[Glastonbury] meeting (fwd) RANT = WARNING = long reply :)
s~TV
glastonbury at mailman.lug.org.uk
Wed Jul 2 23:48:01 2003
ok ok
you do the press releases from now on
i only ever try to do my best and it never seems to be enough...
why do i bother?
its because i do...
anyway,
i a m more than happy for me to take a back seat and shut up
you can do a better job than me.
so do it. please ;-)
i will still be there every month opening up the doors because i love
linux and open source software and believe that people should share it.
i don't like nitpick i prefer a robi comb myself.
btw it has been awful these past few years hasn't it?
nits i mean.
anyway as ieat my cheese and marmite sandwich after a long day i would
like to thank all those who made it tonight.
absolutely fabulous.
see u all on the 6th august.
peace be with you all,
s~TV
Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>Steve,
>
>You need to be very careful what you write for/say to the press.
>They may misunderstand it: they may potentially misrepresent it.
>
>The <nitpick> tag was just that - but it is important to be consistent
>in your style and as correct as you can be on your facts.
>
>This is especially important today when various forces are spreading
>FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about the viability of "Linux"
>and the future of the "Linux operating system."
>
>You may want to look carefully and critically at the web sites for
>some of the more established distributions that have had to answer
>these questions time and time again.
>
>Initial facts are important: Linus was using Minix (free at that time
>for academic use but not freely modifiable: source was available for
>academic study) as a hobbyist. He was set a Computer Science assignment
>to write a task alternator (printing alternate strings of A and B, for
>example). He realised that this was essentially the same as the task
>scheduler that lies at the heart of the UNIX kernel and took things from
>there, incorporating some of the fixes that he wished had been in Minix
>as he went. This also led to the infamous flame fest between Linus and
>Andrew Tannenbaum which is archived at various places on the 'Net.
>Ironically, Minix is now fully free precisely because it was relicensed
>following the success of GNU/Linux.
>
>GNU/Linux - as Martin suggested, read RMS on this. "Linux" is
>potentially OK as a verbal shorthand - but be prepared to explain the
>elision if called on to explain "what's all this Linux then?"
>
>"Free" means either "free as in cost (free as in free beer)" or
>"free as in freedom of speech/expression".
>
>There's ample scope for confusion in English. French can use the
>useful distinction between libre/gratuit
>
>There is also the Open Source movement. Windows NT/2000/98 are
>all open source, as is Solaris - if you pay Microsoft enough/are
>in an appropriate environment at an approved university or are
>prepared to accept Sun's restrictive licences the above statement
>is perfectly true.
>
>Free software was the term first used - Eric Raymond and others
>felt it easier to sell the term Open Source to business people.
>They took the Debian Free Software Guidelines, modified them
>slightly and made the Open Source Definition. At least one of
>the original main instigators (Bruce Perens) now regrets this
>decision. As part of a rapprochement of views, RMS has suggested
>Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) as an appropriate acronym
>and this has been used in official documents by, for example, the
>US Department of Defence.
>
>The guidelines given below have been widely used as a reference
>as to whether software is "free enough". Some people take a
>pragmatic view of some areas e.g. binary only kernel drivers.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The Debian Free Software Guidelines
>
> 1. Free Redistribution
>
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
> software distribution containing programs from several different
> sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such
> sale.
>
> 2. Source Code
>
> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> source code as well as compiled form.
>
> 3. Derived Works
>
> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
> them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
> original software.
>
> 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
>
> The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
> form _only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with
> the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
> The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from
> modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a
> different name or version number from the original software. (This is a
> compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors to not restrict any
> files, source or binary, from being modified.)
>
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
> persons.
>
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
> a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
> program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
> research.
>
> 7. Distribution of License
>
> The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
> program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
> additional license by those parties.
>
> 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
>
> The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
> being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian
> and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms
> of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is
> redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in
> conjunction with the Debian system.
>
> 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
>
> The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
> distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
> must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
> must be free software.
>
> 10. Example Licenses
>
> The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses that
> we consider "free".
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>It may be noted that all GNU/Linux distributions are not necessarily
>equal. SuSE don't like you copying their proprietary code in YAST
>and will not provide .iso images for download (although you can
>install the entire distribution via FTP). Red Hat prefer that
>you do not redistribute their software - the EULA suggests that
>all Red Hat trademarks should be removed and the software renamed.
>(Hence the proliferation of Green Beret / Pink Tie / Threadz and
>so on.) Don't give unlimited quantities of Red Hat/SuSE to your
>school kids. Maybe give them Knoppix - it will run from CD
>and needn't interfere with the operating system on the hard disk
>of the host computer. Do make sure that you get permission for
>them to run it at home - you don't want irate parents to come
>hammering on your door and blaming you for viruses/porn/little
>Johnny / Jennifer's computer blowing up. Linux is a perfectly
>appropriate tool for cracking just as a credit card can conceivably
>be used for forcing open a Yale lock - but this is not and never
>has been its primary purpose and this should be emphasised.
>
>On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 07:13:20AM +0100, Sean Miller wrote:
>
>
>>Right, now... let's discuss something a little different, but on the
>>same theme.
>>
>>What is the list's opinion on Crossover Office?!? For those that do not
>>know, it is a product that retails at $55 or thereabouts which allows
>>you to install Micro$oft products on Linux (eg. Micro$oft Word, Access,
>>Powerpoint etc. etc. )
>>
>>
>
>Well engineered, may do as a stop gap measure.
><stuff snipped>
>
>
>>Now, the merits of migrating to Staroffice at St. D's... well, I think
>>one thing that should not be forgotten in our evangelising about Linux
>>(which I have always pronounced "lee-nooks", as that is what all the
>>people I deal with in business appear to do) is that Steve is trying to
>>educate people to go out into the world and find jobs and
>>(unfortunately) at this point in time business is asking for skills in
>>proprietary Micro$oft products still... I see adverts in the gazette,
>>and "Computer Weekly", saying "experience with Microsoft word essential"
>>or the like... would teaching the children something else help them when
>>they have to go into the world?? I would suggest not... but with
>>something like Crossover it may be possible to bring the educational
>>spend down, introduce children to an alternative (better) operating
>>system but still provide them with the experience in the tools that
>>potential employers are like to - for a while at least - be expecting
>>them to be familiar with.
>>
>>Discuss.
>>
>>
>
>Very good point, well made. If you are teaching the European Computer
>Driving Licence or CLAIT or some such, you will be expected to
>demonstrate efficient use of Microsoft products. I'm not sure as
>to the National Curriculum guidelines.
>
>It's worth remembering that Linux is not a universal panacea nor
>suited for everyone, however we may feel. I feel happy giving
>a Linux box to my daughter for a while - she hasn't become
>fixed on one operating system yet and will try anything. I'd feel
>similarly about my mother, who is barely computer literate but
>keen to learn. My father is an ex-headmaster and HMI - he too
>is only really literate on the applications he knows and uses
>but is unwilling to change. I wouldn't change him to Linux
>until his MS software becomes unsupported.
>
>Linux and access to free software may invigorate businesses -
>but I've seen the face of an experienced Solaris admin who was
>told bluntly "Don't even think of moving to Solaris 2.9 - at the
>pace at which you are moving, by that time we will have moved on to
>Linux on Intel as the corporate desktop" Try selling Linux
>to him :( On the other hand, I have corporate software developers
>queuing up to use my Linux box at work - because it is bang up to
>date and more bleeding edge. Horses for courses.
>
>Sell GNU/Linux on: stability, relative immunity to viruses, capable
>of running on lower spec hardware than the later Microsoft operating
>systems, range of specialist applications (SGML / programming languages
>etc.), relative security when appropriately set up. LAMP, GIMP,
>OpenOffice.org
>
>Don't sell it as "it's free" because all support costs _something_
>even if only goodwill. Be careful to emphasise that the
>copying is permitted by the copyright and licensing terms of the
>software. Don't treat it as rocket science - with application, anyone
>can run a Linux box. [ _Real_ rocket science uses pencil, paper and
>slide rule anyway - my grandfather was a NASA scientist :) ]
>
>Be prepared to troubleshoot hardware, especially older hardware. The
>corollary is that you should be prepared to run the very latest versions
>of everything and hand patch if necessary to support the very latest
>hardware.
>
>
>
>>Sean
>>
>>
>
>And finally - don't take life too seriously, you'll never come out
>of it alive :)
>
>"I mean to live forever or die in the attempt" (Giovanni Guareschi,
>creator of the Don Camillo books.)
>
>HTH,
>
>Andy
>
>_______________________________________________
>Glastonbury mailing list
>Glastonbury@mailman.lug.org.uk
>http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/glastonbury
>
>
>