Slashdot Mirror

Did anyone notice this?:

snip
---
What I really want is a machine that unifies my communications at a high level. That pushes us back to something that's more like a small portable or wearable PC. These appliances tend to grow functions and grow extensions over time, and eventually they end up being full-fledged computers even if they don't look like them on the outside. The appliances in the future are going to be like very small, very lightweight, and very carryable PCs that just happen to have a simple interface wrapped around them. And yes, I think that Linux will dominate them.
---
snip

Posted by gbritton:

iso image and i386 subtree are here:
ftp://light-brigade.mit.edu/pub/redhat- 6.0/
http://light-brigade.mit.edu/redhat-6.0/

Posted by gbritton:

iso image and i386 subtree are here:
ftp://light-brigade.mit.edu/pub/redhat- 6.0/
http://light-brigade.mit.edu/redhat-6.0/

For "real" psychology regarding the psychological aspects of online environments, a worthwhile read is Sherry Turkle's paper, "Constructions and Reconstructions of the Self in Virtual Reality" ( http://web.mit.edu/sturkle/www/co nstructions.html). I suggest reading the entire thing before passing judgment, the paper seems much weaker than it is if you only glance over it. It basically discusses how online social environments (in particular, MUDs) can be used to help people deal with real-life problems through role-playing and enactment.

She has a bunch of other papers on similar topics (which I haven't read yet) at her homepage http://web.mit.edu/sturkle/www/ .

Definitely better than the "games are evil, the spawn of satan, they possess our children and make them do evil things" type crap that the mass-media latches onto.

This is a too idealistic view. The reality is that MPEG-2 for instance is patented to death ; they have a company dedicated to resolving patent issues, see www.mpegla.com; you have to pay even for distributing a MPEG2 video (not a coder or a decoder, just the video file itself)! MP3 encoders have also been indicted.

it's not as if there are any companies involved that could harvest money from patent infingements anyway.

They do harvest money from licensees (see mpegla site) ; I don't think they sue that often, but sending an official letter with "You're infriging on our patent #USJunkPatent, please do stop distributing your product or give us 1%" is very effective.

For an example, see the League for Programming Freedom page on Unisys/CompuServe GIF Controversy.

I won't be surprised at all if companies on the contrary tried to force standards to use their patented technology ; the MPEGLA example shows that there is an insidious incentive to accept the other's patented technology if the other accept one's patented technology: at the end, the standard is published, the patent owners happily cross-license (or make a patent-pool from which they get %), and the rest of the world is pissed.

• MIT Wearable Computing
• Wearables Central - good place to start; lots of related links.
  

• MIT Wearable Computing
• Wearables Central - good place to start; lots of related links.
  

Having worked in the field of 3d displays (computer generated holography at MIT), I can fill in some background on 3D display technology.

First here are some pointers:

http://www.media.mit.edu/~h alazar/autostereo/index.html (A basic 3d display description).

http://spi.www.media.mit.edu/groups/spi (research on different 3D displays at MIT)

Whenever you see a display that looks approximately like an LCD display, it's almost always based on what's called a parallax barrier (stripes that keep some pixel columns from being viewed from different directions), a lenticular lens sheet (a bunch of lenses that directs light in different directions) or holographic elements (HOEs, that do the same thing). Each is a variant on the same theme. By tracking the viewer, you can shift the "sweet spot" where the two views appear at a location an eye-span apart so the viewer sees 3D. This limits this type of display in almost all cases to one viewer only. If you can track in depth, you can also change perspective of the rendered views. The technology's been around a while (Ives in 1928 or so); the implementation details of the electronic versions (lens alignment, fragility, cost, rendering speed, tracking, blur) are the (very) hard details.

The "girating image" display that some people have referred to used what's called the "kinetic depth effect." Close one eye, move size to size quickly. The parallax gives you depth information. Put both views on one screen and look at it, and you get the same kind of information (only a much weaker effect, since you don't have a motor connection between your position and the view you're seeing).

The MURI display from MIT/Berkeley projects images into space using higher quality lenses. Same basic idea, but very different optical components and lens train. Definitely not the same people. The MIT electro-holographic display, by the way, is also a completely different technology (holographic, i.e., based on diffractive optical elements).

There are many other types of 3D displays. All use mostly the same principles. Most have been pedalled by charatans sometime in the past. Just like in computing: 1) if something seems like magic (or is sold that way), be skeptical, 2) if people won't tell you how it works, be skeptical, 3) if technology is being sold by calling it something it clearly isn't ("a colour hologram", where holographic displays are very different beasts), be skeptical.

Having worked in the field of 3d displays (computer generated holography at MIT), I can fill in some background on 3D display technology.

First here are some pointers:

http://www.media.mit.edu/~h alazar/autostereo/index.html (A basic 3d display description).

http://spi.www.media.mit.edu/groups/spi (research on different 3D displays at MIT)

Whenever you see a display that looks approximately like an LCD display, it's almost always based on what's called a parallax barrier (stripes that keep some pixel columns from being viewed from different directions), a lenticular lens sheet (a bunch of lenses that directs light in different directions) or holographic elements (HOEs, that do the same thing). Each is a variant on the same theme. By tracking the viewer, you can shift the "sweet spot" where the two views appear at a location an eye-span apart so the viewer sees 3D. This limits this type of display in almost all cases to one viewer only. If you can track in depth, you can also change perspective of the rendered views. The technology's been around a while (Ives in 1928 or so); the implementation details of the electronic versions (lens alignment, fragility, cost, rendering speed, tracking, blur) are the (very) hard details.

The "girating image" display that some people have referred to used what's called the "kinetic depth effect." Close one eye, move size to size quickly. The parallax gives you depth information. Put both views on one screen and look at it, and you get the same kind of information (only a much weaker effect, since you don't have a motor connection between your position and the view you're seeing).

The MURI display from MIT/Berkeley projects images into space using higher quality lenses. Same basic idea, but very different optical components and lens train. Definitely not the same people. The MIT electro-holographic display, by the way, is also a completely different technology (holographic, i.e., based on diffractive optical elements).

There are many other types of 3D displays. All use mostly the same principles. Most have been pedalled by charatans sometime in the past. Just like in computing: 1) if something seems like magic (or is sold that way), be skeptical, 2) if people won't tell you how it works, be skeptical, 3) if technology is being sold by calling it something it clearly isn't ("a colour hologram", where holographic displays are very different beasts), be skeptical.

One good choice is Cilk. It is freely available and easy to use: all you have to do is insert a few keywords into your C code, and function calls can be spawned onto another processor. The code itself is not dependent on the machine specifics (i.e. number of processors) because that is all handled by the Cilk runtime system. The main version is for SMPs and there is also a distributed version.

Well, why *shouldn't* Linux stay this way (or at least take its own sweet time to become something else)?

Keeping Linux as a pet project only promotes its exclusivity. The question arises, is Linux being built to make the world a better place or to prove just how smart its programmers are? If it is the former, then Linux supporters need to demonstrate its usefulness in the Real World. If it's just a ego booster, then Linux supporters should make that clear to the industry and accept the loss of support. What is the point of promoting Linux if you don't plan to use it? And who then determines if and when Linux becomes a viable product?

Open source software depends on the masses to design, create, test and implement it. Creating Linux and then not using it for useful, practical, day-to-day, general computing just becomes a form of mental masterbation. It's solving Fermat's Last Theorem, but with a lot less fanfare.

Currently Linux is viable. It is useful. It does exist as a Real World solution. To pull back now would be to condemn Linux to the same status as the logo programming language.

-S. Louie

>Can anyone think of a legitimate reason for choosing retinal scanning lasers over mini LCDs?

Retinal scanning lasers minimize the eyestrain associated with viewing a head-mounted-display 14-hours a day. This is critical for wearable-computer applications. None of the mini-LCDs pass this test.

>Some of you may remember those retinal scanning LED HMDs from as far back as 1990.

The LED HMDs from 1990 were made by ReflectionTech aka Reflection Technology. The product was called the P4. It was not retinal scanning. It was an excellent product -- by far the best head-mounted-display technology yet mass produced -- but not anywhere near the quality of VRDs.

Don't bother looking for the product -- you won't find it. ReflectionTech sold the patent recently to a company in Japan. If it's ever produced again you'll know about it.

Essential reading:
http://wearables.www.media.m it.edu/projects/wearables/

See also http:/ /www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/compi lers/free/part2/faq.html for a PL/M compiler, and http://home.sol.no/~egilk/download.html for a PL/M to C converter.

While you're at it, [Plug] check out my classic computers site and the Vintage Computer Festival.[/Plug]

But as I recall, Al didn't actually use any buzzwords in the speech he gave. This was a classic MIT "hack" which was foisted not upon Al Gore in particular, but jargon-spouters in general.


And I admire that Al was able to joke about it. While he may not_entirely_get it, he sure as hades gets it more than most_politicians_.

*Sigh*, guess Rob didn't like it when I sent it to him... check out hacks.mit.edu for more...

"Responsibility for my career? I'm just a freakin' phone monkey!"

Here are some other funny hacks on campus:

Micr o$oft posters

Anomalous banners appeared upon Gates' visit

Everyone's heard of the CP car on the Great Dome. Don't ask how it got up there...you really don't want to know.

Hackers greet the new Institute president

Boston Pops VU meter during Esplanade concert

my personal favorite

We may be nerds, but dammit, we're FUNNY nerds. Browse around hacks.mit.edu for more.

Here are some other funny hacks on campus:

Micr o$oft posters

Anomalous banners appeared upon Gates' visit

Everyone's heard of the CP car on the Great Dome. Don't ask how it got up there...you really don't want to know.

Hackers greet the new Institute president

Boston Pops VU meter during Esplanade concert

my personal favorite

We may be nerds, but dammit, we're FUNNY nerds. Browse around hacks.mit.edu for more.

Here are some other funny hacks on campus:

Micr o$oft posters

Anomalous banners appeared upon Gates' visit

Everyone's heard of the CP car on the Great Dome. Don't ask how it got up there...you really don't want to know.

Hackers greet the new Institute president

Boston Pops VU meter during Esplanade concert

my personal favorite

We may be nerds, but dammit, we're FUNNY nerds. Browse around hacks.mit.edu for more.

Here are some other funny hacks on campus:

Micr o$oft posters

Anomalous banners appeared upon Gates' visit

Everyone's heard of the CP car on the Great Dome. Don't ask how it got up there...you really don't want to know.

Hackers greet the new Institute president

Boston Pops VU meter during Esplanade concert

my personal favorite

We may be nerds, but dammit, we're FUNNY nerds. Browse around hacks.mit.edu for more.

Here are some other funny hacks on campus:

Micr o$oft posters

Anomalous banners appeared upon Gates' visit

Everyone's heard of the CP car on the Great Dome. Don't ask how it got up there...you really don't want to know.

Hackers greet the new Institute president

Boston Pops VU meter during Esplanade concert

my personal favorite

We may be nerds, but dammit, we're FUNNY nerds. Browse around hacks.mit.edu for more.

Here are some other funny hacks on campus:

Micr o$oft posters

Anomalous banners appeared upon Gates' visit

Everyone's heard of the CP car on the Great Dome. Don't ask how it got up there...you really don't want to know.

Hackers greet the new Institute president

Boston Pops VU meter during Esplanade concert

my personal favorite

We may be nerds, but dammit, we're FUNNY nerds. Browse around hacks.mit.edu for more.

Here are some other funny hacks on campus:

Micr o$oft posters

Anomalous banners appeared upon Gates' visit

Everyone's heard of the CP car on the Great Dome. Don't ask how it got up there...you really don't want to know.

Hackers greet the new Institute president

Boston Pops VU meter during Esplanade concert

my personal favorite

We may be nerds, but dammit, we're FUNNY nerds. Browse around hacks.mit.edu for more.

If y'all want a really good-looking Linux mascot, check out the lynx.

(bigger version here)

Now's there's something I want gracing my Linux box };-)
(apologies to Tux)

I'm no master of obscure C code (I use a reference when I need it, and I much prefer using a small subset of the language), but there is a response at RTFM* to some of the Comp.Lang.C. FAQ's that cites Schildt in C: The Complete Reference as a support, and nothing else.

Thus my guess would be, if Schildt's books pit him against Comp.Lang.C's FAQ maintainers and contributors, that, well... he needs help.

(*) The filename is Re:_comp.lang.c_Answers_(Abridged)_to_Frequently_A sked_Questions_(FAQ) -- but entering in the ASCII codes for parentheses, I still get errors. So go to the directory and get the file :)

This actually is an active
area of research: automated
extraction of an implicit
design from program source
code...

The only tool I know of is
Womble, and its purely proof
of concept, and it only works
on Java Bytecode, but hey, its
a start.

Womble

-Felix

Gore's had a reputation for randomly spraying tech buzzwords for some time. Check out what the entire graduating class at MIT did to him in 1996 in retribution :)

They're used by people using wearable computers...IIRC the MIT media lab wearables group uses a type of chorded keyboard called "The Twiddler".

Dvorak wins by a long shot. I spent approximately a month training to get to my old qwerty speed and accuracy. Things I've noticed _personally_ since switching:

1) I haven't had that sore-typing-hands feeling since.
2) Typing on the qwerty keyboard now feels like I'm tying my fingers in knots. Typing on dvorak just "flows".
3) I've gained approximately 15 WPM since switching. My old qwerty rate was approximately 80wpm- with dvorak, I'm up to 95wpm. I've even hit around 120wpm a few times.
4) If anything, my typing is more accurate. I did not track this- however, I certainly haven't lost any accuracy.
5) Yes, I even like it more for programming.

Papers and studies and articles in nonwithstanding, the only way you will ever know if it works for you is to try it. From the web pages I've seen, an overwhelming majority have been pro-dvorak.

Finally, I remember last year reading a very convincing rebuttal to the "Fable of the Keys" article on which this Economist article is largely based. I'll post the URL as a reply here if I can find it again. I've been unsuccessful so far.

Some good links for those who want to see for themselves:

Comparison of Dvorak and Qwerty typing "demons":
http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/Dvorak/demons.ht ml

Introducing the Dvorak Keyboard:
http://www.ccsi.com/~mbrooks/dvorak /dvorak.html

Let Your Fingers Do Less Walking:
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~s ander/mensa/dvorak1.html

Robert T. Morris was convicted of violating the computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Title 18), and sentenced to three years of probation, 400 hours of community service, a fine of $10,050, and the costs of his supervision. His appeal, filed in December, 1990, was rejected the following March.
--

I would strongly suggest reading 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu. Especially the part about "Fire Attacks". It has been claimed that in every war the winning side used the principles set in that text. Corralaries can be drawn to today's technologies and (my understanding of it is that) Fire Attacks generally corrolate most closely to air wars. They could further likened to the techno wars that are spoken of here. A key point that Sun Tzu makes is that if you do not know your enemies limits than you will not be able to win the war. In the case of Kosovo I don't think the US quite understands what the Serbs are willing to do and why they are willing to do it.
Here's a link to the "Art of War". There are others out there if you search for them.

-- Eric

www.media.mit.edu/wearables

Take a look at those winners though and you'll see that most of them don't quite get it yet. The grey eminence of wearables actually used to walk around with a giant antenna coming off his head. One guy _is_ wearing the virtual io glasses, bottom right, but without any significant mods.

5. DVD: basically they're just trying to create a market for these things... They already tried video-games and reg'lar folks two years ago and went out of business once already. I think this new company is just a shell who bought out the remaining stock.. who knows if they actually manufacture them anymore.

virtual io: www.vio.com

l8r
professor frink.

I personally don't use the term GNU/Linux much because it is such a mouthful. However, I do think it is important to understand why the GNU people feel so strongly about it.

In 1983 when Richard Stallman founded the GNU project, his goal was to produce a 100% free Unix-like operating system. This was a difficult goal because a Unix OS contains many components: the kernel, the shell, compiler tools, editors, windowing systems, etc. Because the task was so big, he looked around for components that were already free that he could use in the GNU system. He found, for example, TeX and the X-Window System, which then fulfilled the system requirements for a typesetter and a windowing system respectively.

For some components, there was no free implementation, so the GNU project set out to write them. GNU Emacs replaced the proprietary vi editor (though a free vi clone was eventually written by someone else). The GNU C Compiler replaced the proprietary pcc. Bash replaced the Bourne shell. Etc. These tools were all written because there was no other free program that did the job. Nobody at the GNU project wanted to re-write free tools that already existed. The goal was a 100% free operating system, not a 100% free operating sytsem written 100% by the GNU project.

Like many complex projects, the GNU system took a long time to develop. Rather than wait until the entire system was complete before releasing it, various components were released as they were developed. (Call it the Bazaar model if you will). They put their available code into a repository. This was the master GNU ftp server at prep.ai.mit.edu. This archive contained the GNU system as a work in progress, including many tools that were ready for production use.

When Linus developed his kernel, people obviously needed the rest of the operating system components to go along with it. So how did people get these? They simply ftp'd to the GNU archive and downloaded all of the GNU operating system components that were availble. They combined these with the kernel, to produce the system they called Linux.

While you might not agree with Richard Stallman, I think it is easy to see why this would upset him. If someone downloaded the CVS archive of the free software project I am working on, finished it off before I could finish my version, then released it under a name that gave me no credit, I would probably be angry too. I think the reaction of the community if someone did this would be very negative. The GNU ftp site was their code repository and the builders of the early Linux distros did exactly this. They built a system that was largely GNU code (especially in the early days before distros got loaded up with lots of user level applications) but did not give credit to the GNU project.

Again, you might not see it this way. But I think that if the GNU project was something that you had founded and invested years of effort into, you might be a little bit miffed someone did this to you. While Stallman is often accused of being a bit strange, I find his attitude on the "GNU/Linux" issue quite normal.

Yeah, I've been using one for my wearable for more than a year now.. The ppl over at MIT have used them much longer.. It's a great keyboard, but for a normal PC, I'd reccomend a normal keyboard, unless you for some reason are unable to type with two hands.

First, The kudos to Rob, et al: Way to go. There are very few collabarative discussion groups of this size _anywhere_ which do not suffer from the problems people have are complaining about: excessive noise, moderators "playing favorites", and overworked moderators. You are pushing toward a brave new world. : ).

Even places like Photo.net with similar daily hits to slashdot do not have this sort of borad-based moderation in place... Phil Greenspun, database-backed web design guru, might be interested, in fact.

A few thoughts:

1) Although nothing makes up for the versatility that humans have for moderation, perhaps an adaptive scoring system could be added on: functions like "set score += 1 if post contains 'linux'" or "set score = -10 if post contains 'luzer'" implemented on a per-user basis would be more expensive, but even more valuable than the current system. In this way, the moderators scores could be taken as a base. Those who are happy with the moderators, and only want to make sure they see their own posts at the top have an easy road ahead of them. Likewise, those who feel the moderators are fascist pigs.

2) The scoring system has one strong benefit people do not seem to be mentioning: Conscientious moderators encourage better, and more posting. My goal is clear: Get ratings of 3-4 on all my posts! Additionally, I am more motivated to post knowing that if my post is good, it will reach a wider group of people.

The broad-based scoring implements a small free market economy of ideas: the posters of dreck can continue in their ways, (reaching fewer and fewer people) while those who want a voice will be forced to value their fellow /.'ers time and intelligence.

Thoughts?

The Twiddler rocks. I've had mine for about a year. For more on wearables, check out the FAQs, etc., at:
http://www.media.mit.edu/projects/wear ables/

Why not? In exokernels, including ExOs, "redefining the filesystem" could be routine. A filesystem created for user use is not necessarily the best kind for database use (or web cache use, for another example).

Check out this URL for more:

http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/exo/

How about a keyboard in your pants? That's what the wonderful dreamers over at MIT's Media Labs have come up with - washable keyboards stiched directly into fabric.


Scott Severtson
Software Developer
Auragen Communications
scotty@auragen.com

• Douglas' PC/104
• Controlled.com PC/104
• PC/104 Buyer's Guide
• BSI computers
• JENLOGIX SBC
• ECN July 1998 special

Also don't forget the wearable technology. The MIT Wearables and Yahoo:Wearables pages are good starting points. (I don't know where wearables.ml.org went to when DNS failed...)

The Wearable technology often uses PCMCIA-sized motherboards. Those pages have links to most of those boards. VGA/LCD, IDE, and the usual other interfaces are all on that one tiny card. Haven't seen sound on one yet.

why not put one more banner ad on the page?
Personally, I don't mind the banner ads, and one more won't hurt. If you want to see Rob eat steak instead of ramen noodles (and fix his heater), put this in your slashbox.

Light Brigade

Select the "New Athena" link.

This page has some RPMS and SRPMS that will probably help you out

Well, I'm part of an MIT student group that projects 35mm films every weekend. We get films in between "real theaters" and when they come out on video. For a second-run theater like us, $20,000 can be a lot. If new films are produced only in digital, it'll essentially kill the second-run theaters, leaving your choices an increasingly expensive show in a first-run theater or renting the video (also getting more expensive and of poorer quality).

MIT has a PGP key server written by Marc Horowitz that has a fairly large collection of keys. (The server seems to be under the weather right now which just goes to show the problem with single point of failure).


It does no certification, just distribution, but you can add your key and check others quite easily.

MIT has a PGP key server written by Marc Horowitz that has a fairly large collection of keys. (The server seems to be under the weather right now which just goes to show the problem with single point of failure).


It does no certification, just distribution, but you can add your key and check others quite easily.

It's time to go back to basic sources. The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, states:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; ....

It's not about an inventor's ownership---there is no ownership of ideas, nor even any limits on use except as society has decided it's to its advantage to allow such.

The advantage posited is that if society offers remuneration to those who come up with new ideas, we'll get more such ideas, and civilization will advance that much more rapidly. (I'm all in favor of penicillin and contact lenses, myself.) The remuneration is in the form of a monopoly on use of the idea (for a limited time), allowing the thinker to make money on it before others get a shot at copying it.

This was a Good Thing for ideas that took years of sweat, tons of metal, and a lot of limited and expensive resources to develop, like, say, Bessemer furnaces, safety pins, and leading-shoe brakes. If the idea wouldn't be implemented without a pay-back for the thinker, society was less likely to reap its benefits. So, we say (for patents) ``Here, tell us what your idea is, document it for all to see, and in return for that openness we'll help you make money from it---not because you have any ownership of an idea, but because we'll get the benefit of having it sooner, and letting other thinkers build on it.''

The vital concept here is that patents are for the good of society, not the person with the idea. If an idea is most likely going to be developed anyway, there's no social benefit to limit use of it. Further, software is one of the most likely areas for ideas to be developed without monopoly, simply because coding is cheap, attracts thousands (millions?) of people, and is the most fun you can have with your clothes on. If one hacker doesn't generate a given idea, there'll be another one along in a minute.

Unfortunately, over the decades, people got (remained?) greedy, and specialized enough to have never studied their own history, and so began to think that an idea, of all things, could have an owner, and that it was their right to have a monopoly and control access to the idea.

Look back on the development of software: in the past 60 years is there any evidence that its progress has been hampered by people afraid to develop ideas for lack of protection? Hah! Never in the history of technology has a field advanced so rapidly or been so fecund, and most of it has been due to the open availability of ideas. Until the 1980s no one could patent software, and copyright seemed to work quite nicely, thank you. Now, unfortunately, we have people who think that because they spent a year or two on an idea, they should be allowed to prohibit anyone else from using the idea, even though it's hardly novel, or even notably hard---tedious in reducing to a useful form, but no more.

So, someone building a virtual machine (which IBM made mega-bucks on in the '60s and '70s [and may be still, for all I know]) cannot be allowed to say ``I'm the only person who can use this idea for the next 17 years'' (or is it up to 20 now?) when the same idea has occurrred to anyone who's written an emulator.

Applying protection to ideas that would be developed anyway is a net loss (it slows, not speeds technical advances) and thus is not intended by patent law. For more background and analysis, check out the League for Programming Freedom's web site, and remember---you can't own an idea, and you can't even limit its use unless society thinks it'll get something back for allowing such limits.

http://www.media.mit.edu/projects/weara bles

See an exposition of this idea at the League for Programming Freedom web site.

ftp://net-dist.mit.edu/pub/PGP/

I spose the bright side to all this is...um, well...I guess there isn't one after all.

This is misleading.

The Linux kernel is GPLed and if code from the kernel is used in an app, that app must be GPLed as well. (GPL 2:b.) And of course, if you make
modifications to the kernel they are GPLed as well. However, code from the libraries linked in compiling Linux are, for the most part, distributed under the LGPL for libraries which states that apps which link code in LGPLed libraries are not bound by any license other than those the developer chooses. So a developer may use LGPLed libraries (such as the gnu c libraries commonly used when compiling Linux) without being legally bound in anyway to release the source of the app.

In other words GPL is "viral," as they say, and LGPL isn't. And of course, proprietary software exists for Linux and is welcomed by the Linux
community. We simple feel that proprietary software development models aren't as promising as OSS development.

Check out copyleft. There are links to both licenses. They contain legal jargon but are still intelligible
to we common men ;-)

-Daniel

Port Perl to the Exo kernel.

http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/exo/