See also: last week's Letters page.

Letters to the editor

From:	 "Bill Rugolsky Jr." <rugolsky@ead.dsa.com>
To:	 lwn@lwn.net
Subject: 2.5 and the -linus/-ac kernel split
Date:	 Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:05:57 -0400

Since Alan Cox has referred to 2.4.10+ as "2.5", and he intends to continue
developing the -ac series, the problem seems to mostly be one of naming.

Alan can essentially treat -ac as the main line of development once
Linus opens the "real" 2.5.x, and "backport" fixes from the Linus tree
into -ac, while forward porting features and fixes like standards
compliance from 2.4 into 2.5, as he did with 2.2/2.3.

If Andrea's VM stabilizes and is a vast improvement over Rik's VM, Alan
may integrate it into 2.4.  Again there is precedent, as Alan took Andrea's
2.2.x VM changes into 2.2.19.

Historians can debate when 2.5 began; the rest of us will just use what
works. :-)

Regards,

   Bill Rugolsky

From:	 michaeld@senet.com.au
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: Re: GNOME version 2.0 officially 'not of use to anyone'
Date:	 Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:43:26 +091800


It's a shame that you didn't follow up your link to this story...

The Register have already indicated 
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/22077.html) that this was a trawl, and 
that "they were just having a little bit of fun".

The GNOME 2 release mentioned was an alpha release of the libraries that 
developers of GNOME applications can use for porting their applications to the 
GNOME 2 platform.  It was never intended for general consumption.  

Michael...
-- 
Michael Davies                "Do what you think is interesting, do
michaeld@senet.com.au          something that you think is fun and
mirky on irc                   worthwhile, because otherwise you won't
                               do it well anyway." -- Brian Kernighan


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through SE Net Webmail
http://webmail.senet.com.au
 

From:	 "Robert K. Nelson" <rnelson@airflowsciences.com>
To:	 dan@ssc.com
Subject: Ultimate Linux Box
Date:	 Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:52:55 -0400
Cc:	 letters@lwn.net

Eric Raymond's Article on the Ulitmate Linux Box was great, but it included at
least one technical error.  It is quite possible to run dual Processor Pentium
IV machines under Linux.  We are currently running these machines (purchased
from ASL, Inc.).

Robert K. Nelson
Airflow Sciences Corporation
37501 Schoolcraft Road, Livonia, MI  48150-1009
(734) 464-8900   FAX (734) 464-5879  www.airflowsciences.com

From:	 jerry <jerry@pc-intouch.com>
To:	 <jimjohn@erol.com>
Subject: MicrosoftMonopoly
Date:	 Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:	 <letters@lwn.net>

Regarding your article in law.com..
    I think that your perspective hasn't allowed you to understand from
where Microsoft Success came. You said that Microsoft is a technically
superior system.. That is INCORRECT. Many experts concede that Beos,
Macintosh, Solaris, and others are technically superior. Linux is
technically superior.
    Microsoft gained its edge 20 years ago by being more AVAILABLE than
other systems. When the IBM pc was introduced (with MS operating system),
we had many many brands of computers on the market, but no commonality of
standards especially for file and interface standards. None of the
 popular pcs of the time offered a standard RS232 port, or a standard
file format. Hardware and Software was totally incompatible between
brands.... Microsoft and IBM clones offered standards.
These standards were important at that time, triggered a lot of the
 popularity. You had CHOICES of hardware, competition in software, and
unbelievably large after-market support.
    Microsoft DOS was widely copied, and when Windows came out, again
wholesale plagiarism made it widely available to anybody who wanted to
copy it..
    Microsoft wasn't better than competition, it was AVAILABLE. And
everybody jumped on the  bandwagon. Microsoft is still HIGHLY AVAILABLE
and easy to acquire. It is very easy to buy a pc with MS OS. All you
need is money.
    Apple and Macintosh computers were very competitive technically, but
they existed in an environment where they tried mightily to controll the
users... But why pay that much for a pc that had the hood welded shut,
when you could build an IBM clone with plagiarized software for 1/3 the
cost.
    Because of the cost of hardware and memory, UNIX was not even
considered by home users... And with their bickering and proprietary
changes, they splintered the business market..
    FreeBSD  and Linux have changed the equation......FreeBSD is a
technically superior system, with a free'd copyright.
Linux is superior not because it is a good UNIX, but more importantly,
it is GPL'D. The GeneralPublicLicense is not the answer to everything,
but Microsoft is right. It has a viral nature and cannot be stopped. It
is enhanced by it's AVAILABILITY. You cannot plagiarize Linux, you cannot
 hide the OS, you cannot hide "backdoors". There are NO SECRETS.
    By the open design, it is more secure, and any SA knows security
is  enhanced by what you know, not by what you don't know. If you reveiw
the internet regarding linux security, you find that it is widely
supported and continually enhanced. You have ONLY Microsoft's word that
they are that active..
    Microsoft has an excellent Graphical User Invironment, excellent
mulitimedia, and some excellent software, and an incredibily large and
diverse choice of software, most of which comes from after-market vendors.
    Microsoft, has earned much of the market.. But they are becoming more
controlling, more arrogant, and more expensive. They are retracting the
ACCESSIBILITY that they once enhanced. AND they are hiding the
technical detail from the masses. Microsoft technicians are masters of
mysticism waving magic wands, speaking incantations, and following very
specific practices to install and repair. The 3 R's of MS repair is
 Reboot, Reboot, and Re-install.. They cannot be allowed to change or
even see the underlying source code.
    The early day plagiarism actually helped Microsoft  gain market
 recognition and share. They are no longer allowing that to happen..
    There is legislation being proposed that will be highly detrimental to
the GPL movement. Senator Fritz Hollings currently is proposing a bill
THAT COULD MAKE LINUX ILLEGAL. Such freedom-robbing legislation is the
 ONLY thing that will stop the GPL (orLinux).. And that could(?) happen
in this country, but it won't stop INDIA, CHINA, or BRAZIL..
    Eventually the free software of GPL will win.. The world will go to
GPL-Linux..ALL modern and recent platforms have or are having Linux
ported to them. Linux is already out the gate in the 64 bit cpu world.
    The economy cannot stop it, there is no capital investment
needed. Microsoft cannot stop it.. GPL opens up the mysteries of
 computing to anybody who desires it.. Free knowledge cannot be stopped.
LINUX or a GPL software WILL achieve world domination because of its
 AVAILABILITY and ACCESSIBILITY.

de
Jerry Sharp