What is Digg?34 Comments
- OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"Torvalds' opinion matters because his program is by far the most popular open source program in the world."
I'd guess gcc is the most popular program because you need it configure the Linux kernel as well as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and it's the main part of Cygwin.
X11 is also right up there as "most popular". It's used on all Solaris boxes, all modern Linux distros, etc.
If by "most popular" they mean the most media coverage, then yes. But in terms of users I think "by far" is wrong because it's debatable what is the used the most. If every person who visits an Apache served webpage is considered a "user" then Apache is the most popular open source application. - briangabriel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sorry but you are wrong. Why should Linus care what software runs on his OS? That is not freedom, that is restriction, and that is why he is against v3. Who is the FSF to dictate what can or cannot be done with software? When you start put those type of restrictions on the end use of the product you are no different than the RIAA or MPAA.
- Phoenyx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4He owns the trademark for the name "Linux" for one.
- elViesca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3".. I just don't have the motivation or inclination to start talking to lawyers. I'm a programmer. I worry about kernel bugs"
That's what I like about this guy.. - OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Linus understands that political reasons behind GPL. He just choses to hijack the license for his own motives (to help encourage distribution and development on his project). Linus is very much a pragmatist, while RMS is an idealist.
- bean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd put firefox/mozilla up there too.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why not just go with BSD? Even more freedom than GPL. Thats the goal isn't it? Well I realize why they stick with GPL, they don't want someone closing the source and not giving back any changes. But with a project as recognized as Linux, I don't see that being a problem. With BSD, they would probably get more support from big business too. Everyone needs money! Even Windows has some BSD licensed code in it.
Catering to business might be against their ideas, but thats the way our society works. The GPL scares businesses away, and thats where the money and widespread adoption is. Just my thoughts. - alikins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I suspect as far as usage goes, that libjpeg or zlib might outnumber even
bind or gcc. iirc, various versions of windows and osx ship with zlib. The
zlib security bugs a few years ago seemed to effect a huge number of platforms.
Not that it really matters. - sudonim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=54
Close enough. - kowgod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Bind. By far.
- OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2GPLv3 and GPLv2 are compatible. (duh). Linus can certainly license his parts of the code as GPLv3. There are pieces of code in the kernel that are Public Domain and that are BSD licensed. you can pull out those bits and use them under their original license. but the Linux kernel as a whole is GPLv2. If Linus made his core pieces GPLv3 (or allowed GPLv3 code to be submitted) then Linux would be GPLv3 as a whole.
- KungF00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I would think Apache Http Server would be the most popular. Pretty much every linux distro comes with it, in addition to the world's servers running it, regardless of OS (windoze, linux, sco, hp-ux, solaris, etc)
- uzusan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Does it really matter what the most popular OSS is? What matters is that when Linus Torvalds talks, people listen.
He has respect in the industry and when he does give his opinion then people tend to take notice. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If he can decide on version numbers why not what license the next version will be? Like you said, exact ownership of each piece of code is hazy. To me, all the code belongs to the same project, and the project manager has the final say. Making it a group decision is just the "nice way" to do it. I wouldn't know though :P
- volcompimp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Since which version does Linux have support for sharks with lazerbeams on their head?
- ZachPruckowski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hate to be annoying about it, but Linus doesn't have the final say. He can only relicense those parts of the kernel that he actually owns (as TheD hinted at). He owns the IP of only a small percent of that kernel, because there are other developers. In fact, this is probably harder to re-license as a result of being open-source. I wouldn't be suprised if there are 60-100 Linux kernel contributors. That means that to completely relicense the kernel, almost all of those contributors have to go along, and who ever doesn't want to change or can't be reached has to have their parts re-implemented. And I have a feeling that exact ownership of each part is pretty hazy, but I'm not an expert by any means.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"creator of the popular Linux operating system"
I think they mean creator of the Linux Kernal. I'm not trying to undermine his work at all, since he was there when the GNU project needed a kernal... mad props to the guy. I respect his opinion, and so should you! - anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1The GPLv2 is fine for me, but when programers start saying what's good and what is not in a license it takes away the basic neutrality of code, of technology. There's some actions that is without doubt wrong (like rootkit Sony), but software licenses should remain as neutral as possible.
- LaslarsFermion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1""Have you ever used Linux or know what you're talking about?
Linus Torvalds didn't make any of those software you mentioned.
I think GCC is more widespread than the kernel though.""
A - Yes
B - Yes
C - I Never said Linus wrote any of those apps.....
D - "Those software" should be "that software", or "those software packages".
Read before posting please. - DarthTurducken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Torvalds' opinion matters because his program is by far the most popular open source program in the world"
Thanks for clearing that up for me Captain Obvious, because I had no idea who this guy is. - iamserious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Richard is an anarchist (ask him yourself), which is cool, but what about all of us who are something other than anarchists?
Linus is a mellow nice guy who is relaxed enough to accept the co-existence of good and evil.
"Do no evil" is a whole lot different than "do good." - OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1and a copyright on a big chunk of the kernel. (minor modifications to a copyrighted work does not give you any copyrights)
- aconbere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I actually read an article about... maybe the move to gpl2 from gpl1 and the Linux kernel and how the managed that (or maybe it was just a plan to move to gpl3). I guess essentially they got all the guys together that had worked on the kernel and they were in contact with and made sure everyone was okay with it. Then they sent emails out to everyone they could get a hold of telling them the plan. Then they waited a good long time. And then they just went for it. Which sounds reasonable enough to me.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4FTA: "So I always leave the door open, even if it's just a crack."
Oh NOES!!!11 Leyenix has back doors! - LaslarsFermion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"most popular open source program in the world"
It aint linux.... it may be any of the following:
Sendmail?
Bind?
Apache?
Firefox? - rocu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@briangabriel
Dude,
It's not about what software runs ON Linux, it's about what Linux runs ON. DRM'd hardware or software that controls my freeedom to copy and distribute is an impediment to me and to others. Your freedom stops when you tell me I cannot do something. The GPL is socialist in nature and socialism is where we need to be heading where this is concerned. Corporations have NO RIGHT to co-opt free software to prevent me from doing anything. If I wrote the GPL, I would have stated that you cannot make this software commercial in any way shape or form. It's not about making Linux more attractive to corporations to use and develop, it's about the hacker in his basement and that hacker's freedom. It's about being able to be free of MS and Apple and all the other evil for-profit companies. Have I made it apparently clear that the GPL should be corporation unfriendly. Quit supporting the damn for-profits. Support the users and freedom. - rocu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1And he's wrong. Politics are everything. Linus may be just a hacker, but in his position, he owes all Linux users a debt -- and that debt is to defend Linux against encroachment by DRM. If he keeps Linux at GPLv2, he harms us all. RMS is very wise, almost a visionary. He can see what's coming in terms of restrictions. Politics DO play a part. You have to admit, you are either corporation friendly or you are not. I'm not. I think the needs of the consumer should ALWAYS trump those of the faceless corporations. It's all about FREEDOM.
- Sabot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Torvalds again misses the point of the GPL. It has always been political. It is a social contract more than anything else. It is about forcing people to share. Now that it is forcing people to share more, I find it funny that he wants to back away.
Torvalds if you are afraid of making a political stand than why choose the GPL? - redman5419, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3*yawn*
- rocu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I don't think they meant to say "most popular". I think they meant to say "flagship product". Linux is definately the flagship product for Free Software.
- rocu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Linus is wrong on the GPLv3. Linus is very corporation friendly. RMS is not. I tend to agree with RMS. Corporations favor the BSD license, but GPLv2 is friendly enough. I vote that everyone release their code under GPLv3 just to keep software free as long as possible. There will come a day when a non-sponsored or non-offical computers will not be allowed. We will all have to register ourselves, our computers, etc. Think this won't happen? Think again. GPL is corporation unfriendly and so what?!
- TheD, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2what does he actually own.
- jon_k, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"Sendmail?
Bind?
Apache?
Firefox?"
Have you ever used Linux or know what you're talking about?
Linus Torvalds didn't make any of those software you mentioned.
I think GCC is more widespread than the kernel though. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3"Torvalds' opinion matters because his program is by far the most popular open source program in the world"
And why does it matter that it's the most popular open source?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is