This sentence above has the tone of you telling others what they
should be working on. I would suggest that adding some words like "but
I hasten to add that I'm not telling people what to write" would have
avoided a negative interpretation.
> > Rubbish! This is what evolution is all about! Species do not instantly
> > become extinct when a better one (occupying their niche in the
> > ecology) comes along.
>
> Of course not.
I'm glad you agree with me.
> > They become extinct when they are driven into
> > the ground by superior competition or a changing environment.
>
> Sure.
>
> > They
> > hang on until the bitter end.
>
> This is where the analogy breaks down. OSes are not life
> forms. They exists to serve our needs, cannot reporoduce without
> our help, and the form of their genetic code, so to speak, is
> entirely within our control. I see no reason whatsoever why a
> *free* OS should hang on to the bitter end.
1) You can't control volunteer work
2) while people are interested in working on something, let them, no
matter how misguided you think they are. They might come up with
something really interesting. Their continued efforts are not
necessarily unwise
> > Sometimes the "obsolete" species makes
> > an evolutionary jump changes the world forever.
>
> Then it is not the same species anymore. Just because FluxOS
> is made up of Linux sausage does not make it Linux, even if you call
> it Linux. By that token, I guess "Linux" will be around forever as
> long as there is an OS that goes by the name of "Linux". But this
> is semantic nonsense. When I say that Linux will be obsolteted by
> another OS within two years, I mean more-or-less the current
> monolithic POSIX-compliant Unix clone architecture of Linux 2.2 (and
> Linuxly also 2.3/2.4 as well).
Linux may make an evolutionary jump that gives it a tremendous
advantage over (possibly then superion NGOS's), *while remaining
monolithic and POSIX-compliant*. I'm not saying it will do this, but
it *may* happen. Saying that Linux (monolithic and POSIX-compliant) is
doomed to obsolescence is an unprovable statement.
> > One of the great strengths of the Open Source movement is that it is
> > driven by evolutionary development. To say that development of some
> > project should be terminated because you think some other project is
> > better misses the point.
>
> I never said that anything should be terminated. Please do not
> put words in my mouth.
As I showed above, that was the tone of what you said. You didn't say
so explicitely but you implied it.
> > Besides which it's arrogant. Volunteers are
> > free to work on what they like: you have no right to tell them what
> > they should be working on.
>
> I didn't do that! Why are you accusing me of this? All I ever
> said was that I thought that this would happen as part of the natural
> evolutionary course of free OS development.
See above. People are not robots, and they respond to the tone of the
message as well as the explicit content. I'm glad you've made you
position clear in the above sentence. I just think that your original
message could have been less inflammatory.
> > Why not forward your troll to the *BSD mailing lists after doing:
> > s/Linux/BSD/g
> > s/NGOS/Linux/g
> >
> > and see what a warm welcome you receive.
>
> You need to maybe proof your replies once before shooting them
> off, hm?
I'm happy with my message as it stands. But thank you for your
concern. I would ask, however, that you refrain from a condescending
tone.
> > > > Much later, with 2.2 on the doorstep, I pause and consider his
> > > > words. 2.2 has brought us many performance improvements (networking,
> > > > dcache, SMP).
> > >
> > > Few of which are specific to the Unix API, and most of which could
> > > be pilfered for use in an NGOS easily. Exactly why is this relevant?
> >
> > Read what I said again. The point I was making is fairly obvious: the
> > Linux kernel shows no sign of a slowdown in development. Your claim is
> > that Linux is, or will very shortly be, obsolete.
>
> Not *very* shortly. More misstatements.
Let me clarify. By very shortly, I mean in the timescale of a year or
two. That being the same timescale you expect Linux (monolithic and
POSIX-compliant) to become obsolete.
> > To be painfully
> > explicit, I refute your claim by drawing attention to the continued
> > development of Linux. Until people run out of ideas, it will not be
> > obsolete.
>
> People have not even run out of ideas for horse-and-buggy
> contrivances. Are you saying they are not obsoleted by the
> automobile?
Read further, and will see the connecting sentence.
> > Of course if 90% of Linux users switch to something else, then you
> > also could consider it obsolete. But I doubt that will happen while
> > new ideas keep coming.
>
> The buggy vs. car analogy appies here too.
I think 90% of buggy users switched to cars before my father was
born. So, yes, the analogy applies. Linux has not seen 90% of it's
userbase switch to a NGOS kernel.
Let me be more explicit: *if* 90% switch from Linux, *and if*
developers run out of ideas, then I would consider Linux
obsolete. I'll go futher, if 50% switch to a NGOS kernel and if Linux
kernel developers run out of ideas (to compete with NSOS's), then the
writing will be on the wall.
BUT: while linux Kernel developers keep having new ideas, I don't
expect to see a mass exodus, because it's likely that Linux
(monolithic, POSIX-compliant) will be performance competitive.
And, like I said above, Linux may yet evolve, remaining monolithic and
POSIX-compliant and still compete with NGOS's. I would not be so bold
as to make a prediction either way.
> > I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Linux response to NGOS's is to
> > make an evolutionary leap (assuming an NGOS performs as well as
> > Linux).
>
> Then it will obsolete itself. My point is not that _Linux_
> will dissapar as a name, but that the concept of a traditional
> monolithic Unix kernel will. You gjust agreed with me, then. Thank
> you.
Your thanks are premature. I don't agree.
Regards,
Richard....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/