if you want to USE the communities code you have to give up your rights to the software YOU'VE been writing for what ? linking a library ? using a header ? using a handy string handling routine ? etc
if you don't change a thing in the GPL'd code, you're still owned by the GPL as soon as you use anything that's licenced that way.
Did you read what I said? LGPL. The LGPL allows for linking by proprietary code, as long as you give back any changes you make to the original LGPL'd code.
Seriously, didn't Matt Asay already explain this, only a couple lines above this "Which license is better!?!OMGWTFLOL!!!
"...no one open source license is ideal in every circumstance. Different licenses serve different ends..."
It doesn't get any simpler than that, and I can't believe that anyone could believe that either license is 100% better, or better in any application than the other. Christ, even Richard Fucking Stallman has agreed that the BSD license is more suitable for some uses than the FSF's own Copyleft licenses.
That being said, I'm an LGPL or "GPL+exception clause" person, myself. If you want to change the community's code, you have to give back. However, simply building on top of a Free platform, like GNU Classpath, or GNOME is different. Building on platforms like these expands that platform's usage, so it's still of benefit to the community that built that platform.
Ubuntu is neat, but they have some issues to iron out first.
First off, about half of their system configuration tools broke/crashed/didn't work as advertised. There aren't enough of them, either. How could they ship without an X config tool!? What if I switch monitors, and Ubuntu can't autodetect? "Edit xorg.conf" is not an acceptable answer here.
Second, the much yakked about Syaptic's UI and interaction model is so bad I'd almost rather explain the yum CLI to people than torture them with Synaptic.
Ubuntu seems very cool, and I was impressed by some of what I saw when I tried 5.04, but I don't think it's at all fair to say it's hands-down better for the desktop than Fedora in any way.
Evolution has a fantastic calendar. It's on the heavier side for RAM, and it's Linux-only, but the current development on Evo is focused, among other things, on reducing resource usage and porting to Windows...
Right at the top of the PDF it says "April 2003". How is this benchmark "news"? (And nevermind the fact that as always, as an MS sponsered benchmark, the MS machine was probably hand-tuned, and RH + Apache was probably run in a stock configuration.)
While sheer performance isn't really what sells RHEL boxes, I'd be very interested to see a proper test of Win2k3 vs RHEL 4 on identical hardware...
This isn't said enough. The Gentoo "ricers" are covering up the real benefits of the distro, as you've mentioned - lots of docs, a broad community, and a great repository of available packages.
I'd probably never use Gentoo myself for anything other than poking at it out of curiosity, but I can see why some people like it. They can have my Fedora CDs when they pry them from my cold, dead hands, but I have to say the package availability on Gentoo (and Debian, for that matter) makes me jealous at times.
Sounds interesting, if it really works. I'm always wary of stories like this since it seems too good to be true, and is likely to be heavily influenced by the people who make money on the furthering of fission power.
Thanks for the info, though - it definitely looks worth checking out.
I'm not going to praise what I think is a bad idea. I love the concept of nuclear power from an air-quality standpoint, but the incredibly dangerous and voluminous waste it produces is more than I can ignore. Not only are the fuel rods dangerous, but all the parts involved in the heating of the water, etc, become dangerously irradiated and must be stored in similar conditions to the fuel rods. While I'm sure it's theoretically possible to store this stuff safely, knowing the inherent laziness and stupidities of large corporations and governments, I have a hard time believing that it will actually be done right, and that's more risk than I'm willing to take.
anyone on the conservative or Republican side of the spectrum is a greedy, money grubbing liar who would just LOVE to see an end to all environmental concerns
Anyone is free to make up their own minds about this, but allow me to illustrate a point:
Republicans are pushing for voluntary environmental controls. However, in publicly owned companies, the primary objective is to increase shareholder value. While it is an extreme example, a publicly held company could, in theory, be sued for complying with such regulations, as it would pull away capital but does not increase shareholder value in any way.
So how is it that the "voluntary controls" Republicans are doing something for the environment? I'm not calling the Democrats saints, either, but let's not disingenuously pretend that Bush or his friends give a rat's ass about the planet, eh?
Considering that this guy is thinking of writing his own custom package as an alternative, I think it's still an appropriate suggestion. Instead of writing his own stuff from scratch, he could just test and bugfix on Glom.
Or one could just go get an Athlon 64 box, which is true 64 bit andbeats the shit out of the G5. Way to see the trees and not the forest. The other poster's comment about the value of OS X and the iApps was a much better argument.
Yes, privitization! Why put up with evil Government Waste(TM) when we could just auction off the spectrum to ClearChannel! That'd be a huge improvement! Hooray capitalism!
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read what I said? LGPL. The LGPL allows for linking by proprietary code, as long as you give back any changes you make to the original LGPL'd code.
BSD vs GPL: FIGHT!!!
Seriously, didn't Matt Asay already explain this, only a couple lines above this "Which license is better!?!OMGWTFLOL!!!
"...no one open source license is ideal in every circumstance. Different licenses serve different ends..."
It doesn't get any simpler than that, and I can't believe that anyone could believe that either license is 100% better, or better in any application than the other. Christ, even Richard Fucking Stallman has agreed that the BSD license is more suitable for some uses than the FSF's own Copyleft licenses.
That being said, I'm an LGPL or "GPL+exception clause" person, myself. If you want to change the community's code, you have to give back. However, simply building on top of a Free platform, like GNU Classpath, or GNOME is different. Building on platforms like these expands that platform's usage, so it's still of benefit to the community that built that platform.
Ubuntu is neat, but they have some issues to iron out first.
First off, about half of their system configuration tools broke/crashed/didn't work as advertised. There aren't enough of them, either. How could they ship without an X config tool!? What if I switch monitors, and Ubuntu can't autodetect? "Edit xorg.conf" is not an acceptable answer here.
Second, the much yakked about Syaptic's UI and interaction model is so bad I'd almost rather explain the yum CLI to people than torture them with Synaptic.
Ubuntu seems very cool, and I was impressed by some of what I saw when I tried 5.04, but I don't think it's at all fair to say it's hands-down better for the desktop than Fedora in any way.
Evolution has a fantastic calendar. It's on the heavier side for RAM, and it's Linux-only, but the current development on Evo is focused, among other things, on reducing resource usage and porting to Windows...
Right at the top of the PDF it says "April 2003". How is this benchmark "news"? (And nevermind the fact that as always, as an MS sponsered benchmark, the MS machine was probably hand-tuned, and RH + Apache was probably run in a stock configuration.)
While sheer performance isn't really what sells RHEL boxes, I'd be very interested to see a proper test of Win2k3 vs RHEL 4 on identical hardware...
Or you could use Totem and get all the media support without the fugly GUI. ;-)
THANK YOU.
This isn't said enough. The Gentoo "ricers" are covering up the real benefits of the distro, as you've mentioned - lots of docs, a broad community, and a great repository of available packages.
I'd probably never use Gentoo myself for anything other than poking at it out of curiosity, but I can see why some people like it. They can have my Fedora CDs when they pry them from my cold, dead hands, but I have to say the package availability on Gentoo (and Debian, for that matter) makes me jealous at times.
Would one expect a Linux conference to be called FUDCon? Quite the opposite! I think that makes "ironic" a great fit in this case.
The name is supposed to be funny/ironic.
Very interesting - thanks for the link, mate!
Sounds interesting, if it really works. I'm always wary of stories like this since it seems too good to be true, and is likely to be heavily influenced by the people who make money on the furthering of fission power.
Thanks for the info, though - it definitely looks worth checking out.
I'm not going to praise what I think is a bad idea. I love the concept of nuclear power from an air-quality standpoint, but the incredibly dangerous and voluminous waste it produces is more than I can ignore. Not only are the fuel rods dangerous, but all the parts involved in the heating of the water, etc, become dangerously irradiated and must be stored in similar conditions to the fuel rods. While I'm sure it's theoretically possible to store this stuff safely, knowing the inherent laziness and stupidities of large corporations and governments, I have a hard time believing that it will actually be done right, and that's more risk than I'm willing to take.
Yes, indeed, let the Bush bashing begin.
anyone on the conservative or Republican side of the spectrum is a greedy, money grubbing liar who would just LOVE to see an end to all environmental concerns
Anyone is free to make up their own minds about this, but allow me to illustrate a point:
Republicans are pushing for voluntary environmental controls. However, in publicly owned companies, the primary objective is to increase shareholder value. While it is an extreme example, a publicly held company could, in theory, be sued for complying with such regulations, as it would pull away capital but does not increase shareholder value in any way.
So how is it that the "voluntary controls" Republicans are doing something for the environment? I'm not calling the Democrats saints, either, but let's not disingenuously pretend that Bush or his friends give a rat's ass about the planet, eh?
GNOME is taking steps toward greater SVG usage, but SVG isn't a panacea...
That's a lot of money! Imagine if those donators spent that money on actually buying the shit they swipe!
Really, Knoppix is everyone's favorite? Give me Ubuntu's Live CD any day!
The story reporter got a link wrong - the screenshot ought to look like this . :-P
(it's funny, laugh.)
From the article:
Really? Their customers (you know, the people that actually pay for the stuff?) seem to like their licensing terms just fine.
So now that Real is all about Open Source and all that, what would keep Real from offering the option of Vorbis for music downloads?
Considering that this guy is thinking of writing his own custom package as an alternative, I think it's still an appropriate suggestion. Instead of writing his own stuff from scratch, he could just test and bugfix on Glom.
How about Glom?
It has a nice, clean GTK interface, and uses PostgreSQL for its backend.
Good luck!
Poor wording - the G5 is also 64 bit, not like intel's "bolted on" 64 bit.
Or one could just go get an Athlon 64 box, which is true 64 bit and beats the shit out of the G5. Way to see the trees and not the forest. The other poster's comment about the value of OS X and the iApps was a much better argument.
Yes, privitization! Why put up with evil Government Waste(TM) when we could just auction off the spectrum to ClearChannel! That'd be a huge improvement! Hooray capitalism!