Posts by khess

@esavard

OMG, I can't let my daughter see that.

@sourceview

I didn't include FreeBSD because it isn't Linux. These are the top 10 Linux distributions. It's possible that I could do a 10 best server OSs but that's a whole other ball of wax.

It was exactly one year ago today that I published my original "The 10 Best Linux Distributions" and it's time to put forth a new list for this year's best. Without looking at the old list, I've decided to compile this one from scratch. This 2009 list takes several factors into account for placement in the list: Community support, commercial support, software variety, update engine and distribution frequency. Even for old Linux salts, there are a few surprises on this list. For starters, Ubuntu is not number one.

The problem with this list is that I don't hate any of the distros that I've entered here. Even number ten is one of my all time favorites but something has to be on top and something has to be on bottom. Check out the list and see what you think.

1. gNewSense - Ever since my conversation with Richard Stallman, I've decided that gNewSense is the distro that claims the top spot for this year. Based on Ubuntu, which is based on Debian, gNewSense contains only free software. It's also the distro that Stallman himself uses--how can you beat that?

2. Debian - Debian is a GNU/Linux distribution that has it all: Great support, unsurpassed stability, awesome developers, a huge community, dozens of offspring including Ubuntu and gNewSense, regular updates, apt-get, thousands of ready-to-install programs and it makes a great user computer or server …

@phatbrucelee

You are correct! When the government can push us around to satisfy the pandering crybabies of the world, innovation will surely suffer.

@Grepnix:
Sorry, if you have a problem listening with the embedded player, please download a copy of the podcast with the provided link. You might have to right click the link to grab it in certain browsers.

@sureronald
You are correct. RMS is a genius and I've had the honor to speak with him and am invited to speak with him again. I hope you'll all tune in for that one. He is truly one of the greats of our generation and of the Internet Age.

I had the honor and pleasure of speaking to Richard Stallman a few days ago while he was in New Zealand on a speaking tour. I had been in an email conversation with him over several days asking about which software programs he uses and I finally connected with him for some clarification and more details. So, if you've ever wanted to get the scoop straight from the man himself, you'll want to listen to the podcast.

The conversation begins abruptly because the phone conversation is a continuation of that email dialog. We also got cut off at one point during the interview and I had to call back.
I found him to be very personable, articulate and a pleasure to speak with. He was very patient with my nervous fumbling and was quite happy to discuss free software, his software choices and even his choice of computer.

To begin, I wanted to know not just about free software and the movement but his personal choices and I got quite a surprise. He is definitely no hypocrite. He is so much of a free software advocate that he even chose his personal computer because of the type of BIOS it uses.

I personally feel that using only free software is very limiting and would be very difficult to successfully accomplish. Richard Stallman doesn't find it difficult at all.

After speaking with him, I wrote "What Free Software …

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating IBM's computer market conduct and, depending on the outcome, it might just affect your beloved Apple computers. As everyone knows, IBM is the major player in the mainframe computer market but now their business practice of not licensing other hardware makers to run their software is causing issue.

The following excerpt is from an article by Associated Press writer, Jordan Robertson:

The accusations stem from claims by IBM rivals that they've been illegally frozen out of the mainframe market because of IBM's refusal to allow its mainframe operating software to run on non-IBM computers. IBM doesn't have many rivals anymore that make mainframe computers, but some smaller companies are trying to develop technologies that would allow the software to run on cheaper hardware.

They allege that IBM, which used to license its mainframe software to competitors and for the back half of the last century operated under an antitrust agreement with the government, stopped doing so in recent years to choke off competition.

It's possible that you don't realize the implications of these two paragraphs. Let me attempt to clarify them for you.

IBM created the mainframe software. It runs on IBM mainframes. IBM used to license it to other companies to run on their hardware. They stopped doing it. Now their competitors are upset by this practice.

Implication #1: If the DOJ finds against IBM, it essentially takes away IBM's right to …

No, I'm not talking about a Linux vs. Microsoft or Apple vs Microsoft but rather a prediction by UN Telecommunications Agency Chief Hamadoun Toure'. Apparently, the U.S. Homeland Security and other U.S.-based paranoia groups agree since US Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said that she received the green light to hire up to 1,000 cybersecurity experts to ramp up the United States' defenses against cyber threats. Need a job?

To launch such an attack successfully would take thousands of experienced hackers in different locations simultaneously attacking a site or sites with malicious intent. Depending on the type of attack, it would easily be thwarted with IP bans, router bandwidth restrictions or reverse denials of service. And, not just from the U.S. Any country with ISPs worth their salt would catch these attacks and deny access to the users initiating them. An attack like this would also require a lot of bandwidth and would easily show up in bandwidth reports.

If it is a foreign government sanctioned attack, once the culprit is identified, it's bombs away on them. I don't see that a full-scale cyber war is possible. The renegades would be cut off, identified and dealt with in non-cyberspace ways.

Is such an attack possible? Yes. But it would have to be well-coordinated and extremely covert. So, is an attack like this likely? No. I don't see WWIII being waged in cyberspace--a cute thought but it wouldn't work. But, hey, if it means hiring 1,000 cyber …

It's still beta so there are some bugs. One I found is that if you install it in a VM, don't use a SCSI disk, use IDE for the VM's hard disk choice. It crashes and hangs if you don't. So far, I've had no issues. I forgot to mention too that ext4 is default filesystem on 9.10.

Ubuntu has redeemed itself with its latest version 9.10 (Karmic Koala). I took a look at Ubuntu 9.10 on October 1st and have been playing around with it for a few days. My first impression is that it is good stuff--seriously good stuff. From the new, updated installer to the faster boot times, I'm impressed. Way to go Ubuntu developers, you deserve applause for this one.

I didn't think that Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty Jackalope) was all that great. There weren't enough improvements over 8.10 to justify a whole new distribution or wasting a cute name on it.

Karmic Koala's installer is the best I've ever seen on any Linux distribution. It's fast, nice to look at and, most important of all, it's easy for people who might be new to Linux. Click through a few screens; enter your name, login name, password and computer name--and away you go toward having a new Ubuntu system. The more difficult part for most users will be the download, burning of the ISO image to a CD and changing their BIOS to boot from the CD/DVD drive.

Boot times are also much improved. This isn't necessarily limited to just Ubuntu as several Linux distribution developers have been working toward shortening your wait time in the boot department.

Once inside GNOME, you recognize all the familiar desktop items. Nothing new going on here although you might notice a few cosmetic changes with your startup screen and desktop …

You often hear the terms 'free software' and open source used interchangeably but they're not the same. In fact, true free software zealots launch into a fiery diatribe on the issue should you even utter the words "open source" when speaking of free software. Free software is not related to the amount of money you pay (or don't pay) for software; it is an ideology. Free means freedom. Most writers relate the concept to free speech or free beer, however, neither fully illustrates the concept.

Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), comply with the Four Freedoms.

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.

Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies.

Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

So, you see, for Freedoms 2 and 3 to be met, the source code must be available. And not only must it be available, it must be available for modification for any purpose, commercial or otherwise. These two freedoms make the term 'open source' redundant and unnecessary.

The other major issue with the term 'open source' is that it does not imply freedom of any kind. Just because you can look at the source means nothing from …

Try connecting it via a wire to troubleshoot any other issues. If it connects fine with a regular network cable then you'll know it's the wireless card or its settings.

Nah, not me, not stumped at all. ;-)

What the heck is happening in Redmond? Is Microsoft really giving away antivirus software? Yes, friends, it appears that they are. Come on Microsoft, we really want to hate you. I've carried this Microsoft voodoo doll* around with me for years--stabbing it every time I have to pay money for one of your products on a new laptop or desktop computer. I cringe when I see "Vista Ready." And, I almost hurl penguin when I have to activate my software. So, somebody please pinch me, wake me up, take the needle out of my arm and tell me it's all been a bad trip.

Microsoft giving away software is like Donald Trump giving away real estate. First, they come up with that dastardly excuse for an open source lab they cleverly named, Port25. Next, they have the nerve to donate money to The Apache Foundation. A couple of months ago, they made their new flagship virtualization platform, Hyper-V, available free of charge. Then they founded The CodePlex Organization headed by Sam Ramji. Now, they're giving away antivirus software.

My head hurts.

What's next for Microsoft? Are they going to join the Free Software Foundation?

My head really hurts.

It must be global warming that's causing Steve Ballmer's hair and brains to fail him. Steve, are you sure about all this? Microsoft is the most hated company in all the world. Stop this madness. You're giving your legacy …

Since I check my linkbacks religiously, I noticed one of the comments over at linsux.org (An anti-Linux rant site) on my recent post, "5 Things You Can Do to Put Linux in the Driver Seat" and thought I would share one of the entries with you. He wants us Linux types to stop work on so many disparate distributions and focus on a single one. Is this a good idea or the best idea I've ever heard?

He lists a few items, beginning strangely at #6, that he wants Linux fans to cease and desist on but the one that caught my attention is #10:

OEF (His site nickname)
Stop making web press releases every time someone tosses a bunch of open-source crap and artwork onto a CD. "Chuckie's Linux" will not change the world. In fact, it further muddies the landscape. Pick a distro. Just ONE damned distro and work on improving it.

Wow, OEF, whoever you are; you have my vote for the Grand High Exalted Poobah of all that you survey in Open Source and Linux. I like the idea of a single distribution. It really simplifies everything.
I love the idea of having a single distribution upon which to bestow our time and energies.

The only problem I see with it is, which one are you gonna choose for THE distribution? Will it be SUSE, Debian, Red Hat, Gentoo, …

This is a plea to all hardware manufacturers: Please create Linux drivers for your hardware. OK, so Linux isn't the Stormin' Norman of the Desktop arena but that doesn't mean its users don't want or need drivers for hardware. I don't blame the kind volunteers that donate their time to program bits and pieces of the Linux kernel and associated programs but I do blame the hardware manufacturers for not supporting a huge user base of Linux users. I'm tired of it and it's time for action.

Here's what we can do:

1. Any time you find a piece of hardware that doesn't have a Linux driver, write to the manufacturer and request that a Linux version become available for it.

2. Boycott any hardware that doesn't explicitly work with Linux.

3. Check hardware compatibility lists and only purchase hardware that does work with Linux.

4. Document your experiences with hardware successes and failures and post them to your blogs or notify me and I'll post them.

5. Join the Linux Foundation or the community distribution network of your choice and contribute (time, money, resources) to the project.

Collectively, we can put enough pressure on hardware manufacturers to supply Linux drivers for their hardware. It's in their best interest to do so.

Manufacturers say that there isn't enough Linux deployed to justify spending resources on creating Linux drivers and potential business adopters say that without proper driver …

This is the third entry in the continuing "cave dwellers" saga and their new lives with Ubuntu. Someone posted a comment on the previous cave dwellers entry about iTunes not working on Linux and I was absolutely sure that it did. It doesn't. Much to my surprise (and disappointment), iTunes isn't available as a native application on Linux. What's a penguinista to do? Try WINE of course!

I installed WINE, downloaded iTunes' latest Windows application and installed the file. Quicktime and some other applications installed but no iTunes. I tried several times--still no iTunes. I googled. Nope, still no iTunes.

I turned to the youngest cave dweller (13) and said, "I know I've heard you play music on this, how did you do it?" He said, "Napster." I then asked him how he downloaded and synced music with his phone. "We don't. Not since you gave us Linux. We have to use Mom's laptop (Vista)."
I sat silent for a moment until my wife said sarcastically, "Linux not working for you, dear?"
"Yeah, it works for the important stuff" I retorted.
I told the boys that I would research these issues and get back to them.

My wife also asked about printing to our printer (Canon iP1600) from their laptop. I said, "I don't have that working yet." The printer is shared off of my Windows XP workstation. I tried using alternate drivers but it's no …

I will never again refer to the Linux Desktop in any of my writings beyond this post. From now on, it's the Linux User Interface, which encompasses the likes of GNOME, KDE, LXDE, XFCE, CLI and others. These Linux User Interfaces may be used on any Linux-enabled device. These interfaces are not limited to a single type of machine designated as a 'desktop' and I'll not diminish the importance of them by mentioning them in that realm again. Since the dream of a world blessed with desktop computers running Linux is a dream (and a far-fetched one at that), I'll leave its reference to the lesser of my literary colleagues to ponder.

Instead, the Linux User Interface (LUI - pronounced Louie), is now a catch-all for any of the aforementioned window managers. And LUI might refer to a desktop computer, a server computer, a wristwatch, a PDA or a netbook running Linux with a particular window manager running on it. The LUI is how you interact with the operating system and not a particular class of computer.

Gone are the days of the hopeful Linux Desktop. Gone are the days of the tumultuous desktop wars. Gone are the dreams of one day waking up and finding that the US Government has converted to Linux desktops. And gone are the days of my attempts at convincing the world that anything but Windows or the Mac OS will …

It won't work correctly unless you have some things in your apache config for that site:

SSLEnable
KeyFile /path/to/key.kdb
SSLServerCert www.yoursite.com

Or Java.

Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel, said at the LinuxCon in Portland yesterday that, "We are not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned 15 years ago," he said. "Our kernel is huge and bloated. Whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse." It's time to put Linux on a diet. What we need is a very small kernel that loads support via external files. Though Linux is a modular kernel, it seems that everything gets compiled in to the central code slug but I have a solution.

Instead of making the kernel impossibly huge and compiling in support for device X and peripheral Y, let's move support for all devices to XML files and just have the kernel read the ones we want. No recompiling. No derivative works in the kernel. And no debate needed between Tannenbaum and Torvalds over microkernels vs monolithic kernels.

Move support for everything to a directory or special filesystem, like /proc, where all of the necessary XML files reside. The kernel picks them up and uses them with no changes to the kernel and no kernel bloat required. Now, I have to tell you that IANAP (I am not a Programmer) by any stretch of the imagination but it seems to me that this would have been something that others would have thought up before now.
I'm a long-time user of Linux, an early adopter and the founder of the local Linux User's Group …

@rich3800.

I wish I'd said that--that's funny!

All the glass clicking and cheers of late surrounding the apparent conversion of Microsoft to the open source fold needs to stop. We need the Cold War. We need Communism. And, yes, we need the OS Wars. Like any war, the OS Wars stimulate creativity, spark religious battles and divide the wannabes from the true innovators.

Give me back the days of the Linux zealots who hate Microsoft so much that they remove Washington state from the US Map. Return me to those days of all Microsoft shops that threaten firing to anyone even uttering the word 'Linux' on company property. Send me back in time to the days of "Ken, why are you wasting your time with Linux?" I want to hear Microsoft bigots pronounce Linux with a long I.
Where are the days before every Windows desktop ran a Linux virtual machine? Where indeed.

I want to wax nostalgic about the strange days of Microsoft's open source strategy to kill Linux and how it didn't work. The annals of history recorded that their attempt was a failure. Reminiscing about how every open source company shook hands with Microsoft and became a collective force against nothing is what I want.

We need an enemy. We need for Microsoft to be the Spain and Britain of colonial times when planting your flag on a land and oppressing its people meant something. It meant competition. It meant conquering new …

Java? It's an island in the South Pacific. Many earthquakes.

I'd never write anything against Ubuntu. It's always one of my top distros.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote, "Has Linux Fallen Into a Well?." It was a tale of two brothers, aka The Cave Dwellers, who had too many complaints and angst concerning the Windows XP installation on my wife's old HP DV-5000 laptop. Reinstalling XP didn't do any good the last time I did it, so I decided to give them Ubuntu 9.04 in its place. All I did was to tell them how to login and left the rest up to them.

Two days after the installation came the first question: "How do I install the Adobe Flash Player in the web browser?" I told them to follow the on screen instructions and promptly shooed them out of my domain (cave).

They've used the laptop non-stop since I reimaged it with no problems reported. They do all the usual stuff with it that they did with Windows: Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, web browsing, iTunes, Email and word processing.

My printer comes on and prints homework and their occasional "wows" and "cools" have let me know that the laptop is serving them well so far. I've heard much less door kicking and muffled cursing from them since the big switch to Ubuntu. Now the only door kicking and muffled (and not so muffled) cursing only originates from me.

So, I have to humbly say that Ubuntu is the best thing to …

They're biblical references.

Yesterday, September 10, 2009, the announcement came that Microsoft launched and is funding a new open source organization named CodePlex Foundation. The major players in the new organization are from Microsoft, Novell and DotNetNuke. Does this mean that a brave new Microsoft is beating its proprietary, closed-source swords into open source plowshares? Maybe.

Maybe not.

Is this new effort a ploy by Microsoft to garner goodwill from the open source community and open our collective heart for a big Redmond hug? Can it be that Microsoft is through saying, "Put up your dukes" and is attempting to preen its Lion's mane and snuggle up to the open source lamb?

Some see Microsoft as a wolf in sheep's clothing on this issue--gaining our trust and letting down our guard only to strike with enough venom to kill off our most prized open source possession: Linux.

Microsoft has a history of "interesting" business behavior but current economic conditions might be sending a message to the formerly blood-starved brains of those at the helm that it's time to declare peace--at least for a season.

Someone needs to research to which of Nostradamus' quatrains this refers as I'm sure he predicted this before the end time.

First, they conjured Port25, then donated major dollars to the Apache Foundation, recently they gave away Hyper-V (as in free, $0.00, priceless) and now the final deathblow: CodePlex Foundation.

…

This year is not the year of the Linux desktop. Next year is not the year of the Linux desktop. In fact, NO year is the year of the Linux desktop. Every year, there are at least ten writers (Ashamedly, I'm included in that ten) who proclaim that the current year or the upcoming year will be the year of the Linux desktop. I've given up hope for it. I've given up on the idea of an acceptable level of Linux adoption on the desktop. I've given up on the prospect of ever having corporate Linux desktops and I think everyone else should too.

The Desktop Wars will be over forever.

By the time there is widespread acceptance for Linux desktops, it will be too late. Web-based desktops will replace the old school heavy desktop operating systems of today.

Netbooks will be the desktop of tomorrow with no local operating system. Oh there might be a JEOS (Just Enough Operating System)--a minimal system whose only job it is to get you to a network (LAN or Internet) but not a traditional OS with applications, office suites, games or the like.
For service subscribers and everyday users, your operating system will consist of a web-based desktop lookalike that is in reality a fancy web page. Renegades, like you and me, will have the choice of web-based desktops or virtual machines that run what looks like a traditional desktop stored on some remote server.

Forget the Desktop …

If mail is being sent from your server, it would depend on how your outgoing mail server is setup. If you want to send from another remote mail server, you'll probably have to authenticate. Does that help?

At first, try it in the document root directory. Later, you can set up a virtual directory for it but for testing try the root directory of apache. The directory is named htdocs.

Does your OS see the device?

In the PHP code, you'll have to give an explicit path to the flash drive.

I need more details before I can help more.

Does it seem to you that Linux distributions have fallen into to a well or other deep support chasm that defies the space-time continuum? It seems so to me. Linux distributions are lagging behind Windows and Mac in significant ways.
Well, it doesn't work for this chipset. Well, it works but you have to tweak it. Well, it works but...is the common theme for many Linux installations. This generates frustrations for users old and new. It's hard to convince someone to use Linux when it's even hard for me to do something that would be impossible for a newbie.

For example, yesterday I had heard enough complaints from my kids about their shared Windows XP laptop's slowness, unresponsiveness and general lack of pep. I summoned them all from their caves (Rooms with TVs) and told them to save off their valuable documents, songs and other files of interest to a flash drive because I am going to reimage the laptop. They complied. I planned to reimage it with Ubuntu 9.04 Desktop. There began my problems that appeared to remain unresolved until I put Windows XP back on it.

Don't fret, I went ahead with the installation of Ubuntu 9.04.

The installation went fine. The updating via apt-get went swimmingly. Sound, wired networking, video--everything was just perfect--until I tried to use the wireless networking, that is. The kids have to use wireless because the only wired connections are in my office and I don't want them in …

OK, I can't resist this whole SCO thing, since it has again raised its ugly head. My previous post on the subject the other day drew a lot of attention from a diverse gaggle of readers and commenters so I thought I'd go back to the well at least once more for good measure. Here's the real shocker in the whole SCO v. Everyone mess--they still think that they own Unix. Though they never produced proof in the past 6 or so years since the original lawsuit maelstrom began. They are so convinced that they own Unix, that they have it clearly stated so on their website.

Here is an excerpt and a link to that informative page:

SCO owns all rights and ownership of the core UNIX operating system source code originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs. SCO’s ownership includes system source code, including all versions and copies, SCO OpenServer, and substantial copyrights and source code to UnixWare. SCO is the exclusive licensor to UNIX-based system software providers.

Pretty ballsy, huh?

My original post from May 2008 explains that SCO doesn't own Unix, Novell does. Novell never transferred the copyright to them and Novell has proof. SCO purchased UnixWare from Novell, which is a standalone product but is not Unix in the pure and copyrighted sense of the word. It is a derivative thereof.

At this point, I'm not sure if it matters who owns Unix. It might not matter …

Here is the link, please contact the AP writer and let them know that their facts aren't straight.
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090825/ap_on_hi_te/co_sco_group_novell

Um, well, apparently the AP thinks he is the CEO when last they spoke yesterday...it is perhaps they who should get their facts straight.

I wonder if Darl knows he isn't the CEO any more?

It's actually a reversal of an earlier decision...

Groklaw linked to my story.

Just when you thought it was safe to return to those keyboards knowing that all is well with the world and the ownership of Unix is happy with its rightful owner, Novell; he's baaaack. I'm sure that I'm not the first to look at this latest news and say "WHAA? AGAIN? I thought we had this settled." But noooo, Linux arch nemesis SCO with the inimitable Darl McBride at the helm is at it again. I am so shocked at this latest attempt by the perhaps brain-damaged judges panel in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to continue this pointless battle over the ownership of the Unix copyright. Can they be serious? Apparently so.

I almost didn't bother posting about this when I saw it but I feel that I owe it to my loyal readers to weigh-in on this injustice and clear abuse of the legal system.

Has SCO not spent enough money on lawyers and legal fees? Do they absolutely just want to spend every last penny that they have on this?

What do they hope to gain, even if by some minute chance in hell that they win this time, from it? People have been so burned by this whole crazy lawsuit that the good name that was once SCO is now so tainted, no one will touch them. And, I'm forecasting that their remaining customer base will soon be nonexistent.

So, here's my final* take on the SCO v …

The answer is yes, they live in their parent's basement, most sport goatees and/or ponytails, have various collections of toys (Star Wars, He-Man, etc.) and can quote movies, Star Trek episodes and South Park endlessly.
And when they don't like something, they'll pull out a "Nee" or two.

How would one know if it's profitable or not?

Since its inception in 2004, Ubuntu has been the beneficiary in what seems like a bottomless money pit for South African entrepreneur, Mark Shuttleworth via his commercial support and development venture, Canonical. Since Canonical, Ltd. isn't an American publicly-owned company (and I don't know South African law), it's unlikely that a full disclosure of profits and losses is forthcoming. I have read that the investment made so far is approximately $20 million US.

How long can anyone keep pumping money into a project that might not ever turn a profit?

Red Hat is the world's most successful Linux-oriented company and has turned its open source business into a very profitable one with licensing, professional services and support, training and certification and other products like JBOSS.

Although if you think about it, Shuttleworth might have the money to burn for a while since he blew $20 million US to go into space and to the International Space Station in 2002. Apparently he doesn't look for a return on investment for everything he does.

No one knows for sure, except Shuttleworth and his accountant, whether there's any hope that Ubuntu and Canonical will ever be self-sufficient entities. My guess is that it will take a few more years with the current economic downturn to realize any profits from either venture and I'm not sure whether Ubuntu will ever make money or is even expected to.

I'm willing to speak …

Nothing gets people in the Linux World riled up like comparing distributions, desktops or editors. But for the new Linux user, the whole thing is a bit confusing. What do we tell them? Do we verbally slug it out in forums or do we offer gentle guidance to those entering the Linux jungle for the first time? It's hard not to offer an opinion in such emotional matters. One might believe that Linux, choice of desktop and editors are religious notions instead of technical ones. I offer the following gentle guidelines for the newbie who dares enter our sacred space.

Linux is many things to many people. For you, it is an alternative to Microsoft Windows and the Mac OS. For us, Linux is an operating system kernel that's used in creating Linux distributions. Distributions are a collection of programs, applications, tools and graphics to create an operating system environment comparable to what you experience with Windows or Mac.

The Window environment or GUI as some call it, comes in a variety of flavors or implementations. They all are similar to Windows and Mac but also distinctly different. Your major choices for those are GNOME, KDE, XFCE and LXDE. GNOME and KDE are great for Desktop computers but servers need less graphical interface weight than Desktops, so you probably would choose between XFCE and LXDE.

These days you have choices for almost every type of software that you've grown accustomed to on Windows or Mac. There are …

@Swashbuckler2

No, I'm not a lawyer. Are you?
No, I've never tried a case. Have you?
It would be interesting to interview you on this subject on The Frugal Tech Show (www.frugaltechshow.com) if you are truly an expert on the subject. Contact me via that site if you'd like to do that.
But this dialog gives me an idea for further investigation.

@fosslc
Thanks very much for that link. It is very interesting and I'll be sure to catch it.

Does Public Domain software have a license?

Do I need a license to use a hammer?

And without a license, it's closed source? Dude, it's you who perhaps needs an education.

Today I'm pondering if the current open source model is still valid or if it's outdated. Do we need licensing for open source software? Do we need the GPL, LGPL, APL and all the other licenses that plague...er, grace us? If your software is free and open source, why bother with a license at all? The software writer owns the copyright so why put users or potential users through the paces of licensing? What exactly is to be gained by creating and enforcing a license for this kind of software?

Currently, there are 64 active licenses listed on the Open Source Initiative's (OSI) website and more are pending approval. 64 licenses is more than just a little ridiculous.

Seriously, you're telling me that the people who keep coming up with license ideas can't use one of the existing ones? The ones who read through the 63 other licenses looked at each other and said, "Nope, these just won't do--we need to come up with our own license."

Take a look at the OSI's Open Source Definition and then ask yourself if you find licensing a necessity or a frivolous exercise:

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs …

I'm sure there would be a few who would bail but...for the most part I think it would be a welcomed transition. Can you imagine having RHEL and Microsoft supported by the same company? It would be great for large companies, ISPs, hosting companies, etc.

For Sale By Owner: One Commercial Linux Company with excellent history and reputation in the enterprise Linux arena. Profitable concern specializing in open source and Linux-based solutions. Offers top-notch distribution with broad hardware support, superb technical solutions, built-in virtualization, education and certification programs. Known to the technical world as Red Hat, Inc. and listed as RHT on the NYSE. At $21.60 per share (Today's price), Red Hat is the perfect match to your existing portfolio. Please contact a Red Hat executive for more information.

OK, Red Hat isn't officially for sale but this is a great listing for them if it were to be so. And, in reality, everything is for sale--for the right price.

Why would Red Hat sell itself to anyone considering that it is very profitable--to the tune of about $78 million US. Though analyst opinions vary widely, Red Hat is an overall good catch. From Red Hat's point-of-view, a sale means lots and lots of money for stockholders and executives--so what's not to like from their side?

From a purchaser point-of-view, Red Hat is a tasty morsel just waiting to be gobbled-up by the likes of Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, or Novell. Who will it be who takes that leading first step towards this phenomenal purchase?

Oracle is a prime candidate for the purchase but I don't they they will make an attempt at it. Now that Oracle owns …

I think I did look at one on sourceforge.net but it didn't fit what I needed/wanted. I'll take another look.