Real world example: Ask a few big pr0n sites. Many of them used FreeBSD when "the www" became big and they made money. They still do I think, though it might be less now. They knew back then they needed a robust OS (1995-ish), they still know now.
Would that mean the Freedom of the end user from [insert thing you'd hate] or to [insert thing you'd like].
Or perhaps the Freedom of a vendor/packager from [insert thing they'd hate] or to [insert thing they'd like].
Or perhaps the freedom of a developer from [insert thing (s)he'd hate] or to [insert thing (s)he'd like].
And how about a packager that also adds some code? Perhaps (s)he wants to sell addons.
Perhaps (s)he wants to sell it the first year, then give it away unconditionally except for retaining copyright. To make a living by being able to gain financial reward for (apparently) being in the lead in some area or niche. A fool proof clickety GUI installer for example. Even LGPL could become tricky then.
As and end user you're certainly not going to have any less freedom from using a *BSD product. Unless you perhaps find less hand holding or lack of persistancy or IQ an infringement upon your Freedom. Even Marx would have laughed at that.
I am not an extreme evangelist(sp?) of the *BSD license, neither do I detest the GPL but we have gotten into a situation where people slap a GPL on it without really considering its fine print.
It greatly restricts useful reuse of your sourceforge project. If you want that, fine, but do you?
It's a "them vs us" (MS anyone, SCO?) emotion and they sell it very well, especially to young idealistic people who view the world from their social/economical perspective.
"Finally the Linux desktop has a quality word processor that is faster to load than OpenOffice.org"
Koffice can do most of what people would expect of it and AbiWord has the best MSWord filters (if needed). The year is 2003 BTW.
A while ago a friend of mine (windows only person and no techie) sat down at my *BSD box wanting to make a payment scedule in "excel". I ran kspread and he found his way around easily.
OO.org is nice for windows as a free alternative but for *NIX it's been caught up with already.
Look at this: http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/ 2003-September/010146.html
Remember all the hoopla when everyone *had* to upgrade to privsep immediatly? The lack of details? Theo wining about "hours and hours of hard work" but taking his time to write back and shit all over the person who's merely asking if there's a patch.
Deja-vu. I clearly remember that FreeBSD wasn't even exploitable then but we got told afterwards.
Maybe this is Theo's approach to mass marketing but I find his behaviour close to shizophrenic(sp). Theo the saviour against the rest of the world. It's also amusing to see (some) people go out of their way to *defend* this behaviour. What a cult.
Yes and that was about BETA software which Mr Reed didnt want to be going into OpenBSD -HEAD. I still find his stance very legit. It wasn't finished, it wasn't all working, yet there it was to be imported into OpenBSD. Mr Reed had a lawyer look at his license and they figured it translated to "may not be distributed" and kept/imposed that. Once again, this was BETA software. The version considered stable had/has full BSD license.
I mean it's based upon (a) claim(s) launched before this "product" (eg. the SCO linux license whatever that may hold) was even put onto the market. Is it legit to sell a product of which the value (price) is based totally upon an agressive claim/lawsuit of which the validity is to be proved in court in the first place? Thought up/put in effect *after* the suit was filed.
If they'd s/Linux/BSD and perhaps gave the kid horns (kidding and please no Linda Blair jokes) it would amount to the same.
At least to me it came across as them trying to hammer in that OSS and open development is good because it benefits everybody (not in the least hardware/support vendors). I think its very well thought out. The boy is a methaphor(sp?) on different levels for you AND your boss AND your mum in a changing environment (of IT, the implication is of course) and it emphasises acquiring (new) knowlegde through sharing. And of course, of your own kid.
Something entirely different than the normal ads indeed as was pointed out. Of course it might also be partially intended to show (without any legal hassle) "we're on your side" towards the linux community. I bet it is;-)
Portage doesn't replace makefiles, at least not the ones provided to build the actual program.
The FreeBSD's ports' Makefile basically sets a load of build/package organization variables, almost the same as a portage "ebuild" does. An ebuild is a script though. I've submitted a few when I was trying out Gentoo a while ago.
Portage just happens to be written in python (good choice BTW IMHO) whereas the traditional pkg-tools for FreeBSD are C based and the portupgrade utility is written in Ruby.
Portage was inspired by NetBSD's pkgsrc which was derived from FreeBSD ports. Flags like PROVIDES are similar to USE and somewhat comparable to FreeBSD's make options for ports e.g. "NO_GUI"=true and stuff like that. I do like the USE idea though.
The interesting thing about portage as a FreeBSD user is two sided really: the pro would be that the functionality of portupgrade would be part of the portmanager tool (portage) itself, the con is that *BSD (even Net) are not a kernel with packaged userland, it is a full (perhaps small though) OS and the hard thing is always where to draw the line and whether or not the base system can and should be put into packages/ports/ebuilds also. Like any OS Gentoo Linux needs a bootstrap and a chaintool too to build the rest. LFS'ish (quite easy though, they have good docs).
The Gentoo "rc scripts" are also very NetBSD inspired and recently FreeBSD has followed this approach, e.g. using PROVIDES, and BEFORE, etc.
My (rather short) experience with portage was that I liked it, but it's definately more geared towards a linux (kernel+tools+pkgs) system. It also broke quite frequently though. And of course, python is always nice, if only to unbreak little things easily (I'm not much of a C person).
I couldn't resist... how does it feel having so much hot air inside.. READ COMMENTS ABOVE. I'M NOT RE-QUOTING, SORRY. All them wasted electrons.
1) Because a loaf of bread doesn't come with an end user agreement that doean't mean that other products don't have to either. Especially those who have imposed *gasp* end user agreements in the first place that basically void the idea of buying a physical good, and even impose restrictions over copyright law. This is quite different from the old idea of buying something and once its passed the shelve its yours, be it a loaf of bread or a book. Your property. The bread is more of an argument against the line you're taking really than it is in favor of it. Unless baking bread is no "art" or "achievement". Then what's writing software?
2) Hmm, so was it GE or not? Did it take child labour to get the product finished,... etc , etc. This is a non discussion and OP was more specific. You nulled it by broadening it illogically (pointy ears itch now:-)
3) your comment doesn't invalidate the statement made
4) You're saying that because tech now is difficult for most people this will be better or worse in the future. You should become a fortune teller. Again it doean't invalidate the statement made by OP.
5) Law might disagree. That's why it's called law. Not that law is good per se but you're merely commenting emotionally. Again it doean't invalidate the statement made by OP. Again it doesn't invalidate the statement made by OP.
6) What's yours then.
7) AFAIK fair use is defined in copyright law quite precisely.
8) we understand that you're "right wing leaning". Fine. Again it doesn't invalidate the statement made by OP.
9) I think "the market" would like me reselling a UNIX book to another person after reading it. Or an MSOffice CD for that matter if I uninstalled it on my PC. I think some market players would not. Software is the only product that can't be (or well that's what they hope) resold/transferred. Hmm so what if the owner freakin dies? This reasoning has more holes than sendmail.
I think they are also afraid of espionage (carnivore, whatever) and the like. be it corporate or military or political. They probably have good reasons for this. I'm not saying that all of the decision makers think this way but I'm pretty sure quite a few do.
Did you know that after 9/11 Lufthansa tore out their Boeing 7X7 passenger planes' computer systems and replaced them with their own to make sure any remote control capability (designed in the 70s to be able to direct hijacked planes) got taken out? Google if you don't believe me.
Those Germans are not stupid. It's also interesting that Munich is in the most Christian and conservative part of Germany.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it an existing song or could we have a midi or something as to have a better idea. It might get less lame also.
Real world example: Ask a few big pr0n sites. Many of them used FreeBSD when "the www" became big and they made money. They still do I think, though it might be less now. They knew back then they needed a robust OS (1995-ish), they still know now.
:)
You apparently don't though
Or perhaps the Freedom of a vendor/packager from [insert thing they'd hate] or to [insert thing they'd like].
Or perhaps the freedom of a developer from [insert thing (s)he'd hate] or to [insert thing (s)he'd like].
And how about a packager that also adds some code? Perhaps (s)he wants to sell addons. Perhaps (s)he wants to sell it the first year, then give it away unconditionally except for retaining copyright. To make a living by being able to gain financial reward for (apparently) being in the lead in some area or niche. A fool proof clickety GUI installer for example. Even LGPL could become tricky then.
As and end user you're certainly not going to have any less freedom from using a *BSD product. Unless you perhaps find less hand holding or lack of persistancy or IQ an infringement upon your Freedom. Even Marx would have laughed at that.
I am not an extreme evangelist(sp?) of the *BSD license, neither do I detest the GPL but we have gotten into a situation where people slap a GPL on it without really considering its fine print. It greatly restricts useful reuse of your sourceforge project. If you want that, fine, but do you?
It's a "them vs us" (MS anyone, SCO?) emotion and they sell it very well, especially to young idealistic people who view the world from their social/economical perspective.
The patch looks fine, it's very simple. You can echo the IP number(s) to /your_service_spool/dnscache/env/IGNOREIP
So it's somewhat unflexable in the sense that you must define that env variable but it does the job.
"Finally the Linux desktop has a quality word processor that is faster to load than OpenOffice.org"
Koffice can do most of what people would expect of it and AbiWord has the best MSWord filters (if needed). The year is 2003 BTW.
A while ago a friend of mine (windows only person and no techie) sat down at my *BSD box wanting to make a payment scedule in "excel". I ran kspread and he found his way around easily.
OO.org is nice for windows as a free alternative but for *NIX it's been caught up with already.
Look at this: http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/ 2003-September/010146.html
Remember all the hoopla when everyone *had* to upgrade to privsep immediatly? The lack of details? Theo wining about "hours and hours of hard work" but taking his time to write back and shit all over the person who's merely asking if there's a patch.
Deja-vu. I clearly remember that FreeBSD wasn't even exploitable then but we got told afterwards.
Maybe this is Theo's approach to mass marketing but I find his behaviour close to shizophrenic(sp). Theo the saviour against the rest of the world. It's also amusing to see (some) people go out of their way to *defend* this behaviour. What a cult.
Oh well, just observing... (shrugs)
I meant "smaller then sign" 20 years old (stupid slashcode), its actually 10-and-a-bit years old.
only FreeBSD is 20 years old but well nice writeup anyhow :)
Yes and that was about BETA software which Mr Reed didnt want to be going into OpenBSD -HEAD. I still find his stance very legit. It wasn't finished, it wasn't all working, yet there it was to be imported into OpenBSD. Mr Reed had a lawyer look at his license and they figured it translated to "may not be distributed" and kept/imposed that. Once again, this was BETA software. The version considered stable had /has full BSD license.
Err, so you propose free beer for dumbasses? You should go into politics.
Well done my young apprentice ;-)
Spot on.
Can they even?
I mean it's based upon (a) claim(s) launched before this "product" (eg. the SCO linux license whatever that may hold) was even put onto the market. Is it legit to sell a product of which the value (price) is based totally upon an agressive claim/lawsuit of which the validity is to be proved in court in the first place? Thought up/put in effect *after* the suit was filed.
Any (almost) IAAL can comment?
hmm UFS2+softupdates *is* nice but it can also hose data. (not that I care)
All sounds very sane but *doing* it with users *using* it now thats another thing.
It's another approach to get ahead starting from 4.x-stable.
:)
That's all. They disgree about sopme/most of 5.X design decisions.
I say let 'em roll and we'll see if it rocks later
Obviously Matthew Dillon is a little fucker.. yeah... the guy who lives and breathes BSD VM. A bloody script kiddy for sure.
Go back to sleep and wake up in 2020. Then troll again iof your old linucks setup permits.
It's a serious project. Take a few days to shift your world view please.
If they'd s/Linux/BSD and perhaps gave the kid horns (kidding and please no Linda Blair jokes) it would amount to the same.
;-)
At least to me it came across as them trying to hammer in that OSS and open development is good because it benefits everybody (not in the least hardware/support vendors). I think its very well thought out. The boy is a methaphor(sp?) on different levels for you AND your boss AND your mum in a changing environment (of IT, the implication is of course) and it emphasises acquiring (new) knowlegde through sharing. And of course, of your own kid.
Something entirely different than the normal ads indeed as was pointed out. Of course it might also be partially intended to show (without any legal hassle) "we're on your side" towards the linux community. I bet it is
Still, well done.
Portage doesn't replace makefiles, at least not the ones provided to build the actual program.
The FreeBSD's ports' Makefile basically sets a load of build/package organization variables, almost the same as a portage "ebuild" does. An ebuild is a script though. I've submitted a few when I was trying out Gentoo a while ago.
Portage just happens to be written in python (good choice BTW IMHO) whereas the traditional pkg-tools for FreeBSD are C based and the portupgrade utility is written in Ruby.
Portage was inspired by NetBSD's pkgsrc which was derived from FreeBSD ports. Flags like PROVIDES are similar to USE and somewhat comparable to FreeBSD's make options for ports e.g. "NO_GUI"=true and stuff like that. I do like the USE idea though.
The interesting thing about portage as a FreeBSD user is two sided really: the pro would be that the functionality of portupgrade would be part of the portmanager tool (portage) itself, the con is that *BSD (even Net) are not a kernel with packaged userland, it is a full (perhaps small though) OS and the hard thing is always where to draw the line and whether or not the base system can and should be put into packages/ports/ebuilds also. Like any OS Gentoo Linux needs a bootstrap and a chaintool too to build the rest. LFS'ish (quite easy though, they have good docs).
The Gentoo "rc scripts" are also very NetBSD inspired and recently FreeBSD has followed this approach, e.g. using PROVIDES, and BEFORE, etc.
My (rather short) experience with portage was that I liked it, but it's definately more geared towards a linux (kernel+tools+pkgs) system. It also broke quite frequently though. And of course, python is always nice, if only to unbreak little things easily (I'm not much of a C person).
I agree. It's definately not a *DMCA* issue ;-)
The fish said it! Much more suiting than IP really.
I couldn't resist ... how does it feel having so much hot air inside .. READ COMMENTS ABOVE. I'M NOT RE-QUOTING, SORRY. All them wasted electrons.
... etc , etc. This is a non discussion and OP was more specific. You nulled it by broadening it illogically (pointy ears itch now :-)
1) Because a loaf of bread doesn't come with an end user agreement that doean't mean that other products don't have to either. Especially those who have imposed *gasp* end user agreements in the first place that basically void the idea of buying a physical good, and even impose restrictions over copyright law. This is quite different from the old idea of buying something and once its passed the shelve its yours, be it a loaf of bread or a book. Your property. The bread is more of an argument against the line you're taking really than it is in favor of it. Unless baking bread is no "art" or "achievement". Then what's writing software?
2) Hmm, so was it GE or not? Did it take child labour to get the product finished,
3) your comment doesn't invalidate the statement made
4) You're saying that because tech now is difficult for most people this will be better or worse in the future. You should become a fortune teller. Again it doean't
invalidate the statement made by OP.
5) Law might disagree. That's why it's called law. Not that law is good per se but you're merely commenting emotionally. Again it doean't invalidate the statement made by OP.
Again it doesn't invalidate the statement made by OP.
6) What's yours then.
7) AFAIK fair use is defined in copyright law quite precisely.
8) we understand that you're "right wing leaning". Fine.
Again it doesn't invalidate the statement made by OP.
9) I think "the market" would like me reselling a UNIX book to another person after reading it. Or an MSOffice CD for that matter if I uninstalled it on my PC. I think some market players would not. Software is the only product that can't be (or well that's what they hope) resold/transferred. Hmm so what if the owner freakin dies? This reasoning has more holes than sendmail.
10) hmm, giveway at the end...
Greetings!
.... where the software license is either in either way refuted or in any way honoured.
Until that we're in limbo and limbo gets larger every day.
Mods?
I think they are also afraid of espionage (carnivore, whatever) and the like. be it corporate or military or political. They probably have good reasons for this. I'm not saying that all of the decision makers think this way but I'm pretty sure quite a few do.
Did you know that after 9/11 Lufthansa tore out their Boeing 7X7 passenger planes' computer systems and replaced them with their own to make sure any remote control capability (designed in the 70s to be able to direct hijacked planes) got taken out? Google if you don't believe me.
Those Germans are not stupid. It's also interesting that Munich is in the most Christian and conservative part of Germany.
Hmm, I was under the impression that AOL/Compuserve learnt that craft years ago.
I wonder how much land one could cover with all the unused CS CDs that were included with PC mags over the years.