SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Fedora is drafting a new mission statement. The new initial proposal:
Fedora creates an innovative platform that lights up hardware, clouds, and containers for software developers and community members to build tailored solutions for their users.
The original goal was:
to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software.
Is saying open, or free, openly (excuse the pun) becoming something to be ashamed of? Are project ditching their ideals? Fedora barely mentioned free (or Free, to be more clear), but now it's even more vague. It's like if had to be reminded over and over to those in charge, as the triggered thread demostrates.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Fedora Changing its Project Mission
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 80 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
We give advice, but we cannot give the wisdom to profit by it.
-- La Rochefoucauld
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Wednesday April 19 2017, @09:13AM (16 children)
So it will:
* Not be Linux and by extension Unix nor POSIX compatible.
* Incomplete.
* Be special purpose.
* Include proprietary code.
Now it will be all blinky code (lights up) that include unnecessary code (innovative) that probably need some extra licenses. For a fee..
If this is not true. Well then it could be stated!
Seems along the lines with systemd etc.
Diversion and division. Can't have good things because someone wants to pervert it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19 2017, @09:19AM (5 children)
So it will:
* Not be Linux
"Fedora abandons Linux" got modded Troll already, have fun.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 19 2017, @09:39AM
Sorry for being devils advocate but if they leave out Linux and any other Unix standard that seems just the thing to do if they want to leave the option open to make it incompatible.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19 2017, @04:30PM
So I went and checked the comment. Sure the title said what you claim, but the comment was:
We knew from day one this mumbo jumbo wouldn't fly.
Honestly, what sane person would try to make money from any software licensed under the GPL, which was drafted by a hippie communist to fulfill his manifesto of driving the price of all software to zero.
The GNU Manifesto plainly says, you won't get paid. Do something else.
Zero to do with the title, and a very trollish comment that ignores actual reality. The web runs on Linux and last I checked the web is home to a massive amount of profit making business. Try again little chickadee.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday April 19 2017, @04:41PM (2 children)
Maybe 2018 will be the "year of the Hurd desktop". Hurd/systemd would be a weird combination though.
(Score: 3, Funny) by WillR on Wednesday April 19 2017, @06:18PM
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 20 2017, @01:34AM
Considering the Hurd layout. Systemd might not even fill any function at all?
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Wednesday April 19 2017, @12:54PM (9 children)
Linux isn't even close to POSIX compatible. Try and compile some modern software (written in a Linux environment) on a commercial UNIX like Solaris or AIX. You'll get errors and warnings out the ass. I've yet to successfully compile anything on AIX (no I am not a comp.sci major either).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19 2017, @03:18PM (2 children)
Your not holding it right. I worked for a large govt scientific agency and we ditched Solaris and AIX years ago for Redhat. Until that point I had no trouble compiling or running open source software.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19 2017, @03:44PM
As the years go by, Linux deviates more and more from POSIX.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 20 2017, @01:26AM
Have you considered one of the BSDs?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 19 2017, @03:57PM (4 children)
You'll get errors and warnings out the ass. I've yet to successfully compile anything on AIX (no I am not a comp.sci major either).
Er...not to be rude or anything, but that's a pretty big disclaimer.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday April 19 2017, @05:43PM (1 child)
Well, I, also, have yet to compile any Linux software on AIX. Of course, I don't have access to any AIX system. (Are they still even selling those?)
The thing is, the POSIX standard only defines a subset of the libraries used...and actually, even there it's a bit loose. Using libraries that aren't mentioned by the POSIX standard doesn't mean you aren't POSIX compliant. Even Unix boxes have libraries that aren't mentioned in the POSIX standard, and many programs use those libraries. What it does say is this particular set of libraries exists and they work in this particular way. And it's true that Linux doesn't quite adhere to that standard, but it comes quite close. It's just that fewer and fewer programs only depend on the POSIX standard.
P.S.: I just checked and apparently IBM *is* still selling AIX. But they sure aren't pushing it in the places I look.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Funny) by jasassin on Thursday April 20 2017, @07:49AM
I got samba (smbd and nmbd) to compile on SCO Unix 3.2.4.2 but my manager made me ixnay that before the owner found out since we (hardware dept) were pushing Linux.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19 2017, @05:47PM (1 child)
It really isn't. Plenty of people have no degrees and are very well-educated about computer science.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 19 2017, @06:05PM
Programming in general, sure, but when we're talking about the finer points of compiling between different Unices I'd like to see some credentials or job experience or something to justify that "I couldn't get it to work" doesn't mean "I banged on it for an afternoon without knowing what I was doing."
For the record, I don't consider myself more than a notch or two above the latter. Definitely not a greybeard :)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Thursday April 20 2017, @11:32AM
The problem here is actually the inverse. Linux has considerable extensions to POSIX which is why you ran into landmines. A lot of them come from GCC which allow for non-standard C (gnu99 variant) that seeped into most FOSS software.
If you're serious on your attempts to build software on AIX, build/install GCC first (you might need to get a binary port to bootstrap it). Then replace make with GNU make, or at least an updated BSD make, as well as tar due to limitations with AIX's tar cutting off filenames that are too long. You also need to make sure CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS are picking up the piles of packages RPM drops in /opt, they won't get automatically picked up by either xLC or GCC.
That will get you a LONG way closer to success than trying to use xLC. After that, you'll be far closer to success, though you might still need to handhold software that's being stupid. NetBSD's pkgsrc is a good way to go about this if you want it in a shiny package, or at least a good source of patches to de-Linuxify software since they build on a lot of BSDs and cygwin.
If you want further help, drop me an email to discuss more in-depth. I've gotten most things to build on HP-UX and AIX with significant bludgeoning.
Still always moving