Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Distribution: LFS 9.0 Custom, Merged Usr, Linux 4.19.x
Posts: 616
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen
I'm not understanding what you're referring to with this: "the non-fun, not-so-glorious, yet paid work being pumped into the GNU/Linux plumbing" Could you please provide some examples of the projects or parts you think are rotting?
Build a Linux From Scratch. Look at all the depreciated CLI components appearing in more than one package, one being chosen over another because it hasn't seen an update in 5+ years, etc.
I've run LFS for a long time. About a year ago I did a comparison of SED fixes from the 2003 era LFS to last years. It wasn't pretty.
Build a Linux From Scratch. Look at all the depreciated CLI components appearing in more than one package, one being chosen over another because it hasn't seen an update in 5+ years, etc.
I'd say that many of the issues you're seeing are happening precisely because the "plumbing" is being actively developed...
The GNU back-end is far from dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luridis
I've run LFS for a long time. About a year ago I did a comparison of SED fixes from the 2003 era LFS to last years. It wasn't pretty.
Could you please clarify your meaning here?
The sed page of the LFS book says that the build is no different to any other GNU project.
The last version of sed was released 4 years ago, but that shouldn't be an issue if the code compiles with a current version of GCC. I'd say most of the stuff you're looking at hasn't been updated in 5+ years because there is simply no need to do so.
How much more development can be done on a CLI tool like sed once its developers consider it to be "feature complete" and the bugs are ironed out?
Distribution: LFS 9.0 Custom, Merged Usr, Linux 4.19.x
Posts: 616
Rep:
I was talking about SEDs applied to fix internal package problems at build time. But, it doesn't matter. Clearly there's some brand management going on around here.
The simple fact is that you can't compare LFS (or any other distribution) from 2003 to the current version.
The current version needs more sed "fixes" because it is a lot bigger and more complex, not because code is "rotting" as you put it.
There have been some fundamental changes in the way Linux does simple things, and not all of them are good. If I could have my way, I'd go back to a static /dev, use OSS for sound and run a KDE3 desktop (installed under /opt).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luridis
But, it doesn't matter. Clearly there's some brand management going on around here.
What were you saying earlier about conspiracy theories?
I agree with your thoughts about the conspiracy theory... But I think you're over-simplifying things a bit with the rest of your post.
As a software author in the Linux world, you're free to license your software as you see fit. There are still many projects included in Linux distributions under other licenses. As far as I know, there is no distribution which has made GPL3 mandatory.
They can't. The kernel can only be GPL v2. no other. Some of the developers have died, and will not give their permission. Others don't want to change the license. Nor can they change the GNU software (which IS GPL v2 or later).
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.