91–100 of 106 posts
"This interview is available under the Attribution No Derivatives license." Am I the only one who finds that ironic?
That's because despite his dogged persistence on the FSF GNU bit, he really doesn't care about Freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
_why's link works fine: http://_why.usesthis.com/ Drawn and quirky (or precious, depending on your taste or mood) as normal for _why.
Hmmm. I think this depends on your DNS provider. This link is broken for me: I think my ISP does not like hostnames starting with underscores.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I also have not net connection much of the time" Even that's quirky, when you can hardly buy a phone without Internet capability these days. You have to be deliberately avoiding a connection.
Is it really? Don't you get sick of being "always on" sometimes? Perhaps the averse reactions here have something to do with too many of us living in densely populated/over-populated or even over-stimulated environments; the short-attention-span generation?
Even when you are off the grid, you can still get 24/7 high-speed internet with bi-directional satellite!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you go up to any person on the street today and ask who Bill Gates is, they'll more than likely know who. You average person would have no idea who Richard Stallman. If your average person doesn't know who he is today, I doubt that'll change to being more noteworthy in 500 years.
GNU is a lot more likely to be around in 500 years than Microsoft or Windows.
I really am not familiar with this man, but comments about his unwillingness to compromise and questioning his sanity make me think of this quote: The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmmm. I think this depends on your DNS provider. This link is broken for me: I think my ISP does not like hostnames starting with underscores.
Interesting. If it helps or anyone else is curious, I'm using OpenDNS.
dig _why.usesthis.com
According to Wikipedia, the use of underscores in hostnames is illegal, but many implementations ignore this. Anyway, the interview is mirrored here: http://viewsourcecode.org/why/#7
First time I've come across the setup. Here are some interviews with a few other HN regulars: http://paul.graham.usesthis.com/ http://aaron.swartz.usesthis.com/ _why is listed on their mainpage too but his interview seems to have been removed
_why's link works fine: http://_why.usesthis.com/ Drawn and quirky (or precious, depending on your taste or mood) as normal for _why.
http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1123.html#sec-2.1 http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc952.html http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc921.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. If it helps or anyone else is curious, I'm using OpenDNS.
This is really strange. None of the browsers on my machine can access this URL. But dig _why.usesthis.com returns the correct info. According to Wikipedia, the use of underscores in hostnames is illegal, but many implementations ignore this. Anyway, the interview is mirrored here: http://viewsourcecode.org/why/#7
Looks like underscores are valid in /domain names/ but not in /host names/.
You'll see underscores used many times for SPF records and in Microsoft's Active Directory.
Also, when you use dig I'm pretty sure it manually recurses the name server hierarchy while an application will just connect to your local name server which might have its own policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently HN is refusing to let me reply to you. So I'm doing it here. The point of saying X.org/Linux is that I could form some ridiculous argument that would require a completely different naming convention. Why don't we call all cars Benz/Cars since Karl Benz holds much of the work that makes cars go? Or all helicopters Da Vinci/Helicopters? Because it's silliness. Calling something GNU/Linux is silly nonsense RM…
Actually it makes perfect sense. Most Linux systems are a collection of GNU tools on top of the Linux kernel. This "bunch of crap" forms the basis of a lot of internet infrastructure you take for granted. Also, saying the GNU compilers have a short lifespan is, well... Perhaps they do, in geological terms. Seriously, GCC existed since like ever. My personal setup could be called Gnome/Xorg/GNU/Linux, but if people co…
Absolutely, I remember using the GCC tools way back when. Not disputing that. But there are certainly older (and arguably better) compilers. And there will be newer ones (like the upcoming LLVM setup). GCC does not hold a monopoly on converting and optimizing high-level language constructs into localized machine code.
> My personal setup could be called Gnome/Xorg/GNU/Linux
Which is fine. Either call it "Linux" or call it a string of alphabet soup if you like.
My problem with RMS is his insistence on only GNU/Linux. Which is absolutely disrespectful to the hard work Linus and others put into the Kernel, which RMS and the GNU foundation was unable to accomplish, and to the folks who've written numerous other things that are the bread and butter of what many people think Linux boxen are for - like the Apache Foundation or XFree86/X.org or the KDE folks or Sun or the various thousands of volunteers that have toiled away writing drivers or firmware or whatever...It's a great exemplar of near infinite hubris to insist it be "GNU" (first) / Linux.
From wikipedia (and I've seen similar quote from him over the years) "Stallman argues that not using "GNU" in the name of the operating system unfairly disparages the value of the GNU project..."
It's unfortunate that he doesn't understand co-opting the work of others under your own umbrella is what's disparaging the GNU project's name. I don't think anybody who is marginally familiar with the topic thinks that the GNU foundation isn't an important thing. But do I have to stick GNU on the front of anything I build out of GNU stuff? What if I decide to write a cookbook about French Cooking? Do I have to call it the "Houghton Mifflin/French Tarts for Tarty People" since Houghton Mifflin published Julia Child's books which I used to learn the French culinary arts?
That's silliness.
Linus happily acknowledges the role the Foundation has played, with very little prompting. The credit is already being granted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ugRM3-twc
But he also says
"Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous."
And this same feeling is voiced by others like Jim Gettys
"There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus."
and other unhappy voices in the community including Eric S. Raymond,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
It all boils down to sour grapes which the Linux Journal correctly identified in this single summary statement
"Linus got the glory for what [Stallman] wanted to do."