Slashdot Mirror

XNU ain't kernel but operating system. Mach is the microkernel what XNU use. And XNU is Server-Client by architecture instead Monolithic like Linux and FreeBSD, so it is like NT (what ain't "hybrid" what is just marketing propaganda what not even Microsoft use anymore).

The Darwin is XNU + compiler and configs. It is same thing as GNU/Linux where Linux is a monolithic OS and GNU part is the compiler and configs.
The Darwin and the GNU/Linux ain't operating systems but development platforms. GNU has own operating system HURD what is like XNU, it as well used Mach microkernel (now it use again something else or have they rolled back to Mach?) and own servers.

  http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

It is really very simple thing when first forgetting everything and then starting from scrating thinking what person needs to get simple program like INIT or shell (or compiler or any text editor) running.

gnu/linux is a richard stallman fantasy. Linus Torvalds came up with Linux he has naming rights he does not use "Gnu" anything.
He specifically thinks the gnu title is silly.

The ugly fact is Stallman and his buddies have been working on gnu/hurd for a decade with really nothing beyond
a 12 year old alpha to show for it.

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html
http://xercestech.com/linux-not-gnulinux.geek
http://atulchitnis.net/writings/why-linux-and-not-gnulinux/

Sorry, you are totally wrong. The monolith kernel is not the operating system. Microkernel alone is not the operating system. Do not mistake different kernel structures to be same as "one kernel". or to be the operating system.

That is the whole problem on GNU/Linux vs Linux debate because people does not understand what an operating system does.

Linux is monolith kernel and not a complete operating system. GNU/Linux is an operating system. All GNU tools can not run without the kernel, think what is running them? And the kernel will not work without the GNU tools, think of it like a symbiotic relationship. Most applications needs other applications and system libraries to run, not just the operating system. But this is irrelevant, like the following links.

http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2006-04/openpdfs/herder.pdf
http://www.topology.org/human/?a=/linux/lingl.html

The GNU/Linux is nothing more than due recognition for an equally important part of the operating system.

But hey! Why to call it GNU/Linux but not Linux/GNU/Apache/Xorg/KDE/Firefox/Javascript/Slashdot OS? Ok, I know this is one of the most stupid things written on Slashdot, obviously you don't need Apache for the computer to operate, but you do need the GNU tools.

Oh, and I believe your computers power supply is part of power lines and so on part of power plant and so on part of nuclear reactor or other nature... So lets call it GNU/Life because without Life you can not have GNU! Ha Ha! just being a knob.

The Operating System is very small part of software system. It just manages (controls) the hardware and gives those resources for applications and controls those applications so they can live together and is able to interact with the user, which is where the GNU tools come in.... It is not so simple thing as Linux kernel but GNU/Linux.

Sorry, you are totally wrong. The monolith kernel is the operating system. Microkernel alone is not operating system. Do not mistake different kernel structures to be same as "one kernel".

That is the whole problem on GNU/Linux vs Linux debate because people does not understand monolith vs micro structure.

Linux is monolith kernel and complete operating system. GNU/Linux is development platform. All GNU tools can not run without operating system, think what is running them? And most applications needs other applications and system libraries to run, not just the operating system. But all these other softwares needs an operating system to work, unless you write them to work on pure hardware but then you can not use them on other computers because the OS is not there to hide the complexity of hardware.

http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2006-04/openpdfs/herder.pdf
http://www.topology.org/human/?a=/linux/lingl.html

The GNU/Linux is nothing more than political with big ego.

But hey! Why to call it GNU/Linux but not Linux/GNU/Apache/Xorg/KDE/Firefox/Javascript/Slashdot OS?

Oh, and I believe your computers power supply is part of power lines and so on part of power plant and so on part of nuclear reactor or other nature... So lets call it GNU/Life because without Life you can not have GNU!

The Operating System is very small part of software system. It just manages (controls) the hardware and gives those resources for applications and controls those applications so they can live together... It is not GNU/Linux but so simple thing as Linux kernel.

Woah woah, let's be a bit more accurate here. The GNU project has produced a kernel, it's nowhere near as advanced in functionality as Linux, but it exists...

Woah woah, let's be a bit more accurate here! The GNU project has produced a microkernel, it's not an operating system or as advanced in functionality as Linux what is monolith kernel and thats why Linux is alone the operating system without GNU software.

Not being a great fan of Linus and being very appreciative of GNU and agreeing with Stallman, I call it GNU/Linux.

And thats why you follow blindly a lie, not truth. And so on you cant never help others to be free, because you are just trying to get them believe lie about freedom!

GNU/Linux demanders can not even accept basic logic OR technical evicende why Linux kernel is operating system without any GNU tools!
http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

GNU-project has created great things, but they have nothing to do with other Operating Systems than Hurd!

http://www.topology.org/human/?a=/linux/lingl.html

Why GNU/Linux? What operating services does GNU tools offer for applications what Linux doesn't?

Why not call it like Linux/Gnu/Mozilla/OpenOffice/KDE/? Mayby the *real* "leaders" are Novell's CEO for Opensuse operating system or Mark Shuttleworth because he invented the Ubuntu operating system? Ain't those two totally different operating systems what users say? Isn't the operating system the whole complete software package what you get when you install one from CD/DVD? Or is it just a software what is between the hardware and the software and serves hardware resources for applications?

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

You might find my notes useful.

http://www.topology.org/linux/bind_bigbug.html

GNOME is part of GNU....

But http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html
Check the OS definition!

How about http://www.getgnulinux.org/

But seriously, check the OS definition and you see that Linux is alone the OS!
http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

Then this one is good for you, because you are saturated with marketing propaganda!

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

Your next tasks are,
1) find out what are needed before *something* can be called as OS. (check serious OS coding books)
2) find information about monolith kernel and micro kernel and marketing propaganda "hybrid kernel".
3) Look the kernel definitions and what is told about kernel and user space.
4) Then check this kernel information against OS definition and do a conclusion.

You find out, Linux is the OS alone.
Then check out dictionary what it says about kernel, operating system, system and marketing. Then check out what distribution means.
Check what "Free Software (GPL)" and "Open Source" definitions means. Check these informations against all the information what you have collected, you find out, there is Linux OS what is distributed by multiple participant.

Then you get conclusion, Linux is the OS and always, someone takes the OS (Linux) and bundles with it a applications and roll from it a own product, what is called as OS, because they offer the OS as the main product on their product package.

What is in the OS definition list?

- Process management?
- Memory management?
- Hardware management?
- Network management?
- Filesystem management?
- System calls (servers)?
- HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer)?
- ????

Micro kernels does not include all those itself. Linux does, so is the Linux OS or is it just a kernel?

Micro kernel is located alone in kernel space and OS services on the userland.
Monolith kernel is located alone in the kernel space, and no OS services on the userland.
So called 'hybrid kernel' is micro kernel what is located with some, if not all, os services on the kernel space, some might be on userland.

So are you saying that Linux is a microkernel and OS services are on the userland? I tought it was a monolith kernel.

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

But what if all the services what OS is need to give for application, has included in kernel, isn't the kernel then a OS?

Micro kernel vs Monolith kernel (and then very wierd joined "Hybrid kernel").

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

Should I say that because the OS is not usefull without a applications, it is just fair to just call all those distributions as Linux/Firefox/GNU/Apache/Samba etc?

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

Technically, Linux is a kernel AND the OS, but it is refered incorrectly only as a kernel, on market purpose or by RMS styled.

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

Can someone tell why it is then needed to include ex: I/O, Drivers, Filesystem, Networking, Process management and system calls before something is OS?

I guess this is enough to disregard the fact that it was GNU/Linux - *not BSD* - that was the first truely free Unix like OS.

Apparently Bill Joy started putting BSD together in early 1977. The FSF didn't exist until October 1985. From what I've read, the UNIX sources were distributed completely without restriction even earlier than 1977, since due to the antitrust case against them, AT&T weren't allowed to begin selling an operating system. The only charge that was being put on the source was the price of the mag tape, and I also don't know of any license restrictions either. Given the degree of university collaboration that existed early on, I can only assume that there weren't any. AT&T only became restrictive with the source themselves when they were released from the ban on selling it.

AFAIK, the main reason why UNIX wasn't used much outside of universities very early on was because of it originally being written for the PDP-8 and 11, which were very different architectures to the 80386. The first port that I know of to the 80386 that took place that I know of was the one done by the Jolitzes, which ended up becoming (more or less, anywayz) what we now know as FreeBSD.

It sounds like you've got the version of history that Stallman wants people to have; i.e., the one that makes him look like the sole father of the entire practice of releasing source code in general. From what I've been able to figure out anywayz, the truth is a bit different. UNIX was developed very collaboratively from its' inception, and as you yourself probably know, without source, that can't really happen. ;-)

Probably enough to disregard the fact that the "evil" FSF was already making available a shitload of software when Bill Gates was still dabbling in GWBASIC

The ANSI standard for Minimal BASIC is dated 1978, the same year Microsoft was founded. According to Wikipedia, the FSF was founded in October 1985...Looks like you're off by a couple of years. According to that, BASIC existed *before* the FSF. Also...I don't know what your own definition of "free" is, but Stallman himself was selling copies of Emacs during the 80s.

Rewriting history must be a nice hobby.

Reading history is a great hobby, sure...it allows me to know when it's been rewritten by someone else. ;)

You might dislike it, you might have another, but *ours* has been there well before BSD did *anything*.

Unfortunately that simply is not true...it's what you've been told. Don't take my word for it though...Go and do some research of your own. Some links that might help:-

Some accounts of early UNIX history from the UNIX Heritage Society. There's some early source code there as well.
20 Years of Berkeley UNIX.
Some info about where Stallman originally got at least some of his ideas.
The Art of UNIX Programming, which has a fair amount of historical info as well.
A rather non-canon biographical portrait of Stallman.
Another second opinion on Stallman, more or less in general.

Maybe if you take the time to go through this material, you might start to realise what my beef is. I don't like bullies, and I don't like frauds...Stallman is both, which from reading the above, you will learn. I strongly urge anyone else here who views me as merely a baseless troll to go to the above links and read that material as well. If I am a troll, the point of it is very simple:- This Emperor has no clothes.

A linux operating system cannot work without a CPU.
Therefore the CPU is part of the linux operating system.
Therefore the operating systems which I use are AMD/linux and Intel/linux.

(from here)

Linus has said before that he could have used any compiler, and any userland, its just that GNU was there at the right time. A distro could be built on BSD, or an environment based on icc (yes, it compiles the kernel)

http://www.topology.org/pc/watchdog.html Yes they can push the damn reset button :)

It doesn't matter. There's so much bad publicity for Skype from this I doubt they'll get market dominance or become the standard.

I know I will never use it. I was considering it, but not after reading this. I'll look for an open source alternative, or write one myself. I won't put up with this sort of childish behavior from a software vendor.

This looks like a good start:
http://www.topology.org/soft/avnet.html

I trust the FSF completely not to have any hidden motives

You may trust the FSF but it seems there is reason not to trust RMS

-everphilski-

Gravitational Radiation - the cosmological reference, not the meteorology ones.

Some other gravitational wave detection projects

Some anomalies in gravity theory

and, of course, Einstein@Home

don't even have that limited of bandwidth and I would like to see this mod in production. Very needed code IMHO.

http://cband.linux.pl/
http://www.steve.org.uk/Software/mod_curb/
http://www.snert.com/Software/mod_throttle/ This one might be best, I've looked at it before.
http://www.topology.org/src/bwshare/README.html

Or you could just dupe an ask.slashdot.org by asking something like:

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/18/02 31229&tid=4&tid=2

I'm really surprised this is not part of Apache by now.

"A Linux bridge is more powerful than a pure hardware bridge because it can also filter and shape traffic"

Just imagine how that could relieve congestion in the rush hour!

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.

I work at a manufacturing company...

Okay, that's an interesting starting point.

There are as yet unresolved issues with the use of binary software with GPL software in general and linux specifically, despite linus' assurances that userspace code doesn't require GPL license compatibility and that he won't enforce that section of the GPL.

What was the link supposed to show again? Modules aren't userland programs. Modules (at least with 2.6.x) have to compile against the kernel source, and that's *clearly* covered under the GPL. The only real question then is whether such use of the kernel code is fair use. Whatever the outcome of that, userland is a wholly separate issue where no linking takes place (headers aren't even needed; you can just use a syscall chart and make your own if you're that paranoid).

What we found, is that the GPL, LGPL and other FSF licenses are very problematic when dealing with the control of code(proprietry or otherwise).

That's the whole point, actually. The GPL is designed specifically to remove control from everyone through copyright law.

The GPL licensing terms are very strict and dangerous in terms of source code-ownership vs binary code-distribution and legal obligations.

I'm not sure what your basis is for strictness, but the only restriction the GPL includes is if you use GPL code in your code that if/when you distribute said code as a binary, you provide one of 2 or 3 ways for someone to gain the source under the same terms you got the GPL source. Yes, this is a good deal more restrictive than say the BSD, but at the same time it's a lot *less* restrictive than preventing you from giving out binaries *or* source.

As for "dangerous in terms of source code-ownership", it's not dangerous at all. You own your source code, but you don't have a right to distribute someone else's code except under their provisions. If you don't like it, don't use their code.

We're left to the whims of copyright owners and their good word to decide what is considered a breach and what is 'tolerated'.

You're describing the use of all external software. Look at how SCO is suing IBM over a contract dispute which they bought/inhereted through several generations of companies. If you're that worried about what external copyright owners might do, never use external code; then you just have to worry about being sued because someone external claims you used their code anyways.

As we see more GPL software being used by companies with proprietry code, I think we'll see a nasty side of the GPL rear its head as enforcement starts to kick in from different areas.

"Nasty side"? You mean copyright law? If copyright law didn't exist, there wouldn't be any "nasty side" nor "ownership" nor "enforcement" nor "licenses". Because there exists copyright and the first three are in place to only benefit the original author of a work and no one else, the GPL is designed to counteract all the negative effects of copyright with copyright, through bloody enforcement with lawsuits and all.

It sounds like you're more interested in taking something which you don't own (GPLed works), using it as you please with other works (possibly stuff you licensed from someone else), and you're unhappy that the GPL conflicts with the latter when stuff like BSDed works don't. But, the GPL is all about making things non-proprietary, so no one can claim exclusionary control as fundamentally it's the exclusionary control that is what's causing all your/our problems in the first place.

Linus and others in the "open source" group are pragmatic, though, and realize not everyone is going to change overnight. But, they also realize the best way to guarantee that the Linux kernel behaves well is to have as much information as possible; dumping in binary/closed modules is horribly insecure,

There are as yet unresolved issues with the use of binary software with GPL software in general and linux specifically, despite linus' assurances that userspace code doesn't require GPL license compatibility and that he won't enforce that section of the GPL. Linus is using the GPL license as written by the FSF, albeit fixed to V.2 and with some specific modifications. They (linus and the FSF) disagree on on the details of whether or not using GPL-licensed header files forces the software using them to be be under a GPL-compatible license. Even linus admits there are grey areas and his interpretation has been debated. Until this matter is resolved definitively (probably in court), I don't want to place my company at risk of being forced to release code that we do not want to release, simply because we compiled our software for linux.

What we found, is that the GPL, LGPL and other FSF licenses are very problematic when dealing with the control of code(proprietry or otherwise). The GPL licensing terms are very strict and dangerous in terms of source code-ownership vs binary code-distribution and legal obligations.
The FSF cannot of course, enforce the GPL for software they don't own the copyright for. However, the licensing conditions and restrictions of the GPL automatically come into effect without much influence from the actual copyright holders. We're left to the whims of copyright owners and their good word to decide what is considered a breach and what is 'tolerated'. As we see more GPL software being used by companies with proprietry code, I think we'll see a nasty side of the GPL rear its head as enforcement starts to kick in from different areas. Boundaries of legality are constantly tested, when they are wide and filled with grey.
Just because you don't get charged with doing something illegally as you do it, that doesn't mean that you can't get prosecuted afterwards, if someone feels like going after you.

ATM on Linux

linux ATM links

This link has info on linux watch dogs.
watchdog and timer cards for linux

Many people coming from a proprietary mindset aren't able to make the complete leap from an information hoarding, toll-charging for every mile travelled mindset to the notion of software freedom, complete with all its ideals and, to the rest of us, obvious advantages of synergy, exponential cooperative growth and development of projects, and so on, but these very same people can and do make the leap toward understanding why the scientific method of sharing knowledge and submitting to rigorous peer review of code does lead to better software. It isn't the only aspect of free software that leads to better software, and it may not even be the most important factor, but it is a factor that they can understand. Once one has grown accustomed to these factors, and has moved one or more project to an open source or free software platform as a result, one begins to experience and learn the other advantages of free software (freedom from orphaned software, freedom from vendor coercion, freedom to set one's own upgrade cycle and timetable, freedom to fix libraries one's work depends on, rather than waiting months for the vendor to get around to it, freedom to leverage the work of others into getting a project out the door in a fraction of the time it would have otherwise taken, in short, freedom to use technology to serve one's business interests, rather than one's vendors' business intersts).

Sorry to include so much, but I don't think this can be emphasised enough. Open Source strengthens Free Source, and this is why. It's also central to my criticism of RMS's stance on LGPL. I was trying to find a link to his position paper on this and instead I found this which is even more disturbing. From this link:

Stallman recently tried what I would call a hostile takeover of the glibc development. He tried to conspire behind my back and persuade the other main developers to take control so that in the end he is in control and can dictate whatever pleases him. This attempt failed but he kept on pressuring people everywhere and it got really ugly. In the end I agreed to the creation of a so-called "steering committee" (SC). The SC is different from the SC in projects like gcc in that it does not make decisions. On this front nothing changed. The only difference is that Stallman now has no right to complain anymore since the SC he wanted acknowledged the status quo. I hope he will now shut up forever.

The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him. As soon as something isn't in line with his view he'll stab you in the back. NEVER voluntarily put a project you work on under the GNU umbrella since this means in Stallman's opinion that he has the right to make decisions for the project.

Now, I'm all in favor of giving credit where credit is due, and clearly Stallman has done a lot, but it doesn't give him the right to stomp on people who are contributing to the GPL world.

The GPL is brilliant in a number of ways, most important being the freedom it brings to software. But get this, Stallman fanatics, once he put it out there, he doesn't own it. The most important aspect of the GPL is that it builds trust that no one will be able to take private advantage of what you have freely given.

I have no problem with anyone calling it GNU/Linux, but to insist on it is to try and control things. Do we need language police? Let's be clear, RMS does not deserve credit for 95% of Linux, although his actual contribution is substantial. I'd like to know what percentage of the developers who actually contributed code under GPL whether under FSF or otherwise actually support what RMS is trying to do with it.

All this bickering needs to stop, and stop now. It is unproductive and damaging. Isn't there anyone close enough that can get this accross? Are all his associates sycophants? We need to make the tent bigger, not smaller.

Openness is on the road to freedom. Again from the parent comment:

So, while the differentiation between Free Software and Open Source is important, this bickering between the two is quite asinine and counterproductive, and while software freedom may encompass a more complete and accurate picture of the benefits offered by free software than Open Source does, Open Source bridges the divide and helps make those advantages available to many who otherwise would have never taken the opportunity. In so doing Open Source provides an important, some might argue critical, service to the Free Software community, and despite any disagreements between the two, Open Source is most certainly not 'off-white.'

Stop fighting with our friends please, and keep up the good work.

viruses.
viruses
viruses

Good luck.

I returned in 1998 to Hanoi (about city number 3 by population, about 3 million), with a plan to set up the Internet at my favourite restaurant. On the way there, I saw a cafe called Cybernet cafe. They had 3 PCs, and were thriving on tourists and foreign workers, and they had a better scanner than in my 1000-person research facility in Australia. While I was there, they expanded to 4 PCs.

I thought this was just in the better off part of town. So I picked a really poor part, and on my way to a down-and-out hotel, I saw yet another Internet hotel.

So I gave up my plan. There were just Internet cafes and hotels etc. all over the place. I suggested the idea at my local favourite restaurant in the medieval quarter of the city. He said: no problem, I have heaps of money, but I just need to "arrange it" with the Cong An (the local police). Next day, I saw him discussing it with his local police officer.

Conclusion:
Vietnam is a US$1 per person per day country, and they increased internet usage very noticeably from 1997 to 1998. I have my own list of VN ISPs, and one of them is now expanding into the USA.

The third world is _not_ missing out on the Internet. It's happening.

The problem with the software economy is the lack of a software usage meter (SUM) process. This could keep account of the usage of each "piece" of software, and charge accordingly. Then this software transmits the info to a central place every day, week, or month. The user is charged, and the writers get royalties. There are electricity meters and phone meters. Why not for software? For more details, see software usage meters.