Community, Incorporated

Joe Brockmeier

No such thing as a free Linux distro

By Joe Brockmeier | December 20, 2008, 6:05am PST

A few Linux distributions emphasize license freedom as a goal, but Tom “Spot” Callaway says that there’s no such thing as a free Linux distro.

Callaway, Fedora’s engineering manager, writes that “you’d need to do an incredibly thorough audit of every file in the system to be sure that every single file is under a known license,” and the evidence says that most distros haven’t actually done it.

When we find something non-free, it almost always exists in the “100% Free GNU/Linux distributions”. I don’t spend time checking these things out, honestly, but for example, all of them were shipping GLX under SGI’s god-awful FreeB (and GLX) licensing at one point, well after Fedora and Debian both were aware of it. The number of things I have found (and continue to find) along with the surprise from upstreams when I inform them of the issues, forces me to draw the conclusion that the “100% Free” distributions are not doing proper audits (or if they are, they’re not talking to the upstreams about it).

I found this post particularly interesting in the light of the openSUSE 11.1 release. We decided we wanted to make sure that openSUSE was freely redistributable, and get rid of the old EULA, but we don’t claim that the release is “100% free” in terms of the software meeting the Free Software Foundation’s definition of free, or even the Open Source Initiative’s terms for being called “open source.”

Not that the goal of being 100% Free isn’t laudable. Just that it’s not quite as easy to accomplish as it might seem at first glance.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Community, Incorporated”

Topics

Audit, Free Software Foundation, Fedora Project, Linux, Open Source, UNIX, Operating Systems, Financial Accounting, Software, Finance, Joe Brockmeier

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

Vendor HotSpot

The 360° Conversation around Cloud Computing

TECH VISUALIZER brings the social conversation to life... powered by Brocade

Learn More »

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

Ask a Question Start a Discussion

Comments

Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

Just In

Linux does not use NTFS or FAT

marcfinnwilson@... 11th Feb 2009

The drivers are only there so that Linux users can do things on their Windows partition!

View in thread

Please Select
Please Select

0 Votes

+ -

Ideology versus practical use

pjotr123 Updated - 20th Dec 2008

I prefer a distro that works well on my hardware, over an ideologically pure free distro that has lots of issues.

The main factor for me is free as in "umsonst" and free as in "Freiheit zum ?ndern". Of course I like free as in "frei", but that's of secondary importance to me. Usability first.

Off topic: openSUSE 11.1 is great! However, the installation procedure is still needlessly complicated.

I'm an experienced Linux user and I can figure it out. No problem. But beginners with Linux will have many difficulties. That's why openSUSE should have an installation procedure as brilliantly simple as the Ubuntu installation.

Tsch?ss, Pjotr.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Thanks

Zonker_z 24th Dec 2008

Thanks for the feedback. Feel free to dive into the openSUSE Factory list if you'd like to give some input for 11.2.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

We need a new audit.

kozmcrae 20th Dec 2008

Oh, not on Linux, on Windows 7. How much Open Source code has found its way into Microsoft's programing mill?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: No such thing as a free Linux distro

rbradbury@... Updated - 20th Dec 2008

But there's also no such thing as a free copy of
Windows. Give me a copy of Ubuntu anyday. The
time for lawsuits and FUD is passed. It's clear that
Microsoft will not press the nuclear button and sue
for infringements in Linux. It is similar to the 'MAD'
(mutually-assured destruction) situation of the US-
Soviet stand-off. There can be no ultimate winner if a
Linux-Microsoft legal fight happens. Just a huge,
industry-crippling mess and the destruction of
$billions in shareholder value.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: No such thing as a free Linux distro

perspectoff 20th Dec 2008

Well, at least Linux doesn't cost me anything, even if it's not "free."

Windows used to cost me between $200 and $600 for every update (every 3 years), hardware replacement, and much, much more for software add-ons (security as well as productivity apps).

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

gNewSense

MrViklund 20th Dec 2008

gNewSense. There you have it.
http://www.gnewsense.org/static/homepage/

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Nope

Zonker_z 23rd Dec 2008

As mentioned - gNewSense seems to have some of the non-free software in question. They may get there eventually, though.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Does it really matter?

todbran@... 20th Dec 2008

Not to me. 'Free' to me means free of Window$ bloatware. 'Free' to do with my computer as I please. 'Free' of malware. 'Free' of spending hours defraging and running virus and spyware scans. You get the point.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

I don't

Lerianis 20th Dec 2008

Because Vista/XP has no 'bloatware'. If anything, they are 'bloated' by the fraking drivers they have to put into it to support every single item, no matter how old, under the sun.
Free of malware? Only because it is an 'also-ran' operating system. Same thing for viruses and spyware.

Defragging? Excuse me, but even on Linux, you are going to need to defrag at LEAST once a month unless you are using your computer solely for e-mail and web browsing.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

re:I don't

richdave 20th Dec 2008

>>>...Defragging? Excuse me, but even on Linux, you are going to need to defrag at LEAST once a month unless you are using your computer solely for e-mail and web browsing

Odd. I have used desktop Linux since 1999 for many things. Downloading and playing music. Playing, converting, storing and copying CDs and DVDs. Creating documents, spreadsheets, etc, and have never needed to defrag. Servers may have different needs. But my desktop? Never!

0 Votes

+ -

Linux doesn't need defragging

Tony Agudo 20th Dec 2008

I've used Linux since the days of Red Hat Linux 8 and I'm 100% certian that Linux doesn't need defragging because the filesystems are much more robust than Windows' NTFS. NTFS needs defragging because it inherits the fragmenting behavior of DOS' FAT file system for backwards compatibility.

But I think you may be confusing the "fsck" command for a defragger. Fsck is the Linux equivalent of Scandisk.

0 Votes

+ -

Excuse me...

todbran@... 20th Dec 2008

Just goes to show me that you have never used Linux. 3 years and never had to defrag my Ubuntu. XP was fat but not too overly bloated. Vista? An elephant with a keyboard. Come back with your comments when you get the training wheels off of your bike.

0 Votes

+ -

Excuse yourself

itpro_z 20th Dec 2008

Linux can become fragmented, although perhaps at a somewhat slower rate than Windows. There are defragging tools available for Linux. Vista of course defrags automatically, but even XP could be automated if one wished to do so.

Vista is bloated? Which version? The only version that I would call bloated is Ultimate. Business Edition is not bad, while Premium offers a decent feature set for most home users. Basic, of course, is pretty sparse. I find Linux versions, like Ubuntu, to be lacking in basic features. Yes, I can download them for free, and the installation is pretty easy, but it can still be argued that Linux is not as complete upon installation as even Vista Basic or XP Home. Keep in mind that one person's bloat is another's necessity.

0 Votes

+ -

Excuse you...

todbran@... 20th Dec 2008

Most had to buy a new computer to be able to handle Vista Bloatware. Computers 2 years old couldn't handle it. Linux MAY become fragmented after a year or two of use, but guess what? A new version comes out every 6 months (without compiling as some trolls suggest) which runs on the same hardware as the previous release . So, guess what again? Defragging isn't needed. Basic features are included, Open Office, word processor, internet, Gimp for photo editing, movie player, just simply install the codecs from the repositories, my son does his school work on here etc. etc. and the list goes on and on and on. So, you do what you want and I'll enjoy the extra time that I have from not having to spend a couple of hours a week fighting off malware, crashes for no reason and updating on 'patch Tuesday'. Linux updates when needed not when it is convenient for the software maker.

0 Votes

+ -

How odd...

Wolfie2K3 20th Dec 2008

1.) I built a box back in Jan of 2005 - using parts that were considered "average" for the day (Athlon 64, 3400+, 1 GB RAM, 200 GB HD, DVD burner, Nvidia GeForce 7300 GS video) in anticipation of the Vista beta. The box ran both Beta 2 and RC 1 without too much trouble and it's running Vista SP1 today with - you guessed it - no problems. It's on par with XP on that same hardware.

But yes, if you try running Vista on a box that's fairly old and worn out, odds are your experience with it would kinda suck.

2.) I don't spend a couple of hours a week fighting malware. Nor anything else. Then again, I don't surf dangerously. I don't visit pr0n, warez or Chinese web sites that are known to harbor nasty infections.

3.) Patch Tuesday isn't for the convenience of Microsoft. It's for the convenience of corporate customers. If patches come out on a predictable schedule, it makes it easier for IT departments to coordinate distribution and installation.

This is NOT to say that Microsoft can't/won't release a patch when needed - the IE patch that came out last week was the 2nd this year that wasn't released on Patch Tuesday.

So what we've got here is a parrot who's repeating stuff he's heard - not someone who's speaking from any sort of experience...

0 Votes

+ -

Ummmm....

todbran@... 21st Dec 2008

This 'parrot' owns 1? No, 2? No, how about 3 computer repair centers. I'm not repeating stuff that I have heard, I'm stating fact that I have seen. You are in the minority if you don't receive 'bad' emails, or your kids (my guess is that you aren't old enough to have kids) don't use Limewire or click on anything that pops up etc. etc. etc. Let me clue you in about the real World. Most aren't as'perfect' as you think you are (which you aren't). Most are computer novices. IT departments are perfectly capable of patching their own systems whenever is convenient for them . They don't need Microsoft telling them when to do it. Another fact is that most (again, I've seen it first hand) don't go out and buy new computers every year and most are older computers. I could go on, but I won't. So, I guess what we have with you is a troll who hasn't a clue about real World computing. Come back when you get a little older. Have a nice day.

0 Votes

+ -

You only own 3 computer repair centers?

rtk 22nd Dec 2008

Most people posting here own 4 or more! If you're going to make up credentials, go BIG!

Spinning disks fragment, regardless of file system. Some file systems or operating systems make manual defragmentation unnecessary, but the fragmentation still occurs.

0 Votes

+ -

Fragmenting, as previously discussed on ZDNet

SpikeyMike 10th Feb 2009

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=51039&messageID=959120

Microsoft seems to be the only vendor who has created a file system that gets fragmented.

Here is a link to an article that can explain it better than I can:

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

0 Votes

+ -

What is your point?

itpro_z 21st Dec 2008

Vista is designed for modern hardware, just like every version of Windows before it. Why would you want to put it on an old machine? When I upgraded to Vista at home, I built a new machine specifically for it rather than try to force it on my old XP machine. My old system is now running Ubuntu and may eventually be a server, while my new system runs Vista exceptionally well. When 7 hits, I will build a new machine for it as well.

I have ran Ubuntu on systems as old as PIIs with 256 MB RAM, but would not dream of trying to put the latest version on machines like that. Even Linux requires more power to run the latest versions, and eventually will leave behind older hardware. The fact that it comes out with minor updates every few months rather than a big release every few years is a small point. How is that different than Microsoft's service packs?

You can rant all you want, but in 2 years of running and supporting Vista, I have not had any issues with malware, and have found it to be far more stable and reliable than XP. I have had Ubuntu crash and lock up, sometimes just trying to run one of the built in screen savers, so don't even think of trying to claim that it is more stable. I currently have 3 machines running different versions of Linux, and a few more at work, so I am quite familiar with its capabilities and quirks. I even recommend it to some, but have no delusions that it would meet everone's needs.

0 Votes

+ -

Fail

de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 21st Dec 2008

I am typing this on a 4 year old Dell P4 based machine running Vista Ultimate. Runs absolutely fine thank you.

And for the record, any filesystem that stores files as chunks (as opposed to storing them contiguously) is liable to fragment files' chunks across the HDD, particularly as the HDD gets full and/or as time passes.

0 Votes

+ -

ye know not what ye speak

mswift@... 11th Feb 2009

How about a 10 year old PC??? My first Vista machine is a 1.4P4 with 728MB RAM. It works just fine. We use it to test our proprietary apps on Vista.

I've never had to defrag an NTFS volume. I've run defrag a couple of times to see what it did and there was not much to do.

0 Votes

+ -

Defrag tools for Linux?

Linux User 147560 20th Dec 2008

Are you smoking crack? Straight from Novell

Q:
When I was using Windows, I had to run a defragmentation program quite often to speed up my computer. Where do I do this in Linux?

A:
Unlike Windows' filesystems, most filesystems that run on Linux have no need of being defragemented because they prevent fragments from occurring in the first place.

If you use the default filesystem (ReiserFS), you'll never have to defragment your hard drive as long as you use it.

------------

1999, never defragged a Linux drive yet. And the few tools out there... if you are willing to risk your system then go for it! But if you are a smart person then don't worry about it. The system defrags on the fly. Just accept that the *nix FS are superior to Windows. devil

0 Votes

+ -

Good response.......

todbran@... 21st Dec 2008

I think that the only reason that there are a couple of programs (I've never used them, but heard that they exist) is to make former Windows users feel better happy

0 Votes

+ -

Hey, they have anti-virus programs for Linux

hasta la Vista, bah-bie 11th Feb 2009

To make former Windows users feel better. happy

0 Votes

+ -

You are always quick with the insults...

itpro_z 21st Dec 2008

...but short on facts. I have worked with Linux, Xenix, and Unix for decades, and I can attest that, yes, Linux file systems can and do become fragmented over time, although due to differences in their structure the problem is certainly less than what one sees with Windows. As I said, Vista defragments automatically during system idle periods, so where is the big difference?

You always claim that Linux is "superior to Windows", yet that depends on one's needs and perspective. Windows supports a greater variety of hardware than Linux, and has a far more robust software library. Many of would call that superior, but once again it depends on your needs. I have tried to implement Linux at work, but for the majority of my users it simple does not meet our needs. I have a system at home with Ubuntu, and am planning to install it on my new laptop along with Vista, but it will mainly be to play with as most of my software requires Windows. If you are satisfied with Open Office and the freebie software for Linux, then more power to you, but you need to recognize that for many of us Linux simply comes up short.

0 Votes

+ -

And yet

Linux User 147560 21st Dec 2008

I still have not seen the fragmenting issue you eluded to originally. Yes the various Linux file systems have some fragmentation, but it's nothing like Windows and does not need a utility to fix. There isn't one out there in any of the main stream repositories, the ones that are out there even WARN you of the dangers to your file system by running their utility. Defragmenting is also on the fly with Linux and as far as I can remember has been for a long time.

In some ways I am in a nice position in that Open Source, Open Office meet my needs and where the software is lacking, I am able to create my own tools and applications for my job. devil

0 Votes

+ -

So why then don't you recognize....

storm14k 22nd Dec 2008

...that for many of us Windows comes up short?

And your argument about Linux fragmentation is moot. You clearly state yourself that its not as big a case as Windows. The point is that its such a smaller case that it can be ignored. Simple as that.

Tell you what...come to my place of employment and you'll be welcomed with open arms if you are trying to implement Linux. Many are screaming for it as they are tired of Windows. The sys admins are not working out the support plan for it. This is why I just laugh when people start that crap about not having problems with Windows. I'm surrounded by people having problems every day.

0 Votes

+ -

Re: Stormy

itpro_z 22nd Dec 2008

Why should your users have trouble with Windows? If your IT staff is worth anything, Windows is easy to support and is proven to be both stable and reliable. We have several hundred users on our network, and a staff of three in our IT department to support them all, with few difficulties.

As for using Linux at our office, I have tried, but like any office we have certain requirements for most of our users. We use AS/400s for our main apps, and IBM does offer a client for Linux, so that is not a problem. Like most offices, we have a lot of shared documents and spread sheets, but Open Office has been spotty in compatibility with our existing documents. We also have a document management system, which I have gotten to work with OO Writer even though the vendor does not support it, but not on Linux, only Windows. After that, it gets dicey. As you probably know, most business software is Windows specific. We have several users running programs like AutoCad, ArcGIS, various vertical market apps, etc, that are Windows only. We have web based apps that are IE specific (banking and government) that we have no choice on. While I would like to implement Linux, at this time is is simply not possible.

0 Votes

+ -

Give it up....

storm14k 22nd Dec 2008

...you can find literature on the amount of fragmentation that occurs on the normal Linux file system which always amounts to NEVER needing to defrag.

As for Vista being bloated....well it won't run on a netbook but amazingly Windows 7 is capable of doing so. If thats not obviously killing bloat then I don't know what is.

An I'd bet you your PC that I could do more running from a Linux LiveCD than you could do the second your fresh install of Windows boots for the final time. You won't have an office suite, drivers, some media codecs etc. I doubt you've even tried Ubuntu to list any lacking features.

0 Votes

+ -

You would lose the bet

itpro_z 22nd Dec 2008

I have Ubuntu running on one of my home computers, PCLinuxOS on a laptop, and have installed Ubuntu and RedHat at work. I also have worked with Xenix and Unix over the years as well, so, while I do not claim to be an expert on Linux, I am not a novice either.

Why do you and others keep arguing about Linux being able to run on minimal hardware as if that is some kind of huge advantage? With RAM running $10/GB now, and dual core processors well under $100, the need to keep those old machines running is fading. Even netbooks will be dual core and 2 GB within a few months, so we can run whatever OS we want, not just stripped down versions.

Open Office is included in Linux installs, but no one should claim that it will meet everyone's needs. I have installed in on a good number of systems at work, and in most cases had to replace it with MS Office. Beyond that, will Linux run the software that we want or need? For many of us, the answer is no.

0 Votes

+ -

Because that's still money I save

hasta la Vista, bah-bie Updated - 11th Feb 2009

Why do you and others keep arguing about Linux being able to run on minimal hardware as if that is some kind of huge advantage? With RAM running $10/GB now, and dual core processors well under $100, the need to keep those old machines running is fading. Even netbooks will be dual core and 2 GB within a few months, so we can run whatever OS we want, not just stripped down versions.

Why should I scrap a perfectly good 2004 Dell P4 Single core machine that will still suit my needs when I don't have to? Some people are on a budget, ya know...

Linux gives new life to old hardware. Not everybody out there is a hobbyboy, spending money on the latest gadget thing that happens to come out.

0 Votes

+ -

No you don't

Linux User 147560 20th Dec 2008

You obviously have not a clue about Linux filesystems. They are designed to defrag on the fly. They are also designed to operate for years without shutdown or reprieve. Since 1999 I have NEVER had to defrag any of my Linux systems. And I don't see the slow down that is inherent to the Windows filesystems. And the thing is I will run my systems for months even years, depending on the system. My desktops generally will run 9+ months without a reboot, or needless maintenance. All that get gets done is security updates. devil

0 Votes

+ -

Fragmentation

pocongcentil 22nd Dec 2008

http://www.heise-online.co.uk/open/Tuning-the-Linux-file-system-Ext3--/features/110398/3

Quote:
The battle against fragmentation also interferes with another optimising strategy: The locality of data and metadata which block groups try to achieve. Since Ext3 tries to store the files within one directory within the same block group, fragmentation can occur even though a lot of contiguous free space may still be available on the disk. The claim that Ext3 only starts to fragment when the file system is filled up to 80 or 90 percent is not always true. Depending on usage patterns, a file system which still has ample space available may still get fragmented.

For example, we found heavily fragmented free areas on an intensively used IMAP server which stores all its emails in individual files - although more than 900 GB of the total disk space of 1.4 TB were still available.

0 Votes

+ -

That may be true on the back end...

hasta la Vista, bah-bie Updated - 11th Feb 2009

But how does that affect performance?

In the 3 years I've been using Vector Linux (ReiserFS) I've never had to defragment. I've never seen a loss of performance, either.

It seems to me that if fragmentation still occurs, there's little to no effect on the user. At least that's been my experience as well as some others here.

0 Votes

+ -

To some of us it does

itpro_z 20th Dec 2008

Bloatware is in the eye of the beholder. At work, we use Vista Business, which few would call bloated. Vista Ultimate is bloated, Premium perhaps less so, while Basic is pretty sparse. It can be argued that Linux is missing some basic features which must be downloaded to make it functional for many of us. Is that better? Maybe for some, not so much for others.

As for the rest of your argument, defragging is automatic in Vista, as is spyware scanning. Even with XP, these tasks can be automated, along with virus scanning. At least with Vista, viruses have become rare, usually requiring user intervention to become infected. I have 3 Vista computers at home, and a few dozen at work, and have yet to see any malware on any. Not perfect, but a definite improvement.

Finally, I would argue that all of us "do with our computers as we please". Every system has its strengths and limitations, and we each choose based on our needs.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

It's bloatware if.....

todbran@... 21st Dec 2008

your computer is older that a year, maybe a year and a half which most of your average computer users machines are. I stuck Vista on a 2 year old machine and, even though it passed the test from MS, it was a dog. Half the speed of XP, which was on that particular machine and worked fine. I like XP to an extent, but Vista sucks.

0 Votes

+ -

I have never understood...

itpro_z 21st Dec 2008

...why some feel the need to upgrade the OS on an old machine. If that system of yours was running fine with XP, why did you mess with it? At home and work, I leave machines running the OS that they came with, the one that they were designed for. Vista runs very well, better than XP, on modern hardware. Why were you even surprised that XP would out perform Vista on an XP class computer? Wasn't it the same with 2K? Did you try to put XP on a PIII with 256 MB RAM? On a machine of that class, 2K would kick XPs butt. It is no different today.

0 Votes

+ -

In my line of work.....

todbran@... 21st Dec 2008

in which I own 3 computer service centers, I am required to perform such tasks to measure the effects of how an OS performs. If I didn't thoroughly test a new OS, I wouldn't be much of a tech. 2 year old hardware shouldn't be obsolete just because MS says it should be. I have a machine that was originally a Windows 98 machine. I just installed the latest release of Ubuntu on that machine and it runs better than it did with 98 on it. That's 10 year old hardware running a new OS. I hope 7 is better than Vista. But since it is based on Vista and will more than likely require the same hardware at a minimum, I don't foresee it being much better. It will be a little better, but not to the satisfaction of the masses.

0 Votes

+ -

Obsolete?

itpro_z 21st Dec 2008

Why would a machine be considered obsolete just because it can't run a new OS? At work, we still have a good number of Win2K machines in service. I would not dream of trying to put Vista or Win7 on those machines, yet they are in continuous service, so are most definitely not obsolete.

I frequently need to rebuild systems at work, and it is my standard practice to reinstall the OS that the machine came with, not to try to update to anything newer. If a PIII machine runs Win2K well, then that is what it gets, not XP. Many of the problems that I saw when XP first hit came from people trying to install it on older machines designed for Win98. XP was a dog on older machines, just like Vista would be today.

I, too, have installed Ubuntu on older hardware, and recognize that as one of the benefits of Linux. I also have experienced Linux on newer hardware, and can tell you that there is a world of difference between running it on marginal equipment and modern hardware. Just because Linux will run on a PII doesn't mean that I would want to run it myself on hardware of that vintage. XP will also run on Win98 class hardware, but once again I would not care for that experience.

As cheap as computer hardware is today, there is little value in holding onto older hardware. One can put together a decent computer capable of running Vista or any modern OS (well, maybe not OSX) for a couple hundred dollars. Why waste our time with old machines? My time is worth more than that.

0 Votes

+ -

The point of my story being.......

todbran@... 21st Dec 2008

If Linux can do just about everything that Windows does, why is it that Linux is the only one that works on older hardware? It's because that Windows footprint grows substantially with every release and they do nothing to slim it down while Linux footprint grows only minimally with each release.

0 Votes

+ -

That is the point, isn't it?

itpro_z 22nd Dec 2008

Does Linux do everything that Windows does? Not by a long shot. In my organization, we run software that simply is not available for Linux or OSX, nor are there any equivalents. Even at home it is the same story. My case is not necessarily the same as yours, but it is not unusual. One of my coworkers recently bought a new iMac, and was raving about how great it was. She then asked me if she could get a copy of Windows to put on it. I of course asked her why, if the iMac was so great, was it necessary to install Windows. Her reply was that she loved the Mac, but it wouldn't run the software that she needed. If she had bought a Linux machine, her experience would have been the same.

Regarding you comment about Windows footprint growing, that does happen when you add features. XP had a considerably greater footprint than Win9X, and the user got a whole slew of new features for that. Vista offers a wide list of new features, from vastly improved security, better graphics, and new apps like photo editing. The trade off is a bigger footprint and more horsepower needed to push it along. I have used various versions of Linux over the years, and they too have grown. Look at the minimum hardware requirements for Ubuntu now as compared to in the past. I have ran older versions of Ubuntu on PIIs with 256 MB RAM, but that system does not meet the minimum specs for the latest version. I will not argue that Linux has lower requirements than Vista, or even XP for that matter, but hardware advances rapidly. If I want to take advantage of the advances in new hardware (multicore processors, advanced graphics cards, lots of RAM), then I will install the latest OS. If I am content with older hardware, then I will stay with the OS that fits that machine. That is where many people get into trouble, trying to make an old computer run the latest software.

0 Votes

+ -

@itpro-z

rikasa Updated - 23rd Dec 2008

For the most part I agree with what you're saying, but here are some personal concerns regarding the current direction of OS development:

How much of the growing Windows footprint comprises backwards compatibility for both software and hardware and isn't allowing for this effectively a concession on MS's behalf that people hold onto older hardware and that surely ailing worldwide economies would only exacerbate this trend?

When you consider that even though around 90% of worldwide wealth is concentrated primarily in North America, Europe, and wealthy Asia-Pacific nations, IT departments in such nations surely will hold back (have started to hold back?) on hard/software upgrades.

Then think about the effect this 'synchronized recession' will have on more populous emerging nations. Ever-decreasing hardware costs are still pale in comparison to the necessities of life! Now take a couple of these nations considered possible candidates to assume the mantle of a significant economic power some time in the future... say India and Brazil, for example. Their feelings toward what I can only guess was what they perceived as arrogance on behalf of MS were evident in their appeal against the ISO's fast-track approval of OOXML (the only time in history an ISO standard has ever been appealed). Now; doesn't the 'chasing after Moore's law' model of OS production look even more at polar opposites with what it will require to restore good faith and ensure an all important MS-foothold in such nations when you add in the recession factor?

Still; from what I'm hearing regarding Windows 7 running fine on less powerful hardware, it sounds like MS have been listening rather than dictating. I guess they have to, because its quite possible this once-every-100-years recession may be the catalyst that draws many a wealthy and or emerging nation away from reliance on expensive proprietary software/hardware upgrades in favour of open source on older hardware.

Finally; by being light yet feature rich Windows 7 in fact turns out to be one the fruits of IT innovation often brought forth by recessions, then only thing between them and the 'golden foothold' in emerging nations is the price...mmmmm

0 Votes

+ -

If that's the case...

hasta la Vista, bah-bie Updated - 11th Feb 2009

...why some feel the need to upgrade the OS on an old machine. If that system of yours was running fine with XP, why did you mess with it?

Then why does Windows sell an upgrade version of Vista?

Maybe you should ask M$ why they do that if you want your question answered.

0 Votes

+ -

Defragging unlikely anyway

Patanjali 23rd Dec 2008

Fragmentation will occur if there are packets of free space on a HDD that are smaller than the files being loaded AND if programs have been deleted beforehand. This would become more exaggerated as the partition became more full, though defragging becomes difficult if too full.

If you had to defrag often, what were you doing?

Most people, with a large enough OS partition (so as not to have to squeeze into small spaces), and who do not often delete programs and load new ones should find very little need to defrag, regardless of the OS. Most data files, due to their relatively small size, would be no problem filling in the holes.

Multimedia files would be more likely to become fragmented because of their much larger size. These are better off on their own data HDD with large sector sizes (such as 64KB on Windows) to minimise effects of fragmentation and to require less OS CPU overhead to manage.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: No such thing as a free Linux distro

gogalthorp 20th Dec 2008

I suggest you all read this page to understand the differences in file systems. And though there are defrag utilities for most of the file system (and Linux supports many) they are normally only needed if you are resizing partition and are not needed in day to day usage. There are at least a dozen different file system that Linux can use including FAT and NTFS. Each has it strength and weakness but you can chose the best for a particular job and once mounted it is total transparent to the user.

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Linux does not use NTFS or FAT

marcfinnwilson@... 11th Feb 2009

The drivers are only there so that Linux users can do things on their Windows partition!

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: No such thing as a free Linux distro

Linux User 147560 20th Dec 2008

Cool Read! devil

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Exactly

AdamWill 21st Dec 2008

I'm betting a lot of the people reading this never bother to read the whole thing, and don't understand what Spot does.

In a nutshell, (one of) Spot's job(s) is to care about all the dull legal crap. Licensing is hard, and this article is simply about the fact that no-one really gets it right. Debian has tried hard for a long time, but it's still not perfect. And - as he says - a lot of distros just don't try very hard.

Tom came up with a very sensible licensing policy for Fedora which he's still trying to get the whole distro properly converted to. I've partly adopted it for Mandriva and it's moving slowly there too. Ultimately, the goal would be to be able to automatically spot various possible licensing issues simply by cross-referencing the license fields of inter-linked packages, but even that only gets you so far.

Lots of software includes random data, and the authors often don't really pay attention to what it is or how it's licensed. Never mind trivial stuff like images with no clear license - quite a lot of 'free' software comes with Microsoft TrueType fonts in the tarball.

Never mind getting into stuff like the problem with GPL applications linking against openssl...

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Do you check the "license" on your food before you eat it?

Ole Man 22nd Dec 2008

Better had! You just may be ingesting something illegal.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Licenses for insect bits and dirt?

Patanjali 23rd Dec 2008

Most foods have very few contents items, even if some are mostly given numbers!

An open source OS can be thousands of program items, from a myriad of contributors, and lots of hangers on, accumulated over many years with a fuzzy geneology.

Next time, compare 'apples' with 'apples'.

BTW, did you get a license for the insect bits and dirt you've been consuming with your favourite foods?