From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org
Fortunately, I do not think that this is the reality, but since I learned what bitkeeper I felt very worried... Linus' nightmares of cvs have turned true, but it's called bitkeeper. It almost feels like Dune... I do not wish this to happen, but it happens anyway.
Now, as a sysadmin, if I find a bug in the kernel, all I can do is try to make a patch to a version of the kernel that may already be too old in developer time *sigh*.
You are kidding!
For 10 years of Linux thare have not been version control at all.
Now you will tell us that the fact that version control has been introduced you are limited? Please stay reasonable.
Jörg
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling@fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 22:46, Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org Now, as a sysadmin, if I find a bug in the kernel, all I can do is try to make a patch to a version of the kernel that may already be too old in developer time *sigh*.
For 10 years of Linux thare have not been version control at all.
<effect type="blink an eye and point with your forefinger">Exactly!</effect>
Now you will tell us that the fact that version control has been introduced you are limited? Please stay reasonable.
No, the situation hasn't changed. Version control does not exist on linux kernel still.
squizofrenic, delusional and paranoid, rui
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 11:46:41PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org
Fortunately, I do not think that this is the reality, but since I learned what bitkeeper I felt very worried... Linus' nightmares of cvs have turned true, but it's called bitkeeper. It almost feels like Dune... I do not wish this to happen, but it happens anyway.
Now, as a sysadmin, if I find a bug in the kernel, all I can do is try to make a patch to a version of the kernel that may already be too old in developer time *sigh*.
You are kidding!
For 10 years of Linux thare have not been version control at all.
Which is one of the points why I don't like Linux.
Now you will tell us that the fact that version control has been introduced you are limited? Please stay reasonable.
Having to install non-free software to get the latest piece of your software is limiting you if you want to use that software. But at that time my default OS will probably be GNU/Hurd.
Jeroen Dekkers
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 07:30:19PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Having to install non-free software to get the latest piece of your software is limiting you if you want to use that software. But at that time my default OS will probably be GNU/Hurd.
You still won't have to use non-free software in order to get the latest piece of software, the kernel's patches are just diff output. (Or so I think.)
Going against linux people for using BK is like going against all free software developers that use source forge, or use vi, or use mozilla, or do cross development to non free OS. It's just irracional...
The Linux Kernel is still Free Software, has always been and I can se no reason for not staying that way just because some of the developers started using BK...
Regards, Luciano Rocha
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 09:00:27PM +0000, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 07:30:19PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Having to install non-free software to get the latest piece of your software is limiting you if you want to use that software. But at that time my default OS will probably be GNU/Hurd.
You still won't have to use non-free software in order to get the latest piece of software, the kernel's patches are just diff output. (Or so I think.)
And what if Linus likes BK and just doesn't release prepatches anymore and just refers to the BK repository?
Going against linux people for using BK is like going against all free software developers that use source forge, or use vi, or use mozilla, or do cross development to non free OS. It's just irracional...
I go against all free software developers wanting to use sourceforgetit already, saying that savannah is really a better option. According to my knowledge vi (at least some implementations) and mozilla are free.
Free software developers shouldn't use non-free software and promote free software IMHO.
The Linux Kernel is still Free Software, has always been and I can se no reason for not staying that way just because some of the developers started using BK...
My biggest reasons for not staying with Linux are technical.
Jeroen Dekkers
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 10:10:51PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
And what if Linus likes BK and just doesn't release prepatches anymore and just refers to the BK repository?
What? The prepatches noone used because they are so experimental? Still, I get your point, but if there will be a time when Linus wont release those patches I can hardly believe the main reason will be BK.
I go against all free software developers wanting to use sourceforgetit already, saying that savannah is really a better option.
And did you stopped using those programs?
According to my knowledge vi (at least some implementations) and mozilla are free.
So is Linux. And I'm not sure about vi, I could only find a draft of a licence that wasn't sure about being GPL compatible. Yet, my point was that Mozilla is ported to run on Windows. Should Free software developers do that? And most of those developers program on Windows (that's why Mozilla is faster and better in Win32 than any other platform). Shouldn't we just stopping using Mozilla?
Free software developers shouldn't use non-free software and promote free software IMHO.
By developing free software they're promoting free software. By personally using some not-so-free (not free, anyway) software they don't start promoting non-free against free software.
My biggest reasons for not staying with Linux are technical.
And the biggest reasons for Linux being widely used are technical, as are the biggest reasons for Hurd not being widely used nor developed upon...
Regards, Luciano Rocha
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 09:26:19PM +0000, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 10:10:51PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
And what if Linus likes BK and just doesn't release prepatches anymore and just refers to the BK repository?
What? The prepatches noone used because they are so experimental? Still, I get your point, but if there will be a time when Linus wont release those patches I can hardly believe the main reason will be BK.
Probably because they aren't needed anymore. And if Linux uses BK he could decide that BK is replacing the prepatches system.
I go against all free software developers wanting to use sourceforgetit already, saying that savannah is really a better option.
And did you stopped using those programs?
I don't track where every program is developped, I just use apt-get. I have deleted my sourceforge account when they turned non-free and don't participate in any development on sourceforge.
According to my knowledge vi (at least some implementations) and mozilla are free.
So is Linux. And I'm not sure about vi, I could only find a draft of a licence that wasn't sure about being GPL compatible. Yet, my point was that Mozilla is ported to run on Windows. Should Free software developers do that? And most of those developers program on Windows (that's why Mozilla is faster and better in Win32 than any other platform). Shouldn't we just stopping using Mozilla?
We should convince them that they should use free software.
Free software developers shouldn't use non-free software and promote free software IMHO.
By developing free software they're promoting free software. By personally using some not-so-free (not free, anyway) software they don't start promoting non-free against free software.
They do. They give the impression that they can't do everything with free software and have to use non-free software. That isn't really promoting free software.
My biggest reasons for not staying with Linux are technical.
And the biggest reasons for Linux being widely used are technical, as are the biggest reasons for Hurd not being widely used nor developed upon...
Linux being widely used is a social thing, not a technical. On the technical part, the Hurd has a much better design and the source code is much cleaner.
Jeroen Dekkers
GUYS PLEASE! :)
Be wary of the group reply command... I (and perhaps also others) could well do without having to read/download a thread twice!
Hugs, rui
Jeroen Dekkers writes:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 09:26:19PM +0000, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 10:10:51PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Probably because they aren't needed anymore. And if Linux uses BK he could decide that BK is replacing the prepatches system.
IMHO you're confusing a release strategy (prepatches) with a tool (BK).
According to my knowledge vi (at least some implementations) and mozilla are free.
So is Linux. And I'm not sure about vi, I could only find a draft of a licence that wasn't sure about being GPL compatible.
I don't know about vim, but the first original vi is certainly BSD.
They do. They give the impression that they can't do everything with free software and have to use non-free software. That isn't really
Well -- ande this is actually true and usually a result of some kind or other of vendor lock-in. Think about PDF. My god, how I wish to get that replaced by something free which every windows user can read.
My biggest reasons for not staying with Linux are technical.
And the biggest reasons for Linux being widely used are technical, as are the biggest reasons for Hurd not being widely used nor developed upon...
Linux being widely used is a social thing, not a technical. On the technical part, the Hurd has a much better design and the source code is much cleaner.
Well, actually any agreement on what is 'technically better' is also a social thing (think about KISS vs flexibility/power -- where do you trade off?).
Regards -- Markus
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 09:17:14PM +0100, M E Leypold @ labnet wrote:
Jeroen Dekkers writes:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 09:26:19PM +0000, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 10:10:51PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Probably because they aren't needed anymore. And if Linux uses BK he could decide that BK is replacing the prepatches system.
IMHO you're confusing a release strategy (prepatches) with a tool (BK).
Those things are related. The prepatching system also uses tools (diff and patch). But with a source control system you can do those things much better and thus a repository could replace prepatches. You can just have no development versions anymore, only a development branch which would provide the same functionality.
They do. They give the impression that they can't do everything with free software and have to use non-free software. That isn't really
Well -- ande this is actually true and usually a result of some kind or other of vendor lock-in. Think about PDF. My god, how I wish to get that replaced by something free which every windows user can read.
AFAIK PDF is pretty free. The only problem is that you can't easily modify it, but it's at least better than M$ word documents.
Jeroen Dekkers
Hi!
Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha strange@nsk.yi.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 10:10:51PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
According to my knowledge vi (at least some implementations) and mozilla are free.
So is Linux. And I'm not sure about vi, I could only find a draft of a licence that wasn't sure about being GPL compatible.
Not being GPL-compatible does not mean it's non-free. And there definitely are free implementations of vi. For example, vile is availble under the term of the GNU GPL.
Yet, my point was that Mozilla is ported to run on Windows. Should Free software developers do that?
If you are forced to use MS-Windows, it's a good thing to have at least some free applications available.
Shouldn't we just stopping using Mozilla?
That's an entirely different situation. Mozilla is developed on MS-Windows for the purpose of making it run on MS-Windows, but I don't think that Linux will run on BitKeeper soon. :)
<off-topic>
My biggest reasons for not staying with Linux are technical.
And the biggest reasons for Linux being widely used are technical, as are the biggest reasons for Hurd not being widely used nor developed upon...
I consider both statements to be wrong.
The biggest reason for GNU/Linux being widely used is good marketing by GNU/Linux distributors (which I don't consider to be a bad thing).
The biggest reason for the Hurd not being widely used and (especially) developed upon is that everyone is thinking "let's wait until they have finished it" while too few people are actually working on improving it. Thus the reason is lazyness.
</off-topic>
Cheers, GNU/Wolfgang
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 12:17:44AM +0100, Wolfgang Jährling wrote:
The biggest reason for GNU/Linux being widely used is good marketing by GNU/Linux distributors (which I don't consider to be a bad thing).
I and all I know uses Linux over any other operating system, including Hurd, for technical reasons, not because it has a cooler name (and I don't know about that) or it's fashion...
It's for being good that it is being adopted by the industry and business.
After all, Microsoft has better marketing than all Linux companies put together, and still it hasn't been able to stop Linux's growth.
Regards, Luciano Rocha
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 11:20:23PM +0000, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 12:17:44AM +0100, Wolfgang J?hrling wrote:
The biggest reason for GNU/Linux being widely used is good marketing by GNU/Linux distributors (which I don't consider to be a bad thing).
I and all I know uses Linux over any other operating system, including Hurd, for technical reasons, not because it has a cooler name (and I don't know about that) or it's fashion...
It's for being good that it is being adopted by the industry and business.
After all, Microsoft has better marketing than all Linux companies put together, and still it hasn't been able to stop Linux's growth.
But Linux hasn't stopped microsoft either. And if I look at Linux and the Hurd, how they are technical and how the development goes, I think the Hurd has more potential than Linux. The Hurd is really stabilizing at the moment, I don't expect a stable 2.6/3.0 Linux in the next 2 years.
Jeroen Dekkers
Jeroen Dekkers jeroen@dekkers.cx wrote: [...]
the Hurd has more potential than Linux. The Hurd is really stabilizing at the moment, I don't expect a stable 2.6/3.0 Linux in the next 2 years.
A procedural question for you Jeroen: how will releases be handled if all the subsystems are independent? Isn't just producing a single release of Hurd going to be an effort similar to producing an entire distribution? How do you describe the Hurd version? Do the smaller bits have versions and releases of their own? It's a whole new ball game...
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 12:09:18AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Jeroen Dekkers jeroen@dekkers.cx wrote: [...]
the Hurd has more potential than Linux. The Hurd is really stabilizing at the moment, I don't expect a stable 2.6/3.0 Linux in the next 2 years.
A procedural question for you Jeroen: how will releases be handled if all the subsystems are independent? Isn't just producing a single release of Hurd going to be an effort similar to producing an entire distribution? How do you describe the Hurd version? Do the smaller bits have versions and releases of their own? It's a whole new ball game...
At the moment we don't even have enough people to hack the Hurd, forking the resources doesn't make sense. In the future we could have the smaller bits developed by small groups with there own release cycles etc. It's just one big package now, its last release was in 1997, you should just checkout the code from CVS. There are still a lot of bugs to be fixed before a 0.3 release could happen.
Jeroen Dekkers
Please stop all this mail about the techincal merits of Linux, Hurd or any other kernel or OS, they are totally off-topic.
The discussion about Linux and BitKeeper, has been fully exploited now IMO.
I think nobody that cares about the freedom of software (and it's developers) likes Linus' decision, but he decided so, and screaming will not make him change that decision.
When Stallman and others understanded that Free Software was the way to go, they do not screamed at other users, instead they started a project to produce free software and it was the right move, now we can enjoy the fruits of that hard work and run on a free OS!
So, now, if any really care about pushing Free Software, let start analysing what alternatives there are to BitKeeper seriously, what needs Linus and other that adopted BitKeeper have, and put forces on improving an existing tool or plan a project to build up a new one.
That's the way to go! That will benefit not only Linux hackers but probably also other developers!
Simo Sorce idra@samba.org wrote:
Please stop all this mail about the techincal merits of Linux, Hurd or any other kernel or OS, they are totally off-topic.
How to get started with Free Software such as Hurd is off-topic here? I think knowing a little more about the practicalities of this system is worthwhile, but if directed to stop or take it offlist by one of discussion-admin, I will. (Curiously, the list page doesn't introduce the admins... hrm... I'm guessing Georg, but who else?)
The discussion about Linux and BitKeeper, has been fully exploited now IMO.
Yes, looking at Aegis for a while and reporting back is the next step. The subject line should have changed to "Introduction to Hurd" or similar ;-)
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 12:16:31AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
(Curiously, the list page doesn't introduce the admins... hrm... I'm guessing Georg, but who else?)
Everybody in the fsfe coreteam as access to the admin interface of this list. But we rarely moderate. This is a bit self organising.
My personal opinion is that we should not go into technical details too deep in here as most projects have special lists for this. And people can make summary postings or pages.
Hi!
Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha strange@nsk.yi.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 12:17:44AM +0100, Wolfgang Jährling wrote:
The biggest reason for GNU/Linux being widely used is good marketing by GNU/Linux distributors (which I don't consider to be a bad thing).
[...]
After all, Microsoft has better marketing than all Linux companies put together, and still it hasn't been able to stop Linux's growth.
Please note that I didn't claim that marketing was the only reason.
Cheers, GNU/Wolfgang
Hi,
Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 10:10:51PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
<snip>
According to my knowledge vi (at least some implementations) and mozilla are free.
So is Linux. And I'm not sure about vi, I could only find a draft of a licence that wasn't sure about being GPL compatible. Yet, my point was that Mozilla is ported to run on Windows. Should Free software developers do that? And most of those developers program on Windows (that's why Mozilla is faster and better in Win32 than any other platform). Shouldn't we just stopping using Mozilla?
What is your base to say this? As far as I know mozilla runs much better on GNU/Linux, although that might be due to the OS and not the program. Maybe the development is more win32 orientated because of the major problems in a win32 environment? Anyway, I do not think you should stop using a program just because it aims to be multi-platform. Free software is free software, be it on a free or a non-free OS.
Free software developers shouldn't use non-free software and promote free software IMHO.
By developing free software they're promoting free software. By personally using some not-so-free (not free, anyway) software they don't start promoting non-free against free software.
My point exactly on mozilla, I believe.
My biggest reasons for not staying with Linux are technical.
And the biggest reasons for Linux being widely used are technical, as are the biggest reasons for Hurd not being widely used nor developed upon...
Regards, Luciano Rocha
thx for your time, Wim
Jeroen Dekkers writes:
And what if Linus likes BK and just doesn't release prepatches anymore and just refers to the BK repository?
If this ever happens and if it becomes a real problem for more than 1 competent developer, the Linux development will fork. As it always happened with *real* free software.
Going against linux people for using BK is like going against all free software developers that use source forge, or use vi, or use mozilla, or do cross development to non free OS. It's just irracional...
To the previous poster: I'd strongly advice not to use non-free development software to do some real free work. That creates dependencies, which will get you sooner or later, but I also would vote for respecting other peoples decisions here.
To explain: If I see a project X using a non-free tool T and I would like to fix, maintain or extend X myself (even if only internally), and would discover I needed T for that, I would avoid to rely on X (that is: depend on it), since I'd have an indirect lock into the tool T. If the authors of X don't see that as a problem + it doesn't damage the popularity of their project, than everything is Ok for them (though I -- presonally -- would still try to avoid the project).
I go against all free software developers wanting to use sourceforgetit already, saying that savannah is really a better
Certainly. But you can't force people, only convince them. Your not-so-diplomatic approach isn't working too well presently, since it isn't enough to be RIGHT. You're talking to people who insist on their freedom, remember? :-)
option. According to my knowledge vi (at least some implementations) and mozilla are free.
Free software developers shouldn't use non-free software and promote free software IMHO.
Would have been better to give a non-dogmatic reasoning for that. I just tried, hope that is understandable.
The Linux Kernel is still Free Software, has always been and I can se no reason for not staying that way just because some of the developers started using BK...
My biggest reasons for not staying with Linux are technical.
And it's also badd to change arguments midflight.
Regards -- Markus
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 09:01:00PM +0100, M E Leypold @ labnet wrote:
Jeroen Dekkers writes:
And what if Linus likes BK and just doesn't release prepatches anymore and just refers to the BK repository?
If this ever happens and if it becomes a real problem for more than 1 competent developer, the Linux development will fork. As it always happened with *real* free software.
Linux development is already forked like hell. I don't see a reason why you have to fork free software development.
I go against all free software developers wanting to use sourceforgetit already, saying that savannah is really a better
Certainly. But you can't force people, only convince them. Your not-so-diplomatic approach isn't working too well presently, since it isn't enough to be RIGHT. You're talking to people who insist on their freedom, remember? :-)
I think my approach pretty well worked. I'm subscribed to the mailinglist of two projects who wanted to create a sourceforge project and they are now on savannah.
option. According to my knowledge vi (at least some implementations) and mozilla are free.
Free software developers shouldn't use non-free software and promote free software IMHO.
Would have been better to give a non-dogmatic reasoning for that. I just tried, hope that is understandable.
Why they should promote free software? Because everybody should have freedom IMHO.
The Linux Kernel is still Free Software, has always been and I can se no reason for not staying that way just because some of the developers started using BK...
My biggest reasons for not staying with Linux are technical.
And it's also badd to change arguments midflight.
Where do I change arguments?
Jeroen Dekkers