Slashdot Mirror
Hurd: H2 CD Images
An anonymous submitter sends in: "The Debian GNU/Hurd team released a new Hurd CD Image. Snapshot images are produced at a four to eight week interval and the H2 images are the tenth of the series. The Hurd has grown from one CD image in August 2000 (A1) to four images in December 2001 (H2). These images are snapshots of a developing operating system, so suitable precautions must be taken when making an installation. Similar to other architectures, most important programs reside on CD 1, while the other ones contain less important packages. For the moment, Hurd doesn't support card sound and partition size is still limited to 1 GB. Hurd use the Debian packaging system (dpkg and apt as for Debian linux) , so it is simple to install and update packages."
Until Hurd is closer to Linux or BSD in partition size and overall capabilities, it isn't going to pick up much in the way of popularity.
What they have now is a rather "chicken and the egg" syndrome - it won't achieve popularity until more people start developing for it, and people won't care enough to develop for it until it's more popular.
However, the biggest drawback to Hurd is probably the fact that the people it might most appeal to (people who don't like linux or bsd style unix purists) are less likely to use it because they won't want to put up with the Hurd philosophy, when BSD is already there.
Who is going to use it? Linux has all the bells and whistles for people who love the GPL, and the BSD people who like pure unix and freedom (I know, what is pure unix anyway) are going to stick with *BSD.
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
Forget about GNU for a second - what are the technical reasons why anyone would want to use Hurd?
So in terms of 30 year old baggage, HURD is out there with Linux, BSD Lite, QNX and Darwin/MacOS X.
Me, I like the *ix way of thinking. If I dislike anything about GNU/Linux, BSD, etc these days, it's how far they're going away from the KISS principles that make *ix excellent.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Hmm, I've never heard of this card sound. Is this some sort of new audio technology. I guess that since linux doesn't support it either it's no wonder Hurd doesn't support it.............
:)
Okay, I'll shut up now
Well, it couldn't Hurd... BADABING!
Microkernels attempt to give you a much more "UNIX-like" way of making a kernel: a lot of independent little "servers" that talk to each other and are somewhat isolated from each other. A bug in one kernel module will often not crash the whole system, and there is much less coupling between kernel components. Microkernels are not the most efficient way of achieving that kind of modularity, since the memory protection mechanisms they use are more costly than relying on compiler/language support together with dynamic loading, but given that people are going to continue to write lots of C code for the kernel, a microkernel may be the best compromise for achieving a modular, extensible kernel in the real world.
Well, it's good to see that both the Hurd and the Darwin projects are coming along. I'll certainly give this a try. Its hard for any new kernel architecture to replace something as mature, functional, and widely-used as Linux. But if something like the Hurd turns out to be significantly easier to extend and hack, it may well catch up quickly. Another path to acceptance is that people find that, despite having fewer drivers and less functionality, the functionality that something like the Hurd offers may be easier to configure and deliver to end users in prepackaged form (i.e., without "make menuconfig" and lots of obscure decisions).
I don't now anything about Hurd but one reason could be that some people (including myself) do care more about the underlying philosophy than if something "just works".
I think that KISS is no longer a part of the de facto Unix world. When you have hundreds of different ways of keeping things simple that have hundreds of simple kludges and workarounds to keep simply working together, the accumulated legacy cruft is, simply, no longer simple. It's a wonderful example of how incredible complex systems can emerge from the very simple behaviours of a few agents. Unfortunately, that makes it a royal pain in the ass sometimes.
I installed it on my system on its dedicated spare disk, boot it, run it and update the release from time to time.
It's not great as for device support but getting there. Drivers have always and will always be a problem for ANY OS (look at MacOS X and *BSD for living examples.) There are other features in the OS itself that make it forth a try.
If you guys are curious about it, you should definitely give it a try. Some compatibility layer is also provide for Linux drivers and apps. This needs work but what doesn't really.
The good thing is the upper layers which will provide POSIX compatibility for Unix developers to port their work. Pretty straightforward. The main reason why the distro has grown so largely in a small amount of time.
I read false assumptions and mistaken comments on this list about what is HURD. It's a kernel like Linux, and it's based on a microkernel architecture. Mach 4.0 happens to be this micro kernel but the architecture is not locked down so this can evolve if needs to be.
I read also people asking why does HURD exist at all. The answer is pretty simple: Why not? In the ten years it has existed, it should have died many times but it's still here. It's not a commercial OS like BeOS, some it doesn't need to generate streams of revenues to survive. It's just a bunch of code with ideas in it that are still pretty amazing today for it to still occupy developers to put efforts in it.
After all, we are living in a society that should encourage diversity and growth of new ideas (the US haven't being built with pioneers.) So, I am getting sick and tired of the moronic way of thinking in black & white (binary): Only two alternatives (Linux vs. Windoz) and no space for the others . And why is that? Why not letting people who enjoy using BSD and developing with HURD just do it without being hassled by the 2 main opponents?
Feeling grumpy because of the rain today.
PPA, the girl next door.
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
Usually. The problem is that x86 just wasn't designed for microkernels (or operating systems in general, it seems). A system call (which is essentially nothing more than a jmp) takes 40 times longer than a regular function call (on my PII 300 anyway). That's the performance hit for a monolithic kernel like Linux. A context switch (which microkernels do tons of) takes two user/kernel transitions, plus one save of register state (~100 bytes on x86) and one restore of register state. In computer time, a context switch is glacially slow. Now, microkernels circumvent a lot of the slowdown through tricks like buffering commands (batches commands and sends them together in one message), but it still has more overhead than the monolithic kernel method. Of course, given that people think that KDE2 is a usable piece of software (speedwise), it seems that people don't notice speed differences anyway, so the point may be moot.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The only reason microkernels exist is limitations in existing protection mechanisms. There are only two levels, kernel and user, and each must be protected from the other. My question is this: what about something like the x86 segmentation mechanism? x86 segments have the cool property that a piece of code has the privelege level of the segment containing it. The nifty thing about that is that there are 4 privlege levels, so that you can have the kernel at the lowest level, less important stuff like the GUI at a higher level, and the app at the highest level. That way nothing can crash a more important component. I was wondering why this scheme hasn't been extend to paging. On every memory reference, the processor could check the privelege level of the page containing the currently executing code, and make sure that the target memory has an appropriate privlege level. This makes things even faster than a mono-kernel, since the only thing that is necessary to do a system call is a simple jump to the appropriate code (which would be dozens of times faster than a standard system call on x86). This shouldn't be any slower than the current way of doing things. The privlege of the current code would only have to be read whenever a page boundry was crossed, and would only reference memory during a TLB fault (which would have to reference memory anyway). The proc already does a protection check on the kernel/user bit on the page table entry anyway, so that scheme could be extended to multiple privlege levels without a slowdown. Am I missing something, or does an existing processor already do this?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
It's best to avoid processor-specific functionality
in large architectural decisions if you want to be
portable. Besides, it's nicer for modern systems
to have components that are layered better than
a cake, so that if I have two very important parts,
I know that they can't crash each other
accidentaly.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
IANAKEOAS ( I am not a kernel expert of any sort) but microkernels differ from monolithic kernels is many ways other than hardware drivers running as services. They only pass messages between components meaning EVERYTHING is a server. Want to run Linux programs on a Mach kernel? Just run a Linux server and the software will run just fine. A good example of this is MkLinux and Windows NT. Windows NT runs a Win32 as a server but by the same token can run a POSIX server so POSIX compliant software also runs on it. MkLinux is a Mach kernel running a Linux server to run Linux software. Microkernels in theory are platform agnostic as they only pass messages between various servers. Most people except Linus Tovalds really dig microkernels and have put alot of work into them. Another advantage is you can remain platform agnostic in design yet run servers specific to hardware you're running on. You can go from running on a StrongARM system with 16 megs of RAM to a 32 processor x86 system using a majority of the same code. Notable microkernel based OSes include Windows NT, MacOS X, and of course HURD.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Without the GNU project Linux as an OS would simply not exist. There MIGHT be a 1.x kernel floating around right now had there need no GNU project to actually do something with the kernel. Where do you think most of the shit redhat packages as their "base" system comes from? They sure as hell didn't write it themselves. It's also pretty retarded to say "why use HURD when there's Linux" because by the same logic you can say "why use Linux when there is [insert OS here]". How come Linux users are so quick to forget all of the stuff that had to happen for Linux to even exist. Shit man one wayward sperm and ther'd be no Linus to write Linux.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
We should all use Hurd instead of Linux. Linux numbers disk partitions from 1 (/dev/hda1, /dev/hda2, ...), while GRUB, the Hurd bootloader, numbers partitions from 0. As any self-respecting computer scientist knows, it is more proper to index things beginning with 0. Therefore, Hurd is a superior operating system, and we should all immediately switch to Hurd.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
But I can imitate one:
Because it's new.
Because it's different.
Because it's a work in progress.
Because it's an adventure.
Because it's exciting.
Because it offers features monolithic kernels do not offer.
GPL Deconstructed
most of the people here would have read about the differences between micro and monolithic kernels [almost a holy war in os design] . in reality it has been the case that the micokernel design has been very much an academicia exercise rather than a commercial one. though it might be due to various other reasons, it does show that there is some merit into 1) making things work for a particular case 2) once working, making it work for others RATHER than trying in one go to get a simpler solution.
i _do_ know that microkernels are much more than what i seem to think of them from the above:) yes the design and the philosophy is very different and surely interesting but practical ?....
i have taken advanced OS classes and i really do feel that the Mach though it had great ideas WAY beyond its time , was horribly complex and interwoven and so much so that anyone cringes on hearing a system based on the Mach:)
i think the Hurd is in a good position to prove us all wrong:) as its closely tied with the debian developers [who have done great work till now] and it has been slowly [very:)] progressing....
best of luck to them:)
vv
Beos.
Except free (as the spoken beer is...), and not quite hitting puberty yet...
I've scanned all the postings, and I haven't seen any other comparisons, but the descriptions from here and from the web page seem like about the same architecture...minus the extreme multi-threading and the integrated gui...
At any rate, it sure seems like this would be (yet another) great base to work from for re-building that OS that ain't no more...
Sig currently under construction. Mind the gap....
Dude, nice attempt to bait the GNU people.
You imply that people either love freedom or the GPL, but not both. Do we *really* have to have that conversation again here? Unless you're being paid by microsoft, this is just senseless infighting between two groups whose goals are almost totally in alignment.
It reminds me of a time some friends of mine wouldn't speak to each other. Why? They were both animal rights advocates- but one group thought that it was a good idea to argue that animal testing was ineffective, and the other team thought this was a bad idea because it implied that if testing worked, it would be a good idea. As a result, the movement splintered, while the research advocates ("animal rights opponents") spoke with a unified voice. The internal strategic debate ruined the overall message they were both trying to send.
The parallel to the BSD vs. GPL debate is striking. It is a fun and important debate to have, but ultimately the harm that comes from ubiquitous closed-source can't-build-on-it software, which satisfies the goals of neither camp, vastly overwhelms the importance of this philosophical discussion. It makes it seem like theologians arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. If I was Microsoft's head evangelist, I'd be silently funding extremists on both sides trying to create bad political blood between these groups.
I'm not saying we shouldn't argue, obviously the issues need to be fleshed out. I'm just saying that these arguments ought to show respect for the other side (no more "we're more freedom-loving than you" namecalling), and that they ought to always be mindful of the context they are operating in - discussing the best way to create a body of free software in a world of proprietary de facto standards.
So I'm begging with all of you, show respect for your adversaries in this discussion. Acknowledge that the point of view held by the other side is understandable even if you believe that it's in error, but most importantly always make a special effort to identify the context of the discussion: that is, how can we best preserve freedom against those who would prefer all software to be proprietary?
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Then there's the debate of putting GNU on everything ... why ... GNU doesn't own it ... the author owns it ... and unless GNU wants to pay for my life like it does stallman ... my software won't be GNU ... it will however follow the GPL license ... well that is ... until I make it BSD code :-) ..
Where do you get this thing about "putting GNU on everything"?
The only thing I can think of that you could mean is the whole GNU/Linux thing.
There is a kernel called Linux.
There are operating systems built using that kernel and also using the GNU utilities and other GNU code (i.e. things that actually come from the GNU project, not just stuff that's under the GPL).
These operating systems are generally called Linux, just like the kernel. I call them Linux just like most people do, it's a nice easy name and people have a pretty good idea what you mean when you use it.
The FSF would like people to call these operating systems GNU/Linux to reflect the GNU code that's used in them as well as the Linux kernel. This has nothing to do with Linux being under the GPL. It has nothing to do with them wanting to "put GNU in front of everything". They explicitly and emphatically are not asking people to call Linux (the kernel) anything except Linux.
I can understand disagreeing with their wish that you call these operating systems GNU/Linux. Like I said I call them Linux. But from your post it doesn't seem that you actually understand their position well enough to disagree with it. They aren't asking for GPLd programs in general or software in general to be prepended with GNU. I doubt very much that you have any reason for your apparent fear that they will wish to call your software GNU/whatever just because it's under the GPL. I'm assuming that you were genuinely confused on this point.
If you were just trolling then yes, ha ha how stupid of me to respond seriously, you really got me there. My I'm stupid. Well done.
I hope you were honestly confused and that I've helped you to understand the FSF's position. By all means disagree with it but try not to misrepresent it.
The basic premise behind a microkernel is that device drivers will be black box proprietary binary code from untrusted third parties, hence require clumsy run-time protection. This hypothesis has been invalidated in practice for proprietary systems, and doesn't even make sense in theory for free software systems.
There is no need whatsoever for expansive memory protection between modules at runtime. Modularity is great, but at development-time, not runtime. HURD doesn't give you any additional development-time modularity; if anything, it removes it. If you want development-time modularity, drop that stupid C language, and use a modular language, such as Modula-3 (SPIN-OS), SML (Fox, Express), or Erlang (standalone Erlang).
Microkernels were the latest hype in the 1980's for OS development. They've only ever been hype, and it's sad that GNU people waste their time with such a stupid concept, whereas there's so much more to OS design, including lots of proven concepts, that just await to be implemented in free software (who's gonna implement the lost features from Genera? from Eumel?)
-- Faré @ TUNES.org
Reflection & Cybernet
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
http://fsfeurope.org/
The problem is that x86 just wasn't designed for microkernels (or operating systems in general, it seems)
I can smell a flamebait when I read one. Sorry, but that statement is plain silly. ia32 has (as you asked earlier in an other comment) excellent features to support a microkernel (or any OS), such as multiple levels of privileges, extensive protection mechanism and relatively fast context switching.
A system call (which is essentially nothing more than a jmp) takes 40 times longer than a regular function call (on my PII 300 anyway).
A jmp?? Don't you want it to return??? Linux uses a software INTERRUPT to do system calls (bad decision in my opinion, ia32 provides fine call-gates that are a lot faster).
A context switch (which microkernels do tons of)
A microkernel does not have to do tons of context switches. I think what you are talking about is message-passing kernels. A microkernel does not have to based on message passing. It can use calls, and in fact the ia32 architecture lends itself very nicely to switch between privilege levels quickly, thereby providing protection that a monolythic kernel lacks.
The prove that a well designed microkernel can be VERY fast is QNX.
so Linux should be called GNU/GNU/Xfree86 Linux. I think we'd end up with a lot of GNU's in the names of the software we use :]
Isn't that the point of GNU's NOT UNIX? You can fold up as many mentions in front as you like, because it's a recursive acronym, and it still means the same infinite amount no matter how many of them you stick in front.
GNU was never really finished -- if the HURD kernel is ever final, it will be the last piece. But when you clone a highly modular system like Unix, you end up with a lot of bits and pieces that are useful as separate products. So GNU's libraries, utilities, and (most of all) compilers developed a life all their own. Personally, I've never been impressed with the quality of GNU software, but it does have functionality that closed-source venders always seem to overlook. So GNU products are almost ubiquitous in the Unix world, and have a fair following on other platforms.
So time passes. It's 1991. People are still waiting for an alternative to paying fees to whoever owns Unix. (It changed hands several times.) One cheap alternative is minix a sort of toy Unix that sells for $100. But a certain Finnish grad student can't even afford even that much. He decides to write his own Unix kernel. He gives away copies to a few friends. Who give it to a few friends... All of a suddent, lots of people are using this kernel to run all the GNU software. Which means there's now a free alternative to Unix! Project GNU has succeeded! It's just not complete.
And since the final piece of the puzzle is a non-GNU program, that program ends up being the name for the whole conglomeration! Much to the disgust of Stallman. Maybe he's just testy because Torvalds doesn't like EMACS.
Hmm let us see, back in 1991 how many academics would have been basing their O/S research on such an unfashionable and underpowered device as the 386? It was mid 1995 before anyone outside Intel realised that they might be able to win the processor race with brute force application of cash. Back in 1991 the SPARC chip and the MIPS series were the hot devices and the smart money was betting on the just introduced Alpha. Even Microsoft was supporting 3 different architectures for NT.
The MACH kernel was designed even earlier when the first wave of RISC was just comming in with the ARM and the SPARC.
The microkernel concept was very closely bound to the then fashionable RISC idea. The academics working on microkernels would not be as old fashioned to consider the limitations of the i86 series when designing an O/S. After all the whole point of RISC is build you silicon to the demands of the compiler and adding the O/S to that list is not a big step.
As to whether the Hurd based on Mach will outdo Linux, I am skeptical. After all the whole point of a microkernel is you keep it small and tight. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Hurd does start to show positive advantages, then what, do we all move to the Hurd? I very much think not.
The first obstacle to any move to the Hurd is the vast installed base of Linux. The second is that the increased overhead of added RMS is far greater than the reduced overhead of a microkernel.
So if Hurd starts to show major earth shattering performance advantages, someone somewhere will hack up MACH-Linux. After all the majority of the Linux code is the support, packaging, device drivers etc. The actual kernel is pretty small and actual dependencies on the kernel architecture relatively few. OK so not an insignificant undertaking, but compared to the overhead of managing RMS trivial, but then again so would be recoding the whole of Win2k using punch cards.
We don't need to wait for the Hurd to see whether the microkernel offers a real advantage. Just benchmark an Alpha running Linux against an Alpha running the Mach based Digital Unix. My guess is that there will be no real difference since the disparity between VMS and Digital Unix was never vast (except on highly UNIX specific benchmarks).
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Yeh Hurd is great.. unless you want sound or partitions large enough to actually install anything.. Even ms-dos could handle sound and greater than 1 gig partitions..
I think I'll stick with debian/linux and wait for Hurd to get a little bit more mature
Performance of microkernels is definitely debatable. Microkernels on systems with slow context switching or a low number of active processes (like the PPC 603) perform rather badly because of a generally slow system and the required overhead of their design. However once you stick them on faster and more capable hardware you start to definitely see improcements. Monolithic kernels though run well in the environment where you need a little slimmer code because you're lacking speed/ability. Windows NT is still a microkernel design though just about everything runs in serverland as Win32 or userland as extensions of Win32. OSX is another good example of a microkernel design, one people seem to get confused. It is primarily a Mach kernel that runs a BSD 4.4 Lite based server and thus is compatible with BSD 4.4 Lite compatible software and functions. You can drop the BSD subsystem out of OSX and it will still work fine as the MacOS components based on Carbon and Cocoa don't require the BSD system at all.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I suppose because I don't like the entire GNU communistic philosophy and don't agree with stallman on just about everything... that makes me an idiot.
I didn't take the time to reply because it was an AC post, but since yours wasn't I guess I will make it a point to reply.
GNU is more than just a license and is more than just a way of thinking. GNU is about freedom. I think we also need to get a little something straight ... the GNU is much more than stallman, but for every great group everyone looks to the man on top, and in this case it happens to be stallman.
Americans and many other parts of the world live in a captilastic society, the only ones who whine about this are the ones that don't make the money. I have yet to hear a rich man complain about having too much money. Second if everything was free then there would be no driving force for innovation or success. The main reason communism fell, no reason to do more than the status-quo and even more reason to do less.
I'm going to take Eli's Cheesecake. I like Eli's cheesecake, but because I don't have the receipe I can't make my own so I have to go and buy Eli's or settle for something else. But Eli's is the best in my mind and I will stand for only Eli's. Now Eli's has a receipe that they themselves came up with, if they were an open source cheesecake company someone would take the receipe and make the cheesecake cheaper without taking anytime to create the perfect cheesecake. So why would I complain I would be getting the same great cheesecake for a lot less money, but where does that leave Eli's? The inventor is now screwed because he wanted to give back ... and at what cost he no longer has a business anymore because everyone and their brother is making the same product for less money.
Innovation dies, because now the receipe is out and there is no driving force to create a better cheesecake when there's already a working product to sell ...
So that's the open source aspect ... now lets hit the GNU aspect. If Eli's were to have licesened their receipe code under the Nabisco licesnse (which happens to have many fine products as well) ... would the product then be called the Nabisco Eli's Cheesecake? Well if you want to see things like RMS then ... yes ... it is now Nabisco Eli Cheesecake ... or NEC ... :-) ...
That's where I stand and that's what I believe. For things that people take the time to work on for the sole purpose of helping others out, then the world embraces the open source and elaborates on it. If it's a product that is new to the world and has a use for everyone then so be it ... the source stays closed and people make money ...
The argument that you can't make money off of opensource is a correct argument in essence.
no trademarks were harmed in this comment
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
If one national constitution allows any of the states, provinces, citys, counties, departments and what-not to enact laws that take away freedom of speech, religion, movement or what have you, does the fact that it does not make that restriction on subordinate governments make it freer than a constitution that guaranteed freedom of speech etc. and forbade other governments from abridging those freedoms? I don't think so. The restrictions placed on a few - specifically, the restrictions on the ability to restrict - mean greater freedom for all.
That said, I don't object to the BSD license in its own right - it may fairly be called a more useful or a more flexible license. But to call it "freer" would be misleading.
This is actually not entirely accurate. If you look a bit more closely at (especially) the Cocoa and (to a lesser extent) the Carbon APIs, both rely on the BSD layer for very important tasks, such as file system access (a recent technote mentioned the fact that since Carbon file-system access is mapped to BSD calls, certain things like exclusive-write access doesn't actually work).
-
RMS Running For GNOME Board Of Directors
-
GNOME Foundation Elections - Final Candidate List
- Stallman Responds To GNOME Questionaire
- Gnome Preliminary Election Results In
How was that? I see plenty of comments both for and against RMS. Your problem is that you don't construct any kind of intelligent criticism, but instead throw trollish arguments out like this and expect to be praised for it.I don't feel like searching for GNU/BSD arguments, but I can assure you there's plenty of pro-BSD comments that got very high mods. Do the search yourself, I've already wasted enough time on your flamebait.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
He quoted something which was relevant, interesting and (mildly) amusing. The effort was in identifying that fact.
I'd be interested in trying HURD out, but I don't want to (a) reboot my machine between HURD and Linux use; (b) buy a new box (my UPS is out of sockets...)
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
I would have to disagree. The kernel could easily provide services that would provide memory mapping to the driver. I don't see why not. In fact, with proper protection mechanisms in place there's no reason why any user app should not be able to figure out real memory addresses. I don't think that would be ugly.
>>>>
It would be quite ugly. There are several problems that crop up. First, each driver would have to dynamically map pieces of process address space into its own space during execution (paltry 4GB address space on x86). To do that, you not only have to make a round-trip to the kernel, but you have to mess with the process address space (which involves an AVL-tree lookup and attempts to merge regions). The kernel doesn't have to do this, because whenever a system call is invoked, the current process's address space is already mapped. Then there is the fact that it becomes a pain to manage all those shared mappings. There can easily be hundreds of processes in the system, and multiple drivers processes would have to map each one. Managing that many shared mappings quickly becomes very messy (and very dangerous, due to the extensive sharing of memory).
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
To quote a /. sig "GNU is like sex, better when RMS isn't involved." Many people embrace the open source movement and I myself am one of them, all of my public binaries I've ever made are open source, they happen to be GPL because it seemed like the best at the time. Reall I believe in the "I don't really care what you do with the code, but here it is anyways", which seems to be the model of the BSD license (in a very naive sorta way).
GNU would be a whole lot of nothing without linux, that's a fact ... Linux would also be a whole lot of nothing without GNU, that's a fact, but is Mandrake a GNU OS? No ... is Debian HURD a GNU OS? Maybe ...
It's all a matter of politics and politics seem to scare people morst of the time, FSF and GNU are the same thing I don't care what you or an essay says. Why are they the same thing, they both have the same leader. And yes because of that they are the same thing. GNU is an idea, but it is made through the people behind it ... without the supporters of GNU there would be no GNU so GNU is the people behind it.
This is like arguing whether a hacker is someone who intrudes in a system or someone who writes code. Granted every geek will tell you NO that's a script kiddie, but it wasn't until the word script kiddie was made that people started to defend the word hacker.
I wouldn't be so defensive, but being told I don't understand the GNU, GPL, FSF, or Linux tends to piss me off a bit when I have had contact with major players of all those fronts. So my posts reflect words straight from the horses mouth.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
It seems like every time I turn around someone is finding a way to bitch, moan, and complain about something. The GPL buys don't like the BSD license. The BSD guys don't like the GPL. *BSD users don't like Linux and vice versa. Some people call a particular OS "GNU/Linux" while others just call it "Linux." Now we get to have the monolithic vs. microkernel debate....all over agein.
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that most disputes that persist are in fact sources of entertainment or diversion rather than legitimate issues of importance. People get bored and engage in a high-tech version of the dispute from Gulliver's travels where two groups were fighting over which end of an egg should be cracked.
Let me give you all a little piece of advice. Think for yourself, form your own conclusions. It is not necessary that anyone agree with you, or that you agree with anyone else. Everyone is going to do exactly what they damn well please, including you, so quit yer bitching. Or at least find something more productive to discuss.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for open debates of issues. Its just that when those debates drag on forever and nothing gets resolved then they aren't serving any productive purpose. Instead they create division where none need occur.
Another thing to remember is that people are going to disagree on things. That is normal and not something to pick a fight over. Anytime I see a group of people in perfect, or near perfect, agreement on something it is a sign that people aren't thinking for themselves. Of course on the other hand when there is a group where no one agrees it is often the case that they are all just trying to disagree for its own sake. Neither situation is a good one.
Think for yourself and expect others to do the same. Sometimes you'll find agreement with another person. Sometimes you won't. Just because the two of you see things differently doesn't mean that only one of you is right, or that either of you is right for that matter. You've got to call 'em like you see 'em. If everyone were to do that the world would be a better place.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Nevertheless your argument does not hold for Free/ Open Source Software, in practice at least - as it just keeps getting better
- Derwen
http://fsfeurope.org/