I remember hearing of bubble memory, but not much.. The most I heard was that it was extremely expensive, fast, but small. Not something for industrial usage. Of course.. that was back in the 80s when I heard anything about it, and that info was from my father.. who I'm not sure where/when he heard it.
Was HPFS a jfs? We all know MS took what it knew from OS/2 and made NT, with NTFS supposedly very similar to HPFS... If HPFS was a jfs, than it would be IBM's and MS's designers trying to avoid that problem.
Sure its better than SCSI... SCSI has a 5mb bus. And SCSI-2, its got a 20mb if Fast/Wide. But.. well, why compare it to those - both are legacy. SCSI-2 Fast is still used on SCSI cdroms/cdrw/dvds because its all that's needed, and I assume cheaper than UW SCSI. All the drives are UW, U2W, or soon 160/m (most of Ultra3).
In anycase, when I first heard about FireWire when it was the hot new technology, it was refered to as SCSI without being bounded by legacy support. Legacy support makes life horrible for creating the best possible. Still.. firewire will have some problems as Intel's going to put lots of marketting into USB/2.
Oh.. and $80 for the cable bit. When you pay thousands for 10k rpm drives to make your big terrabyte servers, pay for the powerful RAID cards, the guys to make sure it stays together, etc.. paying for the cable is a bit minute.
PS. UW SCSI is UW SCSI-3. Anything past F/W SCSI-2 is SCSI-3, UltraX (and Wide). There will be no SCSI-4.. just ultras...
I didn't notice any listings on Net& FreeBSD pages, but OpenBSD, the youngest of the group, does have a list. This is not for contributing code, but of money, equipment, and services. Not only do the companies praise OpenBSD when asked (ie, NYTimes artcle), but they do help in more than code.
Well, that was the tone, IMO. That doesn't mean my interpritation was correct, of course. I'm refering to the email in which you announced Slashdot would have a BSD section, which came as advocacy was chatting about the loss of the FreeBSD advocacy pages, the new 3rd party advocacy page, the start of Daemon Daily News, and OS Online's BSD section. I don't have your message anymore, but that was how I precieved it.
It was much more the case that/. has been thinking about running a BSD section for some time, but didn't have the manpower to do it internally.
Alright. Again, your the one who knows... I'm just trying to scrape little bits of knowledge together to figure things out. I refer you to the infamous message, where you said Andover requested the page (which would mean the/. crew agreed, but did not request it from Andover). On the case of you running the section.. I'm sure your the right person. I don't think very many people would have trusted anyone else (in both being committed, and fair).
but you forget... BSD gets stuff back. The idea is that it helps the entire community, closed and open source. Sure, some one can just take, but IMO, the result is generaly quite amazing.
1. BSD group creates open source program 2. corperation takes code, and to create a product worth the paying for, they add numerous enhancements. 3. As the company still gets free code from the origionators, they want to see the innovation. They wamt to keep an edge, though. So, they give back big fixes, a few enhancements, etc.
Thus, people get the same.. better quality open source code, and for those that its not good enough for, they have a company with support and more features. The two support each other, and neither is persecuted, both benefit.
What about those so called 'greedy' companies who don't contribute back? Lets say MS didn't contrbute anything when it used the BSD networking code. Here.. everyone using Windows benefitted. They got stable, proven, high quality code that makes Windows work. With all the complaints towards Windows, is it better to have another MS bit of code, or proven code that (I believe Linux uses/used) and *many* others have used.
The GPL is a fine license, but the BSDL is not at all bad, and if people wish to talk about supporting the community, the BSD supports everyone. However, GPL is more political (IMHO) and its extreme attitude (that of not supporting propitary/closed code) definately gets media.
This all is a touchy issue. If I can get my miniuns together, a project will form in the next couple of weeks that's goal is to help clear confusion, FUD, etc. of various open source licenses (and, to help.. everything will be footnoted to remove bias). A few people are already offered help too.
True.. and of course that's why whatever I write, software or written word, goes under a BSD style license (I don't like OCL). Actually.. I'll be writing a lot about differences in license if I ever get my project organized enough...
Everyone knows it, but telling supporters in their face wont always make you friends. The GPL serves as a lobbying tool for FSF, BSD serves as a license to improve the community (in my opinion). I see the BSDL and the GPL in a similar fashion as what happened with the hippies/yippies. The hippies started the trend, they reacted, they caused their revolution to begin. However, they weren't politicial, just doing what they wanted and thought was best. The yippies, the generation after, liked the hippy ideas but wanted to add heir political force to it... add their twist. Yippies marched, yippies screamed against vietnam. Yippies got the attention of the press as revolutionary, while the hippies were just ignored.
Sound familar? BSD has done revolutionary things technologicly, GPL done the political work. Why is it that Linux users are generally so bent on getting media in any possible fashion, yet BSD users aren't so interested in the ego of the printed page? Linux is evolutionary, BSD was revolutionary.
If you go BSD, you allow the open source world to evolve from your code, and the closed source to use that code as a starting point, and then improve (and they always do. The bugs they find, and other code as submitted as gratitude back to the origionators). Sometimes, you just have to have lots of respect for them.
The GPL takes the open code, forces businesses to see it but not have it (taunt them), and then makes a big media blitz where companies are lead to believe GPL'ing means instant free developers, customers.. capital. Its not true.. but they have one heck of a story to tell.
That's my opinion of it. FSF is a lobbying group, but I doubt they would deny that. However, I still respect and in general uphold the views of the GPL community, and I understand decency. Yours was at the edge.. and I probably would have given it 1 off (because it sounded like a cheer for the insultish attitude of the origional poster), or more likely.. just ignored it.
That's true.. remember whose moderating it. However, if I think that because the origional poster had a bad attitude, and you said it wasn't a flame (while it wasn't, but was disrespectful), it didn't mean moderaters felt to great about you. If you had maybe gone into more detail.. definately worth a 2. Alone, its not worth a hit, but it was a side effect of the first poster.. (and they say there's no censorship on/.!)
Moderations aren't always fair (you see 5s for no reason, except they posted early and moderators were really lazy, or they see some name they recognize). I wouldn't know how to fix it, and I don't think he maintainers of slashdot care enough to ponder the subject further.
From the way many BSD users have been treated by both the slashdot posters (and the FUD you see now is a shadow of what it was before), and the way the maintainers openly neglected them, I'm not surprised many BSD readers don't feel much joy in this. When Nik told FreeBSD advocacy a few weeks ago about/.'s new section, even then there was a tone of 'sorry for all your work on Daemon News, FreeBSD advocacy, etc.. but your dead. We're covering it now.'
Andover, when Nik told advocacy, was the one who requested the BSD section because they saw the market. This was not Rob, etc. Andover sees the market, which means money. While I'm quite happy that Slashdot is claiming to support BSD better, I wouldn't them as my *only* news source, not even my main one on BSD. I don't trust the maintainers (except Nik, of course), I don't think they take responcibility for their actions, etc.
So just understand thi: many BSD users don't see the increased number of articles as a great thing, its nice. The way slashdot has treated them in the past, none are rejoicing. I think many will continue to support Daemon News, some OS Online, and other sites with pride.. and support/. BSD because for publicity.. we may have to.
I thought Intel already was. They want support for IA64, and egcs is getting it. They also were working at one point to add in Intel's SIMDs instructions (mmx (and?) Katami). AMD should put some cash into optimizing egcs, etc. for the Athlon and x86-64, since optimization makes a huge performance gain under Linux.
Now.. if Intel would also invest evenly, not just Linux and BeOS (are they still?), that would be nice. Intel - any support for the BSD guys too?
Now, in the Slashdot post were told "developers... are alleged to have forgotten to include the modified kernel source" code. If we take them at their word, than they wouldn't be confused, just human (and I wont even start that battle on Corel). Since they already released a product that does not contain the specific modifications to the kernel (I assume since code was released at all, they are not "just confused"), and I'll assume that they did not provide a "a written offer... to give any third party... [a] copy of the corrosponding source code." Thus, they don't meet the first two requirements to be GPL friendly in section 3.
So, part [c] is the way out. Since this was a mistake by forgetfulness (something we hypothesized was true above), than by doing an adaquate job of informing their current customers of where to obtain the code modifications for the Linux kernel should be acceptable. Sure, this information was not accompanied (assumed, as we do not know if they also provided information in their package), and thus technically they broke the GPL. To err is human.
In my opinion, we shouldn't start thinking about who were going to sue or automaticly consider them some ignorant or evil swine. If they do an adaquate job of informing their customers, and fix the problem for new customers, would this thus not be something to fret about? It seems, if we pretend slashdot's forum is an accurate view of the linux community, that users/advocates are a bit to quick to automaticly assume guilt, rather than innocence (and the latter can only be proven when the few take the time to write informly). In your opinion, is it better to give a hard nudge to companies that cross over the GPL (which can easily be understood as a mistake), or should we try to launch all out war to scare other companies into being extremely cautious?
If you take a look at my reply to another poster, you'll see I agree the licenses aren't something to go crazy about. I was also trying to show how they did nothing to horrible, except being forgetful. IMHO, Slashdot continues to jump the gun, as I still have my doubts on Corel's "violation." Thus, you can see I'd rather break the GPL than nuke the chinese.
grin.. I know which [c] you mean. That was about informing the users of where to get the code. As they did no include the code or an offer of how obtain the code, we are left at analyzing [c]. While they did not accompany information of where to get the source code, that was because they had not realized their error. Thus, I'm sure we can be kind and not bitter, and let them inform their users where this code may be obtained. Doing so in an adaquate fashion would be acceptable to everyone, except some annoying zealot.
Are you really a BSD user, or just some idiot trying to make BSD look bad? When Linux zealots loved to try to degrade BSD users, this was exactly what they did. Sometimes I can't tell if its these users just reversing it (since they know everyone hates it and makes BSD, as it made Linux before, look bad).. or more likely.. just some little @$%!ing brat.
Now, the GPL has every right to exist, and users have every right to make sure other obide by it. I'm sure if you go rape some child they're parents will happily get the government to put the full force of the law down on your... But this isn't as severe, which is why no ones going to jail or such. Violations still deserve attention, to be takn with concern (while staying calm) and not to ridicule the license because some people are inept and try to ignore it.
[c] is exactly what aplied here, if they ignore gong forward with [c], than its a violation IMHO. Yet, if they only just realized, its something they can fix. They will fix it, it wasn't intentional, so I'm sure they'll make people aware in an adaquate fashion of where the modifications may be obtained. However, the point should be not to attack developers for being a bit forgetful at times (where still human!), and merely just to give them a hard nudge to fix it ASAP.
wow.. take a minute to think for a second. The GPL doesn't require the code be with the product, but be available when requested, at a fee of whatever is needed to pay transportation costs (or free). That means if these guys simply put an ftp up with the modified code, and let you know its availalbe, they shouldn't have a problem. Here's my proof.. (I really hate/. always jumping the gun..). From v1 of the GPL (cuz I was just looking at it.. thanks RMS and neelakanth (is it neel?) for finding v1 for me)...
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a portion or derivative of it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,
b) accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party free (except for a nominal charge for the cost of distribution) a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,
c) accompany it with the information you received as to where the corresponding source code may be obtained. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form alone.)
While this is true, others have realized this and are working where it counts. Where does it count? One important area is SSH. Due to the US's restrictions, RH and others can't have sites that contain the package, since international users could download it. However, Debian, Suse, and others can as they are not US-based. Thus, you don't find SSH (perhaps though SSH2) with the distribution of US based Linux vendors.
A few weeks ago when OpenBSD announced its method of solving this problem, as best they could, some users on my LUG began talking about (if I understood correctly) emulatting OpenBSD's approach (except non-US citizens must do it).Thank Daily Daemon News for covering that tidbit.
Hey, don't forget Daily Daemon News! OS Online is pretty good, though a bit slow on news (across the board). Always good to check every few days, though.
I just hope people don't rely on Slashdot for BSD news (considering it took weeks of multiple posting requests, from numerous people, just getting them to put the schedual up). I'd much rather have 3-4 good places for news (including/.) rather than Andover trying to monopolize...
1. Like I said, most. Sure, you can get Linux, NetBSD, etc. on a G4. However, you still rarely see them, because the G4 desktops generally are Macs, and Macs run the MacOS. Out of all the shops selling G4s, do you really believe most of its customer's run Linux or another non-Apple OS? And again, this is a Mac site, so they're talking mostly to MacOS users. If I'm only a BSD user, do I care if MS Windows crashes?
2. No, but as I said, its a side effect. The OS is poor, something I noted at. The new BSD derived OS should be far better. I'm sure Mac users would be happy to have the front end they love, and a back end that's worth they're love.
3. Sure it seems odd, but if we take them at their word and that it doesn't effect chips under 500mhz, than its ok. It sounds like it does, but they don't want to admit it.. or that they are giving an excuse for while the G4 500mhz chips will be delayed, but that its not a horrid problem that should scare customers away.
1. Considering that this is MacWeekly, I'm not surprised they noted its effect on the Mac OS. They did say other OSes, more commonly found for their embedded systems, would have a problem. Very rarely do you see a desktop G4 running anything but the MacOS.
2. The MacOS was critisized before OS-8 that it had an extremely poor backend. The OS still isn't that great, but far better than it used to be. One has to wonder why the MacOS doesn't do it at top speed, but obviousely, here, it helps stability.
3. Rebooting is only if your on a 500mhz chip, which isn't availalbe. If your overclocking, than you made the choice. Motorola obviously is concerned and is taking the steps so you don't have to reboot. They merely said that for most users, it would be a minute annoyance at worsed.
hmm.. I had a friend who did that.. must have been years since I chatted with him (last I saw him was when he walked in one day - the first day of classes, and the white trash students were afraid he was back.:-)
Actually, I have another friend who did the same thing too. The problem is, this technique only gets you as far as a network admin, or a consultant. If your interested in anything else, it really doesn't work (well.. unless you start your own business, but all I've seen from those w/o degrees are horrid). If someone is already claiming their good enough to get into the top schools in the nation (and usually that's pure ego), then this technique doesn't help.
A trade school to learn x, y, z, and perhaps a, b, and c, is not impotant. In ten years, things will be vastly different, and ten years from then.. could you imagine today two decades ago? There's one thing that has to be remembered, especially for engineers: 50% (and this is the low!) of what your taught is worthless when you graduate. Its not important if your a walking dictionary.. computer.. but if you can adapt, and relearn.
For me, it came down to Illinoit Tech (IIT), and CMU. Quite close, but even before CMU wait-listed me, I really liked IIT and had happily accepted. When you apply for colleges, grade on academics only. After you've got a list of potentials, all of which you thought were worthy, go to the one that fits you. Thus, you've got a good.. top school, and you'll even be happy.
They sometimes have some good stuff on l.c, but not enough to make me read it frequently. When I think of VA L. in a positive light, its when they sponsor events, and that I think is an extremely noble thing for any company making profit off of OSS to do.
On articles... well, I'm more inclined to work on my own project. I've already recieved a bit of encouragement where it counts, and maybe next year when there's enough material compiled, it can happily be slashdotted. Gotta start on the basic outlining this weekened.:-)
hmm.. I don't think I really like a company taking names like "LNUX," it implies to much of a connection. VALX or something would be better... Sure, when people think of linux they don't think of VA Linux, but VA is trying awful hard to position themselves so they do. I didn't like them buying Linux.com, mostly because when they first released the site, it had contained FUD, and at times still does. Linux.(xxx) should be independant, not corperate's portal for manipulating new users to buy into whatever they want to sell them.
Using the symbol LNUX seems to try to get stock traders, especially day traders, to view Linux and VA as the same... ignorance. Maybe I'm off, but I just have an uneasy feeling towards VA.
and that flame is supposed to show BSD as worse? Come on. The BSD zealots are good programers, and like every good programer, they have an ego. Hey, Linus said he knew he was the best programmer in the world, and that's why he could do Linux.
These types of BSD zealots are less now, as they acknolodge there are real programmers wrking on Linux, but before it was high level programmers with experience, verse low level programmers, or few high level programmers. They have a bit of a right for their zealotry, but that never makes it right.
The thing I despise about Linux zealots is the anti-Microsoft attitude. The excusses I hear are worthless, few actualy ever used NT. They lie, and when corrected say "I didn't know that." Does making FUD due to ignorance make it right? NO! Linux made Microsoft an enemy, because Microsoft did wrongs. I don't rally behind either group, because both are stubborn and full of ego. This is why I like the BSDL better, any code goes to help the community. If its closed sourced, its improved - that's good. Maybe they'll return a few patches. Many do. If its open source, its free. Both help advance the community. That's my goal.
BSD nuts may be crazier, because they don't lash out and give their code to anyone. Maybe you don't see their logic. But don't 'push that crap' because of your ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember hearing of bubble memory, but not much.. The most I heard was that it was extremely expensive, fast, but small. Not something for industrial usage. Of course.. that was back in the 80s when I heard anything about it, and that info was from my father.. who I'm not sure where/when he heard it.
What exactly is bubble memory?
Was HPFS a jfs? We all know MS took what it knew from OS/2 and made NT, with NTFS supposedly very similar to HPFS... If HPFS was a jfs, than it would be IBM's and MS's designers trying to avoid that problem.
Sure its better than SCSI... SCSI has a 5mb bus. And SCSI-2, its got a 20mb if Fast/Wide. But.. well, why compare it to those - both are legacy. SCSI-2 Fast is still used on SCSI cdroms/cdrw/dvds because its all that's needed, and I assume cheaper than UW SCSI. All the drives are UW, U2W, or soon 160/m (most of Ultra3).
In anycase, when I first heard about FireWire when it was the hot new technology, it was refered to as SCSI without being bounded by legacy support. Legacy support makes life horrible for creating the best possible. Still.. firewire will have some problems as Intel's going to put lots of marketting into USB/2.
Oh.. and $80 for the cable bit. When you pay thousands for 10k rpm drives to make your big terrabyte servers, pay for the powerful RAID cards, the guys to make sure it stays together, etc.. paying for the cable is a bit minute.
PS. UW SCSI is UW SCSI-3. Anything past F/W SCSI-2 is SCSI-3, UltraX (and Wide). There will be no SCSI-4.. just ultras...
I didn't notice any listings on Net& FreeBSD pages, but OpenBSD, the youngest of the group, does have a list. This is not for contributing code, but of money, equipment, and services. Not only do the companies praise OpenBSD when asked (ie, NYTimes artcle), but they do help in more than code.
http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html
Hey Nick,
/. has been thinking about running a BSD section for some time, but didn't have the manpower to do it internally.
/. crew agreed, but did not request it from Andover). On the case of you running the section.. I'm sure your the right person. I don't think very many people would have trusted anyone else (in both being committed, and fair).
Well, that was the tone, IMO. That doesn't mean my interpritation was correct, of course. I'm refering to the email in which you announced Slashdot would have a BSD section, which came as advocacy was chatting about the loss of the FreeBSD advocacy pages, the new 3rd party advocacy page, the start of Daemon Daily News, and OS Online's BSD section. I don't have your message anymore, but that was how I precieved it.
It was much more the case that
Alright. Again, your the one who knows... I'm just trying to scrape little bits of knowledge together to figure things out. I refer you to the infamous message, where you said Andover requested the page (which would mean the
In any case, good luck on BSD Slashdot.
but you forget... BSD gets stuff back. The idea is that it helps the entire community, closed and open source. Sure, some one can just take, but IMO, the result is generaly quite amazing.
1. BSD group creates open source program
2. corperation takes code, and to create a product worth the paying for, they add numerous enhancements.
3. As the company still gets free code from the origionators, they want to see the innovation. They wamt to keep an edge, though. So, they give back big fixes, a few enhancements, etc.
Thus, people get the same.. better quality open source code, and for those that its not good enough for, they have a company with support and more features. The two support each other, and neither is persecuted, both benefit.
What about those so called 'greedy' companies who don't contribute back? Lets say MS didn't contrbute anything when it used the BSD networking code. Here.. everyone using Windows benefitted. They got stable, proven, high quality code that makes Windows work. With all the complaints towards Windows, is it better to have another MS bit of code, or proven code that (I believe Linux uses/used) and *many* others have used.
The GPL is a fine license, but the BSDL is not at all bad, and if people wish to talk about supporting the community, the BSD supports everyone. However, GPL is more political (IMHO) and its extreme attitude (that of not supporting propitary/closed code) definately gets media.
This all is a touchy issue. If I can get my miniuns together, a project will form in the next couple of weeks that's goal is to help clear confusion, FUD, etc. of various open source licenses (and, to help.. everything will be footnoted to remove bias). A few people are already offered help too.
True.. and of course that's why whatever I write, software or written word, goes under a BSD style license (I don't like OCL). Actually.. I'll be writing a lot about differences in license if I ever get my project organized enough...
Everyone knows it, but telling supporters in their face wont always make you friends. The GPL serves as a lobbying tool for FSF, BSD serves as a license to improve the community (in my opinion). I see the BSDL and the GPL in a similar fashion as what happened with the hippies/yippies. The hippies started the trend, they reacted, they caused their revolution to begin. However, they weren't politicial, just doing what they wanted and thought was best. The yippies, the generation after, liked the hippy ideas but wanted to add heir political force to it... add their twist. Yippies marched, yippies screamed against vietnam. Yippies got the attention of the press as revolutionary, while the hippies were just ignored.
Sound familar? BSD has done revolutionary things technologicly, GPL done the political work. Why is it that Linux users are generally so bent on getting media in any possible fashion, yet BSD users aren't so interested in the ego of the printed page? Linux is evolutionary, BSD was revolutionary.
If you go BSD, you allow the open source world to evolve from your code, and the closed source to use that code as a starting point, and then improve (and they always do. The bugs they find, and other code as submitted as gratitude back to the origionators). Sometimes, you just have to have lots of respect for them.
The GPL takes the open code, forces businesses to see it but not have it (taunt them), and then makes a big media blitz where companies are lead to believe GPL'ing means instant free developers, customers.. capital. Its not true.. but they have one heck of a story to tell.
That's my opinion of it. FSF is a lobbying group, but I doubt they would deny that. However, I still respect and in general uphold the views of the GPL community, and I understand decency. Yours was at the edge.. and I probably would have given it 1 off (because it sounded like a cheer for the insultish attitude of the origional poster), or more likely.. just ignored it.
That's true.. remember whose moderating it. However, if I think that because the origional poster had a bad attitude, and you said it wasn't a flame (while it wasn't, but was disrespectful), it didn't mean moderaters felt to great about you. If you had maybe gone into more detail.. definately worth a 2. Alone, its not worth a hit, but it was a side effect of the first poster.. (and they say there's no censorship on /.!)
Moderations aren't always fair (you see 5s for no reason, except they posted early and moderators were really lazy, or they see some name they recognize). I wouldn't know how to fix it, and I don't think he maintainers of slashdot care enough to ponder the subject further.
From the way many BSD users have been treated by both the slashdot posters (and the FUD you see now is a shadow of what it was before), and the way the maintainers openly neglected them, I'm not surprised many BSD readers don't feel much joy in this. When Nik told FreeBSD advocacy a few weeks ago about /.'s new section, even then there was a tone of 'sorry for all your work on Daemon News, FreeBSD advocacy, etc.. but your dead. We're covering it now.'
/. BSD because for publicity.. we may have to.
Andover, when Nik told advocacy, was the one who requested the BSD section because they saw the market. This was not Rob, etc. Andover sees the market, which means money. While I'm quite happy that Slashdot is claiming to support BSD better, I wouldn't them as my *only* news source, not even my main one on BSD. I don't trust the maintainers (except Nik, of course), I don't think they take responcibility for their actions, etc.
So just understand thi: many BSD users don't see the increased number of articles as a great thing, its nice. The way slashdot has treated them in the past, none are rejoicing. I think many will continue to support Daemon News, some OS Online, and other sites with pride.. and support
I thought Intel already was. They want support for IA64, and egcs is getting it. They also were working at one point to add in Intel's SIMDs instructions (mmx (and?) Katami). AMD should put some cash into optimizing egcs, etc. for the Athlon and x86-64, since optimization makes a huge performance gain under Linux.
Now.. if Intel would also invest evenly, not just Linux and BeOS (are they still?), that would be nice. Intel - any support for the BSD guys too?
hey Bruce,
Now, in the Slashdot post were told "developers... are alleged to have forgotten to include the modified kernel source" code. If we take them at their word, than they wouldn't be confused, just human (and I wont even start that battle on Corel). Since they already released a product that does not contain the specific modifications to the kernel (I assume since code was released at all, they are not "just confused"), and I'll assume that they did not provide a "a written offer... to give any third party... [a] copy of the corrosponding source code." Thus, they don't meet the first two requirements to be GPL friendly in section 3.
So, part [c] is the way out. Since this was a mistake by forgetfulness (something we hypothesized was true above), than by doing an adaquate job of informing their current customers of where to obtain the code modifications for the Linux kernel should be acceptable. Sure, this information was not accompanied (assumed, as we do not know if they also provided information in their package), and thus technically they broke the GPL. To err is human.
In my opinion, we shouldn't start thinking about who were going to sue or automaticly consider them some ignorant or evil swine. If they do an adaquate job of informing their customers, and fix the problem for new customers, would this thus not be something to fret about? It seems, if we pretend slashdot's forum is an accurate view of the linux community, that users/advocates are a bit to quick to automaticly assume guilt, rather than innocence (and the latter can only be proven when the few take the time to write informly). In your opinion, is it better to give a hard nudge to companies that cross over the GPL (which can easily be understood as a mistake), or should we try to launch all out war to scare other companies into being extremely cautious?
If you take a look at my reply to another poster, you'll see I agree the licenses aren't something to go crazy about. I was also trying to show how they did nothing to horrible, except being forgetful. IMHO, Slashdot continues to jump the gun, as I still have my doubts on Corel's "violation." Thus, you can see I'd rather break the GPL than nuke the chinese.
grin.. I know which [c] you mean. That was about informing the users of where to get the code. As they did no include the code or an offer of how obtain the code, we are left at analyzing [c]. While they did not accompany information of where to get the source code, that was because they had not realized their error. Thus, I'm sure we can be kind and not bitter, and let them inform their users where this code may be obtained. Doing so in an adaquate fashion would be acceptable to everyone, except some annoying zealot.
Are you really a BSD user, or just some idiot trying to make BSD look bad? When Linux zealots loved to try to degrade BSD users, this was exactly what they did. Sometimes I can't tell if its these users just reversing it (since they know everyone hates it and makes BSD, as it made Linux before, look bad).. or more likely.. just some little @$%!ing brat.
Now, the GPL has every right to exist, and users have every right to make sure other obide by it. I'm sure if you go rape some child they're parents will happily get the government to put the full force of the law down on your... But this isn't as severe, which is why no ones going to jail or such. Violations still deserve attention, to be takn with concern (while staying calm) and not to ridicule the license because some people are inept and try to ignore it.
[c] is exactly what aplied here, if they ignore gong forward with [c], than its a violation IMHO. Yet, if they only just realized, its something they can fix. They will fix it, it wasn't intentional, so I'm sure they'll make people aware in an adaquate fashion of where the modifications may be obtained. However, the point should be not to attack developers for being a bit forgetful at times (where still human!), and merely just to give them a hard nudge to fix it ASAP.
wow.. take a minute to think for a second. The GPL doesn't require the code be with the product, but be available when requested, at a fee of whatever is needed to pay transportation costs (or free). That means if these guys simply put an ftp up with the modified code, and let you know its availalbe, they shouldn't have a problem. Here's my proof.. (I really hate /. always jumping the gun..). From v1 of the GPL (cuz I was just looking at it.. thanks RMS and neelakanth (is it neel?) for finding v1 for me)...
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a portion or derivative of it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,
b) accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party free (except for a nominal charge for the cost of distribution) a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,
c) accompany it with the information you received as to where the corresponding source code may be obtained. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form alone.)
A few weeks ago when OpenBSD announced its method of solving this problem, as best they could, some users on my LUG began talking about (if I understood correctly) emulatting OpenBSD's approach (except non-US citizens must do it).Thank Daily Daemon News for covering that tidbit.
Hey, don't forget Daily Daemon News! OS Online is pretty good, though a bit slow on news (across the board). Always good to check every few days, though.
/.) rather than Andover trying to monopolize...
I just hope people don't rely on Slashdot for BSD news (considering it took weeks of multiple posting requests, from numerous people, just getting them to put the schedual up). I'd much rather have 3-4 good places for news (including
1. Like I said, most. Sure, you can get Linux, NetBSD, etc. on a G4. However, you still rarely see them, because the G4 desktops generally are Macs, and Macs run the MacOS. Out of all the shops selling G4s, do you really believe most of its customer's run Linux or another non-Apple OS? And again, this is a Mac site, so they're talking mostly to MacOS users. If I'm only a BSD user, do I care if MS Windows crashes?
2. No, but as I said, its a side effect. The OS is poor, something I noted at. The new BSD derived OS should be far better. I'm sure Mac users would be happy to have the front end they love, and a back end that's worth they're love.
3. Sure it seems odd, but if we take them at their word and that it doesn't effect chips under 500mhz, than its ok. It sounds like it does, but they don't want to admit it.. or that they are giving an excuse for while the G4 500mhz chips will be delayed, but that its not a horrid problem that should scare customers away.
1. Considering that this is MacWeekly, I'm not surprised they noted its effect on the Mac OS. They did say other OSes, more commonly found for their embedded systems, would have a problem. Very rarely do you see a desktop G4 running anything but the MacOS.
2. The MacOS was critisized before OS-8 that it had an extremely poor backend. The OS still isn't that great, but far better than it used to be. One has to wonder why the MacOS doesn't do it at top speed, but obviousely, here, it helps stability.
3. Rebooting is only if your on a 500mhz chip, which isn't availalbe. If your overclocking, than you made the choice. Motorola obviously is concerned and is taking the steps so you don't have to reboot. They merely said that for most users, it would be a minute annoyance at worsed.
hmm.. I had a friend who did that.. must have been years since I chatted with him (last I saw him was when he walked in one day - the first day of classes, and the white trash students were afraid he was back. :-)
Actually, I have another friend who did the same thing too. The problem is, this technique only gets you as far as a network admin, or a consultant. If your interested in anything else, it really doesn't work (well.. unless you start your own business, but all I've seen from those w/o degrees are horrid). If someone is already claiming their good enough to get into the top schools in the nation (and usually that's pure ego), then this technique doesn't help.
A trade school to learn x, y, z, and perhaps a, b, and c, is not impotant. In ten years, things will be vastly different, and ten years from then.. could you imagine today two decades ago? There's one thing that has to be remembered, especially for engineers: 50% (and this is the low!) of what your taught is worthless when you graduate. Its not important if your a walking dictionary.. computer.. but if you can adapt, and relearn.
For me, it came down to Illinoit Tech (IIT), and CMU. Quite close, but even before CMU wait-listed me, I really liked IIT and had happily accepted. When you apply for colleges, grade on academics only. After you've got a list of potentials, all of which you thought were worthy, go to the one that fits you. Thus, you've got a good.. top school, and you'll even be happy.
They sometimes have some good stuff on l.c, but not enough to make me read it frequently. When I think of VA L. in a positive light, its when they sponsor events, and that I think is an extremely noble thing for any company making profit off of OSS to do.
:-)
On articles... well, I'm more inclined to work on my own project. I've already recieved a bit of encouragement where it counts, and maybe next year when there's enough material compiled, it can happily be slashdotted. Gotta start on the basic outlining this weekened.
hmm.. I don't think I really like a company taking names like "LNUX," it implies to much of a connection. VALX or something would be better... Sure, when people think of linux they don't think of VA Linux, but VA is trying awful hard to position themselves so they do. I didn't like them buying Linux.com, mostly because when they first released the site, it had contained FUD, and at times still does. Linux.(xxx) should be independant, not corperate's portal for manipulating new users to buy into whatever they want to sell them.
Using the symbol LNUX seems to try to get stock traders, especially day traders, to view Linux and VA as the same... ignorance. Maybe I'm off, but I just have an uneasy feeling towards VA.
and that flame is supposed to show BSD as worse? Come on. The BSD zealots are good programers, and like every good programer, they have an ego. Hey, Linus said he knew he was the best programmer in the world, and that's why he could do Linux.
These types of BSD zealots are less now, as they acknolodge there are real programmers wrking on Linux, but before it was high level programmers with experience, verse low level programmers, or few high level programmers. They have a bit of a right for their zealotry, but that never makes it right.
The thing I despise about Linux zealots is the anti-Microsoft attitude. The excusses I hear are worthless, few actualy ever used NT. They lie, and when corrected say "I didn't know that." Does making FUD due to ignorance make it right? NO! Linux made Microsoft an enemy, because Microsoft did wrongs. I don't rally behind either group, because both are stubborn and full of ego. This is why I like the BSDL better, any code goes to help the community. If its closed sourced, its improved - that's good. Maybe they'll return a few patches. Many do. If its open source, its free. Both help advance the community. That's my goal.
BSD nuts may be crazier, because they don't lash out and give their code to anyone. Maybe you don't see their logic. But don't 'push that crap' because of your ignorance.