Why I don't call it GNU/Linux
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
Also, RMS likes to claim that without GNU tools we woudn't have a free operating system today. That's a bit of a stretch, and one that assumes the non-existence of BSD tools, most of which have no AT&T code
Indeed, if Linus hadn't written Linux, it would be likely that some form of FreeBSD would be the popular free UNIX of choice and GNU tools would be far less used than they are today. People should remember that the FreeBSD movement actually started before there was Linux and "GNU" meant only the common version of Emacs to most UNIX geeks.
If there's one thing history has taught us is that no matter how much people may want to, we simply can't "forget" technology. If face recognition software really gets implemented in a usable fashion, people (particularly governments) will use it. You may think that's awful or unfair, but that simply isn't relevant. It's the same problem with nuclear weapons -- they aren't going to disappear no matter how much people complain.
One thing that the anti-Chinese crowd never mentions about Tibet is that before the invasion there were very few schools and *no* universities in Tibet. Yes, the Chinese government is not particularly democratic (although no worse than many other governments, including the former theocratic government of Tibet), but because of the invasion, Tibetan youths have a chance to have a decent education. Would any one here enjoy being an illiterate peasant? Think about it.
Ever notice how when any form of physical technology is mentioned on/., the reponse is always positive, yet whenever any form of biotech is mentioned, it is treated as some sort of dangerous technology and lots of FUD is spread. This is despite the fact that humans have been mucking with agricultural genetics for thousands of years with beneficial effects, while modern physics has basically only given us nuclear weapons. If self-replicating nanotech machines are possible, they will almost certainly be used as weapons of war. If people feel a need to protect themselves from dangerous technology, nanotech is far more dangerous than biotech
Well, IBM isn't exactly the titan of industry it once was -- and as much as I love Open Source, it does seem that the corporations (with the exception of Intel) that are embracing Open Source at present are the once mighty that have fallen -- Corel, Netscape, IBM, etc.
Yeah, the whole epilogue trilogy never made much sense to me -- with the Empire defeated, do the rebels just sit around ala the non-violent version of Itchy & Scratchy saying "More Lemonade? Yes, Puh-lease."
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, if Linus hadn't written Linux, it would be likely that some form of FreeBSD would be the popular free UNIX of choice and GNU tools would be far less used than they are today. People should remember that the FreeBSD movement actually started before there was Linux and "GNU" meant only the common version of Emacs to most UNIX geeks.
So which company will be making the calculators?
If there's one thing history has taught us is that no matter how much people may want to, we simply can't "forget" technology. If face recognition software really gets implemented in a usable fashion, people (particularly governments) will use it. You may think that's awful or unfair, but that simply isn't relevant. It's the same problem with nuclear weapons -- they aren't going to disappear no matter how much people complain.
One thing that the anti-Chinese crowd never mentions about Tibet is that before the invasion there were very few schools and *no* universities in Tibet. Yes, the Chinese government is not particularly democratic (although no worse than many other governments, including the former theocratic government of Tibet), but because of the invasion, Tibetan youths have a chance to have a decent education. Would any one here enjoy being an illiterate peasant? Think about it.
Ever notice how when any form of physical technology is mentioned on /., the reponse is always positive, yet whenever any form of biotech is mentioned, it is treated as some sort of dangerous technology and lots of FUD is spread. This is despite the fact that humans have been mucking with agricultural genetics for thousands of years with beneficial effects, while modern physics has basically only given us nuclear weapons. If self-replicating nanotech machines are possible, they will almost certainly be used as weapons of war. If people feel a need to protect themselves from dangerous technology, nanotech is far more dangerous than biotech
Well, IBM isn't exactly the titan of industry it once was -- and as much as I love Open Source, it does seem that the corporations (with the exception of Intel) that are embracing Open Source at present are the once mighty that have fallen -- Corel, Netscape, IBM, etc.
Yeah, the whole epilogue trilogy never made much sense to me -- with the Empire defeated, do the rebels just sit around ala the non-violent version of Itchy & Scratchy saying "More Lemonade? Yes, Puh-lease."