Linux on Macintoshes? (Linus Torvalds' position)
Larry Granroth
: In article <C5vrG...@cs.vu.nl> rm...@cs.vu.nl (Mast RN) writes:
: >
: >By the way, my opinion about Linux on a Mac is that If it is allowed then
: >It would be a help to the development of 68000-linux, also for the Amiga,
: >because more programmers would program for it.
: It's most certainly "allowed" - I'd be very unhappy if some macintosh
: user who wants to try to port linux to the mac would desist only due to
: the FSF mac standpoint. I personally like macs (not that I'd want to
: have one at home, but...), and find this discussion ridiculous. Yes, I
: know the FSF aren't officially supporting mac development of GNU tools,
: but as far as I'm concerned, anybody is free to try to port linux to the
: mac and I'll try to answer questions etc with no regard for the "evil
: Apple empire". Can we please stop bickering about it? This thread is
: almost as boring as the GPL/386BSD one.
: Also note that if somebody actually succeeds in porting linux to the
: mac, and does a good enough job of it (and it won't be easy, I'm sure),
: most GNU software should work out of the box quite as they work on the
: 386 version, so a mac-linux would have all the software the current
: linux has (with the exception of X11r5 - that might be problematic).
: Linus
(In the unlikely case that someone doesn't already know) Linux is a freely
distributed Unix clone running on the Intel 386 architecture. It draws
heavily upon the work of the GNU project. There has been discussion
(probably quite a lot here . . . I don't read this group regularly) about
porting this OS along with its GNU components over to Apple platforms.
On occasion I have pointed out that the FSF clearly would prefer that
its code not be used to support Apple. I believe that Linus Torvalds
(the "Father" of Linux) is quite familiar with this, however his position
appears to be to encourage/support development on any company's hardware.
I certainly respect this position, but still believe it is at least
impolite to advocate porting GNU code to Apple hardware.
Maurice S. Barnum
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In <C62JI...@space.physics.uiowa.edu> l...@space.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) writes:
>its code not be used to support Apple. I believe that Linus Torvalds
>(the "Father" of Linux) is quite familiar with this, however his position
>appears to be to encourage/support development on any company's hardware.
>I certainly respect this position, but still believe it is at least
>impolite to advocate porting GNU code to Apple hardware.
The kernel is not GNU code. It is GPL'd, unless Linus has changed the
license recently, but that is NOT the same thing. Linus doesn't seem to
be part of the FSF boycott of Apple, and I can't see any reason it's
"impolite" to encourage porting the kernel (which is all he mentioned porting
in the quoted article).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBK9uJxE8eD1erEAk9AQElLQP+OVqJhAQj0C2VDw3ez1c8sJCq5gNNXtp7
Y8E9mIq3KYa+z6W4HKFoE2k+PV/9FbQsgL9BvQHZtTmaMjMP27AvK6FZjcRZ7jhg
8ltznIJOVmmC4wyUz1Jgh7RZZNfzG4gPJoAufgcT1VIxzne2ktpXXAXdMRpq6Z9d
nZx05gymy3A=
=iwZM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Maurice S. Barnum --- msb@cats.{ucsc.edu,BITNET}, mba...@eis.calstate.edu
There is no more light in a genius than in any other honest man---but he
has a ... lens to concentrate this light into a burning point.
--- L. Wittgenstein
Kjetil Torgrim Homme
> On occasion I have pointed out that the FSF clearly would prefer
> that its code not be used to support Apple. I believe that Linus
> Torvalds (the "Father" of Linux) is quite familiar with this,
> however his position appears to be to encourage/support development
> on any company's hardware. I certainly respect this position, but
> still believe it is at least impolite to advocate porting GNU code
> to Apple hardware.
1. IMHO, this is a non-issue. I doubt the availability of Linux for
Apple Macintosh is going to give Apple more sales - no one in their
right mind would buy a new Mac to run Linux on. People buy Macintoshes
for the GUI (incredible, isn't it?), not the hardware. If Linux was
integrated into the Macintosh dektop, I would have to reconsider, but
that sounds infeasable to me.
I bought a cheap 486 to run Linux. A Mac would be at least twice the
price for no discernible gain.
2. Linux has not been donated to the FSF. The GPL is a stand-alone
legal document - the FSF cannot (and does not try to) force those who
use the GPL to boycott Apple.
3. Linux is really just the kernel. Linus concerns himself with this
only. Would it really make you happier if he released it under, say,
the artistic licence instead?
Kjetil T.
Larry Granroth
I have the utmost respect for Linus. The work that he has donated for
free distribution is certainly as significant as anything that the FSF
has done. (Thanks, Linus!)
I never meant to suggest that the Linux kernel had anything to do with
GNU code. (Well, I suppose GNU tools may have been useful in its development,
but that's beside the point.) However, I'm sure some would agree with me that
Linux as an operating system would not be nearly as appealing without gcc,
emacs, etc, etc. Even though the FSF would not even suggest that you don't
have the right to port their code to Apple hardware, they clearly ask
you to avoid this. (Consider how far you would get distributing a free
Macintosh emulator for Linux.)
Once again, my understanding of Linus' position (which I posted earlier)
is that he wants to insure that no-one is discouraged from working with
Linux on any platform. I think that this is a noble "above the politics"
view. I don't feel that Linus should waste any of his time worrying about
this further.
However, *my* opinion is that the FSF Apple boycott should be respected more.
Feel free to disagree (you still have that freedom).
Linus Torvalds
them, bother your sysadmin ]
Note that my standpoint on porting linux to anything imaginable is quite
clear: as long as it's technically feasible, I don't care who does the
machine, nor about their politics. I don't actually think a linux port
to the macintosh is anything that will come about soon (or ever), but if
somebody wants to try, he's got my support. This only concerns the
kernel (which, as has been pointed out, is not actually a FSF project),
and I don't have any say in the matter when it comes to normal GNU
tools.
Naturally, if linux actually got ported (and not in some crippled form),
99% of all GNU tools would naturally compile out of the box for it quite
as they do for the 386 version, and it would need no support from the
FSF nor me. If that is a problem for anybody, I don't really care.
Sorry. I like the GPL, but I'm not religious about it, and for me to
boycott Apple machines just because GNU programs might port easily
sounds idiotic, especially as I find the Apple boycott a bad idea in the
first place (*).
Linus
(*) That's ok - I didn't write the GNU programs, so if the FSF thinks a
boycott is right, I'll support it as long as it concerns their code.
David Johnson
>However, *my* opinion is that the FSF Apple boycott should be respected more.
>Feel free to disagree (you still have that freedom).
Stumbling across this discussion, I could not believe it... The implicit
boycott of GNU software to *any* platform makes the FSF look plain foolish.
Sure, Apple gets bent out of shape and goes infrigement-hunting when they
feel the fire getting a little too warm for them, but they have always held
the same attitude - without exception. The FSF inferring any type of a
boycott whatsoever is contradictory to the GPL and its idealised reason
for existence. You don't see Apple licensing the toolbox ROM routines
to Xcelerated Systems and then turning around and hitting them with a lawsuit.
I, as thousands of other people (millions?), appreciate and admire the FSF for
its commitment of safeguarding the availability of free (excellent) software,
but don't see how these hipocritical notions further its cause. In fact, I
believe they hamper it.
--DAVE (joh...@wrs.com)
Elizabeth Haley
>Stumbling across this discussion, I could not believe it... The implicit
>boycott of GNU software to *any* platform makes the FSF look plain foolish.
Actually, It's pretty simple to understand. Porting FSF software to
the Mac might make more people want to buy it, thus giving more Money
to Apple to sue people with.
Remember, Apple gives away their system software... They make their
money on *HARDWARE*. They don't want any other HARDWARE to be as good
as theirs, so they'll sue anyone who puts out a computer whose user
interface LOOKS and FEELS like a Mac, cause if they didn't the might
have to lower their HARDWARE prices to compete...
(damn I feel like an Nat. Enquirer writer or something...)
Christopher Davis
EH> Remember, Apple gives away their system software...
Not any more.
EH> They don't want any other HARDWARE to be as good as theirs, so they'll
EH> sue anyone who puts out a computer whose user interface LOOKS and
EH> FEELS like a Mac, cause if they didn't the might have to lower their
EH> HARDWARE prices to compete...
You mean like they've been doing?
--
* Christopher Davis * <c...@eff.org> * <c...@kei.com> * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM *
"Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repost it every month,
with diffs marked with change bars." --Ed Vielmetti <e...@msen.com>
Sean Case
>Actually, It's pretty simple to understand. Porting FSF software to
>the Mac might make more people want to buy it, thus giving more Money
>to Apple to sue people with.
Making FSF software available for Unix might (does) make more people want
to buy USL licences, thus giving them more money to sue people.
Sean Case
--
Sean Case g...@coombs.anu.edu.au
"Zut! A woman farmair liveeng weez a mernkee who eats brie!
Ah will make Chief Statistician weez zees!" -- Colquhoun
Elizabeth Haley
>Making FSF software available for Unix might (does) make more people want
>to buy USL licences, thus giving them more money to sue people.
This is a paradox, to be sure, but one that RMS addressed at a recent
Talk at Harvard...
He see's it like this... It's O.K. to use the proprietary software to
develop it's freed successor...
When the HURD comes out as a stable package, it will surely cause
people to not buy USL product, as well as others...
In any case, I doubt that anyone, upon reading the GNU manifesto,
hopped up and bought a USL license... More likely they went and got
386bsd or Linux... Or already had the USL license... I know that
Harris Corp. distributes GNU Emacs with their SYS V/BSD Hybrid, so
some meet the FSF *because* of a USL licensed system...
Like me...
--
Jesus saves sinners...
/****************************************************************************\
==============David Charles Todd, tHE mAN wITH tHREE fIRST nAMES==============
I/O Error: core dumped.
\*************************hac...@headcheese.daa.uc.edu**********************/
...in a shoebox in his mother's attic.
Roland Dreier
When the HURD comes out as a stable package, it will surely cause
people to not buy USL product, as well as others...
When the HURD comes out as a stable package, a lot of things will
probably happen, though. Like a big snowball fight involving the
Devil. (It will probably be started over Emacs 19).
--
Roland "Mr. Excitement" Dreier dre...@math.berkeley.edu
Jim Thompson
> Remember, Apple gives away their system software... They make their
> money on *HARDWARE*.
Starting with version 7.1, Apple's system software is no longer free.
To get it one must either buy a new Mac, buy the software outright, or
pay an upgrade fee (for registered 7.0 users). It would seem that
Apple has decided to fleece its customers for a couple of extra bucks
on software that it used to give away.
--
_ Jim Thompson __ ___
_| ~- thom...@wg2.waii.com /\_\ /\__\
\, _} Western Geophysical \/_/ / / /
\( Houston, Texas \/__/
Marty Leisner x71348
Seems it may be easier to port net-2 to a mac...
--
Marty Leisner lei...@eso.mc.xerox.com leisner....@xerox.com
"God does not play dice with the universe" -- Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling god what to do " -- Neils Bohr
Peter Wemm
>I understand Linux is very Intel specific...
>Seems it may be easier to port net-2 to a mac...
The Linux kernel has just recently been ported to the 680x0 based
Amigas.. From there, the mac port would be a piece of cake.
As for net-2, you would probably have to take a lot of stuff from
386BSD, even though the reference platform for BSD these days are
the old 680x0 based HP's.
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm pe...@DIALix.oz.au -or- pe...@zeus.DIALix.oz.au
NIC handle: PW65 Current maintainer of the "NN" newsreader.
Hamish Macdonald
>>>>> In message <1s2g3g$4...@DIALix.oz.au>,
>>>>> pe...@DIALix.oz.au (Peter Wemm) wrote:
Peter> The Linux kernel has just recently been ported to the 680x0
Peter> based Amigas.. From there, the mac port would be a piece of
Peter> cake.
This port is *not* finished. In fact, it is barely started. Almost
all device drivers are missing. It is mostly just the CPU-specific
stuff which has been ported so far.
George Thiruvathukal
> g...@coombs.anu.edu.au (Sean Case) writes:
>
> >Making FSF software available for Unix might (does) make more people want
> >to buy USL licences, thus giving them more money to sue people.
>
> This is a paradox, to be sure, but one that RMS addressed at a recent
> Talk at Harvard...
>
> He see's it like this... It's O.K. to use the proprietary software to
> develop it's freed successor...
One could only argue this, if one had a "license" to use the proprietary
software (which is how most license agreements are framed). I suppose RMS
would agree.
> When the HURD comes out as a stable package, it will surely cause
> people to not buy USL product, as well as others...
My inclination was to say: "You cannot be serious!" More or less, I seriously
doubt what you are saying is at all true. There are many examples of fine OS
technology out there being developed by companies who do not share the
litigious sentiments with Apple. If a company develops proprietary software
that allows a "freed successor" to be developed, why cannot there be some
kind of symbiotic relationship?
I work for a company that uses a network of roughly 500 workstations. We will
be installing Solaris 2.2 real soon now. While it would be nice if we were in
a position to "evaluate" and/or "wait" for the HURD, we cannot do so, nor can
we afford (even though GNU HURD will be "free") the staffing effort to set up
HURD. I've brought up the idea of using HURD at work, but I've not been able
to find any technical documentation on it. Even before Solaris 2.x was
released, many technical references were readily available. The same can be
said for OS's like OS/2 2.x and NT. Based on OS technology today (and the
convergence of the different OS's to virtually the same OS), I cannot believe
for one minute that HURD will cause people "not to buy the others."
Obviously, the FSF and GNU supporters should exhibit the utmost degree of
disdain for Apple. Apple threatens GNU and the entire software industry with
their obnoxious behavior; however, the entire software industry should not
be mistakenly construed as a threat to GNU. GNU has been highly successful,
in part, due to proprietary software. Many people from the companies producing
the proprietary software are ardent GNU supporters. As mentioned in a song
by Boston, "lots of people have to make a legal living." It will be some time
before the software industry can be adjusted to the vision of RMS (which is a
noble one), wherein the emphasis is more service-oriented: documentation,
support, and training.
George Thiruvathukal
IIT Computer Science - Chicago, IL
Tellabs Operations, Inc. - Lisle, IL
#include <no-warranty.h>
#include <personal/disclaimer.h>
#include <company/disclaimer.h>
--
George Thiruvathukal + IIT Computer Science + g...@iitmax.iit.edu + 708-355-1507
David Megginson
to this issue. I, too, find Apple's behaviour obnoxious, and have
chosen not to purchase a Mac myself; however, many of my students do
own Macs, and with good reason -- they are easy to set up and use, and
the software base uses a consistent, intuitive interface. Just being
able to use a file name like "Women in Beowulf Essay" rather than
"W_BEOWLF.WP" matters a lot to non-techie types. I certainly hope to
make any free didactic software which I develop freely available under
the FSF, but will actually encourage rather than discourage Macintosh
ports: my students come first, and I will not try to force them to
buy new computers, or to use more difficult computers (the only other
choice for Wordprocessing is usually MeSsyDOS clones, unless there is
an Amiga dealer around) just because of my moral principles.
David Megginson
Elizabeth Haley
>One could only argue this, if one had a "license" to use the proprietary
>software (which is how most license agreements are framed). I suppose RMS
>would agree.
Far be it from me to spaek for RMS, but if I recall correctly, he and
the FSF use just about any system they have donated to them, as long
as the company making the donation does not ask them to sign
non-disclosure agreements... (This may actually only apply to RMS)
He has stated a desire to avoid commiting illegalities.
>> When the HURD comes out as a stable package, it will surely cause
>> people to not buy USL product, as well as others...
>My inclination was to say: "You cannot be serious!" More or less, I seriously
>doubt what you are saying is at all true. There are many examples of fine OS
>technology out there being developed by companies who do not share the
>litigious sentiments with Apple. If a company develops proprietary software
>that allows a "freed successor" to be developed, why cannot there be some
>kind of symbiotic relationship?
I can be very serious. Note that I am *not* saying "to the total or
even significant exclusion of other OS'es". I applaud those companies
who do not side with Apple in their hearts, but the question is: who
are they? The fact that a company has not sued someone may be because
the opportunity has not come up...
At least according to RMS, though a company may support FSF, as long
as it asks anyone to sign or agree to non-disclosure, it is betraying
it's neighbors.
>I work for a company that uses a network of roughly 500 workstations. We will
>be installing Solaris 2.2 real soon now. While it would be nice if we were in
>a position to "evaluate" and/or "wait" for the HURD, we cannot do so, nor can
>we afford (even though GNU HURD will be "free") the staffing effort to set up
>HURD. I've brought up the idea of using HURD at work, but I've not been able
I am not suggesting the HURD will be able to replace everything when
it does come out, That would be a very arrogant claim. One thing you
will need is for MACH to run on you machine. However, once that
exists, I believe that porting the HURD and bringing it up will be
MUCH easier than many other systems, since problems would be much more
compartmentalized, and therefore easier to fix. I have found a nice
document that talks about the HURD theoretically, but as far as the
technical details, I am under the impression they don't want to
release them until they have the actual package up and running. Large
mostly finished chunks are in fact available for those that would like
to take a look, contact the FSF for details...
I can believe that the HURD, when it comes out will be well regarded,
and much used. It's unique form will allow for far greater
flexibility, since the base OS is *not* monolithic, and from what I
glean from the info I have read, can have parts of it replaced more or
less dynamically...
>Obviously, the FSF and GNU supporters should exhibit the utmost degree of
>disdain for Apple. Apple threatens GNU and the entire software industry with
>their obnoxious behavior; however, the entire software industry should not
>be mistakenly construed as a threat to GNU. GNU has been highly successful,
>in part, due to proprietary software. Many people from the companies producing
>the proprietary software are ardent GNU supporters. As mentioned in a song
>by Boston, "lots of people have to make a legal living." It will be some time
>before the software industry can be adjusted to the vision of RMS (which is a
>noble one), wherein the emphasis is more service-oriented: documentation,
>support, and training.
Please do not mistake my position: I don't hate the software industry
or even Apple. I find them obnoxious, as I do anyone who is litigious
in this manner.
Even RMS stated that he realizes it will take adjustment, even by the
ardent GNU supporters.
Tim Smith
>the software base uses a consistent, intuitive interface. Just being
>able to use a file name like "Women in Beowulf Essay" rather than
>"W_BEOWLF.WP" matters a lot to non-techie types. I certainly hope to
It matters to techie types too. When I encounter some system or software
that makes me go out of my way to accomodate its limitations, my first
thought is certainly not "I know how to write operating systems, so I
don't mind being jerked around by this program!"
--Tim Smith
AD...@cunyvm.bitnet
Seeing as Apple is moving the Mac line to RISC based chips Real Soon Now
(Probably early next year), mebbe a better idea for a free mac Unix would
be to wait till then....?
Also, last I saw at CMU, Mach was ported to the Mac, (3.0), and all the
non-AT&T code was free...this would help a HURD port, I guess. The
PowerPC Risc stuff should also be MACH based.
Aaron