Since 4chan's /prog/ has become little more than meme spamming, I decided I'd try here.
Me and a group of anons are working on a POSIX-compliant OS, which will be developed anonymously and be public domain. Currently we've started on replacing GNU's Coreutils with Anoncoreutils, and have around 1/3 of the utilities finished. This is both an experiment in anonymous software development and an attempt to eliminate the bloat that GNU's programs tend to have.
Anyone is welcome to join in with this, as long as they don't leave a name and don't mind writing code for the public domain.
More info at http://rechan.eu.org/ac/ and http://rechan.eu.org/ax/
Go away.
You've stolen someone else's tripcode, you're posting with a name so you aren't anonymous, your code quality is terrible and you don't seem to understand the first thing about proper software development, and for the love of god stop spamming your crappy board everywhere.
>>2
I see 4chan's /prog/ is starting to spill over in here.
>>5
You used a meme. Your argument is invalid.
MEMES EVERYWHERE
>>5
I don't get it. Are you denying that GNU's programs have bloat? I'm not challenging you, I seriously don't get it.
>>7
in b4 hax my anus, grabs dick, instant.exe, etc.
Ah, little Cudder. Give up, you seek helpers not where you are supposed to. But then, people at serious programming forums will laugh at your futile attempt at doing something big.
Drop it. I don't want to see you fail.
>I don't get it. Are you denying that GNU's programs have bloat? I'm not challenging you, I seriously don't get it.
Are you claiming cat, echo, pwd etc. suffer from bloat? How so?
You can't be fucking serious.
I don't really see what Anonix would contribute other than being some half-assed hackjob of an OS.
Would be better if just sat down and made an editor so we don't have to resort to 70's abandonware.
>>14
Please, don't mention that.
hax my anus
>>13
Heh. Maybe not those...
Forget your stupid OS! I'm gonna make my own with hookers and blackjack! In fact, forget the OS!
>>1,13
You have asserted that the GNU tools are "bloated" without further qualifying that statement. I really don't understand why you'd want to reimplement all of GNU coreutils. GNU isn't supposed to be the epitome of Posix programming, it's first goal is to be a free system.
>>19
We're not just after small and efficient. BB is GPL, we're going for public domain and small and efficient.
We are not reimplementing the GNU coreutils, we are writing POSIX utilities which just so happen to be included in the GNU coreutils. As the Anonix plan indicates, our goal is to develop a public-domain (even more free than GPL, slightly more free than BSD, and anonymous) POSIX implementation.
> public domain
I hope none of your contributors live in the US. If some do I recommend you either do a wee bit more research about the legal situation of public domain code, or they stop contributing.
Why do you think MIT/X11 licences and the like exist?
As an aside, I make regular use at work of echo's -n and -e options (albeit you don't need -n with -e). But if you like life on the spartan side, go for it; UNIX is a pile of crap as is.
It is commonly believed by non-lawyers that it is impossible to put a work into the public domain. Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear. Congress may not have felt it necessary to codify this part of the law, because abandoning property (like a tract of land) to the public domain has traditionally been a matter of common law, rather than statute. (Alternatively, because copyright has traditionally been seen as a valuable right, one which required registration to achieve, it would not have made sense to contemplate someone abandoning it in 1976 and 1988.)[1]
>GNU cat has 11 more options than POSIX requires, and if you read the spec, at the bottom it says that those options were omitted from the standard because they can be duplicated with sed.
So, what's going to be a worse waste of resources when you need one of those options? Just running "extended" cat, or running both cat and sed? And how much waste are we actually talking about here? Have you ever sat down and done the math? What platform are you targeting that this would actually gain you something?
Surely you'll have pondered these questions before undertaking such an ambitious project.
>>25
If they want to waste their time, then let them. I just wish they'd contribute their efforts to more important problems like free replacements of proprietary programs like Flash or BIOSs.
>>22
hmm, I use echo's -n (don't print a trailing newline) option on BSD all the time. Don't know how I'd write my little hacks and things without it.
Retarded thread is retarded.
>>27
Technically POSIX doesn't consider -n to be an option, but it does do what you'd think it should.
ECHO(1) FreeBSD General Commands Manual ECHO(1)
NAME
echo -- write arguments to the standard output...
-n Do not print the trailing newline character. This may also be
achieved by appending `\c' to the end of the string, as is done by
iBCS2 compatible systems. Note that this option as well as the
effect of `\c' are implementation-defined in IEEE Std 1003.1-2001
(``POSIX.1'') as amended by Cor. 1-2002. Applications aiming for
maximum portability are strongly encouraged to use printf(1) to
suppress the newline character.To those wondering about the inexact nature of "public domain", here's the official "license" we're going to use:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
this work (the "Work"), to deal in the Work without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Work, and to permit
persons to whom the Work is furnished to do so.THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES, OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE WORK."Talk is cheap. Show me the code."
Linus Torvalds
In the EU that license might be equivalent to the (new) BSD license because you cannot abandon certain reputation rights (such as the right to sue someone for using your name, or removing your name from something). In order to effectively do so, you may want to consult a lawyer about including a clause promising not to enact reputation acts where they may exist.
Also: The Berne Convention makes it pretty clear that copyright is implicit and automatic. You may also want to have a lawyer add a clause that says (something to the effect of) "The author(s) intend no additional restrictions in use, except those restrictions that cannot be abandoned by law."
Also: WIPO and the Ninth Circuit Court in the US disagree on whether something whose copyright has been abandoned can be copyrighted someplace else. It is for this reason that many lawyers recommend against using the words "public domain" when referring to a living document with many authors.
Finally, if you're not actually interested in talking to a lawyer, I'd recommend selecting a license that does what you intend. The http://www.opensource.org/licenses has lots of licenses to choose from. It may be a lot easier to start with (for example) the old X.net license, instead of trying to cook up a new one.
> It may be a lot easier to start with (for example) the old X.net license, instead of trying to cook up a new one.
Hey, if their whole project is a case of NIH, why not the license too?
>>33
http://rechan.eu.org/misc/anoncoreutils/
that's just what we've got since the last update (beginning of May, there'll probably be another one around the beginning of June)
>>35
I think the license we're using is actually the MIT one with some stuff taken out.
>such as the right to sue someone for using your name, or removing your name from something
The thing is, the authors of Anonix have specifically chosen not to use names; or as close as the name Anonymous can convey, anyway.