2 Jun
2014
2 Jun
'14
10:04 a.m.
Yeah. I think Richard Stallman is a legend (umm if that's too close to
"awesome" vocabulary wise then let's say he's an inspiration :) :) ),
I
totally agree with everything he's done for & on behalf of free software
and really it's easy to forget how totally locked out of the unix world I
was as a 10yr old MS Basic programming hobbyist or 20yr old MS Basic
programming developer, never even used an SCCS until I was nearly 30. My
professional life would have been way more productive and satisfying if
Stallman had come along much earlier... I knew people who used unix and
packet-switched networks such as X.25 but being run for profit by large
corporations it was totally out of my price range. I also remember how much
I just yearned to have the source code of MS DOS, CP/M, AppleSoft & DOS
3.3, etc, so many unanswered questions that were only partially alleviated
by books such as "Undocumented DOS" and "Beneath Apple DOS"... I did
eventually get some of those sources or a version of them when it was much
too late & was disappointed to see how mediocre they looked from
developer's viewpoint... community could have dome much better but were
locked out of the process & relegated to writing apps & device drivers that
took ages to get working in light of limited technical info.
I'll never be in that situation again thanks to Stallman's insights and
Torvalds's and everyone else's contribution. I deplore the infighting
though and have had bad experiences in trying to offer what little time I
could afford to open source projects, now I do not really bother & just use
the tools with my own private modifications. I do think Stallman has a
point about naming of Linux v. GNU/Linux though.
What I do not like about GNU is the "kitchen sink" philosophy of including
every little used feature in every utility with longer and longer command
line switches and manpages. Bash I guess is an extreme example of this, we
do not need a commandline shell that is 1Mb in size!! Another issue I have
is the incredibly complex tools such as GCC being written in plain C when
some subset of C++ would clearly be more appropriate given their
fundamentally object oriented design. This is very laborious, repetitive
and wasteful and involves a lot of differing "private solutions" to
already-solved problems. Further the build systems are totally broken, I
appreciate what automake/autoconf is doing but from a developer point of
view they are totally unwieldy and another example of the "kitchen sink"
philosophy of supporting every conceivable, and outdated, architecture.
Much better solutions exist for these kinds of problems.
For these reasons I would likely not work on a GNU project, however I use
the tools daily and simply ignore the parts I don't like. If software
development were left to me I would be infinitely subroutinized,
redesigning the CPU so I could redesign the ISA and then return to
redesigning the compiler followed by the OS kernel followed by the C
library, the windowing system and the apps hehehe so RMS perceived a need
and filled it within a useful timescale and I'm infinitely grateful :)
cheers, Nick
On 02/06/2014 1:26 PM, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog(a)lemis.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, 1 June 2014 at 20:59:13 -0600, Warner Losh
wrote:
But now you've said something, and it's not nice.
Clearly this is indicative of the standpoints of the others as well.
A lot is simply personality conflict. As you know, I don't share that
opinion, and I think the emphasis that FreeBSD places on ridding
itself of GNU software is unhealthy. Yes, rms is "unusual", but that
goes for a lot of the BSD crowd too. And I know enough people in the
Linux space who dislike him as well.
But if you state that, you need to analyse why. I think the big issue
was the grandiose goals that they set. And who knows what might have
happened if Linux and the free BSDs hadn't come along? I don't think
it's fair to simply dismiss it as a dead end.
Not part of my vocabulary, but I couldn't live without Emacs. Shall
we degrade this discussion into a vi/Emacs fight?
Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog(a)FreeBSD.org for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft MUA reports
problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
On Jun 1, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Doug McIlroy <doug(a)cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> Phil Garcia wrote:
> I've always wondered about something
> else, though: Were the original Unix authors annoyed when they learned
that
> some irascible young upstart named Richard
Stallman was determined to
make
a free
Unix clone? Was he a gadfly, or just some kook you decided to
ignore? The fathers of Unix have been strangely silent on this topic for
many years. Maybe nobody's ever asked?
In private moments, some of the BSD old-timers have told me they are
silent due to bad blood that Stallman?s early fund-raising and
propaganda efforts created. Why rehash 20 year old battles with an
obvious nutcase, eh? Since more than one person has told me this, so
I think silence is a wide-spread case of ?If you can?t say anything
nice, say nothing at all." Gnu was
always taken as a compliment. And of course the Unix clone
was pie in the sky until Linus came along. I wonder about the power
relationship underlying "GNU/Linux", as rms modestly styles it.
Of course, it should be noted that the GNU project was totally
incapable of producing a working kernel? They did decent clones of
user land stuff, but Hurd was a total dead end... There are
certain differences in taste between Unix and Gnu, vide
emacs and texinfo...
Emacs is awesome?.