Linked by David Adams on Thu 1st Jul 2010 08:52 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source The HURD was meant to be the true kernel at the heart of the GNU operating system. The promise behind the HURD was revolutionary -- a set of daemons on top of a microkernel that was intended to surpass the performance of the monolithic kernels of traditional Unix systems and in doing so, give greater security, freedom and flexibility to the users -- but it has yet to come down to earth.
Permalink for comment 432148
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

Fine, I understand that. But isn't it (the defense of the ideology) a little insignificant with respect to the massive undertaking that building an OS (more precisely a non-Linux-based OS) is today?

but it is being done in a way where the ideology comes optionally, which for him completely misses the point

What would anyone but the FSF gain if that way was actually pushing the ideology instead of making it optional?

I'm not the most passionate hardcore supporter of the free software movement and I can't stomach using Linux for more than a few hours a month. But Linux is free, it is mainstream (Ubuntu?), it encourages people to contribute and it opened the eyes/minds of some (like me) to open source, security issues, diversity, customization of software, etc. It deserves better than a lukewarm "It's a good system". Even I can find more positive adjectives about Linux.

It also has its weird sides, like a million distros, incompatible stacks, competing projects with the same features and goals, which always make me wonder why they don't join the efforts and ideas (hence my previous "I still don't see why HURD should be something to spend resources on").

Linux changed the world, maybe not as much as the iPhone :-) but it did serve the free software movement and the community, users and coders, pretty well. Only, not Stallman.

I'm with free and/or open software. But I'm not with "all software is free and open and only that" because, as I've said in another comment, software engineers, artists, etc. also have rents and mortgages to pay. Just today, I thought about this article http://osnews.com/story/23494/Profiting_From_Open_Source_-_Without_... and wondered how the IntelliJ people manage to survive when their own Community edition, Eclipse and Netbeans (there are probably many more such IDEs) are there and of such high quality.

The danger is people will like it because it's practical and it will become popular without anyone having the vaguest idea of the ideals behind it, which would be an ironic way of failing.

How can Linux being liked because it's practical be "dangerous"?
When he says "which would be an ironic way of failing", he's talking about failing to rally the larger crowd behind his ideology in its strictest sense, right?

Reply Parent Score: 5