It wasn't. The main purpose of the original space race was to develop capabilities to put satellites in orbit and to be able to deliver nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles, which both countries considered (rightly or wrongly) to be existential necessities.
Being a logical course of action and being a dick measuring contest aren't mutually exclusive. There was certainly lots of national pride and patriotism involved, in addition to it being a tactical necessity.
However creating a fork with the same acronym and name for the daemon or binaries or whatever seems pretty under-handed.
Was a release announcement for the original software moderated, on a list where release announcements had been posted without moderation before the fork? Was the author banned from lists?
The Linux-Audio-Announce mailing list is a moderated mailing list and has been for quite a few years (10+ IIRC). It had been several years since the original non-* projects had a release announcement there and within those years the standard format of release postings had shifted from a more casual "tell us about your software" tone into "just provide changelogs and links to resources" type emails. The change over the years had not been documented in written list policies, so the initial LAA email was rejected. To the best of my knowledge no LAA ban was implemented, just a rejection of the initial submission after it entered the moderation queue.
A ban did occur on the LAD mailing list, but to the best of my knowledge the ban occurred due to some off list emails with one of the list moderators.
The same acronym is... a questionable choice. But the matching binary names are standard for projects which are compatible replacements for the other project. You're basically releasing something with a different name, but implementing "previous-software-name" interface. This helps with drop-in replacement distro packages to.
That's why Ubuntu has the alternatives system. And why mawk / gawk / etc. are often linked to /bin/awk.
And it's entirely possible to use different software names for projects that implement a compatible API or service, the claim that it's for compatibility is pretty bogus. It's not "standard", especially not for an adversarial fork. And that's not why the alternatives system exists, the alternatives system exists so differently named packages can implement a particular service (i.e., exactly the opposite, for the equivalent in shell commands). So that's underhanded.
Alternatives works that way, because conflicting binary names are messy to handle, but at the same time it works that way, because that's the behaviour you normally want in your system. You want "a grep" and "an awk" and many others.
What is the problem if they could be translated to a working chip? A C program contains no instructions the machine can use and yet you can compile an open source program with a closed source compiler.
we used an entirely Libre-licensed VLSI "compiler", which takes HDL as input and spits out fully-completed GDS-II Files.
the problem with this particular irate individual is that he's assumed that because TSMC's DRC rules are only accessible under NDA that automatically absof*** everything was also "fake open source".
idiot.
sigh.
clearly didn't read the article.
whilst both Staf Verhaegen and LIP6.fr signed the TSMC Foundry NDA, we in the Libre-SOC team did not. we therefore worked entirely in the Libre world, honoured our committment to full transparency, whilst Staf and Jean-Paul and the rest of the team from LIP6 worked extremely hard "in parallel".
the ASIC can therefore be compiled with three different Cell Libraries:
* LIP6.fr's 180nm "nsxlib" - this is a silicon-proven 180nm Cell Library
* Staf's FreePDK45 "symbolic" cell library using FlexLib (as the name says, it uses the Academic FreePDK45 DRC)
* the NDA'd TSMC 180nm "real" variant of Staf's FlexLib
i was therefore able to "prepare" work for Jean-Paul, via the parallel track, commit it to the PUBLIC REPOSITORY (the one that's open, that our resident idiot didn't bother to check existed or even ask where it is), which saved Jean-Paul time whilst he focussed on fixing issues in coriolis2.
"Let me monitor and censor your private speech otherwise you won't be able to communicate with your friends and family on our platform they all use."
The apologetics for corporate-government fascism digust me. No, it's not okay for the ruling class to contract out their oppression to corporations any more than it is for them to use the government for that purpose.
Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. It makes discussions tedious and nasty, as below. We're trying for something quite different here.
>"Let me monitor and censor your private speech otherwise you won't be able to communicate with your friends and family on our platform they all use."
This is how the internet has been for as long as I remember. When you use a website, you agree to its rules. Do people truly believe they are oppressed over this?
Corporations are absolutely involved in oppressing people at the behest of government or other ruling class, yes. If you were deluded into thinking otherwise.
You're okay if the government privatizes certain "problematic" services it provides and allows the now private organization to violate peoples' rights?
I hear lots of amazing sounds (and accompanying self congratulation) from the EU when it comes to "human rights". Time and time again though, they prove they're not actually interested in human rights or interests of their own citizens.
Which means all their other cries of human rights about other issues are empty crocodile tears. Even when it may happen that the side they take is a good one from a human rights perspective, that's obviously purely by coincidence that it happens to align with their agenda.
Outside these gangs, what is the murder rate like though? Surely still many times higher than Canada or Europe with all the rednecks and white supremacists and school shooters.
