The guy missed one hell of a point on his resume for better part of a decade! More than that Personal satisfaction would be unimaginable given the magnitude of deployment.
Yeah, Andrew Fucking Tanenbaum needs to expand his resume.
An Open Letter to Intel
221–230 of 379 posts
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. His letter point is clearly about widely(1) known debate(2) between him and Linus Torvalds, and ego massage. (1) widely, if you arent 25 years old proverbial "javascript developer" ;-) - as the debate took place in 1992. (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_deb...
Speaking of ego: "if you arent 25 years old proverbial "javascript developer" ;-)" Why is this necessary?
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is exactly one distributing thing about GPL religion - they keep using word ‘free’ to describe one of the most restrictive open source licenses. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is like saying North America and Europe don't have freedom because you're not free to kill/abuse/take advantage of the others however you like. Freedom doesn't work like that. The GPL restrictions are for keeping the freedom equal for all parties involved.
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#224Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#225> this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users I'm sorry, but I don't feel free because of that. What I see is that I have proprietary code I never saw, never vetted and which I don't (and shouldn't) trust that's running on all my computers (not all, but you can get it) and that I don't have the freedom to remove, examine, modify or replace. Th…
This is exactly one distributing thing about GPL religion - they keep using word ‘free’ to describe one of the most restrictive open source licenses. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Edit: removed silly comment about a personal interaction. The letter has also had addendums making the intent more clear. I will add "shut up on the internet" to the list of things I've learnt from the author) I read this as, for want of a better word, snarky. I'd bet if it wasn't Minix, L4 would have been on the cards. That's another microkernel that runs in coprocessors like your phone's radios that probably nobod…
Snarky? Yeah, in a way. Honestly he just seems a little hurt that they didn't extend the courtesy of letting him know what they were going. But at the end he admits that he's the one who picked that license.
He's talking about publishing code. The BSD license explicitly requires including the license somewhere (anywhere, really).
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#227I 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…
If you have worked years on something, you rather want people to use it then for all work to be in vain. Even if that means giving up all rights.
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#228Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and for Intel to include Minix in their chip and not let him know is kind of unprofessional and not very nice to say the least. I guess Minix' license, which allows this kind of behaviour, is the very reason Intel chose Minix in the first place. I imagine it would be very complicated to get management approval for informing Dr. Tannenbaum about the usage in Intel's ME. IMHO if he has a problem with the way things w…
He did cover those points in the letter: > I guess Minix' license, which allows this kind of behaviour, is the very reason Intel chose Minix in the first place. I imagine it would be very complicated to get management approval for informing Dr. Tannenbaum about the usage in Intel's ME. Tanenbaum: Some people have pointed out online that if MINIX had a GPL license, Intel might not have used it since then it would have…
Re: An Open Letter to Intel
#230> If you have a modern Intel CPU (released in the last few years) with Intel’s Management Engine built in, you’ve got another complete operating system running that you might not have had any clue was in there: MINIX.
That's different from Mr. Tannenbaum's claim:
> Thanks for putting a version of MINIX 3 inside the ME-11 management engine chip used on almost all recent desktop and laptop computers in the world.
What about all of the AMD system, or the systems that were built before IME 11 (or that just don't have it)?