* RE: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-10 15:29 Larry Sendlosky
2003-01-11 1:58 ` Rob Wilkens
0 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread
From: Larry Sendlosky @ 2003-01-10 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: linux-kernel
Richard,
We all know that "Linux" would not be where it is today without
the GNU software. I don't recall seeing one post in this
looonnngg thread that tries to say otherwise. Myself, and many others,
are very grateful for your and the FSF's work. PLEASE, stop hitting us
over the head with GNU/Linux.
I'm sure there are many other "things" that have gotten broad public
attention and the real people or organizations behind it have not gotten
the credit they deserve either by what the "thing" is called or by
the press, etc. Only the people truly involved with the "thing"
know who is responsible. I think the same applies here.
And, why is it only *you* beating us over the head with GNU/Linux?
Where's the rest for the GNU (non-linux specific) contributors?
Why aren't they bitching/whining too?
Like I said before, we aren't the people you have to educate/convince.
If it really means that much to you (and it seems to me that it does),
then you should be taking out magazine ads and buying time on TV
to reach the uneducated masses.
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry McVoy [mailto:lm@bitmover.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:39 PM
To: Richard Stallman
Cc: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:20PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux
> system in 1992. GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11,
> and TeX.
Wow. That might be one for the quotes file:
"GNU ... was of the early GNU/Linux system. GNU ... included non-GNU"
Well, that certainly explains a lot. If you define GNU as "anything
which might be found on a Linux distro including non-GNU packages",
your position starts to make a certain twisted sense. Only one problem
with that: if it wasn't GNU, it wasn't GNU, which means, Richard, you
are crackin' smoke and may need a vacation. 19 years of hard effort is
a long time, have you considered retirement? You've certainly earned it.
Oh, by the way, have you updated the GNU kernel pages to reflect the new
proper name: Linux/Hurd? I'd really appreciate it if you could get to that.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* RE: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-10 15:29 Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Larry Sendlosky @ 2003-01-11 1:58 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 2:07 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 3:20 ` Tom Sightler 0 siblings, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry Sendlosky; +Cc: Richard Stallman, linux-kernel I think Gnu in the name is a great idea (debian uses it already, I think). It helps point out that Linus Torvalds didn't create this great thing that most people call linux (his namesake). Linus Torvalds didn't create and wants nothing to do with the windowing system or user components, which most end users would consider what their experience with linux is (whether they use guis or the command line) -- especially non-tech-heads. Linus torvalds did not create the compilers or libraries the developers use. Linus torvalds simply created a bare bones kernel -- a piece of the operating system which literally does almost nothing. Thanks to the GPL others helped him grow the kernel, and he's been a good leader in that he's let others give him lot of free code changes to include in his namesake system. He just got lucky on his timing... Anyone studying operating systems at the time (and heck, I remember owning a book "Creating your own 32-bit operating system" by SAMS publishing and being inspired, and I also owned "Disecting DOS" which was a nice analysis of a DOS-like operating system at the code-level book w/disk). If I had been familiar with UNIX at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX before LINUX came around, and released it on an even lesser than less GPL whereby anyone who wanted could do whatever they wanted with it however they wanted, commercially or not, open-sourcely-or-not. -Rob On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 10:29, Larry Sendlosky wrote: > Richard, > > We all know that "Linux" would not be where it is today without > the GNU software. I don't recall seeing one post in this > looonnngg thread that tries to say otherwise. Myself, and many others, > are very grateful for your and the FSF's work. PLEASE, stop hitting us > over the head with GNU/Linux. > > I'm sure there are many other "things" that have gotten broad public > attention and the real people or organizations behind it have not gotten > the credit they deserve either by what the "thing" is called or by > the press, etc. Only the people truly involved with the "thing" > know who is responsible. I think the same applies here. > > And, why is it only *you* beating us over the head with GNU/Linux? > Where's the rest for the GNU (non-linux specific) contributors? > Why aren't they bitching/whining too? > > Like I said before, we aren't the people you have to educate/convince. > If it really means that much to you (and it seems to me that it does), > then you should be taking out magazine ads and buying time on TV > to reach the uneducated masses. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry McVoy [mailto:lm@bitmover.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:39 PM > To: Richard Stallman > Cc: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" > > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:20PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux > > system in 1992. GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11, > > and TeX. > > Wow. That might be one for the quotes file: > > "GNU ... was of the early GNU/Linux system. GNU ... included non-GNU" > > Well, that certainly explains a lot. If you define GNU as "anything > which might be found on a Linux distro including non-GNU packages", > your position starts to make a certain twisted sense. Only one problem > with that: if it wasn't GNU, it wasn't GNU, which means, Richard, you > are crackin' smoke and may need a vacation. 19 years of hard effort is > a long time, have you considered retirement? You've certainly earned it. > > Oh, by the way, have you updated the GNU kernel pages to reflect the new > proper name: Linux/Hurd? I'd really appreciate it if you could get to that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 1:58 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 2:07 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 2:13 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:26 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Alan Cox 2003-01-11 3:20 ` Tom Sightler 1 sibling, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 2:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens; +Cc: Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, linux-kernel On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > If I had been familiar with UNIX > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ... If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:07 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 2:13 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 2:17 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 3:26 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Alan Cox 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, linux-kernel On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:07, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > If I had been familiar with UNIX > > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ... > > If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs. Precisely my point.. If I had ham, and If I had eggs, I knew (and know) enough to make ham and eggs. Or whatever it was we were talking about. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:13 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 2:17 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 2:38 ` Rob Wilkens 0 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 2:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, linux-kernel On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:13:22PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:07, Larry McVoy wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > > If I had been familiar with UNIX > > > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ... > > > > If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs. > > Precisely my point.. If I had ham, and If I had eggs, I knew (and know) > enough to make ham and eggs. Or whatever it was we were talking about. You missed my point. Which was: you said you could have done what Linus has done if only you had the knowledge, timing, and leadership skills. I was pointing out that that is a lot of "if onlys". -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:17 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 2:38 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 2:41 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 21:44 ` Kurt Garloff 0 siblings, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 2:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, linux-kernel On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:17, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:13:22PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:07, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > > > If I had been familiar with UNIX > > > > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ... > > > > > > If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs. > > > > Precisely my point.. If I had ham, and If I had eggs, I knew (and know) > > enough to make ham and eggs. Or whatever it was we were talking about. > > You missed my point. Which was: you said you could have done what Linus > has done if only you had the knowledge, timing, and leadership skills. > I was pointing out that that is a lot of "if onlys". I never said any of that, I simply said (in the above quoted message) that I could make ham and eggs). I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with linux torvalds, even he claims he doesn't have leadership skills (read his biography), and I'm not claiming to either. His programming skills are questionable, because if they were so good then I shouldn't be seeing hundreds of [PATCH] messages coming through every day. By the way, on the topic of my operating systems knowledge, I should comment that I later in life became a professional operating systems developer working on real-time UNIX operating systems kernel, library, and user-level code development. I'm not working now, but that is due to health issues. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:38 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 2:41 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 2:46 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 21:44 ` Kurt Garloff 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 2:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, linux-kernel On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:38:38PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with linux > torvalds, even he claims he doesn't have leadership skills Bob Young says he doesn't know anything about technology, so does Scott McNealy. Lots of really smart and skilled people deny their own skills. That doesn't mean you should believe them. They are making an effort to make you feel good. Don't take it too literally. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:41 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 2:46 ` Rob Wilkens 0 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 2:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, linux-kernel On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:41, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:38:38PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with linux > > torvalds, even he claims he doesn't have leadership skills > > Bob Young says he doesn't know anything about technology, so does > Scott McNealy. Lots of really smart and skilled people deny their > own skills. That doesn't mean you should believe them. They are > making an effort to make you feel good. Don't take it too literally. Bob Young and Scott McNealy are managers, they know marketting and business, not technology. Linux Torvalds knows "some" technology, and he's proud not to, for example, know anything about what goes on in user land. He actually claimed in his biography that "apache" was a distribution of linux that is commonly used as a web server, apparently not knowing that apache is a cross platform web server that runs on multiple platforms. Anyway... To back up his comment of no leadership skills, he readily points out in the book that he quickly was promoted then again demoted at transmeta when he became (briefly) a team leader. He just didn't have what it took to be a leader, no leadership qualities or skills whatsoever. He's proud of that. I'm glad to work with a guy like that, though, because it also means his ego ain't so high. I'm more likely to contribute kernel code or suggestions freely back and forth with a person like that. Whereas if he were on a high horse, I'd say "whoa, there, bud, why should I give my changes to you again?"... That may be in part why he takes the attitude he has though.. Of course, I don't 'really' know him. I've only read about him.. I'm new to this list, if it's not obvious. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:38 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 2:41 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 21:44 ` Kurt Garloff 2003-01-11 21:53 ` Rob Wilkens 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Kurt Garloff @ 2003-01-11 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens; +Cc: Linux kernel list [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 791 bytes --] Hi Rob, On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:38:38PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with linux > torvalds, even he claims he doesn't have leadership skills (read his > biography), and I'm not claiming to either. His programming skills are > questionable, because if they were so good then I shouldn't be seeing > hundreds of [PATCH] messages coming through every day. You're new to Linux, aren't you? Or terribly presumptous. Regards, -- Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de> [Eindhoven, NL] Physics: Plasma simulations <K.Garloff@TUE.NL> [TU Eindhoven, NL] Linux: SCSI, Security <garloff@suse.de> [SuSE Nuernberg, DE] (See mail header or public key servers for PGP2 and GPG public keys.) [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 21:44 ` Kurt Garloff @ 2003-01-11 21:53 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 22:16 ` Chief Gadgeteer ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kurt Garloff; +Cc: Linux kernel list On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 16:44, Kurt Garloff wrote: > You're new to Linux, aren't you? > Or terribly presumptous. A little of both, but not too much of either. I'd say "New to linux" but I've been using it on and off since 1995 or earlier. I'd say terribly presumptuous, but I don't think it is presumptuous to say that if there are many patches (bug fixes, mostly) coming in that the code that was originally there was of questionable quality. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 21:53 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 22:16 ` Chief Gadgeteer 2003-01-11 22:26 ` Kurt Garloff ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Chief Gadgeteer @ 2003-01-11 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux kernel list On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 14:53, Rob Wilkens wrote: > I'd say terribly presumptuous, but I don't think it is presumptuous to > say that if there are many patches (bug fixes, mostly) coming in that > the code that was originally there was of questionable quality. OK, then you do not know shit about software engineering within the FOSS development paradigm. -- Chief Gadgeteer Elegant Innovations ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 21:53 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 22:16 ` Chief Gadgeteer @ 2003-01-11 22:26 ` Kurt Garloff 2003-01-11 23:23 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 22:36 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Vojtech Pavlik 2003-01-12 1:44 ` [OT] Noise on lkml (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") J Sloan 3 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Kurt Garloff @ 2003-01-11 22:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens; +Cc: Linux kernel list [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3128 bytes --] Hi Rob, You seem to serious ... On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 04:53:33PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > I'd say terribly presumptuous, but I don't think it is presumptuous to > say that if there are many patches (bug fixes, mostly) coming in that > the code that was originally there was of questionable quality. It is presumptuous. Very much so. 1. A patch does not necessarily indicate something is wrong with the original code. It may only show that people have ideas on how to do things better, more efficiently, more nicely or to support new features or hardware. 2. If a patch fixes a bug, you should be aware that the complexity of an operating system is slightly higher than you think. We're talking about a general purpose operating system that works in real life and solves problems there. Not a toy system or a specialized one. 3. The amount of supported subsystems and hardware of the Linux kernel is enormous. The hardware you deal with very often already is complex and/or buggy. And needs things you never even thought about when doing userspace programs before. Like protection from concurrent accesses to hardware. 4. In kernel land, you have less tools available than a normal programmer has. Things you assume just to be there and to work in userland programs are unavailable and have to be done by yourself. Like I/O. Memory allocation and management. 5. The impact of a bug in kernel is much higher than in a normal program. It is naïve to believe that the fact that many bugs are found indicates poor quality of a code. Just compare the stability of Linux to other operating systems. Take the toy OSes that most desktop users prefer or the somewhat better alternatives offered for professional customers by the same company on the one side. Take commercial Un*ces on the other. And then consider the amount of things that Linux does have support for in kernel. For example the IPv4 stack or netfilter. And take into account the amount of hardware Linux supports. Think about performance as well. Think about conforming to specifications, like POSIX. It's amazing. And most people would not have believed that this can work, certainly not outside of a very tightly controlled process in a company. It does. And this is the merit of many enthusiasts and last not least Linus. Questioning the skills of the people involved is ridicolous at best. You also think that those people doing research on operating systems in CS departments are just doing simplistic stuff? Go and start to work on a free software project of comparable size. If you think you can do it, create Robix. If your enthusiast enough, and technically good enough, you will find people who find it exciting and will help you. Regards, -- Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de> [Eindhoven, NL] Physics: Plasma simulations <K.Garloff@TUE.NL> [TU Eindhoven, NL] Linux: SCSI, Security <garloff@suse.de> [SuSE Nuernberg, DE] (See mail header or public key servers for PGP2 and GPG public keys.) [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 22:26 ` Kurt Garloff @ 2003-01-11 23:23 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 3:33 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-12 4:00 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 0 siblings, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kurt Garloff; +Cc: Linux kernel list On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:26, Kurt Garloff wrote: > It is presumptuous. Very much so. I'll accept that on face value, and take your comments five comments as good pieces of information which I'll comment only briefly on. > 1. A patch does not necessarily indicate something is wrong with the > original code. It may only show that people have ideas on how to > do things better, more efficiently, more nicely or to support > new features or hardware. "Idea on how to do things better" implies "well, gee, it wasn't done so great to begin with" :-) which was kinda my point. By the way, if I sounded too serious, i'm having fun, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time here. > 2. If a patch fixes a bug, you should be aware that the complexity > of an operating system is slightly higher than you think. > We're talking about a general purpose operating system that works > in real life and solves problems there. Not a toy system or a > specialized one. The complexity may be somewhat less than you think. If you break the OS down into components, then take a look at any one of those compnents, you can look at, study, and understand, and probably explain exactly what any one of those components do at the code level (possibly even if they are drivers for devices you are unfamiliar with). Build up your understanding of all of those little components, then you realize that it's not as complex as you think. The whole is just the sum of its parts, and the parts are not that complex. > 3. The amount of supported subsystems and hardware of the Linux kernel > is enormous. The hardware you deal with very often already is complex > and/or buggy. And needs things you never even thought about when > doing userspace programs before. Like protection from concurrent > accesses to hardware. I've thought about concurrent access to hardware from multiple processors, and didn't like it -- but that's where "Simple" (not complex) concepts like spinlocks come in (call 'em mutexes or semaphores or whatever your buzzword of choice is). You wait for the resource to become available then you access it. As per buggy hardware, the software should _not_ have to support it. The software should report that the hardware has a bug and stop. Otherwise, you wind up writing really bad code for other hardware at the same time that you're trying to work with one particular piece of bad hardware. > 4. In kernel land, you have less tools available than a normal programmer > has. Things you assume just to be there and to work in userland programs > are unavailable and have to be done by yourself. Like I/O. Memory > allocation and management. You have the same tools, but they have different names. For example, instead of "printf" you have "printk", sure it's implemented in the kernel itself, but it's there. As per memory management, if you wanted the kernel to do it for you, why the hell would you need to write a kernel. > 5. The impact of a bug in kernel is much higher than in a normal program. Yeah, kernel processes have access to all memory, while user programs run in protected mode. Among other things. With responsibility comes power they say, or was it the other way around :-) > It is naïve to believe that the fact that many bugs are found indicates > poor quality of a code. It is equally naive to discard the possibility. On the other hand, we don't see the list of bugs that are fixed on a daily basis internally at companies like microsoft. > Just compare the stability of Linux to other operating systems. There aren't any comparable systems for stability. > Go and start to work on a free software project of comparable size. > If you think you can do it, create Robix. If your enthusiast enough, > and technically good enough, you will find people who find it exciting > and will help you. The enthusiastic enough part will be the tough part... Why do something which is already done? If I can do it better, who am I trying to do it for and why? As they say "Code it first, then talk", well, I'm not coding at this stage, so I guess I have no right to talk then. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 23:23 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 3:33 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-12 3:43 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 4:19 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-12 4:00 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 1 sibling, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-12 3:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens; +Cc: Kurt Garloff, Linux kernel list On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 06:23:23PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:26, Kurt Garloff wrote: > > It is presumptuous. Very much so. > I'll accept that on face value, and take your comments five comments as > good pieces of information which I'll comment only briefly on. Also take into account that your claim to faim -- vxWorks, a real time commercial operating system, may not of the same calibre as Linux. Why do I doubt the calibre of vxWorks? People I trust who work on RT systems have told me that in many cases, products with RT requirements can perform better on Linux, than on vxWorks. (Better meaning managing a higher capacity without significant side effects) For your suggestion that writing an operating system is not hard -- I agree with your chosen qualification of 'a'. Most anybody who passes 1st year in CS at university can complete 'a' DOS-like operating system. Not just anybody could take this operating system to the next step in less than a year. I consider Linux several steps above DOS. Also, FYI, most of the patches that I see coming through here are patches to *other* people's code, usually code that has not existed more than a few months. Which doesn't mean that Linus' code is flawless. Just -- evolution has a price. Sometimes bad, inefficient, or last generation code must be heavily maintained, or thrown completely out, to be replaced by code that itself may contain bugs. Since this is "Linux-devel", and not "Linux-stable", I don't see how you could expect anything else. How many patches do you see for Linux-2.0.x, or Linux-2.2.x? You'll note that the majority are for Linux-2.5.x and then Linux-2.4.x. Do the math. Figure it out. mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-12 3:33 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-12 3:43 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 4:19 ` David Schwartz 1 sibling, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mielke; +Cc: Kurt Garloff, Linux kernel list On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 22:33, Mark Mielke wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 06:23:23PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:26, Kurt Garloff wrote: > > > It is presumptuous. Very much so. > > I'll accept that on face value, and take your comments five comments as > > good pieces of information which I'll comment only briefly on. > > Also take into account that your claim to faim -- vxWorks, a real time > commercial operating system, may not of the same calibre as Linux. I never mentioned VxWorks (This is bad, someone is actually keeping track and researching my background). But that was a product at a company I used to work for.. Joe Korty (whom I saw just submitted a patch from a machine I used to have an account on) who works for that company can probably tell you more about VxWorks than I can. Hopefully he doesn't remember me. VxWorks, or PowerMAX or PowerUX or whatever they're calling it now (names changed several times while I worked there) was basically AT&T SVR4, with some custom enhancements. > Why do I doubt the calibre of vxWorks? People I trust who work on RT systems The company probably went downhill after I left in 1998 :-). I was releasing (personally) at least 7-10 modifications to the kernel a week on average. Joe Korty was probably the only other developer there who was almost as productive at the time. The rest of their team were a bunch of very knowledgeable yet "comfortable" people who looked like they were basically happy to rest on their laurels (they had fast performing hardware, and they had exclusive knowledge of the software, so they didn't "have" to work harder). There were of course several contractors there who were productive, but anyone working on a contract is going to be more productive than a salaried person for the sole reason that they _have_ to prove their worth. Yep, If there is anyone reading this list whom I ever hoped to use as a personal reference in the future, I probably just ruled that out :-). I figure as long as the career is in the toilet, might as well flush. > For your suggestion that writing an operating system is not hard -- I > agree with your chosen qualification of 'a'. Most anybody who passes > 1st year in CS at university can complete 'a' DOS-like operating > system. Thank You, that was my only point. Of course, I would say 3rd or 4th year -- at least in a U.S. university. As per whether "anybody" could take it to the next level, that is just an elitist viewpoint you have which you are free to keep. When you think of what is involved in, for example, memory management, it's not all that complicated. I downloaded the document that Mel Gorman wrote (a thesis, it claims) and while it's nice, so far I've read the first 14 pages of the text and haven't even seen anything about the VMM -- it's all been about what a tar is, how big the kernel has grown, why CVS isn't used (which is interesting to read), but nothing yet about the virtual memory manager which is what I picked up the document for. I guess for free one can't complain. > Also, FYI, most of the patches that I see coming through here are patches > to *other* people's code, usually code that has not existed more than a > few months. Which doesn't mean that Linus' code is flawless. Can you explain, then, why I submitted a patch to the floppy driver minutes ago :-). You would think that's the kind of thing they would've gotten working long ago. Of course, I don't know enough to get a floppy drive working at all, so I'm duly impressed with that basic ability. > Just -- evolution has a price. Actually, you can download it free at www.ximian.com .. They may sell it to you on CD for a price, though. It's what I'm using to write this e-mail. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-12 3:33 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-12 3:43 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 4:19 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-13 13:51 ` Richard B. Johnson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-12 4:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: Linux kernel list On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:33:25 -0500, Mark Mielke wrote: >Why do I doubt the calibre of vxWorks? People I trust who work on RT >systems >have told me that in many cases, products with RT requirements can >perform >better on Linux, than on vxWorks. (Better meaning managing a higher >capacity without significant side effects) This is an atrocious way to compare a real-time operating system to a non-real-time operating system. One would expect that real-time's benefits also come at a cost, otherwise all operating systems would be real-time operating systems. Perhaps Linux can handle more web clients than vxWorks, but can Linux guarantee that if the temperature in the core coolant exceeds 350 degrees, the secondary pump circuit will be activated within 13 milliseconds? A cheap hammer can drive in more nails than a top of the line screwdriver. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-12 4:19 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-01-13 13:51 ` Richard B. Johnson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2003-01-13 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Schwartz; +Cc: mark, Linux kernel list On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, David Schwartz wrote: [SNIPPED...] > > A cheap hammer can drive in more nails than a top of the line > screwdriver. > > DS I like that! Reading this' month's "Computer", I noted that VxWorks was reported to be used in the busses of satellites, i.e., manages the IIC bus. That sounds like a good place for it. Unfortunately, the hype is that it "runs all the satellites and is the operating system of choice for satellites in high-radiation environments..." VxWorks looks like this: void interrupt_stuff() { do_it(); } main() { setup_stuff(); for(;;) { funct0(); funct1(); funct2(); functn(); } } It's a big loop. Now, this might be okay for something that runs the same events over and over again, an elevator controller, or the "smarts" behind some protocol manager. But it would really suck if funct0() ended up taking 1 second and functn() needs service in one millisecond. So, it's up to the function designer to make certain that no function or, in some cases all functions combined, takes more than the required latency specification to execute. At some point, as complexity increases, you need to preempt. Preemption takes some worse-case time. It's at that point that a system designer will (should) throw out VxWorks and use some variation of Linux. As system complexity continues to increase, eventually it becomes best (currently, if it doesn't get screwed up) to use unmodified Linux because it is optimized for "desktop" operation, meaning it is optimized for systems of unknown complexity. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 23:23 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 3:33 ` Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-12 4:00 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-01-12 4:04 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 7:47 ` Chuck Wolber 1 sibling, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-01-12 4:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robw; +Cc: Linux kernel list [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --] On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:23:23 EST, Rob Wilkens said: > As per buggy hardware, the software should _not_ have to support it. > The software should report that the hardware has a bug and stop. > Otherwise, you wind up writing really bad code for other hardware at the > same time that you're trying to work with one particular piece of bad > hardware. Er? Rob? You got a prescription for them pharmaceuticals? [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-12 4:00 ` Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-01-12 4:04 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 7:47 ` Chuck Wolber 1 sibling, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 4:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Valdis.Kletnieks; +Cc: Linux kernel list On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 23:00, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:23:23 EST, Rob Wilkens said: > > > As per buggy hardware, the software should _not_ have to support it. > > The software should report that the hardware has a bug and stop. > > Otherwise, you wind up writing really bad code for other hardware at the > > same time that you're trying to work with one particular piece of bad > > hardware. > > Er? Rob? You got a prescription for them pharmaceuticals? > Sadly, I can't share my prescriptions... But they're on file at the pharmacy: Zyprexa, for psychosis (calming effect, "major tranquilizer") Topamax (mood stabilizer, and weight control) Neurontin (mood stabilizer) Klonopin (anti-anxiety, "minor tranquilizer") Klonopin can be addictive (controlled substance), and has even been reported in the news as a date rape drug because of how effective it is. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-12 4:00 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-01-12 4:04 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 7:47 ` Chuck Wolber 2003-01-12 14:42 ` Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company) Rob Wilkens 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Chuck Wolber @ 2003-01-12 7:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Valdis.Kletnieks; +Cc: robw, Linux kernel list > > As per buggy hardware, the software should _not_ have to support it. > > The software should report that the hardware has a bug and stop. > > Otherwise, you wind up writing really bad code for other hardware at > > the same time that you're trying to work with one particular piece of > > bad hardware. Good point! It's time we stopped supporting those Intel processors... -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Linux Technology * Education | * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw@quantumlinux.com "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." -- Henry Spencer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company) 2003-01-12 7:47 ` Chuck Wolber @ 2003-01-12 14:42 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 16:45 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chuck Wolber; +Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks, Linux kernel list On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 02:47, Chuck Wolber wrote: > > > As per buggy hardware, the software should _not_ have to support it. > > > The software should report that the hardware has a bug and stop. > > > Otherwise, you wind up writing really bad code for other hardware at > > > the same time that you're trying to work with one particular piece of > > > bad hardware. > > Good point! It's time we stopped supporting those Intel processors... Ignorring the well popularized floating point bug in the pentium, to which there was a bug, are there many other bugs you run accross in the pentium while kernel programming? -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company) 2003-01-12 14:42 ` Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company) Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 16:45 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-12 16:58 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 19:46 ` Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company) Valdis.Kletnieks 0 siblings, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-01-12 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robw; +Cc: Chuck Wolber, Valdis.Kletnieks, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 14:42, Rob Wilkens wrote: > Ignorring the well popularized floating point bug in the pentium, to > which there was a bug, are there many other bugs you run accross in the > pentium while kernel programming? There are actually very few chips we don't have to deal with some kind of errata on, and the newer more complex chips generally have the larger collections of errata. One thing that has been helpful is the microcode update stuff Intel did, we hit few bugs that up to date microcode kill off ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company) 2003-01-12 16:45 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-01-12 16:58 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 17:54 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-12 19:46 ` Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company) Valdis.Kletnieks 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Chuck Wolber, Valdis.Kletnieks, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 11:45, Alan Cox wrote: > There are actually very few chips we don't have to deal with some kind > of errata on, and the newer more complex chips generally have the larger > collections of errata. > > One thing that has been helpful is the microcode update stuff Intel did, we > hit few bugs that up to date microcode kill off > The hardware engineers, in my experience, will not refer to those issues as bugs, but rather as misdocumented features... No? I mean if an errata is enough to work around the problem, then the documentation was clearly the problem, and not the hardware implementation. As per the microcode updates, I noticed RedHat 8 was autoupdating microcode on each boot IIRC. I've since switched to Debian and don't know that it does this. Should I be concerned? -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company) 2003-01-12 16:58 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 17:54 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-12 19:30 ` Intel And Kenrel Programming Samuli Suonpaa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-01-12 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robw; +Cc: Chuck Wolber, Valdis.Kletnieks, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 16:58, Rob Wilkens wrote: > The hardware engineers, in my experience, will not refer to those issues > as bugs, but rather as misdocumented features... No? I mean if an > errata is enough to work around the problem, then the documentation was > clearly the problem, and not the hardware implementation. Intel seperate out things that are docmentation errors, clarifications and actual bugs. They publish regular errata documents listing these, and when they do decide to turn a flaw into a specification update they document that too. AMD likewise. Some vendors may not do this, but the x86 CPU vendors seem to do a good job. > As per the microcode updates, I noticed RedHat 8 was autoupdating > microcode on each boot IIRC. I've since switched to Debian and don't > know that it does this. Should I be concerned? It depends on your chip revisions. For example the O(1) scheduler will trigger very occasional random crashes or reboots with early PII Xeon microcode sets. I'm sure Debian has a package for this somewhere. Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel And Kenrel Programming 2003-01-12 17:54 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-01-12 19:30 ` Samuli Suonpaa 0 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Samuli Suonpaa @ 2003-01-12 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: robw, Linux Kernel Mailing List Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: > For example the O(1) scheduler will trigger very occasional random > crashes or reboots with early PII Xeon microcode sets. I'm sure > Debian has a package for this somewhere. Something like this, I guess: $ apt-cache show microcode.ctl Package: microcode.ctl [...] Description: Intel IA32 CPU Microcode Utility The microcode_ctl utility is a companion to the IA32 microcode driver written by Tigran Aivazian <tigran@veritas.com>. The utility has two uses: . a) it decodes and sends new microcode to the kernel driver to be uploaded to Intel IA32 family processors. (Pentium Pro, PII, Celeron, PIII, Xeon, Pentium 4 etc.) b) it signals the kernel driver to release any buffers it may hold . The microcode update is volatile and needs to be uploaded on each system boot i.e. it doesn't re-flash your CPU permanently, reboot and it reverts back to the old microcode. The ideal place to load microcode is in BIOS, but most vendors never update it! . To enable microcode update, I need some kernel support, thus I need the linux kernel 2.2.18 or later, or 2.4.0 or later. Suonpää... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company) 2003-01-12 16:45 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-12 16:58 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 19:46 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 1 sibling, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2003-01-12 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 561 bytes --] On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:45:24 GMT, Alan Cox said: > One thing that has been helpful is the microcode update stuff Intel did, we > hit few bugs that up to date microcode kill off http://www.urbanmyth.org/microcode/ says that microcode_ctl 1.06 is the latest, dated all the way back to 11 Jun 2001. Is that in fact the most recent? In this industry, I alway worry when "most recent" is 18 months old. Hopefully it's the most recent because no further errata have been found.;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 21:53 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 22:16 ` Chief Gadgeteer 2003-01-11 22:26 ` Kurt Garloff @ 2003-01-11 22:36 ` Vojtech Pavlik 2003-01-11 22:57 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 1:44 ` [OT] Noise on lkml (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") J Sloan 3 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Vojtech Pavlik @ 2003-01-11 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens; +Cc: Kurt Garloff, Linux kernel list On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 04:53:33PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 16:44, Kurt Garloff wrote: > > You're new to Linux, aren't you? > > Or terribly presumptous. > > A little of both, but not too much of either. > > I'd say "New to linux" but I've been using it on and off since 1995 or > earlier. > > I'd say terribly presumptuous, but I don't think it is presumptuous to > say that if there are many patches (bug fixes, mostly) coming in that > the code that was originally there was of questionable quality. Very interesting idea. But not correct. The reason is code rot(*). You have never to stop maintaining and patching and fixing the code to keep it working. A perfectly good and clean code, if you don't touch it, becomes crusty and smelly over time(**). This is why the number of patches daily entering the kernel is actually a sign of good overall code quality. ;) (*) http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/software-rot.html http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/bit-rot.html (**) One of the reasons for this is that the hardware changes over time. Another is that the requirements of what it is expected to do change over time. And yet another is that due to the above changes the rest of the code gets updated and the parts that were not touched do not interoperate properly any more. Huh. And now I'll be getting all the e-mails following in this thread. -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 22:36 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Vojtech Pavlik @ 2003-01-11 22:57 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 1:06 ` The GPL, the kernel, and everything else Ryan Anderson 2003-01-12 11:13 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Andrew McGregor 0 siblings, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vojtech Pavlik; +Cc: Kurt Garloff, Linux kernel list On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:36, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > I'd say terribly presumptuous, but I don't think it is presumptuous to > > say that if there are many patches (bug fixes, mostly) coming in that > > the code that was originally there was of questionable quality. > > Very interesting idea. But not correct. > > The reason is code rot(*). Which by definition you gave on the tuxedo.org site is a lack of robustness in the original code. Again, pointing to the fact that the original code was not well designed, and hence the term "kernel hacking" being more relevant than "software engineering" when it comes to linux. Of course, that is what makes it fun.. > You have never to stop maintaining and patching > and fixing the code to keep it working. That's a software developers dream: Never to become obsolete. One problem I remember UNIX having, and I don't know if this has been addressed yet, was that UNIX systems that I used to work on had a forthcoming "Year 2036 or Year 2037" (thereabouts) bug coming whereby they had no method of representing years beyond that year because dates were stored as the number of [seconds|minutes|days] since a certain date. I'm curious if Linux has this same kind of problem, and if we'll be seeing a rush of "Year 2037 bug fixers" the way we saw year 2000 bug fixers in 2000 years. I mention the above to stay relevant to the linux-kernel mailing list, though forgive me if this is a non-kernel (i.e. library) issue. The line between kernel and library is always blurry from a programmer's perspective. > A perfectly good and clean code, > if you don't touch it, becomes crusty and smelly over time(**). Per your comment, re: hardware changing over time, why can't linux just come up with a nice binary plug-in driver architecture (ok, it has kernel modules, but from one compile of a kernel to another, the modules aren't portable). If there were a module plug-in architecture, the kernel code wouldn't have to change much to support new hardware. A little "design time" up front (in other words) would save a lot of coding time later... Also -- Why hasn't there been a move to something like CVS for the kernel -- perhaps with linus being the cvs 'god' or whatever the person who authorizes changes to the code is called. This way you get to always have the latest code, and check the changes back in without using an ancient mail text-based interface, and you can describe your changes (which get forever stored with the change), and changes can always be backed out. Remember, I'm a newbie, so point me to the FAQ if this is there. > This is why > the number of patches daily entering the kernel is actually a sign of good > overall code quality. ;) Oh, I should've known there was a smiley coming <smirk> -Rob [Pushing the NVIDIA thread further because I have one of these damned cards and want support for it in the 2.5+ kernels.] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. 2003-01-11 22:57 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 1:06 ` Ryan Anderson 2003-01-12 4:15 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 11:13 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Andrew McGregor 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Ryan Anderson @ 2003-01-12 1:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux kernel list (subject changed to make Andre happy. :) I'm also certain replying is a bad idea... *sigh* but anyway... On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 05:57:50PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:36, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > Per your comment, re: hardware changing over time, why can't linux just > come up with a nice binary plug-in driver architecture (ok, it has > kernel modules, but from one compile of a kernel to another, the modules > aren't portable). If there were a module plug-in architecture, the > kernel code wouldn't have to change much to support new hardware. Because, to a large extent, for the core kernel developers, the existing system is fine. Nobody wants to design an API/ABI that is big, covers all possible cases, and is excessively complex. The API that modules ( and drivers ) use is designed to solve the current problem space. When a new feature, driver or problem needs to be added or fixed, the problem space has changed, and the interface changes a little bit in turn. Usually (not always), the person that changed the interface cycles through the drivers that are in the tree, and fixes them up. (The cases where this doesn't happen are, I believe, generally ones where two different but related interfaces coexist for a long period of time, and as the older interface is phased out, there is a semi-painful transition period.) > A little "design time" up front (in other words) would save a lot of > coding time later... What makes you think that design doesn't occur? Read through the OLS papers to understand just how many talented people *are* doing design. The difference may be that, on this list, you see a active work in progress. ("Stream of consciousness" might not be a bad analogy) > Also -- Why hasn't there been a move to something like CVS for the > kernel -- perhaps with linus being the cvs 'god' or whatever the person > who authorizes changes to the code is called. This way you get to > always have the latest code, and check the changes back in without using > an ancient mail text-based interface, and you can describe your changes > (which get forever stored with the change), and changes can always be > backed out. Remember, I'm a newbie, so point me to the FAQ if this is > there. There is, but it's not CVS. CVS has... issues when you get into complex project structures (not so much the complexity of the code - but how the projects are managed). CVS wouldn't permit the decentralized nature of development on other archictures in quite the same manner as the tool Linus *has* chosen to use - BitKeeper. (And no - that's not meant to be an advertisement for BK so much as an acknowledgement that CVS collapses under branching nightmares.) Now, this thread should be well and truly dead soon, with any luck. I know I'm going to try to resist perpetuating it. -- Ryan Anderson sometimes Pug Majere ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. 2003-01-12 1:06 ` The GPL, the kernel, and everything else Ryan Anderson @ 2003-01-12 4:15 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 4:21 ` David Lang 2003-01-16 16:28 ` Mark H. Wood 0 siblings, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 4:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ryan Anderson; +Cc: Linux kernel list On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:06, Ryan Anderson wrote: > Because, to a large extent, for the core kernel developers, the existing > system is fine. If you're designing a system for kernel developers use, then that's fine. But if you want to see linux proliferate to the average desktop (and I do), then you've got to look at the bigger picture. There _should_ be a way for a company like nvidia to build a binary driver, adn ship it in binary form, maybe even digitally signed the way microsoft allows digital signing of drivers so you know the driver is legit and OK. > progress. ("Stream of consciousness" might not be a bad analogy) It's actually a good analogy. What mailing list (if not the kernel mailing list) do I sign up for if I want to read about the design aspects of the kernel. I realize and understand if this is an exclusive members-only list that doesn't allow the likes of me into its membership. > There is, but it's not CVS. CVS has... issues when you get into complex I just read about bitkeeper in the "Virtual Memory Manager" document someone posted tonight (of all the places to learn about it)... Anyway, I've put that document aside, but will probably get back to it later. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. 2003-01-12 4:15 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 4:21 ` David Lang 2003-01-12 4:55 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-16 16:28 ` Mark H. Wood 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: David Lang @ 2003-01-12 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens; +Cc: Ryan Anderson, Linux kernel list Rob, there are problems with your first statement here. 1. some developers are militant about not wanting to have binary drivers (as is shown by this flamewar) 2. modules not only need to be called with the correct parameters, they also need to do the proper locking. as locking evolves what needs to be done by the module changes. This can only be solved by every module doing locking 'just in casee' at which point the unessasary locking becomes a significant performance issue (Larry McVoy has written a document about why locking is bad and why excessive locking is very bad, search archives for the link to his site) 3. you say that 'all that is needed' is to design an API that covers every possible function a module needs. the problem is that if you try doing this you end up with several results. A. the API is very complex (since it does cover every possible application) B. the glue logic to translate the API to and from the internal kernel implementations adds additional complexity (with probable errors) and robs performance from the system (especially over time as the internel kernel structures change) C. the API includes a lot of things that are never used (remember it covers everything you can think someone may possibly want to do, not just the things that people actually do) unused code is a bad thing, it never gets tested so bugs can live there for a LONG time, and it eats up memory that the system should use for doing actual work. 4. since no designer (or group of designers) can think of everything your API is going to be incomplete anyway. you can either pretend this isn't the case and limit yourself to the things that you origionally imagined, change your API (and now what do you do with things that used the origional one, support two different versions of the API??? that's a disaster for performance), or recognise up front that kernel modules are very dependant on the exact implementation of the kernel internals at which point it doesn't make sense to try and define a specific API, they are just part of the kernel that's not always loaded (this is what Linux has chosen to do) as for signing kernel modules as being 'good' you have a serious problem in the Linux world that there is no central authority to do any such signing. the closest there is to that is when the module is made part of a core source tree and then gets supported and maintained along with everything else, but binary-only modules can't be done that way. David Lang On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote: > Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:15:31 -0500 > From: Rob Wilkens <robw@optonline.net> > To: Ryan Anderson <ryan@michonline.com> > Cc: Linux kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> > Subject: Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. > > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:06, Ryan Anderson wrote: > > Because, to a large extent, for the core kernel developers, the existing > > system is fine. > > If you're designing a system for kernel developers use, then that's > fine. But if you want to see linux proliferate to the average desktop > (and I do), then you've got to look at the bigger picture. There > _should_ be a way for a company like nvidia to build a binary driver, > adn ship it in binary form, maybe even digitally signed the way > microsoft allows digital signing of drivers so you know the driver is > legit and OK. > > > progress. ("Stream of consciousness" might not be a bad analogy) > > It's actually a good analogy. What mailing list (if not the kernel > mailing list) do I sign up for if I want to read about the design > aspects of the kernel. I realize and understand if this is an exclusive > members-only list that doesn't allow the likes of me into its > membership. > > > There is, but it's not CVS. CVS has... issues when you get into complex > > I just read about bitkeeper in the "Virtual Memory Manager" document > someone posted tonight (of all the places to learn about it)... > > Anyway, I've put that document aside, but will probably get back to it > later. > > -Rob > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. 2003-01-12 4:21 ` David Lang @ 2003-01-12 4:55 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 5:10 ` David Lang 2003-01-12 5:12 ` Stephen Satchell 0 siblings, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 4:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Lang; +Cc: Ryan Anderson, Linux kernel list On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 23:21, David Lang wrote: > 1. some developers are militant about not wanting to have binary drivers > (as is shown by this flamewar) Well, at least _this_ particular "flamewar" is relevant to the kernel list. Also, please read the lkml FAQ which specifically says to write your message below any quoted text .. http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s3-9 -- See the part about RFC 1855... Do these developers include the primary developer, Linus? He's the one ultimately responsible for the decision for the maintenance of the kernel which almost everyone (ok, everyone) uses. If he's militant about it, then I guess it's pointless to argue about it. I got the feeling from reading his biography ("Just for fun" - that's the title) that he's the type to let others duke it out and he lets them decide without really caring which technology makes it into the kernel. > 2. modules not only need to be called with the correct parameters, they > also need to do the proper locking. as locking evolves what needs to be > done by the module changes. This can only be solved by every module doing > locking 'just in casee' at which point the unessasary locking becomes a > significant performance issue (Larry McVoy has written a document about > why locking is bad and why excessive locking is very bad, search archives > for the link to his site) I don't need to read an article to know why locking is bad. However, if we can broadly generalize drivers into categories (instead of just "modules", for example, there could be a generic "video module" structure and that could have a specific kind of locking that a video driver would need, and the same would go for other specific types of drivers). > 3. you say that 'all that is needed' is to design an API that covers every > possible function a module needs. the problem is that if you try doing > this you end up with several results. > > A. the API is very complex (since it does cover every possible > application) Start simple -- like I said above.. Split the "modules" into categorized modules and implement one or two subtypes at a time. For example, leave the generic "modules" and add a "video module" as above and give it a specific API which may be complex but less complex than imagined since it targets a specific piece of functionality. Other modules can be devised by studying what drivers are already in the kernel. I'll avoid replying to points B and C, but I read them.. In part, they are addressed by the above. > 4. since no designer (or group of designers) can think of everything your > API is going to be incomplete anyway. you can either pretend this isn't > the case and limit yourself to the things that you origionally imagined, > change your API (and now what do you do with things that used the Why is it that Windows doesn't seem to have a problem providing a generic binary driver interface -- one that is portable accross operating systems as mentioned before -- drivers which work on Windows 98 are binary compatible with Windows 2000 and Windows XP despite major difference in the systems never mind minor kernel changes. I'd suggest that a linux kernel developer get their hands on a copy of the specs for the wdm (windows device driver model) and learn what useful information they can from it. > as for signing kernel modules as being 'good' you have a serious problem > in the Linux world that there is no central authority to do any such > signing. Microsoft uses Verisign I believe, which is a company linux commands like "whois" already use to do nameserver lookups for example. It's a third party, and hardware manufacturers probably already have certificates from them. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. 2003-01-12 4:55 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 5:10 ` David Lang 2003-01-12 5:45 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 5:12 ` Stephen Satchell 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: David Lang @ 2003-01-12 5:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens; +Cc: Ryan Anderson, Linux kernel list On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > 2. modules not only need to be called with the correct parameters, they > > also need to do the proper locking. as locking evolves what needs to be > > done by the module changes. This can only be solved by every module doing > > locking 'just in casee' at which point the unessasary locking becomes a > > significant performance issue (Larry McVoy has written a document about > > why locking is bad and why excessive locking is very bad, search archives > > for the link to his site) > > I don't need to read an article to know why locking is bad. However, if > we can broadly generalize drivers into categories (instead of just > "modules", for example, there could be a generic "video module" > structure and that could have a specific kind of locking that a video > driver would need, and the same would go for other specific types of > drivers). the problem is that the locking that's nessasary for a storage driver depends on the locking that's implemented in the filesystem that's calling the driver. that locking changes over time. it used to be that locking was simple, you took the BKL and that was it (and then only if you needed to, if you were only called from a place that already heldthe BKL you didn't need to do anything) as time goes on and existing algorithms are replaced by others the locking requirements change. useing my example above, if the filesystem layer is changed so that it no longer needs the BKL then the storage driver needs to aquire it itself (if it needs it, not all of them will) > > 4. since no designer (or group of designers) can think of everything your > > API is going to be incomplete anyway. you can either pretend this isn't > > the case and limit yourself to the things that you origionally imagined, > > change your API (and now what do you do with things that used the > > Why is it that Windows doesn't seem to have a problem providing a > generic binary driver interface -- one that is portable accross > operating systems as mentioned before -- drivers which work on Windows > 98 are binary compatible with Windows 2000 and Windows XP despite major > difference in the systems never mind minor kernel changes. > > I'd suggest that a linux kernel developer get their hands on a copy of > the specs for the wdm (windows device driver model) and learn what > useful information they can from it. I don't know what you've been running, but windows device drivers are not compatable across all the different versions of windows (try installing a windows 9x driver in NT for example). > > as for signing kernel modules as being 'good' you have a serious problem > > in the Linux world that there is no central authority to do any such > > signing. > > Microsoft uses Verisign I believe, which is a company linux commands > like "whois" already use to do nameserver lookups for example. It's a > third party, and hardware manufacturers probably already have > certificates from them. verisign does not decide what drivers to sign, microsoft does, microsoft signs them useing a key they got from verisign. that's a very different situation. David Lang ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. 2003-01-12 5:10 ` David Lang @ 2003-01-12 5:45 ` Rob Wilkens 0 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 5:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robw; +Cc: Linux kernel list Below are two messages I wrote tonight but forgot to "reply all" so got sent only to individuals.. In case others were interested in reading (and probably none are, so I summarize in one e-mail), I quote both below: From: Rob Wilkens <robw@optonline.net> Reply-To: robw@optonline.net To: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com> Subject: Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. Date: 12 Jan 2003 00:32:16 -0500 On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 00:10, David Lang wrote: > the problem is that the locking that's nessasary for a storage driver > depends on the locking that's implemented in the filesystem that's calling > the driver. that locking changes over time. I suppose I should learn more about the locking requirements of the file system before I comment further. I'm fairly new to the linux kernel, and haven't done kernel hacking much at all for the past 5 years. I'm a bit rusty, which is not to infringe on the trademark held by someone else on the list. > I don't know what you've been running, but windows device drivers are not > compatable across all the different versions of windows (try installing a > windows 9x driver in NT for example). Actually, Windows 9x drivers will work on Windows NT (if you count Windows 2000 as part of the Windows NT family). That is the case if and only if the driver conforms to the wdm. I'm too tired to read it now and summarize it, but here's an introductory document on it: http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/driver/wdm/wdm.asp -Rob From: Rob Wilkens <robw@optonline.net> Reply-To: robw@optonline.net To: Stephen Satchell <list@fluent2.pyramid.net> Subject: Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. Date: 12 Jan 2003 00:25:49 -0500 On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 00:12, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Microsoft doesn't use Verisign for its driver signing -- it's a proprietary > system that is hard-wired into Windows. I would guess you are confusing > SSL certificates with module signatures. > > As for "whois" you will find the default host for the GNU version is > "whois.crsnic.net", which is not Verisign. My mistake in both of the above cases, Thanks for the correction. > Microsoft signs modules that passes their test suite, and for which vendors > pay a pretty penny (five digits' worth in US Dollars, if I recall > correctly). There is no comparable central authority for Linux or GNU > software, nor would vendors be interested in spending the kind of dollars > that would be associated with that sort of certification. If they would, I > would LOVE to start such a business. This is a perfect example of "If you build it, they will come". I think I read somewhere that some linux-based systems actually sell for over a million dollars a pop (granted these are something like 64-processor custom systems). I don't think you'll find NT systems in that price range. That being the case, I'm quite sure that certain vendors would love to say that their hardware is certified. As an example from a parallel dimension: How is the RHCE certification doing in popularity? Or for that matter LPIC (I've only taken and passed LPI 101 myself). With both RHCE and LPI, People have taken the idea of certification and the idea of linux and learned that you can make money. Maybe not a lot (who knows) but enough to justify doing it. Red Hat probably makes more money on training and certification than they do on sales since what they sell is a free system. Switching back to our original problem domain: There's no reason that you can't offer a certification service for linux hardware drivers that does much the same kind of testing that microsoft does on windows hardware drivers, and then offer your seal of approval. Sure, you'll have to prove that your certification is meaningful and worthwhile, but if LPI and RHCE can get some people to pay, why can't another organizaton do it on the hardware driver front? I'll tell you why: There is no standard binary hardware driver interface for any class of device and hence no ability to run a generic test suite to validate that it will work on all versions of a linux kernel beyond version <x>. Of course, I could be as wrong here as I was about microsoft's signing technology. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. 2003-01-12 4:55 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 5:10 ` David Lang @ 2003-01-12 5:12 ` Stephen Satchell 1 sibling, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Stephen Satchell @ 2003-01-12 5:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robw, David Lang; +Cc: Ryan Anderson, Linux kernel list At 11:55 PM 1/11/03 -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > as for signing kernel modules as being 'good' you have a serious problem > > in the Linux world that there is no central authority to do any such > > signing. > >Microsoft uses Verisign I believe, which is a company linux commands >like "whois" already use to do nameserver lookups for example. It's a >third party, and hardware manufacturers probably already have >certificates from them. Microsoft doesn't use Verisign for its driver signing -- it's a proprietary system that is hard-wired into Windows. I would guess you are confusing SSL certificates with module signatures. As for "whois" you will find the default host for the GNU version is "whois.crsnic.net", which is not Verisign. Microsoft signs modules that passes their test suite, and for which vendors pay a pretty penny (five digits' worth in US Dollars, if I recall correctly). There is no comparable central authority for Linux or GNU software, nor would vendors be interested in spending the kind of dollars that would be associated with that sort of certification. If they would, I would LOVE to start such a business. Satch -- The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange protein: it rejects it. -- P. Medawar This posting is for entertainment purposes only; it is not a legal opinion. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. 2003-01-12 4:15 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 4:21 ` David Lang @ 2003-01-16 16:28 ` Mark H. Wood 2003-01-16 16:41 ` venom 2003-01-16 18:22 ` John Alvord 1 sibling, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Mark H. Wood @ 2003-01-16 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux kernel list On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:06, Ryan Anderson wrote: > > Because, to a large extent, for the core kernel developers, the existing > > system is fine. > > If you're designing a system for kernel developers use, then that's > fine. But if you want to see linux proliferate to the average desktop > (and I do), then you've got to look at the bigger picture. There > _should_ be a way for a company like nvidia to build a binary driver, > adn ship it in binary form, maybe even digitally signed the way > microsoft allows digital signing of drivers so you know the driver is > legit and OK. Right there you've put your finger on a problem. Many core developers are working hard to make sure that this never happens. See arguments in favor of open source. It looks to me as though an underlying, larger problem is that there are several distinct communities which are all interested in Linux, but which have divergent values. Developers, for example, want something that's fun to develop or is personally useful, and take steps to prevent commercial interests' spoiling their experience. Others want a Windows-killer and obsess about the desktop, or installation, or other ease-of-use-by-those- who'd-rather-not-think-about-computers issues. Still others *are* commercial interests, and want to figure out how to make money in this space (some worrying about how to avoid killing the goose which lays the golden eggs, others intent on short-term profit and caring nothing for the goose's long-term welfare). Me, I could care less whether Linux achieves world domination. The business desktop is to me an utterly uninteresting problem. The only reason I worry about things like market penetration is that competing products' companies keep interfering with my decision to use Linux when addressing problems for which it is a good fit. Like it or not, I need a certain amount of "bandwagon effect" for Linux in order to impress those who are impressed by such things, since some of them can preempt the decision as to which platform I use for any given assignment. I wouldn't care if I were the only Linux user on earth, if I didn't have to defend my professional prerogatives. So, you need to look at the *really* big picture. There are people who think the way you do, and people who don't, and it would be a worthy challenge to find a way to somewhat satisfy both groups. -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu MS Windows *is* user-friendly, but only for certain values of "user". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. 2003-01-16 16:28 ` Mark H. Wood @ 2003-01-16 16:41 ` venom 2003-01-16 18:22 ` John Alvord 1 sibling, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: venom @ 2003-01-16 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark H. Wood; +Cc: Linux kernel list On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Mark H. Wood wrote: > Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:28:42 -0500 (EST) > From: Mark H. Wood <mwood@IUPUI.Edu> > To: Linux kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> > Subject: Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. > > > So, you need to look at the *really* big picture. There are people who > think the way you do, and people who don't, and it would be a worthy > challenge to find a way to somewhat satisfy both groups. > please look at this new run queue thing in process context for kernel modules, and the fact that non GPL modules cannot create an own queue, but have to use the default one (all queue are managed by a kernel thread). As you see, for linux 2.6 the big picture will acquire a new element. (Personally I do like it a lot, as mutch as I like all the run queue approach) This as quite interesting implications, since it is a penalty for binary only modules. Luigi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: The GPL, the kernel, and everything else. 2003-01-16 16:28 ` Mark H. Wood 2003-01-16 16:41 ` venom @ 2003-01-16 18:22 ` John Alvord 1 sibling, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: John Alvord @ 2003-01-16 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark H. Wood; +Cc: Linux kernel list On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:28:42 -0500 (EST), "Mark H. Wood" <mwood@IUPUI.Edu> wrote: >On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote: >> On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:06, Ryan Anderson wrote: >> > Because, to a large extent, for the core kernel developers, the existing >> > system is fine. >> >> If you're designing a system for kernel developers use, then that's >> fine. But if you want to see linux proliferate to the average desktop >> (and I do), then you've got to look at the bigger picture. There >> _should_ be a way for a company like nvidia to build a binary driver, >> adn ship it in binary form, maybe even digitally signed the way >> microsoft allows digital signing of drivers so you know the driver is >> legit and OK. > >Right there you've put your finger on a problem. Many core developers are >working hard to make sure that this never happens. See arguments in favor >of open source. > >It looks to me as though an underlying, larger problem is that there are >several distinct communities which are all interested in Linux, but which >have divergent values. Developers, for example, want something that's fun >to develop or is personally useful, and take steps to prevent commercial >interests' spoiling their experience. Others want a Windows-killer and >obsess about the desktop, or installation, or other ease-of-use-by-those- >who'd-rather-not-think-about-computers issues. Still others *are* >commercial interests, and want to figure out how to make money in this >space (some worrying about how to avoid killing the goose which lays the >golden eggs, others intent on short-term profit and caring nothing for the >goose's long-term welfare). > >Me, I could care less whether Linux achieves world domination. The >business desktop is to me an utterly uninteresting problem. The only >reason I worry about things like market penetration is that competing >products' companies keep interfering with my decision to use Linux when >addressing problems for which it is a good fit. Like it or not, I need a >certain amount of "bandwagon effect" for Linux in order to impress those >who are impressed by such things, since some of them can preempt the >decision as to which platform I use for any given assignment. I wouldn't >care if I were the only Linux user on earth, if I didn't have to defend my >professional prerogatives. > >So, you need to look at the *really* big picture. There are people who >think the way you do, and people who don't, and it would be a worthy >challenge to find a way to somewhat satisfy both groups. Given the inertia of existing applications and documents in business [read Microsoft Office] you also need to get Microsoft on board as an application provider. There are many business applications written in COBOL running on zSeries machines because of similiar inertia, regardless of how much hardware costs could be saved... john alvord ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 22:57 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 1:06 ` The GPL, the kernel, and everything else Ryan Anderson @ 2003-01-12 11:13 ` Andrew McGregor 1 sibling, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Andrew McGregor @ 2003-01-12 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robw, Vojtech Pavlik; +Cc: Kurt Garloff, Linux kernel list --On Saturday, January 11, 2003 17:57:50 -0500 Rob Wilkens <robw@optonline.net> wrote: > [Pushing the NVIDIA thread further because I have one of these damned > cards and want support for it in the 2.5+ kernels.] The canonical place to look for this is www.minion.de Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* [OT] Noise on lkml (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") 2003-01-11 21:53 ` Rob Wilkens ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-11 22:36 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Vojtech Pavlik @ 2003-01-12 1:44 ` J Sloan 2003-01-12 3:18 ` Rob Wilkens 3 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: J Sloan @ 2003-01-12 1:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: robw Rob Wilkens wrote: >I'd say terribly presumptuous, but I don't think it is presumptuous to >say that if there are many patches (bug fixes, mostly) coming in that >the code that was originally there was of questionable quality. > Your statements are at once so arrogant, yet so ignorant, it's hard to know where to even begin - but you are quite mistaken on several fronts; each new message from you reveals an unbridgeable gulf, of which you do not even seem aware. I won't even begin to put together a point by point correction, it's all too tedious, and it's possible that you are here just to annoy and wear down the developers anyway - Please start sending in patches or discussing kernel code, or even doing testing - if not, you might wish to seek out a different forum for your messages, where you might find a more receptive audience - I'll refrain from making specific suggestions at this time. Best Regards, Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: [OT] Noise on lkml (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") 2003-01-12 1:44 ` [OT] Noise on lkml (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") J Sloan @ 2003-01-12 3:18 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 4:08 ` Scott Murray 0 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: J Sloan; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:44, J Sloan wrote: > I won't even begin to put together a point by > point correction, it's all too tedious, and it's > possible that you are here just to annoy and > wear down the developers anyway - I've only written a total of maybe 5-6 messages to the list, and maybe 4 of them were off topic because of a previous off-topic message by somebody else (such as yours). I don't see how "i" am specifically designed to wear down developers, though I'll apologize for any comments I made earlier about the simplicity of kernel development: I should comment that it was kernel development I was doing (professionally) when I had my first two mental breakdowns, so it should be no surprise to discover that despite the fact that superficially it seemed like easy work at the time, it can be a stress inducing kind of work which is somewhat tedious in nature (trying to get various hardware to work just right, or reversing bit/byte orders for various platforms or that sort of thing). > Please start sending in patches or discussing > kernel code, or even doing testing - if not, you > might wish to seek out a different forum for > your messages, where you might find a more > receptive audience - I'll refrain from making > specific suggestions at this time. I fixed a bug in my kernel (2.4.20), and here's the unified diff with the hack I put in place, it's not a fix because I don't know enough about the floppy driver to fix it the right way--- it's called a hack. I'm sure if I looked at the problem longer I could fix it right, but it looks like in 2.5.56 the floppy driver has been rewritten somewhat, but the problem, I believe, is still there and reproducable (code to reproduce it is below). <---Begin---> --- floppy.c.orig 2003-01-07 21:51:49.000000000 -0500 +++ floppy.c 2003-01-10 15:54:56.000000000 -0500 @@ -3874,7 +3874,7 @@ UCLEARF(FD_DISK_CHANGED); if (cf) UDRS->generation++; - if (NO_GEOM){ + if (/*NO_GEOM*/1){ /* auto-sensing */ int size = floppy_blocksizes[MINOR(dev)]; if (!size) <---End---> Please note that the above error fixes the following test case. IF you have no floppy in the A: drive and run the following test.c code repeatedly you will find you get different results every time you run it. I left the commented sections in the code to illustrate that it only happens with fd0u1440 as opposed to fd0. <---Begin---> #include <sys/stat.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <fcntl.h> #define O_LARGEFILE 0100000 main() { int fd,bits; /* fd=open("/dev/fd0",O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC);*/ /*fd=open("/dev/fd0",O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC|O_LARGEFILE);*/ fd=open("/dev/fd0u1440",O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC|O_LARGEFILE); printf ("fd=%d\n",fd); perror("error was: "); } <---End---> Note that O_LARGEFILE isn't meaningful, it was put there because I was imitating a system call that I saw the "dd" command making when doing an "strace" (System Call Trace) do when it was failing. This is a silly and trivial bug, but someone reported it. Until I get some acknowledgement of any kind on my first kernel patch submittal, it seems silly to submit more, even if the acknowledgement is someone telling me "try to fix it the right way so it doesn't break anything else" which may involve adding a few more lines of code. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: [OT] Noise on lkml (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") 2003-01-12 3:18 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-12 4:08 ` Scott Murray 0 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Scott Murray @ 2003-01-12 4:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens; +Cc: J Sloan, linux-kernel On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 20:44, J Sloan wrote: > > I won't even begin to put together a point by > > point correction, it's all too tedious, and it's > > possible that you are here just to annoy and > > wear down the developers anyway - > > I've only written a total of maybe 5-6 messages to the list, and maybe 4 > of them were off topic because of a previous off-topic message by > somebody else (such as yours). [snip] FYI, looking in my l-k folder, with the next message you sent, you have posted 22 messages in the last 3 days, only 3 of which had subject lines not related to the ongoing flamewar. Scott -- Scott Murray SOMA Networks, Inc. Toronto, Ontario e-mail: scottm@somanetworks.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:07 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 2:13 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 3:26 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-11 2:54 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 2:55 ` Rob Wilkens 1 sibling, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-01-11 3:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy Cc: Rob Wilkens, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 02:07, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > If I had been familiar with UNIX > > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ... > > If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs. Its not ham you need its utter arrogance and a complete lack of understanding that writing an OS is a seriously hard problem. There is a whole world of mysticism around the concept of a 'beginners mind' although to me "Im sorry nobody told me it was impossible" sums it up far better. Alan -- "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." -- Gandhi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 3:26 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Alan Cox @ 2003-01-11 2:54 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 2:58 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 6:32 ` Ryan Anderson 2003-01-11 2:55 ` Rob Wilkens 1 sibling, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 2:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Larry McVoy, Rob Wilkens, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 03:26:12AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 02:07, Larry McVoy wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > > If I had been familiar with UNIX > > > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ... > > > > If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs. > > Its not ham you need its utter arrogance and a complete lack of understanding > that writing an OS is a seriously hard problem. There is a whole world of > mysticism around the concept of a 'beginners mind' although to me > "Im sorry nobody told me it was impossible" sums it up far better. Indeed. Lots of things which are hard look easy to people who haven't done them. Operating systems don't have a corner on that market. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:54 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 2:58 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:11 ` Zwane Mwaikambo ` (4 more replies) 2003-01-11 6:32 ` Ryan Anderson 1 sibling, 5 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 2:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy Cc: Alan Cox, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:54, Larry McVoy wrote: > Indeed. Lots of things which are hard look easy to people who haven't > done them. Operating systems don't have a corner on that market. Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks. Of that, I am certain. That is why my first job out of college was as an Operating Systems Kernel Programmer. That is what they call "low level programming" and that kind of programming is looked down upon by most other programmers. High-level languages (stuff like delphi and visual basic) are grown-up languages and tools where you can create more substantial programs using more substantial areas of your brain. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:58 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 3:11 ` Zwane Mwaikambo 2003-01-11 3:14 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:16 ` John Adams ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Zwane Mwaikambo @ 2003-01-11 3:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens Cc: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote: > On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:54, Larry McVoy wrote: > > Indeed. Lots of things which are hard look easy to people who haven't > > done them. Operating systems don't have a corner on that market. > > Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing > operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks. okay > Of that, I am certain. okay > That is why my first job out of college was as an Operating Systems > Kernel Programmer. > > That is what they call "low level programming" and that kind of > programming is looked down upon by most other programmers. > > High-level languages (stuff like delphi and visual basic) are grown-up > languages and tools where you can create more substantial programs using > more substantial areas of your brain. Please say you're simply trolling... -- function.linuxpower.ca ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 3:11 ` Zwane Mwaikambo @ 2003-01-11 3:14 ` Rob Wilkens 0 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 3:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zwane Mwaikambo Cc: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:11, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > Please say you're simply trolling... Sorry, started to get a bit off-topic. Not trolling, though no matter what the topic and no matter what the list, people always assume that I'm a troll when they first meet me. I guess they don't realize that I think differently. If you get used to me, you'll realize that I'm just crazy and can either ignore me (plonk me as Larry McVoy did) or laugh at me. Whatever you do, I laugh at myself in the end too, and won't be insulted -- I am proud to report that I take four different psychiatric medications, and still have hallucinations and delusions regularly, so I certainly won't claim to be normal by any standard. Of course, on an intelligence test given at the hospital (same one that diagnosed me as schizoaffective), I was scored as "high superior intelligence" which (to you) might mean that there's a chance there's something useful that might occasionally come out of my mouth. It's doubtful, but if plonk me, you'll never know. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:58 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:11 ` Zwane Mwaikambo @ 2003-01-11 3:16 ` John Adams 2003-01-11 3:35 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:27 ` Brian Tinsley ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: John Adams @ 2003-01-11 3:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Friday 10 January 2003 09:58 pm, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing > operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks. I think we have an under-bridge dweller. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 3:16 ` John Adams @ 2003-01-11 3:35 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:48 ` Hans Sgier 2003-01-11 4:41 ` J Sloan 0 siblings, 2 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: johna; +Cc: linux-kernel On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:16, John Adams wrote: > On Friday 10 January 2003 09:58 pm, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > > > Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing > > operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks. > > I think we have an under-bridge dweller. No, simply a person who has worked in all areas of computing technology.. Resume in brief: B.S. in Computer Science may 1996, Clemson University May 1996-April 1998 - Senior Engineer (Operating Systems - Real Time Division) - Concurrent Computer Coporation. -- Original Title was Lead Software Engineer -- in my short timespan there, I received a 25% raise and a new title, and that still wasn't enough to keep me there. April 1998-Present - Software Developer (Contract work, can't discuss, but it's in Delphi, I'm happy to report that one reason I'm moving to Linux more is that Borland is doing a better job with Kylix, it's Linux version of Delphi). June 1998-May 2001 - LAN Administrator - New York State Courts .. May 2001-June/July 2001 - Senior Enigneer - Geo-Centers. I only worked for two months until I became disabled with my illness. I was working here on a Beowulf cluster (Linux, redhat 6.2), I was the only one there responsible for administration (web, cvs, that kind of thing), and programming (developed several simulation apps, using GTK, C, TCP/IP sockets, etc.). Short career history, but I'm young. Now, thanks to my illness, I'm not working.. So I've got free time. Pardon me if my viewpoint differs form other religious linux zealots on the list, or some of the holier than thou kernel developers. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 3:35 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 3:48 ` Hans Sgier 2003-01-11 3:55 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 4:41 ` J Sloan 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Hans Sgier @ 2003-01-11 3:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote: > No, simply a person who has worked in all areas of computing > technology.. > > Resume in brief: Now, would J.R.R.Tolkien have ever considered to get the resume of a troll written down? Is there any chance that ridiculous thread is coming to an end? Greets Hans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 3:48 ` Hans Sgier @ 2003-01-11 3:55 ` Rob Wilkens 0 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 3:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans Sgier; +Cc: linux-kernel On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:48, Hans Sgier wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > No, simply a person who has worked in all areas of computing > > technology.. > > > > Resume in brief: > > Now, would J.R.R.Tolkien have ever considered to get the resume of a > troll written down? Probably, I have Lord of the rings sitting atop my monitor (and no, I don't own many books, and I haven't read this one) and it seems pretty thick. There are probably many unimportant details in the book (much like the resume would be an unimportant detail of such a troll as myself), judging from the horrible movies that I've seen so far, both movies were basically filled with long drawn out battle scenes when the simple story line is that "everyone wants the ring that makes them invisible, but it's a bad ring because it makes you do bad things". > Is there any chance that ridiculous thread is coming to an end? I received a private e-mail saying that not even RMS considers the kernel to be gnu. I would've argued that it containing the GPL was enough for it to be considered Gnu, but then, I guess it's not really. I don't know enough, so I'm dropping it. > Greets Best wishes... And I understand if more than half the list has plonked me silently by now. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 3:35 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:48 ` Hans Sgier @ 2003-01-11 4:41 ` J Sloan 2003-01-11 4:44 ` Rob Wilkens 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: J Sloan @ 2003-01-11 4:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: robw No offense, but if you're not here to discuss kernel development issues, you are off-topic, and ought to find a more suitable forum for your messages - Best Regards, Joe Rob Wilkens wrote: >On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:16, John Adams wrote: > > >>On Friday 10 January 2003 09:58 pm, Rob Wilkens wrote: >> >> >>>Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing >>>operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks. >>> >>> >>I think we have an under-bridge dweller. >> >> > >No, simply a person who has worked in all areas of computing >technology.. > >Resume in brief: > >B.S. in Computer Science may 1996, Clemson University > >May 1996-April 1998 - Senior Engineer (Operating Systems - Real Time >Division) - Concurrent Computer Coporation. -- Original Title was Lead >Software Engineer -- in my short timespan there, I received a 25% raise >and a new title, and that still wasn't enough to keep me there. > >April 1998-Present - Software Developer (Contract work, can't discuss, >but it's in Delphi, I'm happy to report that one reason I'm moving to >Linux more is that Borland is doing a better job with Kylix, it's Linux >version of Delphi). > >June 1998-May 2001 - LAN Administrator - New York State Courts .. > >May 2001-June/July 2001 - Senior Enigneer - Geo-Centers. I only worked >for two months until I became disabled with my illness. I was working >here on a Beowulf cluster (Linux, redhat 6.2), I was the only one there >responsible for administration (web, cvs, that kind of thing), and >programming (developed several simulation apps, using GTK, C, TCP/IP >sockets, etc.). > >Short career history, but I'm young. > >Now, thanks to my illness, I'm not working.. So I've got free time. >Pardon me if my viewpoint differs form other religious linux zealots on >the list, or some of the holier than thou kernel developers. > >-Rob > >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 4:41 ` J Sloan @ 2003-01-11 4:44 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 5:09 ` Andre Hedrick ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 4:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: J Sloan; +Cc: linux-kernel On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 23:41, J Sloan wrote: > No offense, but if you're not here to discuss > kernel development issues, you are off-topic, > and ought to find a more suitable forum for > your messages - > > Best Regards, > > Joe No offense, but you need to learn to quote relevantly, and snip where appropriate. Also, the FAQ to the LKML specifically says to write your message below the text of what you quote. Anyway, I'm here to discuss the kernel. The issue at hand was whether the kernel should be renamed. I didn't bring up the topic, I was only chiming in with an opinion. As the topic went on, things got further off-topic as can happen. "renaming of a kernel" is a topic relevant to a kernel mailing list. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 4:44 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 5:09 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-11 5:12 ` OT: Renaming the kernel??!?!?!? (Was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") Brian Davids 2003-01-11 15:57 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Tom Sightler 2 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-11 5:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Gee, can all of us who have a business add there name to the thread subject? Look at all the advertising Nvidia is getting for free. All they have to do is make a half step to the direction of more open sourced, and they become the darling winner take all. I positive Larry would love to have his product added. Victor could enjoy the extra name caching in hits for it all. Last time I checked I was bang 100K+ growth in website hit logs per day. For all of the rants Nvidia Marketing must be in hog heaven! Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* OT: Renaming the kernel??!?!?!? (Was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") 2003-01-11 4:44 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 5:09 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-11 5:12 ` Brian Davids 2003-01-11 15:57 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Tom Sightler 2 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Brian Davids @ 2003-01-11 5:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robw; +Cc: linux-kernel Rob Wilkens wrote: > Anyway, I'm here to discuss the kernel. The issue at hand was > whether the kernel should be renamed. I didn't bring up the topic, I > was only chiming in with an opinion. As the topic went on, things > got further off-topic as can happen. > > "renaming of a kernel" is a topic relevant to a kernel mailing list. Maybe you should read the e-mails a bit more carefully. The issue you're refering to is NOT renaming the kernel, but rather what people believe the collection of kernel, libraries, and user-land tools should properly be called. I don't think I've ever seen RMS (or anyone else for that matter) say that the kernel itself should be called anything other than Linux. The controversy is what peoples' ideas of what constitutes the operating system are and what to call it. Brian Davids ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 4:44 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 5:09 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-11 5:12 ` OT: Renaming the kernel??!?!?!? (Was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") Brian Davids @ 2003-01-11 15:57 ` Tom Sightler 2 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Tom Sightler @ 2003-01-11 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robw, J Sloan; +Cc: linux-kernel > Anyway, I'm here to discuss the kernel. The issue at hand was whether > the kernel should be renamed. I didn't bring up the topic, I was only > chiming in with an opinion. As the topic went on, things got further > off-topic as can happen. > > "renaming of a kernel" is a topic relevant to a kernel mailing list. Are you sure? Based on reading the GNU page the stance seems to be that the "OS" should be called GNU/Linux. I don't see anything that says the kernel should be renamed, only that when referring to the system as a whole it would be better to be called GNU/Linux. That's what makes this discussion offtopic, it's not the kernel's name that GNU is complaining about and this is the kernel list. Later, Tom ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:58 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:11 ` Zwane Mwaikambo 2003-01-11 3:16 ` John Adams @ 2003-01-11 3:27 ` Brian Tinsley [not found] ` <1042256385.1259.106.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> 2003-01-11 3:52 ` yodaiken 2003-01-11 6:01 ` Tomas Szepe 4 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Brian Tinsley @ 2003-01-11 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Rob Wilkens wrote: >High-level languages (stuff like delphi and visual basic) are grown-up >languages and tools where you can create more substantial programs using >more substantial areas of your brain. > > > That's got to be one of the most sick and twisted statements I've ever heard in my life, especially given the "programming languages" referenced. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1042256385.1259.106.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com>]
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" [not found] ` <1042256385.1259.106.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> @ 2003-01-11 4:16 ` Brian Tinsley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Brian Tinsley @ 2003-01-11 4:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robw; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Rob Wilkens wrote: >The reality of the world is that those languages (well, I can only >really speak for delphi, which is also available for linux), let you >build on other people's code (or other code you've written) and actually >do something useful without reinventing the wheel every time you want to >accomplish something. > Now I've really grown tired of that line over the course of my career. It's not a matter of what language you are using, it's all about good design and reuse. I've got plenty of C libraries and C++ classes (and now some Java classes) I wrote way back in the Ice Age that, in some form or another, myself and a lot of others still use today. The true "reality" of those languages is that they are designed for so called "developers" that cannot possibly comprehend the operations and information that the language hides from them! OK, so I'm partially joking in that last statement :) Remember the old acronym "RAD"? I will certainly give credit to tools like Delphi in that respect (Visual Basic, however, makes me sick - Basic should have died with the Commodore 64 and TRS80). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:58 ` Rob Wilkens ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-11 3:27 ` Brian Tinsley @ 2003-01-11 3:52 ` yodaiken 2003-01-11 4:05 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 6:01 ` Tomas Szepe 4 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: yodaiken @ 2003-01-11 3:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens Cc: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:58:45PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:54, Larry McVoy wrote: > > Indeed. Lots of things which are hard look easy to people who haven't > > done them. Operating systems don't have a corner on that market. > > Of all the things that computer software programmers do, writing > operating systems is among the most simplistic of those tasks. > > Of that, I am certain. > That is so damn true. Larry, for example, was unemployed and without job prospects when he read my book, "The one minute OS developer". He immediately got a job at Sun designing operating systems including kernels and the more important stuff, like "fortune". Nearly anyone can pick this up. Val Henson's mom even learned to write operating systems when she found knitting and the Black-Scholes theorem too challenging. Once you have the difference between tabs and spaces down, the rest is a joke. -- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken : certainly not speaking for anyone, even myself. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 3:52 ` yodaiken @ 2003-01-11 4:05 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 5:45 ` Martin J. Bligh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 4:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yodaiken Cc: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:52, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote: > "fortune". Nearly anyone can pick this up. Val Henson's mom even Writing fortune is probably far more complicated than writing the kernel. By that, of course, I mean writing the individual fortunes which fortune spits out It's also more useful. The kernel, by itself, does nothing. It's like saying "the cpu is the most important part of the computer". Yeah, but without the a bios, what can you do with it? (Actually, a lot, if you can bootstrap the OS by other means, but you need hardware engineers to help you with that, and I've done it.) An OS is just another layer in the onion.. What's nice is that in an ideal world, that software follows standards.. Linux is still trying to find it's way in that respect it seems (for example, today I found that my 2.4 oss sound driver no longer works just right in the 2.5 kernel nor is it likely to be supported in the future since some SuSE specific sound system is replacing it -- I guess SuSE gave Torvalds some stock options or similar.) Also, the once perfectly functioning nvidia kernel driver (the subject of this message) no longer works in newer kernels -- whereas if there were a standard interface for such things, nvidia could freely keep their source closed while providing a driver that would solve people's problems. At least windows a few years back standardized on the wdm (windows driver model) whereby there was a standard interface for what a driver looked like and what it's interface to the kernel was (whether the platform was the dos-based windows 9x or NT-based Windows 2000/XP). This is not to say that I'm "trolling" by extolling the virtues of windows over linux.. I'm just pointing out what I know in this area. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 4:05 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 5:45 ` Martin J. Bligh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-01-11 5:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robw, yodaiken Cc: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, Linux Kernel Mailing List > I'm just pointing out what I know in this area. I think you've very ably described exactly what you know in this area. M. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:58 ` Rob Wilkens ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-01-11 3:52 ` yodaiken @ 2003-01-11 6:01 ` Tomas Szepe 2003-01-11 15:03 ` Rob Wilkens 4 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Tomas Szepe @ 2003-01-11 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Wilkens Cc: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, Linux Kernel Mailing List > [robw@optonline.net] > > High-level languages (stuff like delphi and visual basic) are grown-up > languages and tools where you can create more substantial programs using > more substantial areas of your brain. Alan, would you happen to know of a graduate of the Al Viro school of Direct Method in Diplomacy and Polite Conversation who would be available to comment on today's valuable posts by Mr. Wilkens? T. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 6:01 ` Tomas Szepe @ 2003-01-11 15:03 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 19:41 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tomas Szepe Cc: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 01:01, Tomas Szepe wrote: > Alan, would you happen to know of a graduate of the Al Viro school of Direct > Method in Diplomacy and Polite Conversation who would be available to comment > on today's valuable posts by Mr. Wilkens? Please, There's no reason to be diplomatic and polite with me.. If you haven't notice, I've been neither diplomatic nor polite in my comments or statement of opinions. Some people don't like them. heh, that's their right. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 15:03 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 19:41 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-11 21:18 ` Rob Wilkens 0 siblings, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-11 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Well let's add one more to the Advertising Minute for Nvidia. For someone who published their resume on this thread, and then was asked nicely to stop the thread, and can not or will not, I am sure your future employer should take notice. Individual requires a large Clue Bat to grasp various issues and requests. Cheers, On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 01:01, Tomas Szepe wrote: > > Alan, would you happen to know of a graduate of the Al Viro school of Direct > > Method in Diplomacy and Polite Conversation who would be available to comment > > on today's valuable posts by Mr. Wilkens? > > Please, There's no reason to be diplomatic and polite with me.. If you > haven't notice, I've been neither diplomatic nor polite in my comments > or statement of opinions. > > Some people don't like them. heh, that's their right. > > -Rob > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 19:41 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-01-11 21:18 ` Rob Wilkens 0 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 14:41, Andre Hedrick wrote: > Well let's add one more to the Advertising Minute for Nvidia. > > For someone who published their resume on this thread, and then was asked > nicely to stop the thread, and can not or will not, I am sure your future > employer should take notice. > > Individual requires a large Clue Bat to grasp various issues and requests. > > Cheers, I also published on this thread that I was mentally ill, which I'm sure employers will look equally kindly on :-). I am unemployed, so if I was actually hoping to be hired that's not the kind of thing I would post here. Geesh. You're, by the way, yet another poster who didn't read the mailing list FAQ which says to write your message below the quoted text. You really should read it before you use the mailing list. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 2:54 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 2:58 ` Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 6:32 ` Ryan Anderson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Ryan Anderson @ 2003-01-11 6:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Cc: Larry McVoy, Alan Cox, Larry McVoy, Rob Wilkens, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 06:54:49PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 03:26:12AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > Its not ham you need its utter arrogance and a complete lack of understanding > > that writing an OS is a seriously hard problem. There is a whole world of > > mysticism around the concept of a 'beginners mind' although to me > > "Im sorry nobody told me it was impossible" sums it up far better. > > Indeed. Lots of things which are hard look easy to people who haven't > done them. Operating systems don't have a corner on that market. For a slightly off-topic example for those interested - Turbine Games (www.turbinegames.com) has talked about this a bit in their history, if I'm remembering correctly - literally, they just didn't know that the game they were building "couldn't be done", so they did it. -- Ryan Anderson sometimes Pug Majere ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 3:26 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Alan Cox 2003-01-11 2:54 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 2:55 ` Rob Wilkens 1 sibling, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Rob Wilkens @ 2003-01-11 2:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Larry McVoy, Larry Sendlosky, Richard Stallman, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 22:26, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 02:07, Larry McVoy wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > > If I had been familiar with UNIX > > > at the time I had those books, I might've written ROBIX ... > > > > If I had ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs. > > Its not ham you need its utter arrogance and a complete lack of understanding > that writing an OS is a seriously hard problem. There is a whole world of > mysticism around the concept of a 'beginners mind' although to me > "Im sorry nobody told me it was impossible" sums it up far better. It depends what you're starting with, and what your goals are. If your goal is to write an operating system that runs on all hardware and does everything for everyone, then, yes, impossible would seem to fit. But what I was writing about specifically said that I've read the book dissecting dos in the distant past, as mentioned, and the slightly thicker book, writing your own 32-bit operating system, again in the distant past, and I've written dos-based interrupt handlers to use a mouse in a dos text app, and I've taken college courses in operating systems design and implementation, and even back in 1996 I've taken a course specifically on Linux implementation (a kernel hacking class). Had my goal at the time been as simple as Linus' goal was an been to just get a simple terminal emulator and grow it slowly, I don't think impossible would have described the task. I think "a project that I do in my spare time and show to nobody" would more likely have described it. -Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 1:58 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 2:07 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-01-11 3:20 ` Tom Sightler 2003-01-11 19:48 ` Mark Mielke 1 sibling, 1 reply; 69+ messages in thread From: Tom Sightler @ 2003-01-11 3:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robw; +Cc: linux-kernel > He just got lucky on his timing... Anyone studying operating systems at > the time (and heck, I remember owning a book "Creating your own 32-bit > operating system" by SAMS publishing and being inspired, and I also > owned "Disecting DOS" which was a nice analysis of a DOS-like operating > system at the code-level book w/disk) You could also argue that GNU got lucky on it's timing, otherwise we might still be waiting on a "GNU OS" rather than arguing over how important it is to put GNU in front of Linux. Later, Tom ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 2003-01-11 3:20 ` Tom Sightler @ 2003-01-11 19:48 ` Mark Mielke 0 siblings, 0 replies; 69+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-11 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Sightler; +Cc: robw, linux-kernel On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:20:09PM -0500, Tom Sightler wrote: > > He just got lucky on his timing... Anyone studying operating systems at > > the time (and heck, I remember owning a book "Creating your own 32-bit > > operating system" by SAMS publishing and being inspired, and I also > > owned "Disecting DOS" which was a nice analysis of a DOS-like operating > > system at the code-level book w/disk) > You could also argue that GNU got lucky on it's timing, otherwise we might > still be waiting on a "GNU OS" rather than arguing over how important it is > to put GNU in front of Linux. As far as I am concerned, we still *are* waiting for a "GNU OS", or rather *THE* "GNU OS" that Richard Stallman keeps talking about as having been almost complete in 1992, but even in 2003, is not ready to be rolled out. This very truth - the fact that Richard Stallman's people have taken more than 10 years, and they still are not done, suggests that the existence of an OS such as Linux is not an 'accident' related to certain skillsets colliding at a random interval, such as the original poster wishes to suggest. *Microsoft*... now *that* is a 'certain skillsets colliding at random interval' scenario... :-) Oops... I think I just extended this thread. Damn. mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 69+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-01-16 18:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 69+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-01-10 15:29 Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Larry Sendlosky 2003-01-11 1:58 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 2:07 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 2:13 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 2:17 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 2:38 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 2:41 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 2:46 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 21:44 ` Kurt Garloff 2003-01-11 21:53 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 22:16 ` Chief Gadgeteer 2003-01-11 22:26 ` Kurt Garloff 2003-01-11 23:23 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 3:33 ` Mark Mielke 2003-01-12 3:43 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 4:19 ` David Schwartz 2003-01-13 13:51 ` Richard B. Johnson 2003-01-12 4:00 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-01-12 4:04 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 7:47 ` Chuck Wolber 2003-01-12 14:42 ` Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company) Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 16:45 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-12 16:58 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 17:54 ` Alan Cox 2003-01-12 19:30 ` Intel And Kenrel Programming Samuli Suonpaa 2003-01-12 19:46 ` Intel And Kenrel Programming (was: Nvidia is a great company) Valdis.Kletnieks 2003-01-11 22:36 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Vojtech Pavlik 2003-01-11 22:57 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 1:06 ` The GPL, the kernel, and everything else Ryan Anderson 2003-01-12 4:15 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 4:21 ` David Lang 2003-01-12 4:55 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 5:10 ` David Lang 2003-01-12 5:45 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 5:12 ` Stephen Satchell 2003-01-16 16:28 ` Mark H. Wood 2003-01-16 16:41 ` venom 2003-01-16 18:22 ` John Alvord 2003-01-12 11:13 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Andrew McGregor 2003-01-12 1:44 ` [OT] Noise on lkml (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") J Sloan 2003-01-12 3:18 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-12 4:08 ` Scott Murray 2003-01-11 3:26 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Alan Cox 2003-01-11 2:54 ` Larry McVoy 2003-01-11 2:58 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:11 ` Zwane Mwaikambo 2003-01-11 3:14 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:16 ` John Adams 2003-01-11 3:35 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:48 ` Hans Sgier 2003-01-11 3:55 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 4:41 ` J Sloan 2003-01-11 4:44 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 5:09 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-11 5:12 ` OT: Renaming the kernel??!?!?!? (Was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") Brian Davids 2003-01-11 15:57 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Tom Sightler 2003-01-11 3:27 ` Brian Tinsley [not found] ` <1042256385.1259.106.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> 2003-01-11 4:16 ` Brian Tinsley 2003-01-11 3:52 ` yodaiken 2003-01-11 4:05 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 5:45 ` Martin J. Bligh 2003-01-11 6:01 ` Tomas Szepe 2003-01-11 15:03 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 19:41 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-01-11 21:18 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 6:32 ` Ryan Anderson 2003-01-11 2:55 ` Rob Wilkens 2003-01-11 3:20 ` Tom Sightler 2003-01-11 19:48 ` Mark Mielke
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).