Oh, is that all? People just have to "make a distro that doesn't use it". Like that's just a small thing, like finding a typo in the documentation or some such.
It's not even that, they just need to maintain the existing non-systemd codebase. There are distros that don't have systemd in them and if they have plans to integrate it then the non-systemd codebase just needs to be forked and maintained. You can hope this is done for you by volunteers, you can do it yourself or you can pay somebody to do it for you.
This seems like more a case of wanting one's free software to also be free of cost and free of effort.
I said that it "never happens" that you can't run newer Android on older phones for any valid technical reason.
Not only did you not say that but there is a valid technical reason: The drivers don't exist!
If we use your definition then there's no "technical reason" why any OS couldn't run on any kind of smartphone hardware. "Hey IRIX runs on the Galaxy S3!"
They can't run it because the drivers are closed-source and incompatible with newer kernels.
Yes I'm well aware of why they can't run it, but that doesn't change the fact that they can't run it. Telling me it "never happens" is just bullshit, it happens all the time (yes because of closed drivers).
Their philosophy just doesn't work for Apple to have a majority market share. They and their customers can't stand being that 'average.'
Yet the most common and best selling smartphone in the world is the iPhone. If you want to have a "boutique" device or something other than "average" then you would be using anything that isn't an iPhone.
I'm really trying to decide if this is a brilliant corporate move or totally insane that they are abandoning their base
How are 'abandoning their base'? We have MS software on rival platforms like OSX and there are plenty of open source programs that run on proprietary systems like Windows and OSX. I'm not sure where people get the idea that companies shouldn't support other platforms, that would be bad for everybody.
I find it really annoying how hard Samsung and Verizon work to keep people from having control of their own phones.
Then why do you keep buying them? You obviously don't find it annoying enough to stop giving them money. Why not support companies like OnePlus instead?
Ok it seems you are confusing your idealized view of this issue with the reality of the issue.
When I said "on Android that happens most of the time." and you responded with "No, it doesn't. That never happens, ever." clearly that is untrue, I can list plenty of models of phones that cannot run the latest version of Android.
So what happened with the Galaxy Nexus? Google claimed the hardware was incapable.
There is absolutely no reason older hardware can't run a newer version of Android. The only reason they don't is because many hardware makers use closed-source drivers
Well yes, that is the point, they can't run without drivers and since the drivers don't exist they can't run the latest version of Android.
Users aren't willing to pay for ongoing support for their cars either. But manufacturers still release service bulletins and safety recalls, even for models 15 years old.
Cars and phones aren't the same thing in terms of safety recalls.
If mfgrs can't build this into their initial price, that's their problem
Actually I don't think it is, otherwise they would be suffering rather than the users. I think what you are suggesting is that in an idealized world that would be the case, but in the real world it isn't which is why the users have a problem.
this is no different than safety recalls for cars, and it should be required.
Yes but it isn't required, I can think of a lot of things that should be required but that doesn't really have any bearing on anything.
if you like buying a new phone every 3-6 months, go right ahead
Why would I do that when instead I can just take the option to switch to an iPhone which is supported much longer?
but I think it's ridiculous to think everyone is OK with that.
So do I, in fact I'm not ok with that either so I use an iPhone instead as they are generally supported much longer.
If RHEL has continued support for old versions, then this is apples and oranges with regard to Android. New Android versions are fragmentation, while new RHEL versions are not.
That'a s fair point but I think a more important one is whether any RHEL5 users are unable to upgrade to RHEL6 because their hardware cannot run it...and I doubt that case exists at all. However on Android that happens most of the time.
They're still selling Android phones with v2.2 at my local grocery store! The whole thing is a complete mess.
Perhaps they realized that users weren't willing to pay for ongoing support for software maintenance, the OS is free (of charge) but work to maintain it on those platforms costs the manufacturer money. It seems that since phones are relatively disposable and the speed at which the technology is advancing gives a short hardware refresh cycle that people prefer to just buy a new handset than pay for operating system maintenance.
Yes you can. You can't develop for a VM and expect to run the same code on some other VM/runtime, but you can run all the shell programs you want on android, and anything that you write that's portable should just be a matter of (re-)compilation.
That's equally applicable no matter what operating system you run. If you write portable C++ code it's just a matter of re-compiling it on Windows, OSX and Ubuntu and that same code will run.
The problem that the GPL solved was the availability of source code (as distinct from the right to modify it, which it also guaranteed but so did BSD/MIT). The source code is available.
As is the case with any open source project, the only difference is the ability for somebody to add features to it and not give the source back. But that can happen with the GPL too, there is no reason GPL code can't call out to a proprietary process as a black box to add functionality to a GPL program.
And it is your opinion that we don't have to worry about anything until we have a real issue? I presented a plausible scenario, and explained why it's plausible.
No I explicitly said it is only in contrived scenarios. If the code they used was GPL then they would have just written their own code instead and you would be in no different position with regard to the "threat to free software" anyway.
I'm not sure what your suggestion is here or even what you're trying to refute, yes you came up with a contrived scenario like I said but if that code were say GPL instead do you think they would have used it? And how does it relate to things being a "threat to free software"?
The point here is - as we already know - RMS is interested in only his idea of freedom, and that's ok but this idea that the development of superior permissively licensed software is an attack on restrictively licensed software is garbage, it's that most people don't care for his ideology. The GNU software is being supplanted by superior software licensed under permissive licenses that are open source and freeware which is what people care about.
Insofar as it is made up, it isn't a real issue. You can create an imaginary situation to disprove just about anything. This is what I mean, it's all this 'potential doom and gloom' that doesn't actually match reality, we need to take a drastic shift to avert an issue that doesn't exist.
Yet your example is a fantastical idea of where changing from Windows is impractical but it is necessary to change the internal networking code for some reason:
The original Microsoft networking code was modified BSD, and if it were necessary to change that (assuming that changing from Windows was impractical) it could be difficult.
That's a pretty contrived attempt at an example of a problem...one that doesn't exist.
This is the same crap the music and movie industries push and you've been sucked right in, you can't lose something you never had. You do not get the potential gain but you do not suffer a loss either.
And yet today GNU/Linux is the premier Unix-like system which everyone targets
Actually no, Darwin is more popular for desktop users.
Because of the GPL, GNU/Linux does not fragment, as Unix did.
Of course it does. You think say Android's version of Linux is the same as the Linux mainline? Or Oracle Linux's version of the Linux kernel is the same as the mainline?
I have never used the word 'theft', with or without quotation marks. Nor I have said that extending BSD code without giving back is illegal or furtive.
That's ok.
It's done with permission.
Which is why it is not something they 'lose'. This idea of 'loss' is what those who prosecute for copyright use to justify damages for this loss.
And no, BSD developers don't lose their copyright. They lose, freely, an opportunity to endow the community with the best outcome of their work, which is a fact and not a characterization of mine. If you want we can talk about my opinions on the music industry but then I think we'd be derailing the discussion.
They only maintain that they be recognized as the authors of the original code. The GPL/Music/Movie/proprietary software copyright licenses are used to retain control of how the product is distributed and can be used to prosecute people who do not conform.
Well what you said is they have a 'right' and that they lose it. I now realize the 'right' you are referring to is in fact Copyright. Now in terms of what BSD developers 'lose' - or rather explicitly 'give away' - it is the copyright. However, this 'objective loss' - or this case 'theft', as it is being taken without permission - you refer to is exactly what GPL advocates, the music industry, the movie industry, etc... use to enforce and prosecute those who violate the terms of distribution they laid out. Your characterization of this 'theft' as an 'objective loss' is precisely how they justify it.
They lose the rights to take advantage of the improvements that the commercial contributor has done to their code, while the commercial contributor does not lose the right to take advantage of the improvements that the free contributor has done. You may agree or disagree with this, but it is objectively a loss.
No, you can't lose something you never had. Where do you get the idea that you get to benefit indefinitely from something you gave away? If you want to do that you can use the GPL but it most certainly is not a 'right'.
Can you please provide citation as to where you get the idea that people have this 'right'?
And the same goes for the restrictive license camp, proprietary software (and anything that enables it) is obviously antithetical to the way they want to push computing, so they fight against it.
The result is that most people don't care about software freedom - you can pontificate about why they should but Stallman and the FSF have been doing that for 30-odd years and if anything proprietary software is more ubiquitous than ever partly due to the rise of new computing paradigms that free software has been left behind on.
But the point is it hasn't killed postgres. So what's the problem? The fear has been that companies would create closed source versions of permissively licensed products and kill off the open source ones.
This is just a case of them improving an open source product and not giving out their changes. Now you might not like that for whatever reason but that's up to the authors of postgres and the authors of greenplum and I don't see what you are saying is such a big problem aside from the actions of other people not matching your ideology.
No I mean from the perspective of the derived version supplanting the incumbent. The idea that the original version is killed off because a superior closed source derivative replaced it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, is that all? People just have to "make a distro that doesn't use it". Like that's just a small thing, like finding a typo in the documentation or some such.
It's not even that, they just need to maintain the existing non-systemd codebase. There are distros that don't have systemd in them and if they have plans to integrate it then the non-systemd codebase just needs to be forked and maintained. You can hope this is done for you by volunteers, you can do it yourself or you can pay somebody to do it for you.
This seems like more a case of wanting one's free software to also be free of cost and free of effort.
I said that it "never happens" that you can't run newer Android on older phones for any valid technical reason.
Not only did you not say that but there is a valid technical reason: The drivers don't exist!
If we use your definition then there's no "technical reason" why any OS couldn't run on any kind of smartphone hardware. "Hey IRIX runs on the Galaxy S3!"
They can't run it because the drivers are closed-source and incompatible with newer kernels.
Yes I'm well aware of why they can't run it, but that doesn't change the fact that they can't run it. Telling me it "never happens" is just bullshit, it happens all the time (yes because of closed drivers).
And at that point, it's not "choose systemd", it's "choose not to maintain a fork".
But systemd didn't exist before, the systemd stuff should already be in a conditional that checks whether it is even there.
Their philosophy just doesn't work for Apple to have a majority market share. They and their customers can't stand being that 'average.'
Yet the most common and best selling smartphone in the world is the iPhone. If you want to have a "boutique" device or something other than "average" then you would be using anything that isn't an iPhone.
I'm really trying to decide if this is a brilliant corporate move or totally insane that they are abandoning their base
How are 'abandoning their base'? We have MS software on rival platforms like OSX and there are plenty of open source programs that run on proprietary systems like Windows and OSX. I'm not sure where people get the idea that companies shouldn't support other platforms, that would be bad for everybody.
Doesn't matter if you're on a contract. The carrier is the one responsible for OTAs because it's their network you're using.
Never had any issue with carriers denying updates to my iPhone, you only get that on Android.
I find it really annoying how hard Samsung and Verizon work to keep people from having control of their own phones.
Then why do you keep buying them? You obviously don't find it annoying enough to stop giving them money. Why not support companies like OnePlus instead?
Ok it seems you are confusing your idealized view of this issue with the reality of the issue.
When I said "on Android that happens most of the time." and you responded with "No, it doesn't. That never happens, ever." clearly that is untrue, I can list plenty of models of phones that cannot run the latest version of Android.
No, it doesn't. That never happens, ever.
So what happened with the Galaxy Nexus? Google claimed the hardware was incapable.
There is absolutely no reason older hardware can't run a newer version of Android. The only reason they don't is because many hardware makers use closed-source drivers
Well yes, that is the point, they can't run without drivers and since the drivers don't exist they can't run the latest version of Android.
Users aren't willing to pay for ongoing support for their cars either. But manufacturers still release service bulletins and safety recalls, even for models 15 years old.
Cars and phones aren't the same thing in terms of safety recalls.
If mfgrs can't build this into their initial price, that's their problem
Actually I don't think it is, otherwise they would be suffering rather than the users. I think what you are suggesting is that in an idealized world that would be the case, but in the real world it isn't which is why the users have a problem.
this is no different than safety recalls for cars, and it should be required.
Yes but it isn't required, I can think of a lot of things that should be required but that doesn't really have any bearing on anything.
if you like buying a new phone every 3-6 months, go right ahead
Why would I do that when instead I can just take the option to switch to an iPhone which is supported much longer?
but I think it's ridiculous to think everyone is OK with that.
So do I, in fact I'm not ok with that either so I use an iPhone instead as they are generally supported much longer.
If RHEL has continued support for old versions, then this is apples and oranges with regard to Android. New Android versions are fragmentation, while new RHEL versions are not.
That'a s fair point but I think a more important one is whether any RHEL5 users are unable to upgrade to RHEL6 because their hardware cannot run it...and I doubt that case exists at all. However on Android that happens most of the time.
They're still selling Android phones with v2.2 at my local grocery store! The whole thing is a complete mess.
Perhaps they realized that users weren't willing to pay for ongoing support for software maintenance, the OS is free (of charge) but work to maintain it on those platforms costs the manufacturer money. It seems that since phones are relatively disposable and the speed at which the technology is advancing gives a short hardware refresh cycle that people prefer to just buy a new handset than pay for operating system maintenance.
Yes you can. You can't develop for a VM and expect to run the same code on some other VM/runtime, but you can run all the shell programs you want on android, and anything that you write that's portable should just be a matter of (re-)compilation.
That's equally applicable no matter what operating system you run. If you write portable C++ code it's just a matter of re-compiling it on Windows, OSX and Ubuntu and that same code will run.
The problem that the GPL solved was the availability of source code (as distinct from the right to modify it, which it also guaranteed but so did BSD/MIT). The source code is available.
As is the case with any open source project, the only difference is the ability for somebody to add features to it and not give the source back. But that can happen with the GPL too, there is no reason GPL code can't call out to a proprietary process as a black box to add functionality to a GPL program.
And it is your opinion that we don't have to worry about anything until we have a real issue? I presented a plausible scenario, and explained why it's plausible.
No I explicitly said it is only in contrived scenarios. If the code they used was GPL then they would have just written their own code instead and you would be in no different position with regard to the "threat to free software" anyway.
I'm not sure what your suggestion is here or even what you're trying to refute, yes you came up with a contrived scenario like I said but if that code were say GPL instead do you think they would have used it? And how does it relate to things being a "threat to free software"?
The point here is - as we already know - RMS is interested in only his idea of freedom, and that's ok but this idea that the development of superior permissively licensed software is an attack on restrictively licensed software is garbage, it's that most people don't care for his ideology. The GNU software is being supplanted by superior software licensed under permissive licenses that are open source and freeware which is what people care about.
In what way is this fantastical or contrived?
Insofar as it is made up, it isn't a real issue. You can create an imaginary situation to disprove just about anything. This is what I mean, it's all this 'potential doom and gloom' that doesn't actually match reality, we need to take a drastic shift to avert an issue that doesn't exist.
Yeah the source is available but the point is it's not like you can just develop for Android Linux and have it run on any other Linux.
The case is hardly contrived.
Yet your example is a fantastical idea of where changing from Windows is impractical but it is necessary to change the internal networking code for some reason:
The original Microsoft networking code was modified BSD, and if it were necessary to change that (assuming that changing from Windows was impractical) it could be difficult.
That's a pretty contrived attempt at an example of a problem...one that doesn't exist.
This is the same crap the music and movie industries push and you've been sucked right in, you can't lose something you never had. You do not get the potential gain but you do not suffer a loss either.
And yet today GNU/Linux is the premier Unix-like system which everyone targets
Actually no, Darwin is more popular for desktop users.
Because of the GPL, GNU/Linux does not fragment, as Unix did.
Of course it does. You think say Android's version of Linux is the same as the Linux mainline? Or Oracle Linux's version of the Linux kernel is the same as the mainline?
No, the only "with us or against us" is GPL. Proprietary and BSD can co-operate.
I have never used the word 'theft', with or without quotation marks. Nor I have said that extending BSD code without giving back is illegal or furtive.
That's ok.
It's done with permission.
Which is why it is not something they 'lose'. This idea of 'loss' is what those who prosecute for copyright use to justify damages for this loss.
And no, BSD developers don't lose their copyright. They lose, freely, an opportunity to endow the community with the best outcome of their work, which is a fact and not a characterization of mine. If you want we can talk about my opinions on the music industry but then I think we'd be derailing the discussion.
They only maintain that they be recognized as the authors of the original code. The GPL/Music/Movie/proprietary software copyright licenses are used to retain control of how the product is distributed and can be used to prosecute people who do not conform.
Well what you said is they have a 'right' and that they lose it. I now realize the 'right' you are referring to is in fact Copyright. Now in terms of what BSD developers 'lose' - or rather explicitly 'give away' - it is the copyright.
However, this 'objective loss' - or this case 'theft', as it is being taken without permission - you refer to is exactly what GPL advocates, the music industry, the movie industry, etc... use to enforce and prosecute those who violate the terms of distribution they laid out. Your characterization of this 'theft' as an 'objective loss' is precisely how they justify it.
They lose the rights to take advantage of the improvements that the commercial contributor has done to their code, while the commercial contributor does not lose the right to take advantage of the improvements that the free contributor has done. You may agree or disagree with this, but it is objectively a loss.
No, you can't lose something you never had. Where do you get the idea that you get to benefit indefinitely from something you gave away? If you want to do that you can use the GPL but it most certainly is not a 'right'.
Can you please provide citation as to where you get the idea that people have this 'right'?
And the same goes for the restrictive license camp, proprietary software (and anything that enables it) is obviously antithetical to the way they want to push computing, so they fight against it.
The result is that most people don't care about software freedom - you can pontificate about why they should but Stallman and the FSF have been doing that for 30-odd years and if anything proprietary software is more ubiquitous than ever partly due to the rise of new computing paradigms that free software has been left behind on.
But the point is it hasn't killed postgres. So what's the problem? The fear has been that companies would create closed source versions of permissively licensed products and kill off the open source ones.
This is just a case of them improving an open source product and not giving out their changes. Now you might not like that for whatever reason but that's up to the authors of postgres and the authors of greenplum and I don't see what you are saying is such a big problem aside from the actions of other people not matching your ideology.
No I mean from the perspective of the derived version supplanting the incumbent. The idea that the original version is killed off because a superior closed source derivative replaced it.