Ok, go ahead, make an FSF-free distribution. It'll take you years, but it's possible. Write your own compiler from scratch (egcs will not do, since it's heavily based on gcc), use a bunch of BSD utilities, and by 2005 or so it might be stable. Let us know when it's done.
If GNU doesn't deserve to be named...
on
Feature:Free Linux
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that he tries to prove that it shouldn't be called GNU/Linux by showing percentages of code contributions. However, his percentages show that the FSF contributed more code than all the Linux kernel people combined. That sorta counteracts his point. If we are to choose a name by percent of code contributed, then it should be the GNU OS, since the FSF is the single largest contributor.
Tom's big objection was that if you GPL documentation, then you GPL code examples in that documentation. If those examples are GPL'd, then you can't use them if you want to release you work under, say, the BSD license.
That means, the GPL license PREVENTS you from doing as you wish with your code. That means, the GNU GPL does not promote freedom, because it restricts people's actions - namely in the act of releasing code under a different license.
Actually, that's incorrect. You can release your own code under the BSD license, even if you have previously released it under the GPL. You are free to do whatever you want with your code, including releasing it in separate instances under different licenses, even mutually incompatible ones. The GPL does not prevent you from re-releasing your code, documentation, or anything else, at a later time under whatever license you wish (even a non-Free Software one).
Agreed. Linus is down at around 0.02%, so obviously it would be ludicrous to name the entire OS after something that is less than 0.1% of the total code (even counting everybody other than Linus that's contributed to the Linux kernel).
Since the FSF is the single largest author of the OS, it makes sense to call it the GNU OS. In fact, it is the same GNU OS that the FSF has been working on for quite a few years now, except that the still-not-finished HURD kernel was replaced by the Linux kernel. As such, it's the GNU OS with the Linux kernel, or GNU/Linux for short. If anything should be dropped, it should be the "Linux" portion, since that's just a temporary replacement until HURD is done, not GNU, which is the OS that is here to stay.
Umm, what are you going to do for a compiler, if you want a completely FSF-free distro? egcs certainly won't do, since it's merely some enhancements to gcc. The core of the compiler is still FSF code, so if you use it, you still have tons of FSF code in a crucial part of your system.
Write your own compiler? That seems a bit much to do merely to spite the FSF.
No. Teletext is a psudo-interactive system that many foreign countries have on their TVs. Basically, up to 999 channels of text is broadcast simultaneously with each channel. You go to a start page (usually 100), then it gives you a list of subpages (hyperlinks, basically). If you want to go to, say, 150, you type that in. Then, since this isn't really interactive, you wait until text page 150 is broadcast (usually not more than 10-15 seconds, since the 999 pages are cycled through fairly fast), and it's displayed.
It's useful for reading stuff about programs you're watching, getting more info about stuff, and seeing schedules. Quite a nifty system.
Teletext rules. Why is it that the US is one of the few industrialized countries without teletext on its TVs? Sure, it's not fully interactive, but it's a fairly good imitation, and reading a few pages of info about the program you're watching (without having to have a WebTV to go to the channel's website) is nice.
The problem is that X11amp, AFAIK, still uses the AMP engine (as Winamp used to do). The AMP engine is really bad. If you compare NullSoft's Nitrane engine to the AMP engine, Nitrane typically uses less than 1/2 of the CPU cycles that AMP does. Even with a slight gain in speed running a Linux/X setup rather than win95, Win95+Winamp still comes out faster than Linux+X+X11Amp, and Nitrane does a much better job of handling imperfect streams as well.
Cracking describes the act of removing copy protection, usually from shareware. Crackers are talented asm coders. Phrozen Crew and United Cracking Force would fall into this category.
Script kiddies are the talentless self-described "hackers" who use programs or scripts they downloaded to break into other computers, usually to cause damage. Also known as "hax0rs" or "hax0r d00ds," in an interesting case of using their own 3l33t-sp34k to mock them. The various web-page "hacker" groups would fall into this category.
Those who actually discover security holes in software are indeed "hackers," in their case, the term is applied correctly. L0pht Heavy Industries and the Cult of the Dead Cow would fall into this category.
I doubt NullSoft even has $20 million. How many people actually register their shareware? It'd take a whole lot of registered shareware to make $20 million, and I don't think that they've managed to sell any corporate licenses of their ShoutCast server yet...
I find it odd how these space movies continually mess up their portrayal of zero gravity. It was especially humorous when they pushed Rosie's crashed ship off the "edge" of the landing area, and it fell off the edge. Where did it "fall" to in zero gravity? Why didn't it just float off?
"Hawaii is very important to American interests in the Pacific. That's because Hawaii is in the Pacific. Hawaii is an American island in the Pacific." -Speech by Dan Quayle in Honolulu.
Nobody was sued for slander here. Slander is a defamatory oral statement. As no oral statements were made on yahoo, there was no slander taking place. Libel, perhaps, but not slander.
hmm, this seems like what you're looking for: freecddb.freecddb.org (port 888)
Hmm...every revolution needs a leader
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
Yes, he was instrumental in the original marketing of the Apple ][, but after that he pretty much succeeded in throwing away Apple's dominance. The Macintosh was more successful than the/// or the Lisa, but not nearly as successful as the ][. He should've stuck with the ][ line, as the Apple ][gs, which was barely supported or advertised at all, was a quite powerful machine for its time, and had the advantage of being backwards-compatible with all that ][ software everybody had. Intel knows the value of backwards compatibility, but apparently Jobs did not.
It makes perfect sense to me. In RMS's eyes, Microsoft represents the "other side," of proprietary software companies, a side which is irrelevant to the Free Software community. On the other hand, O'Reilly claims to be part of the Free Software movement, so as such they disturb RMS.
Hmm...every revolution needs a leader
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
A minor point: Steve Wozniak is the real architect of Apple's success. Jobs succeeded in largely killing the company by insisting on abandoning the ][ series and going through with fiascos such as the Apple/// and Apple Lisa.
you fail to mention that egcs is not some sort of new compiler built from scratch. It, too, owes much to the FSF for developing the gcc compiler it is based on.
1) You are correct in saying that Linus wrote the original Linux kernel, but he did not write the current (2.x.x) kernels. He has a significant percentage of the kernel code, but he himself estimates that much less than half the kernel code is his. Alan Cox probably has nearly as much code as Linus, if not more, yet he gets much less recognition than Linus does.
2) the GNU/Linux OS is not the same thing as the Linux kernel. That would be like saying that the name of Windows is "Win32" or that the name of OS/X is "Mach"
3) The Linux kernel was heavily influenced by Minix. However, most of the rest of the OS had already been written by the GNU project. The kernel was just the last needed piece of the OS (Since the "real" GNU kernel, HURD, is taking much much longer than envisoned).
Well, it would be nice, at least for bragging rights, if Linux implemented the necessary security features to earn a C2 rating. Sure, NT's C2 rating is fairly meaningless with all those requirements, but Linux can't earn a C2 rating even when it's not connected to a network and has no floppy drive, due to the lack of some required stuff like ACLs and auditing.
If this does get done, it'll prevent the NT people from being able to say "we have a C2 rating and you don't!" Not to mention that some of the security features actually would be useful.
Umm, RMS is not a "Linux zealot freak." He applauds Linux's progress, but I'm quite sure he'll prefer the HURD kernel when it is at a usable level of completion.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, go ahead, make an FSF-free distribution. It'll take you years, but it's possible. Write your own compiler from scratch (egcs will not do, since it's heavily based on gcc), use a bunch of BSD utilities, and by 2005 or so it might be stable. Let us know when it's done.
The problem is that he tries to prove that it shouldn't be called GNU/Linux by showing percentages of code contributions. However, his percentages show that the FSF contributed more code than all the Linux kernel people combined. That sorta counteracts his point. If we are to choose a name by percent of code contributed, then it should be the GNU OS, since the FSF is the single largest contributor.
Tom's big objection was that if you GPL documentation, then you GPL code examples in that documentation. If those examples are GPL'd, then you can't use them if you want to release you work under, say, the BSD license.
That means, the GPL license PREVENTS you from doing as you wish with your code. That means, the GNU GPL does not promote freedom, because it restricts people's actions - namely in the act of releasing code under a different license.
Actually, that's incorrect. You can release your own code under the BSD license, even if you have previously released it under the GPL. You are free to do whatever you want with your code, including releasing it in separate instances under different licenses, even mutually incompatible ones. The GPL does not prevent you from re-releasing your code, documentation, or anything else, at a later time under whatever license you wish (even a non-Free Software one).
Agreed. Linus is down at around 0.02%, so obviously it would be ludicrous to name the entire OS after something that is less than 0.1% of the total code (even counting everybody other than Linus that's contributed to the Linux kernel).
Since the FSF is the single largest author of the OS, it makes sense to call it the GNU OS. In fact, it is the same GNU OS that the FSF has been working on for quite a few years now, except that the still-not-finished HURD kernel was replaced by the Linux kernel. As such, it's the GNU OS with the Linux kernel, or GNU/Linux for short. If anything should be dropped, it should be the "Linux" portion, since that's just a temporary replacement until HURD is done, not GNU, which is the OS that is here to stay.
Umm, what are you going to do for a compiler, if you want a completely FSF-free distro? egcs certainly won't do, since it's merely some enhancements to gcc. The core of the compiler is still FSF code, so if you use it, you still have tons of FSF code in a crucial part of your system.
Write your own compiler? That seems a bit much to do merely to spite the FSF.
Oh come on, Ed Muth is easy to rebut. The Cult of the Dead Cow did a much better job in their Ed Muth rebuttal (on an unrelated topic).
No. Teletext is a psudo-interactive system that many foreign countries have on their TVs. Basically, up to 999 channels of text is broadcast simultaneously with each channel. You go to a start page (usually 100), then it gives you a list of subpages (hyperlinks, basically). If you want to go to, say, 150, you type that in. Then, since this isn't really interactive, you wait until text page 150 is broadcast (usually not more than 10-15 seconds, since the 999 pages are cycled through fairly fast), and it's displayed.
It's useful for reading stuff about programs you're watching, getting more info about stuff, and seeing schedules. Quite a nifty system.
Teletext rules. Why is it that the US is one of the few industrialized countries without teletext on its TVs? Sure, it's not fully interactive, but it's a fairly good imitation, and reading a few pages of info about the program you're watching (without having to have a WebTV to go to the channel's website) is nice.
The problem is that X11amp, AFAIK, still uses the AMP engine (as Winamp used to do). The AMP engine is really bad. If you compare NullSoft's Nitrane engine to the AMP engine, Nitrane typically uses less than 1/2 of the CPU cycles that AMP does. Even with a slight gain in speed running a Linux/X setup rather than win95, Win95+Winamp still comes out faster than Linux+X+X11Amp, and Nitrane does a much better job of handling imperfect streams as well.
Cracking describes the act of removing copy protection, usually from shareware. Crackers are talented asm coders. Phrozen Crew and United Cracking Force would fall into this category.
Script kiddies are the talentless self-described "hackers" who use programs or scripts they downloaded to break into other computers, usually to cause damage. Also known as "hax0rs" or "hax0r d00ds," in an interesting case of using their own 3l33t-sp34k to mock them. The various web-page "hacker" groups would fall into this category.
Those who actually discover security holes in software are indeed "hackers," in their case, the term is applied correctly. L0pht Heavy Industries and the Cult of the Dead Cow would fall into this category.
I doubt NullSoft even has $20 million. How many people actually register their shareware? It'd take a whole lot of registered shareware to make $20 million, and I don't think that they've managed to sell any corporate licenses of their ShoutCast server yet...
Funny, I never get that smash-the-computer feeling unless I'm running a Microsoft product.
I take it you've never tried configuring PPP on a Linux box.
I find it odd how these space movies continually mess up their portrayal of zero gravity. It was especially humorous when they pushed Rosie's crashed ship off the "edge" of the landing area, and it fell off the edge. Where did it "fall" to in zero gravity? Why didn't it just float off?
"Hawaii is very important to American interests in the Pacific. That's because Hawaii is in the Pacific. Hawaii is an American island in the Pacific." -Speech by Dan Quayle in Honolulu.
Nobody was sued for slander here. Slander is a defamatory oral statement. As no oral statements were made on yahoo, there was no slander taking place. Libel, perhaps, but not slander.
hmm, this seems like what you're looking for:
freecddb.freecddb.org (port 888)
Yes, he was instrumental in the original marketing of the Apple ][, but after that he pretty much succeeded in throwing away Apple's dominance. The Macintosh was more successful than the /// or the Lisa, but not nearly as successful as the ][. He should've stuck with the ][ line, as the Apple ][gs, which was barely supported or advertised at all, was a quite powerful machine for its time, and had the advantage of being backwards-compatible with all that ][ software everybody had. Intel knows the value of backwards compatibility, but apparently Jobs did not.
Well, the people who don't care about ideals won't want KDE and Corel. They'll just get Corel on Win95 and not bother with Linux.
It makes perfect sense to me. In RMS's eyes, Microsoft represents the "other side," of proprietary software companies, a side which is irrelevant to the Free Software community. On the other hand, O'Reilly claims to be part of the Free Software movement, so as such they disturb RMS.
A minor point: Steve Wozniak is the real architect of Apple's success. Jobs succeeded in largely killing the company by insisting on abandoning the ][ series and going through with fiascos such as the Apple /// and Apple Lisa.
Yeah, Brøderbund is still around. They've distributed a few recent games (can't recall any particular ones though).
you fail to mention that egcs is not some sort of new compiler built from scratch. It, too, owes much to the FSF for developing the gcc compiler it is based on.
Several things:
1) You are correct in saying that Linus wrote the original Linux kernel, but he did not write the current (2.x.x) kernels. He has a significant percentage of the kernel code, but he himself estimates that much less than half the kernel code is his. Alan Cox probably has nearly as much code as Linus, if not more, yet he gets much less recognition than Linus does.
2) the GNU/Linux OS is not the same thing as the Linux kernel. That would be like saying that the name of Windows is "Win32" or that the name of OS/X is "Mach"
3) The Linux kernel was heavily influenced by Minix. However, most of the rest of the OS had already been written by the GNU project. The kernel was just the last needed piece of the OS (Since the "real" GNU kernel, HURD, is taking much much longer than envisoned).
Well, it would be nice, at least for bragging rights, if Linux implemented the necessary security features to earn a C2 rating. Sure, NT's C2 rating is fairly meaningless with all those requirements, but Linux can't earn a C2 rating even when it's not connected to a network and has no floppy drive, due to the lack of some required stuff like ACLs and auditing.
If this does get done, it'll prevent the NT people from being able to say "we have a C2 rating and you don't!" Not to mention that some of the security features actually would be useful.
Umm, RMS is not a "Linux zealot freak." He applauds Linux's progress, but I'm quite sure he'll prefer the HURD kernel when it is at a usable level of completion.