Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera

Caldera Releasing Lizard Source 153

Posted by justin++
from the not-just-lizard dept.
haggar writes "Caldera has finally decided to release the source of Lizard, the OpenLinux 2.2 installation tool. The news is reported here. Caldera has been often criticized by the OSS people for not opening up the source of Lizard. " Not only are they releasing Lizard, but NKFS, too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Caldera Releasing Source

Comments Filter:
  • by brennanw (5761) on Tuesday August 10, 1999 @04:41AM (#1754783) Homepage Journal
    Caldera seems to routinely get a lot of flack from the Linux community because it doesn't include 100% GPL'd software in its distribution. As far as I know, however, only Red Hat and one other (Debian? I think) can actually make that claim. So why is Caldera singled out?

    So far, in the (few) responses to this thread, there has been one wholeheartedly positive response and the rest have ranged from "good but not enough" to "oh no it's the Linux Micro$oft, screw 'em, tattoo 'em, watch 'em burn."

    Why?

    Caldera is distributing their installer under something than the GPL. Heavens! Are you planning to go on a licensing ethnic cleansing rampage? Shall we omit every piece of software that isn't GPL'd? Well, say good-bye to Perl (Artistic) and XFree86 (can't remember that one). Don't bother ever trying to use WINE, because it ain't GPL'd! While we're at it, stop using Netscape immediately, because the source is not avaialable -- it's just free beer. And don't bother using Mozilla when it comes out, because it's distributed under the MozPL...

    Now, I'm a big fan of the GPL -- I think it's probably one of the most important licenses out there today -- and I'm certainly happier when a software license is legitimately free software instead of merely "open source" (and there is a difference, yes there is). But the fact remains that long before corporate america became interested in Linux, long before Eric Raymond wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazzar," way back when, there were Linux users who didn't want to distribute their software under the GPL -- for whatever reason -- and chose another license. So it seems to me that the "GPL or die" mentality is simply not possible to apply consistently if you're using Linux.

    Some companies seem to have very strong fears as to whether or not the GPL is a good license to use ALL THE TIME, and they're trying to experiment with others that provide many of the same benefits. Some of the licenses are a joke (I consider Apples "open source" license fairly useless, even today) and others need work (TollTech's QT license needed work, and still may need work) but are not horrible. The fact that a great many companies are even considering revealing their source code is something I consider nothing short of amazing, especially considering the state of the software industry at large (UCITA -- need I say more?)

    This is not worth a holy war. It's just not worth it. Caldera makes a decent distribution for those of us who don't have the time to become Linux gurus, and if they haven't gone the 100% free software route yet, well, blasting them every time they come close but don't go far enough isn't going to make it happen. So calm down, take a deep breath, and go play with the latest kernel release.
  • Get clued.

    No, I'm worried about the core principles, focus, and design of Linux. Not whether or not it has pretty GUIs. I won't use NT4 for servers, and I won't use Linux for servers if it's goals are to be like NT4. I don't give a damn if it is more stable; I want something that was designed for servers. Not your hotshit game machine.

    -RISCy Business | Rabid System Administrator and BOFH
  • by Scola (4708)
    You are dumb(tm).

    The GPL isn't the perfect license. I for one like the BSD license far better. Apache, *BSD, XFree, ect. all have non-GPL license and have gotten wonderful community support.

    You obviously never tried to read, debug, trace your way through, ect. the Mozilla code. It was butt ugly. Hence it got little support. The license was irrelevent.
  • I've been using it since 1996.

    I've been using it since 1993.

    If you are the AC who thinks that there is no commercial grade software for Linux, then you are pretty deluded, regardless of how long you've been out there. Just as two examples, Word Perfect 8 and Star Office 5.1 are definitely on par with their versions on Windows. They are also comparable to their competitors products on those platforms.

  • What is the BFD reason you don't want a swap partition? If you really don't want to use swap, do the install with a tiny swap partition, then do swapoff and you can get rid of the partition. I still fail to see any reason why you would want to run without any swap space available though.

  • even though you are trying so hard to piss me off. I will mention just one of the reasons: I am short of primary partitions on a drive.
  • I am short of primary partitions on a drive.

    Any reason why you can't put some of your stuff on extended partitions? I often use 7 or 8 partitions on a drive. I've never tried putting swap or my root file system on an extended partition though.
    You could also use the old trick of adding another hard drive as a workaround. Drives are cheap these days.

  • ..as a matter of fact, I once had RedHat, Openlinux, Debian, slackware and Suse multibooting.. plus the DOS. And I had only one drive. As you can imagine, I had to use the extended partition quite a bit. But I still need to put other (non-linux) OSs in primary partitions.
    (I feel the next incoming question "but why do you want to boot in so many different OSs?" :o)
  • Actually I have possibly a better suggestion... You might find something called a "Lock and Load Tray" to be useful. What they are is a 5.25" drive bay frame with a pull-out middle part that fits around a normal 3.5" IDE type drive (there are SCSI versions available, but generally more expensive). If you buy two (or more) of them, then you can easily swap drives, which gives you a very flexible multi-boot solution. Lock and load trays generally sell between $10 and $25 each.

    Another solution to needing to multiboot a lot of different distros is what I do... have a lot of machines. I have machines running various versions of Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera and FreeBSD, etc. I've also got non-PC machines such as Sparcstations and Macs... Its really more of a 'concurrent boot' than multi-boot I suppose.

  • I actually remember seeing those trays somewhere, but the prie was a bit exaggerated. Nevertheless, I may consider using them.
    For now, swapoff.vi /etc/fstab.fdisk.swapon is the cheaper solution :o) Dis I say I am also short of money?
  • No, you should get a clue.

    Linux was *NOT* designed to be a server OS. In fact it was really designed to be a desktop OS, one for Linus' desktop. Hell UNIX wasn't designed for servers, it was designed for resource sharing on a machine (which does map nicely to servers, but isn;t the same thing).

    If you want something that was "designed for servers" try some Mainframe OSes, or perhaps VMS.

    Making a system easy to install does not make it stable, nor does it make it less appropraite fro servers.

    In summary, you're an idiot.
  • Obviously, you have never used the Lizard.

    The mouse is detected the first time you
    move it.

    Well, and the detect screen is definitely
    multi-lingual ;-)
  • Yeah that's what prevented KDE from being released under GPL. Oh wait. It is.

    Read. Understand. Post. In that order
  • Your a little off in your argument.

    Its not the lack of all Caldera being GPL, but that (before now) a lot of their Distribution was not Open Source, that was the complaint of many.

    Debian requires applications to be Open Source, not necessarily GPL. Otherwise, X, perl, and many others would not be in their main distribution.

    There are a some that argue everything should be GPL, but more are happy with any open source license.
  • I went to the page, the source for lizard won't even be available until Sept. 3rd. :( By then who knows what'll of happened and how many times they've decided to change the way it'll be released (if at all still).
    Yeah, my thoughts are, if they're going to do something, they ought to do it right, and just go ahead and release the source now. I'm thinking, if they're so sincere about Open Sourcing, and if they'd really been in the true spirit of Linux, they would not even be having this press release now........ they'd have already open sourced everything, and it'd be no biggie. However, apparently they don't quite understand what they're dealing with, and what they're missing out on.
  • Something few people know... Caldera was once based on the Red Hat base... during that time of "collaboration," Caldera (not RH) wrote RPM.
  • Actually perl is a special case because you have a choice of Artistic or GPL. The philosophy behind that is "If you make any changes, you better not break it, or if you do, then you better let everyone fix it."

    But mostly I am just sick to my stomach reading this crap and it's not limited to slashdot. I thought Free Software was about a choice one made about their own creations, the software they'd use, and if there wasn't an open alternative available, it was about making one. Now it's all about thousands of people whining and ranting and poiting, "gimme gimme gimme". They don't want to write any code to provide free alternatives, they just demand others give away their work for nothing. Demonizing one of Linux's biggest boosters for not giving every single value-add away gratis is just shameful.
  • you dont think that people wont incorporate both installers, and maybe give the user a choice? why not, is it not a valid possibility. I agree with you in that i dont really want lizard, but who knows, maybe someone will take lizard and totally revamp it and make it nice. Then again they could take it and totally make it worse than it is. My point being that the possibilities are endless of what could happen, and to say that you would quit useing linux because a few script kiddies get their hands on it is absurd. And what makes you think that all linux distro's are going to try to be desktops. Isnt linux's strength in the server end of things? so why would linux forget its roots? you got me.

  • The piece from Caldera I'm most want them to open is nwclient, that way the community can get it to actually work for once. I got a copy of OpenLinux 2.2 specifically for NDS access months ago, and in their two updates since then, it still won't work for more than a few minutes at a time.

    Yeah, they'd have to talk Novell into letting them open it, but having an open client would really help Novell. It won't compromise security, since that's all on the server end for them, and it will allow more users to access Novell servers.

    ----
  • I actually remember seeing those trays somewhere, but the prie was a bit exaggerated. Nevertheless, I may consider using them.
    For now, swapoff.vi /etc/fstab.fdisk.swapon is the cheaper solution :o) Did I say I am also short of money?
  • I actually remember seeing those trays somewhere, but the prie was a bit exaggerated.

    They are available at a couple of retail places around here (midwest US) for between $10 and $25 depending on the place. You can find them mail order for similar prices.

    Nevertheless, I may consider using them.

    They would seem to be an ideal solution to the need for lots of primary partitions.

    For now, swapoff.vi /etc/fstab.fdisk.swapon is the cheaper solution :o) Dis I say I am also short of money?

    No... as a matter of fact, I seem to recall that you were the guy saying you were going to buy an Athlon 650... Of course that might just be where you spent all your money...

  • Why do I feel a future bloated, copied Micro$oft product...? Maybe just life experience...

  • I don't believe the free software community is an aristocracy... Aristocracy denotes a certain level of control and superiority over the 'masses'. The people who write the software we use everyday have no control over the common man, as he is free to choose whatever he likes. In that sense, the free software community is a democracy.
  • YEAH!!
  • You can look at it from the other point, to: if one saves money by replacing hardware solutions with simple commands, she/he can afford a kickass CPU, after a "while". :o) I was actually stating (later in the same thread) that I am considering a copper-based K7. By the time I have the money for it in the budget, they'll become affordable.

    Strange how a thread evolves :o)))))))) (Was it installer source?)
  • Looks like they're going to come up with another not quite free license for this. Ehy they can't just stick it out under the GPL I don't know. Even if there were grounds for not using the GPL, they're going to cop a lot of flak for not doing so. Just like Netscape and Troll Tech have for their licenses.
    Chris Wareham
  • Caldera needs to wake up and realize that the only way to be fully accepted into the Linux community is to contribute (open source software) to the community. They should look at the examples set by VA, RedHat and Suse for a few successful examples of this. It seems that whenever they release a piece of software as open source, they do so reluctantly after some pushing by the community.

    We should gently remind Caldera of this fact and point out that having the support of the community is beneficial to all of us (including Caldera). While we're at it, let's remind them of the fact that they need us more than we need them. There are at least 20 other linux distributions out there and while Caldera has some interesting products, they now are in an open market and should play by the rules.

    Having said that, it seems that with some prodding from the community, they seem to (occasionally) get this point ...
  • That's cool that they're doing that. What other distros still use proprietary software? Doesn't SuSE have a proprietary installer, too?

    kmj
    The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.

  • I had heard all about this new & cool Caldera 2.2 installation, and wanted to try it for myself. I have to agree that I found it lacking in a couple of key ways, although surely they won't be that tough to fix... (especially if Caldera has the guts to GPL).

    /dev/modem and /dev/cdrom weren't set up at all (that could be challenging for all the newbies flocking to the Lizard), sound was very difficult to configure on my laptop (sndconfig is a truly wonderful thing), and I also got the LI on Lilo (had to boot from a floppy and fix lilo manually -- Lizard didn't prompt, as Redhat does, for where to install the boot record, just tried to install it on /dev/hda5, the partition with linux on it... the old master boot record that I'd had set up to boot between linux and windows now was apparently left with nothing to point to and just burped when I tried to reboot). Also, Lizard didn't prompt me to set up a boot disk... I was just luck that the one I'd made with a RedHat install worked.
  • This is great! I don't "insist" that the installer be GPL, and they have said that they intend to use a license that will be compatible with open source standards. Anything beyond that is for the benefit of the contributor.

    I have great qualms about distro's that use non-open source installers, so much so that after buying OpenLinux 2.2, I had second thoughts and uninstalled it. But the opening of the installer will remove the dislike that I had in using it. (Maybe I'll install it on my machine at work).
  • It will bomb among the Linux savvy, but will be a hit in the Windows croud (which is much larger...)


    ..which is an inherently Bad Thing, imo. I don't WANT a crowd of ex-windows-thought-I'd-try-it-out people knocking my door down asking for support, "piglet, what's linux? what's lilo? does it look like windoze??', simply because there are more of them; I want there to be more intelligentsia than dumbos. Who said Microsoft's old company mission statement was right??


    Let's let linux conquer both the server AND the desktop worlds equally. Then I'll be happy.

    Incidentally, what about SuSE and YaST?

    ~Tim
    --
  • RPM has been the format used by RH since RH 2.0. When 2.0 came out Caldera wasn't even (effectively) a Red Hat reseller - they appeared rather later on the scene.

    RPM (the program) started as a perl program, and migrated into C (I think at the time of the RH 3.03 release). It has been significantly upgraded since then. I was involved a little for much of that time and remember the development being driven by Erik Troan with some input from Donnie Barnes and nothing signicant that I remember from any Caldera person that hit the mailing list.

    There seems to be some revision of history going on right now. Red Hat are toungue-tied by the IPO and Caldera are getting talked up a lot suddenly while half truths about Red Hat get put into the mix. I have this feeling that there is a very very nasty smell coming from somewhere and it seems to be from Caldera's direction.

    [For fans of legalities, I am not associated with RH in any way other than being yet another coder who has bounced code off them. My only involvement with Caldera is that they kindly sent me a copy of OpenLinux since I had my name in the kernel]
  • by Sloppy (14984)

    Linux is a general-purpose OS. If you don't want to use it as a desktop, that's fine -- just don't install those components.

    I think you see Microsoft products trying to be all things to all people (and sucking as a result), and it makes you dread the same thing happening with Linux. Relax. As long as you have source, or if someone else who shares your values puts a distro together, there's nothing to worry about.



    ---
    Have a Sloppy night!
  • > Yeah that's what prevented KDE from being released under GPL. Oh wait. It is.
    >
    > Read. Understand. Post. In that order

    But that is precisely the issue with KDE. It is released under the GPL and that means that I cannot ditribute it linked with Qt since Qt is not distributed under a license compatible with the GPL. Code released under the QPL is Free Software, but has to much restrictions to be linked against GPL code. (The fact that there are people distributing KDE binaries linked with Qt doesn't mean that it isn't illegal to do so.)

    That is why we have the Harmoney project so we have a library that can be linked with KDE as a Qt replacement. And that is why people try to convince the KDE developers to use another license, possibly the GPL with an exception for Qt library, although that wouldn't make it compatible with other code released under the GPL. The best solution would be if Troll Tech released Qt under a license that is compatible with the GPL.
  • Hell now that was funny, I've got to know was it intentional?

    Technically speaking, much of KDE is illegal. One cannot legally link Qt and KDE together.
    Typical ignorant babble (The GPL permits linking, you probably want to complain about redistribution in which case I have an answer ready for you :-)

    Anyway onto the funny part
    No one has sued yet, but if the author if Lyx chooses to sue every person using or distributing kLyx, it's in his rights.
    Well he would have to sue himself then. As Matthias Ettrich founded the Lyx project as well as (drumroll please....)

    KDE.
  • Reading the previous 50 or so responses, I would say that at least half of them are negative. Caldera released some code, and all some people can do is whine about the license, complain that they should have done it months ago, or make up some feeble-minded theory on how having a better installer is going to ruin Linux. Talk about FUD -- I should have worn hip boots and bought a shovel...

    TedC

  • That is NOT what the guy you were responding to was talking about but it was rather K.I.S.S. and function over form.

    This is why Redhat DUMPED the idea of a GUI installer when it tried it long before Caldera came up with Lizard.

    The damn thing should WORK first, the rest comes afterwards. Being rendered in pixels in stead of character cels doesn't do squat for the end user except give them a false sense of security.
  • Well no QT or harmony should be under the LGPL- otherwise, you end up with the situation that companies can only develop applications for KDE if they either release the source, or if they pay troll-tech. That would be a shame - all of Linux free, kernel, X, compiler, etc, but you have to pay some obscure company in Norway that has nothing to do with Linux perse to develop applications for it. Yuck. I'd rather pay Linus T. something.
  • My understanding (based on something I read 6 mo.s ago) is that Caldera wrote the original installer that was called RPM, but that Red Hat (well, someone [who?] at Red Hat) later rewrote it from scratch (not exactly an upgrade and not a translation [Perl into C? Best not to bother is my guess] but a total rewrite). However since the file format didn't change too drastically (at all?) and since it was a "Really Good Name"(tm), they kept the same name.

    Low certainty on this, since my source is either Slashdot or the Red Hat site or LinuxToday, and I can't even remember whether it was an article, or someone writing in. But that's how I heard the story.
  • Certainly, since you ignored those that complained that despite the new eye candy, it doesn't even work as well as BugHat's installer.

    As far as open code goes, it shouldn't have to be pulled out of a Linux VAR like pulling teeth and landmines in the license have the potential of negating the whole process.
  • There seems to be some misunderstanding in your posting about the difference between Free Software and the GPL. Software that is released under the GPL is Free Software (and the GPL makes sure that it stays that way which is very important to some people). But all software that is release under a license (or put in the public domain) that gives the users of that software the freedom to use use, study, adapt, redistribute and improve software is considered Free Software. (Please read What is Free Software? [gnu.org] on the GNU web site.)

    I don't know where you got the notion that people want them to release the code under the GPL since that might be impossible if they have used Qt which is released under the QPL. The QPL is to restrictive to be combined with the GPL. (Which doen't say that Qt isn't Free Software!). The only thing that people seem to want is that it is released as Free Software and that they don't invent Yet Another Public License, which would only add to the confusion of what Free Software is really about. Nobody says that they must release under the GPL if they cannot legally do so.
  • They should look at the examples set by VA, RedHat and Suse for a few successful examples of this.

    IIRC SuSe keeps both SaX, and YaST closed sourced. It's a real shame to since I found SaX a nice way to configure X.

  • I agree there is an issue here. I'm not going to say whether the QPL is or isn't compatible with the GPL (Note for audience RMS who is far more civilized about the whole thing than many others says it isn't, others question this).

    But assumming for the moment that they are incompatible, then I buy the argument that redistribution of KDE apps is legal so long as the authors haven't used GPL'd code without permission. Because the authors of said apps has given implicit permission (why else write a KDE app and put it on a public server and encourage people to redistribute it).

    If someone wanted to do something useful they could make a list of questionable KDE apps (if any) and I would look into it further. (I'm sure we'll all be back here talking about it later in another KDE related article). But then again this is /., I suspect people would rather argue than do something more constructive here.

    And that is why people try to convince the KDE developers to use another license
    Doesn't the KDE Artistic License just keep on getting more and more popular :-)

    That is why we have the Harmoney project so we have a library that can be linked with KDE as a Qt replacement
    Not correct. Jo Dillon started the Harmony project before the QPL existed. He seems to be contributing more to KDE than Harmony nowadays so I guess he has found the QPL to remove the need for Harmony. (Note the Harmony list had been dead for months last time I checked)

    The best solution would be if Troll Tech released Qt under a license that is compatible with the GPL.
    I don't agree, or at least I'm going to require a lot convincing before I agree. The QPL is a nice license whereas the GPL is something of a monstrosity (read both to see what I mean), I'm beginning to think it's the GPL that needs work.

    Goodnight, I'd rather be coding.
  • No, I understand the difference between Free Software and the GPL very well. The GPL is free software, not all free software is GPL'd. I get that. I am responding mostly to all the people who are screaming "GPL GPL GPL" at the top of their lungs without acknowledging that they're singling out Caldera for a practice that is not terribly uncommon for most Linux distros.

    For example, most Linux distros include the linux version of Netscape Communicator, which isn't free software at all -- it's not even open source, as far as I know! _Mozilla_ is, but the current non-beta releases of NS Communicator are simply "free beer", not "free speech."

    I get the notion that people want them to releast the code under the GPL because I'm seeing posts that say "yet another stupid license -- why can't they just release under the GPL and be done with it!" and "Caldera will never get the support of the Linux community until they release software under the GPL."

  • It's interesting that you should point out RedHat as being "100% GPL"

    Nobody has yet seen the source code for the DiskDruid partitioner.

  • Free software is not a democracy, it has never been a democracy, it should not be a democracy, and I hope it will never be a democracy.

    Free software is aristocracy. People who give away code have rights those who just consume that code lacks, and that is good.

    The only differences with traditional aristocracies is that every aristocrat is at the same time a part of the mass, since everyone uses more code thn he produces, and that the masses are not opressed because they can become aristocrats by their own effort, or leave the system (and go back to commercial software).

    That was the point: it is NOT a democracy. You have no rights over Caldera, you have no vote on their decisions, they have no duty towards you.

  • If that was what he was talking about, then he's even dumber than I had previously thought.

    I'm a big fan of the KISS principle. However, a GUI installer is an app. Having a different installer app doesn't destroy the KISS principle.

    As for stuff working, the linux installers I've used recently (Redhat/Mandrake, SuSE, and Caldera) all work just fine, even on machines that give NT fits.

    Finally, as for the all-knowing Redhat and their GUI installer, it sucked ass. It was truly horrible and was no easier to use than the nowmal non-GUI one. At the time, getting X to work on all video cards wasn't a given either. Times have changed, and Caldera offers real additional functionality in its installer.
  • ...get the bugs out and get a jump on the competition. At least not on my boxes they didn't. Now that they're releasing the code, perhaps I'll be able to debug it and make a successful install. As it stands I've got RH, Slackware, Suse, and w95 running at home and all have an edge on Caldera simply because their installation tools worked and C's didn't.

    I guess that the one way that they got the jump was that they got my money, but then so did the others.
  • Can you say Kickstart?

    If you knew anything about what you were talking about you would shut up and go back under the rock that spawned you. If you was to install Caldera Openlinux on your companies computers, and you want to use Lizard, then you will have to purchase a seperate cd for each computer (read your EULA) or else download the files from their ftp site and use the crappy installer that it has with it, which just went and defeat your whole arguement.

  • And downhill it has gone since I can remember.

    A lot of the posts in this forum seem to indicate that some people believe they have some right to criticize Caldera for what software they release and for under what license they release such software.

    Well, let me tell you this: you don't. They *own* that software. It's not any of your business.

    You have no right whatsoever. All this "I won't accept it if it isn't GPL" makes me sick. Who died and gave you the right to accept or deny anything for the "community"?

    You can just accept or refuse to accept it for you and for whoever may be unfortunate enough to have to live with your decisions, and that is it. Anything else is whining.

    And that's why this "community" seems to me more pathetic every month. More people whine. Those who whine are louder. The whiners are getting more and more unreasonable about what they choose to whine about.

    You don't like Caldera? Don't buy them. If enough people dislike them, they will go under. You want to criticize Caldera? Go ahead, that's your God given right. But don't do it on the basis that Caldera owes you anything, they don't.

    Some even express their "concern" about the existence of a graphic installer? WHAT???
    Hey, who's taking away from you the current RH installer? Is Caldera forbidding you from using dselect? I know this is obvious, but why then some people seem to have such a hard time understanding it?

    I am pissed, and I hope it shows.

    Anyway: thanks Caldera, you didn't have to, but thanks for doing it!

    Disclaimer: My connection with Caldera is that I got a courtesy copy of Caldera 2.2, which has since found a nice home in a public school's computer.
  • its nice to spout rumors...

    there will always be debian

  • what i think they mean to say is that you can take those non free stuff out of a RH distro cd, and it will still install fine, without you knowing anything was wrong. Remove Lizard, and you have nothing... except their old crappy text based installer which sucked harder than my left nut during a cold winter night in NYC while waiting for a bus thats 2 hours late during a 2 week snow storm.

  • What do I place more faith in a rumour started on zdnet or the fact that everything that redhat has released has always been under the GPL.

    I know what I would believe -- you can decide for yourself
  • >It will bomb among the Linux savvy, but will be
    >a hit in the Windows croud (which is much
    >larger...)

    I agree, and I am one of the latter (the Windows crowd). I've tried SUSE and RedHat, and have never been able to get a Lisa install to work out right. I've always had problems with graphics, pcmcia support, ppp support, and so forth. I purchased Caldera's distribution based on the strength of their installer. It was great. It's the first time I've ever gotten Linux up and running with a GUI (presumably X, but who cares). I can't blame them one bit for not wanting to give that away. That was a competitive advantage. Installers like that will make Linux accessible to the average person.

    --Jonathan
  • by hadron (139)
    Even RMS has agreed that the QPL used for licensing QT2.0 and onwards, is a "free" one. It's annoying, yes, but accaptable.
  • Alex:

    To answer your side-question:

    Stormix Technologies plans to release Storm Linux and all its related tools, including the installer, under GPL.

    - Bruce Byfield, Stormix Technologies
  • One good reason that comes to mind for this is because Nancy must be getting a gazillion mails asking when wil they release. Well, it's in 4 weeks, stop emailing ;-)
  • why is that bad? Open Source is good, which was the point..
  • Linux Central (http://www.linuxcentral.com) sells SuSE CDs for $1.95 which include YaST.

    I purchased the SuSE 6.0 GPL CD, and yes, it does have it. Boots, installs using YaST, etc.

    The YaST license says you have to get permission to distribute YaST on a "data carrier" if there's a charge for it. It explictly allows distributing YaST free of charge via FTP or mail.

    Apparently (hopefully!) Linux Central got permission.

    Maybe CheapBytes refuses to distribute it on principle? Or just plain laziness? I don't know.
  • I've been trying to figure out for months now what people mean by "GPL compatibility". I've finally figured it out. A license is compatible if it can be CONVERTED into the GPL. Thus, BSD and X licenses are are compatible, because they have no clause forbidding an alteration to the license. QPL is not compatible because you are not allowed to alter it.

    You have a BSD application. It statically links to a GPL (not LGPL) library. The instant you distribute it, you no longer have a BSD app, it has legally morphed into a GPL app.

    But it's a one way street. The GPL specifically forbids altering it's license. If it's good enough for the GPL, why can't other licenses do the same? Or is there only room enough in the free world for one free license?

    The QPL, MPL, etc., shouldn't be made GNU compatible. Instead, the GPL should be the one bending a little and specifically allowing linking to other licenses. Why the hell should QPL be the one forced into compatibility? I think it's time for the GPL to be compatible with every other license.
  • What Caldera has done is combine the best of
    the free and proprietary approaches to software.

    They kept it proprietary until they could work
    the bugs out, and get a jump on the competition
    by being the only Linux Distro with an easy
    install. Then they waited a little while longer
    to be sure that they had nailed the REPUTATION
    of being easy to install.

    Now, after having gained most of the benefits of
    proprietary software, they release the code and
    look like good guys for doing so.

    By the way, I'm not being sarcastic here. I
    actually think that this is a workable way to
    stay competitive and still give back to the
    community.

    -Loopy
  • simply because there are more of them; I want there to be more intelligentsia than dumbos. Who said Microsoft's old company mission statement was right??

    Let's let linux conquer both the server AND the desktop worlds equally. Then I'll be happy.

    In my eyes, your 2 statements blatently contradict each other.

    In order for Linux to "conquer both the server AND the desktop worlds equally" (your words), we need a tool like Lizard. You NEED something for the "dumbos" (your words) to use...and you need people just trying it out and asking questions like "What is Lilo, and why doesn't it work?". It's sad but true.

  • Frame buffer ?

    QT ( on Unix) works only with Xlib so here is your answer...
  • Dude, solaris comes with optional graphics installer ... what's wrong with that ??
  • I think you are overstretching.

    Agreement on overstretching. I was actually referring specifically to the fact that Linux was released under the GPL., as opposed to the more recent proliferation of "open source licenses" (e.g., Netscape, Apple, Jikes, et. al).

  • Lizard uses Qt, so putting it under the GPL would result in another KDE license issue [debian.org]. Qt's license (be it the old non-free one or the new free QPL) is not compatible with the GPL.
  • but I think Lizard, while being gorgeous to look at basically lacks in some cases. The case I'm thinking of in particular is this:

    It's targetted at "newbies" ... and I'll admit it was comforting to set up. BUT it screwed up some stuff that Red Hat's installer breezed through easily on my system. I've been using Linux for 5 years now....and I can work around the screwups and fix them....but I still think that RH6 is easier for the average joe to install.

    Problems I saw with Lizard (and the Caldera install in general)....

    • LILO was broken in Caldera each time I tried to re-install it....could'nt get it to boot past "LI" ...i haven't had that problem on the box I was playing with since 1.2 kernels on old Slakware distros...again RH6 had no problems.
    • Couldn't get sound working in Caldera. Sndconfig in RH6 worked like a breeze for my on-board sound-chip. I maybe not have looked hard enough for a solution...because the Lilo problem caused me to abandon Caldera pretty quickly in favor of Red Hat....go figure. I still pine for the days of being a Slakware addict.
    • Package management with COAS is a far cry from package management with GnoRPM and/or Glint.
  • they use RPMs.
  • I wonder if the "not yet tried in court" status of the GPL is why they haven't already decided to use it (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here...). I can see them talking to their lawyers about how to avoid seeing an M$ port of their NKFS code.
    Not that it would stop Microsoft anyways..

    -Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  • Investors LIKE to hear that you have come up with something that gives you an edge over the competition. What they don't like to hear is that you are essentially giving that edge TO the competition. Just consider it a blessing that they are releasing the code at ALL. The Linux market is about to go through a dramatic change. You will see distros competing in a very cutthroat fashion. Caldera will need it's Edge if it wants to pull some mindshare from RH.
  • Their alrticle does not not mention that they have decided on a license. Let's hope they do the right thing and adopt the GPL for it.
  • yeah...i think they have something called "Lisa" ...but I haven't actually installed anything but Red Hat and Debian in a while....so I might be mis-remembering.
  • Well, now it's going to happen. *sigh*

    Thousands of people who shouldn't even be allowed near a computer, much less anything resembling Linux, will begin flocking to Linux. RedHat will probably snag and pervert LIZARD for their own uses. Kiddies who barely know how to click a mouse will become 'eleet' as they install Linux with LIZARD because Linux is 'c00l, dood!'

    Then watch all the distros switch to LIZARD, possibly even Debian, just for userbase. Why the hell do I want LIZARD? I don't want a simple install. I want a powerful, flexible install. LIZARD would only serve to make installation more of a hassle. Debian's already two CDs, watch it become 4 if LIZARD is used. I'll have more migraines in the internal network than ever before because LIZARD's so damned easy to use.

    Don't get me wrong; I'm not an elitist. But I see absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to continue using Linux if it's going to stop being what it is, and try to be a desktop. I have no use for desktop operating system with install programs whose size rival that of a Microsoft install program.

    -RISCy Business | Rabid System Administrator and BOFH
  • I think all of the /. community wishes that people would just stick with the GPL (and LGPL), because that's what got us this far in the first place, however, (IMHO) this press release is still good news. Here's my logic:
    1. One of the reasons Win 3.1X became useful was that it was fairly simple to install, especially compared to the later (bloated) Win9x and WinNT installs.
    2. Another step towards Win 3.1.x stability was when they finally were able to communicate with Novell Network file servers (although it took stealing code from Novell to do it, (AFAICT) the main reason W4WkGrp and WinNT's network code stabilized as early as it did).
    3. Easy install and "network access" (which was already there, just not NKFS)== the perception by average users that they can migrate to this "new" OS without being a tech guru or the danger of being left with an expensive paperweight until a highly paid tech guru fixes the mess.
    4. Finally, assuming that Caldera is intelligent enough to release the code under any sort of acceptable "Open Source License", the concepts inside the code can be understood, improved, etc., and spread to the wider Linux community -- which makes it immune to single company subversion in my book.
    Comments?
  • "...the only way to be fully accepted into the Linux community is to contribute (open source software) to the community."

    All distros are equal, but some distros are more equal than others.
  • While some of your points are valid, it still doesn't mean the GPL should change. The GPL gives you the option to protect your product + source, while the others generally don't. If you are into developing software for the public good, the GPL is the best license, since it will continue to evolve and stay open. If you are out to write free-software, and don't care what happens to it, BSD and the like are fine. There is no real need for licenses to change, however you just need to be aware of certain incompatibilities.


    -- Keith Moore
  • Here, let me burst your bubble...

    Linux does not have any core principles, focus or design. It's just an itch getting scratched.

    Pop!

  • I agree we need the nwclient public. As far as the NDS part goes it is irrelavent as novell already ships there win client free. Maybe we can convice caldera to release there full client source.
  • Wasn't UNIX developed for portability? And UNIX was developed for servers, as in '69 basically everything that was running an OS in bell labs could be seen as a server, with dumb terminals connected throughout their buildings. my 2/100th of a dollar
  • Redhat is not 100% GPL. Hell, it's not even 100% opensource, let alone free.

    My copy of Redhat 6.0 from Cheapbytes contains Netscape Communicator (non-free), Qt (non-GPL) and Xv (shareware), amongst others.
  • installer. I need to be able to feed it a script that says "install these packages, but not these". These moronic "Workstation/Server" install choices don't cut it. I need a tool to create a template for which packages to install -- nothing more.
    There are _many_ tools out there with which to make your own installation scripts. Check www.freshmeat.net/search.php3 for a few. -- Blue
  • That's the problem with democracy... people tend to whine. And people tend to whine about the people who whine. I don't see how you can make generalized comments about this "community", as you put it, based on a percentage of whiny people.

    The thing that you have to remember is that the Linux community is a democratic community based on free speech. Free speech has its advantages and disadvantages, and as such, we must accept both the compliments and the criticisms of other people.

    I'd rather that people whine about the things they don't like than have them blindly accept everything that comes their way.
  • Caldera is open-sourcing their installer at the same time that RedHat is making a new proprietary installer.

    ( "Red Hat, meanwhile, is developing its own installation program that it will not offer to the community" -- PC Week online http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/linux/news/0,6 423,2310504,00.html )

    I hope that RedHat and other makers of proprietary installers are not tempted use the proprietary/secret/NDA probing algorithms that hardware manufacturers offer them and instead insist on open hardware specifications.
  • I've never used OpenLinux, but I work in a Novell shop, and I was quite excited by the NetWare port that Caldera released for Linux. I was even prepared to spend good money on it. Unfortunately, they released it as binary only, it required their customized 2.0.35 kernel with STREAMS support, and they never did one lick of work to support it. Fortunately, I noticed this before I put down any actual cash.

    But at Linux Expo in Raleigh, when I made my concerns known to their sales reps, they told me to wait a couple months for some really exciting announcements that would change my mind about Caldera.

    I assume this is it. Yawn.

    -Graham
  • by Suydam (881)
    Go GPL or go home. Seriously, Mozilla didn't go far enough and look at the poor public support it has sustained.

    Faulty logic. I refuse to believe that the only reason Mozilla didn't receive "public support" is its license choice. It seems every time I read something about why the mozilla project has failed (and I don't necessarily agree that it HAS failed) I'm reading about code complexity, project sexiness, and other stuff....

    that said, it still would have been nice if Caldera went with the GPL....

  • by jtn (6204)
    Oh please. The GPL is not the end all and be all of software licenses. Apache isn't under GPL (thank goodness) and look at the overwhelming support that it has enjoyed.
  • Have any other distros announced intentions to use Lizard, or even consider it? And, how similar is Lizard to Stormix's installer [stormix.com]? Is that going to be freely released too, btw?

    On a side note, I have a gripe about OpenLinux... When I installed it, it neither modified my MBR, nor offered to create a boot disk :(. So, as soon as I rebooted, I was "locked out" of Linux. I dunno if it made a difference, but I had planned to dual boot with NT (nt4 sp5 was already installed when I installed OpenLinux).. Has this happened to anyone else with OpenLinux?

    Alex Bischoff
    ---

  • But I see absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to continue using Linux if it's going to stop being what it is, and try to be a desktop. I have no use for desktop operating system with install programs whose size rival that of a Microsoft install program.

    Stop Pouting

    Do you honestly think that all of a sudden Linux is going to require a GUI (which is what you seem to be worried about). Linux is a server OS....soon it might be a server OS AND a desktop OS, but it's not going to magically stop working as a server OS.

    If you don't want Lizard, don't use is. Debian will continue to offer a text-only installer I'm sure....and if you have to, go back to Slakware or something.

    Lament things worth lamenting....and cut out the "end of the world" speeches...it does nothing but feed the media's belief that Linux is susecptible to fragmentation.

  • While we're at it, let's remind them of the fact that they need us more than we need them. There are at least 20 other linux distributions out there and while Caldera has some interesting products, they now are in an open market and should play by the rules.

    There are more people who have NOT chosen a Linux distro than people who have... If you catch my drift. This means Caldera can essentially do whatever they please. Prediction: Caldera goes public after many people find Redhat too archaic. The Linux for the Windows user.

    It will bomb among the Linux savvy, but will be a hit in the Windows croud (which is much larger...)
  • Yep. Caldera broke my Lilo....and I even went as far as to manually edit my lilo.conf (however, I was re-installing from scratch, so I didn't have a "proven to work" backup of a lilo.conf file) and re-run lilo. Still wouldn't re-boot....i was locked out as well (thank good ness for old slakware boot disks lying at the bottom of my drawer). :)

  • I think Caldera OpenLinux is underrated. I was extremely impressed by LIZARD, its robust GUI-based install program. I personally think it destroys Redhat's, Suse's, and Debian's installer. I would have used it instead of Redhat if it wasn't for the pain in the ass of getting certain programs to compile that needed particular libraries. Redhat is much more standard and supported than Openlinux unfortunately.

    Putting LIZARD under the GPL, or even a less appealing license is awesome. Caldera is doing the linux community a favor. However, they are not obligated to release any of their code under the GPL. That is not what Linux/OSS is about. Its about choice. Let Caldera do what they want, and smile about LIZARD, don't whine!

    PS: Name one other installer for linux that is not only GUI, but you can configure your system while the packages are installed, and play tetris if you finish early!!

  • I personally dislike RHs installer, because it doesn't let me install without a swap partition. What a BS!! I don't know of any other distro that would constrain me in this way. So, I would really need to do some hacking there, but since I don't plan to install RH anymore for the time being, I don't bother myself doing so.
  • What!? Why not? Disk druid is free software (as in free beer). I've used it on my Cheapbytes Red Hat clone distrobution. What on earth is Red Hat's motive for not making the source available?
  • >I personally dislike RHs installer, because it doesn't let me install >without a swap partition. What a BS!!

    And when you start running into problems because you don't have a swap partition don't come bitching to us about it, ok?
  • > You will see distros competing in a very
    > cutthroat fashion.

    *sigh...* The more cutthroat they get, the more tightly my fingers wrap around my Debian install CDs...
  • wait a second...i think I'm wrong.

    Lisa may have been caldera's old installer. Yikes! SOrry for the confusion.

  • I think all of the /. community wishes that people would just stick with the GPL (and LGPL), because that's what got us this far in the first place

    In this case, GPL isn't an option, as the GPL and the QPL interact badly. GPL with an exception clause to remove that bad interaction would work (but would of course itself not be compatible with pure GPLed code).

    Also, I'm sure that there are BSDers in the /. community who will point out that we got this far also in part due to non-(L)GPLed free software.

    The GPL and LGPL are good licenses in many circumstances, but they are not the license panacea (no license is).


  • I went to the page, the source for lizard won't even be available until Sept. 3rd. :( By then who knows what'll of happened and how many times they've decided to change the way it'll be released (if at all still).

    ~Kevin
    :)

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...