It just so happens that the GNU Public Licence, which applies to software in the GNU system, expressly provides that the software should also be free of charge.
Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating system, and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece. The GNU Project says, "Please give our project equal mention," but Linus says, "Don't give them a share of the credit; call the whole thing after my name alone!" Now envision the mindset of a person who can look at these events and accuse the GNU Project of egotism. It takes strong prejudice to misjudge so drastically.
Couldn't agree more.
The FSF wrote a much bigger part of the OS we think of as "Linux", yet they're willing to share its name. Linus wrote a much smaller part, yet he isn't.
Why not just download the OpenLDAP SRPM from Red Hat, edit the.spec file so it uses Berkeley DB, then do an "rpm -ba openldap.spec", go drink a cup of coffee, and you get exactly what you want... in Red Hat's usual places... and as an RPM?
Uh... I agree with you about Free Software, but don't compare Ayn Rand to Rush Limbaugh. Rand is right about a lot of things - individualism, the pursuit of one's happiness (and not "money", per se), the use of reason, and not being a slave to, or dependent of, society.
She was NOT a "conservative", no matter how much they want to say she was.
Fanatic, me? I use Windows 2000 at home for games, almost daily.
But it completely SUCKS as a serious OS. For development, for running servers on, heck, even as a simple desktop for ssh'ing other servers.
Windows is not pleasant to use, for my tastes. And I have a lot less control over it than I want. It seems the OS is fighting me, sometimes - things that should be simple, aren't. Yes, I mean it. There's nothing in Linux as complex and cryptic as... (deep voice) the Registry.
It's simple: I won't do something I don't believe in. Windows systems administration is... wrong. I have lots of Windows sysadmins working with me, and they *never* seem happy about, or proud of, what they do. Yes, they earn their money as much as I do, but they don't like their jobs. I do.
Besides (but this is completely independent), I do believe "RMS' crap". I don't agree with every single thing he says, but freedom *is* important. Open Source gives me control; proprietary crap takes it away.
(I don't do that but) if I sent $5 to an artist, he'd probably be getting 10 times more than he'd get if I bought the CD. So I don't think he'd complain.:)
They already do. In fact, distros can't distribute Dan Bernstein's software (like qmail) because its licence doesn't allow it to be distributed in a different place than DJB wants it.
When you install a Red Hat or a Mandrake,/usr/local/bin is empty. In my case, I use/usr/local for software I compile from source, but RPMs always go in/usr.
Slashdot Mirror
"Parasite"? You have heard of the GPL or other free software licenses, right? What the're for?
Both can use code from each other. And there are lots of contributions from Red Hat *and* Mandrake in software like the Linux kernel.
This is not a troll. It's a very well written post. Who the hell moderated it?
It just so happens that the GNU Public Licence, which applies to software in the GNU system, expressly provides that the software should also be free of charge.
No, it doesn't.
A "true patriot" uses whatever is best, and therefore his country has to compete and gets better.
"Buy from our country" just makes "our country" get away with crappy stuff.
So, to you, freedom is not giving a damn?
Brilliant!
Emphasis mine...
Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating system, and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece. The GNU Project says, "Please give our project equal mention," but Linus says, "Don't give them a share of the credit; call the whole thing after my name alone!" Now envision the mindset of a person who can look at these events and accuse the GNU Project of egotism. It takes strong prejudice to misjudge so drastically.
Couldn't agree more.
The FSF wrote a much bigger part of the OS we think of as "Linux", yet they're willing to share its name. Linus wrote a much smaller part, yet he isn't.
What, you mean the Popular Party isn't the nazi party here? :)
Why not just download the OpenLDAP SRPM from Red Hat, edit the .spec file so it uses Berkeley DB, then do an "rpm -ba openldap.spec", go drink a cup of coffee, and you get exactly what you want... in Red Hat's usual places... and as an RPM?
I usually do that.
At least whatever's in /etc is *human readable*... :)
Uh... I agree with you about Free Software, but don't compare Ayn Rand to Rush Limbaugh. Rand is right about a lot of things - individualism, the pursuit of one's happiness (and not "money", per se), the use of reason, and not being a slave to, or dependent of, society.
She was NOT a "conservative", no matter how much they want to say she was.
Fanatic, me? I use Windows 2000 at home for games, almost daily.
But it completely SUCKS as a serious OS. For development, for running servers on, heck, even as a simple desktop for ssh'ing other servers.
Windows is not pleasant to use, for my tastes. And I have a lot less control over it than I want. It seems the OS is fighting me, sometimes - things that should be simple, aren't. Yes, I mean it. There's nothing in Linux as complex and cryptic as... (deep voice) the Registry.
It's simple: I won't do something I don't believe in. Windows systems administration is... wrong. I have lots of Windows sysadmins working with me, and they *never* seem happy about, or proud of, what they do. Yes, they earn their money as much as I do, but they don't like their jobs. I do.
Besides (but this is completely independent), I do believe "RMS' crap". I don't agree with every single thing he says, but freedom *is* important. Open Source gives me control; proprietary crap takes it away.
But you do have a choice. If I was forced to use Windows at work, I'd simply change employers.
And I mean it. I've done it before (May 2000).
(I don't do that but) if I sent $5 to an artist, he'd probably be getting 10 times more than he'd get if I bought the CD. So I don't think he'd complain. :)
No, All our BASE. Singular.
They already do. In fact, distros can't distribute Dan Bernstein's software (like qmail) because its licence doesn't allow it to be distributed in a different place than DJB wants it.
/usr/local/bin is empty. In my case, I use /usr/local for software I compile from source, but RPMs always go in /usr.
When you install a Red Hat or a Mandrake,
"Moral of the story: If your business relies on your users' goodwill, don't get into very public flamewar pissing matches with them."
:)
Actually... I've never really *needed* the OpenBSD CDs (could have installed by FTP, for instance), but I've bought all of them since 2.7 anyway.
Gives me a warm feeling. The donations I gave also put my name on the cover. And, most of all, THE STICKERS!
Yes, "link to" is right. But I've never heard of a "distribute with" requirement.
Anyway, what I mean is that there are no restrictions on "use", like installing and running.
What's a pirror?
"Viral (gpl) means that if you use A, which is any license, and B, which is GPL, under many (not all) circumstances, your final output must be GPL. "
For "use", read "use code from", of course.
Anyone can make and offer ISOs.
What you CAN'T do is this: buy or borrow the official CDs, make ISOs of them, and distribute.
A 4 years old OpenBSD release is still more secure than a patched Windows 2000 or XP, you troll.
You're right. I thought of that, but I wanted to put it in a simple way. :)
Nope.
Red Hat = company
Linux = kernel
Red Hat Linux = OS
No, even if you were right, you'd still be a rude, pimple-faced Anonymous Coward.