Not at all, I am, even at this late stage of exposure, considerably amused by the animosity displayed towards me by numerous anonymous cowards, in lieu of intelligent debate.
I will try your search soon; I can, however, think of no reason I would have had to add the search term 'boundless' to my query.
The Kerberos thing was a problem with the protocol specification, and had absolutely nothing to do with any software license whatsoever.
Profoundly vague of you.
Microsoft embraced and extended the protocol, and almost definitely the code (why not, when it's there for the taking?). Thanks to their proprietary business model, aided and abetted by freely available code licensed under BSD-like licenses, free software currently has no easy legal way to be to compatible.
You must understand that I am taking a long term view. In the long term, producing code under a BSD-style license may encourage vendors to adopt 'standards' but it allows them to extend and appropriate them too. In other words, it encourages the Microsoft business model.
Code released under viral Free-software licenses is different. True, traditional software houses won't base products upon it initially. But if enough good viral-free software is produced and used, then businesses lose the option. They either compete against the software head on, or build upon it and release more viral-free software. If they compete against it, they are at a disadvantage compared to those who work with it, because they can't build on the freely available work. If they work with it, they can't appropriate it, and the user wins. Code released under BSD-style licenses just slows this process down.
The prevalence of TCP/IP has less to do with no-strings free implementations and more to do with a large pre-existing infrastructure developed by the defence and research communities, and that it works very well, if we ignore security.
The product was only available for a very brief period, so it is not clear to me whether there was even enough time for a legal case to be prepared against it, and for the relevant court procedures to take place.
I have been unable to find any informative content related to this, either from the original posters link, or from a google search. I would be delighted if you would furnish me with the source of your own special knowledge.
Re:Just One Little Problem - I Can't Find It
on
FreeBSD 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
That's good, but my point was simply that the original poster seemed unable, or too lazy, to provide a similar line, even the he thinks it's easier than a linux kernel build.
Re:Just One Little Problem - I Can't Find It
on
FreeBSD 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
My make install ran lilo for me.
Sorry to disappoint you.
No, the line didn't come out my ass.
My point is it is easy enough to give the line, I don't need to tell you to 'read the handbook' like the original poster suggested.
Re:Just One Little Problem - I Can't Find It
on
FreeBSD 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
my make install ran lilo for me, and the ls -l's are to make sure the make install worked.
And you're tiny little closed minded brain doesn't see beyond the end of your nose.
I'm not talking about stopping companies breaking standards today. I'm talking about making it impossible to break standards tomorrow.
By flooding the world with good GPL'd software, proprietary software can be eradicated, if copyright law is respected / enforced.
By flooding the world with BSD-style licensed software, you just give the proprietary companies a higher stage to stand on, even if copyright law is respected / enforced.
Communism doesn't work! Just ask all the bankrupt "Linux companies"
Hehehe....
Most amusing:)
Of course, those who want to make money from Free software will have to find some way to make money from it which actually works; this has nothing to do with communism, otherwise the 'companies' wouldn't exist...
Viral Free software, like GPL'ed softare, benefits users, because viral Free software promotes real open standards, i.e. freedom from proprietary 'intellectual property'. The BSD license and it's like do not seem to do this, witness Kerberos amongst others.
As an end user, I am concerned not only with the short term "Can I use this software", but also with the long term "What is the software world going to look like in 5 to 10 years time?"
The GPL has a stronger effect on the long term outlook, due to it's persistent nature.
In fact, a developer has less interest in the GPL because the developer is more likely to want to appropriate the code. A user cannot benefit from appropriation of the code. A developer can, because then he/she gets to control it exclusively.
Had MS used the BSD DNS code, they could have changed it to whatever they damn well liked, in fact they probably did.
Had they used GPL'd code, everything they added would be GPL, and everyone could have been compatible.
Of course, they are not about to use GPL code, but the point is, in the long run, the more code available under the GPL license, the less we get proprietary shit shoved down our throats.
There are no examples (that I know of) of the GPL protecting us from intellectual appropriation because all the fscking academics and the ISC keep releasing stuff under stupid "business friendly" licenses.
If the above link is broken, try again later, the DNS is sometimes flaky.
Re:Just One Little Problem - I Can't Find It
on
FreeBSD 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
It is based on the Linux kernel documentation, isn't it ?
That may well be, but the point is, you don't have to read the documentation to get the line, I just typed it out from memory.
The original poster said compiling FreeBSD was easier than compiling Linux, but omitted telling us how, and pointed us to a manual instead. If it's so easy, he should have been able to provide a one liner, like I did for Linux.
The point was not about documentation, the point was to display the absurdity of saying that something is really simple, but then instead of demonstrating that simplicity, refering us to a text.
To be honest, I don't see that much penis-comparison going on in this thread. But your right, there is some, and the 'I'm geekier than you' trap is not a helpful one to fall into. However, it is useful to seek the differences between OSes so we can tell which is the best one to use in particular circumstances, or to identify advantages of one that can be implemented in another.
For me, the latter is most important, i.e. Linux picking up the advantages of the *BSDs, because I can't support a non-GPL system with a clear conscience and right now that means I must run Linux. Not that there's anything wrong with Linux, but some choice would be nice, which is why I'm happy the Hurd is being actively developed:)
as I'm not a developer, my main concern is having access to a free (beer) *nix OS that can run on pc hardware.
It's not just developers who benefit from Free (as in speech) software; specifically, viral Free software, like GPL'ed softare, benefits users, because viral Free software promotes real open standards, i.e. freedom from proprietary 'intellectual property'. The BSD license and it's like do not seem to do this, witness Kerberos amongst others.
Re:Just One Little Problem - I Can't Find It
on
FreeBSD 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
As for installing Debian, why should someone use Debian versus any other version of Linux out there? The underlying facts remain, Linux is Linux no matter which version you use its all core code, some are easier to use than others, nothing more.
Philosophy: Debian is a community effort driven by volunteers, grounded very firmly in Free Software principles.
Here today, here tomorrow: The fact that Debian is not accountable to shareholders means it's not going to disappear because it's not making money, like Stormix seem to have.
Package Dependency Management: apt automates the retrieval and installation of package dependencies, as well as the requested package.
Stability: A Debian release does not have to be rushed out for the Marketing department; it is released when it is ready. And it shows.
Cross-architecture support: Debian runs on a larger range of CPU architectures than any other distro I am aware of. Intel, SPARC, PowerPC, 68k, PA-RISC, more.
Slashdot Mirror
Just the fact that YOU don't like hearing is all.
Not at all, I am, even at this late stage of exposure, considerably amused by the animosity displayed towards me by numerous anonymous cowards, in lieu of intelligent debate.
I will try your search soon; I can, however, think of no reason I would have had to add the search term 'boundless' to my query.
Thanks!
The Kerberos thing was a problem with the protocol specification, and had absolutely nothing to do with any software license whatsoever.
Profoundly vague of you.
Microsoft embraced and extended the protocol, and almost definitely the code (why not, when it's there for the taking?). Thanks to their proprietary business model, aided and abetted by freely available code licensed under BSD-like licenses, free software currently has no easy legal way to be to compatible.
You must understand that I am taking a long term view. In the long term, producing code under a BSD-style license may encourage vendors to adopt 'standards' but it allows them to extend and appropriate them too. In other words, it encourages the Microsoft business model.
Code released under viral Free-software licenses is different. True, traditional software houses won't base products upon it initially. But if enough good viral-free software is produced and used, then businesses lose the option. They either compete against the software head on, or build upon it and release more viral-free software. If they compete against it, they are at a disadvantage compared to those who work with it, because they can't build on the freely available work. If they work with it, they can't appropriate it, and the user wins. Code released under BSD-style licenses just slows this process down.
The prevalence of TCP/IP has less to do with no-strings free implementations and more to do with a large pre-existing infrastructure developed by the defence and research communities, and that it works very well, if we ignore security.
No.
The product was only available for a very brief period, so it is not clear to me whether there was even enough time for a legal case to be prepared against it, and for the relevant court procedures to take place.
I have been unable to find any informative content related to this, either from the original posters link, or from a google search. I would be delighted if you would furnish me with the source of your own special knowledge.
That's good, but my point was simply that the original poster seemed unable, or too lazy, to provide a similar line, even the he thinks it's easier than a linux kernel build.
My make install ran lilo for me.
Sorry to disappoint you.
No, the line didn't come out my ass.
My point is it is easy enough to give the line, I don't need to tell you to 'read the handbook' like the original poster suggested.
my make install ran lilo for me, and the ls -l's are to make sure the make install worked.
Of course.
Right, thanks for that, do you have an example where the offending product has not been withdrawn from market?
And you're tiny little closed minded brain doesn't see beyond the end of your nose.
I'm not talking about stopping companies breaking standards today. I'm talking about making it impossible to break standards tomorrow.
By flooding the world with good GPL'd software, proprietary software can be eradicated, if copyright law is respected / enforced.
By flooding the world with BSD-style licensed software, you just give the proprietary companies a higher stage to stand on, even if copyright law is respected / enforced.
Communism doesn't work! Just ask all the bankrupt "Linux companies"
:)
Hehehe....
Most amusing
Of course, those who want to make money from Free software will have to find some way to make money from it which actually works; this has nothing to do with communism, otherwise the 'companies' wouldn't exist...
Viral Free software, like GPL'ed softare, benefits users, because viral Free software promotes real open standards, i.e. freedom from proprietary 'intellectual property'. The BSD license and it's like do not seem to do this, witness Kerberos amongst others.
As an end user, I am concerned not only with the short term "Can I use this software", but also with the long term "What is the software world going to look like in 5 to 10 years time?"
The GPL has a stronger effect on the long term outlook, due to it's persistent nature.
In fact, a developer has less interest in the GPL because the developer is more likely to want to appropriate the code. A user cannot benefit from appropriation of the code. A developer can, because then he/she gets to control it exclusively.
I don't drive!
Huh? DNS and HTML were not my examples.
Did you read my post?
Had MS used the BSD DNS code, they could have changed it to whatever they damn well liked, in fact they probably did.
Had they used GPL'd code, everything they added would be GPL, and everyone could have been compatible.
Of course, they are not about to use GPL code, but the point is, in the long run, the more code available under the GPL license, the less we get proprietary shit shoved down our throats.
Sorry for swearing.
I haven't heard about that, so I can't explain it.
Any links?
Without thinking too hard:
DNS: GSS-TSIG
HTML: Netscape and IE proprietary tags
There are no examples (that I know of) of the GPL protecting us from intellectual appropriation because all the fscking academics and the ISC keep releasing stuff under stupid "business friendly" licenses.
Screw business friendly, how about user friendly.
To be honest, I don't see that much penis-comparison going on in this thread.
Of course, now I've switched to viewing posts at 0 and -1, I see what you mean...
Hehe nice try troll.
Here.
If the above link is broken, try again later, the DNS is sometimes flaky.
It is based on the Linux kernel documentation, isn't it ?
That may well be, but the point is, you don't have to read the documentation to get the line, I just typed it out from memory.
The original poster said compiling FreeBSD was easier than compiling Linux, but omitted telling us how, and pointed us to a manual instead. If it's so easy, he should have been able to provide a one liner, like I did for Linux.
The point was not about documentation, the point was to display the absurdity of saying that something is really simple, but then instead of demonstrating that simplicity, refering us to a text.
That was quite entertaining, where's the (para)quote from?
Or is it your own original composition?
To be honest, I don't see that much penis-comparison going on in this thread. But your right, there is some, and the 'I'm geekier than you' trap is not a helpful one to fall into. However, it is useful to seek the differences between OSes so we can tell which is the best one to use in particular circumstances, or to identify advantages of one that can be implemented in another.
:)
For me, the latter is most important, i.e. Linux picking up the advantages of the *BSDs, because I can't support a non-GPL system with a clear conscience and right now that means I must run Linux. Not that there's anything wrong with Linux, but some choice would be nice, which is why I'm happy the Hurd is being actively developed
as I'm not a developer, my main concern is having access to a free (beer) *nix OS that can run on pc hardware.
It's not just developers who benefit from Free (as in speech) software; specifically, viral Free software, like GPL'ed softare, benefits users, because viral Free software promotes real open standards, i.e. freedom from proprietary 'intellectual property'. The BSD license and it's like do not seem to do this, witness Kerberos amongst others.
Thank you!
...is the nice release notes.
I've never used FreeBSD or any other BSD, primarily because I prefer the viral GPL.
But I do wish Linux came with release notes like these (link in the story), rather than Linus's "it's better"....
OK that's a slight exaggeration but the BSD release notes seem more clear, better organised, more comprehensive and more informative.
Some people don't know what their left ventricle is, that doesn't mean it's not entirely appropriate for them.
As for installing Debian, why should someone use Debian versus any other version of Linux out there? The underlying facts remain, Linux is Linux no matter which version you use its all core code, some are easier to use than others, nothing more.
Philosophy: Debian is a community effort driven by volunteers, grounded very firmly in Free Software principles.
Here today, here tomorrow: The fact that Debian is not accountable to shareholders means it's not going to disappear because it's not making money, like Stormix seem to have.
Package Dependency Management: apt automates the retrieval and installation of package dependencies, as well as the requested package.
Stability: A Debian release does not have to be rushed out for the Marketing department; it is released when it is ready. And it shows.
Cross-architecture support: Debian runs on a larger range of CPU architectures than any other distro I am aware of. Intel, SPARC, PowerPC, 68k, PA-RISC, more.
That's why I use it anyway.
Um, you can do that...
.debs like everyone else....
or you can just install binary
By default, Debian package management is binary based. Sorry to shatter your illusions.