Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: muzzy on 15 April 2005, 04:45
-
Alright, mr. Torvalds has finally revealed what a bunch of idiot he is:
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=3322&Thread=2&entryID=49312&roomID=11
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_tridgell/
So, Linus says that the bitkeeper reversing has nothing to do with samba because samba is an actual piece of software that DOES SOMETHING, while reversing a protocol doesn't do anything. NO SHIT, SHERLOCK! If you compare things in completely different domains, obviously they won't have much to do with each others. What does this mean? Nothing at all. How about comparing reversing the BK protocols to reversing the SMB protocols? Oh my, that would just suck now, because the things are actually related!
What the heck is up with this?
-
Torvalds was never that bright outside of raw coding. Either that, or he doesn't care enough. Like a Slashdotter once said:
Summary of Torvalds Interview
Interviewer: What do you think about [blah]?
Linus: Oh, I don't know. Doesn't really matter. I just like to code.
To each his own, but I don't particuarly agree with Linus's belief system, or perhaps, his intentional lack therof.
-
Indeed. He has some respectable skills in managing code, but it looks like he's a moron. I wonder if he even believes what he's saying, or if he's just being nice towards his friends at BK camp.
-
Indeed. He has some respectable skills in managing code, but it looks like he's a moron. I wonder if he even believes what he's saying, or if he's just being nice towards his friends at BK camp.
I think it's just loyalty to larry.
-
who cares? he's not a celebrity, or he shouldn't be, he's a private citizen and possibly a bit of a geek, so what? none of my business anyway.
-
Linus might not be genius, or a celebrity, but he is an icon. We can all put him, as the father of Linux, as a counterpart to Bill Gates, the father of Windows, MS, and DOS.
note: the mother of DOS was Tim Paterson. He was raped by Bill. It was a Quick&Dirty OS...
-
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.
-
Umm WMD, Linux is named Linux because it's made by Linus. Notice any resemblance in the names? Stallman has nothing to do with linux, he's only responsible for the GNU system and the GNU project. Now, GNU/Linux is called GNU because the userland is a GNU system. Plain and simple, the operating system from userland perspective is GNU, not Linux. Linux is indeed just the kernel as you note, and as of such it has nothing to do with Stallman.
Linus is the father of Linux alright.
-
note: the mother of DOS was Tim Paterson. He was raped by Bill. It was a Quick&Dirty OS...
Curious........I always thought the late Gary Kildall was the father of DOS.
-
Curious........I always thought the late Gary Kildall was the father of DOS.
Well, this obviously depends on what you mean when you say "DOS". Microsoft indeed bought QDOS that was written by Paterson. Kildall however wrote CP/M, which some people call "DOS" since it's a disk operating system. So, the people who claim Kildall is father of DOS refer to DOS as a concept, not as a product. This causes some confusion. In my opinion, whoever should be called "the father of DOS" depends on how you define "DOS".
I don't really know the history regarding this too well, but quick googling confirms my above view. If you know something else that's relevant to the case, do tell.
-
Linus isn't evil he just lacks common sense and probably social skills, his IQ might be 180 but he lacks in many other ways.
-
Umm WMD, Linux is named Linux because it's made by Linus. Notice any resemblance in the names? Stallman has nothing to do with linux, he's only responsible for the GNU system and the GNU project. Now, GNU/Linux is called GNU because the userland is a GNU system. Plain and simple, the operating system from userland perspective is GNU, not Linux. Linux is indeed just the kernel as you note, and as of such it has nothing to do with Stallman.
Linus is the father of Linux alright.
I know all that. But the poster I was responding to mentioned how much of an "icon" he is. I really wouldn't think so, since much of what "Linux" stands for has nothing to do with Linus's kernel. I don't think he's worth iconic status just for supplying a kernel to a movement to which he doesn't agree with very often.
-
Well, this obviously depends on what you mean when you say "DOS". Microsoft indeed bought QDOS that was written by Paterson. Kildall however wrote CP/M, which some people call "DOS" since it's a disk operating system. So, the people who claim Kildall is father of DOS refer to DOS as a concept, not as a product. This causes some confusion. In my opinion, whoever should be called "the father of DOS" depends on how you define "DOS".
I don't really know the history regarding this too well, but quick googling confirms my above view. If you know something else that's relevant to the case, do tell.
QDOS ripped off CP/M. In fact, QDOS contained one of Gary Kildall's easter eggs. Microsoft removed this later, obviously.
-
How about I go document all your fucking flaws, you lot of morons.
Give Linus a break, he is not some free software activist, he is a programmer, and a better programmer then anybody else on this site. He just enjoys programming which of course means he enjoys the Open Source concept.
In my book, what matters is what you do - whether you want
to sell things is your personal choice, but even more
importantly it is not a moral negative or positive. I'm a
big believer in open source as creating good stuff, but
I don't think it's a moral issue. It's engineering.
So I think open source tends to become technically better
over time (but it does take time), but I don't think it's
a moral imperative. I do open source because it's fun, and
because I think it makes sense in the long run.
Linus isn't evil he just lacks common sense and probably social skills, his IQ might be 180 but he lacks in many other ways.
He has more commen sense then you lot, he doesn't want to take part in some hate drive. Linus just wants to have fun, he actually lives while you lot of retards take part in HATE, notice what this entire forum is built on, HATE, and Linus does not take part in that. He just wants to be productive and not stir the pot. Naturally you people are going to take part in HATE, and naturally you people will see difference to other peaceful people who don't.
Ahem.
"That's the issue you're not addressing with your post. Why does doing this with BK cause problems, and doing it with SMB does not ?"
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.
-
Indeed, I was referring to Linux, not GNU/Linux. And i think Linus deserves the title of Father of Linux. You are right, though, that he is getting more credit than just that, and I think it's because people consider him the father of GNU/Linux, which he most certainly is not. Then again, most people barely know the difference.*
As for Tridgell, where exactly did he do anything illegal?
(I am not doubting the fact that he's causing a lot of trouble, just the fact that he's braking the law.)
*most of those people, who know what an OS is
-
Kintaro, I find your long flaming rants very entertaining. :D
If you're so against hate than why do you post a hateful reply flaming everyone whos posted in the thread? :D
If you're so against hate then why are you a member of a Micorsoft hate site? :D
Peace man, chill out, keep it real, keep it cool man, phat respect. :cool:
-
QDOS ripped off CP/M. In fact, QDOS contained one of Gary Kildall's easter eggs. Microsoft removed this later, obviously.
I tried to do some research on the easter egg, and apparently this bit of info only started to spread in 1996, two years after Kildall died. There doesn't seem to be any evidence about it.
-
How about I go document all your fucking flaws, you lot of morons.
This isn't about documenting all flaws. This is about Linus's public attack against someone who did nothing wrong (IMO).
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.
How exactly did this screw anything for the developers? Ohyea, by reversing a proprietary protocol, just like was done with Samba. The exact same thing didn't screw in case of Samba, but did in case of BitKeeper?
What license, exactly? He wasn't disassembling the software, he was reversing over-the-wire data, without touching the actual software at all. This is what I've heard, anyway, and it's the exact same way he did it with Samba.
Also, I fail to see how Tridgell's actions caused the problems for linux kernel development. Linus had chosen to use a proprietary tool which a lot of the developers didn't use, and Tridgell wanted to make the stuff easier to use for the developers. I'd say that using a proprietary tool for linux development was what caused this major problem in the first place.
If you want to argue about cause and effect not working in my above statement, please explain why, in a way that doesn't also invalidate how the (incorrect) claim of license breach supposedly caused the problems.
-
It screwed the developers because they don't have bitkeeper.
NOW.
argh i give up
-
Kintaro, I find your long flaming rants very entertaining. :D
If you're so against hate than why do you post a hateful reply flaming everyone whos posted in the thread? :D
If you're so against hate then why are you a member of a Micorsoft hate site? :D
Peace man, chill out, keep it real, keep it cool man, phat respect. :cool:
Sie sind das gr
-
Sie sind das gr
-
Halt die klappe, du bl
-
Ich bildete s
-
hehehe
-
Schei
-
Ich bildete ein Prostituiertees aus Ihrer Sprungkopfmutter heraus.
-
hmppppphhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
-
It screwed the developers because they don't have bitkeeper.
This kind of logic is flawed. The decision wasn't Tridgell's to make, it isn't his fault. The bitkeeper guys were naive if they thought nobody would reverse the protocols, and their business plan definitely sucks if it really causes significant damage to them. Screw them and their bad business plan, this is why free software is valued in the first place, nobody can take it away from you. The bitkeeper move was a business decision, if protocol reversing was really such a serios thing, that move would've been done sooner or later anyway. As of such, it was shortsightedness from their part, not Tridgell's fault in any way.
-
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
-
Ich bildete ein Prostituiertees aus Ihrer Sprungkopfmutter heraus.
Dein geile mutti, schwull :p
-
Alright, mr. Torvalds has finally revealed what a bunch of idiot he is
^ That one had me rolling :)
-
Note to self: Dont bother argueing with idiots.
-
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? :-)
-
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 :D
-
Der PanzerRefalm!
-
Refalm Rules
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :D
is that how it works? i thought "du" was personal and "sie" was formal...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Anyhow, Linus... I used to think he was a God among men, but RMS has that role now.
LOL! 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? ;)
-
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!
-
I have no doubt that Hurd is a neat system, but the pathetic part is that they couldn't even get a 1.0 release after 16 years.
-
I have no doubt that Hurd is a neat system, but the pathetic part is that they couldn't even get a 1.0 release after 16 years.
It's not a priority at all... And they're trying to everything perfectly, and I think it would work pretty damn well too. I remember reading an interview by one of the main GNU/Hurd dev's (http://kerneltrap.org/node/5), and at the time (November, 2001) there was 4 other main dev's. And I wouldn't be surprised if the team has shrunk since then, but something tells me it's probably bigger...
JA:
Is there a target date for the next official release?
Neal Walfield:
Not that I am aware of.
JA:
It would seem to me that having another official release would generate more
interest and potentially increase your user base. What needs to happen before
we'll see another official release?
Neal Walfield:
I am sure that an official release would generate a lot more interest
in the GNU/Hurd, however, I do not know if we need that type of
interest at the moment. The developers are already spread quite thin
and having to play technical support (which is what you promise when
you do a release) would be quite taxing. Additionally, we can only
ask users to give us so many chances. If we release today and they see the
current limitations, a year later, they may not be so willing to try
again.
As for what is required before another release, I am not the
maintainer, however, some important items that need to be done
eventually include: integrating pthread support; rewritting libdiskfs
to allow larger partitions; and using OSKit-Mach, an implementation of Mach based on the University of Utah's OSKit which would provide a new driver framework. There are also stability issues that need to
be addressed and the VM subsystem needs some work.
ATM, they're porting the Hurd to a different microkernel (L4), which has delayed them loads, but once... IF it works, it's gonna be mental!
[/color]