ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   10 May 2002  19:51:37
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2002/0502/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] 
    [LWN.net]
 
    Sections:
     [2]Main page
     [3]Security
     [4]Kernel
     [5]Distributions
     [6]Development
     [7]Commerce
     [8]Linux in the news
     [9]Announcements
     Letters
    [10]All in one big page
 
    See also: [11]last week's Letters page.
 
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [12]letters@lwn.net.
    Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
    well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
    way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
    anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
    May 2, 2002
 From:    Brian Beesley <BJ.Beesley@ulster.ac.uk>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: BitKeeper controversy
 Date:    Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:28:34 +0000
 
 Hi,
 
 Please note that I'm not an active kernel developer. However, like many in
 the linux community, I do have an ideological interest in this debate.
 
 1. I do NOT think it is wrong to use a commercial product in association with
 development of the linux kernel (or any other open source software). As far
 as I'm concerned, if it helps those actively involved in the development
 and/or management of the development of the linux kernel, that's fine.
 
 2. I think it IS wrong if for some reason developers who elect not to use a
 specific commercial product find obstacles in the path to getting their work
 implemented which would not be there if they were using that specific
 commercial product. (This situation is analagous to being unable to get work
 accepted by publishers unless you submit documents in MS Word format.)
 
 3. The kernel source is big enough without inclusion of material in the
 nature of advertising for a commercial product. A small text comment to the
 effect that "Product X has been used to support development of this product"
 is more than sufficient.
 
 4. I don't see any reason to accept the inclusion of "billboards" into the
 linux product (source or binary), even if commercial organizations were to
 offer real money to sponsor their inclusion. IMO "free software" means "free
 of intrusion by advertising" as well as "free as in beer" and "free as in
 spirit". The problem here is, if we accept advertisements in source code,
 where do we stop? Advertisements appearing during system startup?
 Advertisements during user login? Advertisements appearing at random times
 during normal operation?
 
 Regards
 Brian Beesley
 From:    David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup)
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Free Software / Bitkeeper
 Date:    25 Apr 2002 11:49:00 +0200
 
 You wrote in your editorial:
 
     There seem to be two main camps in the free software realm. The
     first sees free software as something that is fun, useful, and
     preferable whenever possible. This group is far more interested in
     getting the job done than worrying about the pedigree of its
     tools. Linus Torvalds, a highly visible member of this group,
     expressed it this way:
 
         Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for
         ideological reasons. I think ideology sucks. This world would
         be a much better place if people had less ideology, and a
         whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and because others
         might find it useful, not because I got religion".
 
         Would I prefer to use a tool that didn't have any restrictions
         on it for kernel maintenance? Yes. But since no such tool
         exists, and since I'm personally not very interested in
         writing one, _and_ since I don't have any hangups about using
         the right tool for the job, I use BitKeeper.
 
     The other point of view sees proprietary software as an evil to be
     avoided at all costs. Even discussion of proprietary software is
     to be avoided; [...]
 
 This _very_ clearly points out the validity of the arguments from the
 "radical" Free Software proponents that try to avoid (and tell people
 to avoid) non-free software at all costs.
 
 Creating software needs an incentive: the non-availability is one
 such incentive.  If one always turned to proprietary software
 whenever Free Software of equal quality was not yet available, there
 would be no incentive to develop or improve Free Software whenever
 proprietary software was already available.  Free systems would be
 non-existent, since it is hardly likely that _all_ components of such
 a system were as much of a novelty as to never have existed in
 proprietary form before.
 
 Free Software needs users, developers, interest to thrive.  The stance
 of Linus Torvalds with regard to Bitkeeper is not likely to foster
 development of free alternatives.  But who knows?  Perhaps the obvious
 lack of a free alternative will that way be pointed out much more
 prominently, and will be an incentive to get something going.
 
 When Stallman set out with the GNU project, avoiding proprietary
 software was often not possible, and often painful.  If there had been
 noone willing to subject himself to the insufficient situation,
 progress would never have been made.  The continuous availability of
 software, once free, makes it more resistant to bit rot, developer
 focus changes and other mishaps often killing off or thwarting its
 proprietary cousins.  That way, in the long run, Free Software stands
 a good chance to prevail.  But only in those areas where stagnation
 does not spell doom, and the short run has to get off the ground
 somehow, too.
 
 As an example, current proprietary compiler technologies from
 processor manufacturers sometimes beat the performance of GNU gcc by
 quite a margin.  If one followed the "pragmatical" approach of Linus
 Torvalds to its conclusion, it would mean that distribution authors
 and kernel developers should switch to proprietary compilers for
 creating Linux kernels where available.  This would increase the
 performance to be expected from Linux systems.  IT would also remove a
 big incentive to further gcc development, not least of all by
 processor vendors.  Currently, if they want to have their processor
 supported and accepted by the Linux community, they need to help with
 improving gcc.  If the nonchalant stance with regard to the use of
 proprietary software for the creation of free systems spread further,
 then there will come a time when Linux will be more efficient, at the
 cost of not being able to recompile a kernel unless you shell out the
 appropriate amount of money.
 
 That's not in the interest of Free Software.  It is not even in the
 interest of Open Source software which tries to deny the starting
 labors of Free projects by claiming that the process itself is
 guaranteed to lead to superior results from the setout.
 
 For this reason, the obstinacy, pigheadedness, perseverance and
 dedication of people like Stallman is not just an exercise in
 futility.  Sometimes groundbreaking work is required, and the "there
 is something proprietary available already, we don't need to do this"
 stance will not set it in motion.
 
 --
 David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
 Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de
 From:    Robert Hart <enxrah@nottingham.ac.uk>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: OpenCD
 Date:    Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:12:23 +0100 (BST)
 
 I have believed for a long time that the free-software is making a big
 mistake by concentrating solely on *nix.
 
 Any evangelist will tell you that you can't wait for somebody to come into
 a church if you want to preach the gospel.
 
 I realise that windows and unix are very different beasts, but if people
 are to be free then we must release the grasp of microsoft finger by
 finger. Mozilla to replace IE, Gimp to replace Photoshop, Abiword to
 replace word (ok wordpad), etc, and *then* Gnome/Kde/whatever to replace
 the lot.
 
 I hope the OpenCD project can help acheive this, however for it to work it
 needs open source projects to support this vision.
 
 When this does happen (mozilla, freeamp, abiword) the results benefit us
 all - more developers, more users, more bug reports, better software.
 
 When this is ignored, we are left with 'flagship' applications (evolution,
 gnumeric), that will never be used by the people who could benefit from
 them the most.
 
 Robert Hart
 From:    Rainer Weikusat <weikusat@students.uni-mainz.de>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: twisted
 Date:    Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:04:09 +0200
 
 Twisted is written in Python, a high-level language, rendering it immune i
 to the most common class of security flaw in network software
 
         'incompetent programmers'.
 From:    "Tom Cowell" <tcowell@anitesystems.de>
 To:      <letters@lwn.net>
 Subject: Best Sot Linux
 Date:    Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:13:52 +0200
 
 So,
 
 Best Linux is Sot Linux again, because it no longer matters that Sot means
 "disease" or "soot" in Swedish.
 
 Does it matter that "sot" means "drunkard" in English?
 
 Tom
 From:    Michael Concannon <cekim@ix.netcom.com>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Regarding RMS's interview (a litte belated)
 Date:    Sun, 28 Apr 2002 22:29:55 -0400
 
 I have long been an advocate of free software in my personal and
 professional life.  However, I am by nature a pragmatist and
 economically conservative excluding all but the most mundane forms of
 activism...
 
 That said, after using Linux since the 1.x.x kernel days, flailing
 through the early days of Alpha/AXP integration and now moving on to
 integrating Linux into my professional life (ASIC Design and
 verification), I am troubled by the extremism of some of those who are
 out there rightfully and thankfully fighting to ensure that free
 software can:
 
 1. exist at all in the face of increasing regulation
 2. coexist (I would hope that is a goal) with non-free software.
 
 Like many Linux power users I write software for a living.  Whether it
 is in C/C++, Perl, VHDL, Verilog or anything else, what I do day-to-day
 is write, compile, debug and sell my services in developing software.
 
 I greatly appreciate the ability to do so and I feel that it is my right
 to sell my services in this form as I see fit at a price the market will
 bear.
 
 In no way does this mean I oppose the distribution, creation, protection
 and general proliferation of free software.
 
 In fact, as I mentioned above, I find myself advocating and facilitating
 its use frequently where it offers an equivalent or superior solution.
 Always making sure to account for the real costs of using free software
 (all software has bugs -- someone has to make sure they either do not
 hurt you or are fixed in a timely manner).
 
 Further I have written a great deal of code to facilitate its use (which
 is very much not free and strictly speaking the property of my employer
 -- to whom I am really selling it for the sum of my salary).
 
 To quote Richard Stallman (taken from the lwn interview):
 "At a deeper level, though, the biggest threat to the future of free
 software is the idea that non-free software is acceptable."
 
 Recognizing that historically, extremists have driven incremental
 change, this seems like a flawed goal for the following reasons:
 
 1. Software development has a high cost in the form of human time taken
 or given from a skilled and specialized developer.  Any time you are
 asking someone to give of their time, you are asking them to give up a
 portion of their existence.  Some times, for the greater good, it is
 worth it to do so without direct compensation, other times, it is only
 valuable to a small group of people and should be traded for something
 of value (i.e. money!)
 
 2. Non-Free software need not fear free software and vice versa.  People
 trying to make money from solving a problem which is already solved need
 to fear it and move on to more interesting problems.  People solving a
 given problem poorly and coercing you to use their flawed solution need
 to fear even more.
 
 3. The more pressing concern is not that copyright and IP ownership
 exist but that at present anti-trust violations, inane interpretations
 of the laws and laughable execution by the US Patent Office allow them
 to be used to prohibit people from using free software to get what they
 want...
 
 True Type Font rendering and DVD players demonstrate this at present...
 I am willing to trade my time and frustration for my hard earned money,
 but I cannot easily do so at present because of the current litigious
 environment with regard to "digital rights".
 
 In short, the more useful goal would be to facilitate the free
 integration of free and non-free software.
 
 Non-free software will ultimately benefit from standards created by free
 software.  Users will benefit from the ability to select from a range of
 solutions and pick what fits them and their needs.  Free software will
 benefit in that it will be used and maintained as it is the foundation
 on which non-free and free software rely to execute.
 
 It is always nice to find tarball on the net that solves a pressing
 problem.  It is rewarding to circulate your own "solution" in return...
 Further, there are tangible benefits to releasing your source to the
 public:
 
 a. If it becomes the standard, you can ensure that things you build upon
 it will work in the future
 b. Developers can spend more time solving more higher level problems
 which build upon your solution.
 c. Someone else may return the favor and release a solution to a future
 problem of yours...
 
 However, you must recognize that __everything__ you do in life comes
 with a cost (time, money or longevity).  You have to keep this in mind
 what you talk about software being "free".
 
 The best answer is almost always exactly half way between the two
 extremes and I do not see how this is an exception...
 
 /mike
    [13]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2002 [14]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://lwn.net/2002/0502/
    3. http://lwn.net/2002/0502/security.php3
    4. http://lwn.net/2002/0502/kernel.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2002/0502/dists.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2002/0502/devel.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2002/0502/commerce.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2002/0502/press.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2002/0502/announce.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2002/0502/bigpage.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2002/0425/letters.php3
   12. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   13. http://www.eklektix.com/
   14. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор