You can write whatever kind of software you want and license it however you want, but if you want to call it "free" then it best be under an open source license that is similar to the LGPL at the very least.
No disagreement with this. But it's not what RMS believes. He does not believe that people have the moral right to release "proprietary" software of their own creation. He makes this very clear on his website and in all his speeches. So long as he does not wish to use law to impose his wishes on others, I don't consider him an enemy. But he HAS advocated laws either restricting the development of proprietary software, or to subsidize Free Software. He has further stated on numerous occasions that those who use proprietary software are enslaved, subjugated or dominated. This is ridiculous. How can I be free if my choice of software is limited to only what RMS approves?
You ensure freedom by protecting your own rights, not by restricting the rights of others. But RMS uses the opposite premise. It is in this area that a see a GNUpedia article on freedom to be potentially distorted by RMS.
Also, the Linux kernel _is_ GPLed, so in an indirect way the FSF has actually "produced" an OS... The Linux kernel is GNU-licensed.
Non sequitur. The licensing of software has nothing whatsoever to do with the classification of that software into projects. Not all GNU software is released under a GNU license, and not all software released under a GNU license is part of GNU. Just because I speak English does not mean that I am an Englishman.
As I understood him, the GNU system is a _specification_ of an OS, or class of POSIX-compatible OSes, not one actual implementation.
The original announcement and the GNU Manifesto called it a "system". It's description made it very clear that it was to be an implementation, and not a spec.
Later documents made it clear that the goal was an actual operating system. Quotes from "The GNU Project": "The answer was clear: what was needed first was an operating system", and "The GNU operating system would include them too".
RMS' take on freedom is the least biased I've seen.
Au contraire, it is quite lopsided. I agree that he has been consistant and indeed practices what he preaches, but he preaches an error. His "freedom" is predicated on taking away freedoms from others. He says that Free Software is synonymous with free speech, but RMS does not recognize the free speech right of developers to distribute their own original software under proprietary terms. He has even advocated government taxes upon commercial software development to subsidize Free Software. That ain't freedom.
But Nupedia has affiliations with the Open Source Movement(tm). RMS doesn't believe in the Open Source Movement(tm), so he is creating a separate encyclopedia for the Free Software Movement(tm). I guess if he call call Linux as GNU/Linux or LiGnuX, then he can call Nupedia as GNUpedia.
Where the hell did it say that in the original GNU announcement? I haven't checked in a few weeks, but I don't recall it anywhere else in the GNU documents for that matter.
RMS announced that he was going to create a free unix like system. So far he or his foundation has not produced one. Depending upon your definition, an operating system can be defined as simply the kernel, or the kernel plus userland, or the kernel plus userland plus everything else in the distribution set. But no matter how you look at it, the OS is integral to the kernel. As long as it's using a non-GNU kernel, it ain't The GNU System. The closest you could get would be to call it the Linux OS with the GNU environment.
Oh! Did I mention? All of the POSIX layer stuff you're talking about is done in the KERNEL.
The problem is how to ensure the encyclopedia is relatively unbias. It's impossible to be completely unbiased, so let's strive for the next best thing. And RMS and his fans are not it. I dread to see the article on "freedom" that passes his muster.
The first step is to indeed create an editorial board. This should be populated by experts in their area as chosen by their peers. And all articles need to be submitted to a peer review. The next step is for RMS and the other project founders to publically distance themselves from the editorial process.
The GNUpedia (aargh, I hate that name!) needs to be created exactly like any other encyclopedia. The only difference is that the content will be freely redistributable.
I'm still unsure about the modifiability though. If I'm reading an article written by an expert in his or her field, I want to be confident that what I am reading is really what they wrote.
The price is too high. I hate spam just as much as the next guy. But this solution is worse than the problem! Government registry of personal email addresses! Do you understand what this means? Have you thought it through? Is preventing spam the legitimate role of government? Does it even come close to being legitimate?
Spam is an annoyance. Government registration of internet users is the foundation for technotyranny. I'll gladly put up with the former to prevent the latter.
Never having administered more than two machines at a time, I am no where nearly as qualified as you on this topic.
But there are many ways to to "bsd" style scripts. Slackware does it one way. FreeBSD does it another. Under FreeBSD all local configurations are captured in rc.conf and rc.local. rc.conf is simply a list of options, where later options can override new options. Creating a script to add a new line at the end of rc.conf is trivial. I don't know how the other BSDs do it, but this method gives you the best of both worlds.
Are you telling me that even business servers change their services on a regular basis?
No, I'm telling you they change them on an occasional basis.
Okay, I misunderstood you. So let me ask you this. If it takes five minutes to add a new service with SysV, and ten minutes to add a new service with Slack/BSD, but you only add a new service every few months or so, what difference does it make?
Wow! You don't get out much do you?
I suggest it mis you who needs to get out into the real world where companies actually change...
Heh! You admit you don't know anyone that uses Slackware, yet you're telling me I'm out of touch?
If you installed everything on Redhat using their blessed and glorious package manager, but neglected to install pthread, then tried to compile a program that requires it, it won't matter how bloody anal the package manager is about dependencies...
I'm not understanding what you're saying. Are you telling me that it is a common occurance for people to install ssh, uninstall ssh, reinstall shh, and so on, on a frequent basis? Instead of making it easier for the user to perform these calisthenics, perhaps the best solution is to tell them to STOP!
Are you telling me that even business servers change their services on a regular basis? How often are companies going to install a new network service? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? How often do new network services even arrive on the scene?
Then again, I also know of nobody who actually uses Slackware...
Why import English swill? Everyone knows that Anchor Liberty Ale is the finest ale ever to grace the tongue. Even Mr. Jackson is humbled in its presence.
What ale is proper to drink while installing Slackware, one named after a fish or one named for freedom?
How often are you going to change your services? Once, at install. After that you don't touch them anymore. If you know SysV style, it's easier. If you know BSD style, it's easier.
It depends on where you're coming from. Some people think shuffling symlinks around is easiest. Others think commenting and uncommenting lines of shell script is easiest.
I've heard it said numerous times that "Linux is more successful than BSD because of the license". The argument is that hackers prefer the GPL because their code can't be "stolen", whereas nothing stops Microsoft from using the BSD licensed code. I've even seen some Linux advocates point to Darwin as the ultimate example of exploitation.
What are your views on this from a perspective as a BSD hacker? Can free software really be stolen? Is BSD open for exploitation (in the negative sense)?
Who said anything about hierarchies? OO doesn't have to be hierarchical at all. Few OOLs require all objects to be derived from some base class. C++ certainly doesn't.
Maybe I'm not a smart as most C/C++ programmers. I can't remember the arguments for all the library functions. So I always use man. It's my primary documentation. And every time I use man strcpy() it always tells me to beware.
How bizarre. I'm using FreeBSD with Qt/KDE. No problems. Perfectly reliable. Surely Qt/KDE counts as noncomplex C++ programs. I also do my own C++ development on FreeBSD. No problems. By the way, BSD uses ELF, not aout.
I use mainly C++ because it is not a pure OOP language.
The best thing about C++ is that it isn't an language. You can use it to write structural code, object oriented code, generic programming code, and even functional code. Or mix all of the above. It gives you the tools and that's it.
It won't work for every project, of course. It only works for projects that can be modeled as objects. Thus, most systems programming is not suited to OOP languages. But most applications programming is. Even the C and Perl programmers know this, even if they won't admit it. GTK is OO, a hackish OO but OO none the less. Use the right tool for the right job. Procedural is good for some things, functional for others. And there are plenty of projects where OO is a natural fit.
Sure, OOP is over hyped. So what? Most things in life are. The article wasn't about the overhyping. It was a thinly veiled attack at OOP, nothing more.
What is it about C++ and OOP that Slashdot has to continually disparage it? Just today they have a complete article on the "hype" of OO, and now this. Their mention of std::string in its context makes it sound like BSD thinks std::string is a bad thing, possibly even insecure.
Read the friggin article! They don't use std::string in 299 of 300 programs because those programs are written in C! Why not C++? Because it's an operating system. C is better for low level systems programming, not because C++ sucks.
Out of the hundreds of points made in this article, dozens of which can be considered at least somewhat controversial, why did Slashdot choose to mention "why they don't use std::string"?
Think about this: if you went to a state-sponsored hospital in Virginia with a sexual disorder, would you want your doctor sending a request to the state board of health to be allowed to research it?
This is just as ludicrous the second time around. Medical information about sexual disorders is not pornography. A dumb content filter might not know the difference, but the law certainly does. And the the law and this ruling have nothing to do with filtering.
Think about this: if you have a sexual disorder, do you really want to be treated by a doctor who thinks he can find information on your problem at www.bigtits.com?
According to the latest IDC survey, *BSD lost more marketshare.
This is known as lying with statistics. What the troll did not tell you (assuming his citation is even true), is that the total market is expanding. BSD is not losing customers. Quite the opposite, they are booming. Only that they are not booming as fast as other systems makes them lose marketshare. Marketshare statistics are completely meaningless in a growing market.
On the other hand, when it comes to major league scalable solutions, *BSD fares poorly.
Considering I don't have a 64 CPU system with 32 terabytes of RAM on my home system, I just don't care. But if I did I would use a REAL scalable system, like Solaris, and neither BSD or Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, no argument. What's your point? That ALL proprietary software is GNU derived? Because RMS is against ALL proprietary software.
You can write whatever kind of software you want and license it however you want, but if you want to call it "free" then it best be under an open source license that is similar to the LGPL at the very least.
No disagreement with this. But it's not what RMS believes. He does not believe that people have the moral right to release "proprietary" software of their own creation. He makes this very clear on his website and in all his speeches. So long as he does not wish to use law to impose his wishes on others, I don't consider him an enemy. But he HAS advocated laws either restricting the development of proprietary software, or to subsidize Free Software. He has further stated on numerous occasions that those who use proprietary software are enslaved, subjugated or dominated. This is ridiculous. How can I be free if my choice of software is limited to only what RMS approves?
You ensure freedom by protecting your own rights, not by restricting the rights of others. But RMS uses the opposite premise. It is in this area that a see a GNUpedia article on freedom to be potentially distorted by RMS.
Also, the Linux kernel _is_ GPLed, so in an indirect way the FSF has actually "produced" an OS... The Linux kernel is GNU-licensed.
Non sequitur. The licensing of software has nothing whatsoever to do with the classification of that software into projects. Not all GNU software is released under a GNU license, and not all software released under a GNU license is part of GNU. Just because I speak English does not mean that I am an Englishman.
As I understood him, the GNU system is a _specification_ of an OS, or class of POSIX-compatible OSes, not one actual implementation.
The original announcement and the GNU Manifesto called it a "system". It's description made it very clear that it was to be an implementation, and not a spec.
Later documents made it clear that the goal was an actual operating system. Quotes from "The GNU Project": "The answer was clear: what was needed first was an operating system", and "The GNU operating system would include them too".
RMS' take on freedom is the least biased I've seen.
Au contraire, it is quite lopsided. I agree that he has been consistant and indeed practices what he preaches, but he preaches an error. His "freedom" is predicated on taking away freedoms from others. He says that Free Software is synonymous with free speech, but RMS does not recognize the free speech right of developers to distribute their own original software under proprietary terms. He has even advocated government taxes upon commercial software development to subsidize Free Software. That ain't freedom.
But Nupedia has affiliations with the Open Source Movement(tm). RMS doesn't believe in the Open Source Movement(tm), so he is creating a separate encyclopedia for the Free Software Movement(tm). I guess if he call call Linux as GNU/Linux or LiGnuX, then he can call Nupedia as GNUpedia.
The GNU System is a POSIX layer.
...or Win32 (producing Red Hat Cygwin).
Where the hell did it say that in the original GNU announcement? I haven't checked in a few weeks, but I don't recall it anywhere else in the GNU documents for that matter.
RMS announced that he was going to create a free unix like system. So far he or his foundation has not produced one. Depending upon your definition, an operating system can be defined as simply the kernel, or the kernel plus userland, or the kernel plus userland plus everything else in the distribution set. But no matter how you look at it, the OS is integral to the kernel. As long as it's using a non-GNU kernel, it ain't The GNU System. The closest you could get would be to call it the Linux OS with the GNU environment.
Oh! Did I mention? All of the POSIX layer stuff you're talking about is done in the KERNEL.
That ain't The GNU System. Get real.
The problem is how to ensure the encyclopedia is relatively unbias. It's impossible to be completely unbiased, so let's strive for the next best thing. And RMS and his fans are not it. I dread to see the article on "freedom" that passes his muster.
The first step is to indeed create an editorial board. This should be populated by experts in their area as chosen by their peers. And all articles need to be submitted to a peer review. The next step is for RMS and the other project founders to publically distance themselves from the editorial process.
The GNUpedia (aargh, I hate that name!) needs to be created exactly like any other encyclopedia. The only difference is that the content will be freely redistributable.
I'm still unsure about the modifiability though. If I'm reading an article written by an expert in his or her field, I want to be confident that what I am reading is really what they wrote.
The price is too high. I hate spam just as much as the next guy. But this solution is worse than the problem! Government registry of personal email addresses! Do you understand what this means? Have you thought it through? Is preventing spam the legitimate role of government? Does it even come close to being legitimate?
Spam is an annoyance. Government registration of internet users is the foundation for technotyranny. I'll gladly put up with the former to prevent the latter.
Never having administered more than two machines at a time, I am no where nearly as qualified as you on this topic.
But there are many ways to to "bsd" style scripts. Slackware does it one way. FreeBSD does it another. Under FreeBSD all local configurations are captured in rc.conf and rc.local. rc.conf is simply a list of options, where later options can override new options. Creating a script to add a new line at the end of rc.conf is trivial. I don't know how the other BSDs do it, but this method gives you the best of both worlds.
Are you telling me that even business servers change their services on a regular basis?
No, I'm telling you they change them on an occasional basis.
Okay, I misunderstood you. So let me ask you this. If it takes five minutes to add a new service with SysV, and ten minutes to add a new service with Slack/BSD, but you only add a new service every few months or so, what difference does it make?
Wow! You don't get out much do you?
I suggest it mis you who needs to get out into the real world where companies actually change...
Heh! You admit you don't know anyone that uses Slackware, yet you're telling me I'm out of touch?
If you installed everything on Redhat using their blessed and glorious package manager, but neglected to install pthread, then tried to compile a program that requires it, it won't matter how bloody anal the package manager is about dependencies...
I'm not understanding what you're saying. Are you telling me that it is a common occurance for people to install ssh, uninstall ssh, reinstall shh, and so on, on a frequent basis? Instead of making it easier for the user to perform these calisthenics, perhaps the best solution is to tell them to STOP!
Are you telling me that even business servers change their services on a regular basis? How often are companies going to install a new network service? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? How often do new network services even arrive on the scene?
Then again, I also know of nobody who actually uses Slackware...
Wow! You don't get out much do you?
Why import English swill? Everyone knows that Anchor Liberty Ale is the finest ale ever to grace the tongue. Even Mr. Jackson is humbled in its presence.
What ale is proper to drink while installing Slackware, one named after a fish or one named for freedom?
They got hacked because of *pilot error*, not because of any current insecurity in Slackware. They simply forgot to apply a fix to a running server.
How often are you going to change your services? Once, at install. After that you don't touch them anymore. If you know SysV style, it's easier. If you know BSD style, it's easier.
It depends on where you're coming from. Some people think shuffling symlinks around is easiest. Others think commenting and uncommenting lines of shell script is easiest.
I've heard it said numerous times that "Linux is more successful than BSD because of the license". The argument is that hackers prefer the GPL because their code can't be "stolen", whereas nothing stops Microsoft from using the BSD licensed code. I've even seen some Linux advocates point to Darwin as the ultimate example of exploitation.
What are your views on this from a perspective as a BSD hacker? Can free software really be stolen? Is BSD open for exploitation (in the negative sense)?
Who said anything about hierarchies? OO doesn't have to be hierarchical at all. Few OOLs require all objects to be derived from some base class. C++ certainly doesn't.
Maybe I'm not a smart as most C/C++ programmers. I can't remember the arguments for all the library functions. So I always use man. It's my primary documentation. And every time I use man strcpy() it always tells me to beware.
How bizarre. I'm using FreeBSD with Qt/KDE. No problems. Perfectly reliable. Surely Qt/KDE counts as noncomplex C++ programs. I also do my own C++ development on FreeBSD. No problems. By the way, BSD uses ELF, not aout.
Brzzzt. Next contestant.
It would really help me a *lot* if they would document all these common problems somewhere.
Most of them ARE documented. Just peruse the man pages. Take a look at strcpy() for instance. Throw away your "Learn C in 2 Hours" and get real docs.
I use mainly C++ because it is not a pure OOP language.
The best thing about C++ is that it isn't an language. You can use it to write structural code, object oriented code, generic programming code, and even functional code. Or mix all of the above. It gives you the tools and that's it.
OOP is worth it. It is valid. It works.
It won't work for every project, of course. It only works for projects that can be modeled as objects. Thus, most systems programming is not suited to OOP languages. But most applications programming is. Even the C and Perl programmers know this, even if they won't admit it. GTK is OO, a hackish OO but OO none the less. Use the right tool for the right job. Procedural is good for some things, functional for others. And there are plenty of projects where OO is a natural fit.
Sure, OOP is over hyped. So what? Most things in life are. The article wasn't about the overhyping. It was a thinly veiled attack at OOP, nothing more.
What is it about C++ and OOP that Slashdot has to continually disparage it? Just today they have a complete article on the "hype" of OO, and now this. Their mention of std::string in its context makes it sound like BSD thinks std::string is a bad thing, possibly even insecure.
Read the friggin article! They don't use std::string in 299 of 300 programs because those programs are written in C! Why not C++? Because it's an operating system. C is better for low level systems programming, not because C++ sucks.
Out of the hundreds of points made in this article, dozens of which can be considered at least somewhat controversial, why did Slashdot choose to mention "why they don't use std::string"?
Think about this: if you went to a state-sponsored hospital in Virginia with a sexual disorder, would you want your doctor sending a request to the state board of health to be allowed to research it?
This is just as ludicrous the second time around. Medical information about sexual disorders is not pornography. A dumb content filter might not know the difference, but the law certainly does. And the the law and this ruling have nothing to do with filtering.
Think about this: if you have a sexual disorder, do you really want to be treated by a doctor who thinks he can find information on your problem at www.bigtits.com?
According to the latest IDC survey, *BSD lost more marketshare.
This is known as lying with statistics. What the troll did not tell you (assuming his citation is even true), is that the total market is expanding. BSD is not losing customers. Quite the opposite, they are booming. Only that they are not booming as fast as other systems makes them lose marketshare. Marketshare statistics are completely meaningless in a growing market.
On the other hand, when it comes to major league scalable solutions, *BSD fares poorly.
Considering I don't have a 64 CPU system with 32 terabytes of RAM on my home system, I just don't care. But if I did I would use a REAL scalable system, like Solaris, and neither BSD or Linux.