On Tuesday 29 July 2008 17:28, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, Marko Vojinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the following paragraphs of that post, I used it to draw a silent
parallel to the whole Linux vs GNU/Linux discussion.
FWIW, classical/information doesn't make for such a
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 14:05 +, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Come on folks, what do you say? Is anyone willing to co-found a non-profit
organization with me for this cause? I apel on your morality, ethics and a
feeling on what is the Right Thing here.
Just use your quantum intentionality and
On Jul 29, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you ever come to the US close to the border with Mexico,
I went to San Diego some 9 years ago, to speak at a Usenix
conference. Is that the location you're speaking of?
I would invite to a couple of beers :)
I'd pass the beer,
On Monday 28 July 2008 19:06, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Hey, how about me starting a quest here? :-)
When you say information above, you actually
mean classical information,
as opposed to quantum information, which does not possess
the property of
copying (this famous property is
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
GNU is a radical political movement. Putting the name next to
Linux makes it seem as though Linus himself endorses the movement.
But that's rather dishonest, given that Linus has always stayed
away from such political zealotry.
So I added a +1) and sent it in.
So
On Jul 28, 2008, Marko Vojinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the following paragraphs of that post, I used it to draw a silent
parallel to the whole Linux vs GNU/Linux discussion.
FWIW, classical/information doesn't make for such a parallel. It's
not the classical on top of the information;
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RMS is the one requesting this
I am. He's not here. He's not even aware I'm doing this here.
But you are under his jurisdiction, He is the leader of the FSF/GNU.
He is obviously in command.
He may very well be in command of
In as much as you help the other side by adopting an unfair
name, it
is indeed in part your fault. You've become an
accomplice of this
unfairness.
Okay, they are the ones who are wrong, but they are not free as you have
pointed out. Maybe it is okay to call the projects Linux because they
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Antonio Olivares
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nothing is said that has not been said before.
Terence
Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC)
--
+3 or 4) how many times the thread has been renamed :)
All that is necessary for the triumph of
Nothing is said that has not been said before.
Terence
Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC)
--
+3 or 4) how many times the thread has been renamed :)
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that
good men do nothing
this ain't no freakn war. you
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is a war.
Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. A war that started
back in 1983, and whose proponents have suffered many threats and
losses, but also several wins.
One of the greatest threats these days are people who
It is a war.
Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. A war
that started
back in 1983, and whose proponents have suffered many
threats and
losses, but also several wins.
One of the greatest threats these days are people who just
don't care
about freedom, who just want to
It is a war.
Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users. A war
that started
back in 1983, and whose proponents have suffered many
threats and
losses, but also several wins.
One of the greatest threats these days are people who just
don't care
about freedom, who just want to
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:36:53 -0300
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is a war.
Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users.
Please take your war elsewhere. The civilians are tired of having to put
up with you.
måndagen den 28 juli 2008 skrev Antonio Olivares:
If the cow is completely free in the same sense as in the
GPL, then it
can't have been given as a gift,
Why can't it be given as a gift,
Because it can't be moved. If the cow is free in the sense of the GPL, then it
is information,
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 23:38 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
What is a soapbox? I am thinking you mean a soap opera, or somthing
along those lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapbox
poc
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
It is a war.
Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users.
No, it is really a war against users where one set of developers have
pit themselves irreconcilably against all others making any sort of
cooperation impossible. Participating in this war can only
What is a soapbox? I am thinking you mean a soap
opera, or somthing
along those lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapbox
poc
--
I did not know that! Thank you for sharing knowledge. I learned something new
today :)
Regards,
Antonio
--
fedora-list mailing list
It is a war.
Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users.
Please take your war elsewhere. The civilians are tired of
having to put
up with you.
Alan
Why me? What have I done wrong?
Let me remind you, in case you have forgotten, you fought well and fought hard
:)
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is a war.
Indeed. A war for freedom for all software users.
Please take your war elsewhere. The civilians are tired of
having to put
up with you.
Alan
Why me? What have I done
I apologize for this, but I simply do not want to
agree to name the
system $ uname -o, it is my right and freedom to simply say
Linux.
Does it make any difference to that right if you laugh at
Alexandra and
ignore him ?
I do not know if it would make a difference. I do not consider
On Jul 28, 2008, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please take your war elsewhere. The civilians are tired of having to put
up with you.
... says a member of the opposing army with a vested interest in
having his faction prevail.
Hey, you haven't stopped calling the GNU OS Linux, why should I
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:43:36 -0300
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please take your war elsewhere. The civilians are tired of having to put
up with you.
... says a member of the opposing army with a vested interest in
having
Please take this off list. And if you are not representing a Red Hat
viewpoint perhaps you would also care to post from a personal email
address.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
I care about freedom, I just do not care for the GNU
attaching
itself to Linux
That's a decision that Linux developers made very early
on in their
project. They just decided to deny it to fool you. And
yet, you side
with them.
That is how I knew about it, When I used my first Linux
On Jul 28, 2008, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
laugh at Alexandra and ignore him ?
^
Wow, it wasn't enough to rename the operating system and the movement,
now you're trying to rename *me*? :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free
On Jul 28, 2008, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know I really don't care what you call it, but I do care that you are
systematically driving people away from free software.
Away from Free Software or away from Fedora and Linux, that are both
non-Free Software, and vocally not interested
Antonio Olivares wrote:
But GNU utilities exist in *BSD camps as well, and the name GNU/*BSD is not used or required. A page explains that since Linux Distributions are more popular than *BSD distributions, it makes much more sense to attach to a more successful project.
Not to the same
You know I really don't care what you call it, but
I do care that you are
systematically driving people away from free software.
Away from Free Software or away from Fedora and Linux, that
^
^ Do you really mean Linux, I thought you
On Monday 28 July 2008 04:06, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Antonio Olivares wrote:
It's a huge mistake to create analogies between information and property.
If the cow were software, you and I could both milk it. It would never
run out. That's the way information works: you copy it and the
Hey, how about me starting a quest here? :-)
When you say information above, you actually
mean classical information,
as opposed to quantum information, which does not possess
the property of
copying (this famous property is called the no-cloning
theorem).
quantum as opposed to
On Mon July 28 2008 12:56:17 pm Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
RMS is the one requesting this
I am. He's not here. He's not even aware I'm doing this
here.
I too am beginning to chafe. You have not only become tiresome,
but, you are also
Antonio Olivares wrote:
The right thing for me to do is to {sHuT ThE HeLl up}* as many people are ***very pissed off***, It is hard for me to do that * because I really enjoy reading the comments by all the members who have posted. I would like to remain on the sidelines and come in to the
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:41:36PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Antonio Olivares wrote:
But GNU utilities exist in *BSD camps as well, and the name GNU/*BSD is
not used or required. A page explains that since Linux Distributions
are more popular than *BSD distributions, it makes much more
From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
To: For users of Fedora fedora-list@redhat.com
Date: Monday, July 28, 2008, 12:25 PM
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:41:36PM -0500, Les Mikesell
wrote:
Antonio Olivares wrote:
But GNU utilities exist
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:19:22PM -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Mon July 28 2008 12:56:17 pm Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
RMS is the one requesting this
I am. He's not here. He's not even aware I'm doing this
here.
I too am
--- On Mon, 7/28/08, Claude Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Claude Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
To: For users of Fedora fedora-list@redhat.com
Date: Monday, July 28, 2008, 12:19 PM
On Mon July 28 2008 12:56:17 pm Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 28
On Mon July 28 2008 3:34:28 pm Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
I'd even wager that the mailing list moderator approved his
post and that he's not really subscribed to fedora-list (I
doubt he would care about Fedora that much).
So, no stirring things up, no puppet mastering no evil
mastermind
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:33:12PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
To: For users of Fedora fedora-list@redhat.com
Date: Monday, July 28, 2008, 12:25 PM
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:41:36PM -0500, Les
Actually, that's the BSD maintainers's
choice,
dictated by irrational hate[1]
of the GNU GPL.
[1] at least from some, extremely rude and
hypocrit, folks.
Now, I join other calls to stop this endless
discussion.
Les Mikesell or
Antonio Olivares aren't worth it, Alex.
I too am beginning to chafe. You have not only
become
tiresome,
but, you are also not entirely credible; Mr.
Stallman
posted to
this list on the 17th, conveniently starting a
new thread
which
to all appearance was in response to this endless
discussion, and
if you
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:21:30PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Do not decide for anyone! They should make the call. If they
decide to respond to something I or anybody else commented, it is
their call not yours. Or are you a puppet?
Your arguments are religious as well, and who is
Guess what the following line means for you. For me it
means bliss :)
Whatever that is. I do not know.
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]' = 14,
Rui
--
Rui, Alexandre, et. all.
If I insulted any of you, I am sorry, but not that I concede defeat or accept
your triumph.
Name calling and
On Monday 28 July 2008 16:56, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
And it's not GNU utilities. It's an operating system. If it was just
the GNU utilities, you might be right.
GNU is *not* an operating system. An operating system must have a kernel as
its part. GNU does not, so it is not an operating
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know I really don't care what you call it, but
I do care that you are
systematically driving people away from free software.
Away from Free Software or away from Fedora and Linux, that
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -o
GNU/Linux
That should be enough.
Enough for what?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé
On Jul 28, 2008, Claude Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Stallman posted to this list on the 17th,
He followed up on an e-mail sent directly to him, copying every other
recipient of the message in his response. What does this prove?
I've been a member of this list for five years, yet, I
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
personal attack because we do not agree with your purist ways.
Purist? Who's the one denying that it's not a combination of GNU with
Linux, but rather pure Linux? :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -o
GNU/Linux
That should be enough.
Enough for what?
To send this thread to where it belong == /dev/null. Is it not that what you
want? or do you still want more than that? It is hard coded into the system
== GNU/Linux. But you have confirmed that the
Mr. Stallman posted to this list on the 17th,
He followed up on an e-mail sent directly to him, copying
every other
recipient of the message in his response. What does this
prove?
I've been a member of this list for five years,
yet, I wouldn't be
surprised if you have exceeded my
On Jul 28, 2008, Marko Vojinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 28 July 2008 16:56, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
And it's not GNU utilities. It's an operating system. If it was just
the GNU utilities, you might be right.
GNU is *not* an operating system. An operating system must have a
personal attack because we do not agree with your
purist ways.
Purist? Who's the one denying that it's not a
combination of GNU with
Linux, but rather pure Linux? :-)
--
I am not denying that it is GNU/Linux, I am only resenting that name be forced
when I simply know the system as a
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
personal attack because we do not agree with your purist ways.
Purist? Who's the one denying that it's not a combination of GNU
with Linux, but rather pure Linux? :-)
I did not say pure Linux. You are putting words* that I did
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You had been quiet for all these years :)
Mostly, indeed.
What triggered the awakening of a sleeping GNU/Linux GIANT?
I had been involved in the conversations about the Free Software
Distribution Guidelines on both capacities as Free
On Mon July 28 2008 3:34:28 pm Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Although you seem to remember quite well the date, you don't seem to
remember the content.
For your convenience:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-July/msg01977.html
Now I may be obtuse since english is not my
personal attack because we do not agree with
your purist ways.
Purist? Who's the one denying that it's
not a combination of GNU
with Linux, but rather pure Linux? :-)
I did not say pure Linux. You are putting words* that
I did not write here.
Note the :-). /me makes jokes,
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer that the Linux based distros had shared more of the
BSD-origin work rather than the GPL-encumbered GNU copies.
Obviously. Have you ever wondered why?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free
On Jul 26, 2008, Gordon Messmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Theo continued to complain about the lack of cooperation between the
Linux driver authors and the original OpenBSD developers. The problem
that he perceived was that the Linux driver developers created a
derived work, and the code that
On Jul 26, 2008, Marko Vojinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, RMS and GNU did begin to create an operating system, but failed to
finish it
before Linus took the unfinished OS and finished it himself. IOW,
Linus completed GNU?
And now they ask for credit? For what? For cloningenhancing
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 13:49 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
I have also found a page in which it clearly explains
some problems with
the GPL
snippage
The analogy
collapses once you realize that information can not be
moved, only copied,
and matter can not be copied, only moved.
On Jul 26, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there was no kernel, the GNU operating system would not have gone
anywhere
It would have completed it eventually, or someone else would have
developed another kernel that would work with GNU. ATM we have at
least 4.
without the
If there was no kernel, the GNU operating system would
not have gone
anywhere
It would have completed it eventually, or someone else
would have
developed another kernel that would work with GNU. ATM we
have at
least 4.
without the GNU tools, where would Linux be?
Who knows? It
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer that the Linux based distros had shared more of the
BSD-origin work rather than the GPL-encumbered GNU copies.
Obviously. Have you ever wondered why?
If you are stuck with the viral nature of the GPL
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Why can't it be given as a gift, you are free to do whatever you want
with the cow. If you decide to let the cow eat hay and have calves, the
calves that you have can be shared with thy neighbor. This is what the
GPL enforces. The neighbor needs milk, he can milk your
Nothing is said that has not been said before.
Terence
Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC)
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Why can't it be given as a gift, you are free to
do whatever you want
with the cow. If you decide to let the cow eat hay and
have calves, the
calves that you have can be shared with thy neighbor.
This is what the
GPL enforces. The neighbor needs milk, he can milk
your cow. Remember
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Err... I don't know how you got this idea that GNU was
supposed to be just a kernel. GNU is an entire operating system, that
Linux developers happened to borrow to complete theirs, because
all they had was a kernel.
This part can be argued. If there was no
I have also found a page in which it clearly explains
some problems with
the GPL
quote from
http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html
An analogy for the GPL would be the farmer who
receives the gift of a GPL
cow from a neighbour. The cow is completely free, but
all of the milk from
Antonio Olivares wrote:
If the information cannot be moved, how come the wireless drivers
built with BSD license in OpenBSD by Theo de Raadt were moved to GPL
license.
Theo didn't write the drivers. Reyk Floeter and Sam Leffler did.
The drivers weren't moved to the GPL, either. There was
On Saturday 26 July 2008 01:26, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 24, 2008, Marko Vojinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Persons A and B are running a marathon on the Olympic games.
You're quite creative at presenting analogies that sound convincing to
support a point you're trying to make, and that
:-) I'll try to be just a little bit shorter. Though I may not succeed. ;-)
On Friday 25 July 2008 20:18, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 24, 2008, Marko Vojinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the kernel does the essential work (actually, it communicates
further to the hardware that does the
On Friday 25 July 2008 07:56, Gordon Messmer wrote:
I think that some knowledge of history would probably change your
perspective, and is certainly relevant to the conversation.
Probably, but it seems that the argument I am trying to communicate is based
on discussing the *purpose* of Linux
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 12:18 -0700, Nifty Fedora Mitch wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:36:58PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 23, 2008, Nifty Fedora Mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
systematic interface between the kernel services and the applications.
This interface consists of
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Thursday 24 July 2008 18:03, Gordon Messmer wrote:
but did you just say that you have an
entirely uninformed opinion that you'd like to contribute?
No no no, I said that I am uninformed about the *history* of the two projects
(except some rudimentary information,
Tim wrote:
Speaking as someone who studied (at college) computing from the
component level, and has built systems from the chip level. I mean
breadboarding CPUs, RAM, I/O, etc., not just putting together IBM
clones. As well as studying programming at that level (hand compiling
the op-codes
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:16:48AM +0930, Tim wrote:
Marko Vojinovic:
But tell me, what is in principle The Single Most Important element
of the car? There is only one answer --- the engine.
Alexandre Oliva:
So, what remains to be justified is why you decided Linux is the
engine rather
On Jul 24, 2008, Nifty Fedora Mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recall, the name of this line that joins the kernel (Linux) and
application space (think HelloWorld, X-windows and more) is the question
I am asking. Of interest the omissions in the list of system calls
commonly show up as
On Jul 25, 2008, Ric Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume that glibc had to be re-written to accommodate the Linux
kernel.
Nah. Rewritten is a large exaggeration. Most of GNU libc is
independent of whatever kernel is running under it, and that's how it
should be. Only the thin system
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Recall, the name of this line that joins the kernel (Linux) and
application space (think HelloWorld, X-windows and more) is the question
I am asking. Of interest the omissions in the list of system calls
commonly show up as hardware specific ioctl() side doors.
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
That's what enables GNU libc to offer the same API and,
at times, even the same ABI, while targeting very different kernels.
Who did that port?? Linus and his team?
Most certainly. I can't quite picture the GNU project putting
resources into the early development of
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 12:47 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
Tim wrote:
Speaking as someone who studied (at college) computing from the
component level, and has built systems from the chip level. I mean
breadboarding CPUs, RAM, I/O, etc., not just putting together IBM
clones. As well as
Les Mikesell wrote:
I've forgotten the timing, but I don't think Posix had a full/useful
spec until well after Linux. ATT's SVID spec (published for sysvr4
around 1989) would have been about right. Posix wasn't very complete
until 1995 or so.
On the third of July 1991, Linus Torvalds asked
Björn Persson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
I've forgotten the timing, but I don't think Posix had a full/useful
spec until well after Linux. ATT's SVID spec (published for sysvr4
around 1989) would have been about right. Posix wasn't very complete
until 1995 or so.
On the third of July 1991,
Yes, there was some version of the Posix standard in that time frame.
It was just incomplete and described some mythical system that matched
no existing BSD or SysV flavor, so it was mostly ignored. Sort of like
Not really the case.
POSIX described a set of behaviours that were Unixlike
Except that when they were written, no system exactly matched what they
specified so you couldn't rely on them to work although they might have
been useful to point fingers at the non-complying implementations.
Very much untrue. If you stuck to what POSIX guaranteed then you got very
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 03:02 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
So, anyone who insists in naming Linux all of the GNU operating system
used with the kernel Linux is contradicting the primary developer of
GNU and the primary developer of
max bianco wrote:
So you refer to your car by engine size? You tell people you drive a
2.4 Liter car?
For the record when explaining to completely clueless people what
Linux is, they think Linux is one thing like Windows is one thing.
They will say You mean like XP and Vista right? and you'll
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Please forgive me for jumping into the thread, I've been reading it only for
the last couple of days, although I can see that the discussion is going on
for some time now.
Yes. Yes it has. :)
Reading the (last few days of the) thread, I saw many aspects and
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:36:58PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 23, 2008, Nifty Fedora Mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
systematic interface between the kernel services and the applications.
This interface consists of an API and and ABI.
Not really. It's just an ABI, really. It's
On Jul 24, 2008, Marko Vojinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the hood there is the Linux engine,
But tell me, what is in principle The Single Most Important element
of the car? There is only one answer --- the engine.
So, what remains to be justified is why you decided Linux is the
engine
Under the hood there is the Linux engine,
But tell me, what is in principle The Single Most
Important element
of the car? There is only one answer --- the engine.
So, what remains to be justified is why you decided Linux
is the
engine rather than say one of the tires. You present no
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 09:50:42PM +, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Thursday 24 July 2008 20:11, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 24, 2008, Marko Vojinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the hood there is the Linux engine,
But tell me, what is in principle The Single Most Important
Marko Vojinovic:
But tell me, what is in principle The Single Most Important element
of the car? There is only one answer --- the engine.
Alexandre Oliva:
So, what remains to be justified is why you decided Linux is the
engine rather than say one of the tires.
You can't really expect anyone
Tim:
Take note: System is yet another term that means more than just an
operating system. The kernel is the core, pun intended. Of anything,
it should get biggest name on the billing. Around that (and much of it
in the kernel), is the operating system. Around that you have a
computer
On Jul 22, 2008, Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 22:34:39 -0300,
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 22, 2008, Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have any evidence of that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd sounds about
On Jul 22, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
You're probably right that Red Hat gave GNU/Linux some polish that
even enthusiasts needed, but it started 3 years into Linux's history
and 11 years into GNU's history, so I don't think we're talking about
the
On Jul 23, 2008, Nifty Fedora Mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
systematic interface between the kernel services and the applications.
This interface consists of an API and and ABI.
Not really. It's just an ABI, really. It's GNU libc's job to offer
an API for applications and translate that
On Jul 21, 2008, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Software for Linux = Linux software.
By this reasoning, reading Linus' first announcement of Linux, you'd
conclude that Linux is a GNU kernel.
That's how the English language works.
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 03:02 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
So, anyone who insists in naming Linux all of the GNU operating system
used with the kernel Linux is contradicting the primary developer of
GNU and the primary developer of Linus.
And going along with how various distributions describe
Do you have a sample config for me to look at? I have some vermin I
want to killfile, and I've not had time to set anything up yet...
If you are using claws then use
Create Filter Rule by From or Subject
and move them into another folder (eg 'Statler and Waldorf')
--
fedora-list mailing
1 - 100 of 306 matches
Mail list logo
