I thought the kernel had? Of course not in any way people really notice like the numerous BSDs, but I remember one poster reply once to a message of mine giving a few examples. Wish I could remember any... long time ago.
The real difference with BSD is that Berkeley released it (and under the BSDL) for anyone willing to play, and fork. They were through playing with BSD. So, BSDI, Sun, i386BSD, etc picked it up, and began coding. The free BSDs can still fork just like Linux can, its just whether there's an extreme enough reason to do it. Only OpenBSD actually forked from free BSDs, and when I read Theo's archive, core seemed stubborn and unwilling to resolve the problems. If Alan Cox was suddenly booted from the kernel team, with significant peices of code (and a direction) he wanted to add, but over and over again shoved away by Linus and the rest.. I think Mr. Cox would do something. What, I'm not sure.
Considering DOS, windows, BSDs, etc. all forked.. Linux will sometime too.
The delema is not whether there's a fork, because there are numerous forks already, it is whether will there be forks that are quite popular, but not be integrated into Linus's Linux kernel. I Turbo Linux makes inroads with their product (their fork), but its not then blessed by Linus, and a trend continues, boom.. real forks. I doubt that will happen. Either Linus would cave because it was good technology, or few people would buy it. That's the joy of a dictatorship, things move far faster and are solved (in these issues) quicker.
Its just the idea, which seems to be the point of this entire slashdot article, is whether Linux will not just fork into distributions, but kernels. That's already happened, but most users are content pretending only BSD has forked, that any BSD supporter must cover every BSD (ie, the FreeBSD driver site was given the incentive to go to BSD, and then slashdot posters asked 'Will they support Darwin, and not just Net/Open/Free?'). Windows, dos, BSD, UNIX, BSD, and Linux have forked. Its just whether people want to be ignorant and using forking as an excuse for why their 'compitition' (why must every other OS called 'the enemy'?) is worse.
umm.. according to flipz he isn't gay. He kind of said that in one of his cracks. I'd be more inclined to believe him than a bunch of people trying to figure out whether fObic is male or female, and same with flipz. I honestly don't care. I agree with flipz, its pretty lame cracking minor sites, and I'll go further with that the big ones are only impressive by how weak they are. Definately crackers like flipz (who doesn't look like some script kiddy) should be doing the cracking legally.
Hell, I don't care whether MS had no important data where he cracked, but that so many of the government agencies he cracked might have. The DOE only forced the ational labs to put in firewalls after congress go on their backs, and LLNL *finally* did that. Those people running it are lazy, incompitent people who lie to cover theimselves and regular steal equipment. The stories I've heard that go on in LLNL.. it just isn't sane.
But Apache does exist, and has for quite a while, on NT. So running Apache on NT isn't unheard of, and likely is smarter than IIS...
I doubt there are more bugs found in Linux, but when a bug is found it isn't broacast on news.com or slashdot like every bug in any MS product.
I sure hope not! I mean, what, the entire bit that composes what Linux is, cannot even boot a system, can not function with code contributed from GNU to make Linux usable, and what composes Linux is about 1/2 the size of my first hard drive (think MFM). If Linux has half as many bugs as, say, MS Office.. a massive 100s of megabyte program, my god. Imagine the carnage!:-)
If nothing else works, ask one of the FreeBSD lists... which ever is most aplicable. Of course telling where you looked and was unsuccessful would be helpful (cuz no one likes to help when they think the person was just lazy).
And even Compaq is interested in FreeBSD Alpha, and later put the other BSDs up. One of the guys there is working on FreeBSD Alpha SMP... (from DDN article/posts)
However GNU creditted FreeBSD, Inc for solving the problem upon request. Of course, since each driver is written by different people, the liecense can vary. However, it is not uncommon for either to look at the other's code to get an idea of how to write their own driver, etc. Both sides do it. That's not stealing code, but why do the revserse engineering all over again? If you understand.. then you can port. Lots of drivers go back and forth that way...
hmm.. I've been reading freebsd-newbies and freebsd-advocacy, and nothing even close to that has ever popped up. Its been maybe a year at most.. but linux, when brought up, is never casted down. However on my LUGs, I usuall don't see anything negative towards BSD, except that once or twice the installafests might conflict with a BSD installafest (or they're just wandering around and hit on of BSDs.. or something), and people seem to love to get in the BSD guy's fce with a linux cd and try to get them mad. When enough linux guys shove cds in your face while installing a BSD OS on someones computer, and god knows what they're muttering about at the BSD guy and user... I'm not surprised there's some people getting annoyed.
That's the only excuse I can come up with. Other than that, neither is attacking the other in vile hatred...
And to think HP could be behind, but one of the key developers to IA-64, and forced Intel to add PA-RISC compatability. If that's true.. that's just a bit sad.
Slot B: Athlon Ultra / DEC Alpha socket 410: Intel NG connector
There were some rumors that S370 would be used by AMD, Cyrix, and others eventually as the next socket format. The reason is that socket chips are cheaper, and slots were only used because of difficulties with large caches. Eventually you go back to socket (like Intel has done), and reduce cost across the board.
Oh, and Slot-2 is for Xeon, P2 and P3 generations. Slot 1 is used for Pentium II/III and old Celerons, and S370 is used for Celerons, P3s, and Coppermine (just another P3).
I wish Intel would get their next IA-32 architecture out. The P6 architecture is anchient, and was supposed to last 3-4 years. They just seemed to put to many developers on the IA-64, and lag IA-32... though I remember reading somewhere that the NG IA-32 is supposed to have mny simularities to the IA-64 design...
Are you kidding? OpenBSD will likely always have the best security, that's one of their main goals, the top goal. If you want a the most secure system possible (and, umm.. I mean that's on the network.. cuz off-line might be the most secure in the foundation), choose OpenBSD. I don't think anyone from FreeBSD, Inc. would tell you otherwise. However, FreeBSD's goal is to be the best BSD server OS on the x86, and later on other platforms. So far, its done quite well at this, just like NetBSD has done well at their multi-platform goal, and OpenBSD with their security goal.
The point is, don't ask when FreeBSD will be as secure or more so than OpenBSD, because likely it never will be so, it will just have strong security.. not the strongest. However, since the BSD model means each project shares with one another, security fixes from OpenBSD make their way to FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Linux. FreeBSD's and NetBSD's changes may find their way in OpenBSD. That makes quite an impressive trio.
Also, does anyone know of another (preferably UNIXen like OS) that is much more trusted than *BSD or Linux?
As Linux is targetted towards a general purpose UNIX (meaning its good, but not the best at almost every task), I don't know how its security racks up to say.. Solaris. However, there are very few other UNIX-like OSes that are mainstream, though a large number of BSD derivatives, and others built from the ground up. I'd be quite surprised if they were any more secure than OpenBSD.
I've read that multics (circa 1960) is even more "trusted" than UNIX (B2 vs. C1 orange book ratings).
UNIX was made after because multics was a failure, because it was to costly in developement and to complex. Most UNIX books have a brief hisory that goes into this. That doesn't mean multics wasn't good, though, just that support died. By now, multics is history, and UNIX has grown to be far more than it was in when first created. Considering that OpenBSD is called the most secure operating system by a large number of people, who believe it, and no one has proven it otherwise, that raiting is (obviously) severly outdated.
The idea that FreeBSD is to blame for allowing viruses that expoit holes in Microsoft's products, to pass through its mail system (sendmail, I'd assume) is just humerous. Microsoft can't create a system that can replace FreeBSD (and work), though they've tried, and they cannot fix problems fast enough to stop virusses. So, since they don't have a virus scanner for a mail server... its thus the problem of using FreeBSD. No one else seems to offer scanning on free (or non-free) basic consumer packages, so Microsoft shouldn't be blamed for the evils of its users. If just shouldn't blame an OS for not having an application, while its own does.. but can't handle the task.
RMS is largely responsible for the current rise of Free Software. Period. Without him Linus and the BSD folks wouldn't have had the tools necessary to write the Linux kernel, and rewrite out all that AT&T code in BSD. Face it, without the compiler and userspace tools written by the FSF and RMS I suspect that the BSD movement might have died under the weight of AT&T's lawsuit.
I wouldn't go that far as in saying RMS was (basicly) responcible for the success of BSD. RMS says GNU/Linux because Linux relies on GNU code to function, while BSD relies on BSD code, and includes GNU tools for comfort, not for a usable system. I would definately say that GCC has been one of FSF's most useful tool for UNIX users, and likely helped BSD by a great deal too. FSF was well known when the BSDL was created, and Bill Joy does talk a little about how the BSDL was made freer than the GPL because of knowing about FSF. If RMS had not created FSF, the question should be how far would Open Source be today? Would other open source licenses exist, and be of such impact as BSD and the GPL?
I think 386BSD and later BSD OSes, and programs (like sendmail and apache) would still thrive, but not as strongly without FSF's contributions. The early work of FSF was important for all open source groups, but some have relied on it more than others.
Wasn't Deep Blue also re-tweaked for each game, so that Kasparov was basicly up against a new personality each time he played? Makes it harder to fight an opponent, when drawing from past games only hurts you. I remember he was pretty annoyed on the second game (the one he lost) because he hadn't expected that.
That depends on what you consider more important. Such as, capitalisic economies is superior to other forms because of the free market, but then exploitation of the worker and monopolies are the result. So, do you want quicker progress and a larger economy (which means there's more free money, but that doesn't mean in the hands of the workers), or not to sell yourself as a commodety?
The best form of society is still undefined. I highly regard John Stuart Mill's Principles of Political Economy.
By request, there's two new side bar boxes, daemon daily news, and the BSD section (well,all sections have a box). So, just add them and you can check on the main page. The reason fewer people reply is not because they don't read it (look at DDN. Few replies, lots more article submissions). BSD users just don't seem as quick to chip in mass rants in the forums as quickly.
Oh, and the rest of the segments are the same way. The 'interesting' articles show on the main, and the sections have lots of others that are neglected. This is one reason I don't think BSD should be on just BSD OSes, but on all BSD (ie Apache) so there's more diversity, and its not ignored. Otherwise, its just an excuse by slashdot that they do show BSD news, but instead they manage it in a fashion so that no one ever sees it.
I'm bartering the right to use my source, and my price is the right to use your derived works.
Well, you are right that SCSL is for Sun, though I think you neglected that when you write code when complying with the SCSL (which implies that you are thus deriving from Sun's code), it is yours. Sun doesn't own your code, and you can GPL it or give it away, except for anything that is not your own code (ie, if it has Sun's). Thus the SCSL is a great tool for developers to understand how to work with Solaris for building ontop of it, and the same with other platforms such as Jini. That's Sun's goal, and its quite a useful feature over closing it like Microsoft. It helps developers, and does not reduce Sun's control of its own code. So again, your right n the fact that the SCSL is not meant, at all, to be like the GPL.
On communism, I think your wrong. However, I don't think communism is evil, so saying the GPL and FSF have communist aspects is nothing horrible.
For those who like to drop the C-word in their GPL talk, the fact that we're doing it by choice (unlike any communist system, which can only work by making damn sure you can't choose an alternative because you would) is not the only argument against your idea.
The GPL is property rights for programs. Right of ownership of anything is quite non-communist. After all, if I own something myself, I might be able to get more of it. And then I would keep the "more." Then I might get more. If this is money, I might have more money than my neighbor, and this is what communism tries (and fails miserably) to avoid. If you think GPL has anything to do with this system, I think you have a problem.
That is only because we are in a democratic capitalist state. Thus, we must play by capitalism and thus there is a choice. Communism is not forcing you not to use an alternative, it is forcing capitalism not to exploit the worker. In Marx's Wages of Labor, Rent of Land, and Estrangement of Labor (right?), he shows how the worker is exploited, and how he is not given freedom. The goal is that the worker recieves th fruits of his labor, not the capitalist. Anything a worker does is only a commodity, and he must sell himself as a commodity, etc. The result of his labor goes to the capitalist, not the worker. Because landowners, property (Marx means land!), are really capitalist (the entire idea of rent), that's exploitation. Marx says communism will be a society where the worker recieves the fruits of his labor, and goods will be equally and fairly distributed based on need. This does not mean you do not own your car, it means you do not own your land.
The FSF says code should be free. It views code as land property, where there is no real owner (this is my interpritation from their docs). If code is GPL'ed, the origionator does not own the code, except that he can re-release it in another license. He cannot, however, remove the GPL as it takes the code away from him and forces it open. Its all very muggy and I don't want to try to compare the two here, because I would make numerous mistakes.
Communism has so far failed because these were NOT marxian communist societies. The prolotariate did not revolt, and it was forced. That means it doesn't work from the start, and things go bad. I don't believe that the GPL is the answer for open source, nor is communism for society. Both in the real worl have forced on the worker (here, the worker is not the devlopers, but every regular user), and is cheared by a small group that ignores many, many factors as it gains power. What is needed is for an analysis based transfered from John Stuart Mill's Principles of a Political Economy to really understand how to manage code licenses. (code licenses are very similar to societies, and neither should be based on an ideal, and not constrained by that one)
Definition: Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessess.
In his arguement, he rightly says that to be altrusistic, he must give to the public domain. That means anyone can use it, no strings. Putting restrictions on that, especially the GPL's where any modifications must return to him, and his community, that's selfish. If a company did this, people would think they're greedy. So, not to be hypocritical, using the GPL is being greedy.. selfish.
Thus, while the origional poster can say he is altrusistic (because of freedom of speech), he'll also be lying his ass off.
Sun Community Source License. They use community source. I generally don't see Sun, any more, using the term open source, or any term.. they usually just say SCSL and don't care about explaining it. I don't really care to much, as a long as they don't try to pitch it all as the same, try to ride on anyones sucess, or anything else annoying. From what I've seen, they killed the maretters who tried to do that innitially.. haven't seen them play SCSL as open source for a while (ie, Bill Joy's goal was to make people understand the SCSL, while everyone elses was to attack Joy and ignore him).
Now, what would the term be if you just let people see your source, with or without restrictions? I don't mean any marketting term, just say, "here.. take a look at my source."
Those communist societies owned things too. It's quite easy to look stupid in the eyes of people who know better (as you so nicely put it), isn't it?
I've read a good bit of Marx in my time (Communst Manifesto, Manuscrpts of Economics of 1844 (something like that), and some of capitalism. I'm right now reading a bit of Mills', Principles of a Political Economy. If you read Marx's real essays, not the summery that CM provides, FSF's goals do have some striking simularities. I wouldn't label it communism without thorough research, and I wouldn't label communism as evil either (though ESR seems to). I actually like Mills' ideas far better than any socialism, capitalism, communism, or facism (of course).
The ideas Marx proposed, as were ideas RMS proposed, made people involved take notice, despise them, but could not neglect them. Perhaps not see the same means for the end, but see base theories. Neither is bad, though both could be a bit to extreme. To bad we can't reserect Mills'.:)
The community is fine but has been very encouraging, and a bit upset, that StarOffice didn't go GPL?
Would you agree that if Sun refrains from using the term open source in a reference to the OSI definition, but rather in a reference that developers are able to see and with Sun, build on Sun's technologies, that there's nothing to be annoyed about? I now Sun at first made the claims of open source, but I haven't seen for a long time of Sun casting SCSL under the same light, but actually making sure to differentiate it from what people generally think of. (which gets others annoyed, because thus open source may have a different definition than OSI's.. more of, you can see the source code, perhaps with or without restrictions).
somehow i got this crazy idea that system VII existed.. but then I knew it didn't.. but... just had to ask to be sure I hadn't day dreamed and gone a bit nuts... guess I went a bit nuts.:)
lets see.. BSD was capped at 4.x to not conflict with AT&T.. and such... so whew. I should re-read some unix history and keep sane.
That was in the article about BAFUG, if I remember correctly. Check out 'FreeBSD in the press' on FreeBSD.org. If no luck, scan bafug.org, and also Slashdot later posted it.
Exactly. If you read svlug.org's history page, that's very evident. SVLUG was an old Unix user group, but went Linux because of the lawsuit. BSD was hurt badly, or else SVLUG may not have become the debatably largest Linux User Group. Incidentally, its members have done many of the grand Linux advocacy in the press. Could have been BSD.. maybe Xenix (*snicker* - it was still good though).
And of course, Linus only created Linux because he didn't know a free variant of BSD was in the works, and wouldn't have bothered with Linux if he had known. He's said that, well known. BSD had a lot more to offer in te beginning, but the lawsuit did a lot of damage. Believe it, or not. (cuz either way, its true)
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the kernel had? Of course not in any way people really notice like the numerous BSDs, but I remember one poster reply once to a message of mine giving a few examples. Wish I could remember any... long time ago.
The real difference with BSD is that Berkeley released it (and under the BSDL) for anyone willing to play, and fork. They were through playing with BSD. So, BSDI, Sun, i386BSD, etc picked it up, and began coding. The free BSDs can still fork just like Linux can, its just whether there's an extreme enough reason to do it. Only OpenBSD actually forked from free BSDs, and when I read Theo's archive, core seemed stubborn and unwilling to resolve the problems. If Alan Cox was suddenly booted from the kernel team, with significant peices of code (and a direction) he wanted to add, but over and over again shoved away by Linus and the rest.. I think Mr. Cox would do something. What, I'm not sure.
Considering DOS, windows, BSDs, etc. all forked.. Linux will sometime too.
The delema is not whether there's a fork, because there are numerous forks already, it is whether will there be forks that are quite popular, but not be integrated into Linus's Linux kernel. I Turbo Linux makes inroads with their product (their fork), but its not then blessed by Linus, and a trend continues, boom.. real forks. I doubt that will happen. Either Linus would cave because it was good technology, or few people would buy it. That's the joy of a dictatorship, things move far faster and are solved (in these issues) quicker.
Its just the idea, which seems to be the point of this entire slashdot article, is whether Linux will not just fork into distributions, but kernels. That's already happened, but most users are content pretending only BSD has forked, that any BSD supporter must cover every BSD (ie, the FreeBSD driver site was given the incentive to go to BSD, and then slashdot posters asked 'Will they support Darwin, and not just Net/Open/Free?'). Windows, dos, BSD, UNIX, BSD, and Linux have forked. Its just whether people want to be ignorant and using forking as an excuse for why their 'compitition' (why must every other OS called 'the enemy'?) is worse.
Hell, I don't care whether MS had no important data where he cracked, but that so many of the government agencies he cracked might have. The DOE only forced the ational labs to put in firewalls after congress go on their backs, and LLNL *finally* did that. Those people running it are lazy, incompitent people who lie to cover theimselves and regular steal equipment. The stories I've heard that go on in LLNL.. it just isn't sane.
But Apache does exist, and has for quite a while, on NT. So running Apache on NT isn't unheard of, and likely is smarter than IIS...
:-)
I doubt there are more bugs found in Linux, but when a bug is found it isn't broacast on news.com or slashdot like every bug in any MS product.
I sure hope not! I mean, what, the entire bit that composes what Linux is, cannot even boot a system, can not function with code contributed from GNU to make Linux usable, and what composes Linux is about 1/2 the size of my first hard drive (think MFM). If Linux has half as many bugs as, say, MS Office.. a massive 100s of megabyte program, my god. Imagine the carnage!
If nothing else works, ask one of the FreeBSD lists... which ever is most aplicable. Of course telling where you looked and was unsuccessful would be helpful (cuz no one likes to help when they think the person was just lazy).
And even Compaq is interested in FreeBSD Alpha, and later put the other BSDs up. One of the guys there is working on FreeBSD Alpha SMP... (from DDN article/posts)
However GNU creditted FreeBSD, Inc for solving the problem upon request. Of course, since each driver is written by different people, the liecense can vary. However, it is not uncommon for either to look at the other's code to get an idea of how to write their own driver, etc. Both sides do it. That's not stealing code, but why do the revserse engineering all over again? If you understand.. then you can port. Lots of drivers go back and forth that way...
hmm.. I've been reading freebsd-newbies and freebsd-advocacy, and nothing even close to that has ever popped up. Its been maybe a year at most.. but linux, when brought up, is never casted down. However on my LUGs, I usuall don't see anything negative towards BSD, except that once or twice the installafests might conflict with a BSD installafest (or they're just wandering around and hit on of BSDs.. or something), and people seem to love to get in the BSD guy's fce with a linux cd and try to get them mad. When enough linux guys shove cds in your face while installing a BSD OS on someones computer, and god knows what they're muttering about at the BSD guy and user... I'm not surprised there's some people getting annoyed.
That's the only excuse I can come up with. Other than that, neither is attacking the other in vile hatred...
And to think HP could be behind, but one of the key developers to IA-64, and forced Intel to add PA-RISC compatability. If that's true.. that's just a bit sad.
You forgot...
Slot B: Athlon Ultra / DEC Alpha
socket 410: Intel NG connector
There were some rumors that S370 would be used by AMD, Cyrix, and others eventually as the next socket format. The reason is that socket chips are cheaper, and slots were only used because of difficulties with large caches. Eventually you go back to socket (like Intel has done), and reduce cost across the board.
Oh, and Slot-2 is for Xeon, P2 and P3 generations. Slot 1 is used for Pentium II/III and old Celerons, and S370 is used for Celerons, P3s, and Coppermine (just another P3).
I wish Intel would get their next IA-32 architecture out. The P6 architecture is anchient, and was supposed to last 3-4 years. They just seemed to put to many developers on the IA-64, and lag IA-32... though I remember reading somewhere that the NG IA-32 is supposed to have mny simularities to the IA-64 design...
Are you kidding? OpenBSD will likely always have the best security, that's one of their main goals, the top goal. If you want a the most secure system possible (and, umm.. I mean that's on the network.. cuz off-line might be the most secure in the foundation), choose OpenBSD. I don't think anyone from FreeBSD, Inc. would tell you otherwise. However, FreeBSD's goal is to be the best BSD server OS on the x86, and later on other platforms. So far, its done quite well at this, just like NetBSD has done well at their multi-platform goal, and OpenBSD with their security goal.
The point is, don't ask when FreeBSD will be as secure or more so than OpenBSD, because likely it never will be so, it will just have strong security.. not the strongest. However, since the BSD model means each project shares with one another, security fixes from OpenBSD make their way to FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Linux. FreeBSD's and NetBSD's changes may find their way in OpenBSD. That makes quite an impressive trio.
Also, does anyone know of another (preferably UNIXen like OS) that is much more trusted than *BSD or Linux?
As Linux is targetted towards a general purpose UNIX (meaning its good, but not the best at almost every task), I don't know how its security racks up to say.. Solaris. However, there are very few other UNIX-like OSes that are mainstream, though a large number of BSD derivatives, and others built from the ground up. I'd be quite surprised if they were any more secure than OpenBSD.
I've read that multics (circa 1960) is even more "trusted" than UNIX (B2 vs. C1 orange book ratings).
UNIX was made after because multics was a failure, because it was to costly in developement and to complex. Most UNIX books have a brief hisory that goes into this. That doesn't mean multics wasn't good, though, just that support died. By now, multics is history, and UNIX has grown to be far more than it was in when first created. Considering that OpenBSD is called the most secure operating system by a large number of people, who believe it, and no one has proven it otherwise, that raiting is (obviously) severly outdated.
The idea that FreeBSD is to blame for allowing viruses that expoit holes in Microsoft's products, to pass through its mail system (sendmail, I'd assume) is just humerous. Microsoft can't create a system that can replace FreeBSD (and work), though they've tried, and they cannot fix problems fast enough to stop virusses. So, since they don't have a virus scanner for a mail server... its thus the problem of using FreeBSD. No one else seems to offer scanning on free (or non-free) basic consumer packages, so Microsoft shouldn't be blamed for the evils of its users. If just shouldn't blame an OS for not having an application, while its own does.. but can't handle the task.
What else is this... amusing?
RMS is largely responsible for the current rise of Free Software. Period. Without him Linus and the BSD folks wouldn't have had the tools necessary to write the Linux kernel, and rewrite out all that AT&T code in BSD. Face it, without the compiler and userspace tools written by the FSF and RMS I suspect that the BSD movement might have died under the weight of AT&T's lawsuit.
I wouldn't go that far as in saying RMS was (basicly) responcible for the success of BSD. RMS says GNU/Linux because Linux relies on GNU code to function, while BSD relies on BSD code, and includes GNU tools for comfort, not for a usable system. I would definately say that GCC has been one of FSF's most useful tool for UNIX users, and likely helped BSD by a great deal too. FSF was well known when the BSDL was created, and Bill Joy does talk a little about how the BSDL was made freer than the GPL because of knowing about FSF. If RMS had not created FSF, the question should be how far would Open Source be today? Would other open source licenses exist, and be of such impact as BSD and the GPL?
I think 386BSD and later BSD OSes, and programs (like sendmail and apache) would still thrive, but not as strongly without FSF's contributions. The early work of FSF was important for all open source groups, but some have relied on it more than others.
Wasn't Deep Blue also re-tweaked for each game, so that Kasparov was basicly up against a new personality each time he played? Makes it harder to fight an opponent, when drawing from past games only hurts you. I remember he was pretty annoyed on the second game (the one he lost) because he hadn't expected that.
That depends on what you consider more important. Such as, capitalisic economies is superior to other forms because of the free market, but then exploitation of the worker and monopolies are the result. So, do you want quicker progress and a larger economy (which means there's more free money, but that doesn't mean in the hands of the workers), or not to sell yourself as a commodety?
The best form of society is still undefined. I highly regard John Stuart Mill's Principles of Political Economy.
By request, there's two new side bar boxes, daemon daily news, and the BSD section (well,all sections have a box). So, just add them and you can check on the main page. The reason fewer people reply is not because they don't read it (look at DDN. Few replies, lots more article submissions). BSD users just don't seem as quick to chip in mass rants in the forums as quickly.
Oh, and the rest of the segments are the same way. The 'interesting' articles show on the main, and the sections have lots of others that are neglected. This is one reason I don't think BSD should be on just BSD OSes, but on all BSD (ie Apache) so there's more diversity, and its not ignored. Otherwise, its just an excuse by slashdot that they do show BSD news, but instead they manage it in a fashion so that no one ever sees it.
I'm bartering the right to use my source, and my price is the right to use your derived works.
Well, you are right that SCSL is for Sun, though I think you neglected that when you write code when complying with the SCSL (which implies that you are thus deriving from Sun's code), it is yours. Sun doesn't own your code, and you can GPL it or give it away, except for anything that is not your own code (ie, if it has Sun's). Thus the SCSL is a great tool for developers to understand how to work with Solaris for building ontop of it, and the same with other platforms such as Jini. That's Sun's goal, and its quite a useful feature over closing it like Microsoft. It helps developers, and does not reduce Sun's control of its own code.
So again, your right n the fact that the SCSL is not meant, at all, to be like the GPL.
On communism, I think your wrong. However, I don't think communism is evil, so saying the GPL and FSF have communist aspects is nothing horrible.
For those who like to drop the C-word in their GPL talk, the fact that we're doing it by choice (unlike any communist system, which can only work by making damn sure you can't choose an alternative because you would) is not the only argument against your idea.
The GPL is property rights for programs. Right of ownership of anything is quite non-communist. After all, if I own something myself, I might be able to get more of it. And then I would keep the "more." Then I might get more. If this is money, I might have more money than my neighbor, and this is what communism tries (and fails miserably) to avoid. If you think GPL has anything to do with this system, I think you have a problem.
That is only because we are in a democratic capitalist state. Thus, we must play by capitalism and thus there is a choice. Communism is not forcing you not to use an alternative, it is forcing capitalism not to exploit the worker. In Marx's Wages of Labor, Rent of Land, and Estrangement of Labor (right?), he shows how the worker is exploited, and how he is not given freedom. The goal is that the worker recieves th fruits of his labor, not the capitalist. Anything a worker does is only a commodity, and he must sell himself as a commodity, etc. The result of his labor goes to the capitalist, not the worker. Because landowners, property (Marx means land!), are really capitalist (the entire idea of rent), that's exploitation. Marx says communism will be a society where the worker recieves the fruits of his labor, and goods will be equally and fairly distributed based on need. This does not mean you do not own your car, it means you do not own your land.
The FSF says code should be free. It views code as land property, where there is no real owner (this is my interpritation from their docs). If code is GPL'ed, the origionator does not own the code, except that he can re-release it in another license. He cannot, however, remove the GPL as it takes the code away from him and forces it open. Its all very muggy and I don't want to try to compare the two here, because I would make numerous mistakes.
Communism has so far failed because these were NOT marxian communist societies. The prolotariate did not revolt, and it was forced. That means it doesn't work from the start, and things go bad. I don't believe that the GPL is the answer for open source, nor is communism for society. Both in the real worl have forced on the worker (here, the worker is not the devlopers, but every regular user), and is cheared by a small group that ignores many, many factors as it gains power. What is needed is for an analysis based transfered from John Stuart Mill's Principles of a Political Economy to really understand how to manage code licenses. (code licenses are very similar to societies, and neither should be based on an ideal, and not constrained by that one)
Definition:
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessess.
In his arguement, he rightly says that to be altrusistic, he must give to the public domain. That means anyone can use it, no strings. Putting restrictions on that, especially the GPL's where any modifications must return to him, and his community, that's selfish. If a company did this, people would think they're greedy. So, not to be hypocritical, using the GPL is being greedy.. selfish.
Thus, while the origional poster can say he is altrusistic (because of freedom of speech), he'll also be lying his ass off.
Sun Community Source License. They use community source. I generally don't see Sun, any more, using the term open source, or any term.. they usually just say SCSL and don't care about explaining it. I don't really care to much, as a long as they don't try to pitch it all as the same, try to ride on anyones sucess, or anything else annoying. From what I've seen, they killed the maretters who tried to do that innitially.. haven't seen them play SCSL as open source for a while (ie, Bill Joy's goal was to make people understand the SCSL, while everyone elses was to attack Joy and ignore him).
Now, what would the term be if you just let people see your source, with or without restrictions? I don't mean any marketting term, just say, "here.. take a look at my source."
Those communist societies owned things too. It's quite easy to look stupid in the eyes of people who know better (as you so nicely put it), isn't it?
:)
I've read a good bit of Marx in my time (Communst Manifesto, Manuscrpts of Economics of 1844 (something like that), and some of capitalism. I'm right now reading a bit of Mills', Principles of a Political Economy. If you read Marx's real essays, not the summery that CM provides, FSF's goals do have some striking simularities. I wouldn't label it communism without thorough research, and I wouldn't label communism as evil either (though ESR seems to). I actually like Mills' ideas far better than any socialism, capitalism, communism, or facism (of course).
The ideas Marx proposed, as were ideas RMS proposed, made people involved take notice, despise them, but could not neglect them. Perhaps not see the same means for the end, but see base theories. Neither is bad, though both could be a bit to extreme. To bad we can't reserect Mills'.
The community is fine but has been very encouraging, and a bit upset, that StarOffice didn't go GPL?
Would you agree that if Sun refrains from using the term open source in a reference to the OSI definition, but rather in a reference that developers are able to see and with Sun, build on Sun's technologies, that there's nothing to be annoyed about? I now Sun at first made the claims of open source, but I haven't seen for a long time of Sun casting SCSL under the same light, but actually making sure to differentiate it from what people generally think of. (which gets others annoyed, because thus open source may have a different definition than OSI's.. more of, you can see the source code, perhaps with or without restrictions).
eek.. and I hate it when people say open source = free software.. and I just did that. Thanks a bunch for correcting that goof.
yeah.. :)
:)
somehow i got this crazy idea that system VII existed.. but then I knew it didn't.. but... just had to ask to be sure I hadn't day dreamed and gone a bit nuts... guess I went a bit nuts.
lets see.. BSD was capped at 4.x to not conflict with AT&T.. and such... so whew. I should re-read some unix history and keep sane.
That was in the article about BAFUG, if I remember correctly. Check out 'FreeBSD in the press' on FreeBSD.org. If no luck, scan bafug.org, and also Slashdot later posted it.
Exactly. If you read svlug.org's history page, that's very evident. SVLUG was an old Unix user group, but went Linux because of the lawsuit. BSD was hurt badly, or else SVLUG may not have become the debatably largest Linux User Group. Incidentally, its members have done many of the grand Linux advocacy in the press. Could have been BSD.. maybe Xenix (*snicker* - it was still good though).
And of course, Linus only created Linux because he didn't know a free variant of BSD was in the works, and wouldn't have bothered with Linux if he had known. He's said that, well known. BSD had a lot more to offer in te beginning, but the lawsuit did a lot of damage. Believe it, or not. (cuz either way, its true)