Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft vs. Ximian

Roblimo posted more than 12 years ago | from the blatant-Linux-advocacy-in-the-mainstream-press dept.

Ximian 308

Kappelmeister writes "The open source movement gets some great mainstream press today as the Washington Post reports tht Ximian's Volunteer 'Army' Fights Microsoft on Open-Source Code. It mentions Linux progress in the server market, Shared Source, and how both sides are courting Mexican President Vincente Fox for use in his 'eMexico' initiative to get 98 percent of the population online. Best of all, though, it tells a lot of people that there is a decent alternative to Microsoft software."

cancel ×

308 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (-1, Offtopic)

angry_clown_penis (261127) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255100)

first

Yeah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255101)

One character. Hmmm. Gee, might this be a troll?

FIRST FISH! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255107)

I AM A FISH!

Chris Squire? (-1)

motherfuckin_spork (446610) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255114)

d00d! Your solo album was great! You really should do another.

monkeys vs. demons (-1)

motherfuckin_spork (446610) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255108)

who will win?

I say the monkeys, because they are inherently more evil than demons. Ever watch monkeys at the zoo? Vicious little bastards.

Re:monkeys vs. demons (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255143)

Damn right.

this is a joke right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255117)

Migual cannot manage the direction of gnome propely. With all the conflicts internally how is he the great savior of the open source community. That is a big mistake.
While people laud him, microsoft is stealing gnome's crappy code and putting it into Microsoft products

this is coherent right (-1)

motherfuckin_spork (446610) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255133)

fucking learn proper grammar, doofus. ever hear of a complete sentence? good god, you suck in ways I can hardly begin to describe.

Do us all a favor: find a 220V outlet and relieve your bladder by taking aim for the little holes for the plug.

Can you give an example? (1)

Marcus Green (34723) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255292)

"While people laud him, microsoft is stealing gnome's crappy code and putting it into Microsoft products"

Can you give an example of Microsoft using gnome code?

Re:Can you give an example? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255392)

Did you know that M$ steals code that is written in VS? They have a fully functional decomplier that takes the binary from any M$ product and reproduces the source. When you code in a M$ product you code for M$.

The place to start (1)

taliver (174409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255125)

Is with the public sector. Specifically in education. Now that there are several free office suites (or at least 2), you can do the same functionality (that matters) that can be done with Windows.


What is needed is convincing your local school that free software will save big bucks that can be used for other wasteful projects.

Re:The place to start (2, Interesting)

SlamMan (221834) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255160)

No! School systems are not the place to have linux right now. If a high school can get it work, then more power too them. But high schools and elem/middle schools are totally different beasts. Elememntry and middle schools computer systems are usually run by aids, not full time and paid teachers. The requirements to be an aid or almost rediculously low, and many of the people in those positions are bearly meeting the requirements. If you were compitent to get linux running for an entire school, wouldn't you be working at some place that paid a bit more? In addition, there jsut isn't software to run on linux computer in the low levels. They use some word processing, sure, but most of the fsoftware is almong the lines of "spellavator" or "number munchers." This kind, amount, and quality of educational of software just isn't around for linux. In addition, think oof what the user/techie ratio is where any of you work. Add a zero to it, and thats how overworked techs in the school system are. School systems need things that set up easily, run flawlessly, and never ever need system administration. Now, linux runs great, but thats by one of us setting it up. tech's in school systems have this lovely tendency to be teachers that got sick of teaching. No real rechnical aptitutde required.

Re:The place to start (3, Insightful)

taliver (174409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255300)

OK, I'm getting tired of hearing, "Linux isn't ready for the Desktop." Neither was Dos 3.1 and it didn't stop people from trying to get schools to use it. Why not actually expect people to be able to use computers instead of expecting complete incompetence?


The reason that techs are overworked is because they have removed all chance of responsibility from the users. Why not say, "Well, read the man pages," or "Have you looked for your problem online" instead of "Don't touch it, you'll only break it."

Re:The place to start (1)

SlamMan (221834) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255322)

Just because you're tired of hearing it doesn't make it any less true. And I'm not saying its not ready for the desktop, I'm saying its not ready for my grandmothers desktop, or for that of an elementry school. In schools, most students get around an hour of class time a week. This is time teachers want to spend having them reenforce the classroom lessons, not having to learn how to use the computer. I'm all for having users read the man pages, but in elementry school, reading it self is a challenge for a while, much less reading man pages.

Re:The place to start (1)

pjbass (144318) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255362)

School systems need things that set up easily, run flawlessly, and never ever need system administration.

Windows 98 - reboots around 3-4 times when installing, and randomly crashes during an install.

Windows NT - Let's not even go there...

Windows 2000 - Getting better, but you really want to justify the money spent on those licenses JUST to make a computer quasi-work?

So my point is, Windows isn't something that runs flawlessly , and it certaintly isn't something that doesn't require constant attention to keep it running well (Code Red, I Love You, etc.). Linux is a problem because of the learning curve. That is a problem everyone has when they start with Linux. But get one tech in a school or wherever to sit down with Linux and try setting it up, and once they have one machine set up, there are tools out there to rapid deploy it. Norton Ghost (yes, it isn't free, I know), and if you use Red Hat Linux, then there is the kickstart option, which actually works now. So, I don't quite agree with your argument that this should be limited by what the tech's are capable of; if they are techs, then they can and will learn it if asked. If they can't, they need to get another job. But I do agree with your other point, and think it is the only thing that would keep Linux out is the required learning curve one has to overcome to get the real power out of Linux, or any Unix OS for that matter. And so you may be able to convince a school it is good to use Linux because of it being free, but it may be difficult to win them over on the additional time spent learning the material in order to use it. I sincerely hope that the people heading this campaign up also have a good plan in place to make this happen...

Turing was a fag (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255129)

ooooops, wrong article!

Bad and good. (5, Insightful)

shaka (13165) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255132)

Firstly, I would like to state that I think it's great to see this kind of articles in the mainstream press, as it shows people that there are alternatives, and the only thing they hear about open source and free software is the FUD that MS is spreading.

That said, I come to the bad side. I'm pretty tired of reading all of this mumbo-jumbo about open source as business, or as a threat to business, or whatever. I can understand why journalists like to write about it, and I think that parts of the open source community is responsible for this too.

But still - face it: Open source and free software is hobbyists writing code for their own well-being, because they (we) think it's fun, and/or because we need the software, and feels good about letting other people use and change said software too.

By doing this, you have no strings attached. All the companies in the world - and the journalists - can say and write whatever they want, but the fact is that nobody has to care.
Stop talking business all the time. The programmers don't care about business. We care about code.

Re:Bad and good. (1)

gray code (323372) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255182)

pretty damned presumptious of you. I'm sure not a single person at RedHat or VA Linux is concerned with making a buck or two. Not like the programmers have families to feed or rent to pay. They're businesses just like everyone else, out to make some dough.

Re:Bad and good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255203)

"Not like the programmers have families to feed or rent to pay"

Those very same companies are using free labour, so they shouldn't complain on anyone else. They certainly don't have any right to make money on others work (that they haven't paid for).

Re:Bad and good. (1)

WildBeast (189336) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255244)

Well they are making money on others work and why not? If some programmers want to give away software for free, that's their problem. With Open Source software, I don't have to work three months on a project. Their's always someone who's done a similar project in Open Source, so I take the code, customize it for my employers needs and voilà it's done in a week and I take all the credit and the money for it.

Re:Bad and good. (1)

ReidMaynard (161608) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255323)

..and I take all the credit and the money for it.


To bill for your time to cutomize it for your employer is obvious ... Unless you mean you bill for the time it took the original progammer(s) to develop the code. That's fraud.

I think, the opensource license (the spirit of) is that if you hack/resell, then you must give you customers the same advantage (included source) that you had ...

Re:Bad and good. (2, Insightful)

Karn (172441) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255253)



They certainly don't have any right to make money on others work (that they haven't paid for).


Says who? Isn't that what "Free" software is all about? You have nothing to complain about, since no author of a piece of code is obligated to use a particular license. I can copy any GPL'd software, and sell it all day long if I so choose, b/c the license allows this.

Re:Bad and good. (5, Insightful)

Khazunga (176423) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255192)

But still - face it: Open source and free software is hobbyists writing code for their own well-being, because they (we) think it's fun, and/or because we need the software, and feels good about letting other people use and change said software too.
Untrue. Or at least, incomplete. While there certainly are many hobbyists writing code in their spare time, a quick glance at major open-source projects will find commercial company support.

Open-source allows for small companies to enter fields held by large corporations up until now. Open source development lowers the software entry barrier, for corporations as well as individuals.

Example: Imagine a small company who realizes they need to develop a J2EE application server because of an esoteric requirement. Before open source, the cost would be prohibitive. Nowadays, they'll probably join some project like JBoss, and add the features they particularly need.

Companies also have itches, and also scratch them.

I care about business... (1)

TheophileEscargot (309117) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255200)

...since I'm a professional programmer.

business = rent
business = food

I get very hungry and cold without business.

Re:Bad and good. (5, Insightful)

Raphael (18701) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255209)

Most (but not all) Open Source and Free Software programmers are writing code for fun, or for various other reasons that are not directly business-related.

But some of them are employed by RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and other distributions, or by companies like VA Linux or Ximian and they do care for the business side of things. They are the ones who make sure that all pieces of the GNU/Linux/X puzzle fit together and that all applications can be used by the "average user".

Open Source is no longer just hobbyists (2)

Carnage4Life (106069) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255335)

But still - face it: Open source and free software is hobbyists writing code for their own well-being, because they (we) think it's fun, and/or because we need the software, and feels good about letting other people use and change said software too.

A quick glance at the Membership List of the Apache Software Foundation [apache.org] shows that there are about 63 members of which about 40 represent one company or the other. The same can be said of most of the other major Open Source projects from Mozilla to Linux to Perl. Corporations are beginning to see the benefits of Open Source software and are contributing both a lot more developer resources than anyone would have believed possible just a few years ago.

Who would you listen to? (1)

TeachingMachines (519187) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255139)

"Who would you listen to?" de Icaza moaned to an office mate. "Just another Mexican? Or the richest man in the world?"

How is it that open-source can get a channel into governments? The people who make the economic decisions, such as el Presidente, are the people that we should be talking to. I'm curious, as I'm sure Miguel is, as how that can be done...

Re:Who would you listen to? (1)

update() (217397) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255187)

The people who make the economic decisions, such as el Presidente, are the people that we should be talking to. I'm curious, as I'm sure Miguel is, as how that can be done...

From the article:

Getting Mexico to do the same has been de Icaza's obsession for the past few months. And in that regard, he's met with President Fox, too.
During the half-hour conference, which took place earlier this year, he ran though this math with Fox: At a retail price of $209 for Windows and $440 for Office, it could cost the country as much as $3.25 billion just for license fees. "Our country needs that money for many other things," de Icaza said he told Fox. He said Fox seemed to be surprised by the cost analysis, but he made no promises.

I don't know if Fox was surprised because he knows you don't pay CompUSA prices when you're buying software for an entire country, but Miguel certainly doesn't lack political connections in Mexico...

Re:How to open the govenrment comm link (2, Interesting)

mikey504 (464225) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255296)

Get involved. Write letters. They *do* get counted, even if they don't count for anything until they hit critical mass. They may not read your letter any longer than it takes to tally another count for the open source zealot column, but they are at least going to do that. No one likes to lose a vote.

Be aware that in a majority rule system, it is hard for a minority (informed computer users) to find a voice. But the "ruling class" always seem to manage OK, and there aren't many of them. How do they do it? They make noise and they spend money.

So, donate to EFF, buy products based on open source, and encourage your company to do the same. For example, I order new systems with commercial Linux distro's on them even though they will most likely end up with Debian installed by the time they go into service. Sure, it's a drop in the bucket (we are a very small company) but we do what we can. I try to buy switches and hubs that have the "works with linux" stickers on the box. I know there isn't really any difference, but I want to reinforce the idea for hardware manufacturers that "support for linux = more $$$".

Hopefully Red Hat and others will eventually have enough cash to grease a few wheels. It only takes one lunch with a Senator where someone says "Please don't put us out of business... and by the way did you see that we contributed a little something to Furman's computer lab? Doesn't little Margory go to Furman? What a pleasant coincidence. I do hope to see you at the next campaign rally" to swing a vote at the next committee meeting.

I'm one of those people who believes that lobbyists exert far too much leverage with our representatives, and most of it does not work in our favor.

Lobbyists do what they do with CASH. I am not sure that Linux and related technology needs to be commercialized to survive, but we (the community) do need to buy or beg at least enough influence to make sure we don't get patented and DMCA'ed out of the game. I just moved the last vestiges of our file services off of NT, and I am now enjoying reduced maintenance time while I brace for the first SAMBA patent infringement lawsuit. I will lose "boy genius" status with my boss in a heartbeat when that hits the papers.

I don't car if Linux never gets more than 25% of the corporate server market-- as long as there still *is* a Linux, and as long as there remains enough incentive and legal freedom to allow the kernel hackers, the Gnu guys, the Samba team, and the Apache team to keep doing what they have been doing for us for all this time. (I am not leaving KDE/Gnome and others out on purpose, I just already feel like I am starting to ramble.) In a lot of ways I think the changes needed to make Linux suitable for mass consumption are in danger of making it unsuitable for people like me. But that is another story-- as long as the config files stay "human readable" and documented we will all be OK.

"Validates Microsoft Technical Designs.." (1)

Havokmon (89874) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255142)

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.
It's more like, "It validates the desperation of various groups trying break the World away from the Microsoft monopoly."

Hey! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255147)

Nobody is paying attention to my FAQ about Censorship on Slashdot [slashdot.org] , so I'm afraid I'm going to have to spam you!

It's karma sluts like you that give AC's a bad name.

IF I EVER MEEPT YOU, I WILL KICK YOUR GOAT!

30-Jul-01 LAMONICA, FRANK

Shareholder 34,767

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144)

9-Jul-01 FAITH, RICKARD E

Shareholder 2,203

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $6,300.

6-Jul-01 OWEN, JENS

Former, Shareholder 44,802

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $138,438.

26-Jun-01 EVANS, ROBERT

Shareholder 26,438

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $84,337.

22-Jun-01 YOUNG, MICHAEL

Shareholder 5,468

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $16,404.

13-Jun-01 NEUMEISTER, ROBERT M

Director 0

LNUX Initial Direct Holdings Statement

7-Jun-01 REBACK, GARY L

Shareholder 189

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $850.00.

4-Jun-01 LOTZ, BARBARA J

Shareholder 52

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $225.00.

1-Jun-01 MASSEY FAMILY TRUST

Shareholder 161

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $607.00.

1-Jun-01 PAUL, BRIAN E

Shareholder 3,130

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $8,732.

1-Jun-01 DAUBAR, GERARD

Shareholder 900

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $3,888.

1-Jun-01 PETKANICS, DONNA

Shareholder 908

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $3,223.

1-Jun-01 SANDERS, ROBERT D

Shareholder 4,162

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $15,691.

31-May-01 KENNEDY, MICHAEL J

Shareholder 81

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $339.00.

30-May-01 SINDELAR, ERIC

Shareholder 1,407

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $6,000.

29-May-01 BONHAM, MARK

Shareholder 87

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $925.00.

25-May-01 LATTA FAMILY TRUST

Trust, Trustee 167

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $748.00.

24-May-01 LAMONICA, FRANK

Shareholder, Employee 12,885

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $55,367.

24-May-01 LAMONICA, FRANK & ARLEEN

Shareholder 15,734

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $67,616.

24-May-01 LAMONICA, ARLEEN

Shareholder 2,849

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $12,222.

22-May-01 PRENSKY, WOLF & RIVA

Shareholder 8,441

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $38,828.

21-May-01 EVANS, ROBERT

Shareholder 5,123

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $25,000.

17-May-01 WELLFLEET EQUITIES LLC

Shareholder 279

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,278.

17-May-01 CINER, EUGENE

Shareholder 279

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,278.

14-May-01 SCHILLER, RABBI MAYER

Secretary 352

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,609.

8-May-01 FAITH, RICKARD E

Shareholder 3,105

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $17,015.

4-May-01 FREET, PAUL

Shareholder 15,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $70,000.

2-May-01 FREET, PAUL

Shareholder 20,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $87,000.

12-Apr-01 SPARK PUBLIC RELATIONS LLC

Shareholder 643

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $17,834.

12-Apr-01 LISTWIN, DONALD J

Shareholder 558

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,574.

11-Apr-01 TRUDO, ALEXANDER DANIEL

Shareholder 651,549

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,300,000.

10-Apr-01 FREET, PAUL

Shareholder 20,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $50,000.

9-Apr-01 FREET, PAUL

Shareholder 20,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $45,000.

6-Apr-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

Director, Chief Executive Officer * 10,000

LNUX Gave as Gift.

Value of $20,312.

3-Apr-01 ANDREESSEN LIVING TRUST

Shareholder 1,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,210.

2-Apr-01 BIG KALA TRUST

Trust, Trustee 651,549

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,900,000.

29-Mar-01 BUTLER, DANEN THOMAS

Shareholder 200,477

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $600,000.

29-Mar-01 TRUDO, ALEXANDER DANIEL

Shareholder 200,477

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $600,000.

29-Mar-01 STEUR, DAVID S

Shareholder 115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $341.00.

23-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

Chief Executive Officer, Director 26,000

LNUX Sold at $3.50/Share.

Proceeds of $91,000.

21-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

Chief Executive Officer, Director 14,700

LNUX Sold at $3.00/Share.

Proceeds of $44,100.

20-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

Chief Executive Officer, Director 30,000

LNUX Sold at $3.14/Share.

Proceeds of $94,200.

15-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

Chief Executive Officer, Director 41,500

LNUX Sold at $3.25/Share.

Proceeds of $134,875.

14-Mar-01 ZWICKER, IAN

Shareholder 10,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $34,380.

13-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

Chief Executive Officer, Director 50,000

LNUX Sold at $3.38/Share.

Proceeds of $169,000.

13-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

President, Director, Chief Executive Officer 400,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,600,000.

12-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

Chief Executive Officer, Director 400,000

LNUX Acquired Shares via Exercise of Options at $0.02/Share.

Paper gain of $1,192,000 at a fair market value of $3.00/share on 12-Mar-01.

6-Mar-01 SUMITOMO CORPORATION

Shareholder 59,068

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $240,634.

6-Mar-01 PRESIDIO VENTURE PARTNERS LLC

Shareholder 59,068

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $240,406.

5-Mar-01 SEGRE, DAVID J

Shareholder 109

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $395.00.

2-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

Chief Executive Officer, Director 250,500

LNUX Sold at $3.66/Share.

Proceeds of $916,830.

1-Mar-01 DAUBAR, GERARD

Shareholder 900

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $6,721.

1-Mar-01 BLOCK, PHILIP D III

Shareholder 239

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,091.

1-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

Chief Executive Officer, Director * 150,000

LNUX Sold at $3.63/Share.

Proceeds of $544,500.

28-Feb-01 BROWNELL, ROBERT

Shareholder 329

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,233.

27-Feb-01 PRESIDIO VENTURES PARTNER

Shareholder 200,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,000,000.

27-Feb-01 SUMITOMO CORPORATION

Shareholder 200,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,000,000.

26-Feb-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

President, Director, Chief Executive Officer 134,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $703,500.

26-Feb-01 MENDOZA, KATHY S & THOMAS F

Shareholder 201,812

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,031,986.

23-Feb-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

President, Director, Chief Executive Officer 41,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $215,238.

21-Feb-01 FLINT, ELIZABETH R

Shareholder 82

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $595.00.

20-Feb-01 PARNES, MARK

Affiliated Person 4

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $32.00.

15-Feb-01 LEGAL, COMMUNITY AGAINST VIOLENCE

Shareholder 39

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $329.00.

13-Feb-01 FRENCH, RICHARD L

Senior Vice President-OSDN 0

LNUX Initial Direct Holdings Statement

12-Feb-01 PET KAVICS = GERSPENSCHALGER FAMILY TRUST

Trust, Trustee 82

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $686.00.

6-Feb-01 SYNNEX INFOR TECH INC

Shareholder 31,280

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $290,318.

2-Feb-01 SILVER STAR DEV LTD

Shareholder 31,068

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $296,699.

30-Jan-01 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 108,741

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $996,024.

29-Jan-01 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 120,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $960,468.

26-Jan-01 SHORE CL UNITRUST

Trust, Trustee 2,800

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $269,500.

26-Jan-01 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 70,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $531,097.

25-Jan-01 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 88,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $710,345.

24-Jan-01 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 170,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,364,539.

23-Jan-01 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 145,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,062,807.

22-Jan-01 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 110,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $782,485.

22-Jan-01 VAUGHN, ISAAC

Shareholder 79

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $585.00.

19-Jan-01 GOOD, SARAH

Shareholder, Affiliated Person 80

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $583.00.

19-Jan-01 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 57,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $424,063.

18-Jan-01 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 137,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $980,153.

17-Jan-01 CRAIG, ALEXANDER J

Shareholder 4,952

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $44,568.

11-Jan-01 SACCANI, DANIEL R

Shareholder 3,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $28,378.

4-Jan-01 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 87,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $723,257.

2-Jan-01 FELDMAN, ROBERT P

Shareholder 143

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,162.

24-Dec-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 10,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $81,869.

22-Dec-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

President 5,000

LNUX Exercised Options at $0.06/Share and Sold at $10.13/Share.

Proceeds of $50,350.

21-Dec-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

President 10,000

LNUX Exercised Options at $0.06/Share and Sold at $8.13/Share.

Proceeds of $80,700.

21-Dec-00 AUSTIN, ALAN K

Director 189

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,607.

20-Dec-00 BORO, LAUREN I

Shareholder 1,554

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $15,090.

20-Dec-00 BELL, SUZANNE Y

Shareholder 69

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $565.00.

19-Dec-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

President 15,000

LNUX Exercised Options at Average of $0.06/Share and Sold at $10.04/Share.

Proceeds of $149,770.

18-Dec-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 5,000

LNUX Sold at $12.00/Share.

Proceeds of $60,000.

18-Dec-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

President 15,000

LNUX Exercised Options at $0.06/Share and Sold at $10.50/Share.

Proceeds of $156,600.

15-Dec-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 10,000

LNUX Sold at $11.43/Share.

Proceeds of $114,300.

14-Dec-00 DEFILIPPS, THOMAS C

Shareholder 92

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,179.

14-Dec-00 ZEHR, GREGG E

Vice President, Engineering * 20,500

LNUX Sold at $11.29/Share.

Proceeds of $231,445.

14-Dec-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 5,000

LNUX Sold at $11.25/Share.

Proceeds of $56,250.

14-Dec-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 10,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $114,368.

14-Dec-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

President 5,000

LNUX Exercised Options at $0.06/Share and Sold at $11.63/Share.

Proceeds of $57,850.

13-Dec-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 10,000

LNUX Sold at $14.54/Share.

Proceeds of $145,400.

13-Dec-00 ZEHR, GREGG E

Vice President, Engineering * 4,500

LNUX Sold at $14.22/Share.

Proceeds of $63,990.

13-Dec-00 ZEHR GREG TRUST

Trust, Trustee 50,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $700,000.

13-Dec-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

Affiliated Person 50,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $700,000.

13-Dec-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 10,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $145,429.

13-Dec-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

President 12,798

LNUX Exercised Options at $0.06/Share and Sold at $12.60/Share.

Proceeds of $160,487.

13-Dec-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

President 10,000

LNUX Sold at $13.93/Share.

Proceeds of $139,300.

12-Dec-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 250,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,589,075.

12-Dec-00 SHORE, DANIEL K

Vice President, Operations 10,000

LNUX Sold at $9.75/Share.

Proceeds of $97,500.

11-Dec-00 SORE, DANIEL R

Officer 20,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $186,562.

11-Dec-00 SCHULL, TODD B

Chief Financial Officer 55,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $534,000.

11-Dec-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 110,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,027,268.

11-Dec-00 GOODRICH, JOHN B

Shareholder 167

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,324.

11-Dec-00 SHORE, DANIEL K

Vice President, Operations 10,000

LNUX Sold at $9.33/Share.

Proceeds of $93,300.

11-Dec-00 SCHULL, TODD B

Chief Financial Officer 55,000

LNUX Sold at $9.72/Share.

Proceeds of $534,600.

8-Dec-00 SCHULL, TODD B

Chief Financial Officer 10,000

LNUX Sold at $1.00/Share.

Proceeds of $10,000.

8-Dec-00 VIRNIG, KENNETH J

Shareholder 16,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $128,000.

8-Dec-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 190,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,441,720.

8-Dec-00 SCHULL, TODD B

Chief Financial Officer 15,000

LNUX Sold at $7.27/Share.

Proceeds of $109,050.

8-Dec-00 SCHULL, TODD B

Chief Financial Officer 25,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $190,000.

7-Dec-00 SCHULL, TODD B

Chief Financial Officer 12,000

LNUX Sold at $7.06/Share.

Proceeds of $84,720.

7-Dec-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 200,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,399,380.

7-Dec-00 SCHULL, TODD B

Chief Financial Officer 12,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $85,000.

6-Dec-00 SHORE, DANIEL K

Vice President, Operations 28,000

LNUX Gave as Gift.

Value of $222,250.

6-Dec-00 ALTER, AARON

Shareholder 87

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $690.00.

6-Dec-00 BRANTZ MAYOR TRUST

Trust, Trustee 2,939

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $23,512.

6-Dec-00 GRECO, LISA M

Shareholder 1,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $13,000.

5-Dec-00 SHORE, DANIEL K

Vice President, Operations 22,500

LNUX Sold at $8.93/Share.

Proceeds of $200,925.

5-Dec-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 20,000

LNUX Sold at $8.43/Share.

Proceeds of $168,600.

5-Dec-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 92,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $805,000.

5-Dec-00 SHORE, DAVID R

Vice President 22,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $185,427.

5-Dec-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 20,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $169,054.

4-Dec-00 BARCLAY, MICHAEL

Shareholder 87

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $729.00.

4-Dec-00 SHORE, DANIEL K

Vice President, Operations 22,500

LNUX Sold at $8.24/Share.

Proceeds of $185,400.

4-Dec-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 90,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $757,341.

4-Dec-00 SHORE, DANIEL K

Vice President, Operations 22,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $185,427.

4-Dec-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 10,000

LNUX Sold at $8.19/Share.

Proceeds of $81,900.

1-Dec-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 100,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $878,200.

1-Dec-00 KLEIN, THOMAS C

Shareholder 55

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $456.00.

30-Nov-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 90,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $719,532.

30-Nov-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 19,792

LNUX Acquired Shares via Exercise of Options at $6.00/Share.

Paper gain of $43,295 at a fair market value of $8.19/share on 30-Nov-00.

30-Nov-00 SCHULL, TODD B

Chief Financial Officer 47,944

LNUX Acquired Shares via Exercise of Options at $0.50/Share.

Paper gain of $368,570 at a fair market value of $8.19/share on 30-Nov-00.

29-Nov-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 103,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $896,028.

21-Nov-00 VANYO, BRUCE

Shareholder 877

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $9,811.

20-Nov-00 LADRA, MICHAEL

Shareholder 504

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $5,166.

17-Nov-00 GOETZ, JAMES J

Shareholder 1,884

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $24,492.

9-Nov-00 MOORE, JASON T

Shareholder 50,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $806,000.

3-Nov-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 60,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,846,563.

3-Nov-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 60,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,846,562.

1-Nov-00 TRUSTEES OF DAVIDSON COLLEGE

Shareholder 8,740

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $255,645.

31-Oct-00 MOORE, JASON T

Shareholder 1,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $48,438.

31-Oct-00 COSPER, KIT

Shareholder 12,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $331,231.

31-Oct-00 KNIGHTSBRIDGE VENTURE CAPITAL IV LP

Shareholder 58,270

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,544,155.

30-Oct-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 19,792

LNUX Acquired Shares via Exercise of Options at $6.00/Share.

Paper gain of $373,574 at a fair market value of $24.88/share on 30-Oct-00.

30-Oct-00 KILLAM, DAVID

Shareholder 37

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,110.

26-Oct-00 DAVIS, PAUL

Director, Secretary 382

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $10,623.

26-Oct-00 HUSICK FAMILY TRUST

Trust, Trustee 234

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $6,592.

25-Oct-00 CHAPLICK, TREVOR

Shareholder 191

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $6,762.

24-Oct-00 AUSTIN, ALAN K

Director 824

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $29,767.

24-Oct-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 125,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $4,475,650.

24-Oct-00 DAVIS, KIMBERLY

Shareholder 5,700

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $201,987.

24-Oct-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 125,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $4,475,625.

23-Oct-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 62,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,147,376.

23-Oct-00 BUSH FOUNDATION

Shareholder 29,135

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $445,075.

23-Oct-00 VLG INVESTMENTS 1998

Shareholder 279

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $10,445.

20-Oct-00 KOZEL, EDWARD R

Shareholder 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $40,418.

20-Oct-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 152,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $5,467,659.

19-Oct-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 160,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $5,618,128.

19-Oct-00 GILL, FRANK & MARY

Shareholder 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $40,418.

18-Oct-00 ODONNELL, LIZ

Shareholder 252

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $8,489.

18-Oct-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 175,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $5,687,185.

17-Oct-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 75,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,456,123.

16-Oct-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 255,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $8,709,219.

13-Oct-00 COSPER, KIT

Shareholder 2,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $83,500.

13-Oct-00 DREW, JOHN L

Shareholder 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $37,213.

13-Oct-00 KELLER, DONALD M

Shareholder 2,822

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $94,467.

13-Oct-00 VANLIGLEN, GLEN R

Shareholder 486

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $15,870.

13-Oct-00 INTEL CORP

Shareholder 160,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $5,403,120.

12-Oct-00 MCKINNEY FAMILY TRUST

Trust, Trustee 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $36,033.

11-Oct-00 ESTRIN, JUDITH L

Shareholder 279

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $9,765.

10-Oct-00 VLG INVESTMENTS 1998

Shareholder 922

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $32,691.

7-Oct-00 DAUBAR, GERARD

Shareholder 1,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $48,437.

6-Oct-00 OCONNOR, ROBERT

Shareholder 37

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,785.

6-Oct-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 19,791

LNUX Acquired Shares via Exercise of Options at $6.00/Share.

Paper gain of $539,305 at a fair market value of $33.25/share on 6-Oct-00.

5-Oct-00 MCGOVERN, PATRICK J

Shareholder 4

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $166.00.

5-Oct-00 INTERNATIONAL DATA GROUP

Shareholder 19,354

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $826,214.

5-Oct-00 IDG VENTURES MANAGEMENT INC

Shareholder 23

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $997.00.

3-Oct-00 SMALLCAP WORLD FUND INC

Shareholder 390,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $18,817,500.

3-Oct-00 MCKINNEY FAMILY TRUST

Trust, Trustee 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $56,515.

3-Oct-00 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAL/ SHELLWATER & CO

Shareholder 92,231

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $4,022,312.

2-Oct-00 MOFFENBEIER, DAVID C

Shareholder 235

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $11,383.

1-Oct-00 SILVER STAR DEV LTD

Shareholder 129,534

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $5,000,000.

28-Sep-00 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Shareholder 40,789

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,887,637.

28-Sep-00 SILICON, VALLEY BANCSHARES

Shareholder 1,394

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $62,382.

28-Sep-00 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES MASTER PENSION TRUST

Trust, Trustee 24,998

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,083,312.

28-Sep-00 GROSSMAN, JERRY & BARBARA

Shareholder 1,884

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $84,309.

27-Sep-00 SOKOLSKY, DONNA

Shareholder 750

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $36,000.

27-Sep-00 HEMPEL, CHRISTINE HOLTEN

Shareholder 750

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $36,000.

27-Sep-00 BELL, SUZANNE Y

Shareholder 265

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $12,455.

26-Sep-00 TSAI, FENG-TZU

Shareholder 38,860

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,850,513.

25-Sep-00 FORD FOUNDATION

Shareholder 96,144

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $4,927,380.

25-Sep-00 CHENG, CHIU KAI

Shareholder 38,860

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,944,256.

25-Sep-00 SILVER STAR DEV LTD

Shareholder 129,534

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $5,000,000.

25-Sep-00 SHERMAN FAIRCHILD FOUNDATION

Shareholder 11,654

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $575,707.

25-Sep-00 GILL FRANK & MARY FAMILY TRUST

Trust, Trustee 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $55,750.

25-Sep-00 RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

Shareholder 17,481

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $863,561.

25-Sep-00 THE FORD FUNDATION

Shareholder 96,144

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $4,927,380.

25-Sep-00 SYNNEX INFOR TECH INC

Shareholder 116,580

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $5,892,257.

25-Sep-00 SIEBEL, LIVING TR

Shareholder 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $51,000.

25-Sep-00 FRAZEE, DAVID I

Shareholder 1,072

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $54,186.

22-Sep-00 TRUSTEES OF AMHERST COLLEGE

Shareholder 17,481

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $812,839.

22-Sep-00 LEEWAY & CO STATE STREET BANK TRUSTEE

Trust, Trustee 15,791

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $798,235.

20-Sep-00 KOZEL, EDWARD R

Shareholder 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $55,750.

20-Sep-00 MAYES, JOHN

Shareholder 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $55,750.

20-Sep-00 STONEBRAKER IRREVOCABLE TRUST

Trust, Trustee 1,117

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $58,503.

19-Sep-00 UNIVERSITY, OF CHICAGO

Shareholder 52,442

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,740,095.

19-Sep-00 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE TRUSTEES

Trust, Trustee 11,654

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $608,922.

19-Sep-00 GOODRICH, JOHN B

Shareholder 770

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $33,000.

19-Sep-00 LELAND, STANFORD JR UNIVERSITY

Shareholder 93,231

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $4,871,320.

19-Sep-00 UNIVERSITY, OF SOUTHERN CAL

Shareholder 34,962

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,826,765.

18-Sep-00 SEQUOIA, CAPITAL VIII

10% Beneficial Owner * 9,429

LNUX Other Disposition

18-Sep-00 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MN

Shareholder 23,308

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,153,746.

18-Sep-00 LEONE, DOUGLAS M

Director, 10% Beneficial Owner * 85,725

LNUX Other Disposition

18-Sep-00 SEQUOIA, CAPITAL VIII

10% Beneficial Owner * 85,725

LNUX Other Disposition

18-Sep-00 SOLOMON, LARRY

Shareholder 235

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $11,251.

18-Sep-00 LEONE, DOUGLAS M

Director, 10% Beneficial Owner * 9,429

LNUX Other Disposition

16-Sep-00 CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE TECHNOLOGY

Shareholder 23,308

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,217,843.

15-Sep-00 DUKE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN

Shareholder 11,654

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $576,622.

15-Sep-00 CONWAY FAMILY TRUST

Shareholder, Non Affiliate 2,787

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $137,500.

15-Sep-00 STONEBRAKER LESLIE KAREN IRREV TRUST UA 10/16/95

Trust, Trustee 315

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $17,215.

15-Sep-00 GOTHIC CORP

Shareholder 17,481

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $864,905.

15-Sep-00 BANQUE, DE LUXEMBOURG

Shareholder 11,150

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $590,950.

15-Sep-00 MEYNIER, LAURENT

Shareholder 1,320

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $65,010.

14-Sep-00 WELLINGTON TRUST

Trust, Trustee 1,114

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $61,268.

14-Sep-00 STONEBRAKER, LESLIE K TR

Trust, Trustee 300

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $16,500.

14-Sep-00 FORD FOUNDATION

Shareholder 32,048

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,762,640.

14-Sep-00 COLUMBIA, UNIVERSITY

Trustee 40,789

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,245,944.

14-Sep-00 SIPPL, ROGER J

Shareholder 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $59,663.

14-Sep-00 HOLLIS TRUST

Trust, Trustee 1,114

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $61,270.

13-Sep-00 WOOD JOHNSON ROBERT FOUNDATION

Shareholder 40,789

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,202,606.

13-Sep-00 GAND H PARTNERS

Shareholder 942

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $48,749.

13-Sep-00 JENAB, ALI

Senior Vice President, General Manager, Systems Division 0

LNUX Initial Direct Holdings Statement

13-Sep-00 ENDOWMENT VENTURE PARTNERS III LP

Shareholder 40,789

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,202,606.

13-Sep-00 WALT DISNEY CO RETIREMENT MSTR TRUST

Shareholder 29,135

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,607,838.

13-Sep-00 IRONWOOD, CAPITAL

Shareholder, Non-Affiliate 2,230

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $115,403.

13-Sep-00 GOLDBY STEVEN & FLORENCE TRUST

Shareholder 1,394

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $72,140.

13-Sep-00 UNIVERSITY, OF NOTRE DAME

Shareholder 52,442

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,831,868.

12-Sep-00 KLEIN, THOMAS C

Shareholder 234

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $12,778.

12-Sep-00 COLUMBIA, UNIVERSITY

Trustee 40,789

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,223,001.

12-Sep-00 HASEL, ANDREW J

Shareholder 234

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $12,166.

12-Sep-00 HARBOURVEST PARTNERS V PARELLEL PARTNERSHIP FUND LP

Shareholder 44,951

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,472,395.

12-Sep-00 PRIVATE EQUITY TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS CV

Shareholder 11,654

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $639,975.

12-Sep-00 HARBOURVEST PARTNERS V PARELLEL PARTNERSHIP FUND LP

Shareholder 7,492

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $415,060.

12-Sep-00 MIT RETIREMENT PLAN

Shareholder 20,394

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,121,670.

12-Sep-00 REYES PARTNERSHIP IV

Shareholder 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $59,580.

12-Sep-00 HARVARD PRIVATE CAPITAL HOLDINGS INC

Shareholder 40,789

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,243,395.

12-Sep-00 VANDERBILT, UNIVERSITY

Shareholder 52,442

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,810,582.

12-Sep-00 BROCK, JAMES

Shareholder 118

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $6,284.

12-Sep-00 DORRIAN 1997 REVOCABLE TRUST

Trust, Trustee 1,394

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $76,670.

12-Sep-00 LEWIS, JOHN C

Shareholder 557

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $29,451.

12-Sep-00 SANTA, CLARA UNIVERSITY

Shareholder 11,654

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $618,008.

12-Sep-00 MILLER LIVING TRUST

Trust, Trustee 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $60,768.

12-Sep-00 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Shareholder 20,394

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,121,670.

12-Sep-00 GREENBERG, ERIC

Shareholder 471

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $25,052.

12-Sep-00 POULETTY, PHILIPPE J

Shareholder 2,230

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $119,305.

12-Sep-00 WILLIAMS, COLLEGE

Shareholder 5,827

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $323,610.

12-Sep-00 SEQUOVEST

Shareholder 11,654

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $640,970.

11-Sep-00 SEQUOIA, CAPITAL VIII

10% Beneficial Owner * 24,646

LNUX Other Disposition

11-Sep-00 SEQUOIA, CAPITAL VIII

10% Beneficial Owner * 128,587

LNUX Other Disposition

11-Sep-00 LEONE, DOUGLAS M

Director, 10% Beneficial Owner * 1,942,313

LNUX Other Disposition

11-Sep-00 LEONE, DOUGLAS M

Director, 10% Beneficial Owner * 128,587

LNUX Other Disposition

11-Sep-00 LEONE, DOUGLAS M

Director, 10% Beneficial Owner * 24,646

LNUX Other Disposition

11-Sep-00 LEONE, DOUGLAS M

Director, 10% Beneficial Owner 65,705

LNUX Acquired

11-Sep-00 SEQUOIA, CAPITAL VIII

10% Beneficial Owner 1,942,313

LNUX Other Disposition

7-Sep-00 SCOTT, TIMOTHY T

Shareholder 424

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $23,320.

7-Sep-00 ODONNELL, MICHAEL J

Shareholder 252

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $12,616.

6-Sep-00 MORRISSEY, MICHAEL

Shareholder 300

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $16,931.

6-Sep-00 SACCANI, DANIEL R

Shareholder 3,500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $194,906.

6-Sep-00 MITZ, DANIEL R

Shareholder 191

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $10,800.

6-Sep-00 IRVINE JAMES FOUNDATION

Shareholder 34,962

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,949,873.

5-Sep-00 HAYNES, MARK A

Shareholder 382

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $23,016.

5-Sep-00 SCHULL, TODD B

Chief Financial Officer 15,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $910,000.

5-Sep-00 SHULMAN, RON E

Shareholder 531

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $31,594.

5-Sep-00 SCHULL, TODD B

Chief Financial Officer 14,485

LNUX Exercised Options at $0.50/Share and Sold at $60.90/Share.

Proceeds of $874,894.

5-Sep-00 ALLEN, JEFFRY R

Director, Board Member 36,300

LNUX Sold at $61.03/Share.

Proceeds of $2,215,389.

5-Sep-00 SCHULL, TODD B

Chief Financial Officer 515

LNUX Sold at $60.91/Share.

Proceeds of $31,369.

1-Sep-00 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

President, Director, Chief Executive Officer 30,000

LNUX Sold at $61.04/Share.

Proceeds of $1,831,200.

1-Sep-00 EGGLETON, KEITH E

Shareholder 191

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $10,753.

1-Sep-00 JONES, LIVING TR

Shareholder 5,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $265,000.

1-Sep-00 SOLOMON, LARRY

Shareholder 235

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $14,100.

31-Aug-00 DEFILIPPS, THOMAS C

Shareholder 424

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $19,054.

31-Aug-00 ROTH, RONALD

Shareholder 382

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $20,469.

31-Aug-00 KIRKMAN, CATHERINE

Shareholder 37

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,921.

31-Aug-00 PETKANICS GERSTENSCHLAGER FAMILY TRUST

Trust, Trustee 382

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $20,628.

31-Aug-00 ZEHR, GREGG E

Vice President, Engineering 15,000

LNUX Sold at $53.15/Share.

Proceeds of $797,250.

31-Aug-00 LATTA FAMILY TRUST

Trust, Trustee 743

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $38,450.

31-Aug-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 5,792

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $310,221.

31-Aug-00 SPARKS, TIMOTHY J

Shareholder 451

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $23,869.

31-Aug-00 ZEHR GREG TRUST

Trust, Trustee 30,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $162,000.

31-Aug-00 ZEHR, GREGG E

Vice President, Engineering 15,000

LNUX Sold at $53.09/Share.

Proceeds of $796,350.

31-Aug-00 ESTRIN, JUDITH L

Shareholder 279

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $14,718.

31-Aug-00 FELDMAN, ROBERT P

Shareholder 664

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $34,412.

30-Aug-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 43,584

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,036,621.

30-Aug-00 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

President, Director, Chief Executive Officer * 3,000

LNUX Sold at $48.45/Share.

Proceeds of $145,350.

30-Aug-00 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

President, Director, Chief Executive Officer 30,000

LNUX Sold at $48.45/Share.

Proceeds of $1,453,500.

30-Aug-00 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

President, Director, Chief Executive Officer 30,000

LNUX Sold at $51.19/Share.

Proceeds of $1,535,700.

30-Aug-00 GROSS, IRWIN R

Shareholder 37

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,924.

30-Aug-00 SHORE, DANIEL K

Vice President, Operations 25,000

LNUX Sold at $49.03/Share.

Proceeds of $1,225,750.

30-Aug-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 19,792

LNUX Acquired Shares via Exercise of Options at $6.00/Share.

Paper gain of $906,721 at a fair market value of $51.81/share on 30-Aug-00.

30-Aug-00 FELDMAN, BORIS

Shareholder 664

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $32,900.

30-Aug-00 GOLDBERG, SELWYN D

Shareholder 191

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $9,359.

30-Aug-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 43,584

LNUX Sold at $46.68 -- $46.84/Share.

Proceeds of $2,036,741.

30-Aug-00 HARBOURVEST PARTNERS V PARELLEL PARTNERSHIP FUND LP

Shareholder 7,492

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $514,060.

30-Aug-00 STONEBRAKER, LESLIE K TR

Trust, Trustee 500

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $23,375.

30-Aug-00 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M

President, Director, Chief Executive Officer 90,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $4,500,000.

30-Aug-00 HARBOURVEST PARTNERS V PARELLEL PARTNERSHIP FUND LP

Shareholder 44,951

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,472,395.

30-Aug-00 AUGUSTIN, ALICE K

Affiliated Person 3,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $145,341.

29-Aug-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

Divisional Officer, Senior Vice President International Sales 35,000

LNUX Sold at $40.38 -- $43.00/Share.

Proceeds of $1,453,200.

29-Aug-00 SHORE, DAVID R

Vice President 100,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $4,426,880.

29-Aug-00 SHORE, DANIEL K

Vice President, Operations 50,000

LNUX Sold at $44.27/Share.

Proceeds of $2,213,500.

29-Aug-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

Divisional Officer, Senior Vice President International Sales 5,000

LNUX Sold at $40.50/Share.

Proceeds of $202,500.

29-Aug-00 IRONWOOD, CAPITAL

Shareholder, Non-Affiliate 2,230

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $98,956.

29-Aug-00 BONHAM, MARK

Shareholder 340

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $14,482.

29-Aug-00 DREW, JOHN L

Shareholder 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $47,875.

29-Aug-00 HUMPHREYS, IVAN

Shareholder 403

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $16,121.

28-Aug-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

Affiliated Person 100,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $4,300,000.

28-Aug-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 100,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $449,982.

28-Aug-00 VLG INVESTMENTS 1999

Shareholder 9,068

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $385,514.

28-Aug-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

Divisional Officer, Senior Vice President International Sales 5,000

LNUX Sold at $43.75/Share.

Proceeds of $218,750.

28-Aug-00 GOGUEN, MICHAEL L

Shareholder 50,014

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,250,630.

28-Aug-00 LAMOND PIERRE R & CHRISTINE TRUST DTD 11/22/85

Trust, Trustee 28,245

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,271,014.

28-Aug-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 10,000

LNUX Sold at $45.00/Share.

Proceeds of $450,000.

28-Aug-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

Divisional Officer, Senior Vice President International Sales 15,000

LNUX Sold at $42.56 -- $43.00/Share.

Proceeds of $640,600.

28-Aug-00 LEE, DAVID C

Shareholder 300

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $12,761.

28-Aug-00 TWICKLER, BRUCE A

Divisional Officer, Senior Vice President International Sales 40,000

LNUX Sold at $43.13 -- $44.63/Share.

Proceeds of $1,764,600.

25-Aug-00 TESTA, TROY

Shareholder 1,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $44,000.

25-Aug-00 UNIVERSITY, OF SOUTHERN CAL

Shareholder 34,962

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,440,913.

25-Aug-00 WS INVESTMENT CO 98A

Shareholder 3,011

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $132,484.

25-Aug-00 SILICON GRAPHICS INC

Shareholder 400,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $18,400,000.

25-Aug-00 STANFORD, UNIVERSITY

Shareholder 109,488

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $4,817,472.

25-Aug-00 ANDERSON, JOHN

Shareholder 1,000

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $46,000.

25-Aug-00 MCCORD, JIM

Shareholder 71

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $3,200.

24-Aug-00 SUMMER IRREVOCABLE TRUST DTD 3/9/98

Trust, Trustee 10,704

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $460,272.

24-Aug-00 SUTO, JEFFREY Y

Non Affiliated Person 1,130

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $49,720.

24-Aug-00 NASSAU, CAPITAL

Shareholder 64,096

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $2,820,224.

24-Aug-00 ALCOA FOUNDATION

Shareholder 23,308

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $865,310.

24-Aug-00 CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE TECHNOLOGY

Shareholder 23,308

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $865,310.

24-Aug-00 TOMASETTA TRUST

Trust, Trustee 1,115

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $41,394.

24-Aug-00 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAL/ SHELLWATER & CO

Shareholder 93,231

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $4,053,940.

24-Aug-00 IRREVOCABLE WINTER TRUST

Shareholder 21,406

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $920,458.

24-Aug-00 IRREVOCABLE SPRING TRUST DTD 3/9/98

Trust, Trustee 10,704

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $460,272.

22-Aug-00 FAIRCHILD SHERMAN FOUNDATION

Shareholder 11,654

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $422,329.

22-Aug-00 RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

Shareholder 17,841

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $633,493.

22-Aug-00 NOWICH, UNIVERSITY

Shareholder 5,827

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $211,164.

22-Aug-00 RUSSO, ROBERT

Affiliated Person 39,584

LNUX Acquired Shares via Exercise of Options at $6.00/Share.

Paper gain of $1,187,520 at a fair market value of $36.00/share on 22-Aug-00.

22-Aug-00 MURDOCK, M J CHAR TR

Shareholder 29,135

LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).

Estimated proceeds of $1,055,823.

* Indicates shares held indirectly (i.e. in a trust, by a spouse, etc.)

Anyone else see this? (1)

Uttles (324447) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255148)

Best of all, though, it tells a lot of people that there is a decent alternative to Microsoft software.

Has anyone seen that IBM commercial advertising business servers running Linux? I thought it was pretty funny, but I'm sure most people see it and say to themselves "Linux, huh?" Oh well, it's still a good laugh, especially when the cop says "what's a server?"

Re:Anyone else see this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255294)

Does anyone have this online somewhere ? (or a link)

It's a decent piece... (2)

TOTKChief (210168) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255149)

...but the frustration on my end is that the writer doesn't seem to understand the concept of Free Software fully. Hey, they understand Open Source, though, so at least that's a start.

Re:It's a decent piece... (1)

net.chook (305593) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255170)

Yeah, I agree that she seems to have a bit of an understanding (at least of Open Source), but that she fails to grasp the concept fully. The problem with this in this article (and Open/Free software reporting in general) is that these semi-clued people are who the general public form their opinions from. Open/Free Software will struggle to advance into the mainstream (read: non-geek) consumer marketplace until the people who inform the mainstream get a clue!

Re:It's a decent piece... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255211)

I don't think they give a shit about free software.

Re:It's a decent piece... (1)

bockman (104837) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255380)

My main gripe instead is that they could not help but play once more the old 'David vs Goliath' piece, only with Miguel in the place usally assigned to Linus.

Don't Complain (1)

kin_korn_karn (466864) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255156)

"There's no such thing as bad press."

Besides, nobody important to software takes their info from the news, they do their own research (feasibility studies and the like), so just showing to the management-type people of the world that a Linux-based product can exist in the same breath with a Microsoft product is enough for now.

Re:Don't Complain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255172)

"There's no such thing as bad press."

That's what OJ's agent told him.

Incorrect: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255198)

Actually, that's what Gary Condit's publicist told him.

No such thing? (1)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255255)

May I remind you of the Anita Hill's difficulties? [go.com]

There is always bad press- 'good press' is also known as 'slanted', 'spin', or just down right lying.

Open source is great- now back it up with hardware, IT support, and education. The cost of 'free' software is starting to get a bit higher.

Now tack on having to reteach all of those 'schools's instructors to use the linux desktop.

Yes, linux can exist in the same breath as an MS product, but saying Open Source and waving your hands will not hide the costs that are so conviently left out.

But... I do prefer WINE at home :P

"Nobel laureates and the like.."? (3, Informative)

update() (217397) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255157)

De Icaza is in the United States on a special "genius" immigration visa typically reserved for Nobel laureates and the like.

Say what?!? Anyone have a more detailed explanation of this status and who the "geniuses" are who get it?

Anyway, on a less combatative note than this article, here's KDE's Konqui visiting the Ximian booth [capsi.com] at LWCE and trying out GNOME [capsi.com] . From Rob Kaper's photo gallery [capsi.com] .

Re:"Nobel laureates and the like.."? (2)

Rupert (28001) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255250)

There's a scale. "Genius" is at the top, then "outstanding performers" in the fields of business, science and the arts, and so on down.

"Genius in the field of arts" includes Kylie Minogue. So now you know where to place Miguel.

Re:"Nobel laureates and the like.."? (3, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255256)

Say what?!? Anyone have a more detailed explanation of this status and who the "geniuses" are who get it?

I'm a genius, but I'm also a U.S. citizen, so the visa won't do me much good. I'd be interested if anyone has information about any other government perks available to a genius. Thanks in advance.

Linux vs Microsoft and vice versa (5, Informative)

TangoCharlie (113383) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255164)

I think the Gnome people have got the right idea. But, I'm not sure they're there yet. It is important to focus on the HCI. Apple did just that. The result a superior user experience which has generated fanatical support from its users (OTOH Apple has made many many mistakes which is why Apple Macintosh is a niche market). By focusing on the user interface, the Gnome people counter the biggest single critisism of Linux: usability. In a rather different market, the embedded market (where Linux has already made a significant impact), Microsoft, I see have released thier 2nd beta preview of Windows XP Embedded [microsoft.com] code named Talisker [btinternet.com] . See the article in PC World [pcworld.com] . (Talisker as you may or may not know, is a town on the Isle of Skye, Scotland, famous [btinternet.com] for its rather distinctive whisky.)

HCI (2, Funny)

FatalException (216771) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255227)

The day gnome includes support for the mousewheel by default is the day I start using it full time.

Re:HCI (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255241)

Eh? Only thing I ever had to do was to enable it in X (and that's got nothing to do with GNOME).

/Janne

Re:HCI (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255278)

Spin-Spin-Spin, my mouse wheel - spin, spin, spin - and it's scrolls the GTK+ scrolling widgets. Yay!

Find your "XF86Config" file (or "XF86Config-4" if it exists). Find "Section "InputDevice"". Add the following line to it:

Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5"

Scroll with the wheel. (Most distros do this by default, and it seems to work normally on my default Ximian Gnome 1.4 install on Mandrake 8.0.)

Re:HCI (1)

quartz (64169) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255313)

And if I'm not mistaken, you should also change the "Protocol" option to IMPS/2.

Re:Linux vs Microsoft and vice versa (2)

michael.creasy (101034) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255340)

Talisker != Windows XP Embedded Talisker [microsoft.com] = Windows CE 4.0 Totally different products for totally different markets.

Re:Linux vs Microsoft and vice versa (2)

michael.creasy (101034) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255344)

Information on Windows XP Embedded is here [microsoft.com] Extra text so as not to appear too lame.

The interesting thing in the article (3, Interesting)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255165)

Is the description of Microsofts' reaction.

Microsoft, meanwhile, seems to be having trouble deciding how to respond to this new business model.

It's "a cancer," Microsoft officials said. "An intellectual-property destroyer." Almost un-American.

Then Microsoft executives began to "clarify" that stance

the company clarified its clarification

Those of us who read the Post daily (the dead tree version has a nice picture of Miguel and the Ximian HQ, btw) will notice an interesting parallel to the style used when the Post is going after a political figure. "Almost un-American" and "clarified its clarification" are classic ways of attacking spin.

It was alot of fun reading this while drinking my coffee this morning. Great way to start the day.

More Microsoft 'Innovations' (2, Funny)

Bonker (243350) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255233)

After Microsoft started talking about how OSS was a 'cancer', they started trying to emulate it pretty quickly, thus their 'Shared Source' licensing. It makes one wonder what other 'innovations' that MS will stea... ahem... invent.

MPL - The microsoft public license allows you to use Microsoft code in any software, so long as that code is submitted to microsoft. Any code that uses MPL code, must also be submitted to microsoft.

MicroDot - A reader moderated message board that employs a fairly unique system of moderation and remoderation. All comments are, of course, owned and copyrighted by Microsoft.
MicroTux - Microsoft's charming new mascot, a uniformed Puffin, who carries a paperclip in one hand and a WinXP box in the other.

Re:The interesting thing in the article (1)

idot (130605) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255245)

Just wait on the Posts spin when they get their first XP advertisements

Already out-of-date statement: (4, Insightful)

hardaker (32597) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255166)

  • Microsoft's entire, $25 billion-a-year business is based on the idea that software can be owned and sold and that the source code - the blueprints, instructions or secret formulas - are proprietary.
The author forgot to include "or rented". You know, with micropayments becoming more of a viable buisness model, I could see Bill wanting to charge you for every second that you're using his software. It'd add up the time, and send the summary to MS HQ when you connect to the internet the next time (or would stop working if 30 days had elapsed since the last time you connected to the internet). Got screwed?

Re:Already out-of-date statement: (2)

remande (31154) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255224)

Actually, it would be nice if they sold the software. But they don't. They've been leasing it to us on day one. The only thing is that the lease is eternal.


If they actually sold the software to us, they'd have no recourse when we did whatever we damn well pleased with it.

References, Please? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255286)

"They've been leasing it to us on day one."

I know that they've been doing that for quite a while, but from day one? How was MS-DOS licensed? How about Microsoft Basic for the Atari 800? (I'm sure there are even earlier MS products people could cite as examples). I'm asking because I'm curious, not that I'm contesting the general validity of your statement.

I recall reading in some biography of Gatse/MS (shit, there's a Freudian slip for ya, I'll leave it in) that claimed that the key idea they hit upon was how to get people to pay for a little piece of magnetic media with some bits on it -- something no one had really built a business on before. Looking at things from that perspective, you can see that Gatse.MS is fundamentally inimical to Open Source, and that they will never, ever "get it", even if they don't adopt it.

Re:Already out-of-date statement: (1)

zulux (112259) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255375)

Actually the court is still out on the status of retail purchased software. In Galoob Vs Nintendo, the court came down on the side that software is purchased and can be modified for the whims of the user (The case was about the GameGenie.) Of course, copyright still applies. The legality of shrink-wraped licenses is entirely contingent on the question "is copying the program to RAM and to the hard-disk is upication" - you would need a license to do this if you diden't own the copyright, or if "useing the program is just that - using the program."
The courts have flip-floped on this issue, and no big-software-vendor is anxious to get a ruleing, as the argument that there are many devices that do the same thing that don't need to have a licence to copy their 'software' exist today: all audio CD players make a temporaty copy in the DAC, all VCR/TVs make a temporary copy on phosphor on the screen and all DVD's make copies on the screen as well as a copy in the MPEGII decoder chips.

Good press regardless of inacuracies (2)

hillct (230132) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255167)

For Open Source at this point, any press is good press. Regardless of the substancial and blatent inacuracies in the article, it's important to realize that the Washington Post is a valuable forum in which to promote OSS efforts. I would encourage some of the (moderate) leaders of the OSS movement write a few Op/Ed pieces for the Washington Post to clear up the inacuracies in this article, however the fact that it's there at all is a great achievement for the -until now nonexistant- Open Source Software PR machine.

--CTH

Connected by LAN? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255171)

Does that make a Beowulf cluster of ReplayTVs?

Re:Connected by LAN? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255217)

Wrong article dummy.

all news is good news (1)

gavlil (255585) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255179)

Best of all, though, it tells a lot of people that there is a decent alternative to Microsoft software."
the more times ppl read about linux, hear what its like and reslise the m$ sucks the better.

decent alternative (5, Interesting)

Proud Geek (260376) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255180)

I'd feel much better about this whole thing if Linux actually were a decent alternative to a M$ Windows desktop. There are certainly places for Linux in a program like this, particularly in the infrastructure. Unfortunately I feel like I'm pushing substandard goods as a Free software advocate in cases like this.

I know Richard Stallman says we should always use Free software because it is a morally superior thing to do. However I worry about the future when we are using technology that is inferior, just because it may save a bit of money. There are a lot of people counting on this initiative!

Re:decent alternative (2, Insightful)

Khazunga (176423) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255234)

Hey, criticism isn't any good unless it is constructive. I wouldn't mod this up to 4 without a solution proposal. If open-source isn't as good as MS Windows, explain why, and explain what should be done. Just saying "I don't know my path but I know it is not that one" is not acceptable.

I feel that current distributions are not easy enough to configure to be a good alternative to a windows desktop. That is the major bad point.

However, configuration is not an issue for enterprise deployments, or any other kind of mass deployment. Here Linux is actually easier on administrators, and I think is ready for usage.

We have seen major advances in desktops (both KDE and Gnome are to congratulate on this), and major advances in Office suites. I don't believe there's a problem here, even if Office suites are not par with MS.

Re:decent alternative (1)

sporty (27564) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255349)

Identifying the problem is just as important as assessing it. What he's more saying is, which is right; unless we bring up the linux distributions or any 'free' open-source solution to the same bar that a 2 cd set of Windows and Office is, linux distributions will be an alternative solution vs a standard choice.

I mean standard choice by, ok, you have a choice between windows and linux on your machine when you buy it. Choose one. Just like mac and pc's are. Now its more like, don't want windows? Try X.

P.S. I'm a bsd advocate... this is prolly the most you'll hear me say positively about linux since i can't find one linux distrib i like.

Re:decent alternative (1)

update() (217397) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255252)

I'd feel much better about this whole thing if Linux actually were a decent alternative to a M$ Windows desktop. There are certainly places for Linux in a program like this, particularly in the infrastructure.

Well, like you said, Linux and *BSD are certainly worth considering for the back end. As far as the desktops go, it depends what you're trying to do. If the primary goal is to provide internet access, a Linux desktop wouldn't be a bad choice. Use a Gnome or KDE or whatever desktop to launch Konqueror, pan/trn, X-Chat, KMail/Evolution/pine, Mozilla when it's done . Arguably some of those may be inferior to Windows or Mac alternatives, but it's certainly a perfectly usable desktop.

On the other hand, if you're talking about providing office and productivity apps, I agree that you're giving up a lot of functionality. (At least today -- who knows what'll be when this actually happens.) It depends on what the goal is. Unfortunately, I bet that in a giant "Let's give everyone a computer!" government project, no one knows what the goal is.

/. old-timers will remember when the Mexican schools were all going to adopt Linux/Gnome desktops, back in 1998 or so. That never panned out and it would have been a disaster if it had -- a country's educational system relying on Gnome 0.6 or so and the acompanying office apps?!? Of course, the experience has left me with a bit of skepticism about pre-announcements of massive deployments of Gnome in Mexico. Has Mexico City replaced all its desktops with Linux, as promised a while back?

Re:decent alternative (1)

HoldmyCauls (239328) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255263)

Sure, but how do you know Linux is inferior without being able to see the source for Windows/Office/etc? Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that peer review, rather than supply and demand, keeps bugs and security flaws out? It's not just for our moral good that most people choose a type of software that is open source.

Me, I'm a second-year Software Engineer student, and I remember getting sooo excited at my first brand new PC (a Pentium 100) only to find that programming under Windows95 could cost me an arm and a leg, unlike the all-in-one hook-up-to-your-TV computers I had used before (Commodore 64 and Tandy 100) which included BASIC. GNU/Linux has been a Godsend. All the programming tools I could ever want are included in any sensible distro you can find/buy/download/copy from a friend. I use the GNU prefix (now, anyway) because I realize [sentimental](after all the recent flame wars on the subject here at /.) that all the tools that let me create my own software are the work of a group that wanted to provide that ability to whoever needed it, including, but not limited to, kids like myself.[/sentimental]

Try getting that from closed source.

Re:decent alternative (2)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255377)

Sure, but how do you know Linux is inferior without being able to see the source for Windows/Office/etc?

Define "inferior". "Inferior" to me is that I can't easily install many programs (rpm dependancy hell, etc) that make up the bulk of the reason people push Linux - open source software. If I can't install most of it, what's the point? "Inferior" also means less driver support, slower graphics display, and other things. I dual-boot between W2k and MDK8 - I don't need the source code to either to let me know one is inferior to the other for many tasks.

Re:decent alternative (3, Redundant)

Ami Ganguli (921) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255270)

Actually it is a decent alternative to M$ on the desktop. I've been using it for years to do my day-to-day work. Really it depends on what you're trying to do.

The only things that Linux is missing today are: 1/high-quality games, 2/quality educational software, 3/a good selection of "niche" productivity applications like tax software. For mainstream everyday use (surfing, word-processing, fiddling with a spreadsheet) Linux is fine.

Also, the productivity packages don't have the maturity of the MS or Corel offerings, but for most people that doesn't matter. The kind of people who would buy and be happy with Microsoft Works should find that OpenOffice meets their needs quite nicely.

If the Mexican government encouraged Linux for home use then they'd find that a lot of the shortcomings solved themselves. A hundred million Mexican Linux users would lead to a lot of specialized software in Spanish: Mexican tax software, educational software, games, etc.

Re:decent alternative (1)

ethereal (13958) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255320)

Also, the productivity packages don't have the maturity of the MS or Corel offerings, but for most people that doesn't matter. The kind of people who would buy and be happy with Microsoft Works should find that OpenOffice meets their needs quite nicely.

Strangely enough, just this week my wife finally quit rebooting into Windows for MS Works and started using OpenOffice. It's a step up in functionality for her, although it's a little slower (almost a minute to start up on a K6-2 250 MHz machine w/192 MB RAM). But it's much faster than rebooting, which is what counts.

My big complaint about OpenOffice: if I tell it to install in /usr/local/openoffice, then it tries to use directories under that location for file storage, temp files, etc. This causes a fun crash if those directories aren't world-writable and the program tries to save the first autosave file. Since apparently the autosave kicks in after you've typed the first word, my wife characterized it as the "you type the first space and it's gone" bug. I know the save directories, etc. are configuration options, but the program should default to reasonable settings like using /tmp for temp files, your home directory for documents, etc.

It's the niche programs that count. (2)

laetus (45131) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255329)

You mention that Linux is decent for browsing, spreadsheets, and word processing. OK, that's nice. But can you imagine if that's all a Mac could do and Apple was trying to market themselves as an alternative to Windows? They'd be laughed off the stage.

Niche programs put the Personal in Personal Computing. I want to run a Visio-like program. I want to run Quicken. Photoshop. Macromedia's products. Blockbuster games. Etc. And yes, I understand that alot of these have Linux equivalents, but damn it, I like Dreamweaver, Quicken, etc. So why should I have to go learn a new program because Linux isn't supported by these programs?

Don't get me wrong. I love Linux and have it installed at home. But for a lot that I want to do, I've got to turn my chair around and fire up my Windows PC. Until these "niche" programs are ported to Linux and there's a unified GUI to support them, well, Linux is not a viable desktop alternative for a "personal computer". IMHO.

Re:It's the niche programs that count. (1)

Manax (41161) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255370)

So why should I have to go learn a new program because Linux isn't supported by these programs?

The point you've seemed to have lost is that YOU aren't the target for this initiative, nor for any similar initiative. You already have a computer, already have software you are familiar with, and already own that software.

For the people specifically referred to, who don't have internet access, who don't already own their software tools, who don't even own a computer, then the prior poster is correct, these equivalents on Linux are MORE than sufficient for all their needs.

Re:decent alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255285)

The problem with Linux as a decent alternative to MS OSes is the lack of consistency Windows has. All this is going to do is frustrate the average computer user. So what if Linux is a better alternative, it isn't going to mean jack to someone who can't figure out how to save an important document they just spent hours on because using the save command isn't as intuitive as Windows.

-Slashdot reader to lazy to create an account

It's a better alternative in some cases (1)

Flammon (4726) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255291)

I'd feel much better about this whole thing if Linux actually were a decent alternative to a M$ Windows desktop. There are certainly places for Linux in a program like this, particularly in the infrastructure. Unfortunately I feel like I'm pushing substandard goods as a Free software advocate in cases like this.

Yikes! Don't use software if you think it's inferior - that's definitely a "Bad Thing". Use software that you feel serves you better than the alternative.

Linux, Gnome, Sawfish, Galeon, Evolution, PHP, Apache, Mozilla, XFree86, Nedit, The Gimp, Open Office, Gnucash, GQView, Hylafax, Panel, MySQL, Bash, Perl and a bunch of other sofware has no better alternative for what I do. I swear.

Rich

Re:decent alternative (5, Insightful)

bockman (104837) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255330)

To declare Linux as a decent alternative or not, you need to know for what its usage is proposed.

From the little written in the article, this Mexican government plan is to enable most of mexicans to 'be on line'.
Now, you possibly don't need neither MS office nor Outlook for this. You need an user-friendly desktop, a good browser (plugins are not a must, especially if average bandwidth will not allow to enjoy them), an easy to use (and virus-resistant) e-mailer, non-sofisticated graphic and editing programs.

Now, my assessment(YMMV) is that a Linux desktop satisfies a 95% of these requirements (improvements may be needed on desktop usability and web browser ).

A strong issue for Linux in non-US government, apart from cost issue, is that with open-source most of the money spent on software stays in-country : they could even pay some local developer and sysadmin to build an ad-hoc distribution, if they don't like the available ones.

If they listen to ximian, I hope that also non-ximian software get a chance to be used, however.

Inferior? (1)

^Z (86325) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255339)

Most people don't work just to feel the sheer excitement from using bleeding edge, most-powerful-ever-created tools. They have a task in hand and need it done with reasonable convenience. And get paid. If they can save a lot of money, or even a bit of money, by using Free (or just free) software, it's what they need and appreciate. Now GPL'd applications (it's application that matters) achieved a level of usability comparable to pricey commercial analogs. So, financially constrained users (and gov't is always financially constrained) naturally ponder if they can switch.

Of course, openness, peer-review, co-development, etc are also nice and important, but do not underestimate the money factor. If getting the source costed extra money (as it was back in 70's), most people would anyway accept the cheaper solution.

Hash Table (2)

Satai (111172) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255183)

Best of all, though, it tells a lot of people that there is a decent alternative to Microsoft software.

COMMAND.COM -> bash
EDIT.COM -> nano
Age of Empires 2 -> xBill

Hmmmm... (2, Insightful)

kalleanka2 (318385) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255193)

Not that I'm a fan of microsoft but what kind of society is the do some of the open source companies suggest really? That a few companies makes loads of cash of free labour while the rest of the population works for free?

Monopolies are bad, but are Miguels alternative much better?

Re:Hmmmm... (1)

warpSpeed (67927) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255276)

It seems to me that people are getting paid to work for this guy. The others are VOLUNTEERS! They volunteer their time (_thier time_). Nobody if forcing them to work. The volunteers are working on the project because they enjoy doing it, they feel a sense of working on something larger then they can do on their own, and they want an alternative to MS.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Just because someone (some company) is making money on the deal does not mean that it is a bad thing.

~Sean

Re:Hmmmm... (3, Insightful)

Flower (31351) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255299)

Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to devote free time to developing Gnome. I know I have no choice but to accept MS' licensing terms because they are a monopoly and management would never question the cost of a MS solution. Been there, done that. Now upgrades are 25 percent more expensive and I *have* to do them twice as often or pay a 200 percent premium for the pivilege in deciding how I should manage my business.

So to answer your question. Yes, Miguel's alternative is better.

Re:Hmmmm... (1)

Khazunga (176423) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255388)

Here, you have to trace some parallelism with what happened in the past, in different markets.

Think about agriculture. 200 years ago, over half of men on Earth worked the fields. If you had dropped current automation and bioscience on them, and shown them that only 5% of total population needed to work on the fields, they'd be asking your exact question: "what will the rest of us do?"

The fact is that human evolution tends to commoditize goods and services, to move up in the added-value chain. One current example of this is the mobile phone industry, chasing ways to add value to their services, now that mobile phones are too common to provide operators with growth.

So, on software, after commoditizing libraries, operating systems and office suites, everyone will be free to build on this on to more complicated systems and uses.

Complicated systems are less general, creating a huge market for customization services. Thats what everyone will be doing. Solving complicated problems, not reinventing the wheel because the current wheel must be rented and paid by the kilometer.

98% (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255195)

Why can't he get 98% of his population to learn to read and take a bath. Forget the internet. Get them out of the sewers of Mexico City.

studio (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255205)

`give me studio. i'm sorry, i love vim just as much as the other guy, but u cannot deny dev studio. honestly, your high, if u don't understand that vis studio is a decent programming environment

Microsoft vs. Ximian? (3, Interesting)

ethereal (13958) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255210)

But wait, I thought Ximian and Microsoft were collaborating on .Net, not competing? How can it be that those sweet boys from Redmond aren't planning to play nice? Well, this is totally unexpected. I entirely share Miguel's dismay at this unforseeable and calamitous turn of events!

OK, maybe I'm not so dismayed after all :) I hope Miguel isn't surprised either...

Decent? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255229)

I think linux deserves to be called better than "a decent alternative". I dont think it even really an alternative. So decent, no, it rocks, alternative, no, linux would rock even if there was no damn Microsoft.

Why Linux will fail in the business world (-1)

stinkgeek.com (450152) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255243)

This article [199.97.97.16] states it very eloquently:

-- A company like Microsoft hires programmers who create software that is then sold to customers. Think business. Think profits.

-- Open source computing involves a loosely knit group of programmers creating software that is given away free. Think commune. Think losses.

Ximian is playing into Microsoft's hands (1)

haggar (72771) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255251)

And they don't even seem to realize. MS doesn't mind, actually, MS encourages Ximian to succeed, since MS controls the back-end, the authentication middleware.

Of course, if you see something wrong with what I just said, correct me. But I am afraid this is one of the smartest, most diabolic moves MS ever did: convince the OSS community that it's doing something cool, opensource and against MS, while it's actually helping MS.

Ximian verses Microsoft NT (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255257)

I love Ximian, I use it here and It's part of our mgration from Windows to Linux. but it has some major problems.

Ximian 1.4 is bloated, it's slow as Windows nt/2000 and the cause is nautlis.. Ximian on RH7.1 makes a P233 dog slow to almost un-useable. Windows NT4.0 is a touch faster... but not by much. Granted many of you are screaming... P233? why are you running stone-age hardware? well because it's still here, and is not goint to be replaced until it physically dies or is stolen. More and more corperate environments are doing the old-hardware-dance. Schools and Libraries have to becaouse of costs, but corperate is finding that IS/It is a great place to cut dollars, and they are right. we dont need W2K or XP to continue business, we did it fine over the past 4 years with NT4.0 so let's stay there... I am trying to shave even more by cutting the huge Microsoft tax we pay yearly by switching to linux in my recearch/pilot program.

if Blackbox was easier to use for the newbie.... it would be perfect.... ximian is great, I'm not knocking it, but it is getting out of hand in feature bloat that is no longer needed.... and if there is a way I can replace nautlis with something of a saner size then ximian would be perfect.

Re:Ximian verses Microsoft NT (2)

Tim Doran (910) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255302)

Yep, I like Ximian/Gnome's desktop too. And v1.4 performs just fine on my p200mmx with 96M of ram. That is, it performs fine *without* Nautilus installed. GMC is okay for file management, and Sawfish can easily be replaced by Blackbox for that extra bit of speed.

Nautilus is a gorgeous piece of work, but if Ximian ever makes it a required component of their desktop, they're going to blow us hardware-challenged folks out of the water.

Re:Ximian verses Microsoft NT (1)

Dashslot (23909) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255326)

Use XFce [xfce.org] then. Especially in combination with ROX-Filer [sourceforge.net] . The two fly. They use the GTK toolkit, and work well with the rest of gnome, but are much much faster.

Re:Ximian verses Microsoft NT (1)

Peter Harris (98662) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255372)

I quite like ROX as a file manager, but then I used to quite like RISCOS. It's a matter of taste I suppose.

If you use Debian (or Mandrake, possibly) then your menus get kept up to date with all your installed software. Once you get used to it, desktop icons and so on just look like so much clutter. Again, a matter of taste.

Slight Correction. (1)

h0rus (451357) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255259)

"Mexican President Vincente Fox for use in his 'eMexico' initiative to get 98 percent of the population online"

That should read "Vicente Fox" Not "Vincente Fox". I'm Just clarifying, 'tis all. :)

Alternative? (1)

WildBeast (189336) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255268)

Let me get this straight, Miguel wants to clone MS software so he can give the people an alternative? A genius's idea indeed.

OK, so the "facts" might be a smidge off... (1)

dinotrac (18304) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255277)

This reminds me of the old Hollywood line, "I don't care what you say about me so long as you spell my name right".

If this represents the Post's overall attention to facts, then -- Wait! It probably does!
Sigh.

Nevertheless, it's very nice to see a piece that is generally positive to free software appearing in a mainstream publication -- a majore mainstream publication -- like the Post.

If they didn't quite get the facts right, they got the tone more or less right, and that'll do for now.

98% Mexican Population Online? (1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255307)

Hasn't President Fox's goal of getting 98% of the Mexican Population Online already been completed? The last time I looked about 98% of Mexico is in The United States and we have excellent connections to the Internet.

An argument I don't understand (4, Interesting)

Laplace (143876) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255317)

The Free Software Foundation has recently started to promote the idea that all software should be free. This includes open source, free software, and (currently) proprietary software. To clarify that statement, Microsoft keeps their source secret, and the FSF feels that the source should be made available for all to view, modify, and redistribute. This is a point that was touched upon in the Washington Post article.

I don't understand this point of view. I am very supportive of free software as a choice. I like GNU software. I prefer to use free and open source software (yes, I do recognise the distinction between the two). In my personal life I have been free of Microsoft for over a year, and mostly free from it in my career. However, I appreciate and respect the copyright that Microsoft (and other software companines) holds on their software.

By stating that "all software must be free, no matter who developed it," I believe that the FSF is shooting itself in the foot. By crippling itself with such extremism, the FSF takes away opportunities to convince people that by having a choice, they can make the choice to improve their futures by choosing free software. The FSF political tendencies seem to be closer to dictatorship rather than the common attack of communism. Even if a dictatorship is benevolent, it is still a dictatorship.

Free Software has come so far, and has improved the quality of our lives so much. Preaching the word of freedom while advocating the removal of freedoms is counterproductive. Can anyone give a rational explanation as to why the FSF and its advocates push this unintuitive line of thought?

KDE. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2255319)

I normally try to avoid posting total flamebait, and I would point out that I do not speak for the KDE project, but am an independent third party-:

Linux does have a viable alternative to MS - in the form of KDE, Konqueror, KMail, and KOffice.

de Icaza and GNOME raise plenty of publicity, but KDE is where the good stuff happens. In fact, by drawing attention away from KDE, de Icaza is really doing Microsoft a favour.

The longer NIH syndrome keeps KDE out of the American public eye, the more ground microsoft gains in America. KDE has pretty much taken over the Asian and european sector, and is considered a viable alternative to windows by many private companies and government institutions.

"Microsoft will support e-Mexico project" (2, Informative)

Uatu (316549) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255325)

The past August 24, after the meeting between Vicente Fox and Steve Ballmer mentioned in the article, I submitted a badly worden article, made in the heat of the moment, which was obviously rejected by our dear editors here.

But with this article about Miguel, I think it can shed a little over the "commitment" made by MS with Mexico's government.

Uatu

P.S. Originally it had two articles, but I present just one of them.

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

Microsoft will support e-Mexico project

I just read some news about the interview Steve Ballmer had with Mexico's President Vicente Fox about the e-Mexico project (in few words, to deploy an internet backbone around the country and install at least kiosks in small communities. Something like that.)

Well, my worst fears are coming true. Now I say this even when I make a living developing solutions mostly on Microsoft technologies and I haven't give that much thought about what exactly would be best, but I think what my country (or any developing one) needs is :

1) Try to cover the most territory/town/etc. in your project

2) Try to save the most money trying to do it. On other words, do it cheaply.

3) Not to tie your project/future in a technology that may require further payments. (.NET, license rents, etc.)

4) Use technologies that can be cheaply replicated.

And going the MS way does not cover these last 3 points and can affect the first one because the rised costs.

About other cons, we have seen something similar in UK, where the websites needs the IE browser. (I can't loacet a Register article about it.)

I think that to deply an all-Linux solution needs more people, more training, etc. Also, I don't know what company would recommend an all-open-source solution (any ideas here?), but maybe we can do something "quick" giving some concesions, like maybe clients with Windows machines but the applications being made with open source tools (Apache, PHP, Java, etc.) so that the applications and the future of the project don't be tied to a company's (specially THIS company) whims.

Why not do something like China for that matter, who appears to be using Linux ?
On the other hand, it's better to wait until senator Helms retires, before he label Mexico as a communist country if we do that.

About the article, when you read it it sounds as if they'll actually spend those 60 million dollars, and when you do the math ($60,000,000 / 20,000 people == $3,000 dlls.)
I don't know what the training will cover. Anyway, in Mexico you can train someone VB, SQLServer, Access with less than that.

When I read about the "investment", I couldn't help but remember the local articles when X company makes a donation to an university and says they gave away thousand and thousand of dollars... if you use the price list that nobody pays anyway because on that scale you can use site licenses, etc.

Also, a book named "How to Lie with Statistics" comes to mind.

I know I sound "ungrateful", but I can't help it being so cynical.

Now a little "Ask Slashdot" here: What would you do if you think MS is not the best way to go. Or better: What would you do about this project.

Anyway, here are the articles and the translations.

http://www.elnorte.com/tecnologia/articulo/140950/ [elnorte.com]

and here (this is other paper from the same company) with small modifications

http://www.reforma.com/economiayfinanzas/articulo/ 119904/ [reforma.com]

Here's a translation of the article. Please note that Ballmer's comments are translated from the spanish article, so I don't know what he said exactly in english so it can (or better sai, I'm sure to) be different.

Microsoft will support e-Mexico project

Microsoft will invest on the certification of 20 thousand mexican developers who could create software technologies.

Ciudad de México, México.- Steve Ballmer, Microsoft President, announced today his company will do an investment of $58 million dollars through five years to support the Mexico's Government informatic
project e-Mexico.

Ballmer, after an interview with President Vicente Fox in the oficial house of Los Pinos, said the investment will be used to prepare 20 thousand people to develop software adequate to the mexican technological necessities . he indicated that for the company it's very important to invest in the country since it "will duplicate it's
profits in the technology industry the next years and Microsoft don't want to miss it."

Ballmer commented that the Fox's administrationalready has the necessary infrastructure to get the people of all social classes near the e-Mexico project. The project will try to extend high-level education around the people,
benefit the operation of the small and medium enterprises and to advance other aspects that favor the development of the country.

The Microsoft executive said that after his conversation with Fox his "optimism" toward the project has increased. He indicated that Microsoft's work will begin with the preparation of 3 thousand teachers, so that they could train other groups of education professionals.

Ballmer said that Mexico is a strategic market for the future of Microsoft,
especially for the development possibilities the country presents.

Microsoft began operations in Mexico 15 years ago, and is associated with Teléfonos de México, the biggest telecommunications company in the country in the portal T1msn.

----------
Other similar article from the same press conference:
http://servicios.t1msn.com.mx/noticias/computacion einternet/cei.asp?tema=19&subtema=81251 [t1msn.com.mx]

(Yes, it's from Telmex & Microsoft's portal.)

IBM's Involvement (5, Informative)

Eloquence (144160) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255328)

And International Business Machines Corp. pledged $1 million to help research and develop the free Linux operating system, an alternative to Microsoft Windows.

Um, wow, $1 million, I guess that shows they really care about Linux. Fortunately, it's really $1 billion :-)

"Fights"? (1)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 12 years ago | (#2255332)

Ximian's Volunteer 'Army' Fights Microsoft on Open-Source Code

So... Microsoft invents some arbitrary technology which it controls and will change at its whim. The Volunteer Army immediately says, "We must bring this technology to every computing platform!" The end result is that .NET is everywhere and everyone is dependent on MS technology.

When did "Fights" come to mean "collaborates with" or "becomes lackey of"?

This reeks of defeatism:

Microsoft are releasing .NET
=> there is no possibility of .NET being ignored
=> resistance is futile, we must assimilate

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>