For being one of the most free-software-leaning discussion sites on the internet, the level of derision here for Software Freedom day is odd.
That is an extremely encouraging, healthy, and positive sign.
The Free Software Foundation, and its' activism, both need to die if Linux is ever going to become anything more than fringe.
If Slashdot's readership are discouraging of such activism, it will hopefully gradually move us towards a point where said activism ceases to occur.
I am not saying that I think Linux advocacy should cease entirely. It does, however, need to cease being radical, cultic, and infused with as much hate, fear, and paranoia as it has been in the past. There needs to be far more focus put purely on Linux's technical strengths, and as little as possible put on the mind control of Richard Stallman.
Disliking copyright law is no excuse for not understanding it. Notice how the same arguments keep coming up and Slashdotters keep getting surprised? The "it's just like Google" fallacy has been around for as long as Google itself, and yet people are still surprised that it's not a magic bullet.
The characteristic which isohunt.com and Google have in common, is the fact that they can both potentially be used to find both infringing and non-infringing information. In that sense, they are both neutral. I believe, "common carrier," is the phrase that is customarily used.
I can set up a torrent seed, and publicise it through isohunt, for FreeBSD's latest ISO file, (non-infringing) or I can likewise use it to publicise a seed for a DVD/CD rip of the latest Call of Duty game. (definitely infringing)
Likewise, I can go into my backyard garage with a few of my friends, come up with some original (or at least semi-original) musical score and lyrics, and then perform that, and publicise a seed for the resulting mp3 files which we might make from said jam session. Again, non-infringing if no prior copyright agreement has been made by me and said friends.
It also doesn't matter if the only thing isohunt has up on a given day is warez and porn, either; although looking at isohunt right now shows me that there are still numerous torrents for FreeBSD's files available at the moment anyway, so a court could never honestly claim that the only thing it is being used for is infringing information.
That actually brings up an important distinction between the mental process of corporations and pirates, as well. In the minds of the archetypical pirate, there is only one type of file. The distinction between infringing and non-infringing material is not even made at all. To pirates, FreeBSD's ISOs are no different from the aforementioned Call of Duty game; they're just another file.
That was the issue of this thread. The Brazilian court was trying to claim that the only thing that Bit Torrent can be used for is piracy, which is demonstrably false.
It possibly is true, on the other hand, to say that piracy is usually the main reason for Bit Torrent's existence, but saying that it literally cannot be used for non-infringing traffic as well is, as has been said numerous times in this thread, emotive, erroneous, and disturbing due to the potential degree of harm it could cause.
If morality is defined (as it almost certainly must be) as that which is mutually/reciprocally beneficial for the vast majority of individuals, (whether human or non-human, as in, animal) then the extent to which the RIAA and other such groups, wish to extend copyright enforcement, is demonstrably and visibly amoral; in fact enormously and monstrously so.
These organisations must, for the cause of overall human welfare, eventually be entirely defeated and destroyed, and we can only pray that eventually they will be.
Statements like this are like Chicken Soup for the Pirate's Soul. We convince ourselves that it's all because the people in charge just don't understand the technology. I completely understand; this is a much more acceptable situation than the judges understanding the technology just fine.
If there was anyone on the bench, anywhere, who wasn't of a sufficiently advanced age that senility is a serious risk, then I might be able to agree with the above statement.
The truly fear and depression induced thing about Slashdot, is just how many of its' readers appear to have drunk the government or corporate Kool-Aid with regard to things like copyright, and actively defend and advocate the government/cartel position.
You don't understand that all you're potentially doing, is hurting not only yourselves, but everyone else in the process.
Fanatical, suicidal corporate avarice and greed, ultimately doesn't end up serving anyone; including, long term, the corporations themselves.
I seem to recall you mentioning something about ad hominem attacks.
Perhaps now, having made one yourself, you can understand how, when a sufficient degree of passion arises in an individual, such mistakes can be difficult to avoid making.
Understand; there is no judgement in this statement. Only an attempt to enable you to empathise with my own earlier position.
There is another point here as well. You have stated to me, the case of the record companies, using their own, very set, prescribed logic.
I, on the other hand, attempted to present to you, a scenario where mutual benefit can occur between individuals, which rather than using the same style of rote logic, developed in an emergent sense over time.
I made no appeal to ridicule in my second post, either; although I acknowledge that I did in the first.
Your entire post is one fallacy after another. You apparently have no concept of how to argue. And, judging from the style of the post, I bet you are under the age of 23.
As far as calling you stupid is concerned; while I admit that I shouldn't have done that, what I have trouble understanding is how people don't realise that piracy actually benefits everyone (including yourself) a lot more than caring about copyright does.
If you don't believe me, try using an application like eMule sometime. Gather up a few hundred gigabytes of mp3s and text files on various subjects, and then use that material to exchange with other people who have items that you consider to be of interest.
In that scenario, it benefits you, (you get files you consider relevant) and other people on the network. (They get files which they consider relevant, from you)
The only people it concievably doesn't benefit, is either perhaps the artists themselves, or organisations like the RIAA, who only really exist to make money from other people's work anyway.
Nine times out of ten, even with piracy, an even moderately successful musical artist is going to make at least some money from their music. They might not make billions, perhaps, but they don't completely lose, either.
So ultimately, nobody other than perhaps the labels themselves are harmed; and the general public using p2p, benefit in a mutually supporting manner.
The RIAA, I can assure you, don't really give a damn about artist welfare. They claim they do, purely because they know that making such a claim might make the public more sympathetic towards them; but it's pure lip service. They are there purely in order to secure their own profits.
Look, it's a department whose sole purpose is defending the homeland. How is it fear mongering to stay on "a constant state of vigilance". And when would they ever go less than that, realistically? Do we want a Department of Homeland Defense whose alertness to terrorism status is "Not paying attention.", which is what is less than "vigilant".
What we want is a population with sufficient intelligence and maturity to be able to recognise the War on Terror for exactly what it is; a sham, and Orwell's "war without end," which exists for the express purpose of enabling the gradual, overt introduction of total fascism.
The GWOT has no legitimacy, and the DHS doesn't either. They are both instruments of fascism, and absolutely nothing more.
If you're having trouble believing that every single terrorist incident which has occurred in the last ten years, has been orchestrated by governments, it's very simple to figure out the underlying logic.
Simply ask yourself who the overwhelming beneficiary of the attacks has been.
Organisations like the RIAA have unfathomably stupid people like yourself to act as their cheerleaders; people who apparently don't understand that, by supporting corporate avarice, tyranny, greed, and amorality, you're actually advocating screwing yourself over just as much as anyone else.
The RIAA and its' ideas do not need to be defended; they need to be unsparingly, uncompromisingly, and completely annihilated. You are on the wrong side of this argument.
It's sad to me we're seeing this kind of curriculum foisted upon the classroom by dying industry when most public schools are pulling back Civics programs, and overall education about the law and democratic process.
The kids most likely wouldn't want to learn Civics themselves anywayz.
That is a big part of the problem. We can't simply blame corporations for raising generations of increasingly brainless, servile consumers. There is a fundamental human craving to be as brainless and servile as possible.
The one thing human beings will literally kill to avoid, more than anything else, is having to think.
There is no campaign to rename 'Linux' into GNU/Linux, but a campaign to actually name the OS completely. Linux does not do any code compilation, Linux is not a shell, etc. Miguel Icaza should know better what a kernel is and what it isn't.
Please stop representing Stallmanite mind control as logic.
Just because you believe whatever divisive, deliberately attention-seeking and controversial canard your Leader has generated this month, that doesn't mean that the rest of us consider it sane.
Stallman wants two things.
a) Narcissistic supply, to be worshipped as God, and to be the centre of attention on a continual basis. b) Control of as many other people as humanly possible, which basically follows on from a).
The entire "GNU/Linux," flap is a direct attempt at further obtaining both of the above objectives, by ensuring that he gets mentioned wherever Linux does.
The man has become a source of nothing other than semantically driven conflict, distraction due to such, and pointless noise, and you don't do anyone any favours (including yourself) by validating his crap.
The CodePlex Foundation = Phase One Embrace and Extend Attempt, in terms of the whole FOSS foundation model.
With this, I suspect Microsoft are making one final, last ditch effort to kill FOSS. I'm not sure how exactly, yet; but past experience says they first try and exactly mimic whatever they want to destroy, then get everyone addicted to their mimicry, then "extend" said mimicry to generate lock-in, and then finally destroy said mimicry after the original is also dead.
I'm not entirely sure how that would work with the Foundation meme itself, however, or what MS' point really is in attacking it. They'd probably have better real luck with continuing their patent trolling efforts, if they want something that is likely to actually work.
If they're trying to create a scenario where the law no longer allows people to make non-profits, I'm not sure how they're likely to succeed.
They're up to something, but exactly what it is, is anyone's guess at this point.
My father used to be a programmer, and he first told me about Pick. It used a database as the filesystem; it was decades ahead of its' time.
From what Dad said, its' inventor, Dick Pick, was a lot like Tesla, in that he was apparently very sensitive, and didn't want to widely market the system. So as a result, although it was used in a few places, it seems to have largely died on the vine.
The single main reason why that is a shame, is because it may be the only working example we've ever had, of an OS with a true database filesystem. Nobody else, it seems, has really been able to do that to a fully working degree, yes; BeOS maybe, but it's the only other one if so.
I knew a woman a few years back who worked for IBM. She brought me a full deck of Warp CDs, over from New Zealand where she worked. This actually was only just after the release of Warp 4; I think we're talking around 1995 or so.
She was fanatical about 0S/2; she thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. I installed it for probably two days, after she left, was bored and deeply unimpressed by what I saw, and took it off again.
Truth be told, I just didn't see the point. Yes, the fact that it segregated processes in memory was nice, but at the time, I was a DOS dinosaur, (who has since become a console zealot with FreeBSD) and really wasn't impressed with the WPS at all. I just saw something which looked like Windows 3.1, (which due to both its' instability and its' ugliness, I hated) and had various obscure programs, a couple of which were comms programs that were clearly designed for talking to mainframes that I'd never heard of, and had no use for.
IBM never understood the desktop; not like Microsoft. Back then at least, IBM were too busy trying to tell people what they should like, (mainframes) rather than paying attention to what people actually did like. (The desktop)
The single main thing I love about FreeBSD is, that I don't have to care about what anyone else wants. I can use Ratpoison if I want, and if the Windows refugees tell me they wish people like me didn't exist because of that, (and they often do) I can simply ignore it.
Linux still doesn't have the "interface complexity vs implementation complexity," problem completely balanced on the desktop, just yet; although then again, to be fair, neither does anyone else. (Except maybe Apple, and that's a maybe)
Ubuntu can make a very pretty looking desktop, but updates will often hose the entire system, and in my experience, it can also crash if you give it a hard look.
On the other hand, you can use LFS, Slack, or Arch to make yourself something extremely hardware efficient and robust...but that isn't also going to please anyone who wants the eye candy.
Why do you think anybody complaining about GPL compatibility must be a FSF drone?
The GP, like most of the posts I make on Slashdot, was an inappropriate, excessively polarised generalisation, and was made in anger. I apologise for having made it.
Controlling my temper while using this site is something I'm still trying (and nearly always failing) to learn to do. It's too easy for me to simply let myself be led by the rest of the trolling that goes on here, and just be a troll myself as well.
It's basically Ubuntu using the OpenSolaris kernel instead of Linux (so GNU/Solaris?).
Ah. Good, good. Comrade Stallman will be very pleased. Some among the Debian/Ubuntu faithful have already moved to erradicate the threat to freedom that OpenSolaris represents.
Some of us know what the real reason was for the Debian developers creating the abomination that is Debian/kFreeBSD, as well. It's subtle, but it is an attempt to further the GNU monoculture. Using the kernels of other systems with the GNU userland is a way of potentially exterminating competing userlands, and the competing licenses along with them.
In this, Debian are taking a page directly out of Microsoft's own playbook. Embrace, extend, and extinguish.
It has been written by a few astute individuals in the past that Stallman is just as treacherous as Bill Gates; and things like this only prove it. Free As In Do As I Say.
That is exactly what I've been looking for - but not for desktop use, for a server on some old x86 hardware with 1G of RAM. I just love the debian packaging tools that much.
So 1 Gb of RAM isn't enough for a desktop system these days? WTF?!
I haven't tried it on a diskless system, but I didn't really have any issues installing Debian on the Sunfire servers (all were headless).
Ah, thank you. I was waiting for that.
A Slashdot comparitive analysis of Linux and another operating system, simply isn't legitimate, until we've had a Debian fanboy writing a, "REMEMBER DEBIAN TOO!!!!1!1" post.
Until it's at least compatible with GPL licensing, forget it.
It's posts like these, which are the reason why I was thinking just a few hours ago, that I really need to quit reading Slashdot. The amount of rage I tend to feel when reading the output of FSF drones in particular, seriously isn't good for my health.
You, and a lot of Stallman's other minions, need to be forcibly deprogrammed.
Yes, and that isn't actually Microsoft's fault. Even with Linux From Scratch, they recommend doing an entirely new install rather than an upgrade, if it involves a major version number difference of the toolchain packages.
Slashdot Mirror
Arr... software freedom day? Be I the only seafarer here celebratin' National Talk Like a Pirate Day? Ye all be landlubbers, arr...
When ye think about it, it be entirely appropriate for the two to coincide. Yarrrr... ;)
For being one of the most free-software-leaning discussion sites on the internet, the level of derision here for Software Freedom day is odd.
That is an extremely encouraging, healthy, and positive sign.
The Free Software Foundation, and its' activism, both need to die if Linux is ever going to become anything more than fringe.
If Slashdot's readership are discouraging of such activism, it will hopefully gradually move us towards a point where said activism ceases to occur.
I am not saying that I think Linux advocacy should cease entirely. It does, however, need to cease being radical, cultic, and infused with as much hate, fear, and paranoia as it has been in the past. There needs to be far more focus put purely on Linux's technical strengths, and as little as possible put on the mind control of Richard Stallman.
Disliking copyright law is no excuse for not understanding it. Notice how the same arguments keep coming up and Slashdotters keep getting surprised? The "it's just like Google" fallacy has been around for as long as Google itself, and yet people are still surprised that it's not a magic bullet.
The characteristic which isohunt.com and Google have in common, is the fact that they can both potentially be used to find both infringing and non-infringing information. In that sense, they are both neutral. I believe, "common carrier," is the phrase that is customarily used.
I can set up a torrent seed, and publicise it through isohunt, for FreeBSD's latest ISO file, (non-infringing) or I can likewise use it to publicise a seed for a DVD/CD rip of the latest Call of Duty game. (definitely infringing)
Likewise, I can go into my backyard garage with a few of my friends, come up with some original (or at least semi-original) musical score and lyrics, and then perform that, and publicise a seed for the resulting mp3 files which we might make from said jam session. Again, non-infringing if no prior copyright agreement has been made by me and said friends.
It also doesn't matter if the only thing isohunt has up on a given day is warez and porn, either; although looking at isohunt right now shows me that there are still numerous torrents for FreeBSD's files available at the moment anyway, so a court could never honestly claim that the only thing it is being used for is infringing information.
That actually brings up an important distinction between the mental process of corporations and pirates, as well. In the minds of the archetypical pirate, there is only one type of file. The distinction between infringing and non-infringing material is not even made at all. To pirates, FreeBSD's ISOs are no different from the aforementioned Call of Duty game; they're just another file.
That was the issue of this thread. The Brazilian court was trying to claim that the only thing that Bit Torrent can be used for is piracy, which is demonstrably false.
It possibly is true, on the other hand, to say that piracy is usually the main reason for Bit Torrent's existence, but saying that it literally cannot be used for non-infringing traffic as well is, as has been said numerous times in this thread, emotive, erroneous, and disturbing due to the potential degree of harm it could cause.
If morality is defined (as it almost certainly must be) as that which is mutually/reciprocally beneficial for the vast majority of individuals, (whether human or non-human, as in, animal) then the extent to which the RIAA and other such groups, wish to extend copyright enforcement, is demonstrably and visibly amoral; in fact enormously and monstrously so.
These organisations must, for the cause of overall human welfare, eventually be entirely defeated and destroyed, and we can only pray that eventually they will be.
Uranus needs to be renamed back to Herschel, after the guy who discovered it. Stupid jokes come up every time the planet is mentioned.
Statements like this are like Chicken Soup for the Pirate's Soul. We convince ourselves that it's all because the people in charge just don't understand the technology. I completely understand; this is a much more acceptable situation than the judges understanding the technology just fine.
If there was anyone on the bench, anywhere, who wasn't of a sufficiently advanced age that senility is a serious risk, then I might be able to agree with the above statement.
The truly fear and depression induced thing about Slashdot, is just how many of its' readers appear to have drunk the government or corporate Kool-Aid with regard to things like copyright, and actively defend and advocate the government/cartel position.
You don't understand that all you're potentially doing, is hurting not only yourselves, but everyone else in the process.
Fanatical, suicidal corporate avarice and greed, ultimately doesn't end up serving anyone; including, long term, the corporations themselves.
You need to grow up, child,
I seem to recall you mentioning something about ad hominem attacks.
Perhaps now, having made one yourself, you can understand how, when a sufficient degree of passion arises in an individual, such mistakes can be difficult to avoid making.
Understand; there is no judgement in this statement. Only an attempt to enable you to empathise with my own earlier position.
There is another point here as well. You have stated to me, the case of the record companies, using their own, very set, prescribed logic.
I, on the other hand, attempted to present to you, a scenario where mutual benefit can occur between individuals, which rather than using the same style of rote logic, developed in an emergent sense over time.
I made no appeal to ridicule in my second post, either; although I acknowledge that I did in the first.
Your entire post is one fallacy after another. You apparently have no concept of how to argue. And, judging from the style of the post, I bet you are under the age of 23.
As far as calling you stupid is concerned; while I admit that I shouldn't have done that, what I have trouble understanding is how people don't realise that piracy actually benefits everyone (including yourself) a lot more than caring about copyright does.
If you don't believe me, try using an application like eMule sometime. Gather up a few hundred gigabytes of mp3s and text files on various subjects, and then use that material to exchange with other people who have items that you consider to be of interest.
In that scenario, it benefits you, (you get files you consider relevant) and other people on the network. (They get files which they consider relevant, from you)
The only people it concievably doesn't benefit, is either perhaps the artists themselves, or organisations like the RIAA, who only really exist to make money from other people's work anyway.
Nine times out of ten, even with piracy, an even moderately successful musical artist is going to make at least some money from their music. They might not make billions, perhaps, but they don't completely lose, either.
So ultimately, nobody other than perhaps the labels themselves are harmed; and the general public using p2p, benefit in a mutually supporting manner.
The RIAA, I can assure you, don't really give a damn about artist welfare. They claim they do, purely because they know that making such a claim might make the public more sympathetic towards them; but it's pure lip service. They are there purely in order to secure their own profits.
I'm not sure that's true. For some segment of society, maybe.. but for others less so.
That segment would be the majority.
I applaud your own intellectual proactivity, but realise that in being that way, you are not mainstream normal; and neither am I, for that matter.
Look, it's a department whose sole purpose is defending the homeland. How is it fear mongering to stay on "a constant state of vigilance". And when would they ever go less than that, realistically? Do we want a Department of Homeland Defense whose alertness to terrorism status is "Not paying attention.", which is what is less than "vigilant".
What we want is a population with sufficient intelligence and maturity to be able to recognise the War on Terror for exactly what it is; a sham, and Orwell's "war without end," which exists for the express purpose of enabling the gradual, overt introduction of total fascism.
The GWOT has no legitimacy, and the DHS doesn't either. They are both instruments of fascism, and absolutely nothing more.
If you're having trouble believing that every single terrorist incident which has occurred in the last ten years, has been orchestrated by governments, it's very simple to figure out the underlying logic.
Simply ask yourself who the overwhelming beneficiary of the attacks has been.
This is the other problem.
Organisations like the RIAA have unfathomably stupid people like yourself to act as their cheerleaders; people who apparently don't understand that, by supporting corporate avarice, tyranny, greed, and amorality, you're actually advocating screwing yourself over just as much as anyone else.
The RIAA and its' ideas do not need to be defended; they need to be unsparingly, uncompromisingly, and completely annihilated. You are on the wrong side of this argument.
It's sad to me we're seeing this kind of curriculum foisted upon the classroom by dying industry when most public schools are pulling back Civics programs, and overall education about the law and democratic process.
The kids most likely wouldn't want to learn Civics themselves anywayz.
That is a big part of the problem. We can't simply blame corporations for raising generations of increasingly brainless, servile consumers. There is a fundamental human craving to be as brainless and servile as possible.
The one thing human beings will literally kill to avoid, more than anything else, is having to think.
There is no campaign to rename 'Linux' into GNU/Linux, but a campaign to actually name the OS completely. Linux does not do any code compilation, Linux is not a shell, etc. Miguel Icaza should know better what a kernel is and what it isn't.
Please stop representing Stallmanite mind control as logic.
Just because you believe whatever divisive, deliberately attention-seeking and controversial canard your Leader has generated this month, that doesn't mean that the rest of us consider it sane.
Stallman wants two things.
a) Narcissistic supply, to be worshipped as God, and to be the centre of attention on a continual basis.
b) Control of as many other people as humanly possible, which basically follows on from a).
The entire "GNU/Linux," flap is a direct attempt at further obtaining both of the above objectives, by ensuring that he gets mentioned wherever Linux does.
The man has become a source of nothing other than semantically driven conflict, distraction due to such, and pointless noise, and you don't do anyone any favours (including yourself) by validating his crap.
Stop doing it.
The CodePlex Foundation = Phase One Embrace and Extend Attempt, in terms of the whole FOSS foundation model.
With this, I suspect Microsoft are making one final, last ditch effort to kill FOSS. I'm not sure how exactly, yet; but past experience says they first try and exactly mimic whatever they want to destroy, then get everyone addicted to their mimicry, then "extend" said mimicry to generate lock-in, and then finally destroy said mimicry after the original is also dead.
I'm not entirely sure how that would work with the Foundation meme itself, however, or what MS' point really is in attacking it. They'd probably have better real luck with continuing their patent trolling efforts, if they want something that is likely to actually work.
If they're trying to create a scenario where the law no longer allows people to make non-profits, I'm not sure how they're likely to succeed.
They're up to something, but exactly what it is, is anyone's guess at this point.
I don't get it? Why would a guy named "Dick Pick" be so sensitive?
ROFL. I seriously laughed hard. Someone mod this Funny!
OK, you're making this up.
No, I'm not. I know it sounds insane, but go look him up.
Euh, I mean, 2009! With Moblin!
"It is the YEAR OF THE PENGUIN! It is finally here! TUX, ARISE!"
My father used to be a programmer, and he first told me about Pick. It used a database as the filesystem; it was decades ahead of its' time.
From what Dad said, its' inventor, Dick Pick, was a lot like Tesla, in that he was apparently very sensitive, and didn't want to widely market the system. So as a result, although it was used in a few places, it seems to have largely died on the vine.
The single main reason why that is a shame, is because it may be the only working example we've ever had, of an OS with a true database filesystem. Nobody else, it seems, has really been able to do that to a fully working degree, yes; BeOS maybe, but it's the only other one if so.
I knew a woman a few years back who worked for IBM. She brought me a full deck of Warp CDs, over from New Zealand where she worked. This actually was only just after the release of Warp 4; I think we're talking around 1995 or so.
She was fanatical about 0S/2; she thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. I installed it for probably two days, after she left, was bored and deeply unimpressed by what I saw, and took it off again.
Truth be told, I just didn't see the point. Yes, the fact that it segregated processes in memory was nice, but at the time, I was a DOS dinosaur, (who has since become a console zealot with FreeBSD) and really wasn't impressed with the WPS at all. I just saw something which looked like Windows 3.1, (which due to both its' instability and its' ugliness, I hated) and had various obscure programs, a couple of which were comms programs that were clearly designed for talking to mainframes that I'd never heard of, and had no use for.
IBM never understood the desktop; not like Microsoft. Back then at least, IBM were too busy trying to tell people what they should like, (mainframes) rather than paying attention to what people actually did like. (The desktop)
The single main thing I love about FreeBSD is, that I don't have to care about what anyone else wants. I can use Ratpoison if I want, and if the Windows refugees tell me they wish people like me didn't exist because of that, (and they often do) I can simply ignore it.
Why wouldn't you use it for your desktops?
Linux still doesn't have the "interface complexity vs implementation complexity," problem completely balanced on the desktop, just yet; although then again, to be fair, neither does anyone else. (Except maybe Apple, and that's a maybe)
Ubuntu can make a very pretty looking desktop, but updates will often hose the entire system, and in my experience, it can also crash if you give it a hard look.
On the other hand, you can use LFS, Slack, or Arch to make yourself something extremely hardware efficient and robust...but that isn't also going to please anyone who wants the eye candy.
Why do you think anybody complaining about GPL compatibility must be a FSF drone?
The GP, like most of the posts I make on Slashdot, was an inappropriate, excessively polarised generalisation, and was made in anger. I apologise for having made it.
Controlling my temper while using this site is something I'm still trying (and nearly always failing) to learn to do. It's too easy for me to simply let myself be led by the rest of the trolling that goes on here, and just be a troll myself as well.
It's basically Ubuntu using the OpenSolaris kernel instead of Linux (so GNU/Solaris?).
Ah. Good, good. Comrade Stallman will be very pleased. Some among the Debian/Ubuntu faithful have already moved to erradicate the threat to freedom that OpenSolaris represents.
Some of us know what the real reason was for the Debian developers creating the abomination that is Debian/kFreeBSD, as well. It's subtle, but it is an attempt to further the GNU monoculture. Using the kernels of other systems with the GNU userland is a way of potentially exterminating competing userlands, and the competing licenses along with them.
In this, Debian are taking a page directly out of Microsoft's own playbook. Embrace, extend, and extinguish.
It has been written by a few astute individuals in the past that Stallman is just as treacherous as Bill Gates; and things like this only prove it. Free As In Do As I Say.
That is exactly what I've been looking for - but not for desktop use, for a server on some old x86 hardware with 1G of RAM. I just love the debian packaging tools that much.
So 1 Gb of RAM isn't enough for a desktop system these days? WTF?!
I haven't tried it on a diskless system, but I didn't really have any issues installing Debian on the Sunfire servers (all were headless).
Ah, thank you. I was waiting for that.
A Slashdot comparitive analysis of Linux and another operating system, simply isn't legitimate, until we've had a Debian fanboy writing a, "REMEMBER DEBIAN TOO!!!!1!1" post.
It's a Slashdot tradition.
...release it under GPL 3 and I'll give it a go.
Until it's at least compatible with GPL licensing, forget it.
It's posts like these, which are the reason why I was thinking just a few hours ago, that I really need to quit reading Slashdot. The amount of rage I tend to feel when reading the output of FSF drones in particular, seriously isn't good for my health.
You, and a lot of Stallman's other minions, need to be forcibly deprogrammed.
Never 'upgrade', it invariably borks something
Yes, and that isn't actually Microsoft's fault. Even with Linux From Scratch, they recommend doing an entirely new install rather than an upgrade, if it involves a major version number difference of the toolchain packages.
Binary in-place upgrades almost never work.