The idea that the community is so desperate it "needs" Nvidia is near to GPL suicide, there isnt one set of rules for Nvidia, and one set for everybody else. They are a company that single handedly bankrupted Diamonds graphic consortium, then they bought them, as linus once said himself, he doesnt make all the decisions and he admits as you do its a community, Linux doesnt need Nvidia OR IBM OR any companys in control with a left hand that doesnt know what their right hand is doing, This is not a pathetic community, it has over 2 million estimated users, its time for Linux users to realise WHY it exists, and the true meaning of the words FREE SOFTWARE. I LIKE, I CARE, MR. Hedrick.
Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...
At 02:41 AM 1/1/2003 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
>This is not a pathetic community, it has over 2 million estimated users,
>its time for Linux users to realise WHY it exists
Yup. It's high time they realized that Linux exists today solely because a
lazy Finnish student conned a bunch of folks into doing his homework. His
"Tom Sawyer::whitewashing fences is fun'" swindle worked too well, and he
doesn't have the heart to tell everybody that he _graduated_.
Linux exists because working for fun is free... or something like that ;-)
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
-Mike
/me stumbles off in pursuit of the wily aspirin bottle.
Yup. It's high time they realized that Linux exists today solely because a
lazy Finnish student conned a bunch of folks into doing his homework.
]
That's a colorful way of saying that Linux was developed by Linus
Torvalds. If by "Linux" you mean the kernel whose maintenance is
discussed on this list, that is true.
You're surely aware that when the media, companies, and users say
"Linux", they usually do not mean the kernel. They usually have in
mind an entire operating system in which Linux is used. This entire
system wasn't developed by Linus Torvalds--it is basically GNU, which
was started in 1984. The system exists because idealistic programmers
had a vision of a different kind of society and had the determination
to make it happen.
If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.
For further discussion, and for responses to all the usual
counterarguments, see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.
Whoohoo! Here we go. Someone please rattle his cage about the BK license
and we can keep this going for months!
This reminds me of soc.singles, a venerable hangout for weirdos of all
kinds, yours truly included years and years ago. I once posted some
inflammatory statement and disappeared to Japan for several months
(installing a supercomputer at Tokyo Institute of Technology, look at
the acronymn, gotta love it), and then came back. 3 months later.
Read soc.singles. They were *still* arguing about it.
Then and now, the thought that occurred was "get a life".
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 01:38:48PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Yup. It's high time they realized that Linux exists today solely because a
> lazy Finnish student conned a bunch of folks into doing his homework.
> ]
>
> That's a colorful way of saying that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds. If by "Linux" you mean the kernel whose maintenance is
> discussed on this list, that is true.
>
> You're surely aware that when the media, companies, and users say
> "Linux", they usually do not mean the kernel. They usually have in
> mind an entire operating system in which Linux is used. This entire
> system wasn't developed by Linus Torvalds--it is basically GNU, which
> was started in 1984. The system exists because idealistic programmers
> had a vision of a different kind of society and had the determination
> to make it happen.
>
> If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
> time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
> GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.
>
> For further discussion, and for responses to all the usual
> counterarguments, see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
[SNIPPED...]
>
> You're surely aware that when the media, companies, and users say
> "Linux", they usually do not mean the kernel. They usually have in
> mind an entire operating system in which Linux is used. This entire
> system wasn't developed by Linus Torvalds--it is basically GNU, which
> was started in 1984. The system exists because idealistic programmers
> had a vision of a different kind of society and had the determination
> to make it happen.
>
> If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
> time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
> GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.
>
This is the Linux-kernel list. It deals with
Linux-kernel issues. It does not deal with
your continual attempt to claim some sort of
credit for the work of thousands. You should
take your bottle and go back to sleep. Nobody
in the industry, except those who have been
bamboozled by you, think of Linux as GNU/Linux,
a term you fraudulently coined and published
in an attempt to claim what has never been yours.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 01:38:48PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
> time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
> GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.
Actually, since Linux is the kernel, and GNU/Linux (or GNU+Linux) is
the collection of tools that make the full system, it would be
*inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
the operating system." Since you are one who wishes to ensure that
people understand the terms properly, and are used properly, I assume
that you would respect this.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
At 01:38 PM 1/2/2003 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Yup. It's high time they realized that Linux exists today solely
> because a
> lazy Finnish student conned a bunch of folks into doing his homework.
>]
>
>That's a colorful way of saying that Linux was developed by Linus
>Torvalds.
Nope, it was a colorful way of saying 'pbbbbt' ;-)
-Mike
no dont rattle his cage I have 9667 emails.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:49:12 -0800 Larry McVoy <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, since Linux is the kernel, and GNU/Linux (or GNU+Linux) is
the collection of tools that make the full system,
That's almost correct, but not quite. GNU/Linux is the whole system,
the combination of GNU and Linux.
Many people think GNU is a collection of tools, because the best known
among the programs we developed for GNU are tools. We also developed
other programs for GNU that are not tools. But GNU is not just a
collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
was mostly complete. (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)
it would be
*inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
the operating system."
The term "operating system" has sometimes been used with the same
meaning as "kernel", but nowadays when people speak of operating
systems they typically mean complete systems such as HPUX, Solaris,
Windows, MacOS, GNU, and GNU/Linux.
>That's a colorful way of saying that Linux was developed by Linus
>Torvalds.
Nope, it was a colorful way of saying 'pbbbbt' ;-)
I am not sure what "pbbbt" means, so it's no wonder I misunderstood
your message.
> other programs for GNU that are not tools. But GNU is not just a
> collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
GNU is a flag of convenience: there's little sign that the many people
who contribute to GNU projects share the depth of RMS's political zeal.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 02:50:23 -0500
> From: Richard Stallman <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
> Actually, since Linux is the kernel, and GNU/Linux (or GNU+Linux) is
> the collection of tools that make the full system,
>
> That's almost correct, but not quite. GNU/Linux is the whole system,
> the combination of GNU and Linux.
err, excuse me, but where are XFree86 or KDE and so on?
they are not included in the GNU, I suppose.
So we should talk about Xfree86/KDE/GNU/whatever/Linux... too long...
should we focus just on what is mandatory for a basic networked system?
Basically, I could use a libc4/5 based system, withouth gcc and so on, with BSD
inetutils and BSD fileutils (ls cp and so on), ksh anc csh as shells, and linux
kernel.
How should I call this system? (and I have also
systems not running glibc right now, depending on when I installed them.)
I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
syllogismi.
It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
Luigi
>
> Many people think GNU is a collection of tools, because the best known
> among the programs we developed for GNU are tools. We also developed
> other programs for GNU that are not tools. But GNU is not just a
> collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
> was mostly complete. (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)
>
> it would be
> *inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
> the operating system."
>
> The term "operating system" has sometimes been used with the same
> meaning as "kernel", but nowadays when people speak of operating
> systems they typically mean complete systems such as HPUX, Solaris,
> Windows, MacOS, GNU, and GNU/Linux.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
> I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
> same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
> syllogismi.
>
> It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
> people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
Cripes. Are you a lawyer? ;)
no, I am a system manager, but I studied at Unversity to become professor of
latin and ancient greek.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 11:49:19 +0000
> From: Andrew Walrond <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
> > I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
> > I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
> > same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
> > syllogismi.
> >
> > It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
> > people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
>
>
> Cripes. Are you a lawyer? ;)
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> > I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
> > I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
> > same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
> > syllogismi.
> >
> > It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
> > people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
>
>
> Cripes. Are you a lawyer? ;)
No, a sesquipedaliac.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
Sesquipedalian comes from Latin sesquipedalis, "a foot and a half long,
hence inordinately long," from sesqui, "one half more, half as much
again" + pes, ped-, "a foot."
Lucky boy :)
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>
>
>>>I can understand your reasons, and I can also agree with them, but
>>>I am quite impressed reading a nominalistic discussion on lkml, with almost the
>>>same argumentations and logical plant of medioeval nominalistic
>>>syllogismi.
>>>
>>>It is quite interesting, the story of culture is quite a wheel, and
>>>people mental attitude, storically, seems to be recurisive (not evolutionary).
>>
>>
>>Cripes. Are you a lawyer? ;)
>
>
> No, a sesquipedaliac.
>
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:25:02PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Sesquipedalian comes from Latin sesquipedalis, "a foot and a half long,
> hence inordinately long," from sesqui, "one half more, half as much
> again" + pes, ped-, "a foot."
From the OED, sesquipedalian (n & v):
"Of words and expressions (after Horace's sesquipedalia verba 'words a
foot and a half long', A.P. 97)"
Hugo.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP: 1024D/1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.nildram.co.uk
--- Never underestimate the bandwidth of a Volvo filled ---
with backup tapes.
So we should talk about Xfree86/KDE/GNU/whatever/Linux... too long...
This is a valid point--the name "GNU/Linux" is imperfect.
By the same token, the name "Linux" is even worse.
For more explanation, see
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many.
A rather misguided person wrote this:
This is the Linux-kernel list. It deals with
Linux-kernel issues. It does not deal with
your continual attempt to claim some sort of
credit for the work of thousands.
He wants to give all the credit for the whole system to just one
person. I'm asking people to give a group of thousands of people
credit *also*. In which of these two alternatives does one person
claim credit for the work of thousands? The "Linux" alternative does
that. If he applied his own criterion even-handedly to these two
alternatives, he would call the system "GNU/Linux". But he doesn't
apply it even-handedly; he has led himself to apply a double standard.
Why does an intelligent person do this? He is clinging to the idea
that "Linux" is the right name for the system, and that requires
distorting something. Just as some people insist the Earth is flat,
or that astrology makes valid predictions, others believe that the
whole system is Linux. All of them have to find a way to deny or
ignore the facts in order to go on believing what they believe.
If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
teaching them a false picture of the system's history. Some of them
may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
GNU is a flag of convenience: there's little sign that the many people
who contribute to GNU projects share the depth of RMS's political zeal.
Developing a whole operating system was a big job, so we recruited
anyone who would help. We did not insist that people state their
political views before accepting their help. Do you think we should
have?
In this way we engaged as many people as possible to do the work that
we planned would get us to freedom.
At 03:31 PM 1/3/2003 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>A rather misguided person wrote this:
>
> This is the Linux-kernel list. It deals with
> Linux-kernel issues. It does not deal with
> your continual attempt to claim some sort of
> credit for the work of thousands.
>
>He wants to give all the credit for the whole system to just one
>person. I'm asking people to give a group of thousands of people
>credit *also*. In which of these two alternatives does one person
>claim credit for the work of thousands? The "Linux" alternative does
>that. If he applied his own criterion even-handedly to these two
>alternatives, he would call the system "GNU/Linux". But he doesn't
>apply it even-handedly; he has led himself to apply a double standard.
>
>Why does an intelligent person do this? He is clinging to the idea
>that "Linux" is the right name for the system, and that requires
>distorting something. Just as some people insist the Earth is flat,
>or that astrology makes valid predictions, others believe that the
>whole system is Linux. All of them have to find a way to deny or
>ignore the facts in order to go on believing what they believe.
>
>If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
>teaching them a false picture of the system's history. Some of them
>may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
>thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
With all due respect Sir, do not address such to me. You know me not.
-Mike
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:31:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
> teaching them a false picture of the system's history. Some of them
> may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
> thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
The term Linux for the whole system might be inaccurate, but it's what
is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux (Linus) doesn't complain
that's fine. Calling it GNU/Linux is 1984-style changing of history, though.
All so-called Linux distributions were created from lots of different
components. Many, often important, components came from the GNU project,
other from BSD NET/2 other were written from scratch, etc.. But these
collection of packages had had exactly _zero_ connection to the FSF and
the GNU project except reusing some components from the GNU project.
And no, Linux distributions weren't the only people doing that. Look at
the number of GNU components in say BSDI where they combined it with
propritary software.
I'd also like to add the the FSF didn't give a shit for Linux until it
got popular enough to ride on the bandwaggon.
> I'd also like to add the the FSF didn't give a shit for Linux until it
> got popular enough to ride on the bandwaggon.
Amen, brother.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> The term Linux for the whole system might be inaccurate, but it's what
> is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux (Linus) doesn't
complain
> that's fine. Calling it GNU/Linux is 1984-style changing of history,
though.
> I'd also like to add the the FSF didn't give a shit for Linux until it
> got popular enough to ride on the bandwaggon.
Not to mention the fact that GNU/Linux is the worst sounding and ugliest
looking name you could pick imho. I'd rather do the Mozilla way
"linux-gnu". It sounds better and the kernel is the most important
piece is it not? I agree the GNU project deserves some kind of credit
but I don't think it should be in the name exactly..no one's forced to
use GNU things I believe if you really _wanted_ to you could replace all
the GNU stuff with proprietary stuff and such...I would never do it but
heh I don't think you need GNU to use Linux.
--
Steven
[email protected]
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5 2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94
Hi RMS,
Saw you here and thought I'd remind you. I got under your skin quite a
few years back cos I wrote this perl-based cscope which I released for
free - with a modified BSD licence stating that no one in pakistan or no
person of pakistani nationality could use it and that this licence could
not be modified to allow pakis to use it. You might ask why I did that ?
Well, I am an Indian and I thought I'd just needle some pakis cos they
are such nincompoops. Anyways, 9/11 proved me right that pakis (+
saudis) suck ass big time.
Getting back to open-licence software, if you hadn't been such a
nitpicking ideologue, the free s/w world would have had a cscope at
least 2 years earlier than it did. I gave you my version of a "free"
licence, and you didn't like it one bit! That was the OTHER reason I did
it. To prove a point to you, that EVEN in a Free software world, there
might be some other price to be paid.
A full-freedom software world might turn out to be a grey tasteless
odourless flavourless communist world. Even free s/w needs competition
to keep it on its toes, and money is the best damned motivation for
normal people! While everyone, including me, appreciates what you've
achieved in the past, your intransigence over your untenable extreme
views on software freedom is the primary reason why you are losing
ground everyday with your own supporters. Think about it.
Ranjeet Shetye
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:28 PM
> To: Richard Stallman
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:31:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
> > teaching them a false picture of the system's history.
> Some of them
> > may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
> > thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
>
> The term Linux for the whole system might be inaccurate, but
> it's what is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux
> (Linus) doesn't complain that's fine. Calling it GNU/Linux
> is 1984-style changing of history, though.
>
The greatest enemy to knowledge is not ignorance; it's the illusion of
knowledge.
Shame on you!
--
Tariq Shureih
Opinions are my own and don't represent my employer
-----Original Message-----
From: Ranjeet Shetye [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 2:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
Hi RMS,
Saw you here and thought I'd remind you. I got under your skin quite a
few years back cos I wrote this perl-based cscope which I released for
free - with a modified BSD licence stating that no one in pakistan or no
person of pakistani nationality could use it and that this licence could
not be modified to allow pakis to use it. You might ask why I did that ?
Well, I am an Indian and I thought I'd just needle some pakis cos they
are such nincompoops. Anyways, 9/11 proved me right that pakis (+
saudis) suck ass big time.
Getting back to open-licence software, if you hadn't been such a
nitpicking ideologue, the free s/w world would have had a cscope at
least 2 years earlier than it did. I gave you my version of a "free"
licence, and you didn't like it one bit! That was the OTHER reason I did
it. To prove a point to you, that EVEN in a Free software world, there
might be some other price to be paid.
A full-freedom software world might turn out to be a grey tasteless
odourless flavourless communist world. Even free s/w needs competition
to keep it on its toes, and money is the best damned motivation for
normal people! While everyone, including me, appreciates what you've
achieved in the past, your intransigence over your untenable extreme
views on software freedom is the primary reason why you are losing
ground everyday with your own supporters. Think about it.
Ranjeet Shetye
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:28 PM
> To: Richard Stallman
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:31:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
> > teaching them a false picture of the system's history.
> Some of them
> > may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
> > thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
>
> The term Linux for the whole system might be inaccurate, but
> it's what is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux
> (Linus) doesn't complain that's fine. Calling it GNU/Linux
> is 1984-style changing of history, though.
>
Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> writes:
> Calling it GNU/Linux is 1984-style changing of history, though.
Yeah, the GNU project was started in 1984.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
I knew we should have stayed ;)
[I'm joking - honest!!!]
Andrew [ British ;) ]
Shureih, Tariq wrote:
> The greatest enemy to knowledge is not ignorance; it's the illusion of
> knowledge.
>
> Shame on you!
>
> --
> Tariq Shureih
> Opinions are my own and don't represent my employer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ranjeet Shetye [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 2:10 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
>
> Hi RMS,
>
> Saw you here and thought I'd remind you. I got under your skin quite a
> few years back cos I wrote this perl-based cscope which I released for
> free - with a modified BSD licence stating that no one in pakistan or no
> person of pakistani nationality could use it and that this licence could
> not be modified to allow pakis to use it. You might ask why I did that ?
> Well, I am an Indian and I thought I'd just needle some pakis cos they
> are such nincompoops. Anyways, 9/11 proved me right that pakis (+
> saudis) suck ass big time.
>
> Getting back to open-licence software, if you hadn't been such a
> nitpicking ideologue, the free s/w world would have had a cscope at
> least 2 years earlier than it did. I gave you my version of a "free"
> licence, and you didn't like it one bit! That was the OTHER reason I did
> it. To prove a point to you, that EVEN in a Free software world, there
> might be some other price to be paid.
>
> A full-freedom software world might turn out to be a grey tasteless
> odourless flavourless communist world. Even free s/w needs competition
> to keep it on its toes, and money is the best damned motivation for
> normal people! While everyone, including me, appreciates what you've
> achieved in the past, your intransigence over your untenable extreme
> views on software freedom is the primary reason why you are losing
> ground everyday with your own supporters. Think about it.
>
> Ranjeet Shetye
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email protected]
>>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>>Christoph Hellwig
>>Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:28 PM
>>To: Richard Stallman
>>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
>>[email protected]
>>Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>>
>>
>>On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:31:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>
>>>If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
>>>teaching them a false picture of the system's history.
>>
>>Some of them
>>
>>>may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
>>>thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
>>
>>The term Linux for the whole system might be inaccurate, but
>>it's what is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux
>>(Linus) doesn't complain that's fine. Calling it GNU/Linux
>>is 1984-style changing of history, though.
>>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Ranjeet Shetye wrote:
>Hi RMS,
>
>Saw you here and thought I'd remind you. I got under your skin quite a
>few years back cos I wrote this perl-based cscope which I released for
>free - with a modified BSD licence stating that no one in pakistan or no
>person of pakistani nationality could use it and that this licence could
>not be modified to allow pakis to use it. You might ask why I did that ?
>Well, I am an Indian and I thought I'd just needle some pakis cos they
>are such nincompoops. Anyways, 9/11 proved me right that pakis (+
>saudis) suck ass big time.
>
Please reread your last sentence. An isolated event caused by the wills
and actions of a limited group (terrorists, terrorist backers) amongst a
larger group (pakistanese people as a whole including children that
don't even know the meaning of the word terrorist) is definitely nowhere
near a proof of something concerning the larger group.
Stating otherwise to promote segregation is pure racism.
>
>Getting back to open-licence software, if you hadn't been such a
>nitpicking ideologue, the free s/w world would have had a cscope at
>least 2 years earlier than it did. I gave you my version of a "free"
>licence, and you didn't like it one bit!
>
So do I if I understand the following correctly. You could call it
narrow-sighted but I'm very reluctent to increase the market share (and
by that overall influence) of software excluding people for no other
reason that their nationality.
Segregating groups of people nearly always help sustain violence between
people. Please verify this statement on past and current conflicts.
> That was the OTHER reason I did
>it. To prove a point to you, that EVEN in a Free software world, there
>might be some other price to be paid.
>
>
>A full-freedom software world might turn out to be a grey tasteless
>odourless flavourless communist world.
>
As long as proprietary software is not made unlawful where's the problem ?
You may link full-freesoftware inclination with communism if proprietary
software was forbiden (and competition between free software projects is
proved to be flawed) but I've never seen Richard state something like
this. If I missed something feel free to point me where to look.
Free software evolves in a different way than proprietary software. This
is true that most innovative products come with proprietary licenses
now. But I'm not sure this fact comes from the license differences.
Free software and proprietary software don't yet play on an even field.
There are huge inertial effects slowing Free Software market penetration
now. When the field will be even and some time will have passed we'll
know what places the two kinds will have and if the proprietary one
really lies in "innovative products" land.
Until then, enjoy the ride...
> Even free s/w needs competition
>to keep it on its toes, and money is the best damned motivation for
>normal people!
>
Depends on the amount of cash you have in the bank and your income. If
your current situation suits you, more won't motivate you as much as
something you desire and money can't buy (and there's a lot of this kind
out there).
What motivates me the most now (that the cash comes in regularly) is the
ability to learn and interact with various people. I've not yet had
enough of both. Most people spend their whole life pursuing various
ideals, relatively few want to be the richest person on Earth...
> While everyone, including me, appreciates what you've
>achieved in the past, your intransigence over your untenable extreme
>views on software freedom is the primary reason why you are losing
>ground everyday with your own supporters. Think about it.
>
>
Richard is an idealist. He can be annoying when you have your own feet
on the ground but setting your goals too high isn't a bad motivation for
making yourself better (unless you become an extremist of course)...
To come back on the Nvidia subject :
Considering the top performance mainstream 3D market now (ATI vs
Nvidia), seeing that:
- both ATI and Nvidia have efficient proprietary drivers for their
latest products (ATI ones are young and may still have problems I've not
heard of yet),
- at least ATI 8500 cards have an efficient OSS driver in the works
indicating ATI didn't make hiding *all* specs their internal policy.
Nvidia won't be an option for me and for every people that rely on my
advices unless they open their specs or the market reverts back to a
Nvidia monopol.
For the record, SiS lost directly at least tens and maybe hundreds of
chipset sells when I was forced to tell potential customers contacting
me directly that racks full of 645DX based systems might have to use PIO
modes for all IDE transfers until SiS moved to help on sis5513.c ...
Since then every other potential customer was directed to appropriate
kernel versions or kindly provided patches for their exotic
patched-kernel configurations (some don't even know how lucky they are
that I love to study new stuff)...
Remember : the fittest survives...
LB.
Steven Barnhart <[email protected]> writes:
> Not to mention the fact that GNU/Linux is the worst sounding and
> ugliest looking name you could pick imho.
No, the worst one is "Lignux".
Watch 'Revolution OS' for more rants.
I did. I saw a lot of rants.
I have been using LINUX or the LINUX KERNEL for a long time, probable since
1993ish
I like LINUX...
but this buisness of the 'system' being the utilities I find hard to swallow.
I appreciate the work of BOTH Linux Torvals AND Richard Stallman
without either of these people, we would not have what we have.
but can we just, get along at least?
there is more than enough room for glory here.
Richard Stallman wrote:
> A rather misguided person wrote this:
>
> This is the Linux-kernel list. It deals with
> Linux-kernel issues. It does not deal with
> your continual attempt to claim some sort of
> credit for the work of thousands.
>
> He wants to give all the credit for the whole system to just one
> person. I'm asking people to give a group of thousands of people
> credit *also*. In which of these two alternatives does one person
> claim credit for the work of thousands? The "Linux" alternative does
> that. If he applied his own criterion even-handedly to these two
> alternatives, he would call the system "GNU/Linux". But he doesn't
> apply it even-handedly; he has led himself to apply a double standard.
>
> Why does an intelligent person do this? He is clinging to the idea
> that "Linux" is the right name for the system, and that requires
> distorting something. Just as some people insist the Earth is flat,
> or that astrology makes valid predictions, others believe that the
> whole system is Linux. All of them have to find a way to deny or
> ignore the facts in order to go on believing what they believe.
>
> If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
> teaching them a false picture of the system's history. Some of them
> may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
> thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Regards,
Mark Rutherford
[email protected]
File: Mark Rutherford.ASC
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>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=hpbN
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
On Thu, 02 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If you want to avoid predictably steering readers into confusion, each
> time you say (in one way or another) that Linux was developed by Linus
> Torvalds, you need to explain that Linux is one component of the
> GNU+Linux system which is what users typically run.
Yoohoo. Linux is what makes GNU run nowawadays, because GNU has not yet
brought out a stable release kernel version. When's GNU HURD due again?
GNU is what munches away more disk real estate for a mere localization
than the whole NetBSD system, isn't it?
Enough ranting, GNU is useful and has many useful projects, and having a
philosophy and some tools to make it tasteful is much appreciated. But
please take your "Linux is actually GNU+Linux" noise elsewhere lest you
want some idealistic person like yourself distribute an non-GNU
operating system that is made up of Linux, Linux tools and BSD
utilities. Admittedly, bootstrapping without GCC will be a harder part
of this project, but it's certainly doable.
Tell the press, but not the Kernel hackers. They know they use GNU stuff
when they type gdb or man ls.
--
Matthias Andree
The term Linux for the whole system might be inaccurate, but it's what
is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux (Linus) doesn't complain
that's fine. Calling it GNU/Linux is 1984-style changing of history, though.
The name GNU/Linux reflects the system's real history; the name Linux
teaches a mistaken picture that many people believe is true. Please
see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html for the history.
Let's look deeper, at the criterion you've appealed to. Essentially
you've said it's ok to give credit for A's work to B if B doesn't
object. In effect, that avoids the whole issue of unfairness.
But these
collection of packages had had exactly _zero_ connection to the FSF and
the GNU project except reusing some components from the GNU project.
"Some components" is an understatement--they were numerous. But let's
look beyond that. The reason that these components fit in with other
packages, such as X11, TeX, and BSD network utilities, is that we
designed them to fit together. Our project was to build a complete
operating system, so when we developed components, we had that purpose
in mind. GNU/Linux distributions, at the root, are the result of our
project to make a free operating system.
Richard Stallman writes:
> Many people think GNU is a collection of tools, because the best known
> among the programs we developed for GNU are tools. We also developed
> other programs for GNU that are not tools. But GNU is not just a
> collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
> was mostly complete. (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)
>
> it would be
> *inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
> the operating system."
>
> The term "operating system" has sometimes been used with the same
> meaning as "kernel", but nowadays when people speak of operating
> systems they typically mean complete systems such as HPUX, Solaris,
> Windows, MacOS, GNU, and GNU/Linux.
By "GNU" you mean the Hurd? That's not nice at all. Just where
did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
hardware drivers?
I think Hurd/Linux or Linux/Hurd would be a proper name for
your kernel. Credit is due, right? Don't be a hypocrite now...
> If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
> teaching them a false picture of the system's history. Some of them
> may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
> thinking. If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
Calling the OS "Linux" has nothing to do with teaching anybody
about history. The true historical name for the kernel, given
by Linus, is "Freax". I'm not kidding. An FTP site maintainer
(named Ari Lemmke?) came up with the "Linux" name.
So Freax is our kernel, and Linux is the OS. The kernel has to
report "Linux" as the name of course, since the kernel is the
part of the OS which supplies /proc/version. Using one name
for everything reduces confusion. Regular people have enough
trouble telling the OS apart from the hardware it runs on.
(The "Start" button is part of a PC you know!)
Anyway, "GNU/Linux" inhibits the spread of free software.
Regular people care about how attractive the name sounds.
This alone should be reason enough to drop the crusade.
Ask somebody in marketing, sales, or psychology if you need
help understanding this concept. In addition, the effort
you spend on "GNU/Linux" is noise that dilutes your message
about the value of free software. People have limited
attention; it does no good to get side-tracked on some
personal conflict over a perfectly usable and accepted name.
The listener allows you a limited amount of conflict;
exceed some per-person threshold and you get dismissed
as a nut.
By "GNU" you mean the Hurd?
GNU means the entire system that we set out from the beginning to
develop. The Hurd is just one piece of GNU--it is the upper layer of
the kernel.
That's not nice at all. Just where
did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
hardware drivers?
The TCP/IP implementation in the Hurd comes from Linux, but the Hurd
as a whole is very different from Linux. (There are no drivers in the
Hurd.)
Linux is a small part of the GNU/Linux system, but there are
various reasons to call it "GNU/Linux" than just "GNU". See
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu.
So Freax is our kernel, and Linux is the OS.
Anyone for renaming this list to [email protected]?
> That's not nice at all. Just where
> did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
> hardware drivers?
>
> The TCP/IP implementation in the Hurd comes from Linux, but the Hurd
> as a whole is very different from Linux. (There are no drivers in the
> Hurd.)
Gimme a break. You have drivers someplace and you got them from Linux
and you got the networking stack from Linux, so either call it Linux/Hurd
or back off on your constant GNU/Linux crap.
It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't
willing to do yourself. I, for one, will remind you of this every time
you bring up GNU/Linux in this list. It won't go away, I'll make sure
of that. It's just pathetic what you are doing and I'll happily shine
a spotlight on it until you change your tune or go away.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 12:37, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Gimme a break. You have drivers someplace and you got them from Linux
> and you got the networking stack from Linux, so either call it Linux/Hurd
> or back off on your constant GNU/Linux crap.
Excellent point. You want us to give GNU credit so give Linux credit for
using our code in Hurd (I will now officially refer to it as Linux/Hurd,
only because "Linux" came first in this paticular event.)
>
> It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't
> willing to do yourself. I, for one, will remind you of this every time
> you bring up GNU/Linux in this list. It won't go away, I'll make sure
> of that. It's just pathetic what you are doing and I'll happily shine
> a spotlight on it until you change your tune or go away.
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
--
Steven
[email protected]
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5 2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94
On Mon, 06 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't
> willing to do yourself. I, for one, will remind you of this every time
> you bring up GNU/Linux in this list. It won't go away, I'll make sure
> of that. It's just pathetic what you are doing and I'll happily shine
> a spotlight on it until you change your tune or go away.
How many false rejects would a g.*n.*u.*l.*i.*n.*u.*x ban regexp cause
for this list BTW?
It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't
willing to do yourself. I, for one, will remind you of this every time
you bring up GNU/Linux in this list.
These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think. In both
cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a
component that is Linux or of Linux.
So why do we treat them differently? In general, there's no ethical
obligation to cite each and every component of a larger structure in
the structure's name. But in the case of "GNU/Linux" there are some
specific reasons why it is useful and proper to mention "Linux" in the
name. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu.
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 08:40:26AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't
> willing to do yourself. I, for one, will remind you of this every time
> you bring up GNU/Linux in this list.
>
> These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think. In both
> cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a
> component that is Linux or of Linux.
>
> So why do we treat them differently? In general, there's no ethical
> obligation to cite each and every component of a larger structure in
> the structure's name.
Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
name, there is no ethical obligation either. Thanks for clearing
that up.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
I'd [g]uess [n]ot too many, b[u]t the [linux] kernel list admins are
pretty good about keeping the bans non-political. Whoops, looks like
this messa[g]e gets sent to /dev/[nu]ll. So much for [linux]
development discussion..
Maybe without the .*s all over the place....
(For the humour impaired, no, I'm not actually advocating such a ban.)
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 18:33, Matthias Andree wrote:
> How many false rejects would a g.*n.*u.*l.*i.*n.*u.*x ban regexp cause
> for this list BTW?
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On January 7, 2003 08:40 am, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think. In both
> cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a
> component that is Linux or of Linux.
Richard,
You are a smart guy. I think you'd agree with me that this particular
battle (GNU/Linux) is lost. Assuming you are right, is it worth continuing
to fight? I know you have a very strong sentimental attachment to GNU,
and that's more than understandable. But in the great scheme of things,
it's a minor issue. As much as you like them to, people don't attach
semantics to names. Period. They just want a catchy label, and that's all.
Damn, they don't even know what a kernel is, let alone subtleties
concerning the naming.
Bottom line is, the are only so many hours in a day. You have so many
battles to fight, that would serve the community. Why continue this one,
when it's clear that all it's going is harming your reputation and
credibility. It's harming the community. Yeah, you could argue that
*if* things were different... but they are not! Given the present day
situation, it must be clear even to you that things can't possibly go
back, and all your doing is creating bad blood. Think about it.
--
Dimi.
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[email protected]> writes:
> I know you have a very strong sentimental attachment to GNU,
> and that's more than understandable. But in the great scheme of things,
> it's a minor issue. As much as you like them to, people don't attach
> semantics to names. Period. They just want a catchy label, and that's all.
I think you're quite wrong -- names are very important, much more so
than it may seem at first.
If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".
The reason is that GNU _starts_ with freedom as an idea, and builds
software on top of that; it's very hard to explain GNU without explaining
freedom too. Most people that associate themself with the `Linux'
movement, OTOH, seem to start with `look at all the cool stuff it does;'
the freedom part, even for those that care about it, seems to remain on
the periphery (I hope I don't piss anyone off with this characterization,
this is just what I've observed!).
Which approach is the right one obviously depends on your priorities, but
it's pretty clear to me that these respective groups of people _do_
associate themselves with the names. I think that's one reason Richard's
attempts to get people to use GNU/linux have met with such strong
resistance (yeah, I know it's not the _only_ reason).
Perhaps, if everyone starting using `GNU/linux,' it would actually
_dilute_ the meaning of GNU, since many people that had no idea about what
GNU means would suddenly start using it just because someone told them the
name had changed from Linux. None-the-less, I think it would have some
of the opposite effect too, making people that previously never thought
about it wonder `what's this GNU?'
On a slight tangent: I bought an electronic english/japanese dictionary
about 8 years ago, and it happened to have a definition of GNU in it,
complete with a short (and I think accurate) description of free software!
Recently I bought a new dictionary; it doesn't define GNU, but it does
contain a definition of `Linux' -- and the summary is `a competitor to
windows'! It then goes into further detail saying it's `freeware'
(free-beer free), and worked on cooperatively by its users, but no
mention of `freedom' as such; it's clear the dicionary makers were just a
bit confused, but I wonder if they'd have gotten it right if the name
contained `GNU', with its strong associations with freedom...
-Miles
--
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
--Albert Einstein
Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
name, there is no ethical obligation either.
When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.
There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
and we started it.
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:00:23AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
> name, there is no ethical obligation either.
>
> There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
> incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
> the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
> principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
> and we started it.
Actually, to be legal, you need say GNU/Linux (Linux is a registered
trademark of Linus Torvalds).
As for the ethics, "cite the main developer"? Well, then, that's easy.
It is you and the FSF organization which are behind this GNU stuff and
since I've been around since before you started, I'm well aware of
how much work you did and how much was work that was simply assigned
over to the FSF. If we remove all the work that you did not do, then
it's vividly clear that Linux is a larger effort.
The vast majority of the GPLed software out there is not work that you
did, it is work that other people did. You are claiming credit for
their work, which is way over the unethical line, and attempting
to infringe on the work of the Linux community. Not nice.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Richard Stallman wrote:
> Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
> name, there is no ethical obligation either.
>
> When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
> assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
> something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.
>
> There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
> incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
> the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
> principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
> and we started it.
GNU is not so important in new system. I take gcc and glibc as to be
outside the GNU project. (they have now the GNU mark only for GNU
convenience, IMHO) I use "GNU/Linux" only to make more explicit the
"copyleft" ideas, but surelly not because of the GNU tools.
If you insist with such arguments, you risk that someone will rewrite
the basic GNU tools outside the GNU project (emacs is not an OS main tool,
gcc and glibc are de facto outside GNU) (bash will remain GNU ?)
ciao
giacomo
RMS: maybe you can reply me privatly about some more explication of your mail,
so less OT mail, and privately maybe I can understand more about GNU/Linux flames.
[cc list trimmed, it was getting a little excessive]
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
>
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
> > name, there is no ethical obligation either.
> >
> > When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
> > assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
> > something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.
> >
> > There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
> > incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
> > the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
> > principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
> > and we started it.
>
> GNU is not so important in new system. I take gcc and glibc as to be
> outside the GNU project. (they have now the GNU mark only for GNU
> convenience, IMHO) I use "GNU/Linux" only to make more explicit the
> "copyleft" ideas, but surelly not because of the GNU tools.
>
> If you insist with such arguments, you risk that someone will rewrite
> the basic GNU tools outside the GNU project (emacs is not an OS main tool,
> gcc and glibc are de facto outside GNU) (bash will remain GNU ?)
>
> ciao
> giacomo
>
>
> RMS: maybe you can reply me privatly about some more explication of your mail,
> so less OT mail, and privately maybe I can understand more about GNU/Linux flames.
>
Nearly all of your base system except the kernel is GNU. Primarily,
fileutils, sh-utils, and findutils come to mind. These could be replaced,
in which case it would no longer be GNU/Linux. As long as your standard
base system tools (chown, cp, dir, dd, df, du, ls, ln, mkdir, mv, rm,
rmdir, touch, chmod, id, kill, whoami, chroot, who, date, echo,
pwd, uname, and many others) are GNU, it's really GNU/Linux.
On Wed, 08 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
> assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
> something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.
>
> There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
> incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
> the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
> principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
> and we started it.
You overestimate your influence. Now please go invest your energy into
something that a) is more likely to succeed, b) does not happen on this
list.
--
Matthias Andree
Do you actually buy your own bullshit here? If so, that's sad. I used to
respect you. I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is - PROVE
that GNU (not just people who have release GPL'd software) contributed most
of the work to say Slackware, or Debian, or Red Hat.
Face it - you're full of it. You're not fooling anyone either.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
name, there is no ethical obligation either.
When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.
There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
and we started it.
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:29:47AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
>
> If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
> child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
> very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".
How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
your grandfather could install it? Or a kernel configuration tool so
simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already? My own
mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
into. I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
CS. Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
who emails me the correct answer.
-VAL
You are a smart guy. I think you'd agree with me that this particular
battle (GNU/Linux) is lost.
It's not a battle, and the outcome isn't binary.
(See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.)
The GNU/Linux campaign is partly successful
and that's better than not at all.
Bottom line is, the are only so many hours in a day. You have so many
battles to fight, that would serve the community.
All other work that we do is made less effective than it could have
been because the public doesn't know what we've already done. The
partial success of the GNU/Linux campaign partly reverses this.
Calling the system "GNU/Linux" is very easy, and takes just seconds a
day; that and using the term "free software" are the most efficient
ways you can use your time to help us.
situation, it must be clear even to you that things can't possibly go
back, and all your doing is creating bad blood. Think about it.
When we call the system "GNU/Linux" we are not insulting anyone. The
bad blood is created by others, by the people who resent our saying
this.
There are two ways to look at this question: in terms of principle
and in terms of practical effects.
First, principle. When a majority assaults a minority for stating a
truth that the majority wants forgotten, who is morally responsible?
If you say that the unpopular minority "creates bad blood", you're
blaming the victims of the intimidation campaign for resisting it;
taking a stand that deliberately disregards the concept of justice.
Second, practicalities. The people who are so attached to the idea of
the "Linux" system that they would attack us for disagreeing with it
are never going to help us much. They mostly don't share our values
anyway. So we have nothing to lose.
These discussions will never convince those people, but they do win
support from others who read both sides and find that we have right on
our side. So we have something to gain.
All in all, what we are doing is both right and effective. We will
continue.
Val Henson wrote:
>
>
>Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already? My own
>mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
>into. I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
>CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
>CS. Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
>ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
>who emails me the correct answer.
>
Radia Perlman
Joe
On January 9, 2003 02:28 am, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These discussions will never convince those people, but they do win
> support from others who read both sides and find that we have right on
> our side. So we have something to gain.
I have not touched upon the principle side of things on purpose:
what I'm trying to say is that it does not matter how's right or wrong.
Yes, you can say your campain gains people on the GNU/Linux side, and
you are correct -- it would in any case, it's just the law of large
numbers. You can view that as a gain, and I don't dispute that, but
that gain comes at a huge price: you greatly erode your credibility
and stature within the community. You can use your influence within
the community in ways that would server the FSF a _lot_ more effectively.
Yes, you will say, but we are _right_. Well, you might be. But the
world is not a fair place, and sometimes you have to accept that.
There is unfairness all over the place: you take credit for other
people's work by putting under the GNU umbrella a lot of stuff you
did not write. That's unfair. Is it fair that Alexandre Julliard,
the Wine (http://www.winehq.org) project leader is listed in a list
together with 200+ other developers that contributed a tiny fraction
of what Alexandre did? No, it's not. There are endless examples of
these in the free software world. Once can not simply state the names
and importance (and _how_ would you gauge *that*?) of every single
contributor when you refer to the system.
And because people like a simple mnemonic, they chose one: Linux.
You would have liked they pick the acronym you invented, but they
didn't. People have chosen. It's a tiny detail in the grand scheme
of things, let's be all happy that a catchy acronym was invented
and addopted, and move on!
--
Dimi.
Try to imagine the last 12 years of Linux without
gcc
binutils
unix programs such as ls, cp, rm, etc
I personally believe the current state of the Linux kernel would have
been impossible to achieve (at this time) without the above tools.
The Linux kernel development has stood on the shoulders of the GNU
effort the whole time.
Whether the result should be labeled as GNU/Linux is semantics - what
is the meaning of "operating system". And it is redundant... after
all there is no Linux without GNU, so why force unnecessary
information on terms. If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
Distributor marketting wants a neat snapy name that is easy to
remember. Linux is close enough to unix to merge meanings a bit.
People who read about Linus Torvalds get the Linus/Linux play on
words.
Another puzzling aspect to me is that GNU really goes beyond what I
think of as an operating system. I have a suite of GNU tools installed
on a Windows NT machine and I use make, ls, cp, mv all day. So I am
using GNU on a foreign operating system... or does my usage needs to
be labeled as GNU/Windows NT?
john alvord
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:26:09 -0600, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Do you actually buy your own bullshit here? If so, that's sad. I used to
>respect you. I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is - PROVE
>that GNU (not just people who have release GPL'd software) contributed most
>of the work to say Slackware, or Debian, or Red Hat.
>
>Face it - you're full of it. You're not fooling anyone either.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
>Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:00 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
>
> Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
> name, there is no ethical obligation either.
>
>When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
>assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
>something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.
>
>There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
>incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
>the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
>principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
>and we started it.
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:20:43AM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> My own mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even
> logged into.
Then I suppose you would probably use a different example. Great.
-miles
--
[|nurgle|] ddt- demonic? so quake will have an evil kinda setting? one that
will make every christian in the world foamm at the mouth?
[iddt] nurg, that's the goal
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:20:43AM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
> your grandfather could install it? Or a kernel configuration tool so
> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
I am new to this thread, but I do use the "my mom" example because my
mother *is* the computer pioneer I know in that generation, but one
who still finds them difficult. She has been using computers since
she got a new Macintosh Plus and a 30 MB hard disk, and she has been
using e-mail since before it was clear to everybody that @-signs would
be a universal part of e-mail addresses. However, she is also still
not a computer wiz and I think never will be--there seems to be a
generational thing here, like learning a foreign language in
adulthood, that keeps computers hard. When my mother was a little
girl electricity was still new, and was useful for lighting.
My most recent e-mail from her was saying the some Apple support
person concluded her current problem is likely the Imac's hard drive
and to bring it into the store where she got it. (Her other Imac
works better, but it is only OS X and doesn't work with her scanner.)
She keeps at it!
My father only recently got interested in computers, uses the new Imac
for video editing, but refers all support questions to my mother. He
doesn't pretend to be self-sufficient on the topic.
> Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already?
My mother is far from clueless, but she is stubbornly resistant to
becoming a power user who can reliably solve her own problems. (The
fact that computers are still so damn buggy doesn't help either.)
I am encouraging them to get a DSL connection with a static IP, at
which point I will add a Linux computer to their collection--and I
will administer it remotely from 1000 miles away.
> My own mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've
> even logged into.
I don't doubt that, but until computers get a lot easier to use and
administer the graphic image of the Clueless Mother is useful to shock
most geeks back to the reality that there *are* naive users. Many of
us have mothers, and computer expert mothers are still rare.
> I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
> CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
> CS.
(You hang out in rarified circles, the number of women in CSci id
dropping.)
So don't imagine a general purpose "have given birth human"! Imagine
a woman born in a modern western country, but 20 years before the
invention of the transistor. These capable women mastered impressive
things, but computers are so obtuse! And they are not the only ones
having trouble. I am still having trouble getting my software Raid 1
to boot off of either drive if one goes south--without opening the box
and pulling cables. And it seems like such a reasonable desire...
-kb, the Kent who insists that computers are more difficult than they
need be.
P.S. Some of us are old enough to remember when mice and graphical
interfaces were considered toys for beginners and not suitable to real
users. But at least then there was controversy! Now, overlapping
windows are the undoubted standard and no one even complains. These
traditions are too complicated, limited, and narrow, but it is hard to
think beyond them. But imagining a naive user (maybe even knowing one
or two) is a useful way to ask basic questions. If this naive user
isn't Your Mother, OK, but please don't forget that what is good for a
naive user (e.g., the mouse) is good for others too.
And in that same period, look at Linux, and then look at Hurd. Hurd even
has the advantage of using giant chunks of Linux code, but it still is
basically useless.
Why should Linux be refered to as GNU/Linux because of tools, and yet Hurd
doesn't give credit where credit is due? RMS has done more to hurt GNU with
his current stance on the matter than Microsoft ever could. He's getting
annoying, too.
Regards,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: John Alvord [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:58 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
Try to imagine the last 12 years of Linux without
gcc
binutils
unix programs such as ls, cp, rm, etc
I personally believe the current state of the Linux kernel would have
been impossible to achieve (at this time) without the above tools.
The Linux kernel development has stood on the shoulders of the GNU
effort the whole time.
Whether the result should be labeled as GNU/Linux is semantics - what
is the meaning of "operating system". And it is redundant... after
all there is no Linux without GNU, so why force unnecessary
information on terms. If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
Distributor marketting wants a neat snapy name that is easy to
remember. Linux is close enough to unix to merge meanings a bit.
People who read about Linus Torvalds get the Linus/Linux play on
words.
Another puzzling aspect to me is that GNU really goes beyond what I
think of as an operating system. I have a suite of GNU tools installed
on a Windows NT machine and I use make, ls, cp, mv all day. So I am
using GNU on a foreign operating system... or does my usage needs to
be labeled as GNU/Windows NT?
john alvord
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:26:09 -0600, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Do you actually buy your own bullshit here? If so, that's sad. I used to
>respect you. I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is -
PROVE
>that GNU (not just people who have release GPL'd software) contributed most
>of the work to say Slackware, or Debian, or Red Hat.
>
>Face it - you're full of it. You're not fooling anyone either.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
>Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:00 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
>
> Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
> name, there is no ethical obligation either.
>
>When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
>assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
>something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.
>
>There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
>incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
>the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
>principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
>and we started it.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, [email protected] wrote:
> And in that same period, look at Linux, and then look at Hurd. Hurd even
> has the advantage of using giant chunks of Linux code, but it still is
> basically useless.
>
> Why should Linux be refered to as GNU/Linux because of tools, and yet Hurd
> doesn't give credit where credit is due? RMS has done more to hurt GNU with
> his current stance on the matter than Microsoft ever could. He's getting
> annoying, too.
>
> Regards,
> Scott
>
Damn. This is getting tried and it doesn't seem to "go away".
Anybody remember this Copyright notice?? Most ALL of the
early Linux Distributions contained programs with this
notice:
/*
* Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
* provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
* duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
* advertising materials, and other materials related to such
* distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
* by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the
* University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
* from this software without specific prior written permission.
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
*/
#ifndef lint
char copyright[] =
"@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\n\
All rights reserved.\n";
#endif /* not lint */
...however. Something happened so that this code was lifted
"whole cloth" into some later distributions that contained
the GNU License notice. By some unknown mystery, the embeded
copyright notice was eliminated as well. However, much of the
code remained the same. In some little-used programs, all the
code, including the bug, remained the same.
If I had anything to do with so-called GNU, I'd keep my mouth
shut so this wholesale appropriation of intellectual property
was not investigated.
Here is an early distribution of Linux:
Script started on Thu Jan 9 10:55:02 2003
# cd /usr/bin
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
Based on BSD gprof, copyright 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 by NCEMRSoft and Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1993 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1992 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1988 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1988, 1990 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980, 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
Based on BSD gprof, copyright 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 by NCEMRSoft and Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1993 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1992 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
# cd /bin
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980, 1987, 1988 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
# cd /sbin
# strings * | grep Regents
strings: control: No such file or directory
strings: discard: No such file or directory
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
strings: server: No such file or directory
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
strings: sysinit: No such file or directory
# exit
Script done on Thu Jan 9 10:57:53 2003
So much for the absolute bullshit that GNU started Linux and that
there is somehow a GNU/Linux. Most all of the early distributions
used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good,
thanks to Linus and others, that most programs needed to only be
recompiled.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
coming from the University of California, Berkeley.
Don't be bambozzled by the persons who will re-write history to glorify
their accomplishments. Saying something over-and-over again doesn't
make it true. Facts stand alone. They only need to be noted. Bullshit
needs repeating.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
Yes, for binaries most of the time we even did not need to use the
/usr/lib/libbsd.a compatibility library
and the /usr/include/bsd/*.h compatibility includes
(just ash was needing that) coming with libc4 and libc5 distribution for
compatibility pursues.
Then also the boot system was BSD like, and now we see this prosecuted and
evolved in Slackware.
But please, let's stop this thread.
We talked about GPLed modules and binary only modules,
and none even considered implication brought
by the new module interface with run queue, that is an important
point in this discussion.
We talked just about names, names, names, and again names.
I do not expect in every thread on lkml to see some good contribution
(not just code, but concept, discussions, and so on),
but this specific one is just like
"the wall I build with my belief is higher than your".
And the few smart mails ususally got ignored.
There is no interess in this for me.
Luigi
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Most all of the early distributions
> used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good,
> thanks to Linus and others, that most programs needed to only be
> recompiled.
>
> That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
> System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
> coming from the University of California, Berkeley.
>
On Thursday 09 January 2003 10:11 am, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, [email protected] wrote:
> > And in that same period, look at Linux, and then look at Hurd. Hurd even
> > has the advantage of using giant chunks of Linux code, but it still is
> > basically useless.
> >
> > Why should Linux be refered to as GNU/Linux because of tools, and yet
> > Hurd doesn't give credit where credit is due? RMS has done more to hurt
> > GNU with his current stance on the matter than Microsoft ever could.
> > He's getting annoying, too.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Scott
>
> Damn. This is getting tried and it doesn't seem to "go away".
>
> Anybody remember this Copyright notice?? Most ALL of the
> early Linux Distributions contained programs with this
> notice:
>
> /*
> * Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
> * All rights reserved.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
> * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
> * duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
> * advertising materials, and other materials related to such
> * distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
> * by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the
> * University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
> * from this software without specific prior written permission.
> * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
> * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
> * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> */
>
> #ifndef lint
> char copyright[] =
> "@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\n\
> All rights reserved.\n";
> #endif /* not lint */
>
>
> ...however. Something happened so that this code was lifted
> "whole cloth" into some later distributions that contained
> the GNU License notice. By some unknown mystery, the embeded
> copyright notice was eliminated as well. However, much of the
> code remained the same. In some little-used programs, all the
> code, including the bug, remained the same.
>
> If I had anything to do with so-called GNU, I'd keep my mouth
> shut so this wholesale appropriation of intellectual property
> was not investigated.
>
> Here is an early distribution of Linux:
>
> Script started on Thu Jan 9 10:55:02 2003
> # cd /usr/bin
> # strings * | grep Regents
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
[snip]
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
> # cd /sbin
> # strings * | grep Regents
> strings: control: No such file or directory
> strings: discard: No such file or directory
> The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
> The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
> The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
> The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
> strings: server: No such file or directory
> The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
> strings: sysinit: No such file or directory
> # exit
> Script done on Thu Jan 9 10:57:53 2003
>
>
> So much for the absolute bullshit that GNU started Linux and that
> there is somehow a GNU/Linux. Most all of the early distributions
> used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good,
> thanks to Linus and others, that most programs needed to only be
> recompiled.
>
> That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
> System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
> coming from the University of California, Berkeley.
>
> Don't be bambozzled by the persons who will re-write history to glorify
> their accomplishments. Saying something over-and-over again doesn't
> make it true. Facts stand alone. They only need to be noted. Bullshit
> needs repeating.
I seem to remember that there was also a request from the University of
California to remove that code too. That was when they started charging
for the BSD distribution, and before the NetBSD got out, which also
had to rewrite/replace the code. Guess what got used...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:20:43AM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:29:47AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> >
> > If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
> > child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
> > very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".
>
> How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
> your grandfather could install it? Or a kernel configuration tool so
> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
>
> Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already? My own
> mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
> into. I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
> CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
> CS. Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
> ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
> who emails me the correct answer.
And the winner is David Hoose, who sent the answer to me 10 minutes
after the message to linux-kernel arrived in my mail queue. The
answer is:
Radia Perlman
She is the inventor of the spanning tree algorithm, the author of
"Interconnections: Bridges, Routers, Switches, and Internetworking
Protocols" from Addison-Wesley, and the mother of at least two
children. Honorable mention to: Joe Perches, Joe Sloan, Chris Ricker,
Larry McVoy, and "Disconnect," real name withheld.
-VAL
P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
Barbara Simons.
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> Barbara Simons.
Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace? She was
way ahead of her time.
Thanks,
Jim
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:21:44 EST, [email protected] said:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
>
> > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> > Barbara Simons.
>
> Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace? She was
> way ahead of her time.
I think Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper were left off as "too easy"....
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
| On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
|
| > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
| > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
| > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
| > Barbara Simons.
|
| Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace? She was
| way ahead of her time.
and Grace Hopper (ugh, COBOL)
--
~Randy
Illiterate idiots, that should be:
strcpy("Mother", "computer-illiterate") == 0
Mind what list you're on.
:)
-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: 1/9/03 1:24:52 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> Barbara Simons.
Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace? She was
way ahead of her time.
Thanks,
Jim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:47:12PM -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> Illiterate idiots, that should be:
>
> strcpy("Mother", "computer-illiterate") == 0
>
> Mind what list you're on.
>
> :)
>
Perhaps you meant
strcmp("Mother", "computer-illiterate")
?
strcpy with two string literals won't compile.
--
Murray J. Root
------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
------------------------------------------------
Mandrake on irc.freenode.net:
#mandrake & #mandrake-linux = help for newbies
#mdk-cooker = Mandrake Cooker
#cooker = moderated Mandrake Cooker
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:46:30 PST, "Randy.Dunlap" said:
> (ugh, COBOL)
Go back and research the alternatives available at the time.
Then ask yourself which you'd prefer to do maintenance programming on.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
| On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:46:30 PST, "Randy.Dunlap" said:
| > (ugh, COBOL)
|
| Go back and research the alternatives available at the time.
True.
| Then ask yourself which you'd prefer to do maintenance programming on.
I've done several years of COBOL (/me hides).
I'm familiar with its strengths in the right environment.
--
~Randy
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 19:40, Val Henson wrote:
> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> Barbara Simons.
and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
who know what her networking related patent is on)
On Thursday 09 January 2003 06:11 pm, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> who know what her networking related patent is on)
Google makes this too easy.
http://www.german-way.com/cinema/lamarr.html
i
Do you actually buy your own bullshit here? If so, that's sad. I used to
respect you.
One wonders what it is you thought I had done, when you respected me
for it ;-).
I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is
I've dedicated my life to free software since 1984, and have been
working for the cause more than full time, all these 19 years. I
think that counts as "putting my money where my mouth is" for the
movement.
If it doesn't, then you have set a standard so high that perhaps
nobody in the world qualifies.
- PROVE
that GNU (not just people who have release GPL'd software) contributed most
of the work to say Slackware, or Debian, or Red Hat.
Let's be careful. I don't say that the GNU software packages were
most of the early GNU/Linux system. They were, however, the largest
contribution of any single project. Probably they still are.
GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux
system in 1992. GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11,
and TeX.
If we look at the GNU packages alone rather than the GNU system as a
whole, they were a large fraction of the early GNU/Linux system. The
specific data point I have comes from Adam Richter, who maintained an
early distro. In 1995, he counted up the code and found that GNU
packages added up to 28% of his distro. Linux, the kernel, was 3% of
that distro.
I would expect that both GNU code and Linux make up smaller fractions
of current GNU/Linux distros, because so many other programs have been
added over the years. It's a good thing that so many free programs
have been developed, and that so many people have contributed, but
this doesn't change the system's history. It started out as the
combination of GNU and Linux.
Calling the system "Linux" denies the GNU Project credit for the GNU
operating system. Most of the people who do that still give us credit
for the specific programs we developed. These words
GNU is not so important in new system. I take gcc and glibc as to be
outside the GNU project.
take a further step: they deny the GNU Project the credit even for GNU
programs (he said, earlier, this is on the grounds that companies have
contributed to them). That's like denying Linus Torvalds the credit
for writing the kernel, Linux, because companies have helped that too.
When people become sufficiently attached to a false conclusion, they
sometimes fabricate ever more extreme falsehoods in order to deny it.
If you insist with such arguments, you risk that someone will rewrite
the basic GNU tools outside the GNU project
Some GNU packages are tools; some are not tools.
People can, of course, write other programs to do the same jobs as GNU
packages. They might do this for many reasons. That message seems to
suggest that people might do this simply to deny the GNU Project the
appreciation that we now get for the work we have done.
Has anyone been so completely warped by hatred of GNU? I don't know,
but it does not really matter. The role of GCC in the development and
popularity of GNU/Linux is a fact of history, and subsequent
developments cannot change it.
It is you and the FSF organization which are behind this GNU stuff and
since I've been around since before you started, I'm well aware of
how much work you did and how much was work that was simply assigned
over to the FSF.
Some GNU programs are FSF-copyrighted; when people contribute to them,
we ask them to assign their copyrights to the FSF. Other GNU programs
are not FSF-copyrighted; their developers retain the copyright. For
those programs, the developers decide how to deal with the copyright
on contributions.
So if you count up the code that is FSF-copyrighted, that is just a
portion of the GNU software.
If we remove all the work that you did not do, then
it's vividly clear that Linux is a larger effort.
If you assume that the whole system is Linux, and count every part
that isn't GNU software as part of the "Linux effort", then the part
you count as "Linux" will be much bigger than the GNU software, and
this will "prove" the assumption you started with--that the whole
system is Linux.
In the past 8 years I've seen plenty of arguments that the system is
justly called "Linux". Some are based on inaccurate facts; those are
sometimes clear and rational, just mistaken. But most of them involve
a well-understood logical fallacy, artfully disguised so that it takes
a some thought to find it. With practice, people can become expert at
spotting the fallacies.
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If we remove all the work that you did not do, then
> it's vividly clear that Linux is a larger effort.
>
> If you assume that the whole system is Linux, and count every part
> that isn't GNU software as part of the "Linux effort", then the part
> you count as "Linux" will be much bigger than the GNU software, and
> this will "prove" the assumption you started with--that the whole
> system is Linux.
And isn't that exactly the line of reasoning which leads you to the
conclusion that Linux should be GNU/Linux? Why do you think that
you deserve special billing ahead of anyone else? You haven't
contributed any more than anyone else, that's for sure. GCC is
nice and all, but by your own reasoning if GCC didn't exist, a
different compiler would have shown up. The only reason they
didn't is that GCC made that itch go away.
It really seems like you are trying to leverage a comparitively tiny
amount of source into top billing. Why are you more important than
the entire windowing system, which is dramatically more source and
more effort?
And when are you going to start referring to your kernel by its
proper name: Linux/Hurd? Or do you have plans to remove the
Linux components?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:20PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux
> system in 1992. GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11,
> and TeX.
Wow. That might be one for the quotes file:
"GNU ... was of the early GNU/Linux system. GNU ... included non-GNU"
Well, that certainly explains a lot. If you define GNU as "anything
which might be found on a Linux distro including non-GNU packages",
your position starts to make a certain twisted sense. Only one problem
with that: if it wasn't GNU, it wasn't GNU, which means, Richard, you
are crackin' smoke and may need a vacation. 19 years of hard effort is
a long time, have you considered retirement? You've certainly earned it.
Oh, by the way, have you updated the GNU kernel pages to reflect the new
proper name: Linux/Hurd? I'd really appreciate it if you could get to that.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Calling the system "Linux" denies the GNU Project credit for the GNU
> operating system. Most of the people who do that still give us credit
> for the specific programs we developed. These words
>
> GNU is not so important in new system. I take gcc and glibc as to be
> outside the GNU project.
>
> take a further step: they deny the GNU Project the credit even for GNU
> programs (he said, earlier, this is on the grounds that companies have
> contributed to them). That's like denying Linus Torvalds the credit
> for writing the kernel, Linux, because companies have helped that too.
Richard, some people are going to offer this "GNU/" attribution, some
won't. I belong to the latter group although I recognize what the GNU
project has achieved so far. It's a fairness issue, as has been pointed
out. If we need to credit, then we need to credit every major
contributor, and that's, as has been pointed out, a term that's pretty
unusable to name that thing. You want Linux to subordinate under GNU?
Fine. What sold GNU to the masses? Linux. They're friends. Still, you
don't make friends change their names. Now finish that thread.
> Has anyone been so completely warped by hatred of GNU? I don't know,
> but it does not really matter. The role of GCC in the development and
> popularity of GNU/Linux is a fact of history, and subsequent
> developments cannot change it.
There is not hatred of GNU. There is alienation by your horrible waste
of time and energy. This is the wrong forum, this is only full of people
who make ONE SINGLE component of what YOU want to be named GNU/Linux.
You're about to get GNU credited but neglect all the other major
contributors, XFree86 has been named, BSD is one.
GNU code borrows interfaces from Solaris (and then does it wrong, for
example the GNU libc name service switch is broken in that it does not
retry NIS queries and then reports temporary errors through interfaces
that cannot return temporary conditions such as getpwnam -- no way to
place TRYAGAIN=forever into /etc/nsswitch.conf with GNU glibc, but
required for reliable operation and possible to configure on Solaris). I
ask you to rename all occurrences of Name Service Switch to Sun
Microsystems Solaris Name Service Switch. Add [tm] and ? symbols as
appropriate. Solaris gave you the ideas of NSS. So credit Sun.
And now get this bloody discussion off-list.
--
Matthias Andree
Your last sentence there is telling. Hurd is both GNU and Linux, yet you
don't seem to be interested in giving credit where credit is due. If you
can't do that, you don't have any credibility left.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Stallman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
I would expect that both GNU code and Linux make up smaller fractions
of current GNU/Linux distros, because so many other programs have been
added over the years. It's a good thing that so many free programs
have been developed, and that so many people have contributed, but
this doesn't change the system's history. It started out as the
combination of GNU and Linux.
Once upon a time, Alan Cox <[email protected]> said:
>and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
>who know what her networking related patent is on)
That's HEDLEY! Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
--
Chris Adams <[email protected]>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
--On Thursday, January 09, 2003 15:30:54 -0500 [email protected]
wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:21:44 EST, [email protected] said:
>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
>>
>> > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
>> > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
>> > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
>> > Barbara Simons.
>>
>> Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace? She was
>> way ahead of her time.
>
> I think Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper were left off as "too easy"....
Sally Floyd and Allison Mankin?
From: "Chris Adams" <[email protected]>
> Once upon a time, Alan Cox <[email protected]> said:
> >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> >who know what her networking related patent is on)
>
> That's HEDLEY! Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.
{^_^} Joanne, [email protected]
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:15:39PM -0800, jdow wrote:
> From: "Chris Adams" <[email protected]>
>
> > Once upon a time, Alan Cox <[email protected]> said:
> > >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> > >who know what her networking related patent is on)
> >
> > That's HEDLEY! Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
>
> No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
> with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
> of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.
Chris was making a joke which you won't get unless you watch "Blazing
Saddles" (something I've never gotten around to myself). Hedley
Lamarr was a character in the movie who, indeed, doesn't have any
patents.
Neat to hear you got to work on such an interesting project!
-VAL
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, jdow wrote:
> From: "Chris Adams" <[email protected]>
>
> > Once upon a time, Alan Cox <[email protected]> said:
> > >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> > >who know what her networking related patent is on)
> >
> > That's HEDLEY! Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
>
> No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
> with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
> of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.
Hehe!! He got you Joanne!! Ever watch Blazing Saddles??
I am jealous though. In reading various messages written by you, you have
clearly had way too much fun in life!! :-)
Enjoy,
--
.............Tom "Nothing would please me more than being able to
[email protected] hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market
with good software." -- Bill Gates 1976
We are still waiting ....
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
[GNU/Linux stuff deleted]
Can we all agree that this is indeed the kernel list and that the
kernel is indeed known as simply 'Linux' and that therefore the
GNU/Linux debate is off-topic here?
--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
Only when LKML can remove the advertising value of the wars cached on all
the web search engines will this forum be free of off topics. The bad
press is still press. People's self interest to rack up hits in a search
engine, is why much of the self promotion happens.
I am looking in the mirror and wonder why did I even reply or expose the
benefits of such debate.
GAK!
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [GNU/Linux stuff deleted]
>
> Can we all agree that this is indeed the kernel list and that the
> kernel is indeed known as simply 'Linux' and that therefore the
> GNU/Linux debate is off-topic here?
>
> --
> "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> writes:
> Only when LKML can remove the advertising value of the wars cached on all
> the web search engines will this forum be free of off topics. The bad
> press is still press. People's self interest to rack up hits in a search
> engine, is why much of the self promotion happens.
Are you on drugs, or just joking?
The reason these flame wars get so big is because people feel strongly
about their point of view (no matter how misguided it may be), and
morever, many people simply like to argue.
-Miles
--
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over,
pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come. --Nietzsche
>>>>> "Val" == Val Henson <[email protected]> writes:
Val> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:29:47AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
>>
>> If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
>> child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
>> very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".
Val> How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
Val> your grandfather could install it? Or a kernel configuration tool so
Val> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
'make xconfig' works just fine for me.
(Uncle) Timmy
--
[email protected] 040-2683613
[email protected] Voodoo Programmer/Keeper of the Rubber Chicken
I've never seen electricity, so I don't pay for it. I write right on
the bill, 'I'm sorry, I haven't seen it all month.'
If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.
Another puzzling aspect to me is that GNU really goes beyond what I
think of as an operating system. I have a suite of GNU tools installed
on a Windows NT machine and I use make, ls, cp, mv all day. So I am
using GNU on a foreign operating system... or does my usage needs to
be labeled as GNU/Windows NT?
The tools are just a part of the GNU software packages, which is only
part of the GNU system. And underneath those tools would be another
entire operating system, entirely different from GNU. All in all,
that's a very different situation from GNU/Linux. We wouldn't call it
"GNU/Windows".
(I'm going to add this to http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html;
thanks.)
Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:
>On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 19:40, Val Henson wrote:
>> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
>> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
>> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
>> Barbara Simons.
>and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
>who know what her networking related patent is on)
Come on, she actually has a homepage: http://www.hedylamarr.at/
-> frequency hopping
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
Oliver Xymoron <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [GNU/Linux stuff deleted]
>
> Can we all agree that this is indeed the kernel list and that the
> kernel is indeed known as simply 'Linux' and that therefore the
> GNU/Linux debate is off-topic here?
Or perhaps we should start a long, boring discussion of how to best rearrange
the drivers portion of the tree on <[email protected]> .
I once had quite a lot of respect for RMS. That has faded somewhat over the
last year due to this crap.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[email protected]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard,
We all know that "Linux" would not be where it is today without
the GNU software. I don't recall seeing one post in this
looonnngg thread that tries to say otherwise. Myself, and many others,
are very grateful for your and the FSF's work. PLEASE, stop hitting us
over the head with GNU/Linux.
I'm sure there are many other "things" that have gotten broad public
attention and the real people or organizations behind it have not gotten
the credit they deserve either by what the "thing" is called or by
the press, etc. Only the people truly involved with the "thing"
know who is responsible. I think the same applies here.
And, why is it only *you* beating us over the head with GNU/Linux?
Where's the rest for the GNU (non-linux specific) contributors?
Why aren't they bitching/whining too?
Like I said before, we aren't the people you have to educate/convince.
If it really means that much to you (and it seems to me that it does),
then you should be taking out magazine ads and buying time on TV
to reach the uneducated masses.
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry McVoy [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:39 PM
To: Richard Stallman
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:20PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux
> system in 1992. GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11,
> and TeX.
Wow. That might be one for the quotes file:
"GNU ... was of the early GNU/Linux system. GNU ... included non-GNU"
Well, that certainly explains a lot. If you define GNU as "anything
which might be found on a Linux distro including non-GNU packages",
your position starts to make a certain twisted sense. Only one problem
with that: if it wasn't GNU, it wasn't GNU, which means, Richard, you
are crackin' smoke and may need a vacation. 19 years of hard effort is
a long time, have you considered retirement? You've certainly earned it.
Oh, by the way, have you updated the GNU kernel pages to reflect the new
proper name: Linux/Hurd? I'd really appreciate it if you could get to that.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 04:52:50 EST, Richard Stallman said:
> If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
> having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
> is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
>
> It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
> idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.
OK. Enough is enough.
I have no problems with Richard Stallman espousing a particular viewpoint of
how he and/or GNU and/or the FSF feel things should be. I don't even mind *too*
much when he proselytizes said view, even when it interferes with what *my*
goals are. I even see why the FSF requires copyright assignments for code.
However, since I haven't seen any FSF paperwork for assigning *motivations*
and *thoughts* to the FSF, I don't think there is *ANY* basis in saying that
there was a single unified "WHY" a large group of people working independently
developed something.
"All your code are belong to us" is bad enough. "All your thoughts are
belong to us" is totally over the edge.
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 04:52:50AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
> having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
> is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
> It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
> idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.
There is a reason why I am not named Mark Mielke-Newman, and our newborn
son is not named Ethan Mielke-Herighty-Newman-Marr.
Some people like to maintain origin when deriving new names. Other
people realize that the practice is impractical, and the consequence,
if followed to the natural extreme, would allow for an exponentially
increasing length in name as each generation passes.
If you properly attributed the origins of GNU projects, I think you
would find an extremely impractical naming convention. GNU, and GNU
software, is not 100% derivative free.
Linux itself does not require any GNU software at all, except in the
sense that it happens to use GNU software, and it may therefore rely
on extensions that only exist in GNU software, however, that does not
stop anybody else from enhancing their own products to include the
GNU extensions. Freedom is as freedom does.
If you want to bug RedHat to call their distribution RedHat GNU/Linux,
go right ahead.
As for "Linux", its only real attachment to GNU is that it happens to
use a qualified reference to the GPL as its licensing restrictions. Not
all GPL software is "GNU" software.
So please... stop... You are not helping the free software movement by
(badly) arguing minor technicalities. Your previous efforts have been
very well received and respected. Don't ruin this.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 04:52:50AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux,
> having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it
> is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction.
>
> It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
> idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.
Then -==YOU==- are completely mistaken about why -==I==- contributed
to Linux (the kernel & the system).
Roger.
--
** [email protected] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
* The Worlds Ecosystem is a stable system. Stable systems may experience *
* excursions from the stable situation. We are currently in such an *
* excursion: The stable situation does not include humans. ***************
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> what was it compiled with ;-)))
>
> -- DM.
>
No doubt a gcc compiler. I built my house with a Stanley hammer
and a Skill saw. Neither Stanley nor Skill own the house (the
bank does).
There is no tradition of attributing ownership of any works
of any kind to tool makers.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> what early distribution? grep gpl and lgpl...
>
> -- DM.
>
Yggdrasl (or however you spell it). Most binary files have
the date of Feb 26, 1996. Many text files have the date of
July 11, 1995. I have sources, many with the dates of
Aug 31, 1992:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root bin 4502 Aug 31 1992 CHANGES
-rw-r--r-- 1 root bin 1658 Aug 31 1992 README
-rw-r--r-- 1 root bin 2029 Aug 31 1992 brac.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 root bin 11258 Aug 31 1992 ch.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 root bin 3534 Aug 31 1992 charset.c
[SNIPPED...]
In those days very few persons even heard of GPL.
These are the only gpl or GPL strings found in any binaries.
sub showGPL {
last if (/^{END OF GPL COPYRIGHT}$/) ;
last if (/^{END OF GPL CONDITIONS}$/) ;
&showGPL unless $QUIET ;
{END OF GPL COPYRIGHT}
{END OF GPL CONDITIONS}
To appear in SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design
label .about.gpl3 -text "Pulic License (GPL)"
Note that "Public" is even spelled incorrectly!
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:42:52 EST, "Richard B. Johnson" said:
> No doubt a gcc compiler. I built my house with a Stanley hammer
> and a Skill saw. Neither Stanley nor Skill own the house (the
> bank does).
Actually, *YOU* probably own the house. What the bank has is a mortgage -
a promise by you that if you don't pay them, they *then* get to own the house.
Most banks try VERY hard to avoid actually owning houses.
This is actually somewhat germane, as it reflects back on the "GPL the
source after N units have been sold" business model, and code escrow, and
related thigns...
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
And isn't that exactly the line of reasoning which leads you to the
conclusion that Linux should be GNU/Linux?
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for our lines of reasoning.
They show two different ways in which the GNU developers are the principal
developers of the GNU/Linux system of today.
You haven't
contributed any more than anyone else, that's for sure.
I won't repeat the facts I presented recently.
GCC is
nice and all, but by your own reasoning if GCC didn't exist, a
different compiler would have shown up.
There must be a misunderstanding because I never said anything like
that.
Some components of the system did just "show up", including TeX, X11,
and Linux. But these did not make a whole system. If we had waited
for everything to show up, we might not have it today.
The reason we have a free operating system is because people were
systematically and intentionally working to produce one. Those people
were and are the GNU Project.
Why are you more important than
the entire windowing system, which is dramatically more source and
more effort?
X11 is a substantial component, but apparently not as big as our
contribution, judging from Richter's count.
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 00:33, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [GNU/Linux stuff deleted]
>
> Can we all agree that this is indeed the kernel list and that the
> kernel is indeed known as simply 'Linux' and that therefore the
> GNU/Linux debate is off-topic here?
Wasn't it Linux Torvalds who origianlly started using the Minix forums
to proudly promote Linux to the Minix users (and apparently with some
success). I say it's fair game for other OS people to promote related
OS topics here, especially if related to the linux kernel (or Gnu/Linux
as the case may be).
-Rob
(running Debian Gnu/Linux)
I think Gnu in the name is a great idea (debian uses it already, I
think). It helps point out that Linus Torvalds didn't create this great
thing that most people call linux (his namesake). Linus Torvalds didn't
create and wants nothing to do with the windowing system or user
components, which most end users would consider what their experience
with linux is (whether they use guis or the command line) -- especially
non-tech-heads. Linus torvalds did not create the compilers or
libraries the developers use. Linus torvalds simply created a bare
bones kernel -- a piece of the operating system which literally does
almost nothing. Thanks to the GPL others helped him grow the kernel,
and he's been a good leader in that he's let others give him lot of free
code changes to include in his namesake system.
He just got lucky on his timing... Anyone studying operating systems at
the time (and heck, I remember owning a book "Creating your own 32-bit
operating system" by SAMS publishing and being inspired, and I also
owned "Disecting DOS" which was a nice analysis of a DOS-like operating
system at the code-level book w/disk). If I had been familiar with UNIX
at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX before LINUX
came around, and released it on an even lesser than less GPL whereby
anyone who wanted could do whatever they wanted with it however they
wanted, commercially or not, open-sourcely-or-not.
-Rob
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 10:29, Larry Sendlosky wrote:
> Richard,
>
> We all know that "Linux" would not be where it is today without
> the GNU software. I don't recall seeing one post in this
> looonnngg thread that tries to say otherwise. Myself, and many others,
> are very grateful for your and the FSF's work. PLEASE, stop hitting us
> over the head with GNU/Linux.
>
> I'm sure there are many other "things" that have gotten broad public
> attention and the real people or organizations behind it have not gotten
> the credit they deserve either by what the "thing" is called or by
> the press, etc. Only the people truly involved with the "thing"
> know who is responsible. I think the same applies here.
>
> And, why is it only *you* beating us over the head with GNU/Linux?
> Where's the rest for the GNU (non-linux specific) contributors?
> Why aren't they bitching/whining too?
>
> Like I said before, we aren't the people you have to educate/convince.
> If it really means that much to you (and it seems to me that it does),
> then you should be taking out magazine ads and buying time on TV
> to reach the uneducated masses.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry McVoy [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:39 PM
> To: Richard Stallman
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:20PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux
> > system in 1992. GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11,
> > and TeX.
>
> Wow. That might be one for the quotes file:
>
> "GNU ... was of the early GNU/Linux system. GNU ... included non-GNU"
>
> Well, that certainly explains a lot. If you define GNU as "anything
> which might be found on a Linux distro including non-GNU packages",
> your position starts to make a certain twisted sense. Only one problem
> with that: if it wasn't GNU, it wasn't GNU, which means, Richard, you
> are crackin' smoke and may need a vacation. 19 years of hard effort is
> a long time, have you considered retirement? You've certainly earned it.
>
> Oh, by the way, have you updated the GNU kernel pages to reflect the new
> proper name: Linux/Hurd? I'd really appreciate it if you could get to that.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> If I had been familiar with UNIX
> at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ...
If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:07, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > If I had been familiar with UNIX
> > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ...
>
> If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
Precisely my point.. If I had ham, and If I had eggs, I knew (and know)
enough to make ham and eggs. Or whatever it was we were talking about.
-Rob
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:13:22PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:07, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > > If I had been familiar with UNIX
> > > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ...
> >
> > If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
>
> Precisely my point.. If I had ham, and If I had eggs, I knew (and know)
> enough to make ham and eggs. Or whatever it was we were talking about.
You missed my point. Which was: you said you could have done what Linus
has done if only you had the knowledge, timing, and leadership skills.
I was pointing out that that is a lot of "if onlys".
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 02:07, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > If I had been familiar with UNIX
> > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ...
>
> If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
Its not ham you need its utter arrogance and a complete lack of understanding
that writing an OS is a seriously hard problem. There is a whole world of
mysticism around the concept of a 'beginners mind' although to me
"Im sorry nobody told me it was impossible" sums it up far better.
Alan
--
"Whatever you do will be insignificant,
but it is very important that you do it."
-- Gandhi
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:38:38PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with linux
> torvalds, even he claims he doesn't have leadership skills
Bob Young says he doesn't know anything about technology, so does
Scott McNealy. Lots of really smart and skilled people deny their
own skills. That doesn't mean you should believe them. They are
making an effort to make you feel good. Don't take it too literally.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:17, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:13:22PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:07, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > > > If I had been familiar with UNIX
> > > > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ...
> > >
> > > If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
> >
> > Precisely my point.. If I had ham, and If I had eggs, I knew (and know)
> > enough to make ham and eggs. Or whatever it was we were talking about.
>
> You missed my point. Which was: you said you could have done what Linus
> has done if only you had the knowledge, timing, and leadership skills.
> I was pointing out that that is a lot of "if onlys".
I never said any of that, I simply said (in the above quoted message)
that I could make ham and eggs).
I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with linux
torvalds, even he claims he doesn't have leadership skills (read his
biography), and I'm not claiming to either. His programming skills are
questionable, because if they were so good then I shouldn't be seeing
hundreds of [PATCH] messages coming through every day.
By the way, on the topic of my operating systems knowledge, I should
comment that I later in life became a professional operating systems
developer working on real-time UNIX operating systems kernel, library,
and user-level code development.
I'm not working now, but that is due to health issues.
-Rob
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:41, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:38:38PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with linux
> > torvalds, even he claims he doesn't have leadership skills
>
> Bob Young says he doesn't know anything about technology, so does
> Scott McNealy. Lots of really smart and skilled people deny their
> own skills. That doesn't mean you should believe them. They are
> making an effort to make you feel good. Don't take it too literally.
Bob Young and Scott McNealy are managers, they know marketting and
business, not technology.
Linux Torvalds knows "some" technology, and he's proud not to, for
example, know anything about what goes on in user land.
He actually claimed in his biography that "apache" was a distribution of
linux that is commonly used as a web server, apparently not knowing that
apache is a cross platform web server that runs on multiple platforms.
Anyway... To back up his comment of no leadership skills, he readily
points out in the book that he quickly was promoted then again demoted
at transmeta when he became (briefly) a team leader. He just didn't
have what it took to be a leader, no leadership qualities or skills
whatsoever. He's proud of that.
I'm glad to work with a guy like that, though, because it also means his
ego ain't so high. I'm more likely to contribute kernel code or
suggestions freely back and forth with a person like that. Whereas if
he were on a high horse, I'd say "whoa, there, bud, why should I give my
changes to you again?"... That may be in part why he takes the attitude
he has though..
Of course, I don't 'really' know him. I've only read about him.. I'm
new to this list, if it's not obvious.
-Rob
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:26, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 02:07, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > > If I had been familiar with UNIX
> > > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ...
> >
> > If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
>
> Its not ham you need its utter arrogance and a complete lack of understanding
> that writing an OS is a seriously hard problem. There is a whole world of
> mysticism around the concept of a 'beginners mind' although to me
> "Im sorry nobody told me it was impossible" sums it up far better.
It depends what you're starting with, and what your goals are.
If your goal is to write an operating system that runs on all hardware
and does everything for everyone, then, yes, impossible would seem to
fit.
But what I was writing about specifically said that I've read the book
dissecting dos in the distant past, as mentioned, and the slightly
thicker book, writing your own 32-bit operating system, again in the
distant past, and I've written dos-based interrupt handlers to use a
mouse in a dos text app, and I've taken college courses in operating
systems design and implementation, and even back in 1996 I've taken a
course specifically on Linux implementation (a kernel hacking class).
Had my goal at the time been as simple as Linus' goal was an been to
just get a simple terminal emulator and grow it slowly, I don't think
impossible would have described the task. I think "a project that I do
in my spare time and show to nobody" would more likely have described
it.
-Rob
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 03:26:12AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 02:07, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > > If I had been familiar with UNIX
> > > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ...
> >
> > If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
>
> Its not ham you need its utter arrogance and a complete lack of understanding
> that writing an OS is a seriously hard problem. There is a whole world of
> mysticism around the concept of a 'beginners mind' although to me
> "Im sorry nobody told me it was impossible" sums it up far better.
Indeed. Lots of things which are hard look easy to people who haven't
done them. Operating systems don't have a corner on that market.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:54, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Indeed. Lots of things which are hard look easy to people who haven't
> done them. Operating systems don't have a corner on that market.
Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing
operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks.
Of that, I am certain.
That is why my first job out of college was as an Operating Systems
Kernel Programmer.
That is what they call "low level programming" and that kind of
programming is looked down upon by most other programmers.
High-level languages (stuff like delphi and visual basic) are grown-up
languages and tools where you can create more substantial programs using
more substantial areas of your brain.
-Rob
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:54, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > Indeed. Lots of things which are hard look easy to people who haven't
> > done them. Operating systems don't have a corner on that market.
>
> Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing
> operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks.
okay
> Of that, I am certain.
okay
> That is why my first job out of college was as an Operating Systems
> Kernel Programmer.
>
> That is what they call "low level programming" and that kind of
> programming is looked down upon by most other programmers.
>
> High-level languages (stuff like delphi and visual basic) are grown-up
> languages and tools where you can create more substantial programs using
> more substantial areas of your brain.
Please say you're simply trolling...
--
function.linuxpower.ca
On Friday 10 January 2003 09:58 pm, Rob Wilkens wrote:
>
> Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing
> operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks.
I think we have an under-bridge dweller.
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:11, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> Please say you're simply trolling...
Sorry, started to get a bit off-topic. Not trolling, though no matter
what the topic and no matter what the list, people always assume that
I'm a troll when they first meet me. I guess they don't realize that I
think differently. If you get used to me, you'll realize that I'm just
crazy and can either ignore me (plonk me as Larry McVoy did) or laugh at
me.
Whatever you do, I laugh at myself in the end too, and won't be insulted
-- I am proud to report that I take four different psychiatric
medications, and still have hallucinations and delusions regularly, so I
certainly won't claim to be normal by any standard.
Of course, on an intelligence test given at the hospital (same one that
diagnosed me as schizoaffective), I was scored as "high superior
intelligence" which (to you) might mean that there's a chance there's
something useful that might occasionally come out of my mouth. It's
doubtful, but if plonk me, you'll never know.
-Rob
> He just got lucky on his timing... Anyone studying operating systems at
> the time (and heck, I remember owning a book "Creating your own 32-bit
> operating system" by SAMS publishing and being inspired, and I also
> owned "Disecting DOS" which was a nice analysis of a DOS-like operating
> system at the code-level book w/disk)
You could also argue that GNU got lucky on it's timing, otherwise we might
still be waiting on a "GNU OS" rather than arguing over how important it is
to put GNU in front of Linux.
Later,
Tom
Rob Wilkens wrote:
>High-level languages (stuff like delphi and visual basic) are grown-up
>languages and tools where you can create more substantial programs using
>more substantial areas of your brain.
>
>
>
That's got to be one of the most sick and twisted statements I've ever
heard in my life, especially given the "programming languages" referenced.
The whole thing has depended on gcc from day one,
so I see no valid objection to prominently give GNU
credit for providing a decent compiler and thus saving
Linus the work of inventing that before he started on
his kernel.
But most users simply don't care what it is called,
they only care whether it works.
I would guess that the name that gets used the most
informally is "Linux", simply because that is shorter
to type in email or Usenet messages than any of the
alternatives presented in this discussion. "Linux" is
thus the de facto standard name of the system,
regardless of who invented what parts of it and
who distributes it.
(It's kind of like a beer label. It could be any
brand in the world, but it's still just "beer" if
you're in a hurry.)
Regards,
Clayton Weaver
<mailto: [email protected]>
--
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Meet Singles
http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:16, John Adams wrote:
> On Friday 10 January 2003 09:58 pm, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> >
> > Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing
> > operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks.
>
> I think we have an under-bridge dweller.
No, simply a person who has worked in all areas of computing
technology..
Resume in brief:
B.S. in Computer Science may 1996, Clemson University
May 1996-April 1998 - Senior Engineer (Operating Systems - Real Time
Division) - Concurrent Computer Coporation. -- Original Title was Lead
Software Engineer -- in my short timespan there, I received a 25% raise
and a new title, and that still wasn't enough to keep me there.
April 1998-Present - Software Developer (Contract work, can't discuss,
but it's in Delphi, I'm happy to report that one reason I'm moving to
Linux more is that Borland is doing a better job with Kylix, it's Linux
version of Delphi).
June 1998-May 2001 - LAN Administrator - New York State Courts ..
May 2001-June/July 2001 - Senior Enigneer - Geo-Centers. I only worked
for two months until I became disabled with my illness. I was working
here on a Beowulf cluster (Linux, redhat 6.2), I was the only one there
responsible for administration (web, cvs, that kind of thing), and
programming (developed several simulation apps, using GTK, C, TCP/IP
sockets, etc.).
Short career history, but I'm young.
Now, thanks to my illness, I'm not working.. So I've got free time.
Pardon me if my viewpoint differs form other religious linux zealots on
the list, or some of the holier than thou kernel developers.
-Rob
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> No, simply a person who has worked in all areas of computing
> technology..
>
> Resume in brief:
Now, would J.R.R.Tolkien have ever considered to get the resume of a
troll written down?
Is there any chance that ridiculous thread is coming to an end?
Greets
Hans
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:58:45PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:54, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > Indeed. Lots of things which are hard look easy to people who haven't
> > done them. Operating systems don't have a corner on that market.
>
> Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing
> operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks.
>
> Of that, I am certain.
>
That is so damn true. Larry, for example, was unemployed and
without job prospects when he read my book, "The one minute OS
developer". He immediately got a job at Sun designing operating
systems including kernels and the more important stuff, like
"fortune". Nearly anyone can pick this up. Val Henson's mom even
learned to write operating systems when she found knitting
and the Black-Scholes theorem too challenging.
Once you have the
difference between tabs and spaces down, the rest is a joke.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken : certainly not speaking for anyone, even myself.
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:48, Hans Sgier wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > No, simply a person who has worked in all areas of computing
> > technology..
> >
> > Resume in brief:
>
> Now, would J.R.R.Tolkien have ever considered to get the resume of a
> troll written down?
Probably, I have Lord of the rings sitting atop my monitor (and no, I
don't own many books, and I haven't read this one) and it seems pretty
thick. There are probably many unimportant details in the book (much
like the resume would be an unimportant detail of such a troll as
myself), judging from the horrible movies that I've seen so far, both
movies were basically filled with long drawn out battle scenes when the
simple story line is that "everyone wants the ring that makes them
invisible, but it's a bad ring because it makes you do bad things".
> Is there any chance that ridiculous thread is coming to an end?
I received a private e-mail saying that not even RMS considers the
kernel to be gnu. I would've argued that it containing the GPL was
enough for it to be considered Gnu, but then, I guess it's not really.
I don't know enough, so I'm dropping it.
> Greets
Best wishes... And I understand if more than half the list has plonked
me silently by now.
-Rob
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> Wasn't it Linux Torvalds who origianlly started using the Minix forums
> to proudly promote Linux to the Minix users (and apparently with some
> success). I say it's fair game for other OS people to promote related
> OS topics here, especially if related to the linux kernel (or Gnu/Linux
> as the case may be).
I begin to wish some of my servers had the uptime of this frigging thread.
Can it be killed before the rest of my servers get uptime envy?
--
-- John E. Jasen ([email protected])
-- User Error #2361: Please insert coffee and try again.
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:52, [email protected] wrote:
> "fortune". Nearly anyone can pick this up. Val Henson's mom even
Writing fortune is probably far more complicated than writing the
kernel. By that, of course, I mean writing the individual fortunes
which fortune spits out
It's also more useful. The kernel, by itself, does nothing. It's like
saying "the cpu is the most important part of the computer". Yeah, but
without the a bios, what can you do with it? (Actually, a lot, if you
can bootstrap the OS by other means, but you need hardware engineers to
help you with that, and I've done it.)
An OS is just another layer in the onion.. What's nice is that in an
ideal world, that software follows standards.. Linux is still trying to
find it's way in that respect it seems (for example, today I found that
my 2.4 oss sound driver no longer works just right in the 2.5 kernel nor
is it likely to be supported in the future since some SuSE specific
sound system is replacing it -- I guess SuSE gave Torvalds some stock
options or similar.) Also, the once perfectly functioning nvidia kernel
driver (the subject of this message) no longer works in newer kernels --
whereas if there were a standard interface for such things, nvidia could
freely keep their source closed while providing a driver that would
solve people's problems.
At least windows a few years back standardized on the wdm (windows
driver model) whereby there was a standard interface for what a driver
looked like and what it's interface to the kernel was (whether the
platform was the dos-based windows 9x or NT-based Windows 2000/XP).
This is not to say that I'm "trolling" by extolling the virtues of
windows over linux.. I'm just pointing out what I know in this area.
-Rob
Rob Wilkens wrote:
>The reality of the world is that those languages (well, I can only
>really speak for delphi, which is also available for linux), let you
>build on other people's code (or other code you've written) and actually
>do something useful without reinventing the wheel every time you want to
>accomplish something.
>
Now I've really grown tired of that line over the course of my career.
It's not a matter of what language you are using, it's all about good
design and reuse. I've got plenty of C libraries and C++ classes (and
now some Java classes) I wrote way back in the Ice Age that, in some
form or another, myself and a lot of others still use today.
The true "reality" of those languages is that they are designed for so
called "developers" that cannot possibly comprehend the operations and
information that the language hides from them!
OK, so I'm partially joking in that last statement :) Remember the old
acronym "RAD"? I will certainly give credit to tools like Delphi in that
respect (Visual Basic, however, makes me sick - Basic should have died
with the Commodore 64 and TRS80).
No offense, but if you're not here to discuss
kernel development issues, you are off-topic,
and ought to find a more suitable forum for
your messages -
Best Regards,
Joe
Rob Wilkens wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:16, John Adams wrote:
>
>
>>On Friday 10 January 2003 09:58 pm, Rob Wilkens wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing
>>>operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks.
>>>
>>>
>>I think we have an under-bridge dweller.
>>
>>
>
>No, simply a person who has worked in all areas of computing
>technology..
>
>Resume in brief:
>
>B.S. in Computer Science may 1996, Clemson University
>
>May 1996-April 1998 - Senior Engineer (Operating Systems - Real Time
>Division) - Concurrent Computer Coporation. -- Original Title was Lead
>Software Engineer -- in my short timespan there, I received a 25% raise
>and a new title, and that still wasn't enough to keep me there.
>
>April 1998-Present - Software Developer (Contract work, can't discuss,
>but it's in Delphi, I'm happy to report that one reason I'm moving to
>Linux more is that Borland is doing a better job with Kylix, it's Linux
>version of Delphi).
>
>June 1998-May 2001 - LAN Administrator - New York State Courts ..
>
>May 2001-June/July 2001 - Senior Enigneer - Geo-Centers. I only worked
>for two months until I became disabled with my illness. I was working
>here on a Beowulf cluster (Linux, redhat 6.2), I was the only one there
>responsible for administration (web, cvs, that kind of thing), and
>programming (developed several simulation apps, using GTK, C, TCP/IP
>sockets, etc.).
>
>Short career history, but I'm young.
>
>Now, thanks to my illness, I'm not working.. So I've got free time.
>Pardon me if my viewpoint differs form other religious linux zealots on
>the list, or some of the holier than thou kernel developers.
>
>-Rob
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 23:41, J Sloan wrote:
> No offense, but if you're not here to discuss
> kernel development issues, you are off-topic,
> and ought to find a more suitable forum for
> your messages -
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Joe
No offense, but you need to learn to quote relevantly, and snip where
appropriate.
Also, the FAQ to the LKML specifically says to write your message below
the text of what you quote.
Anyway, I'm here to discuss the kernel. The issue at hand was whether
the kernel should be renamed. I didn't bring up the topic, I was only
chiming in with an opinion. As the topic went on, things got further
off-topic as can happen.
"renaming of a kernel" is a topic relevant to a kernel mailing list.
-Rob
Gee, can all of us who have a business add there name to the thread
subject? Look at all the advertising Nvidia is getting for free.
All they have to do is make a half step to the direction of more open
sourced, and they become the darling winner take all.
I positive Larry would love to have his product added.
Victor could enjoy the extra name caching in hits for it all.
Last time I checked I was bang 100K+ growth in website hit logs per day.
For all of the rants Nvidia Marketing must be in hog heaven!
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Rob Wilkens wrote:
> Anyway, I'm here to discuss the kernel. The issue at hand was
> whether the kernel should be renamed. I didn't bring up the topic, I
> was only chiming in with an opinion. As the topic went on, things
> got further off-topic as can happen.
>
> "renaming of a kernel" is a topic relevant to a kernel mailing list.
Maybe you should read the e-mails a bit more carefully. The issue
you're refering to is NOT renaming the kernel, but rather what people
believe the collection of kernel, libraries, and user-land tools should
properly be called. I don't think I've ever seen RMS (or anyone else
for that matter) say that the kernel itself should be called anything
other than Linux. The controversy is what peoples' ideas of what
constitutes the operating system are and what to call it.
Brian Davids
> I'm just pointing out what I know in this area.
I think you've very ably described exactly what you know in this area.
M.
> [[email protected]]
>
> High-level languages (stuff like delphi and visual basic) are grown-up
> languages and tools where you can create more substantial programs using
> more substantial areas of your brain.
Alan, would you happen to know of a graduate of the Al Viro school of Direct
Method in Diplomacy and Polite Conversation who would be available to comment
on today's valuable posts by Mr. Wilkens?
T.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 06:54:49PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 03:26:12AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Its not ham you need its utter arrogance and a complete lack of understanding
> > that writing an OS is a seriously hard problem. There is a whole world of
> > mysticism around the concept of a 'beginners mind' although to me
> > "Im sorry nobody told me it was impossible" sums it up far better.
>
> Indeed. Lots of things which are hard look easy to people who haven't
> done them. Operating systems don't have a corner on that market.
For a slightly off-topic example for those interested - Turbine Games
(http://www.turbinegames.com) has talked about this a bit in their history, if
I'm remembering correctly - literally, they just didn't know that the
game they were building "couldn't be done", so they did it.
--
Ryan Anderson
sometimes Pug Majere
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, John Jasen wrote:
> I begin to wish some of my servers had the uptime of this frigging thread.
>
> Can it be killed before the rest of my servers get uptime envy?
BAWHAHAHAHAHA ... Stop I have to go pee now!
Wheeeeeee!
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 01:01, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> Alan, would you happen to know of a graduate of the Al Viro school of Direct
> Method in Diplomacy and Polite Conversation who would be available to comment
> on today's valuable posts by Mr. Wilkens?
Please, There's no reason to be diplomatic and polite with me.. If you
haven't notice, I've been neither diplomatic nor polite in my comments
or statement of opinions.
Some people don't like them. heh, that's their right.
-Rob
> Anyway, I'm here to discuss the kernel. The issue at hand was whether
> the kernel should be renamed. I didn't bring up the topic, I was only
> chiming in with an opinion. As the topic went on, things got further
> off-topic as can happen.
>
> "renaming of a kernel" is a topic relevant to a kernel mailing list.
Are you sure? Based on reading the GNU page the stance seems to be that the
"OS" should be called GNU/Linux. I don't see anything that says the kernel
should be renamed, only that when referring to the system as a whole it
would be better to be called GNU/Linux. That's what makes this discussion
offtopic, it's not the kernel's name that GNU is complaining about and this
is the kernel list.
Later,
Tom
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:31:04PM -0500, Clayton Weaver wrote:
> The whole thing has depended on gcc from day one,
> so I see no valid objection to prominently give GNU
> credit for providing a decent compiler and thus saving
> Linus the work of inventing that before he started on
> his kernel.
Actually, Linux depended on Linus Torvalds from day one, making Linux
a *very* apt name, if the argument is that credit should be attributed
to the primary contributory to Linux's success...
The GCC license says that it can be used to compile pretty much anything
anybody wants to. Richard Stallman gave up the right to claim credit for
projects that happen to use GCC, the instance he wrote the GPL, and the
LGPL.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
Well let's add one more to the Advertising Minute for Nvidia.
For someone who published their resume on this thread, and then was asked
nicely to stop the thread, and can not or will not, I am sure your future
employer should take notice.
Individual requires a large Clue Bat to grasp various issues and requests.
Cheers,
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 01:01, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > Alan, would you happen to know of a graduate of the Al Viro school of Direct
> > Method in Diplomacy and Polite Conversation who would be available to comment
> > on today's valuable posts by Mr. Wilkens?
>
> Please, There's no reason to be diplomatic and polite with me.. If you
> haven't notice, I've been neither diplomatic nor polite in my comments
> or statement of opinions.
>
> Some people don't like them. heh, that's their right.
>
> -Rob
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:20:09PM -0500, Tom Sightler wrote:
> > He just got lucky on his timing... Anyone studying operating systems at
> > the time (and heck, I remember owning a book "Creating your own 32-bit
> > operating system" by SAMS publishing and being inspired, and I also
> > owned "Disecting DOS" which was a nice analysis of a DOS-like operating
> > system at the code-level book w/disk)
> You could also argue that GNU got lucky on it's timing, otherwise we might
> still be waiting on a "GNU OS" rather than arguing over how important it is
> to put GNU in front of Linux.
As far as I am concerned, we still *are* waiting for a "GNU OS", or rather
*THE* "GNU OS" that Richard Stallman keeps talking about as having been
almost complete in 1992, but even in 2003, is not ready to be rolled out.
This very truth - the fact that Richard Stallman's people have taken
more than 10 years, and they still are not done, suggests that the
existence of an OS such as Linux is not an 'accident' related to
certain skillsets colliding at a random interval, such as the original
poster wishes to suggest.
*Microsoft*... now *that* is a 'certain skillsets colliding at random
interval' scenario... :-)
Oops... I think I just extended this thread. Damn.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 14:41, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Well let's add one more to the Advertising Minute for Nvidia.
>
> For someone who published their resume on this thread, and then was asked
> nicely to stop the thread, and can not or will not, I am sure your future
> employer should take notice.
>
> Individual requires a large Clue Bat to grasp various issues and requests.
>
> Cheers,
I also published on this thread that I was mentally ill, which I'm sure
employers will look equally kindly on :-). I am unemployed, so if I was
actually hoping to be hired that's not the kind of thing I would post
here.
Geesh. You're, by the way, yet another poster who didn't read the
mailing list FAQ which says to write your message below the quoted
text. You really should read it before you use the mailing list.
-Rob
Hi Rob,
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:38:38PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with linux
> torvalds, even he claims he doesn't have leadership skills (read his
> biography), and I'm not claiming to either. His programming skills are
> questionable, because if they were so good then I shouldn't be seeing
> hundreds of [PATCH] messages coming through every day.
You're new to Linux, aren't you?
Or terribly presumptous.
Regards,
--
Kurt Garloff <[email protected]> [Eindhoven, NL]
Physics: Plasma simulations <[email protected]> [TU Eindhoven, NL]
Linux: SCSI, Security <[email protected]> [SuSE Nuernberg, DE]
(See mail header or public key servers for PGP2 and GPG public keys.)
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 16:44, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> You're new to Linux, aren't you?
> Or terribly presumptous.
A little of both, but not too much of either.
I'd say "New to linux" but I've been using it on and off since 1995 or
earlier.
I'd say terribly presumptuous, but I don't think it is presumptuous to
say that if there are many patches (bug fixes, mostly) coming in that
the code that was originally there was of questionable quality.
-Rob
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 14:53, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> I'd say terribly presumptuous, but I don't think it is presumptuous to
> say that if there are many patches (bug fixes, mostly) coming in that
> the code that was originally there was of questionable quality.
OK, then you do not know shit about software engineering within the FOSS
development paradigm.
--
Chief Gadgeteer
Elegant Innovations
Hi Rob,
You seem to serious ...
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 04:53:33PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> I'd say terribly presumptuous, but I don't think it is presumptuous to
> say that if there are many patches (bug fixes, mostly) coming in that
> the code that was originally there was of questionable quality.
It is presumptuous. Very much so.
1. A patch does not necessarily indicate something is wrong with the
original code. It may only show that people have ideas on how to
do things better, more efficiently, more nicely or to support
new features or hardware.
2. If a patch fixes a bug, you should be aware that the complexity
of an operating system is slightly higher than you think.
We're talking about a general purpose operating system that works
in real life and solves problems there. Not a toy system or a
specialized one.
3. The amount of supported subsystems and hardware of the Linux kernel
is enormous. The hardware you deal with very often already is complex
and/or buggy. And needs things you never even thought about when
doing userspace programs before. Like protection from concurrent
accesses to hardware.
4. In kernel land, you have less tools available than a normal programmer
has. Things you assume just to be there and to work in userland programs
are unavailable and have to be done by yourself. Like I/O. Memory
allocation and management.
5. The impact of a bug in kernel is much higher than in a normal program.
It is na?ve to believe that the fact that many bugs are found indicates
poor quality of a code.
Just compare the stability of Linux to other operating systems. Take
the toy OSes that most desktop users prefer or the somewhat better
alternatives offered for professional customers by the same company
on the one side. Take commercial Un*ces on the other.
And then consider the amount of things that Linux does have support for
in kernel. For example the IPv4 stack or netfilter. And take into account
the amount of hardware Linux supports. Think about performance as well.
Think about conforming to specifications, like POSIX.
It's amazing. And most people would not have believed that this can work,
certainly not outside of a very tightly controlled process in a company.
It does.
And this is the merit of many enthusiasts and last not least Linus.
Questioning the skills of the people involved is ridicolous at best.
You also think that those people doing research on operating systems
in CS departments are just doing simplistic stuff?
Go and start to work on a free software project of comparable size.
If you think you can do it, create Robix. If your enthusiast enough,
and technically good enough, you will find people who find it exciting
and will help you.
Regards,
--
Kurt Garloff <[email protected]> [Eindhoven, NL]
Physics: Plasma simulations <[email protected]> [TU Eindhoven, NL]
Linux: SCSI, Security <[email protected]> [SuSE Nuernberg, DE]
(See mail header or public key servers for PGP2 and GPG public keys.)
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 04:53:33PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 16:44, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> > You're new to Linux, aren't you?
> > Or terribly presumptous.
>
> A little of both, but not too much of either.
>
> I'd say "New to linux" but I've been using it on and off since 1995 or
> earlier.
>
> I'd say terribly presumptuous, but I don't think it is presumptuous to
> say that if there are many patches (bug fixes, mostly) coming in that
> the code that was originally there was of questionable quality.
Very interesting idea. But not correct.
The reason is code rot(*). You have never to stop maintaining and patching
and fixing the code to keep it working. A perfectly good and clean code,
if you don't touch it, becomes crusty and smelly over time(**). This is why
the number of patches daily entering the kernel is actually a sign of good
overall code quality. ;)
(*)
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/software-rot.html
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/bit-rot.html
(**)
One of the reasons for this is that the hardware changes over
time. Another is that the requirements of what it is expected to
do change over time. And yet another is that due to the above
changes the rest of the code gets updated and the parts that
were not touched do not interoperate properly any more.
Huh. And now I'll be getting all the e-mails following in this thread.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:36, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > I'd say terribly presumptuous, but I don't think it is presumptuous to
> > say that if there are many patches (bug fixes, mostly) coming in that
> > the code that was originally there was of questionable quality.
>
> Very interesting idea. But not correct.
>
> The reason is code rot(*).
Which by definition you gave on the tuxedo.org site is a lack of
robustness in the original code. Again, pointing to the fact that the
original code was not well designed, and hence the term "kernel hacking"
being more relevant than "software engineering" when it comes to linux.
Of course, that is what makes it fun..
> You have never to stop maintaining and patching
> and fixing the code to keep it working.
That's a software developers dream: Never to become obsolete.
One problem I remember UNIX having, and I don't know if this has been
addressed yet, was that UNIX systems that I used to work on had a
forthcoming "Year 2036 or Year 2037" (thereabouts) bug coming whereby
they had no method of representing years beyond that year because dates
were stored as the number of [seconds|minutes|days] since a certain
date. I'm curious if Linux has this same kind of problem, and if we'll
be seeing a rush of "Year 2037 bug fixers" the way we saw year 2000 bug
fixers in 2000 years.
I mention the above to stay relevant to the linux-kernel mailing list,
though forgive me if this is a non-kernel (i.e. library) issue. The
line between kernel and library is always blurry from a programmer's
perspective.
> A perfectly good and clean code,
> if you don't touch it, becomes crusty and smelly over time(**).
Per your comment, re: hardware changing over time, why can't linux just
come up with a nice binary plug-in driver architecture (ok, it has
kernel modules, but from one compile of a kernel to another, the modules
aren't portable). If there were a module plug-in architecture, the
kernel code wouldn't have to change much to support new hardware.
A little "design time" up front (in other words) would save a lot of
coding time later...
Also -- Why hasn't there been a move to something like CVS for the
kernel -- perhaps with linus being the cvs 'god' or whatever the person
who authorizes changes to the code is called. This way you get to
always have the latest code, and check the changes back in without using
an ancient mail text-based interface, and you can describe your changes
(which get forever stored with the change), and changes can always be
backed out. Remember, I'm a newbie, so point me to the FAQ if this is
there.
> This is why
> the number of patches daily entering the kernel is actually a sign of good
> overall code quality. ;)
Oh, I should've known there was a smiley coming <smirk>
-Rob
[Pushing the NVIDIA thread further because I have one of these damned
cards and want support for it in the 2.5+ kernels.]
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:26, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> It is presumptuous. Very much so.
I'll accept that on face value, and take your comments five comments as
good pieces of information which I'll comment only briefly on.
> 1. A patch does not necessarily indicate something is wrong with the
> original code. It may only show that people have ideas on how to
> do things better, more efficiently, more nicely or to support
> new features or hardware.
"Idea on how to do things better" implies "well, gee, it wasn't done so
great to begin with" :-) which was kinda my point.
By the way, if I sounded too serious, i'm having fun, otherwise I
wouldn't be wasting my time here.
> 2. If a patch fixes a bug, you should be aware that the complexity
> of an operating system is slightly higher than you think.
> We're talking about a general purpose operating system that works
> in real life and solves problems there. Not a toy system or a
> specialized one.
The complexity may be somewhat less than you think. If you break the OS
down into components, then take a look at any one of those compnents,
you can look at, study, and understand, and probably explain exactly
what any one of those components do at the code level (possibly even if
they are drivers for devices you are unfamiliar with). Build up your
understanding of all of those little components, then you realize that
it's not as complex as you think. The whole is just the sum of its
parts, and the parts are not that complex.
> 3. The amount of supported subsystems and hardware of the Linux kernel
> is enormous. The hardware you deal with very often already is complex
> and/or buggy. And needs things you never even thought about when
> doing userspace programs before. Like protection from concurrent
> accesses to hardware.
I've thought about concurrent access to hardware from multiple
processors, and didn't like it -- but that's where "Simple" (not
complex) concepts like spinlocks come in (call 'em mutexes or semaphores
or whatever your buzzword of choice is). You wait for the resource to
become available then you access it.
As per buggy hardware, the software should _not_ have to support it.
The software should report that the hardware has a bug and stop.
Otherwise, you wind up writing really bad code for other hardware at the
same time that you're trying to work with one particular piece of bad
hardware.
> 4. In kernel land, you have less tools available than a normal programmer
> has. Things you assume just to be there and to work in userland programs
> are unavailable and have to be done by yourself. Like I/O. Memory
> allocation and management.
You have the same tools, but they have different names. For example,
instead of "printf" you have "printk", sure it's implemented in the
kernel itself, but it's there. As per memory management, if you wanted
the kernel to do it for you, why the hell would you need to write a
kernel.
> 5. The impact of a bug in kernel is much higher than in a normal program.
Yeah, kernel processes have access to all memory, while user programs
run in protected mode. Among other things. With responsibility comes
power they say, or was it the other way around :-)
> It is na?ve to believe that the fact that many bugs are found indicates
> poor quality of a code.
It is equally naive to discard the possibility. On the other hand, we
don't see the list of bugs that are fixed on a daily basis internally at
companies like microsoft.
> Just compare the stability of Linux to other operating systems.
There aren't any comparable systems for stability.
> Go and start to work on a free software project of comparable size.
> If you think you can do it, create Robix. If your enthusiast enough,
> and technically good enough, you will find people who find it exciting
> and will help you.
The enthusiastic enough part will be the tough part... Why do something
which is already done? If I can do it better, who am I trying to do it
for and why? As they say "Code it first, then talk", well, I'm not
coding at this stage, so I guess I have no right to talk then.
-Rob
(subject changed to make Andre happy. :)
I'm also certain replying is a bad idea... *sigh* but anyway...
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 05:57:50PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:36, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>
> Per your comment, re: hardware changing over time, why can't linux just
> come up with a nice binary plug-in driver architecture (ok, it has
> kernel modules, but from one compile of a kernel to another, the modules
> aren't portable). If there were a module plug-in architecture, the
> kernel code wouldn't have to change much to support new hardware.
Because, to a large extent, for the core kernel developers, the existing
system is fine.
Nobody wants to design an API/ABI that is big, covers all possible
cases, and is excessively complex. The API that modules ( and drivers )
use is designed to solve the current problem space. When a new feature,
driver or problem needs to be added or fixed, the problem space has
changed, and the interface changes a little bit in turn. Usually (not
always), the person that changed the interface cycles through the
drivers that are in the tree, and fixes them up. (The cases where this
doesn't happen are, I believe, generally ones where two different but
related interfaces coexist for a long period of time, and as the older
interface is phased out, there is a semi-painful transition period.)
> A little "design time" up front (in other words) would save a lot of
> coding time later...
What makes you think that design doesn't occur? Read through the OLS
papers to understand just how many talented people *are* doing design.
The difference may be that, on this list, you see a active work in
progress. ("Stream of consciousness" might not be a bad analogy)
> Also -- Why hasn't there been a move to something like CVS for the
> kernel -- perhaps with linus being the cvs 'god' or whatever the person
> who authorizes changes to the code is called. This way you get to
> always have the latest code, and check the changes back in without using
> an ancient mail text-based interface, and you can describe your changes
> (which get forever stored with the change), and changes can always be
> backed out. Remember, I'm a newbie, so point me to the FAQ if this is
> there.
There is, but it's not CVS. CVS has... issues when you get into complex
project structures (not so much the complexity of the code - but how the
projects are managed). CVS wouldn't permit the decentralized nature of
development on other archictures in quite the same manner as the tool
Linus *has* chosen to use - BitKeeper. (And no - that's not meant to be
an advertisement for BK so much as an acknowledgement that CVS collapses
under branching nightmares.)
Now, this thread should be well and truly dead soon, with any luck. I
know I'm going to try to resist perpetuating it.
--
Ryan Anderson
sometimes Pug Majere
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 06:23:23PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:26, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> > It is presumptuous. Very much so.
> I'll accept that on face value, and take your comments five comments as
> good pieces of information which I'll comment only briefly on.
Also take into account that your claim to faim -- vxWorks, a real time
commercial operating system, may not of the same calibre as Linux.
Why do I doubt the calibre of vxWorks? People I trust who work on RT systems
have told me that in many cases, products with RT requirements can perform
better on Linux, than on vxWorks. (Better meaning managing a higher capacity
without significant side effects)
For your suggestion that writing an operating system is not hard -- I
agree with your chosen qualification of 'a'. Most anybody who passes
1st year in CS at university can complete 'a' DOS-like operating
system.
Not just anybody could take this operating system to the next step in
less than a year. I consider Linux several steps above DOS.
Also, FYI, most of the patches that I see coming through here are patches
to *other* people's code, usually code that has not existed more than a
few months. Which doesn't mean that Linus' code is flawless.
Just -- evolution has a price. Sometimes bad, inefficient, or last generation
code must be heavily maintained, or thrown completely out, to be replaced
by code that itself may contain bugs. Since this is "Linux-devel", and not
"Linux-stable", I don't see how you could expect anything else. How many
patches do you see for Linux-2.0.x, or Linux-2.2.x? You'll note that the
majority are for Linux-2.5.x and then Linux-2.4.x. Do the math. Figure it
out.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 22:33, Mark Mielke wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 06:23:23PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:26, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> > > It is presumptuous. Very much so.
> > I'll accept that on face value, and take your comments five comments as
> > good pieces of information which I'll comment only briefly on.
>
> Also take into account that your claim to faim -- vxWorks, a real time
> commercial operating system, may not of the same calibre as Linux.
I never mentioned VxWorks (This is bad, someone is actually keeping
track and researching my background). But that was a product at a
company I used to work for.. Joe Korty (whom I saw just submitted a
patch from a machine I used to have an account on) who works for that
company can probably tell you more about VxWorks than I can. Hopefully
he doesn't remember me.
VxWorks, or PowerMAX or PowerUX or whatever they're calling it now
(names changed several times while I worked there) was basically AT&T
SVR4, with some custom enhancements.
> Why do I doubt the calibre of vxWorks? People I trust who work on RT systems
The company probably went downhill after I left in 1998 :-). I was
releasing (personally) at least 7-10 modifications to the kernel a week
on average. Joe Korty was probably the only other developer there who
was almost as productive at the time. The rest of their team were a
bunch of very knowledgeable yet "comfortable" people who looked like
they were basically happy to rest on their laurels (they had fast
performing hardware, and they had exclusive knowledge of the software,
so they didn't "have" to work harder). There were of course several
contractors there who were productive, but anyone working on a contract
is going to be more productive than a salaried person for the sole
reason that they _have_ to prove their worth.
Yep, If there is anyone reading this list whom I ever hoped to use as a
personal reference in the future, I probably just ruled that out :-). I
figure as long as the career is in the toilet, might as well flush.
> For your suggestion that writing an operating system is not hard -- I
> agree with your chosen qualification of 'a'. Most anybody who passes
> 1st year in CS at university can complete 'a' DOS-like operating
> system.
Thank You, that was my only point. Of course, I would say 3rd or 4th
year -- at least in a U.S. university. As per whether "anybody" could
take it to the next level, that is just an elitist viewpoint you have
which you are free to keep. When you think of what is involved in, for
example, memory management, it's not all that complicated. I downloaded
the document that Mel Gorman wrote (a thesis, it claims) and while it's
nice, so far I've read the first 14 pages of the text and haven't even
seen anything about the VMM -- it's all been about what a tar is, how
big the kernel has grown, why CVS isn't used (which is interesting to
read), but nothing yet about the virtual memory manager which is what I
picked up the document for. I guess for free one can't complain.
> Also, FYI, most of the patches that I see coming through here are patches
> to *other* people's code, usually code that has not existed more than a
> few months. Which doesn't mean that Linus' code is flawless.
Can you explain, then, why I submitted a patch to the floppy driver
minutes ago :-). You would think that's the kind of thing they would've
gotten working long ago. Of course, I don't know enough to get a floppy
drive working at all, so I'm duly impressed with that basic ability.
> Just -- evolution has a price.
Actually, you can download it free at http://www.ximian.com .. They may sell it
to you on CD for a price, though. It's what I'm using to write this
e-mail.
-Rob
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:23:23 EST, Rob Wilkens said:
> As per buggy hardware, the software should _not_ have to support it.
> The software should report that the hardware has a bug and stop.
> Otherwise, you wind up writing really bad code for other hardware at the
> same time that you're trying to work with one particular piece of bad
> hardware.
Er? Rob? You got a prescription for them pharmaceuticals?
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 23:00, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:23:23 EST, Rob Wilkens said:
>
> > As per buggy hardware, the software should _not_ have to support it.
> > The software should report that the hardware has a bug and stop.
> > Otherwise, you wind up writing really bad code for other hardware at the
> > same time that you're trying to work with one particular piece of bad
> > hardware.
>
> Er? Rob? You got a prescription for them pharmaceuticals?
>
Sadly, I can't share my prescriptions... But they're on file at the
pharmacy:
Zyprexa, for psychosis (calming effect, "major tranquilizer")
Topamax (mood stabilizer, and weight control)
Neurontin (mood stabilizer)
Klonopin (anti-anxiety, "minor tranquilizer")
Klonopin can be addictive (controlled substance), and has even been
reported in the news as a date rape drug because of how effective it
is.
-Rob
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:06, Ryan Anderson wrote:
> Because, to a large extent, for the core kernel developers, the existing
> system is fine.
If you're designing a system for kernel developers use, then that's
fine. But if you want to see linux proliferate to the average desktop
(and I do), then you've got to look at the bigger picture. There
_should_ be a way for a company like nvidia to build a binary driver,
adn ship it in binary form, maybe even digitally signed the way
microsoft allows digital signing of drivers so you know the driver is
legit and OK.
> progress. ("Stream of consciousness" might not be a bad analogy)
It's actually a good analogy. What mailing list (if not the kernel
mailing list) do I sign up for if I want to read about the design
aspects of the kernel. I realize and understand if this is an exclusive
members-only list that doesn't allow the likes of me into its
membership.
> There is, but it's not CVS. CVS has... issues when you get into complex
I just read about bitkeeper in the "Virtual Memory Manager" document
someone posted tonight (of all the places to learn about it)...
Anyway, I've put that document aside, but will probably get back to it
later.
-Rob
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:33:25 -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
>Why do I doubt the calibre of vxWorks? People I trust who work on RT
>systems
>have told me that in many cases, products with RT requirements can
>perform
>better on Linux, than on vxWorks. (Better meaning managing a higher
>capacity without significant side effects)
This is an atrocious way to compare a real-time operating system to
a non-real-time operating system. One would expect that real-time's
benefits also come at a cost, otherwise all operating systems would
be real-time operating systems.
Perhaps Linux can handle more web clients than vxWorks, but can
Linux guarantee that if the temperature in the core coolant exceeds
350 degrees, the secondary pump circuit will be activated within 13
milliseconds?
A cheap hammer can drive in more nails than a top of the line
screwdriver.
DS
Rob, there are problems with your first statement here.
1. some developers are militant about not wanting to have binary drivers
(as is shown by this flamewar)
2. modules not only need to be called with the correct parameters, they
also need to do the proper locking. as locking evolves what needs to be
done by the module changes. This can only be solved by every module doing
locking 'just in casee' at which point the unessasary locking becomes a
significant performance issue (Larry McVoy has written a document about
why locking is bad and why excessive locking is very bad, search archives
for the link to his site)
3. you say that 'all that is needed' is to design an API that covers every
possible function a module needs. the problem is that if you try doing
this you end up with several results.
A. the API is very complex (since it does cover every possible
application)
B. the glue logic to translate the API to and from the internal kernel
implementations adds additional complexity (with probable errors) and robs
performance from the system (especially over time as the internel kernel
structures change)
C. the API includes a lot of things that are never used (remember it
covers everything you can think someone may possibly want to do, not just
the things that people actually do) unused code is a bad thing, it never
gets tested so bugs can live there for a LONG time, and it eats up memory
that the system should use for doing actual work.
4. since no designer (or group of designers) can think of everything your
API is going to be incomplete anyway. you can either pretend this isn't
the case and limit yourself to the things that you origionally imagined,
change your API (and now what do you do with things that used the
origional one, support two different versions of the API??? that's a
disaster for performance), or recognise up front that kernel modules are
very dependant on the exact implementation of the kernel internals at
which point it doesn't make sense to try and define a specific API, they
are just part of the kernel that's not always loaded (this is what Linux
has chosen to do)
as for signing kernel modules as being 'good' you have a serious problem
in the Linux world that there is no central authority to do any such
signing. the closest there is to that is when the module is made part of a
core source tree and then gets supported and maintained along with
everything else, but binary-only modules can't be done that way.
David Lang
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:15:31 -0500
> From: Rob Wilkens <[email protected]>
> To: Ryan Anderson <[email protected]>
> Cc: Linux kernel list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else.
>
> On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:06, Ryan Anderson wrote:
> > Because, to a large extent, for the core kernel developers, the existing
> > system is fine.
>
> If you're designing a system for kernel developers use, then that's
> fine. But if you want to see linux proliferate to the average desktop
> (and I do), then you've got to look at the bigger picture. There
> _should_ be a way for a company like nvidia to build a binary driver,
> adn ship it in binary form, maybe even digitally signed the way
> microsoft allows digital signing of drivers so you know the driver is
> legit and OK.
>
> > progress. ("Stream of consciousness" might not be a bad analogy)
>
> It's actually a good analogy. What mailing list (if not the kernel
> mailing list) do I sign up for if I want to read about the design
> aspects of the kernel. I realize and understand if this is an exclusive
> members-only list that doesn't allow the likes of me into its
> membership.
>
> > There is, but it's not CVS. CVS has... issues when you get into complex
>
> I just read about bitkeeper in the "Virtual Memory Manager" document
> someone posted tonight (of all the places to learn about it)...
>
> Anyway, I've put that document aside, but will probably get back to it
> later.
>
> -Rob
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 23:21, David Lang wrote:
> 1. some developers are militant about not wanting to have binary drivers
> (as is shown by this flamewar)
Well, at least _this_ particular "flamewar" is relevant to the kernel
list. Also, please read the lkml FAQ which specifically says to write
your message below any quoted text .. http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s3-9 --
See the part about RFC 1855...
Do these developers include the primary developer, Linus? He's the one
ultimately responsible for the decision for the maintenance of the
kernel which almost everyone (ok, everyone) uses. If he's militant
about it, then I guess it's pointless to argue about it. I got the
feeling from reading his biography ("Just for fun" - that's the title)
that he's the type to let others duke it out and he lets them decide
without really caring which technology makes it into the kernel.
> 2. modules not only need to be called with the correct parameters, they
> also need to do the proper locking. as locking evolves what needs to be
> done by the module changes. This can only be solved by every module doing
> locking 'just in casee' at which point the unessasary locking becomes a
> significant performance issue (Larry McVoy has written a document about
> why locking is bad and why excessive locking is very bad, search archives
> for the link to his site)
I don't need to read an article to know why locking is bad. However, if
we can broadly generalize drivers into categories (instead of just
"modules", for example, there could be a generic "video module"
structure and that could have a specific kind of locking that a video
driver would need, and the same would go for other specific types of
drivers).
> 3. you say that 'all that is needed' is to design an API that covers every
> possible function a module needs. the problem is that if you try doing
> this you end up with several results.
>
> A. the API is very complex (since it does cover every possible
> application)
Start simple -- like I said above.. Split the "modules" into categorized
modules and implement one or two subtypes at a time. For example, leave
the generic "modules" and add a "video module" as above and give it a
specific API which may be complex but less complex than imagined since
it targets a specific piece of functionality. Other modules can be
devised by studying what drivers are already in the kernel.
I'll avoid replying to points B and C, but I read them.. In part, they
are addressed by the above.
> 4. since no designer (or group of designers) can think of everything your
> API is going to be incomplete anyway. you can either pretend this isn't
> the case and limit yourself to the things that you origionally imagined,
> change your API (and now what do you do with things that used the
Why is it that Windows doesn't seem to have a problem providing a
generic binary driver interface -- one that is portable accross
operating systems as mentioned before -- drivers which work on Windows
98 are binary compatible with Windows 2000 and Windows XP despite major
difference in the systems never mind minor kernel changes.
I'd suggest that a linux kernel developer get their hands on a copy of
the specs for the wdm (windows device driver model) and learn what
useful information they can from it.
> as for signing kernel modules as being 'good' you have a serious problem
> in the Linux world that there is no central authority to do any such
> signing.
Microsoft uses Verisign I believe, which is a company linux commands
like "whois" already use to do nameserver lookups for example. It's a
third party, and hardware manufacturers probably already have
certificates from them.
-Rob
At 11:55 PM 1/11/03 -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > as for signing kernel modules as being 'good' you have a serious problem
> > in the Linux world that there is no central authority to do any such
> > signing.
>
>Microsoft uses Verisign I believe, which is a company linux commands
>like "whois" already use to do nameserver lookups for example. It's a
>third party, and hardware manufacturers probably already have
>certificates from them.
Microsoft doesn't use Verisign for its driver signing -- it's a proprietary
system that is hard-wired into Windows. I would guess you are confusing
SSL certificates with module signatures.
As for "whois" you will find the default host for the GNU version is
"whois.crsnic.net", which is not Verisign.
Microsoft signs modules that passes their test suite, and for which vendors
pay a pretty penny (five digits' worth in US Dollars, if I recall
correctly). There is no comparable central authority for Linux or GNU
software, nor would vendors be interested in spending the kind of dollars
that would be associated with that sort of certification. If they would, I
would LOVE to start such a business.
Satch
--
The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange
protein: it rejects it. -- P. Medawar
This posting is for entertainment purposes only; it is not a legal opinion.
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > 2. modules not only need to be called with the correct parameters, they
> > also need to do the proper locking. as locking evolves what needs to be
> > done by the module changes. This can only be solved by every module doing
> > locking 'just in casee' at which point the unessasary locking becomes a
> > significant performance issue (Larry McVoy has written a document about
> > why locking is bad and why excessive locking is very bad, search archives
> > for the link to his site)
>
> I don't need to read an article to know why locking is bad. However, if
> we can broadly generalize drivers into categories (instead of just
> "modules", for example, there could be a generic "video module"
> structure and that could have a specific kind of locking that a video
> driver would need, and the same would go for other specific types of
> drivers).
the problem is that the locking that's nessasary for a storage driver
depends on the locking that's implemented in the filesystem that's calling
the driver. that locking changes over time.
it used to be that locking was simple, you took the BKL and that was it
(and then only if you needed to, if you were only called from a place that
already heldthe BKL you didn't need to do anything)
as time goes on and existing algorithms are replaced by others the locking
requirements change. useing my example above, if the filesystem layer is
changed so that it no longer needs the BKL then the storage driver needs
to aquire it itself (if it needs it, not all of them will)
> > 4. since no designer (or group of designers) can think of everything your
> > API is going to be incomplete anyway. you can either pretend this isn't
> > the case and limit yourself to the things that you origionally imagined,
> > change your API (and now what do you do with things that used the
>
> Why is it that Windows doesn't seem to have a problem providing a
> generic binary driver interface -- one that is portable accross
> operating systems as mentioned before -- drivers which work on Windows
> 98 are binary compatible with Windows 2000 and Windows XP despite major
> difference in the systems never mind minor kernel changes.
>
> I'd suggest that a linux kernel developer get their hands on a copy of
> the specs for the wdm (windows device driver model) and learn what
> useful information they can from it.
I don't know what you've been running, but windows device drivers are not
compatable across all the different versions of windows (try installing a
windows 9x driver in NT for example).
> > as for signing kernel modules as being 'good' you have a serious problem
> > in the Linux world that there is no central authority to do any such
> > signing.
>
> Microsoft uses Verisign I believe, which is a company linux commands
> like "whois" already use to do nameserver lookups for example. It's a
> third party, and hardware manufacturers probably already have
> certificates from them.
verisign does not decide what drivers to sign, microsoft does, microsoft
signs them useing a key they got from verisign. that's a very different
situation.
David Lang
Below are two messages I wrote tonight but forgot to "reply all" so got
sent only to individuals.. In case others were interested in reading
(and probably none are, so I summarize in one e-mail), I quote both
below:
From:
Rob Wilkens
<[email protected]>
Reply-To:
[email protected]
To:
David Lang
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Re: The GPL, the
kernel, and
everything else.
Date:
12 Jan 2003
00:32:16 -0500
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 00:10, David Lang wrote:
> the problem is that the locking that's nessasary for a storage driver
> depends on the locking that's implemented in the filesystem that's
calling
> the driver. that locking changes over time.
I suppose I should learn more about the locking requirements of the file
system before I comment further. I'm fairly new to the linux kernel,
and haven't done kernel hacking much at all for the past 5 years. I'm a
bit rusty, which is not to infringe on the trademark held by someone
else on the list.
> I don't know what you've been running, but windows device drivers are
not
> compatable across all the different versions of windows (try
installing a
> windows 9x driver in NT for example).
Actually, Windows 9x drivers will work on Windows NT (if you count
Windows 2000 as part of the Windows NT family). That is the case if and
only if the driver conforms to the wdm.
I'm too tired to read it now and summarize it, but here's an
introductory document on it:
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/driver/wdm/wdm.asp
-Rob
From:
Rob Wilkens
<[email protected]>
Reply-To:
[email protected]
To:
Stephen
Satchell
<[email protected]>
Subject:
Re: The GPL,
the kernel,
and
everything
else.
Date:
12 Jan 2003
00:25:49
-0500
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 00:12, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> Microsoft doesn't use Verisign for its driver signing -- it's a
proprietary
> system that is hard-wired into Windows. I would guess you are
confusing
> SSL certificates with module signatures.
>
> As for "whois" you will find the default host for the GNU version is
> "whois.crsnic.net", which is not Verisign.
My mistake in both of the above cases, Thanks for the correction.
> Microsoft signs modules that passes their test suite, and for which
vendors
> pay a pretty penny (five digits' worth in US Dollars, if I recall
> correctly). There is no comparable central authority for Linux or GNU
> software, nor would vendors be interested in spending the kind of
dollars
> that would be associated with that sort of certification. If they
would, I
> would LOVE to start such a business.
This is a perfect example of "If you build it, they will come". I think
I read somewhere that some linux-based systems actually sell for over a
million dollars a pop (granted these are something like 64-processor
custom systems). I don't think you'll find NT systems in that price
range. That being the case, I'm quite sure that certain vendors would
love to say that their hardware is certified.
As an example from a parallel dimension: How is the RHCE certification
doing in popularity?
Or for that matter LPIC (I've only taken and passed LPI 101 myself).
With both RHCE and LPI, People have taken the idea of certification and
the idea of linux and learned that you can make money. Maybe not a lot
(who knows) but enough to justify doing it. Red Hat probably makes more
money on training and certification than they do on sales since what
they sell is a free system.
Switching back to our original problem domain: There's no reason that
you can't offer a certification service for linux hardware drivers that
does much the same kind of testing that microsoft does on windows
hardware drivers, and then offer your seal of approval. Sure, you'll
have to prove that your certification is meaningful and worthwhile, but
if LPI and RHCE can get some people to pay, why can't another
organizaton do it on the hardware driver front? I'll tell you why:
There is no standard binary hardware driver interface for any class of
device and hence no ability to run a generic test suite to validate that
it will work on all versions of a linux kernel beyond version <x>.
Of course, I could be as wrong here as I was about microsoft's signing
technology.
-Rob
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 08:19:32PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:33:25 -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
> > Why do I doubt the calibre of vxWorks? People I trust who work on
> > RT systems have told me that in many cases, products with RT
> > requirements can perform better on Linux, than on vxWorks. (Better
> > meaning managing a higher capacity without significant side
> > effects)
> This is an atrocious way to compare a real-time operating system to
> a non-real-time operating system. One would expect that real-time's
> benefits also come at a cost, otherwise all operating systems would
> be real-time operating systems.
Atrocious how? My qualification "without significant side effects"
means just that - *without* *significant* *side* *effects*. Note that
I did not say web clients, but that below you assume web clients. I
don't know about you, but I don't consider a web server to be an RT
application.
> Perhaps Linux can handle more web clients than vxWorks, but can
> Linux guarantee that if the temperature in the core coolant exceeds
> 350 degrees, the secondary pump circuit will be activated within 13
> milliseconds?
If you truly wanted to fit the requirements you list above (350
degress, secondary pump activated in < 13 milliseconds), I suggest you
use a hardware solution.
I remain very optimistic that Linux+RT will be able to handle more
capacity than vxWorks for the majority of RT applications.
> A cheap hammer can drive in more nails than a top of the line
> screwdriver.
Any brand name hammer that is aggressively marketted, costs more to
produce per hammer, than its competitors that may produce just as
good of a hammer, without all the marketting costs.
But... this has gone too far off a dead thread. You obviously like
vxWorks. Quite a few people I socialize with curse vxWorks. That's
your freedom and their freedom. I don't want to be part of this
anymore. :-) (Private query: What does webmaster.com use vxWorks for?)
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:16:54 -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
>Atrocious how? My qualification "without significant side effects"
>means just that - *without* *significant* *side* *effects*. Note
>that
>I did not say web clients, but that below you assume web clients. I
>don't know about you, but I don't consider a web server to be an RT
>application.
I don't understand how you could possibly say this. Any application
that was using an RTOS does so because it has requirements that must
be met. Switching from an RTOS to a non-RTOS means that you can't
provide those guarantees anymore, which is a significant side effect.
>> Perhaps Linux can handle more web clients than vxWorks, but can
>>Linux guarantee that if the temperature in the core coolant exceeds
>>350 degrees, the secondary pump circuit will be activated within 13
>>milliseconds?
>If you truly wanted to fit the requirements you list above (350
>degress, secondary pump activated in < 13 milliseconds), I suggest
>you
>use a hardware solution.
You can't do everything in hard wired hardware and wouldn't want to
for a large variety of reasons. Hardware is hard to change, hard to
validate, and hard to test. You're much better off sticking with
generic, well tested, well understood hardware. However, you *must*
use an RTOS. Different job, different tool.
>I remain very optimistic that Linux+RT will be able to handle more
>capacity than vxWorks for the majority of RT applications.
Probably so, but we weren't talking about "Linux+RT", were we? Trust
me, any real RT code for Linux will cause its performance to drop
significantly. There will be constant checks for pre-emption, for
example.
>But... this has gone too far off a dead thread. You obviously like
>vxWorks. Quite a few people I socialize with curse vxWorks. That's
>your freedom and their freedom. I don't want to be part of this
>anymore. :-) (Private query: What does webmaster.com use vxWorks
>for?)
No, I've never used vxWorks, I just understand the difference
between an RTOS and a non-RTOS and how to choose the right tool for
the job. If an application can run on an OS that is not an RTOS, it
almost always does. RTOSes are usually used where you *must* *have*
guarantees.
It is extremely handy for many problems to be able to guarantee that
you can turn the pump on within 13 milliseconds without having to
hard wire a specific circuit for that. This is the problem domain
RTOSes were meant for. This has inevitable overhead. If you need to
meet specific time requirements, then the overhead is a low price to
pay.
Most applications that require RTOSes don't need a lot of computing.
Controlling a nuclear power plant takes less CPU power than playing
Solitaire on a GUI. A P3 can easily provide 13 millisecond response
time without breaking a sweat, but not running a general purpose OS.
That doesn't mean we should all run RTOSes.
That you would even dream of comparing the performance of an RTOS to
a non-RTOS as a way of comparatively evaluating two operating systems
suggests you don't understand what an RTOS actually is. You're not
alone, by the way, I once had a conversation with the product manager
for a leading RTOS and quickly discovered he had no idea what an RTOS
was either. He was under the misconception that real time means high
performance.
DS
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:16:54 -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
>Atrocious how? My qualification "without significant side effects"
>means just that - *without* *significant* *side* *effects*. Note
>that
>I did not say web clients, but that below you assume web clients. I
>don't know about you, but I don't consider a web server to be an RT
>application.
I don't understand how you could possibly say this. Any
application that was using an RTOS does so because it has
requirements that must be met. Switching from an RTOS to a non-RTOS
means that you can't provide those guarantees anymore, which is a
significant side effect.
>>Perhaps Linux can handle more web clients than vxWorks, but can
>>Linux guarantee that if the temperature in the core coolant exceeds
>>350 degrees, the secondary pump circuit will be activated within 13
>>milliseconds?
>If you truly wanted to fit the requirements you list above (350
>degress, secondary pump activated in < 13 milliseconds), I suggest
>you
>use a hardware solution.
You can't do everything in hard wired hardware and wouldn't want
to for a large variety of reasons. Hardware is hard to change, hard
to validate, and hard to test. You're much better off sticking with
generic, well tested, well understood hardware. However, you *must*
use an RTOS. Different job, different tool.
>I remain very optimistic that Linux+RT will be able to handle more
>capacity than vxWorks for the majority of RT applications.
Probably so, but we weren't talking about "Linux+RT", were we?
Trust me, any real RT code for Linux will cause its performance to
drop significantly. There will be constant checks for pre-emption,
for example. (Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with what RT stuff is
available for Linux. I'd be only too happy to discover it's really
good and doesn't significantly affect performance.)
>But... this has gone too far off a dead thread. You obviously like
>vxWorks. Quite a few people I socialize with curse vxWorks. That's
>your freedom and their freedom. I don't want to be part of this
>anymore. :-) (Private query: What does webmaster.com use vxWorks
>for?)
No, I've never used vxWorks, I just understand the difference
between an RTOS and a non-RTOS and how to choose the right tool for
the job. If an application can run on an OS that is not an RTOS, it
almost always does. RTOSes are usually used where you *must* *have*
guarantees.
It is extremely handy for many problems to be able to guarantee
that you can turn the pump on within 13 milliseconds without having
to hard wire a specific circuit for that. This is the problem domain
RTOSes were meant for. This has inevitable overhead. If you need to
meet specific time requirements, then the overhead is a low price to
pay.
Most applications that require RTOSes don't need a lot of
computing. Controlling a nuclear power plant takes less CPU power
than playing Solitaire on a GUI. A P3 can easily provide 13
millisecond response time without breaking a sweat, but not running a
general purpose OS. That doesn't mean we should all run RTOSes.
That you would even dream of comparing the performance of an RTOS
to a non-RTOS as a way of comparatively evaluating two operating
systems suggests you don't understand what an RTOS actually is for.
You're not alone, by the way, I once had a conversation with the
product manager for a leading RTOS and quickly discovered he had no
idea what an RTOS was either. He was under the misconception that
real time means high performance.
The truth is that an RTOS allows you to use generic hardware for
cases that would otherwise require highly specialized hardware. The
benefit is flexibility, maintainability, and reliability. Generally,
the CPUs you use are at least an order of magnitude faster than the
task actually requires, so you don't particularly care about
performance.
--
David Schwartz
<[email protected]>
> > As per buggy hardware, the software should _not_ have to support it.
> > The software should report that the hardware has a bug and stop.
> > Otherwise, you wind up writing really bad code for other hardware at
> > the same time that you're trying to work with one particular piece of
> > bad hardware.
Good point! It's time we stopped supporting those Intel processors...
--
Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Linux Technology
* Education |
* Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com
* Support | [email protected]
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
-- Henry Spencer
--On Saturday, January 11, 2003 17:57:50 -0500 Rob Wilkens
<[email protected]> wrote:
> [Pushing the NVIDIA thread further because I have one of these damned
> cards and want support for it in the 2.5+ kernels.]
The canonical place to look for this is http://www.minion.de
Andrew
> It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
> idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.
Then -==YOU==- are completely mistaken about why -==I==- contributed
to Linux (the kernel & the system).
By now, many people have contributed for many reasons, to Linux and to
the GNU/Linux system. I do not claim to speak for you; I am talking
about why the system exists in the first place. It is not a haphazard
collection of components. In the GNU Project, we systematically wrote
one component after another. Our goal was a completely free system,
and we took step after step to reach it.
Thank you for contributing, whatever your motives were.
There is a reason why I am not named Mark Mielke-Newman, and our newborn
son is not named Ethan Mielke-Herighty-Newman-Marr.
It isn't a good analogy. Your son wasn't developed by starting with
you and adding some pieces.
Am Do 9.Januar 2003 21:46 schrieb Randy.Dunlap:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> | On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> | > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> | > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> | > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> | > Barbara Simons.
> |
> | Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace? She was
> | way ahead of her time.
>
> and Grace Hopper (ugh, COBOL)
and Adele Goldberg (Smalltalk-80).
Kristian
--
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/wishlist/18E5SVQ5HJZXG
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:55:14AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> There is a reason why I am not named Mark Mielke-Newman, and our newborn
> son is not named Ethan Mielke-Herighty-Newman-Marr.
> It isn't a good analogy. Your son wasn't developed by starting with
> you and adding some pieces.
I assume you believe in the stork, too...
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 02:09, David Schwartz wrote:
> No, I've never used vxWorks, I just understand the difference
For reference, they're looking at replacing PowerMAX with Linux in the
vxWorks suite.. They're calling it RedHawk Linunx. See the article
from Steve Brosky (my former manager) over here at :
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT8610061752.html
Download the full pdf if you're interested.. All of their systems are
"Hawk" systems.. PowerHawk, NightHawk, MediaHawk.. This is a play on the
RedHat name because it's based on RedHat, so they call it RedHawk.
What's cool about this is that even though I quit there for mental
health reasons, if I decided to become an active contributor for linux,
I could sort of become a volunteer employee. (I'm still not sure how
much of my time I want to spend in kernel work. I'm also learning
OpenGL, and orderred a book on Brain Theory and Neural Netowrks which
will probably occupy a good chunk of my time in the coming months. All
of these require different types of thinking and work on the computer,
so I may not waste much time in the kernel "reinventing the wheel" as it
were.)
-Rob
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 02:47, Chuck Wolber wrote:
> > > As per buggy hardware, the software should _not_ have to support it.
> > > The software should report that the hardware has a bug and stop.
> > > Otherwise, you wind up writing really bad code for other hardware at
> > > the same time that you're trying to work with one particular piece of
> > > bad hardware.
>
> Good point! It's time we stopped supporting those Intel processors...
Ignorring the well popularized floating point bug in the pentium, to
which there was a bug, are there many other bugs you run accross in the
pentium while kernel programming?
-Rob
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 14:42, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> Ignorring the well popularized floating point bug in the pentium, to
> which there was a bug, are there many other bugs you run accross in the
> pentium while kernel programming?
There are actually very few chips we don't have to deal with some kind
of errata on, and the newer more complex chips generally have the larger
collections of errata.
One thing that has been helpful is the microcode update stuff Intel did, we
hit few bugs that up to date microcode kill off
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 11:45, Alan Cox wrote:
> There are actually very few chips we don't have to deal with some kind
> of errata on, and the newer more complex chips generally have the larger
> collections of errata.
>
> One thing that has been helpful is the microcode update stuff Intel did, we
> hit few bugs that up to date microcode kill off
>
The hardware engineers, in my experience, will not refer to those issues
as bugs, but rather as misdocumented features... No? I mean if an
errata is enough to work around the problem, then the documentation was
clearly the problem, and not the hardware implementation.
As per the microcode updates, I noticed RedHat 8 was autoupdating
microcode on each boot IIRC. I've since switched to Debian and don't
know that it does this. Should I be concerned?
-Rob
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 16:58, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> The hardware engineers, in my experience, will not refer to those issues
> as bugs, but rather as misdocumented features... No? I mean if an
> errata is enough to work around the problem, then the documentation was
> clearly the problem, and not the hardware implementation.
Intel seperate out things that are docmentation errors, clarifications
and actual bugs. They publish regular errata documents listing these,
and when they do decide to turn a flaw into a specification update they
document that too. AMD likewise.
Some vendors may not do this, but the x86 CPU vendors seem to do a good
job.
> As per the microcode updates, I noticed RedHat 8 was autoupdating
> microcode on each boot IIRC. I've since switched to Debian and don't
> know that it does this. Should I be concerned?
It depends on your chip revisions. For example the O(1) scheduler will trigger
very occasional random crashes or reboots with early PII Xeon microcode sets.
I'm sure Debian has a package for this somewhere.
Alan
Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:
> For example the O(1) scheduler will trigger very occasional random
> crashes or reboots with early PII Xeon microcode sets. I'm sure
> Debian has a package for this somewhere.
Something like this, I guess:
$ apt-cache show microcode.ctl
Package: microcode.ctl
[...]
Description: Intel IA32 CPU Microcode Utility
The microcode_ctl utility is a companion to the IA32 microcode driver
written by Tigran Aivazian <[email protected]>. The utility has two
uses:
.
a) it decodes and sends new microcode to the kernel driver to be
uploaded to Intel IA32 family processors. (Pentium Pro, PII,
Celeron, PIII, Xeon, Pentium 4 etc.)
b) it signals the kernel driver to release any buffers it may hold
.
The microcode update is volatile and needs to be uploaded on each
system boot i.e. it doesn't re-flash your CPU permanently, reboot and
it reverts back to the old microcode. The ideal place to load
microcode is in BIOS, but most vendors never update it!
.
To enable microcode update, I need some kernel support, thus I need
the linux kernel 2.2.18 or later, or 2.4.0 or later.
Suonp??...
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:45:24 GMT, Alan Cox said:
> One thing that has been helpful is the microcode update stuff Intel did, we
> hit few bugs that up to date microcode kill off
http://www.urbanmyth.org/microcode/ says that microcode_ctl 1.06 is the
latest, dated all the way back to 11 Jun 2001. Is that in fact the most
recent? In this industry, I alway worry when "most recent" is 18 months
old.
Hopefully it's the most recent because no further errata have been found.;)
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
[SNIPPED...]
>
> A cheap hammer can drive in more nails than a top of the line
> screwdriver.
>
> DS
I like that! Reading this' month's "Computer", I noted that VxWorks
was reported to be used in the busses of satellites, i.e., manages
the IIC bus. That sounds like a good place for it. Unfortunately,
the hype is that it "runs all the satellites and is the operating
system of choice for satellites in high-radiation environments..."
VxWorks looks like this:
void interrupt_stuff() {
do_it();
}
main() {
setup_stuff();
for(;;) {
funct0();
funct1();
funct2();
functn();
}
}
It's a big loop. Now, this might be okay for something that runs
the same events over and over again, an elevator controller, or the
"smarts" behind some protocol manager. But it would really suck if
funct0() ended up taking 1 second and functn() needs service in one
millisecond. So, it's up to the function designer to make certain
that no function or, in some cases all functions combined, takes
more than the required latency specification to execute.
At some point, as complexity increases, you need to preempt. Preemption
takes some worse-case time. It's at that point that a system designer
will (should) throw out VxWorks and use some variation of Linux.
As system complexity continues to increase, eventually it becomes
best (currently, if it doesn't get screwed up) to use unmodified
Linux because it is optimized for "desktop" operation, meaning
it is optimized for systems of unknown complexity.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong
> > idea of who developed the system and--above all--why.
>
> Then -==YOU==- are completely mistaken about why -==I==- contributed
> to Linux (the kernel & the system).
>
> By now, many people have contributed for many reasons, to Linux and to
> the GNU/Linux system. I do not claim to speak for you; I am talking
> about why the system exists in the first place. It is not a haphazard
> collection of components. In the GNU Project, we systematically wrote
> one component after another. Our goal was a completely free system,
> and we took step after step to reach it.
>
> Thank you for contributing, whatever your motives were.
How dare you? You have no privilege to thank anybody for their
contributions to Linux. You just don't get it. It doesn't matter
how many times you repeat lies. They are still lies. You are
lying to persons who know you are lying. They will never be
convinced because they know what the truth is.
As previously shown, most of the programs that "come with" Linux,
and therefore are part of the "Operating System" to which you lay
claim, were developed by students at the University of California,
Berkeley. They even contain a Copyright notice, embedded in the
executable files. Anybody can do:
strings /usr/bin/* | grep Regents
strings /bin/* | grep Regents
...and see all the copyright notices embedded in the programs to
which you now claim credit.
You may have revamped or made derivative works of these Unix
programs. Of course you have a right to do this as long as you
retain the original Copyright notice. This simply means that
you copied something that had already been done. That doesn't
give you the right to claim any credit. You just made a copy
of operating system components and, perhaps, altered or even
improved them.
So, again, please take your lies elsewhere. That's what they are
and anybody who has been involved with Linux knows this. If you
want to rewrite history, I suggest you make a new list, perhaps
GNU/[email protected]
These words are my own.
On Monday 13 January 2003 08:32 am, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> As previously shown, most of the programs that "come with" Linux,
> and therefore are part of the "Operating System" to which you lay
> claim, were developed by students at the University of California,
> Berkeley. They even contain a Copyright notice, embedded in the
> executable files. Anybody can do:
>
> strings /usr/bin/* | grep Regents
> strings /bin/* | grep Regents
>
> ...and see all the copyright notices embedded in the programs to
> which you now claim credit.
And by my count (RH 7.3) that comes to 52 for /usr/bin/*
of those 52:
rdist has 12 entries of its' own.
rdistd has 7 more.
The majority of the comands deal with mail(7), and postgres (8).
Of the compiling ones: lex and yacc show one each, gprof has two.
The rest all have one reference.
Of these only those dealing with the network (telnet, ftp rdist,rdistd...)
would be considered part of the core utilities - and even then they are
discouraged in use (weak security).
The rest of the files (3080) do not have a BSD base.
In /bin/* I find only 4. /bin/csh, /bin/mail, /bin/ping and /bin/tcsh.
Of these I only consider /bin/ping a core utility.
In my opinion, that is not enough to claim a BSD foundation.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
Anybody remember this Copyright notice?? Most ALL of the
early Linux Distributions contained programs with this
notice:
/*
* Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
* provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
* duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
* advertising materials, and other materials related to such
* distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
* by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the
* University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
* from this software without specific prior written permission.
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
*/
#ifndef lint
char copyright[] =
"@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.\n\
All rights reserved.\n";
#endif /* not lint */
...however. Something happened so that this code was lifted
"whole cloth" into some later distributions that contained
the GNU License notice. By some unknown mystery, the embeded
copyright notice was eliminated as well. However, the code
remained the same.
If I had anything to do with so-called GNU, I'd keep my mouth
shut so this wholesale appropriation of intellectual property
was not investigated.
Here is an early distribution of Linux:
Script started on Thu Jan 9 10:55:02 2003
# cd /usr/bin
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
Based on BSD gprof, copyright 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 by NCEMRSoft and Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1993 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1992 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1988 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1988, 1990 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980, 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
Based on BSD gprof, copyright 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 by NCEMRSoft and Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1993 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1992 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983, 1990 The Regents of the University
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
# cd /bin
# strings * | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980, 1987, 1988 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
@(#) Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
# cd /sbin
# strings * | grep Regents
strings: control: No such file or directory
strings: discard: No such file or directory
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
strings: server: No such file or directory
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
strings: sysinit: No such file or directory
# exit
Script done on Thu Jan 9 10:57:53 2003
So much for tha absolute bullshit that GNU started Linux and that
there is somehow a GNU/Linux. Most all of the early distributions
used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good
that most programs needed to only be recompiled.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
coming from the University of California, Berkeley.
Don't be bambozzled by the persons who will re-write history to glorify
their accomplishments. Saying something over-and-over again doesn't
make it true. Facts stand alone. They only need to be noted. Bullshit
needs repeating.
On Monday 13 January 2003 11:22 am, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
[snip]
>
> The early Ygddrasil distributions, of which I posted the 'grep'
> several days ago, show that most of the files are BSD based.
>
> I attach it here for your pleasure.
Ummm you did a "strings *" twice in the /usr/bin directory....
Though I grant that is still a relatively small number of actual programs.
The style they used tended to have one such line per main program
(and assuming that was true then too) what you have is only
69 files. /bin only has 8, and /sbin only 4.
How many other files were there? If none, then that distribution
would be BSD based.
Wish I still had my SLS distribution floppies... That would make
a nice cross check.
I still don't believe the current distributions include that many
files any more. There was a request from UCLA to remove propriatary
code from the distributions. The major effect was to purge the
network code out of the kernel, but it also removed a LOT of user
code as well... My mail archives don't go back that far but I think
it was around 92/93/94 timeframe.
Personally, I think that was the most damaging thing done to BSD.
Before that, I used to consider using BSD for production, and Linux
for testing. It was said to "use linux for the latest thing, but if you
need stability, use BSD". And it appeared relatively simple to switch
between the two kernels up to that time...
BSD made a contribution then... But it's over.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:22:27PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> ...
> So much for tha absolute bullshit that GNU started Linux and that
> there is somehow a GNU/Linux. Most all of the early distributions
> used programs ported from BSD. The Linux-BSD emulation was so good
> that most programs needed to only be recompiled.
> That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true history of the "Linux Operating
> System" with all of the components that RMS insists are his, actually
> coming from the University of California, Berkeley.
> Don't be bambozzled by the persons who will re-write history to glorify
> their accomplishments. Saying something over-and-over again doesn't
> make it true. Facts stand alone. They only need to be noted. Bullshit
> needs repeating.
Heck, even glibc was not used by most distributions before a few years ago.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> On Monday 13 January 2003 11:22 am, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > The early Ygddrasil distributions, of which I posted the 'grep'
> > several days ago, show that most of the files are BSD based.
> >
> > I attach it here for your pleasure.
>
> Ummm you did a "strings *" twice in the /usr/bin directory....
>
Actually not. I don't know why the "cd to /usr/sbin" didn't show.
Maybe a buffer overflow in `script` ?
Anyway, the point was that GNU made tools in those days. These
tools were useful in porting existing programs (like the BSD programs)
to new environments, including the, then new Linux. Linus was still
in Helsinki at the time.
GNU continued to develop new programs and improve their 'C' compiler.
GNU also started a development program called "HURD". This was
supposed to be the great operating system of the future, completely
free and open. This OS used "Mach 4", not Linux, as its kernel.
This was based upon the BSD "Lite" kernel. In fact a lot of things
that GNU has done is based upon BSD student's original work.
I'm certain that a lot of work was done porting the typical Unix
programs to HURD. Eventually, HURD had everything that Linux and
BSD already had, except for the reputation. Few persons even knew
of the operating system. In the meantime, Linux was recognized by
Fortune 500 companies like IBM. Eventually, Linux got a lot of
help from those companies as well. IBM pays some employees to
work on Linux. The same for some other important companies.
Since HURD didn't get much press, it was certainly unfair. However,
this doesn't give GNU, RMS, or the HURD developers any right to
claim that Linux is "GNU/Linux". It should give them the incentive
to get some decent press for their own hard work such as HURD.
They should be attempting to get distributors to market their
products instead of attempting to rewrite history and claim
credit for somebody else's work.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
Hi,
The answer is, yes, you are right. Not because no errors were found (who
knows about that!) but because no microcode was released to me by Intel
since the one you see on website. As soon as I get new microcode it will
be uploaded immediately, don't worry.
Regards
Tigran
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:46:08 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> To: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company)
>
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:45:24 GMT, Alan Cox said:
> > One thing that has been helpful is the microcode update stuff Intel did, we
> > hit few bugs that up to date microcode kill off
>
> http://www.urbanmyth.org/microcode/ says that microcode_ctl 1.06 is the
> latest, dated all the way back to 11 Jun 2001. Is that in fact the most
> recent? In this industry, I alway worry when "most recent" is 18 months
> old.
>
> Hopefully it's the most recent because no further errata have been found.;)
>
>
Heck, even glibc was not used by most distributions before a few years ago.
Most or all GNU/Linux distributions in 1993 used a modified version of
GNU libc. They called it "Linux libc", so you might not have realized
it was actually GNU libc modified.
We wanted GNU libc to work unmodified in GNU/Linux systems, so we paid
the original author of GNU libc to do the necessary work. The result
was GNU libc version 2.
I'm certain that a lot of work was done porting the typical Unix
programs to HURD. Eventually, HURD had everything that Linux and
BSD already had, except for the reputation.
The HURD and BSD are not comparable. The HURD (and Mach) are a
kernel; BSD is a whole system.
That message has many other errors; I won't note them all.
Please, just go away. Nobody here buys what you are peddling. Many of
us, myself included, are simply disgusted at your pathetic attempt to
hijack the work of others for your own goals. By now you should be
starting to realize that your rants are doing damage to your cause.
Every time you post, someone follows up with "I used to respect and
admire the goals of the FSF and now I don't". You come back with "It's a
shame that *others* have made you do that" and apparently you are blind
to the fact that it is *your actions* which are making your supporters
drop like flies.
Please stop.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
personal attacks.
Note that I'm not a card carrying member of the RMS fan club, nor do I
agree with everything he says. I'm just an observer noting the striking
difference in the tone between RMS's posts and the responses.
Dax Kelson
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:56:39PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
> For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> personal attacks.
If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
in response?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:56:39PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
> > For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> > follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> > most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> > personal attacks.
>
> If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> in response?
Are you serious about that?
Do you known *any* absolute, objective, irrefutable truth?
Would you like to perjury that *every* one of your posting is not self
serving and fully relevant?
Please stop that: I think you know as well as me that Dax is right.
--
Abramo Bagnara mailto:[email protected]
Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
Dax Kelson wrote:
>
> For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> personal attacks.
Amen, this is the only obvious truth in all these boring flamewars.
The rest is opinable of course and everyone has the right to keep (or to
change) his opinion.
--
Abramo Bagnara mailto:[email protected]
Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:02:02PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> in response?
Silence, of course. People here are supposed to know better than to
answer to trolls.
OG.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:02:02PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> > are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> > in response?
>
> Silence, of course. People here are supposed to know better than to
> answer to trolls.
>
> OG.
>
But then the unanswered repetition of bullshit starts to seem like
facts. Others, who don't know better, start to believe what they
have read, and pretty soon history has been re-written. It happens
all the time. There isn't a High School student in the United States
who doesn't believe that George Washington was a drunken slave-owner
with bad teeth. It doesn't matter if the ideas were based upon fact,
fiction, or a mixture of truth and the same. George Washington isn't
here to defend himself.
We are still here. We can defend ourselves.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:36:18PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > Silence, of course. People here are supposed to know better than to
> > answer to trolls.
>
> But then the unanswered repetition of bullshit starts to seem like
> facts. Others, who don't know better, start to believe what they
> have read, and pretty soon history has been re-written.
Exactly. If people think that I don't know that replying to RMS
is annoying as hell, they are wrong. It's definitely annoying, it
annoys me to do it and it annoys you to read it. On the other hand,
unchallenged false claims tend to become fact and society then accepts
those "facts", just like Richard B. Johnson said. RMS knows that and
that is exactly what he is trying to do.
The reality is that the FSF has actually written very little code
themselves, they are trying to claim that anything which is GPLed is
part of "their" system. That's nonsense, I know it is nonsense because
I've been here every step of the way, I've watched who did what, and
I'm smart enough to go dig into the archives and validate my opinions.
RMS is trying to change history and that should not go unchallenged.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> personal attacks.
>
> Note that I'm not a card carrying member of the RMS fan club, nor do I
> agree with everything he says. I'm just an observer noting the striking
> difference in the tone between RMS's posts and the responses.
Honestly, most people who disagree with him and want to be reasonable will
probably just not reply. Personally, I get tired of the political
discussions on LKML very quickly; they tend to go over the same old ground,
and in the end, nobody has given in. Sure, the political issues affect us,
but they get blown way out of proportion. This list is for technical
discussions, as many people have pointed out before, and I'd like to see it
stay that way.
That being said, I don't really see him as all that rational and clear.
Maybe it's just me, but the words "rhetoric" and "dogma" spring to mind.
I'm not trying to attack him personally; I think that he's contributed a lot
to the community. But his words are not gospel, and having no choice but to
conform to one man's idea of "free" doesn't sound very free to me, so I hope
he doesn't entirely succeed in his crusade either.
Now why don't we get back to coding?
The information contained in this electronic mail is privileged and
confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use
of this communication is strictly prohibited.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:19:38PM -0500, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:02:02PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> > are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> > in response?
> Silence, of course. People here are supposed to know better than to
> answer to trolls.
RMS does not fall into the category of troll. RMS is on a mission. His
posts take the form of proselytization. He has a vision of full
cooperation between people. No patents, no copyrights, no property.
He fancies himself as the one true uncompromised individual that can
be trusted with executing this vision. In many ways, his vision takes
the form of a religion or cult. His posts are 'calm, rational, and
clearly stated' because he truly believes that every word he speaks is
the absolute truth, and that his paragraphs should be used on a tract.
Trolls seek attention and discord. RMS seeks disciples. Silence will
not stop RMS. Nor, likely will passionate outrage stop RMS. RMS believes
that if he stops, his vision will fail. Only he can bring his vision to
fruition.
In actual fact, I don't want RMS to stop. I believe that his religious
attachment to his ideals has allowed a sort of 'grand unification' of
compatible beliefs. RMS didn't invent freedom. But he, and his
organization, do an excellent job of representing freedom (even if they
try to [re]define it to suit their agenda...).
I do think that sometimes his beliefs are inconvenient, and at other
times, they are unrealistic, given that the world we live in does not
allow for his sort of idealism, except when secured via means that are
not compatible with his belief system. (For example, the average person
who contributes to open source, has a non open source job that allows
them and their family to eat, while contributing on the side)
I think that he regularly fails to respect this truth. He also fails
to recognize that, at least currently, his model is based upon
pride. People contribute to open source, because they are proud to do
their part, and they especially like to be recognized for the work
that they do, that otherwise does *not* directly benefit them in any
way. He removes this pride by making such claims as "the system that
is now often called Linux is the system that I came up with in 1984."
Maybe Linus is a big enough man that he doesn't care that RMS is
trying to steal his thunder. In fact, Linus has not lowered himself to
particating in this thread, as far as I can recall.
But, he shouldn't have to be. In the linux-devel newsgroups, the
opinion that Linus was a pawn in RMS's master plan needs to be
squashed. Not only is it completely false, but it is disrespectful to
every contributor of Linux up unto this point. RMS's master plan takes
it for granted that a large number of skilled people have
compatible-enough beliefs. He assumes that this means that they *are*
his people, and not that they are willing to collaborate with his
movement.
Some of us don't mind getting a little mud on ourselves to stand up
for what we believe in. Passionate outbursts? Damn right. :-) It means
we have a heart beating inside our chests.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
Oh, let him continue ... at least there is not a blue dress hidden.
The last person in public to parse "is", is now gone.
At this rate, all he will have is a mountain to preach from, as all the
support around him will drop.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Please, just go away. Nobody here buys what you are peddling. Many of
> us, myself included, are simply disgusted at your pathetic attempt to
> hijack the work of others for your own goals. By now you should be
> starting to realize that your rants are doing damage to your cause.
> Every time you post, someone follows up with "I used to respect and
> admire the goals of the FSF and now I don't". You come back with "It's a
> shame that *others* have made you do that" and apparently you are blind
> to the fact that it is *your actions* which are making your supporters
> drop like flies.
>
> Please stop.
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:56:39PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
> > For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> > follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> > most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> > personal attacks.
>
> If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> in response?
Now stop trying to be practical!
This is a game of politics and all sides are liars (wink).
The problem is they have become truths, by repeating it over and over
again. Give the man a printer that works and maybe he will be happy
again.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Mark Mielke wrote:
<clipped>
> In actual fact, I don't want RMS to stop.
Well, he "hasn't stopped" in years:
************************************************************************
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:49:16 -0600 (CST)
Reply-To: lilo <[email protected]>
To: Richard Stallman <[email protected]>
cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
isn't there an advocacy newsgroup for gnu software? this is pretty clearly
off-topic. speaking from my own experience, it's very easy to get caught up
in an advocacy thread, even when that thread is clearly off-topic. :) i
also suspect that it will continue to generate flames as long as the
originator keeps pursuing it here. ;)
lilo
On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I think I should explain the difference between "GNU software" and
> "the GNU operating system". It would be inaccurate to say that a
> system such Slackware consists mainly of GNU software, but correct I
> believe to say it is mostly the same as the GNU system.
>
> I started the GNU project in 1984 with the aim of making a complete
> free Unix-like operating system. I wrote some parts myself--GCC,
> Emacs, GDB, and other smaller ones. Other people wrote other
> components for the GNU project. These programs are GNU software.
>
> We also added to the GNU system some programs like X Windows and parts
> of BSD which were written by other projects. These programs are not
> GNU software, but they are parts of the GNU system (and parts of other
> systems as well). When Linux was written, the GNU system was almost
> complete, but lacking a kernel. Putting the incomplete GNU system
> together with Linux realized my dream of a free operating system.
>
> In principle, there's no reason why a system based on Linux has to be
> a variant GNU system, and perhaps some of them are not. But as far as
> I know, most of them currently are.
>
> To speak of "Linux Based MIT X Windows/GNU/BSD/MIT systems" would be
> correct. But people may find it impractical. The term "Linux-based
> GNU system" is also correct, and it is practical.
>
> By using this term, we can help encourage people to work together
> instead of dividing themselves artificially into "Linux users" and
> "GNU users". This solves an important practical problem.
>
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Abramo Bagnara wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:56:39PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
> > > For nearly 10 years I've read many posts by RMS and the replies that
> > > follow. RMS's posts seem calm, rational and clearly presented. For the
> > > most part, the replies are emotional, high strung, and mean spirited
> > > personal attacks.
> >
> > If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> > are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> > in response?
>
> Are you serious about that?
>
> Do you known *any* absolute, objective, irrefutable truth?
>
> Would you like to perjury that *every* one of your posting is not self
> serving and fully relevant?
>
> Please stop that: I think you know as well as me that Dax is right.
Yeah,
<FIREBALL BAIT>
Just like the Pope does not believe in screwing little children, but
refuses to punish and pay for the actions of his advocates.
</FIREBALL BAIT>
The goal is to piss you off, and was selected because you live in Italy.
Regardless there is a little truth in the above, but must of it is twisted
to make a point which is not relivant (sp).
And now for some craven capitalism ...
Anybody think there is money to be made on a "Celebrity Boxing" match
starring Larry and Richard?
/me ducks and runs ...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Vance edv (at) macrolink (dot) com
Macrolink, Inc. 1500 N. Kellogg Dr Anaheim, CA 92807
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Mielke <[email protected]> writes:
>He fancies himself as the one true uncompromised individual that can
>be trusted with executing this vision. In many ways, his vision takes
>the form of a religion or cult.
You might want to read "Fallen Angels" by Niven, Pournelle, Flynn.
Yes, I'm guilty of loving pulp SciFi. =:-)
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I'm certain that a lot of work was done porting the typical Unix
> programs to HURD. Eventually, HURD had everything that Linux and
> BSD already had, except for the reputation.
>
> The HURD and BSD are not comparable. The HURD (and Mach) are a
> kernel; BSD is a whole system.
^
in this place is lack "also" word which seems can change
meaning all this kind discution to level acceptable by every your
respondents.
In this level some words like Linux, BSD, GNU have some double meaning and
also on this level phrases like "GNU/Linux" always will looks like kind of
anomaly. So please accept this fact like avove double meaning words which
will allow you (also) stop this kind stupid discutions.
kloczek
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
*Ludzie nie maj? problem?w, tylko sobie sami je stwarzaj?*
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tomasz K?oczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [email protected]*
> RMS does not fall into the category of troll. RMS is on a mission. His
RMS's mission: Open source, closed mind. Resistance is futile.
--
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Ed Vance wrote:
> And now for some craven capitalism ...
>
> Anybody think there is money to be made on a "Celebrity Boxing" match
> starring Larry and Richard?
MTV, "Celebrity Death Match" !
RMS starts out and F(l)UDS the arean with piles of GNU.
(the gnoo is drowning everyone)
LM is stunned by the calm GNOO floodling the area.
RMS using a PRINTER hits LM with a pounding blown to the rear.
LM use a quick attribute of BitMover to reveal the heart of GNU is
Licensed to BSD!
RMS reaches for the split ends to add more gray fuzz to hide the BSD,
while gazing in the air.
LM removes the printer from his bleeding skinny butt, and wildly swings
knocking off the head of RMS.
(the blood taints the crowd)
.....
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
This is great proof of my increasingly firm opinion that the open-source
movement would be absolutely dead if free mental healthcare was available
to all who needed it...
} MTV, "Celebrity Death Match" !
}
} RMS starts out and F(l)UDS the arean with piles of GNU.
} (the gnoo is drowning everyone)
}
} LM is stunned by the calm GNOO floodling the area.
}
} RMS using a PRINTER hits LM with a pounding blown to the rear.
}
} LM use a quick attribute of BitMover to reveal the heart of GNU is
} Licensed to BSD!
}
} RMS reaches for the split ends to add more gray fuzz to hide the BSD,
} while gazing in the air.
}
} LM removes the printer from his bleeding skinny butt, and wildly swings
} knocking off the head of RMS.
} (the blood taints the crowd)
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Abramo Bagnara wrote:
>
> > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > >
> > > If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
> > > are self serving, and are not relevant to a forum, what should I expect
> > > in response?
> >
> > Are you serious about that?
> >
> > Do you known *any* absolute, objective, irrefutable truth?
> >
> > Would you like to perjury that *every* one of your posting is not self
> > serving and fully relevant?
> >
> > Please stop that: I think you know as well as me that Dax is right.
>
> Yeah,
>
> <FIREBALL BAIT>
>
> Just like the Pope does not believe in screwing little children, but
> refuses to punish and pay for the actions of his advocates.
>
> </FIREBALL BAIT>
>
> The goal is to piss you off, and was selected because you live in Italy.
>
> Regardless there is a little truth in the above, but must of it is twisted
> to make a point which is not relivant (sp).
I'm definitely unable to parse what you wrote, but I think that after:
- Larry has kindly sent me a message about my insertion in his killfile
- Andre is speaking about Pope, priest pedophilia and his intention to
piss me off (?)
the point that Dax made at the beginning of this thread is very well
taken.
I'm getting convinced that the point of some of the angry people Dax is
referring is:
"I strongly believe that RMS postings might corrupt the virgin minds on
lkml and unwillingly I'm forced to transform myself in an holy crusader
to defend them"
Believe me, it's childish. Nobody on lkml need/want to be defended.
Let people free to express their opinion (although they are definitely
false or supposedly so) and try to keep yourself and your comments as
calm as possible: you're a smart guy and your impetuous energies are
very well spent otherwise, as the past and present teach us.
--
Abramo Bagnara mailto:[email protected]
Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
Hello Larry!
Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:02:02 -0800, you wrote:
> If I calmly, rationally, and clearly state things which are not true,
What did Richard say which is untrue ?
Well, except that the Hurd is not really a kernel, but rather a set of
user space programs, libraries and APIs, but even some developper of
the Hurd sometimes speak of it as a "kernel" since it has many
functionalities which are usually in the kernel.
> are self serving,
Self-serving ? What does FSF apport to Richard ? He spends his life to
help Free Software and our communauty, and you dare to call him
"self-serving" ?
--
Gael Le Mignot "Kilobug" - [email protected] - http://kilobug.free.fr
GSM : 06.71.47.18.22 (in France) ICQ UIN : 7299959
Fingerprint : 1F2C 9804 7505 79DF 95E6 7323 B66B F67B 7103 C5DA
Member of HurdFr: http://hurdfr.org - The GNU Hurd: http://hurd.gnu.org
Hello Larry!
Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:06:00 -0800, you wrote:
> Please, just go away.
An admirable proof of your respect for freedom and democracy: you don't
agree with him, so you ask him to go away.
> Nobody here buys what you are peddling.
Speak for yourself.
> Every time you post, someone follows up with "I used to respect and
> admire the goals of the FSF and now I don't".
Every time I read a message from Richard, I read a message from a
reasonable person, who believe in higher things that just his own
private interests, and who tries to promote freedom in a world where
profit and buisness is more and more the only law. For that, I'm glad
to read him, and I'll never be able to thank him enough.
I never saw Richard using insults, personals attacks, or such attitude
that you, defenders of non-free software tends to use. I always seen
rationals, reasons, facts and his own personal convictions. I don't
always agree with him, but even if I don't agree with him, I'm happy
to read what he has to say.
Sure, I agree with most of his goals, and I'm fervent supporter of
Free Software and of the Free Software Foundation. But this has no
direct link with what I think of Richard. Even if you disagree with
him, you should at least admit that he's an honest and reasonable
person, trying to defend his views without falling back to personal
attack or insults, and that his goal is to defend _us_, all of people
who use computers. So, please stop your personnal attacks against him,
and fight his arguments with other rational arguments if you disagree.
This is the way democracy works. This is the way free and responsible
people behave together.
> You come back with "It's a shame that *others* have made you do
> that" and apparently you are blind to the fact that it is *your
> actions* which are making your supporters drop like flies.
At least for me, it's by hearing to Richard's talk that I understood
how important Free Software his, and that GNU/Linux is not just a
cheap technical toy.
--
Gael Le Mignot "Kilobug" - [email protected] - http://kilobug.free.fr
GSM : 06.71.47.18.22 (in France) ICQ UIN : 7299959
Fingerprint : 1F2C 9804 7505 79DF 95E6 7323 B66B F67B 7103 C5DA
Member of HurdFr: http://hurdfr.org - The GNU Hurd: http://hurd.gnu.org
Mark Mielke <[email protected]> said:
[...]
> In actual fact, I don't want RMS to stop. I believe that his religious
> attachment to his ideals has allowed a sort of 'grand unification' of
> compatible beliefs. RMS didn't invent freedom. But he, and his
> organization, do an excellent job of representing freedom (even if they
> try to [re]define it to suit their agenda...).
Please do remember that most of the horrors seen last century (and much
before that too) were the result of people that genuinely believed they
somehow owned the truth, and if the world did not conform to their visions,
much the worse for the world. That you might be somewhat in agreement to
some narrow religious vision doesn't mean your sort of deviationism will be
tolerated in any form if they happen to succeed.
One of the things that attract me to the OSS movement is the tolerance and
openness (as shown by the existence of an open-for-all forum like this, for
instance).
[...]
> But, he shouldn't have to be. In the linux-devel newsgroups, the
> opinion that Linus was a pawn in RMS's master plan needs to be
> squashed. Not only is it completely false, but it is disrespectful to
> every contributor of Linux up unto this point. RMS's master plan takes
> it for granted that a large number of skilled people have
> compatible-enough beliefs. He assumes that this means that they *are*
> his people, and not that they are willing to collaborate with his
> movement.
There are people around who are _against_ GPL on quite valid grounds,
prefering BSD licence, Artistic, Knuth's "do as you wish, don?t distribute
changed versions", what have you. Others just think GPL is a nice form of a
(legally binding) licence that usefully preserves certain rights for the
writers and their licencees, and wouldn't care less for the "free software
everything" ideas that come with it. Then there are those who prefer to
pick and choose a license on a case by case basis. They aren't all "willing
to cooperate" on anything, each one has their own agenda (Bazaar, not
cathedral, remember?). OSS is much, much larger than FSF.
Also remember that all the previous attempts at creating a meaningful
community failed (BSD, FSF, X11, etc never got really anywhere on their
own). The whole thing started going with Linux (the kernel). The
development model was later applied to (by then) moribund FSF efforts, like
gcc (remember the EGCS fiasco?), and gave them (new) life.
> Some of us don't mind getting a little mud on ourselves to stand up
> for what we believe in. Passionate outbursts? Damn right. :-) It means
> we have a heart beating inside our chests.
Amen.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
RMS: This battle is lost. By continuing to complain
about the use of "Linux" you are not only wasting your
time; you are harming your reputation, too. Why?
Because you are *wrong*, and yet you won't admit that you
are wrong, but continue to reiterate your wrong opinion.
This makes you sound like a fanatic. Your stubbornness
has served you well in other causes (where you are closer
to the truth), but is hurting you here.
Let me explain how you are wrong. You say things like:
> Calling the system "Linux" denies the GNU Project
> credit for the GNU operating system.
This is wrong. The use of a proper name does not commit
the user to any particular characterization of what bears
that name. I can use the name 'Linux' without in any way
committing myself to a denial of the role of GNU in Linux.
When I use the name 'Linux', I (usually) denote that
collection of software consisting of GNU's tools, Linus's
kernel, Ximian's MUA, etc. I do this without contradicting
myself in the least. In philosophical jargon, proper names
do not have connotations.
To see, this, suppose I decide to start calling you "Mr. X".
This may not be very polite of me, but it is not incorrect,
so long as everyone understands whom I am referring to.
So when you say that 'GNU/Linux' is a "just" name and
'Linux' is not, you are wrong. There is no such standard
of justice.
In your view, Linux is "the GNU system" with a Linux kernel
added on. Fine. But it is wrong of you to imply that this
is the only way to regard what you call 'GNU/Linux'.
It is equally legitimate to regard it as Linux with GNU
utilities added on. There is no objective standard for
what constitutes a "system" or "the same system" in this
context. You are wrong to imply that there is one.
I am willing to entertain the proposition that the GNU
project deserves greater recognition in Linux circles than
it has received. But I want to warn you that quibbling over
a name is a bad way to try to improve the situation. Doing
so on the basis of bad arguments is doubly bad.
Apart from that ... carry on the good work!
--
Thomas Hood <[email protected]>
Thomas Hood wrote:
>
> RMS: This battle is lost. By continuing to complain
> about the use of "Linux" you are not only wasting your
> time; you are harming your reputation, too. Why?
> Because you are *wrong*, and yet you won't admit that you
> are wrong, but continue to reiterate your wrong opinion.
> This makes you sound like a fanatic. Your stubbornness
> has served you well in other causes (where you are closer
> to the truth), but is hurting you here.
>
> Let me explain how you are wrong. You say things like:
>
> > Calling the system "Linux" denies the GNU Project
> > credit for the GNU operating system.
>
> This is wrong. The use of a proper name does not commit
> the user to any particular characterization of what bears
> that name. I can use the name 'Linux' without in any way
> committing myself to a denial of the role of GNU in Linux.
I even know people that call it Red-Hat and never even heard of Linux???
Sorry I didn't mean to impolite and but it to this ttthhhrrreeeaaaaddd..........
I have a mission, and the mission is free software. But I don't want
disciples (the Church of Emacs is a comedy routine). What I seek is
like-minded volunteers, people to join me in the fight against
non-free software. It's not necessary for them to make me their
leader; anyone who understands what we are fighting for can be a
leader. The point is for them to go and fight the enemy.
But, he shouldn't have to be. In the linux-devel newsgroups, the
opinion that Linus was a pawn in RMS's master plan needs to be
squashed.
I agree with you. Linus was not our pawn, or anyone's, as far as I
know. His decision to write a kernel was his own. GNU did have an
influence on it; I read that he had been to a speech of mine in
Finland. But we did not direct his activities.
Be that as it may, his kernel, once written, filled the gap in the
incomplete GNU system. Together they made a complete system which
people could actually use.
(For example, the average person
who contributes to open source, has a non open source job that allows
them and their family to eat, while contributing on the side)
Most contributors to free software are part time volunteers, and most
of those probably have jobs. There's nothing wrong with that.
But this job need not be developing non-free software. It can be
developing custom software, or it can be something other that
programming. There are many ways to make a living.
He removes this pride by making such claims as "the system that
is now often called Linux is the system that I came up with in 1984."
The people who worked on Linux, the kernel, have plenty to be proud
of. They don't need to get credit for the GNU system too. Hundreds
of people worked to build the GNU system before 1991. For their sake,
I focus on what we did together, not on what I myself did.
Calling the system "Linux" denies these people the basis for their
pride. Calling the system "GNU/Linux" gives recognition to all of
them, as well as to the people who have worked on Linux.
On the other hand,
unchallenged false claims tend to become fact and society then accepts
those "facts", just like Richard B. Johnson said. RMS knows that and
that is exactly what he is trying to do.
Since we are in a minority, the advantage of shouting louder is not on
our side. We can only convince people if we present a good argument
based on facts.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The people who worked on Linux, the kernel, have plenty to be proud
> of. They don't need to get credit for the GNU system too. Hundreds
> of people worked to build the GNU system before 1991. For their sake,
> I focus on what we did together, not on what I myself did.
>
> Calling the system "Linux" denies these people the basis for their
> pride. Calling the system "GNU/Linux" gives recognition to all of
> them, as well as to the people who have worked on Linux.
Calling the system "Linux" does not deny anyone's pride. In fact a lot of
people who worked on Linux the kernel might think the name "Linux" only
makes the connection to Linus Torvalds and leave everybody else in the
shade... but surprisingly enough all those people just don't feel that way.
Now if you look at "Red Hat Linux" the distribution, they put a lot of work
into packaging and bundling everything. But hey, some other companies like
Mandrake appeared from nowhere, borrowed on what Red Hat has done since it's
free software after all, and redistributed a mostly unchanged distribution
(at least originally) but under the name "Mandrake Linux" instead. Yet we
don't see Red Hat making a big fuss about that either.
It's also strange that Cygnus distributed a large package called "CygWin"
and not "GNU/CygWin", isn't it? Still that package contains a large
percentage of pure GNU/FSF code...
A name is a really bad place to try to credit people or organizations - it's
simply not meant for that. A name must be nice, short and catchy. It's not
something rational that you can define with all sort of reasoning for using
a slash or other punctuations, if the word "Linux" should go first or last,
how it should be parsed, etc. People don't give a damn about the meaning of
a name, they just want it to sound nice.
The problem with "GNU/Linux" is simple: it sucks. It's not elegant, and
it's longer than simply "Linux". It's like people calling themselves "Al"
or "Ben" instead of "Alexander" or"Benjamin". You can't put rational
semantics into a name -- this is not something that depends on grammar,
science, or number of lines of code, or anything else.
The free software community finally completed the GNU system. This system
is nowadays called simply "Linux". And that name was chosen by that
community who put the system together, which community I'm sure contains a
significant number of people who were original GNU contributors. Yet there
is only _one_ person out of the hundreds who seems to be left out by the
"Linux" name and tries to go against the crowd...
If you really want the GNU project to be more widely known to the world,
you'll need to use some other more effective ways to promote free software.
Trying to force the name "GNU/Linux" will never stick for many reasons,
even if it's only for something as irrational as "it sucks".
Hey, I live in Canada and therefore I'm a Canadian. But last time I checked
Canada was still located in North America. Yet there are a bunch of people
living south in a country that is also only a part of America, even smaller
in size, but they are calling themselves Americans just like if they owned
it all. Of course calling those people "United-Statians" might have sucked
a bit. But hey, we admit it's been common usage even if it's geographically
inaccurate and go on with life.
I, for one, admit and recognize all the effort and work the GNU project did
and I really enjoy exercising my freedom of running the GNU system on my
hardware. This, however, won't make me call this system "GNU/Linux"
regardless. And this has absolutely nothing to do with trying to deny
credits to the GNU project.
Nicolas
Richard,
I do have respect for you; however, I have one simple question.
Should I call my system GNU/Linux/XFree86/KDE in order to give most
everyone proper credit? I say most; because I'm sure I'm missing lots
of people that deserve credit. When people ask me which OS I have
running on a particular system, I generally say Linux, not RedHat Linux,
just Linux. It's simple. Should one inspect my system, they'll find
that it's a RedHat distribution with XFree86, KDE, and lots of GNU free
software. Favorable or not, "Linux" has become the symbol for a whole
system of free software.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard
Stallman
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
I have a mission, and the mission is free software. But I don't want
disciples (the Church of Emacs is a comedy routine). What I seek is
like-minded volunteers, people to join me in the fight against
non-free software. It's not necessary for them to make me their
leader; anyone who understands what we are fighting for can be a
leader. The point is for them to go and fight the enemy.
But, he shouldn't have to be. In the linux-devel newsgroups, the
opinion that Linus was a pawn in RMS's master plan needs to be
squashed.
I agree with you. Linus was not our pawn, or anyone's, as far as I
know. His decision to write a kernel was his own. GNU did have an
influence on it; I read that he had been to a speech of mine in
Finland. But we did not direct his activities.
Be that as it may, his kernel, once written, filled the gap in the
incomplete GNU system. Together they made a complete system which
people could actually use.
(For example, the average person
who contributes to open source, has a non open source job that
allows
them and their family to eat, while contributing on the side)
Most contributors to free software are part time volunteers, and most
of those probably have jobs. There's nothing wrong with that.
But this job need not be developing non-free software. It can be
developing custom software, or it can be something other that
programming. There are many ways to make a living.
He removes this pride by making such claims as "the system that
is now often called Linux is the system that I came up with in
1984."
The people who worked on Linux, the kernel, have plenty to be proud
of. They don't need to get credit for the GNU system too. Hundreds
of people worked to build the GNU system before 1991. For their sake,
I focus on what we did together, not on what I myself did.
Calling the system "Linux" denies these people the basis for their
pride. Calling the system "GNU/Linux" gives recognition to all of
them, as well as to the people who have worked on Linux.
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:06, Ryan Anderson wrote:
> > Because, to a large extent, for the core kernel developers, the existing
> > system is fine.
>
> If you're designing a system for kernel developers use, then that's
> fine. But if you want to see linux proliferate to the average desktop
> (and I do), then you've got to look at the bigger picture. There
> _should_ be a way for a company like nvidia to build a binary driver,
> adn ship it in binary form, maybe even digitally signed the way
> microsoft allows digital signing of drivers so you know the driver is
> legit and OK.
Right there you've put your finger on a problem. Many core developers are
working hard to make sure that this never happens. See arguments in favor
of open source.
It looks to me as though an underlying, larger problem is that there are
several distinct communities which are all interested in Linux, but which
have divergent values. Developers, for example, want something that's fun
to develop or is personally useful, and take steps to prevent commercial
interests' spoiling their experience. Others want a Windows-killer and
obsess about the desktop, or installation, or other ease-of-use-by-those-
who'd-rather-not-think-about-computers issues. Still others *are*
commercial interests, and want to figure out how to make money in this
space (some worrying about how to avoid killing the goose which lays the
golden eggs, others intent on short-term profit and caring nothing for the
goose's long-term welfare).
Me, I could care less whether Linux achieves world domination. The
business desktop is to me an utterly uninteresting problem. The only
reason I worry about things like market penetration is that competing
products' companies keep interfering with my decision to use Linux when
addressing problems for which it is a good fit. Like it or not, I need a
certain amount of "bandwagon effect" for Linux in order to impress those
who are impressed by such things, since some of them can preempt the
decision as to which platform I use for any given assignment. I wouldn't
care if I were the only Linux user on earth, if I didn't have to defend my
professional prerogatives.
So, you need to look at the *really* big picture. There are people who
think the way you do, and people who don't, and it would be a worthy
challenge to find a way to somewhat satisfy both groups.
--
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer [email protected]
MS Windows *is* user-friendly, but only for certain values of "user".
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Mark H. Wood wrote:
> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:28:42 -0500 (EST)
> From: Mark H. Wood <[email protected]>
> To: Linux kernel list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else.
>
>
> So, you need to look at the *really* big picture. There are people who
> think the way you do, and people who don't, and it would be a worthy
> challenge to find a way to somewhat satisfy both groups.
>
please look at this new run queue thing in process context for kernel modules,
and the fact that non GPL modules cannot create an own queue, but have to use
the default one (all queue are managed by a kernel thread).
As you see, for linux 2.6 the big picture will acquire a new element.
(Personally I do like it a lot, as mutch as I like all the run queue approach)
This as quite interesting implications, since it is a penalty for binary only
modules.
Luigi
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:28:42 -0500 (EST), "Mark H. Wood"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:
>> On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:06, Ryan Anderson wrote:
>> > Because, to a large extent, for the core kernel developers, the existing
>> > system is fine.
>>
>> If you're designing a system for kernel developers use, then that's
>> fine. But if you want to see linux proliferate to the average desktop
>> (and I do), then you've got to look at the bigger picture. There
>> _should_ be a way for a company like nvidia to build a binary driver,
>> adn ship it in binary form, maybe even digitally signed the way
>> microsoft allows digital signing of drivers so you know the driver is
>> legit and OK.
>
>Right there you've put your finger on a problem. Many core developers are
>working hard to make sure that this never happens. See arguments in favor
>of open source.
>
>It looks to me as though an underlying, larger problem is that there are
>several distinct communities which are all interested in Linux, but which
>have divergent values. Developers, for example, want something that's fun
>to develop or is personally useful, and take steps to prevent commercial
>interests' spoiling their experience. Others want a Windows-killer and
>obsess about the desktop, or installation, or other ease-of-use-by-those-
>who'd-rather-not-think-about-computers issues. Still others *are*
>commercial interests, and want to figure out how to make money in this
>space (some worrying about how to avoid killing the goose which lays the
>golden eggs, others intent on short-term profit and caring nothing for the
>goose's long-term welfare).
>
>Me, I could care less whether Linux achieves world domination. The
>business desktop is to me an utterly uninteresting problem. The only
>reason I worry about things like market penetration is that competing
>products' companies keep interfering with my decision to use Linux when
>addressing problems for which it is a good fit. Like it or not, I need a
>certain amount of "bandwagon effect" for Linux in order to impress those
>who are impressed by such things, since some of them can preempt the
>decision as to which platform I use for any given assignment. I wouldn't
>care if I were the only Linux user on earth, if I didn't have to defend my
>professional prerogatives.
>
>So, you need to look at the *really* big picture. There are people who
>think the way you do, and people who don't, and it would be a worthy
>challenge to find a way to somewhat satisfy both groups.
Given the inertia of existing applications and documents in business
[read Microsoft Office] you also need to get Microsoft on board as an
application provider. There are many business applications written in
COBOL running on zSeries machines because of similiar inertia,
regardless of how much hardware costs could be saved...
john alvord
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 05:39:33PM +0100, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Mark Mielke <[email protected]> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > In actual fact, I don't want RMS to stop. I believe that his religious
> > attachment to his ideals has allowed a sort of 'grand unification' of
> > compatible beliefs. RMS didn't invent freedom. But he, and his
> > organization, do an excellent job of representing freedom (even if they
> > try to [re]define it to suit their agenda...).
>
> Please do remember that most of the horrors seen last century (and much
> before that too) were the result of people that genuinely believed they
> somehow owned the truth, and if the world did not conform to their visions,
> much the worse for the world. That you might be somewhat in agreement to
> some narrow religious vision doesn't mean your sort of deviationism will be
> tolerated in any form if they happen to succeed.
>...
This is one of the worst oversimplifications I've ever heard of.
E.g. Mahatma Gandhi was a person in the last century who genuinely
believed he somehow owned the truth and who succeeded. Please tell me
which horrors he was responsble for/
>...
> Knuth's "do as you wish, don?t distribute changed versions"
>...
This is wrong, you are allowed to change TeX and Metafont hoever you
want and distribute the changed versions as long as you change the name
of the program.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
I do have respect for you; however, I have one simple question.
Should I call my system GNU/Linux/XFree86/KDE in order to give most
everyone proper credit?
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many.
Favorable or not, "Linux" has become the symbol for a whole
system of free software.
The meaning attached to this symbol is one we disagree with (see
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html), so we will not accept
it as the symbol of our work.
I see a hint of "give up, it's hopeless" in your message. In that
context, see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#lost.
Trying to force the name "GNU/Linux" will never stick for many reasons,
It isn't useful to second-guess what other people will or won't do. I
will make my request to them, and they will decide how to respond.
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#lost.
I, for one, admit and recognize all the effort and work the GNU project did
and I really enjoy exercising my freedom of running the GNU system on my
hardware. This, however, won't make me call this system "GNU/Linux"
regardless.
I'm glad you appreciate our work, but if you call the system "Linux",
you lead other people to suppose it was done by Linus. If you call
it "GNU/Linux" you will teach other people to appreciate our work too.
> I'm glad you appreciate our work, but if you call the system "Linux",
> you lead other people to suppose it was done by Linus. If you call
> it "GNU/Linux" you will teach other people to appreciate our work too.
Richard, you are failing leadership 101. The hallmark of any and every
leader is letting others take credit for your work. Haven't you ever
heard "make them think it was their idea"? Every engineer who grows
into a leader learns that while he or she may have (or thinks they have)
more foresight, vision, talent, whatever than their team members, the
trick to successful leadership is to let the other people think they
are the leaders. That is how you create people who will carry on your
vision.
Doing what you are doing is going to make you universally disliked and
even if you win the battle, you will lose the war. The second you stop
pushing, everyone will turn against you and do something else. They'll do
the opposite of what you want simply because they resent what you are
doing: telling them that you know best, their opinion doesn't matter,
you're right, they are wrong.
That's not leadership. That's browbeating and I know of no example of
that style of affecting change succeeding.
It's worth pointing out that Linus frequently states that other's work
is more important than his, that he is just a small part of this effort,
there is no way he could do it by himself, etc. Contrast that with your
words. Then contrast the number of people following you vs. the number
following him. There has to be at least 3 orders of magnitude difference,
he's doing something right and you are doing something wrong. Shouting
incessently isn't going to help your cause, you lose followers every time
you open your mouth.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I, for one, admit and recognize all the effort and work the GNU project did
> and I really enjoy exercising my freedom of running the GNU system on my
> hardware. This, however, won't make me call this system "GNU/Linux"
> regardless.
>
> I'm glad you appreciate our work, but if you call the system "Linux",
> you lead other people to suppose it was done by Linus. If you call
> it "GNU/Linux" you will teach other people to appreciate our work too.
All the people appreciate, they also endorse the principles of Free Software
when they see how good Linux can be, but they just can't care less about all
the ramifications underneath. Actually what's more important: the
proliferation of free software or perfect accreditation? (saying "both" is
too easy an answer).
This is unfortunate that you left out all my other arguments from my
previous mail. It shows that your quest for credits isn't coherent across
the board and that you wish to avoid that question. Well I'm sure you'll
come back with a perfect explanation for that...
Yet you say you're speaking not only for yourself but also for the
_hundreds_ of contributors to the GNU project. Either all those people feel
strongly about it and they all mandated a single person in the name of
Richard Stallman to bring justice to the World, or they simply feel they
like the name "Linux" is nice enough and left you alone to argue about it.
It truly looks like the later.
Nicolas
>>>>> "np" == Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]> writes:
np> Yet you say you're speaking not only for yourself but also for
np> the _hundreds_ of contributors to the GNU project. Either all
np> those people feel strongly about it and they all mandated a
np> single person in the name of Richard Stallman to bring justice
np> to the World, or they simply feel they like the name "Linux"
np> is nice enough and left you alone to argue about it. It truly
np> looks like the later.
Why so?
I personally prefer to call the system GNU/Linux, will continue to
call it so (when referring to the system as a whole and not to the
kernel) but I feel that such discussion is Off Topic for this mailing
list. Although I'm violating my intention not to pollute linux-kernel
any more than it is already, I feel that your conclusion is a bit too
far fetched. Besides, I don't think all contributors to the GNU
project and all the persons which call the system GNU/Linux are
subscribed to this mailing list.
bye,
andrea
--
Andrea Glorioso [email protected]
Binary Only http://www.binary-only.com/
Via A. Zanolini, 7/b Tel: +39-348.921.43.79
40126 Bologna Fax: +39-051-930.31.133
RMS wrote:
> I'm glad you appreciate our work, but if you call the system "Linux",
> you lead other people to suppose it was done by Linus.
I think I see now why you have been pursuing this issue like
a abused Pit Bull. You perceive in the name 'Linux' an implicit
claim that what it denotes is entirely the work of Linus Torvalds.
There is no such implication in it. As for interpretation,
Linux newbies don't even know that someone named 'Linus Torvalds'
exists, while Linux cognoscenti know perfectly well that
Linus Torvalds didn't write the whole thing. That leaves the
semi-informed, i.e., journalists, but who cares what they
think? There is no problem here.
IT'S JUST A NAME
--
Thomas Hood <[email protected]>
Richard, you are failing leadership 101. The hallmark of any and every
leader is letting others take credit for your work.
That lesson concerns sharing credit with people who are trying to help
you. That's the reason I talk about the work that we, the GNU
Project, have done, rather than focusing on my individual role. (I
don't ask people to name the system after my name.)
However, letting the credit for our work fall entirely to someone who
never was part of our project and doesn't share our values and goals
is a different matter. That would be self-defeating. Leadership 101
doesn't need to talk about this, because even cadet leaders generally
already know they should not let rival movements take the credit for
the work they and their supporters have done.
We do give Torvalds a share of the credit by calling the system
"GNU/Linux".
Then contrast the number of people following you vs. the number
following him. There has to be at least 3 orders of magnitude difference,
he's doing something right and you are doing something wrong.
If this is true--I don't know that it is--it's probably because he
gets the credit for our work as well as his own. I'm trying to change
that now.
> That lesson concerns sharing credit with people who are trying to help
> you. That's the reason I talk about the work that we, the GNU
> Project, have done, rather than focusing on my individual role. (I
> don't ask people to name the system after my name.)
>
> However, letting the credit for our work fall entirely to someone who
> never was part of our project and doesn't share our values and goals
> is a different matter. That would be self-defeating. Leadership 101
> doesn't need to talk about this, because even cadet leaders generally
> already know they should not let rival movements take the credit for
> the work they and their supporters have done.
>
> We do give Torvalds a share of the credit by calling the system
> "GNU/Linux".
>
Richard,
I think someone else might have sais this, but I will say it now. Many, if
not all, Linux distibutions give the GNU Project credit for the utilities
that were written by it. Is that not sufficient?
Matthew D. Pitts
Yet you say you're speaking not only for yourself but also for the
_hundreds_ of contributors to the GNU project.
I said I am asking for credit for them, not just for myself.
That is not quite the same thing.
Either all those people feel
strongly about it and they all mandated a single person in the name of
Richard Stallman to bring justice to the World, or they simply feel they
like the name "Linux" is nice enough and left you alone to argue about it.
Or they don't feel strongly enough to press the point. Or they have
been intimidated by the hostility that we sometimes encounter.
Many of them do use the term "GNU/Linux", they just don't discuss
it here.
However that may be, it doesn't affect the fact that the GNU
developers deserve credit.
This is unfortunate that you left out all my other arguments from my
previous mail.
I only answer the points that seem significant or worth answering.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Yet you say you're speaking not only for yourself but also for the
> _hundreds_ of contributors to the GNU project.
>
> I said I am asking for credit for them, not just for myself.
> That is not quite the same thing.
But that's what I just said above.
> strongly about it and they all mandated a single person in the name of
> Richard Stallman to bring justice to the World, or they simply feel they
> like the name "Linux" is nice enough and left you alone to argue about it.
>
> Or they don't feel strongly enough to press the point.
Which means that you are the only one who cares.
> Or they have been intimidated by the hostility that we sometimes
> encounter.
So it seems that many more people care about _not_ using "GNU/" with
"Linux". Yes those people are 1) many and 2) speak on their own and 3)
never concerted to form that same opinion. There must be something there...
> Many of them do use the term "GNU/Linux", they just don't discuss
> it here.
This is rather off topic on this list, indeed.
> However that may be, it doesn't affect the fact that the GNU
> developers deserve credit.
Just as every other free software developers. Yet the _majority_ of those
GNU developers seem to be quite happy with the way they get credits,
otherwise they would complain on their own. You just can't decide for the
whole community how it should be done.
> This is unfortunate that you left out all my other arguments from my
> previous mail.
>
> I only answer the points that seem significant or worth answering.
Solely from your own point of view again. Sorry, you just managed to lose
your credibility on this whole matter.
Nicolas
Blah Blah Blah...
I normally stay away from these kinds of discussions, but I'm getting
pretty tired of this one.
It all reminds me of the 1960's and the anti-war (Vietnam) movement.
Just two points:
1) At demos in Washington DC, with hundreds of thousands of folks,
there were always groups of dogmatists standing around the edges
selling their newspapers. These were mostly either Trotskyites hawking
literature documenting their latest splits (which occurred on almost a
daily basis) or various Mickey-Maoists dissecting in very fine print
the latest speech from Enver Hoxha, the supreme fearless leader of
Albania.
Meanwhile tear gas was falling in the streets, many people were
undergoing truly dramatic and unforgettable experiences and the world
was changing. Real leaders were with the people in the streets,
listening AND guiding.
Some people think the highest form of struggle is between different
closets. They wouldn't notice an earthquake if they were having an
ideological debate.
2) A lot of folks were offended with Gillette introduced a
'revolutionary' razor-blade, or when the Doors, Jefferson Airplane,
Grateful Dead etc. were picked up in the mainstream media, "Hair"
opened on Broadway, etc.
You can't control how people use words and being co-opted may be
painful at times but it is a sign of success.
My PhD advisor once told me when I stormed into his office in a funk
because an idea of mine had been stolen without credit, something to
the effect that as long as you have good ideas they'll get stolen.
Your only defense is to keep generating more of them.
Let's all get back to work and stop this ....
-coop
======================================================================
Jerry Cooperstein, Senior Consultant, <[email protected]>
Axian, Inc., Software Consulting and Training
4800 SW Griffith Dr., Ste. 202, Beaverton, OR 97005 USA
http://www.axian.com/
======================================================================
Richard Stallman <[email protected]> said:
> Favorable or not, "Linux" has become the symbol for a whole
> system of free software.
>
> The meaning attached to this symbol is one we disagree with (see
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html), so we will not accept
> it as the symbol of our work.
But you don't attach strings about naming in GPL, so you are SOL respect
FSF owned software. The owners of the other bits of the operating systems
(wide sense, otherwise called "distributions") usually called "Linux"
(independently GPLed, BSD stuff, X11, Knuth (TeX), in-house installation
and configuration tools, ...) have no such naming restrinctions AFAIK, and
have not complained either, even less in your direction.
What is discussed here is the operating system (narrow sense, i.e., kernel
only) called Linux, on which you have no claim whatsoever.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
Solely from your own point of view again. Sorry, you just managed to lose
your credibility on this whole matter.
With all due respect, I doubt it. I could not lose any credibility
with you, because I had none to start with. You demanded explanations
for this and that with an unfriendly tone. I figured that even if I
gave good answers to all those accusations, it would be unlikely to
win your good opinion. So I decided it was not worth trying to do
that. Insted I responded to the points that seemed worth responding
to for the sake of other readers starting with a more neutral
attitude.
As for what other people think now, none of us knows--we could only
speculate. I think that such speculation is not very interesting.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 01:17:34PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Solely from your own point of view again.
> > Sorry, you just managed to lose
> > your credibility on this whole matter.
>
> With all due respect, I doubt it.
I think any neutral observer would agree that you are damaging your cause
and losing credibility. Perhaps I can't be objective enough to make that
call, but it sure seems obvious.
Leaders lead by letting others succeed, you are trying to hijack other's
work and claim for your own. That's not leadership, that's browbeating.
Oh, and by the way, have you fixed the name of your kernel? Are the
web pages updated to note its true name: Linux/Hurd? It would be great
if you could take care of that if you haven't already.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Solely from your own point of view again. Sorry, you just managed to lose
> your credibility on this whole matter.
>
> With all due respect, I doubt it. I could not lose any credibility
> with you, because I had none to start with. You demanded explanations
> for this and that with an unfriendly tone.
To the contrary, I believe my original message to you was pretty neutral. I
even took great care not to be offensive. I however stated some _facts_
which aren't coherent with your credit/naming policy so you could clarify
them. You instead chose to qualify the core of my mail as unfriendly and
avoided the issue altogether.
> I figured that even if I gave good answers to all those accusations,
Accusations?
> it would be unlikely to win your good opinion.
At least you might have avoided the bad one.
> Insted I responded to the points that seemed worth responding to for the
> sake of other readers starting with a more neutral attitude.
I was one of them, but since you chose to qualify most of my points as not
"worth responding" since they challenge your agenda, I can only conclude
that it's not possible to have a reasonable conversation with this
narrow-minded attitude of yours.
Someone else replied to my original mail in private. We agreed to disagree
after some really interesting exchanges, yet I didn't lose any respect for
that person at all.
Nicolas
> The meaning attached to this symbol is one we disagree with (see
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html), so we will not accept
> it as the symbol of our work.
But you don't attach strings about naming in GPL, so you are SOL respect
FSF owned software.
Please see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#deserve.
What is discussed here is the operating system (narrow sense, i.e., kernel
only) called Linux, on which you have no claim whatsoever.
We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
that people use on desktops and servers.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 04:59:37 -0500
Richard Stallman wrote:
>We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
>The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
>that people use on desktops and servers.
Richard,
Ok, let's just say that you're reasoning is not completely way off, that
you may even make some sense with your GNU/Linux rant. Even if it was
so, is it worth the trouble you go through everyday evangelizing that?
Obviously the core developers don't give a damn about the naming scheme
(the proof is that they didn't participate on this infamous thread) and
even more obvious is the fact that people outside the development lists
also don't care. So do you think you will ever change anything? Do you
still have such hopes? Because, truth to be told, if I would go through
this list archives and quote each and every one of your emails I'd be
repeating myself an awful lot. You keep saying, with no deviation
whatsoever, that GNU/Linux gives credit to every GNU hacker and not just
to Linus or the kernel developers and pointing everyone to the GNU pages
for clarification (on what is already simple). Really, if it didn't work
until now what makes you think it'll work in the future?
Even if you were right, I honestly don't see, with all my good will, a
successful ending to your quest. Do you?
../Paulo
Paulo Andre' wrote:
> Really, if it didn't work until now what makes you think it'll work
> in the future?
Oh, but it is working. I've seen quite a few web pages that say
something to the effect of "I use GNU/Linux" or "this site runs on
blah blah GNU/Linux".
I think it likely that each person who wrote the "GNU/" thought about
why they wanted to write it, too - which is the real point, isn't it?
I don't know anyone who actually says GNU/Linux verbally though -- it's
quite clumsy to say.
(For my part, I never say or write "GNU/Linux", but instead I tend to
say I use and write "Free Software". Unfortunately people still have
trouble recognising how they are affected by the freedoms of _other_
people, so they persist in thinking I must mean something to do with
the price tag. Alas!)
> Even if you were right, I honestly don't see, with all my good will, a
> successful ending to your quest. Do you?
What is the rush to end the quest?
Richard's campaign is about political awareness, and it seems to be
working. If the campaign stopped today, that awareness might die down.
Hopefully, the day will come when that is ok -- not because there are
lots of people saying the same thing, but because terms like GNU and
Free Software will be redundant.
Hopefully, one day freely sharing ideas will the norm, as cultures
develop which encourage sharing without hunger, and fighting over who
owns (and so is the sole profiter of) an idea will seem weird.
_Then_ this particular quest is ready to end. It may be a long time yet,
perhaps longer than Richard or I will live. But hopefully not.
-- Jamie
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 04:59:37AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
> The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
> that people use on desktops and servers.
This being the _kernel_ list, can you now take your rants someplace
else where it might actually be relevant ? If your beef is with the
distros, I'm sure you can do the groundwork to figure out who
to whine at.
Dave
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 04:59:37AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> What is discussed here is the operating system (narrow sense, i.e.,
> kernel only) called Linux, on which you have no claim whatsoever.
> We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
> The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
> that people use on desktops and servers.
Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to ensure
that they give you whatever credit you want.
mark
P.S. Please honour my request for you to include the names of the people
you are quoting in emails. It is a disrespectful act to purposefully
remove credit for quotes. For somebody arguing about credit, it seems
a little contradictory...
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > The meaning attached to this symbol is one we disagree with (see
> > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html), so we will not accept
> > it as the symbol of our work.
>
> But you don't attach strings about naming in GPL, so you are SOL respect
> FSF owned software.
>
> Please see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#deserve.
>
> What is discussed here is the operating system (narrow sense, i.e., kernel
> only) called Linux, on which you have no claim whatsoever.
>
> We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
> The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
> that people use on desktops and servers.
98% of end users and server users get their software from a major
distributor like RedHat or Suse. It seems to be you would get much bigger
effect by prosletyzing to those companies. Are you doing that preaching as
well as in this small section of the electronic world?
john
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 07:47:13PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I see a hint of "give up, it's hopeless" in your message.
But it is hopeless, I tried, but it didn't work,
jaharkes@ravel:/usr/src$ mv linux Gnu/Linux
mv: cannot move `linux' to `Gnu/Linux': No such file or directory
Sigh, I guess I'll just have to learn to live with it.
Jan
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 11:44 am, John Alvord wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > > The meaning attached to this symbol is one we disagree with (see
> > > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html), so we will not accept
> > > it as the symbol of our work.
> >
> > But you don't attach strings about naming in GPL, so you are SOL
> > respect FSF owned software.
> >
> > Please see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#deserve.
> >
> > What is discussed here is the operating system (narrow sense, i.e.,
> > kernel only) called Linux, on which you have no claim whatsoever.
> >
> > We all agree that the proper name for the kernel is "Linux."
> > The disagreement is about the name for the complete system
> > that people use on desktops and servers.
>
> 98% of end users and server users get their software from a major
> distributor like RedHat or Suse. It seems to be you would get much bigger
> effect by prosletyzing to those companies. Are you doing that preaching as
> well as in this small section of the electronic world?
>
> john
If you followed the link in the post you replied to, you'd see he did contact
several distro vendors, and Mandrake has started to switch to calling it
GNU/Linux.
Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to ensure
that they give you whatever credit you want.
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#companies.
I really hate myself for responding to people like you, but I feel compelled.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 06:37:42AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to ensure
> that they give you whatever credit you want.
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#companies.
As usual, you missed the point.
You are posting your message to the wrong place.
This is the "Linux Kernel Mail List". Nothing to do with you, GNU, or
distributions that use GNU.
GO AWAY if you are not discussing *LINUX* issues.
--
Murray J. Root
Have you renamed Hurd to Linux/Hurd yet? Please take care of that as soon
as possible.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 5:38 AM
To: Mark Mielke
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to
ensure
that they give you whatever credit you want.
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#companies.
/proc/sys/vm/kswapd does nothing to affect kswapd behavior in 2.4.20, this
patch will remove it.
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/arch/arm/mm/init.c linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/arm/mm/init.c
--- linux-2.4.20/arch/arm/mm/init.c Thu Oct 11 09:04:57 2001
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/arm/mm/init.c Thu Jan 23 15:59:23 2003
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
#include <linux/mman.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/smp.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/bootmem.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/arch/mips/mm/init.c linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/mips/mm/init.c
--- linux-2.4.20/arch/mips/mm/init.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:10 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/mips/mm/init.c Thu Jan 23 15:58:59 2003
@@ -24,7 +24,6 @@
#include <linux/bootmem.h>
#include <linux/highmem.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/blk.h>
#include <asm/bootinfo.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/arch/mips64/mm/init.c linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/mips64/mm/init.c
--- linux-2.4.20/arch/mips64/mm/init.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:10 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/mips64/mm/init.c Thu Jan 23 15:59:32 2003
@@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
#include <linux/bootmem.h>
#include <linux/highmem.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
#include <linux/blk.h>
#endif
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/arch/sparc/mm/init.c linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/sparc/mm/init.c
--- linux-2.4.20/arch/sparc/mm/init.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:12 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/sparc/mm/init.c Thu Jan 23 15:58:48 2003
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
#include <linux/mman.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
#include <linux/blk.h>
#endif
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/arch/sparc64/mm/init.c linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/sparc64/mm/init.c
--- linux-2.4.20/arch/sparc64/mm/init.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:12 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/arch/sparc64/mm/init.c Thu Jan 23 15:59:12 2003
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/blk.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/seq_file.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/fs/buffer.c linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/buffer.c
--- linux-2.4.20/fs/buffer.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/buffer.c Thu Jan 23 15:56:36 2003
@@ -35,7 +35,6 @@
#include <linux/locks.h>
#include <linux/errno.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/smp_lock.h>
#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
#include <linux/blkdev.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/fs/coda/sysctl.c linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/coda/sysctl.c
--- linux-2.4.20/fs/coda/sysctl.c Fri Aug 2 17:39:45 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/coda/sysctl.c Thu Jan 23 15:56:52 2003
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/sysctl.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/proc_fs.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/stat.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/fs/inode.c linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/inode.c
--- linux-2.4.20/fs/inode.c Fri Aug 2 17:39:45 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/inode.c Thu Jan 23 15:56:42 2003
@@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/cache.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/prefetch.h>
#include <linux/locks.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/fs/intermezzo/sysctl.c linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/intermezzo/sysctl.c
--- linux-2.4.20/fs/intermezzo/sysctl.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/fs/intermezzo/sysctl.c Thu Jan 23 15:57:01 2003
@@ -27,7 +27,6 @@
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/sysctl.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/proc_fs.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/include/linux/swapctl.h linux-2.4.20-modified/include/linux/swapctl.h
--- linux-2.4.20/include/linux/swapctl.h Mon Sep 17 16:15:02 2001
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/include/linux/swapctl.h Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969
@@ -1,13 +0,0 @@
-#ifndef _LINUX_SWAPCTL_H
-#define _LINUX_SWAPCTL_H
-
-typedef struct pager_daemon_v1
-{
- unsigned int tries_base;
- unsigned int tries_min;
- unsigned int swap_cluster;
-} pager_daemon_v1;
-typedef pager_daemon_v1 pager_daemon_t;
-extern pager_daemon_t pager_daemon;
-
-#endif /* _LINUX_SWAPCTL_H */
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/include/linux/sysctl.h linux-2.4.20-modified/include/linux/sysctl.h
--- linux-2.4.20/include/linux/sysctl.h Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/include/linux/sysctl.h Thu Jan 23 15:53:21 2003
@@ -137,7 +137,6 @@
VM_OVERCOMMIT_MEMORY=5, /* Turn off the virtual memory safety limit */
VM_BUFFERMEM=6, /* struct: Set buffer memory thresholds */
VM_PAGECACHE=7, /* struct: Set cache memory thresholds */
- VM_PAGERDAEMON=8, /* struct: Control kswapd behaviour */
VM_PGT_CACHE=9, /* struct: Set page table cache parameters */
VM_PAGE_CLUSTER=10, /* int: set number of pages to swap together */
VM_MAX_MAP_COUNT=11, /* int: Maximum number of active map areas */
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/kernel/sysctl.c linux-2.4.20-modified/kernel/sysctl.c
--- linux-2.4.20/kernel/sysctl.c Fri Aug 2 17:39:46 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/kernel/sysctl.c Thu Jan 23 15:57:14 2003
@@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
#include <linux/config.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/sysctl.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/proc_fs.h>
#include <linux/ctype.h>
#include <linux/utsname.h>
@@ -265,8 +264,6 @@
&bdflush_min, &bdflush_max},
{VM_OVERCOMMIT_MEMORY, "overcommit_memory", &sysctl_overcommit_memory,
sizeof(sysctl_overcommit_memory), 0644, NULL, &proc_dointvec},
- {VM_PAGERDAEMON, "kswapd",
- &pager_daemon, sizeof(pager_daemon_t), 0644, NULL, &proc_dointvec},
{VM_PGT_CACHE, "pagetable_cache",
&pgt_cache_water, 2*sizeof(int), 0644, NULL, &proc_dointvec},
{VM_PAGE_CLUSTER, "page-cluster",
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/bootmem.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/bootmem.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/bootmem.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/bootmem.c Thu Jan 23 15:58:27 2003
@@ -12,7 +12,6 @@
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/bootmem.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/filemap.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/filemap.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/filemap.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/filemap.c Thu Jan 23 15:58:21 2003
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@
#include <linux/smp_lock.h>
#include <linux/blkdev.h>
#include <linux/file.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/iobuf.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/memory.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/memory.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/memory.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/memory.c Thu Jan 23 15:58:14 2003
@@ -40,7 +40,6 @@
#include <linux/mman.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
#include <linux/smp_lock.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/iobuf.h>
#include <linux/highmem.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/mmap.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/mmap.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/mmap.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/mmap.c Thu Jan 23 15:58:05 2003
@@ -8,7 +8,6 @@
#include <linux/mman.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/smp_lock.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/file.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/oom_kill.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/oom_kill.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/oom_kill.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/oom_kill.c Thu Jan 23 15:58:00 2003
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/timex.h>
/* #define DEBUG */
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/page_alloc.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/page_alloc.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/page_alloc.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/page_alloc.c Thu Jan 23 15:57:54 2003
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
#include <linux/config.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
#include <linux/bootmem.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/page_io.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/page_io.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/page_io.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/page_io.c Thu Jan 23 15:57:47 2003
@@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
#include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
#include <linux/locks.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <asm/pgtable.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/swap.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swap.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/swap.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swap.c Thu Jan 23 15:57:40 2003
@@ -16,7 +16,6 @@
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
@@ -26,12 +25,6 @@
/* How many pages do we try to swap or page in/out together? */
int page_cluster;
-
-pager_daemon_t pager_daemon = {
- 512, /* base number for calculating the number of tries */
- SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, /* minimum number of tries */
- 8, /* do swap I/O in clusters of this size */
-};
/*
* Move an inactive page to the active list.
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/swap_state.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swap_state.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/swap_state.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swap_state.c Thu Jan 23 15:57:32 2003
@@ -10,7 +10,6 @@
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
#include <linux/smp_lock.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/swapfile.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swapfile.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/swapfile.c Fri Aug 2 17:39:46 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/swapfile.c Thu Jan 23 15:58:32 2003
@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
#include <linux/smp_lock.h>
#include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/blkdev.h> /* for blk_size */
#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
diff -urN linux-2.4.20/mm/vmscan.c linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/vmscan.c
--- linux-2.4.20/mm/vmscan.c Thu Nov 28 15:53:15 2002
+++ linux-2.4.20-modified/mm/vmscan.c Thu Jan 23 15:57:23 2003
@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
#include <linux/swap.h>
-#include <linux/swapctl.h>
#include <linux/smp_lock.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
If you are running Linux 2.4.x and using aacraid, and a mirror degrades
(ie. one of the disks goes bad or otherwise detaches itself from the
mirror) the system will panic and crash.
This is, of course, incorrect behavior - if a mirror degrades the system
should continue running because half of the mirror is still there.
Here is a scenario I have seen about ten times in the last few months -
and it is only this frequency and consistency that has provoked me to send
this email:
1. I start getting things like this in /var/log/messages
Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
[command:0x28]
Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
Range 435200 : 435327
Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
Correct
Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Medium Error, LBN Range
435200:435327
Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Starting BBR sequence
Ok, fair enough - disk 2 on channel 0 is bad or is going bad. Good thing
I have a mirror ... wrong!
2. The problem gets worse:
Mar 9 07:13:00 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162469964, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 00 06 a3 ff 00 00 08
00
Mar 9 07:13:06 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162470312, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 03 c2 c2 fb 00 00 02
00
Mar 9 07:13:06 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162470320, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 05 79 83 77 00 00 02
00
Mar 9 07:13:07 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162470322, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 01 b6 c3 71 00 00 02
00
Mar 9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
[command:0x28]
Mar 9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
Range 435234 : 435234
Mar 9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
Correct
3. disk 2 on channel 0 fails. No problem, it's a mirror, right ?
Mar 9 07:13:30 system kernel: SCSI host 0 abort (pid 162469964) timed out
- resetting
Mar 9 07:13:30 system kernel: SCSI bus is being reset for host 0 channel
0.
Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162470312, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 03 c2 c2 fb 00 00 02
00
Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: SCSI host 0 abort (pid 162470312) timed out
- resetting
Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: SCSI bus is being reset for host 0 channel
0.
Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
pid
162470320, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 05 79 83 77 00 00 02
00
Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: SCSI host 0 abort (pid 162470320) timed out
- resetting
Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: SCSI bus is being reset for host 0 channel
0.
Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid: BBR timed out at Block 0x6a42d
Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:Drive 0:2:0 returning error
Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) - IO failed, Cmd[0x28]
4. System panics and crashes (which makes _no_ sense, because the other
disk is totally healthy, has reported no errors, and makes up the other
half of the _mirror_.
Mar 9 07:13:41 system kernel: Unable to handle kernel paging request at
virtual address 405a2200
Mar 9 07:13:41 system kernel: printing eip:
Mar 9 07:13:41 system kernel: c0114d0f
Mar 9 07:13:41 system kernel: *pde = 14629067
Mar 9 07:13:41 system kernel: *pte = 00000000
Mar 9 07:13:41 system kernel: Oops: 0000
5. upon system boot, the Dell PERC 3si reports that the mirror is
degraded, but that the other disk in the mirror is totally healthy, and
that the container is present.
6. system boots _just fine_ on the broken mirror, as it should - system
runs fine on broken mirror, as it should.
So, why does the system run fine on the broken mirror, but panics and
crashes when the mirror actually breaks ?
This is very frustrating - one of the reasons we spent money to mirror
things was to reduce possible downtimes (since a disk failure will not
crash the machine) but ... a disk failure does crash the machine.
Explanations welcome.
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 07:44, Josh Brooks wrote:
> 1. I start getting things like this in /var/log/messages
>
> Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
> [command:0x28]
> Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
> Range 435200 : 435327
> Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
> Correct
> Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Medium Error, LBN Range
> 435200:435327
> Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Starting BBR sequence
>
These come from the firmware
> Mar 9 07:13:00 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
> pid
> 162469964, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 00 06 a3 ff 00 00 08
> 00
We start to timeout because the firmware isnt responding
> Mar 9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
> [command:0x28]
> Mar 9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
> Range 435234 : 435234
> Mar 9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
> Correct
Firmware finally gives up
>
> 3. disk 2 on channel 0 fails. No problem, it's a mirror, right ?
> Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid: BBR timed out at Block 0x6a42d
> Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:Drive 0:2:0 returning error
> Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) - IO failed, Cmd[0x28]
Drive firmware fails the I/O
> So, why does the system run fine on the broken mirror, but panics and
> crashes when the mirror actually breaks ?
>
> This is very frustrating - one of the reasons we spent money to mirror
> things was to reduce possible downtimes (since a disk failure will not
> crash the machine) but ... a disk failure does crash the machine.
> Explanations welcome.
Looking at the trace the driver was thrown by something. I think I know
what may have occurred in your case but not in the test/qualification
sets. Somehow the firmware spent so long we aborted/gave up and killed
of a command - then it completed and we tried to sell the scsi layer.
It'll be a while before I can validate that, you might also want to
report it to [email protected] (I think - see MAINTAINERS file for
the kernel)
Thank you for looking at this - I have seen this happen many times across
many machines, and it is always the disk that is bad. Replace the disk,
and this stops happening - even though the firmware was not ever replaced.
Relevant details- (and these are interesting):
1. Controller BIOS: 2.7-0 (Build #3153)
2. using fujitsu drives
3. previously, these fujitsu drives, with older firmwares on the PERC
would confuse it so bad it would drop them off and do this same behavior -
now it only happens when a drive actually goes bad.
thanks!
On 11 Mar 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 07:44, Josh Brooks wrote:
> > 1. I start getting things like this in /var/log/messages
> >
> > Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
> > [command:0x28]
> > Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
> > Range 435200 : 435327
> > Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
> > Correct
> > Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Medium Error, LBN Range
> > 435200:435327
> > Mar 9 07:12:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) Starting BBR sequence
> >
>
> These come from the firmware
>
> > Mar 9 07:13:00 system kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout :
> > pid
> > 162469964, scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0 Read (10) 00 00 06 a3 ff 00 00 08
> > 00
>
> We start to timeout because the firmware isnt responding
>
> > Mar 9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Event
> > [command:0x28]
> > Mar 9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Medium Error, Block
> > Range 435234 : 435234
> > Mar 9 07:13:07 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0); Error Too Long To
> > Correct
>
> Firmware finally gives up
>
> >
> > 3. disk 2 on channel 0 fails. No problem, it's a mirror, right ?
>
> > Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid: BBR timed out at Block 0x6a42d
> > Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:Drive 0:2:0 returning error
> > Mar 9 07:13:36 system kernel: aacraid:ID(0:02:0) - IO failed, Cmd[0x28]
>
> Drive firmware fails the I/O
>
> > So, why does the system run fine on the broken mirror, but panics and
> > crashes when the mirror actually breaks ?
> >
> > This is very frustrating - one of the reasons we spent money to mirror
> > things was to reduce possible downtimes (since a disk failure will not
> > crash the machine) but ... a disk failure does crash the machine.
> > Explanations welcome.
>
> Looking at the trace the driver was thrown by something. I think I know
> what may have occurred in your case but not in the test/qualification
> sets. Somehow the firmware spent so long we aborted/gave up and killed
> of a command - then it completed and we tried to sell the scsi layer.
>
> It'll be a while before I can validate that, you might also want to
> report it to [email protected] (I think - see MAINTAINERS file for
> the kernel)
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:21:07 -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
> Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to ensure
> that they give you whatever credit you want.
Debian actually calls it GNU/Linux.
--
_ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \ http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ / Answer to the list, not to me directly! +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \ Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:46:01 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> Or they don't feel strongly enough to press the point.
>
> Which means that you are the only one who cares.
I do care too, even if I'm just an user.
> Just as every other free software developers. Yet the _majority_ of those
> GNU developers seem to be quite happy with the way they get credits,
> otherwise they would complain on their own. You just can't decide for the
> whole community how it should be done.
He's not deciding, he's requesting. There is a difference, and there
must be a reason why so many people get so incensed at such a simple,
rational, reasonable request.
--
_ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \ http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ / Answer to the list, not to me directly! +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \ Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro
Leandro Guimar?es Faria Corsetti Dutra <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:21:07 -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
>
>> Good. So go fight with RedHat, Debian, and all the other distros to ensure
>> that they give you whatever credit you want.
>
> Debian actually calls it GNU/Linux.
OTOH, Debian is the only distribution that might remove FSF credits
and calls for funding, and the GNU Manifesto from the distribution. I
don't know of any other distribution which is considering such
far-reaching plans.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:09:40 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Debian actually calls it GNU/Linux.
>
> OTOH, Debian is the only distribution that might remove FSF credits
> and calls for funding
References?
> and the GNU Manifesto from the distribution. I
I'd be surprised. They carry the Anarchist Manifesto and the
KJV Bible.
> don't know of any other distribution which is considering such
> far-reaching plans.
It won't be the first disagreement. Debian actually was
poised to become *the* GNU distribution until they insisted on
carrying non-free software, when that was even more essential. Every
so often this issue is raised again; presumably they will shed
non-free completely once a recent free version of Java 2, SWF player
and assorted stuff becomes available.
What they *are* doing is removing the GNU FDL stuff. I have
read the discussions, and it seems to me something they could get over
if RMS and some small group of Debian people -- *not* all of
debian-legal -- had a good talk over a good beer.
OTOH all this never prevented Debian from being preferred by
the FSF, actually used by RMS, and from calling itself Debian
GNU/Linux, as well as being the Hurd distro.
--
_ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \ http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ / Answer to the list, not to me directly! +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \ Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro
Previously Leandro Guimar?es Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
> It won't be the first disagreement. Debian actually was
> poised to become *the* GNU distribution until they insisted on
> carrying non-free software, when that was even more essential.
Please get your facts straight. Debian never insisted on carrying
non-free software. There was disagreement over references to non-free
software in Documentation. FSF would not allow documentation to mention
the OSS drivers for example.
> Every so often this issue is raised again; presumably they will shed
> non-free completely once a recent free version of Java 2, SWF player
> and assorted stuff becomes available.
And perhaps not.
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[email protected]> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 04:42:00AM +0200, Leandro Guimar?es Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:46:01 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> > Just as every other free software developers. Yet the _majority_ of those
> > GNU developers seem to be quite happy with the way they get credits,
> > otherwise they would complain on their own. You just can't decide for the
> > whole community how it should be done.
>
> He's not deciding, he's requesting. There is a difference, and there
> must be a reason why so many people get so incensed at such a simple,
> rational, reasonable request.
The whole blowup over RMS requesting the GNU/Linux tag is that a lot
of folks think he's talking about the kernel, and not Linux
distributions.
Even many folks "in the know" seem to miss this distinction: RMS
hasn't ever asked that the kernel be called GNU/Linux. He asks that
"Linux distributions," which are called "Linux" by the public at
large, carry the extra tag.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:55:29 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
>> It won't be the first disagreement. Debian actually was
>> poised to become *the* GNU distribution until they insisted on
>> carrying non-free software, when that was even more essential.
>
> Please get your facts straight. Debian never insisted on carrying
> non-free software. There was disagreement over references to non-free
> software in Documentation. FSF would not allow documentation to mention
> the OSS drivers for example.
Thanks for the info on documentation, but that Debian carries non-free
software against FSF's will is a fact. Or did BillG put all those
non-free dirs there?
>> Every so often this issue is raised again; presumably they will shed
>> non-free completely once a recent free version of Java 2, SWF player
>> and assorted stuff becomes available.
>
> And perhaps not.
Perhaps, but it is their goal. If they don't, it means the proprietary
lock-in game is succeeding.
--
_ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \ http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ / Answer to the list, not to me directly! +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \ Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:30:53 -0500, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 04:42:00AM +0200, Leandro Guimar?es Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
>>
>> He's not deciding, he's requesting. There is a difference, and there
>> must be a reason why so many people get so incensed at such a simple,
>> rational, reasonable request.
>
> The whole blowup over RMS requesting the GNU/Linux tag is that a lot
> of folks think he's talking about the kernel, and not Linux
> distributions.
I doubt if it is so simple... there's the obvious personality
crash, but I feel there's something more than just Larry piggybacking
on free software and people feeling pressured by an ethical instance
which makes their consciences hurt.
Regarding Larry, his position must he hard, though: he knows
he's toast if someone does to BK what Linus did to SysV, especially
given how much he alienated principled GNU believers. Funny thing is
that he was wiser ten years ago, when he proposed to free Solaris so
as to get ahead of the free software game; now he just want to have
his piece of cake and eat it too. Obviously he's entitled to it under
the current system of government-granted private monopolies on
artificial scarcity, AKA copyrights; it is just disconcentingly
incoherent he chooses free software as a showroom...
> Even many folks "in the know" seem to miss this distinction: RMS
> hasn't ever asked that the kernel be called GNU/Linux. He asks that
> "Linux distributions," which are called "Linux" by the public at
> large, carry the extra tag.
I know one shouldn't presume ill faith when incompetence
suffices... but these issues have been hashed to death, and still
people seem to hate RMS even more than they love their own confort.
Kinda like it was said of the Left she would be more effective if she
loved the poors as much as she hated the rich. Just here we're
talking morals, not money.
Asbestos up.
--
_ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \ http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ / Answer to the list, not to me directly! +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \ Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro
Previously Leandro Guimar?es Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
> Thanks for the info on documentation, but that Debian carries non-free
> software against FSF's will is a fact. Or did BillG put all those
> non-free dirs there?
These are differences between Debian the project and Debian the
distribution. non-free is not a part of the distribtion and never has
been. The Debian project has always had people who are willing to
package up a few non-free bits of software. The FSF did not have a
problem with that at all if those were put on a different server
(ie not visible on ftp.debian.org but on non-free.debian.org for
example).
> Perhaps, but it is their goal. If they don't, it means the proprietary
> lock-in game is succeeding.
It is the goal of a vocal minority of people within Debian, but the
project as a whole has not set that as a goal at all. This has also
nothing to do with lock-in at all.
At any rate, this discussion is now officially off-topic for lkml so
lets stop it.
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[email protected]> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LOL
> At any rate, this discussion is now officially off-topic for lkml so
> lets stop it.
Why bother about stopping it? We may as well talk about the Nazis
instead ;-P
- --
Who now has the strength to stand against
the armies of Isengard and Mordor?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/Gxnnmk7m2JX6ki4RAugSAKC53Oy4rCgc6WfhNGB0rhHWvgy6kACgy7xU
AGxBZO6BgeK24CRLm3nfMKU=
=/msn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----