Linux Today Readers Speak: Foiling Your Sysadmin, Monopoly, Mono, and Linux Is a Kernel, Dangit!

As always, one of the best features of Linux Today is the excellent reader comments. Here is a sampling of some recent gems; I can't share all the comments that I think are good, so be sure to cruise them your own selves when you have time:

Padma - Subject: Re: How old ... ( May 20, 2009, 19:00:46 )

"I remember working on a mainframe a couple of decades ago (non-UNIX). I worked in a systems shop, and we had the same problem, even then. We ran a utility that checked the access time of all files, and sent a copy of the report (broken down by section) to each section, asking them to archive files unused for over 90 days.

"Of course, one section's response was to write another script, which 'touched' every file they owned, once every month, so we could never again tell them that they were storing data that wasn't being used!"

C. Whitman - Subject: Re: Hi, this is the human race ( May 12, 2009, 13:41:42 )

"If you actually read the article, the author clearly states that, though Linux is technically a kernel rather than an OS, this is not the point of the article. The point of the article is that what we do refer to as the operating system, whether you call it "Linux" or "GNU/Linux," is really just a framework to build an operating system from rather than a specific operating system...

"On the other hand, if someone wants to use the term "GNU/Linux" and explain the distinction between the kernel and the rest of the operating system to everyone they talk to, then it's hard to argue that they're wrong (Perhaps you could argue that it should be "Linux/GNU" :-) ).

cjm - Subject: Intellectual dishonesty/honesty ( May 20, 2009, 15:29:40 )

"But being forced to pay Microsoft for products we don't use -- or conversely -- being forced to pay Microsoft in order to interact with our government of the people, by the people, and for the people, are examples of an unacceptable situation.

"And for the most part, commentators carefully ignore the fact that Microsoft operates as an illegal monopoly, and that if that illegal monopoly was properly dealt with and stripped of its power to dominate the desktop market, GNU/Linux advocacy would not need to focus so much attention on Windows.

"Take away the monopolistic roadblocks to GNU/Linux use, and Windows becomes a non issue.

"But to get there from here, enforcement of antitrust law is a prerequisite.

"The pundits and commentators would rather not talk about that. "

Jose_X - Subject: Still confused on degree of risk of mono.. apparently ( May 26, 2009, 16:55:53 )

"The main difference with Samba is that Samba is a product. It is not a development tool to create (infest) new applications. This is not a perfect analogy, but it gets to some core problems with mono.

"The main difference with wine is that the wine project does not encourage the development of the Windows API. But Jo Shields, mono-gang, Novell, etc, WANT you to use and spread mono. Their focus isn't on getting hot MS only dotnet apps onto Linux (they have a horrible track record here) but instead WANT to dirty future Linux with mono. Notice that many people don't use wine today, and many developers don't develop Linux apps so as to work through wine.

"Guess what, IMO, many of these people that don't want to depend on wine (or even samba), certainly no more than they absolutely "have to", also don't want to depend on mono! Who'd thunk it?

"Microsoft has created dotnet from scratch and indications are that they have a very strategic and aggressive system in place to protect their interfaces with patents."