Slashdot Mirror
Linux Router Project Dead
An anonymous reader submits: "The Linux Router Project is no more. This single-floppy distro was a great tool for building a number of simple super-low-cost network devices. The maintainer has a lot of bitter words about its demise, and it is sad to see it go."
i tried some time ago to get LRP to work. PITA. i tried freesco, a bit easier. i actually use an old P166/32MB RAM with RH 6.2. it seems now, the best of breed is smoothwall. having tested it recently, i am going to switch soon.(after comcast doesn't f*** up my internet when they switch over 6/30.) floppies are not reliable, and are very limiting. i always thought the micro linux projects were more about "hey, look, see what we can do". which is totally cool. no doubt. and practical? tom's rtboot was mildly, but now, knoppix is the shit.
so the guy needs work and there is little out there, and he feels he didn't get support for his pet project. boo f***in hoo. freedom means the ability to choose the best product. and people just weren't choosing his.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Ahh, what do you think you fucking idiot?
What was that you say? You would sue yourself if you made your GPLed code closed?
OK so yes, I'm sorry, downers (aka mongers, retards) like yourself are NOT allowed to change the license of your code. Normal people are.
No, I dont know. Sounds like you should talk to a lawyer to explain what the GPL actually does. No-one needs to talk to you to use your GPL'd stuff commercially. That fact that they do, means that either those companies dont have competant programmers in your coding area, or they dont have competant lawyers :->
So choose wisely, chose GPL.
Choose poorly (you'll probably stay poor, like the LRP guy!), choose GPL.
Free means free, you can't expect jack in return.
But, according to the Gnu folks, free doesn't mean free. Free means tied up in all sorts of reciprocal and retroactive knots. The GPL is a textbook example of an attempt at action-at-a-distance.
According to the FSF, "free" means "do what we tell you."
Perhaps we should start designing a system to get voluntary payments from users to hackers?
You mean like sharware? There's already a model in place. Most people use Kagi http://www2.kagi.com/
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Well by Microsoft. I heard they give you alot more control over thier products. Just read a EULA.
Mike
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
f the GPL actually granted a license, that would be true. It does not.
Um, it definitely does. That's why it's called the General Public License.
Instead, it mandates. It does not say, "You have the option of distributing this work." It says, "Under these broadly defined circumstances, you do NOT have the option of NOT distributing this work." That's a completely different thing.
No, those are simply the license terms. "Traditional" licenses mandate as well: payments and profit shares and required end-user licenses are all quite non-optional in a traditional distributor license. Nowhere in the law does it say that a license must put stringent restrictions on redistribution.
Let me get this straight. I'm making cogent, coherent, consistent arguments here,
No you're not. You're asserting competence on legal matters and then proceed to demonstrate your lack thereof.
and you feel that the best way to respond is to be sarcastic about my intelligence?
Not your intelligence as a whole, merely your capacity to understand that not everything must boil down to the desire to make profit. I see this selective blindness quite often in Americans.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Dave,
.tgz archive and >work has and is being done to replace this format. 'apkg' has been available
>I am a project member of LEAF and feel somewhat compelled to reply to your >comments if you feel inclined to take the time to read them.
I'm the guy that wrote LRP from scratch and I need to respond to this bullshit.
> LEAF and the literly dozens of other off shoots used the LRP os as their >base and then added enhancements mostly via the way of application specific >extenstions. I've yet to see any major revamping of the OS itself by anyone >else...only upgrades to newer componets. (kernel, busybox, etc...)
>While this is true to some extent, much work has gone on beyond your base as >well as Matthew Grant's work.
Matt Grant was LRP's first 'problem child'. Matt wanted to radically alter the networking scripts. I said it was too complex for the base. Please put them in a package. Matt proceeded to release his own version of LRP.
Again, LRP with some networking scripts.
Matt had NO PART in writing LRP. Matt did little to nothing it even support his own releases. This began to happen in very late 1999 when i was in the middle of relocating, and my mistake was to be passive about it instead of putting his ass in line. It caused a great deal of confusion in the project.
Of no surprise to me, Matt basically vanished, and I was left with the mess
of 'supporting' his releases.
>Many of us made use of the LRP site's resources though you rarely (if ever) >showed any indication of using any of our work or including any other >developers in your personal work (which was "LRP" itself).
Now this is a crock of fucking shit. I spent phone time with at least 3 different 'leaf' people in late 2000/early 2001. None of them followed through on any promise of work they commited too me. (Exception: Charles S. did split up POSIXness into module parts as I asked...but again further things never progressed.) The only thing anybody ever did fully and did really well was Ray handling bounces on the mailing list.
I couldn't reject anything because NOTHING WAS EVER SENT.
It should also be noted the 'leaf' people didn't know LRP from a hole in the
wall until cira 2000, ~4 years into the project.
> There is little to none of your code in David Douthitt's "Oxygen" project
> that has been reworked to necessitate only the kernel patches.
Let's reword this
"All your code has been removed...except what was needed to make it run"
The entire lay out of the OS is of course still LRP
>The kernel patches do not work with a 2.4.x kernel and any variants using
> these newer kernels have written their own patches."
More FUD. Patches for 2.4.16, 2.4.20, and 2.5.45 are @
http://ftp.psychosis.com/linux/initrd-dyn/kerne lpa tches/
The claim leaf rewrote the dynamic initial ramdisk scheme from
scratch is more crap.
>True to an extent, this package format is little more than a
Again based on eveything I did, and it is not what you would call a robust packaging system either.
>Which is the foundation of the LEAF project (found in the FAQ section). >Rather LEAF is a project that promotes somewhat similar variants or OS's >under an unbrella that encourages every release to do their own thing w/o >needing to be constrined to approval by a single person such as LRP was.
Let's remove the spin from that: Their are 5 people all putting out their own varient of LRP with varing coherency and compatiblity between them all.
That is exactly what I tried to prevent with LRP: fragmentation and over specialization of the core OS.
>Many of our variants do still use a some of your base, but this is at a >dead-end as far to the degree we could extend it and we are moving on as >future development demands and this comment will not be true in any degree >with near future releases.