Re:Obvious = Ignorance (Score 1)

Mark my words: THIS one turned out to be a joke... but don't count on the next one to be the same!

And so what if it is?

Just because a distribution exists, nobody has a gun to your head forcing you to use it. Not even Microsoft does that.

Where is it written that, just because something disagrees with your worldview, it has no right to exist and should be banned? I see this entirely too often, especially here on /., and it sickens me. It really does.

In fact, I must concur with the previous poster who said, in essence, that it's the Open Source nature of Linux - the very heart and soul of this community - that permits something like Jesux to possibly be a reality; but the instant somebody decides to create it? "Oh, you can't do that, it's restrictive!" "Oh, that's no good, it violates my beliefs!" And so on.

Linuxers, you want to blame somebody for this? Try looking in the mirror.

YOU created the Open Source license.

YOU made the system open to everybody.

YOU decided that people should be allowed to redistribute the kernel in any way they saw fit, provided the source code was also made available so the next guy could do the same thing.

Jesux, had it been for real, would have been nothing more than an alternative - let me put that in italics AND boldface, an alternative - distribution, no different than any other except in the ideaology behind it. You can't change the rules now. This guy, or anyone else, is perfectly within his rights to release something like this; you can't say that it cannot exist, and to say that it should not is entirely opinion.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Slashdotter.

The only issue I had with the whole thing, as somebody else pointed out, was trying to release it under a "BSD-style" license, which does violate the GPL that Linux is distributed under. But, I don't want to get into the holy war that divides the BSD and GNU camps, so I'll just mention it.

If they give you ruled paper, write the other way.