Slashdot Mirror

Quit trying to make it a moral issue. It is an issue of choice. People have the right to use what they want. If you don't like that then maybe you are more like the closed source software houses than you wish to admit.

Decisions made by people in the software industry affect millions of people and tens, even hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Consider the release of Microsoft Windows 95. IBM (a company not without its own monopolistic history, but I digress) was initially going to promote OS/2 alongside Win'95, but Microsoft did not approve of this. At the last minute before the release, IBM was presented with an ultimatum; Win'95 or nothing. Since Win'95 was the current 'thing to have', it would have been a crippling blow for the (current) industry leading hardware manufacturer to ship PCs without it.

Now consider things that retroactively cost billions - Melissa shut down corporations and wreaked havoc for weeks. Since people did not have any access to the code that makes the affected products 'tick' (ie; Outlook (Express)), they were forced to sit on their hands and wait for a proprietary solution.

Proprietary products, as it's been pointed out in the past, tend to limit their users to only their own products. Concealment of APIs to make it difficult for competitors to integrate, making significant changes to the API and/or protocols without proper documentation so that competitors will find their products behind the times, etc..

Proprietary software licenses tend to become progressively more restrictive, rather than less. Restricting a user's rights to use the other products and (digital) media they already own, for one thing. Restricting the types of files they are permitted to store locally and share with others. Restricting who they may converse with online, and allowing corporations and government bodies a peek into what you're doing on your computer - in the interests of preventing theft of "Intellectual Property" and terrorism, of course.

Free software is a moral issue. Don't try to make it less of one; you're only playing into the hands of the corporations.

For a good read on a possible free-software-free future, head on over to read this fine essay.

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of open-source stuff, I admire RMS and the GNU project for everything they've contributed to the computing world, and I enjoy having the freedom to tinker with stuff. In the end, though, I'll use whatever is going to work best for ME in whatever situation.

Quite a selfish viewpoint you have there - it turns out that the best solution for YOU may not be the best for society at large. Perhaps you need to brush up on FSF philosphy. No one said it as "life-or-death". But if businesses had their way, there would be no free software - and you don't find that the least bit scary? Think about it - you have 0 rights to your hardware unless you start dishing out cash and accepting possibly onerous license agreements. In other words, you give up all of your rights.

So you have a choice - live in a world where free software is a critical force for maintaining the rights of consumers, or live in a world where you just want whats "best", and therefor implying that the world would be just fine without free software. I hope you thing the first, because the second is a scary world indeed.

Thing is, it is a moral issue. The choice isn't between "free" or commercial software, it is between philosophies that differ as in "my way or no way" on one side and "live and let live" on the other.

It is a choice between freedom and totalitarianism.

Anybody used it for a big project?

Well I was kinda dividing the world between commercial and non-commercial software. I was thinking more "Photoshop vs. GIMP" than "Windows XP vs. Red Hat Linux".

It might be helpful to consider free software versus proprietary software. I'm talking about two different ends of the spectrum here, but these are useful terms to describe what I think you're after. A couple common combinations are a completely free software operating system (this is pretty easy to do with Debian GNU/Linux, for example, even though Debian's guidelines for what it considers free software are different from what the FSF defined years before) and a proprietary operating system on which they run some free software applications (using Mozilla on Microsoft Windows, for instance).

Well, lots of people write free utilites and then give them away but keep the source.

That software would be proprietary software. When one is talking about GNU, the Linux kernal, GIMP, etc., it is easy to think about free software where one is using the term "free" to mean freedom, not price ("logiciel libre", not "logiciel gratuit" if you speak French; free as in speech, not as in beer). This particular problem doesn't occur in other languages.

The only problem I see in calling it "GNU/Linux" in conversation is that it sounds like "New Linux"...perhaps we should say "guh-new"

That is what they say on the front page of the GNU website:

(GNU is a recursive acronym for ``GNU's Not Unix''; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".)

GNU project and FSF representatives also pronounce GNU as "guh-NEW" in their speeches. If you haven't already heard them give them a listen, they're interesting and worthwhile.

In any event, thanks for remembering GNU and software freedom. Happy hacking.

Well I was kinda dividing the world between commercial and non-commercial software. I was thinking more "Photoshop vs. GIMP" than "Windows XP vs. Red Hat Linux".

It might be helpful to consider free software versus proprietary software. I'm talking about two different ends of the spectrum here, but these are useful terms to describe what I think you're after. A couple common combinations are a completely free software operating system (this is pretty easy to do with Debian GNU/Linux, for example, even though Debian's guidelines for what it considers free software are different from what the FSF defined years before) and a proprietary operating system on which they run some free software applications (using Mozilla on Microsoft Windows, for instance).

Well, lots of people write free utilites and then give them away but keep the source.

That software would be proprietary software. When one is talking about GNU, the Linux kernal, GIMP, etc., it is easy to think about free software where one is using the term "free" to mean freedom, not price ("logiciel libre", not "logiciel gratuit" if you speak French; free as in speech, not as in beer). This particular problem doesn't occur in other languages.

The only problem I see in calling it "GNU/Linux" in conversation is that it sounds like "New Linux"...perhaps we should say "guh-new"

That is what they say on the front page of the GNU website:

(GNU is a recursive acronym for ``GNU's Not Unix''; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".)

GNU project and FSF representatives also pronounce GNU as "guh-NEW" in their speeches. If you haven't already heard them give them a listen, they're interesting and worthwhile.

In any event, thanks for remembering GNU and software freedom. Happy hacking.

Well I was kinda dividing the world between commercial and non-commercial software. I was thinking more "Photoshop vs. GIMP" than "Windows XP vs. Red Hat Linux".

It might be helpful to consider free software versus proprietary software. I'm talking about two different ends of the spectrum here, but these are useful terms to describe what I think you're after. A couple common combinations are a completely free software operating system (this is pretty easy to do with Debian GNU/Linux, for example, even though Debian's guidelines for what it considers free software are different from what the FSF defined years before) and a proprietary operating system on which they run some free software applications (using Mozilla on Microsoft Windows, for instance).

Well, lots of people write free utilites and then give them away but keep the source.

That software would be proprietary software. When one is talking about GNU, the Linux kernal, GIMP, etc., it is easy to think about free software where one is using the term "free" to mean freedom, not price ("logiciel libre", not "logiciel gratuit" if you speak French; free as in speech, not as in beer). This particular problem doesn't occur in other languages.

The only problem I see in calling it "GNU/Linux" in conversation is that it sounds like "New Linux"...perhaps we should say "guh-new"

That is what they say on the front page of the GNU website:

(GNU is a recursive acronym for ``GNU's Not Unix''; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".)

GNU project and FSF representatives also pronounce GNU as "guh-NEW" in their speeches. If you haven't already heard them give them a listen, they're interesting and worthwhile.

In any event, thanks for remembering GNU and software freedom. Happy hacking.

Well I was kinda dividing the world between commercial and non-commercial software. I was thinking more "Photoshop vs. GIMP" than "Windows XP vs. Red Hat Linux".

It might be helpful to consider free software versus proprietary software. I'm talking about two different ends of the spectrum here, but these are useful terms to describe what I think you're after. A couple common combinations are a completely free software operating system (this is pretty easy to do with Debian GNU/Linux, for example, even though Debian's guidelines for what it considers free software are different from what the FSF defined years before) and a proprietary operating system on which they run some free software applications (using Mozilla on Microsoft Windows, for instance).

Well, lots of people write free utilites and then give them away but keep the source.

That software would be proprietary software. When one is talking about GNU, the Linux kernal, GIMP, etc., it is easy to think about free software where one is using the term "free" to mean freedom, not price ("logiciel libre", not "logiciel gratuit" if you speak French; free as in speech, not as in beer). This particular problem doesn't occur in other languages.

The only problem I see in calling it "GNU/Linux" in conversation is that it sounds like "New Linux"...perhaps we should say "guh-new"

That is what they say on the front page of the GNU website:

(GNU is a recursive acronym for ``GNU's Not Unix''; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".)

GNU project and FSF representatives also pronounce GNU as "guh-NEW" in their speeches. If you haven't already heard them give them a listen, they're interesting and worthwhile.

In any event, thanks for remembering GNU and software freedom. Happy hacking.

Well I was kinda dividing the world between commercial and non-commercial software. I was thinking more "Photoshop vs. GIMP" than "Windows XP vs. Red Hat Linux".

It might be helpful to consider free software versus proprietary software. I'm talking about two different ends of the spectrum here, but these are useful terms to describe what I think you're after. A couple common combinations are a completely free software operating system (this is pretty easy to do with Debian GNU/Linux, for example, even though Debian's guidelines for what it considers free software are different from what the FSF defined years before) and a proprietary operating system on which they run some free software applications (using Mozilla on Microsoft Windows, for instance).

Well, lots of people write free utilites and then give them away but keep the source.

That software would be proprietary software. When one is talking about GNU, the Linux kernal, GIMP, etc., it is easy to think about free software where one is using the term "free" to mean freedom, not price ("logiciel libre", not "logiciel gratuit" if you speak French; free as in speech, not as in beer). This particular problem doesn't occur in other languages.

The only problem I see in calling it "GNU/Linux" in conversation is that it sounds like "New Linux"...perhaps we should say "guh-new"

That is what they say on the front page of the GNU website:

(GNU is a recursive acronym for ``GNU's Not Unix''; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".)

GNU project and FSF representatives also pronounce GNU as "guh-NEW" in their speeches. If you haven't already heard them give them a listen, they're interesting and worthwhile.

In any event, thanks for remembering GNU and software freedom. Happy hacking.

Well I was kinda dividing the world between commercial and non-commercial software. I was thinking more "Photoshop vs. GIMP" than "Windows XP vs. Red Hat Linux".

It might be helpful to consider free software versus proprietary software. I'm talking about two different ends of the spectrum here, but these are useful terms to describe what I think you're after. A couple common combinations are a completely free software operating system (this is pretty easy to do with Debian GNU/Linux, for example, even though Debian's guidelines for what it considers free software are different from what the FSF defined years before) and a proprietary operating system on which they run some free software applications (using Mozilla on Microsoft Windows, for instance).

Well, lots of people write free utilites and then give them away but keep the source.

That software would be proprietary software. When one is talking about GNU, the Linux kernal, GIMP, etc., it is easy to think about free software where one is using the term "free" to mean freedom, not price ("logiciel libre", not "logiciel gratuit" if you speak French; free as in speech, not as in beer). This particular problem doesn't occur in other languages.

The only problem I see in calling it "GNU/Linux" in conversation is that it sounds like "New Linux"...perhaps we should say "guh-new"

That is what they say on the front page of the GNU website:

(GNU is a recursive acronym for ``GNU's Not Unix''; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".)

GNU project and FSF representatives also pronounce GNU as "guh-NEW" in their speeches. If you haven't already heard them give them a listen, they're interesting and worthwhile.

In any event, thanks for remembering GNU and software freedom. Happy hacking.

Is your intent commercial software, free software or other?

This question is difficult to understand because commercial software and free software are not opposites. One can sell free software.

If your intent is free software then are you thinking Open Source?

Again, to those that know the difference between these two movements, this question doesn't parse.

...but for every Linus Torvalds who sits down and makes his own OS (and yes I have read the GNU/Linux FAQ)...

It's unfortunate Torvalds encourages that lie by not correcting the idea that he somehow "makes his own OS" (a quote from your article, not the BBC interview). I think the GNU project is asking nicely for something they rightly deserve credit for making. Software freedom is another big contribution for which I am grateful to have the FSF and the GNU project. I appreciate the contribution of Torvalds and all the other contributors to the Linux kernal, but the kernal alone is not an operating system.

Is your intent commercial software, free software or other?

This question is difficult to understand because commercial software and free software are not opposites. One can sell free software.

If your intent is free software then are you thinking Open Source?

Again, to those that know the difference between these two movements, this question doesn't parse.

...but for every Linus Torvalds who sits down and makes his own OS (and yes I have read the GNU/Linux FAQ)...

It's unfortunate Torvalds encourages that lie by not correcting the idea that he somehow "makes his own OS" (a quote from your article, not the BBC interview). I think the GNU project is asking nicely for something they rightly deserve credit for making. Software freedom is another big contribution for which I am grateful to have the FSF and the GNU project. I appreciate the contribution of Torvalds and all the other contributors to the Linux kernal, but the kernal alone is not an operating system.

If he does not like Torvald's kernal, then he can write a GNU one. What's the holdup? BSD?

He *does* like the Linux kernel, I think...that's why he's trying to keep it Free. And GNU *is* working on their own kernel: the HURD. It's been in development a long time. I do not know what the holdup is, but I can't imagine it has anything to do with BSD, which is a completely independent, non-GNU project.

RMS is a troll: not because he is wrong, but because he is annoying. (Hey, I can relate WRT OO bashing).

Whether he's annoying or not, I don't think you can really call him a troll. A troll is someone who says divisive or combative statements that they don't really believe, just to induce a flamewar.

Say what you want about RMS, but I don't think anyone would agree that he doesn't Really Believe what he says.

BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.

The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's why the name "GNU/Linux" is appropriate for it.

BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.

The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's why the name "GNU/Linux" is appropriate for it.

1. Sell support and enhancements.
2. Hope for donations (directly or people buying from you).
3. The Street Performers Protocol like Mandrake or Blender uses
4. Write custom software for business or government.
5. 
   
   The GNU project will release a book on this topic soon.
   
   Anyway, this is bordering on the off-topic.

For your builtin scripting language, may I suggest you *not* invent your own, especially for a small project. If it were me, I'd create a Perl module (probably a class of them) and use those for the scripting. That way your program has much greater power than it would with a custom language (think web-based 3D apps) plus it reduces learning curves. Think AutoCad/Lisp.

In post 4387579 XP_fetchbeer wrote:

It looks to me like the community should be happy with anything that contributes to the cause, which I had always assumed was presenting a viable alternative to M$.

You have assumed incorrectly. Most of us in the free software movement are interested in having an OS system we are free to use, study, share, and improve. Like M$, Lindows tramples on those freedoms. Lindows is not contributing to the cause, they're detracting from it.

I hope for a utopia, but I fear for a world like RMS's The Right To Read. That document was written to warn us about how things could go. Let's try to avoid it.

I may have seemed harsh in my previous replies. I apologize. I just don't want to wind up as a slave in the future.

Read this. This is an honest plea. This is what the future will be like if the concept of Intellectual Property continues to grow without restraint.

For the past couple hundred years, Intellecual Property has grown stronger, and stronger, and stronger, and stronger, and the rights of the people who buy the intellectual property have grown weaker, and weaker, and weaker, and weaker. What if the trend never reverses?

What happens when it becomes illegal to buy a television that lets you change the channel? After all, changing the channel would deprive one network of advertising revenue, and that would be unethical, right?

Never happen? Don't be so sure. In many places, it's already illegal to buy or build a multi-region DVD player, and in just a few years it'll be illegal to own a computer that can run non-government-approved software.

Imagine 500 years from now if the trend continues. Our entire lives could be scheduled and controlled by Microsoft. Instead of being merely told what we can and can't do with the property we've purchased, we won't even have a choice in what we purchase. The party line will be "not buying this book deprives the author of payment for his hard work, so you MUST buy this book!" We'll be required to buy every work that is produced whether we want it or not, because not buying it steals money from the author, and if everybody is forced to buy it, there'll be no danger from the boogie-man of pirates.

If you're an Intellectual Property absolutist, then shouldn't making the decision not to buy a book be illegal, because it deprives the author of money he would have gotten if he'd bought the book?

I worry that in the future, we may never even see our paychecks our our money... rather, once we complete the education that the government selects for us, we'll go to work at the job they select for us, and we'll do what they tell us to do, and rather than being paid for working, we will be "allocated" a specific amount of food, clothing, consumer goods, and entertainment material based on a government/corporate allocation system. They'll TELL us that we're getting paid, but really, we're just laboring for them like slaves and they're throwing content and possessions at us to keep us from rebelling... we'll never even have a choice in what to buy.

After all, deciding to buy Product A instead of Product B, because you genuinely think Product A is a better product, deprives Company B of the revenue that went into the development of Product B!

This is where Intellectual Property leads.

See what the future could hold, and do whatever you can to avoid it!!! Please!

I may have seemed harsh in my previous replies. I apologize. I just don't want to wind up as a slave in the future.

Read this. This is an honest plea. This is what the future will be like if the concept of Intellectual Property continues to grow without restraint.

For the past couple hundred years, Intellecual Property has grown stronger, and stronger, and stronger, and stronger, and the rights of the people who buy the intellectual property have grown weaker, and weaker, and weaker, and weaker. What if the trend never reverses?

What happens when it becomes illegal to buy a television that lets you change the channel? After all, changing the channel would deprive one network of advertising revenue, and that would be unethical, right?

Never happen? Don't be so sure. In many places, it's already illegal to buy or build a multi-region DVD player, and in just a few years it'll be illegal to own a computer that can run non-government-approved software.

Imagine 500 years from now if the trend continues. Our entire lives could be scheduled and controlled by Microsoft. Instead of being merely told what we can and can't do with the property we've purchased, we won't even have a choice in what we purchase. The party line will be "not buying this book deprives the author of payment for his hard work, so you MUST buy this book!" We'll be required to buy every work that is produced whether we want it or not, because not buying it steals money from the author, and if everybody is forced to buy it, there'll be no danger from the boogie-man of pirates.

If you're an Intellectual Property absolutist, then shouldn't making the decision not to buy a book be illegal, because it deprives the author of money he would have gotten if he'd bought the book?

I worry that in the future, we may never even see our paychecks our our money... rather, once we complete the education that the government selects for us, we'll go to work at the job they select for us, and we'll do what they tell us to do, and rather than being paid for working, we will be "allocated" a specific amount of food, clothing, consumer goods, and entertainment material based on a government/corporate allocation system. They'll TELL us that we're getting paid, but really, we're just laboring for them like slaves and they're throwing content and possessions at us to keep us from rebelling... we'll never even have a choice in what to buy.

After all, deciding to buy Product A instead of Product B, because you genuinely think Product A is a better product, deprives Company B of the revenue that went into the development of Product B!

This is where Intellectual Property leads.

See what the future could hold, and do whatever you can to avoid it!!! Please!

There are two possible ways the future can go: good or bad.

I prefer to be an optimist. The future might NOT turn out well, but I prefer to hope that it will, and at the same time to my best to make sure that it does.

The pessimist position is a very important one, too, because it can help us see how things might turn out if we DON'T fight the good fight.

I personally think that in the future, Intellectual Property will be a thing of the past, but if we don't work hard to make this happen, we could just as well go the other way.

RMS's The Right to Read is a WONDERFUL and chilling document that'll describe what the future will be life if the concept of Intellectual Property continues to grow out of control.

Read this, and don't let it happen!!!

There are two possible ways the future can go: good or bad.

I prefer to be an optimist. The future might NOT turn out well, but I prefer to hope that it will, and at the same time to my best to make sure that it does.

The pessimist position is a very important one, too, because it can help us see how things might turn out if we DON'T fight the good fight.

I personally think that in the future, Intellectual Property will be a thing of the past, but if we don't work hard to make this happen, we could just as well go the other way.

RMS's The Right to Read is a WONDERFUL and chilling document that'll describe what the future will be life if the concept of Intellectual Property continues to grow out of control.

Read this, and don't let it happen!!!

While I applaud the government in catching this group and meting out something approaching justice in this case, I cringe every time I see the DMCA mis-applied to squelch criticism or competition.

Perhaps when we can get those making the laws to begin a sane discourse about the future of copyright, people's opinions won't seem quite so stigmatized in this area... Is it wrong to share a copy of your favorite game with your best friend? Probably not (at least it didn't used to be illegal and you'd be able to do it with a book). Is it wrong to share a copy of your favorite game with 10,000 of your closest friends? Absolutely.

Copyright has been chosen by the current establishment. But it is optional. The more IP infringes on important things (like free speech) the more likely it is to be thrown out by the next generation. I am a voting member of the population, and I currently wonder if a reasonable set of IP laws can ever be reached. If not, I'd much prefer no IP over the alternative.

I write software because I love to. If you compete with me using dirty tricks instead of technical merit you devalue not only what I do for 10-20 hours a week. You devalue the usefulness of computers everywhere.

I say breach of license.
Given that this is a commercial distribution, Lindows has two choices (quoting directly from the GPL text):

• Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
• Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, [non-commercial binary distribution]

He can put the source code on his web site, and put the URL on the CD

But this does not seem to me to be a terrible GPL violation. I think Lindows.com could very well make the argument that their site is a "a medium customarily used for software interchange" as stated in section 3b of the GPL, and that they are therefore GPL-compliant.

He can put the source code on his web site, and put the URL on the CD

But this does not seem to me to be a terrible GPL violation. I think Lindows.com could very well make the argument that their site is a "a medium customarily used for software interchange" as stated in section 3b of the GPL, and that they are therefore GPL-compliant.

That makes no sense at all. How could Lindows be held responsible for what other people distribute?

No, Lindows distributes. Under a public license (the "P" in "GPL", remember), meaning they grant rights to everyone, including the people who don't receive it directly from them, but through others. Or who didn't receive it at all and just want to get the source code that the GPL grants them rights to. Section 3b of the GPL is pretty clear about it: any third party can order the source from them, for at most the cost of distribution.

If those people redistribute the binary then they have to make the source available - not people further up the chain.

It depends.

1) If you gave them the source when you gave them the binaries, they have to make the source available, if they distribute it further.

2) If you do not give them the source along with the binaries, but a note explaining how you guarantee that they can retrieve the source from you, your note has to be valid for all third parties, too.

3) If you only received a note according to 2) and you do a non-commercial distribution, you may pass along the note in order to comply (this, btw, requires the note to be valid for third parties).

For completeness, here are the relevant GPL excerpts:

regarding 1) above:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program [...] in [...] executable form [...] provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, [...]

regarding 2) above:
3. b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, [...]

regarding 3) above:
3. c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Those who have received from Lindows.com the binaries for any GPL'd software can also find the source code available for download in their my.lindows.com account.

Take the GPL Quiz. Lindows is required to distribute the source to anyone who has received the binaries and requests the source... not just "those who have received [binaries] from Linxows.com".

GNU already provides a compiler for Fortran77 - it's part of the gcc collection. There's also a drive to release a Fortran95 compiler.

Who call linux gnu/linux are gay.

Drop the guh-new-slash in linux.

Because gnu/ is for the turd

Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!

Heh.

...you get errata RPMS from updates.redhat.com and compile everything else from source making sure to put things under /usr/local (I do it by hand, although someone suggested using stow). To me that's the best of both worlds. YMMV.

One thing that I see that might change this is the simple fact that a large percentage of the media that is created and distributed is created and prepared for distribution on Macs. That might make a difference. Video is edited on Macs. Audio is mixed on Macs.

The United States and most European countries have already outlawed practice of medicine or law without a license from the government. They also regulate possession of some pharmaceutical or surgical tools. Then what happens if the United States government and the European Union government decide to outlaw practicing audiovisual engineering without a license? And what if professional audio and video tools are available only to licensed and bonded audiovisual engineers?

See also: "The Right to Read" by Richard M. Stallman

Yeah, after doing a little more research on the GNU Hurd page the slash is definitely used by GNU to describe Hurd. However, that slash is contradictory to their Linux FAQ. Here is an excerpt from the FAQ:

We're talking about a version of GNU, the operating system, distinguished by having Linux as the kernel. A slash fits the situation because it means "combination." (Think of "Input/Output".) This system is the combination of GNU and Linux; hence, "GNU/Linux".

The last sentence states a combination between GNU and Linux. Well in this case Hurd is a GNU package and the combination is not necessary. In addition, if we follow the FAQ it also states:

Following the rules of English, in the construction "GNU Linux" the word "GNU" modifies "Linux". This can mean either "GNU's version of Linux" or "Linux, which is a GNU package." Neither of those meanings fits the situation at hand.

Which clearly indicates that the GNU Hurd is the only correct way to state the kernel's name.

It's not that I completely disagree with your points Michael. Common sense indicates the pattern is System/Kernel like you said. My beef is with GNU's ambiguity. I would also say there is some confusion on GNU's side because based on their actions they have not clearly articulated to us when to use the slash. Based on the evidence in the Linux FAQ the use of a slash on any GNU package is incorrect. However, the evidence on the Hurd page is contradictory... I dunno... and I don't think they do either.

JOhn

Yeah, after doing a little more research on the GNU Hurd page the slash is definitely used by GNU to describe Hurd. However, that slash is contradictory to their Linux FAQ. Here is an excerpt from the FAQ:

We're talking about a version of GNU, the operating system, distinguished by having Linux as the kernel. A slash fits the situation because it means "combination." (Think of "Input/Output".) This system is the combination of GNU and Linux; hence, "GNU/Linux".

The last sentence states a combination between GNU and Linux. Well in this case Hurd is a GNU package and the combination is not necessary. In addition, if we follow the FAQ it also states:

Following the rules of English, in the construction "GNU Linux" the word "GNU" modifies "Linux". This can mean either "GNU's version of Linux" or "Linux, which is a GNU package." Neither of those meanings fits the situation at hand.

Which clearly indicates that the GNU Hurd is the only correct way to state the kernel's name.

It's not that I completely disagree with your points Michael. Common sense indicates the pattern is System/Kernel like you said. My beef is with GNU's ambiguity. I would also say there is some confusion on GNU's side because based on their actions they have not clearly articulated to us when to use the slash. Based on the evidence in the Linux FAQ the use of a slash on any GNU package is incorrect. However, the evidence on the Hurd page is contradictory... I dunno... and I don't think they do either.

JOhn

I didn't know that it didn't

GNU

Linus is not for free software? Then why the hell did he release his code under the GPL?

I apologize, I wrote "free software", when I was thinking about "copylefted software", making an awful mistake, and starting a new thread of rants about how a nice guy Linus is, and how bad RMS's hair looks.

Linus does like free software, but he likes features more than freedom, and those are not the ideals of the FSF. So Linus is not a good spokesperson for the FSF ideals. So they need to speak for themselves. So they need to develop their own kernel, because people think that if you develop the kernel, you developed the OS, at least when we are talking about GNU/Linux. So it makes sense to develop the Hurd, in a non-technical way, and from the point of view of the FSF.

Linus is not for free software? Then why the hell did he release his code under the GPL?

I apologize, I wrote "free software", when I was thinking about "copylefted software", making an awful mistake, and starting a new thread of rants about how a nice guy Linus is, and how bad RMS's hair looks.

Linus does like free software, but he likes features more than freedom, and those are not the ideals of the FSF. So Linus is not a good spokesperson for the FSF ideals. So they need to speak for themselves. So they need to develop their own kernel, because people think that if you develop the kernel, you developed the OS, at least when we are talking about GNU/Linux. So it makes sense to develop the Hurd, in a non-technical way, and from the point of view of the FSF.

Seeing as how God wrote in LISP code, that is hardly surprising.

What I'd like to know is "are GNU going to have a burn the JPEGs day any time soon?"

...this seems to me to be a side-effect of the fact that Apple is new to open source and their legal team isn't fully comfortable with it yet.

It seems to me Apple fully understands the Open Source movement's message and did just what the Open Source movement asks of them. After all, the APSL is a license that movement finds agreeable. The FSF had it quite right when they said:

Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.

Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.

and the example the FSF gives in "Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''" is apropos. In this essay the FSF is talking about a software executive's discussion at a trade show in 1998 where the executive said they would consider making their program "internal Open Source" meaning the users are dependant on the support staff who can modify the source code. This example is apropos because it highlights what people don't seem to get about the Open Source movement. It concludes:

He [the executive] did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.

So the salient question about the APSL for those not already subject to its terms is: is the APSL good enough for the users? Looking at the size of participation in APSL-covered programs to date, I think the community's answer remains "no".

Hopefully as Apple's open source activity becomes more mature, they will remove some of the protections that aren't really necessary and that might scare people away from the code.

I disagree with the word "protections" because I don't think any harm comes to software by sharing and modifying it. I also think Apple has had quite some time to consider it by now and if they choose to further pursue making the APSL a Free Software license they will do so because the community wants the freedoms of Free Software. Persistant pressure for freedom is the reason why Apple has come this far.

Apple is new to open source and is obviously still experimenting with their license. If Apple looked like it was going to stick to all these terms, I would be much more concerned.

These are the terms APSL software are being released under as we speak. These are the terms Apple will be defend in court to those that Apple sees as violators. The "experiment" going on is Apple figuring how much they can get from the community without having to participate as equals in a commons. Fortunately for the community so far most developers largely reject their experiment.

Even now I feel that no non-profit group nor any individual would ever fall prey to these clauses; as another poster said, these restrictions are all aimed directly at Microsoft...

There is no language in the APSL to restrict action to employees of Microsoft, therefore there is no good reason to believe Apple will not sue you over prolonged violation. I think it's incredibly unwise to think Apple is acting in your best interests when they have made their terms so clear.

The reason few have "fall[en] prey" to the APSL thus far is because of the widely disseminated freedom-minded concerns of the Free Software movement which point out serious flaws in the APSL.

...this seems to me to be a side-effect of the fact that Apple is new to open source and their legal team isn't fully comfortable with it yet.

It seems to me Apple fully understands the Open Source movement's message and did just what the Open Source movement asks of them. After all, the APSL is a license that movement finds agreeable. The FSF had it quite right when they said:

Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.

Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.

and the example the FSF gives in "Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''" is apropos. In this essay the FSF is talking about a software executive's discussion at a trade show in 1998 where the executive said they would consider making their program "internal Open Source" meaning the users are dependant on the support staff who can modify the source code. This example is apropos because it highlights what people don't seem to get about the Open Source movement. It concludes:

He [the executive] did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.

So the salient question about the APSL for those not already subject to its terms is: is the APSL good enough for the users? Looking at the size of participation in APSL-covered programs to date, I think the community's answer remains "no".

Hopefully as Apple's open source activity becomes more mature, they will remove some of the protections that aren't really necessary and that might scare people away from the code.

I disagree with the word "protections" because I don't think any harm comes to software by sharing and modifying it. I also think Apple has had quite some time to consider it by now and if they choose to further pursue making the APSL a Free Software license they will do so because the community wants the freedoms of Free Software. Persistant pressure for freedom is the reason why Apple has come this far.

Apple is new to open source and is obviously still experimenting with their license. If Apple looked like it was going to stick to all these terms, I would be much more concerned.

These are the terms APSL software are being released under as we speak. These are the terms Apple will be defend in court to those that Apple sees as violators. The "experiment" going on is Apple figuring how much they can get from the community without having to participate as equals in a commons. Fortunately for the community so far most developers largely reject their experiment.

Even now I feel that no non-profit group nor any individual would ever fall prey to these clauses; as another poster said, these restrictions are all aimed directly at Microsoft...

There is no language in the APSL to restrict action to employees of Microsoft, therefore there is no good reason to believe Apple will not sue you over prolonged violation. I think it's incredibly unwise to think Apple is acting in your best interests when they have made their terms so clear.

The reason few have "fall[en] prey" to the APSL thus far is because of the widely disseminated freedom-minded concerns of the Free Software movement which point out serious flaws in the APSL.

Chances are, they would recover most of that data anyway. If you really want your data wiped out, use shred

In 2001 he shared the Takeda award, with Linus Torvalds, and Ken Sakamura. Stallman's share was worth approximately $268,000.

It says here that Stallman also received the Grace Hopper award from the ACM, in 1991. In 1998 he shared the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer award with Linus Torvalds. And in 1999 he received the Yuri Rubinski Award. I don't know if these awards have any cash component.

Even though he is not a polished presence, he may be able to supplement his savings with speaker's fees. Google tells me he was chosen for the "EECS CITRIS distinguished series", next month. I wonder whether it offers more than a token honorarium?

Hi.

Let's put this silly game at an end. Fact checkers can find the definition of HURD here. HURD is an acronym for `Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons', and `Hird' stands for `Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth'. While these may be the first self-referencing acronyms, they inherit from their base class of Acronym, and therefore have the property of being capitalized.

Please mark this troll as such so we can be underway.

Cheers,
Gnu/Wolfgang

The main purported advantage to microkernels are stability and flexibility, along with all the other good stuff that comes from modularity of course. A microkernel can run different personalities which present what we generally think of as a kernel interface to the outside, as user processors. So for instance the same box, the same microkernel, could be running a Windows personality for one user, a Mac for another, *nix for a third, all with effective root priveliges if need be, but without actually being able to do any damage outside their virtual sandbox... from a developers standpoint it's an incredible potential, I really can't do it justice but you should read this.

The potential here has never been exploited, unfortunately. Every existing microkernel AFAIK has wound up ditching the microkernel design at some point down the road, aiming to produce a particular personality (whether win32, the near-BSD personality of Darwin, etc.) and integrating key features of that personality into kernel space for performance reasons, essentially nullifying the whole microkernel idea. The HURD is the exception, and yes it's been a long time making, and it's still not ready yet, but if it ever does hit primetime it will be a very interesting system.

As to the performance hits, you're right that they are there, however there is a long history of some very smart people working on that problem, and it's gotten a LOT better. I think the current performance winner among microkernels is L4 and you can run a Linux personality on it without seeing a noticeable performance loss over running real Linux on the same processor - that's some very nice optimisation. There has been talk of porting the HURD to run on L4 instead of GNU Mach at some point, I think actually some people working on the problem areas, but for the moment there is no need - HURD is still very much in the developers only phase, it's not for production systems yet so performance isn't critical.

Since Hurd is a GNU package then it should not be GNU/Hurd. Instead we should use GNU Hurd. Since Linux is not a GNU package then it is referred to as GNU/Linux. For more details see the FAQ.

JOhn

does the GNU/HURD icon bear a startling resemblance to South Park's Mr. Hanky?

It might, but that's not even close to what was intended. It's a baby GNU. Slashdot uses the "GNU" topic mostly for HURD stories and for GPL violation stories.