In this case, it is the *user* who decides which version to distribute the software under, not the author. If the GPLv3 is too restrictive (and parts of it sounds like it might), then you can still keep distributing the software under GPLv2 instead.
The (unfinished) goal of the GNU Project was to create an operating system with no proprietary software in it. Why? Because they didn't want the restrictions of proprietary licenses. What a worthy goal!
But for some people, the restrictions in the GPL are still too much. It's much, much better than proprietary licenses, but it still has restrictions on distributions. The xMach team wants to create an operating system with only copycenter/unrestricted software. What a worthy goal!
'There was a village that had a magical apple tree. Whenever an apple was picked from the tree, another would replace it. The villagers were well fed and had no want. But some villagers took their apples and locked them away, saying "Look at those foolish people! They do not lock away their apples. Surely someone will come and steal them."'
Upon it's creation, all works are the property of their creator. The only way a studio can get control over a piece of music is for the artist to hand over that control.
That's what the contract you mention is. It's a legal instrument to hand over the distribution rights to the studio. The artist does not need to do this. If they feel that the distribution channels of the studio are worth more than retaining control of their work, they will sign it. Otherwise they won't.
So, when a musician creates a piece of music, he owns it. He may then place it under the "O" license (although much better licenses exist) and release it. He probably won't be able to go through the traditional channels to distribute it, though. That's a choice he has to make.
I just wish that GNOME and KDE would include XFree86 configuration utilities (like DrakConf for Mandrake does, only a bit cleaner). In addition, they should make a bigger deal of the latest version of linuxconf, which seems to be the most comprehensive hardware and service control. I still use netcfg by RedHat sometimes to set up Gateway and DNS info.
Why? KDE and GNOME (as well as XFree86) are multi-platform packages. They are not for Linux only. Including stuff for linuxconf would only annoy users of SuSE, Debian, Slack, etc. And what of the Solaris, *BSD, AIX and IRIX users? Should FreeBSD's sysinstall also be included? Warning! Code bloat!
Linux-specific stuff should be isolated in a kde-linux or gnome-linux package. Put the FreeBSD stuff in a -freebsd package, the Solaris stuff in a -solaris package, etc. Sound like a lot of work? Of course it is! That's why you let the KDE and GNOME people work on KDE and GNOME, and let Redhat worry about Redhat specific stuff, the decision to include DrakConf to Mandrake, and sysinstall integration to FreeBSD.
Why the hatred? I'm not sure. But consider that you can divide the world into two personality types. One type doesn't care what choices you make as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. The other type is deeply offended if you don't make the same choices that they did.
In the latter camp fall the Amiga users of old, and the Linux users of today. The fact that someone else isn't using Linux just pisses them off. They can halfway tolerate Windows users, since they assume it's only out of ignorance. But users of any other Unix or unix-like OS make them seeth with rage.
Of course, those linuxoids are nowhere near as spiteful as the gnuoids, who get their panties in a bind everytime they thing about the fact that the number free software package out there, bar none, is released under the Apache License and not the Glorious Public License.
Who said this was a popularity contest? If all you're concerned about is how many people are using an OS, then stick with Windoze. As for me, I'm sticking with Slackware.
I'm thinking the Slackware, FreeBSD and freesoftware guys should all band together and take their stuff with them. You know, bring Walnut Creek back...
That comment struck me as well. How do apps get into Debian? Either the author is a Debian packager, or a Debian packager uses that app. Either way, the relatively small number of packagers almost guarantees that they'll be overworked and behind schedule. It's still a good system, better than most other Linux packaging teams. But no system is perfect.
Directories like freshmeat, sourceforge and opensourcedirectory allow the software authors themselves to make announcements, upload updates, etc. And it makes it easier for Debian packagers to keep on top of things.
If TacoBoy only uses what's in Debian unstable, then he's missing out on a whole world of possibilities.
Hell yeah! It's the only Linux distro left that doesn't load your harddrive up with cruft and pieces of lint. It's the only distro not made by committee. If you want the most Unix-like of Linuces, it's the only way to go.
Of course, if you can't find your ass without a GUI, then definitely stay away:-)
"Mass market" means that it's suitable for the teeming unwashed millions. Buy it preinstalled. Buy it shrinkwrapped and install it without breaking a sweat. Be able to configure it without being an amateur sysadmin. Be able to use it without knowing how it works.
That's why you don't want ftp installs, because additional functinoality adds complexity? Okay fine. Dump bash and stick with sh, dump GNOME and KDE and stick with twm, and while you're at it, dump lpr and cat everthing to/dev/lp0.
Have you ever seen BSD mentioned in a trade magazine?
Yes, PCM.
In a programmer's journal?
Yes, CUJ and DD.
Is it offered by hardware vendors as a pre-installed Operating System?
Yes. Dozens of them. No Dell or Gateway, but who cares?
"BSD" isn't a buzzword, and the hype surrounding it pales in comparison to Linux.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about buzzwords. And if you want hype, then check out the valuations of the dot.coms that where hyped to hell and back last year.
If you want an OS that hyped by the media, is in all the trade and developer's journals, and preinstalled on all the hardware, then stick with Windows.
sysinstall is being redesigned as we speak. So don't fret it.
By the way, what's the problem with installing over ftp? Download two floppy images and everything else is down during the install. Some Linux distros do this as well. IMHO, this is a very important install option. If you don't want to go through all of the various install options, then just choose "CD-ROM"!
No, FreeBSD doesn't ship with 7,000 precompiled ports. But then again, neither does Debian. There's a reason why SuSE comes with six (is it seven now?) CDs.
From experience in helping people set up their systems, having 7,000 packages to choose from during installation (your first hour of exposure) is extremely overwhelming. Sure, go ahead and ship those precompiled binaries. But let the user install them *after* installation is complete.
As for ports versus apt-get. So what? I consider them roughly equal. FreeBSD doesn't include the option to specify a binary instead of building from source, but it's not that big of a deal, IMO. There's no reason to pick sides over the package/source installers. Choose the OS you want. If it happens to be Linux, then perhaps take a much closer look at Debian. If it's FreeBSD, go ahead and use the ports.
It depends upon how you define an operating system. According to my dictionary, the bare Linux kernel meets every point.
On the other extreme, you have the MS definition of OS as being everything shipped on the CD. I'm sorry, but IE is not a component of the OS.
What most people think of as an OS is three distinct components. The "operating system", the "operating environment" and the applications. The OS is just the kernel and the bare infrastructure (init, etc).The operating environment is everything from the shell on down to the kernel. It's otherwise known as userspace. One distinguishing feature of an operating environment is that components can be switched in and out without changing the OS. And the applications are just that, applications. X11 fits into application space, because you certainly don't need it for a working system.
In BSD, the kernel and the environment are maintained as a whole. Under Linux, a large portion of the operating environment is GNU, with significant pieces native to Linux, or from BSD and elsewhere.
The original post said "Once you've got a BSD box and a Linux box set up... Linux and BSD are virtually indistinguishable."
This is true from the users perspective. If you're not administering the system, writing system level software, or rooting through proc, it would take you a while to figure out it's not Linux.
Do you really check out what system calls are available everytime you sit in front of a system so you know if it's really Linux or not? I didn't think so. We use Solaris at work on 99.9% of the systems, and I had been logging in to a remote system for several weeks before I realized that it was a Linux system. I figured it out because I finally brought up a man page that said "this man page is no longer being maintained."
At work I'm using bash and gcc on Solaris-2.5.1. It would be complete and utter nonsense to call the system GNU/Solaris. That's because the shell and the compiler are not the OS.
The pollees were asks which platforms they used. Notice the plural.
You see, developers that write software that runs on "Linux, FreeBSD and other Unix and unix-like systems" are still Linux developers, even though their primary system happens to be FreeBSD, Solaris or IRIX.
No, the poll was accurate enough. The question asked as NOT "what Linux distribution do you use", but "what platforms do you use". Notice the plural. The results tell me that 20% of Linux developers (not users) have FreeBSD as one of their operating systems. I know a couple of Linux developers that have FreeBSD as their *primary* OS, moving to Linux only if they need to create Linux specific binaries.
If I tell a newbie that my software is for a "POSIX conforming system", he won't know what the hell I'm talking about. If I say it's for "Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and other Unix(TM) and unix-like operating systems", he's going to fall asleep in the middle of my speech. It makes sense to say "my software is for Unix". The newbie instantly knows what that means, and the only people getting upset at grammarians.
UNIX(TM) is in serious trouble of losing their trademark through dilution. Oh well, I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Problem is, there was nothing wrong with the report! The question asked of Linux developers was (paraphrase) "which platforms do you develop on?" The results show that 20% of Linux developers use Linux *and* FreeBSD. Not FreeBSD only.
Incidentally, this is probably why Redhat got 77% of the result. When so many newbies use Redhat, it's only natural to shove it on a secondary partition to build a Redhat RPM with.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, it is the *user* who decides which version to distribute the software under, not the author. If the GPLv3 is too restrictive (and parts of it sounds like it might), then you can still keep distributing the software under GPLv2 instead.
The (unfinished) goal of the GNU Project was to create an operating system with no proprietary software in it. Why? Because they didn't want the restrictions of proprietary licenses. What a worthy goal!
But for some people, the restrictions in the GPL are still too much. It's much, much better than proprietary licenses, but it still has restrictions on distributions. The xMach team wants to create an operating system with only copycenter/unrestricted software. What a worthy goal!
'There was a village that had a magical apple tree. Whenever an apple was picked from the tree, another would replace it. The villagers were well fed and had no want. But some villagers took their apples and locked them away, saying "Look at those foolish people! They do not lock away their apples. Surely someone will come and steal them."'
Upon it's creation, all works are the property of their creator. The only way a studio can get control over a piece of music is for the artist to hand over that control.
That's what the contract you mention is. It's a legal instrument to hand over the distribution rights to the studio. The artist does not need to do this. If they feel that the distribution channels of the studio are worth more than retaining control of their work, they will sign it. Otherwise they won't.
So, when a musician creates a piece of music, he owns it. He may then place it under the "O" license (although much better licenses exist) and release it. He probably won't be able to go through the traditional channels to distribute it, though. That's a choice he has to make.
I just wish that GNOME and KDE would include XFree86 configuration utilities (like DrakConf for Mandrake does, only a bit cleaner). In addition, they should make a bigger deal of the latest version of linuxconf, which seems to be the most comprehensive hardware and service control. I still use netcfg by RedHat sometimes to set up Gateway and DNS info.
Why? KDE and GNOME (as well as XFree86) are multi-platform packages. They are not for Linux only. Including stuff for linuxconf would only annoy users of SuSE, Debian, Slack, etc. And what of the Solaris, *BSD, AIX and IRIX users? Should FreeBSD's sysinstall also be included? Warning! Code bloat!
Linux-specific stuff should be isolated in a kde-linux or gnome-linux package. Put the FreeBSD stuff in a -freebsd package, the Solaris stuff in a -solaris package, etc. Sound like a lot of work? Of course it is! That's why you let the KDE and GNOME people work on KDE and GNOME, and let Redhat worry about Redhat specific stuff, the decision to include DrakConf to Mandrake, and sysinstall integration to FreeBSD.
They last updated their page a week ago...
Why the hatred? I'm not sure. But consider that you can divide the world into two personality types. One type doesn't care what choices you make as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. The other type is deeply offended if you don't make the same choices that they did.
In the latter camp fall the Amiga users of old, and the Linux users of today. The fact that someone else isn't using Linux just pisses them off. They can halfway tolerate Windows users, since they assume it's only out of ignorance. But users of any other Unix or unix-like OS make them seeth with rage.
Of course, those linuxoids are nowhere near as spiteful as the gnuoids, who get their panties in a bind everytime they thing about the fact that the number free software package out there, bar none, is released under the Apache License and not the Glorious Public License.
But the ASPL is not OSI-approved. It might be ironically sweet to do it if the contest were run by Apple, but it's not...
Who said this was a popularity contest? If all you're concerned about is how many people are using an OS, then stick with Windoze. As for me, I'm sticking with Slackware.
I'm thinking the Slackware, FreeBSD and freesoftware guys should all band together and take their stuff with them. You know, bring Walnut Creek back...
Correct. BSD code can be used in GPL projects, but the reverse cannot occur. So the BSD code gets wider coverage.
That comment struck me as well. How do apps get into Debian? Either the author is a Debian packager, or a Debian packager uses that app. Either way, the relatively small number of packagers almost guarantees that they'll be overworked and behind schedule. It's still a good system, better than most other Linux packaging teams. But no system is perfect.
Directories like freshmeat, sourceforge and opensourcedirectory allow the software authors themselves to make announcements, upload updates, etc. And it makes it easier for Debian packagers to keep on top of things.
If TacoBoy only uses what's in Debian unstable, then he's missing out on a whole world of possibilities.
Oh damn! What am I going to do? I've got a subscription to both FreeBSD *and* Slackware! I hope they don't ship me blank CDs.
.. .. . . [end transmission]
If BSD is dead, then what's running this compp p&8 K nb!
Hell yeah! It's the only Linux distro left that doesn't load your harddrive up with cruft and pieces of lint. It's the only distro not made by committee. If you want the most Unix-like of Linuces, it's the only way to go.
:-)
Of course, if you can't find your ass without a GUI, then definitely stay away
Please, can someone track this guy down and beat him senseless?
"Mass market" means that it's suitable for the teeming unwashed millions. Buy it preinstalled. Buy it shrinkwrapped and install it without breaking a sweat. Be able to configure it without being an amateur sysadmin. Be able to use it without knowing how it works.
That's why you don't want ftp installs, because additional functinoality adds complexity? Okay fine. Dump bash and stick with sh, dump GNOME and KDE and stick with twm, and while you're at it, dump lpr and cat everthing to /dev/lp0.
Cheers!
Have you ever seen BSD mentioned in a trade magazine?
Yes, PCM.
In a programmer's journal?
Yes, CUJ and DD.
Is it offered by hardware vendors as a pre-installed Operating System?
Yes. Dozens of them. No Dell or Gateway, but who cares?
"BSD" isn't a buzzword, and the hype surrounding it pales in comparison to Linux.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about buzzwords. And if you want hype, then check out the valuations of the dot.coms that where hyped to hell and back last year.
If you want an OS that hyped by the media, is in all the trade and developer's journals, and preinstalled on all the hardware, then stick with Windows.
sysinstall is being redesigned as we speak. So don't fret it.
By the way, what's the problem with installing over ftp? Download two floppy images and everything else is down during the install. Some Linux distros do this as well. IMHO, this is a very important install option. If you don't want to go through all of the various install options, then just choose "CD-ROM"!
No, FreeBSD doesn't ship with 7,000 precompiled ports. But then again, neither does Debian. There's a reason why SuSE comes with six (is it seven now?) CDs.
From experience in helping people set up their systems, having 7,000 packages to choose from during installation (your first hour of exposure) is extremely overwhelming. Sure, go ahead and ship those precompiled binaries. But let the user install them *after* installation is complete.
As for ports versus apt-get. So what? I consider them roughly equal. FreeBSD doesn't include the option to specify a binary instead of building from source, but it's not that big of a deal, IMO. There's no reason to pick sides over the package/source installers. Choose the OS you want. If it happens to be Linux, then perhaps take a much closer look at Debian. If it's FreeBSD, go ahead and use the ports.
It depends upon how you define an operating system. According to my dictionary, the bare Linux kernel meets every point.
On the other extreme, you have the MS definition of OS as being everything shipped on the CD. I'm sorry, but IE is not a component of the OS.
What most people think of as an OS is three distinct components. The "operating system", the "operating environment" and the applications. The OS is just the kernel and the bare infrastructure (init, etc).The operating environment is everything from the shell on down to the kernel. It's otherwise known as userspace. One distinguishing feature of an operating environment is that components can be switched in and out without changing the OS. And the applications are just that, applications. X11 fits into application space, because you certainly don't need it for a working system.
In BSD, the kernel and the environment are maintained as a whole. Under Linux, a large portion of the operating environment is GNU, with significant pieces native to Linux, or from BSD and elsewhere.
The original post said "Once you've got a BSD box and a Linux box set up ... Linux and BSD are virtually indistinguishable."
This is true from the users perspective. If you're not administering the system, writing system level software, or rooting through proc, it would take you a while to figure out it's not Linux.
Do you really check out what system calls are available everytime you sit in front of a system so you know if it's really Linux or not? I didn't think so. We use Solaris at work on 99.9% of the systems, and I had been logging in to a remote system for several weeks before I realized that it was a Linux system. I figured it out because I finally brought up a man page that said "this man page is no longer being maintained."
At work I'm using bash and gcc on Solaris-2.5.1. It would be complete and utter nonsense to call the system GNU/Solaris. That's because the shell and the compiler are not the OS.
The pollees were asks which platforms they used. Notice the plural.
You see, developers that write software that runs on "Linux, FreeBSD and other Unix and unix-like systems" are still Linux developers, even though their primary system happens to be FreeBSD, Solaris or IRIX.
No, the poll was accurate enough. The question asked as NOT "what Linux distribution do you use", but "what platforms do you use". Notice the plural. The results tell me that 20% of Linux developers (not users) have FreeBSD as one of their operating systems. I know a couple of Linux developers that have FreeBSD as their *primary* OS, moving to Linux only if they need to create Linux specific binaries.
If I tell a newbie that my software is for a "POSIX conforming system", he won't know what the hell I'm talking about. If I say it's for "Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and other Unix(TM) and unix-like operating systems", he's going to fall asleep in the middle of my speech. It makes sense to say "my software is for Unix". The newbie instantly knows what that means, and the only people getting upset at grammarians.
UNIX(TM) is in serious trouble of losing their trademark through dilution. Oh well, I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Problem is, there was nothing wrong with the report! The question asked of Linux developers was (paraphrase) "which platforms do you develop on?" The results show that 20% of Linux developers use Linux *and* FreeBSD. Not FreeBSD only.
Incidentally, this is probably why Redhat got 77% of the result. When so many newbies use Redhat, it's only natural to shove it on a secondary partition to build a Redhat RPM with.