What I never understand is under open source license of any sort, do people generally expect credentials? Fame or money or both, do you think you should get at least one? Just a question, no opinion on Mr Tanenbaum's letter per se.
An Open Letter to Intel
41–50 of 379 posts
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#42And now I'm happy that Linux won
Won what? - Being the kernel of ChromeOS and Android, not accessible to majority of userspace and easily replaceable by anything else (e.g. Fuchsia). - Lost to macOS and Windows on the desktop It only won on the server room, and now it runs under Minix supervision.
Yes, on servers ;-) EDIT: used and developed by end users made from blood and flesh. On the other hand minix is used and worked on by corporation. So I guess it depends how you look at things
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#43I can't tell if this is earnest or 2nd degree. Can people more familiar with Mr Tanenbaum's style enlighten me? Because if this is earnest I'm quite seriously baffled. I don't mind BSD at all and I won't comment on the political side of things but why on earth would you rejoice that you worked for free (I assume?) for Intel only to have your work end up in some user-hostile module forced on the users? Is Tanenbaum eg…
andrew tanenbaum wrote the operating systems design and implementation book (amongst others) which is widely used in computer science programs around the world, i don't think he gains anything by not being earnest.
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#44I was expecting to see his reaction on privacy issues and maybe to announce the next version to be GPL-ed, but no, he is just asking for "thank you" by Intel. However, it was never their strategy to release out all information hidden deep inside their chip.
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
This struck me as bizarre as well. You're thanking someone because you relicensed your hard work so they can use it for free (BSD) and you complied? All for the stated reason that they don't have to relicense their work to other people so they could use it for free? /facepalm It's like some version of the Stockholm syndrome, deserves a name.
You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to release genuinely free software. Open source can mean complete freedom, including the freedom to take the software, modify it, gain a competitive advantage and generate economic value, according to the license choice of the original author.
Nobody is denying the freedom for commercial use is a core part of open source software. However no developer has to make a certain business model easy for you, and I think it is well within the correct view to discourage such a business practice which restricts the freedom of users by making that impossible but allowing a "competitor" (if we really must think of it this way) to generate "economic value" (i.e selling open source software, which the GPL does allow you to do).
The freedom debate is unending. Personally I am very skeptical of all forms of economic freedom, as frequently they have the result of pidgeonholing people and their freedom is restricted.
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#46From his CV: One of the early users of MINIX was Linus Torvalds. He began modifying MINIX to add new features that he thought were needed. Over a period of time he had modified almost everything and launched it as a new operating system, Linux. It is fairly safe to say that had I not written MINIX there would have been no Linux.
The last sentence is quite pretentious and completely unprovable. And if Linux had not existed we would have had GNU Hurd way earlier in all likelihood.
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#47I can't tell if this is earnest or 2nd degree. Can people more familiar with Mr Tanenbaum's style enlighten me? Because if this is earnest I'm quite seriously baffled. I don't mind BSD at all and I won't comment on the political side of things but why on earth would you rejoice that you worked for free (I assume?) for Intel only to have your work end up in some user-hostile module forced on the users? Is Tanenbaum eg…
Of course it's earnest. If it wasn't he wouldn't have picked the BSD license, which rejects the notion that you're poorer today than yesterday just because someone started using some software you wrote.
The GPL license does not support that notion either.
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#48Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#49This "letter" smells so passive-aggressive... brr...
Where are you from? I guess this must a cultural thing, because this letter does not sound passive-aggressive to me at all, not even one bit.
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
This struck me as bizarre as well. You're thanking someone because you relicensed your hard work so they can use it for free (BSD) and you complied? All for the stated reason that they don't have to relicense their work to other people so they could use it for free? /facepalm It's like some version of the Stockholm syndrome, deserves a name.
You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to release genuinely free software. Open source can mean complete freedom, including the freedom to take the software, modify it, gain a competitive advantage and generate economic value, according to the license choice of the original author.
Indeed, because nothing is ever free. The cost is simply paid by someone else.
Listen, I understand why that ideology is appealing, particularly if you haven't seen it play out before. How many "successful" open source projects have you seen whinge and struggle and eventually be abandoned and collapse, due to their lack of sustainability? All the while scrambling to offer the most permissive license possible? Even projects that shoulder entire ecosystems!
It's better when the costs and assumptions are above board: better for the project, better for the users.
I'm not familiar with the MINIX project, they've clearly found a way to stay sustainable if they've been around for 17 years. Just that paragraph quoted by OP struck me as very odd as well.
Just pay your dues rather than see your favourite project die. Businesses understand this. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" offers some initial thrill but is not long-term sustainable.