Linux Turns 17 Today 285
Meshach writes "Over at the Linux Journal, Doc Searles is noting that today marks 17 years since Linus posted to Usenet, starting Linux (post). As a Linux user at work and at home I say, thanks Linus!" The anniversary is also featured on the top page of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Age of Consent (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Age of Consent (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Age of Consent (Score:5, Funny)
Go for it [m0sia.ru]
Re:Age of Consent (Score:5, Funny)
Please don't let this be the new rickroll.....
Re:Age of Consent (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't... until you MENTIONED IT!
Aaahh... a thousand years of darkness....! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
AGGGHHHHH MY EYES!!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
"a lovable, cuddly, stuffed penguin sitting down after having gorged itself on herring." -- Linus Torvalds
Re:Age of Consent (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Age of Consent (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Age of Consent (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent up. Linux has been fucking us all, but we didn't care, because it was so.. open about it. We were all in this together. In fact, some have come to call us a "community", but I despise the term.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it's already legal in PA!
WRONG DATE (Score:5, Informative)
The right date is September 17th, not October 5th. But year after year people keep messing it up. Don't believe me, look here [wikipedia.org]
Not free software (Score:5, Informative)
Not free software! When Linux was first announced and released it was not free software. It became free in 1992 when Linus rereleased it under the GNU GPL. (See the release notes for version 0.12.)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it was under a license that prohibited commercial use.
As an example, Torvalds then cites his own, self-made, original Linux source license, which basically said: "Give all source back, and never charge any money". It took me a few months, but I realized that the 'never charge any money' part was just asinine. It wasn't the point. The point was always "give back in kind".
"In other words," he continued, "my original license very much had a 'fear and loathing' component to it. It was exactly that 'never ch
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Age of Consent (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Age of Consent (Score:5, Funny)
You sick son of a bitch. How could you take advantage of a young, vulnerable operating system like that? An operating system less than 18 years of age is incapable of informed consent, and should not be "used", as you put it.
I'll be calling the Feds on you, and God help you if they find any screenshots of Linux on your computer.
Re:Age of Consent (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Age of Consent (Score:5, Funny)
Even in Kentucky, Linux ought to be relatively safe. I heard it was able to run quite fast...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm pretty sure 16 is the age of consent here in KY, and has been a long time.
And if I'm wrong, well, it's way too late to matter now.
Re: (Score:2)
As a parent I can agree. They are, at that age, mostly acting like they're two and mostly costing a whole lot of money and mostly thinking they know more than anybody else.
Re:Age of Consent (Score:5, Funny)
One more year (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. You are only gay if your balls touch. Or so they said back then...
Made for hackers (Score:5, Funny)
It is currently meant for hackers
OMG SHUT IT DOWN!!!
Re: (Score:2)
It is currently meant for hackers
OMG SHUT IT DOWN!!!
lol, that was back in the day when nerds actually mistook the word hacker to be a positive reference. (I hear some still do... the poor souls..)
Re:Made for hackers (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and STILL IS to those who know what it really means.
No, it really isn't. The old usage of the word has been eclipsed at this point. Not fair, but nothing you can do about it either. Insisting that "hacker" is still a positive label is needlessly muddying the language at this point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that, but it was a negative term before, too.
A "hack" is an ugly thrown-together bit of code that is used because "it works" rather than coming up with a proper solution. A "hacker" is someone who largely produces this low quality, but mostly functional code.
I usually stay quiet when all these people insist that they are "hackers" since, by and large, I agree with them (based on the above definition).
And, this goes right along with the "It is currently meant for hackers", because at the beginning
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, the "just works" in the fourth paragraph should be another "it works". I feel I should make that clear since the term "just works" has been taken over, too.
I see you are still on my lawn...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are obviously lost, perhaps this forum is not really meant for you. Computer hacker in geek/nerd speak is technically neutral, neither good nor bad, cracker on the other hand is definitively bad and has always been considered so. Just as the individuals who know and understand this have re-defined the language in terms of the use of nerd and geek from negative to positive, so we, not the knuckle dragging jockstraps, define the use of the term hacker.
So in geek/nerd speak to clarify good or bad in rel
Re: (Score:2)
No, it really isn't. The old usage of the word has been eclipsed at this point. Not fair, but nothing you can do about it either. Insisting that "hacker" is still a positive label is needlessly muddying the language at this point.
General usage of the word has been eclipsed at this point. But people who do know the difference should not necessarily be randomly throwing them around regardless. While you can call everything a taskbar, sometimes calling a gnome-panel a gnome-panel is more clear and make more sense.
Re:Made for hackers (Score:4, Interesting)
And it was a negative term "to hack" long before a small group of programmers started misusing it. Because the general populous perceived the word akin it's etymology, to the public the word could only be used to describe something malign.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a table, according to the lore that I recall but I can't think of any search terms to find it again in today's diluted internet, that had a power switch and anything (at that time) that was placed on it tended to ground out. I *think* it was at MIT. Leaving it on was considered a hack as there was absolutely no reason why it would not work with it on or off as it wasn't even connected with anything. I just spent way too much time actually looking for it but the terms I'm using are obviously failin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe this is the link you were looking for?
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/magic-story.html [catb.org]
Magic... or More Magic?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Languages evolve. For this reason I tend not to talk about the large amounts of faggots on my back porch.
I hearby hand you an official "Waa Waa, Cry Some More?" tag.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is partially related to Linux's slow adoption rate, the "Hacker" stereotype presented in movies and such. If "Hacker" was portrayed accurately as similar to say "Skilled Mechanic", would Linux have more adoption? A Hacker being the one who helps get more from the hardware/software like a skilled mechanic getting you 5 MPG more than stock, and a cracker (not mentioned due to USA racial concerns?) being the one who takes your car on joy rides and brings it back beat up.
I think that the true hackers ne
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark or copyright. Those are what protects Linux today. If it is a term than I'd suggest trademark.
what (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what (Score:5, Informative)
Probably because Linux had already been announced in August 1991 [google.com], so that is probably the more important anniversary. But the October post linked in the summary is the first usenet post to refer to it as Linux, and to link to the source.
(Incidentally, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I think the 28th of September [google.com] was also a fairly important anniversary ...)
My Linux has a fake ID (Score:5, Funny)
Its called Ubuntu and he is supposed to be 60 years old and lives as a zoo keeper, naming all of his projects after various animals there.
Re:My Linux has a fake ID (Score:5, Funny)
Why did I suddenly imagine a fake ID with a penguin in the photo and the name "McLovin"?
Britannica? (Score:3, Funny)
"The anniversary is also featured on the top page of the Encyclopedia Britannica"
Britannica is overrated, wake me when it make the first page of wikipedia ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
0.95b... (Score:2)
Has it really been that long???
I remember being excited when 0.95b came out. It had a parallel port driver, and I could print on these flat cellulose sheets made from dead trees. You young whipper snappers probably don't know anything about that...
Re: (Score:2)
We know about paper. You forget Quality Assurance, developed by the paper industry to defeat the paperless office.
Grats! (Score:2, Funny)
Congrats! 17 years and almost 2% of the market share. This is the year!
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
Relevance? (Score:2)
Somebody indulge me, but why is the *17th* birthday of the kernel worthy of main page? Slow news day?
15, 20, 25, etc. yes. But 17?
Re: (Score:2)
Because here in the US, most college kids celebrate the day they need no steenkin' ID to purchase alcohol and/or cigarettes, and that alone is cause for celebration and wearing women's underwear.
Oh, wait that last part was *my preference. My bad...
Re:Relevance? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
15, 20, 25, etc. yes. But 17?
Because it is a prime!
this just in (Score:5, Funny)
Time keeps flowing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Try taking your watch *off* before you get into the shower.
38 comments in (Score:2)
and some of the best tags I've ever seen.
Keep up the good work!
Britannica is too outdated (Score:2)
Re:Britannica is too outdated (Score:4, Funny)
Does anything make RMS happy? So far not seen much signs of any happiness in the man.
I like the part where it says (Score:2)
"For a definition of Linus Torvaldis, see Merriam Webster"
OMG! I read TFA all the way to the end! And on this day of all things!!
/me hides
I vote next years first ubuntu release (Score:5, Funny)
17 years... (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory:
1991 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1992 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1993 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1994 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1995 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1996 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1997 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1998 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1999 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2000 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2001 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2002 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2003 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2004 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2005 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2006 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2007 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2008 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!
Stupid whitespace filter, yadda yadda
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I would say that list should legitimately begun at 1998 or so, with low hopes. Before then I think it was said as more of a joke. The modern KDE and Gnome however are quite flashy and user friendly. Easier in Windows in many respects, and I've found a few things I like better about KDE (my prefered manager) than I do about Mac OS X.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been the year of MY Linux desktop since about 1999, the year a virus on my Windows 98 computer sent random copies of my word processing files to all of my customers. Since one of those documents was a list of usernames and passwords, I had the joy of contacting all my customers, giving them new passwords, and explaining the potential security breach.
Never again. //Typing this on a Dell laptop running Fedora Core 8//
Re:17 years... (Score:5, Funny)
I'll never forget the day I was at a large meeting with my clients. They never took me seriously and in fact started leaving the room. Turns out it was because my dick was hanging out of my pants. Never again will I use velcro. From that day forward, it was zipper only!
Yeah, and I downloaded and built Linux version 0.1 (Score:2)
I swear, it's like some kind of geek Woodstock. Just like every baby boomer was at Woodstock, every geek says he ran Linux in '91. Guys who merely downloaded Slackware floppies? Please...we ran 0.1 and compiled it ourselves blah blah...
The most memorable quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be
out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got
minix.
This brings tears to my eyes...
I didn't know, that Hurd was already in development back than...
And 17 years later... it's still not done...
Even the Firefox spell checker does not know it... It recommends "Turd". *lol*
Hey, it does not know "Firefox" too. Oh well...
Think of what happened if Linus had waited* for Hurd instead...
[* Is that correct English? It's not my first language... I don't know...)
And what a handsome teen it is... (Score:5, Funny)
...coz, lord knows, it was an ugly baby.
Re:also: (Score:5, Funny)
HURD turned 18 this year (22 if you count the first failed attempt).
There was a *successful* attempt?????
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:also: (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, that time they got malloc to work. Because that's totally all you need for a working OS.
It's all Emacs needs, anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Poor Quality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Poor Quality (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm commenting on the Britannica article that I clicked through to. It wasn't written by Doc. It's written by some guy called Anthony Craine, who I have never heard of.
Britannica is supposed to be "high quality" (because it was when I was a wee tyke when it was only available in dead-tree edition).
I guess I should have been more clear.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source is full of guys with huge egos, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't see any difference between Linus and say, RMS.
Then again, at least Linus is a good coder...
Re:Linus... humble!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linus... humble!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or did you conveniently forget that it's GNU/Linux? Without Stallman you likely wouldn't have Linux at all.
Re:Linus... humble!? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but you could still have Free/Net/Open BSD, though. So what, really, would be the loss?
Of course, gcc is really the engine that makes all our worlds revolve these days.
Re:Linus... humble!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Linus... humble!? (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of Linux development is done by companies such as IBM and many others. They contribute back only because the GPL says it's the only way to play. Had it been BSD, they would rather keep their drivers (as they do in Windows), and distribute them with their hardware—it would be a binary blob nightmare. There are indeed binary blobs for Linux, but are more the exception than the rule.
Without the GPL, engineers cannot justify giving back code done on company time in front of their employers. Sure, BSD would be there, but would be nowhere as successful as Linux.
A lot of BSD developers are nice people, willing to give their work for nothing in return (no irony nor paternalism intended here; it's a good character trait); however, there are far more cheapskates around than white knights in shining armour.
Re:Linus... humble!? (Score:5, Funny)
Or did you conveniently forget that it's GNU/Linux?
Ahem, did *you* conveniently forget that it's [Mozilla|Konqueror]/OpenOffice.org/KDE/QT/[X.org|XFree86]/GNU/Linux?
Re:Linus... humble!? (Score:4, Funny)
It's GoogleApps/IceWeasel/X.org/GNU/Linux, you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Linus... humble!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Like how people conveniently forget that it wasn't published under the GPL until late 1992. Or that it can currently be compiled with at least one compiler other than GCC. Or that it's possible to run it with a modified *BSD userland and non-glibc C library. But yeah, aside from that, it's all Stallman's doing...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, you forgot to mention that RMS has created an operating system [wikipedia.org] long before Linux existed :)
Re:Linus... humble!? (Score:5, Informative)
1) Writing a license doesn't require you to be a good coder.
2) The original GCC was so poor that they eventually gave up on it and instead used EGCS, which was a much better fork of the same software which they then merged back in to GCC. I will go on to quote another Slashdot user who had the misfortune of working on some of his code:
I know from personal experience that he is a control freak. All "official sanctioned" GNU code is owned by him, by copyright assignment. It is not enough for software to be under the GPL. My only direct experience was a phone call right after I had taken over the job of Mr. XEmacs and he told me how he must "wage war" (direct quote) against me and XEmacs because even though we were true blue GPL, he must have FSF copyright assignment.
The Emacs source code which we inherited and forked is littered with 1000+ line functions, 6+ levels of nested if-else and assorted other crap that looks like it was being written to violate as many rules of good programming style as possible. The amount of time it took to get the code in a state where we could display CJK fonts in Emacs (and in a stable state) was staggering, especially considering that we were basing our work off the good folks' at ETL Mule.
I have no respect for the man, no respect for his (programming) work. I find the names Linux/GNU and worse GNU/Linux to be as childish and offensive as the children who like to write Micro$oft and M$ and similar crap. (You might as well also write "you can't spell gOatse without the Gates and a big O". It's equally as witty.) Anyone can develop userland tools. Only a handful of people, of which Richard is NOT one, can develop a successful kernel.
So, my point stands - Linus is a good coder. Stallman is not.
Re:Linus... humble!? (Score:5, Informative)
2) The original GCC was so poor that they eventually gave up on it and instead used EGCS, which was a much better fork of the same software which they then merged back in to GCC.
Sorry, but this is the wrong argument. EGCS broke away because Richard Kenner was a crappy GCC maintainer. It was also driven in the fact that "official" GCC could not successfully compile the Linux kernel at the time. HJ Lu made forks of libc and gcc in order to support building Linux systems.
The HJ Lu gcc fork was separate from EGCS and ended when EGCS was established.
Otherwise, OK and that random slashdotter you quoted was me.
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source is full of guys with huge egos, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't see any difference between Linus and say, RMS.
For starters, RMS has a Halo [stallman.org].
Re:Linus... humble!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod down? No. But there's an important distinction: to get technical excellence, you have to have some way to filter out technical mediocrity. Therefore, in an environment demanding technical excellence, those who are technically mediocre will feel slighted and rejected.
Building excellence is not about "feeling good", a bunch of hairy hippies sitting around in Buddha style kumbaya. It's about building excellence, and it's not always pretty.
Linus is very forward and very direct; a display of the confidence that comes from years of proven experience producing and overseeing real, valuable excellence. He's OK with stating his opinion very openly and succinctly, confident that if his ideas are wrong, they'll be picked apart ruthlessly and publicly.
Linus has done an amazing job of coordinating an insane amount of information in one of the largest, most complex, and most distributed project ever attempted by mankind. And he accepts that his ideas are only valuable if they are RIGHT by the standards of excellence.
I don't care if he is "polite", he is an amazing fellow simply because he's OK with being wrong, and puts his ego in 2nd place after technical excellence!
This is the hallmark of good science and good engineering: when who has the right answer is less important than what's the right answer!
Hugs to Linus!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Linus is very forward and very direct; a display of the confidence that comes from years of proven experience producing and overseeing real, valuable excellence. He's OK with stating his opinion very openly and succinctly, confident that if his ideas are wrong, they'll be picked apart ruthlessly and publicly.
Oh please, I've seen enough of his posts to know he can be plain old rude and at times borderline insulting, at least to be a mailing list smackdown. On the other hand, those on the recieving end have mostly deserved it like blatantly ignoring the release process and what's acceptable patches for an RC. And he takes it in good stride when people he does get "picked apart ruthlessly and publicly", though it doesn't happen often. You can dismiss technical mediocracy with a little more tact, but all in all it'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, Linux bought, or was given, an IBM-compatible 386 computer. The only operating system that ran on it at the time was DOS, which he was not happy with. So he made a new operating system for it, with the help of Minix.
Re: (Score:2)
No, things just need to transition to 64-bit time_t by then.
Re:Thank RMS too! (Score:4, Funny)
GNU is 24 years old, preceding Linux by 7 years.
This makes me think of GNU as some kind of Frankenstein monster.
And now, Igorrrr... let's put the brrrrain into my arrrtificial GNUuu. Inserrrrt the penguin brrrrain!
- Yesh, Doctor Shtallman.