What is Oracle doing wrong here? From what I can tell by reading the article this firm distributed Oracle's binary updates, which Oracle charge a lot of money for. That's the way Oracle makes money on Solaris. The install media is a free download from Oracle's web site, but if you actually want patches you need a support contract.
Also the FSF think it is not workable to have a large number of copyright owners in the case of big projects, e.g. the GNU Compiler Collection (aka GCC). The reason is that the FSF may want to decide to change the license of any of their project at any time. This is how they were able to change the license of GCC from GPL v2 to v3.
I thought that's what the "or (at your option) any later version" was for.
That's news to me. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly but I'm pretty sure the FSF required copyright assignment to GCC even when Apple contributed to it. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Well, that's what RMS says is the problem. They launched it as a/open source/ project, while he says that it would have been better if the project had been launched as a/free software/ project.
Unless things have changed the problem with Apple's App Store is that the TOS limits the user's ability to install the software. If the author was able to opt-out of the DRM used by Apple I think this would not be a problem.
FreeBSD is free according to the definition used by the FreeBSD developers. Firmware is not loaded into the kernel so it's not concidered to be a concern, and the FreeBSD developers have no interest in saying what programs users should or should not use.
You have change for the sake of change, and then you have change that makes things better. The article mentions an example of the latter, the ThinkPad butterfly keyboard. That was innovation. Making a keyboard harder to use efficiently because the designers have a resistance to keys and for some reason thinks that fewer is better is not innovation.
You've never had a problem, or you think you've never had a problem? Your machine may be completely owned and just waiting in standby in some bonnet, that doesn't mean that you know about it and has been directly affected by it.
What advances would that be? The ones out of Fujitsu? The T chips are just now catching up with workloads that they can run reasonably. I have work loads that a 15 year old Sparc IIi will out perform a few year old T2. The V100 was a $1000 appliance box yet the base T2 was selling for more than $6,000. If the UltraSparc IIIi was made at 22 nm (unlike its original 130 nm) and it would scream for most web appliance roles. It would even be a nice cpu for the Lights Out Management system and it could even run Solaris unlike their current LOM which is running Linux.
Your T2 can do up to 64 parallel execution threads. Your IIi, not so much. That's the difference. More cores, not faster ones.
What has he done - gone w/ Debian? Since Red Hat seems to have stopped supporting the SPARC ages ago, and I'm assuming that Gosling's Solaris systems are SPARCstations or similar. Which makes me wonder - couldn't he have gone w/ OpenIndiana or Schillix? Especially since it seems to have been more recent? I'm assuming that the BSDs were not an option, since he probably wants an SVR4 based Unix.
Or he could have regular x86 machines. Solaris is available on x86 as well, not just Sparc.
That doesn't mean that all your software works. If your company has decided to run OS X and their mission critical business app doesn't work with the new OS then they can't upgrade. And add the fact that new machines can't be downgraded to the older OS, so you can't buy new hardware either.
Ah! So instead of updating Python, we should change our OS.
ALrighty Then!
No. You should install Python 2.7/3.3 from the Red Hat Software Collection. It is supported on RHEL, and I'm sure CentOS rebuilds the packages. You end up with new versions of Python in a separate location that you can use when needed, and leave the system Python alone.
Slashdot Mirror
What is Oracle doing wrong here? From what I can tell by reading the article this firm distributed Oracle's binary updates, which Oracle charge a lot of money for. That's the way Oracle makes money on Solaris. The install media is a free download from Oracle's web site, but if you actually want patches you need a support contract.
Oracle Solaris is not open source anymore.
There would certainly have been a very different Apple if Woz had stayed around.
Also the FSF think it is not workable to have a large number of copyright owners in the case of big projects, e.g. the GNU Compiler Collection (aka GCC). The reason is that the FSF may want to decide to change the license of any of their project at any time. This is how they were able to change the license of GCC from GPL v2 to v3.
I thought that's what the "or (at your option) any later version" was for.
As far as I know most of the original KHTML code has been replaced. According to WikiPedia (which is always right):
License
BSD v2.0 (most of browser engine),
GNU LGPL v2.1 (some files in the JavaScriptCore & WebCore components)
That's news to me. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly but I'm pretty sure the FSF required copyright assignment to GCC even when Apple contributed to it. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
At the time of the switch LLVM didn't even have a C compiler. Apple had to write one.
Well, that's what RMS says is the problem. They launched it as a /open source/ project, while he says that it would have been better if the project had been launched as a /free software/ project.
Unless things have changed the problem with Apple's App Store is that the TOS limits the user's ability to install the software. If the author was able to opt-out of the DRM used by Apple I think this would not be a problem.
How can it be extortion? It's not like you will die if you don't watch movies and TV series.
No, because it's the state that wants the money, and the state won't pay him back.
http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#BSD
FreeBSD is free according to the definition used by the FreeBSD developers. Firmware is not loaded into the kernel so it's not concidered to be a concern, and the FreeBSD developers have no interest in saying what programs users should or should not use.
The alternative is to store data without checksums, and that is also dangerous. With ZFS at least you know it when your data is toast.
You have change for the sake of change, and then you have change that makes things better. The article mentions an example of the latter, the ThinkPad butterfly keyboard. That was innovation. Making a keyboard harder to use efficiently because the designers have a resistance to keys and for some reason thinks that fewer is better is not innovation.
Are you sure it's not the old X1 Carbon? The one in the picture is the new one presented like last week or so.
You've never had a problem, or you think you've never had a problem? Your machine may be completely owned and just waiting in standby in some bonnet, that doesn't mean that you know about it and has been directly affected by it.
It's an old picture and some of the hardware has been replaced. As far as I know they are currently out of VAXes among other things.
I assume the answer is yes since the alternative is bugs, and there's no reason to ever ship bugs.
True, my mistake. At the end of the day it comes down to that it depends.
What advances would that be? The ones out of Fujitsu? The T chips are just now catching up with workloads that they can run reasonably. I have work loads that a 15 year old Sparc IIi will out perform a few year old T2. The V100 was a $1000 appliance box yet the base T2 was selling for more than $6,000. If the UltraSparc IIIi was made at 22 nm (unlike its original 130 nm) and it would scream for most web appliance roles. It would even be a nice cpu for the Lights Out Management system and it could even run Solaris unlike their current LOM which is running Linux.
Your T2 can do up to 64 parallel execution threads. Your IIi, not so much. That's the difference. More cores, not faster ones.
What has he done - gone w/ Debian? Since Red Hat seems to have stopped supporting the SPARC ages ago, and I'm assuming that Gosling's Solaris systems are SPARCstations or similar. Which makes me wonder - couldn't he have gone w/ OpenIndiana or Schillix? Especially since it seems to have been more recent? I'm assuming that the BSDs were not an option, since he probably wants an SVR4 based Unix.
Or he could have regular x86 machines. Solaris is available on x86 as well, not just Sparc.
The idea is of course that you should buy new hardware.
That doesn't mean that all your software works. If your company has decided to run OS X and their mission critical business app doesn't work with the new OS then they can't upgrade. And add the fact that new machines can't be downgraded to the older OS, so you can't buy new hardware either.
If you're on Red Hat you can install the Red Hat Software Collection, an add-on package that adds 2.7 and 3.3 to the system.
CentOS
Ah! So instead of updating Python, we should change our OS.
ALrighty Then!
No. You should install Python 2.7/3.3 from the Red Hat Software Collection. It is supported on RHEL, and I'm sure CentOS rebuilds the packages. You end up with new versions of Python in a separate location that you can use when needed, and leave the system Python alone.