And if you're a fan of Mach kernels why not get behind Hurd? To port Linux to Mach, you'll be in a forever catch-up mode with Linux proper. To do it on Mac hardware is to play forever catch-up with whatever Apple is so kind as to bestow on you.
Au contraire. When Mac OS X will be released, Apple's open source Darwin project (akin to the lower levels of OS X) will have all the hardware support you could ever ask for. And talking about dead technologies - is Hurd still alive? The latest release seems to be from 1997.
MkLinux was a great project and I'm sure people learned a lot about Mach and about hosting a Unix environment on top of a microkernel, but when Apple dropped their support in favour of Darwin it became obsolete. You guys are such great engineers that it hurts to see you waste your energies on a dead-end project when you could work on improving the future Apple OS. You would capture a much bigger audience if you incorporated your kernel modifications into Darwin and empowered mere mortals to run Mac OS X on their NuBus machines.
Good luck to them, but I'm not expecting much from the MKLinux people, not because of skills, but from a lack of support of Apple and little social stroking from the users.
I concur. Why don't the MKLinux guys use their considerable skills to get the new Darwin project off the ground? When Darwin 0.3 ships it will make absolutely no sense to support two different versions of the same kernel (Mach 3). Why not just grab the official Apple kernel and take it from there?
The problem in a nutshell
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
FSF sees source code availability as key to freedom. The GPL is their "constitution". It restricts some freedoms, in order to strengthen others.
This statement has neatly brought into focus what I personally dislike about the FSF. If the FSF were only interested in source code availability, why am I not allowed to incorporate GPL code into other free and open source projects? Why can't BSD people use parts of GPL programs? Why can't Apache, Perl, XFree, Mozilla and Darwin developers copy and paste code from GPL programs into their code - it will still be available as source code. The FSF wants every piece of free code to be attached to the viral GNU public license. This, frankly, is unacceptable.
Everyone can erect a tent in a bazaar, but it took a lot of planning, coordination, sweat and blood to build the cathedral of Reims. I never understood why ESR's paper pitted the bazaar against the cathedral, when both are serving totally different functions. If you'd ever been to Reims or Paris and if you'd seen, with your own eyes, the absolutely overwhelming beauty of these majestic edifices, you'd agree that the software world has built nothing but tents yet.
Nobody want's to take Linux away from you. If you don't care about technical progress then by all means use it, enjoy it, but please STOP PROSELYTIZING unsuspecting Windows users. Tell Torvalds to stop sermonizing about World Domination, tell Stallman to stop disseminating his "If it ain't free, it's worthless" mantra, and most importantly, stop harassing other people for exercising their right to choose an OS you don't approve of. There have always been free software alternatives, Linux offers nothing new in this regard either. You can also still build your own radio, monitor or car today. You HAVE a choice. Linux zealots, on the other hand, represent, as Bob put it, the last Luddites of the world. Time to get rid of them.
Your allegation that Apple is a counterexample to the points raised in the article is simply wrong. They are currently in the process of being "embraced" by the open source development model. This is a Good Thing(tm).
If you're on the Darwin development list you can witness the crumbling and fall of Apple's official communication channels. Did you know that a single support incident costs $195 when going through Apple's official Developer Technical Support system? At the same time people can ask very deep technical questions on darwin-development, and either some Apple employee may answer them directly or your mail is forwarded to the very core developers working on the problem. Free of charge.
This is all part of a community building process that has just begun. I think the ball is now in our own court, we need to support the individuals at Apple who fought for the release of Darwin as a free, open source OS. Of course there's still _lots_ of room for improvement, but this is not the right time to pick nits. First we have to show Apple that the open source approach actually works. Then we can think about fixing the bugs in the development process.
Ah well, you probably belong to the usual suspects who also post to comp.sys.next.advocacy incessantly whining about Apple and the demise of the YellowBox/Objective C. Get it through your thick skull that we don't care about your endless tirades!
It's interesting how Linux has devolved into a rallying place for bitter people with an axe to grind. First it appealed to the Anti-Microsoft clique, now they get the Anti-Apple people too. What a lovely crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
Au contraire. When Mac OS X will be released, Apple's open source Darwin project (akin to the lower levels of OS X) will have all the hardware support you could ever ask for. And talking about dead technologies - is Hurd still alive? The latest release seems to be from 1997.
MkLinux was a great project and I'm sure people learned a lot about Mach and about hosting a Unix environment on top of a microkernel, but when Apple dropped their support in favour of Darwin it became obsolete. You guys are such great engineers that it hurts to see you waste your energies on a dead-end project when you could work on improving the future Apple OS. You would capture a much bigger audience if you incorporated your kernel modifications into Darwin and empowered mere mortals to run Mac OS X on their NuBus machines.
I concur. Why don't the MKLinux guys use their considerable skills to get the new Darwin project off the ground? When Darwin 0.3 ships it will make absolutely no sense to support two different versions of the same kernel (Mach 3). Why not just grab the official Apple kernel and take it from there?
This statement has neatly brought into focus what I personally dislike about the FSF. If the FSF were only interested in source code availability, why am I not allowed to incorporate GPL code into other free and open source projects? Why can't BSD people use parts of GPL programs? Why can't Apache, Perl, XFree, Mozilla and Darwin developers copy and paste code from GPL programs into their code - it will still be available as source code. The FSF wants every piece of free code to be attached to the viral GNU public license. This, frankly, is unacceptable.
if($self.angry)
{
kill($mail);
echo "Have a smoke and create new message.";
eval_attitude();
}
Recursively calling eval_attitude() will generate lots of overhead and may even cause a stack overflow. I propose this slightly modified algorithm:
function eval_attitude()
{
$mail = $self.thoughts;
while ($self.angry) {
kill($mail);
echo "Have a smoke and create new message.";
$mail = $self.thoughts;
}
send($mail);
echo "Mail Sent!";
exit;
}
Everyone can erect a tent in a bazaar, but it took a lot of planning, coordination, sweat and blood to build the cathedral of Reims. I never understood why ESR's paper pitted the bazaar against the cathedral, when both are serving totally different functions. If you'd ever been to Reims or Paris and if you'd seen, with your own eyes, the absolutely overwhelming beauty of these majestic edifices, you'd agree that the software world has built nothing but tents yet.
Nobody want's to take Linux away from you. If you don't care about technical progress then by all means use it, enjoy it, but please STOP PROSELYTIZING unsuspecting Windows users. Tell Torvalds to stop sermonizing about World Domination, tell Stallman to stop disseminating his "If it ain't free, it's worthless" mantra, and most importantly, stop harassing other people for exercising their right to choose an OS you don't approve of.
There have always been free software alternatives, Linux offers nothing new in this regard either. You can also still build your own radio, monitor or car today. You HAVE a choice. Linux zealots, on the other hand, represent, as Bob put it, the last Luddites of the world. Time to get rid of them.
Hey that's a great site. Do you have any plans to release an english version as well?
Your allegation that Apple is a counterexample to the points raised in the article is simply wrong. They are currently in the process of being "embraced" by the open source development model. This is a Good Thing(tm).
If you're on the Darwin development list you can witness the crumbling and fall of Apple's official communication channels. Did you know that a single support incident costs $195 when going through Apple's official Developer Technical Support system? At the same time people can ask very deep technical questions on darwin-development, and either some Apple employee may answer them directly or your mail is forwarded to the very core developers working on the problem. Free of charge.
This is all part of a community building process that has just begun. I think the ball is now in our own court, we need to support the individuals at Apple who fought for the release of Darwin as a free, open source OS. Of course there's still _lots_ of room for improvement, but this is not the right time to pick nits. First we have to show Apple that the open source approach actually works. Then we can think about fixing the bugs in the development process.
Ah well, you probably belong to the usual suspects who also post to comp.sys.next.advocacy incessantly whining about Apple and the demise of the YellowBox/Objective C. Get it through your thick skull that we don't care about your endless tirades!
It's interesting how Linux has devolved into a rallying place for bitter people with an axe to grind. First it appealed to the Anti-Microsoft clique, now they get the Anti-Apple people too. What a lovely crowd.
Well well well. Another moderator acting in direct violation of the moderation guidelines.
Tom!!! You crack me up! It takes a lot of cohones to post this on Slashdot.
Way to go pal!
So what license _did_ SGI use on XFS? Is there a link somewhere?
Has anyone noticed the similarities between the Sony chip and the G4 with Altivec? Maybe the next generation of SMP Macs will be able to emulate it.
Bruce, do you really have to put a negative spin on everything?