[Tfug] Alan Cox: "I've had enough"--what else is new?

[Jim March]

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Bowie J. Poag<bpoag at comcast.net> wrote:
> Jim March wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not anti-Linux. I'm just tired of seeing the Linux scene decay into
>>>> another Amiga fanclub full of hopeful die hards that think the platform will
>>>> one day rise up again.<<
>>>>
>>
>> Where's your evidence we're collapsing?  Seriously?
>>
>
> Toe cheese, Jim.   Toe cheese, and hissy-fits from the likes of Torvalds and
> Cox who would rather bicker like teenage girls than provide some form of
> meaningful direction. I'd rather ride in a car with Hellen Keller behind the
> wheel than trust these three clowns with the Linux movement. At least 'ol
> Hellen set goals and had initiative.

Bowie, Steve Jobs was thrown out of Apple at one point.  How much
bickering and squabble do you think was involved THERE?

The difference with open source is, problems happen out in the open.
With corporate systems, the SAME weird crap happens (because we're
human either way and a lot of Asperger's either way) but we only get
rumors of stuff like Balmer throwing chairs through the windows, or
top execs forced out over politics.

Big deal.

>> We're making decent progress.  Google's distro will help, we'll
>> finally have a serious-sized company behind a free (as in doesn't cost
>> anything) distro made to work.
>
> ...Making progress in a race that's already been won by someone else.

Uh huh.  Bowie, at one point Microprose "won" the word processing
software "race" hands down, runaway winner, nothing even close in
second.  And then Wordperfect came along and kicked their butts.  And
then THEY got their butts handed to 'em.

In operating systems, CP/M owned the installed base until IBM and MS
jointly stomped them into the ground.

When the switchover for lead happens, it happens FAST as hell.

Apple very deliberately took themselves out of the running for lead OS
by tying their OS to their hardware.  Otherwise they could have taken
over from MS long ago.  I suspect the reason they didn't is, most OSX
development can be recompiled fairly easily for Linux.  So they
decided to stay deep in the hardware business rather than end up
pushing the *nix ball deep downfield only to see Linux or another
>>free<< OS take the ball the final five yards.

>  What's the point of continuing when there's a free Unix with widespread
> commercial acceptance already out there? This is why I gave up on Linux.
> There is no point in pouring any more time and effort into it as a platform.
> You're better off putting it into Darwin, where at least there's leadership.
> And a lack of guys eating their damn toe cheese in the middle of a
> conversation.

How in God's name are you calling OSX "free"?  Unless you mean "pirated"?

>> And that's completely insane.  "Oh great, let's all try and use an
>> operating while dodging Apple trying to drive wooden stakes through
>> our hearts..."
>>
>> Recipe for success...NOT.
>
> It's no better recipe than any other free Unix---They all come from
> commercial parentage that wants to kill its offspring, and Linux is no
> exception.

Oh no, like hell there's not a difference.  Apple actively wants to
nuke your hackintosh from orbit, via "updates" if possible, courts if
not.

Dude, if you're publicly stating that you're building hackintoshes for
other people, you're inviting a lawsuit.  Seriously.