not off hand.. You wont get a real responce on Slashdot. Ask freebsd-questions@freebsd.org and you'll get all the help you'd ever need. Remeber one thing, writing CDs on Unix has never been to fun.
What I've seen from BSD supporters lately hasn't done much but push me away from that OS. It may be that it's better (in some cases) than Linux. But I haven't seen writers yet that can talk about BSD's good side without sounding as though BSD is The One True OS. Surely there is someone out there that can talk about BSD without trashing Linux!
This is completely understandable. The problem is that Slashdot posts even troll articles like this one. If they hadn't posted the WSJ and a few others in the past few weeks, I would have said they were trying to create FUD against BSD. Unortunately, its not Slashdot's FUD, its only there fault for accepting this as valid matterial for the site.
Here's how I view this stuff. For one, when I see an Anti-Linux BSD message (the short Daemon is better then Tux or other bs), I don't believe its even a zealot poster. I've never met one that... dumb. I also don't think its a Linux zealot trying to make BSD look bad by making useles FUD (before, Slashdotters always mad FUD on BSD).
I think its just some stupid kids who want to be 'cool' by being a zealot for whatever the underdog in computers are. Now that Linux is really popular in the press, they go to the next thing. These are the same zealots who pushed Linux because they hated Microsoft. They never, *ever*, have used any UNIX OS. You can tell who these people are by how they attack and promote, only using : 'M$ is a monopoly' or 'The Daemon will kick Tux's ass' in short messages.
Anyways.. that was just so Slashdotters wouldn't think it was BSD FUD. These are just idiots who attack whatever they're sure will get hot.
This article is by a guy who doesn't know enough to make any real sense. It should be ignored. He's new and making assumptions because of what the media (ie, ZDNet) says. We know ZdNet and the rest bs Linux (same who said UNIX would crumble under NT), so because your used to it and know its crap, others are not. He got pulled in, didn't think the media stuff made Linux look good, and then posted that. This is a new user, don't expect his arguments against Linux to be clear. Thus, why is it useful to even promote on/.?
Now.. for the other part. Go to the BSD mailing lists / usenet for people who don't make FUD and are helpful. Many are fine with Linux, many use Linux, and many just want free UNIX to populate. So they prefer BSD, that doesn't make them anti-Linux and hate-mongrols. Hell, one guy on -newbies was giving away books and gave me about a dozen Linux ones (because Linux/UNIX info is relevent to BSD). In return, I sent out my copy of fbsd 3.1 to a guy who couldn't get it.. civilized.
PS. I like BSD better. But, I'd use it on my desktop (the next time I have one). I have a laptop I'm playing with to get xFree86 to work on it, and would always use Linux. For that, ease of use and packages such as OpenLinux are just nicer. I could do the same going over ports and such, but for a laptop, I wouldn't want to fuss around. So, I try to use BSD where I see it shines, and Linux where it shines. That's why I still have Windows98. In some ways, it doesn't get the credit it deserves.
NetBSD has far better support for Sparc I'm sure, its by far an older project. FreeBSD has in the last year been working on Sparc/Alpha varients of the OS. This is definately a good thing. It shouldn't be the goal of FreeBSD, NetBSD is far better. But, FreeBSD's goal is for a great server OS, which it is. PowerPC, Sparc, Alpha, and perhaps later IA-64 are all good platforms for servers. FreeBSD supporting this allows it not to be so restricted.
hmm.. well, I'm not quite sure about that. From my understanding, only the Berkeley code was stripped of the advertisement. On the rest of the BSD code, which is everything else, it either has the clause or doesn't.
Sure, now the BSD networking code is largly free, due to UCB. But, Berkeley didn't write all the code in NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD, did they? Others tacked on their varient of the clause, while others took it off entirely.
On the GNU website where they recomend the GPL over the BSDL (obviously was slightly updated due to the p.3 removal), they like to give their propiganda speeches, etc. I'm already a bit disgusted of the GNU project from just reading that.. but that's just becuase I don't see them as freedom fighters, more of lobbyists.
What they say there, if you go read, is that FreeBSD agreed to change once it was asked of them (I find that shows the maturity of the people on BSD side), etc. That doesn't mean everyone uses the new BSDL, many have their varient.
I also don't want to start a big war (would be fun if others were up to discussing it in a rational, logical way), on whether the clause was better or not. In some ways, I think it was a protection against the GPL'ing of BSD, which snobby zealots like to talk about, saying they'd love to create another fork, etc. GPL'ing for the good of the community I can understand and be behind, but I really can't imagine anyone being that grown up to do it.
And people already are working on it. Some take BSD code and submit it to the GPL groups (this happened in reverse once. I (believe) it was NetBSD that accidentally had GPL code in it and they immediately removed it. Its nice GNU didn't laugh at them and force the rest of the surrounding code GPL'd). Others claim they are working on removing any code with clause 3 in FreeBSD and GPL'ing it (someone from CMU said they were doing this (on slashdot). True or not, some one s bound to try). It just goes on, and on...
But your right, it would be the true test. And I really can't see it as helping BSD. I would suspect that once its GPL'd, the popularity of Linux means it will be imbedded in that system. Insead of BSD getting better, it will be leeched for its treasures. Linux will get better, Linux will get the credit, Linux will get the publicity, Linux will get the developers, and BSD will be hurt. Its legal, but its disrespectful to the groups.
It would be just like going to a user/news group and starting a license flame war. It was done to piss them off, to show that you can, and the thrill (I believe) is your going into their homes and and trying to demean them. Its really quite childish, which I think over the year both sides have basicly admitted to and try to stop it. But GPL'ing BSD code just to do it and put it in Linux is the same. At least that's my opinion, others may disagree.
wow.. what a load. I think the two earlier replies strongly defeated your claims, and pointed out the weaknesses to your argument. But it was a good argument.
I just have two points to add:
I believe the *bsd group should go gnu to compete with linux.
Please tell me how this makes any sense? I keep hearing this, but I really don't see the point in the argument.
First, even it might be impossible to track down all of the people who contributed and somehow get them all to agree to a new license. Do you think Linux could do the same? Everyone must agree, and then even after that there's likely some other legal tidbits to work out. Its just crazy.
I remember when GNU/RMS and others attacked free *BSDs, especially FreeBSD, saying they were unstable as the group could just go closed source, and exploit its user base to buy upgrades. That's just as illogical. Even if FreeBSD, Inc. tried to do that, its code is still BSD'd, and enough programmers would split and take over. That was just creating FUD, and saying BSD needs to GPL itself to compete is just more FUD.
Oh, and lets not forget another catch. Why would you want all these OSes under a GPL? That competes with Linux, and as Linux is the hype, it makes absolutely no sense for BSDs. If you claim BSD's would thus get more programmers, how? Lots of BSD hackers like the BSDL better, and BSD would lose much of its community, as many companies use BSD code in their products. Microsoft uses BSD networking code, as a small example. Would they if it were GPL, nope. Would small startups based on networking use it? Nope. Would Sun have ever used it, back in the day. I doubt it.
So, please tell me where any shread of logic is in this statement. I really would like to know, honestly. I can't figure out why so many Linux users say this. Is it just monkey-do, monkey-see, or is there some twisted (or untwisted) logic to it? And please, don't say 'because I like the GPL better.' That doesn't explain why its a good stratigy.
Secondly,
Linux is accelerating faster then *bsd while the community scoffed and ignored linux and now like the rabbit in the story it may be too late for freebsd unless it radically changes.
Again, I beg to differ. The community that scoffed was mostly the Windows/Mac/OS2 and commercial UNIX/non-UNIX (server/workstation) community. Sure, BSD hackers had some ego on their part, they deserved it, they were mostly proffesional programmers verse a mixture of proffesional and non-proffestionals. The community was a bit kinder to BSD because of its license and academic background. That's about it.
Shall we create some affirmative action plan because Linux at one point was 'scoffed' at? Maybe we need to start trading developers, saying every 10 bad remark ever said.. wait, ever thought against Linux deserves to force 1 BSD developer to convert. Nah, wouldn't work. And this is all beside the point, because calling Linux the underdog isn't all that accurate either.
I'd actually incline to say that line has no relevant meaning at all. Here's a bit from SVLUG's history, back in the day when it reformed its UNIX SIG into a free UNIX SIG, and tried to pick which brand to support...
"The fight for which system was best continued through 1993. In December we had a combined meeting with SVNet where we had speakers comparing Linux, NetBSD and Coherent. By then 386BSD itself was drifting away because of the lack of updates, and the 2 groups, NetBSD and FreeBSD, were fighting for control. At the same time there were many happy users of Coherent that were willing to spend $99 for a system that had a number you could call for support. 1993 was also the year Linux on CD-ROM became popular. Linux won over *BSD because of the "fear, uncertainty and doubt" about putting Net/2 on a CD-ROM and getting sued. In 1993 we lost the Cupertino library and moved to the meeting room attached to the Carl's Jr restaurant at First and Trimble in North San Jose.
"In Februrary 1994 we had a meeting discussing the newly released NetBSD 0.9. In August 1994 SVNet had a meeting where Bill and Lynn Jolitz demostrated their 386BSD Release 1.0. There were a few *BSD holdouts, but by this time the rest of the group had all gone with Linux. In December our listing in the Mercury News (which was the only announcement that month) was changed from "PC Unix SIG" to "PC Unix/Linux SIG", and our attendance jumped from 12 to 20. It became clear that the community interest was in Linux, and we should probably change our name."
Maybe I should mention SVLUG is the oldest, debated as the largest, and is definately one of the most active LUGs. Just take a glance at it, and you'll see many of the old and new media blitzes that revolved around Linux users came through their handywork. The Burn all Gifs day was the most recent, started by a member. They did a good job on the Refund Day (I believe it was a few LUGs working together), etc. Many splended things, and many great members.
But please.. can someone explain the GPL thing. It really boggles me.
I think that was NetBSD, not FreeBSD. Free's the one that goes for servers on x86 (and somewhat on a Alpha/Sparc). NetBSD is the extremely portable BSD varient.
umm.. its called 'helping the community.' Maybe BSD people see the community as more then a few people saying we like open source. Maybe they include all the people on Windows, Apple, comercial UNIXes, software companies, etc. The companies realise they have to add an incentive to make you pay for their version (add more features, add support).
Ask youself. What's more productive. One piece of software that does a job adaquately but can never be recycled, or code that can be. Every real hacker, and eventually Linus, said its better to steal code then re-write it. Oh, and what would you feel more comfortable with, if Microsoft made their own networking stack or used BSD's? BSD users never complained, they pointed it as how good their code was. GPL people seem to call it stealling, but then do the same. Its hypocritical. It could be legal, but if you set your morals, someday bother to live by them.
I can't help not replying to this. I tried for a few days, but no. We just heard BSD changed thier liscense. Now the old license was a BSD licesnse. You can't deny it, it was the origional. Any work he made and thus renamed in P3 to show his name, that's a BSD license. Just because the P3 was *just* removed, that does not seem right to say, now its not a BSD license so his comment on a BSD license was misleading. That's rubbish, and you know it.
(That's like saying without that clause in the GPL that any un-versionfied program can be put under any version the user see's fit, any older version isn't the GPL. Actually, it wouldn't matter if that clause was there or not. We agree, this was the GPL, this is the GPL. This "new" GPL is also the GPL. Different versions. Call this BSD v1.1 if you'd like. Its still BSD.)
It is easy. He said "his name." Now, remember, this removes the advertisement clause in UCB's BSD code, not others. He has every right, if some smart allic took his BSD'd code and GPL'd it, to take them to court. GNU attacks BSDL because it can not be subliscensed (not reliscensed) by the GPL due to the advertisement clause. His work thus cannot be GPL'd. This is why many BSD users are angry. You are stealling the code and rights of the author, not subliscensing it.
This is the one thing I hate about Linux and its groupies. So many greedy, snotty, self-rightous #&@$! "Free - forever." Have you actually *read* the GPL? Maybe I've always had a different definition for freedom, maybe that's why ESR had to make a witty statement to help define what freedom means in the GPL. Who knows.. its Orwellian. "Freedom is Slavery."
And before I get bogged with hateful messages, some script kiddy trying to send me a flash email, etc, let me say one thing. I do know people who are not like what I despise (above) who favor Linux, I am on two LUGs, I even tried to get to LinuxWorld, and I have multiple (4) distributions of Linux. I also have over a dozen Linux books. But I also prefer *BSD's culture, no matter what ESR and RMS like to demean it as. There, kill me. You zealots are going to be the ones who make 1984 a reality.
In the first week of Linux.com, VA Research was forced to pull off thier Guide to Operating System Comparisions in Linux@Work. Forced, I say, because it was complete junk and immediately tried to insult any non-Linux user, and spew propiganda so new users would only see Linux as an option. There are two reasons why. Va Resarch is a Linux company , which does have great people working under it (some of you guys at SVLUG!), and it helps the media blitz.
The first week, numerous people complained, and it was removed. There were no apologies (even in the replies), and they said (along these lines) "we can not be held responcible, as this is a new site and many items emerged last minute." I still have the page, somewhere.
And.. to defeat your claim once and for all, there was no aspect of it to back it up, for every OS they mentioned. However, they tried extra hard to hurt BSD. BTW, was written by a Linux Journal person.
You intentially miss quoted him by saying that "Linux is a FreeBSD clone," as he really said "in "many ways, Linux is a FreeBSD clone." Ok, so maybe he should have said BSD clone, and he would have been closer to the truth. Linux is a UNIX clone, and BSD was origionally a UNIX Operating System. Even stripped of AT&T code, Linux has included and imbedded BSD code, tweaked, many on both sides claim have re-liscensed it, etc. That does not mean Linux tries to be a clone of the OS, as if one is trying to make an OpenSource version of windows. What he means, in my opinion, is Linux is closer to a clone then FreeBSD is to Linux due entirely because Linux has used *BSD code, and many still believe FreeBSD is UNIX, whether it has AT&T's code or not. (And NO!, BSD has used GPL'd code, somo from GNU. That is not 'Linux' code, that is GNU and/or GPL'ed code.)
On the FUD, to many people here are attacking FUD with FUD, just like he did. In ever OS, there's going to be FUD, due to zealotry or perhaps for user's like him, being hurt/annoyed at the untruths from the (Linux) community attacking what he believes in, and thus they are attacking him. Sure, Linus never said anything, nor have many great and not so great users, but there are many who do attack, and every Linux user or user in the making is part of the community. Attacking BSD attacks BSD users/supporters, just like attacking Linux does the same.
You just have to look past the FUD. Dos/Windows users did the same against Apple, and I'm sure for those of you who even know DOS (many I've met do not), you may remember this. I remember one user claiming the MacOS was weaker then DOS because it had no autoexec.bat and config.sys. Does that make any sense? Before you answer yes or no, you could say that to Linux, any UNIX, any other non-DOS based OS. There's other methods of adding drivers, automating asks on boot, for ever sufficent OS. Who cares what they call it? It's how they do it that's at all significant.
DOS users attacked Apple, Windows users attacked Apple, Linux users attacked Microsoft/Windows/UNIX/BSD, Apple users attacked Microsoft/Windows/DOS, *BSD users attacked (I'm assuming at least a couple on the first) Apple/DOS/Linux/UNIX. Were even, all of our communities have attacked and *tried* to hurt and degrade other users. Fine. Live with it. Read between the lines. Say 'attacking FUD with FUD *isn't* cool.' Live, and try to be fair.
Ok, I'm starting my freshman year monday here (undergrad), but for me it came down to CMU and IIT. CMU kept putting me on the waiting list and kept not responding, and IIT gave me money. {g}
Anyways, I know IIT is one of the top engineering and computer schools in the country (ok, so its not extremely well known, bite me {g}), I'm not sure how it ranks in graduate though. Its one to look into, IMHO, though if CMU accepts you, go for it!
At least there's one thing I can tell you. The atmosphere is far different then any college I saw. The main campus is all engineers, so there's a lot of 'mutual respect' in attitude. The frats aren't drunken raves, more like a club of close friends. Its a lot nicer to work in. My brother went to CMU (physics, he's no doing grad. bio-physics at Stonybrook), and he kept telling me that CMU wasn't as great as I thought...
PS. Just because IIT gave me $ doesn't detract from their qualiy (if the idea of scholorships means they need to entice you beause there lower quality). I had two other high ranking colleges doing the same, just didn't like them as much. Even before I knew whether CMU was going to let me in or not, I had a hard time picking between the two.
PSS. IIT, aka Illinois Tech, is Illinois Institute of Technology (now really a University).
Ok, I'm starting my freshman year monday here (undergrad), but for me it came down to CMU and IIT. CMU kept putting me on the waiting list and not responding, and IIT gave me money. {g}
Anyways, I know IIT is one of the top engineering and computer schools in the country (ok, so its not extremely well known, bite me {g}), I'm not sure how it ranks in graduate though. Its one to look into, IMHO, though if CMU accepts you, go for it!
At least there's one thing I can tell you. The atmosphere is far different then any college I saw. The main campus is all engineers, so there's a lot of 'mutual respect' in attitude. The frats aren't drunken raves, more like a club of close friends. Its a lot nicer to work in. My brother went to CMU (physics, he's no doing grad. bio-physics at Stonybrook), and he kept telling me that CMU wasn't as great as I thought...
PS. Just because IIT gave me $ doesn't detract from their qualiy (if the idea of scholorships means they need to entice you beause there lower quality). I had two other high ranking colleges doing the same, just didn't like them as much. Even before I knew whether CMU was going to let me in or not, I had a hard time picking between the two.
PSS. IIT, aka Illinois Tech, is Illinois Institute of Technology (now really a University).
Because of many of the posts I've seen, some quite disgusting as ill-informed linux advocates bashed freebsd (as if it was another microsoft), I'd like to set the track straight.
A friend of mine saved the thread on the FreeBSD lists on the Matrix (unfortunatly, I was not on that one at the time), and I have uploaded them, and for anyone still squabbling, I encourage you to read them. There are 55 in total. Unfortunatly, they are in Netscape's format (yeah, I use pine so its pretty sad..). If even one person asks, I'll convert to text.
So, for all of those bsd-bashers (as I saw no linux bashers), please read. Some of you knew what you were talking about, some had no clue. I personally am a member to both a LUG and FreeBSD listings, and run fbsd, linux, and Solaris (personal copy) on my desktop. So, I understand every view, but open-source "advocates" bashing open-source is just plain sickening.
In any event, please go to http://www.crl.com/~anarchy/download/ for the 55kb zip file (for win users, put it in x:\Program Files\Netscape\Users\anarchy\Mail, and rename it from matrix to inbox/drafts/etc).
And remember, people, if you want to truely support the cause (GNU/BSD/OSS), just fight the uninformed media and make the software second to none - just don't get in petty ego wars. It will be worse enough when we get in fights about who has the best 'sex robot'. =)
Slashdot Mirror
The last week with 3.3RC, and a new ethernet line.. that was painful. *Lots* of security fixes (stuff in the ports even removed). :)
but.. Yippie!
not off hand.. You wont get a real responce on Slashdot. Ask freebsd-questions@freebsd.org and you'll get all the help you'd ever need. Remeber one thing, writing CDs on Unix has never been to fun.
What I've seen from BSD supporters lately hasn't done much but push me away from that OS. It may be that it's better (in some cases) than Linux. But I haven't seen writers yet that can talk about BSD's good side without sounding as though BSD is The One True OS. Surely there is someone out there that can talk about BSD without trashing Linux!
/.?
This is completely understandable. The problem is that Slashdot posts even troll articles like this one. If they hadn't posted the WSJ and a few others in the past few weeks, I would have said they were trying to create FUD against BSD. Unortunately, its not Slashdot's FUD, its only there fault for accepting this as valid matterial for the site.
Here's how I view this stuff. For one, when I see an Anti-Linux BSD message (the short Daemon is better then Tux or other bs), I don't believe its even a zealot poster. I've never met one that... dumb. I also don't think its a Linux zealot trying to make BSD look bad by making useles FUD (before, Slashdotters always mad FUD on BSD).
I think its just some stupid kids who want to be 'cool' by being a zealot for whatever the underdog in computers are. Now that Linux is really popular in the press, they go to the next thing. These are the same zealots who pushed Linux because they hated Microsoft. They never, *ever*, have used any UNIX OS. You can tell who these people are by how they attack and promote, only using : 'M$ is a monopoly' or 'The Daemon will kick Tux's ass' in short messages.
Anyways.. that was just so Slashdotters wouldn't think it was BSD FUD. These are just idiots who attack whatever they're sure will get hot.
This article is by a guy who doesn't know enough to make any real sense. It should be ignored. He's new and making assumptions because of what the media (ie, ZDNet) says. We know ZdNet and the rest bs Linux (same who said UNIX would crumble under NT), so because your used to it and know its crap, others are not. He got pulled in, didn't think the media stuff made Linux look good, and then posted that. This is a new user, don't expect his arguments against Linux to be clear. Thus, why is it useful to even promote on
Now.. for the other part. Go to the BSD mailing lists / usenet for people who don't make FUD and are helpful. Many are fine with Linux, many use Linux, and many just want free UNIX to populate. So they prefer BSD, that doesn't make them anti-Linux and hate-mongrols. Hell, one guy on -newbies was giving away books and gave me about a dozen Linux ones (because Linux/UNIX info is relevent to BSD). In return, I sent out my copy of fbsd 3.1 to a guy who couldn't get it.. civilized.
PS. I like BSD better. But, I'd use it on my desktop (the next time I have one). I have a laptop I'm playing with to get xFree86 to work on it, and would always use Linux. For that, ease of use and packages such as OpenLinux are just nicer. I could do the same going over ports and such, but for a laptop, I wouldn't want to fuss around. So, I try to use BSD where I see it shines, and Linux where it shines. That's why I still have Windows98. In some ways, it doesn't get the credit it deserves.
NetBSD has far better support for Sparc I'm sure, its by far an older project. FreeBSD has in the last year been working on Sparc/Alpha varients of the OS. This is definately a good thing. It shouldn't be the goal of FreeBSD, NetBSD is far better. But, FreeBSD's goal is for a great server OS, which it is. PowerPC, Sparc, Alpha, and perhaps later IA-64 are all good platforms for servers. FreeBSD supporting this allows it not to be so restricted.
hmm.. well, I'm not quite sure about that. From my understanding, only the Berkeley code was stripped of the advertisement. On the rest of the BSD code, which is everything else, it either has the clause or doesn't.
Sure, now the BSD networking code is largly free, due to UCB. But, Berkeley didn't write all the code in NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD, did they? Others tacked on their varient of the clause, while others took it off entirely.
On the GNU website where they recomend the GPL over the BSDL (obviously was slightly updated due to the p.3 removal), they like to give their propiganda speeches, etc. I'm already a bit disgusted of the GNU project from just reading that.. but that's just becuase I don't see them as freedom fighters, more of lobbyists.
What they say there, if you go read, is that FreeBSD agreed to change once it was asked of them (I find that shows the maturity of the people on BSD side), etc. That doesn't mean everyone uses the new BSDL, many have their varient.
I also don't want to start a big war (would be fun if others were up to discussing it in a rational, logical way), on whether the clause was better or not. In some ways, I think it was a protection against the GPL'ing of BSD, which snobby zealots like to talk about, saying they'd love to create another fork, etc. GPL'ing for the good of the community I can understand and be behind, but I really can't imagine anyone being that grown up to do it.
And people already are working on it. Some take BSD code and submit it to the GPL groups (this happened in reverse once. I (believe) it was NetBSD that accidentally had GPL code in it and they immediately removed it. Its nice GNU didn't laugh at them and force the rest of the surrounding code GPL'd). Others claim they are working on removing any code with clause 3 in FreeBSD and GPL'ing it (someone from CMU said they were doing this (on slashdot). True or not, some one s bound to try). It just goes on, and on...
But your right, it would be the true test. And I really can't see it as helping BSD. I would suspect that once its GPL'd, the popularity of Linux means it will be imbedded in that system. Insead of BSD getting better, it will be leeched for its treasures. Linux will get better, Linux will get the credit, Linux will get the publicity, Linux will get the developers, and BSD will be hurt. Its legal, but its disrespectful to the groups.
It would be just like going to a user/news group and starting a license flame war. It was done to piss them off, to show that you can, and the thrill (I believe) is your going into their homes and and trying to demean them. Its really quite childish, which I think over the year both sides have basicly admitted to and try to stop it. But GPL'ing BSD code just to do it and put it in Linux is the same. At least that's my opinion, others may disagree.
wow.. what a load. I think the two earlier replies strongly defeated your claims, and pointed out the weaknesses to your argument. But it was a good argument.
I just have two points to add:
I believe the *bsd group should go gnu to compete with linux.
Please tell me how this makes any sense? I keep hearing this, but I really don't see the point in the argument.
First, even it might be impossible to track down all of the people who contributed and somehow get them all to agree to a new license. Do you think Linux could do the same? Everyone must agree, and then even after that there's likely some other legal tidbits to work out. Its just crazy.
I remember when GNU/RMS and others attacked free *BSDs, especially FreeBSD, saying they were unstable as the group could just go closed source, and exploit its user base to buy upgrades. That's just as illogical. Even if FreeBSD, Inc. tried to do that, its code is still BSD'd, and enough programmers would split and take over. That was just creating FUD, and saying BSD needs to GPL itself to compete is just more FUD.
Oh, and lets not forget another catch. Why would you want all these OSes under a GPL? That competes with Linux, and as Linux is the hype, it makes absolutely no sense for BSDs. If you claim BSD's would thus get more programmers, how? Lots of BSD hackers like the BSDL better, and BSD would lose much of its community, as many companies use BSD code in their products. Microsoft uses BSD networking code, as a small example. Would they if it were GPL, nope. Would small startups based on networking use it? Nope. Would Sun have ever used it, back in the day. I doubt it.
So, please tell me where any shread of logic is in this statement. I really would like to know, honestly. I can't figure out why so many Linux users say this. Is it just monkey-do, monkey-see, or is there some twisted (or untwisted) logic to it? And please, don't say 'because I like the GPL better.' That doesn't explain why its a good stratigy.
Secondly,
Linux is accelerating faster then *bsd while the community scoffed and ignored linux and now like the rabbit in the story it may be too late for freebsd unless it radically changes.
Again, I beg to differ. The community that scoffed was mostly the Windows/Mac/OS2 and commercial UNIX/non-UNIX (server/workstation) community. Sure, BSD hackers had some ego on their part, they deserved it, they were mostly proffesional programmers verse a mixture of proffesional and non-proffestionals. The community was a bit kinder to BSD because of its license and academic background. That's about it.
Shall we create some affirmative action plan because Linux at one point was 'scoffed' at? Maybe we need to start trading developers, saying every 10 bad remark ever said.. wait, ever thought against Linux deserves to force 1 BSD developer to convert. Nah, wouldn't work. And this is all beside the point, because calling Linux the underdog isn't all that accurate either.
I'd actually incline to say that line has no relevant meaning at all. Here's a bit from SVLUG's history, back in the day when it reformed its UNIX SIG into a free UNIX SIG, and tried to pick which brand to support...
"The fight for which system was best continued through 1993. In December we had a combined meeting with SVNet where we had speakers comparing Linux, NetBSD and Coherent. By then 386BSD itself was drifting away because of the lack of updates, and the 2 groups, NetBSD and FreeBSD, were fighting for control. At the same time there were many happy users of Coherent that were willing to spend $99 for a system that had a number you could call for support. 1993 was also the year Linux on CD-ROM became popular. Linux won over *BSD because of the "fear, uncertainty and doubt" about putting Net/2 on a CD-ROM and getting sued. In 1993 we lost the Cupertino library and moved to the meeting room attached to the Carl's Jr restaurant at First and Trimble in North San Jose.
"In Februrary 1994 we had a meeting discussing the newly released NetBSD 0.9. In August 1994 SVNet had a meeting where Bill and Lynn Jolitz demostrated their 386BSD Release 1.0. There were a few *BSD holdouts, but by this time the rest of the group had all gone with Linux. In December our listing in the Mercury News (which was the only announcement that month) was changed from "PC Unix SIG" to "PC Unix/Linux SIG", and our attendance jumped from 12 to 20. It became clear that the community interest was in Linux, and we should probably change our name."
Maybe I should mention SVLUG is the oldest, debated as the largest, and is definately one of the most active LUGs. Just take a glance at it, and you'll see many of the old and new media blitzes that revolved around Linux users came through their handywork. The Burn all Gifs day was the most recent, started by a member. They did a good job on the Refund Day (I believe it was a few LUGs working together), etc. Many splended things, and many great members.
But please.. can someone explain the GPL thing. It really boggles me.
I think that was NetBSD, not FreeBSD. Free's the one that goes for servers on x86 (and somewhat on a Alpha/Sparc). NetBSD is the extremely portable BSD varient.
umm.. its called 'helping the community.' Maybe BSD people see the community as more then a few people saying we like open source. Maybe they include all the people on Windows, Apple, comercial UNIXes, software companies, etc. The companies realise they have to add an incentive to make you pay for their version (add more features, add support).
Ask youself. What's more productive. One piece of software that does a job adaquately but can never be recycled, or code that can be. Every real hacker, and eventually Linus, said its better to steal code then re-write it. Oh, and what would you feel more comfortable with, if Microsoft made their own networking stack or used BSD's? BSD users never complained, they pointed it as how good their code was. GPL people seem to call it stealling, but then do the same. Its hypocritical. It could be legal, but if you set your morals, someday bother to live by them.
I can't help not replying to this. I tried for a few days, but no. We just heard BSD changed thier liscense. Now the old license was a BSD licesnse. You can't deny it, it was the origional. Any work he made and thus renamed in P3 to show his name, that's a BSD license. Just because the P3 was *just* removed, that does not seem right to say, now its not a BSD license so his comment on a BSD license was misleading. That's rubbish, and you know it.
(That's like saying without that clause in the GPL that any un-versionfied program can be put under any version the user see's fit, any older version isn't the GPL. Actually, it wouldn't matter if that clause was there or not. We agree, this was the GPL, this is the GPL. This "new" GPL is also the GPL. Different versions. Call this BSD v1.1 if you'd like. Its still BSD.)
They kind of makes me think of the borg, mad when they can't assimulate, and take all credit for the plusses of who/what they did assimulate.
(yeah, yeah, yeah.. so at one point I watched star trek rather then the useless dribble usually on. shoot me.)
It is easy. He said "his name." Now, remember, this removes the advertisement clause in UCB's BSD code, not others. He has every right, if some smart allic took his BSD'd code and GPL'd it, to take them to court. GNU attacks BSDL because it can not be subliscensed (not reliscensed) by the GPL due to the advertisement clause. His work thus cannot be GPL'd. This is why many BSD users are angry. You are stealling the code and rights of the author, not subliscensing it.
This is the one thing I hate about Linux and its groupies. So many greedy, snotty, self-rightous #&@$! "Free - forever." Have you actually *read* the GPL? Maybe I've always had a different definition for freedom, maybe that's why ESR had to make a witty statement to help define what freedom means in the GPL. Who knows.. its Orwellian. "Freedom is Slavery."
And before I get bogged with hateful messages, some script kiddy trying to send me a flash email, etc, let me say one thing. I do know people who are not like what I despise (above) who favor Linux, I am on two LUGs, I even tried to get to LinuxWorld, and I have multiple (4) distributions of Linux. I also have over a dozen Linux books. But I also prefer *BSD's culture, no matter what ESR and RMS like to demean it as. There, kill me. You zealots are going to be the ones who make 1984 a reality.
In the first week of Linux.com, VA Research was forced to pull off thier Guide to Operating System Comparisions in Linux@Work. Forced, I say, because it was complete junk and immediately tried to insult any non-Linux user, and spew propiganda so new users would only see Linux as an option. There are two reasons why. Va Resarch is a Linux company , which does have great people working under it (some of you guys at SVLUG!), and it helps the media blitz.
The first week, numerous people complained, and it was removed. There were no apologies (even in the replies), and they said (along these lines) "we can not be held responcible, as this is a new site and many items emerged last minute." I still have the page, somewhere.
And.. to defeat your claim once and for all, there was no aspect of it to back it up, for every OS they mentioned. However, they tried extra hard to hurt BSD. BTW, was written by a Linux Journal person.
You intentially miss quoted him by saying that "Linux is a FreeBSD clone," as he really said "in "many ways, Linux is a FreeBSD clone." Ok, so maybe he should have said BSD clone, and he would have been closer to the truth. Linux is a UNIX clone, and BSD was origionally a UNIX Operating System. Even stripped of AT&T code, Linux has included and imbedded BSD code, tweaked, many on both sides claim have re-liscensed it, etc. That does not mean Linux tries to be a clone of the OS, as if one is trying to make an OpenSource version of windows. What he means, in my opinion, is Linux is closer to a clone then FreeBSD is to Linux due entirely because Linux has used *BSD code, and many still believe FreeBSD is UNIX, whether it has AT&T's code or not. (And NO!, BSD has used GPL'd code, somo from GNU. That is not 'Linux' code, that is GNU and/or GPL'ed code.)
On the FUD, to many people here are attacking FUD with FUD, just like he did. In ever OS, there's going to be FUD, due to zealotry or perhaps for user's like him, being hurt/annoyed at the untruths from the (Linux) community attacking what he believes in, and thus they are attacking him. Sure, Linus never said anything, nor have many great and not so great users, but there are many who do attack, and every Linux user or user in the making is part of the community. Attacking BSD attacks BSD users/supporters, just like attacking Linux does the same.
You just have to look past the FUD. Dos/Windows users did the same against Apple, and I'm sure for those of you who even know DOS (many I've met do not), you may remember this. I remember one user claiming the MacOS was weaker then DOS because it had no autoexec.bat and config.sys. Does that make any sense? Before you answer yes or no, you could say that to Linux, any UNIX, any other non-DOS based OS. There's other methods of adding drivers, automating asks on boot, for ever sufficent OS. Who cares what they call it? It's how they do it that's at all significant.
DOS users attacked Apple, Windows users attacked Apple, Linux users attacked Microsoft/Windows/UNIX/BSD, Apple users attacked Microsoft/Windows/DOS, *BSD users attacked (I'm assuming at least a couple on the first) Apple/DOS/Linux/UNIX. Were even, all of our communities have attacked and *tried* to hurt and degrade other users. Fine. Live with it. Read between the lines. Say 'attacking FUD with FUD *isn't* cool.' Live, and try to be fair.
Ok, I'm starting my freshman year monday here (undergrad), but for me it came down to CMU and IIT. CMU kept putting me on the waiting list and kept not responding, and IIT gave me money. {g}
Anyways, I know IIT is one of the top engineering and computer schools in the country (ok, so its not extremely well known, bite me {g}), I'm not sure how it ranks in graduate though. Its one to look into, IMHO, though if CMU accepts you, go for it!
At least there's one thing I can tell you. The atmosphere is far different then any college I saw. The main campus is all engineers, so there's a lot of 'mutual respect' in attitude. The frats aren't drunken raves, more like a club of close friends. Its a lot nicer to work in. My brother went to CMU (physics, he's no doing grad. bio-physics at Stonybrook), and he kept telling me that CMU wasn't as great as I thought...
PS. Just because IIT gave me $ doesn't detract from their qualiy (if the idea of scholorships means they need to entice you beause there lower quality). I had two other high ranking colleges doing the same, just didn't like them as much. Even before I knew whether CMU was going to let me in or not, I had a hard time picking between the two.
PSS. IIT, aka Illinois Tech, is Illinois Institute of Technology (now really a University).
Ok, I'm starting my freshman year monday here (undergrad), but for me it came down to CMU and IIT. CMU kept putting me on the waiting list and not responding, and IIT gave me money. {g}
Anyways, I know IIT is one of the top engineering and computer schools in the country (ok, so its not extremely well known, bite me {g}), I'm not sure how it ranks in graduate though. Its one to look into, IMHO, though if CMU accepts you, go for it!
At least there's one thing I can tell you. The atmosphere is far different then any college I saw. The main campus is all engineers, so there's a lot of 'mutual respect' in attitude. The frats aren't drunken raves, more like a club of close friends. Its a lot nicer to work in. My brother went to CMU (physics, he's no doing grad. bio-physics at Stonybrook), and he kept telling me that CMU wasn't as great as I thought...
PS. Just because IIT gave me $ doesn't detract from their qualiy (if the idea of scholorships means they need to entice you beause there lower quality). I had two other high ranking colleges doing the same, just didn't like them as much. Even before I knew whether CMU was going to let me in or not, I had a hard time picking between the two.
PSS. IIT, aka Illinois Tech, is Illinois Institute of Technology (now really a University).
Because of many of the posts I've seen, some quite disgusting as ill-informed linux advocates bashed freebsd (as if it was another microsoft), I'd like to set the track straight.
A friend of mine saved the thread on the FreeBSD lists on the Matrix (unfortunatly, I was not on that one at the time), and I have uploaded them, and for anyone still squabbling, I encourage you to read them. There are 55 in total. Unfortunatly, they are in Netscape's format (yeah, I use pine so its pretty sad..). If even one person asks, I'll convert to text.
So, for all of those bsd-bashers (as I saw no linux bashers), please read. Some of you knew what you were talking about, some had no clue. I personally am a member to both a LUG and FreeBSD listings, and run fbsd, linux, and Solaris (personal copy) on my desktop. So, I understand every view, but open-source "advocates" bashing open-source is just plain sickening.
In any event, please go to http://www.crl.com/~anarchy/download/ for the 55kb zip file (for win users, put it in x:\Program Files\Netscape\Users\anarchy\Mail, and rename it from matrix to inbox/drafts/etc).
And remember, people, if you want to truely support the cause (GNU/BSD/OSS), just fight the uninformed media and make the software second to none - just don't get in petty ego wars. It will be worse enough when we get in fights about who has the best 'sex robot'. =)