Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 44709	2004-04-27 23:44:00	GNU / FSF / Linux and glibc source	Chilling_Silence (9)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
232556	2004-04-27 23:44:00	Ive been chatting with a mate recently about Linux and OSS. He's very interested, having done programming in Windows in assembly and C/C++. My question is, what did the FSF / GNU actually write... They wrote GrUB, gcc... What else? My other question is this: He believes there's just way to much to libc to rewrite the whole thing. I reakon that glibc was totally re-written. Who's right? Me or my mate? Cheers Chill.	Chilling_Silence (9)
232557	2004-04-28 04:23:00	Have a look at the GNU site . Almost every standard *nix command in the Linux /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin/, /usr/sbin is by GNU . (the xxxBSDs priobably use the GNU code too . Linux is a kernel . Without the commands you can't do anything with it . The X-window is not from GNU --- that started from an industry consortium when multiple companies were pushing their own Unixes, but realised they had to have a common graphic interface . GNU started with the aim of being a complete OS --- starting with the compiler and the other utilities and commands . The kernel took a long time --- that's Hurd which I think is functional now . I have an idea that there was a major cleanup --- amounting to a rewrite -- of glibc .	Graham L (2)
232558	2004-04-28 04:56:00	Soo... Was glibc actually written from scratch, or did they sorta nick the code from other places and slightly modify it? Chill.	Chilling_Silence (9)
232559	2004-04-28 05:16:00	Don't know. I assume that there was a lot of care taken to have "licence-free" software, so the GNU licence could be enforcable. I suppose there could be some arguments, because the algorithms are "common knowledge" but you don't get reliable code by cobbling together other people's code. Especially if you "slightly modify" it. That way you get the original bugs, and add more. :-( I would bet that the latest glibc is "clean" and wholly the work of the GNU library group. Any that isn't would have the copyright notices from the owners still included. Have a look at the sources (grep is useful) ... you'll see lots of "Regents of the University of California" in lots of places because BSD is the "Berkeley Software Distribution" of Unix, but I've never looked at the library sources. C code isn't my favourite reading. ;-)	Graham L (2)
232560	2004-04-28 05:18:00	Don't know. I assume that there was a lot of care taken to have "licence-free" software, so the GNU licence could be enforcable. I suppose there could be some arguments, because the algorithms are "common knowledge" but you don't get reliable code by cobbling together other people's code. Especially if you "slightly modify" it. That way you get the original bugs, and add more. :-( I would bet that the latest glibc is "clean" and wholly the work of the GNU library group. Any that isn't would have the copyright notices from the owners still included. Have a look at the sources (grep is useful) ... you'll see lots of "Regents of the University of California" in lots of places because BSD is the "Berkeley Software Distribution" of Unix, but I've never looked at the library sources. C code isn't my favourite reading. ;-)	Graham L (2)
232561	2004-04-28 08:08:00	GNU was intended to be a complete Free unix system. Linux was never intended to be a part of it. They started with the compiler (gcc), the libraries (libc etc), and all of the standard utils (grep etc). The last piece was the kernel (HURD) but before it was complete the Linux kernel came along and stole the show, taking by the place of the GNU kernel.	bmason (508)
1