SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Distribution: Slint64-14.2beta2 on Lenovo Thinkpad W520
Originally Posted by ReaperX7
I often wonder if the fact that GNU/Linux has no absolutes as far as standards go it's ultimate weakness to all this infiltration being made against UNIX and other UNIX-like standards that have such clear defined standards? It would seem to me, and I'm sorry if this next phrase incurs the wrath of every GNU/Linux user, maintainer, and distributor, all this pride of openness to freedom, liberalistic values and ideas, and willingness to accept chance without merit has done nothing good for GNU/Linux period in the long term, only the short , temporary, and fleeting? And I wonder if this lack of foundation will be the downfall and destruction of GNU/Linux?
I think that we just suffer of the lack of a global system engineering (for the whole OS), as we have for the kernel. It's good to have only one person who ultimately makes integration decisions, and that partly explains why Slackware has been able to survive that many years, unfortunately no one controls random evolution of available components and sub-systems. Every time one of these changes, appears or disappears, we can just cross fingers hoping that integration will stay possible without regression of features and/or of non functional requirements previously fulfilled or met.
Last edited by Didier Spaier; 02-23-2014 at 01:31 PM.
Reason: s:and/of:and/or of:
I think that we just suffer of the lack of a global system engineering (for the whole OS), as we have for the kernel. It's good to have only one person who ultimately makes integration decisions, and that partly explains why Slackware has been able to survive that many years, unfortunately no one controls random evolution of available components and sub-systems. Every time one of theses changes, appears or disappears, we can just cross fingers hoping that integration will stay possible without regression of features and/of non functional requirements previously fulfilled or met.
Exactly - hence why Red Hat hired many of the developers of the key components. Without being able to control your own destiny, it makes creating and sticking to software road maps very difficult.
Yes, but Red Hat is only a distribution/distributor of GNU/Linux, they shouldn't be the ones making the decisions on the future of GNU/Linux, the GNU project and the Linux Foundation should be making those Standards and deciding the future of Linux. This is basically going back to my argument on someone adding the proverbial onion to the soup that has no business in the kitchen or near the food.
It's nice that some companies and groups want to contribute back to GNU/Linux, but when a contribution is aimed at destroying the UNIX ecosystem to which GNU and Linux both belong to, along with hundreds of other projects, there should be Standards in place to prevent this from going any further, and those Standards are either too loosely defined, non-existent, or unenforceable by whatever means.
I honestly think an Open UNIX Specification that would state that any key structural system software that works for the GNU/OS has to be openly available for any other UNIX or UNIX-like system, minus tools developed by the Linux Foundation specifically to manage the kernel only, and if not, it can not be included in a public GNU/Linux distribution, similar to the Copyright laws that prevent CDDL licensed software from being redistributed along with a GPL licensed project in source or binary form... and then actually enforce the rules.
Well, the Real Life demonstrate that you are epic wrong. Because for every lonely GNU/Linux user, there are 5000 frakking Android users. Whis is (esentialy) a Linux desktop environment.
Sorry, but I don't give a crap for a (personal) computer unable to run a web browser. Sure, I work with servers and I earn a meal from them, but them are NOT my frakking computers.
Sure, using a Linux desktop environment known also as Android...
Sure, you see Slackware's future just as a web server, nothing more. Or as a appliance?
BUT, again, I don't give a crap for a great development workstation unable to run a web browser. Because I need a web brouser for reading documentation, news, even to post there. Or you think that I post there using netcat and I read LQ using wget?
Yet again, I don't give a crap about small memory footprints on my computers. The lamest of them have "only" 8GB RAM. So, what's the point to care?
Also I suggest you to finally dump your techno-crap and buy a modern computer...
Of course, you don't have. But there is no law which force Linux to resemble BSD UNIX or to die...
On the flip side, maybe this will help in Hurd development.
It would be nice if HURD ever became viable for production level systems, but I doubt it'll happen any time soon. At this point the only safety nets left are big brand UNICES and the BSDs laying down the law on projects and the willingness of other Linux distributions to not jump off the bridge like everyone else.
Yes, but Red Hat is only a distribution/distributor of GNU/Linux
Maybe in 1995 that was the case but they are not and haven't been for quite some time since they became established in the the enterprise space in early 2000s.
Originally Posted by ReaperX7
they shouldn't be the ones making the decisions on the future of GNU/Linux
They aren't, directly - and that was part of what I was getting at.
They're a business with share holders (I used to be one since I worked there a few years ago). Customers and investors need to know what's coming down the line: why should they stick with the company? The company needs to be able to execute against it plans, which means taking control of what ever it can. There is a lot of good that is done by RH which is contributed back to the community, and part of the price to pay is that some of the direction of the community is swayed by RH due to its own needs.
Red Hat should not be in control of upstream GNU/Linux core system developments to the point that the only software being used is Red Hat's own developed stuff like systemd for example. Just because Red Hat proved years ago that a company that promoted GNU/Linux could be profitable shouldn't be an open invitation to Red Hat to do as they please, nor give them any exclusive rights to do so, but apparently nobody questions why Red Hat's tentacles are so far deep into open source systems without some level of a stop gap, and why they allowed so much freedom to do as they please unchecked.
Not to restart a debate or kick a dead horse but you do have to realize that besides the kernel control tools, kernel, shell, and other general utilities is one major component of the system that nearly controls everything called the init system. Now seriously think, who created this new octopus of an init system, and who does he work for, and who would like to see less to zero competition in a market? The answer isn't difficult to decipher.
You said it best. Red Hat is a business and what do businesses try to eliminate to make more money?
Now seriously think, who created this new octopus of an init system
Lennart Poettering started with it in his free time. He initially wanted to contribute to Upstart instead, but is no fan of Canonical's CLA. After debating with Canonical's lawyers to put the CLA down, to no vail abviously, he decided to start his own init system. I can't see how his original plans to contribute to Upstart instead are somehow motivated by Red Hat to want to be in control, in fact, if Canonical wouldn't insist on their CLA there would be no systemd, but Upstart with much more adoption. Is Canonical insisting on their CLA part of Red Hat's plan to take over the GNU/Linux world?
and who does he work for, and who would like to see less to zero competition in a market?
If Red Hat, the market leader for enterprise Linux systems, wanted to see less to zero competition, why do they release their stuff (L)GPL, why do they openly invite their competitors to work with them together on their software? Why do they allow their largest competitors, Suse, Canonical (commercial competitors) and the likes as Debian (non-commercial competitors) to contribute, if their aim is not to help the competition, but to extinguish it? This does not make much sense, I would think.
A large corporation never has a single controlling mind, and it's silly to imagine one. It's entirely possible for a large corporation to be nobly philanthropic and shockingly evil at the same time.
It can't be denied that the systemd / Gnome 3 / gtk+3 affairs have generated a lot of bad sentiment in the community towards Red Hat. That bad sentiment has the wrong target -- "certain projects clustered around Fedora" might be a more useful substitute -- but it undeniably exists. So the relevant question is, does Red Hat senior management know or care about the bad feeling? The answer, apparently, is no. That's not surprising; they're focussed on enterprise customers, the bad stuff hasn't hit their enterprise customers yet, and who will ever listen to the 'techies' when it does?
This blog post from Fedora's own Matthew Garrett, about Red Hat's genuine commitment to the community... and how they could still get it so wrong when they tried to eject Openstack competitor Piston from the Red Hat Summit this weekend:
The Red Hat company culture is supposed to prevent people from thinking that this kind of thing is acceptable, but in this case someone obviously did. Years of Red Hat already having strong standing in a range of open source communities may have engendered some degree of complacency and allowed some within the company to lose track of how important Red Hat's community interactions are in perpetuating that standing. This specific case may have been resolved without any further fallout, but it should really trigger an examination of whether the reality of the company culture still matches the theory. The alternative is that this kind of event becomes the norm rather than the exception, and it takes far less time to lose community goodwill than it takes to build it in the first place.
Last edited by 55020; 02-24-2014 at 09:06 AM.
Reason: mjg59 ftw :D