Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNU Hurd 0.5, GNU Mach 1.4 Released

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    if thats true that performance and reliability is the only thing that matters, why do we talk about the very slow btrfs file system and not use the faster ext4 filesystems forever, why will every mainstream distro switch in the next 3 years to btrfs?
    Performance and reliability aren't the only things that matter. There are also features and hardware and software support. Hurd lacks more than Linux in the latter three, and by design will lack more than Linux on the performance side. So, again, the point where it could win would be reliability. I never put either performance or reliability over each other, but stated the uses of each. Also, you are mixing OS stability with data integrity. Most people can have a hang once in a while, but most people can't afford losing data. That's why every distro will eventually switch to btrfs. There's another thing, which is if the reliability benefits outweighs the performance drawback. btrfs is at least half as fast as ext4, IIRC. That's probably not the case for microkernels against monolithic kernels, because almost everything will require a switch between user space and kernel space. The performance drawback is likely to be big.

    Because pure speed doesnt matter that much anymore.
    So you know better than the specific users about what matters to them?

    Developer Time and bug-freeness matters, and a micro-kernel is better for that,
    Never said they don't matter. I said they aren't the priority in certain use cases and that they are in another. Read before answering, please.

    and features matters again, I seen things a few years ago in hurd that today dont exist in linux really great stuff, not something nobody would want. something like "ln -s ssh://server//bla.txt local-bla.txt" (replace that with ftp or something else).
    Features matters, like supporting the hardware where you need the OS to run. And I don't mean drivers, but 64-bit or multi-core support, for example. Features matters, and you need to have priorities for them. Being able to make such symbolic link to a server via SSH is far less important than being able to boot, specially when you can overcome this by formatting and mounting the server's filesystem as NFS.
    Also, micro kernels don't lead to bug freeness, and lead to more work in developer time, because you can't just ignore the fact you need to write the servers, that would be shortsighted, don't you think? You only isolate the bugs from the kernel, that's why the system becomes more reliable, but at the same time you get more complex drivers because of the extra calls you need to handle, you get more complex modules because of the same reason, and all of that means the developer will have a harder time writing and will be more prone to bugs. The only benefit is the code will be cleaner, better isolated, and that those bugs will not bring your system down, because they are all outside the kernel and can be restarted without a reboot.

    Why is something so usefull and obvious that u want to have such stuff not implemented in linux?

    Maybe you can say me different reason than the microkernel structure why its not there, but still its not there.
    I don't see how that feature is something that I want to have. Also, I will say it again: how file systems are handled is not inherent to micro kernels or monolithic kernels. You could treat everything as a file on Linux, but evidently nobody considered going further in that approach a killing feature worth coding it.

    and that something like that works has to do with modularity and a microkernel is more mudular, so u could make maybe a monolyth kernel also more micro-ish or make something hybrid out of linux, but the only thing why linux is good is because it is the projekt with most developer years invested ever. (I am talking about the kernel)
    IIRC, Hurd started way before than Linux. So, by your criteria, it shouldn't have even had any attention, because Hurd already had more development on top of it than Linux. Maybe Linux is just not that bad and unusable, or reliability is not the only thing that matters, or maybe just the micro kernel thing is really beautiful in theory but not as much IRL. I don't know of a single commercial OS using a pure micro kernel approach. Also, I already told you a way to go to a micro kernel approach but starting with a feature full kernel, and you simply ignored it.
    And more, I don't see the relation you state between using a micro kernel and the support for the approach "everything is *actually* a file", nor why don't you consider monolithic kernels (which aren't really pure monoliths nowadays) not modular. Support wise, the modularity you need is in the organization of the code, mostly, and you can keep that in monolithic kernels. Runtime modularity is more related to reliability (being able to stop core OS functionality, if behaving wrongly, without rebooting).

    So lets think X-org would have the same amount of developers the last 10 years than linux had, would we also now talk that the X11 design is perfekt or something different makes no sense because we worked good enough around the problems with the design?
    First, I never said Linux design is perfect, I know it is not. You are reading it all in an utterly moronic way, and it's starting to annoy me. Second, X.org had a lot of developers working on it through the last 10 years. Third, making no sense and having no point are different things, and I only stated the latter. Fourth, there are problems with micro kernel design, too. Fifth, most of X.org design flaws weren't flaws when it was designed, so I'd rather call it obsolete than calling it badly designed.
    And again, if you want a micro kernel approach you don't need to start over from zero, you could as well write the micro kernel, turn the Linux kernel into a server, so you have a usable kernel, and gradually turn the subsystems and drivers into servers, and gradually crop them from the huge Linux server. Even while it sounds more complex, I think that's a saner approach, considering how you won't get any feedback from users that needs things done otherwise.
    Last edited by mrugiero; 09-29-2013, 12:33 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
      First, I never said Linux design is perfect, I know it is not. You are reading it all in an utterly moronic way, and it's starting to annoy me. Second, X.org had a lot of developers working on it through the last 10 years. Third, making no sense and having no point are different things, and I only stated the latter. Fourth, there are problems with micro kernel design, too. Fifth, most of X.org design flaws weren't flaws when it was designed, so I'd rather call it obsolete than calling it badly designed.
      And again, if you want a micro kernel approach you don't need to start over from zero, you could as well write the micro kernel, turn the Linux kernel into a server, so you have a usable kernel, and gradually turn the subsystems and drivers into servers, and gradually crop them from the huge Linux server. Even while it sounds more complex, I think that's a saner approach, considering how you won't get any feedback from users that needs things done otherwise.
      First of all, I dont know why you get so pissed, I am talking about about a technology I did not attack you or something like that. The Fork Linux aproach has some problems, first I dont think its easy to rewrite a monolitic kernel to a micro-kernel, often in such big refactorings its easier to rewrite stuff, but yes maybe it would be better. 2nd I dont want to develop such stuff so it does not really matter how you come to a good micro-kernel, another problem is that the linux kernel is to unfree, so if you start from a freebsd kernel you get patent law suits like hell, with linux u cant fork your code to normal gpl, just to a modified version (v2-only).

      So to go the gnu way would be the best, to get 2 things done, its not very effishent to rewrite a complete kernel to only fix 1 of 2 problems. If you do that work fix both.

      I mean if you would say 3 and later, somebody could fork it if gpl 4 would suck and comply only to version 3 rules so I dont see any disadvantages in that, on the opposite end you cant upload changes in gplv3 if you like your code protected by that. Even GPL2 is bypassed by DEFINE_KERNEL_BLABLA_DO_WHAT_YOU_WANT_ITS_NOT_GPL symbols.

      Android is a piece of shit, and if we talk about speed android is the best example that for most people (most people arent linux network admins, but most have a smartphone) speed does not matter the java-api makes android so slow and especialy ram-hungry that you need basicly double the memory and double the cpu speed to have the same speed than a apple or microsoft phone needs. That leeds to the need of bigger akkus...


      BTW I never said that NOBODY cares about speed, of course some geeks do, but most people dont (android). btw I dont know about apples smartphone os, but its a hybrit? kernel or something and liek a said 1000x faster than garbage java + linux in android.

      I could even live with a gpl2 + later kernel... If I would make changes they would be released in gpl3 and if the new linus would not pull that, ok I would have no big problems with that, if you comply to gplv3 u get all stuff from gplv2 the companies that dont want to comply to gplv3 just get the hole deal their problem.

      AND one nother thing if lisenses would not matter everybody would switch to bsd because its cleaner and better than linux.
      Last edited by blackiwid; 09-29-2013, 02:36 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
        First of all, I dont know why you get so pissed, I am talking about about a technology I did not attack you or something like that. The Fork Linux aproach has some problems, first I dont think its easy to rewrite a monolitic kernel to a micro-kernel, often in such big refactorings its easier to rewrite stuff, but yes maybe it would be better. 2nd I dont want to develop such stuff so it does not really matter how you come to a good micro-kernel, another problem is that the linux kernel is to unfree, so if you start from a freebsd kernel you get patent law suits like hell, with linux u cant fork your code to normal gpl, just to a modified version (v2-only).

        So to go the gnu way would be the best, to get 2 things done, its not very effishent to rewrite a complete kernel to only fix 1 of 2 problems. If you do that work fix both.

        I mean if you would say 3 and later, somebody could fork it if gpl 4 would suck and comply only to version 3 rules so I dont see any disadvantages in that, on the opposite end you cant upload changes in gplv3 if you like your code protected by that. Even GPL2 is bypassed by DEFINE_KERNEL_BLABLA_DO_WHAT_YOU_WANT_ITS_NOT_GPL symbols.

        Android is a piece of shit, and if we talk about speed android is the best example that for most people (most people arent linux network admins, but most have a smartphone) speed does not matter the java-api makes android so slow and especialy ram-hungry that you need basicly double the memory and double the cpu speed to have the same speed than a apple or microsoft phone needs. That leeds to the need of bigger akkus...


        BTW I never said that NOBODY cares about speed, of course some geeks do, but most people dont (android). btw I dont know about apples smartphone os, but its a hybrit? kernel or something and liek a said 1000x faster than garbage java + linux in android.

        I could even live with a gpl2 + later kernel... If I would make changes they would be released in gpl3 and if the new linus would not pull that, ok I would have no big problems with that, if you comply to gplv3 u get all stuff from gplv2 the companies that dont want to comply to gplv3 just get the hole deal their problem.

        AND one nother thing if lisenses would not matter everybody would switch to bsd because its cleaner and better than linux.
        I'm going to file this one under the "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT" category.

        Comment


        • #19
          If you want to flame around go ahead...

          I wanted to discuss why I think a alternative to linux and bsd is needed and most likely it should be a micro kernel, because linux design is old, yes its mainstream now, its the dominant system now, windows is on its die-bed, if there would be no hardware-windows bundle it would be even worse... but I count smartphones and tablets as pcs and there windows is dead.

          And that will not change for the next 5-10 years maybe even 20 years. But maybe Hurd is really dead (even Hurd was never = Hurd it was different oses as far as I read it, so which hurd in the future is now dead would be the question) but I just say, linux is about rewriting everything why should the kernel be the only thing where this will never happen?


          Replace Linux with GPL FOSS Operation systems. or "GNU"
          Last edited by blackiwid; 09-29-2013, 03:19 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
            If you want to flame around go ahead...
            It's not flaming. You are arguing based on a number of misconceptions. Let me highlight a few for you.

            2nd I dont want to develop such stuff so it does not really matter how you come to a good micro-kernel, another problem is that the linux kernel is to unfree, so if you start from a freebsd kernel you get patent law suits like hell, with linux u cant fork your code to normal gpl, just to a modified version (v2-only).
            GPL v2 or v3 or any subsequent versions do not absolve you of the liability of patent violations. I assume that you know the difference between patents and copyright laws in various regions?

            The assertion that a BSD license makes you more susceptible to patent violation is ludicrous at best.

            Android is a piece of shit, and if we talk about speed android is the best example that for most people (most people arent linux network admins, but most have a smartphone) speed does not matter the java-api makes android so slow and especialy ram-hungry that you need basicly double the memory and double the cpu speed to have the same speed than a apple or microsoft phone needs. That leeds to the need of bigger akkus...
            This is all just hot air. The Java apis do not make android slow. The implementation of the Java apis may. What are you basing this on anyway? Do you have any hard truths to back this up?

            BTW I never said that NOBODY cares about speed, of course some geeks do, but most people dont (android). btw I dont know about apples smartphone os, but its a hybrit? kernel or something and liek a said 1000x faster than garbage java + linux in android.
            Again, just hot air. Can you provide proof that iOS performs 1000x faster than android for any given work load?

            AND one nother thing if lisenses would not matter everybody would switch to bsd because its cleaner and better than linux.
            This is subjective and mostly false.

            Note: I prefer FreeBSD to any Linux distro.

            I wanted to discuss why I think a alternative to linux and bsd is needed and most likely it should be a micro kernel, because linux design is old, yes its mainstream now, its the dominant system now, windows is on its die-bed, if there would be no hardware-windows bundle it would be even worse... but I count smartphones and tablets as pcs and there windows is dead.
            Windows is far from dead even if you counted smartphones and tablets as PCs. You are throwing a lot of hot air around.

            You claim that an alternative to Linux and BSD is needed and that it should be a microkernel but you have not said why this is so.
            Why is this alternative needed and who needs it?

            And that will not change for the next 5-10 years maybe even 20 years. But maybe Hurd is really dead (even Hurd was never = Hurd it was different oses as far as I read it, so which hurd in the future is now dead would be the question) but I just say, linux is about rewriting everything why should the kernel be the only thing where this will never happen?
            Yes, for all intents and purposes, the HURD is dead. The HURD suffers from quite a number of deficiencies and it may be easier to re-implement it from scratch than fixing it.

            Linux is not about rewriting everything.

            No one needs to rewrite the Linux kernel.

            Anyone is free to implement a microkernel and a microkernel based operating system. This does not need to have anything to do with Linux.


            I'm quite interested in microkernel OS development and I follow the development of a few of them. Some of the better ones:
            http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/fiasco/
            https://github.com/IntelLabs/NOVA
            http://www.barrelfish.org/
            HelenOS
            http://genode.org/ You should really check this one out.

            Richard Braun (HURD guy) is working on a replacement for MACH to create a HURD-like system. He thinks the HURD is dead also.

            You should note that all microkernels are not created equal. The difference between any two can be even greater than the different between Windows NT and Linux. So just saying "microkernel" means nothing at all. A lot of people even claim that some kernels are microkernels when they are in fact monolithic kernels(Haiku' kernel, XNU. Windows NT and a few others). Even calling them hybrids does not make sense from the perspective of someone who understands what a microkernel is and how it differs from a monolithic kernel.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
              It's not flaming. You are arguing based on a number of misconceptions. Let me highlight a few for you.
              k I get it know you invested 1 billion man hours in studying kernels or something and are pissed that somebody thinks he can talk about it, even he has only basic knowledge about it. I find that arrogent or just emotional dumb. Sorry I tumbled over your holy thing.
              That sentence proofed it to me that you just want to be right or something:

              "The Java apis do not make android slow. The implementation of the Java apis may."

              So you take my stuff I wrote down in 3 Minutes and take every thing word by word. Of course a API never makes something slow. Do you really think I am that dumb? So why do you even talk to such a dumb guy then?

              This BOSS guy is not even a person a Troll-bot it seems. omg.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                First of all, I dont know why you get so pissed, I am talking about about a technology I did not attack you or something like that.
                You don't need to attack me to be annoying. If I felt attacked, I'd tell you. If I get annoyed, I'll tell you.

                The Fork Linux aproach has some problems, first I dont think its easy to rewrite a monolitic kernel to a micro-kernel, often in such big refactorings its easier to rewrite stuff, but yes maybe it would be better.
                And that's what I'm saying is the correct approach. You first rewrite some basic things for Linux to run as a server. The micro kernel needs to be written from scratch, obviously, since it's a completely different design. The thing is, when you write a micro kernel, you don't just write the micro kernel, you write a set of servers providing functionality. If you start ALL THE SET from scratch, you will get a virtually non-advancing project, such as Hurd is. If you start with the kernel, and take a full fledged one as a server, you can do the rewrite gradually all of the features of the Linux kernel as smaller servers, without loss of functionality in between. This way, you get real usage testing, since it still offers support and features.

                2nd I dont want to develop such stuff so it does not really matter how you come to a good micro-kernel, another problem is that the linux kernel is to unfree, so if you start from a freebsd kernel you get patent law suits like hell, with linux u cant fork your code to normal gpl, just to a modified version (v2-only).
                Too unfree? The problem with GPLv3 is as simple as the fact it's almost impossible to not step over someone's license, and nobody wants to take the risk of being responsible of it. That's the only "advantage" when using GPLv3, that the developer is the one to sue if it steps on someone's patent.
                As for the FreeBSD, it's the same story as with Linux, and it's kind of the same with GPLv3 software, with the only difference that the one paying will be the developer. Really fair, huh?

                So to go the gnu way would be the best, to get 2 things done, its not very effishent to rewrite a complete kernel to only fix 1 of 2 problems. If you do that work fix both.
                Even Stallman admitted Linux does good as the GNU kernel. Oh, well...
                Also, writing from scratch a kernel AND a lot of servers is a lot more work and a far less efficient than just rewriting the most basic part of a kernel to a micro kernel and refactoring a bit of the Linux kernel to allow it to run as a server. You seem to disregard testing and support. That mentality is the one which leads Hurd to be stagnated.

                I mean if you would say 3 and later, somebody could fork it if gpl 4 would suck and comply only to version 3 rules so I dont see any disadvantages in that, on the opposite end you cant upload changes in gplv3 if you like your code protected by that. Even GPL2 is bypassed by DEFINE_KERNEL_BLABLA_DO_WHAT_YOU_WANT_ITS_NOT_GPL symbols.
                And you can gradually drop all of it. You can upload any changes on the servers and your micro kernel with the license you want. GPLv2 is good enough for having something working until you have a full rewrite of the functionality.

                Android is a piece of shit, and if we talk about speed android is the best example that for most people (most people arent linux network admins, but most have a smartphone) speed does not matter the java-api makes android so slow and especialy ram-hungry that you need basicly double the memory and double the cpu speed to have the same speed than a apple or microsoft phone needs. That leeds to the need of bigger akkus...
                And again with Android. For a lot of users, speed matters. Also, using a java API leads to better reliability than native code (because most programmers suck at managing memory, mostly because they are lazy and they are expected to work fast, not to work right), because it runs on a VM. With your logic (speed doesn't matter), Android can not be a piece of shit, but rather brilliant. I don't know what "akkus" means.

                BTW I never said that NOBODY cares about speed, of course some geeks do, but most people dont (android). btw I dont know about apples smartphone os, but its a hybrit? kernel or something and liek a said 1000x faster than garbage java + linux in android.
                Most users think cellphones are slow, and just that. They don't expect real speed from them. They do expect to be able to get some performance of a desktop. I don't think Hurd is targeted to cellphones.
                Also, the slowness of Android is due to the user space, not due to the kernel. I don't know which kernel iOS uses, but OS X uses an hybrid, with FreeBSD as a server on top of a micro kernel. The main reason it's faster is because they use native code, and there is no garbage collection. Again, user space reasons.

                I could even live with a gpl2 + later kernel... If I would make changes they would be released in gpl3 and if the new linus would not pull that, ok I would have no big problems with that, if you comply to gplv3 u get all stuff from gplv2 the companies that dont want to comply to gplv3 just get the hole deal their problem.

                AND one nother thing if lisenses would not matter everybody would switch to bsd because its cleaner and better than linux.
                Who said licenses doesn't matter, again? As far as I saw, the only problem with Linux would be that the developer does not need to be sure his code is not under any patent. Assuming he would sue you because he owns a patent covering the code he freed up would not be smart, IMO, because the solution would be to just revert a patch and he'd get nothing, so the only consequence of GPLv3 would be that if it's covered by patents, he will get sued. And chances are for any given algorithm, that either you own a patent for it, or others do, and you'll get sued instead of the ones benefiting from your work. GPLv2 is still GPL. Also, if you have a problem with licenses that hard, I expect you to not use a GUI, because both Wayland and X.org use the MIT license, while Mir uses a CLA that gives Canonical the same rights the MIT license gives anyone else.
                And BSD is not cleaner and better than Linux, AFAIK. BSD is lacking a lot of support, you know?

                Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                I wanted to discuss why I think a alternative to linux and bsd is needed and most likely it should be a micro kernel, because linux design is old, yes its mainstream now, its the dominant system now, windows is on its die-bed, if there would be no hardware-windows bundle it would be even worse... but I count smartphones and tablets as pcs and there windows is dead.
                There is already Minix, too. Also, micro kernel design is older than Linux. Minix itself is older than Linux. And it is a micro kernel. And its creator had a strong argument with Torvalds when the latter wrote Linux, because he thought monolithic was the wrong way (TM).

                And that will not change for the next 5-10 years maybe even 20 years. But maybe Hurd is really dead (even Hurd was never = Hurd it was different oses as far as I read it, so which hurd in the future is now dead would be the question) but I just say, linux is about rewriting everything why should the kernel be the only thing where this will never happen?
                Can't you see there is no practical difference between writing from scratch and rewriting, aside from being able to use already implemented functionality with the rewrite?

                Replace Linux with GPL FOSS Operation systems. or "GNU"
                Linux is GPL FOSS.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                  k I get it know you invested 1 billion man hours in studying kernels or something and are pissed that somebody thinks he can talk about it, even he has only basic knowledge about it. I find that arrogent or just emotional dumb. Sorry I tumbled over your holy thing.
                  That sentence proofed it to me that you just want to be right or something:

                  "The Java apis do not make android slow. The implementation of the Java apis may."

                  So you take my stuff I wrote down in 3 Minutes and take every thing word by word. Of course a API never makes something slow. Do you really think I am that dumb? So why do you even talk to such a dumb guy then?

                  This BOSS guy is not even a person a Troll-bot it seems. omg.
                  I take it English is not your native language as you are taking frank factual statements as an emotional outburst. Correct me If I'm wrong.

                  You are contributing to a larger problem that has made the internet a worse place for learning in recent years i.e. the spreading of misinformation and F.U.D. If you spurt lies or half truth because you only have basic knowledge about a topic, do you not expect someone to correct you?

                  Just try for yourself to learn about the topic of say "microkernels" and see for yourself the amount of bullshit you will have to wade through. Contributing to it only makes things worse for everybody.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
                    I take it English is not your native language as you are taking frank factual statements as an emotional outburst. Correct me If I'm wrong.

                    You are contributing to a larger problem that has made the internet a worse place for learning in recent years i.e. the spreading of misinformation and F.U.D. If you spurt lies or half truth because you only have basic knowledge about a topic, do you not expect someone to correct you?

                    Just try for yourself to learn about the topic of say "microkernels" and see for yourself the amount of bullshit you will have to wade through. Contributing to it only makes things worse for everybody.
                    ok if you all thought you get here a expert discussion I maybe did go on the wrong site, oh no its phoronix, it does not end with .edu ups, is now the .com the new .edu? I should learn that now you all are right.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                      Linux is GPL FOSS.
                      linux is about rewriting everything why should the kernel be the only thing where this will never happen?

                      <- I meant replace here the word linux with GNU or FOSS Ecosystem. because Linux is the synonym of GNU system and its a bit strange to say replace the linux kernel in linux. but it would make sense to say Replace Linux as Kernel from most/some distros (in the long run) or create new ones.

                      The point is for me not the technical site, I did not switch to Linux because I like ext3 or ext4 better than ntfs as example its the gnu tools and the eco system, and its more than openess because even I know some good stuff even can come from bsd developers like postgresql its more than just some vage openess its the freedom of gpl. And yes the tivoisation as example we also see in android sucks.

                      As example, every distro did have blob-installers, and it did work, yes I got flamed for caring for freedom from 1000 Nvidia fanboys but today nvidia is moving in the direction of supporting free drivers. Linux is the bigger thing its bigger than everything nvidia releases and fighing it by not accepting its rules hurt your business more than one company can slow down "gnu-os".

                      So again it was at least consense even it was not proven by law suits that a driver is a derivied work, from the kernel. But now they bring linux devices where its not even some kind of installation process no it gets delivered on one medium pre-installed. So of course what happens next all the arm vendors dont give a shit about free drivers.

                      I am not shure if thats the problem with gpl2 or only not even enforce gpl-v2 but it shoes that such stuff hurts people. (and maybe in america thats no problem, but here in germany and the rest of the world we are pissed about getting spyed by nsa, and the only thing that can give the user some control over its system would be free systems. At least free drivers and a free kernel. but even worse not only the gpu-drivers are unfree also the dialer-drivers or network-drivers are proprietary and we all know now since we know now all the stuff microsoft did, that they get payed to send fixes later or even implement "bugs" as backdoords, and fix them as late as possible.

                      If I would have wrote some stuff to the gplv2 kernel I would most likely suing nvidia or google or others for even breaking the gpl-v2 laws or would sue linus or others that think that they can change lisence by setting such NON_GPL_SYMBOLS.



                      To try to say something about the discussion style here. I see even trolling if you stay all on a non-personal level for a good process to learn stuff. or to come to new ideas. Or lets say talking with people with different backgrounds. And yes my not native english may caused some problems in this discussion too.
                      But the discussion style could be better here. Its not always about beeing right in every-way its also a form of communication where maybe everybody can leran something from each other.

                      For me I can say that I learned 1-2 facts from this discussion still even the tone was not right.

                      with "akku" I meant batterie in german batteries are the ones that can not be reloaded and akku is the real "battery" ^^ sry thought in the rush that it was the same word in english.
                      Last edited by blackiwid; 09-29-2013, 11:00 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                        Snip
                        I shortened the quote because it was all mixed, so keeping it full to quote every part made no sense, and my post would get rather big.
                        On the free software advocation, I think we agree. What I'm trying to tell you is that GPLv3 doesn't protect you from the things you are talking about any more than GPLv2 does. The non-GPL symbols, I'm not sure how they work or why are there where they are, but I can see how they are also possible by using GPLv3, since the name itself imply they are making those symbols not covered by the GPL, and both versions protect derived work in the exact same way.
                        On derived work, drivers for ARM are probably completely on user space, to avoid being a derived work. At least graphics drivers, the most problematic for the ARM situation, are implemented mostly on user space.
                        On being a problem of GPLv2, it's not. GPLv2 is copyleft and works in pretty much the same terms GPLv3. Again, the main difference between v2 and v3 is that v3 expects the developer to take full responsibility of ensuring users won't get sued by patent use. This means, either you own the patent and promise to allow its free use, or you face the lawsuits, not your users. So, if there are any problems, they are because of not enforcing the license, not by the license choice.

                        On learning, that's my objective on the forums, too. It simply sounded like you were asserting things instead of giving an opinion, and if they were wrong, well, someone has to correct them, otherwise nobody will learn from them.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                          with "akku" I meant batterie in german batteries are the ones that can not be reloaded and akku is the real "battery" ^^ sry thought in the rush that it was the same word in english.
                          Ahh, as in short for "akkumulator". I too was wondering what "akku" meant...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                            But this modularity is basicly the point of a micro-kernel. So think of you have 1000 different types of things, in a micro kernel as far as I understand it, you have for every mini-thing a seperate "driver" or prozess.
                            Hurd is actually more hybrid-kernel. It doesn't run drivers in separate processes, which is most important for stability.
                            If you really want micro-kernel, QNX is your best choice (sadly it is proprietary and is dying).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                              ...
                              you conzentrate by GPL-v3 on one maybe negative point of it and ignore that it has other changes that are also important. And your point about giving guarantee to not get sued. It has rules at least wikipedia and richard stallman says that, that fights tivoisation and it allows users to break DRM legaly if it falls under GPL lisense rules. Thats important things.

                              If that really applies to Android I dont really know but that it has some more freedom stuff in it (if you dont define freedom in prinziple openess) is clear.

                              The software-patent issue you mention is not a big deal for me, I dont sell my gpl software so as a privat men I dont fear law suits because of software patents, and in europe in theory software-patents are forbidden. And if not that has to happen, thats no problem with this lisense, its the problem that corrupt regimes make such laws that allows patents for math.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                                you conzentrate by GPL-v3 on one maybe negative point of it and ignore that it has other changes that are also important. And your point about giving guarantee to not get sued. It has rules at least wikipedia and richard stallman says that, that fights tivoisation and it allows users to break DRM legaly if it falls under GPL lisense rules. Thats important things.
                                I'm not sure how it changes anything on the DRM area, so can you explain it to me? As I see it, any GPL software helps you with preventing DRM, since you are free to modify it for any use.

                                If that really applies to Android I dont really know but that it has some more freedom stuff in it (if you dont define freedom in prinziple openess) is clear.
                                It's got more free stuff, but most of the GNU/Linux graphics stack is under MIT license, which is not copyleft, so using it and not releasing the modified source code is not mandatory, and not and infringement.

                                The software-patent issue you mention is not a big deal for me, I dont sell my gpl software so as a privat men I dont fear law suits because of software patents, and in europe in theory software-patents are forbidden. And if not that has to happen, thats no problem with this lisense, its the problem that corrupt regimes make such laws that allows patents for math.
                                I re read the GPLv3, and I find I was wrong about the developer being the one to be sued in the case of software patents. The GPL only states the developer gives the right to use every patented bit, if such a patent is under his/her control. Still, it doesn't protect you from infringing others' patents.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X