Corporations need nothing from open source, they've developed software on their own just fine you know.
Besides, if the FSF pushes like this, the corporations will just move elsewhere. Suddenly you'll find AIX becoming the operating system that IBM pushes or perhaps it will move to a BSD or simply fork the code they want and keep it GPL2 in stead of moving it to GPL3 ever.
You're selfish, that's fine, don't help people because it's nice, just help people you like. There's no rules against that - but that doesn't mean people will put up with it or deal with you at all if you do.
I don't think Linus is stupid enough to move the code to the GPL3, but I expect that every thing done officially by the GNU people will suddenly have forks or people will switch to using the BSD userland tools.
While I won't dive into the "soul" argument, I will say that being inside someone that died would probably have an effect on one mentally.
Just being around death has an effect of removing one's joy of life and cheerfulness, the idea of feeling your life slip away, when it is not your own, is probably something that would change one's view on life.
Being inside someone when they died would answer the question of what happens when we die, Bester would have first hand experiences with it.
Perhaps that is more what it is like, looking through the eyes of a dying man and seeing nothing, feeling cold and knowing that there is no tunnel of light or glourious release, it's just a shutter and into the dirt you go.
It may be that that would have an effect on how someone acts, that from then on they would live more on the edge, knowing nothing better is coming along.
Maybe Bester didn't do it the first time for kicks, maybe it was suggested to him, as a character building experience, maybe from then on he had returned to it, to reassure himself and make sure he completely understood the emptiness of death. Who knows such things?
Yet is what he did something that can really be construed as evil?
He did what he did to have is thumb on the pulse of Babylon 5, something vital to the continuation of his people. That he happens to get his kicks by pulling the wings off a fly kinda shows he has a dark side, but Garibaldi was the information man at the station and the telepaths needed that information.
His view of mundane humans is understandable as well, it is the same view that many people have about the mentally retarded. Sure, they can go about living their lives, but you'd rather keep your people alive then them.
If you are faced with the choice of letting a million mentally retarded people live or a hundred smart people live, where only one party could survive, which would be best for the race? It's a philosophical counter to Spock's needs of the many argument.
Bester may have had an arrogance to him, but the end goal was a better world for his people. Dust was made to try and better humanity, it was designed to make people telepathic. The alliance with the Shadows was to make the race as a whole more powerful in the universe.
Nah, I just can't view him as a villian, he isn't a protaganist, but he's definately not an antagonist either. Surely he was misguided, but that is in part because of what Psi-Corps had done to him.
I never really saw Bester do anything particularly evil, he was just protecting his people. Would you say G'Kar was a bad guy? No, he was just protecting his people.
Some of what he did may have been, distasteful or mean, but they were being done with the greater good in mind.
He surely wasn't a nice guy, but rather than an outright villian like Morden, he just didn't care about anyone else's well being, just his people's.
Well, that's the same thing as people always complaining about OpenBSD's lacking support for 3d graphics, why should they make that compromise? OpenBSD doesn't really care for 3d work, it's not one of the focuses of any of their developers, thus, it's not something they're going to bend over backwards for.
It happens, it will continue to happen. As long as there is something that is different than another thing at anything in any way, there will be comparisons.
Of course Theo only cares about things that are for him. Look through the mailing list and you'll see it a hundred times being said that OpenBSD is made for the developers, anyone else can fuck off or contribute and leave the talk out. The motto of, "shut up and hack," isn't there without cause.
Not true about SMP, it was done because a German company wanted it in OpenBSD. They hired a developer to add it to i386 and because it wasn't just some random guy saying, "why isn't there SMP?" But instead someone actually there with code, it was accepted into the system.
The responses were generally, "fuck off," or "either give code or fuck off," to any people asking about SMP.
The lack of control is in the fact that developers cannot control some binary blob cause they're not given the source for it - there is no way in hell to know what's in there, there could be built in rootkits for all you know, or there could just be a bug that causes kernel panics and the company may never fix.
OpenBSD's choice was a good one, it removes something that isn't properly supported from the list of supposedly supported hardware.
And why would anyone want to carry this poorly made, buggy binary from company x? Why not just say there is support for the hardware from company y and not list x at all? That's what OpenBSD does, their stance on the issue is, "if company x wants to be lame and only provide binaries, fine, we'll just not carry those closed source drivers." Adaptec never cared to support OpenBSD anyways, so this obviously was a matter of ending a sham.
If you want to run OpenBSD 3.7 and beyond with an aac, you just need to custom roll a kernel - which means that OpenBSD developers will not assist you with any problems that happen.
A part of OpenBSD has always been taking the right way, not the convenient way, that's why there's pf in FreeBSD now, that's why there's OpenSSH in FreeBSD now and that's why there's so much good Adaptec SCSI support in FreeBSD.
They try to get documentation all the time, they've done this for UltraSparc IIIs, for Adaptec AACs and SCSIs, they've done this for wireless of any and all makes, they've done this for Broadcom nics... You notice they keep trying? Sometimes this stuff really works, approaching these companies sometimes gets through - other times they have to get their customers to complain, but it's worked in the past and will in the future.
Just because it didn't work on the UltraSparc IIIs with Sun,the AACs with Adaptec or the nics with Broadcom does not mean it's not a good and effective way to help fix problems.
FreeBSD's stance of bending over every time a company wants to give them a binary is the wrong one, because it just shows that people are willing to take it in the pooper if they get a little bit out of it.
FreeBSD gives up control over portions of it's system in return for some limited additonal functionality.
Well, the HAL has been re-engineered already, OpenBSD chose to learn from the FreeBSD driver/HAL implementation's interaction and wrote an open source alternative to the HAL which may eventually be merged in with the driver, thus becoming whole on OpenBSD systems at least.
And the HAL has nothing to do with the FCC, that's the firmware on the card that deals with FCC regulated channels and frequencies. This is about paranoia and intellectual property.
These are the kinds of things that should be added into the system, not things like Project Evil.
Scott does in fact accept the AAC CLI (which was ported to FreeBSD by Scott) - he told the OpenBSD team that it was perfectly acceptable and that the OpenBSD developers should be happy with and for it. He also said that had the developers asked when he worked at Adaptec, he may have ported it for them.
Your opinion mirrors Scott's: "But why is it so important to go around screaming and yelling about it and alientating those who do try to help?" and "Why is it so important to drag your users into your political fights by depriving them of stuff that works now but isn't exactly everything that you want?"
I like the saying "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." I like to apply it to other concepts, like giving up control for usability, which makes me feel that FreeBSD project deserves neither control nor usability. But I suppose that's Windows.
Well, this Atheros HAL for FreeBSD that Sam Leffler wrote has been reverse engineered by Reyk Floeter and was in the most recent release of OpenBSD as a completely open source driver/HAL combonation.
In the future the HAL and driver may well be merged into a single driver, which can be used by anyone. So no need to pay Atheros for that source code.
These companies do not need to release source, documentation is fine as well. Ralink released documentation and had bsd-licensed drivers made up rather quickly in fact.
Atheros is, in this case, just doing the usual semi-supporting that Linux recieves a fair bit of - open source parts which link into closed source tools to get a job done, there by protecting the companies "Intellectual Properties".
The particular closed source cruft I refer to is an Adaptec CLI written in part by Scott Long of FreeBSD, the CLI was written to work with the AAC adaptec cards. This CLI is the only way to manage the card's RAID functionality.
OpenBSD were planning a RAID system called bioctl, they wanted to fix up various cards which were particularly poor-running by writing complete drivers and having the functionality for them all be run through bioctl, much like ifconfig does with all network cards.
For months Theo and others talked to Adaptec for documentation on the AAC card, after four they gave an ultimatum - basically saying give us documentation or we are removing support for the aac card. Adaptec's reponse was to say that within another four months an SDK would be available for usage.
Needless to say, that wasn't what OpenBSD wanted or asked for. So it was removed.
Scott Long gave a rather heated opinion on OpenBSD's choice to give Adaptec an ultimatum on if they wanted the cards supported or not. Basically calling Theo de Raadt and anyone that supported him thugs and bullies.
That is one example of binary cruft in FreeBSD, however, there is also the Atheros wireless HAL written by Sam Leffler of Atheros.
Then you must think it insane for an operating system's developers to want full control over their own operating system, yes? Cause that's what Theo is after.
Just because a company wants to release unusable binary crud does not mean that OpenBSD needs to use them.
At the end of the day, OpenBSD ends up a more stable and useable system because the developers can actually fix problems in their system - what can FreeBSD developers do when their is a problem with a binary CLI they have no access to?
There are always problems in software, by accepting garbage in the manner that FreeBSD has chosen to all they do is encourage companies to continue giving them more binaries that they cannot effect changes in.
What do you think the end result will be if a company only makes binary drivers and goes out of business? Those drivers will never be updated again and your system will become less and less likely to run with your hardware because any problems that are caused by changes in the way FreeBSD runs cannot be effectively troubleshot.
FreeBSD chooses function over stability, ease over security and closed over open - hardly something I want. At the end of the day, I'd rather get something that is properly supported and not waste my time and money.
While I don't think that OpenBSD has cornered the market, I do find it funny that the FreeBSD release after an OpenBSD release that focused on wireless will focus on wireless itself.
When your big deal for a release is pretty much just the incorporation of stuff from another project it just seems, I dunno, less newsworthy to me.
But I must agree about Scott Long and Poul-Henning Kamp, those two have earned a set of solid kicks in the balls for the nonsense they've been pulling. Poul-Henning's nonsense about breaking the law with reverse engineering at an OpenBSD talk in Ottawa, if I'd been there you can bet he would have been needing a surgeon to remove my foot.
Oh yes indeed, but I had foed you by your third post for being so completely out of touch with reality, you may notice, should you choose to indulge, that I have a rather sizable foelist.
This is because I foe anyone that says something so completely stupid as your bringing up what Bruce Perens thinks right after I had already told you what I think of his opinion being thrown around as if it were fact (being that he's the one behind both Debian's and the OSI's policies).
1. Opponent provides evidence to support his argument.
2. Resort to puerile off-topic name calling
3. ???
4. Profit!
Being shown you're an idiot stings, huh? Isn't that a shame. Must say though, I love that you turned around when I proved you wrong and foed me for it - it just shows a level of class and sophistication that is rarely seen here on Slashdot.
Are you fucking retarded? They did no such thing, the term open source had been used before the OSI existed!
Infact, Caldera referred to it's OpenLinux operating system as an "open source environment" in 1997, a full year before you claim the term was coined.
And what's this? I can easily google and find people referring to open source software as far back as 1990!?! My God! That's like, like, 8 years before the OSI first met! Jesus titty-fucking Christ, this must be some communist conspiracy against you! The people at Google have obviously falsified these newsgroup records to discredit the vital role of the Open Source Inititive in the founding of open source software.
Once again, moron, think a little, don't just perpetuate moronic bullshit like that.
The carnal pleasures are not limited to cardinals. In fact, all of the pope's retainers - nay all priests enjoy the carnal pleasures we know as young boys.
Cardinals do a particular dirty preachy act though, I'll grant you that.
Here's a definition for you: open source, something that's source is open for viewing.
Just because some group of people come along and start trying to redefine things does not make these people's manipulations of the language somehow true.
It's people like you that support creationism as a science in schools - because that's what you were taught so it must be true.
Free your mind; foundations and inititives do not control the meanings of words. I thought that I had covered that in my first post reasonably well.
And Debian's views on free and open are irrelevant as well, so pointing me to their opinion as if it were the straight facts is just ignoring what I said to begin with.
You also missed horsefeathers, hogwash and bullshit, which I call.
Darren Reed's ipf is open source - yet forking is not permitted, nor is redistribution of the source. Open source means only that people have access to the source, it does not mean that they can do anything with it.
You realise of course that the OSI and FSF are not some be-all end-all entities that define what is and isn't a free or open source license, right?
Infact, I release this post under the terms of my own open source license, the Nimrangul License, which states:
Copyright 2005 The Nimrangul Foundation. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that this copyright notice and statement of conditions is located in any documentation as well as derivatives of this work.
Bam! New license and neither organization was involved at all, it's even an open source license.
I actually have rather poor twitch myself and could not see the rotated image at all in any of the examples - the manipulation wasn't obvious enough to be noticed in a split second for me.
I think a better way to read the results would be, "people have a hard time getting a solid bearing of an image in a tenth of a second." Or perhaps, "split second reactions poor among Internet users."
You don't have questions, you repeat the same inane garbage that is completely irrelevant as if repeating it somehow makes it suddenly, magically, a valid point.
KDE is not a part of the system and you keep talking about it as if it's the only thing that matters. A GUI is not needed to use the operating system and since the GUI you seem to have a permanent erection over isn't developed by your precious Debian or Ubuntu, it is not a part of the base operating system - but rather a third party application that is crammed in on other distributions, like Kubuntu.
The userland's core has nothing to do with X, you dipshit.
KDE is a third party application that has nothing to do with the operating system; you idiot.
You complained that there is no BSD version of KDE, but that's not relevant to the discussion. That was the entire point - you moron.
The base operating system is complete and controlled entirely by one set of developers - no Linux-based distribution does this, all the BSDs do. X servers, samba servers, graphical LDAP browsers and other such programmes are all third party, additional software which is not done in-house - that software is called third-party.
Your mind-numbing nonsense is about as much a question as me pissing on a pancake.
The tools in the base of some of the BSD system that are not BSD-licensed exist there for several reasons, the most prevelant one being the amount of time and effort required to replace said tools. The maintaining of a compiler toolset is a massive endeavor, especially when the developers need to maintain it over multiple architectures. The fact of the matter is, the GCC is getting worse and worse and eventually you will see that last GNU tool replaced - but for now, it's easier for projects just to use an older release for the time being.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, if the FSF pushes like this, the corporations will just move elsewhere. Suddenly you'll find AIX becoming the operating system that IBM pushes or perhaps it will move to a BSD or simply fork the code they want and keep it GPL2 in stead of moving it to GPL3 ever.
You're selfish, that's fine, don't help people because it's nice, just help people you like. There's no rules against that - but that doesn't mean people will put up with it or deal with you at all if you do.
I don't think Linus is stupid enough to move the code to the GPL3, but I expect that every thing done officially by the GNU people will suddenly have forks or people will switch to using the BSD userland tools.
What the flying fuck does a mouse have to do with the browser refusing to open tabs instead of windows?
Supposedly that works in the daily snapshots they've got, but in the most recent release it doesn't do shit all.
Just being around death has an effect of removing one's joy of life and cheerfulness, the idea of feeling your life slip away, when it is not your own, is probably something that would change one's view on life.
Being inside someone when they died would answer the question of what happens when we die, Bester would have first hand experiences with it.
Perhaps that is more what it is like, looking through the eyes of a dying man and seeing nothing, feeling cold and knowing that there is no tunnel of light or glourious release, it's just a shutter and into the dirt you go.
It may be that that would have an effect on how someone acts, that from then on they would live more on the edge, knowing nothing better is coming along.
Maybe Bester didn't do it the first time for kicks, maybe it was suggested to him, as a character building experience, maybe from then on he had returned to it, to reassure himself and make sure he completely understood the emptiness of death. Who knows such things?
He did what he did to have is thumb on the pulse of Babylon 5, something vital to the continuation of his people. That he happens to get his kicks by pulling the wings off a fly kinda shows he has a dark side, but Garibaldi was the information man at the station and the telepaths needed that information.
His view of mundane humans is understandable as well, it is the same view that many people have about the mentally retarded. Sure, they can go about living their lives, but you'd rather keep your people alive then them.
If you are faced with the choice of letting a million mentally retarded people live or a hundred smart people live, where only one party could survive, which would be best for the race? It's a philosophical counter to Spock's needs of the many argument.
Bester may have had an arrogance to him, but the end goal was a better world for his people. Dust was made to try and better humanity, it was designed to make people telepathic. The alliance with the Shadows was to make the race as a whole more powerful in the universe.
Nah, I just can't view him as a villian, he isn't a protaganist, but he's definately not an antagonist either. Surely he was misguided, but that is in part because of what Psi-Corps had done to him.
Some of what he did may have been, distasteful or mean, but they were being done with the greater good in mind.
He surely wasn't a nice guy, but rather than an outright villian like Morden, he just didn't care about anyone else's well being, just his people's.
It happens, it will continue to happen. As long as there is something that is different than another thing at anything in any way, there will be comparisons.
Not true about SMP, it was done because a German company wanted it in OpenBSD. They hired a developer to add it to i386 and because it wasn't just some random guy saying, "why isn't there SMP?" But instead someone actually there with code, it was accepted into the system.
The responses were generally, "fuck off," or "either give code or fuck off," to any people asking about SMP.
OpenBSD's choice was a good one, it removes something that isn't properly supported from the list of supposedly supported hardware.
And why would anyone want to carry this poorly made, buggy binary from company x? Why not just say there is support for the hardware from company y and not list x at all? That's what OpenBSD does, their stance on the issue is, "if company x wants to be lame and only provide binaries, fine, we'll just not carry those closed source drivers." Adaptec never cared to support OpenBSD anyways, so this obviously was a matter of ending a sham.
If you want to run OpenBSD 3.7 and beyond with an aac, you just need to custom roll a kernel - which means that OpenBSD developers will not assist you with any problems that happen.
A part of OpenBSD has always been taking the right way, not the convenient way, that's why there's pf in FreeBSD now, that's why there's OpenSSH in FreeBSD now and that's why there's so much good Adaptec SCSI support in FreeBSD.
They try to get documentation all the time, they've done this for UltraSparc IIIs, for Adaptec AACs and SCSIs, they've done this for wireless of any and all makes, they've done this for Broadcom nics... You notice they keep trying? Sometimes this stuff really works, approaching these companies sometimes gets through - other times they have to get their customers to complain, but it's worked in the past and will in the future.
Just because it didn't work on the UltraSparc IIIs with Sun,the AACs with Adaptec or the nics with Broadcom does not mean it's not a good and effective way to help fix problems.
FreeBSD's stance of bending over every time a company wants to give them a binary is the wrong one, because it just shows that people are willing to take it in the pooper if they get a little bit out of it.
FreeBSD gives up control over portions of it's system in return for some limited additonal functionality.
And the HAL has nothing to do with the FCC, that's the firmware on the card that deals with FCC regulated channels and frequencies. This is about paranoia and intellectual property.
These are the kinds of things that should be added into the system, not things like Project Evil.
Scott does in fact accept the AAC CLI (which was ported to FreeBSD by Scott) - he told the OpenBSD team that it was perfectly acceptable and that the OpenBSD developers should be happy with and for it. He also said that had the developers asked when he worked at Adaptec, he may have ported it for them.
Your opinion mirrors Scott's: "But why is it so important to go around screaming and yelling about it and alientating those who do try to help?" and "Why is it so important to drag your users into your political fights by depriving them of stuff that works now but isn't exactly everything that you want?"
I like the saying "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." I like to apply it to other concepts, like giving up control for usability, which makes me feel that FreeBSD project deserves neither control nor usability. But I suppose that's Windows.
In the future the HAL and driver may well be merged into a single driver, which can be used by anyone. So no need to pay Atheros for that source code.
These companies do not need to release source, documentation is fine as well. Ralink released documentation and had bsd-licensed drivers made up rather quickly in fact.
Atheros is, in this case, just doing the usual semi-supporting that Linux recieves a fair bit of - open source parts which link into closed source tools to get a job done, there by protecting the companies "Intellectual Properties".
OpenBSD were planning a RAID system called bioctl, they wanted to fix up various cards which were particularly poor-running by writing complete drivers and having the functionality for them all be run through bioctl, much like ifconfig does with all network cards.
For months Theo and others talked to Adaptec for documentation on the AAC card, after four they gave an ultimatum - basically saying give us documentation or we are removing support for the aac card. Adaptec's reponse was to say that within another four months an SDK would be available for usage.
Needless to say, that wasn't what OpenBSD wanted or asked for. So it was removed.
Scott Long gave a rather heated opinion on OpenBSD's choice to give Adaptec an ultimatum on if they wanted the cards supported or not. Basically calling Theo de Raadt and anyone that supported him thugs and bullies.
That is one example of binary cruft in FreeBSD, however, there is also the Atheros wireless HAL written by Sam Leffler of Atheros.
Just because a company wants to release unusable binary crud does not mean that OpenBSD needs to use them.
At the end of the day, OpenBSD ends up a more stable and useable system because the developers can actually fix problems in their system - what can FreeBSD developers do when their is a problem with a binary CLI they have no access to?
There are always problems in software, by accepting garbage in the manner that FreeBSD has chosen to all they do is encourage companies to continue giving them more binaries that they cannot effect changes in.
What do you think the end result will be if a company only makes binary drivers and goes out of business? Those drivers will never be updated again and your system will become less and less likely to run with your hardware because any problems that are caused by changes in the way FreeBSD runs cannot be effectively troubleshot.
FreeBSD chooses function over stability, ease over security and closed over open - hardly something I want. At the end of the day, I'd rather get something that is properly supported and not waste my time and money.
When your big deal for a release is pretty much just the incorporation of stuff from another project it just seems, I dunno, less newsworthy to me.
But I must agree about Scott Long and Poul-Henning Kamp, those two have earned a set of solid kicks in the balls for the nonsense they've been pulling. Poul-Henning's nonsense about breaking the law with reverse engineering at an OpenBSD talk in Ottawa, if I'd been there you can bet he would have been needing a surgeon to remove my foot.
This is because I foe anyone that says something so completely stupid as your bringing up what Bruce Perens thinks right after I had already told you what I think of his opinion being thrown around as if it were fact (being that he's the one behind both Debian's and the OSI's policies).
1. Opponent provides evidence to support his argument.
2. Resort to puerile off-topic name calling
3. ???
4. Profit!
Being shown you're an idiot stings, huh? Isn't that a shame. Must say though, I love that you turned around when I proved you wrong and foed me for it - it just shows a level of class and sophistication that is rarely seen here on Slashdot.
Infact, Caldera referred to it's OpenLinux operating system as an "open source environment" in 1997, a full year before you claim the term was coined.
And what's this? I can easily google and find people referring to open source software as far back as 1990!?! My God! That's like, like, 8 years before the OSI first met! Jesus titty-fucking Christ, this must be some communist conspiracy against you! The people at Google have obviously falsified these newsgroup records to discredit the vital role of the Open Source Inititive in the founding of open source software.
Once again, moron, think a little, don't just perpetuate moronic bullshit like that.
Cardinals do a particular dirty preachy act though, I'll grant you that.
Just because some group of people come along and start trying to redefine things does not make these people's manipulations of the language somehow true.
It's people like you that support creationism as a science in schools - because that's what you were taught so it must be true.
Free your mind; foundations and inititives do not control the meanings of words. I thought that I had covered that in my first post reasonably well.
And Debian's views on free and open are irrelevant as well, so pointing me to their opinion as if it were the straight facts is just ignoring what I said to begin with.
You also missed horsefeathers, hogwash and bullshit, which I call.
Darren Reed's ipf is open source - yet forking is not permitted, nor is redistribution of the source. Open source means only that people have access to the source, it does not mean that they can do anything with it.
The first one had a bald captain too, they are just saving money this time by not wasting resources in that manner.
Infact, I release this post under the terms of my own open source license, the Nimrangul License, which states:
Copyright 2005 The Nimrangul Foundation. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that this copyright notice and statement of conditions is located in any documentation as well as derivatives of this work.
Bam! New license and neither organization was involved at all, it's even an open source license.
I think a better way to read the results would be, "people have a hard time getting a solid bearing of an image in a tenth of a second." Or perhaps, "split second reactions poor among Internet users."
KDE is not a part of the system and you keep talking about it as if it's the only thing that matters. A GUI is not needed to use the operating system and since the GUI you seem to have a permanent erection over isn't developed by your precious Debian or Ubuntu, it is not a part of the base operating system - but rather a third party application that is crammed in on other distributions, like Kubuntu.
The userland's core has nothing to do with X, you dipshit.
KDE is a third party application that has nothing to do with the operating system; you idiot.
You complained that there is no BSD version of KDE, but that's not relevant to the discussion. That was the entire point - you moron.
The base operating system is complete and controlled entirely by one set of developers - no Linux-based distribution does this, all the BSDs do. X servers, samba servers, graphical LDAP browsers and other such programmes are all third party, additional software which is not done in-house - that software is called third-party.
Your mind-numbing nonsense is about as much a question as me pissing on a pancake.
The tools in the base of some of the BSD system that are not BSD-licensed exist there for several reasons, the most prevelant one being the amount of time and effort required to replace said tools. The maintaining of a compiler toolset is a massive endeavor, especially when the developers need to maintain it over multiple architectures. The fact of the matter is, the GCC is getting worse and worse and eventually you will see that last GNU tool replaced - but for now, it's easier for projects just to use an older release for the time being.