RE: annoyances digest, Vol 1 #74 - 18 msgs

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:22:39 -0400
From: David Utidjian <[email protected]>
Organization: Adjustablenuts
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Annoyances] Re: Learning from history - The UNIX-Hater's Handbook (Peter Quirk)
Reply-To: [email protected]

"Peter Quirk" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Couple of points Peter:

>> As the old adage goes, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat
>> it."
>> Since Linux was initially just an attempt to create a copyright-free
>> version of UNIX, we need to look to UNIX for the source of the many
>> of its annoyances.

You definitely have your "history" a little confused.  Linus modified the "teaching" operating system minix in an attempt to make a UNIX-like system that would run on his 386 computer.  This would allow him to work on his Computer Science degree from the comfort of his home.  It would also allow him to exercise some of the Operating System theory that he had been learning.

I think you are thinking about the GNU project, which Linus (and Linux) borrowed heavily from.  But the motives were to create an OS that would/could never be locked away in a proprietary manner so that anyone who needed a good OS and information technology tools would have access to these (at the very least).  You can find out more at the Free Software Foundation ("Free" as in speech): http://www.fsf.org

>It has become recent "history" that many people are saying Linux is
>"copyright-free" or that Linux, in general, ignores copyright. This is
>most certainly NOT true. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
>whole basis of the GPL and ANY other OSS license is solidly based on
>current copyright law. The ONLY code in Linux that is NOT copyrighted is
>the code that has a public domain license. Fortunately there is very
>little public domain licensed software in Linux. You might be interested
>in reading the GPL which can be found in every Linux distribution or a
>click away at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html> 
>If that is too heavy going... you may want to read:
>http://www.li.org/whatislinux.php <http://www.li.org/whatislinux.php> 
>Notice the part where it says:
>"The Linux Kernel is Copyright (c) Linus B. Torvalds under the terms of
>the General Public License (GPL)."
>I hope that clears up your misconception(s).
>And now that you know some of the facts about the true Linux history and
>its relation to copyright laws... please do not repeat your misconceptions.

Good overview of the intent of the GPL.  The GPL turns the copyright system over on itself to insure that the tools that are licensed under it continue to transfer the same rights to any user that uses them.  Hence it is often referred to as "copyleft," in a typical display of geek humor.

>> You will find a wealth of material in the UNIX-Hater's Handbook
>> at http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf <http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf> . This work was published
>> in 1994, just as Dee-Ann was getting interested in computers. Little
>> has been done to correct the deficiencies described therein except POSIX
>> standardization of the shell and some APIs.

POSIX standardization is a BIG deal.  So big in fact that Microsoft attempts to be POSIX compliant as well (Windows NTand above)... unfortunately leaving it open to alternate-stream trojans.

>I disagree. On what do you base your assertion that little has been done?

I would like some more details here as well.

>> Sadly, the lessons of this text are seldom taught in Universities.

Universities teach the SCIENCE of computing in CS programs.   Theoretical and pratical topics include Operating System design, algorithms, discrete mathematics (useful for completeness testing), languages.  We learned everything from LISP, Ada, C (systems programming), Java, C++, COBOL, SQL manipulations with several languages, and Fortran, compiler design and optimization.

> What would you have them teach at Universities?

Details would be helpful.  What should a science based curriculum teach?

>> On a recent tour of colleges with my son to select a computer science
>> school, I had a conversation with the Dean of Undergraduate CS
>> studies at a prestigious school. The Dean told us that the school
>> focused on
>> Linux, Solaris and Java. I asked what my son might learn about new
>> technologies like C# and .NET during his four years at the school.
>> "Nothing, if we can help it!" was the answer.

C# and .NET is a VERY new language and framework.  It has yet to prove itself and there is still some debate as to its effectiveness (Microsoft has already dropped at least one of its own major implementation projects for .NET).

Secondly, education is about openness.  C# and .NET promote lock-in.  These issues are diametrically opposed to you.  I would much rather go to a school that teaches theories and application across multiple languages and be understand how to implement the principles of computer science in virtually any language on virtually any platform than learn a language and framework that only works with a small subset of the systems that are in use where the jobs are.  While Microsoft has 90% of the desktop market, it only has 20-30% of the server market.  There are more jobs in the Server area.

If your son is more interested in working with these specific applications, perhaps a CIS or MIS (heavier on the applied and lighter on the theoretical) program would be better suited for his interests.

Jim

*All opinions are more own and not those of any other person or organization.  No one else would want them*



> Good answer!!