Maybe at the extreme, it needs to be "use GPL or don't play in the Linux field". Remember, there is nothing that says you can't make money off GPL software (I am right now).
I don't mind if people want to make software for Linux that isn't GPL'ed. That doesn't mean I'll use it, but I don't begrudge them for it. A few things do need to end, however:
1) Free software the relies on proprietary libraries.
2) Software that incorporates GPL'ed software and violates the GPL.
3) Software that incorporates GPL'ed software and violates the spirit of the GPL.
4) Software passing itself as ``free'' or ``open source'' when it really isn't.
It's an all or nothing thing. If you want to be on the middle ground, you have to use another license, and not try to rip off GPL'ed work because the GPL is a license, it's not public domain.
RMS doesn't want people to stop using LGPL, period. As outlined by the link you provided, he only wants the LGPL to be used when its of strategic advantage (that is, it benefits free software more than it hurts it) to usher in the software in question into being a de facto standard across the board. the GNU C Library is a perfect example of this. Everybody has their own version of a C Library. glibc isn't anything special in this regard. LGPL it, however, and you'll have everyone using it because it's easier than brewing your own. It also ensures that more programs calling on that library will be compatible here and elsewhere without much modification.
What RMS doesn't want to see, however, is software that gives free software a definitive edge (that is, if it does something much better than existing software, or something completely different -- and naturally you'd want the OS to be GPL'ed, duh) being LGPL'ed (which is why I'm still wondering why the Berlin Consortium chose the LGPL.. the proprietary Unices -- and free ones -- currently have X. Berlin would give free Unices an edge if it were GPL'ed.. oh well), because that doesn't help free software.
..is that no one is talking about the fact that this is yet another instance where Corel didn't ``get it'' with regards to licensing. Unless they've been brainwashed by the media (which would have you believe that the GPL == public domain), then Corel should know that the GPL is indeed a copyright (or copyleft, if you prefer), and that they must abide by the licensing. It is not public domain, which means ``without copyright'', where they can screw it around all they want. If anything, the GPL would do the screwing around if the author of the relavent software so wished. Quite a difference, that.
Personally, I don't trust this entire thing. I for one wouldn't want to contribute to any GPL'ed project if the maintainers/authors of the software chose to make special exceptions ``just this once''. If they want to be accomodating, there are plenty of other licensing schemes, such as the LGPL. Making ``exceptions'' is against the spirit of the GPL. And no, I'm not talking about this software, specifically, but in the broader scheme of things where things could get.. really ugly.
The GPL was never designed to be accomodating of other licensing schemes. It is written specifically in opposition to that very notion (although someone once said the only license it was compatible with was itself.. but then.. there's the LGPL, isn't there?;). It was not designed to win any popularity contensts. The only thing the GPL was designed to do was to be free, and remain free forever (free as in free software as defined by RMS). BSD was designed to let you do practically anything you want to it. The GPL is more restrictive. Using BSD style stuff instead of GPL'ed stuff means it's not copylefted, which means it may not always be free. Think about how close we came to losing the X Window System to the world of proprietary software, for instance.
To repeat the main thrust of this, RMS was laboring under a moral imperative, he wanted to produce free software, not popular at any cost software. He doesn't want to LGPL everything to accomodate others. Proprietary software has enough backing already. He wants to empower free software. BSD style licensing has nothing to do with that.. Which is why it won't replace the GPL as ``the license of choice'', whatever McCusick or anyone else may think.
..the obvious problem with the BSD-style licensing scheme is that GPL partisans simply won't use it, because while the spirit may be the same, for those that advocate the GPL, the BSD license is simply not practical. This is because not many developers want to work for nothing to have their products later turned into something proprietary by someone else who rakes in cash with it while the developer never sees a dime of it (though to be fair, some companies actually give you an oppurtunity to work on GPL'ed code for pay). You might as well be on company time if that's going to happen.
At any rate, arguing about which is better, the BSD license or the GPL license, is sort of moot. Most of the weight has been thrown behind GNU/Linux, not *BSD, so the popular choice is quite clear. Some people don't want to compromise their freedom, others simply wish to avoid the aforementioned scenario (with Kaffe being a prime example, it used to be under BSD licensing, but is now GPL'ed because the maintainer got sick of people never contributing back to the main code base).
Mind you, I'm not saying which is ``better'' either. That's.. pointless.. because that would be assuming that everyone has the same outlook. They don't. BSD is better.. for certain people.. while the GPL is better.. for certain others.. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. And the BSD is not very good at accomplishing what people who prefer the GPL are used to expecting, so the GPL is going to remain the sexier license in the eyes of most of the developers relavent to this topic of conversation.
..jawad explicitly stated that he was talking about lusers (er, I mean users), not developers (which was what ``Roblammo'' over there was ostensibly insinuating). The luser base (as opposed to the user base, which uses GNU/Linux stuff because it's sensible to do so, not so they can be ``hip and trendy'') isn't going to matter a whole lot to the hacker contingent that is central to GNU/Linux development (or any other developers, really, because obviously companies/want/ to make it big, not cater to lusers who will only support them if their popularity rating are under such and such %). Those developers aren't going to drop what they're doing just because yet another OS came out. Unlike ``underground bands'', most of the core developers aren't out to make a buck, so how many ``groupies'' they have.. doesn't matter much.. Edging upward in status amongst their peers, however, is a much more widespread goal. =P (along with the various moral imperative and other gift culture rationales)
Of course, if you were to believe the media, you'd think that no one used Linux for any reason/other/ than to ``be cool'' (well, along with a number of other things.. like ``Linux is insecure, doesn't scale/at all/" etc. and that ``Microsoft kicks ass, you should buy their stock'' etc. or some other random nonsense, depending on which media outlet you're talking about). The problem with that assertation is this: if you're stupid enough to use an/OS/ just to ``be cool'', you're probably not intelligent enough to use Linux properly, and will be running back to Windows or whatever in no time flat. =P
I find the notion of anything even approaching bit bashing to be.. well, I have a strong aversion to it, because I'm not overly mathematically inclined. My forte is English. When I first tried to learn Perl (after having a bit of experience with C), I was ``mildly'' lost, to say the least. After learning more about C++, it all fell into place.. quite nicely.
Of course, even though that was some time ago, I still doubt anyone but the most eclectic of programmers would find Perl to be a good language to begin with. It would be a very strange progression indeed to move from Perl, to, say, C. Perhaps even more painful than regressing from C++ into C with no previous working knowledge of C.
I bet that the main reason that people keep trying to discourage newbies from using perl is that the perl gods were getting tired of the hordes of clueless twits that descended on comp.lang.perl.misc when the web went critical.
I rather doubt that. The Perl community, overall, is a rather friendly one (even if I still think that Tom Christiansen is.. well, let's not go into that;).
1) Will media types and pseudo media types ever understand the differences between ``public domain'' and ``copylefted software''? This is, of course, unless I'm just kidding myself into thinking that the GNU General Public License is, well, a license.
2) Doug Michels.. is a gimp? If you think that is some sort of unfounded flame, you should really consider reading that interview. He's a complete and utter tool. Few people are that lost.. hee hee hee.. He must be living on a totally different fscking planet. =P
To be concise: hell no.. It is probably best for those that know C and a little about OOP (or those that know C/C++.. if you don't know anything about OOP, you might not ``get'' it -- in its entirety -- quite as easily while trying to learn Perl, though YMMV). I personally think it's incredibly useful for what it's designed for, but anyone who wants to learn that as their first language is crazy (though not quite as bad as Pascal). C or Java are much safer choices (though I'm sure you know which I'd prefer).
Because C++ is a superset of (most of, that is, ``clean'') C, and I'd imagine that there aren't huge mounds of programmers out there who know C but don't know anything of C++ yet. Of course, for those that know C++ but not C, I fear for them having to learn it backwards, should they ever find the need for C -- regardless of what Bjarne may say, as egotistical as he is.
On their extreem ends, C++ being written with OO and templates and C not, you get two very different languages, though you can write C++ in C style.
While it's true that using C code in a C++ application is usually counterproductive at best and a complete kludge at worst, I'm not sure how you mean, ``write C++ in C style''. You mean bother yourself to use all of the features of C++ by ignore their intended usage? That's even worse than including C code in there.;)
So, yeah, C and C++ are two completely different approaches to programming. However, they are quite similar, one being the obvious extension of another, and most people who know one, know the other. It's not that big of a leap. Java, on the other hand, may have syntax similar to C (but then again, so does Perl), it is not a natural extension of C++.
In short, to be very precise, the C++ specification includes most of C (there is very little of the original C language that is unsupported). C is a subset of C++, C++ is a superset of C. So, in essence, they are the same language.
..along with most everything else GNU has ever made besides GCC. I think I'll stick to trusting Linus only with regards to kernel hacking and determine how I feel about other things like languages and applications on my own.;)
That's really scary. Perl is one of the few ``evolving'' programming languages that I like. In fact, I can only really deal with liking one at a time, which is another reason why I dislike Java, for those of you who bother to track my commentary (and for them I offer my sincerest apologies and condolences..).
[engage ``mindless'' psychobabble mode in a swift departure from original objective of this post]
Polls are always pointless. Obviously, whenever you ``poll'' anyone, you're only getting the goods from a narrow group of individuals (especially since developers working on specific tasks will require specific languages to get specific results.. ha!). It may or may not reflect well on the general populace (or other relavent supergroup) at large.
Visual Basic.. is not something I'd ever want to use for much of anything. C/C++ is perfect for general purpose programming. The kind of project you're doing will decide which you will want to use (not everything needs to be C++, though using ``clean'' C is usually a good idea -- that is, the grand majority of C that is compatible with C++). Java is probably the next best thing. What makes it an attractive choice is all of the features that are ``built-in'' (while the ANSI/ISO standards for C/C++ only go so far with what they cover as being the ``standard''.. graphics are beyond their scope, for instance).
C/C++ are going to remain the ``standard'' for quite some time. Java is somewhat inflexible, and since it is a corporation which regulates the standard, I'd fear for anyone wanting to jump whole-heartedly onto/that/ boat. I'll take ANSI/ISO stuff/any/ day. Java is good for when you want to do finish a program faster than you could in C/C++ (and don't mind the performance hit). And as much as certain bigots are loathe to admit it, Java is a simplified language meant to protect programmers from making common errors. It was designed that way (that doesn't mean that Java programmers are intrinsically ``less intelligent'' than C/C++ programmers, though you might want to wonder about the ones that slam C/C++ for no coherent reason whatsoever).
The short of it is this: There's really no point to these polls. I've never even bothered reading a poll like this before, and I could have already told you that if you're a programmer (working for a company), you're likely going to want to learn C/C++, although there is also a lot of Java work out there (in case you want to learn that instead of or in addition to C/C++.. either is likely to be a viable option), and if the company you work for deals with Microsoft stuff to any extent, you're probably going to want to learn VB (or find your niche doing something else;). Real complicated, eh?
Every programming language has its uses, and functionality is a little bit more important than popularity. After all, in the realm of OSes Windows is still the most popular, but how many people think it's a major win? Popularity polls are pointless. I'd much rather see an academic comparison of the ``best'' programming languages side-by-side.
Anyway, just because some fools polled some other fools that didn't think Java whooped as much ass as VB doesn't mean it's serious lossage (or that it's ``not-so-hot''). But then, to do a story, you have to have some conflict, right? =P
To use any of the other languages, you need to be a Real Programmer.
You have to be a Real Programmer to use any language other than VB? Being an avid C/C++ and Perl enthusiast, I find it rather interesting to have myself compared to this definition. Is there something vaguely reminiscent of bit bashing in hacking C/C++? I am well and truly boggled by the very assertation.
..to preempt any/all idiotic/inflammatory comments with idiotic/inflammatory comments which insist upon the discontinuance of other idiotic/inflammatory comments, ``if only for a little while'' or ``just this once''.
I don't need to be babied (I'm sure the AC trolls will disagree on this one, but then, ``Coward'' is the key part of that equation, mmm?), and I happen to say ``M$'' from time to time, but does that make me some sort of ``anti-MS or anything that's associated with it'' bigot? I suppose not since I don't particularly dislike Transmeta, even though Paul Allen helped invest in it. I'm not a conspiracy theorist who thinks M$ is really governed by space aliens or the Borg and they plan on turning the entire world in cyber slaves (well, maybe if you take out the ``space aliens'' part..).
Lay off it, already. Saying stuff like, ``You anti-MS trolls should just shut up already!'' or other talking condescendingly to a theoretical crowd that hasn't even spoken up yet during the course of the conversation is damn childish. Just let them get moderated down, as they should. You don't want to read their comments? Fine. Set hard thresholds. ``Get over it''. Don't read Slashdot.
But becoming a lamer yourself isn't going to stem the tide of other lamers: it's going to add to it (above and beyond the fact that you added yourself to it, of course).
..though I'll admit that you're probably right that it should have been made a little more obvious by ``Roblammo'' over there, and there really is no substitute for good sense (that is, don't substitute sound thought and judgement with vacuous shots in the dark by so-called ``experts''). I can't really say how I feel about what I'd expect from people who tout moderation of posts, because I, for one, am a prime target for faulty moderation (and thus, I have mixed feelings, myself), along with everyone else who has broken the 60-70 point barrier. =P
The government has people who profile people, try to get inside their head, whatever (I bet you can't guess what they're called!). These people often have some damn hefty degrees in psychology, and have a lot of experience (and training) with dealing with the intracacies of the human brain. And yet, to accurately profile a person takes a lot of work and keen insight. People just don't break down into nice, neat little categories that are easily referenced (or whatever).
Certainly no piece of software is ever going to understand the human mind (much less all of the entangling ``emotional'' factors), especially since no human being can truly understand another (even a profiler, though they can be eerily accurate in their assumptions), much less humans in general. And guess who makes software? Human beings. Wow.
This idea is just plain stupid from the get go. Plain and simple. It will never work.
I would like to take this oppurtunity to invite all of you to take one more look at the topic this was posted under.. What's that? It's.. humor..? That's right everyone! I'll agree, however, that if you take this article dead seriously, it's highly offensive. However, I don't think you should.
And will I follow suit after Sig and dispense with my karmic powers..? Hmm. So, enough with the pointless rhetoric:
(warning: this post was inspired by Sig's request and done out of total boredom.. if you read this post, you do so at your own risk)
To be quite honest, I'm not looking for anything in the ``geek community''. That would be referred to as ``limiting my options''. I look for females in the general population of humanity. I know, it's scary, and difficult to narrow down, much less make a decision, but after a while your filters are pretty finely honed.;)
First I should begin by saying that unlike some others, my first love is not hacking. It's creative thought. I do a lot of writing, though only when I feel moved to for some reason or another. With regards to song lyrics or poetry, it's only when I'm feeling especially emotional (my best stuff is rather depressing, but hey). I also like developing game worlds, characters, creatures, just about anything that has to do with the inner workings of an rpg. Naturally this is an extension of the fact that I used to like writing stories more than I do now.:)
That said, it is indeed a necessity that the person I am likely to want to spend a significant amount of life with would have to share a number of interests with me. It sort of has to be that way, or else you can't really relate to one another. However, those who really have no other interests besides programming are true computer geeks, and really need to get a life. And yeah, there's a big difference between hackers, programmers, and computer geeks. =P (for me, personally, I wouldn't want a programmer (or related term) because the other key topics of interest for me are more of a requirement, and if they were a programmer or whatever on top of that as well, we'd probably be too damn similar.. which is not so good.. disclaimer: this has never been tested in practice, only in theory)
I am most attracted to those women who take a great interest in creative things, such as writing, roleplaying (I can even deal with those who like to play Magic, even though I personally detect the game;) -- especially White Wolf stuff, and anything else that involves being imaginative. I also happen to be extremely emotional, and have a rather off sense of humor. So another requirement is that the woman in question sort of has to grasp my sense of humor (which is exemplified by the fact that I've seen Army of Darkness between 500 and 1000 times, and am still not sick of it.. how I managed to find a woman who has done the same is really mind-boggling.. other good examples would be Squee! and JTHM by Jhonen Vasquez.. both are really good), and must be supportive, patient, and understanding.
And since my tastes are rather rarified, and I'm also rather sensitive, I have trouble dealing with women who are overly abrasive, or uncaring. I like nice, sweet girls. This is not to say that I mind profanity (who the fuck does? you can, however, get too vulgar at times.. I don't like to feel ill;), or that I'm some sort of prim and proper type (actually, I prefer those who are rather daring, and am a classic example of a good number of ``counter culture'' values). Perhaps this part is too hard for me to explain?
However, while I disdain the thought of chasing after other hacker types, I must admit that anyone who is completely clueless with a computer is not likely to be someone I can relate to on a long-term basis. They don't have to be some sort of uber geek who sits around on the Internet for extended periods of time amassing huge collections of.. ok, screw that explanation. Point is, the girl should at least be familiar with a computer as a user. I don't care if they can program the damn thing, but.. you know. (after all, I spend a good deal of time with my computer, so I might be bothered by the idea of a complete and total lack of interest/cluefulness with regards to what I'm doing.. it's sort of boring to be excited about something you saw on the net and have no one to say anything about it to:)
First and foremost, however, I expect honesty. I'm almost unnaturally direct and honest about just about everything, and I don't take well to being lied to. Truth and honor.. things that are too often forgotten in this world of ours. Broken promises and out and out lies are the two most common reasons for me ditching a girl.;)
To sum it up, intelligence and personality are the two key ``umbrella'' qualities. As long as the woman is ``cute'', it doesn't matter too much how attractive they are physically, because attractiveness is determined by their overall personality (which is not overshadowed by their appearance unless they are flat out repulsive.. this is an unfortunate fact.. I wish it weren't so, but the truth is there). Basically, I sort of need someone with whom I can actually talk to (``dumb'' girls (or guys, for that matter) simply aren't very intellectually stimulating, and a long term relationship.. it's just not there..), and who actually cares about me (duh).
Ok, screw it again. I'm tired of explaining this (you can tell I didn't write this in a linear fashion.. hee hee). I'll just sum up my general thoughts of the article with a couple of key points: You should find someone who appreciates you for who you are, and whom you appreciate for who they are. You find who you are meant for, you don't change others or yourself to suit the other. The puzzle fits together, or it doesn't. Plain and simple. Having around a half to 2/3 or even 3/4 the same common interests is ok. Having less or more.. probably bad. You want to be able to relate to one another and also be interested and intrigued in one another. You want to be with someone you can talk to, not someone with whom you feel like you're talking to yourself.
All in all, ``Roblammo'' brought up some good points, and a lot of poor ones. I won't bother going through the article line by line, however.. I just don't have the time and/or inclination. Ha! (I'm not even editing this post.. fear)
I would like to remind everyone that there is no universal answer for finding Mr. or Ms. Perfect. Even though geeks at large are a homogenious group, there can be no easy answer.
"Homogenius": a deft play on words, or a spelling error in desperate need of correction? You be the judge.
Seriously, though, I have to disagree that geeks as a group compare to a certain kind of milk. =P It all depends on the chemistry of your personality, really. I, for example, enjoy all sorts of creative thought, love to write (poetry, prose, song lyrics, whatever), roleplay, drool for long periods of time while playing around on the net (er.. oops.. didn't mean to add that one), etc. I would probably think myself to be in some sort of hell if I fell in love with someone else interested in programming, but brilliant, creative women.. That I can relate to.. and enjoy doing so.
Do you want somebody who's witty, charming? Or just looks good?
I'd like to assert that if you're looking for someone who just looks good, getting into a relationship with that person is a bad idea. After all, if you're only interested in the material, and that feeling is probably being reciprocated (or else the girl/guy is a sucker), then you probably don't want to be mutually exclusive. =P
Be realistic too - like shopping for your next computer you can't get all the peripherals and addons you'd like.. so keep in mind what you really need, and what "would be nice". Everybody wants Cindy Crawford with all the addons and a 180 IQ...
They do..? *falls out of his chair, woozy, starting to look a little ill..* Personally, I don't need nor want a rocket scientist, and so long as the girl is "cute", I'm not likely to obsess over aesthetics. After all, I'm looking for personality, not just.. well, heh. The thing I find most distasteful about looking for dates in the real world is you're obviously going to be drawn to who you find the most attractive, which is rather unlikely to be the person who's personality you're going to find the most agreeable, compatible, attractive, etc.
Just a reality check for all of you out there. I'd like to hear what both sexes are looking for in the geek community... I suspect the answers will suprise both sides.
Your wish.. is my command.. This could take a while, however, so I'm not going to include it in this comment.;)
..see that second sentence next to "News for Nerds"? The one that says, yeah, "Stuff that Matters"? You'll note that this doesn't say "Stuff that Matters to", say, "Kitsune Sushi". I may not care about half or more of the "crap" that gets posted to Slashdot. It matters to someone, though, or else it wouldn't have gotten posted. Not everything on this site is news. Or do you think Ask Slashdot is all about the latest uber geek news? heh.
..why don't you go to Google and, well, figure it out for yourself? If you can't be bothered with clicking on a link, entering in some text, and clicking a button, I'll give you a couple of highlights (although IANATEOG.. figuring that one out shall be an exercise for the reader -- crack that one, Signal 11;): 1) uses a search engine that is actually intelligent.. it checks not just for the words you wanted, but filters out any "common" words you entered (those that would index, oh, a couple billion sites or so), and checks to see if the words are close to each other in the document (which means entering in Sun Microsystems is more likely to yield what you'd expect than many other search engines) 2) there are no stupid banner ads (you'd be amazed how excited this makes a lot of people) 3) there just aren't any damn frills, period. You have the logo. You have a short blurb. Then you have a search box and a couple of buttons to choose from (along with a couple of specialized sections). I don't even think it causes a scrollbar to manifest on the front page. Nothing fancy. It just works. And it works well, unlike any other search engine I've ever come across. I could care less if it was running fscking Minix. All I know is that I have a lot better chance of finding what I want than with Yahoo!, which practically the only other "user friendly" engine I can think of (a lot of the others make me want to vomit.. oh wait, Yahoo! does too..).
So, yeah. Google sucks, but it's cool because it runs on Linux. Yeah.. or something.
Actually I did mean before the famous post. As I understand it was bootable (at least on HIS computer!) at that point.
Of course, that could either be when he announced the project or when the AST vs. Torvalds debate began. I believe it was bootable at that point as well (before either, actually, though I could be wrong.. I haven't looked into it that much because I wasn't/that/ concerned).
Hopefully you didn't regard my reply as any kind of attack. After all, I used a qualifier, which has now been cleared up. *grin*
I also think he did much more on a day by day basis from the original post to 1.0 then he has been lately.
Yeah, especially now, what with Transmeta and all. I believe he spends more time rejecting so-called kludges and having people who want their code in the kernel rewriting it a few times than doing any actual code himself, which is fine, though amusing, given the "history" the media suggests surrounding Linux. Ha!
Of course this is all based on highly questionable sources on the internet!
Face it, all sources are highly questionable unless you/are/ the source. Sucks, but it's true. I sure don't trust the media at/all/ since I can debunk most of their techno-babble. If they don't research anything, how can I be assured of their veracity? Ugh. I need better quality news..
Anyway, I stand behind the idea that it is a "normal" open source phenomenon for the "key" developer(s) to become the "manager(s)" of an OSS project.
Quite true. Whether or not the key development team remains the maintainers is entirely another story, however...;)
..the hub around which hackers organize their efforts! *cough* get a life idiot media types *cough* ever heard of Usenet? *cough* Seriously, though, people who work on projects in the free software community tend to organize their efforts around the most unlikely of things.. like the developer's mailing list for the project(s) in question? (and what's this damn CVS thingie!? ok, so I'm not being totally serious.. who cares? you'll get my point or you won't)
During the cDc discussion someone was saying how cDc made "us" [Slashdot] look like a bunch of hackers who were concerned with our public image, and this was somehow exemplified by the hacker/cracker debate that would go on for years to come. There is, however, a glaring contradiction. Any hacker (and indeed, anyone motivated enough to look at the Jargon File or read a copy of John Levy's Hackers.. or, for that matter, exist for very long around somehow who is clued in) knows what a hacker is, and what a cracker is. Anyone who thinks the terms mean the same thing, or that "cracker is only a food product", is obviously not a hacker.
The other interesting note is this: how many hackers really care about their "public image"? If that was really the case, there would be more of an effort to debunk the media's inappropriate usage of the term. But then, I haven't seen any Web sites chalk full of hacker != cracker propaganda (that is, it is devoted solely to that purpose), which is likely what it would take a/lot/ of. Point is, most hackers prefer to spend their time, hmm.. hacking? ESR is not our "brain leader" (less people agree with him than he or the media seems to think, at least with regards to any number of his "major" stances on issues.. I doubt anyone disagrees with/everything/ he does/says). Hackers are not Borg. Most boring, pointless generalizations will fail to stick, and only serve to prove that the speaker really doesn't understand the topic of their discourse.
So, since there is so much controversy on the subject, it seems reasonable to conclude that, indeed, most of Slashdot's readership does not include hackers. This is "News for Nerds", not "News for J. Random Hacker". Geeks, supposed uber geeks, and yes, hackers, read this site, but if you think most of the people here are hackers.. well.. heh. What can I say?
Ok, now I'm going back to sleep. Maybe I'll wish I had edited this, because I tend to do some pretty odd things without caffeine and/or rest.;)
Linus did more of it himself back in the "very early days" (unless, of course, you mean that as in "the days before he ever posted anything about his kernel to comp.os.minix"), but he didn't go it alone for very long. IIRC, he had a fair share of help before approaching a 1.0 release, and certainly before it was the friendliest kernel in the world.;) Actually, the only truly worthwhile thing about the book, Open Sources (besides hearing Linus slam Emacs, among other things.. and no, I'm not a vi fan, I'm an Emacs fan, but I still think its funny!;), is the appendix which has compiled a number of the postings from comp.os.minix, which revolve around an argument between AST and Torvalds, but has a healthy dose of information contained within them.
The introduction, on the other hand, only serves to prove how clueless the editing staff is, even if most of what they say was true. The some of it that wasn't was really.. sad. =P
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mind if people want to make software for Linux that isn't GPL'ed. That doesn't mean I'll use it, but I don't begrudge them for it. A few things do need to end, however:
It's an all or nothing thing. If you want to be on the middle ground, you have to use another license, and not try to rip off GPL'ed work because the GPL is a license, it's not public domain.
RMS doesn't want people to stop using LGPL, period. As outlined by the link you provided, he only wants the LGPL to be used when its of strategic advantage (that is, it benefits free software more than it hurts it) to usher in the software in question into being a de facto standard across the board. the GNU C Library is a perfect example of this. Everybody has their own version of a C Library. glibc isn't anything special in this regard. LGPL it, however, and you'll have everyone using it because it's easier than brewing your own. It also ensures that more programs calling on that library will be compatible here and elsewhere without much modification.
What RMS doesn't want to see, however, is software that gives free software a definitive edge (that is, if it does something much better than existing software, or something completely different -- and naturally you'd want the OS to be GPL'ed, duh) being LGPL'ed (which is why I'm still wondering why the Berlin Consortium chose the LGPL.. the proprietary Unices -- and free ones -- currently have X. Berlin would give free Unices an edge if it were GPL'ed.. oh well), because that doesn't help free software.
..is that no one is talking about the fact that this is yet another instance where Corel didn't ``get it'' with regards to licensing. Unless they've been brainwashed by the media (which would have you believe that the GPL == public domain), then Corel should know that the GPL is indeed a copyright (or copyleft, if you prefer), and that they must abide by the licensing. It is not public domain, which means ``without copyright'', where they can screw it around all they want. If anything, the GPL would do the screwing around if the author of the relavent software so wished. Quite a difference, that.
Personally, I don't trust this entire thing. I for one wouldn't want to contribute to any GPL'ed project if the maintainers/authors of the software chose to make special exceptions ``just this once''. If they want to be accomodating, there are plenty of other licensing schemes, such as the LGPL. Making ``exceptions'' is against the spirit of the GPL. And no, I'm not talking about this software, specifically, but in the broader scheme of things where things could get.. really ugly.
The GPL was never designed to be accomodating of other licensing schemes. It is written specifically in opposition to that very notion (although someone once said the only license it was compatible with was itself.. but then.. there's the LGPL, isn't there? ;). It was not designed to win any popularity contensts. The only thing the GPL was designed to do was to be free, and remain free forever (free as in free software as defined by RMS). BSD was designed to let you do practically anything you want to it. The GPL is more restrictive. Using BSD style stuff instead of GPL'ed stuff means it's not copylefted, which means it may not always be free. Think about how close we came to losing the X Window System to the world of proprietary software, for instance.
To repeat the main thrust of this, RMS was laboring under a moral imperative, he wanted to produce free software, not popular at any cost software. He doesn't want to LGPL everything to accomodate others. Proprietary software has enough backing already. He wants to empower free software. BSD style licensing has nothing to do with that .. Which is why it won't replace the GPL as ``the license of choice'', whatever McCusick or anyone else may think.
..the obvious problem with the BSD-style licensing scheme is that GPL partisans simply won't use it, because while the spirit may be the same, for those that advocate the GPL, the BSD license is simply not practical. This is because not many developers want to work for nothing to have their products later turned into something proprietary by someone else who rakes in cash with it while the developer never sees a dime of it (though to be fair, some companies actually give you an oppurtunity to work on GPL'ed code for pay). You might as well be on company time if that's going to happen.
At any rate, arguing about which is better, the BSD license or the GPL license, is sort of moot. Most of the weight has been thrown behind GNU/Linux, not *BSD, so the popular choice is quite clear. Some people don't want to compromise their freedom, others simply wish to avoid the aforementioned scenario (with Kaffe being a prime example, it used to be under BSD licensing, but is now GPL'ed because the maintainer got sick of people never contributing back to the main code base).
Mind you, I'm not saying which is ``better'' either. That's.. pointless.. because that would be assuming that everyone has the same outlook. They don't. BSD is better.. for certain people.. while the GPL is better.. for certain others.. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. And the BSD is not very good at accomplishing what people who prefer the GPL are used to expecting, so the GPL is going to remain the sexier license in the eyes of most of the developers relavent to this topic of conversation.
..jawad explicitly stated that he was talking about lusers (er, I mean users), not developers (which was what ``Roblammo'' over there was ostensibly insinuating). The luser base (as opposed to the user base, which uses GNU/Linux stuff because it's sensible to do so, not so they can be ``hip and trendy'') isn't going to matter a whole lot to the hacker contingent that is central to GNU/Linux development (or any other developers, really, because obviously companies /want/ to make it big, not cater to lusers who will only support them if their popularity rating are under such and such %). Those developers aren't going to drop what they're doing just because yet another OS came out. Unlike ``underground bands'', most of the core developers aren't out to make a buck, so how many ``groupies'' they have.. doesn't matter much.. Edging upward in status amongst their peers, however, is a much more widespread goal. =P (along with the various moral imperative and other gift culture rationales)
Of course, if you were to believe the media, you'd think that no one used Linux for any reason /other/ than to ``be cool'' (well, along with a number of other things.. like ``Linux is insecure, doesn't scale /at all/" etc. and that ``Microsoft kicks ass, you should buy their stock'' etc. or some other random nonsense, depending on which media outlet you're talking about). The problem with that assertation is this: if you're stupid enough to use an /OS/ just to ``be cool'', you're probably not intelligent enough to use Linux properly, and will be running back to Windows or whatever in no time flat. =P
We're becoming too popular! Jump ship now, before it's too late! Don't risk assimilation! Argh...
I find the notion of anything even approaching bit bashing to be.. well, I have a strong aversion to it, because I'm not overly mathematically inclined. My forte is English. When I first tried to learn Perl (after having a bit of experience with C), I was ``mildly'' lost, to say the least. After learning more about C++, it all fell into place.. quite nicely.
Of course, even though that was some time ago, I still doubt anyone but the most eclectic of programmers would find Perl to be a good language to begin with. It would be a very strange progression indeed to move from Perl, to, say, C. Perhaps even more painful than regressing from C++ into C with no previous working knowledge of C.
I rather doubt that. The Perl community, overall, is a rather friendly one (even if I still think that Tom Christiansen is.. well, let's not go into that ;).
1) Will media types and pseudo media types ever understand the differences between ``public domain'' and ``copylefted software''? This is, of course, unless I'm just kidding myself into thinking that the GNU General Public License is, well, a license.
2) Doug Michels.. is a gimp? If you think that is some sort of unfounded flame, you should really consider reading that interview. He's a complete and utter tool. Few people are that lost.. hee hee hee.. He must be living on a totally different fscking planet. =P
To be concise: hell no .. It is probably best for those that know C and a little about OOP (or those that know C/C++.. if you don't know anything about OOP, you might not ``get'' it -- in its entirety -- quite as easily while trying to learn Perl, though YMMV). I personally think it's incredibly useful for what it's designed for, but anyone who wants to learn that as their first language is crazy (though not quite as bad as Pascal). C or Java are much safer choices (though I'm sure you know which I'd prefer).
Because C++ is a superset of (most of, that is, ``clean'') C, and I'd imagine that there aren't huge mounds of programmers out there who know C but don't know anything of C++ yet. Of course, for those that know C++ but not C, I fear for them having to learn it backwards, should they ever find the need for C -- regardless of what Bjarne may say, as egotistical as he is.
While it's true that using C code in a C++ application is usually counterproductive at best and a complete kludge at worst, I'm not sure how you mean, ``write C++ in C style''. You mean bother yourself to use all of the features of C++ by ignore their intended usage? That's even worse than including C code in there. ;)
So, yeah, C and C++ are two completely different approaches to programming. However, they are quite similar, one being the obvious extension of another, and most people who know one, know the other. It's not that big of a leap. Java, on the other hand, may have syntax similar to C (but then again, so does Perl), it is not a natural extension of C++.
In short, to be very precise, the C++ specification includes most of C (there is very little of the original C language that is unsupported). C is a subset of C++, C++ is a superset of C. So, in essence, they are the same language.
..along with most everything else GNU has ever made besides GCC. I think I'll stick to trusting Linus only with regards to kernel hacking and determine how I feel about other things like languages and applications on my own. ;)
That's really scary. Perl is one of the few ``evolving'' programming languages that I like. In fact, I can only really deal with liking one at a time, which is another reason why I dislike Java, for those of you who bother to track my commentary (and for them I offer my sincerest apologies and condolences..).
[engage ``mindless'' psychobabble mode in a swift departure from original objective of this post]
Polls are always pointless. Obviously, whenever you ``poll'' anyone, you're only getting the goods from a narrow group of individuals (especially since developers working on specific tasks will require specific languages to get specific results.. ha!). It may or may not reflect well on the general populace (or other relavent supergroup) at large.
Visual Basic.. is not something I'd ever want to use for much of anything. C/C++ is perfect for general purpose programming. The kind of project you're doing will decide which you will want to use (not everything needs to be C++, though using ``clean'' C is usually a good idea -- that is, the grand majority of C that is compatible with C++). Java is probably the next best thing. What makes it an attractive choice is all of the features that are ``built-in'' (while the ANSI/ISO standards for C/C++ only go so far with what they cover as being the ``standard''.. graphics are beyond their scope, for instance).
C/C++ are going to remain the ``standard'' for quite some time. Java is somewhat inflexible, and since it is a corporation which regulates the standard, I'd fear for anyone wanting to jump whole-heartedly onto /that/ boat. I'll take ANSI/ISO stuff /any/ day. Java is good for when you want to do finish a program faster than you could in C/C++ (and don't mind the performance hit). And as much as certain bigots are loathe to admit it, Java is a simplified language meant to protect programmers from making common errors. It was designed that way (that doesn't mean that Java programmers are intrinsically ``less intelligent'' than C/C++ programmers, though you might want to wonder about the ones that slam C/C++ for no coherent reason whatsoever).
The short of it is this: There's really no point to these polls. I've never even bothered reading a poll like this before, and I could have already told you that if you're a programmer (working for a company), you're likely going to want to learn C/C++, although there is also a lot of Java work out there (in case you want to learn that instead of or in addition to C/C++.. either is likely to be a viable option), and if the company you work for deals with Microsoft stuff to any extent, you're probably going to want to learn VB (or find your niche doing something else ;). Real complicated, eh?
Every programming language has its uses, and functionality is a little bit more important than popularity. After all, in the realm of OSes Windows is still the most popular, but how many people think it's a major win? Popularity polls are pointless. I'd much rather see an academic comparison of the ``best'' programming languages side-by-side.
Anyway, just because some fools polled some other fools that didn't think Java whooped as much ass as VB doesn't mean it's serious lossage (or that it's ``not-so-hot''). But then, to do a story, you have to have some conflict, right? =P
You have to be a Real Programmer to use any language other than VB? Being an avid C/C++ and Perl enthusiast, I find it rather interesting to have myself compared to this definition. Is there something vaguely reminiscent of bit bashing in hacking C/C++? I am well and truly boggled by the very assertation.
..to preempt any/all idiotic/inflammatory comments with idiotic/inflammatory comments which insist upon the discontinuance of other idiotic/inflammatory comments, ``if only for a little while'' or ``just this once''.
I don't need to be babied (I'm sure the AC trolls will disagree on this one, but then, ``Coward'' is the key part of that equation, mmm?), and I happen to say ``M$'' from time to time, but does that make me some sort of ``anti-MS or anything that's associated with it'' bigot? I suppose not since I don't particularly dislike Transmeta, even though Paul Allen helped invest in it. I'm not a conspiracy theorist who thinks M$ is really governed by space aliens or the Borg and they plan on turning the entire world in cyber slaves (well, maybe if you take out the ``space aliens'' part..).
Lay off it, already. Saying stuff like, ``You anti-MS trolls should just shut up already!'' or other talking condescendingly to a theoretical crowd that hasn't even spoken up yet during the course of the conversation is damn childish. Just let them get moderated down, as they should. You don't want to read their comments? Fine. Set hard thresholds. ``Get over it''. Don't read Slashdot.
But becoming a lamer yourself isn't going to stem the tide of other lamers: it's going to add to it (above and beyond the fact that you added yourself to it, of course).
..though I'll admit that you're probably right that it should have been made a little more obvious by ``Roblammo'' over there, and there really is no substitute for good sense (that is, don't substitute sound thought and judgement with vacuous shots in the dark by so-called ``experts''). I can't really say how I feel about what I'd expect from people who tout moderation of posts, because I, for one, am a prime target for faulty moderation (and thus, I have mixed feelings, myself), along with everyone else who has broken the 60-70 point barrier. =P
The government has people who profile people, try to get inside their head, whatever (I bet you can't guess what they're called!). These people often have some damn hefty degrees in psychology, and have a lot of experience (and training) with dealing with the intracacies of the human brain. And yet, to accurately profile a person takes a lot of work and keen insight. People just don't break down into nice, neat little categories that are easily referenced (or whatever).
Certainly no piece of software is ever going to understand the human mind (much less all of the entangling ``emotional'' factors), especially since no human being can truly understand another (even a profiler, though they can be eerily accurate in their assumptions), much less humans in general. And guess who makes software? Human beings. Wow.
This idea is just plain stupid from the get go. Plain and simple. It will never work.
I would like to take this oppurtunity to invite all of you to take one more look at the topic this was posted under.. What's that? It's.. humor..? That's right everyone! I'll agree, however, that if you take this article dead seriously, it's highly offensive. However, I don't think you should.
And will I follow suit after Sig and dispense with my karmic powers..? Hmm. So, enough with the pointless rhetoric:
(warning: this post was inspired by Sig's request and done out of total boredom.. if you read this post, you do so at your own risk)
To be quite honest, I'm not looking for anything in the ``geek community''. That would be referred to as ``limiting my options''. I look for females in the general population of humanity. I know, it's scary, and difficult to narrow down, much less make a decision, but after a while your filters are pretty finely honed. ;)
First I should begin by saying that unlike some others, my first love is not hacking. It's creative thought. I do a lot of writing, though only when I feel moved to for some reason or another. With regards to song lyrics or poetry, it's only when I'm feeling especially emotional (my best stuff is rather depressing, but hey). I also like developing game worlds, characters, creatures, just about anything that has to do with the inner workings of an rpg. Naturally this is an extension of the fact that I used to like writing stories more than I do now. :)
That said, it is indeed a necessity that the person I am likely to want to spend a significant amount of life with would have to share a number of interests with me. It sort of has to be that way, or else you can't really relate to one another. However, those who really have no other interests besides programming are true computer geeks, and really need to get a life. And yeah, there's a big difference between hackers, programmers, and computer geeks. =P (for me, personally, I wouldn't want a programmer (or related term) because the other key topics of interest for me are more of a requirement, and if they were a programmer or whatever on top of that as well, we'd probably be too damn similar.. which is not so good.. disclaimer: this has never been tested in practice, only in theory)
I am most attracted to those women who take a great interest in creative things, such as writing, roleplaying (I can even deal with those who like to play Magic, even though I personally detect the game ;) -- especially White Wolf stuff, and anything else that involves being imaginative. I also happen to be extremely emotional, and have a rather off sense of humor. So another requirement is that the woman in question sort of has to grasp my sense of humor (which is exemplified by the fact that I've seen Army of Darkness between 500 and 1000 times, and am still not sick of it.. how I managed to find a woman who has done the same is really mind-boggling.. other good examples would be Squee! and JTHM by Jhonen Vasquez.. both are really good), and must be supportive, patient, and understanding.
And since my tastes are rather rarified, and I'm also rather sensitive, I have trouble dealing with women who are overly abrasive, or uncaring. I like nice, sweet girls. This is not to say that I mind profanity (who the fuck does? you can, however, get too vulgar at times.. I don't like to feel ill ;), or that I'm some sort of prim and proper type (actually, I prefer those who are rather daring, and am a classic example of a good number of ``counter culture'' values). Perhaps this part is too hard for me to explain?
However, while I disdain the thought of chasing after other hacker types, I must admit that anyone who is completely clueless with a computer is not likely to be someone I can relate to on a long-term basis. They don't have to be some sort of uber geek who sits around on the Internet for extended periods of time amassing huge collections of.. ok, screw that explanation. Point is, the girl should at least be familiar with a computer as a user. I don't care if they can program the damn thing, but.. you know. (after all, I spend a good deal of time with my computer, so I might be bothered by the idea of a complete and total lack of interest/cluefulness with regards to what I'm doing.. it's sort of boring to be excited about something you saw on the net and have no one to say anything about it to :)
First and foremost, however, I expect honesty. I'm almost unnaturally direct and honest about just about everything, and I don't take well to being lied to. Truth and honor.. things that are too often forgotten in this world of ours. Broken promises and out and out lies are the two most common reasons for me ditching a girl. ;)
To sum it up, intelligence and personality are the two key ``umbrella'' qualities. As long as the woman is ``cute'', it doesn't matter too much how attractive they are physically, because attractiveness is determined by their overall personality (which is not overshadowed by their appearance unless they are flat out repulsive.. this is an unfortunate fact.. I wish it weren't so, but the truth is there). Basically, I sort of need someone with whom I can actually talk to (``dumb'' girls (or guys, for that matter) simply aren't very intellectually stimulating, and a long term relationship.. it's just not there..), and who actually cares about me (duh).
Ok, screw it again. I'm tired of explaining this (you can tell I didn't write this in a linear fashion.. hee hee). I'll just sum up my general thoughts of the article with a couple of key points: You should find someone who appreciates you for who you are, and whom you appreciate for who they are. You find who you are meant for, you don't change others or yourself to suit the other. The puzzle fits together, or it doesn't. Plain and simple. Having around a half to 2/3 or even 3/4 the same common interests is ok. Having less or more.. probably bad. You want to be able to relate to one another and also be interested and intrigued in one another. You want to be with someone you can talk to, not someone with whom you feel like you're talking to yourself.
All in all, ``Roblammo'' brought up some good points, and a lot of poor ones. I won't bother going through the article line by line, however.. I just don't have the time and/or inclination. Ha! (I'm not even editing this post.. fear)
"Homogenius": a deft play on words, or a spelling error in desperate need of correction? You be the judge.
Seriously, though, I have to disagree that geeks as a group compare to a certain kind of milk. =P It all depends on the chemistry of your personality, really. I, for example, enjoy all sorts of creative thought, love to write (poetry, prose, song lyrics, whatever), roleplay, drool for long periods of time while playing around on the net (er.. oops.. didn't mean to add that one), etc. I would probably think myself to be in some sort of hell if I fell in love with someone else interested in programming, but brilliant, creative women.. That I can relate to.. and enjoy doing so.
I'd like to assert that if you're looking for someone who just looks good, getting into a relationship with that person is a bad idea. After all, if you're only interested in the material, and that feeling is probably being reciprocated (or else the girl/guy is a sucker), then you probably don't want to be mutually exclusive. =P
They do..? *falls out of his chair, woozy, starting to look a little ill..* Personally, I don't need nor want a rocket scientist, and so long as the girl is "cute", I'm not likely to obsess over aesthetics. After all, I'm looking for personality, not just.. well, heh. The thing I find most distasteful about looking for dates in the real world is you're obviously going to be drawn to who you find the most attractive, which is rather unlikely to be the person who's personality you're going to find the most agreeable, compatible, attractive, etc.
Your wish.. is my command.. This could take a while, however, so I'm not going to include it in this comment. ;)
..see that second sentence next to "News for Nerds"? The one that says, yeah, "Stuff that Matters"? You'll note that this doesn't say "Stuff that Matters to", say, "Kitsune Sushi". I may not care about half or more of the "crap" that gets posted to Slashdot. It matters to someone, though, or else it wouldn't have gotten posted. Not everything on this site is news. Or do you think Ask Slashdot is all about the latest uber geek news? heh.
..why don't you go to Google and, well, figure it out for yourself? If you can't be bothered with clicking on a link, entering in some text, and clicking a button, I'll give you a couple of highlights (although IANATEOG.. figuring that one out shall be an exercise for the reader -- crack that one, Signal 11 ;): 1) uses a search engine that is actually intelligent .. it checks not just for the words you wanted, but filters out any "common" words you entered (those that would index, oh, a couple billion sites or so), and checks to see if the words are close to each other in the document (which means entering in Sun Microsystems is more likely to yield what you'd expect than many other search engines) 2) there are no stupid banner ads (you'd be amazed how excited this makes a lot of people) 3) there just aren't any damn frills, period. You have the logo. You have a short blurb. Then you have a search box and a couple of buttons to choose from (along with a couple of specialized sections). I don't even think it causes a scrollbar to manifest on the front page. Nothing fancy. It just works. And it works well, unlike any other search engine I've ever come across. I could care less if it was running fscking Minix. All I know is that I have a lot better chance of finding what I want than with Yahoo!, which practically the only other "user friendly" engine I can think of (a lot of the others make me want to vomit.. oh wait, Yahoo! does too..).
So, yeah. Google sucks, but it's cool because it runs on Linux. Yeah.. or something.
Of course, that could either be when he announced the project or when the AST vs. Torvalds debate began. I believe it was bootable at that point as well (before either, actually, though I could be wrong.. I haven't looked into it that much because I wasn't /that/ concerned).
Hopefully you didn't regard my reply as any kind of attack. After all, I used a qualifier, which has now been cleared up. *grin*
Yeah, especially now, what with Transmeta and all. I believe he spends more time rejecting so-called kludges and having people who want their code in the kernel rewriting it a few times than doing any actual code himself, which is fine, though amusing, given the "history" the media suggests surrounding Linux. Ha!
Face it, all sources are highly questionable unless you /are/ the source. Sucks, but it's true. I sure don't trust the media at /all/ since I can debunk most of their techno-babble. If they don't research anything, how can I be assured of their veracity? Ugh. I need better quality news..
Quite true. Whether or not the key development team remains the maintainers is entirely another story, however. .. ;)
..the hub around which hackers organize their efforts! *cough* get a life idiot media types *cough* ever heard of Usenet? *cough* Seriously, though, people who work on projects in the free software community tend to organize their efforts around the most unlikely of things.. like the developer's mailing list for the project(s) in question? (and what's this damn CVS thingie!? ok, so I'm not being totally serious.. who cares? you'll get my point or you won't)
During the cDc discussion someone was saying how cDc made "us" [Slashdot] look like a bunch of hackers who were concerned with our public image, and this was somehow exemplified by the hacker/cracker debate that would go on for years to come. There is, however, a glaring contradiction. Any hacker (and indeed, anyone motivated enough to look at the Jargon File or read a copy of John Levy's Hackers.. or, for that matter, exist for very long around somehow who is clued in) knows what a hacker is, and what a cracker is. Anyone who thinks the terms mean the same thing, or that "cracker is only a food product", is obviously not a hacker.
The other interesting note is this: how many hackers really care about their "public image"? If that was really the case, there would be more of an effort to debunk the media's inappropriate usage of the term. But then, I haven't seen any Web sites chalk full of hacker != cracker propaganda (that is, it is devoted solely to that purpose), which is likely what it would take a /lot/ of. Point is, most hackers prefer to spend their time, hmm.. hacking? ESR is not our "brain leader" (less people agree with him than he or the media seems to think, at least with regards to any number of his "major" stances on issues.. I doubt anyone disagrees with /everything/ he does/says). Hackers are not Borg. Most boring, pointless generalizations will fail to stick, and only serve to prove that the speaker really doesn't understand the topic of their discourse.
So, since there is so much controversy on the subject, it seems reasonable to conclude that, indeed, most of Slashdot's readership does not include hackers. This is "News for Nerds", not "News for J. Random Hacker". Geeks, supposed uber geeks, and yes, hackers, read this site, but if you think most of the people here are hackers.. well.. heh. What can I say?
Ok, now I'm going back to sleep. Maybe I'll wish I had edited this, because I tend to do some pretty odd things without caffeine and/or rest. ;)
Linus did more of it himself back in the "very early days" (unless, of course, you mean that as in "the days before he ever posted anything about his kernel to comp.os.minix"), but he didn't go it alone for very long. IIRC, he had a fair share of help before approaching a 1.0 release, and certainly before it was the friendliest kernel in the world. ;) Actually, the only truly worthwhile thing about the book, Open Sources (besides hearing Linus slam Emacs, among other things.. and no, I'm not a vi fan, I'm an Emacs fan, but I still think its funny! ;), is the appendix which has compiled a number of the postings from comp.os.minix, which revolve around an argument between AST and Torvalds, but has a healthy dose of information contained within them.
The introduction, on the other hand, only serves to prove how clueless the editing staff is, even if most of what they say was true. The some of it that wasn't was really.. sad. =P