
Ulix – a Literate Unix - tokenrove
http://ulixos.org/
======
chm
Looking at the code on GitHub[1] I don't understand how this qualifies as
"literate" programming. I'm also not quite sure why you'd version binaries as
well as /etc/passwd... There's also an awful lot of "// old line comment
removed". Maybe I'm confused but this does not "read like a book".

EDIT: I found what I was looking for [2].

[1]: [https://github.com/hgesser/ulix](https://github.com/hgesser/ulix)

[2]:
[https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hgesser/ulix/master/ulix-b...](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hgesser/ulix/master/ulix-
book-0.13.nw)

~~~
padator
Look at the ulix-book-0.13.nw file. It is the literate document. It contains
all the code for the kernel.

~~~
chm
Ah, you replied to me just as I found it. I think the README should hint that
the code is in the book ;)

------
e12e
Oh, wow! This looks great! I generally like the GPL (including 3) - but wonder
if MIT/BSD moght not have been an even better choice for a text book, where
someone might want to build on example code and use it in a different system.

At any rate the PDF version looks (and more importantly _reads_ ) great.

------
FormerFSF
I volunteered at the Free Software Foundation for about 2 years when I was a
student at MIT.

GPL is almost always a bad choice for open source projects. I could write for
days on the subject - but I'll try to be brief.

(Note: I am not a lawyer and not speaking on behalf of the FSF, just on my own
capacity.)

This was during the years Linux was the rebel, Microsoft was the suits, and
you could plop the GPL on anything and people would embrace it as the worlds.
Code was open - but untouchable by the corporations.

To my surprise, after joining them rank and file of the private sector people
chided me for my enthusiasm in the GPL.

I realize in retrospect the youthful folly of it. It turns out the "poison
pill" that is the derivative work clause of the license affects _everybody_.
That is, hardware vendors, game makers, medium sized companies, small
companies, individuals, even more permissively licensed open source projects
can't touch GPL.

What took me years to realize is when corporate brought us into a meeting with
the lawyers, LGPL and GPL w/ exceptions are in the same boat! These exceptions
are weak compared to the 9 pages of restrictions biased toward the virility of
it.

What made me really popular in open source, made me an outcast at work. It got
me, fresh out of MIT, fired, and for a time on welfare (only for the period of
2 weeks).

GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way. It's restrictive and,
while done in good faith, completely burns bridges and appeal to people who'd
otherwise be happy contributing upstream to some projects.

Reminder, I am not a lawyer and was only a volunteer at FSF. I still accept
GPL for some projects, but my opinion has since changed since entering the
workforce.

~~~
cbd1984
> GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way.

You appear to be using the term "Marxist" as a snarl term.

This is strong evidence you're trolling.

Please leave. We don't especially want trolls here.

~~~
baad1dea
>We don't especially want trolls here.

And judging from the responses in this thread, it appears that he is
successful.

Or do you enjoy feeding trolls?

~~~
cbd1984
Feeding trolls isn't what makes them stay. Lax moderation makes them stay.

