Linux in the news
All in one big page
See also: last week's Back page page.
LinuxPower has relaunched itself with a new look and a customizable front page. They are running a promotion; create an account by January 9 and you might win a T-Shirt or Hat from Copyleft.net.
LinuxOrbit is mostly a collection of pointers to articles and reviews elsewhere on the net, with a bit of original content thrown in as well. Its contribution comes in the form of organization - it is possible, for example, to find all the articles about GNOME easily. There is also a forum area.
Section Editor: Jon Corbet
December 23, 1999
Letters to the editor should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:47:01 +0000 From: kevin lyda <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: LNUX == linux? Fascinating. I was wondering when someone would notice. I'm glad VA Linux used LNUX for their stock ticker, because it's just one more way to get the name Linux in the mouths of suits. Lots of people are clueless that Linux exists so the more ways they can find out the better. To complete the lot it would be nice if LinuxCare went with LINX, or LNXC. However I was rather curious that the rather noisy "Red Hat is Evil, Nasty, And Should Be Dragged Across Ye Olde Hot Coals Because They're So Commercial And Stealing The Linux Name" choir was ever so silent on VA's ticker choice. If Red Hat had chosen it, whew. I suppose if slashdot.org surviced the posting frenzy following it both the MySQL and Apache developers could point at a real world case of their software handling 100 million hits a second. In fairness Linux is part of VA's name. Again, I'm glad for VA, and I think it's great that they picked the name they did. I'm very happy in general with companies like VA, RedHat, SuSE, and TurboLinux for their commitment to free software. Particularly the first two since they're nearly 100% behind it. Neither the press's inability to understand a rather simple system like Linux (no one company owns it you freaks!) or the above mentioned choir who just seem to yammer on for no rational reason impress me though. Good luck VA, keep getting the word out! Kevin -- email@example.com Nutrition Facts fork()'ed on 37058400 Puns: 100% RDA (% good puns: 0)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:41:44 -0500 From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Ok, Damnit, RMS... <sigh> I'm at the end of _my_ rope, now. > However, one problem may be hard to solve: the LSB is mainly dealing > with issues at the operating system level--and is therefore in effect > calling the GNU operating system "Linux". GNU doesn't _have_ an operating system. GNU has a large, admittedly well done set of utility programs, a compiler and some frameworks, and, well, ok, maybe you can call _EMACS_ an operating system, but I wouldn't. :-) And maybe they'll have an OS kernel Real Soon Now<tm>. Maybe. Much, unless I'm very much mistaken, of at least one of the *BSD operating systems ships with a large collection of GNU utilities. Does RMS expect us to start referring to that system as GNU/BSD? Hell, I can get the Skunkware CD from SCO, and load lots of his code on my Open Server 5 box. Must I then call it GNU/SCO? I have no quibble with the POV that the GNU developers have labored long and hard, and, in the main, produced some exceptional free reimplementations of the traditional Unix utility set. But it took them 10 or 12 _years_ to get even close to having a kernel to talk about... and obviously, the problem isn't _that_ big; Linus went from 0.01 to .99pl12f (which I ran successfully for many moons...) in about a year and a half. So I think that it's a bit disingenuous of RMS to take the approach he's taking; let's try to keep our arguments coherent, shall we? At best, from the standpoint of "would we be getting any work done here?", the balance tips towards Linux/GNU -- notwithstanding how much GNU code there is, it wouldn't run very fast without a kernel underneath. (Damn, it's uncomfortable dressing down a legend... :-) Cheers, -- jra Jay R. Ashworth Ashworth & Associates An Interdisciplinary Consultancy in Advanced Technology
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:07:43 +0100 From: Michael Neuffer <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Your current LWN issue >Despite some difficulties here and there, the VA Linux directed >share program appears to have gone well. This program allowed >developers (as recognized by VA) to invest in a small number of >shares at the IPO price. Many of the difficulties encountered by Red >Hat (which had to blaze the initial trail for others to follow) were >avoided. Unfortunately this is not quite true. Deutsche Bank Alex Brown failed to do their work properly to file to legal paperwork so that all of the German developers and reportedly the developers of a bunch of other countries were left out, in spite of VA wanting them to take part. Also communication between DBAB and the participants was very problematic, some didn't get any information from DBAB after the first mailing and were not able to reach them over the service phone. Mike
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:16:59 +0000 From: Sid Boyce <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com CC: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: Binary only modules Anyone following the huge thread in the kernel mailing list will have seen all the arguments and exactly where the weight has come down. The one raised here by Richard Simpson is yet another legitimate one, but binary-only drivers would not only impact non-x86 users. A driver in source form could very quickly be fixed whatever platform is affected, far more responsively than "blindary-only" stuff which could only be fixed by the guy with the source code. Despite the persistence of the original requester, both Linus and Alan have invented no end of new ways of saying no-way. Regards -- ... Sid Boyce...Amdahl(Europe)...44-121 422 0375 Any opinions expressed above are mine and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Amdahl Corporation.