Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FSF Launches Fundraiser For Replicant

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the gnus-fire-off-the-shoulder-of-orion dept.

Android 63

gnujoshua writes "The FSF has launched a fundraiser for Replicant, the fully free Android distro. As of version 4.0 0004, Replicant runs on 10 different devices, but, the hopes are that with additional funds, the developers will be able to purchase more devices and grow the project so it will run on more devices. Yesterday, the FSF asked Mark Shuttleworth if the Ubuntu EDGE would commit to using only free software and be able to support Replicant. But, in an AMA on Reddit, Shuttleworth confirmed that Replicant would not be supported because the EDGE hardware will require proprietary drivers/binary-blobs." Replicant now supports ten devices, compared to only the HTC Dream not all that long ago.

cancel ×

63 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44392725)

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those... moments... will be lost in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die...*

Re:I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44392893)

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those... moments... will be lost in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die...*

Have you ever dreamed of unicorns, by any chance?

do you dream of Electric Sheep?

I'm still waiting for my "standard pleasure" unit.

And .... my favorite quote that is SO apropos in this day and age in the US: "If you're not cop, you're little people!"

Oh! On last thing, the mod who mod'ed the parent '-1' - I suggest you go back to the Justin Beiber website you came from because you obviously don't have a geek card and NEVER had one.

Blade Runner is non-free (0)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44394181)

do you dream of Electric Sheep?

No, but Pokemon trainers dream of electric mice [bulbagarden.net] .

If you're not cop, you're little people!

And even if you are a cop, you can still be little people [amazon.com] .

If seeing the non-free film Blade Runner is a requirement of keeping a geek card valid, what method do you recommend to see this film without breaking the law, both inside and outside the United States? Redbox carries only new releases.

Re:Blade Runner is non-free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44394997)

Buying it off an online retailer, off craigslist, finding it in a used goods store, etc. There are probably several hundred legal ways to purchase the film.

What other movies? (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44398747)

Other than Blade Runner and the original Star Wars trilogy, what other movies are geeks required to add to their collections?

Re:Blade Runner is non-free (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | about a year ago | (#44395191)

If seeing the non-free film Blade Runner is a requirement of keeping a geek card valid, what method do you recommend to see this film without breaking the law, both inside and outside the United States? Redbox carries only new releases.

Look, I know you're obsessed with "Free", but don't let that carry into media. If you want to see Blade Runner, you can:

1. Buy it on Blu-Ray or DVD

2. Buy it Digitally from: iTunes, Vudu, Amazon Instant Video, Sony Entertainment Network (aka PSN), Xbox Marketplace

3. Rent it from the above (and more) services, it's also available for rental on Google Play as well.

4. Watch it on your Cable or Satellite companies VOD services, it's there too.

5. Check to see if a local video store has it.

6. Wait for it to show up on Basic Cable.

7. Check to see if your local library has it to borrow.

8. Borrow it from a friend.

You are way way to literal and such a robot, Tepples.

Now you're going to ask "If I sound like a robot, what are the best practices so that I may become less obviously Aspergers in my writing patterns."

Re:Blade Runner is non-free (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#44397117)

5. Check to see if a local video store has it.

2003 called and wants you back. There's no such thing as a "local video store" any more (except maybe for the adult shops).

Re:Blade Runner is non-free (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | about a year ago | (#44399955)

1991 called it wants it's meme back.

I must be imagining that Family Video store (which is the largest chain now, ahead of Blockbuster) in my town. I must be imagining that the closest "big town" to my small town has four of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Video [wikipedia.org]

Re:Blade Runner is non-free (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#44399993)

Never seen anything like that. I guess you midwesterners haven't learned about Netflix yet. Why on earth would anyone go to a store and rent a DVD or two for the cost of a monthly Netflix membership?

Re:Blade Runner is non-free (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | about a year ago | (#44400539)

Because they get new releases before Netflix and have things Netflix doesn't? And rent games, sell pizza, offer recommendations.

Re:I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe (0)

St.Creed (853824) | about a year ago | (#44393505)

What moronic moderator modded this "off topic"?? Hand in your geek card and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Shame on you.

And yes, that was my first thought too: "they're going to have a kickstarter for Replicants??" :)

Re:I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe (2)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#44393705)

What moronic moderator modded this "off topic"??

How can it not know what it is?

Re:I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44394241)

What moronic moderator modded this "off topic"??

One that failed the Voigt-Kampff test, evidently.

Re:I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395571)

People on /. thinking Natalie Portman is hotter than Sean Young.

Most misleading title ever (1)

Shortguy881 (2883333) | about a year ago | (#44394173)

I want my own replicant

Google's against everything the FSF stands for... (2)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44392757)

...so, honestly curious, why is the FSF engaged in an exercise which promotes the Google ecosystem?

They've always struck me as being far-sighted, not narrow-sighted.

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44392853)

...so, honestly curious, why is the FSF engaged in an exercise which promotes the Google ecosystem?

They've always struck me as being far-sighted, not narrow-sighted.

Who said they are promoting the Google ecosystem?

According to their FAQ (http://replicant.us/faq/):
"Replicant includes only free software. We don’t include any google app, we have libre alternatives for each of them."

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (4, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44392891)

he's saying that by being able to run android apps you're promoting googles ecosystem.
and yes you are, but so what? it's not that far from saying that since apache can serve IE it's promoting IE.. or that wine is promoting microsoft.

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44393301)

Sounds like it corrects one of my main problems with Android...I'm going to set up an Android tablet as the nav system in my 4x4 soon, I think I'll give it a try.

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44392873)

They want in on the lucrative for-profit surveillance market, courtesy of your taxpayer dollars.

( ...and for the one or two dumbasses who say its open source and anybody can view the source code, then you can pour through SELinux source code and sell me with 100% certainty that there are no clever tricks, or compromised compilers, which make it completely exploit-proof )

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#44392895)

Android, as a platform, is independent from Google's ecosystem. Replicant has little to no control over their future due to Google being a largely insular upstream that dictates where it goes, but nonetheless the platform is not fundamentally tied into Google's services.

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (1)

Mind Booster Noori (772408) | about a year ago | (#44413049)

Replicant has little to no control over their future due to Google being a largely insular upstream that dictates where it goes

Hm, I would say that replicant has total control over their future, due to the fact that it is a free software project. If its upstream (Cyanogenmod) turns to a direction Replicant doesn't like (either by CM's decision or AOSP), they can simply not pull those changes into Replicant.

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44392977)

I too am honestly curious.

What is the value in slagging what appears to be a completely Free/Libre OS?

And what other "ecosystem" did you have in mind, other than that of Apple/iOS or Microsoft/WinWhatever? Is either of those somehow more worthy?

Like the man said, you gotta serve somebody.

Enlighten me. Because as far as I can tell, you're the one being narrow-minded.

BTW, I notice my S3 is on the list of supported devices. Might be a good time and way to nuke all the Samsung crapware from it.

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (4, Informative)

the_humeister (922869) | about a year ago | (#44393193)

You could have nuked the Samsung stuff last year by putting Cyanogenmod on it.

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44394005)

No I couldn't, since I didn't have this phone last year.

And I deliberately avoided mentioning Cyanogenmod. :)

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#44399971)

I too am honestly curious.

What is the value in slagging what appears to be a completely Free/Libre OS?

And what other "ecosystem" did you have in mind, other than that of Apple/iOS or Microsoft/WinWhatever?

Meego, and it's fully open source successors? They're also true GNU/Linux, so I'm surprised why the FSF would NOT choose them first.

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44402211)

Looks to me like Meego's DOA, and it appears that Mer and Tizen are not yet viable.

BTW, I've not received any direct answer to my first question.

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#44404461)

Meego was killed by Nokia in favour of WP.
Jolla seems to be pre-selling meego-derived phones without any issues.

Also, if you're wondering about the benefits of free software, there's plenty of sources out there, nobody's going to explain that to you on slashdot.

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (3, Interesting)

jarle.aase (1440081) | about a year ago | (#44393489)

I agree.

I believe it would be better to build a privacy-oriented free alternative to all the spy-on-me crapware. This year there are several new mobile OS'es up for release, but they all seem all to be designed for HTML5 or the "cloud", which in my book, are even more evil than Android or iOS. There was a time when I had hope for Nokia, but then Stephen Elop happened.

I want a phone that can run applications, on the device. I want to decide which applications. I want to be able to block any company or service I see as evil, or that may not respect my privacy. I don't want any backdoors or phone-home bs.

Basically, I want free software that behaves well. Designed by good people who focus on usability, security and privacy - rather than data gathering and me-as-a-product.

Re:Google's against everything the FSF stands for. (1)

Mind Booster Noori (772408) | about a year ago | (#44413011)

...so, honestly curious, why is the FSF engaged in an exercise which promotes the Google ecosystem?

They're being pragmatic, promoting the only working Free Operating System for smartphones out there. The fact that Replicant is a fork of Cyanogenmod, which is a fork of AOSP, it's of no consequence.

Not support?! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44392789)

Bah! Whoever is responsible for not giving away their work for free should be shot. This is worse than nVidia not giving away all of their IP and writing open source drivers. This is worse than M$ not porting and SUPPORTING DirectX on all distributions of linux. This is worse than M$ not porting .NET to linux. This is worse than Adobe not providing FLOSS Photoshop on linux. The list goes on and on.

On a side note - does anyone have a 3D printable model of Stallman's dick? I'd like to shove it in my ass when I'm hacking my linux boxen.

Re:Not support?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44392851)

Wow, it's like this stupid troll is trying to say the Open Source community is a bunch of entitled jackasses... What an asshole.

Re:Not support?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44393989)

This particular news item seems to have brought out the astroturfing trolls in great number. You can tell when the beast is wounded when it starts to fight back.

Re:Not support?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395353)

Yes.....asshole.....

Re:Not support?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395699)

On a side note - does anyone have a 3D printable model of Stallman's dick? I'd like to shove it in my ass when I'm hacking my GNU/Linux boxen.

FTFY!

question for submitter (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44392931)

Joshua Davis, why doesn't the FSF start this fundraiser on a well-known crowd funding site?

Re:question for submitter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44393033)

Because they're big enough they don't need to give someone else a cut for handling their money for them?

Re: question for submitter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44393553)

But the donors are aggregated there at the fund rising sites and have their money setup there, FSF is not known to general populace. Ubuntu Edge, that has now raised over 6million in 3 days is using IndieGoGo, lets see how FSF alone fares.

That's cool. Thanks FSF! (4, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#44393029)

I don't give a damn about Android, really. It's relevant, but my biggest hobby is a different way to design OSs and programming models. Having devices with all the driver code available means I don't have to use a C compiler at all, I can port the code into the OS proper and gain more security and efficiency -- I use very different sub-routine calling constructs to prevent stack smashing and isolate all data from code pointers, so it's inefficient to switch into CDECL or other insecure C-ish compatible calls.

TL;DR: Replicant is awesome not just for Android / Linux, but for everyone.

Re:That's cool. Thanks FSF! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44394317)

Posting AC to avoid invalidating my mods

One thing I was wondering - if the FSF is interested in Replicant, why not do it by taking something like GNU Mach, or forking Minix 3, and then building on top of it? That way, they can not only make it GPL3, they can even make it AGPL3, and build their 'libre' services on top of it. I'd suggest that since the battle for both desktops & servers are over (and won by Windows/Linux/BSD), they should focus their liberated OS efforts just on Replicant. Re-orient HURD towards it, and start with creating the microkernel for it. Instead of debating another 30 years over what it should be, just fork Minix to make the fork AGPL, and then build things on top of it. Build a liberated VM on top that will run Dalvik/Java on it, thereby being backward compatible with Android apps, without being Android. Don't try to do this on Libre-Linux or anything like it.

I'd like it if Nokia's Lumias and other phones get supported by this, so that one can uninstall Windows Phone 8 and replace it with Replicant.

Re:That's cool. Thanks FSF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44394807)

Given that Android is already mostly free, wouldn't this be a bit of a timewaster vis a vis the FSFs goals?

Re:That's cool. Thanks FSF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395661)

Because Mach is terrible. I do a little work with the GNU Hurd (yes, I've heard all the jokes you're about to make), and by far Mach is the biggest obstacle to Hurd's usability. And no, the answer is not "throw developers at Mach, anything is possible when you have enthusiasm!," the answer is "scrap Mach and redesign Hurd around something sane like L4". In Hurd's case this isn't very feasible because the design is too tightly integrated with Mach (see: all the failed L4/Viengoos/etc ports of the Hurd), but for a new project, there are plenty of other kernels out there.

Also, I seem to detect a bit of an assumption in your post that "micro means small, therefore microkernels are small and fast." This may not be what you intended, or what you wanted to say, but I've run across a lot of people with that assumption, and it is, by and large, wrong. The 'micro' in microkernel refers to the small amount of responsibility that the kernel has compared to a hybrid or monolithic kernel. I believe a microkernel would still be a good choice for an embedded device due to increased stability-- but I digress.

Re:That's cool. Thanks FSF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44397773)

hobby is to design OSs and programming models

AHAHAh, what a tard. I've seen too many bozos like you

Here. Let me jailbreak your phone for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44393247)

It's a totally reversible process... BRICKED IT [youtube.com]

Please don't support the FSF. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44394013)

The Free Software Foundation promotes the viral GPL license. They should not be supported.

Copyleft is a virus because it's a vaccine (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44394271)

Even if copyleft licensing is "viral" [gnu.org] , it performs the same role as the viruses in a vaccine.

Re:Copyleft is a virus because it's a vaccine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44394469)

'A little bit of shit' is still shit.

Fecal transplant (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44398793)

It takes healthy gut flora [wikipedia.org] to make a healthy person, and it takes "a little bit of shit" transmitted from mother to child after vaginal birth to bootstrap a newborn's gut flora. Occasionally, a shit transplant [wikipedia.org] is even indicated. Your analogy needs work.

Re:Copyleft is a virus because it's a vaccine (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#44399995)

Not really, poor analogy. A vaccine cures the patient.

The [L]GPL keeps the software FLOSS, but actually removes freedoms from the user/developer.
Something like the ISC/MIT grant the user more freedom, including the freedom to make the software non-free.

Re:Copyleft is a virus because it's a vaccine (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44400143)

The [L]GPL keeps the software FLOSS, but actually removes freedoms from the user/developer.

Copyleft makes sure that users retain freedoms, including the freedom to hire developers to make the software do what the user wants.

Something like the ISC/MIT grant the user more freedom, including the freedom to make the software non-free.

Perhaps the difference is that in the FSF philosophy, the "freedom" to take freedoms away from users isn't a freedom to begin with.

Re:Copyleft is a virus because it's a vaccine (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#44404451)

The [L]GPL keeps the software FLOSS, but actually removes freedoms from the user/developer.

Copyleft makes sure that users retain freedoms, including the freedom to hire developers to make the software do what the user wants.

No, copyleft puts software first, and the user second. If that's a good or bad thing is rather subjective though. Personally, I dislike that, but I understand that others think that keep software free is more important the individuals.

Something like the ISC/MIT grant the user more freedom, including the freedom to make the software non-free.

Perhaps the difference is that in the FSF philosophy, the "freedom" to take freedoms away from users isn't a freedom to begin with.

The FSF critizicies copyright, but uses it as a key tool maintain it's goals. Without strong copyright laws, something like GPL is totally impossible.

Software freedom, user freedom, developer freedom (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44405473)

Copyleft makes sure that users retain freedoms, including the freedom to hire developers to make the software do what the user wants.

No, copyleft puts software first, and the user second.

How is that the case? A free software license guarantees four freedoms [gnu.org] to the users of a work. Because the work is free, all of its users are free, even if this is freedom is at the expense of some developers' business models.

Without strong copyright laws, something like GPL is totally impossible.

Without software copyright, anybody can obtain a copy of a proprietary program and lawfully disassemble, document, and distribute it.

Re:Software freedom, user freedom, developer freed (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#44412023)

Without strong copyright laws, something like GPL is totally impossible.

Without software copyright, anybody can obtain a copy of a proprietary program and lawfully disassemble, document, and distribute it.

Exactly. With the GPL, the same does not apply. There are a lot of usage restrictions.

Usage restrictions (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44414193)

What sort of "usage restrictions" are you referring to? As I understand it, the GNU GPL imposes no restriction on making private use of a covered work, and each of the restrictions on distribution (GPLv2) or conveying (GPLv3) appears designed to preserve a specific aspect of the four freedoms for downstream users. If there were no copyright to enforce the terms of the GPL, anybody could still obtain a proprietary derivative of a free program, disassemble and comment it, and share that.

Re:Copyleft is a virus because it's a vaccine (1)

Mind Booster Noori (772408) | about a year ago | (#44413179)

The [L]GPL keeps the software FLOSS, but actually removes freedoms from the user/developer.

Copyleft makes sure that users retain freedoms, including the freedom to hire developers to make the software do what the user wants.

No, copyleft puts software first, and the user second. If that's a good or bad thing is rather subjective though. Personally, I dislike that, but I understand that others think that keep software free is more important the individuals.

No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.

Something like the ISC/MIT grant the user more freedom, including the freedom to make the software non-free.

Perhaps the difference is that in the FSF philosophy, the "freedom" to take freedoms away from users isn't a freedom to begin with.

The FSF critizicies copyright, but uses it as a key tool maintain it's goals. Without strong copyright laws, something like GPL is totally impossible.

1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;
2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software [fsf.org]

Re:Copyleft is a virus because it's a vaccine (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#44422419)

No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.

Being a user and being a developer is in no way mutually exclusive. Developers are, generally, the first users of any software.
In any case, why would a non-developer user care about those "freedoms"? It's the devs that are affected.

Secondly, why would a developer ever pick a license that puts HIM second.

1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;

2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software [fsf.org]

However, MIT/ISC are way close to public domain that the GPL.

Re:Copyleft is a virus because it's a vaccine (1)

Mind Booster Noori (772408) | about a year ago | (#44423729)

No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.

Being a user and being a developer is in no way mutually exclusive. Developers are, generally, the first users of any software. In any case, why would a non-developer user care about those "freedoms"? It's the devs that are affected.

Secondly, why would a developer ever pick a license that puts HIM second.

A non-developer user would care about those freedoms because that's the only way they can guarantee they control the program and what it does for them. More info here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [gnu.org] A developer would pick a license that puts users first when the developer thinks that the users of the program should have control of the said program, and what it does.

1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;

2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software [fsf.org]

However, MIT/ISC are way close to public domain that the GPL.

Yes, those licenses are closer to the public domain. They both have problems, tho: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html [gnu.org]

Re:Copyleft is a virus because it's a vaccine (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#44429819)

So we both agree that the GPL puts the software and developer second, and the user first.
Again, I'm not arguing if that's a good thing or a bad thing, my point was just that.

Re:Please don't support the FSF. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44395131)

The Free Software Foundation promotes the viral GPL license. They should not be supported.

Ideas are viral. We should not support ideas.

Yeah, but ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44394273)

... its only four years until end of support.

Ten whole devices! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44394347)

Samsung, watch yo ass!

RMS clones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44394447)

You thought it, now you can't un-think it.

"Working with non-free firmware" (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44396829)

Many of the status items on the ReplicantStatus page. So, it's hard to be too critical of Shuttleworth at this juncture.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?