GNU Autotools

Why the fuck is building a ``configure'' and ``make'' so complex, /prog/?

>>36,39
Sounds about right for something that grew out of 7chan

>>40
Well in the case of anoncoreutils the tripfags (HAHAHaruhi,Cudder,w4lolitaKs) only post with their trips to announce something. They post anonymously the rest of the time.

>>37
Why the obsession with being an exact clone of GNU/Linux?  That to me is what makes this project unworkable.  A public-domain pure POSIX/SUS implementation is an easier (and more definable) goal.  The problem is that you don't have a spec to point to when someone submits trash code.  And it's unavoidable, because all they can do in the first place is see that "hey it kinda acts like my GNU/Linux install".  And I don't even have a GNU/Linux install.

There are also serious quality-control issues with the automatic acceptance of anonymous code patches (prog.git is especially guilty of this).  Establish some kind of approval process, even if it's just you responding to each patch and rejecting ones that don't meet expectations or provide a tangible improvement.  Eventually you'll need to delegate responsibility to people who understand the details of certain tool domains.

You've pretty much avoided any serious discussion of overarching design issues and technical guidelines.  These things need to be laid out before each individual tool takes its own "whatever's convenient here" approach with the same problems being encountered again and again and in the end none of the code is really even compatible.

Whenever a design question does come up, it really feels like you're just throwing darts at the words on your monitor rather than enlightening us as to the elements of a plan.  Stop doing that.  If you don't know something, start another thread to invite discussion about it.  But however you do it, make sure you come to a conclusion that fits the plan and helps move things forward rather than stagnating and scaring off contributors.

And please stop with the OMG AnonAnon Internet Code Machine Lulz We Gon Take Down GPoLogy hype.  Even if you did build a clone of GNU/Linux, the original is moving much too fast to track.  There are already respectable, long-running OS projects that have a hard time competing with it on things like basic hardware and application support.  What are you going to do differently?

>>43
Exactly. I just wish these people contributed to the Minix or Haiku projects. Those projects should be adequately free for anybody and they could definitely use the help.

>>43,44
'sup guys,

We aren't going for another GNU/Linux clone. We're going for POSIX, as you rightly said. The spec is here:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/

Quality control isn't going to be an issue yet, and when it does, we'll be ready to handle whatever it entails. Currently me and three others do the task of looking over the code and updating the local directory on REchan only when it's OK. Everyone else can use the prog.git for development, we'll just keep snapshots of the versions that work.

What are you going to do differently?
The main thing is that all contributions are anonymous and put in the public domain.

You've pretty much avoided any serious discussion of overarching design issues and technical guidelines.
Whenever a design question does come up, it really feels like you're just throwing darts at the words on your monitor rather than enlightening us as to the elements of a plan.

Like HAHAHaruhi said,
More details May 5th.


Also, WAHa detected.

scons

I asked Cudder about it and she said it'd be OK for me to post the essence of the Anonux plan now.
I asked Cudder about it and she said
and she said
she

What

>>45
Ok, you say POSIX, but you're still modeling it after GNU and talking about replacing a GNU/Linux system piece by piece with the new code.  Do you see the confusion here?

GNU's NOT UNIX

>>48
POSIX Operating System Interface.

HEY GUYS MIT/GNU SCHEME HAS GNU IN IT! PLZ REWRITE IT SO IT CAN HAS BE PUBLIC DOMAN!

>>47
That's right, it's a she.

>>48
We figured it would be best to remain interoperable with Linux, just like *BSD is able to run a lot of Linux binaries. But we won't be using any GNU extensions, only the POSIX functions. Starting from scratch is way too ambitious, even for us.

Also we're considering changing the name to Anonix instead of Anonux since the former is closer to *nix than *ux which was Linus' bastardization.

More details coming May 5th at the REchan.

That's right, it's a she.
BITS OR GTFO

>>51
That's right, it's a she.
Interesting. Pictures please.

instead of Anonux since the former is closer to *nix than *ux which was Linus' bastardization
And closer to the ``hacks''. So, yeah, Anonix sounds better.

But I still think it's insane, since anoncoreutils is based in lazyness and dependency on C libraries. And bigger projects will only succeed if an individual starts to write a lot of code.

>>53
You forgot to mention that rechan sucks.

>>54
So does /prog/

>>55,54
Cold front vs. deep space.

>>54,55
Cat shit vs. dog shit.

Pictures please.
No. I'll keep my IRL anonymity.

What's the point of an 'Anonymous' Unix system? It really makes no sense.

>>47
Post-op transsexual. Probably looks something like http://www.sophie.org.uk/99903003small.jpg

>>60
i was hoping more like http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/images/joanna_rutkowska.jpg

>>60
That looks just like every other female in britfagland...

>>59
It's more "free" than the others out there, so its code can be used whereever others want; and the anonymous part is so no one person/group gets associated with it, so in essence it belongs to all of us.

>>63
It's ``free'' in the way that no one will use it due to the problems with copyrights.

what problems?

>>63
Just use BSD then

>>58
;_;

Also, you have both name and tripcode. That is not anonymous

>>65
Copyrights are associated to names. But, actually, nobody cares about that.

I'd just reject/remove conflictive code.

>>68
Nobody cares until they get sued.  Except those who want to avoid getting sued at all.

>>67
``IRL Anonymity''

(also known as ``pseudonymity'', but that doesn't make it inherently wrong)

>>69
Since when is it illegal to use public domain software?

Also (since I don't care) legal actions are taken only in ENTERPRISE, not againist individuals.

>>70
I don't care about the bullshit shii wrote. I just want cudder pics.

>>71
How will a user prove that it's public domain?
"Oh, Your Honor, Anonymous gave it to me.  I'm sure it's legit."

Without any trail of legal authority/ownership, anyone can take the code, claim they wrote it, and sue anyone else using it.  That's a little too much freedom if you ask me.

cudder
*grabs dick*

>>73
Ok, we assign the copyright to moot.

No, really, I don't think it's a real reason to stop this insane project. Just don't be like Christopher and don't post screenshots. Also, ``Anyone'' may claim ownership, but you can't sue ``Anonymous'', anyway.

>>74
get out

>>75
So only Anonymous is allowed to use the code?  That will severely limit its acceptance.  Hence, >>64.

Without any trail of legal authority/ownership, anyone can take the code, claim they wrote it, and sue anyone else using it.  That's a little too much freedom if you ask me.

They can claim they wrote it, they can try to sue, but how likely is that going to happen? Besides, the original code has no owner -- that's the point of making it anonymous.

>>76
Everyone is. Just like anything else that's in the public domain.

I think there's some misunderstanding of what ``public domain'' means, just to troll us. By the way, public domain is not a license, and it's not valid in some countries. The anoncoreutils license should be fine, and does exactly what we need.


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 OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS 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.

>>77
You don't understand >>73,76.

>>78
A license from no one is nothing.

>>79
From moot