Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
Todd Walton wrote:
I read this article because it said "DTrace", and what I got was the
psychologizing. What do you guys think of this? The blogger says,
"Why aren't the Linux people porting DTrace?". I thought the reason
was licensing issues. Legal incompatibility. He didn't say anything
about that, but rather suggested that kernel developers:
Well, I find the Linux "License Whiners" particularly annoying because
Linus went out of his way to choose the GPL (which chooses to be
incompatible with certain things itself) and then modified the GPL such
that it is even incompatible with later GPL's.
Pot, kettle, black.
Linus didn't "go out of his way" to choose the GPL. Back in the early
'90s the project wasn't even envisioned to become what it is today. The
choice of the GPL was something done by a college student to cover a
little project he was working on.
The GPL v2 is NOT modified. The kernel is covered by the GPL v2 period.
Although some projects use the phrase "GPL v2 or later" it is not
inconsistent to choose only a single version. Given the fact that you
can't predict where the FSF will head with new licenses the choice of a
particular version seems to be a good idea to me.
1) see Sun as the enemy
2) [are] still reacting to SCO by pretending that Linux isn't Unix and
they're a copy-nothing shop
3) don't have IBM's cheerful certainty that the customer won't know
where the ideas came from
4) didn't invent it
5) all of the above
I would argue that the main obstruction is Linus' attitude about kernel
API's.
First, Linus' has a bit of "working on the kernel *should* be difficult
to keep out the riff-raff." This is somewhat obvious in his attitude
toward not having a kernel debugger when every other operating system on
the planet does.
[snip]
You are out of touch. The kernel DOES have a debugger. See item 1.7
here: <http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges>
Gus
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
