LWN: Comments on "The 2008 Linux and free software timeline"

no wonder git is so hard to learn...

astrophoenix — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:45:34 +0000

Linus's comment about user-space programming being so easy is very
telling. He normally is focused on system-level programming. User-space
programming is very different; there you have to worry about things like
providing a nice sensible interface to users, something which git seems
to fail at miserably. The reason why is obvious; it was designed by a
system programmer, not a user-space programmer.

It's quite functional, very open but not 100% open

khim — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 07:15:51 +0000

You can install new firmware, replace kernel and userspace, etc. But. GSM module is closed, Bluetooth module is closed, etc. Basically it's open in normal sense (all code for main CPU is replaceable), but not in RMS sense (there are a lot of separate modules with closed-source firmware).

The Android Dev Phone?

martinfick — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:41:19 +0000

Oh, I thought it was perhaps a completed article genuinely missed from the indexes since it was dated Dec 16th! :(

I want to read it, it might seriously influence my desire to get myself an X-mas present and thus finally make cell phone market penetration 100%. ;) A truly open and very functional phone is what it will take for me, and it appears this may be it. Publish it soon pretty please! :)

The Android Dev Phone?

jake — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:38:51 +0000

> For now, I have removed access.

Actually, this is wrong. No access was harmed. Think of the photos as a teaser.

jake

The Android Dev Phone?

jake — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:25:51 +0000

> Is our author messing with us?

Not intentionally ...

It would seem that our Search feature is a little overzealous. For now, I have removed access.

I definitely didn't think that "borrowing" that thumbnail for the timeline would lead someone to the photo, but I guess I underestimated the ingenuity of LWN readers.

jake

The Android Dev Phone?

martinfick — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:06:58 +0000

Where is the article pointed to in this picture?

http://lwn.net/Articles/312268

And this, where did it come from?

http://lwn.net/Articles/312269/

Is our author messing with us?