Sections: Main page Linux in the news Security Kernel Distributions Development Commerce Announcements Back page All in one big page See also: last week's Back page page. |
Linux links of the weekLinux Dev.Net is a new Linux portal site aimed at developers. It has the usual mix of news and links along with a jobs page, classified ads, and a planned future "Linux knowledge base." The Database of Orphaned Open Source Softwareseeks to be a clearinghouse for packages in need of maintainers. They are just getting going and looking for help, currently. If you have anything to contribute, consider helping them out. Section Editor: Jon Corbet |
June 3, 1999 |
|
Letters to the editorLetters to the editor should be sent to letters@lwn.net. Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them. | |
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 17:40:08 +0100 From: Hans Schou <chlor@inet.uni2.dk> To: lwn@lwn.net Subject: Oracle/Linux for Enterprise http://lwn.net/1999/0527/press.phtml Greg Shiply wrote that "Linux is not powering Oracle databases yet." Well, I got one. It has been running since 10 October 1998 with a pre-production and now with a "production" It is the one and only Oracle server we have at the office which is the headoffice for $ 3 billion company. We use it for a lot things but currently it mostly for consolidation. We more 90 companies in 32 countries with nearly 200.000 employees world wide. It is not transactions but it is our main financial data. As we are in the beginning with using Oracle I guess we will only see 100 simultanious users this year but it will grow. Oracle has our main data - this is not for fun. We don't use an old pc which we found in the basement. It's a Dell 6300 server with 512MB RAM, 40G disk and dual 400 MHz. It has been taking down sometimes during these months for service but we have never seen a breakdown. I think it has been running at least for two months without been taking down for service. How I convinced my boss? Easy. I told him that NT 4 sp3 would not run stable with Oracle so while we are waiting for Windows 2000 we are running on Linux. Ofcource we will switch over to Windows 2000. It will run faster and more stable than Linux, I've been told... Except for one other server all pc's in the house runs Windows NT. --- BTW a lot of people has Linux for DNS. If you don't call DNS "mission-critical" then try switch the thing off. -- best regards +-------------------------------------------------------+ ! Hans Schou, Hamletsgade 4-201, DK-2200 Kbh N ! ! Fax : +45 3391 5310 Phone : +45 3586 1266 ! ! mailto:chlor@schou.dk http://www.schou.dk ! +-------------------------------------------------------+ One Day - One World - One Operating System - Linux 12 September 1999 - http://www.linuxdemo.org | ||
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 12:23:40 -0400 From: Walt Smith <waltech@bcpl.net> To: letters@lwn.net Subject: forbes article hi all, It was pleasant reading the Forbes piece. It was one of the most objective short marketing pieces I've seen, with some real numbers and focus. The author makes a case more from the POV of a spreadsheet than knowledge of the market potentials. This is refreshing since so much is written only from wishful fantasies or bad interpretation of numbers. A compromise perspective between the two is best. This is why I object to the statement about $49 software. How much is DOS? How much is Win31? (yes, it's still sold). Does Win95, at $90 come with a real technical person to talk to if there's a problem? And a real installation manual? and a C compiler? and... What is the real cost to improve and package the RH product? Does the author imply that if RH raised the Linux price to $90 it will result in increased profits. Has the author looked over the software selection and prices on shelves at CompUSA lately? If the real (though still unproven) market profit is in the support of this unique product, then doesn't selling inexpensive product as a lead-in make sense? It does to me - especially if the lead-in is actually making money! regards, Walt Smith, Baltimore | ||
To: editor@lwn.net Subject: KDE Wars From: Nathan Myers <ncm@nospam.cantrip.org> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 01:12:13 -0700 Discussion of KDE usually involves confused analyses of political and licensing issues. I'd like to bring out a more fundamental issue, which deserves attention mainly because it can still be fixed. The KDE system is constructed on top of Troll Tech's Qt library. The Qt library incorporates a fundamental flaw which will haunt all development which uses it until the flaw is fixed. The flaw is this: the Qt libraries depend on the use of non-syntactic macros with the names "signals", "slots", and "emits". Any other library which uses one of these names in any capacity -- function argument, local variable, struct member, or function name -- may be disrupted if used in a program which includes the Qt headers. In effect, Troll Tech and KDE have elected to create their own private dialect of C++, claiming three extra keywords. The Qt and KDE team members could (and can) rescind this choice any time by renaming these macros to something like Qt_SIGNALS, etc., but they have elected not to do so (yet). The more software that is written on top of the Qt library as it is, the more disruptive fixing it will be, so it is important that it be fixed quickly. The solution remaining for the rest of us is to assert our right to these names by using them freely, in header files of other libraries, as formal argument names, struct member names, member-function names, and as local variables in inline functions: inline int do_stuff(int signals) { int slots; ... We can also insert "#undef signals", etc., directives. Eventually, as they find it increasingly difficult to build programs that rely on useful non-KDE libraries, the KDE developers will be forced to give up their claimed monopoly on those names, and begin to act as responsible members of the cooperative software development community. The alternative is to yield these new keywords, and carefully avoid using them in any code we write which someone might someday want to link into a KDE program. Because competently-written C++ code has an order of magnitude fewer bugs than C code written with the same competence, the KDE project has a chance at a proud accomplishment. I hope they do not squander that chance by arrogantly insisting on trying to add new keywords to the language, as this could only poison their product's future. Nathan Myers ncm@nospam.cantrip.org http://www.cantrip.org/ | ||
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:53:45 -0400 From: Joseph J Klemmer <klemmerj@webtrek.com> To: letters@lwn.net Subject: On Window Managers and Desktop Envirenments I don't know about anyone else out there but I'm getting a little tired of the GNONE/KDE "debate". They are both what they are and they both have their strengths and weaknesses. In my personal opinion, and I stress that this is MY personal opinion, they both are neat things to play with but they are poor work environments. Oh, they probably do well with the people coming over from the dark side but they have to many bells and whistles and junk that just weighs them down. For anyone else out there who might want to use their system rather than just spend hours configuring it they might want to look at the XFce/XFwm window manager and desktop. It's a CDE-like desktop with some outstanding features (D'n'D, total GUI configuration, very small and fast, etc.) that doesn't get in the way of getting the work done. You can find it at http://www.xfce.org. FWIW, I think if all the effort and work that's gone into GNOME and KDE were spent on something more productive Linux would already have kicked the dark side off of the corporate desktop. But what the hell do I know anyway. Thank you for the time, Joe "No, I *don't* have anything better to do!" Klemmer --- The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov | ||
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 14:07:42 +0200 (MET DST) From: David Kastrup <dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> To: letters@lwn.net Subject: Qt freeness There have been numerous complaints that Miguel de Icaza has misrepresented the status of Qt, and there has been repeatedly stated that KDE/Qt has been declared as "free" from the OSI and others. To this the following comments apply: It is still technically correct that no version of Qt has yet been released under the new QPL license under discussion. No proper release of Qt up to now satisfies the Open Source Definition. Qt 2.0 probably will do so, but it has been announced for more than half a year already and still is not released, if I am not mistaken. But this does not even border on the problems people see with KDE. The problem with KDE is not that its license is non-free (being GPL and LGPL is very much ok for free software), but that its license is conflicting with the license of Qt, making redistribution of the KDE/Qt combination a doubtful enterprise. While the new license of Qt will in all probability be Open Source compatible (what it was not before), the main problem is that KDE's license will probably still not be Qt-compatible after the change. The current proliferation of "Open Source" licenses like QPL and MPL and others has the disadvantage of effectively crippling free software development, as the resulting products cannot be easily combined to mutual advantage. The continuing KDE/Qt controversy even after announcement of the plan to use the new QPL for future Qt products is just one sad example. I would strongly suggest to people planning to license their software as Open Source and feel the necessity of cooking up their own license for this, that they consider at least double-licensing the software with a choice of GPL. David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany | ||
From: "Matt.Wilkie" <Matt.Wilkie@gov.yk.ca> To: Press@ActiveState.com Subject: MS and Perl Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:13:59 -0700 Hi, I sincerely hope ActiveState will work very diligently and with great integrity to insure that all work on the Win32 port of Perl will remain true to it's *nix heritage. This means a lot of open source code, no "embrace and extend" (we do *not* need another Java/html/browser war) -- true and complete cross-platform compatibility and openness. I freely admit I possess doubts about any organization's ability to maintain integrity when it's pockets are being lined by MS (or any other single organization of similar stature). Please do not merely categorize this as "paranoia" and "ms-bashing". There are many precedents which give foundation to this nervousness. While I intend to continue to learn and utilise Perl on both Windows and linux, I will be staying away from ActivePerl until the test of time can prove my fears groundless or justified. I won't be alone on the watch. I entreat ActiveState to remember that while your coffers are being filled with a wave of new Windows users, there are many of us who are reserving judgement. -matt | ||
|