Slashdot Mirror

unix command line errors
haiku errors

Has these funny errors to laugh at

You forget that GPL doesn't allow for software licensing anyway...

Even if he successfully prevents MS from enforcing only licensed software on its OSs, it still does not addresses the issue raised by RMS in The Right to Read, namely that copyright enforcement thru technology can turn all the World in a global police state in copyright owners' benefit.

In this context it is true. The GPL prevents an open source developer charging Microsoft's royalty to their users as that would be a restriction on the distribution.

The only restriction the GNU GPL places on how much you can charge to distribute GPL-covered software has to do with distributing binaries without the corresponding complete source code. I'm not sure what you mean by "charging Microsoft's royalty to their users", but everyone operates under the same terms with GPL-covered software. Whether anyone would pay that fee is a completely separate market issue. The article I pointed to before has laid this out very clearly.

I believe you are reading something into the Washington Post quote that wasn't there. The Washington Post article made no distinction between kinds of payments. They clearly said "[the GNU GPL] bars any payment". For the Washington Post, all payments are the same and all are disallowed under the GNU GPL. It is unfortunate the Washington Post writers and editors did not even read the GNU GPL FAQ which would have shown them their interpretation is incorrect.

In other words, the GPL bars payments to third parties in these sort of cases.

The GPL's terms on distributing GPL-covered works for a fee do not change for "payments to third parties".

In this context it is true. The GPL prevents an open source developer charging Microsoft's royalty to their users as that would be a restriction on the distribution.

The only restriction the GNU GPL places on how much you can charge to distribute GPL-covered software has to do with distributing binaries without the corresponding complete source code. I'm not sure what you mean by "charging Microsoft's royalty to their users", but everyone operates under the same terms with GPL-covered software. Whether anyone would pay that fee is a completely separate market issue. The article I pointed to before has laid this out very clearly.

I believe you are reading something into the Washington Post quote that wasn't there. The Washington Post article made no distinction between kinds of payments. They clearly said "[the GNU GPL] bars any payment". For the Washington Post, all payments are the same and all are disallowed under the GNU GPL. It is unfortunate the Washington Post writers and editors did not even read the GNU GPL FAQ which would have shown them their interpretation is incorrect.

In other words, the GPL bars payments to third parties in these sort of cases.

The GPL's terms on distributing GPL-covered works for a fee do not change for "payments to third parties".

``Because ASCII doesn't work for the character sets that over 50% of the world's (literate) population reads and writes. Hence the Unicode standard, which of course tries to make it's overlap with ASCII compatible when possible.''
Note that I said ``standards that work fine''. ASCII doesn't work fine, because it can only represent languages that use the latin alphabet with no accents decently. However, the newline/LF and CR in ASCII work fine, no matter what language, as far as I can see. So my question remains...why add to that? Does this new newline character server another function besides indicating a newline, so that it is semantically different from the old newline?

---
Know Your Sysadmin

It's one of those "how did I ever manage without it" features, and a punch in the stomach of anyone who says free software isn't innovating.

Now, I won't quibble with the belief that this is an example of free software's innovation, but type-ahead (well, vi-style, anyway) has been a feature of at least one even older free Web browser for a while now, if not others.

(For the record, the feature Without Which I Cannot Do has to be mouse gestures. Just click and drag to the left to go back a page!)

Wordstar's UI is awful. They should upgrade to the modern standard.

Since Microsoft is charging a royalty fee to use the communications protocols, any open-source developer - those who contend that sharing software blueprints is the best way to build products - would not be able to use them. Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the mainstream press gets salient details wrong. The last sentence of the above paragraph is simply untrue. Even Microsoft understands they can sell GPL-covered software (as they have been doing for quite some time now). The GNU GPL (erroneously referred to as "the General Public License" above) does not "[bar] any payment"; it can be okay to sell Free Software including GNU GPL-covered software. In fact, in the essay I just linked to it is encouraged that one get as much money as one can for distributing Free Software.

One element that makes payment impossible for Free Software developers are licenses that require per-seat payments. When you have the freedom to share the software freely you can't keep track of who gets a copy. When you have the freedom to modify the software tracking systems built into the software can (and probably will) be removed. Free Software licenses grant you the freedoms to share and modify the software under that license.

It's called the General Public License, but the journalist is incorrect in saying that the GPL "bars any payment." In fact, the GPL expressly allows payment.

you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

You can charge a distribution fee, but not a royalty.

To gain an understanding of these issues, you can read the GPL itself (compared to a EULA its quite easy to grok). If you need clarification, you can read the GPL FAQ.

~Phillip

You can charge a distribution fee, but not a royalty.

To gain an understanding of these issues, you can read the GPL itself (compared to a EULA its quite easy to grok). If you need clarification, you can read the GPL FAQ.

~Phillip

You can charge a distribution fee, but not a royalty.

To gain an understanding of these issues, you can read the GPL itself (compared to a EULA its quite easy to grok). If you need clarification, you can read the GPL FAQ.

~Phillip

You can charge a distribution fee, but not a royalty.

To gain an understanding of these issues, you can read the GPL itself (compared to a EULA its quite easy to grok). If you need clarification, you can read the GPL FAQ.

~Phillip

Find the GNU page here. It's the VT100 equivalent of the "Antidesktop" -- check it out.

For those of you that do lots of work with the command line, give screen a try. It's great to just disconnect at work and then reconnect at home, right where I left off. I normally have five to ten consoles running under it. I started using it back when my 56K modem would disconnect me. With screen, I never lose my place.

The third question could be: have any of you ever read this story, or did you invent it all by yourself?

WindowsNT uses the microkernel design

Er, no. It started off as microkernel, but things keep getting but into kernel space for performance reasons: thusly.

If history had changed and Minix took off instead of Linux, would we be better off today with the superiority of a microkernel design?

Hehe.

In conclusion: microkernels may or may not be theoretically `better', may or may not perform better, but they are fuckloads more work to do right.

Okay, so it's not finished, but it's somewhat useable, especially on older 32 bit hardware. Looking through dselect, there's quite a few apps available for it. The machine I'm using it on is a bit flaky (think there's a mobo/mem problem, because Linux actually crashes on it, too). I've got another machine sitting around that I'm going to try it on.

Haven't gotten around to trying X yet.

I'm not sure where they're going with the project, really, because, as you said, there doesn't seem to be alot of active development. What is there are quite a few good ideas, and something that's Not Unix. :-)

Got a spare ext2 partition sitting around? Give it a shot. The Hurd.

the question is, will Altivec code compiled on a G4 slow down on this new chip?

All indications are the new CPU has AltiVec which probbably means AltiVec code on it is not slower then non-AltiVec code, and one hopes faster by about the same mesure as it is on the existing G4.

I don't understand how these vector instructions are implemented well enough (are they in the OS as special calls or passes as flags to the compiler which generates different machine code out of it?

Well they are implmented in Silicon, but somehow I think that is not what you really want to know :-)

The compiler can be given a flag that asks it to gennerate AV code if it can, but I don't think this helps a whole lot because compilers are not that good at finding places to use SIMD instructions. Esp. not in C code (as Cray about that kind of thing some day). One can also hand code the assembly, but that isn't so common these days either. Most people use C compiler extensions that look like normal functions. I beleve normal practice is to write one AltiVec version and one stright line version because the stright line version is faster then pretending to have AltiVec and packing and unpacking results "by hand".

Many of Apples library calls, and maybe OS calls will use AltiVec if your CPU has it. Kind of depends on what you define as "the OS". If the GUI stuff is "the OS" then your set. I don't know if the IP checksum code, or bzero(2) use it or not.

I think that needing to link to the non-GPL libraries (dlls) to make the VB progs work is a violation of the GPL.

From the GNU General Public License, version 2:

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

It's perfectly OK under the GPL to link against libraries that come with a widely available (but not necessarily free) compiler. For instance, it's OK to link against the libraries that come with Microsoft Visual WhateverFlat. Otherwise, Linux would be impossible to make because it (or at least the bootloader) calls the computer's proprietary BIOS a few times when it first starts up.

It is possible to write GPL software in a non-free compiler. See here and here.

It is possible to write GPL software in a non-free compiler. See here and here.

Although RMS himself does indeed seem to feel how you have described (I've heard him speak), the official GNU policy is different:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

However, I agree that a reply (like this one) would have been more appropriate than a simple flamebait mod.

Open Source IDE
You can use CVS for .NET development and you can use any database also.
The only point you have is the middle tier, and with mono and dotGNU, becoming more complete, this point crumbles away also.

Shows you his priorities. The whingeing about GNU/Linux is icing on the cake, and is forgotten when the REAL issues come up. Anything you see RMS arguing that people should use GNU/something as a name, you know that there obviously isn't any real problem happening.

With Bitkeeper, the potential for a real problem (or at least a hell of an inconvenience) is right there, and so you see RMS not even thinking of naming conventions because his concern is about something a lot more important.

This analysis is completely flawed. From the GNU/Linux FAQ:

If you mean just the kernel, then "Linux" is the right name for it..

Obviously, RMS is talking about just the kernel.

I don't understand why everyone loves to speculate on RMS's personality and motivations, when they can't even be bothered to read and understand his arguments in the first place.

If you take a moment to understand the words you have used, you will realize that "source available" means the same thing as "open source". "Open source" implies nothing more than the source code being published or openly available; it does not imply any right to use the source code or the program unless otherwise specified. (This is why you will hear companies such as Apple, Microsoft, and Sun speak of "shared source" or "open source", and why PGP Corporation could rightly call its software "open source" if it makes its source code publically available.)

This is exactly why the Free Software Foundation recommends the term free software. The "free" is what gives you the "freedom" to "take chunks of it and create your own version" as you say.

Here is a list:
1157 bugs found
Yeah I know, creating new features is much more fun :-)
And we don't sell the gcc ... right?

You are, of course, using GNU/hello, right?

(Take a look at the source code, it's interesting. But my favorite thing is that you can do ./hello -traditional)

Here's my prediction. In 2003 the GNU/HURD OS will finally become usable. A combination of ideology, technical interest, and better understood development methodologies is finally going to bring this project to fruition. I don't anticipate a 1.0 release (possible by December but not likely), but I think we will see GNU/HURD in a state similar to Mozilla before 1.0: slow recognition that the project is viable and producing something worth using, a 0.9 level of polish that slowly, almost asymptotically approaches 1.0.

But HURD is dead! We all know this to be true, right? I won't argue. But I will point out two community projects that have variously been pronounced dead and are now leading the way for new developments no one anticipated: Mozilla, and Perl 6. I think all three of these projects share some commonalities: an initial surge of interest that cannot possibly be assimilated into a development process, followed by a general disappointment, abandonment, and outright flaming phase, a shrinking of the group of interested parties to a small dedicated core, lots of unrecognized work behind the scenes, and a gradual awareness in the community that this is Something Good.

We've all heard about the ideological pressures for GNU/HURD. Mercifully, I won't repeat them here. :) That's not to say I don't find them important. One interesting thing you might not know about is binary drivers in the kernel. Basically, someone took a compiled driver, converted it to a bunch of hex bytes in a C struct in a file, added it to the kernel, and called it source. There are some people who are unhappy about that.

Technologically, HURD has a lot to offer. The microkernel underpinnings make for a lot of new features: the whole OS is decentralized, in that authentication can go through the "offical" authentication server (/etc/password or whatever), or through a user-implemented alternative. Nothing except hardware access is really controlled by the kernel. It's like a libertarian , anarchistic OS, where you can ignore all the offical services and provide your own. :) Moreover, you can even mount your own filesystems. As a regular user. These filesystems can be real disks, network entitities, or interfaces to something as yet unheard of. The canonical example is an FTP filesystem. Personally, I've always wanted to be able to mount anything I can ssh to. In my home directory. :) I've even dug into kernel internals to see how that might work, but unless someone wants to buy me off of my current job and put up with me on a moderately steep learning curve, it isn't going to happen anytime soon. It'll be much easier with HURD, though, and I expect to see it.

HURD has a lot of similarities with Darwin, when you think about it. Both are a UNIX like OS running on a microkernel. There's a lot of untapped potential there for new OS possibilities. Microkernels still don't rule the roost, despite being universally recognized in academia as the One True Way. Darwin/Mac OS X has meant the installation of thousands of microkernel based systems across the globe. HURD will mean even more.

Speaking of Mac OS X, work has been done to make HURD work on the version of Mach that sits at the heart of Darwin instead of the GNU version of Mach. GNU/Mach worked on multiple architectures at one time, but that support has been temporarily abandoned in favor of just getting GNU/HURD up and running on Intel. If HURD worked on the Mach from Darwin, it would suddenly have PowerPC to play on, too. There's also a project to port HURD to the L4 microkernel. It's said that Mach is showing its age, and L4 is the next best thing. I wouldn't anticipate seeing L4 play any role until post 1.0, though. I'm not sure what benefits it brings, anyway. Still, interesting that you can take all those servers (read: plain programs) that comprise the HURD, compile them for a different microkernel, and get basically the same OS.

There's been a lot of advances in community development methodology, too. I think we all know how in the early days of GNU RMS kept a tight reign on everything, sometimes to the detriment of the project. Linus, ESR, egcs, and others (you guys!) have shown that this is not the way to run these projects. Frequent releases, complete openness, invited volunteer contributions from anyone, and all the factors in CatB have proved to be the way to run this kind of project. And as that development methodology has become more pervasive, HURD has slowly gained progress.

Nowadays HURD has a very special ally: the Debian project. In the same way that people would like to make the HURD servers run on different microkernels, Debian likes to make their OS (this is OS in the sense of "all the programs and utilities that make a system usable") run on different kernels. Did you know there are several Debian projects that do not involve the Linux kernel? Debian/NetBSD, Debian/Win32. Almost scary. A large part of the important work in making GNU/HURD usable is occurring in the Debian/HURD project. Take the thousands of packages that make up Debian and compile them, one by one, on GNU/HURD. Fix bugs. Send patches back to maintainers. Stress test the system. Build a beautiful apt repository so all GNU/HURD users can be running and testing the absolute latest. Think of how Debian has an almost identical running OS with thousands of packages across so many different architectures: Intel, PowerPC, Sparc, etc. They'll put all that work into making Debian/HURD usable, reliable, and consistent, as well. As a result of this volunteer and mostly decentralized effort, GNU/HURD is going to be a very usable system with thousands of running packages right from the start.

Once there is a running and usable HURD system, optimization will begin. I'm certain this will be just like Mozilla: complaints that the code is a memory hog, complaints that it is needlessly slow. But optimizations will occur. I hope Perl 6 doesn't follow the same pattern. I want it fast from the start. :) But, premature optimization is the root of all evil, and if there's any message to this little essay, it's patience.

One other thing I think the free software community has learned as a whole that will play a prominent role in making HURD usable and popular is how to port an OS across architectures. BSD lite started out as an Intel OS. I think. (Actually, it was a descendant of a VAX OS, which was a descendant of a PDP OS. But who's counting?) Now NetBSD runs on 38 architectures, and FreeBSD is being ported. Linux, the kernel, started out as an Intel only OS, and now runs all over the place. The history of porting that kernel to other architectures is a great lesson in extreme programming and refactoring. Linus didn't care if his kernel ever ran anywhere besides Intel, and in fact he started his work as a chance to learn and practice Intel assembly. He didn't worry about porting his OS at all, because that wasn't needed at the time. Other people came back and refactored the codebase to make it easier to port, then took it to their favorite chips. If it weren't for this history, I'd be upset and scared that HURD is Intel-only right now. As it is, I'm eagerly looking forward to watching people use lessons learned to port HURD and GNU Mach.

The HURD is dead. We've known that for years. We also knew Mozilla was dead, and here I am posting this from its cousin Phoenix. Perl 6 was called a disaster for months, then suddenly one day there was a working Perl 6 grammar and parrot interpreter. Yet, the motivation of some dedicated hackers is unstoppable. We will almost certainly see a usable GNU OS in 2003, and RMS will finally have the fulfillment of his long-delayed vision.

The FreeBSD handbook is an excellent guide to all aspects of installing, configuring, and using a FreeBSD system. The allocating disk space section contains well written instructions (with pictures) that explain how disk partitions work on FreeBSD, and how to create them.

On my system, I use the GNU GRUB boot loader (used as the default boot loader in many Linux distributions), and it seems quite able to boot partitions over the infamous 1024 (cylinder?) limit. The GRUB manual suggests this configuration for booting FreeBSD. If you use GRUB, select the "Leave the Master Boot Record" option when you install FreeBSD.

Note that on an Intel 386-compatible system, you'll need a spare primary partition to install FreeBSD. Perhaps you don't have one, as there are only four, and each DOS or Windows install will want one, and one will be used to create the extended partition your Linux distribution is likely to install itself in. It might be easier to buy another hard disk drive.

The FreeBSD handbook is an excellent guide to all aspects of installing, configuring, and using a FreeBSD system. The allocating disk space section contains well written instructions (with pictures) that explain how disk partitions work on FreeBSD, and how to create them.

On my system, I use the GNU GRUB boot loader (used as the default boot loader in many Linux distributions), and it seems quite able to boot partitions over the infamous 1024 (cylinder?) limit. The GRUB manual suggests this configuration for booting FreeBSD. If you use GRUB, select the "Leave the Master Boot Record" option when you install FreeBSD.

Note that on an Intel 386-compatible system, you'll need a spare primary partition to install FreeBSD. Perhaps you don't have one, as there are only four, and each DOS or Windows install will want one, and one will be used to create the extended partition your Linux distribution is likely to install itself in. It might be easier to buy another hard disk drive.

It seems that those Debian guys haven't read Mr. Stallman's FAQ.

XTux!

pantropik writes

The latest article, written by yours truly, is rather lengthy, explaining such things as adding 3D drivers, missing MP3 functionality, DVD decoding, using APT with RHL, and customizing Red Hat's modified KDE.

It's unfortunate you are choosing to use your voice to introduce "Joe and Jane User" to dependency via non-free and patent encumbered software (MP3 playing instead of Ogg Vorbis and the non-free NVidia video card driver). I think it would be better if you pointed them to reasons why they should consider their software freedom (the practical idealism that gave rise to the GNU system and the GNU GPL on which Red Hat bases so much of their GNU/Linux system). Since you know so much about this system and compliant hardware, perhaps you could also help develop a list of hardware for which there are Free Software drivers so users could easily buy this hardware and retain their freedom to share and modify software.

A quick check on Google popped up the following links:

(LILO CRC error...)
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue50/tag/24.html
http://brenner.chemietechnik.uni-dortmund.de/doc/s db/en/html/kfr_50.html

(Grub cannot fit selected item into memory)
http://www.gnu.org/manual/grub-0.92/html_node/Stag e2-errors.html
http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/pipermail/linuxers/Week- of-Mon-20020729/005620.html
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/200 0-March/000346.html

Based on those links, I'd be chasing down something taking some of your low memory away from you so that it doesn't boot right. Keep in mind, it may still be an ailing HD as intimated in the LILO links. As for the bootloaders being ready, they are- you've got a special case that's causing you problems and many, many others don't seem to have your issues with them. I can't speak of Red Hat's support since I've not used their distribution in a while- so you may have a beef there.

Looks like it's actually libstdc++ that needs to be up-to-the-millisecond. Considering the still-ever-changing nature of GCC's APIs (see here, here, and here, would it kill folks to either statically link the libstdc++ they use for binary releases, or at least include the apropriate .so file, like Phoenix does for all the Mozilla libs? (libxpcom, etc...) Just a suggestion. Otherwise I'd probably be typing this in Phoenix instead of Opera right now...

I have witnessed this metamorphesis in at least a dozen people, who came from the aforementioned 'free means worthless' mindset to adament advocates of free software, and in each case their first, rudimentary understanding came via the open source rhetoric, and in each case their understanding did not stop there. RMSes fears that open source would blind people to free software are IMHO largely misguided, as is the entire conflict between the two movements.

Your argument needs examples of licenses that underwent this transition to illustrate how the Open Source movement eases the transition from proprietary software licenses to Free Software licenses. Easing the transition to Free Software is one of the things the Open Source movement does not do because that would require at some point talking about software freedom which the Open Source movement was designed never to talk about.

Businesses (the primary target of the Open Source movement's message) like the Open Source movement because that movement allows businesses to gain the social cachet of the "Open Source" moniker with non-free software licenses. This essay explains the difference between the two movements quite well, in particular explaining why businesses like the Open Source movement.

Apple's Public Source License (APSL) is a fine example of how the Open Source movement can injure Free Software pressure. Apple has revised the APSL under pressure from the Free Software movement. The Free Software movement would like Apple to further pursue a truly free software license even though Apple does not want to contribute to a commons of software they don't control. The Open Source Initiative thinks Apple's lack of reciprocity is acceptable and lists the APSL as an accepted license. So long as Apple is willing to settle for acceptance by the Open Source Initiative and so long as the moniker of "Open Source" is favorable, Apple has less incentive to continue towards making the APSL a Free Software license.

I have witnessed this metamorphesis in at least a dozen people, who came from the aforementioned 'free means worthless' mindset to adament advocates of free software, and in each case their first, rudimentary understanding came via the open source rhetoric, and in each case their understanding did not stop there. RMSes fears that open source would blind people to free software are IMHO largely misguided, as is the entire conflict between the two movements.

Your argument needs examples of licenses that underwent this transition to illustrate how the Open Source movement eases the transition from proprietary software licenses to Free Software licenses. Easing the transition to Free Software is one of the things the Open Source movement does not do because that would require at some point talking about software freedom which the Open Source movement was designed never to talk about.

Businesses (the primary target of the Open Source movement's message) like the Open Source movement because that movement allows businesses to gain the social cachet of the "Open Source" moniker with non-free software licenses. This essay explains the difference between the two movements quite well, in particular explaining why businesses like the Open Source movement.

Apple's Public Source License (APSL) is a fine example of how the Open Source movement can injure Free Software pressure. Apple has revised the APSL under pressure from the Free Software movement. The Free Software movement would like Apple to further pursue a truly free software license even though Apple does not want to contribute to a commons of software they don't control. The Open Source Initiative thinks Apple's lack of reciprocity is acceptable and lists the APSL as an accepted license. So long as Apple is willing to settle for acceptance by the Open Source Initiative and so long as the moniker of "Open Source" is favorable, Apple has less incentive to continue towards making the APSL a Free Software license.

One of the goals of Perl 6 is to make non-trivial projects possible. That's good. The way it's being done is bad. Perl was once a lightweight, extremely flexible language. Now it's become a huge ugly monster. People wanted OO, so a nasty hack was bolted on top to allow some semblance of it. Now this nasty hack is being expanded. Sure, the code's different, but the basic form is the same. Kludge upon kludge upon kludge; I'd much rather have a nice, clean, pure language (and not one with loads of irritating whitespace thank you very much).

The same goes for the syntax. All the switching between $, @ and % is really irritating (ask a newbie how to get at the length of the keys array of a hash inside a hash, for example), and the changes proposed for 6 are just making this worse -- it seems that Larry, in his infinite wisdom, wants to prefix every data type with a different hard-to-type character. Perl was only designed for the three data types, and adding more is a mess.

Perl 6 is a complete rewrite, but it keeps all the mess which has accumulated over the previous versions. This is not good. Sure, my const int $var = 27; may look neat (in the same way that, say, Pascal does), but $var isn't entirely constant, or entirely an integer, it's just a hack which makes it sort of behave like one. The whole thing is an exercise in pseudo-computer science masturbation with little real purpose except to please the managers who dislike the one thing that makes Perl special.

On a similar note is regexes. I'm an avid fan of regular expressions simply because a nondeterministic finite automata is far more flexible than linear code. However, Larry must have been smoking that cheap $2 crack when he wrote this. Does he want Perl 6 to be flex or something?

I won't be going on to use 6. It's a nice idea, but it's completely unnecessary. It won't make large projects any easier to manage (the language is still, at heart, an almighty hack -- an impressive one, but still a hack). It won't make OO any cleaner. It won't make development any faster. To put it bluntly, Perl scripts will still look less beautiful than our friend Mr Goatse. I'd prefer to use a language which has always been pure synthesis of science and engineering, not some half-baked imposter.

Perl 6 will be nice, but I'm guessing it will be the end of Perl. It can't do what it wants to do whilst still being based upon a nasty mess. There are now other options, which provide all of Perl's power and none of the mess. Sorry, but *BSD^H^H^H^H Perl is dying. Larry is buggering it up the ass without lubricants, just like Shoeboy is doing to Larry's daughter.

Linus is right. If it works, use it. If it doesn't work, don't.

That doesn't illustrate why you think Torvalds is right.

I'm in favor of open-source stuff, I admire RMS and the GNU project for everything they've contributed to the computing world...

Please show your support by citing the correct movement when you talk about RMS and GNU. What you just said suggests an unfamiliarity with both software movements significant enough to be confusing to readers. RMS and GNU have nothing to do with the Open Source movement. RMS does Free Software and the GNU project & the GNU GPL were set up to make a complete Free Software operating system a reality. Listen to the 2001 NYU speech or read the transcript of this speech where RMS corrects the error you just made. The Free Software movement predates the Open Source movement by over a decade. Please read the FSF's essay on the difference between the two movements so you won't make this mistake again and confuse other readers.

Linus is right. If it works, use it. If it doesn't work, don't.

That doesn't illustrate why you think Torvalds is right.

I'm in favor of open-source stuff, I admire RMS and the GNU project for everything they've contributed to the computing world...

Please show your support by citing the correct movement when you talk about RMS and GNU. What you just said suggests an unfamiliarity with both software movements significant enough to be confusing to readers. RMS and GNU have nothing to do with the Open Source movement. RMS does Free Software and the GNU project & the GNU GPL were set up to make a complete Free Software operating system a reality. Listen to the 2001 NYU speech or read the transcript of this speech where RMS corrects the error you just made. The Free Software movement predates the Open Source movement by over a decade. Please read the FSF's essay on the difference between the two movements so you won't make this mistake again and confuse other readers.

Linus is right. If it works, use it. If it doesn't work, don't.

That doesn't illustrate why you think Torvalds is right.

I'm in favor of open-source stuff, I admire RMS and the GNU project for everything they've contributed to the computing world...

Please show your support by citing the correct movement when you talk about RMS and GNU. What you just said suggests an unfamiliarity with both software movements significant enough to be confusing to readers. RMS and GNU have nothing to do with the Open Source movement. RMS does Free Software and the GNU project & the GNU GPL were set up to make a complete Free Software operating system a reality. Listen to the 2001 NYU speech or read the transcript of this speech where RMS corrects the error you just made. The Free Software movement predates the Open Source movement by over a decade. Please read the FSF's essay on the difference between the two movements so you won't make this mistake again and confuse other readers.

You know.. I've never bought the GNU/Linux crap (although I think it is easily as correct as Linux.. personally I prefer 'Linux System' but that is neither here nor there).

The real Linus vs. FSF issue is freedom... and it seems obvious to me that at least sometimes rms is right.

I think the big problem here is the narrowing of focus in the linux community. Yes.. Linus is 'the man'.. yes he is crucial to what we have. But he is not the only source. Do we really want a benign dictator? Not I... beit Linus or rms...

Posts like this are the exact reason rms takes the stand he does. Like it or not... it isn't hard to argue that rms is the single most important person in the developments that brought each and every one of us the choice of Freedom. Worship him? Make him god? no.. but don't forget... the man deserves a tiny bit of credit here...

As for where Linux should go... Linus decides this as much as Bill Gates does... the industry decides the direction... Linux just tries to stay on the road.

Shhh... almost sounds like you're saying rms was right... :)

God forbid... linux is a wonderful thing... and GNU/Linux is an ugly name... but damnit... that long haired hippie has something to BELIEVE IN.

It all started somewhere.... sometimes I wonder if the /. community at large is even aware of this..

(note to parent... obviously this isn't really directed at you... but thanks for the springboard :)

I always interpreted GNU/Linux as "GNU environment running over the Linux kernel". It seems that 90% of the users care for the front-end tools (such as their $EDITOR - vim or emacs or whatever, their shell - like bash, etc.) Most of this is GNU, so I think the FSF does have a point about the GNU/Linux name. I even say "GNU/Linux" myself in the context of discussions dealing with the end-user environment.

OTOH, as far as I read into the FSF docs on the "GNU/Linux" issue, they're *so* nerdy in the worse sense of the word and so much repeating themselves along the lines, that I perfectly understand the frustration of people like you who don't have the patience of hearing the rational points behind all the major rant.

BitKeeper, back when I used it (2-3 years ago) had some nifty features, yes -- but was prone to corrupting the repository on a regular basis. What's more, Larry deliberately changed the license so that my then-current employer was no longer in compliance. Suffice to say that more than a few people there still consider him an asshole for that.

If Red Hat is going to put money into a better version control system, I'd hope that that would be either Subversion or arch. (The author is flat broke and has no web hosting unless someone gives him some, so that link may not work; also see here and here). Arch is brilliant, functional, much more reliable than BitKeeper (at least, much more reliable than BitKeeper was when I used it)... and for someone as utterly friggin' brilliant as Tom Lord to be utterly penniless (as in, unable to buy beer, much less pay rent) is just wrong.