Looking through previous comments, I've seen nothing about `Renaming of the LGPL'.
Am I the only one who is feeling nauseous when reading 'The LGPL is a compromise that is required sometimes but generally disliked.' ?
Now, not only does RMS and his church have opinions, but everyone generally agrees with them ?
Next year, this season, we will probably learn that RMS programmed Linux all by himself...
GPL software is not free. You can't do what you want with it. LGPL is a little better. That whole schmuck of changing the license is a bit like pulling the carpet off...
Now that RMS got loads of collaborations from lots of people, and that he's got a system which works, more or less, under GPL (that fabled GNU Linux, the one the rest of the world calls Linux), it looks like he feels he can say `thanks for all the free code. Now, you'd better switch to the GPL, or you won't be able to use the next release of LGPL'd stuff.'
This is more a comment on most of the messages in this ridiculous thread than the starting message.
The whole point with PGP is *trust*. It doesn't matter where you get the keys, what matters is who signed them, whether they are reliable people, and whether you trust them.
PGP is not yet another cool whistle to add your machine, it's either something you want, and then you'd better learn to use it correctly, or something you don't have to care about at all.
Besides, it only protects you against some tampering on the way. If the basic archive machine gets broken somehow, the magic potion won't work, as the recent incident with the linux security server distribution amply demonstrates.
Oh, and there's a downside to writing software that gets famous.
Sure, it feels great to see your baby on a redhat CD-Rom, but then... the bug-reports start coming in, or the simploid questions.
Quote (from D. Haynie, I think): `programming is like sex. One mistake, and you have to support it for life.'
Just a word of caution: be sure to send out very proper and extensive docs with software you write. It's like a virus, and even older versions WILL be coming back to plague you for years.
I'm still wondering at the popularity of the linux kernel... On one point, it's a great thing. Loads of exposure for free software, annoying corporate people. On the other hand, it's only one project in a wide sea of Open Source Software projects...
The prestige is completely out of proportion. It is pretty easy to contribute to the kernel. You just have to find a small point which annoys you, and fix it.
Sure, it's an important part of a running system but, say, if glibc stopped working, or if developpers stopped writing XFree graphics drivers, well... I think you'd notice pretty soon.
It can also be a bit dangerous, since the `top' people want to be in the kernel, and they leave all the rest of the drudge-work to `less gifted' programmers. Not true yet, but a nightmarish scenario...
The FSF tried to insist on that point with their `GNU/linux' plea... bad PR at its worst. All they managed to do was give the impression they were peeved that Linus was succeeding where Hurd had failed.
Slashdot Mirror
Heard about Darwin ? the dodo bird ? soviet union ?
There's ideology, and then there's reality. Free software should prevail because it's better, not because this is How Things Should Be.
If free software has to compete with commercial software, it just has to *stay* better. The GPL is just complacent.
Why do I bother arguing ? There is no valid technological point there, this is plain religion and ideology...
Looking through previous comments, I've seen nothing about `Renaming of the LGPL'.
Am I the only one who is feeling nauseous when reading 'The LGPL is a compromise that is required sometimes but generally disliked.' ?
Now, not only does RMS and his church have opinions, but everyone generally agrees with them ?
Next year, this season, we will probably learn that RMS programmed Linux all by himself...
GPL software is not free. You can't do what you want with it. LGPL is a little better. That whole schmuck of changing the license is a bit like pulling the carpet off...
Now that RMS got loads of collaborations from lots of people, and that he's got a system which works, more or less, under GPL (that fabled GNU Linux, the one the rest of the world calls Linux), it looks like he feels he can say `thanks for all the free code. Now, you'd better switch to the GPL, or you won't be able to use the next release of LGPL'd stuff.'
This is more a comment on most of the messages
in this ridiculous thread than the starting
message.
The whole point with PGP is *trust*.
It doesn't matter where you get the keys,
what matters is who signed them, whether they
are reliable people, and whether you trust
them.
PGP is not yet another cool whistle to add your
machine, it's either something you want, and then
you'd better learn to use it correctly, or
something you don't have to care about at all.
Besides, it only protects you against some
tampering on the way. If the basic archive
machine gets broken somehow, the magic potion
won't work, as the recent incident with the linux
security server distribution amply demonstrates.
Oh, and there's a downside to writing software that gets famous.
Sure, it feels great to see your baby on a redhat CD-Rom, but then... the bug-reports start coming in, or the simploid questions.
Quote (from D. Haynie, I think):
`programming is like sex. One mistake, and you have to support it for life.'
Just a word of caution: be sure to send out very proper and extensive docs with software you write. It's like a virus, and even older versions WILL be coming back to plague you for years.
I'm still wondering at the popularity of the linux kernel... On one point, it's a great thing. Loads of exposure for free software, annoying corporate people. On the other hand, it's only one project in a wide sea of Open Source Software projects...
The prestige is completely out of proportion. It is pretty easy to contribute to the kernel. You just have to find a small point which annoys you, and fix it.
Sure, it's an important part of a running system but, say, if glibc stopped working, or if developpers stopped writing XFree graphics drivers, well... I think you'd notice pretty soon.
It can also be a bit dangerous, since the `top' people want to be in the kernel, and they leave all the rest of the drudge-work to `less gifted' programmers. Not true yet, but a nightmarish scenario...
The FSF tried to insist on that point with their `GNU/linux' plea... bad PR at its worst. All they managed to do was give the impression they were peeved that Linus was succeeding where Hurd had failed.