Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Feb 2006 18:27 UTC
Linux It seems like Linus Torvalds cannot make up his mind about whether or not to use the GPL3 for the Linux kernel. After clearly rejecting the idea of using the GPL3 ('and I don't see that changing'), he now opens the option up again. "It's 'quite possible,' said Torvalds that the GPL 3 could be used, 'but on the other hand, there's a purely practical problem with any change of license when you have tens of major copyright holders and hundreds of people who have written some part and thousands who have submitted one-liners and small fixes. There are, after all, benefits to putting the kernel under the GPL 3,' Torvalds said."
Thread beginning with comment 94331
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Question
by morgoth on Thu 9th Feb 2006 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Question"
Member since:

If you read other comments by me, you'll see I'm just as damning of Linus as well. I used to like Linus before he got owned by big business and it started influencing the way that Linux is developed.

For details of exploits go visit and do your own investigation. I'm not your whipping boy.

No, I don't use Gnome, haven't since 1.4. Can't stand it. I'm a KDE user. But I also like XFCE and Windowmaker. :-)

That's baloney about the developers. If they want to develop on the Linux kernel, they'll hang around. If not, get rid of them and let new blood code. There's plenty of people wanting to help with kernel code.

[melkor@melkor:~]$ uname -a
Linux melkor 2.6.11-ln.std #1 Sun Apr 10 18:27:05 PDT 2005 i686 GNU/Linux

See, I'm not using a later kernel ;) Tried 2.6.14, but can't get nvidia to work, probably a Debian based issue, and I'm too lazy to figure it out and fix it. Things should just work.

BSD? No thanks. Read my comments on BSD elsewhere on I heavily dislike the BSD license and philosophy.

Before you try to character assassinate me again, do some research :-)


Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Question
by MightyPenguin on Thu 9th Feb 2006 21:08 in reply to "RE[5]: Question"
MightyPenguin Member since:

Thanks for the intelligent reply.

I went to cert and it was not at all easy to find sumarized information. I did find some good info at Secunia. -- Kernel 2.4 -- Kernel 2.6

2.6 has 14 more vulnerabilities (67) then 2.4 (53). What's interesting though is that in both kernels there were no advisories above Moderate level, but 2.4 has a higher percentage moderate level advisories then 2.6.

Basically though, my point here is that they're really about the same level of security, while 2.6 gives you much more features at a faster rate, and makes developers happier. Also, a disproportionate number of advisories affect both the 2.4 and 2.6 series kernels.

I think it IS important to keep developers happy. Yeah if they were all paid to work on Linux full time you might have a point that they'd just buckle down and deal with it but since a lot of device driver writers and others aren't paid even part time I think it is important. Economically speaking, Linux was a supply that created demand. The developers came first, and then the users. Lots of developers is what seperates Linux from Hurd and all the other weener OSes talked about here at OSNews, 99% of which aren't going to last 5 years.

Great, another KDE user! I like KDE and also haven't used gnome since 1.4 when it crashed more then Windows ;)

You might try 2.6.15, 2.6.14 seemed a little flacky for me as well (new USB changes). I'm running the latest nvidia drivers on 2.6.15 just fine (Slackware 10.2, GF6800).

Reply Parent Score: 2