'm a Gnome fan!!!On 11/30/06, Hans du Plooy <koffiejunkielistlurker@koffiejunkie.za.net
> wrote:On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 10:08 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:> Well, sure. If FreeBSD had been easy to install in year 2000, had a
> large community, and apps like Netscape (or was Mozilla released by> then?) then I maybe would have tried FreeBSD.They had, actually. I remember going to an internet cafe while onholiday in December 2000. I was surprised to see they were running some
flavour of BSD (I think FreeBSD but I'm not sure) with NetscapeNavigator.Hans--To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org-- :::lxuser 391715:::
http://igordevlog.blogspot.com/
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
aptitude is the one no doubt
igor Guerrero wrote:
> Amarok off course... and I'm a Gnome fan!!!
>
> On 11/30/06, Hans du Plooy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 10:08 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Well, sure. If FreeBSD had been easy to install in year 2000, had a
> > > large community, and apps like Netscape (or was Mozilla released by
> > > then?) then I maybe would have tried FreeBSD.
> >
> > They had, actually. I remember going to an internet cafe while on
> > holiday in December 2000. I was surprised to see they were running some
> > flavour of BSD (I think FreeBSD but I'm not sure) with Netscape
> > Navigator.
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> :::lxuser 391715:::
> http://igordevlog.blogspot.com/
>
> ------=_Part_49192_13373242.1164919822270
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Google-AttachSize: 1379
>
> Amarok off course... and I'm a Gnome fan!!!On 11/30/06, Hans du Plooy <koffiejunkielistlurker@koffiejunkie.za.net
> > wrote:On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 10:08 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:> Well, sure. If FreeBSD had been easy to install in year 2000, had a
> > large community, and apps like Netscape (or was Mozilla released by> then?) then I maybe would have tried FreeBSD.They had, actually. I remember going to an internet cafe while onholiday in December 2000. I was surprised to see they were running some
> flavour of BSD (I think FreeBSD but I'm not sure) with NetscapeNavigator.Hans--To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org-- :::lxuser 391715:::
> http://igordevlog.blogspot.com/
>
> ------=_Part_49192_13373242.1164919822270--
--
Fwd: what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
This fabulous has been mailed to me in private, and I'd like to share
it with all ya...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arlie Stephens
Date: Nov 30, 2006 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
To: Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
On Nov 30 2006, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Hi,
> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> system.
Like many others, I don't have a specific "killer app." I've simply
been using *nix systems for many years, and can get a lot more
accomplished when I have that kind of shell based enviroment, not to
mention familiar tools.
Why pick linux, or debian specifically? Well, I'll pick whichever one
gives me fewer headaches, and more tools. Once I've picked one, I'll
stay with it until sufficient aggravations accumulate that the cost of
switching seems lower than the cost of staying.
Net result - I went SunOS to RedHat to Debian for my home systems,
and HP-UX to RedHat to Debian for work systems. (My employers also
kindly supply me with a Windoze box, which I use as little as
possible.)
If I had to say why Debian specifically - because it (a) has just
about everything I could possibly want in pre-built, conveniently
installable packages and (b) manages to install and upgrade new
packages without rendering my system unbootable, etc. Also (c)
At the point when RedHat had become DeadRat to me, I knew more people
using Debian than any of the other choices, and figured I'd be more
likely to be able to get help with it.
If comparing with e.g. Windoze, my killer apps are bash, grep, find,
gcc, and perl == the power to make my own tools, rather than either
using what's presupplied or paying for the privilege of trying to
create something. Next tier of killer apps would be apache, postfix
(any mail server), ecartis, etc. And of course the privilege of
reading email without worrying about it installing a virus ;-)
But these are common to all *nixes, or can be.
On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
--
Arlie
(Arlie Stephens )
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Hello Tshepang!
> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
There are two sides of a killer application. One side is:
- the useful one: vim, xmms, muttng, suspend-to-...
- the apps which make me sad: firefox, VMWare, synaptics.
But the real killer are my kids. I do not know how they able to crash
the computer but they do it. My son destroy my x server and I have to
remove and reinstall the complete stuff.
CU
Michael
--
,''`. Michael Ott, e-mail: michael at zolnott dot de
: :' : Debian SID on Thinkpad T43:
`. `' http://www.zolnott.de/laptop/ibm-t43-uc34nge.html
`-
Jeden Mittwoch von 21 - 24 Uhr. Zosh! auf Radio Z.
Das Härteste, was der Musikmarkt zu bieten hat. http://www.zosh.de
Online hören: http://www.radio-z.net
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:14:34PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
[...]
> So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
First thought: mutt. (which would be even better if I hadn't broken
exim4, so I'm reading d-u on mutt and replying via squirrelmail!)
On second thoughts, ghostscript and friends. My wife called me this
morning from London to ask how to make a pdf from her m$word at work.
Easy: take the file home and read it into any Linux app. Definitely the
fact that _any_ app in Linux can write ps or pdf is one of the killer
features. Which makes my killer app:
ps2pdf
--
richard
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Thursday 30 November 2006 10:18, wrote:
> On second thoughts, ghostscript and friends. My wife called me this
> morning from London to ask how to make a pdf from her m$word at work.
> Easy: take the file home and read it into any Linux app. Definitely the
> fact that _any_ app in Linux can write ps or pdf is one of the killer
> features. Which makes my killer app:
> ps2pdf
Blah, install pdf writer under Windows. As easy as kprinter.
There is no "killer app for linux"...if you mean a killer free software app,
then firefox or openoffice.
"Linux" is really just a convenient, nearly-crashfree environ where we have
total control. You can piece together most things on BSD or even Windows.
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Brendan wrote:
> On Thursday 30 November 2006 10:18, wrote:
>
>>On second thoughts, ghostscript and friends. My wife called me this
>>morning from London to ask how to make a pdf from her m$word at work.
>>Easy: take the file home and read it into any Linux app. Definitely the
>>fact that _any_ app in Linux can write ps or pdf is one of the killer
>>features. Which makes my killer app:
>> ps2pdf
>
>
> Blah, install pdf writer under Windows. As easy as kprinter.
You mean pdf writer from Adobe?
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=9&platform=Windows
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Brendan wrote:
> On Thursday 30 November 2006 10:18, wrote:
>
> Blah, install pdf writer under Windows. As easy as kprinter.
Do you mean like 'aptitude install kprinter'?
> There is no "killer app for linux"...if you mean a killer free software app,
> then firefox or openoffice.
As I said before the killer application of Debian Gnu/Linux is aptitude.
I can install thousands of applications, keep all of them up-to-date
including security updates, etc.
Even if the functionality of each individual package could be achieved
with other OSes, installation, security, and maintainence of a large
number of applications is unparalleled.
My 2ct,
Johannes
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/30/06 13:08, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Brendan wrote:
>> On Thursday 30 November 2006 10:18, wrote:[
[snip]
> As I said before the killer application of Debian Gnu/Linux is aptitude.
> I can install thousands of applications, keep all of them up-to-date
> including security updates, etc.
Bah!
Real Men use apt-get. (Traditionalists use dselect.)
> Even if the functionality of each individual package could be achieved
> with other OSes, installation, security, and maintainence of a large
> number of applications is unparalleled.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFbz28S9HxQb37XmcRAgpfAKCc7+USHhlyl/yBEs3H+mRk8qmFhwCgjkI5
wHbsUi5l2rJp74wRyXs3W64=
=bnDJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:14:34PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Hi,
> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
>
>
The *N*X working environment presented to the debian user as bash.
When all hell breaks loose, the ability to access the box from the
command-line-of-last-resort: the serial port, running init=/bin/sh.
Can't do that on anything else.
Doug.
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Hi,
> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
>
>
The kernel.
Without it, I wouldn't be here.
:-)
Nate
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Nate Duehr wrote:
> Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>> Hi,
>> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
>> system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
>> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
>> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
>> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
>> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
>> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
>> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
>> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
>>
>>
>
> The kernel.
>
> Without it, I wouldn't be here.
>
> :-)
>
> Nate
Okay, I can top that: The GPL.
:-) twice.
-Matthew
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Matthew Krauss wrote:
> Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
>>> system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
>>> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
>>> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
>>> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
>>> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
>>> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
>>> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
>>> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The kernel.
>>
>> Without it, I wouldn't be here.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Nate
> Okay, I can top that: The GPL.
>
> :-) twice.
>
> -Matthew
Nah, if there had been no GPL, Linus would have probably licensed under
the BSD license. (Just a guess there, since that's a fake world that
never existed, but...)
My assertion: The kernel is more important than the license. Code
trumps license. No code, no need to even use or have a license...
whatever it is.
Nate
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 11:25:14AM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Matthew Krauss wrote:
> >Nate Duehr wrote:
> >>Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> >>>system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> >>>utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> >>>GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> >>>application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> >>>consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> >>>epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> >>>Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> >>>apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>The kernel.
> >>
> >>Without it, I wouldn't be here.
> >>
> >>:-)
> >>
> >>Nate
> >Okay, I can top that: The GPL.
> >
> >:-) twice.
> >
> >-Matthew
>
> Nah, if there had been no GPL, Linus would have probably licensed under
> the BSD license. (Just a guess there, since that's a fake world that
> never existed, but...)
>
> My assertion: The kernel is more important than the license. Code
> trumps license. No code, no need to even use or have a license...
> whatever it is.
>
> Nate
Code without licence tends not to propagate. Linux wasn't the first
Unix-compatible one to have been written. It seems to me there was a
Unix-compatible kerlen written in the language TURING sometime in the
late 70's or early 80's. But it didn't have a free license, and --
well, have any of you ever heard of it?
-- hendrik
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
>> My assertion: The kernel is more important than the license. Code
>> trumps license. No code, no need to even use or have a license...
>> whatever it is.
>
> Code without licence tends not to propagate. Linux wasn't the first
> Unix-compatible one to have been written. It seems to me there was a
> Unix-compatible kerlen written in the language TURING sometime in the
> late 70's or early 80's. But it didn't have a free license, and --
> well, have any of you ever heard of it?
Code before licenses were popular propagated just fine. Ask RMS! It's
the basis for the entire GNU movement! Code *was* propagating just fine
until greedy companies added licenses. Then the so-called battle was
enjoined.
I could send you some code in e-mail right now if you'd like. You could
modify it and send it on privately to someone or use it in your business
and I'd never know about it. Code propagates just fine without licenses.
Ironically, the places it doesn't propagate now without an onerous
license (of either the "good" or "evil" sort) is in PUBLIC. Because
people are somehow afraid of the results of their sharing.
Both the GPL *and* commercial licenses are ultimately based on FUD. If
you're scared of the consequences of simply taking some code and using
it as you please and/or the consequences of doing so: You want a
license to tell you how you may or may not use it.
Neither is Freedom. Both are restricted. Otherwise they wouldn't be
licenses.
If you simply do what you wish with whatever code you have, and accept
the consequences, whatever they might be, you don't need a license.
Nate
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> Both the GPL *and* commercial licenses are ultimately based on FUD. If
> you're scared of the consequences of simply taking some code and using
> it as you please and/or the consequences of doing so: You want a
> license to tell you how you may or may not use it.
>
> Neither is Freedom. Both are restricted. Otherwise they wouldn't be
> licenses.
>
> If you simply do what you wish with whatever code you have, and accept
> the consequences, whatever they might be, you don't need a license.
>
s/code/books/
Your argument does not hold. In the early days, so few people were
using code that it really didn't matter. As more people came along and
became education in programming and computer science, more people
started founding companies to develop software. These people realized
that like a book, someone could copy it without permission and sell
those copies without the original author getting the benefit. That is
called copyright. It has existed for a very long time.
Eventually enough people got involved that it was decided somehow
(probably on some obscure court case) that computer source and binary
code are treated the same as books and words. The author has a right
to restrict distribution. In the absence of instructions to the
contrary, that is the default: no redistribution unless you are the
author. Now, I don't want to get into the argument of doctrine of first
sale or anything else like that.
The point is that copyright restricts your freedoms, *for a time*, as an
incentive to the creator of the work actually create it. Now, the time
has been growing, but that is another argument. The GPL grants you
*more* freedoms by letting the creator decide to provide special
instructions that this copyrighted work can be distributed even though
it is still covered under copyright. Now, how that is not freedom, I'm
not sure.
Of course, other licenses go further, such as the BSD-style licenses and
you can always put something into the public domain, but that option is
not attractive to many.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Both the GPL *and* commercial licenses are ultimately based on FUD. If
>> you're scared of the consequences of simply taking some code and using
>> it as you please and/or the consequences of doing so: You want a
>> license to tell you how you may or may not use it.
>>
>> Neither is Freedom. Both are restricted. Otherwise they wouldn't be
>> licenses.
>>
>> If you simply do what you wish with whatever code you have, and accept
>> the consequences, whatever they might be, you don't need a license.
>>
> s/code/books/
>
> Your argument does not hold. In the early days, so few people were
> using code that it really didn't matter. As more people came along and
> became education in programming and computer science, more people
> started founding companies to develop software. These people realized
> that like a book, someone could copy it without permission and sell
> those copies without the original author getting the benefit. That is
> called copyright. It has existed for a very long time.
Totally unrelated to my point. In fact, you completely missed it.
I can send you some non-GPL'ed non-Copyrighted code right now. Would
you like some?
You're adding things that simply don't need to exist. They *do* exist
for *some* code, including GPL'ed code, but licensing of ANY sort
(including Copyright, which is nothing more than another contrived
license allowed by law in many places) *restricts* the use of code in
some fashion. The only truly FREE code is code without any license at all.
Code does NOT inherently *require* licensing or Copyright. You just
think it does.
What would you like me to send you? A two line BASIC program?
10 PRINT "HELLO"
20 GOTO 10
Look - there you go. Free code. No Copyright, no license. Freely
distributed.
I would tell you to do with it what you wish, but that would insinuate
that you need to follow my wishes. You don't. It has no license or
copyright. (Many countries call this "Public Domain".) You may
incorporate my code into your own works freely without any encumberances
of any kind. Enjoy. Or don't. Your choice.
Do you get it now?
I'm not arguing for or against the GPL, just pointing out that code
doesn't need to be licensed just because anyone (or even a majority of
anyone) says it does.
Nate
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:02:12AM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> I can send you some non-GPL'ed non-Copyrighted code right now. Would
> you like some?
>
> You're adding things that simply don't need to exist. They *do* exist
> for *some* code, including GPL'ed code, but licensing of ANY sort
> (including Copyright, which is nothing more than another contrived
> license allowed by law in many places) *restricts* the use of code in
> some fashion. The only truly FREE code is code without any license at all.
>
> Code does NOT inherently *require* licensing or Copyright. You just
> think it does.
>
> What would you like me to send you? A two line BASIC program?
>
> 10 PRINT "HELLO"
> 20 GOTO 10
>
> Look - there you go. Free code. No Copyright, no license. Freely
> distributed.
This would be your licence. Thank you.
>
> I would tell you to do with it what you wish, but that would insinuate
> that you need to follow my wishes. You don't. It has no license or
> copyright. (Many countries call this "Public Domain".) You may
> incorporate my code into your own works freely without any encumberances
> of any kind. Enjoy. Or don't. Your choice.
>
Clause two of your licence. Thank you.
Doug.
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:02:12AM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
>> I can send you some non-GPL'ed non-Copyrighted code right now. Would
>> you like some?
>>
>> You're adding things that simply don't need to exist. They *do* exist
>> for *some* code, including GPL'ed code, but licensing of ANY sort
>> (including Copyright, which is nothing more than another contrived
>> license allowed by law in many places) *restricts* the use of code in
>> some fashion. The only truly FREE code is code without any license at all.
>>
>> Code does NOT inherently *require* licensing or Copyright. You just
>> think it does.
>>
>> What would you like me to send you? A two line BASIC program?
>>
>> 10 PRINT "HELLO"
>> 20 GOTO 10
>>
>> Look - there you go. Free code. No Copyright, no license. Freely
>> distributed.
>
> This would be your licence. Thank you.
>
>> I would tell you to do with it what you wish, but that would insinuate
>> that you need to follow my wishes. You don't. It has no license or
>> copyright. (Many countries call this "Public Domain".) You may
>> incorporate my code into your own works freely without any encumberances
>> of any kind. Enjoy. Or don't. Your choice.
>>
>
> Clause two of your licence. Thank you.
I knew some pedantic schmuck would say that.
Pretend that I left those OFF the message, because trying to make the
point in the message is difficult without saying it explicitly, so just
use your tiny little imagination and pretend none of that explanation
was there).
Twit.
Nate
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 05:44:14PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Douglas Tutty wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:02:12AM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>>
> >>What would you like me to send you? A two line BASIC program?
> >>
> >>10 PRINT "HELLO"
> >>20 GOTO 10
> >>
> >>Look - there you go. Free code. No Copyright, no license. Freely
> >>distributed.
> >
> >This would be your licence. Thank you.
> >
> >>I would tell you to do with it what you wish, but that would insinuate
> >>that you need to follow my wishes. You don't. It has no license or
> >>copyright. (Many countries call this "Public Domain".) You may
> >>incorporate my code into your own works freely without any encumberances
> >>of any kind. Enjoy. Or don't. Your choice.
> >>
> >
> >Clause two of your licence. Thank you.
>
> I knew some pedantic schmuck would say that.
>
> Pretend that I left those OFF the message, because trying to make the
> point in the message is difficult without saying it explicitly, so just
> use your tiny little imagination and pretend none of that explanation
> was there).
>
> Twit.
>
> Nate
LOL:-)
If those messages weren't there and the code was unique enough that it
represented some intelectual property, then I wouldn't touch it without
you permission.
The difficulty is, having seen the code, how do I accomplish the same
thing without using hints inherent in your code. Its like trying to
write a literature-research paper; having read a hundred articles, I
have to ensure that everything I say in my paper is either my own idea
or is properly referenced. It takes great disipline to ensure that a
bright idea at 9:00 in the morning isn't the result of reading something
at 2:00 in the morning that I forgot to cite.
Therefore, I don't even want to read code that I'm not free to take
ideas from.
Doug.
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Doug writes:
> The difficulty is, having seen the code, how do I accomplish the same
> thing without using hints inherent in your code. Its like trying to
> write a literature-research paper; having read a hundred articles, I have
> to ensure that everything I say in my paper is either my own idea or is
> properly referenced.
Copyright law does not require that.
> Therefore, I don't even want to read code that I'm not free to take ideas
> from.
You _are_ free to take ideas from copyrighted code. Copyright protects
expression, not ideas.
--
John Hasler
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:45:51PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Doug writes:
> > The difficulty is, having seen the code, how do I accomplish the same
> > thing without using hints inherent in your code. Its like trying to
> > write a literature-research paper; having read a hundred articles, I have
> > to ensure that everything I say in my paper is either my own idea or is
> > properly referenced.
>
> Copyright law does not require that.
>
> > Therefore, I don't even want to read code that I'm not free to take ideas
> > from.
>
> You _are_ free to take ideas from copyrighted code. Copyright protects
> expression, not ideas.
>
Legal or not, you can still get into hot water. Just look at the
Davinchi Code court case where the authors of a scholary paper tried to
sue the authors of the book based on the use if _ideas_ in their paper.
It got thrown out and the publicity helped the book, but it was still
hot water.
Doug.
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 05:44:14PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> I knew some pedantic schmuck would say that.
>
> Pretend that I left those OFF the message, because trying to make the
> point in the message is difficult without saying it explicitly, so just
> use your tiny little imagination and pretend none of that explanation
> was there).
>
> Twit.
>
Do you always feel compelled to be so abusive? I think that he made his
point about your point quite elegantly. Had you *not* had those
statements in your message, he would not have been able to assume that
he had rights to redistribute the code at all.
Regards,
-Robeto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:02:12AM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> Code does NOT inherently *require* licensing or Copyright. You just
> think it does.
>
Except that code, like every other creative endeavor gains the benefit
of copyright on its creation. You must explicitly uncopyright it, or
release it under license which allows free redistribution or
modification, or go one step further and place it into the public domain
(at least in places where such a thing as the public domain exists).
> What would you like me to send you? A two line BASIC program?
>
> 10 PRINT "HELLO"
> 20 GOTO 10
>
> Look - there you go. Free code. No Copyright, no license. Freely
> distributed.
>
Actually, you can make a reasonable argument that your code snippet is
in the public domain. I wager that if you go back far enough you will
find a publication of that code which is old enough to be in the public
domain, or a previous release of it which is public domain.
> I would tell you to do with it what you wish, but that would insinuate
> that you need to follow my wishes. You don't. It has no license or
> copyright. (Many countries call this "Public Domain".) You may
> incorporate my code into your own works freely without any encumberances
> of any kind. Enjoy. Or don't. Your choice.
>
> Do you get it now?
>
I think you fail to get it. Without the statements in your previous
paragraph, I have no right to redistribute or modify and then
redistribute your creative work (not the little code snippet above, but
some original work which you create).
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >>My assertion: The kernel is more important than the license. Code
> >>trumps license. No code, no need to even use or have a license...
> >>whatever it is.
> >
> >Code without licence tends not to propagate. Linux wasn't the first
> >Unix-compatible one to have been written. It seems to me there was a
> >Unix-compatible kerlen written in the language TURING sometime in the
> >late 70's or early 80's. But it didn't have a free license, and --
> >well, have any of you ever heard of it?
>
> Code before licenses were popular propagated just fine. Ask RMS! It's
> the basis for the entire GNU movement! Code *was* propagating just fine
> until greedy companies added licenses. Then the so-called battle was
> enjoined.
True. I remember those days from back in the sixties. What you need
the license for is to grant the users the right to propagate the code.
Placing it in the public domain (which to my mind is a kind of license,
whatever the legal technicalities may say) has the effect that companies
can take the code private, privately enhance it to the degree that they
effectively own what the original code has become, which may atrophy.
This may or may not be what is intended, but the larger the developer
community, and the greater the utility of the code, the less likely is
will be to happen.
GPL did prevent that kind of taking-private, but its contagion
provisions are, in my mind, more restrictive than necessary to
accomplish this aim.
>
> I could send you some code in e-mail right now if you'd like. You could
> modify it and send it on privately to someone or use it in your business
> and I'd never know about it. Code propagates just fine without licenses.
And if you ever found out about it seven years form now when you've
acquired a different mindset? Would you sue? Are you sure? If you
did sue, would you win? And even if you are sure you wouldn't sue or
couldn't win, can I be sure unless you do explicitly place it in the
public
domain?
Under current international law, code is automatically copyright by the
author. Unless a license is explicitly or implicitly granted, no one
else has the right to make copies.
>
> Ironically, the places it doesn't propagate now without an onerous
> license (of either the "good" or "evil" sort) is in PUBLIC. Because
> people are somehow afraid of the results of their sharing.
>
> Both the GPL *and* commercial licenses are ultimately based on FUD. If
> you're scared of the consequences of simply taking some code and using
> it as you please and/or the consequences of doing so: You want a
> license to tell you how you may or may not use it.
>
> Neither is Freedom. Both are restricted. Otherwise they wouldn't be
> licenses.
>
> If you simply do what you wish with whatever code you have, and accept
> the consequences, whatever they might be, you don't need a license.
The potential consequences are what generates the fear.
-- hendrik
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> My assertion: The kernel is more important than the license. Code
>>>> trumps license. No code, no need to even use or have a license...
>>>> whatever it is.
>>> Code without licence tends not to propagate. Linux wasn't the first
>>> Unix-compatible one to have been written. It seems to me there was a
>>> Unix-compatible kerlen written in the language TURING sometime in the
>>> late 70's or early 80's. But it didn't have a free license, and --
>>> well, have any of you ever heard of it?
>> Code before licenses were popular propagated just fine. Ask RMS! It's
>> the basis for the entire GNU movement! Code *was* propagating just fine
>> until greedy companies added licenses. Then the so-called battle was
>> enjoined.
>
> True. I remember those days from back in the sixties. What you need
> the license for is to grant the users the right to propagate the code.
> Placing it in the public domain (which to my mind is a kind of license,
> whatever the legal technicalities may say) has the effect that companies
> can take the code private, privately enhance it to the degree that they
> effectively own what the original code has become, which may atrophy.
> This may or may not be what is intended, but the larger the developer
> community, and the greater the utility of the code, the less likely is
> will be to happen.
>
> GPL did prevent that kind of taking-private, but its contagion
> provisions are, in my mind, more restrictive than necessary to
> accomplish this aim.
GPL prevents it, but people CHOOSING to purchase the commercial version
in the first place caused the problem. GPL was not necessary if people
had simply refused to use the commercialized versions.
>
>> I could send you some code in e-mail right now if you'd like. You could
>> modify it and send it on privately to someone or use it in your business
>> and I'd never know about it. Code propagates just fine without licenses.
>
> And if you ever found out about it seven years form now when you've
> acquired a different mindset? Would you sue? Are you sure? If you
> did sue, would you win? And even if you are sure you wouldn't sue or
> couldn't win, can I be sure unless you do explicitly place it in the
> public
> domain?
Depends on my morals and ethics, doesn't it? I could GPL it and later
still sue, no difference there. GPL would limit whatever damage I could
cause by suing -- maybe. That remains to be seen in court.
> Under current international law, code is automatically copyright by the
> author. Unless a license is explicitly or implicitly granted, no one
> else has the right to make copies.
What if I don't WANT a Copyright. Stupid. What if I want nothing to do
with it once released? I don't want an "automatic license" if I mail
you some code without a license on it. That's stupid and sounds like it
was creaed for idiots who forgot to license their code.
You guys do realize I'm playing Devil's advocate here, and would always
explicitly license any code I released as a matter of course. Or
explicitly release Copyright and place it in the Public Domain.
I completely understand all you guy's comments, but I disagree heavily
that code ever *REQUIRES* a license.
And that is the point I'm trying to drive home to anyone who believes
that code requires a license. It simply doesn't.
Code is code, and is always Free, unless created under contract that it
remain non-Free or released under a restrictive license like the GPL or
BSD or anything else... anything other than raw code is encumbered with
non-Freedom. And that's okay... it's just a point that few in the GPL
fan-boy community ever even think about, let alone really digest fully.
Nate
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Nate Duehr writes:
> What if I don't WANT a Copyright.
The politicians and lawyers who created copyright law cannot conceive of
such a thing. Consequently copyright is compulsory. The best you can do
is explicitly license it for anyone to do anything they want with it.
> And that is the point I'm trying to drive home to anyone who believes
> that code requires a license. It simply doesn't.
If you give or sell me a copy of a work of yours I own that copy and can do
as I please with it (that includes running it if it is a computer program)
with no need for a license. However, copyright law forbids me to make and
distribute copies of it without your permission.
> Code is code, and is always Free, unless created under contract that it
> remain non-Free or released under a restrictive license like the GPL or
> BSD or anything else... anything other than raw code is encumbered with
> non-Freedom.
Code is protected by copyright by default and may not be copied and
distributed without permission of the copyright owner.
> it's just a point that few in the GPL fan-boy community ever even think
> about, let alone really digest fully.
Perhaps you should try actually reading the copyright law. It is available
on line at
.
--
John Hasler
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
John Hasler wrote:
> If you give or sell me a copy of a work of yours I own that copy and can do
> as I please with it (that includes running it if it is a computer program)
> with no need for a license. However, copyright law forbids me to make and
> distribute copies of it without your permission.
Feel free to feel bound and to limit your own freedom if you so choose.
It's a self-imposed limitation in the case of my example of
non-licensed, non-attributed code that I typed into the mailing list.
> Code is protected by copyright by default and may not be copied and
> distributed without permission of the copyright owner.
If you feel you need to follow that law in every circumstance, go right
ahead. Breaking copyright in the case of someone releasing something
without a license appears to be a victim-less crime.
Thus, copyright in the real world only matters if the author chooses to
exercise it.
By your definition, you could have hit reply with quoting turned on in
your MUA to my code example I sent -- and then you would have been a law
breaker!
I could start sprinkling code into my signature line and then sue
everyone who quotes it on a mailing list? Yeah, right. It'd actually
be fun to see someone try that and see how far it got in the legal system.
I continue to contend that if you put it up in public (not private,
there are differences there) for anyone to see, and it has no license or
stated Copyright -- you'll have no leg to stand on if you attempted to
take that to a court to enforce copyright later. No matter how the law
is written, no Judge with half a brain cell operating would allow me to
sue you for hitting "reply" and "copying" my code.
Therefore the most effective way to "share" code with absolutely zero
encumbrances, is simply to post it somewhere in public, and to force
people to grow up and make their own decisions about whether or not they
wish to copy it and use it. No license required.
Copyright may be automatic, but doesn't apply unless the author chooses
to enforce it. And by posting it in public, they've taken all their own
teeth out if they were ever dumb enough to try to retroactively enforce
it later on.
Nate
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 03:03:53PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>
> >If you give or sell me a copy of a work of yours I own that copy and can do
> >as I please with it (that includes running it if it is a computer program)
> >with no need for a license. However, copyright law forbids me to make and
> >distribute copies of it without your permission.
>
> Feel free to feel bound and to limit your own freedom if you so choose.
>
> It's a self-imposed limitation in the case of my example of
> non-licensed, non-attributed code that I typed into the mailing list.
>
> >Code is protected by copyright by default and may not be copied and
> >distributed without permission of the copyright owner.
>
> If you feel you need to follow that law in every circumstance, go right
> ahead. Breaking copyright in the case of someone releasing something
> without a license appears to be a victim-less crime.
>
> Thus, copyright in the real world only matters if the author chooses to
> exercise it.
Since copywrite exists unless released within a licence, who would want
to open themselves (or their company) to the risk of a legal battle, or
tarnishing of a reputation.
>
> By your definition, you could have hit reply with quoting turned on in
> your MUA to my code example I sent -- and then you would have been a law
> breaker!
>
No. The forums are clearly stated on the web-site (not just assumed by
the culture) that they and anything posted to them are public. This
releases the rest of us from liability if we redistribute your code.
> I could start sprinkling code into my signature line and then sue
> everyone who quotes it on a mailing list? Yeah, right. It'd actually
> be fun to see someone try that and see how far it got in the legal system.
You obviously don't agree with automatic copyright. However, to change
it you would have to change international law.
If you have the energy and effectivness to pull that off, I'd rather you
spend your talents on climate change.
Doug.
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:55:21PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 03:03:53PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> >
> > Thus, copyright in the real world only matters if the author chooses to
> > exercise it.
>
> Since copywrite exists unless released within a licence, who would want
> to open themselves (or their company) to the risk of a legal battle, or
> tarnishing of a reputation.
>
I can't believe I'm jumping into this but...
ISTM, that this is an interesting scenario:
you release code anonymously into public domain. companyA sees that
code, likes it, grabs it, incorporates it, copyrights and distributes it in a
closed source application. this of course is their right as there are
no licenses or rights attached to the code.
simultaneously, userB sees it, grabs it, incorporates it, and
releases it under gpl. later, companyA, having
lost track of how it got the code, sees it in userB's gpl code and
sues userB claiming that they stole it, violated companyA's
copyright. userB ends up in court trying to defend themselves. If
there is no other record available of this code being in public
domain, nor any clear release from the author, then userB is
effectively screwed.
If one had instead released the code with explicit copyright releases
attached, then userB could attribute the code properly and be
defendable.
it seems irresponsible to just throw code out there with the idea that
anybody could use it without making some statement to that effect.
this all assumes the existence of automatic copyright etc. Without
automatic copyright, I suppose the situation would be pretty similar though.
my .02 as IANAA or coder at this point.
/me runs and hides
A
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Andrew Sackville-West writes:
> you release code anonymously into public domain. companyA sees that code,
> likes it, grabs it, incorporates it, copyrights and distributes it in a
> closed source application. this of course is their right as there are no
> licenses or rights attached to the code. simultaneously, userB sees it,
> grabs it, incorporates it, and releases it under gpl. later, companyA,
> having lost track of how it got the code, sees it in userB's gpl code and
> sues userB claiming that they stole it, violated companyA's
> copyright. userB ends up in court trying to defend themselves. If there
> is no other record available of this code being in public domain, nor any
> clear release from the author, then userB is effectively screwed.
CompanyA has to show that userB had access to their source code. Copyright
is not patent.
--
John Hasler
--
what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Douglas Tutty writes:
> No. The forums are clearly stated on the web-site (not just assumed by
> the culture) that they and anything posted to them are public. This
> releases the rest of us from liability if we redistribute your code.
I don't think it does. We are free to download the code and read it and
probably run it, but I don't see how we get any distribution rights.
Nate Duehr wrote:
> I could start sprinkling code into my signature line and then sue
> everyone who quotes it on a mailing list? Yeah, right. It'd actually be
> fun to see someone try that and see how far it got in the legal system.
There is clearly an implied license (in addition to fair use) to quote such
things. However, if there was enough code to qualify for copyright
protection you might very well be able to prevent me from selling copies of
it.
Copyright law is what it is, not what we want it to be.
--
John Hasler
--