At least ten hip replacements, ten shoulder replacements, eye surgery followed by electronic implants to see monochrome spectrums, deaf, mouthful of expensive teeth (with warranties lasting 20 years or less), dead friends (who couldn't afford to live this long), living enemies, native language changed to the point where I can't understand my great-great-great-great grandkids when they're not talking slang, erectile dysfunction, trouble remembering what I did with my jacket 500 years ago, wondering who the hell these old farts are talking to me (my children)...
And oh yes... copyright extension laws that now last a million years.
Popularity is a sign of quality, not a consequence of popularity. The job of the critic is to say this or that popular/unpopular work is actually good or bad in spite of -- not because of -- the general opinion in which it's held. Given the vast audience that Tolkien has achieved and maintained for five decades -- from ten years olds to PhD's in literature -- the argument that there's nothing to his books rings very hollow. The same is true to a lesser extent with Lewis.
For example, I'm rereading "The Magician's Newphew" now, and two points are clear to me:
1) It's a work of someone who really understood what made a good 'fairy story' and a good 'story' in general.
2) It desperately needs a rewrite.
Eliminating extreme copyright laws would take care of #2, but #1 is hard to come by. I don't think any modernist thought highly enough of fairy stories. The only critic (besides Tolkien) who did was Campbell, and he's an outsider as well (although not so much as Tolkien).
As for Carroll -- brilliant. I guess we agree on one thing, then.:)
Your defense of "To the Lighthouse" brings to mind the following point: I'm defending Tolkien, et. al., on the quality of the stories produced; you refute because of the problems with their writing. Your counterpoint consists of authors who wrote well ('well' being an understatement in regards to Woolfe, etc); I refute because these well-written works are sometimes unreadable without a college education -- and even with the degree, the effort isn't worth the while. (That said, it may be that this argument could last until we're too ill to type in the old folks' home.)
However, my point is that the 20th century's view of literature in general -- that the presentation is to be held in higher regard than the substance -- is wrong. "Gravity's Rainbow" may be a work of genius, but if it makes you physically ill to read, who cares?
Stories with simple presentation and solid substance have been ignored in favor of those written by brilliant wordsmiths, but the elephant in the room is this: because something is well-written doesn't mean it's worth reading. (Cantos of Ezra Pound vs. LOTR, anyone?)
Flaws in Tolkien and Lewis are branded as unforgivable sins (not by you, but by the standard literary judges), such that these authors need not be read even though they offer more substance than many, many professional authors who have gone to school to get a writing degree, etc.
So, while Tolkien overwrite LOTR Book I and underwrote Book VI, and made a host of other mistakes, there's something to his amateurish work that made at least one critic (Shippey) name him the author of the century.
If that isn't the Professional Amateur effect, I don't know what is.
Hmmm.... where do I start? Tolkien and Lewis are mediocre, which is why they are read and loved by more readers in the world who have read all of the modernists combined. Therefore, there is something to them, despite their problems. Perhaps it is that fine writing with vacuous content is beaten by great content and sometimes vacuous writing. Then again, if you love "Finnegans Wake" and can't seem to like "The Silmarillion", nothing will get you to see my point.
Joyce's influence: a lot of influence, considering everyone talks about him as if they've read him. And they usually haven't. (What will be is. Is is.)
A century from now, who will sit through "To the Lighthouse"? Who will sit through "Finnegans Wake", let alone "Ulysses"? They're unreadable without scholarship now, let alone after all of the cultural codes have vanished into history. Dickens is still read. Tolkien will be rewritten and read. The movies are the first (legal) attempt at that. Once the books are in the public domain, that process will accelerate. The same argument holds for Lewis. Their legacy may outlast their actual words (excluding invented languages, that is), but their stories will remain.
And as for the insult that I would rank Rowling highly because of the films: sorry, you're wrong. I thought the third film was OK, but it's the books, especially book five, that makes me believe Rowling will be remembered.
I wondering if they considered the "ProAm Effect" in literature. Tolkien and Lewis were operating well outside the mainstream of their time and without a budget (at least at first, even though the roylaties of "The Hobbit" could never have been a driving force to write something like "The Lord of the Rings.") Alternately, their contemporaries were feted and lauded by the Powers That Were, given grants, scholarships, professorships, etc.
Now, the works of Woolfe, Joyce, and hundreds of authors who are mostly forgotten are read primarily by 'experts' in the field or by lit majors, while Tolkien and Lewis are two of the most recognized fiction writers in the world.
The same case could be applied to Rowling, in that she wrote her first novel without consulting the "experts" in fiction writing or children's lit.
Perhaps we'll see the same effect in pop music now that there's Mac OSX, Linux, and all of the FOSS tools that are available, to say nothing of using the Net to promote and sell.
to DL "Gone With the Wind" from PG-AUS at http://gutenberg.net.au/ and put it on their web site(s). Make Mitchell's heirs sue *everyone*. >:) Make it available for DL. My copy is at http://www.eclectic-cheval.net/gwtw.txt
And here this happens just as I'm dubbing my entire DW collection to DVD -- oh wait, did I type that? That was someone else... uh, leaning over from the next workstation and typing on my keyboard. Yeah, that's it.
There's nothing wrong with MRev... except for the fact the Wach Bros didn't want to include a proper ending. They wanted to keep their options open for some kind of economicly profitable sequel. Movie, TV series, anime, online game, whatever.
MRev is fine to a point. Once Neo & Trinity split up from the others, something goes wrong in the story. The 'Save Zion' fork works just fine, although it's kind of like the climax to Star Wars episode IV with the roles reversed. It's the Neo fork that falls flat. Little about it struck me as authentic: Smith blinding Neo (surely the Wach Bros would have foreshadowed that if they'd planned it from the beginning?), Trinity's death (puh-leese!), the Machines taking pity on Neo... How much better would the movie have been if the "Revolutions" would have been simultaneous human and machine revolutions? Humans & machine fighting together against the Architect! But then, you'd have closed off the possibility of a sequal, and there are Porsches still to buy...
You could call it the "Return of the Jedi" effect. The trilogy is ending, and everyone is starting to think of ways to generate revenue after the movie drops from the public's radar. In "Jedi", it was the Ewoks, which ruined the seriousness of the story (although there were other problems as well). It's no surprise that an Ewoks animated series followed "Jedi", plus toys, posters, and all the usual crap. It was planned from the get-go as a revenue stream, not as something entertaining.
I think the same thing applies to MRev. They could have had a mind-bending, 'the story is OVER now' ending, one that would have kept the legacy of the first film's powerful, uncompromising plotting alive. But they didn't. They killed off the Bad Guy, killed off the one actor who won't look as pretty in five years when they might film a sequel (their thinking, not mine), and put Neo in a sequal-friendly limbo. He can become anything they need now: human ambassador to the machines, a cyborg, interplanetary crusader, of just the gentleman in charge of saying: "Whoa!"
Why end the story decently when you can set everything up to make more money later? All you need to do is find a replacement for the Bad Guy, and you're set. Probably the Morvingian; why else keep him alive when we all wanted to see Trinity waste him?
It's clear "Return of the King" is going to be *the* SF/Fantasy movie of the season, in part because Tolkien didn't write his novels in order to make sure a money-making sequel would follow.
In my experience, most hackers don't care about licensing at all
That's the opposite of my experience, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. This would be a good Slashdot question: What do Hackers think of the various OSS licenses, and how does that limit the projects they'll contribute to?
This presumes that we are putting aside the whole copyright is evil rhetoric...if you truly believe that then of course the GPL is the obvious license, but most hackers do not believe that.
Unlimited copyright is evil; copyright with a reasonable limit makes good sense. I think we wouldn't have a need for some of these licenses if MS's source code (and everyone else's for that matter) became open after 14 or 28 years (the original copyright limits set in the US Constitution).
As for the reason the BSD's are behind Linux in terms of momentum: the AT&T lawsuit is one reason for the lag, but I don't believe it's the most significant reason. Of course, maybe SCO will nail Linux for a while, giving the BSD's time to catch up, which will prove me wrong. (I don't mind being wrong, but I'd rather not find out *that* way!)
In reference to the article, it's telling that the commericial Linux-based OS's are being jeered at, but I don't believe the same crowd would jeer at Debian (which runs two BSD kernels, albeit in development).
Apache made its way to the top because the closed code alternatives were so bad and because there was no other Open Source competition. For hackers, it was the only game in town, so it's no surprise that it rose to the top.
The BSD license is ananthema to any coder who wants to make sure his/her code remains open. Pure and simple. Assuming I were any good at coding, I'd only work on a BSD if the problem was extremely Interesting. In other words, my interest would have to outweigh my reservation about providing MS, et. al, with the chance to gobble up my code in return for... nothing.
There are more Open Source programmers who care about what happens to their code than not, so the GPL license attracts more programmers, which means the BSD's are fighting their own license just to gain momentum. And momentum is clearly on the side of GPL-ed OS's (evidence at Operating System Sucks-Rules-O-Meter).
That said, if SCO wins the FUD war & the BSD's emerge unscathed, the license issue won't matter as much, and the BSD's could move to center stage.
I know this argument but didn't include it because I disagree with it. The lawsuit was a stumbling block, but a greater block (IMHO) is that a lot of talented programmers want to see their code remain open. Assuming I ever learn to code competantly, I wouldn't contribute to a BSD project unless the technical challenge was *really* interesting. Why? Because I don't want to see MS gobble up my work. On the other hand, I'd contribute to a GPL project much more quickly because everyone I have assurance that the code will remain open.
That said, the BSD's could regain the momentum because of SCO's actions despite the qualms that some have about the license. Or even because the new breed of Linux developers are snobby and won't let newbies in without a fight.
Allow me to go out on a limb. I'm not claiming to know what the next big thing in Linux will be. I'm thinking of what will arrive by, say, 2006: Operating Systems.
OK, I've stated the obvious, right? No, not really.
I either smuggly smirk or bury my head in my hands when Linux Evangelists state that Linux is an OS. It's a kernel. FreeBSD is an OS. Debian is an OS. Gentoo is an OS. It happens that Debian and Gentoo run the same kernel, and a different kernel than FreeBSD.
In other words, the emphasis is going to shift away from what Linus, et. al., are doing with Linux to what others are making from Linux.
Why? The Linux kernel is a groovy, funky piece of technology, and it's the heart of a movement. But hearts don't live outside of rib cages. Kernels don't run without OS's. Companies don't migrate high-end, mission critical servers to OS's that barely run the super-fast kernel beating at its center. They want -- scratch that, they need a full OS that does the job. Whether the kernel is trendy or not doesn't matter in the end.
FreeBSD has shown that a free, stable, solid Unix-like OS system is possible. If not for its license (sorry, BSD license lovers), it might have stood a chance at the top spot in the Free OS world. Debian and Gentoo have shown the first real movement toward something like a complete OS on the Linux side, especially Debian. Deb was first, and it's still around, but it's stodgy to the point of ridiculousness (from the POV of a power user). Thank God for Gentoo.
Sure, Gentoo may not be ready for mission critical servers simply because it offers you the latest, untested code. But power users get their candy and their popped-up engine. And how sweet it is.
For anything that must stay up, that's when Debian wins points for its stodginess. And here's the kicker: you get to choose your kernel.
This is the development that turned on the little light-bulb that floats above my head. This is the future of Linux.
Think about it: Debian runs on the Linux kernel, the Hurd kernel (no chuckling, please), and the NetBSD kernel. So, which OS runs on the most hardware in the world?
Debian! (10 points.) What does this mean? That we're moving away from a kernel-centric universe. It's not which kernel to choose from, it's which OS. A savvy sysadmin can just install Debian everywhere, choosing the kernel that fits the situation. The key phrase won't be: "I must run Linux." It will be: "I must run Debian." Choosing the kernel will secondary to getting the right OS. I doubt it will be long before Debian is joined in this effort by Gentoo or a similar project
So, how does an OS-centric universe differ from a kernel-centric? For one, Richard Stallman might get the recognition he feels has been wrongly given to Linus. For another, "GNU" will be just as important a word as "Linux", which again will make RMS a much happier camper. On a technical level, the emphasis will shift from the sophomoric question of "Do you run Linux?" to "Which OS do you run?" Debian with a 2.2 Linux kernel. Debian with NetBSD. Gentoo with a development kernel. FreeBSD, modified with OpenBSD security, running a NetBSD kernel. Whatever. Hackerdom may offer near unlimited possibilities.
The point is, the whole OS will finally be greater than the sum of its parts. Watch for the Linux kernel to lose prominence (slightly) as OS's that offer specific features (stability, the latest-and-greatest, etc.) begin to move to the forefront of user consciousness. Watch for a port of Gentoo to include a non-Linux kernel; watch for Debian to support a fourth kernel; watch for a commerical product that produces custom OS's based on Free and Open Source software that emphasizes the Linux kernel without excluding other options.
Yes, Linux Evangelists will kick and scream, but for the wrong reasons. If this scenario comes to pass, the world will be filled a much better breed operating systems than we have now.
Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel.
- RMS, June 23, 2003
Nice to beat RMS to the punch.;)
How about this: SCO copies code from Linux into their OS, waits for a period of time, and then screams, "IBM stole our code and gave it to Linux!" Or, they deliberately slip their own code into the Linux kernel via a third party and wait for the right time to loose their lawyers on the world.
Of course, this is all a plot between SCO and MS, who have been swiping Open Source code for ages. Of course Server 2003 works better than W2K! MS swiped FreeBSD & Linux code instead of redesigning a bad system from the ground up. As if anyone could ever get the clout needed to audit their code!
So, by using their proprietary rights as a shield, SCO and MS set up a careful program of sabotage and theft aimed at the Open Source community, hoping to cut the legs out from under the movement, which would leave them the only players standing. (Except for the BSD's, because MS needs free code to steel from.)
And just when SCO thinks its won & is part of the winning team, MS, like Shelob, devours SCO and its other rivals, and crawls back into its cave.
I'm going back to school this fall, and in a year I hope to be admitted into a Masters of Computer Science program. I'd like my main research focus to be on filesystems.
I'm preparing by reading everything I can find: I'm working on Tanenbaum
& Woodhull's "OS Design & Implementation"; I've read "Design and Implementation of the Second Extended Filesystem"; Steve Pate's "UNIX Filesystems" is waiting on my shelf; and of course, there's the FAQ and ReiserFS v.3 Whitepaper at www.namesys.com.
Specific questions: what branches of math are useful in this line of research? Any books, articles, etc.,
that I haven't listed that are a 'must read' or 'should read'? Those who have succeeded in building a better filesystem: what have they done that I should also do? Any mistakes I
should avoid? Anything that no one told you about filesystems that you wish you had
known up front? And are there any special tricks (above and beyond mastering your subject) to getting hired in this field once a degree is in hand?
The spouse nags you (or just wants some time alone with you), the kids want you to play Candy Land, the teen needs a talking to about drinking with her friends, the taxes need to be done, the lawn needs to be seeded, the dog poop on the carpet needs to be taken care of, the car needs a trip to Jiffy Lube, Memorial Day has to be celebrated in a cemetary two hours away, the relatives want to see their grandkid, "Matrix Reloaded" is in the theater, yadda yadda yadda...
Enough of this and you wish you were 20 again and had no commitments just so you just want three hours to yourself on a daily basis and there's no way to get it. And then you notice that you can't work as late as you used to...
Now I know why the old say that youth is wasted on the young. (And I'm only 31!)
There's got to be someone who knows how to set up something like this who will do the work gratis. The fund could help these guys and then anyone else who gets nailed by the almighty RIAA. If anyone sets up something like this, LMK.
This proves once again that there are too many people in this world with too much time on their hands.
(Sorry this post isn't longer, but I have to alphabetize my Harold Lloyd videos, hang a Finnish flag in my living room, and finish those bloody half-angle formulas before tomorrow.)
This is where businesses, schools, and any other organization with an IT department needs to look at The Big Picture, i.e., the next five or ten years, instead of what's just on the plate until the fiscal year end.
UNIX experts may cost more than their point-and-click counterparts, but after the year-long agony of converting to a system that actually works, the next nine years are plain sailing (at least in comparison to the turbulence brought by M$ and friends).
It's just like highway construction. Everybody bitches during the two years it takes to get the job done. After that, everyone loves the smooth highway...
"
George Bush wants World War III? I think he has a half a brain in there, or at least between him and his cabinet and aides, there might be half a brain, so he won't retaliate against France or Russia."
I never said he wanted WW III. I said he would take action. That's the kind of person he is. If he wasn't, he'd be more popular with the French.
"BTW, I'd be much more impressed about Bush's non-wimpness if he had ever served in the military"
I can't disagree with you there.
--
Free software, not Iraq, because Gates is evil, and Saddam is just misunderstood.
This article from the Moscow Times (which we can agree is not a venue for American Right-Wing-ism) details newly discovered evidence that Russia was pretending to be an ally for the US while acting as an ally for Iraq.
Relevence?
Considering that George W. hasn't ruled out attacking Syria, that he hasn't ruled out some kind of retaliation in regards to France, that he isn't some wimp whose hobbies include "having his penis washed by White House interns", might choose to act on this info (assuming that it is verfied, which as yet it isn't). In short, the Mars trip may be threatened by more than the usual budget issues.
Conclusion?
The geo-political climate of the world is unstable enough that international efforts to reach Mars, or the moon, or even a consensus about countries that harbor terrorism isn't probable. Look for the Mars mission to get cut, and blame to be placed on the budget.
--
Free software, not Iraq, because Gates is evil, and Saddam is just misunderstood.
Slashdot Mirror
And oh yes... copyright extension laws that now last a million years.
Gonna be real fun!
For example, I'm rereading "The Magician's Newphew" now, and two points are clear to me:
1) It's a work of someone who really understood what made a good 'fairy story' and a good 'story' in general.
2) It desperately needs a rewrite.
Eliminating extreme copyright laws would take care of #2, but #1 is hard to come by. I don't think any modernist thought highly enough of fairy stories. The only critic (besides Tolkien) who did was Campbell, and he's an outsider as well (although not so much as Tolkien).
As for Carroll -- brilliant. I guess we agree on one thing, then. :)
Your defense of "To the Lighthouse" brings to mind the following point: I'm defending Tolkien, et. al., on the quality of the stories produced; you refute because of the problems with their writing. Your counterpoint consists of authors who wrote well ('well' being an understatement in regards to Woolfe, etc); I refute because these well-written works are sometimes unreadable without a college education -- and even with the degree, the effort isn't worth the while. (That said, it may be that this argument could last until we're too ill to type in the old folks' home.)
However, my point is that the 20th century's view of literature in general -- that the presentation is to be held in higher regard than the substance -- is wrong. "Gravity's Rainbow" may be a work of genius, but if it makes you physically ill to read, who cares?
Stories with simple presentation and solid substance have been ignored in favor of those written by brilliant wordsmiths, but the elephant in the room is this: because something is well-written doesn't mean it's worth reading. (Cantos of Ezra Pound vs. LOTR, anyone?)
Flaws in Tolkien and Lewis are branded as unforgivable sins (not by you, but by the standard literary judges), such that these authors need not be read even though they offer more substance than many, many professional authors who have gone to school to get a writing degree, etc.
So, while Tolkien overwrite LOTR Book I and underwrote Book VI, and made a host of other mistakes, there's something to his amateurish work that made at least one critic (Shippey) name him the author of the century.
If that isn't the Professional Amateur effect, I don't know what is.
Joyce's influence: a lot of influence, considering everyone talks about him as if they've read him. And they usually haven't. (What will be is. Is is.)
A century from now, who will sit through "To the Lighthouse"? Who will sit through "Finnegans Wake", let alone "Ulysses"? They're unreadable without scholarship now, let alone after all of the cultural codes have vanished into history. Dickens is still read. Tolkien will be rewritten and read. The movies are the first (legal) attempt at that. Once the books are in the public domain, that process will accelerate. The same argument holds for Lewis. Their legacy may outlast their actual words (excluding invented languages, that is), but their stories will remain.
And as for the insult that I would rank Rowling highly because of the films: sorry, you're wrong. I thought the third film was OK, but it's the books, especially book five, that makes me believe Rowling will be remembered.
Now, the works of Woolfe, Joyce, and hundreds of authors who are mostly forgotten are read primarily by 'experts' in the field or by lit majors, while Tolkien and Lewis are two of the most recognized fiction writers in the world.
The same case could be applied to Rowling, in that she wrote her first novel without consulting the "experts" in fiction writing or children's lit.
Perhaps we'll see the same effect in pop music now that there's Mac OSX, Linux, and all of the FOSS tools that are available, to say nothing of using the Net to promote and sell.
to DL "Gone With the Wind" from PG-AUS at http://gutenberg.net.au/
and put it on their web site(s). Make Mitchell's heirs sue *everyone*. >:)
Make it available for DL. My copy is at http://www.eclectic-cheval.net/gwtw.txt
And here this happens just as I'm dubbing my entire DW collection to DVD -- oh wait, did I type that? That was someone else... uh, leaning over from the next workstation and typing on my keyboard. Yeah, that's it.
There's nothing wrong with MRev... except for the fact the Wach Bros didn't want to include a proper ending. They wanted to keep their options open for some kind of economicly profitable sequel. Movie, TV series, anime, online game, whatever.
MRev is fine to a point. Once Neo & Trinity split up from the others, something goes wrong in the story. The 'Save Zion' fork works just fine, although it's kind of like the climax to Star Wars episode IV with the roles reversed. It's the Neo fork that falls flat. Little about it struck me as authentic: Smith blinding Neo (surely the Wach Bros would have foreshadowed that if they'd planned it from the beginning?), Trinity's death (puh-leese!), the Machines taking pity on Neo... How much better would the movie have been if the "Revolutions" would have been simultaneous human and machine revolutions? Humans & machine fighting together against the Architect! But then, you'd have closed off the possibility of a sequal, and there are Porsches still to buy...
You could call it the "Return of the Jedi" effect. The trilogy is ending, and everyone is starting to think of ways to generate revenue after the movie drops from the public's radar. In "Jedi", it was the Ewoks, which ruined the seriousness of the story (although there were other problems as well). It's no surprise that an Ewoks animated series followed "Jedi", plus toys, posters, and all the usual crap. It was planned from the get-go as a revenue stream, not as something entertaining.
I think the same thing applies to MRev. They could have had a mind-bending, 'the story is OVER now' ending, one that would have kept the legacy of the first film's powerful, uncompromising plotting alive. But they didn't. They killed off the Bad Guy, killed off the one actor who won't look as pretty in five years when they might film a sequel (their thinking, not mine), and put Neo in a sequal-friendly limbo. He can become anything they need now: human ambassador to the machines, a cyborg, interplanetary crusader, of just the gentleman in charge of saying: "Whoa!"
Why end the story decently when you can set everything up to make more money later? All you need to do is find a replacement for the Bad Guy, and you're set. Probably the Morvingian; why else keep him alive when we all wanted to see Trinity waste him?
It's clear "Return of the King" is going to be *the* SF/Fantasy movie of the season, in part because Tolkien didn't write his novels in order to make sure a money-making sequel would follow.
Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script. ;)
One word: RMS
That's the opposite of my experience, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. This would be a good Slashdot question: What do Hackers think of the various OSS licenses, and how does that limit the projects they'll contribute to?
This presumes that we are putting aside the whole copyright is evil rhetoric...if you truly believe that then of course the GPL is the obvious license, but most hackers do not believe that.
Unlimited copyright is evil; copyright with a reasonable limit makes good sense. I think we wouldn't have a need for some of these licenses if MS's source code (and everyone else's for that matter) became open after 14 or 28 years (the original copyright limits set in the US Constitution).
As for the reason the BSD's are behind Linux in terms of momentum: the AT&T lawsuit is one reason for the lag, but I don't believe it's the most significant reason. Of course, maybe SCO will nail Linux for a while, giving the BSD's time to catch up, which will prove me wrong. (I don't mind being wrong, but I'd rather not find out *that* way!)
In reference to the article, it's telling that the commericial Linux-based OS's are being jeered at, but I don't believe the same crowd would jeer at Debian (which runs two BSD kernels, albeit in development).
The BSD license is ananthema to any coder who wants to make sure his/her code remains open. Pure and simple. Assuming I were any good at coding, I'd only work on a BSD if the problem was extremely Interesting. In other words, my interest would have to outweigh my reservation about providing MS, et. al, with the chance to gobble up my code in return for... nothing.
There are more Open Source programmers who care about what happens to their code than not, so the GPL license attracts more programmers, which means the BSD's are fighting their own license just to gain momentum. And momentum is clearly on the side of GPL-ed OS's (evidence at Operating System Sucks-Rules-O-Meter).
That said, if SCO wins the FUD war & the BSD's emerge unscathed, the license issue won't matter as much, and the BSD's could move to center stage.
That said, the BSD's could regain the momentum because of SCO's actions despite the qualms that some have about the license. Or even because the new breed of Linux developers are snobby and won't let newbies in without a fight.
Allow me to go out on a limb. I'm not claiming to know what the next big thing in Linux will be. I'm thinking of what will arrive by, say, 2006: Operating Systems.
OK, I've stated the obvious, right? No, not really.
I either smuggly smirk or bury my head in my hands when Linux Evangelists state that Linux is an OS. It's a kernel. FreeBSD is an OS. Debian is an OS. Gentoo is an OS. It happens that Debian and Gentoo run the same kernel, and a different kernel than FreeBSD.
In other words, the emphasis is going to shift away from what Linus, et. al., are doing with Linux to what others are making from Linux.
Why? The Linux kernel is a groovy, funky piece of technology, and it's the heart of a movement. But hearts don't live outside of rib cages. Kernels don't run without OS's. Companies don't migrate high-end, mission critical servers to OS's that barely run the super-fast kernel beating at its center. They want -- scratch that, they need a full OS that does the job. Whether the kernel is trendy or not doesn't matter in the end.
FreeBSD has shown that a free, stable, solid Unix-like OS system is possible. If not for its license (sorry, BSD license lovers), it might have stood a chance at the top spot in the Free OS world. Debian and Gentoo have shown the first real movement toward something like a complete OS on the Linux side, especially Debian. Deb was first, and it's still around, but it's stodgy to the point of ridiculousness (from the POV of a power user). Thank God for Gentoo.
Sure, Gentoo may not be ready for mission critical servers simply because it offers you the latest, untested code. But power users get their candy and their popped-up engine. And how sweet it is.
For anything that must stay up, that's when Debian wins points for its stodginess. And here's the kicker: you get to choose your kernel.
This is the development that turned on the little light-bulb that floats above my head. This is the future of Linux.
Think about it: Debian runs on the Linux kernel, the Hurd kernel (no chuckling, please), and the NetBSD kernel. So, which OS runs on the most hardware in the world?
Debian! (10 points.) What does this mean? That we're moving away from a kernel-centric universe. It's not which kernel to choose from, it's which OS. A savvy sysadmin can just install Debian everywhere, choosing the kernel that fits the situation. The key phrase won't be: "I must run Linux." It will be: "I must run Debian." Choosing the kernel will secondary to getting the right OS. I doubt it will be long before Debian is joined in this effort by Gentoo or a similar project
So, how does an OS-centric universe differ from a kernel-centric? For one, Richard Stallman might get the recognition he feels has been wrongly given to Linus. For another, "GNU" will be just as important a word as "Linux", which again will make RMS a much happier camper. On a technical level, the emphasis will shift from the sophomoric question of "Do you run Linux?" to "Which OS do you run?" Debian with a 2.2 Linux kernel. Debian with NetBSD. Gentoo with a development kernel. FreeBSD, modified with OpenBSD security, running a NetBSD kernel. Whatever. Hackerdom may offer near unlimited possibilities.
The point is, the whole OS will finally be greater than the sum of its parts. Watch for the Linux kernel to lose prominence (slightly) as OS's that offer specific features (stability, the latest-and-greatest, etc.) begin to move to the forefront of user consciousness. Watch for a port of Gentoo to include a non-Linux kernel; watch for Debian to support a fourth kernel; watch for a commerical product that produces custom OS's based on Free and Open Source software that emphasizes the Linux kernel without excluding other options.
Yes, Linux Evangelists will kick and scream, but for the wrong reasons. If this scenario comes to pass, the world will be filled a much better breed operating systems than we have now.
Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel.
- RMS, June 23, 2003
Nice to beat RMS to the punch.
Of course, this is all a plot between SCO and MS, who have been swiping Open Source code for ages. Of course Server 2003 works better than W2K! MS swiped FreeBSD & Linux code instead of redesigning a bad system from the ground up. As if anyone could ever get the clout needed to audit their code!
So, by using their proprietary rights as a shield, SCO and MS set up a careful program of sabotage and theft aimed at the Open Source community, hoping to cut the legs out from under the movement, which would leave them the only players standing. (Except for the BSD's, because MS needs free code to steel from.)
And just when SCO thinks its won & is part of the winning team, MS, like Shelob, devours SCO and its other rivals, and crawls back into its cave.
And BTW: I'm SICK of seeing SCO banner ads on /.!
I'm preparing by reading everything I can find: I'm working on Tanenbaum & Woodhull's "OS Design & Implementation"; I've read "Design and Implementation of the Second Extended Filesystem"; Steve Pate's "UNIX Filesystems" is waiting on my shelf; and of course, there's the FAQ and ReiserFS v.3 Whitepaper at www.namesys.com.
Specific questions: what branches of math are useful in this line of research? Any books, articles, etc., that I haven't listed that are a 'must read' or 'should read'? Those who have succeeded in building a better filesystem: what have they done that I should also do? Any mistakes I should avoid? Anything that no one told you about filesystems that you wish you had known up front? And are there any special tricks (above and beyond mastering your subject) to getting hired in this field once a degree is in hand?
Thanks!
Maybe that's why he's staying quiet. It's said the Finns are silent in two languages...
Enough of this and you wish you were 20 again and had no commitments just so you just want three hours to yourself on a daily basis and there's no way to get it. And then you notice that you can't work as late as you used to...
Now I know why the old say that youth is wasted on the young. (And I'm only 31!)
There's got to be someone who knows how to set up something like this who will do the work gratis. The fund could help these guys and then anyone else who gets nailed by the almighty RIAA. If anyone sets up something like this, LMK.
(Sorry this post isn't longer, but I have to alphabetize my Harold Lloyd videos, hang a Finnish flag in my living room, and finish those bloody half-angle formulas before tomorrow.)
UNIX experts may cost more than their point-and-click counterparts, but after the year-long agony of converting to a system that actually works, the next nine years are plain sailing (at least in comparison to the turbulence brought by M$ and friends).
It's just like highway construction. Everybody bitches during the two years it takes to get the job done. After that, everyone loves the smooth highway...
Fata viam invenient
You won't get it!
By hook or by crook, we will.
How do you know that?
We own it. Every last one and zero.
What about liberty? What about free will?!
(mocking laughter)
I never said he wanted WW III. I said he would take action. That's the kind of person he is. If he wasn't, he'd be more popular with the French.
"BTW, I'd be much more impressed about Bush's non-wimpness if he had ever served in the military"
I can't disagree with you there.
--
Free software, not Iraq, because Gates is evil, and Saddam is just misunderstood.
Relevence?
Considering that George W. hasn't ruled out attacking Syria, that he hasn't ruled out some kind of retaliation in regards to France, that he isn't some wimp whose hobbies include "having his penis washed by White House interns", might choose to act on this info (assuming that it is verfied, which as yet it isn't). In short, the Mars trip may be threatened by more than the usual budget issues.
Conclusion?
The geo-political climate of the world is unstable enough that international efforts to reach Mars, or the moon, or even a consensus about countries that harbor terrorism isn't probable. Look for the Mars mission to get cut, and blame to be placed on the budget.
--
Free software, not Iraq, because Gates is evil, and Saddam is just misunderstood.