Higher Education Sees The Light

It’s about time. Schools at all levels have been promoting non-Free software from the likes of M$“last year, the Hungarian government decided to promote the use of EuroOffice and ODF in schools and universities. “It is an important policy change … The previous 15 years the Hungarian government helped popularise software from US-based companies.”

See Hungary universities move to EuroOffice and ODF.
but now they are seeing the light and using FLOSS applications. The world can and does make its own software. Why shouldn’t they?

This will also pave the way for other FLOSS like GNU/Linux on the desktop instead of That Other OS. Altogether this could save half the cost of desktop IT or permit more/better IT for the same money in Hungarian universities. What about your local university? This is yet another indication that this is the Year of the GNU/Linux Desktop. Hungary as a whole is not doing badly on GNU/Linux desktops (1.48%). It’s time the universities pulled their share up.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

156 Responses to Higher Education Sees The Light

  1. DrLoser says:

    To return to your cite, Robert. Let us consider that audit, shall we?

    Dear Tony [Santelli, GM Power Personal Systems],
    Thank you for your letter and your phone call on Monday which gave us more insight but not a total satisfactory solution:
    You basically emphasized that IBM would like to complete the Windows 95 lincense by Wednesday in order to protect, in particular, your consumer business after Labor Day.
    As much as I would like to do the same, let me list the obstacles and propose a hopefully mutually agreeable solution.
    Because of the great discrepancies revealed in the recent software audit…

    Now, what sort of audit would that be? I’m going to be gob-smacked when you come up with your answer. Most assuredly it will involve either criminal conspiracy or monopolist tendencies.

    Or not, as the case may be.

    You didn’t even bother to read your own cite, did you, Robert?

  2. DrLoser says:

    Have you ever sat in on a conference between lawyers, Robert?

    I’m going to take a wild leap of faith and assume that you have never done any such thing.

  3. DrLoser says:

    Fascinating, Robert. Enthralling, even. Now, what do you suppose the following (from your quote) implies?

    While we should challenge both negotiation teams to come up with the right language to resolve the outstanding issues just as we were able to do last week for issues including l2(d), let me take this opportunity to make you a proposal how to conclude the audit to our satisfaction

  4. DrLoser wrote, ” When did Microsoft do that, and how did they audit IBM, and on what grounds?”

    “Because of the great discrepancies revealed in the recent sotware audit, we are of the strong belief that IBM and Microsoft need to complete the audit to Microsoft’s‘ satisfaction before returning to business as usual and licensing additional soflware products to IBM. Unfortunately. due to the current timing, this could lead to a delay in our ability to conclude the Windows 95 agreement. In addition, I understand that there are still some outstanding issues in the licensing terms for Windows 95. While we should challenge both negotiation teams to come up with the right language to resolve the outstanding issues just as we were able to do last week for issues including l2(d), let me take this opportunity to make you a proposal how to conclude the audit to our satisfaction:”

    See Exhibit 2138, Letter from M$ to IBM August 15, 1995.

  5. DrLoser says:

    They audited IBM, for instance, and threatened to delay access to Lose ’95 if they did not play by M$’s rules, which went far beyond copyright.

    Well, that would be far more interesting than most of your cites, Robert. When did Microsoft do that, and how did they audit IBM, and on what grounds?
    And did it, perhaps, involve OS/2?

  6. DrLoser says:

    That might have been true at one time but it certainly was not about the time of Lose ’95. RedHat, Slackware, Debian and others made sure of that.

    In 1995?

    I can think of several other cogent arguments here, Robert. And indeed, if pushed, I will. (Clue: those reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with the “technical abilities” of the alternatives.)

    But, in 1995?

    You’re having a laugh, aint’cha?

  7. DrLoser says:

    UEFI was more about the control of the device and competition lock-out.

    Oh, is that so, Dougie?
    What a bunch of whiny little losers you lot are.

    People don’t buy hardware with limitations they don’t like. (It’s a mass market, dummy!)
    Leaving RT (oh, so popular) to one side, there was no “competition lock-out” whatsoever, was there?
    Try a little harder, tenth-grade one.

  8. DrLoser wrote, “no viable commercial alternative existed.”

    That might have been true at one time but it certainly was not about the time of Lose ’95. RedHat, Slackware, Debian and others made sure of that. In the days of DOS, too, M$ did not invent DOS, so there were several more or less capable OS around. M$ got a sweet deal with IBM and persuaded all the OEMs and ISV’s to become dependent on M$. That they required obedience and punished disobedience is part of the record. That’s coercion. They audited IBM, for instance, and threatened to delay access to Lose ’95 if they did not play by M$’s rules, which went far beyond copyright.

  9. dougman says:

    UEFI was more about the control of the device and competition lock-out: http://boingboing.net/2015/03/21/windows-10-announcement-certi.html

    UEFI offers no security whatsoever: https://threatpost.com/cert-warns-of-uefi-hardware-vulnerabilities/110213

    BTW, this is what M$ thinks will help sell version 10: http://www.businessinsider.com/nadella-windows-10-has-a-killer-feature-2015-4 which ties in with this: http://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-says-microsoft-bob-will-make-a-comeback/

    The same sh1t was said about BOB, Clippy and other such nonsense. M$ never learns!

  10. DrLoser says:

    Besides, almost all Linux distributions have boarded the Secure Boot train — not out of necessity, but because many think it’s actually a good idea.

    Just to highlight this sage observation, btw.

    Two or so years ago, everybody here was doing their best Chicken Little impression and claiming that UEFI Secure Boot would be the end of Freedom As We Know It.

    And it’s now supported by practically every Linux distro out there. Why? Because it is a good idea. Not only that, but it is an open standard.

    Haven’t heard too much about this iniquity on this site recently, have we?

  11. DrLoser says:

    M$ did the anticompetitive acts, like forcing OEMs to pay for a licence for every PC shipped or charging a higher price if other OS was shipped.

    That might well be deplorable, Robert, but it was not, has not ever been, and will not ever be “illegal,” let alone “criminal.” If you’re an OEM, you get to pick and choose the deal that best allows you to maximise your profits per unit. In this case, the deal was “ship as many units as possible with Microsoft Windows.”

    And OEMs duly made out like gang-busters. Dell wouldn’t be the size that Dell is today, for instance, without having gone down that route. And Dell is now making tons of money in the server market by shipping Dell servers optimised for Linux.

    See how the market works, there? No, I expect you don’t.

    Bottom line: if OEMs could have made more money by shipping the Linux desktop, any Linux desktop, rather than Windows, then they would have done so.

    No coercion involved. The contracts might have been “exclusive,” but they were not “coercive.” Each and every OEM was free to choose a viable commercial alternative, should they wish. It just so happened that no viable commercial alternative existed.

  12. thr quoted, ” No anti-competitive acts are necessary to create this inequality.”

    Two things:

    1. That’s a bunch of crap.
    2. Those “network effects” were M$ making exclusive deals, and even if that weren’t crap, M$ did the anticompetitive acts, like forcing OEMs to pay for a licence for every PC shipped or charging a higher price if other OS was shipped. After many years of that everyone was afraid to compete with M$ for fear of being shut out. It took TWO US DOJ cases and an EU case to shut down M$’s crimes but that could not undo the harm done. It took ARM, Google and Android to break things lose. Now many OEMs know M$ can’t hurt them. GNU/Linux flourishes while M$’s client div. shrinks.
  13. luvr says:

    “You don’t have proof because Microsoft never once was found guilty, because Microsoft never committed any of your imaginary crimes.”

    It doesn’t come as a surprise to me that you won’t ever see any evidence, since you deliberately keep looking the other way. Mind you, if that’s what makes you happy, that’s fine with me–at least if you don’t mind that others prefer to not look away.

  14. thr says:

    Microsoft wouldn’t even exist today if George Bush wasn’t elected. Microsoft was about to be dissolved under Clinton’s DoJ.

    And that would’ve been a crime indeed.

    Here’s a little citation for those unable to understand anything:

    There are a number of crucial features of markets with network effects that distinguish them from other markets. First, markets with strong network effects where firms can chose their own technical standards are “winner-take-most” markets. That is, in these markets, there is extreme market share and profits inequality. […]
    Second, due to the natural extreme inequality in market shares and profits in such markets [with network effects] at any point in time, there should be no presumption that there were anti-competitive actions that were responsible for the creation of the market share inequality or the very high profitability of a top firm. Great inequality in sales and profits is the natural equilibrium in markets with network externalities and incompatible technical standards. No anti-competitive acts are necessary to create this inequality.

    (Nicholas Economides, The Microsoft Antitrust Case, http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/Microsoft_Antitrust.final.pdf)

  15. LinuxGentlesir says:

    Microsoft wouldn’t even exist today if George Bush wasn’t elected. Microsoft was about to be dissolved under Clinton’s DoJ.

  16. thr says:

    Of course, that case was about exclusive dealing etc. wrt a browser that M$ threw in for $0. Imagine what they would do for the OS which was their bread and butter. There wasn’t a case about the exclusive dealing with the OS because that was in another case.

    To sum it up: you don’t have proof. You don’t have proof because Microsoft never once was found guilty, because Microsoft never committed any of your imaginary crimes.

  17. thr wrote, “as always, you have proof for this ‘conspiracy’?”

    Of course, I can read. See, for example, this analysis of US DOJ v M$.
    “The district court found in Microsoft that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market . . . . Microsoft was also found to have unlawfully tied its web browser to its operating system, Windows, a clear violation of section 1.8 However, despite Microsoft’s liability in these areas, the court did not find that Microsoft violated section 1 through its exclusive dealing arrangements. The court based this finding on a seemingly precarious interpretation of previous exclusive dealing cases. The court seemed to develop a new heightened standard for exclusive dealing. The court’s ruling ignored the anticompetitive effects of the arrangements in favor of this new standard, which seems only to find liability when there are no alternative distribution sources. Under this decision, exclusive dealings will be significantly harder to prove, as the court will now consider all alternatives, such as direct mailing, retail and downloading. If this standard remains good law, Microsoft’s exclusive dealing analysis will hold grave results for high-tech industries, a segment of the economy where competition is particularly vital to promote innovation.”

    Of course, that case was about exclusive dealing etc. wrt a browser that M$ threw in for $0. Imagine what they would do for the OS which was their bread and butter. There wasn’t a case about the exclusive dealing with the OS because that was in another case.

  18. thr says:

    For about two decades, M$ Microsoft and Intel and OEMs conspired to make that untrue by shipping TOOS Windows with almost every PC shipped.

    And, as always, you have proof for this ‘conspiracy’?

    There are still very few PCs on retail shelves with GNU/Linux here.

    That’s the OEMs’ fault, not Microsoft’s.

  19. thr says:

    thr the problem here is there is new software closed source that is Linux only.

    Care to give examples?

    VFX software not all can be ported to Windows. In fact its more interesting some of the new VFX software is Linux only.
    http://www.digitalmedia-world.com/software/visual-effects-society-develops-vfx-reference-platform.html

    Ahem, that’s a conclusion not supported by the article you cite. The VFX Reference Platform is there to make it easier to create interoperable DCC tools on Linux. No, you don’t understand the intention of it at all. The VFX Reference Platform was created because the prior state of affairs regarding software dependencies was a mess.

    Interesting enough Linux is important enough to the vfx world they have have created their own API/ABI environment that is distribution independant.
    http://www.vfxplatform.com/

    The VFX Reference Platform simply says: use these versions of these libraries if you don’t want to end up in a mess. (Dependency hell is long gone from Windows, by the way.)

    This is part of where containers will come great for some desktop applications. VFX applications are fairly much distribution neutral now.

    Almost all major players in the VFX industry limit themselves to a very minor number of EXPLICITLY supported distributions. For example, Autodesk Maya 2015:

    Red Hat® Enterprise Linux 6.2 WS
    Fedoraâ„¢ 14 Linux
    CentOS 6.2 Linux

    Yes the valve steam runtime model is being replicating into different industry using Linux.

    You do realize that this is really, really old hat? You may not have noticed that, for example, basically every Windows port of FLOSS comes with its own libraries. Because that’s what the Steam Runtime is, and nothing more.

    Basically things changed in 2014 in a very interesting direction in VFX. Yes until the release of the runtime everything was going in the Windows direction but the tide has shift in the VFX field.

    That’s total gibberish now.

    http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/
    Very good read if you think Linux guys are implementing secure boot because they agree with it. There are many bugs in Secure Boot design.

    There was no need to implement Secure Boot at all. Remember? Because Secure Boot can be deactivated. It was only implemented because Linux developers thought that users were too stupid to deactivate it.

    This bit at this stage Microsoft is attempting to remove this from OEM requirements as of Windows 10 and you can bet as part of Windows 11 will try again.

    Allowing Secure Boot to be deactivated or not is then at the discretion of the OEM. If OEMs make big bucks with Linux there should be no need to worry. Besides, even if it could not be deactivated, Linux distributions can still boot with a signed-by-Microsoft bootloader. Unless you want to suggest that Microsoft will stop signing third-party bootloaders.

    Linux Distrobutions are on the secure boot train out of necessity not willingness.

    If Linux is this big thing, then why is there no ‘open hardware’ market? The demand should be there when Robert crows that the world is switching to Linux.

  20. thr wrote, “Microsoft Windows is a choice.”

    For about two decades, M$ and Intel and OEMs conspired to make that untrue by shipping TOOS with almost every PC shipped. There are still very few PCs on retail shelves with GNU/Linux here.

  21. oiaohm says:

    Exceptions confirm the rule. But such software is mostly Linux-only for historical reasons if at all. Just look at all the expensive VFX software that was SGI/IRIX-only not too long ago. Almost everything has been ported to Windows.
    thr the problem here is there is new software closed source that is Linux only. So this statement of yours is inf act bogus about Historical reasons.

    VFX software not all can be ported to Windows. In fact its more interesting some of the new VFX software is Linux only.
    http://www.digitalmedia-world.com/software/visual-effects-society-develops-vfx-reference-platform.html

    Interesting enough Linux is important enough to the vfx world they have have created their own API/ABI environment that is distribution independant.
    http://www.vfxplatform.com/

    This is part of where containers will come great for some desktop applications. VFX applications are fairly much distribution neutral now.

    Yes the valve steam runtime model is being replicating into different industry using Linux.

    Basically things changed in 2014 in a very interesting direction in VFX. Yes until the release of the runtime everything was going in the Windows direction but the tide has shift in the VFX field.

    thr
    And yet it is mandatory that Secure Boot can be deactivated. Besides, almost all Linux distributions have boarded the Secure Boot train — not out of necessity, but because many think it’s actually a good idea.
    Really who blog have you been reading.

    http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/
    Very good read if you think Linux guys are implementing secure boot because they agree with it. There are many bugs in Secure Boot design.

    Really thr the idea that implementing secure boot means Linux world agree with it is wrong. The idea that outside third parties control the signing keys so allowing them to be attack to breach a system they have a problem with to start off with. Linux world does have the tools to make a complete new set keys and replace the complete key set. Note this is a breach of Microsoft idea of secure boot so a key replacement program cannot be officially signed to work on everything..

    And yet it is mandatory that Secure Boot can be deactivated
    This bit at this stage Microsoft is attempting to remove this from OEM requirements as of Windows 10 and you can bet as part of Windows 11 will try again.

    Windows RT devices secure boot could not be disabled and only the level of complaints make Microsoft change that line.

    Linux Distrobutions are on the secure boot train out of necessity not willingness.

  22. ram says:

    Locking computers and motherboards made by third party manufacturers to a particular proprietary operating system is illegal in most countries and used to be illegal everywhere. It is called “third line forcing”. Note that when Apple sells both the computer and the software that is NOT third line forcing, likewise various game machines that come with a particular operating system supplied by the manufacturer.
    What Microsoft keeps trying to do IS third line forcing. To the extent the laws are not enforced against Microsoft just diminishes respect for the law and the corresponding governments that are supposed to enforce it. In short order the police can come to be viewed as just another criminal gang by the public. Is that really where you want society to go?

  23. thr says:

    thr please drop the idea that all people using Linux and the like are cheapskates. There is Linux only software that is not exactly cheep. Price tags on some of the Linux only software starts $15000 USD per seat.

    Exceptions confirm the rule. But such software is mostly Linux-only for historical reasons if at all. Just look at all the expensive VFX software that was SGI/IRIX-only not too long ago. Almost everything has been ported to Windows.

    Not all Windows hardware is this simple. Surface tablets from Microsoft with Windows RT was not possible to change the OS.

    Then don’t buy one. Especially when tablets and smartphones are treated as commodity devices where the majority of consumers does not waste a single thought on how to change the operating system. Has anybody ever complained that he couldn’t install Linux on his Super Famicom? That was basically a general-purpose computer, too.

    So it is a valid worry that Microsoft might cooperate with with hardware vendors to lock other OS solutions off hardware. Unix vendors were hated for doing exactly the same evil. History warns us that Vendors locking OS to Hardware combined with a support contract model can turn really nasty.

    And yet it is mandatory that Secure Boot can be deactivated. Besides, almost all Linux distributions have boarded the Secure Boot train — not out of necessity, but because many think it’s actually a good idea.

  24. oiaohm says:

    thr please drop the idea that all people using Linux and the like are cheapskates. There is Linux only software that is not exactly cheep. Price tags on some of the Linux only software starts $15000 USD per seat.

    Feel free to use your hardware with FreeDOS, Linux or whatever else is out there for the cheapskates.
    Not all Windows hardware is this simple. Surface tablets from Microsoft with Windows RT was not possible to change the OS. So it is a valid worry that Microsoft might cooperate with with hardware vendors to lock other OS solutions off hardware. Unix vendors were hated for doing exactly the same evil. History warns us that Vendors locking OS to Hardware combined with a support contract model can turn really nasty.

  25. thr says:

    Charging money for permission to use hardware one owns is a tax of little or no benefit to users of IT.

    No, money is charged for using Microsoft Windows, not for using your own hardware. Microsoft Windows is a choice. Feel free to use your hardware with FreeDOS, Linux or whatever else is out there for the cheapskates.

    Then there’s the EULA which definitely enslaves users. Why should anyone pay to be a slave? That’s disgusting.

    So Microsoft treats you as property? How often were you sold, Robert? Has Microsoft killed more people than the Confederacy? You should notify the historians, Robert.

  26. thr joked, “you still will have to pay for such things as electricity and internet to use your computer. So why should Microsoft not be allowed to charge a monthly or annual fee for its software you use? Whoever doesn’t like it can convert to Linux.”

    The difference between pricing for utilities like hardware and power and M$’s licensing is that one is based on cost of production and the other is based on maintaining M$’s life-style. No one minds paying for food, shelter and clothing but air is free, usually, and so should be information in the Information Age. Charging money for permission to use hardware one owns is a tax of little or no benefit to users of IT. Then there’s the EULA which definitely enslaves users. Why should anyone pay to be a slave? That’s disgusting.

  27. thr says:

    Proven fact: M$ is a ex. bully that’s having to compete on a level playing field now. http://www.geekwire.com/2015/microsoft-exec-why-apple-and-google-have-an-advantage-and-how-microsoft-plans-to-compete/

    Nothing in that text suggests that Microsoft was a bully. Good advice: if you want a text to back up your argument then you should choose a text which just does that.

    Proven fact: M$ pushed for internet user licensing. Imagine, paying a yearly fee to Microsoft. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1925188060.shtml

    There’s nothing in that text that implies only ever so slightly that Microsoft wanted a yearly fee for surfing the internet. That’s only your misguided imagination.

    Proven fact: Whois on microsoft.com resolves to MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD.COM

    Typical infantile Linux Clown Posse ‘humor’.

    Proven fact: Microsoft is adopting the strategy of converting licensees to annual subscribers, whereby people pay a yearly fee just to use computer software.

    Douggie, I’m sure you can get a computer from the dumpster where you live, but you still will have to pay for such things as electricity and internet to use your computer. So why should Microsoft not be allowed to charge a monthly or annual fee for its software you use? Whoever doesn’t like it can convert to Linux.

    Proven fact: Microsoft does create most of it’s software, it acquires (Skype, Minecraft) and then ruins it later. (http://www.p4rgaming.com/microsoft-the-only-reason-we-bought-rare-was-to-run-them-into-the-ground/)

    You meant “doesn’t”, I suppose? In any case, Skype and Minecraft work perfectly fine, like they did before. And whining about Microsoft buying software is typical Linux Clown Posse hypocrisy, because:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Google

    And then that link, Douggie. With your natural predilection for BS you managed to ‘unearth’ that story which contains ZERO references to back up its BS. Perhaps you’d like to read a more balanced account of Microsoft buying Rare:

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-08-who-killed-rare

    Proven fact: When rumors of distorted profit figures in an effort to consistently beat Wall Street expectations and keep its stock price steadily rising. The false reports would violate SEC regulations, and amount to outright fraud alleged by Microsoft’s chief of internal audits, Charlie Pancerzewski.

    Well, look here:

    http://www.newzealandoliveoil.net/pages/about.html

    Charlie enjoying life on his olive estate, paid for by Microsoft. He wouldn’t have sued Microsoft to settle for a nice sum, or would he?

  28. dougman says:

    Correction: Microsoft does NOT create most of it’s software, it acquires (Skype, Minecraft) and then ruins it later.

    Not enough fluid in me when I wrote that!

  29. thr wrote, “I very well remember a time when you shot down all references to statistics web sites like Statcounter, with ohioham providing BS explanations about how such sites counted ‘wrong’ with regards to Linux.”

    Well, that’s what’s wrong with web stats and monopoly. I just don’t have any better source of global stats. Google certainly could help but they don’t. That other source of webstats no longer gives $free access to regional data.

    BTW, the top 10 users of GNU/Linux in the whole wide world yesterday were:
    Country
    Finland
    Uruguay
    Pitcairn Islands
    Reunion
    Timor-Leste
    Venezuela
    Malta
    Czech Republic
    Cuba
    Monaco
    Share (%)
    15.73
    13.76
    11.11
    9.44
    6.21
    6.02
    5.81
    5.28
    5.22
    4.81

    You’re welcome.

  30. dougman says:

    Proven fact: M$ is a ex. bully that’s having to compete on a level playing field now. http://www.geekwire.com/2015/microsoft-exec-why-apple-and-google-have-an-advantage-and-how-microsoft-plans-to-compete/

    Proven fact: M$ pushed for internet user licensing. Imagine, paying a yearly fee to Microsoft. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1925188060.shtml

    Proven fact: Whois on microsoft.com resolves to MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD.COM

    Proven fact: Microsoft is adopting the strategy of converting licensees to annual subscribers, whereby people pay a yearly fee just to use computer software.

    Proven fact: Microsoft does create most of it’s software, it acquires (Skype, Minecraft) and then ruins it later. (http://www.p4rgaming.com/microsoft-the-only-reason-we-bought-rare-was-to-run-them-into-the-ground/)

    Proven fact: When rumors of distorted profit figures in an effort to consistently beat Wall Street expectations and keep its stock price steadily rising. The false reports would violate SEC regulations, and amount to outright fraud alleged by Microsoft’s chief of internal audits, Charlie Pancerzewski. Shortly thereafter, Microsoft and Pancerzewski settled out of court. Terms of the agreement were sealed, but one source who claims familiarity with the case says that Microsoft paid Pancerzewski $4 million. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1022709548194800880

  31. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser really only reason I have been seeing your stuff is I have not been on my own computer. My greesemonkey script works fine other than when I am on a computer without it. Tomorrow I will be back home and you will be blocked out again. And I guess you will go back to insulting other people by mistake when attempt to target me due to your level of incompetence.

  32. DrLoser says:

    DrLoser most of what you list I am incompetent about if we get into the brass tacks of it you will find that its you who are in fact the incompetent one.

    You certainly seem to be incompetent at writing a Spider-Monkey script, Fifi.

  33. oiaohm says:

    thr there was a real DrLoser that pre-dated TMR formation who wrote a lot of guides on security construction also run a very interesting blog for a very long time still does. Its not that hard to come up with your own unique identity.

  34. thr says:

    “Its the one thing I hated most about TMR was how many of the people there were just imposers.”

    No worries, ohioham, no one will ever take you for anything but an imposter and a poser. Except in the Australian Outback, of course.

  35. thr says:

    “Sadly, very few are real discussions of the topic of the day, just ad hominem attacks and diatribes.”

    Robert, that is because you and your posse are not interested in discussion, only in unproven ‘facts’ pulled out of thin air. And just to give an example of your two-faced BS: I very well remember a time when you shot down all references to statistics web sites like Statcounter, with ohioham providing BS explanations about how such sites counted ‘wrong’ with regards to Linux. Now you have become the official Statcounter mascot, celebrating weekday spikes and providing BS theories about what that could mean. I tell you what it means: that you’re an opportunistic bigot.

  36. oiaohm says:

    LinuxGentlesir the DrLoser here is the TMR Drloser not the well educated one who gave some great talks on some very complex ideas. Its the one thing I hated most about TMR was how many of the people there were just imposers.

  37. LinuxGentlesir says:

    oiaohm,

    I liked DrLoser better when he was lecturing us about nature’s four simultaneous days. It seems like he’s psyche has gone downhill since.

  38. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser most of what you list I am incompetent about if we get into the brass tacks of it you will find that its you who are in fact the incompetent one.

  39. oiaohm says:

    [Peter Dolding] Due to what zsh does file-names containing \n are also not a issue since the command line is not processing them.
    [ranjit from the Austin Group] They aren’t processed in other shells either. for i in *; do ..; done works fine with every filename, so long as you quote “$i” when you use it. If you are concerned about hyphens at the start when passed to commands, the standard practise is to glob on ./* instead, which gives you similar filenames to `find .` ie ./-rf in your example.

    So for your rm command, one would just use: rm ./*

    Other than ranjit being badly wrong sitting on a different computer so saw you posts.

    Valid file name “junk ;rm -rf *;” Now use ls ./*. See ./*does not solve the basic problem that the command line can be high jacked from file names. Yes its legal to have a * in a filesystem name under Linux. Yes the ./* thing allows like SQL injection attacks against the shell except for shells like zsh that don’t do processing on file names. Please note since zsh does not do processing on file-names it not posix conforming.

    for with “$i” works mostly. Other than cases where you need to pass multi files into the application for processing. Something like tar to make a archive for is not going to work too well and its also longer.

    This to address 545 issue. Of shell doing stupid things with filenames containing – and space and other shell process-able chars.
    That is the problem. I gave up after having to deal with people like ranjit who as just getting it wrong after wrong say that the current works. Reality test the stuff it broken.

    Please note that one you are picking on was mostly not written by me I submitted after speaking at length to the developer of zsh “Jonathan Nieder”. Yes I quote from “Jonathan Nieder” a lot in that submission.

    So DrLoser you are not attack me by quoting that post but attacking Jonathan Nieder please look up who that is.

    Yet on 2012-04-10 01:46 I point out that ranjit.

    Its one thing to attack me DrLoser its another to involve someone like Jonathan Nieder.

    The shell fault is quite major and I have never managed to get any fix into standard as of yet. This is why I am so happy to see systemd getting rid of tones of shell script.

  40. DrLoser says:

    You would notice I have not complained once about it when its over a valid mistake I have made.

    On the contrary, Dolding, mate.

    You complain every single time.

    You’re a whiny ignorant little dismal cretin who somehow feels the need to call other people “idiots” on a regular basis, perhaps to prove to yourself that you are in some way less of an “idiot” yourself.

    Guess what, chum?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    It doesn’t work all that well.

  41. DrLoser says:

    Did we add the bash shell into the list of things that Fifi is demonstrably incompetent at?

    I forget.

    It’s a very, very long list.

  42. oiaohm says:

    Note oldfart is now attempted to cover up his current list of mistake by pulling in stuff not related to the current topics at hand.

    The SVC controller stuff is more that Oldfart wants to say I lied over my experises. Reality it was years since I had used it and make a simple memory error.

    I answer a lot of things straight from memory. There is always a risk doing this of screwing stuff up badly. Of course I accept this.

    Lets look at the list here. Oldfart had complete miss understanding of the limitations of Apache 2.0 linses. Then was going on that libvirt required hypervisor when in fact it requires just virtualization that can be OS based virtualization.

    This case calling oldfart an idiot on the topic is quite justified. Yet Oldfart had also attacked others so really has no right to be upset. So please explain Oldfart why in 7 post here you posted this.

    And nobody but a cheapskate drug pusher thinks that users of computers care at all about the ideological purity of the software.

    No need at all to be this insulting. Exactly what grounds do you have to think someone caring about ideological purity of the software is a drug pusher. There answer is none.

    I have grounds to call you a idiot Oldfart those are provable mistakes. I accept being called a idiot over the mistakes I have made. You would notice I have not complained once about it when its over a valid mistake I have made.

    So I am only expect you to tolerate exactly what I tolerate.

  43. DrLoser says:

    My small error: custodes. A spell-checker correction, I think, but it might have been my own mistake.

    Look into your own heart before you accuse others of what you so rampantly do, Robert.

  44. DrLoser says:

    Sadly, very few are real discussions of the topic of the day, just ad hominem attacks and diatribes.

    quis custodiet ipsos custodies, Robert?

  45. DrLoser says:

    I don’t attempt to hide the fact I make errors.

    Indeed, Fifi.

    Why shy away from your Unique Selling Point?

  46. DrLoser says:

    [Peter Dolding] Due to what zsh does file-names containing \n are also not a issue since the command line is not processing them.
    [ranjit from the Austin Group] They aren’t processed in other shells either. for i in *; do ..; done works fine with every filename, so long as you quote “$i” when you use it. If you are concerned about hyphens at the start when passed to commands, the standard practise is to glob on ./* instead, which gives you similar filenames to `find .` ie ./-rf in your example.

    So for your rm command, one would just use: rm ./*

    You’re full of it, Fifi, aren’t you? Right up to the brim.

  47. oiaohm says:

    oldfart most what you post is self serving bullshit as well.

    IN most cases, I never called you names until you Mr. “expert” attached me first.
    Oldfart take note. I insult you after you insult others. In fact I have never insulted you before you have resorted to using Insults either against Robert or Others. You seam to think its fine to insult others but when something insults you it a problem. Basically pull you head in all the time if you wanted for me to stop doing what I have been doing.

    And My labeling of you as a liar and a fraud is something that you not only earned, but you bragged about (Remember “any good lawyer is a liar”?) I caught and called you out on pretending expertise about the IBM SAN Volume Controller, you weaseled your way out of an answer and then when pushed, excused yourself with “having forgotten” how the SVC works because you have “so much tech to keep in mind….

    No I laugh off your stupidity. You did not get any good lawyer is a lier. You did not get that was a reference to you. You claim to be an expert so you are a master lier to hide the fact you are completely incompetent.

    I don’t attempt to hide the fact I make errors.

  48. DrLoser says:

    Who worked on setting up the reactos build environment. Sorry I do have coding experience. Just I am not willing to give you the links.

    Fair enough, Mr Dolding. No links required. No code required.

    A hint or two on the problem you chose to solve, what language you solved it in, and what algorithms you used?

  49. DrLoser says:

    I caught and called you out on pretending expertise about the IBM SAN Volume Controller, you weaseled your way out of an answer and then when pushed, excused yourself with “having forgotten” how the SVC works because you have “so much tech to keep in mind….

    To be fair, oldfart, Fifi has had enough time to recuperate and to google-splat the relevant details.

    I’m sure he’s recalled the specific details about IBM SAN SVCs by now. After all, Fifi is a professional.

    Aren’t you, Fifi?

  50. oldfart says:

    “Who worked on setting up the reactos build environment. Sorry I do have coding experience. Just I am not willing to give you the links.”

    Then in the absence of proof, your expertise does not exist and can be counted as so much self serving bullshit.

  51. oldfart says:

    “Deaf Spy sorry you want to complain about me attacking Oldfart. Oldfart need to learn not to attack other first.”

    Sir, you have been calling myself and others names for a long time before this latest exchange without the having earned the right to do so. And earning the right to do so does not include feeling that you have some God given right to “drop the hammer” on someone who you feel you have proven wrong to “teach them a lesson”. IN most cases, I never called you names until you Mr. “expert” attached me first.

    And My labeling of you as a liar and a fraud is something that you not only earned, but you bragged about (Remember “any good lawyer is a liar”?) I caught and called you out on pretending expertise about the IBM SAN Volume Controller, you weaseled your way out of an answer and then when pushed, excused yourself with “having forgotten” how the SVC works because you have “so much tech to keep in mind….

    Riiight.

    There’s an old saying Fifi,

    “don’t pee down my leg and tell me its raining.”

    As far as I am concerned, you specialize in this.

  52. oiaohm says:

    Says the man who has never done any programming in his life, and who thinks he knows more of NT than Dave Cutler.
    Who worked on setting up the reactos build environment. Sorry I do have coding experience. Just I am not willing to give you the links.

  53. oiaohm says:

    Deaf Spy calling some a idiot is way more polite than calling someone a “cheapskate drug pusher”.

    I called Oldfart and idiot because that is exactly how he had been acting.

    The Oldfart calls me this
    “And you sir a proven and admitted liar and fraud, can not be trusted to interpret anything right.”
    At this point he insulted me. So he asked to be called an idiot.

    On top of that Oldfart had the legal requirements of Apache 2.0 wrong and the more.

    Deaf Spy sorry you want to complain about me attacking Oldfart. Oldfart need to learn not to attack other first.

  54. Deaf Spy says:

    Sadly, very few are real discussions of the topic of the day, just ad hominem attacks and diatribes.
    Well, this is to be expected, Mr. Pogson, when you have the likes of Fifi and Dougie. Fifi is very fond of the word “idiot”, who called so Oldfart twice before Oldfart reacted. Further, these two are incapable of any technical discussion.

    Actually, you are the most pleasant opponent here, followed by Ram, who is the last one worth discussing things with.

  55. Deaf Spy says:

    oldfart Please can you at least do one post in this thread without an error or a mistake???

    Says the man who has never done any programming in his life, and who thinks he knows more of NT than Dave Cutler. 🙂

  56. oldfart wrote, “he likes talkback threads hundreds of entries long – Some of which are actually real discussions.”

    Not particularly. There are 33,572 comments in the database today. I can search them several ways or just look at the latest ones. Sadly, very few are real discussions of the topic of the day, just ad hominem attacks and diatribes. There are a few comments where someone actually reads and understands the comments of others and a few where someone actually adds to the conversation instead of shouting into the wind.

  57. oiaohm says:

    oldfart Please can you at least do one post in this thread without an error or a mistake???

  58. oiaohm says:

    oldfart
    And it wouldn’t mean a damn thing. All that counts are that the drivers work, and that applications run.

    Interesting enough there are cases where programs work on Wine that no longer work on newer versions of Windows. Some cases wine custom patches are in fact making wine not conform to DX documentation or Opengl standards because conforming equals the applications particular applications not running.

    Some of the reason why software does not work on newer computers running Windows is changes in Windows some is in fact changes in drivers Oldfart. Its called the devil in the details.

    This is another point of view. “All that counts are that the drivers work, and that applications run.”

    Just because drivers work don’t mean Application will run if the Application depends on a driver bug. Some of these driver bugs are forced to be removed for security reasons. Guess where something like docker where applications have their own complete isolated runtime come good. You can bring back a security flaw for 1 application alone.

    This issues are why you get people asking the Wine project to port to Windows.

    Now if Docker allowing graphical happens to end up working under windows allowing wine under Windows then Windows users running into these issues may have a way out.

    Anti-Wine point of view from you Oldfart overlooks the cases where people end up using Wine because they have no choice to access old data.

    Do you really think that geek minutiae is going to amount to much to someone who is fully productive in their own terms with windows based applications on windows?
    Did you consider the case that the poor Windows user has just updated their computer and now a key program they depended on no longer works. Not all these cases are fixable by normal windows means.

    There are some really good reasons for wanting wine to work on Windows by any means.

    And you Lil’Hammie are a proven and admitted liar and fraud. You are in no position to call anyone an idiot, because you have been proven one time and time again on blog after blog, where you are called ohioham and laughed at to your face.
    If I can find that you are idiot and you call me a idiot. You must be more of a idiot Oldfart. In fact what you class as me admitting as a Lier and a fraud is your using bogus crap. Just because I was not willing to waste my time with you any more you believe you could claim this.

    Note I never claimed I was perfect. Your last post you just made 3 more errors.

    You error rate per number of posts makes mine look angelic Oldfart. The fact you say I should have no creditability at my error level then you want creditability come on pull the other one. I am judging you by your own standards. Everyone should be laughing in your face for the level of incompetence you have Oldfart.

  59. oldfart says:

    ” I could pull in 20 different appdb reports showing the video card driver version sensitivity of Windows applications. Something most people are not aware is Windows graphic drivers detect applications and apply hacks so they work. Windows is a stack of hack on top of hack.”

    And it wouldn’t mean a damn thing. All that counts are that the drivers work, and that applications run.
    Do you really think that geek minutiae is going to amount to much to someone who is fully productive in their own terms with windows based applications on windows?

  60. oldfart says:

    “Really you are a complete Idiot in these fields Oldfart.”

    And you Lil’Hammie are a proven and admitted liar and fraud. You are in no position to call anyone an idiot, because you have been proven one time and time again on blog after blog, where you are called ohioham and laughed at to your face.

  61. oiaohm says:

    Deaf Spy there is no fifi here. Get it yet you asked a non existent person to answer something so there will be no answer. Asking me now will not get an answer now. Changing someone’s handle for fun can at times completely back fire this one of them.

  62. oldfart says:

    ” But Robert did ban you previously, if I remember. ”

    Nope, never has.

  63. Deaf Spy says:

    You software application, Fifi! Bring it on!

  64. oiaohm says:

    As far as docker running applicati0ns is concerned, so what! Windows applications are not going to be any more supportable in containers than they are on linux now, and linux desktop applications are not going to be any more or less usable than they are now.
    Oldfart Dockers need for a cross container IPC that has to be kernel based fixes one of Linux desktop application biggest performance problems. The fact Linux Kernel lacks a modern IPC is really harmful to performance. So yes all Linux applications will be made more usable.

    Windows applications will in fact be more supportable in containers. Due to you not working with Wine enough you are not aware of how an exact AMD or Intel driver version can make all the difference if a game or other GPU dependant program works or not. Also take note that Microsoft is now having to directly bother about .net support on Linux. Wine internally with prefixes has implemented something like containers with prefixes in the first place but it does not go out to system files.

    Really you are a complete Idiot in these fields Oldfart. I could pull in 20 different appdb reports showing the video card driver version sensitivity of Windows applications. Something most people are not aware is Windows graphic drivers detect applications and apply hacks so they work. Windows is a stack of hack on top of hack.

    So far in this single response list Oldfart has exceed my number of errors for over 3 months.

  65. oiaohm says:

    oldfart please note vmfork appears in Xen as a commercial closed source extension before it appeared in appeared in open source Xen then evidentially it appears in VMWare.

    https://blog.xenproject.org/2014/09/08/xen-docker-made-for-each-other/

    Do you know what Xen Orchestra is Oldfart. I like how you talked about wanting 10 years support now you forgot about it.
    http://xenserver.org/blog/entry/preview-of-xenserver-support-for-docker-and-container-management.html
    Xen goes kinda sane. Centos has 10 years support so instead of reinventing the wheel lets work with a distribution that provides 10 years support so keeping maintenance costs down on the docker part.

    oldfart reality is VMware is not the only commercial game in town for a GUI.

    Basically there are large risks to the paths VMware is choosing.

  66. LinuxGentlesir says:

    I would like to see you implement docker containers in a kubernetes Pod with just the tools that are available as part of the base products. If you are lucky, someone in the FOSS community will have implemented a GUI that will make your job bearable. If noy YAML isn’t all that hard – Go to it!

    There are plenty of companies you can throw money to install and manage FOSS products for you. But there is a point where if I am hiring you I’d have to ask what the hell am I paying you for if you outsource all your “difficult” work to others?

  67. LinuxGentlesir says:

    As opposed to a whinny twerp like you! Robert Pogson makes statements that we find questionable. He also chooses not to ban us from here. That should tell you something sir.

    You aren’t quite as obnoxiously spammy and confrontational like DrLoser is, so you have that going for yourself. But Robert did ban you previously, if I remember. Perhaps he got tired of dealing with the ban evasions, or he finds your presence amusing.

  68. oldfart says:

    “Oh please. All you do is spam the blog and act like a jerk.”

    As opposed to a whinny twerp like you! Robert Pogson makes statements that we find questionable. He also chooses not to ban us from here. That should tell you something sir.

    It tells me that he likes talkback threads hundreds of entries long – Some of which are actually real discussions. None of which you have contributed to other than by whining or sneering.

    So by all means, if you wish to declare victory, go ahead. It doesn’t change the reality that it is commercial implementations that make this technology work and scale, and the FOSS contribution is little more than the basic plumbing.

  69. oldfart says:

    ” Proprietary competitors are not even on the radar. And these are the kind of technologies that are powering the future of IT.”

    I would like to see you implement docker containers in a kubernetes Pod with just the tools that are available as part of the base products. If you are lucky, someone in the FOSS community will have implemented a GUI that will make your job bearable. If noy YAML isn’t all that hard – Go to it!

  70. oldfart says:

    “To be correct better thing to show following in a big way is vmfork. vmfork appears in open source Xen before VMWare implements it. ”

    No one cares who did it first. The community will plod along with docker/kubernetes and whatever other half baked tools exist for free. the commercial companies ands twill produce polished and finished management infrastructures or will use the same open API’s to allow control of docker containers and/or KVM for those who want it and understand that you have to pay for it, and VMWare or Nyper-V for those who don’t.

    As far as docker running applicati0ns is concerned, so what! Windows applications are not going to be any more supportable in containers than they are on linux now, and linux desktop applications are not going to be any more or less usable than they are now.

    And so both sides of this debate will have what they wish.

    Its all good.

  71. LinuxGentlesir says:

    FOSS has been leading in OS level virtualization for quite some time.

    Yup! FOSS has been leading cloud technology in general. Oldfart brought up Kubernetes, just another example. It’s not even FOSS vs Proprietary. It’s FOSS in competition with other FOSS. Proprietary competitors are not even on the radar. And these are the kind of technologies that are powering the future of IT.

  72. LinuxGentlesir says:

    I have presented many forceful arguments (not necessarily correct — merely forceful) on both issues.

    Oh please. All you do is spam the blog and act like a jerk.

  73. oiaohm says:

    FIFI the problem is why bother presenting stuff when I have in the past. Really asking me just shows that you were being a jackass with nothing to add to the current point.

    The reality here is GPL is being more tolerated by businesses. Mostly because there is no other affordable way around it. Apache 2.0 and other license are not without their teeth. Apache 2.0 is can be exploited in many ways.

    1) for valid license you must keep source code forever. GPL does not demand you keep source code forever.
    2) If some developer of the Apache program demands to see that source code to confirm that you are conforming the Apache license forbids you from place a NDA on it to prevent its release.

    So basically Apache 2.0 allows your source to be taken just as GPL does. Just GPL is way more upfront about it.

    Apache 2.0 puts a hell of a lot of power in the hands of the developers.

  74. oiaohm says:

    Something Oldfart needs to wake up to is Docker is not just targeting to be for server class applications.

    http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/dockerizing-sample-gui-application-case-study/

    Yes people are working on how to docker ship desktop applications. Yes this gets really interesting to say the least. People want graphical controls for their servers.

  75. oiaohm says:

    oldfart containers in fact become before most hyper-visors on Linux. Early from was
    Virtualization Capabilities have up until now been used by Hypervisors AFIAK. Containers like LXC and Docker only came later.
    Incorrect as normal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating-system-level_virtualization
    LXC starts off as Linux-VServer in 2001. VMWare Hypervisor appears 2002 and Xen is 2003. 2008 Linux-VServer and OpenVZ merge there code bases to form what we call modern day LXC.

    Yes I did get something minor-ally wrong. Initial release of Libvirt has OpenVZ and Linux-VServer with the Linux-VServer code base in 2008 becoming the libvirt LXC code base. Basically 3 forms of OS level virtualization have been in Libvirt from its very start. Yes Usermode Linux was also in libvirt from the very start. Libvirt has never been hyper-visor bound.

    So containers come first not be used then hyper-visors come and now we are back to containers. Nothing like going around in a complete circle.

    The Oldest item of OS level virtualization is Chroot from 1982.

    So from a Linux world Hypervisors come second. IBM mainframes had Hyper-visors before everyone else.

    Oldfart your time line is completely screwed up. IBM hardware hyper-visors come before Chroot but that it the only thing. x86 hyper-visors are all later inventions to Operating-system-level virtualization. Linux 2.2.0 had User-mode Linux patch in 1999 this is what Linux-VServer comes out of to slim down the memory foot print.

    Only environment with a hyper-visor prior to Operating system level virtualization with Linux was if you were running on IBM hardware. But if you include chroot that is wrong. Chroot was added very early on in Linux history before it was ported to IBM hardware that supported a Hypervisor.

    Oldfart I guess like most people you forget Chroot is OS level virtualization.

    From a Linux point of view Hypervisors come second. Form a IBM hardware users point of view Hypervisors come first for everyone else OS Level Virtualization comes first. Most of it we had to wait for IBM patents to expire on Hypervisors.

    Also Docker in itself is a FOSS project. So it’s kinda silly to exclaim Docker support as some kind of edge for proprietary software. This is proprietary software following, not leading.

    LinuxGentlesir
    Also Docker in itself is a FOSS project. So it’s kinda silly to exclaim Docker support as some kind of edge for proprietary software. This is proprietary software following, not leading.
    This is so correct its not funny. FOSS has been leading in OS level virtualization for quite some time. To be correct better thing to show following in a big way is vmfork. vmfork appears in open source Xen before VMWare implements it. Most of the new major hyper-visor features have appears in Xen first with VMWare following.

    Oldfart wants to say its like a hyper-visor. There are a few problems and its going to get bad.

    AMD new GPU driver is in fact designed to support multi runtime using it of all different versions. Same applies to the Intel graphics drivers.

    The reality here is linux containers will start using GPU with only bundled libraries. Only video card maker not ready for this is Nvidia.

    Containers/chroots have been Unix/Linux world equal to SXS just management of these items has been poor.

  76. DrLoser says:

    Yay Free Software. That’s the point.

    Why are you even here?

    Because everybody loves free anything. And it’s valid to discuss what “Free, as in speech,” means when it comes to software. And because I have presented many forceful arguments (not necessarily correct — merely forceful) on both issues.

    A better question, LinuxGentlesir, is —

    What possible benefit do you provide by being here?

    Cheerleading is not an option, unless you present a sweet little cross-dressing picture of yourself as a seven year old in a very short skirt.

  77. LinuxGentlesir says:

    oiaohm,

    It’s interesting that the troll’s arguments have turned into pointless ad hominem. They can’t argue against the legitimacy of OpenStack/Docker, so they have nothing better to do then attack you.

  78. LinuxGentlesir says:

    Yay Free Software. That’s the point.

    Why are you even here?

  79. DrLoser says:

    Also Docker in itself is a FOSS project. So it’s kinda silly to exclaim Docker support as some kind of edge for proprietary software. This is proprietary software following, not leading.

    And your completely non-existent point would be, LinuxGentlesir?

  80. DrLoser says:

    Ahhhhh …. I forgot.

    It’s been a couple of years now, but Fifi’s extraordinary attempt to explain why the Java Virtual Machine is clearly better than the .NET virtual machine running the CIL, because it, er, doesn’t really have all of that nonsense metadata that (inter alia) allows you to define the type system for generics …

    … That was yet one more hilarious piece of abject Fifi failure.

  81. DrLoser says:

    A simple example of Fifi losing his train of thought and resorting to gibberish:

    Docker existence highly undermines the idea that GPL is too much of a problem. Most parties are not that worried. Yes GPL require

    Yup, it stopped right there.

    We can add to Fifi’s extraordinarily long list of complete ignorance the following item, apparently:

    (x) Docker

    He’s not remotely competent at writing basic bash scripts, either. Do you want me to cite the Austen Group again on that?

  82. DrLoser says:

    It’s rather difficult to imagine what possible value Fifi has to this site, really.

    Based on that blatantly obvious evidence that he never once has a single clue what he’s talking about.

  83. DrLoser says:

    Actually, I just picked my personal favorite. I am sure that you have yours.

    It’s fair to say that Fifi has been a serial offender on IBM SAN. What I love about it is that he has clearly never seen a single data center with IBM SAN in operation.

    So, from a practical point of view, Fifi loses. Dismally.

    But it’s hard to ignore Deaf Spy’s list, isn’t it?

    1. Unicode.
    2. File systems.
    3. OS kernel architecture.
    4. Memory management in OS.
    5. C++ Exceptions (and exceptions in general).
    6. CPU execution optimization techniques.
    7. CPU cache.
    8. Virtualization.
    9. Music composition and music software.
    10. Photo-processing and photo-processing software.

    Fifi has also tried, very patiently, to explain to Robert (a man with a degree in Physics and at least one career that involved practical explanation thereof) that it is possible — for example — to detect a crashed aircraft somewhere in the Pacific via … well, I can’t quite remember, but I seem to recall that radar came into it. Robert shot the concept down with justifiable contempt.

    Fifi has also tried to claim knowledge of the Stratus VOS operating system. He has none.

    Fifi has also tried to claim knowledge of
    a) Anglo-Saxon
    b) Chinese clerical script
    c) Carolingian minuscule
    d) Several centuries of Ancient Greek. (“Ancient Greek” being a variable term defined, at will, and according to the Fifi post in question.)

    Fifi has also claimed to be an expert on practically any sort of law you wish to mention. He’s particularly keen on
    a) Contract law
    b) Financial law, with particular reference for some bizarre reason to the Australian tax codes and
    c) Copyright law.

    A sub-set of (c) is that Fifi claims to have a monumental understanding of German copyright law, extending all the way back to the Treaty of Utrecht.

    Interestingly enough, when you confront Fifi with the relevant bit of German in the relevant Copyright Law, he freezes up and just retreats into his little gibbering shell.

  84. LinuxGentlesir says:

    Also Docker in itself is a FOSS project. So it’s kinda silly to exclaim Docker support as some kind of edge for proprietary software. This is proprietary software following, not leading.

  85. LinuxGentlesir says:

    OpenStack supports Docker containers. It even does bare metal resource allocation. And as you even admitted, it’s supported and used by many notable organizations, so you can’t be nope hobbyist project.

  86. oldfart says:

    “And this is just in the last few months. Should we dig back, the list will take a database to handle.”

    Actually, I just picked my personal favorite. I am sure that you have yours.

  87. Deaf Spy says:

    And I have shown you to be incompetent on the IBM SAN Volume Controller.

    You are being very generous with poor Fifi, Oldfart. He has shown to be incompetent also on:
    1. Unicode.
    2. File systems.
    3. OS kernel architecture.
    4. Memory management in OS.
    5. C++ Exceptions (and exceptions in general).
    6. CPU execution optimization techniques.
    7. CPU cache.
    8. Virtualization.
    9. Music composition and music software.
    10. Photo-processing and photo-processing software.

    And this is just in the last few months. Should we dig back, the list will take a database to handle.

  88. Deaf Spy says:

    No point asking for it again because now you will never get it.

    That I knew from the start, Fifi. I will never get it from you, because you have never created a single software application. You can’t possibly show something that doesn’t exist.

    But I wanted to demonstrate this to the audience here. It is all good.

  89. oldfart says:

    ” I have showing up Oldfart as incompetent in these topics.”

    And I have shown you to be incompetent on the IBM SAN Volume Controller. PErhaps you wish to consider throwiing around words like incompetent eh?

    For instance you said:

    “I don’t really get how you got that libvirt was hyper-visor dependant”

    from libvirt.org

    “Libvirt The virtualization API
    libvirt is:

    A toolkit to interact with the virtualization capabilities of recent versions of Linux (and other OSes),”

    Virtualization Capabilities have up until now been used by Hypervisors AFIAK. Containers like LXC and Docker only came later.

    “Each docker container instance contains its own set of libraries include its own copy of libc so talks to the outside world by Linux syscalls and kenrel file-systems like proc and sys. ”

    But I would imagine that all that inside the container, just like the OS components are inside the VM.

    At any rate niggling around in the details misses a bigger point. Hypervisor companies like VMWare and mocrosoft will support Docker because a market for Docker style containers has been proven. THe commercial vendors will build their own shims so that they can integrate Docker containers into there management infrastructure. Both companies will also make sure to integrate with kubernetes container manager as well. Not because they expect true believers like you to come to their door, but because they have potential paying customers who wish this tech supported and managable. SO VMWare will have the ability to support docker containers on top of their hypervisors and manage them with their cloud management infrastructure, which also integrated with Openstack.

    Its all good.

  90. oiaohm says:

    Lets get back to the topic at hand Oldfart did not understand how docker works also did not understand the legal side of Apache 2.0. Also did not understand that OpenStack was one of many competeting projects.

    So has been going on with a stack of crap. Of course now you want to come personally after me because I have showing up Oldfart as incompetent in these topics.

  91. oiaohm says:

    FIFI you are still on my forbid list for asking for cites I guess you have forgotten. I have not.

    Also you have not asked using my handle so I have no reason at all to give you anything. No point asking for it again because now you will never get it.

  92. Deaf Spy says:

    Really I have posted short C programs here before so you are asking me to demo what I have demoed before.

    Come on, “hit me babe one more time!”. Show us a usable program, which users might actually use. A GUI, web app, cmdline tool, anything will do!

  93. oiaohm says:

    Hey, Fifi, can you show us one single piece of software you have created yourself? A screenshot or a piece of code with a small description will do. Anything. Just a small proof of your programming skills.
    FIFI off topic question. Exactly why would anyone bother showing anything to a troll like you. Really I have posted short C programs here before so you are asking me to demo what I have demoed before.

  94. Deaf Spy says:

    Hey, Fifi, can you show us one single piece of software you have created yourself? A screenshot or a piece of code with a small description will do. Anything. Just a small proof of your programming skills.

  95. oiaohm says:

    oldfart you need to check very more carefully
    https://libvirt.org/drvlxc.html
    Last time I checked libvirt was a hypervisor dependent part.

    One of Libvirt first drivers was LXC what is Linux Containers. LXC drivers is in fact the first release of libvirt so I don’t really get how you got that libvirt was hyper-visor dependant. Yes you can use Libvirt without a hyper-visor on Linux and always have been able to.

    Oldfart you have to remember each instance of something like Photon from VMware per OS instance under the hyper-viser might be running more than 1 Docker container split by Linux Containers Namespaces.

    Each docker container instance contains its own set of libraries include its own copy of libc so talks to the outside world by Linux syscalls and kenrel file-systems like proc and sys.

    So guess how a docker containers talks to docker? The answer is something shocking dockers containers don’t talk to docker Oldfart. This is why nspawn under systemd that sets up linux container based environment can run docker containers without docker installed. Yes to use a docker container the program docker itself it optional. What is not optional is a Linux kernel syscall environment. Yes a complete Linux kernel syscall environment.

    Also interesting how in all cases Docker goes through system libraries – libraries whose interfaces are defined and who presumably can be emulated.
    Oldfart the thing you missed is Docker itself is optional to use Docker containers. So even emulating all the libraries Docker itself uses does not mean Docker containers will work. So Docker containers work you have to emulate Linux Syscalls and Linux kernel file systems or give in and just use a Linux kernel.

    The main reason why the kdbus in the Linux kernel is going through so much submission hell is that it provides a method to communicate between containers under Linux without sharing network or file-system.

    Docker existence highly undermines the idea that GPL is too much of a problem. Most parties are not that worried. Yes GPL require

  96. oldfart says:


    Something to remember Docker Containers are designed not to use Hyper-visor dependant parts.

    That smells of sweaty bollocks in the morning to me, Fifi.”

    Hmmm… I just made a quick trip to wikipedia and

    “Docker accesses the Linux kernel’s virtualization features either directly through the provided libcontainer library (which is available since Docker 0.9), or indirectly via libvirt, LXC (Linux Containers) or systemd-nspawn.[8][11]”

    Last time I checked libvirt was a hypervisor dependent part.

    Also interesting how in all cases Docker goes through system libraries – libraries whose interfaces are defined and who presumably can be emulated.

    Perhaps our expert cares to explain his the logic of his interpretation in light of the above.

  97. DrLoser says:

    In terms of “supporting Linux,” btw, do you think that VMware (obviously not FLOSS avocates) understand how to write a Linux daemon?

    In much the same way that the FLOSS advocates here quite evidently do not?

  98. DrLoser says:

    The reality here is like it or not VMWare has to support Linux.

    Gawrsh, Mickey, ya think so?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Tell us again, Fifi, tell us again your Magical Unrealism tale of how VMware came to be, and how it came to become the hypervisor of choice in corporate organisations with many different OSes to support.

    And how, somehow, along the way, the “mission statement,” not to say the corporate profit model, managed to miss that tiny little detail of “supporting Linux?”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  99. DrLoser says:

    Something to remember Docker Containers are designed not to use Hyper-visor dependant parts.

    1. That smells of sweaty bollocks in the morning to me, Fifi.
    2. Why would anybody on earth care?

  100. oiaohm says:

    oldfart the docker stable API for application developers is mostly the Linux kernel syscall interface.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_%28software%29

    The reality here is like it or not VMWare has to support Linux. If you go back to 2004 they had Console OS that was like Xen Dom0 to run drivers.

    The reality is that all commercial vendors need is an unencumbered stable API to support. VMWare is extending the hypervisor to directly support docker containers via the Docker API. GPL is involved only tangentially.
    No matter how you put it this was badly wrong Oldfart.

    Commercial software that are not VM vendors really don’t need to care Docker you bundle your user space runtime so the fact the Linux kernel to Userspace API/ABI is stable and protected by the Linus clause from being viral. So does not matter if a API/ABI that is stable is provided by a GPL work with clause or a LGPL not at all.

    At least for the near future VMWare has no option to support Linux.

    Something to remember Docker Containers are designed not to use Hyper-visor dependant parts. So Linux kernel to userspace API/ABI is becoming the vendor neutral for server class applications.

    Oldfart all the talk about GPL being a hazard needs really to be taken with a grain of salt. When fixing issues with Docker you might need to fix the Linux kernel. Docker is Apache 2.0 for some parts and GPL for others.

    And those of us who have no problem paying for superior products can continue to use the VMWare hypervisor.
    So you host on Amazon EC2 or Google Compute Engine or Rackspace guess what those companies don’t use VMWare they use Xen.

    If the product was truly superior you would not see as many parties deciding that VMWare hypervisor is not worth the coin. Yes you can pay for Xen commercially.

  101. oldfart says:

    “Heck oldfart had the complete cite to read to get it right yet he just managed to screw it up completely.”

    Nope. I asked you to explain this portion of the cite. You did so correctly, which is a novelty given your past performance.

    Do you really think that I did’nt notice the sentence before?

    But the important thing is VMWare will have a way of supporting Docker containers that can sit on top of their hypervisor like any VM. And those of us who have no problem paying for superior products can continue to use the VMWare hypervisor.

  102. oiaohm says:

    Heck oldfart had the complete cite to read to get it right yet he just managed to screw it up completely.

  103. oiaohm says:

    oldfart the docker containers in this vmware case is still fully operating inside a full Linux kernel.

    VMWare is extending the hypervisor to directly support docker containers via the Docker API.
    Really funny that. Another bit of bull crap by Oldfart.

    Basically about time you shut up on Linux topics you are a complete idiot Oldfart.

    “Photon is running as a guest OS and will be built-in with VMware ESX. We’re not trying to monetize a new Linux distribution; we’re trying to enable simplified container operations for vSphere,” Colbert said.

    Really Photon is just a guest OS that vSphere control interface will be talking to. So zero alterations to the hyper-visor other than supporting the Linux kernel well.

  104. oldfart says:

    “The recent major growth has been docker tech yes heavily GPL stuff. So the idea that the more free licenses effect businesses is disappearing. Yes companies like VMWare are able to work out legal and possibly illegal ways to extend GPL works.”

    Really? Then how do you explain this sentence from your own cite:

    “Photon is not based on another vendor’s Linux distribution, but rather was built from scratch by VMware. Colbert emphasized that with Photon, VMware is not trying to be a Linux distribution vendor and is not attempting to compete with existing Linux vendors either.”

    The reality is that all commercial vendors need is an unencumbered stable API to support. VMWare is extending the hypervisor to directly support docker containers via the Docker API. GPL is involved only tangentially.

  105. oiaohm says:

    http://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/vmware-launches-lightwave-and-photon-for-linux-containers.html

    Yes the reality this the License is not the limitation. Yes even that VMWare is facing a court case over GPL stuff does not stop them from using it.

    The recent major growth has been docker tech yes heavily GPL stuff. So the idea that the more free licenses effect businesses is disappearing. Yes companies like VMWare are able to work out legal and possibly illegal ways to extend GPL works.

  106. LinuxGentlesir says:

    Most of the contributors to Linux are businesses also, and it’s GPL. But this is all irrelevant. The whole point of mentioning OpenStack was to highlight a significant public sector contribution to the advancement of Free Software.

  107. oiaohm says:

    Nope. All you may have proved is that I am wrong. Yet you haven’t even considered that there might be another reason why business got behind OpenStack, eh?
    oldfart the answer is right place right time, right functionality, right vendor support and finally the right advertising.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing_comparison
    Something you miss Oldfart is OpenStack did not come out of no where.

    OpenNebula and Nimbus was what Rackspace and Nasa took and reworked to make OpenStack. Mostly lets reduce down one interpreter todo everything.

    Remember both OpenNebula and Openstack are the same license and both support closed source extensions. So licensing has very little todo with it. Why did one win over the other no particular reason just right place right time.

    The cloud market is fickle little beast. Vendors change what they support all the time. In 5 years time Openstack might be dead and something else in its place. Only thing for sure is if you have idea of selling a complete closed source cloud solution forget it now as it just never flys.

    Oldfart one of the key vendors to turn the tide in OpenStack favour was when Debian that you joked about announce they would be shipping Open-stack. After the Debian release Red Hat was forced to follow suit.

    Basically anyone who has done there research understand that OpenStack market share could be a temporary one.

    Oldfart number you lied about the reason businesses got behind OpenStack. The reason you gave equally applied OpenNebula and others.

    The big reason why OpenStack was Apache 2.0 not GPL something is licence compatibility with all the other project that come before it.

    But the thing to remember its times like OpenQRM can control OpenStack. But it does not just control Openstack. Most control interfaces support multi different backend. Most vendors support more than just Openstack. The fact that control interfaces are not willing to go OpenStack alone tells you that the lock-in with OpenStack is not that solid.

    http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/12/eucalyptus-ceo-sudden-openstack-conversion-makes-more-sense-in-light-of-hp-purchase/
    Yes eucalyptus was acquired by HP to end its Openstack resistance. But there are still resistance from other projects. The market is not unified 100 percent behind OpenStack.

  108. oldfart says:

    “Oldfart here is another Lie. Sorry You are proven lier.”

    Nope. All you may have proved is that I am wrong. Yet you haven’t even considered that there might be another reason why business got behind OpenStack, eh?

    Care to guess?

  109. oiaohm says:

    The fact that it lacks the mandatory release clause is apparently all of those participating in Openstack require. Otherwise it is very possible that Openstack would not be where it is today.
    Oldfart here is another Lie. Sorry You are proven lier.

    Because some of the extensions to Openstack are GPLv2/GPLv3. There are companies that are not allowed to release source code under Apache 2.0 license but are allowed to release source code under GPlv2/GPLv3. Not every company classes Apache 2.0 as harmless.

    The issue is with Apache 2.0 is that it in fact encourages your staff to do the wrong thing. GPLv2/GPLv3 staff must be upfront and release things. BSD the code if it released with out permission you can take your staff for being a thief.

    Apache 2.0 has granted your staff the right to release source does not state when or who they will release it to. So the big problem with the Apache 2.0 that one of your internal staff could be sharing your internal working tree with a any random third party and not be legally sue-able as they have in fact stolen nothing because the code license gave them permission todo this.

    GPLv2/GPLv3 only requires source code to go to your customers does not grant your staff the right to release to any random person.

    Apache 2.0 has different teeth to GPL licenses is true. Problem is Apache 2.0 teeth are quite huge. Yes Apache 2.0 you could have one of your internal staff leaking stuff to one of your competitors and having you competitors always feature up with you and they are not doing anything legally wrong. GPLv2/v3 does allow the party with it to keep their code secret absolutely up into releasing to customer.

    Yes people talking about GPL stealing the problem is Apache 2.0 allows stealing of a different and possibly way more damaging form.

    Please also note the Apache 2.0 form of source code release has in fact been testing in the USA courts and the employer who fired the staff member for doing it had to pay compensation because the staff member was fired without legal grounds because the staff member had done nothing legally wrong.

    Apache 2.0 allows you staff to be traitors legally.

    Both GPLv2/v3 and Apache Licenses skin the cat of getting the source code to the public. GPL is very up front about it the Apache 2.0 License method very under the table.

  110. DrLoser says:

    Apache 2.0 is viral just does not have mandatory release to customers but one traitor staff member can legally release the Apache 2.0 source code and you cannot to bugger all about it either.

    Perhaps you would care to expand upon this interesting new notion of a “traitor staff member,” Fifi.

    Does that notion derive from personal experience? In which case my heart would bleed for you.

    Does it make any sense at all, in context?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    No it does not. Employment law in the Western World is generally biased in favour of the employee, but not in the case of outright theft.

    Your example here would qualify as outright theft, Fifi.

  111. DrLoser says:

    My experience up north has always been that it’s better to jump all the way into the boat.

    Depends upon the nature of the boat, Robert. If it’s a slaver, I votes we keep both feet on the dock.

    And considering that, if I write commercial code (that is, code that I make money of of), I can attach it to an Apache license without fear of being turned into a slave — contrary to the obvious consequence if I write commercial code under GPLv3, which would involve becoming almost literally a slave

    … As a developer, I prefer to stay on dry land rather than sign up for slavery.

    But then again, I know how to write a Linux daemon process. The whole lot of you blood-sucking drones haven’t even considered the notion, have you?

  112. thr says:

    “If one is committed to open source, one should use GPL to keep the code available, just as one is unwise to have one foot on the dock and one on the boat for very long. My experience up north has always been that it’s better to jump all the way into the boat.”

    GPL is based on freedom for the users. All other licenses are based on freedom for the developers. To be able to choose between those two is a freedom in itself. And you are in favor of taking that freedom away. You’re an ugly fundamentalist, just like Stallman.

  113. oldfart says:

    “Oldfart can get things so wrong”

    And you sir a proven and admitted liar and fraud, can not be trusted to interpret anything right.

  114. oldfart says:

    ” Apache 2.0 is just as viral as GPLv2/v3 just lacking the mandatory release clause.”

    So what. No matter what your interpretation, Apache 2.0 It is not GPL. The fact that it lacks the mandatory release clause is apparently all of those participating in Openstack require. Otherwise it is very possible that Openstack would not be where it is today.

    As I said, its all good, perhaps not for the owner of this blog, but for the rest of us.

  115. oiaohm says:

    oldfart
    Meh. The fact remains that the source code of the enhancements that they sell is safe, and I am sure the participating businesses understand the patent assignment issues.

    As I said, its all good.
    There source code is only safe for sure if they treat Apache 2.0 as if it LGPLv3.0.

    Also not everything in openstack is Apache 2.0 some of it is GPLv3 and LGPLv3.

    oldfart also you still have not read Apache 2.0 license have you. Section 4
    You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of
    this License; and
    You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You
    changed the files; and
    You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute,
    all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form
    of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the
    Derivative Works

    Apache 2.0 is viral just does not have mandatory release to customers but one traitor staff member can legally release the Apache 2.0 source code and you cannot to bugger all about it either.

    Again define of Derivative Works is important Apache 2.0 license area of coverage is also effected by the Vmware vs GPL case.

    Oldfart sorry you basically claiming bogus again. Apache 2.0 does not make your source code to extensions safe from being released. Just means it will have to be one of your staff members. Please note Apache 2.0 license conformance demands you keep that source code forever.

    Most parties using Apache License have got use to using the source code secrecy status as a temporary thing.

    The difference between Apache 2.0 and LGPL stuff is not much. Apache 2.0 is in fact more viral than LGPL. Apache 2.0 is just as viral as GPLv2/v3 just lacking the mandatory release clause. Problem it Apache 2.0 does grant you staff a license right to release the work.

  116. oldfart says:

    “Apache 2.0 most likely is safer to treat like as if it is LGPLv3. Yes LGPLv3 and GPLv3 have patent taking.”

    Meh. The fact remains that the source code of the enhancements that they sell is safe, and I am sure the participating businesses understand the patent assignment issues.

    As I said, its all good.

  117. oiaohm says:

    Yep, with all those commercial businesses behind it that insure that it will not turn into yet another piece of FOSS junk it is doing quite well. The fact that openstack is issued under the Apache 2.0 license instead of the GPL insures than nobody has to worry about losing intellectual property, and can offer their own commercial value added code built on top of openstack – both Hewlett Packard and VMWare do this.
    Oldfart can get things so wrong. Exactly what stops openstack from turning into another BSD OS or OpenSSL. The teeth in the Apache 2.0 License.

    https://github.com/rochaporto/collectd-openstack Also just because OpenStack core project is Apache 2.0 does not mean you will not be wanting GPLv2 sub-licensed parts.

    http://choosealicense.com/licenses/
    Apache 2.0 you don’t have to release source code but you do have to state what ever you have modified. Unfortunate state is affairs is that this has not been tested in court. Yes starting what is modified might in fact mean releasing the patches you applied to a Apache 2.0 work. Also using Openstack brand on any marking material can require paying the main project for the right. Yes own commercial work on top of Open-stack this might be true but you also have to be willing to pay the main project so you can use Openstack in your product information.

    Yes another evil issue providing the “License and copyright notice” in some countries could be using the trademark.

    Apache 2.0 is not a free lunch.

    Oldfart you have to remember Hewlett Packard and VMWare are paying for the privilege of doing modifications to OpenStack.

    “losing intellectual property” you have not read Apache 2.0 carefully have you. Apache 2.0 does not come after source code directly. It does come after patents.

    If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
    Basically by using Apache 2.0 agree not to use your patent collections against any current or future submission. So someone cloning your patent protected Openstack extension to OpenStack and submitting it to the main project you can do nothing about it.

    Basically Oldfart GPLv2 takes source code Apache 2.0 takes your patents.

    LGPLv2 and GPLv2 say you need approval from the patent holder to ship the protected work.

    So Oldfart both Apache 2.0 and Gplv2 take something intellectual properly. So saying not losing intellectual properly is incorrect when talking about Apache 2.0 licensing stuff. Apache 2.0 does not force source code release directly but does demand a list of what you have modified without legal test cases telling you how much information must be released to pass this clause.

    Apache 2.0 most likely is safer to treat like as if it is LGPLv3. Yes LGPLv3 and GPLv3 have patent taking.

  118. oldfart wrote, “The fact that openstack is issued under the Apache 2.0 license instead of the GPL insures than nobody has to worry about losing intellectual property, and can offer their own commercial value added code built on top of openstack – both Hewlett Packard and VMWare do this.
    Its all good.”

    No, It’s not all good. By using ASL, no one contributing to OpenStack has assurance that folks who use the code and distribute it will give back changes. Clearly, the contributors to OpenStack want to share the development costs. Why put a cutoff on that sharing? Is the world a better place with divergent strands of OpenStack? That’s fragmentation which is encouraged by ASL and suppressed by GPL. Vendor lock-in results and that’s definitely not good for users of software.

    If one is committed to open source, one should use GPL to keep the code available, just as one is unwise to have one foot on the dock and one on the boat for very long. My experience up north has always been that it’s better to jump all the way into the boat.

    Besides a matter of style and sharing ASL also has a big disadvantage. If one contributes code to OpenStack that contribution can be removed or modified by someone along the food-chain and those changes can be hidden from the original contributor and users. That could be wasteful, insecure, bug-ridden etc. Not good. It’s always better to reveal the source code.

    The idea that GPL “steals” from anyone is plainly silly. One contributes one’s source code. It’s not stolen. In exchange for that contribution one gets to use everyone’s contributions, a big plus. ASL gives contributors less back in exchange for the contributions made. There’s a reason most users of Apache use the original release from Apache.org and not some downstream mod. It’s better that way. ASL is superfluous for the Apache web server as it is for OpenStack. GPL would work just as well for the server as it would for OpenStack.

  119. oldfart says:

    “If your head wasn’t so far up Micro$oft’s behind you might see that OpenStack is a pretty important technology to many organizations these days.”

    Yep, with all those commercial businesses behind it that insure that it will not turn into yet another piece of FOSS junk it is doing quite well. The fact that openstack is issued under the Apache 2.0 license instead of the GPL insures than nobody has to worry about losing intellectual property, and can offer their own commercial value added code built on top of openstack – both Hewlett Packard and VMWare do this.

    Its all good.

  120. ram says:

    oiaohm said “I don’t see how long term many of the closed source compliers can remain.”

    I think some might, but those will be from hardware companies that tune the compilers to their specific hardware.

  121. oiaohm says:

    LinuxGentlesir that example is making open source complier along side their own existing. To get extra features upstream and other things it will take a few years for Microsoft to get everything they want in place. Its unlikely to be under 12 months.

    The reality here is I don’t see how long term many of the closed source compliers can remain. But they will attempt in the short term.

  122. LinuxGentlesir says:

    I would not be surprised if in a few years time we hear that Microsoft has stopped making compliers and from then on will just use LLVM.

    Why a few years? https://github.com/dotnet/llilc

  123. LinuxGentlesir says:

    OpenStack started as the Nebula project at NASA (you know, a nebula, a cloud in space). CERN is a heavy user of OpenStack and also contributes to it.

    If your head wasn’t so far up Micro$oft’s behind you might see that OpenStack is a pretty important technology to many organizations these days.

  124. oiaohm says:

    https://www.scientificlinux.org/
    thr
    NASA and CERN combined? Was that in the news? Didn’t read it anywhere. Seems like a strange kind of merger. And the reason was a rant, you say?

    http://www.dailytech.com/International+Space+Station+Goes+Open+Source+Dumps+Windows+XP+for+Debian/article31527.htm

    NASA CERN and many parties share maintainer-ship of Scientific Linux.

    Anything possibly life threatening at NASA or CERN will be control by something Linux.

    Please note lync is a joke at cern. Notice that the instructions include setting up pidgin on Linux to connect to lync.

    thr also notice the instruction at cern to install Linux on Windows. Yes you can get by at Cern with a Linux only Laptop. Window you will end up installing Linux. Cern is very much a 90/10 split area. Nasa is about 80/20.

    Visual Studio C++ ok how is its standard conformance.
    http://cpprocks.com/c1114-compiler-and-library-shootout/
    Yep complete crap. C and C++ standards Gcc not perfect but decades ahead of Visual Studio. Anything life or death Microsoft compliers are not good enough. Gcc can be iffy at times on quality of code produced but even so its so far ahead of Visual Studio it is not funny.

    I would not be surprised if in a few years time we hear that Microsoft has stopped making compliers and from then on will just use LLVM.

  125. thr says:

    “Dr “The Wisest Human” Loser rants for 3 hours about how he is smarter then NASA and CERN combined.”

    NASA and CERN combined? Was that in the news? Didn’t read it anywhere. Seems like a strange kind of merger. And the reason was a rant, you say?

  126. LinuxGentlesir wrote, “smarter then NASA and CERN combined.”

    I know about rocket-science and I’ve visited CERN and worked with people who worked there. You don’t get in the door being a dummy unless you’re a tourist. My M.SC. thesis was on a gadget similar to what the guys at CERN use to track particles. Simple physics replicated a zillion times and collecting bunches of data at every pulse. Software for that is not particularly complex but the whole system certainly is. Even the tiny system at my alma mater required a huge effort of money/labour/intellect to get working and to run. Nothing is plug and play when you’re working with prototypes most of the time. It’s no wonder those guys use GNU/Linux. They wrote most of the software they are using. Why not the OS the world made?

  127. dougman wrote, “its a wonder a lobotomy has not been done yet.”

    That would explain everything. He probably held a knife to the surgeon’s throat demanding the last bit of humanity be cut out.

  128. dougman says:

    Well, its commonly known that Brits are the angriest people in Europe. So it stands to reason he comes here to vent, then dealing with M$ crap all day just makes it worse, its a wonder a lobotomy has not been done yet.

  129. LinuxGentlesir says:

    Coming soon to a comment section near you: Dr “The Wisest Human” Loser rants for 3 hours about how he is smarter then NASA and CERN combined.

  130. DrLoser says:

    Well, perhaps that “write your own daemon” challenge was a little unfair. I mean, it’s basically only ten lines of code. Ten lines of well-understood and well-documented code. Ten lines of code that anybody at all familiar with programming Unix could whip up in a lunchtime.

    But I accept that I am holding you all up to impossibly high standards, aren’t I?

    It is Sunday. I shall repent.

    Let’s try an easier one, shall we? No programming required.

    Which particular Posix standards do you consider vitally important?

    And why?

  131. DrLoser says:

    Today you work in the lunacy industry.

    Luckily, Robert still works at the cutting edge of that industry –that entirely novel area, uncharted by Adam Smith and the like, wherein GDP is not measured in monetary terms.
    Huge productivity gains when it comes to churning out useless lunatics, though.

  132. thr says:

    “I used to work in science”

    Finally a true statement, Pogson. You used to. Today you work in the lunacy industry.

  133. DrLoser says:

    My point was that lots and lots of computing infrastructure at CERN is powered by Windows and/or other proprietary software. And that’s a fact you can’t refute, and (wisely) have not even tried to.

    They’re still not trying to do so, are they?

  134. DrLoser says:

    Look, a NASA technology being used in CERN.

    You seem to be inordinately fond of NASA, LinuxGentlesir. So am I. I grew up around them.

    I fail to see, however, why a particular technology is somehow gifted simply because it derives from the Military-Industrial Complex.

    FOSS is simply the philosophy of public science applied to software development, no more no less.

    Given the amount of total FLOSS dross out there, I sincerely hope not.

    Science is supposed to be falsifiable. But you’re not supposed to falsify the stuff by watching it fall over again and again.

  135. LinuxGentlesir says:

    Today, they use a much bigger grid with four tiers. Most of the servers run GNU/Linux. There are many projects connected to CERN.

    They are also apparently making heavy use of OpenStack. Look, a NASA technology being used in CERN. Scientific collaboration! FOSS is simply the philosophy of public science applied to software development, no more no less. A lot of scientific institutions are waking up to that these days. Of course the proprietary software companies would rather us live in the dark ages, it’s good for business!

  136. DrLoser says:

    Anybody here got a clue on how to write a Linux daemon, btw?

  137. DrLoser says:

    There are no barriers to making software by picking letters out of a scrabble bag, Robert.

    That does not imbue the resultant software with any particular quality, though, does it?

  138. DrLoser says:

    There are no barriers to making any software for GNU/Linux and Android/Linux.

    Other than ability, professionalism, competence, lack of practise, lack of interest, lack of a market …

    But then of course that doesn’t apply to you, Robert. In your case you can cite literally some Peano number or other* of software contributions in C or C++ or Java or Python or Perl that you have made to the Cause.

    I can only envy this translucent quality of FLOSS from afar.

    Ignoring the fact that I am ten times the *nix programmer than you will ever be, Robert, let’s stipulate that I and the rest of the deluded sheeple are limited only to Microsoft platforms.

    Let’s see now. Visual Studio C++? Free. No license needed for the resultant programs.
    Visual Studio C#? Free. No license needed for the resultant programs.
    SQL Server Express? Free. No license needed for the resultant databases.

    Nope. Don’t see any barriers there, Robert.

    Also, the programmer’s toolset is far advanced from the Gnu equivalent.

    * The Peano numbers in question being of the “revised form,” where the concept of zero was introduced.

  139. LinuxGentlesir says:

    My point was that lots and lots of computing infrastructure at CERN is powered by Windows and/or other proprietary software.

    lolno. If you read the four year old article you linked to, it complains about how difficult is to manage Windows systems and how CERN is moving to GNU/Linux in all situations where they can.

  140. thr wrote, “The “world” can only make so much of its own software, even if you want to make everyone believe otherwise.”

    That’s false. There are no barriers to making any software for GNU/Linux and Android/Linux. The tools are all there for anyone to use. I used to work in science and used tools provided by DEC and IBM but also various shareware. Today, there’s nothing I could not do using FLOSS and GNU/Linux.

  141. thr says:

    “Sigh… Lots of folks who work at CERN use GNU/Linux on their PCs. […]”

    You are stating obvious things for no discernible reason. My point was that lots and lots of computing infrastructure at CERN is powered by Windows and/or other proprietary software. And that’s a fact you can’t refute, and (wisely) have not even tried to.

    The “world” can only make so much of its own software, even if you want to make everyone believe otherwise.

  142. thr wrote, “I guess things like getting work done with the data from the experiments (e.g. writing scientific articles), communicating, and controlling the experiments can be deemed perfectly unimportant if Linux is not involved.”

    Sigh… Lots of folks who work at CERN use GNU/Linux on their PCs.

    See Linux installation at CERN

    They make it very easy to install GNU/Linux on their stock PCs.

    Around 2000, CERN used 10K PCs in a cluster to do their heavy lifting.

    “10 000 PCs
    Both NT- and Linux setups have been succesful, but new purchases are almost solely Linux PC:s. Their price of purchase is about one tenth of that of supercomputers and one third of proprietary Unix solutions. At the moment, the usage of Linux is being tried to be extended also to disk and tape servers, in which the biggest savings can be achieved.”

    Today, they use a much bigger grid with four tiers. Most of the servers run GNU/Linux. There are many projects connected to CERN. One, SixTrack which manages the LHC accelerator, is run by a huge cluster of PCs. You have to get to rank 84 before finding a TOOS PC.

    Read about Scientific Linux. Yes, there’s a distro for that. It has 120K+ installations. That’s a lot of science geeks.

  143. thr says:

    Presumably a double post due to blog failure (again!)

    Regarding CERN I faithfully submit these select few:

    Windows infrastructure: https://winservices.web.cern.ch/winservices/

    Lync (from that other OS maker): https://espace.cern.ch/mmmservices-help/UnifiedCommunication/Lync/Pages/Overview.aspx

    Proprietary control/automation for the experiments: https://wikis.web.cern.ch/wikis/display/EN/WinCC-OA+Service

    F Varela Rodriguez, 2011, Journal of Physics Conference Series 331 022029: “Centralized Monitoring of the Microsoft Windows-based computers of the LHC Experiment Control Systems”: https://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/331/2/022029

    Nothing ever is as black and white as you try to fool your gullible readership into thinking. But I guess things like getting work done with the data from the experiments (e.g. writing scientific articles), communicating, and controlling the experiments can be deemed perfectly unimportant if Linux is not involved.

  144. LinuxGentlesir says:

    Trolls,

    Let that sink in: GNU/Linux and a combination of open source (including stuff CERN open sourced themselves) is probing further then anyone ever has into very nature of reality. I don’t care what bullshit counterpoint you’ll make to promote the pertinence of proprietary software, you can not top that.

  145. thr butchered a quotation and wrote, “I never experienced otherwise.”

    You should come out of your basement and visit: CERN, Courant Institute Of Mathematical Sciences at NYU, US DOD, …

  146. LinuxGentlesir says:

    I can totally get behind that. Because I never experienced otherwise.

    You must be really sheltered!

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/its-an-open-source-world-78-percent-of-companies-run-open-source-software/
    http://linux.web.cern.ch/linux/
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/238068/how_linux_mastered_wall_street.html
    http://training.linuxfoundation.org/why-our-linux-training/training-reviews/linux-foundation-training-prepares-the-international-space-station-for-linux-migration
    Nebula & OpenStack (hint: look up where it comes from)
    Apache Spark (hint: look up where it comes from)
    Apache Mesos (hint: look up where it comes from)

    Do you also need evidence that Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Wikipedia uses Linux?

  147. DrLoser says:

    I can totally get behind that. Because I never experienced otherwise.

    Well, let’s face it, thr, we’re both together on a losing wicket here, aren’t we? I mean, it’s obvious.

    The world has never seen such a beneficent organisation as Google.

    Not once. They are to swoon for! And I love their commercial breaks!

    Oh yes. Everything else that LinuxGentlesir had to say was patent nonsense. (Yes, even more so.)

    Don’t get the lad started on Econ 101. He can bore the pants of a rhinoceros.

  148. thr says:

    “I’ve personally noticed that the type of organizations that tend to use proprietary software are universities, scientific institutes, the most respected government agencies – especially those involved in science, creative organizations, and highly technical or creative for-profit companies (eg. Google).”

    I can totally get behind that. Because I never experienced otherwise.

  149. LinuxGentlesir says:

    The important thing for schools, governments, large organizations and individuals is that GNU/Linux if Free Software. It allows folks to run, examine, modify and distribute the software, many things denied by non-Free software.

    I’ve personally noticed that the type of organizations that tend to be strongly represented in free software community are universities, scientific institutes, the most respected government agencies – especially those involved in science, creative organizations, and highly technical or creative for-profit companies (eg. Google).

    Proprietary software is represented in the most inefficient and poorly run government agencies, or ones that strictly involve bureaucratic tasks and are lack involvement in advancing human progress. You’ll find it companies with pre-information age thinking, the kind of companies that have extreme difficulty hiring competent staff and are more prone to the manipulation of external salespeople. Self-serving financial organizations are often shown as an example of the adobe of proprietary software**.

    ** Interestingly more successful and notable financial institutions, like Goldman Sachs, tend to have stronger then usual representations in Free Software communities. Other examples include NASDAQ, NYSE, and most famously, the London Stock Exchange.

  150. oldfart says:

    “Ask any of the big migrators to GNU/Linux whether X was an issue… Nope. Nada. No one but the geeks think that. The important thing for schools, governments, large organizations and individuals is that GNU/Linux if Free Software. It allows folks to run, examine, modify and distribute the software, many things denied by non-Free software.”

    And nobody but a cheapskate drug pusher thinks that users of computers care at all about the ideological purity of the software.

  151. thr says:

    “Personally I don’t expect year of desktop before Wayland and Containers get properly implemented in Linux.”

    Well, Windows 10 will be free for consumers. Indefinitely, despite Microsoft speaking of a one-year transitional phase. And that will be that. No, I don’t expect a year of the Linux desktop.

    Wayland will, of course, be a much-needed addition, as any modern 2014/5 Linux distribution is perfectly unable to provide tear-free video (with either proprietary or FLOSS drivers). Perhaps with Wayland people will be finally lining up to buy those elusive Steam Machines.

  152. thr wrote, “It’s sad to see this pathetic notion continuing still.”

    It has been The Year in several regions from time to time. Europe was a decade ago. The difference this year is that it’s a global phenomenon. The whole world knows it has a choice this year. I think all it would take the doubters is China embracing GNU/Linux wholeheartedly. It takes several years to shift the axis of IT significantly but this year we are seeing as much change (April 2015, 1.92%) as in the previous five (May 2010, 0.81% – May 2014, 1.58%)

  153. oiaohm wrote, “I don’t expect year of desktop before Wayland and Containers get properly implemented in Linux.”

    Ask any of the big migrators to GNU/Linux whether X was an issue… Nope. Nada. No one but the geeks think that. The important thing for schools, governments, large organizations and individuals is that GNU/Linux if Free Software. It allows folks to run, examine, modify and distribute the software, many things denied by non-Free software.

  154. oiaohm says:

    thr the first time The Year of the Linux Desktop was used is 2003. 12 max and there are a 1 or 2 years where its not mentioned.

    But thr get use to it the year of the Linux Desktop will keep on turning up as long as new deployments keep on happening. Yes as long as the Linux Desktop market share keeps on expanding even very slowly this question will keep on happening. Asking the question works out what areas are still left to work on.

    Personally I don’t expect year of desktop before Wayland and Containers get properly implemented in Linux.

  155. thr says:

    In which Year of the Linux Desktop are we now? The 15th? It’s sad to see this pathetic notion continuing still.

  156. LinuxGentlesir says:

    Universities are centers of human progress, it is not surprising that they disproportionately promote and contribute to free software.

Leave a Reply