[LWN Logo]
[LWN.net]

Sections:
 Main page
 Security
 Kernel
 Distributions
 Development
 Commerce
 Linux in the news
 Announcements
 Back page
All in one big page

See also: last week's Back page page.

Linux links of the week


LinuxPower has relaunched itself with a new look and a customizable front page. They are running a promotion; create an account by January 9 and you might win a T-Shirt or Hat from Copyleft.net.

LinuxOrbit is mostly a collection of pointers to articles and reviews elsewhere on the net, with a bit of original content thrown in as well. Its contribution comes in the form of organization - it is possible, for example, to find all the articles about GNOME easily. There is also a forum area.

Section Editor: Jon Corbet


December 23, 1999

   

 

Letters to the editor


Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@lwn.net. Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
 
   
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:47:01 +0000
From: kevin lyda <kevin@suberic.net>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: LNUX == linux?

Fascinating.

I was wondering when someone would notice.  I'm glad VA Linux used LNUX
for their stock ticker, because it's just one more way to get the name
Linux in the mouths of suits.  Lots of people are clueless that Linux
exists so the more ways they can find out the better.  To complete the
lot it would be nice if LinuxCare went with LINX, or LNXC.

However I was rather curious that the rather noisy "Red Hat is Evil,
Nasty, And Should Be Dragged Across Ye Olde Hot Coals Because They're So
Commercial And Stealing The Linux Name" choir was ever so silent on VA's
ticker choice.  If Red Hat had chosen it, whew.  I suppose if
slashdot.org surviced the posting frenzy following it both the MySQL and
Apache developers could point at a real world case of their software
handling 100 million hits a second.  In fairness Linux is part of VA's
name.

Again, I'm glad for VA, and I think it's great that they picked the name
they did.  I'm very happy in general with companies like VA, RedHat,
SuSE, and TurboLinux for their commitment to free software. 
Particularly the first two since they're nearly 100% behind it.  Neither
the press's inability to understand a rather simple system like Linux
(no one company owns it you freaks!) or the above mentioned choir who
just seem to yammer on for no rational reason impress me though.

Good luck VA, keep getting the word out!  

Kevin
-- 
kevin@suberic.net                              Nutrition Facts
fork()'ed on 37058400		       Puns: 100% RDA  (% good puns: 0)
   
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:41:44 -0500
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <use-reply-to-address@gte.net>
To: editor@lwn.net
Subject: Ok, Damnit, RMS...


<sigh>

I'm at the end of _my_ rope, now.

> However, one problem may be hard to solve: the LSB is mainly dealing 
> with issues at the operating system level--and is therefore in effect 
> calling the GNU operating system "Linux".

GNU doesn't _have_ an operating system.

GNU has a large, admittedly well done set of utility programs, a
compiler and some frameworks, and, well, ok, maybe you can call _EMACS_
an operating system, but I wouldn't.  :-)

And maybe they'll have an OS kernel Real Soon Now<tm>.

Maybe.

Much, unless I'm very much mistaken, of at least one of the *BSD
operating systems ships with a large collection of GNU utilities.  Does
RMS expect us to start referring to that system as GNU/BSD?

Hell, I can get the Skunkware CD from SCO, and load lots of his code on
my Open Server 5 box.  Must I then call it GNU/SCO?

I have no quibble with the POV that the GNU developers have labored long
and hard, and, in the main, produced some exceptional free
reimplementations of the traditional Unix utility set.  But it took them
10 or 12 _years_ to get even close to having a kernel to talk about...
and obviously, the problem isn't _that_ big; Linus went from 0.01 to
.99pl12f (which I ran successfully for many moons...) in about a year
and a half.

So I think that it's a bit disingenuous of RMS to take the approach he's
taking; let's try to keep our arguments coherent, shall we?  At best,
from the standpoint of "would we be getting any work done here?", the
balance tips towards Linux/GNU -- notwithstanding how much GNU code
there is, it wouldn't run very fast without a kernel underneath.

(Damn, it's uncomfortable dressing down a legend... :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
Jay R. Ashworth
Ashworth & Associates
An Interdisciplinary Consultancy in Advanced Technology
   
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:07:43 +0100
From: Michael Neuffer <neuffer@alpha.mz.rhein-main.de>
To: lwn@lwn.net
Subject: Your current LWN issue


>Despite some difficulties here and there, the VA Linux directed
>share program appears to have gone well. This program allowed
>developers (as recognized by VA) to invest in a small number of
>shares at the IPO price. Many of the difficulties encountered by Red
>Hat (which had to blaze the initial trail for others to follow) were
>avoided. 

Unfortunately this is not quite true. Deutsche Bank Alex Brown
failed to do their work properly to file to legal paperwork
so that all of the German developers and reportedly the developers
of a bunch of other countries were left out, in spite of VA wanting 
them to take part. Also communication between DBAB and the participants 
was very problematic, some didn't get any information from DBAB after the 
first mailing and were not able to reach them over the service phone.


Mike
   
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:16:59 +0000
From: Sid Boyce <szb50@amdahl.com>
To: letters@lwn.net
CC: rsimpson@ewrcsdra.demon.co.uk
Subject: RE: Binary only modules

Anyone following the huge thread in the kernel mailing list will have
seen all the arguments and exactly where the weight has come down. The
one raised here by Richard Simpson is yet another legitimate one, but
binary-only drivers would not only impact non-x86 users. A driver in
source form could very quickly be fixed whatever platform is affected,
far more responsively than "blindary-only" stuff which could only be
fixed by the guy with the source code.
	Despite the persistence of the original requester, both Linus and Alan
have invented no end of new ways of saying no-way.
Regards
-- 
... Sid Boyce...Amdahl(Europe)...44-121 422 0375 
Any opinions expressed above are mine and do not necessarily represent
 the opinions or policies of Amdahl Corporation.


 

 

 
Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright © 1999 Eklektix, Inc., all rights reserved
Linux ® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds