This seems strange. His employer uses GNU Linux, open source software and has built an entire business on it. So, in retrospect, who was right?
When Rob Pike first met rms
51–58 of 58 posts
Re: When Rob Pike first met rms
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
That post shows Rob's opinion in 1982, 1991 and 2006. I wonder what his opinion is now. Whatever it is, its going to be considered. But it doesn't mean it hasn't evolved.
How can it be said to show his opinion in 2006? This is the only part of that post written in 2006: "I can't find this on the web, so here follows a note I wrote in 1991 of an odd event in my computing career." Everything after that is from 1991. You have no basis for interpreting the 2006 posting of this 1991 note as anything, save preservation of history.
True its strenuous, but its at least indicative in that he didn't distance himself from it in 2006 either.
You could imagine that if he felt differently in 2006 he'd have mentioned it in the preamble?
He posts one or two entries a year in that blog; this note was not some noise he dumped, it was a deliberate posting.
Re: When Rob Pike first met rms
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can it be said to show his opinion in 2006? This is the only part of that post written in 2006: "I can't find this on the web, so here follows a note I wrote in 1991 of an odd event in my computing career." Everything after that is from 1991. You have no basis for interpreting the 2006 posting of this 1991 note as anything, save preservation of history.
True its strenuous, but its at least indicative in that he didn't distance himself from it in 2006 either. You could imagine that if he felt differently in 2006 he'd have mentioned it in the preamble? He posts one or two entries a year in that blog; this note was not some noise he dumped, it was a deliberate posting.
I can imagine a lot, but that doesn't mean I get to substitute my imagination for reality. You're reading into the post what you want, not what is there.
If you actually had any interest in truth, you'd ask him. Instead, you've decided you know what his views and motives are based on no evidence whatsoever, and are asserting your opinion publicly.
Re: When Rob Pike first met rms
#54> I also think they were surprised that the inventor of #4,555,755 was funny, theatrical, and clever I respect Rob as a programmer, but that came off as a little too self congratulatory.
Yeah, it's certainly noteworthy, but one is allowed to do that. What I wouldn't like, though, is if he were overexaggerating, but we can't check that.
Re: When Rob Pike first met rms
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Free Software has completely replaced the space previously occupied by ATT unix. But, then I realized this piece was authored in 1991, which makes this opinion merely lacking in foresight. I think it would difficult for anybody to predict how things would pan out. Linux wasn't yet there. Perl was still just the sysadmin's tool, yet and extremely powerful one though but still looked like a little advanced awk. Not…
Well, I don't agree with your assessment of Rob Pike. As far as I know he worked with Thompson and Ritchie (who unfortunately passed away last year) and I regard all three of them as one of the most important figures with regards to Unix and systems programming. And they marked the history quite significantly, in my opinion. At least as important as RMS or Linus.
I agree with you but would also like to add that Rob Pike isn't just a historical figure at this point, he's very much still in the game.
Go is turning into a fantastic language and is likely to have a far bigger real-world footprint than the work on Plan 9 had.
Re: When Rob Pike first met rms
#56Software patents are bad, okay? He got into them before that became obvious. Now it is. He is too stubborn or too blind to state this truth; instead he hides behind "business community is still excited". Stallman organizing protest can not be more wrong than Pike not acknowledging the problem.
As a devil's advocate, I'll ask, would software patents be as bad if: 1) The Patent Office gave proper attention to prior art 2) The Patent Office implementation of "obvious" was sane? I'll posit that, given these two stipulations, most of the bad in software patents wouldn't be with us.
At the very least you'd also need
3) Software patents expire after three years instead of twenty
Re: When Rob Pike first met rms
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, in 1991.
Hm, so it was. Still, he didn't modify or add any kind of footnote or disclaimer or update when he posted it in 2006, which is suggestive. One indeed wonders if he is still keen on patents...
I don't see where he claims he is keen on patents. He claims that business are, which is truer now than it ever was.
Re: When Rob Pike first met rms
#58>"[RMS]: You may have heard that AT&T has a patent on a simple technique called "backing store" which consists of saving the hidden parts of a window in off-screen memory." Rob Pike didn't seem to correct this as wrong or overly-simplified. If true, the patent is kinda nasty. The idea of saving hidden parts of a window seems like a basic idea to anyone who develops a windows system. I don't this particular idea is de…
Easy for you to say now. The patent was awarded more than 30 years ago.