Slashdot Mirror

Linux Kernel Gets Fully Automated Test

2.6 stabilization project (helped a lot during 2.5.x develpment AFAIK)

http://www.osdl.org/docs/stabilization_plan.curren t

Linux Kernel Gets Fully Automated Test

2.6 stabilization project (helped a lot during 2.5.x develpment AFAIK)

http://www.osdl.org/docs/stabilization_plan.curren t

What we really need from government is an investigation of the long-term effects of OSS on our indigenous software industry, assistance to combat the threat to the industry's livelihood that OSS might pose and the development of a strategy to build on the opportunities that OSS has created. Without prompt action, my fear is that a further move towards OSS could result in the nightmare scenario of OSS at one extreme and Microsoft at the other with nothing else in between. Where would our freedom of choice be then?

I have a few issues with OSS myself, but the above paragraph is dumb on a number of counts.

First, industry and OSS are not at odds. OSS is a boon to industry (although perhaps not Microsoft in particular). This is because (1) developers benefit greatly from common standards and platforms, and (2) it makes no economic sense to keep reinventing the wheel. This is why industry has donated so much software, and supports OSS through consortiums such as OSDL http://www.osdl.org/, which pays Linus Torvalds' salary.

Second, the author seems to think that OSS hurts programmers. Wrong. It helps programmers because it makes them more productive. If individual programmers can generate more functionality for the end user, then there will be more, not less, demand for their services.

It's a bit like arguing that bulldozers are bad because they put manual diggers out of work. Well good - those diggers should be off doing something more economical worthwhile anyway. Constantly redigging the same ditch is not suitable work for human beings.

Third, how can one possibly slow down OSS without infringing on people's rights? These are the actions of free people in a free society.

The author's point of view seems to "something unusual is happening so had we better try to regulate it". I say let free people in a free society do their thing, and let the chips fall where they may (okay, call me a classic liberal). A rush to regulate will do far more harm than good, to the benefit of special interests alone.

You are kidding, right? How does $35.7 billion sound?

OSDL doesn't work on mono, btw. There's a full list of the projects they are currently working on at:
http://developer.osdl.org/

SlashDot, Check.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/19/ 1154231

LinuxMark, Check.
http://www.linuxmark.org/what_if.html

Hmm, something is missing. LINUS' words?, no, LKML, nope, Blog Entry, nada, maybe OSDL, Hmmm
http://osdl.org/about_osdl/legal/lldf

Why doesn't this cover the Trademark Maintenance Fees? Do they (OSDL) pay Trademark licenses?

Help me Linus, We need you to tell us why "you" don't pay your lawyers and why we should.

This whole thing is unfortunate FUD-food. I'm even having a hard time deciding on good vs evil on this one. Is the name worth 200 bucks to me, hmmm. The Distro OS is, The kernel only, I dunno man. Now every OS vendor has to pay or make up a new name. I think I'll call mine NewYorknix there, now I'm in the clear.

Seriously, We need you guidance Mr. T.

I don't necessarily agree that the user experience is better under Outlook, especially when you start looking at the sheer complexity of the later versions. That said, most of the problem with usability on the F/OSS side of things is related to the fact that there hasn't been a re-creation of Netscape Communicator Pro w/Calendar. It's the C&S part that really makes or breaks the system.

Netscape SuiteSpot with Communicator Pro was seamless, and light years better than what Microsoft, Lotus, or Novell were offering in 1997-8.

There's a really good article from OSDL about their search for a good cross-platform scheduling solution, and how they never really found anything. Granted, it's from 2003, but it's not as if things have improved much since then. I have to laugh every time somebody brings up Hula or Sunbird. Both of these projects are an utter waste of time for anyone who needs a true scheduling system.

A F/OSS replacement for Exchange is the Holy Grail, as far as I'm concerned. Oh, and a replacement for Visio, too. I'd even take a commercial solution at this point, as long as it was more open than Exchange.

moglen@columbia.edu

That help?

Christ, he gave a talk about an initiative. Who knows how far along it is? So there's no Web site. So what?

Try this: the announcement. Note the following there:

WHILE STILL IN THE PLANNING STAGES [My emphasis], the OSDL patent commons project will initially involve the following:

* A library and database that aggregates patent pledges made by companies. The library will also aggregate other legal solutions, such as indemnification programs offered by vendors of open source software.

* A collection of software patent licenses and software patents (issued and pending) held for the benefit of the open source community.

Do I have to do all your work? I found Moglen's email in one Google search with his name and Columbia and I just entered OSDL and went to the link for their home page, where the announcement is.

Hard, huh? How the hell do you make it to /. with those Internet skills?

"Making it easier for companies and communities that have patents to make those patents available in a common pool for people to use is one way to try to help developers deal with the threat," Torvalds continued.

http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/117730.h tm

"The software patent game is like the Cold War: The only thing that protects you is the concept of mutually assured destruction."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1846948,00.as p

OSDL Announcement:

"OSDL is the ideal steward for such an important legal initiative as the patent commons project," said Eben Moglen, chair of the Software Freedom Law Center. "No matter what your stand on software patents, and I oppose them, I call on developers to contribute to the OSDL patent commons project because there is strength in numbers and when individual contributions are collected together it creates a protective haven where developers can innovate without fear."

http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/press_releases/2005/2 005_08_09_beaverton.html

Long Announcement with more detailed information:

http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2005-08-10-a.html

There we go...now maybe we can have an intelligent conversation :-D

First, Solaris is open source now. ;)

Second, do you really think that Linux is being developed by just a bunch of geeks in their parent's basements, for free, in their spare time?! What, does RedHat (a multi-billion dollar company) not pay it's programmers? Does Novell not pay it's programmers? Does IBM not pay it's programmers? Hell, the "core" linux team regularly receives donations and corporate sponsorship. For example, the OSDL bankrolls Linus.

The idea that most of the development on Linux is done for "free" is a myth. Linux is where it is today because huge companies have poured billions of dollars into developing it.

If you don't see how ugly all of this stuff is, you don't understand why Linux -- an excellent concept -- hasn't taken off.

I say FUD. HP is doing plenty to support linux, as well as development. They sponsor:

- Gentoo ,GNOME,
- Linux International
- Free Standards Group (the LSB is a workgroup of these guys)
- the OSS Institute
- OSDL, Kernel.org
- etc.

HP has many people hacking the linux kernel. Of course, IBM is doing great stuff as well, but you sketched the situation in a much too black & white way.

Having a mission statement does not imply unity. I would say the OSDL is an authority in Linux, they have a mission statement to: OSDL Mission statement

What concerns me with BSD (not particularly FreeBSD) is that each distro forks the kernel and maintains only that fork. This is not unity.

What Theo points out as a drawback to Linux is what I see as it's greatest strength. Even though "companies push their own agendas and end up squabbling", they don't fork their own kernel and say 'screw you Linus! I'll go maintain my own kernel with my own nifty thing'.

Linus Torvalds works for these guys now.

Related projects at OSDL
http://osdl.org/projects/26lnxstblztn/results/
http://developer.osdl.org/cherry/compile/

Related projects at OSDL
http://osdl.org/projects/26lnxstblztn/results/
http://developer.osdl.org/cherry/compile/

They apparently collect monies from different membership levels. For a smallish sized organization that wants to participate in the decision-making, you're out 12K. Once you get beyond a bronze membership, it looks like OSDL wants some cut of your revenue stream. Membership gets you a voting slot on some working groups.

That's a lot for what's really a club membership, without the golfing and semi-nice place to eat. For most like vendors, OSDL membership doesn't drive sales and on the technical side, you can be a free-rider. IMHO, this doesn't look like a winning business model.

They apparently collect monies from different membership levels. For a smallish sized organization that wants to participate in the decision-making, you're out 12K. Once you get beyond a bronze membership, it looks like OSDL wants some cut of your revenue stream. Membership gets you a voting slot on some working groups.

That's a lot for what's really a club membership, without the golfing and semi-nice place to eat. For most like vendors, OSDL membership doesn't drive sales and on the technical side, you can be a free-rider. IMHO, this doesn't look like a winning business model.

About Osdl

OSDL - home to Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux - is dedicated to accelerating the growth and adoption of Linux in the enterprise. Founded in 2000 and supported by a global consortium of IT industry leaders, OSDL is a non-profit organization that provides state-of the-art computing and test facilities in the United States and Japan available to developers around the world. OSDL's founding members are IBM, HP, CA, Intel, and NEC. A complete list of OSDL member organizations is provided on the member page at OSDL Members.

• OSDL
• Sendmail
• Eclipse
• Ghostscript

I have a somewhat modern machine, a p4 1.6 gf4ti 4200, but only 128 megs of ram.

One game i love to play in linux is enemy territory. I just get by with 128 megs of ram but it works. In 2.4 maps take about 30-45 secs to load. Most servers won't kick me with these load times so I can play as much as I want.

On 2.6 however, the first map loads about as fast as 2.4 or maybe a couple of seconds faster. But every map thereafter gets longer and longer in loading times. I'm talking from 40 secs to eventually 200 seconds and then I get dropped from the server.

I've tried various versions of 2.6. Tried some of the mm patches. Yes I made sure X had a nice value of 0. I filed a bug http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2191 and had exchanges with andrew morton but in the end it didn't get resolved so back to 2.4.

I wanted to go to 2.6 cause everything else seems much smoother.

Has anyone else found that 2.6 has worse swap/load issues when ram is at a minimum? Any workaround?

Ah yes, the CVS gateway. Read what Larry himself has to say about the CVS gateway

Why would kernel developers use CVS when McVoy was not committed to supporting it? He urged them to use BK as it provided them with all the metadata they wanted to view, except he owned it.

I do not know what legal threat Tridge is facing. But from what I know, he is innocent. And I like to base my judgments on facts. Just because he's quiet doesn't mean he's guilty.

You're right . . . but you forgot one minor detail - the Japanese actually made better cars than Americans did during the 80's, even up till this day. True, many IT jobs are outsourced to India, but how many of the more senior positions such as software architects, designers, and Sr. hackers go to India/China? The fact is, better and more innovative code comes out of the US, while more menial code comes from outsourced jobs. If software engineers don't want to lose their job, get better at it. Also don't expect companies to come gnawin' at your door and offer you a 6-figure job just because you know how to write an XML parser. This ain't the late 90's . . . try looking for a job yourself. There's alot of places like here, here, here, or here.

Well, it's highly suspicious that OSDL had recently hired one of the best reverse-engineers out there. See this press release. Makes you wonder who exactly this OSDL contractor is.

I don't understand why the community is up in arms about Linus using a different tool for kernel development. If that's what he feels most productive using, what difference does it make? On a side note, found an interesting wiki on the history of bitkeeper http://www.osdl.org/cgi-bin/osdl_development_wiki. pl?action=history&id=OSDL_Bitkeeper.Osdl.Org_How_T o It's a realativly interesting read if you want to know more about it.

If SCO can get the kind of funding they did for their campaign-o-crap, don't you think certain companies might step up and chip in a couple mil to help the GPL stand up in court?

Linus left Transmeta in mid-2003 and now works at the Open Source Development Labs. Here is ESR's unofficial Linux FAQ

Actually, linux scales, and not just on clusters. Some people, like say, the NASA guys, run it on 512 simultaneous processors, people also runs it four, eight, 32 or whatever, and all with the same kernel, not a cluster but a big computer. And of course it musr run estable.

Actually, some of those Enterprises (like cisco or dell) don't have a server OS to say "our option is better, that's why you shouldn't use linux". Why should Dell tell you what you need to run? Linux is the fatest growing server platform, so they should shut up their mouth and working on better linux support if they want to remain profitable.

The one contenders there are Microsoft and Sun. We know that windows don't runs more than 64 cpus so they also should shut their mouth up and work on that. Then there's Sun, who have a real OS, but thinks that Linux is "no loss" for them, despite of having lost lots of customers to Red Hat's hands.

Actually, linux scales, and not just on clusters. Some people, like say, the NASA guys, run it on 512 simultaneous processors, people also runs it four, eight, 32 or whatever, and all with the same kernel, not a cluster but a big computer. And of course it musr run estable.

Actually, some of those Enterprises (like cisco or dell) don't have a server OS to say "our option is better, that's why you shouldn't use linux". Why should Dell tell you what you need to run? Linux is the fatest growing server platform, so they should shut up their mouth and working on better linux support if they want to remain profitable.

The one contenders there are Microsoft and Sun. We know that windows don't runs more than 64 cpus so they also should shut their mouth up and work on that. Then there's Sun, who have a real OS, but thinks that Linux is "no loss" for them, despite of having lost lots of customers to Red Hat's hands.

Actually, linux scales, and not just on clusters. Some people, like say, the NASA guys, run it on 512 simultaneous processors, people also runs it four, eight, 32 or whatever, and all with the same kernel, not a cluster but a big computer. And of course it musr run estable.

Actually, some of those Enterprises (like cisco or dell) don't have a server OS to say "our option is better, that's why you shouldn't use linux". Why should Dell tell you what you need to run? Linux is the fatest growing server platform, so they should shut up their mouth and working on better linux support if they want to remain profitable.

The one contenders there are Microsoft and Sun. We know that windows don't runs more than 64 cpus so they also should shut their mouth up and work on that. Then there's Sun, who have a real OS, but thinks that Linux is "no loss" for them, despite of having lost lots of customers to Red Hat's hands.

You might want to contact the OSDL Linux Legal Defense dept.

I don't know, but in the context of the question, maybe OSDL would be a good place to start.
And that is really what is important if you want linux to keep moving up, which I do. Its about having a choice, but you only really havea choice if you can transition from one idea to another smoothly, so you can pick your poison at a moments notice without have to worry about transition quite so much. Its a large part of what seperates linux from microsoft in a buisness sense; with linux, you should no longer be locked into one persons formats. This is where a desktop standard is a marvelous idea. Don't like the pricing/support of your current provider? Switch to someone else, with a minimum of effort. Could just be me. But then, I'm going to try and convince the government to switch to linux, so I have to start working my arguments somewhere.

Some of us want an OS that can run on 128 simultaneous processors as well as one or four or twelve all with the same kernel. Not a cluster. One big computer.

That's fine. Some people, like say, the NASA guys, want an OS that can run on 512 simultaneous processors as well as one or four, or eigth, or 32, or whatever, they want it stable and all with the same kernel. Not a cluster. One big computer. A really big one.

Some of us want an OS that can run on 128 simultaneous processors as well as one or four or twelve all with the same kernel. Not a cluster. One big computer.

That's fine. Some people, like say, the NASA guys, want an OS that can run on 512 simultaneous processors as well as one or four, or eigth, or 32, or whatever, they want it stable and all with the same kernel. Not a cluster. One big computer. A really big one.

Some of us want an OS that can run on 128 simultaneous processors as well as one or four or twelve all with the same kernel. Not a cluster. One big computer.

That's fine. Some people, like say, the NASA guys, want an OS that can run on 512 simultaneous processors as well as one or four, or eigth, or 32, or whatever, they want it stable and all with the same kernel. Not a cluster. One big computer. A really big one.

You might be mistaking commercial software with selling software, which indirectly implies that only propriatery software can be sold.
This is of course nonsense. The business model might be sligtly different since the software itself isn't always sold like individual slices of pizza, but a lot of those companies out there are making software which they use to either support their infrastucture and/or sell support for it to their customers. Just because it isn't being shipped in boxes to a store doesn't mean that the software used isn't commercial. And by the way, you contradicted yourself when you said:

Claiming that GPL-style "Free" software can't be commercial is about as accurate as saying that human beings can't have 11 fingers.

and at the end you said:

The standard business model for 99.999% of today's commercial software CANNOT work with the GPL.

Those two lines are obviously contradictory as the former is in accordance with my conclusion (that commercial Free software is widespread and in increasingly heavy use in the industry) while the latter is the exact opposite. I therefore take it that you are in complete agreement with my conclusion since the evidence is so overwhelmingly obvious.

There is also a misconception that software can only be a product from one company but Free software is often developed by many individuals and companies who all see the benefit in spending their resources on it.
Claiming that Free software can't be commercial is about as accurate as saying that most human beings don't have 10 fingers.

OSDL doesn't sell advertising, and isn't related to Slashdot or OSTG .

Oh yes! but is Linux. Look at the final of the page.

You jackass. They help pay Linus' damn salary. I suspect they might kick a few pennies towards sourceforge as well.

No, funding and using public Open Source tools does not seem rude.

I think TFA said OSDL is paying them $4 million - which means founding members "IBM, HP, CA, Intel, and NEC" and a large bunch of othercompanies that dependn on open source are paying them.

(flamebait? It was a very good question! And it's nice to see widespread industry backing of these services)

From http://www.osdl.org/about_osdl.

About Osdl
OSDL Mission

To be the recognized center of gravity for Linux; the central body dedicated to accelerating the use of Linux for enterprise computing through:

* Enterprise-class testing and other technical support for the Linux development community.
* Marshalling of Linux-industry resources to focus investment on areas of greatest need thereby eliminating inhibitors to growth.
* Practical guidance to our members - vendors and end users alike - on working effectively with the Linux development community.

About OSDL

OSDL - home to Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux - is dedicated to accelerating the growth and adoption of Linux in the enterprise. Founded in 2000 and supported by a global consortium of IT industry leaders, OSDL is a non-profit organization that provides state-of the-art computing and test facilities in the United States and Japan available to developers around the world. OSDL's founding members are IBM, HP, CA, Intel, and NEC. A complete list of OSDL member organizations is provided on the member page at OSDL Members.

--- End Quote ---

Ok, so they have started a Linux Legal Defence fund. However on the face of it they appear to be far more concerned with development and encouraging development.

Congrats, you have just explained exactly why the GPL has caused a shift in public RnD away from the government sector and back to the private sector where it has always belonged. At a time where most private RnD efforts are being cut back, ventures like OSDL are taking off. IMHO, this is just the beginning.

If Windows power consumption was in a par with Linux and the claims are simply a mask for discrimination I will never buy Intel again.

Yes, because we all know how much Intel hates Linux. I mean, they've never done anything to help out Linux, such as being a co-founding member of the Open Source Development Lab

Keep an eye on the North American members page, however, because that also lists AMD. So the two biggest x86 vendors both support Linux, at least to some degree.

According the the IDC overview, this survey only includes servers, PC's, and "packaged software". What is the size of the embedded market, considering Linux is now the number one embedded OS in Asia?

Wait a second. According to the Press Release, "As part of this agreement, Microsoft will join the membership of CCIA".

This is extremely strange, especially seeing that CCIA are a member of te Open Source Development Labs.

So, though indirectly, Microsoft are now members of the Open Source Development Labs ! Could everyone repeat after me, wtf?

The OSDL: Linus Torvalds Hired by OSDL

He is also a Benevolent Dictator for Life. Dictators are definitely executives.

Linux isn't a company, a place, or an organization.

Linux is a kernel. OSDL has the best claim of being "the Linux company".

• Matthew J. Szulik
• Jack Messman
• François Bancilhon
• Stuart F. Cohen

• Employment for their personnel.
• Taxes, and lots of them.
• A product or service their customers value.
• Business for their suppliers.
• Shares that widows and orphans can invest in.
• Support of charitable causes.
• Support of research consortiums (including OSDL http://www.osdl.org/, where Linus Torvalds works).
• Many, many valuable technical innovations, not all of which get patented.

An impressive list. Perhaps you can think of other items.

Adam Smith published a book in 1776 called "The Wealth of Nations", where he explained how people working in their own self interest tend to improve the lot of society as a whole. Given the above list, you can start to appreciate why.