GNU/Linux On Suicide Watch

You don't need it, but it's nice to have for consistency sake, as all the other coreutils utilities have help and version.

Meh, whatever works.

Because of "portability". GNU does not see itself as a Linux software. It insists on supporting irrelevant platforms nobody cares about. Also, the code sucks hard. I once tried to contribute to a GNU program, I never want to do that ever again.

The sooner we move away from GNU, the better.

Why the fuck do you need help and version on fucking the true binary?

see

WHY

the problem is that the moment someone decides to "move away from GNU" they also want to ditch the GPL, making the whole venture fucking pointless.

gng.z505.com/GPL-moving-goal-posts.htm

Both true and false provide nearly identical functionality. There isn't a point to redo the same exact thing when you are just changing the exit status from a 0 to a 1.

This.
And it's invariably to a less freedom preserving license as well.

I wonder what is the reason why Stallman emphasizes GNU/Linux? Perhaps it's because GNU is not Linux?

What's wrong with BSD?

z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Please-Stop-Using-GNU-Licenses

What would you rather have?

Option 1:

Option 2:

As someone who works with the Linux codebase regularly I would gladly take option 1.

Ask Jim Meyering.

I'd take Option 1 but with "global GPL" (every part has to be GPL'ed)

GNU Hurd will become relevant. Its design is superior to Linux.

GPL is dead kiddo. Adoption is plummeting, has been for a while now.

Whatever. Whoever makes the next user space will decide what license is used. It's likely to be BSD license.

Because he's a literal autist who thinks POSIX matters to anyone.

It's not Linux.

My fucking sides.

GNU is not Linux. GNU is shit.

It has been proven time and time again that the context switching cost of microkernels has a massive performance hit. They have been a meme since the early 90s and have been shit this whole time. Best example of one used anywhere is QNX and it has the same fucking problems.

Linux IS the operating system, and they care about binary compatibility to autistic degrees. They care because they want you to upgrade your kernel safely and will go out of their way to maintain old shitty interfaces for compatibility's sake.

GNU faggots DO NOT operate like this.

yarchive.net/comp/linux/gcc_vs_kernel_stability.html

DO NOT program against GNU interfaces. You all know how much of a pain upgrading key software like glibc can be.

The GPL doesn't cross program boundaries. Modules can have any license, and there's even a little non-GPL GNU software, like ncurses.
If it's not GPL-compatible it can't use certain libraries, but as far as I know all the libraries with pre-existing alternatives are LGPL or weaker.

What is L4?

If you wanted to configure your OS with entirely GPL licensed code then thats your choice, but the flipside is someone else can go ahead and configure it with almost entirely BSD licensed code.

Holy shit, my sides.

It does when you don't have an alternative to calling functions from GPL licensed libraries because you are writing kernel code. At least that is the intention, there are actually ways around this in GNU/Linux because of how poorly architected it is.

Its actually not an issue with a proper OS architecture that minimizes the number of switches required to perform common tasks. Also shared memory regions blow normal microkernel IPC away in terms of performance, seL4 is the only micro kernel which properly pulls it off though.

Also this

You can claim that all you want but when I have to make kernel-specific versions of my kernel module because the portion of the codebase it interacts with keeps subtly changing how it works then I know you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

You know L4 does not invalidate anything I said right? The context switch cost still kills the whole fucking idea.

AKA a monolithic kernel.

Shared memory does not solve the context switch cost.

Is still slow because of expensive context switching

< a kernel module that is loaded into kernel space is the same thing as normal user space
okay sure thing. binary compatibility is for userspace not internally

Yes, lets just put everything in kernelspace, what do we even need userspace for lol?

You clearly don't know how to use shared memory regions effectively.

Sorry, I should have made it clearer that I am not some pajeet programming normie userspace shit in java. I also misunderstood what you said.

Certain components of the computer require privileged to configure, its reasonable to put these things in the kernel if they are going to have elevated access anyways. Its not a perfect tradeoff security wise but the performance difference makes it clear.

If you think shared memory means you bypass the unrelated cost of context switching you are retarded

You shill for microkernels and then end up adding more bloat to the kernel space? Lol what a fag.

V10 Research Unix version:

main(){ exit(0); }

You're talking about kernel APIs. Those do change all the time. Only user space interfaces don't.

2.9BSD true

exit 0

sh;^D

ls

Everyone bitches but no one makes an alternative. I’d rather use a license that prohibits any proprietary use of my software (including linking and ’tivoization’) written by actual lawyers than a license that consists of virtually ten lines that say nothing but ”lol just do whatever xD”. MPL is a nice alternative but I’m yet to get into the details. On top of it, considering the fact that Mozilla is a far left corporation, I don’t expect them—unlike FSF—to help me in the court in case of infringement. Ideally, someone should’ve already made a Creative Commons of software licenses but here we are…

implying FSF is not more commie

"This software is free and all but god forbid you try to make a living off of it by using it in your product"

You tard, you have
Are you brand new? There are no alternatives to the GPL3? What the fuck, you're just ignorant.

It's not like you're actually going to sue anyone, retard.

That’s exactly why we need an alternative to GPL. Just fucking make it legal to at least link the code licensed under GPL to a proprietary product.

Are you actually retarded?
>suggesting obsolete GPLv1
>BSD is an alternative to GPL
>suggesting CC-BY-SA, while CC clearly states that their licenses cannot be used with software

Nobody’s talking about your shitty hello.c ”program”, idiot. You might as well don’t license your kiddie scripts at all.

Also, nice same-fagging. Next time try to fit your shit in one post. Or just don’t post at all, because it seems you don’t have enough neurons for that.

...

whats wrong with bsd

cucks who cant into common usage

fucking lol I forgot about this gem

GNU is okay once were on or past Type II Civilization.
Now? Let's just reap the benefits including its problems/incompatibility to "commodifiable planet;elitocracy".
Once the swamp is drained, we can finally stop all this >GPL>BSD>GPL>BSD... nonesense and embrace singularity.

Okay, another fucker that can't read. True might be a failure state depending on the program. What's it like being below poonigger level of ability?

Holy shit kill yourself. I don't know which would be more pathetic, if that was your site, or if you actually fell for that retatded shit and now sit here proclaiming it gospel.

...

There is no hope for you.

This is you right?

Yeah I'm illiterate.

It's called LGPL brainlet.

Kill yourself.

a massive performance hit

It's already relevant thanks to it's subhurd and neighborhurd it natively has container support thus you don't need the clusterfuck of softwares like docker.

only according to utterly meaningless surveys on github

GNUtard pls

No, they are just meaningless. What would it mean for the GPL to "die"? Certainly it would mean a reduced adoption of software that is under the GPL license, no? Yet Linux adoption is only increasing, while BSD adoption is decreasing. SJWs can flood github with tons of useless MIT or BSD licensed software, but this only shows another flaw of permissive licensing, which is fragmentation and lack of persistent development.

Shocking!

A return of true could mean either a successful termination, or a failure, depending on the call, you stupid fucking faggot. This does not mean that it returns anything other than true. Holy shit, you are fucking retarded.

now fuck off

LGPL is only applicable to libraries, you uneducated scum.

LGPL is applicable to things you link. The important thing isn't whether it's a library, per se, but whether you're linking it. And even if you aren't linking it you can still slap the LGPL on it. Minetest is licensed under the LGPL, even though it's not a library.
This seems to be entirely about linking code. The LGPL is extremely relevant.
What are you trying to say here?

It literally says the word "link" in the license you fucktard. Can you read? Illiterate monkey.

...

It means nobody is using it for new projects anymore, you fucking retard. How hard is it to understand a simple concept? Fucking moron keeps dissecting simple statements in order to find alternate interpretations that allows him to keep his GNUtard world view.

Virtually nobody fucking uses GPL anymore, tard. That is fact. People would rather be able to use their software on their jobs and GPL stops that. It's simple.

Obviously software already released as GPL is extremely likely to remain as such since you need signed authorization from everyone who ever contributed to it in order to change the license. Linux is big? Yeah it's great, but that's because of the people running the project you monstrous dumbfuck, it's because Linus is autistic when it comes to kernel quality and he rules with an iron fist, he's not cucked by SJWs and CoCs, chances are it'd be just as great if it were licensed BSD.

Adoption of the GPL has not been plummeting.

You know the number of context switches needed has grown at the same time because programs do more shit per second right.

What new major products went GPL in the past few years?

BSD has been much more common lately.

Anything by Redhat.

Like systemd and pulse audio, two excellent pieces of software!

soooo, systemd and that's about it

I'm not even agreeing with that site, but it would be nice to hear a rebuttal rather than inane comments.

How about actually reading the source writings and not twisting what is actually said by Stallman and the rest of the FSF. What they write is clear enough for me. This GNG site makes a mockery of itself by committing wanton acts of building up strawman arguments.

It's almost as if that was the point

"free of charge" =/= "can't charge for source".
"free of charge" = "if charged for binaries, source must be included in package at no extra cost".

You should just charge for the binary and keep the source for yourself. Any license that makes you give out something extra is cucked.

z505.com/GNU-Violation-Press-Release1.htm

Jesus, what a retarded webpage.
Nobody thinks the GPL works like that, to the point where they created the AGPL, which does work like that. Actual lawyers check this stuff, and did think of this particular interpretation.

see

It's mostly written as satire

Satire of what?
Sounds like badly executed plausible deniability, aka "I was just pretending".

GNU and Linux were just intermediate stages between UNIX and systemd.

Fuck that page.

...

When will they learn?

what the fuck even happened, this isn't funny

:

They started targeting starbucks-drinking ruby/javascript web developing soyboys