You implied that my achievements werent as good as linus's one. However why do you get to judge if mine are not good enough? You showed nothing to make you the judge.
I wish I could brag about my personal accomplishments, unfortunatly "the man" won't let me talk about them now. maybe in 10 years when they are obsolete.
I wish I could brag about my personal accomplishments, unfortunatly "the man" won't let me talk about them now. maybe in 10 years when they are obsolete.
Originally posted by: Megatomic
My feelings are truly hurt, you guys are mean e-bullys.No, Linus' achievements are not on the scale of the global corporate entity that is Intel. 1 person vs. corporation? Come on...
Do we forget that Intel was started by two ppl? It didnt just all of a sudden just became what is it now with a snap of a finger. It took time and many different successful products to get where it is now.
Megatomic
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 20,127
- 6
- 81
I am sorry to have conveyed that impression. That wasn't my intention at all. And I can really sympathize with you, I am restricted as to what I can say about my achievements right now as well. I work for the DOE and that is probably as much as I should say publicly.
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Just look at the guy and you'll understand why he's so angry at the world.
- M4H
He needs Costanza's "Bro"
Acutally, it's a Manssiere
I thought I heard something that he left the company a while back, but I could be wrong. Either way, I doubt he did anything useful there, cause if he did, Transmeta should have had a more powerful processor than Intel the way he is talking.
If he is so good, he should focus on the creating the next big thing. In my opinion, and maybe others might agree with me. It's one thing to create that one great product, but its another when you repeat that creativity. Then that is when I see a person as a visonary and I'll read some of what they have to say on a topic such as John Carmack, who has a multitude proven track record.
If I am wrong so be it. Im glad the Linux OS is around and i have fun tweaking with it. But I dont view the guy as a God. It is like those who swear by Steve Jobs and Apple and claim how right and honest Apple is. Hell I dont care for the guy, but he has a better record than Linus.
Sorry for dragging this out everyone
If he is so good, he should focus on the creating the next big thing. In my opinion, and maybe others might agree with me. It's one thing to create that one great product, but its another when you repeat that creativity. Then that is when I see a person as a visonary and I'll read some of what they have to say on a topic such as John Carmack, who has a multitude proven track record.
If I am wrong so be it. Im glad the Linux OS is around and i have fun tweaking with it. But I dont view the guy as a God. It is like those who swear by Steve Jobs and Apple and claim how right and honest Apple is. Hell I dont care for the guy, but he has a better record than Linus.
Sorry for dragging this out everyone
Granted, his wife isn't a super model, but I am sure he finds her attractive. Attractive enough to have had a couple of daughters.
You must be mistaken! IA-64 clean and technically pure? Good god download the Intel IA-64 manual, read a couple pages, and then see if that's a plausible statement from Torvalds...
Now MIPS, that is a "clean and pure" architecture (generally).
Good god download the Intel IA-64 manual, read a couple pages, and then see if that's a plausible statement from Torvalds...Now MIPS, that is a "clean and pure" architecture (generally).
What I don't get it how Linus could think that 64-bit extentions to the x86 architecture are really "AMD's idea". What a crock of crap! I'll bet Linus thinks Gore really invented the internet too! Intel had people thinking about 64-bit architecture when AMD was still trying to figure out how much of a 80386 they could copy and get away with it...
Intel made a marketing decision that the transition from 32 to 64 bits was a good time to also transition to a new processor architecture. From a technical standpoint, they were probably correct. However, it appears that they were incorrect from a market standpoint--a market that AMD (to their credit) almost single-handedly created! Indeed, it is AMD that stole a[nother] page from the Intel playbook by providing a completely backwards-compatible solution!!!
While it's true that Intel appears to be delivering a 64-bit extention solution that is compatible with AMD's implementation, it's not because x86-64 is AMD's brainchild or even because their implementation is so ingenious. Simply put, they are doing it to avoid needlessly fracturing the market. We all know that Intel is big enough that they could have come up with their own. Instead, they chose to swallow a little pride, even knowing that all the techno-wannabe ignoramuses would catcall and jeer cause Intel had to "copy" AMD...
Intel had people thinking about 64-bit architecture when AMD was still trying to figure out how much of a 80386 they could copy and get away with it...Intel made a marketing decision that the transition from 32 to 64 bits was a good time to also transition to a new processor architecture. From a technical standpoint, they were probably correct. However, it appears that they were incorrect from a market standpoint--a market that AMD (to their credit) almost single-handedly created! Indeed, it is AMD that stole a[nother] page from the Intel playbook by providing a completely backwards-compatible solution!!!
While it's true that Intel appears to be delivering a 64-bit extention solution that is compatible with AMD's implementation, it's not because x86-64 is AMD's brainchild or even because their implementation is so ingenious. Simply put, they are doing it to avoid needlessly fracturing the market. We all know that Intel is big enough that they could have come up with their own. Instead, they chose to swallow a little pride, even knowing that all the techno-wannabe ignoramuses would catcall and jeer cause Intel had to "copy" AMD...
Originally posted by: Megatomic
I am sorry to have conveyed that impression. That wasn't my intention at all. And I can really sympathize with you, I am restricted as to what I can say about my achievements right now as well. I work for the DOE and that is probably as much as I should say publicly.
and off topic still....telling us you work for the DoE probably isn't even a good thing. I'm sure if you ask your security officer about about this thread, that they will frown upon it...
Wow. I mean really, wow. The complete lack of intelligence in your post has amazed me beyond words. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, yet you still proceeded to click the reply button. Simply amazing.
Since you are completely uninformed, I'll give you a quick primer on the history of Linux, so you don't make yourself look like an ass again.
In the early 90's, if you were a college student, the only way to play with 'real UNIX' was to buy a commercial license, roughly $100. Tanenbaum had a UNIXesque system in MINIX, but it was a teaching tool and not a fully-implemented operating system. Linus, being both hard-up for cash and very intelligent, decides to start writing his own kernel. He made a few very good-for-the-future decisions like supporting nothing below 386 (which lead to one heck of a flamewar on USENET, look it up). His masterstroke, though, was utilizing a lot of tools and applications provided by the GNU, and a crackpot called Richard Stallman. By utilizing Stallman's GPL license for the development of his kernel, he was able to use all of Stallman's preexisting code and encourage other people to contribute code to his kernel.
Since the whole kernel has been developed under this license, it is no more Linus's kernel than it is yours or mine. It's public domain, but a step further. I know, it's a foreign concept especially in this day and age, but some people do just feel the need to give.
And if you think that big money is not being made off of Linux, you are sadly mistaken. The money for an OS is never in the actual software, it's always in the support contract and initial installation and setup. Sometimes you see it referred to as TCO or total cost of ownership.
Originally posted by: cohiba
What I don't get it how Linus could think that 64-bit extentions to the x86 architecture are really "AMD's idea". What a crock of crap! I'll bet Linus thinks Gore really invented the internet too!
Intel made a marketing decision that the transition from 32 to 64 bits was a good time to also transition to a new processor architecture. From a technical standpoint, they were probably correct. However, it appears that they were incorrect from a market standpoint--a market that AMD (to their credit) almost single-handedly created! Indeed, it is AMD that stole a[nother] page from the Intel playbook by providing a completely backwards-compatible solution!!!
While it's true that Intel appears to be delivering a 64-bit extention solution that is compatible with AMD's implementation, it's not because x86-64 is AMD's brainchild or even because their implementation is so ingenious. Simply put, they are doing it to avoid needlessly fracturing the market. We all know that Intel is big enough that they could have come up with their own. Instead, they chose to swallow a little pride, even knowing that all the techno-wannabe ignoramuses would catcall and jeer cause Intel had to "copy" AMD...
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you somehow implying that Intel had a working x86-64 instruction set documented, and AMD stole it and implemented it and rolled it out before Intel rolled it out in a processor?
Has Intel been working on x86-64 for a while now? Sure. It takes years to properly develop a processor. My theory is that Intel started implementing AMD's design as soon as it was complete on the off chance (in their opinion) that it would take off. Note that this is a completely permitted exercise as Intel and AMD have cross-licenses that cover each of their instruction sets.
I do not, however, think that Intel was the innovator here. I truly believe that AMD was the first to develop x86-64 and Intel implemented their design. Intel very firmly believed that the world would eventually adopt IA64.
Correction, (4.2?) BSD was also around, and fairly mature at this time. The eventual lawsuit was not in the works yet, so it was also a safe, trusted, and worthy choice.
I believe this was also around the time that it cost a pretty penny to get a hold of the GNU source, due to the cost of the storage media.
If he was "hard up for cash" what else would he use?
I think this is entirely wrong. I'm downloading the kernel source now (2.6.3) just to make sure though. I'll edit with the official answer shortly, if no one replies
I believe Public Domain has less restrictions.
EDIT: COPYING says it is owned by the FSF, but most of the files I checked out have Linus as the copyright holder.
It depends. When you're dating, no there's no need. After you get married, however, you tend to become reacquainted with Rosie.
That may be true, but BSD is never brought up in the (in)famous Torvalds v. Tanenbaum flamefest. If FBSD was available at that time, no one outside Berkley knew about it.
Hmm, would export restrictions have kept Linus from acquiring FBSD?
There's a reason for that. The Copyright statement is in place in case the GPL is ever defeated in court. Should that happen, standard copyright law applies. The license agreement for Linux, which is no different in concept than that of Windows, is what gives Linux to the community on the condition that anything the community derrives from it then be given back.
Public Domain has less restrictions which is good for commercial interests but generally bad for the community. Linux (And the other GPL tools) wouldn't have come so far so quickly if everyone was able to keep their changes private a la BSD license.
I don't think it was FreeBSD, but just BSD. FreeBSD forked from 4.4BSD-lite (atleast eventually). I think. My history is a little rusty. I don't think export restrictions (crypto?) would have been a problem.
I understand the point of copyright, but I think Linus owns the copyright for the whole thing, not the FSF. I could definitely be wrong though. If the FSF did own the rights, they would probably want future versions of the GPL to be supported. Linus doesn't, atleast he didn't the last time I checked (which has been a while).
Businesses aren't welcome as part of the community? I wonder what Novell and IBM would say upon hearing that
I've worked for a company that used BSD code, hired a BSD developer, and allowed him to release code back into the community. If the BSD license was as bad as GPLers make it out to be, it wouldn't be around.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter