Hell no! It sounds too much like egalite. I want to be the best that I can be. Egalite is synonymous with mediocrite. If I can't be as good as you, the only way we can be equal is if I pull you down.
Oh please! You cowards are so full of your own shit you have to bend over to take a crap! Let me explain it to you. Harmony came into being because Qt was not free. As soon as Qt became free there was no longer any need for Harmony. None. Nada. Oh, wait. Maybe there is one tiny reason... Maybe some people refuse to use any product that doesn't have a "G" in its license.
The QPL appeared to address the main reason for Harmony to exist
Well of course! Hello! Anyone home? This looks like a job for Obviousman(tm)! Let's see now, you and your ilk spent the better part of a year bitching, whining and carrying on like spoiled children because Qt wasn't free. Now that it is free you're still bitching, whining and carrying on because you think it killed Harmony. Get some pubes and grow up.
Do you even understand what Harmony was all about? Do you really? If you do then you know that it wouldn't make one bit of difference what the KDE team did. If you don't like Qt and Harmony is available, then just use Harmony! Gee, isn't that simple?
Now that Kylix seems to be locking into Qt and Corel has chosen KDE, there looks to be less opportunity for something cleaner and more user-oriented to come along.
A) Qt is very clean and user-oriented, as much as any GUI library can be. It's up to the developer to craft a decent UI. Qt only supplies the parts.
B) Like it or not, the UI of KDE and GNOME is already clean and user-oriented. Keeping the Microsoft bias out of it, just what is it about the KDE/GNOME/Windows/Warp desktops that is not clean or user-disoriented? Is it the root menu being in the corner of a panel instead of on the RMB that is somehow *wrong*? What?!
C) Do you have a better coherent vision of what a UI should be? If so, why have you done nothing about it? Do you really think that bitching about other people's work does any good?
Economics is one of those fields where nothing is isolated and everything is interconnected. Why do you thing it has the same prefix as ecology? To take one thing out of context with its environment is to cause a disruption somewhere else.
There is a reason why there is unemployment. All to often this is because there is no employment "slack" to hire them with. Employing them to correct disasters or fight wars will be economically disruptive. I am not saying unemployment is a good thing, I am just saying that it is there and is a part of economics.
Economics, like any science, does not make moral judgements. But it does assert that there are consequences to every human action. Getting rid of unemployment is a good thing. But there is a price to be paid. All to often that price looms where you least expect it.
Again, I'll ask my question. If there were a time of high unemployment, would you advocate the artificial destruction of a major city rather than wait for a convenient hurricane? Wouldn't you get double duty on the unemployment by hiring people to throw rocks through perfectly good windows? After all, you'll be hiring both the rock thrower and the glazer...
By the way, in reference to unemployment and WW2, why did the economy not fall back into depression when a million servicemen were mustered out? Why would you consider an economy beset with shortages and rationing to be healthy? From my reading of history, the forties were an economic mess while the fifties was the decade of prosperity.
Outside of sloppily worded legalese, there is no such thing as a bad license. (I do not count EULA's as licenses) Certainly most of us would agree that compelling an author to release his private code that he wrote solely for his own use is wrong.
The controversy comes when software is first given to one other person. A software license is merely a set of permissions and restrictions on what the user can do with the author's work. It shouldn't make any difference whether the software is given to one person or posted on the net for everyone in the world to access. This is not kindergarten where if you give some of your candy with your friend you have to give it to everyone else in class. What harm is there is saying "here friend, have my software, I am not done with it yet so don't let anyone else see it until I tell you otherwise"?
Ownership of software is not the question. We are talking licenses here. Every license in existance including the GNU GPL asserts ownership rights upon the software. Ownership means the right to control, and by controlling how the software is distributed, the GPL asserts ownership.
You may not like the terms of a particular license. I may probably agree with you. But that's beside the point. That particular software with that particularly onerous license is not my software. I have no rights to compell its author to do anything. Calling a license bad is just sour grapes. You didn't get your way and now you're pouting.
If you don't like the terms of the license, don't use the software. Gee, where have I heard that one before?
Why wait for the hurricane? If they're so good for the economy, why not just shell the town with mortor fire every two years or so? We could keep the economic benefits without the incidental loss of life by using bulldozers. We could pay otherwise unemployed hoodlums to throw rocks through windows.
For those who are economically illiterate, I will explain the problem. Disasters employ people that would have otherwise been employed elsewhere. There is no economic gain, only a shift of resources from non-damaged areas to damaged areas. Even with pure economic efficiency, the net gain would be zero.
There are a myriad valid and moral reasons to help rebuild damaged cities. Citing bogus economic advantages is not one of them.
These people are not stupid, they are using Linux because it fits the job they are deploying it for.
Of course they're not stupid. They use the OS best suited for the job. In some cases that will be Linux. In others it will be Solaris or AIX. Still others use BSD.
I really don't understand the point of this. What difference does it make to BSD if somebody is using Linux instead? Is this some sort of all or nothing warfare where there can only be one winner? BSD never set a goal for world domination. Such an idea is abhorrent to it. That eleetist attitude belongs to Linux and Windows.
What Linux lacked from the beginning is the eleetist attitude that some in BSD land are trying to get rid of.
You are right when you accuse BSD of having elitist subgroups. But you are equally wrong when you say that the Linux community does not have the same. Every operating system has its elitist and self righteous advocates. Some of the most elitist and arrogant OS folks I have met are Linux users. Just go to any Slashdot story about the release of any Linux distribution and you'll see it. Debian users have the only moral operating system, Slackware users have the one true distribution, Redhat users possess the real Linux standard, ad nauseum. They won't say it in so many words, but the elitist attitude is there and very visible.
How utterly weird! I seem to be running Netscape Communicator 4.73 under FreeBSD without using Linux mode. Is 4.73 now considered outdated? If so, then I am doomed to always being outdated because I can't keep up faster than this.
But just what do you mean by "no native apps". Do you mean apps that are available *only* for FreeBSD? If so, then even Linux has an extreme dearth of applications. I don't know what FreeBSD you've used, but mine currently has Gimp, XEmacs, gcc, KDE, xmms, ssh, and hundreds more applications installed. And and I have several thousand more packages and ports available to run under FreeBSD natively. If I remember correctly, the precompiled packages that come with FreeBSD 4.0 number around 1500 or so. The ports collection contains many, many more.
But if you're talking about native closed-source or proprietary commercial software, then there's only about a dozen or so. So I guess you're right. When it comes to what RMS calls subjugating and dominating software that takes away your rights, then Linux has BSD beat hands down!
p.s. You are right about Acrobat though, my goof...
The GPL is a little restrictive, but only to those who wish to take and not give back.
What is restrictive is that I have to give back in *exactly* the way that you demand. I am not allowed to make the license more free. I am not allowed to make the license more bullet-proof. Hell, I can't even write a program that links to a 100% free library like Qt without putting in a disclaimer.
There is a large difference between charity and taxation, between donations and fees, and between sharing and surrendering.
When I go to the zoo, I feed the monkeys 'cause they're so damn funny. When I go to Slashdot I feed the trolls for the same reason...
BSD is a bunch of crooks and thieves who steal open source success and provide an inferior product to Linux.
How do you steal something that is free? Everything in the BSD source trees meticulously follow the licensing. Neither is anything exploited. All source code and modifications for anything is readily available.
As for being inferior, that is a purely subjective opinion. It has no basis in fact, and coming from an Anonymous Coward, can be ignored as tripe. Linux is better in some areas and BSD is better in others. Get used to it.
Linux was here first
BSD around before Linux. Hell, it was around before Minix! Sheez... Next thing you know you'll be claiming that Linus and not Algore invented the internet...
Linux is what is innovating the internet generation
Err, I spoke to soon, you are claiming it! Like it or not, the internet *is* BSD. TCP/IP is pure Berkeley. All of the big internet forces came from or were profoundly influenced by BSD. This includes bind, dns, sendmail, apache, mosaic, etc.
BSD steals almost all their code and ideas from Linux.
Again, how do you steal something that's free? And how can you steal in 1980 what won't be written until 1990 and beyond? What exactly did BSD steal from Linux? Page coloring? Softupdates? Vinum? Ports?
I would suggest you keep your mouth shut until such a time as you can produce a Linux distro containing absolutely no BSD derived code.
Open Source needs to be made Linux only and NOW!
Open Source needs to REMAIN free! Freedom means a choice between operating systems. Slavery and tyranny mean that everyone must only use what you tell them to. That you advocate Linux only for open source indicates that you have absolutely no clue as to the meanings of "free" or "open". You try to shove your choices down the throats of free men and you'll be in a world of excruciating hurt.
how long will we sit back and let them steal our inventions??
Nothing has been stolen. Let me spell it out clearly and succinctly: if you give source code to someone, they have not stolen from you. And don't talk about "inventions". What exactly has Linux done that no other operating system has? Name just one idea inherent to Linux that is new and innovative. There may be a lot of prior ideas that it does better, but Linux still didn't come up with those ideas first. (And I don't see Linus' or Richard's names on any software patents, nor do I expect to until Chuckie goes ice skating)
Linux the choice of a GNU generation
What a great sig for someone who doesn't know the first thing about freedom. You're so ignorant that you don't even know that your post is a slap in the face to Richard Stallman and everything he's been working for!
Then this information is pretty much useless then, isn't it? Stop citing statistics that you won't release.
But even if you did release them they wouldn't draw the conclusions you do. Because you don't have the faintest clue what "marketshare" even means.
Is BSD losing?... who is winning?
Marketshare has nothing whatsoever to do with winning or losing. This is not some Mayan game where the winners get to execute the losers. It ain't a game at all, especially not one of those zero-sum games beloved by the economically illiterate.
Let's look at a non-OS market like beverages Coca Cola and Pepsi have huge market shares while Royal Crown has very little. Does this mean that Royal Crown is a loser? Hardly. People who like Royal Crown cola will continue to buy it. And no statistics that could possibly cite about marketshare will ever convince them that Coke and Pepsi taste better.
But the OS market is not the beverage market. The marketplace for beverages is saturated. The only thing that can increase the total number of beverage consumsers is an increase in the total population. But the OS market is still growing. It is near to pointless to cite BSD's marketshare as an indicator of its death, when the total OS market is doubling every year or two.
Think about it. If the BSD market share lost 5% last year, they must be doing awesome! Because the total number of new OS consumers was much much more than 5%. BSD has more users today than they did last year. That's successful in my book.
In addition, lumping all operating systems together is erroneous. Just as Windows is targeting a different audience than Unix is, so Linux is targeting a different audience than BSD. Other than Debian and Slackware, the Linux distros seem to be targeting unix newbies and corporate users. The BSDs on the other hand are targeting unix veterans. They have never claimed to be the one OS for everyone.
The fact is this: as long as BSD continues to gain in total number of users, then BSD continues to gain in total number of users.
This is Free Software, and that means freedom! And freedom is much too precious a thing to remain unregulated. Therefore all developers will get in line and do exactly what I say. In order to ensure the continuance of Free Software and Freedom, we must now eliminate the subversive notions of free will and free choice.
Do you have any statistics at all indicating that the total number of BSD users is declining? Any at all? I didn't think so... Why won't you give us your statistics and their source? Why do you insist on hiding behind AC?
As for the number of native FreeBSD apps, the numbers are in the thousands. KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment, Netscape, Acrobat, gcc, emacs, sendmail, bind, xmms, and the list goes on and on. Maybe you don't realize it but any open source unix application that doesn't use kernel-specific system calls and otherwise follows common standards will compile under FreeBSD. For a closed source app, the manufacturer needs only recompile.
Spend a few minutes browsing through the ports collection to understand how utterly stupid your post really is. FreeBSD has a linux emulation mode but I've never had to use it yet.
Actually, the original "Unix in a Nutshell" book covered BSD unix. Their sales bombed when they did a "BSD Unix in a Nutshell" because it was virtually identical to UIAN.
I can see how a little resentment can creep into the most level-headed individual when things like political, religious or operating system choice are at play.
This "resentment" does not necessarily stem from ideological sources, or even disappointment that one's favorite OS is not number one. Rather, a lot of it arises from Linux bigotry. Hear me out!
It's extrememly frustrating when Linux is reported as being the only free OS. It's doubly frustrating when even those who know better say the same thing. For example, many applications written for X that use no OS system calls are advertised as "for Linux".
Walk into any given bookstore and the odds are high that you'll find open source related books under the heading of "Linux".
In terms of O'Reilly books, Tim said once upon a time that he would not publish a BSD book because it would be redundant. Yet there exists multiple redundant Linux books. How redundant is "Learning Debian GNU/Linux" coupled with "Learning Redhat Linux". For really eye-opening redundancy, check out the content of "Linux in a Nutshell" and "Unix in a Nutshell".
From where I sit, there's no denying that the total number of BSD users is growing. Saying that "BSD continues to bleed market share" is another way of lying with statistics. For example, if the BSD market is growing at a 10% rate then the BSD market is pretty healthy, even if other market segments like Linux are growing faster.
Do you have any statistics at all that the number of BSD users is diminishing? If not then don't bring it up. This isn't television and the Nielson ratings. BSD won't get cancelled for being rated number two in the minds of newbies. Unix veterans do not abandon their favorite OS just because the Netwatch numbers are low.
My question is, "Why hasn't O'Reilly already published BSD books?"
We were discussing this recently on the freebsd-newbies list, and someone pointed out a quote by Tim saying that a BSD related book would be redundant. How redundant is "Linux in a Nutshell" + "Running Linux" + "Learning Debian GNU/Linux" + "Learning Redhat Linux"? We also noted that "Linux in a Nutshell" is 80% to 90% identical to the SysV-centric "Unix in a Nutshell" (subtitled for System V and Solaris 2.0).
This quote was old, and it's nice to know that Tim sees BSD as worthy material for yet another worthy O'Reilly book. At one time there were several BSD related books, including the original Unix in a Nutshell that covered BSD.
1.The Qt API is adopted as a POSIX, IEEE, or other organization which publishes standard cross-platform interfaces.
Is Motif a POSIX or IEEE standard? (I don't really know).
2.The Qt API is certified by the Open grou (as Motif is) or in some other way by the holder of the Unix trademark.
Why? Why does the Open Group need to certify something as being normally distributed with Debian?
3.The Qt library is included as a component (on distribution media) of any 4 of the following unices:
Why four? Why not three or five? There's already at least two unices that have it (Linux and FreeBSD).
Any of these would establish Qt as an accepted, "normally distributed" component.
But the GPL does not have these requirements. It only talks about stuff normally distributed with the OS or major components. Like it or not, some version or another of Qt is normally distributed with Debian GNU/Linux, Corel LinuxOS, Redhat Linux, SuSE Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and many others.
Okay, you're getting very personal here. One of those programs is mine, and it is NOT a front end for anything.
A few months ago there were dozens more Qt-2 programs. When I pointed out to the debian-legal list during one of its rounds of KDE bashing that there were several Qt-2 programs that were licensed under the GPL without Stallman's disclaimer, they were removed within the hour.
just don't pretend that anyone except KDE advocates thinks Qt qualifies as any sort of "standard" component.
Prediction: within the next two years Qt will replace Motif as the X toolkit of choice by commercial unix developers. Already it is used for Opera and Kylix. So how many applications is required before you give Qt gets its official imprimatur of "system library"?
But difference does it make if its primary use is with KDE? KDE is front and center on many Linux distros. For Corel, as an example, it is a vital and necessary component. You can't even install the OS without it.
So they release "open source software under a licence which *RESTRICTS YOUR FREEDOM*
It obvious that these programs are not Open Source and do not meet the OSD. So what? How is this any different from a company doing the same thing but calling it free software? I distinctly remember Microsoft calling their cost-free browser "free software".
No, you're the jerk. You so caught up in Stallman's rhetoric that you fail to see true freedom when it stares you in the face.
'banbeans' chose Linux of his own free will. He was not under any duress or coercion. The fact that he was able to use Linux without legal or physical hinderances demonstrates that he was in fact free all along. He was free before he used Linux, he is free now, and he will still be free even if he chooses a 'non-free' OS. Maybe when you and your cohorts stop calling free men slaves you'll get more respect.
Qt can't be used for internal/research projects w/o paying $1500
Bullshit. All they have to do is make it open source. Hell, they don't even have to go that far. All they need to do is give Trolltech a copy.
It wasn't too long ago when half the people here at Slashdot were excoriating Corel for having a closed beta distribution. Now suddenly when the license isn't the sacred GPL people are demanding the right to private distributions.
If you distribute the program you distribute the program. No if, ands, or buts. It doesn't matter if you distributed it to your coworker, you still distributed it.
The GPL says "normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components".
You say "If the library in question is a standard part of the"
Now, the last time I checked my dictionary, 'with' and 'of' had very different meanings. One version or another of Qt is distributed with the major components of all free unix-like operating systems, including Debian. But even if it weren't, all you would need to do is distribute the Qt source code.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell no! It sounds too much like egalite. I want to be the best that I can be. Egalite is synonymous with mediocrite. If I can't be as good as you, the only way we can be equal is if I pull you down.
Harmony was essentially killed by Troll Tech.
Oh please! You cowards are so full of your own shit you have to bend over to take a crap! Let me explain it to you. Harmony came into being because Qt was not free. As soon as Qt became free there was no longer any need for Harmony. None. Nada. Oh, wait. Maybe there is one tiny reason... Maybe some people refuse to use any product that doesn't have a "G" in its license.
The QPL appeared to address the main reason for Harmony to exist
Well of course! Hello! Anyone home? This looks like a job for Obviousman(tm)! Let's see now, you and your ilk spent the better part of a year bitching, whining and carrying on like spoiled children because Qt wasn't free. Now that it is free you're still bitching, whining and carrying on because you think it killed Harmony. Get some pubes and grow up.
I seriously doubt KDE would have switched
Do you even understand what Harmony was all about? Do you really? If you do then you know that it wouldn't make one bit of difference what the KDE team did. If you don't like Qt and Harmony is available, then just use Harmony! Gee, isn't that simple?
Hey guess what! KDE integrates with other window managers! And you know what else? It's themable! Oh, as a bonus, you can run GNOME apps under it!
So if you "hate the look and feel of kde", just change it!
Now that Kylix seems to be locking into Qt and Corel has chosen KDE, there looks to be less opportunity for something cleaner and more user-oriented to come along.
A) Qt is very clean and user-oriented, as much as any GUI library can be. It's up to the developer to craft a decent UI. Qt only supplies the parts.
B) Like it or not, the UI of KDE and GNOME is already clean and user-oriented. Keeping the Microsoft bias out of it, just what is it about the KDE/GNOME/Windows/Warp desktops that is not clean or user-disoriented? Is it the root menu being in the corner of a panel instead of on the RMB that is somehow *wrong*? What?!
C) Do you have a better coherent vision of what a UI should be? If so, why have you done nothing about it? Do you really think that bitching about other people's work does any good?
Economics is one of those fields where nothing is isolated and everything is interconnected. Why do you thing it has the same prefix as ecology? To take one thing out of context with its environment is to cause a disruption somewhere else.
There is a reason why there is unemployment. All to often this is because there is no employment "slack" to hire them with. Employing them to correct disasters or fight wars will be economically disruptive. I am not saying unemployment is a good thing, I am just saying that it is there and is a part of economics.
Economics, like any science, does not make moral judgements. But it does assert that there are consequences to every human action. Getting rid of unemployment is a good thing. But there is a price to be paid. All to often that price looms where you least expect it.
Again, I'll ask my question. If there were a time of high unemployment, would you advocate the artificial destruction of a major city rather than wait for a convenient hurricane? Wouldn't you get double duty on the unemployment by hiring people to throw rocks through perfectly good windows? After all, you'll be hiring both the rock thrower and the glazer...
By the way, in reference to unemployment and WW2, why did the economy not fall back into depression when a million servicemen were mustered out? Why would you consider an economy beset with shortages and rationing to be healthy? From my reading of history, the forties were an economic mess while the fifties was the decade of prosperity.
Outside of sloppily worded legalese, there is no such thing as a bad license. (I do not count EULA's as licenses) Certainly most of us would agree that compelling an author to release his private code that he wrote solely for his own use is wrong.
The controversy comes when software is first given to one other person. A software license is merely a set of permissions and restrictions on what the user can do with the author's work. It shouldn't make any difference whether the software is given to one person or posted on the net for everyone in the world to access. This is not kindergarten where if you give some of your candy with your friend you have to give it to everyone else in class. What harm is there is saying "here friend, have my software, I am not done with it yet so don't let anyone else see it until I tell you otherwise"?
Ownership of software is not the question. We are talking licenses here. Every license in existance including the GNU GPL asserts ownership rights upon the software. Ownership means the right to control, and by controlling how the software is distributed, the GPL asserts ownership.
You may not like the terms of a particular license. I may probably agree with you. But that's beside the point. That particular software with that particularly onerous license is not my software. I have no rights to compell its author to do anything. Calling a license bad is just sour grapes. You didn't get your way and now you're pouting.
If you don't like the terms of the license, don't use the software. Gee, where have I heard that one before?
Why wait for the hurricane? If they're so good for the economy, why not just shell the town with mortor fire every two years or so? We could keep the economic benefits without the incidental loss of life by using bulldozers. We could pay otherwise unemployed hoodlums to throw rocks through windows.
For those who are economically illiterate, I will explain the problem. Disasters employ people that would have otherwise been employed elsewhere. There is no economic gain, only a shift of resources from non-damaged areas to damaged areas. Even with pure economic efficiency, the net gain would be zero.
There are a myriad valid and moral reasons to help rebuild damaged cities. Citing bogus economic advantages is not one of them.
These people are not stupid, they are using Linux because it fits the job they are deploying it for.
Of course they're not stupid. They use the OS best suited for the job. In some cases that will be Linux. In others it will be Solaris or AIX. Still others use BSD.
I really don't understand the point of this. What difference does it make to BSD if somebody is using Linux instead? Is this some sort of all or nothing warfare where there can only be one winner? BSD never set a goal for world domination. Such an idea is abhorrent to it. That eleetist attitude belongs to Linux and Windows.
What Linux lacked from the beginning is the eleetist attitude that some in BSD land are trying to get rid of.
You are right when you accuse BSD of having elitist subgroups. But you are equally wrong when you say that the Linux community does not have the same. Every operating system has its elitist and self righteous advocates. Some of the most elitist and arrogant OS folks I have met are Linux users. Just go to any Slashdot story about the release of any Linux distribution and you'll see it. Debian users have the only moral operating system, Slackware users have the one true distribution, Redhat users possess the real Linux standard, ad nauseum. They won't say it in so many words, but the elitist attitude is there and very visible.
How utterly weird! I seem to be running Netscape Communicator 4.73 under FreeBSD without using Linux mode. Is 4.73 now considered outdated? If so, then I am doomed to always being outdated because I can't keep up faster than this.
But just what do you mean by "no native apps". Do you mean apps that are available *only* for FreeBSD? If so, then even Linux has an extreme dearth of applications. I don't know what FreeBSD you've used, but mine currently has Gimp, XEmacs, gcc, KDE, xmms, ssh, and hundreds more applications installed. And and I have several thousand more packages and ports available to run under FreeBSD natively. If I remember correctly, the precompiled packages that come with FreeBSD 4.0 number around 1500 or so. The ports collection contains many, many more.
But if you're talking about native closed-source or proprietary commercial software, then there's only about a dozen or so. So I guess you're right. When it comes to what RMS calls subjugating and dominating software that takes away your rights, then Linux has BSD beat hands down!
p.s. You are right about Acrobat though, my goof...
The GPL is a little restrictive, but only to those who wish to take and not give back.
What is restrictive is that I have to give back in *exactly* the way that you demand. I am not allowed to make the license more free. I am not allowed to make the license more bullet-proof. Hell, I can't even write a program that links to a 100% free library like Qt without putting in a disclaimer.
There is a large difference between charity and taxation, between donations and fees, and between sharing and surrendering.
When I go to the zoo, I feed the monkeys 'cause they're so damn funny. When I go to Slashdot I feed the trolls for the same reason...
BSD is a bunch of crooks and thieves who steal open source success and provide an inferior product to Linux.
How do you steal something that is free? Everything in the BSD source trees meticulously follow the licensing. Neither is anything exploited. All source code and modifications for anything is readily available.
As for being inferior, that is a purely subjective opinion. It has no basis in fact, and coming from an Anonymous Coward, can be ignored as tripe. Linux is better in some areas and BSD is better in others. Get used to it.
Linux was here first
BSD around before Linux. Hell, it was around before Minix! Sheez... Next thing you know you'll be claiming that Linus and not Algore invented the internet...
Linux is what is innovating the internet generation
Err, I spoke to soon, you are claiming it! Like it or not, the internet *is* BSD. TCP/IP is pure Berkeley. All of the big internet forces came from or were profoundly influenced by BSD. This includes bind, dns, sendmail, apache, mosaic, etc.
BSD steals almost all their code and ideas from Linux.
Again, how do you steal something that's free? And how can you steal in 1980 what won't be written until 1990 and beyond? What exactly did BSD steal from Linux? Page coloring? Softupdates? Vinum? Ports?
I would suggest you keep your mouth shut until such a time as you can produce a Linux distro containing absolutely no BSD derived code.
Open Source needs to be made Linux only and NOW!
Open Source needs to REMAIN free! Freedom means a choice between operating systems. Slavery and tyranny mean that everyone must only use what you tell them to. That you advocate Linux only for open source indicates that you have absolutely no clue as to the meanings of "free" or "open". You try to shove your choices down the throats of free men and you'll be in a world of excruciating hurt.
how long will we sit back and let them steal our inventions??
Nothing has been stolen. Let me spell it out clearly and succinctly: if you give source code to someone, they have not stolen from you. And don't talk about "inventions". What exactly has Linux done that no other operating system has? Name just one idea inherent to Linux that is new and innovative. There may be a lot of prior ideas that it does better, but Linux still didn't come up with those ideas first. (And I don't see Linus' or Richard's names on any software patents, nor do I expect to until Chuckie goes ice skating)
Linux the choice of a GNU generation
What a great sig for someone who doesn't know the first thing about freedom. You're so ignorant that you don't even know that your post is a slap in the face to Richard Stallman and everything he's been working for!
But they don't make this information public
... who is winning?
Then this information is pretty much useless then, isn't it? Stop citing statistics that you won't release.
But even if you did release them they wouldn't draw the conclusions you do. Because you don't have the faintest clue what "marketshare" even means.
Is BSD losing?
Marketshare has nothing whatsoever to do with winning or losing. This is not some Mayan game where the winners get to execute the losers. It ain't a game at all, especially not one of those zero-sum games beloved by the economically illiterate.
Let's look at a non-OS market like beverages Coca Cola and Pepsi have huge market shares while Royal Crown has very little. Does this mean that Royal Crown is a loser? Hardly. People who like Royal Crown cola will continue to buy it. And no statistics that could possibly cite about marketshare will ever convince them that Coke and Pepsi taste better.
But the OS market is not the beverage market. The marketplace for beverages is saturated. The only thing that can increase the total number of beverage consumsers is an increase in the total population. But the OS market is still growing. It is near to pointless to cite BSD's marketshare as an indicator of its death, when the total OS market is doubling every year or two.
Think about it. If the BSD market share lost 5% last year, they must be doing awesome! Because the total number of new OS consumers was much much more than 5%. BSD has more users today than they did last year. That's successful in my book.
In addition, lumping all operating systems together is erroneous. Just as Windows is targeting a different audience than Unix is, so Linux is targeting a different audience than BSD. Other than Debian and Slackware, the Linux distros seem to be targeting unix newbies and corporate users. The BSDs on the other hand are targeting unix veterans. They have never claimed to be the one OS for everyone.
The fact is this: as long as BSD continues to gain in total number of users, then BSD continues to gain in total number of users.
Hear yea, hear yea!
This is Free Software, and that means freedom! And freedom is much too precious a thing to remain unregulated. Therefore all developers will get in line and do exactly what I say. In order to ensure the continuance of Free Software and Freedom, we must now eliminate the subversive notions of free will and free choice.
Remember, Arbeit Macht Frei!
Do you have any statistics at all indicating that the total number of BSD users is declining? Any at all? I didn't think so... Why won't you give us your statistics and their source? Why do you insist on hiding behind AC?
As for the number of native FreeBSD apps, the numbers are in the thousands. KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment, Netscape, Acrobat, gcc, emacs, sendmail, bind, xmms, and the list goes on and on. Maybe you don't realize it but any open source unix application that doesn't use kernel-specific system calls and otherwise follows common standards will compile under FreeBSD. For a closed source app, the manufacturer needs only recompile.
Spend a few minutes browsing through the ports collection to understand how utterly stupid your post really is. FreeBSD has a linux emulation mode but I've never had to use it yet.
Actually, the original "Unix in a Nutshell" book covered BSD unix. Their sales bombed when they did a "BSD Unix in a Nutshell" because it was virtually identical to UIAN.
I can see how a little resentment can creep into the most level-headed individual when things like political, religious or operating system choice are at play.
This "resentment" does not necessarily stem from ideological sources, or even disappointment that one's favorite OS is not number one. Rather, a lot of it arises from Linux bigotry. Hear me out!
It's extrememly frustrating when Linux is reported as being the only free OS. It's doubly frustrating when even those who know better say the same thing. For example, many applications written for X that use no OS system calls are advertised as "for Linux".
Walk into any given bookstore and the odds are high that you'll find open source related books under the heading of "Linux".
In terms of O'Reilly books, Tim said once upon a time that he would not publish a BSD book because it would be redundant. Yet there exists multiple redundant Linux books. How redundant is "Learning Debian GNU/Linux" coupled with "Learning Redhat Linux". For really eye-opening redundancy, check out the content of "Linux in a Nutshell" and "Unix in a Nutshell".
From where I sit, there's no denying that the total number of BSD users is growing. Saying that "BSD continues to bleed market share" is another way of lying with statistics. For example, if the BSD market is growing at a 10% rate then the BSD market is pretty healthy, even if other market segments like Linux are growing faster.
Do you have any statistics at all that the number of BSD users is diminishing? If not then don't bring it up. This isn't television and the Nielson ratings. BSD won't get cancelled for being rated number two in the minds of newbies. Unix veterans do not abandon their favorite OS just because the Netwatch numbers are low.
My question is, "Why hasn't O'Reilly already published BSD books?"
We were discussing this recently on the freebsd-newbies list, and someone pointed out a quote by Tim saying that a BSD related book would be redundant. How redundant is "Linux in a Nutshell" + "Running Linux" + "Learning Debian GNU/Linux" + "Learning Redhat Linux"? We also noted that "Linux in a Nutshell" is 80% to 90% identical to the SysV-centric "Unix in a Nutshell" (subtitled for System V and Solaris 2.0).
This quote was old, and it's nice to know that Tim sees BSD as worthy material for yet another worthy O'Reilly book. At one time there were several BSD related books, including the original Unix in a Nutshell that covered BSD.
1.The Qt API is adopted as a POSIX, IEEE, or other organization which publishes standard cross-platform interfaces.
Is Motif a POSIX or IEEE standard? (I don't really know).
2.The Qt API is certified by the Open grou (as Motif is) or in some other way by the holder of the Unix trademark.
Why? Why does the Open Group need to certify something as being normally distributed with Debian?
3.The Qt library is included as a component (on distribution media) of any 4 of the following unices:
Why four? Why not three or five? There's already at least two unices that have it (Linux and FreeBSD).
Any of these would establish Qt as an accepted, "normally distributed" component.
But the GPL does not have these requirements. It only talks about stuff normally distributed with the OS or major components. Like it or not, some version or another of Qt is normally distributed with Debian GNU/Linux, Corel LinuxOS, Redhat Linux, SuSE Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and many others.
Okay, you're getting very personal here. One of those programs is mine, and it is NOT a front end for anything.
A few months ago there were dozens more Qt-2 programs. When I pointed out to the debian-legal list during one of its rounds of KDE bashing that there were several Qt-2 programs that were licensed under the GPL without Stallman's disclaimer, they were removed within the hour.
just don't pretend that anyone except KDE advocates thinks Qt qualifies as any sort of "standard" component.
Prediction: within the next two years Qt will replace Motif as the X toolkit of choice by commercial unix developers. Already it is used for Opera and Kylix. So how many applications is required before you give Qt gets its official imprimatur of "system library"?
But difference does it make if its primary use is with KDE? KDE is front and center on many Linux distros. For Corel, as an example, it is a vital and necessary component. You can't even install the OS without it.
So they release "open source software under a licence which *RESTRICTS YOUR FREEDOM*
It obvious that these programs are not Open Source and do not meet the OSD. So what? How is this any different from a company doing the same thing but calling it free software? I distinctly remember Microsoft calling their cost-free browser "free software".
No, you're the jerk. You so caught up in Stallman's rhetoric that you fail to see true freedom when it stares you in the face.
'banbeans' chose Linux of his own free will. He was not under any duress or coercion. The fact that he was able to use Linux without legal or physical hinderances demonstrates that he was in fact free all along. He was free before he used Linux, he is free now, and he will still be free even if he chooses a 'non-free' OS. Maybe when you and your cohorts stop calling free men slaves you'll get more respect.
Qt can't be used for internal/research projects w/o paying $1500
Bullshit. All they have to do is make it open source. Hell, they don't even have to go that far. All they need to do is give Trolltech a copy.
It wasn't too long ago when half the people here at Slashdot were excoriating Corel for having a closed beta distribution. Now suddenly when the license isn't the sacred GPL people are demanding the right to private distributions.
If you distribute the program you distribute the program. No if, ands, or buts. It doesn't matter if you distributed it to your coworker, you still distributed it.
The GPL says "normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components".
You say "If the library in question is a standard part of the"
Now, the last time I checked my dictionary, 'with' and 'of' had very different meanings. One version or another of Qt is distributed with the major components of all free unix-like operating systems, including Debian. But even if it weren't, all you would need to do is distribute the Qt source code.