Linux-Advocacy Digest #665, Volume #26 Wed, 24 May 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Praedor Tempus)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (David Fisher)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Alexander Viro)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Yannick)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Praedor Tempus)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (josco)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Praedor Tempus)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Praedor Tempus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:14:50 -0600
Dowe Keller wrote:
>
> On 23 May 2000 13:07:01 GMT, David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake) writes:
> >
> >> ' Section 3b) (on modifications to QT)
> >> ' When modifications to the Software are released under this
> >> ' license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
> >> ' initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification.
> >>
> >> The right is non-exlusive. That means everyone can get that right. I
> >> think TrollTech is just trying to prevent forking of the Qt library
> >> here.
> >
> >No, they are ensuring they can continue a revenue stream based
> >on contributions from outside the company. They will take your
> >modification and include it in QT Pro.
> >
> >> As I said previously, if you don't like the Qt license, you can
> >> create your own library. There is no one to stop you. You can
> >> also use one of the other available libraries.
> >
> >I was not arguing I should create a library. I was not arguing
> >against QTs right to use whatever license they like. I was
> >arguing that people should think twice before referring to QT
> >licensing as substantially free or "open source". The right to
> >fork is absent, the right not to have your contributions included
> >in proprietary works (such as QT Pro) is gone, and QT gets a copy
> >of EVERYTHING that even links to their code, even if it is not
> >publicly available.
>
> I agree about the right to fork, but several free software licenses
> (the X-Windows, and BSD licenses come to mind) allow people to make
And the right to fork is good because...? Because it is GOOD to
fragment
software and libraries so that apps fail to work nicely? So that if you
want app A to work, built on a forked library, you have to install yet
another version in addition to the original - or worse, replace the old
with the new, probably/possibly breaking all your software based on
the pre-forked libs?
I can't see the "right to fork" as a good thing. Forking is what killed
the unix baby early on. It is brought up as a fear of something that
could possibly kill linux (for general use...but then, there are
fascist,
elitist linux-users who would welcome this just so they can remain part
a silly "exclusive" club - barring anyone but themselves from using
their pet operating system).
I would like a nice, clear explanation of why forking should be
considered
good. Why is there a rampant, unreasoned hatred of standards?
Standards
make coder's lives easier, make user's lives easier. SOME things should
be standardized (the kernel is standardized and controlled thru one
point:
Linus...so is this evil and bad? Should the kernel not be allowed to
fork
to extremis?). Standardizing does NOT automatically mean stagnation or
crap. It simply means concerted, generally accepted measured changes at
intervals so that you KNOW that this or that API wont be broken on you
with each iteration/upgrade (M$ does this). MesaGL/OpenGL is also
standardized and doesn't go off on forking jaunts...so they are evil?
praedor
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 24 May 2000 12:19:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>' Just putting the code on the same machine is not a problem.
>' You must create a 'derived work', which has been commonly
>' described as code linked in a single process. Linking
>' GNU readline (GPL, not LGPL) into a database control
>' program that used a commercial client library would be
>' an example. While you can probably get away with building
>' such a program yourself, distributing it would be at
>' least questionable, especially if you redistributed a copy
>' of the GPL'd readline with it. Now for something even
>' more confusing, consider what happens if you have a
>' perl script that dynamically loads readline and also
>' uses DBI which can pull in an assortment of database
>' client libraries at runtime, including commercial versions.
>' If this ends up linking to (say) Oracle libs, does it
>' become illegal to distribute the script?
>
>I would think not. The dynamicly loaded modules are not part of the
>script, they are just used by the script.
But Richard Stallman has made threats against people shipping
anything that linked against GPL'd code that was not GPL'd
itself. However any claim of control over the run-time
derived work goes away if an alternative non-GPL'd library
could be used instead. In a generic perl/DBI case, this
would seem to apply, since DBI can invoke a number of
different database libraries. But, what if the specific
distribution contained oracle-specific routines in the
perl script and would not work with anything else? Perl
isn't a problem here because it has the artistic license
as well as the GPL - I was using a case of also linking
readline as the potential problem).
>' The GPL instead shackles any other code linked into a derived
>' work with its own restrictions, or in the cases where
>' other code already has different restrictions it makes the
>' combination impossible.
>
>I think the only code shackled by GPL is the code that is derived from
>GPL. In the case of linkage above, the top level code must be
>compatible with GPL, but the libs it uses does not have to be.
No, readline is specifically GPL instead of LGPL to encumber
as much additional code as possible. Or from the other point
of view to prevent actually using it as many places as possible.
>If I have GPL lib A and proprietary lib B and my code C uses A and B,
>then my code C is GPL. I can distribute my code without distributing
>A or B. My code may even be able to work without A or B with reduced
>or different functionality.
According to Stallman, you are forced to GPL your code if you
distribute it and it won't work without A. But you can't
GPL it if it won't work without B (motif being a borderline
exception over the years).
>OK, you say reusable components like libs are better off with a less
>restrictive license. That is fair. But if the lib is under a BSD
>style license, Microsquish can take that library, change it, and not
>release any of the changes back to the public.
Yes, which does nothing to damage the code that continues to
be available.
>Once you use an
>'enhanced' feature, you are tied to a non-free Microsquish library.
>You are at the mercy of Microsquish. If the code is at least LGPL,
>then the library code is still going to be free. Microsquish must
>make its changes available as source.
Unlikely. In the former case you will at least have working,
well tested code as the base and we won't have to deal with
a worse alternative. If the base code is not usable in a
proprietary product, the alternative is to re-invent it, usually
badly. Imagine where we would be if every vendor including
tcp/ip had re-written it from scratch because the bsd version
could not have been used. Microsoft and Linux both went this
route even though it wasn't required, and the world has gone
through several years of pain as a result shaking out bugs
that we really didn't need in the first place.
>Now if the library is GPL, then anything linking too it must also be
>GPL or GPL compatible. What about software that makes system calls in
>Linux? Must that also be GPL?
No, using the interface to the kernel has been specifically defined
as not constituting a derived work in the kernel COPYING file.
>Should I demand that Netscape ( now
>AOL ) release _all_ the code for Navigator? Surly all programs must
>make system calls at some level. Does the Linux kernel make
>commercial software for Linux impossible? Make that closed source,
>proprietary software. No Oracle or Sybase for Linux?
Without the exception that would be a possible interpretation
of the GPL.
>I guess that must mean running such software on *BSD instead. But
>what if the application uses networking protocols to link to other
>software? Is that linkage that GPL affects? How far does it go?
The usual interpretation is where the components are linked
into a single executable, but the line is pretty fuzzy in
these days of dynamic runtime linking, loadable modules, etc.
>Although I would prefere
>all software to be GPL, I do see the need to accommodate people who do
>not like the GPL.
There is also the issue of existing software components that are
not GPL'd and are under someone else's control. The GPL prohibits
anything that could be considered a derived work as a combination
with these.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:09:35 GMT
I have been following this thread with some interest. We are an all
Microsoft shop. We run NT servers for file and print sharing services,
dhcp, and the ususal server duties, Exchange for email, IIS for web
serving, SMS for inventory control/administrative duties. Our clients
run Win98SE. We have had problems on the client side with 98SE with
stability and quirks. However, we have had nothing but rock solid
performance from the NT servers.
I have been intrigued with the possibilites that Linux can provide, so
on several different occasions I have installed various flavors of
Linux (SUSE, Caldera, and RedHat). The installations have all gone
very well, but once the installations were complete, I was left
thinking," Now what?" I too installed StarOffice and some other apps
(the Gimp - nice package, and tried to install Screem and WebMaker, but
failed due to a lack of Linux installation methods?). Maybe not much
of an evaluation, but I'm leaning toward this conclusion ... Linux
offers a stable environment with fairly easy installations and some
nice software. However, we have NO experience with supporting Linux
systems. I suppose that we could transistion some things to Linux (IIS
could go to Apache), but there are some things that I don't think for
which a Linux counterpart exists (i.e. the back office components and
other groupware related software). Basically, I couldn't really see
the need to completely change our model when it works for us very
well. Therefore, I don't support our transition to Linux as a platform
for our servers.
I will allow that Win98SE is a problem for many client machines.
However, IN THE ENTERPRISE, I don't think I could support Linux as a
client OS in the same manner that our users have become accustomed.
Additionally, I agree with Matt's characterizations that end-users need
to have an easier-to-use interface. I think there's a lesson here.
Charlie, you may think Linux is just the most intuitive thing ever.
I've heard Mac users claim the same thing. You are not yet in the
majority. In my evaluation, I had to work too hard to accomplish easy
tasks. Could that be corrected through proper training and
acclimitization ... probably. However, I don't have the luxury of
either training or time. Then there's still the problem of providing
all of the services ....
I make these decisions, I think, in a sane and fair way. We have a lot
invested in our system and more importantly, our system works for us.
I probably would never have posted here, except for the venom that was
being spewed toward the heretic who wasn't embracing Linux. Clearly,
he could not know what he was talking about if he didn't like Linux?
All I am saying is that there are areas where each OS can succeed. Why
punch somebody about the head simply because they don't agree with you?
Linux doesn't work in our environment - it may work better for others
in different environments. That's an individual choice.
I'm happy to agree to disagree - just lose the anger toward Windows
users, please. What we do is not brain surgery. Nobody dies. All I'm
saying is put some perspective on this. It's not worth the anger.
David
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Soltysiak wrote:
> >
> > Ok, I think you're not understanding the whole picture. First off,
why does
> > Windows inhabit 80% of all modern computers in the world? That one
is pretty
> > easy. It's because Windows makes computers so damn accessible and
easy, even
> > to those who are hopeless in learning computers or understanding
them
> > half-way. Linux, like Unix, has never been good at making the
computer user
> > friendly - period. Don't refute that statement because you know
it's true (or
> > maybe not). Thus, it's only natural that Windows would dominate
the PC
> > market.
>
> It was the first Cheap OS. $65 would get your os from the store.
> Why do people still drive fords! Remember Grandma and Grandpa talk
> about their
> model A. It's brand loyalty.
>
> But X windows, Gnome and KDE made the desktop as easy as Window's
> itself.
> There IS no serious training curve learning X.
> There is NO mystery in running Linux.
>
> >
> > Now, don't misunderstand me! I love Linux. I've been using it
for 4 or 5
> > years now. Great OS. I use mainly for programming and as a file
ftp server.
> > Never crashed on me once, unlike my win2k ftp box (stupid shit).
But, there
> > are times that even I get frustrated in Linux, to do the most
simple things.
> > It's awful. What takes a few clicks in Windows takes forever in
Unix. It's a
> > fact. But, oh well.
>
> No, it's not a fact either. Linux is frankly as easy to administer as
> Windows is. Has been for 3-4 years now.
>
> >
> > You should see the amout of software available for Windows: the
most
> > powerful CAD/CAM/CAE software (Protel, ORcad, Cadence); 3d, video
editing,
> > picture editing, motion editing, special effects (Like SoftIMAGE,
Mia,
> > Hudini); engineering tools/graphics (Pro/Engineer); programming
IDE's all
> > exist for the Windows market. And all of them are easy to use,
easy to
> > install. Why are they for Windows and not Unix? Because Windows
is user
> > friendly; 80% of the computer world understands Windows. That's
why all the
> > BEST corporate software exists in Windows, and always will for
quite a long
> > time.
>
> The reason abundant Windows software exists is because Windows is
> abundant right now.
>
> >
> > Unix does look ugly on the desktop compared to Windows for ppl
using Windows:
> > it's not user friendly, intuitive, or shrink wrapped. It's ugly. :)
> >
> > So there you have it... I hope you get the picture a little.
> >
>
> I got your picture but your picture is miles from the truth.
> Go spend just $45 of your hard earned cash and get a copy of Suse 6.4,
> install it, then come back here and repeat those words you've just
said!
>
> Charlie
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 24 May 2000 13:24:07 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip'a'lot]
>make coder's lives easier, make user's lives easier. SOME things should
>be standardized (the kernel is standardized and controlled thru one
>point:
>Linus...so is this evil and bad? Should the kernel not be allowed to
>fork
>to extremis?). Standardizing does NOT automatically mean stagnation or
Kernel _is_ allowed to fork. RTFGPL and for $DEITY sake, get the fuck out
of c.o.l.d.system with that off-topic drivel, will you?
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:15:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2000 10:07:21 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> | > On Tue, 23 May 2000 20:28:27 GMT, Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | wrote:
> | > >
> | > >Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
> | > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | > >> On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:50:08 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > >> Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > [deletia]
> | > >> The easiest way is to create a group for each resource. Then
you
> | > >> could modify your new user scripts to add all new users to all
the
> | > >> groups. Then if you want to deny a paticular user a paticular
> | > >> resource, just remove them from that group.
> | > >>
> | > >Which means the system does nothing and the admin everything
> | > >(writing scripts).
> | > >
> | > >I don't find this to be a good idea. The _concept_ of having one
> | > >user group per resource is stupid. (I don't say your solution is
> | > >stupid, because it seems as if it's the only one). But the
concept
> | > >itself is just plain stupid.
> | >
> | > Why? Presumably you're interested in an ACL for each shared
> | > resource. A group is just another level of indirection.
> | >
> | No. NT's security logic is that you have people (users), which, as
> | member of a particular organisation, or assuming a particular
function
> | (i.e. belonging to a group), have access to some resources.
> | There are several problems to that group thing :
> |
> | * If you, as normal user, want to deny access to a resource of
yours,
> | you cannot do this on a per-user basis since all your choice will
be to
> | prevent your 'resource group' from accessing it.
>
> I believe it's standard for each personto be part of a group that only
> they are in. If you want to allow acess to one other person, just
> step their group as group owner.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was to deny a resource that you
have made available to engineers but you don't want Nasty Smith to
access, although he is in the "engineers" group.
>
> | * If you, as normal user, want to grant access to a resource of
yours,
> | you will not be able to do this, be it on a per-user or per-group
> | basis, unless you ask your admin to create you the 'resource group'
for
> | it.
>
Same meaning as above.
> | * Besides, if you have 500 different resources, you will have 500
> | different resource groups. If you have 3000 different resources.....
> | In short, you will slow down the system in an amount proportional to
> | the number of resources, and also influenced by the number of
system.
> | The NT ACL system may be slightly slower for each access, but not be
> | very influenced (maybe not at all) by the number of users or
resources.
>
> How would having lot of groups slow down the system?
>
Spending times to find out which groups you are in, or which groups
exists, etc..., and same problem
for memory consuption. A small problem for a single access. But with
many access...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:31:11 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 11:14:50 -0600, Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dowe Keller wrote:
>>
>> On 23 May 2000 13:07:01 GMT, David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake) writes:
>> >
>> >> ' Section 3b) (on modifications to QT)
>> >> ' When modifications to the Software are released under this
>> >> ' license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
>> >> ' initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification.
>> >>
>> >> The right is non-exlusive. That means everyone can get that right. I
>> >> think TrollTech is just trying to prevent forking of the Qt library
>> >> here.
>> >
>> >No, they are ensuring they can continue a revenue stream based
>> >on contributions from outside the company. They will take your
>> >modification and include it in QT Pro.
>> >
>> >> As I said previously, if you don't like the Qt license, you can
>> >> create your own library. There is no one to stop you. You can
>> >> also use one of the other available libraries.
>> >
>> >I was not arguing I should create a library. I was not arguing
>> >against QTs right to use whatever license they like. I was
>> >arguing that people should think twice before referring to QT
>> >licensing as substantially free or "open source". The right to
>> >fork is absent, the right not to have your contributions included
>> >in proprietary works (such as QT Pro) is gone, and QT gets a copy
>> >of EVERYTHING that even links to their code, even if it is not
>> >publicly available.
>>
>> I agree about the right to fork, but several free software licenses
>> (the X-Windows, and BSD licenses come to mind) allow people to make
>
>And the right to fork is good because...? Because it is GOOD to
So a standard can be free to propagate into the hands of
anyone that needs it.
>fragment
>software and libraries so that apps fail to work nicely? So that if you
There's no good reason that multiple implementations of the
same standard should fail to work nicely with each other.
This is only an outcome if you believe in the M$ view of how
software works.
[deletia]
As far as 'Unix fragmentation' goes, I've been building
source tarballs on various Unixen since before a viable
version of Windows ever came into existence. So, I'm not
sure what this boogeyman was supposed to have been doing
to me.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:35:34 -0600
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> >OK, you say reusable components like libs are better off with a less
> >restrictive license. That is fair. But if the lib is under a BSD
> >style license, Microsquish can take that library, change it, and not
> >release any of the changes back to the public.
>
> Yes, which does nothing to damage the code that continues to
> be available.
[...]
But it leads to PRECISELY the problem that exists on the Windoze side of
the PC that is generally agreed to be bad. M$ produces extensions to
some standard. Because they are big, powerful and influential AND
provide tools that MANY use that then utilize these
alterations/extensions,
creating software/web pages, etc that incorporate these extensions,
they lock out alternatives.
There is no reason to assume, magically, that M$ could not and would not
succeed in doing so (if they wished) with BSD-based/non-GPL software.
They have the right to extend it and break it and not release the
alteration. Many people would use it (a RELATIVELY small core of
hardcore linux/bsd users are not significant in the big scheme so
THEIR refusal to go along is irrelevant in the larger market) and
break intercompatibility...hmmm...just like in the windoze world.
BSD licenses vs GPL or LGPL, would foster this sort of thing. There
just isn't (yet) a big boy on the block like M$ taking advantage of
his weakness in the licensing scheme.g
I ask for someone to defend this ability when it comes to BSD-style
licenses while at the same time railing AGAINST the practices of
M$ in a similar manner. They are doing what a BSD license permits.
They make a practice of code forking to force users to use THEIR
solutions rather than a competitors...but in the BSD license world
this would be a good thing, fully supported by "the community"?
I honestly ask why this is not hypocrisy because I really don't see
why it isn't?
praedor
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 10:51:37 -0700
On Wed, 24 May 2000, Chris Wenham wrote:
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I propose when they MS is split into an OS and Apps company that many of
> > those who argued for MS will proclaim that MS won. MS always indented to
> > be split into two companies, each with its own monopoly.
>
> If you strike them down they will become more powerful than you can
> possibly imagine.
read my mind...
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/5982/puddle5.jpg
Maybe
this is
moot...
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/newsbursts/0,7407,2575662,00.html
------------------------------
From: Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:47:46 -0600
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2000 11:14:50 -0600, Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Dowe Keller wrote:
[...]
> >>
> >> I agree about the right to fork, but several free software licenses
> >> (the X-Windows, and BSD licenses come to mind) allow people to make
> >
> >And the right to fork is good because...? Because it is GOOD to
>
> So a standard can be free to propagate into the hands of
> anyone that needs it.
[...]
Then perhaps I am misunderstanding what is meant by "forking".
As for the unix bogeyman...sure it is an easy thing to write code that
would work on any unix. It is also possible to make largely portable
code if you write for windoze...but you lose enhancements and
optimizations
in doing so.
Would not your code have worked better/faster/more efficiently on unix
version X if you had written for unix version X rather than defaulting
to the generic? Is it not this type of fragmentation (I use that word
instead of forking until I properly understand the term) that relegated
unix to a niche market rather than taking over? The commericial
unix makers kept going with propriatory versions rather than versions
that would play well together. After a, perhaps, convoluted path we
end up with Windoze as the predominant PC os. I doubt it would ever
have been more than a stillbirth if unix hadn't fragmented and
collapsed on itself the way it did (perhaps there would be an M$-like
AT&T unix that everyone would be fighting against).
------------------------------
From: Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:55:19 -0600
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip'a'lot]
> >make coder's lives easier, make user's lives easier. SOME things should
> >be standardized (the kernel is standardized and controlled thru one
> >point:
> >Linus...so is this evil and bad? Should the kernel not be allowed to
> >fork
> >to extremis?). Standardizing does NOT automatically mean stagnation or
>
> Kernel _is_ allowed to fork. RTFGPL and for $DEITY sake, get the fuck out
> of c.o.l.d.system with that off-topic drivel, will you?
No. I am part of this thread to learn and will continue to put forth my
thoughts, expecting errors to be corrected or encounter mere opinions of
no more worth than my own, thank you.
As for kernel forking...is not linus torvald the ultimate point of
control
for what a linux kernel is? A linux kernel is what he ultimately says
is
a linux kernel. Others are not linux, by definition. They may be
compatible
but they would not be linux.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
