Slashdot Mirror
The State of GNU/Linux in 2002: It was Good.
An anonymous reader writes "This year has proven most interesting for GNU/Linux. While there was not any amazing surprises, there were numerous events that are noteworthy for review. The upshot to all of this is that most of what happened was good overall for the Free Software community. Read the full story."
It rocked! Then again: I'm using Debian/Woody which is about a year old so I wouldn't know...
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
1. Write lots of PR about GNU/Linux
2. ???
3. Claim that the year was good for GNU/Linux
1. Get a Sharp Zaurus
2. Install Debian into it
3. ???
Yes it's all been replaced with binary now.
A: Bill Gates doesn't get it.
To see how rapidly GNU's alternative to the Linux kernel is moving along, look at the Initial GNU HURD announcent in 1991 and the last announcement. Note the following phrase in the last announcement:"Popular PC devices are generally supported." What a fantastic 12 years it has been for GNU!
happened for Linux in 2002 was that our boss put himself into this situation:
PHB: "It's a well known fact that Linux is developed by a bunch of ameutars, a toy.", in a meeting with big Boss and many others, "There's no proof in saying that Windows server is unstable! Look at our file server, it hasn't had a single downtime since it started!"
another non-PHB: "but sir, but your staffs told me that it's actually a Linux running Samba service."
PHB: "Is it?!...."
He should have talked to us more.
The only way Linux and its free software friends will ever die is if laws like the SSSCA are passed to make it illegal.
That law is way too extreme, the only way it could possibly pass is if we had a corporation bought president whose party has complete control of congress, and whose congressional leaders are on good friendly terms with him.
Oh wait...
Well in any case, the only way it wouldn't get struck down is if we had a judiciary filled with ultra-conservatives who promote corporate interests at every turn, and THAT won't happen unless...
Oh crap.
That man is all teeth...
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
True.
:-)
There is some argument that it's a bit burdensome to say exactly what you mean anymore when specifying a group of OSes on Slashdot, though.
Let me give an example. I might say "Unix had a good year with mplayer", except someone would be sure to pop up and "Linux isn't Unix...it's a Unix-like OS". Okay, that we can deal with. Then we run the dilemma of whether "Unix-like OSes had a good year with mplayer" means "all operating systems that are like Unix, but are not, in fact, Unix", or whether it means "all operating systems that are or are not Unix, as long as they resemble Unix". You could say "Linux had a good year with GNOME 2", but then you get nailed by a FreeBSD guy that says that GNOME 2 works *fine* on FreeBSD as well, and another Stallmanite or Debianite who says that what you *really* mean to say is "GNU/Linux", not "Linux", which refers only to a kernel. "Red Hat Linux" would refer to a whole operating system, but only one distribution of such. Now, one must be sure not to say only "Unix and GNU/Linux have excellent text processing tools", as someone will be sure to mention that GNU/Hurd can handle those same tools as well, and is being shortchanged in your original comment. One could say that "Sun's make is only supported under Solaris" -- is that in fact true, or is it also supported under SunOS?
At this point, we may think we see a clever loophole. "Free operating systems achieved an enormous boom in the last year." However, that would be sure to get Stallmanites pointing out that you do not mean "Free", since BSD is not Free (or perhaps it is -- even with an almost 24/7 tech habit I can't keep up with what the FSF believes). Instead, perhaps you mean "free". Also, Red Hat may or may not be Free, based on their previous inclusion of Netscape Navigator. But you aren't talking about "free" operating systems -- that would include BeOS and Apple's System 6.0.8. You might change to "open source", whereupon you are informed that several companies consider their operating systems to be "open source" but only to some people or under some restrictions. Instead, you must mean "Open Source" operating systems. Well, even assuming you're familiar with ESR's exact rhetoric and can tell what falls under the "Open Source" moniker, at this point you're probably a bit bewildered.
I've reached the point where I just transpose the proper term, the one someone meant, whenever I see "Linux" or "Unix" or "open source operating systems" on Slashdot. It just isn't worth trying to be perfectly accurate, since a term to properly define the set you're talking about is probably at least two sentences long.
May we never see th