Funny, I *used* to be very suspicious at RedHat when I started out using GNU/Linux. I've changed my mind however, they've pretty much proved that they are an all good-guy company, at least in my eyes. Should they however turn their backs on free software there are other distributions, people with a clue would use them instead.
If there is any reasson to fear and loathe redhat its for the fvwm95 and that controll panel thingie that comes with it. Yuck.
HAhaha!:) Cleaning the barn:) Seriously tho, I dont think there's any subliminal messages or anything in the GNU logo. I like it really, it has its own personality and charm.
I dont know if this is what the guy was refering to, and I cant give you any reference right away. But anyways. The japaneese had during the WWII one or two HUGE death camps where they experimented with biological weapons on capured chineese and allied civilians and soldiers. After the war ended the US and Japan made some agreement in wich the US could have all the results of the Japaneese reseach in biological weaponry, in return nor Japaneese scientists who had killed thousands of people using anthrax, cholera etc, or the Japaneese government would not be held responsible.
Dont know if this is what he meant by japaneese death camps.
I like not having all those silly games:) You just waste a whole lot of valuable time on them. Occationaly I descend into the dungeons of nethack tho. Thats a really really great game.
Is commersial software going "Open Source" good for the sucess of Linux and other free OSes?
Yes. Definetly. Any new software, be it Free/Open Source/proprietary is good for the popularity of free OS'es. World domination will be ours.
Is it good for the (Free Software, free as in FREEDOM) community?
No, not necessarily. The license conditions are crucial, and we should not settle for licenses wich takes away our right to freely copy, modify, use, and redistribute software. If we do, we are still dependant on companies.
Companies couldn't care less about the community. Capitalists will always be capitalists. They will always care more about making money than producing software to fill a certain need and make sure as many people as possible can use that piece of software. Sometimes theese intrests are not conflicting, but if they are, companies will always choose money over community.
The GPL doesnt take away our rights and ensures that the software stays free. That should always be the guidelines. Something beeing "Open Source" only means that you can have a peek at the source if you like, nothing else. Therefor we should be suspicous at anything labeled as "Open Source" and read the license agreements with a magnifying glass. If we care more about the community than for money/world domination that is.
This is ofcourse true. Bur replacing the userspace software with exact eqvialents (clones) is a far more complex matter than replacing the kernel with any other POSIX compliant kernel. The system as a whole (wich is what we're discussing) is far more userspace software than kernel, period. Still the kernel deserves to be emphasized - therefore its GNU/Linux.
Its not trivial, and Torvalds and all the other Linux developers sure put in a great effort. The kernel internals are just not verry visible to the user, be it an normal or advanced user. Linux is POSIX compliant, that is it has the same system calls, filesystem structure, and device interface as most other Unices and Unixlike systems. And thats what the user/programmer sees most of the time. If you were to replace Linux for any other POSIX compliant kernel most ppl wouldnt notice the difference. If you were to replace all the userspace tools and programs however, the difference would be substantial.
Why HURD hasnt gotten further I dont know. It was based on the MACH microkernel and should have had a head start. The sucess of Linux made it somewhat unecessary, and Linux has always drawn more developers. Im perfectly happy with the Linux kernel. However, with all this RMS, FSF, and GNU bashing lately I feel the importance of HURD growing again, just to get away from it all. The Linux community isn't what it used to be. I'd like to run a GNU only system.
So is being able to parse and understand text.
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
The idiot comment was perhaps unecessary, but defenetly not uncalled for.
Its hard to say this more clearly than I've done so far. I'll give it one last go at explaining how things are. Take your time, read the previous posts again and then read this thru.
Its the GNU _system_ part thats important. Most "Linux" distributions are GNU systems, that is, they use mostly all parts of the GNU projects os except for the kernel, instead they use Linux. Thats just fine. Since its a GNU system with a Linux kernel it should be called GNU/Linux. IF someone was to put together a system using the Linux kerenel but WITHOUT the GNU software (that is, without the sofware that is part of the GNU _system_, that is, software officially made part of the gnu _project_), they might call it whatever. Stallman has no claims on renaming Linux - the kernel. That is what Linux is. GNU/Linux denotes a GNU system using a Linux kernel. The interview with RMS was not realy on the naming of the system, but on who gets the fame. RMS is not so sad that Torvalds is getting most of the press, but because Torvalds is not propagating the concept of Free Software enough. (IMHO he does, just by so sucessfully spreading his kernel, but it *would* be nice if he'd mension Free Software a bit more often.)
True, the kernel is the heart of the system. But what kernel that is is of less importance. The GNU system runs on POSIX compliant kernels. Imagine a man with a transgenic heart transplanted from a pig(not too far away); would you call him a pig? (not that I'd call him Human/Pig;)
If you replace Linux with any other POSIX compliant kernel, you defenetly couldnt tell the difference if you were a moronic user, you might tell if you were a failry advanced programmer (wich you most likely arn't since you're such a fscking idiot) and were using any nonstandard calls, ioctls, stuff in kmem/proc etc specific to Linux.
If you replace the GNU tools you will have potentially much different system. You could probably set up an entirely BSD/Linux distribution, this wouldn't THAT much, but basically, you can add any kind of shell and utilities on top of the kernel. A hypothetical alien civilization using telepathy comunicate could use the Linux kernel in an OS. Humans would probably not be able to understand such a system, much less use it.
Any OS distribution using a Linux kernel should have the name "Linux" in there, just to emphasize that the Linux kernel actually is in there. This is of less relevance. The name "GNU" should be in there to if it uses the GNU tools. This will tell the user what environment he will be presented with, and what software he can expect to find. This is of much more relevance.
Linux did, AFAIK, not come out of Minix at all, it was written by Torvalds from scratch all by himself. Tannenbaum (the Minix-dude) didn't like Linux at all, there is an infamous mailinglist discussion about Linux between Tannenbaum and Torvalds where Tannenbaum says Linux is obsolete in its monolithic design (somewhat true IMHO, altho microkernel archs havn't exactly turned out as well as everyone thought) and that Torvalds would have gotten a really bad grade if he were Tannenbaums student. Torvalds replyed pointing out many of the braindamages of Minix.
Linux, while written from scratch by Torvalds, was written with the GNU system in mind; the GNU software wasn't ported to Linux, Linux was written to run GNU software. And ofcourse, Linux is a piece of GNU software itself.
While the kernel is an essential part of the system, its not the only such. The write the kernel you need a compiler, a shell, good tools for filehandling, a neato editor etc etc, this was what the GNU project aimed to write first before the kernel was written. Then there was Linux, started shortly before Hurd was started (the Hurd folks didnt know of Linux when they started it AFAIK). Linux caught on more quickly and got more developers than Hurd. And here we are. What you identify as a "Linux" system, is really a GNU system, with a linux kernel. Unless you are a kernel hacker, you cant tell a Linux system from any other system with the same userspace software from any other system with a POSIX compliant kernel.
We have RMS to thank for lots and lots of important software, for initiating the GNU project and basically inventing and propagating the concept of Free Software. Then again, we have Mr Torvalds to thank for putting together a kernel, making the whole system usable to ppl on i386 style computers. Linux, the kernel that is, may not be as clever and modern in its monolithic design as Hurd was meant to be (IMHO ofcourse), but still it has evolved into a really nice, usable and portable kernel. Without it GNU software wouldnt have become nearly as popular as it is today.
Personaly I dont care much who gets the credit for anything, not even for any software I write myself; the important thing is that the software is written and is free. And that the ideas of Free Software are propagated, just like RMS says in the article. If the GNU project continues to evolve and grow as well as it has so far, be it using Linux of Hurd, you'll have your name in the history book someday RMS, be sure.
Yes, that was what I was saying too, perhaps it was not clear. That is, you should be able to link some code to GPL'ed code, as long as its free. Not gratis, really really free. I also pointed out earlier that there were not many such licenses other than the GPL.
Oh yea, we were talking about the GPL, not the LGPL there. Sorry.
" GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991
... ... ... 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission....
[the program program would there be the GPL'ed programm... if the author of the program with the "other" dist conditions would have to ask the author for permisson to inorporate part of the GPL programm is not clear.] ... ... ... [At the end of the license:] This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License."
That is you cant link it to proprietary programs. That would allow programs under other licenses wich count as "non propriteary" to link to it. Im not sure tho, I only skimmed thru the GPL this time.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one who thinks gatekeeper.dec.com is slow on mirroring prep.ai.mit.edu theese days? /me is about to change fave GNU mirror :(
"How do you explain that money doesn't enumerate all value?"
Some people just dont get it. I never liked hardcoded brains.
Funny, I *used* to be very suspicious at RedHat when I started out using GNU/Linux. I've changed my mind however, they've pretty much proved that they are an all good-guy company, at least in my eyes. Should they however turn their backs on free software there are other distributions, people with a clue would use them instead.
If there is any reasson to fear and loathe redhat its for the fvwm95 and that controll panel thingie that comes with it. Yuck.
HAhaha! :) Cleaning the barn :)
Seriously tho, I dont think there's any subliminal messages or anything in the GNU logo. I like it really, it has its own personality and charm.
I dont know if this is what the guy was refering to, and I cant give you any reference right away. But anyways. The japaneese had during the WWII one or two HUGE death camps where they experimented with biological weapons on capured chineese and allied civilians and soldiers. After the war ended the US and Japan made some agreement in wich the US could have all the results of the Japaneese reseach in biological weaponry, in return nor Japaneese scientists who had killed thousands of people using anthrax, cholera etc, or the Japaneese government would not be held responsible.
Dont know if this is what he meant by japaneese death camps.
I like not having all those silly games :)
You just waste a whole lot of valuable time on them. Occationaly I descend into the dungeons of nethack tho. Thats a really really great game.
Is commersial software going "Open Source" good for the sucess of Linux and other free OSes?
Yes. Definetly. Any new software, be it Free/Open Source/proprietary is good for the popularity of free OS'es. World domination will be ours.
Is it good for the (Free Software, free as in FREEDOM) community?
No, not necessarily. The license conditions are crucial, and we should not settle for licenses wich takes away our right to freely copy, modify, use, and redistribute software. If we do, we are still dependant on companies.
Companies couldn't care less about the community. Capitalists will always be capitalists. They will always care more about making money than producing software to fill a certain need and make sure as many people as possible can use that piece of software. Sometimes theese intrests are not conflicting, but if they are, companies will always choose money over community.
The GPL doesnt take away our rights and ensures that the software stays free. That should always be the guidelines. Something beeing "Open Source" only means that you can have a peek at the source if you like, nothing else. Therefor we should be suspicous at anything labeled as "Open Source" and read the license agreements with a magnifying glass. If we care more about the community than for money/world domination that is.
This is ofcourse true.
Bur replacing the userspace software with exact eqvialents (clones) is a far more complex matter than replacing the kernel with any other POSIX compliant kernel. The system as a whole (wich is what we're discussing) is far more userspace software than kernel, period. Still the kernel deserves to be emphasized - therefore its GNU/Linux.
Its not trivial, and Torvalds and all the other Linux developers sure put in a great effort. The kernel internals are just not verry visible to the user, be it an normal or advanced user. Linux is POSIX compliant, that is it has the same system calls, filesystem structure, and device interface as most other Unices and Unixlike systems. And thats what the user/programmer sees most of the time. If you were to replace Linux for any other POSIX compliant kernel most ppl wouldnt notice the difference. If you were to replace all the userspace tools and programs however, the difference would be substantial.
Why HURD hasnt gotten further I dont know. It was based on the MACH microkernel and should have had a head start. The sucess of Linux made it somewhat unecessary, and Linux has always drawn more developers. Im perfectly happy with the Linux kernel. However, with all this RMS, FSF, and GNU bashing lately I feel the importance of HURD growing again, just to get away from it all. The Linux community isn't what it used to be. I'd like to run a GNU only system.
The idiot comment was perhaps unecessary, but defenetly not uncalled for.
;)
Its hard to say this more clearly than I've done so far. I'll give it one last go at explaining how things are. Take your time, read the previous posts again and then read this thru.
Its the GNU _system_ part thats important. Most "Linux" distributions are GNU systems, that is, they use mostly all parts of the GNU projects os except for the kernel, instead they use Linux. Thats just fine. Since its a GNU system with a Linux kernel it should be called GNU/Linux. IF someone was to put together a system using the Linux kerenel but WITHOUT the GNU software (that is, without the sofware that is part of the GNU _system_, that is, software officially made part of the gnu _project_), they might call it whatever. Stallman has no claims on renaming Linux - the kernel. That is what Linux is. GNU/Linux denotes a GNU system using a Linux kernel. The interview with RMS was not realy on the naming of the system, but on who gets the fame. RMS is not so sad that Torvalds is getting most of the press, but because Torvalds is not propagating the concept of Free Software enough. (IMHO he does, just by so sucessfully spreading his kernel, but it *would* be nice if he'd mension Free Software a bit more often.)
True, the kernel is the heart of the system. But what kernel that is is of less importance. The GNU system runs on POSIX compliant kernels.
Imagine a man with a transgenic heart transplanted from a pig(not too far away); would you call him a pig? (not that I'd call him Human/Pig
Ever heard of POSIX?
If you replace Linux with any other POSIX compliant kernel, you defenetly couldnt tell the difference if you were a moronic user, you might tell if you were a failry advanced programmer (wich you most likely arn't since you're such a fscking idiot) and were using any nonstandard calls, ioctls, stuff in kmem/proc etc specific to Linux.
If you replace the GNU tools you will have potentially much different system. You could probably set up an entirely BSD/Linux distribution, this wouldn't THAT much, but basically, you can add any kind of shell and utilities on top of the kernel. A hypothetical alien civilization using telepathy comunicate could use the Linux kernel in an OS. Humans would probably not be able to understand such a system, much less use it.
Any OS distribution using a Linux kernel should have the name "Linux" in there, just to emphasize that the Linux kernel actually is in there. This is of less relevance. The name "GNU" should be in there to if it uses the GNU tools. This will tell the user what environment he will be presented with, and what software he can expect to find. This is of much more relevance.
You are ofcourse correct.
Linux did, AFAIK, not come out of Minix at all, it was written by Torvalds from scratch all by himself. Tannenbaum (the Minix-dude) didn't like Linux at all, there is an infamous mailinglist discussion about Linux between Tannenbaum and Torvalds where Tannenbaum says Linux is obsolete in its monolithic design (somewhat true IMHO, altho microkernel archs havn't exactly turned out as well as everyone thought) and that Torvalds would have gotten a really bad grade if he were Tannenbaums student. Torvalds replyed pointing out many of the braindamages of Minix.
Linux, while written from scratch by Torvalds, was written with the GNU system in mind; the GNU software wasn't ported to Linux, Linux was written to run GNU software. And ofcourse, Linux is a piece of GNU software itself.
While the kernel is an essential part of the system, its not the only such. The write the kernel you need a compiler, a shell, good tools for filehandling, a neato editor etc etc, this was what the GNU project aimed to write first before the kernel was written. Then there was Linux, started shortly before Hurd was started (the Hurd folks didnt know of Linux when they started it AFAIK). Linux caught on more quickly and got more developers than Hurd. And here we are. What you identify as a "Linux" system, is really a GNU system, with a linux kernel. Unless you are a kernel hacker, you cant tell a Linux system from any other system with the same userspace software from any other system with a POSIX compliant kernel.
We have RMS to thank for lots and lots of important software, for initiating the GNU project and basically inventing and propagating the concept of Free Software. Then again, we have Mr Torvalds to thank for putting together a kernel, making the whole system usable to ppl on i386 style computers. Linux, the kernel that is, may not be as clever and modern in its monolithic design as Hurd was meant to be (IMHO ofcourse), but still it has evolved into a really nice, usable and portable kernel. Without it GNU software wouldnt have become nearly as popular as it is today.
Personaly I dont care much who gets the credit for anything, not even for any software I write myself; the important thing is that the software is written and is free. And that the ideas of Free Software are propagated, just like RMS says in the article. If the GNU project continues to evolve and grow as well as it has so far, be it using Linux of Hurd, you'll have your name in the history book someday RMS, be sure.
Yes, that was what I was saying too, perhaps it was not clear. That is, you should be able to link some code to GPL'ed code, as long as its free. Not gratis, really really free. I also pointed out earlier that there were not many such licenses other than the GPL.
Oh yea, we were talking about the GPL, not the LGPL there. Sorry.
" GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
...
...
...
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission....
[the program program would there be the GPL'ed programm... if the author of the program with the "other" dist conditions would have to ask the author for permisson to inorporate part of the GPL programm is not clear.]
...
...
...
[At the end of the license:]
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License."
That is you cant link it to proprietary programs. That would allow programs under other licenses wich count as "non propriteary" to link to it. Im not sure tho, I only skimmed thru the GPL this time.
Exactly.
Those who can SHOULD provide those who need. I dont really see how you can relate that kind of mentality to some ungratefull flaming morons.