Linux is driven by a hatred of Microsoft? Fuck you too.
You yourself might be an exception to the rule...but that genuinely is something I see all the time...the idea that Linux's main purpose appears to be to "save" people from the dreaded horror of all horrors, Microsoft. I also already know that you as an individual use multiple licenses...so why are *you* bothering to reply to this?
The single main reason why I hold such contempt for the continuing, mindless terror of Microsoft is precisely because it is mindless. As the article a few days ago said, they are no longer a threat to anyone but themselves. Music-based DRM is on its' way out, as I always knew it eventually would be, and now Vista's restrictions are being subverted as well.
In short, every last bit of the pro-GPL fearmongering I continue to hear online is based on nothing real whatsoever...it's a complete crock from beginning to end.
You want to argue about some ideological license purity bullshit? Then why the fuck are you using the BSD license instead of just leaving it in public domain?
Looks like I've struck a nerve, here. Interesting...if what I'm saying is, "bullshit," then why bother getting so upset about it? Surely if what I'm saying is completely invalid, it's easier for you to dismiss without being offended by it, yes?
I am not arguing that RMS is bereft of a sizable ego. But he was not involved in this, or as a matter of fact in most of the GPL/BSD-related flamewars.
Stallman doesn't generally get directly involved in too many arguments, from what I've seen. It's a lot safer for his image that way. If he doesn't get involved, there's no risk of him getting angry and mouthing off at someone himself, a la Theo, so he gets to maintain the perception that he is more elevated. The FSF also like to maintain the perception that if anyone has objections to their ideology, it is merely due to a lack of understanding on the part of the individual, rather than any inherent logical flaw in the ideology itself. Sticking to a largely passive/responsive stance (rather than being proactive) where communication is concerned makes that easier.
Also, he doesn't actually need to get involved in arguments; he has people like Bruce Perens and his numerous other fans and underlings (many of whom are genuinely far more skilled in diplomacy, which is invaluable) in various places to do it for him. The mouthpiece strategy would be a win for him either way; if they say something positive he could later take credit for it himself, whereas if they do or say anything negative, it won't be attributed to anyone other than themselves, and there's no risk of it coming back to him in any way whatsoever. By never being around directly himself, he would also be able to cultivate the impression that he is too important to be able to spend time in conversations/arguments, as well.
It also means that adherence to his philosophy gets enforced both here and other places, (by his advocates) without him having to appear overtly dictatorial by doing it himself.
And therefore you don't have "issues" with Theo? Then I believe your stance has a name. It is called: hypocritical.
However vicious Theo might be, he doesn't try and pretend to be anything other than who/what he is, and he also fights his own battles. I respect that.
The way Mr. de Raadt treats other human beings is simply abusive, and there is no external factor than can explain his behavior in any fashion that would justify coddling it.
To me it is utterly laughable, when I consider how juvenile, dictatorial, and abusive they themselves are on a routine basis, that the denizens of Slashdot feel that they have any justification whatsoever in turning around and complaining about Theo's supposed lack of a personality.
I really don't feel that anyone within the Linux community has any business calling anyone *else* socially disabled at all.
You know, there are times when I see material from people on here that inspires feelings of anger and aggression in me, and vindictive responses. The only feeling I'm experiencing in response to you, however, is genuine pity.
But of course, sharing cannot be imposed. If you don't agree with unlimited sharing, then use other licences, such as BSD, for instance.
Very clever. Of course, sharing of GPLed code is unlimited only *within* the monoculture itself. That's one of the ways in which it meets the definition of a monoculture.;)
I also love the emotive use of language, while implying that use of other licenses actually means that a person is acting contrary to their own best interests. You're good.;)
Without it being mutual, there is no continued motivation to share.
Not everyone is purely self-serving, Bruce. It also used to be about the idea (at least to a degree) that the experience of creating something itself worked as a viable incentive.
I thought that open source was about sharing code.
It used to be. If you read a book called Homesteading the Noosphere by Eric Raymond at some point, he writes in it about something he refers to as a gift culture. GPL advocates will try and tell you otherwise, but in reality the GPL is a gross perversion of that concept. The BSD license is a lot closer to it.
The entire motivation of the GPL is fear. You will never hear a GPL advocate try and tell you that the GPL is a good idea for any reason other than to supposedly protect you from corporate predators. That is the only reason why it exists at all.
The motivation behind Linux's development, likewise, is primarily driven by fear and hatred...generally of Microsoft, but also of the corporate world in general. A lot of the people working on Linux are doing so primarily because they want a free version of Windows, but without Microsoft's criminal behaviour associated with it.
The motivation behind the BSDs' development is (or was, anywayz) very different; a genuine love of programming, and from that, a desire to produce something that anyone can use, no questions asked. That is what the basis of the earlier gift culture was; it was based on you doing what *you* felt was right, rather than your actions being dictated by whether or not someone else chose to reciprocate, or actually irrespective of what they chose to do at all. It's called self-responsibility.
There are a lot of things that the FSF have done that I continue to feel outraged about, but polluting the original motivation behind open source has to be one of the very worst.
He (and many extreme libertarians who congregate around him) see GPL as a Communist plot. We are out to get their precious bodily fluids contaminated or some such.
No...it's just that the guy who wrote the GPL is a raving megalomaniac, who also enjoys falsely leading people into thinking that he's actually the complete opposite. Some of us tend to have issues with such people; it's part of the whole "extreme libertarianism" thing, you understand.
Matter solved, no drama. But Theo has to open his big fat mouth.
I greatly admire Theo, personally. There are people in this world who are in desperate need of being told on a continual basis to fuck the hell off, and Theo has the courage to do that.
Maybe he's foul mouthed, sure...I am myself at times. As I said to Bruce Perens, I find it far more offensive personally that there are individuals who are opposed to the use of profanity, but who as long as politeness is exercised, have no qualms whatsoever about doing far worse things than simply cussing someone out. I don't try and pretend to take the moral high ground, and I don't have a lot of time for other people who do. Honest negativity is something I find a lot more tolerable than hypocrisy...people who are genuinely insidious but who try and hide that behind a false veneer of light.
This isn't to say that I have a problem with people using the GPL license: I don't. I have a problem with it being labeled as "free."
Stallman understands the power of words; they're the very things that we use to construct ideas. By redefining the word "free" he creates a scenario where although he means something very different to what that word means to most other individuals, said other individuals will think that he is using the same definition that they are when he isn't. Thus, you end up with a scenario like the one on this website where people continually justify his tyranny and try to advocate it to others. A scenario where a person who is being repressed will actually fight for and seek to defend the person responsible for their repression is a fascist's dream come true, and at least in his own context, Stallman has achieved it.
Although I am continually caused tremendous pain by the degree of malevolence, I cannot help admiring the intelligence involved, as well. Evil genius is still genius, nonetheless.
I hear you, but tragically, very few other people here are going to. Witness the fact that your post has been modded down to a point which almost ensures that very few people will read it. The FSF/GPL advocates here do that on a routine basis whenever something is said that deviates from their beliefs.
Something you're possibly already aware of is that there are a number of people who advocate both Linux and the GPL who are trying to create a scenario where these are the only forms of FOSS that exist. The entire rationale behind what drives these people is fear and hatred of groups that are in any way different from themselves...and the ultimate source of all of this bile is Richard Stallman. Most of the individuals associated with Linux who also behave in this manner are simply following his lead. He compulsively fears, hates, and seeks to destroy that which he does not have control over, and so those who follow him follow his example. It's pretty simple.
I find myself wondering what the future of the BSDs is going to be like, at this point...one thing I do suspect is that Linux users are going to start trying harder from here on to ensure that there actually *isn't* a future for the BSDs at all.
Because that's what the driver developer intended - take the GPL driver, and modify it over time to hide it's origins.
The only way that refactoring becomes illegal is if the GPL becomes a patent license as well, which it probably will...it's logical. Got to close all possible doors.
I will never understand how people are so unbelievably, voluntarily stupid. The FSF and its' fanboys bully people and do and say repressive things on a continual basis, and yet somehow, they're supposedly the ones in the right, every time. I can only hope that eventually, Linux users start waking up.
The "copy left" zealots are now attacking every Open Source license other than theirs.
They've been doing that for years now...taking their cue from the demoniac who leads them. The rationale is that an alternate form of control needs to be established in order to act as a counter to corporate fascism. I'm still trying to understand how merely developing another brand of repressive behaviour is supposed to be a good thing.
In my own mind the main reason why corporate misbehaviour is harmful is because it provides exactly the sort of material that Stallman and his apologists need as justification to engage in their own tyranny. It might not be mutual, but the FSF is in a dependent relationship with Microsoft...because without the fear of what the bogeyman Steve Ballmer might do next, people might start seeing the GPL for what it really is, comparitively speaking. Any appeal that the FSF currently have would evaporate.
Considering that BSD is the key channel for the GPL work to find its way into manufacturer's machinery, I'd say the authors (who by the way deserve that title quite a lot more than the guy who went off in a huff)
I wonder how long it's going to be before the FSF/other associated Linux zealots attempt to destroy the BSDs entirely, based on this pretext?
Tell me, please...how much damage is going to have to be done before people realise what an obscenity Stallman's redefinition of the word "free" really is?
Here we have yet another example of the truly wonderful kind of attitude spawned and promoted by the scourge that some of us know and loathe as the FSF; ergo, fear-based mean-spiritedness, megalomania, and paranoia.
As the FSF and its' associated drones become ever more corrupt and tyrannical in their behaviour, look for them to begin finding excuses to question the BSDs' right to exist. The BSDs give people who might otherwise have no choice but to put up with the FSF another option, and sooner or later they are going to decide that they doesn't like that enough that they will try and do something concrete about it. Control cannot be maintained if people have anywhere else to go.
There is no POINT in a web-based Photoshop. What are your options?
Write your rendering engine as a daemon/console app, with your GUI via Flash. (Or Java might be better for this) You probably could do that quite easily...chrome on its' own is what Flash was originally meant for. Then have the two communicate via sockets; not necessarily using http, since it was more meant for batch stuff. Something involving udp would probably work better.
This would give you all the usual benefits; distributed/easier clustered rendering, ability for different people to do their own thing with custom GUIs, transparency, etc. The flexibility means that it'd be cool even run locally.
However, not necessarily by all that much. I have felt for 10 years now that I will be very surprised if Microsoft still exists by 2015. I think they are still on track to meet that prediction, as well. Gates' retirement next year is not a coincidence, and is also not due purely to old age either, I do not believe...he has more foresight than most, and he would be very well aware of the writing on the wall. He is leaving while he can still do so on a positive note.
This is a good example, although I don't really think it's part of the kernel in the context you appear to be using it (based on your mention of GRUB).
The relevant asm file is here. However, you are correct in that as I suspected, direct booting from it is no longer supported. It was historically, though.
What's a "core system service" ?;) What's *not* a "core system service" ? Is, say, OpenGL a "core system service" ? How about if you're talking about the operating system on a console or some other device whose only purpose is to display graphics ?
As far as a (or the) conventional UNIX kernel is concerned, there is a very specific answer as to what does or does not constitute a core system service.
Memory management is another good example, but... where does something like a JVM that also does "memory management" fit into the picture ?
With a kernel written in C, it wouldn't.;-)
d) A means of loading modules for communicating with different forms of hardware.
I'm reading this as hardware drivers. Where do drivers that run in user space fit in ?
Probably as part of the relevant application. Can you give me an example here?
e) A TCP/IP networking stack as part of it.
Consider Trumpet Winsock for Windows 3.x. Part of the kernel or not ?
Application. A userspace hack for an OS which AFAIK was never initially intended to support networking in the first place. AFAIK Trumpet was never used on anything other than fairly early dialup, and it most likely wasn't intended to be. It would have been as slow as hell compared to contemporary stacks, I'm guessing...but would have been written on the assumption that considering how slow the user's physical link was in such a scenario, they wouldn't be likely to notice anywayz.;-)
A kernel is:- a) A bootstrap/bootloader. (Or at least it used to be, in Linux's case. These days most people use Grub, but up until not so long ago, you could use the kernel's asm bootstrap directly)
b) An implementation of the core system services, many of which are duplicated within the C library, cos I think people find them easier to use there. (Open, read, write, execute, all that sort of stuff. People have added a lot more to Linux now; in the first version of the kernel that Linus released, I'm fairly sure there were only 64 services within the kernel. Now from memory there are 260)
c) Because it's the first program to load, the kernel is also what loads all other programs...it also does memory management.
d) A means of loading modules for communicating with different forms of hardware.
And thus, it would make sense for such a campaign to really have been orchestrated by a certain Redmond, WA-based software company.
Sure, Dr Evil might quite easily have arranged it. But think about this...how many times in the past has something like this happened where it *has* legitimately been real Linux users harassing people? By any count I've seen, a few billion or so. Somebody associated with Linux is doing this kind of thing all the time; ZDNet's authors get subjected to savage abuse on a routine basis by the Stallmanite faithful. Laura Didio was harassed at her home during the night, and subjected to various other forms of juvenile derision.
In other words, this particular incident *might* have been a stunt pulled by Microsoft...but if so, how likely do you think it's going to be for anyone to be able to tell the difference?;)
Either it's the GPL or some skirmish between members of the community. Compare this with BSDs, which keep cooly advancing and perfecting their products, without all the noise. However, without all the press, too.
Here's a hint; the popularity of something is nearly always inversely proportional to its' degree of genuine desirability. I don't normally quote the Bible, but this passage is relevant.
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
I don't think I've ever seen another scenario where this concept holds more true than in the case of the GPL as compared with the BSD license.
Why? Because they're a bunch of fuckwits, that's why.
The problem is that said individuals have engaged in this type of behaviour on a sufficiently consistent and repetitive basis that they now constitute the default public face of Linux.
As I've written before though...these guys are only really doing it in order to serve as good, loyal soldiers for the leadership of the FSF. It's well documented that this type of "activism" is exactly the type of thing that cultists customarily do. The FSF genuinely is the proverbial destructive cult, and it promotes/induces cultic, fanatical, hysterical behaviour. Actions like this on the part of the faithful only serve as a continuing supply of evidence to support that assertion.
As an academic exercise, try studying both Richard Stallman and Lefayette Ronald Hubbard at some point and looking at how much the two men actually have in common. The results might surprise you. (Especially politically) I also feel that Stallman and Rael have a certain amount in common, both visually and in terms of the charismatic element.
That's the real problem though...Linux needs to become purely an operating system, rather than also being a sociopolitical/pseudoreligious cult.
These sorts of flaps happen over and over again in connection with Linux.
They also happen purely because of the Stallmanite worldview a number of Linux users have, which incorporates the idea that it's both possible and acceptable to bully other people into adopting your perspective via exactly this kind of radical "activism," as well as an intense level of fear, particularly of Microsoft.
Get rid of the Stallmanite ideology, and you'll get rid of all traces of this kind of vicious, intimidatory behaviour...because that is exactly and exclusively where it comes from.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is driven by a hatred of Microsoft? Fuck you too.
You yourself might be an exception to the rule...but that genuinely is something I see all the time...the idea that Linux's main purpose appears to be to "save" people from the dreaded horror of all horrors, Microsoft. I also already know that you as an individual use multiple licenses...so why are *you* bothering to reply to this?
The single main reason why I hold such contempt for the continuing, mindless terror of Microsoft is precisely because it is mindless. As the article a few days ago said, they are no longer a threat to anyone but themselves. Music-based DRM is on its' way out, as I always knew it eventually would be, and now Vista's restrictions are being subverted as well.
In short, every last bit of the pro-GPL fearmongering I continue to hear online is based on nothing real whatsoever...it's a complete crock from beginning to end.
You want to argue about some ideological license purity bullshit? Then why the fuck are you using the BSD license instead of just leaving it in public domain?
Looks like I've struck a nerve, here. Interesting...if what I'm saying is, "bullshit," then why bother getting so upset about it? Surely if what I'm saying is completely invalid, it's easier for you to dismiss without being offended by it, yes?
I am not arguing that RMS is bereft of a sizable ego. But he was not involved in this, or as a matter of fact in most of the GPL/BSD-related flamewars.
Stallman doesn't generally get directly involved in too many arguments, from what I've seen. It's a lot safer for his image that way. If he doesn't get involved, there's no risk of him getting angry and mouthing off at someone himself, a la Theo, so he gets to maintain the perception that he is more elevated. The FSF also like to maintain the perception that if anyone has objections to their ideology, it is merely due to a lack of understanding on the part of the individual, rather than any inherent logical flaw in the ideology itself. Sticking to a largely passive/responsive stance (rather than being proactive) where communication is concerned makes that easier.
Also, he doesn't actually need to get involved in arguments; he has people like Bruce Perens and his numerous other fans and underlings (many of whom are genuinely far more skilled in diplomacy, which is invaluable) in various places to do it for him. The mouthpiece strategy would be a win for him either way; if they say something positive he could later take credit for it himself, whereas if they do or say anything negative, it won't be attributed to anyone other than themselves, and there's no risk of it coming back to him in any way whatsoever. By never being around directly himself, he would also be able to cultivate the impression that he is too important to be able to spend time in conversations/arguments, as well.
It also means that adherence to his philosophy gets enforced both here and other places, (by his advocates) without him having to appear overtly dictatorial by doing it himself.
And therefore you don't have "issues" with Theo? Then I believe your stance has a name. It is called: hypocritical.
However vicious Theo might be, he doesn't try and pretend to be anything other than who/what he is, and he also fights his own battles. I respect that.
The way Mr. de Raadt treats other human beings is simply abusive, and there is no external factor than can explain his behavior in any fashion that would justify coddling it.
To me it is utterly laughable, when I consider how juvenile, dictatorial, and abusive they themselves are on a routine basis, that the denizens of Slashdot feel that they have any justification whatsoever in turning around and complaining about Theo's supposed lack of a personality.
I really don't feel that anyone within the Linux community has any business calling anyone *else* socially disabled at all.
You know, there are times when I see material from people on here that inspires feelings of anger and aggression in me, and vindictive responses. The only feeling I'm experiencing in response to you, however, is genuine pity.
But of course, sharing cannot be imposed. If you don't agree with unlimited sharing, then use other licences, such as BSD, for instance.
;)
;)
Very clever. Of course, sharing of GPLed code is unlimited only *within* the monoculture itself. That's one of the ways in which it meets the definition of a monoculture.
I also love the emotive use of language, while implying that use of other licenses actually means that a person is acting contrary to their own best interests. You're good.
Without it being mutual, there is no continued motivation to share.
Not everyone is purely self-serving, Bruce. It also used to be about the idea (at least to a degree) that the experience of creating something itself worked as a viable incentive.
I thought that open source was about sharing code.
It used to be. If you read a book called Homesteading the Noosphere by Eric Raymond at some point, he writes in it about something he refers to as a gift culture. GPL advocates will try and tell you otherwise, but in reality the GPL is a gross perversion of that concept. The BSD license is a lot closer to it.
The entire motivation of the GPL is fear. You will never hear a GPL advocate try and tell you that the GPL is a good idea for any reason other than to supposedly protect you from corporate predators. That is the only reason why it exists at all.
The motivation behind Linux's development, likewise, is primarily driven by fear and hatred...generally of Microsoft, but also of the corporate world in general. A lot of the people working on Linux are doing so primarily because they want a free version of Windows, but without Microsoft's criminal behaviour associated with it.
The motivation behind the BSDs' development is (or was, anywayz) very different; a genuine love of programming, and from that, a desire to produce something that anyone can use, no questions asked. That is what the basis of the earlier gift culture was; it was based on you doing what *you* felt was right, rather than your actions being dictated by whether or not someone else chose to reciprocate, or actually irrespective of what they chose to do at all. It's called self-responsibility.
There are a lot of things that the FSF have done that I continue to feel outraged about, but polluting the original motivation behind open source has to be one of the very worst.
He (and many extreme libertarians who congregate around him) see GPL as a Communist plot. We are out to get their precious bodily fluids contaminated or some such.
No...it's just that the guy who wrote the GPL is a raving megalomaniac, who also enjoys falsely leading people into thinking that he's actually the complete opposite. Some of us tend to have issues with such people; it's part of the whole "extreme libertarianism" thing, you understand.
Matter solved, no drama. But Theo has to open his big fat mouth.
I greatly admire Theo, personally. There are people in this world who are in desperate need of being told on a continual basis to fuck the hell off, and Theo has the courage to do that.
Maybe he's foul mouthed, sure...I am myself at times. As I said to Bruce Perens, I find it far more offensive personally that there are individuals who are opposed to the use of profanity, but who as long as politeness is exercised, have no qualms whatsoever about doing far worse things than simply cussing someone out. I don't try and pretend to take the moral high ground, and I don't have a lot of time for other people who do. Honest negativity is something I find a lot more tolerable than hypocrisy...people who are genuinely insidious but who try and hide that behind a false veneer of light.
This isn't to say that I have a problem with people using the GPL license: I don't. I have a problem with it being labeled as "free."
Stallman understands the power of words; they're the very things that we use to construct ideas. By redefining the word "free" he creates a scenario where although he means something very different to what that word means to most other individuals, said other individuals will think that he is using the same definition that they are when he isn't. Thus, you end up with a scenario like the one on this website where people continually justify his tyranny and try to advocate it to others. A scenario where a person who is being repressed will actually fight for and seek to defend the person responsible for their repression is a fascist's dream come true, and at least in his own context, Stallman has achieved it.
Although I am continually caused tremendous pain by the degree of malevolence, I cannot help admiring the intelligence involved, as well. Evil genius is still genius, nonetheless.
I hear you, but tragically, very few other people here are going to. Witness the fact that your post has been modded down to a point which almost ensures that very few people will read it. The FSF/GPL advocates here do that on a routine basis whenever something is said that deviates from their beliefs.
Something you're possibly already aware of is that there are a number of people who advocate both Linux and the GPL who are trying to create a scenario where these are the only forms of FOSS that exist. The entire rationale behind what drives these people is fear and hatred of groups that are in any way different from themselves...and the ultimate source of all of this bile is Richard Stallman. Most of the individuals associated with Linux who also behave in this manner are simply following his lead. He compulsively fears, hates, and seeks to destroy that which he does not have control over, and so those who follow him follow his example. It's pretty simple.
I find myself wondering what the future of the BSDs is going to be like, at this point...one thing I do suspect is that Linux users are going to start trying harder from here on to ensure that there actually *isn't* a future for the BSDs at all.
Because that's what the driver developer intended - take the GPL driver, and modify it over time to hide it's origins.
The only way that refactoring becomes illegal is if the GPL becomes a patent license as well, which it probably will...it's logical. Got to close all possible doors.
I will never understand how people are so unbelievably, voluntarily stupid. The FSF and its' fanboys bully people and do and say repressive things on a continual basis, and yet somehow, they're supposedly the ones in the right, every time. I can only hope that eventually, Linux users start waking up.
The "copy left" zealots are now attacking every Open Source license other than theirs.
They've been doing that for years now...taking their cue from the demoniac who leads them. The rationale is that an alternate form of control needs to be established in order to act as a counter to corporate fascism. I'm still trying to understand how merely developing another brand of repressive behaviour is supposed to be a good thing.
In my own mind the main reason why corporate misbehaviour is harmful is because it provides exactly the sort of material that Stallman and his apologists need as justification to engage in their own tyranny. It might not be mutual, but the FSF is in a dependent relationship with Microsoft...because without the fear of what the bogeyman Steve Ballmer might do next, people might start seeing the GPL for what it really is, comparitively speaking. Any appeal that the FSF currently have would evaporate.
(Then I look over my shoulder and remember who's lurking out there.)
;)
Yep. Whatever you do, don't forget the fear. After all...what other justification for the GPL is there?
Considering that BSD is the key channel for the GPL work to find its way into manufacturer's machinery, I'd say the authors (who by the way deserve that title quite a lot more than the guy who went off in a huff)
I wonder how long it's going to be before the FSF/other associated Linux zealots attempt to destroy the BSDs entirely, based on this pretext?
Tell me, please...how much damage is going to have to be done before people realise what an obscenity Stallman's redefinition of the word "free" really is?
If they robbed GPL code, its they problem, not our. Damn, lets ban BSD forever.
Please tell me you're merely idly trolling and that you don't honestly think like this.
Here we have yet another example of the truly wonderful kind of attitude spawned and promoted by the scourge that some of us know and loathe as the FSF; ergo, fear-based mean-spiritedness, megalomania, and paranoia.
As the FSF and its' associated drones become ever more corrupt and tyrannical in their behaviour, look for them to begin finding excuses to question the BSDs' right to exist. The BSDs give people who might otherwise have no choice but to put up with the FSF another option, and sooner or later they are going to decide that they doesn't like that enough that they will try and do something concrete about it. Control cannot be maintained if people have anywhere else to go.
There is no POINT in a web-based Photoshop. What are your options?
Write your rendering engine as a daemon/console app, with your GUI via Flash. (Or Java might be better for this) You probably could do that quite easily...chrome on its' own is what Flash was originally meant for. Then have the two communicate via sockets; not necessarily using http, since it was more meant for batch stuff. Something involving udp would probably work better.
This would give you all the usual benefits; distributed/easier clustered rendering, ability for different people to do their own thing with custom GUIs, transparency, etc. The flexibility means that it'd be cool even run locally.
However, not necessarily by all that much. I have felt for 10 years now that I will be very surprised if Microsoft still exists by 2015. I think they are still on track to meet that prediction, as well. Gates' retirement next year is not a coincidence, and is also not due purely to old age either, I do not believe...he has more foresight than most, and he would be very well aware of the writing on the wall. He is leaving while he can still do so on a positive note.
a) A bootstrap/bootloader.
;) What's *not* a "core system service" ? Is, say, OpenGL a "core system service" ? How about if you're talking about the operating system on a console or some other device whose only purpose is to display graphics ?
;-)
;-)
This is a good example, although I don't really think it's part of the kernel in the context you appear to be using it (based on your mention of GRUB).
The relevant asm file is here. However, you are correct in that as I suspected, direct booting from it is no longer supported. It was historically, though.
What's a "core system service" ?
As far as a (or the) conventional UNIX kernel is concerned, there is a very specific answer as to what does or does not constitute a core system service.
Memory management is another good example, but... where does something like a JVM that also does "memory management" fit into the picture ?
With a kernel written in C, it wouldn't.
d) A means of loading modules for communicating with different forms of hardware.
I'm reading this as hardware drivers. Where do drivers that run in user space fit in ?
Probably as part of the relevant application. Can you give me an example here?
e) A TCP/IP networking stack as part of it.
Consider Trumpet Winsock for Windows 3.x. Part of the kernel or not ?
Application. A userspace hack for an OS which AFAIK was never initially intended to support networking in the first place. AFAIK Trumpet was never used on anything other than fairly early dialup, and it most likely wasn't intended to be. It would have been as slow as hell compared to contemporary stacks, I'm guessing...but would have been written on the assumption that considering how slow the user's physical link was in such a scenario, they wouldn't be likely to notice anywayz.
So what's a kernel ?
A kernel is:-
a) A bootstrap/bootloader. (Or at least it used to be, in Linux's case. These days most people use Grub, but up until not so long ago, you could use the kernel's asm bootstrap directly)
b) An implementation of the core system services, many of which are duplicated within the C library, cos I think people find them easier to use there. (Open, read, write, execute, all that sort of stuff. People have added a lot more to Linux now; in the first version of the kernel that Linus released, I'm fairly sure there were only 64 services within the kernel. Now from memory there are 260)
c) Because it's the first program to load, the kernel is also what loads all other programs...it also does memory management.
d) A means of loading modules for communicating with different forms of hardware.
e) A TCP/IP networking stack as part of it.
And thus, it would make sense for such a campaign to really have been orchestrated by a certain Redmond, WA-based software company.
;)
Sure, Dr Evil might quite easily have arranged it. But think about this...how many times in the past has something like this happened where it *has* legitimately been real Linux users harassing people? By any count I've seen, a few billion or so. Somebody associated with Linux is doing this kind of thing all the time; ZDNet's authors get subjected to savage abuse on a routine basis by the Stallmanite faithful. Laura Didio was harassed at her home during the night, and subjected to various other forms of juvenile derision.
In other words, this particular incident *might* have been a stunt pulled by Microsoft...but if so, how likely do you think it's going to be for anyone to be able to tell the difference?
Either it's the GPL or some skirmish between members of the community. Compare this with BSDs, which keep cooly advancing and perfecting their products, without all the noise. However, without all the press, too.
Here's a hint; the popularity of something is nearly always inversely proportional to its' degree of genuine desirability. I don't normally quote the Bible, but this passage is relevant.
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
I don't think I've ever seen another scenario where this concept holds more true than in the case of the GPL as compared with the BSD license.
Why? Because they're a bunch of fuckwits, that's why.
The problem is that said individuals have engaged in this type of behaviour on a sufficiently consistent and repetitive basis that they now constitute the default public face of Linux.
As I've written before though...these guys are only really doing it in order to serve as good, loyal soldiers for the leadership of the FSF. It's well documented that this type of "activism" is exactly the type of thing that cultists customarily do. The FSF genuinely is the proverbial destructive cult, and it promotes/induces cultic, fanatical, hysterical behaviour. Actions like this on the part of the faithful only serve as a continuing supply of evidence to support that assertion.
As an academic exercise, try studying both Richard Stallman and Lefayette Ronald Hubbard at some point and looking at how much the two men actually have in common. The results might surprise you. (Especially politically) I also feel that Stallman and Rael have a certain amount in common, both visually and in terms of the charismatic element.
That's the real problem though...Linux needs to become purely an operating system, rather than also being a sociopolitical/pseudoreligious cult.
These sorts of flaps happen over and over again in connection with Linux.
They also happen purely because of the Stallmanite worldview a number of Linux users have, which incorporates the idea that it's both possible and acceptable to bully other people into adopting your perspective via exactly this kind of radical "activism," as well as an intense level of fear, particularly of Microsoft.
Get rid of the Stallmanite ideology, and you'll get rid of all traces of this kind of vicious, intimidatory behaviour...because that is exactly and exclusively where it comes from.