Slashdot Mirror

https://www.linuxfoundation.or...

Red hat is in fact second to Intel in the Top Business which contribute to Linux dev... Dev that aren't paid for their contribution by any entities are #3 in the same list. Linux need those businesses that provide paid and professionnal devs. Source : https://www.linuxfoundation.or...

Linus might not have a boss as such, but IIRC, he gets a million bucks plus change every year from "the Linux Foundation", feel free to peruse their list of members.

Have its developers adopted the Code of Conduct?

Because if not, SEXISM!!!!!

Intel is a Platinum Member of the Linux Foundation - which, btw, doesn't just sponsor the Linux kernel, but a bunch of projects, similarly to the Apache Foundation. Does this satisfy?

Intel is a Platinum Member of the Linux Foundation - which, btw, doesn't just sponsor the Linux kernel, but a bunch of projects, similarly to the Apache Foundation. Does this satisfy?

Microsoft is a Platinum member of the Linux Foundation.

I'll just leave this here...
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/

You don't need to.
In his blog post, Jim Zemlin, writes "Microsoft has become a top contributor to Linux and Kubernetes, [...], and they are backers of The Linux Foundation, [...]" (emphasis mine)

https://www.linuxfoundation.or...

As soon as I saw the headline here on Slashdot, I googled "delete github account" and I have just completed the process of downloading my meager repos and nuking it.

I do not wish to be part of any club which would have Microsoft as a member, let alone one run by Microsoft.

You might want to stay away from Linux then.
Linux Foundation - Corporate Members

I think they talk of ground segment systems.
Btw. the biggest actual man-made satellite runs on Linux :
https://training.linuxfoundati...

...or not:

* https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/the-2-6-32-linux-kernel/
* http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/longterm-proposal-08-2011.html
* https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122375909403298

The 2.6.x series is still actively and heavily used in a commercial embedded router sector (ex. Asus, Netgear, Tenda, Linksys (now Foxxcon, was Cisco/Linksys), Huawei). Broadcom is still maintaining/updating wireless binary blob drivers for 2.6.22 and 2.6.36, both for MIPSr1/MIPSr2 and ARM/ARM7 archs.

We have too many bad standards as it is.
The Linux Standard Base requires a bunch of useless crap that is applicable to only 1 overly controlling vendor (Debian distros need `rpm` to comply because Redhat) There are plenty more examples: https://refspecs.linuxfoundati...
On the opposite side, you have POSIX, which is held back by another big industry vendor (this time Oracle because Solaris) Most shells have support for a large percentage of "bashisms", yet no useful sh features have been added to the standard.
Then you have pseudo standards that are woefully un-maintained at https://www.freedesktop.org/wi... which by their own admission isn't a standards body. Half the links are either 404 or completely dead URLs

Linux is mainly developed by people working with/for large corporations like Intel, Red Hat and IBM, amongst others. [1] Linux is a product of capitalism.

[1] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/2017-linux-kernel-report-landing-page/

One of my fondest memories is of the Golden Age of GNU/Linux. This was the period between 1999 to 2005, when GNU/Linux had matured enough to be an extraordinarily powerful OS, but at the same time it was still mainly community-driven.

This was a time when the users steered the direction of GNU/Linux, either by discussing how the software should evolve, or even by making the changes themselves. The focus was on usability, and not fad-chasing. Stupid changes were soundly rejected, causing GNU/Linux to just work.

Today, of course, things are very different. Linux is now mainly developed by corporations. And this shows! Users and their needs have become a secondary concern. Unwanted software like systemd, PulseAudio, GNOME 3, and Wayland have been forced on unwilling GNU/Linux users, ruining the Linux experience for these users. The most popular Linux variant, Android, is essentially a proprietary OS with the Linux kernel deeply buried underneath.

Back in the early 2000s, the future for GNU/Linux was looking so bright! It was seeing greater adoption. Its hardware support was becoming the best around. And then it all went to hell so quickly. What was once the most productive, capable and robust OS was reduced to a joke.

Some of us former GNU/Linux users went to FreeBSD. Some of us went to macOS. Some of us even went to Windows. But we will never forget what GNU/Linux used to be. We'll never forget what GNU/Linux could have been.

More precisely Renesas results from the merge of Hitatchi and Mitsubishi, and afterwards NEC. They sells MCUs from the 3 (think SH for exemple).

It's a good company to work in, people are very dedicated. For exemple, they contribute a lot to the kernel, see https://www.linuxfoundation.or....

Funnily, Renesas acquired Nokia Mobile R&D. The objective was to become a major contender to Qualcomm. Then after failure they sold this business to ... Broadcom.

The Linux Foundation has their own internal events division, and they produce both their own events as well as are contracted to produce some events for other organizations: http://events.linuxfoundation.... Obviously, the hotel physically provided the projectors, screens, etc., but it's the LF events team doing all the rest. The LF normally provides a .PPT slide template deck for speakers, although it's not required.

>To be honest, Linux Foundation was always just some-off, not-affecting-me group anyway. I never quite get what they do, or where the money comes from or goes to.

What, are you too lazy to type out a URL? Here, let help you.
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/

Hint: It's an industry trade group dedicated to promoting Linux-based technologies in commercial enterprises.

You're delusional.

the Open Source dev model rules the day

I know this is Slashdot, but read the goddamn article the summary links to! It states very clearly that "13,500 developers from more than 1,300 companies have contributed to the Linux kernel", and that the "Top 10 organizations sponsoring Linux kernel development ... include Intel, Red Hat, Linaro, Samsung, SUSE, IBM, Renesas, Google, AMD, Texas Instruments and ARM", and that the "number of unpaid developers continues its slow decline".

Linux isn't community-driven any longer, and hasn't been for a long time. It's corporate-driven. That's why we get crap like systemd, GNOME 3 and Wayland forced on us, despite being despised by the community at large.

A bunch of companies working together on a project is typically called a "consortium". Linux isn't an open source project in any meaningful sense. It's a commercial, corporate-controlled consortium project.

I am satisfied that we have achieved "The day of Linux on the desk\laptop."

This claim is nonsensical. Not even a year ago Slashdot had a story about how Linux was only just above 2% of the worldwide desktop market. That makes Linux pretty much irrelevant in that sector.

This is when you'll bring up Android. Well, Android is the worst example you could use! Yeah, the Linux kernel is there, but it's buried so deeply that many Android app developers don't know it's there, and nearly all Android users have no clue at all that it's there. Even more significant is how Android has basically thrown out all of the GNU and other open source userland software that we typically find in a Linux distro, and has replaced it with custom or proprietary alternatives. In fact, Google could probably swap out the Linux kernel for the FreeBSD kernel or some other kernel, and Android developers and especially users would have no idea it had happened!

Chrombooks and ChomeOS isn't really different from Android. The Linux kernel might be present, but it's very deeply hidden. As far as users and developers are concerned, it might as well not even be there.

Getting desperate, this is when you'll start talking about low-end consumer routers. Again, this is pretty unremarkable usage. They could be replaced with FreeBSD or OpenBSD or any number of other OSes, and nobody would even know. Meanwhile, we see serious high-end networking gear not using Linux.

It's the same for servers. There's nothing special about Linux. In fact, many sysadmins, developers and systems architects are finally realizing that it's advantageous to not use Linux, especially now that so many Linux distros include systemd. FreeBSD is often a better alternative when performance is necessary, and OpenBSD is a better alternative when security is necessary.

Nearly all usages of Linux today are in name only.

Overall, your analysis of Linux's usage is laughable. It's like you're trying your hardest to totally ignore reality!

Creative Commons? Free Software? Never heard of them? Small wonder this happens with people like you wallowing in the inevitability of being a slave to corporate computing. There are genuinely things you can do *NOW*:

Support creative commons works instead of Hollywood trash.
Support the FSF
Contribute to the Linux Foundation Support Open Education and OpenCourseWare.

All I ever see here is whining about, and then ultimately pandering to, Hollywood, code.org, Microsoft, etc. For all the comments on stories about Windows it seems a great many of you enjoy being Microsoft's whipping boy by using and supporting Windows (even after Microsoft's many many indiscretions, if they really bother you then stop using it, otherwise STFU) and a lack of support for CC material while you're a slave to Hollywood garbage proves that it's enough for you to complain about it as a means to justify you then rolling over and taking whatever they shove in you.

"Big, nosy, control-freak corporate entities" like Oracle, Cisco, Samsung, Huawei, IBM, Intel, Facebook, Lenovo or ZTE? (take a look: https://www.linuxfoundation.or...)

Pretty much.

Note that the Linux Foundation has no real clout. It's a corporation that exists mostly outside the Linux community, and serves its own interests.
Look at their who's who, and tell me how many of these are well known and/or highly respected Linux personalities:
https://www.linuxfoundation.or...

Some of them I suspect don't even use Linux...

'There's simply no other event in Europe where developers, sys admins, architects and all levels of technical talent gather together under one roof for education, collaboration and problem-solving to further the Linux platform.' link

'There's simply no other event in Europe where developers, sys admins, architects and all levels of technical talent gather together under one roof for education, collaboration and problem-solving to further the Linux platform.' link

*Yawn*

It already exists.

http://ltsi.linuxfoundation.org/

It is explicitly a long term release, that bases itself on Greg K-H's LTS kernel trees, targeted at the consumer electronics industry, with the further goal of collecting industry patches/changes/imporvements/RFEs and feeding them back into the upstream kernel development process.

Not really.
See GKH's rant on this.

Basically, you get major asshole points if you don't adhere to it, and you get the cooperation of free (volunteer), skilled programmers if you do - it's a matter of incentivisation.

Although advocating this makes the GPL feel like more of a handshake agreement than a binding legal contract, making it a license gives the "hippy" programmers (who want to push "foreign" and "3rd party" code into the product) some backup and bargaining power when standing up to management.

you just do what they say as if they were your employer paying you

Considering that most of the kernel development these days (93% of commits, averaged annually, I believe, or a conservative estimate of 80% from the Linux Foundation) is done at the instruction of the employer that is paying the developers, and that company is aware of the rules for getting code upstreamed, then, by proxy, Linux and co. ARE their employer, in a way, since said employee is being paid to write code and do so to the specifications that Linux and co. lay out.

Averages really don't work for that kind of project. My contribution to the Linux kernel: I found a bug and it was an easy fix, so I submitted a patch. I changed 8 lines of code in a driver. Haven't contributed before, and haven't since. If your name and email address shows up in the kernel change log, you may get an email from Greg asking in what capacity your contribution was made. The data is compiled into reports that give more details than the article. For example, about one third of the contributors, like me, only ever submit one patch. If you just average that with the regulars, you'll get a very skewed image of kernel developers.

"Relax... Linux is both a floor wax AND a dessert topping!"

Some people would argue that the kernel is the operating system. Personally I think any Linux distro can rightly be called "Linux" for short.

Of course, we can defer to the Linux Foundation:

What is Linux? Linux is, in simplest terms, an operating system.

While I generally like the idea of new people coming up with new projects and hacking away, the linked documentation reads like flamebait and doesn't have much in the way of substance. Some of their contentions are rather strange. For example,

There are numerous other OS's, kernels, whatever that lack for contributors, and are in desperate need of more coders. Many times, this is for a good reason. Failures in management, a lack of money, inspiration, or innovation, or a limited set of applications have all caused projects to dwindle and eventually fail. ...
Take Linux for example:

Ok, let me stop you there. Linux is not a perfect project by any means, but you can hardly say that it is mismanaged, uninspired, or lacking in innovation or money. It had 4000 contributors over about a 1 year period, and 12,000 over a 10 year period. It runs on everything from embedded systems to big iron mainframes and balances the often conflicting needs pretty well, in my opinion. Of all the things you can say about Linux, it does not lack in number of contributors or vitality of the project.

Legacy until infinity: Old syscalls stay around forever, drivers for long-unbuyable hardware stay in the kernel as a mandatory part.

Uh, yes. Because, shocking I know, quite a bit of hardware out there still depends on that code. And anyway, as long as somebody is there to maintain it, who cares if it is old. Admittedly, there is some cruft in the kernel. It's an old project, so I think it is natural to expect that. But at the same time there are people working on it and trying to keep the codebase modern.

While they can be disabled, running them in kernel space is essentially unnecessary, and is, by far, the biggest source of system crashes, security issues, and unexpected bugs.

I'll need a citation for that one. I won't dispute that old code has occasionally caused bugs and crashes, but the statement is hyperbole. The majority of crashes on Linux distributions have nothing to do with the kernel at all. Of the ones that do, it usually has something to do with the binary blobs used to run graphical hardware, which is certainly not old code.

Huge codebase: To contribute, you must find a place to fit in to nearly 25 million lines of code, in just the kernel. This is due to Linux's monolithic architecture.

Hurray, this useless debate continues. I'll tell you what. Show me a working performant microkernel (no, XNU is not a microkernel) and I'll concede you have a point. Until then, it is just useless chatter. As to their point, just because the kernel architecture is monolithic doesn't mean the codebase isn't organized. One can in fact easily work on something like a filesystem without touching the network code, for example. Linux has had separate subsystems maintainers since at least 2003.

Restrictive license: Linux is licensed under GPL2. More on this in Why MIT?.

Non-sequitur to say the least. While commonly debated on Slashdot, really doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion.

Lack of memory safety: Linux has had numerous issues with memory safety throughout time. C is a fine language, but for such a security critical system, C doesn't fit.

This is really the only interesting thing they have said, but not a lot of detail on what they mean other than that they think the whole kernel should be reimplemented in Rust. Well, let's see how that goes. Check back in what, 5 years?

Compared to BSD, Linux is completely frontal-lobe-missing, in every imaginable way. The code base is one big, ugly hack, and the design is bad

The project also announced a great internship program, helping pair students with mentors with deep mainframe experience to help build the open source platform.

https://wiki.linuxfoundation.o...

Heh... Normally, I'd let ya be but I actually decided to scroll back up here to fuck with you.

See, I read some more of your posts and you're drooling on yourself in public. You rant and rave about corporations. You rant and rave about open source. Well, son... Today is the day you either learn to be humble or you decide to go off in a fit of rage.

Allow me to post a link...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Allow me to quote from that link:

The Free Software Foundation was founded in 1985 as a non-profit corporation supporting free software development.

Emphasis added, emphasis mine.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org...

Heh, there's the corporate charter. Let me get you the salient text...

(an Oregon nonprofit mutual benefit corporation)

Emphasis added, emphasis mine.

Shall I find the articles of incorporation for the folks behind BSD?

'Snot that I'm gonna disagree that Android is Open Source in many, many ways. (See prior posts in this very thread.) It's that your spouted spittle flecked gibberish is a bit silly when the very things you sit there and claim to stand for and appeal for are the same things you claim to hate. I'm afraid that trying to have them both makes you look a bit silly. If you want to know what a corporation is, you need but ask and I'll take the time out of my schedule to explain it to you.

If you don't know the meaning of words, you probably ought not use them in front of people until after you've looked them up. Corporations are not bad things. Corporations are just things. Are you using software or a computer to read this? You're a corporate apologist! Your posts, supporting open source? That's you - being a corporate apologist.

When you say, it's not open source "in spirit" that's just you picking one corporation over another. Yeah, that's a good corporate apologist. I hope you enjoy the taste of leather while you're down there kissing that corporate boot that is the FSF! Bend over and take it for the Linux Foundation - you corporate apologist!

Yeah... Kind of sorry but I couldn't just let that slide. It's okay, we've all posted drunk and stupid on Slashdot. You corporate apologist! ;-)

"A trademark should not be used as part of your product name."

It would help if you quoted the appropriate trademark, which isn't any of the items listed on that page, it's this:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark/sublicense-agreement

And makes absolutely no mention of "not modifying the Linux source code" which would be a ridiculous requirement.

If you make a derivative work for your own private/personal use, there's no problem. If you distribute an unmodified copy (no alterations), that's also OK. But when you make a derivative work and and distribute the result (such as selling a modified version of pfSense pre-installed on hardware) at that point it's, a new product.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org...
"A trademark should not be used as part of your product name."

https://www.freebsdfoundation....
"3. If we grant you permission to use the Marks, your use of the Marks must always be fully and clearly reproduced, and you may not incorporate any of our Marks into the trademarks, service mark, logos, name of your business, project, organization, or username, unless you have the express prior written permission of the Foundation."

The pfSense CLA and such closely mirror that of the Apache product. Here is what they say on http://www.apache.org/foundati...
"This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file."

The confusing part is that people seem to mix up distributing an unmodified copy (which is OK to put on hardware for sale, so long as the mark is respected) with distributing a modified copy, which they may not realize is now a derivative work and thus violates the trademark. People interpret that as being told they can't sell the software, but what they can't do is sell their own derivative work and call it by someone else's trademark. (See above example, re: Coke)

Wait, so the Linux foundation is now entirely corporate dominated? How the hell is that even possible?

It always was. The Linux Foundation used to be called OSDL. They give Linus a paycheck. You can see the member list here.

By design they don't make any decisions about the Linux kernel: they just got together to fund it.

The Linux Foundation is the group that pays Linus' paycheck (used to be called OSDL). It's funded by IBM, Samsung, Intel, Oracle, Qualcomm, and others. They support other kernel related projects (like Xen Hypervisor and LSB).

Karen Sandler is best known around here for leading Gnome when Gnome started their women/underrepresented outreach program. She is now at the Software Freedom Conservancy (which supports Inkscape, Wine, BusyBox, Samba and others), and she brought her outreach program with her (it's now a part of the SFC).

It is unclear whether the move by the Linux Foundation has anything to do with Karen. The article doesn't clarify, and since there were only six affiliate members who lost representation, hardly anyone is affected by this change.

Please show me an example of competition in the cloud with a Windows OS?

Sure. Here's a good reference from the Linux Foundation showing the continuing improvement of Linux's foothold in the context of cloud applications. 75% Linux (all flavors), 23% Windows (all flavors), etc.

but considering that the 75% figure is made of all Linux distributions, the breakdown is likely split between CentOS, Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, et cetera. Everyone's in the double-digits. I'd call that comparable, potentially "even," and I'd certainly call that greater than your "zero presence" figure.

I'd attack your character much the way you attacked mine with "What century are you in?", but it's easier to just use facts.

This is relevant to your interests: http://events.linuxfoundation.... - Open-channel SSD support to Linux.

While I'm happy that Skylake not only works in Linux but shows some very impressive performance gains over Haswell, this isn't really a news story.

It would be a news story if a widely distributed CPU designed by a company that is [pretty surprisingly] the #1 organizational contributor to the Linux Kernel wouldn't work with Linux.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org...

Jails are faster and more secure if you look at their track record.

Um, you have any numbers to back that up? Because back when I did a survey of reported bugs that you could escalate privilege with a year ago, comparing Xen, KVM, and the Linux Kernel syscall interface, hypervisors came up more secure hands-down: within 2 months there had been 6 trivially exploitable vulnerabilities in commonly-used Linux system calls (ptrace, aio, &c). In KVM there were 4 in an entire year; in Xen there had only been 2 -- and those were only if you had really unusual hardware setups (like >5TiB of RAM).

If the goal of systemd creators is to slowly move users back to Windows, these are all capabilities that need to be eliminated. So UNIX/Linux users can't use them as reasons not to move.

Yes it's all a big conspiracy! Red Hat isn't actually a supporter of Linux, despite being one of the top contributors to the Linux kernel and creating and supporting client and server distributions of Linux systems from which most of their revenue is derived they are actually trying to destroy Linux and drive people to Windows so they can kill their own business and profitability!

The Linux Foundation has already given funding to a few open source projects it considers "core" (which includes the original NTP project) and has been trying to assess which other core products are most at risk. From looking at the members page, at least two of the companies you mentioned (Google, Facebook) are part of the Linux Foundation so the giving back has at least started...

I guess if MS can do it, IBM can too.

Except this is probably IBM locking out their own operating systems, i.e. they're not "machines that can't run anything other than Linux", they're "machines that can't run z/OS or z/VSE", which IBM has already had for a while. Given that I don't think anybody's has completed a port of any other open-source OSes to z/Architecture, that may amount to "machines that can't run anything other than Linux", but, unless there are bits of z/Architecture Linux that are binary-only and that support undocumented parts of the system (which I think there might be), that's not inherent to those systems.

(This is more like Apple releasing a Mac that doesn't have the right magic to have OS X willing to boot on it; it could still run Linux or Windows or....)

I also noticed the TechCrunch article has a link to the announcement: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2015/08/linux-foundation-brings-together-industry-heavyweights-advance which produces "Access Denied"!!

Works for me....

So I shortened it: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2015/08/ And that page shows no such announcement.

It does now, at the top.

I guess if MS can do it, IBM can too.

Except this is probably IBM locking out their own operating systems, i.e. they're not "machines that can't run anything other than Linux", they're "machines that can't run z/OS or z/VSE", which IBM has already had for a while. Given that I don't think anybody's has completed a port of any other open-source OSes to z/Architecture, that may amount to "machines that can't run anything other than Linux", but, unless there are bits of z/Architecture Linux that are binary-only and that support undocumented parts of the system (which I think there might be), that's not inherent to those systems.

(This is more like Apple releasing a Mac that doesn't have the right magic to have OS X willing to boot on it; it could still run Linux or Windows or....)

I also noticed the TechCrunch article has a link to the announcement: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2015/08/linux-foundation-brings-together-industry-heavyweights-advance which produces "Access Denied"!!

Works for me....

So I shortened it: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2015/08/ And that page shows no such announcement.

It does now, at the top.

it also solves the problem with fossilized development of subsystems like init and logging,

Not a problem, and also not actually a thing. Several competing init systems which didn't bring baggage with them already existed, but Lennart is a real NIH kind of guy so he didn't start with one of those. Stable init and log daemons are features, not bugs.

Yes, it is a "thing". The problem with the fossilization of the Linux plumbing layer meant that crucial progress was being held back. All the init-systems in use at the time where just "slightly improved SysVinit" style init-systems. They all relied on executable config scripts to manage daemons, and none of them tried to step up an take proper responsibility for the boot and init process.
Upstart was a nice pioneering effort, but not a good solution as it were. But there are still other problems; crond fx. Why can't it handle hibernation properly? Probably because it was made when Unix servers where hand grafted out of shell scripts an always on. But there is no "cron" upstream developer group that takes RFE's, and no coordination between the many fragmented crond forks and userland developers, making all new development practically impossible. It would have been freaking nice if crond could have been dragged into the modern world 10-15 years ago, but as of now, we have to use crond+at+whatever instead.

systemd, as init and process manager, actually takes on the coordination responsibility that lacked previously. It is way cool how "namespace" isolation and kernel Capabilities(7) are integrated

You do realize that cgroups is a thing you diddle with very small commandline programs, right?

You are probably thinking of the old cgroups interface, but that is being deprecated in the near future in favor of the "single writer"/"unified hierarchy" that requires a writer that abstract away the kernel cgroup API so userland doesn't use it directly.
http://www.linuxfoundation.org...

The point is that system already comes with such an abstraction layer for capabilities, namespaces and cgroups, making it trivially easy for the admin to harness their power without coding, by simply setting the value "ProtectSystem=true" in the service file, or using similar features (see man systemd.exec). Better yet, distro maintainers can lock down the daemon per default, giving "out-of-the-box" security.

There is nothing else that even comes close to the power of systemd when it comes to such security integration. The systemd security framework for these kernel technologies are not only easy for humans to read and understand, but it is machine parsable and scalable too.

To my knowledge nobody in the non-systemd camp is even working on similar ideas, or even on an alternative cgroups single writer implementation.

  Not tying it to a specific log daemon is the really important part, though!

Which is _exactly_ what journald _doesn't_! You can use it together with any "syslog(3)" daemon. So if you have a legacy setup, you can use with journald and it will even enhance it by providing logging info syslog normally can't get.

1) This is my definition is the context of this discussion. If you don't like it we can agree to name it differently. This will not change the reality that the procedure you mentioned did not use the usual infrastructure found on distribution to setup a static IP address.

2) Fine that we agree on this. But system V init in a C code that do exec(). The fact that it's usually a script is not required by system V init. But the main problem is not really script vs binary, the main problem is precisely the lack of normalization because anything on top of the bare minimal original system V init code is distribution specific.

3) The fact is that on most leading modern Linux distribution, this is not a script that call a command that setup the IP address of a network interface, because there use the NetworkManager package. Again you might not like it, but this will not change this reality. If you think that I don't understand your point, please try a least to repeat it. Actually you only deny some point.

4) Certainly not the system administrator according to http://training.linuxfoundatio... . I don't see the point calling a user system administrator regarding network operation when there simply let the dhcp client automatically configure an interface. Nor in the case where there select a SSID and enter a key. Nor when there use the NetworkManager GUI to select the Manual method on the IPv4 tab of an interface. In all those examples there is no scripts and no command involved.

5) It's perfectly possible to manage a very large number network situations with NetworkManager GUI without using any shell, script, or command. This is the primary interface for most of the users, including myself, even after working for years in a company that build routers. As a side note, this kind of GUI was all the customers constantly asked for, liked and used. Only the engineer and support used command to verify the state of the system. In the embedded systems I build today, the customer ask to configure the network from a web UI that push the configuration on a SQL database on the target, to illustrate how far is you idea of script and command.

6) Agree on the fact that scripts cover a more generic knowledge. Sadly this is not so useful on a system that use less and less scripts. I understand that you regret this evolution, but as the complexity of the system increase, scripts that are different in each distributions have reach a limit for many maintainers. Thing could have been different if the original system V init package would have normalized the script stack early. There failed to do that, now the time is probably over for them as systemd not only normalize the situation across the distributions but also bring a lot of new features on the table.

7) I wonder what's your work environment to be exposed to such 'shitstorm'. I have see time to time worker having to ask there superior to have the right to install a Linux system, but I never see the network administrator complaining.

8) All the last points is to show that your laugh are strange because all points can be independently verified true. There is no rhetorical nature in any of them, this is just a list of facts.

netem provides Network Emulation functionality for testing protocols by emulating the properties of wide area networks. The current version emulates variable delay, loss, duplication and re-ordering.

Nice work, Facebook. NIH assholes.

Linus himself merged it. To me it looks like standard HR CYA legal language, but at least it quotes Bill & Ted.

The Linux kernel development effort is a very personal process compared to "traditional" ways of developing software. Your code and ideas behind it will be carefully reviewed, often resulting in critique and criticism. The review will almost always require improvements to the code before it can be included in the kernel. Know that this happens because everyone involved wants to see the best possible solution for the overall success of Linux. This development process has been proven to create the most robust operating system kernel ever, and we do not want to do anything to cause the quality of submission and eventual result to ever decrease. If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable. If so, please contact the Linux Foundation's Technical Advisory Board at , or the individual members, and they will work to resolve the issue to the best of their ability. For more information on who is on the Technical Advisory Board and what their role is, please see: http://www.linuxfoundation.org... As a reviewer of code, please strive to keep things civil and focused on the technical issues involved. We are all humans, and frustrations can be high on both sides of the process. Try to keep in mind the immortal words of Bill and Ted, "Be excellent to each other."

i don't like linux http://angkorich.com/

The Linux kernel development effort is a very personal process compared to "traditional" ways of developing software. Your code and ideas behind it will be carefully reviewed, often resulting in critique and criticism. The review will almost always require improvements to the code before it can be included in the kernel. Know that this happens because everyone involved wants to see the best possible solution for the overall success of Linux. This development process has been proven to create the most robust operating system kernel ever, and we do not want to do anything to cause the quality of submission and eventual result to ever decrease.

If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable. If so, please contact the Linux Foundation's Technical Advisory Board at , or the individual members, and they will work to resolve the issue to the best of their ability. For more information on who is on the Technical Advisory Board and what their role is, please see: http://www.linuxfoundation.org...

As a reviewer of code, please strive to keep things civil and focused on the technical issues involved. We are all humans, and frustrations can be high on both sides of the process. Try to keep in mind the immortal words of Bill and Ted, "Be excellent to each other."

Wow there AC. You seem to have posted quite the copy & paste job there accusing Intel of all sorts of nefarious stuff.

We all know that Intel is obviously just a vast evil criminal conspiracy whose entire purpose is to destroy Linux, which is why Linus Torvalds bravely chose to only run Linux on ARM starting in 1974. This article is a lie: http://www.linuxfoundation.org...

So to whom do you give your fanboy allegiance that you use as an excuse to lie at will? AMD or somebody more creative? Have you considered kidnapping homeless people and harvesting their organs to raise money for Richard Stallman? We wouldn't want to be negative in the Freedom Dimension, now would we?