Linus is EVIL

[Lord C]

Alright, mr. Torvalds has finally revealed what a bunch of idiot he is

^ That one had me rolling

[Kintaro]

Note to self: Dont bother argueing with idiots.

[Calum]

why do you guys resort only to petty namecalling when you start communicating in german? is it because namecalling is much more fun in german perhaps? :-)

[Refalm]

Note to self: Dont bother argueing with idiots.

I pretty much owned you. Not only did you obviously use an online translator (I didn't), you refered to me as "Sie" which means you respect me.
I refered to you as "du", in which basically I'm saying that you're less mature

[KernelPanic]

Der PanzerRefalm!

[Aloone_Jonez]

Refalm Rules

[mobrien_12]

Maybe because doing it to Samba, didn't screw it up for the developers, this has screwed it up for the developers. Tridgel violated a licence he very well knew about, which caused a major problem for Linux Kernel development. I doubt the no nothing loud mouth's of this forum have noticed how much slower it is now, because they don't have anything to do with it. However there has been a major drop in the amount of releases, and that is: tridgels fault.

Tridgell presented exactly what he did.  

Basically, he telnet'ed to the bitkeeper port,  typed HELP, and read the plaintext commands that the bitkeeper server sends!

That's the extent of his "reverse engineering."

Read more.  
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/21/tridgell_bitkeeper_howto/
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050421023821174#comments

I think this whole thing got blown way way out of proportion.

[muzzy]

I suspect he did more than that, but that's a very damn interesting part. What's the "help" command there for, if everything's so secret and nobody's allowed to interoperate?

Linus isn't pissed because Tridge reversed the thing, Linus is pissed because Larry's monopoly on BK protocol is crashing down. That's what this is about. Larry doesn't want anyone to use free client, when they could just pay for a license to get the work done. Larry wants a vendor lock-in, to cash people, and he well knows he can only achieve this by force.

This is a generic intellectual property problem. Larry thinks BitKeeper is his, and everyone who interoperates with it has to pay. Imagine this in context of instant messaging networks and it'll begin having more concrete feel to it.

Control of money and other things of value always cause such difficult problems.

[Jenda]

This is a generic intellectual property problem. Larry thinks BitKeeper is his, and everyone who interoperates with it has to pay. Imagine this in context of instant messaging networks and it'll begin having more concrete feel to it.

Control of money and other things of value always cause such difficult problems.

Good point, Muzzy.
I think Tridge's good intentions kinda backfired on him, and the whole community is now shunning him. I'm on his side.
Even the reasult, all in all, is good for us on the long run. Now a big black spot on the white shield of Linux is cleared, because we no longer depend on proprietary software to develop our beloved kernel.

[Calum]

I pretty much owned you. Not only did you obviously use an online translator (I didn't), you refered to me as "Sie" which means you respect me.
I refered to you as "du", in which basically I'm saying that you're less mature

is that how it works? i thought "du" was personal and "sie" was formal...

[skyman8081]

Except that with IM networks, it isn't just a protocol, the also are running their own servers as well.

I could understand AOL being pissed at Cerulean Studios over cracking OSCAR and using AOL's servers, but if it was that cerulean set up their own seperate network using the same protocal, AOL couldn't really complain.

back on-topic:
Why should somebody be forced to disclose a protocol for their application if they don't wan't to?  If I don't want other apps to inter-operate with my own for ANY reason, why should I be required to allow and support other apps that decided to use the same protocol.  Especially if I expressly FORBADE them from doing so.

I'm going to have to go with BK on this one.  kintaro is right, the GNU movement is built on hate.

[Laukev7]

is that how it works? i thought "du" was personal and "sie" was formal...

'Sie' with a capital 'S' is formal; with a small 's' it's just plural.

You see, Calum, capital letters are capital* in German.

*Pun fully intended.

[piratePenguin]

Linus isn't really the "father of Linux," though. If he hadn't started The Hurd*, arguably Richard Stallman would be the official "father of Linux" - he already has leadership on the basic GNU/Linux userland. Linus is just the kernel. He's quite a celebrity for that, and he deserves on the basis of his fantastic leadership of the kernel development. But being the "father of Linux" would, IMO, require a stronger belief in open source/Free Software than Linus has.

*- I just feel like mentioning...Hurd began development in 1989 and hasn't seen an official release yet.  Pathetic.

No it is not patethic!
I'm dual-booting with GNU/Linux (Slackware) and Debian GNU/Hurd atm, and GNU/Hurd seems to be very cool so far (only know a bit about it), but it is insanely under-developed. Why? Well, when Linux took off, no-one gave a shit about GNU/Hurd 'cause Linux was (eventually) free software, and (finally) Richard Stallman could run a completely free operating system (consisting mostly of GNU tools, for the record). GNU/Hurd is not a priority at all anymore...

Anyhow, Linus... I used to think he was a God among men, but RMS has that role now.
Linus doesn't give a shit about freedom, and he has bashed GNU/Hurd a bit (just 'cause he doesn't understand it). But I think GNU/Hurd will/would be very, very cool if/when it's finished.

Yes, I'm a GNU advocate.

[toadlife]

Anyhow, Linus... I used to think he was a God among men, but RMS has that role now.

! I'm sorry to hear that.

Linus doesn't give a shit about freedom, and he has bashed GNU/Hurd a bit (just 'cause he doesn't understand it).

So if someone doesn't agree with you, then it must be because they don't understand your philosophical point of view?

Yes, I'm a GNU advocate.

Realllly?

[piratePenguin]

So if someone doesn't agree with you, then it must be because they don't understand your philosophical point of view?

No, GNU/Hurd is completely different:

As to Hurd, I have to say that I'm not very convinced about the approach. I personally tend to think that Mach, the microkernel the Hurd is based on, is not only bloated and slow, but also much too complex. I think the Hurd tried to be the "perfect" operating system, and they chewed off more than they could handle. It tries to be too clever, too different, too radical. It doesn*t try to be _practical_, which is the main goal with Linux.

That's pretty accurate (BTW, the Hurd is being ported to another (L4) microkernel).
But I remember reading something by Linus about GNU/Hurd somewhere. He claims the Hurd developers are "stupit". It's all LIES! LIES I TELL YE!