AFAIK, he was a grad student at the University of Helsinki, and was doing Linux in his spare time. When it began to reach some level of success, he decided to make it into his PhD thesis (he hadn't decided on a thesis previously, he was just doing the "other" stuff you have to do as a grad student).
He may have started it as an undergraduate - I'm not sure of the exact details.
Re:When will they learn?
on
Linux 2.2.10
·
· Score: 1
I understand that any OS will have bugs. However, the Linux 2.2.x series has an unacceptable number of bugs, including unacceptably serious ones such as filesystem corruption. Windows 95, as bad as it may be in other ways, does not corrupt my filesystem.
My statement was mainly in reply to the "you're a beta tester" comment. If it's a stable release, then I'm not a beta tester. If the authors expect me to beta test their software, it should be labeled "beta" so I know what I'm getting into.
According to what I read on/. every day, NT is absolutely terrible, and Linux is better in every way. So why would Linux want to copy NT's performance monitor? Surely Linux has a better performance monitor already included, since it's so much better than NT.
Re:Is there any reason to stay with the 2.0.x seri
on
Linux 2.0.37 Released
·
· Score: 1
Some distros have upgrade scripts. AFAIK, Slackware does not, so you either have to reformat and reinstall, or upgrade each package/library separately (or write an upgrade script yourself).
Re:Is there any reason to stay with the 2.0.x seri
on
Linux 2.0.37 Released
·
· Score: 2
Linux 2.0.x is stable. Linux 2.2.x, despite the fact that it's an even-numbered series, is not stable, and should really be considered a development kernel (note the numerous bugs - filesystem corruption and DoS attack vulnerability). If someone were planning to use Linux in a mission-critical situation, I would most certainly caution against using the 2.2.x series.
I understand that, but the problem is that this is not the case with Linux 2.2.x. The bugs are far from "occasional," and the system is certainly not worthy of production usage. A kernel with serious flaws leading to DoS attacks and filesystem corruption is not what I want on my server. Either use Free/Open/NetBSD, or use Linux 2.0.36.
What is incorrect about his statement that it is a "college student's project"? It is a college student's project. If you check the University of Helsinki website, he did it as his PhD thesis.
Re:When will they learn?
on
Linux 2.2.10
·
· Score: 1
"testing a stable Linux kernel" is a contradiction. Either is it a beta version that needs testing, or it is a final version that is stable. You do not release beta versions as "stable" software.
Re:When will they learn?
on
Linux 2.2.10
·
· Score: 1
the OpenBSD people seem to be able to do it. Why can't the Linux people?
Re:When will they learn?
on
Linux 2.2.10
·
· Score: 1
No I'm not. Linux 2.2.0 was marked as a "stable" release, not a "beta" release "for testing purposes only." If it's a buggy beta release, it should be marked as such, rather than being mislabeled as "stable."
The point is that a virus/worm could do rm -rf / on a UNIX system too, deleting everything, even if it was run as a user. All it has to do is exploit one of the many security holes in suid root programs. Once the virus/worm gets itself root access, your "security" is worthless.
And don't tell me there aren't security holes. Ever taken a look at rootshell.org? Every time one is fixed, 5 more pop up.
So why does this guy share a name with a Linux distribution that he isn't involved with? Is "Mandrake" such a common name that two Linux-related entities just "happened" to pick the same name?
But what happens when your neighbor (who is somewhat mentally unstable) decides to detonate his nuclear weapons for the hell of it, taking you along with him? All your defense against a tyrannical state is sort of pointless, since you're dead.
I never said that it was no longer necessary. I just said that it was no longer practical.
I personally would like it to be possible for the citizenry to overcome the military if necessary. However, I also don't want to be killed by rogue members of that citizenry who decide to bomb my house with their F-16s.
No, the correct response to an assertion that Windows CE can do something that Linux can't is to provide proof that Linux can indeed do that, thus refuting the original argument.
Sure, it's not the perfect solution, and ADSL is definitely better. For now, however, it's not a bad solution, as a dual-channel ISDN line is prohibitively expensive. At least EQL will speed up your downloads.
I can understand why Jefferson and many others were in favor of a populace whose weaponry could overcome the military if needed, but that doesn't seem to be practical any longer. In those days, that could be achieved by giving everybody rifles, and giving a few people cannons. If somebody misused their weapons, they could kill a few people.
To overcome to the U.S. government, the firepower you'd need would be extremely dangerous. What happens when one of your nuclear-armed citizens goes crazy and decides to blow up Washington?
It's still a tough sell though. "You can play pod racer and all your favorite games and reboot occasionally" vs. "You never have to reboot but you can only play Quake and Civ:CTP" isn't very favorable towards Linux.
Re:Linux: The Ultimate Appliance OS
on
Digital VCRs
·
· Score: 1
In the near future many of these appliances are going to want to be networked. For the current example it'd be really cool to be able to pull video off of it over a household 100Mbs network. But one can't really do that with a single-tasking OS like DOS...
I wish people would get the facts before bashing DOS. DR-DOS can do TCP/IP networking, and is a multi-tasking OS. Any other non-problems you'd like to make up?
Slashdot Mirror
Even less stable.
AFAIK, he was a grad student at the University of Helsinki, and was doing Linux in his spare time. When it began to reach some level of success, he decided to make it into his PhD thesis (he hadn't decided on a thesis previously, he was just doing the "other" stuff you have to do as a grad student).
He may have started it as an undergraduate - I'm not sure of the exact details.
I understand that any OS will have bugs. However, the Linux 2.2.x series has an unacceptable number of bugs, including unacceptably serious ones such as filesystem corruption. Windows 95, as bad as it may be in other ways, does not corrupt my filesystem.
My statement was mainly in reply to the "you're a beta tester" comment. If it's a stable release, then I'm not a beta tester. If the authors expect me to beta test their software, it should be labeled "beta" so I know what I'm getting into.
According to what I read on /. every day, NT is absolutely terrible, and Linux is better in every way. So why would Linux want to copy NT's performance monitor? Surely Linux has a better performance monitor already included, since it's so much better than NT.
Some distros have upgrade scripts. AFAIK, Slackware does not, so you either have to reformat and reinstall, or upgrade each package/library separately (or write an upgrade script yourself).
Linux 2.0.x is stable. Linux 2.2.x, despite the fact that it's an even-numbered series, is not stable, and should really be considered a development kernel (note the numerous bugs - filesystem corruption and DoS attack vulnerability). If someone were planning to use Linux in a mission-critical situation, I would most certainly caution against using the 2.2.x series.
I understand that, but the problem is that this is not the case with Linux 2.2.x. The bugs are far from "occasional," and the system is certainly not worthy of production usage. A kernel with serious flaws leading to DoS attacks and filesystem corruption is not what I want on my server. Either use Free/Open/NetBSD, or use Linux 2.0.36.
What is incorrect about his statement that it is a "college student's project"? It is a college student's project. If you check the University of Helsinki website, he did it as his PhD thesis.
"testing a stable Linux kernel" is a contradiction. Either is it a beta version that needs testing, or it is a final version that is stable. You do not release beta versions as "stable" software.
the OpenBSD people seem to be able to do it. Why can't the Linux people?
No I'm not. Linux 2.2.0 was marked as a "stable" release, not a "beta" release "for testing purposes only." If it's a buggy beta release, it should be marked as such, rather than being mislabeled as "stable."
Of course, that didn't stop Congress from authorizing a standing army anyway...*grumble*
The point is that a virus/worm could do rm -rf / on a UNIX system too, deleting everything, even if it was run as a user. All it has to do is exploit one of the many security holes in suid root programs. Once the virus/worm gets itself root access, your "security" is worthless.
And don't tell me there aren't security holes. Ever taken a look at rootshell.org? Every time one is fixed, 5 more pop up.
So why does this guy share a name with a Linux distribution that he isn't involved with? Is "Mandrake" such a common name that two Linux-related entities just "happened" to pick the same name?
Incidentally, I'm God. Did you know that? If not, you're going to hell. So it goes.
But what happens when your neighbor (who is somewhat mentally unstable) decides to detonate his nuclear weapons for the hell of it, taking you along with him? All your defense against a tyrannical state is sort of pointless, since you're dead.
I never said that it was no longer necessary. I just said that it was no longer practical.
I personally would like it to be possible for the citizenry to overcome the military if necessary. However, I also don't want to be killed by rogue members of that citizenry who decide to bomb my house with their F-16s.
When you show me a free GPL game that can compete with Starcraft or Master of Orion 2, then we'll talk.
No, the correct response to an assertion that Windows CE can do something that Linux can't is to provide proof that Linux can indeed do that, thus refuting the original argument.
Sure, it's not the perfect solution, and ADSL is definitely better. For now, however, it's not a bad solution, as a dual-channel ISDN line is prohibitively expensive. At least EQL will speed up your downloads.
I can understand why Jefferson and many others were in favor of a populace whose weaponry could overcome the military if needed, but that doesn't seem to be practical any longer. In those days, that could be achieved by giving everybody rifles, and giving a few people cannons. If somebody misused their weapons, they could kill a few people.
To overcome to the U.S. government, the firepower you'd need would be extremely dangerous. What happens when one of your nuclear-armed citizens goes crazy and decides to blow up Washington?
An armed German populace would've made very little difference, as the majority of Germans supported the state anyway.
It's still a tough sell though. "You can play pod racer and all your favorite games and reboot occasionally" vs. "You never have to reboot but you can only play Quake and Civ:CTP" isn't very favorable towards Linux.
In the near future many of these appliances are going to want to be networked. For the current example it'd be really cool to be able to pull video off of it over a household 100Mbs network. But one can't really do that with a single-tasking OS like DOS...
I wish people would get the facts before bashing DOS. DR-DOS can do TCP/IP networking, and is a multi-tasking OS. Any other non-problems you'd like to make up?
Rather than acting like an elementary school teacher and going around patronizing random strangers, perhaps you could have posted such a URL yourself.
Since I don't run Linux, why would I know about this HOWTO?
I was just pointing out that "fuck you dumbass linux can do it" is not a very helpful way of pointing out how to use the multiple modems under Linux.