Gus Wirth wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
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.
Ummmm, given that both the BSD and X11 licenses were very much de rigeur
in academia at the time, Linus actively chose the GPL.
In fact, Linus originally wanted *no commercial distribution at all*.
However, he *changed* the license to the GPL so that he could take
advantage of the GNU components.
I stand by my "pot, kettle, black" comment.
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.
It is a very specific snapshot of the GPLv2. Fortunately, the FSF never
updated the GPLv2 or this would have caused issues. They have chosen to
cross the issue with GPLv3.
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.
That's fine. But you don't get to choose an incompatible restrictive
license and then whine that somebody else chose a different incompatible
restrictive license. That's called hypocrisy.
You are out of touch. The kernel DOES have a debugger. See item 1.7
here: <http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges>
That's good to know. However, my statement about Linus' attitude stands
with facts. Quoting your page:
For many years Linux has not included a kernel debugger. Linus
Torvalds vetoed them for years, for reasons that he explained quite
well in a known email: "When things crash and you fsck and you didn't
even get a clue about what went wrong, you get frustrated. Tough.
There are two kinds of reactions to that: you start being careful, or
you start whining about a kernel debugger [...] I happen to believe
that not having a kernel debugger forces people to think about their
problem on a different level than with a debugger. I think that
without a debugger, you don't get into that mindset where you know
how it behaves, and then you fix it from there. Without a debugger,
you tend to think about problems another way. You want to understand
things on a different _level_."
Despite of those objections, many people wanted a debugger and KGDB
is finally going in. It's a remote debugger, it needs two machines.
x86 and sparc machines are supported
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
