He'd be free to rip out the Andrea VM if he wanted; however, I believe his concern is not about the technical aspects of the new VM but the principles involved in making deep changes to a stable kernel.
I once met Alan, at the first Linux Expo in Olympia, 1999.
I noticed him standing next to me and I just exclaimed "Alan Cox!" I was so overcome I couldn't say anything else. He just smiled... like I was some kind of idiot... which I suppose I was. I then drifted off to the Debian stand to buy a T-shirt.
Yes, meeting Dubya would most certainly not have left such an imprint on my mind.
The reason Linus released 2.4 as prematurely as he did was to get it tested because all the potential testers were shying away from a development kernel. I wouldn't have felt comfortable running it myself.
One possible solution is to have a testing kernel. Then we'd all be happy, well, at least I would.
I know you're trying to be funny, but just so the point is made, Stallman only wants distributions of Linux and GNU applications to be called GNU/Linux.
According to the article, BlueOS is only using the Linux Kernel and X. Guillaume Mailard says they are NOT creating a new (GNU/)Linux distro.
move all driver development into the kernel realm, and call XFree86 finished
This is what MS did with Windows NT. This is what caused all those blue screens of death when a badly written video driver went wonky.
The kernel hackers seem to have a rule: if it can go in user-land, keep it in user-land. This allows them to keep the kernel, upon which everything else depends, simple (to them anyway), stable and reliable.
Of course, there is a point where the benefits of centralisation surpass the drawbacks of complexity. Perhaps DirectFB reaches that point, but your arguments don't convince me.
Your main argument seems to be about inclusion of video drivers in X. You don't explain why that's a problem. Perhaps you could.
I solve the "permissions issue" by running GDM from rc2.d.
You call yourself a professional. As a professional, it is your responsibility to meet the standards recognised within the industry. The standards which define the World Wide Web are created by w3c.
If, instead of meeting those standards, you choose to do only what the customer wants, you cease to be professional. Please refrain from using the word in your title.
Last time I looked, WINE was LGPL'd, which is quite different, i.e. you can link proprietary programs to it. Hence the practical problems of trying to profit from selling GPL'd code, do not apply.
So, I encourage, nay I *challenge* each and every one of you who would boycott MS or the RIAA to pick up a local newspaper and see what's going on in y our town this weekend. Chances are, there's a band or two actually worth checking out, and hey, it's not like you're going to meet chicks sitting behind your monitor.
Chicks, take this as a warning: stay home this weekend.
Or, what better way to escalate the arms war between dishonest sellers and innocent buyers?
Punishing dishonesty doesn't turn would-be criminals into model citizens. It makes them work out ways to avoid being caught.
What's needed is to make it harder for them to commit crimes, so that the profit incentive is reduced. If you can do that whilst minimising the cost of crime prevention, then honesty has prevailed.
GNOME is a GNU project, I don't think 'associated only substantially by name' does that relationship justice.
There's more to HURD than NIH syndrome. It's a microkernel-based system. It's another Free O/S. These are good things. Hurd may currently be less complete than Linux, but development seems to have progressed quite rapidly since Debian got involved; I imagine the looming of a "release" adds impetus to development process.
1. Offtopic? No, because I wanted an explanation of the previous post.
2. Overrated? No, because I had not been rated. The post was at 2, because I post at 2 thanks to a reasonably high karma.
void rant (void){
Why don't moderators read the guidelines? You're not meant to moderate randomly like this. I don't moderate randomly like this, though sometimes I find moderation a chore. If you don't want to moderate properly, just untick the "willing to moderate" box in your user preferences.
}
Well, you're talking semantics and I'm talking pragmatics. We're bound to disagree.
I agree the naming of the "stable" kernel as "stable" is a dubious practice.
Someone suggested, in another story, a three-way kernel release split, akin to Debian's unstable, testing and stable release. I like that, and I think if Linux moves to use that naming things would be better.
What I am suggesting is that, in the interim, and indefinitely if things don't change, people should use the following mapping:
The 'old' stable kernel, 2.2, is the REAL stable kernel.
The 'new' stable kernel, 2.4, is the REAL testing kernel.
Once 2.5 is out, then 2.4 becomes the real stable kernel and 2.5 is unstable.
I never said "Alan Cox" kernel. By that I presume you mean the -ac series. When 2.4 was still 2.3, 2.2 was the stable tree - and it wasn't "-ac", it was just 2.2.x.
I consider 2.2.x the "stable" kernel, until 2.5 is out, and until then, I urge others to adopt the same attitude.
I don't think it is fair to complain about changes and breakages until the developers have somewhere else to make them.
Slashdot Mirror
Give him a chance to start, for goodness sake. The handover hasn't happened yet.
Now that's just silly.
He'd be free to rip out the Andrea VM if he wanted; however, I believe his concern is not about the technical aspects of the new VM but the principles involved in making deep changes to a stable kernel.
I once met Alan, at the first Linux Expo in Olympia, 1999.
I noticed him standing next to me and I just exclaimed "Alan Cox!" I was so overcome I couldn't say anything else. He just smiled... like I was some kind of idiot... which I suppose I was. I then drifted off to the Debian stand to buy a T-shirt.
Yes, meeting Dubya would most certainly not have left such an imprint on my mind.
I think we've been over this ground before.
The reason Linus released 2.4 as prematurely as he did was to get it tested because all the potential testers were shying away from a development kernel. I wouldn't have felt comfortable running it myself.
One possible solution is to have a testing kernel. Then we'd all be happy, well, at least I would.
Is a "trade secret" a legally protected entity, and not just "this thing we're not telling anyone, because it's important they don't know about it"?
I thought the algorithms stopped being "trade secrets" as soon as they were publically know.
Precisely. Please mod up.
I know you're trying to be funny, but just so the point is made, Stallman only wants distributions of Linux and GNU applications to be called GNU/Linux.
According to the article, BlueOS is only using the Linux Kernel and X. Guillaume Mailard says they are NOT creating a new (GNU/)Linux distro.
move all driver development into the kernel realm, and call XFree86 finished
This is what MS did with Windows NT. This is what caused all those blue screens of death when a badly written video driver went wonky.
The kernel hackers seem to have a rule: if it can go in user-land, keep it in user-land. This allows them to keep the kernel, upon which everything else depends, simple (to them anyway), stable and reliable.
Of course, there is a point where the benefits of centralisation surpass the drawbacks of complexity. Perhaps DirectFB reaches that point, but your arguments don't convince me.
Your main argument seems to be about inclusion of video drivers in X. You don't explain why that's a problem. Perhaps you could.
I solve the "permissions issue" by running GDM from rc2.d.
no errors
Nothing to handle then stupid.
You call yourself a professional. As a professional, it is your responsibility to meet the standards recognised within the industry. The standards which define the World Wide Web are created by w3c.
If, instead of meeting those standards, you choose to do only what the customer wants, you cease to be professional. Please refrain from using the word in your title.
Woops, I have to take that back - as prizog points out, it's under an X11-like license.
Which still allows linking of proprietary code, of course, which was the thrust of my post.
Last time I looked, WINE was LGPL'd, which is quite different, i.e. you can link proprietary programs to it. Hence the practical problems of trying to profit from selling GPL'd code, do not apply.
Why not just run Linux and save yourself all the trouble?
So, I encourage, nay I *challenge* each and every one of you who would boycott MS or the RIAA to pick up a local newspaper and see what's going on in y our town this weekend. Chances are, there's a band or two actually worth checking out, and hey, it's not like you're going to meet chicks sitting behind your monitor.
Chicks, take this as a warning: stay home this weekend.
GFS / OpenGFS
Of course I have heard of justice, and where a fraudulent act has been committed, I agree that punishment must be served.
However, if we can prevent an act of dishonesty, by making it more profitable to be honest, then there is no need for justice.
This is surely every reasonable person's preferred outcome. Nothing you said invalidated my original argument, so I presume you misunderstood me.
It would be better if people were naturally honest, but that's not realistic.
Or, what better way to escalate the arms war between dishonest sellers and innocent buyers?
Punishing dishonesty doesn't turn would-be criminals into model citizens. It makes them work out ways to avoid being caught.
What's needed is to make it harder for them to commit crimes, so that the profit incentive is reduced. If you can do that whilst minimising the cost of crime prevention, then honesty has prevailed.
GNOME is a GNU project, I don't think 'associated only substantially by name' does that relationship justice.
There's more to HURD than NIH syndrome. It's a microkernel-based system. It's another Free O/S. These are good things. Hurd may currently be less complete than Linux, but development seems to have progressed quite rapidly since Debian got involved; I imagine the looming of a "release" adds impetus to development process.
And guess who's going to say "I really don't care about this award, I just want to code..."
But then I remembered I live in the UK.
Unfortunately, what goes on "over there" soon enough comes round "over here".
What can a foreigner do to stop the "Leaders of the Free World" leading it up the garden path?
Fuck off and die.
Moderation Totals: Offtopic=1, Overrated=1, Total=2
Hello moderators.
1. Offtopic? No, because I wanted an explanation of the previous post.
2. Overrated? No, because I had not been rated. The post was at 2, because I post at 2 thanks to a reasonably high karma.
void rant (void){
Why don't moderators read the guidelines? You're not meant to moderate randomly like this. I don't moderate randomly like this, though sometimes I find moderation a chore. If you don't want to moderate properly, just untick the "willing to moderate" box in your user preferences.
}
Well, you're talking semantics and I'm talking pragmatics. We're bound to disagree.
I agree the naming of the "stable" kernel as "stable" is a dubious practice.
Someone suggested, in another story, a three-way kernel release split, akin to Debian's unstable, testing and stable release. I like that, and I think if Linux moves to use that naming things would be better.
What I am suggesting is that, in the interim, and indefinitely if things don't change, people should use the following mapping:
The 'old' stable kernel, 2.2, is the REAL stable kernel.
The 'new' stable kernel, 2.4, is the REAL testing kernel.
Once 2.5 is out, then 2.4 becomes the real stable kernel and 2.5 is unstable.
I never said "Alan Cox" kernel. By that I presume you mean the -ac series. When 2.4 was still 2.3, 2.2 was the stable tree - and it wasn't "-ac", it was just 2.2.x.
I consider 2.2.x the "stable" kernel, until 2.5 is out, and until then, I urge others to adopt the same attitude.
I don't think it is fair to complain about changes and breakages until the developers have somewhere else to make them.
Not true.
In the context of the linux kernel, I view 'stable' as meaning "ready for UAT".
People who run kernels while developers are still modifying them are conducting that UAT.
Stable code is the end result.
I'm not talking about -ac kernels. I am talking about kernels in "maintenance" by the "maintainer" who has of late been Alan Cox.