Yep, all those bad geeks who are making software that you can tweak and sell to your heart's desire, code that is generally well trusted and used as the backbone to thousands of corperate networks... And to top it off, they don't have some special political goal to force ideology upon us! My god man, they must be stopped. Giving away high quality code with no royalties except (perhaps) some small bit of credit and telling me I can believe whatever I damn well want. Evil, evil, evil!
Now I feel so uneasy with the world. I think I'm going to go wach tv for a solid 8 hours and let the commercial propiganda convince me the world is a great place, and even better for $99.95!
He's a pretty good guy about the beastie, and only copyrighted because DEC tried to steal it for Ultrix. That's all I know, I asked him if he'd recount the whole story, but he said he may someday on his web page. I don't see any reason why the beastie should be morphed (more like mutilated) for some mascot game. Debian should have Tux and the GNU mascot on GNU/Linux, and a beastie (their own, or FreeBSD's) with GNU's mascot on their FreeBSD varient.
If someone asks, and they are polite about how they act towards the BSD community, and the beastie, then there shouldn't be a problem. I would be quite surprised if either side did anything foul.
Tux is only a Linux mascot, and Linux is a kernel. And, they aren't using the Linux kernel, they are using the FreeBSD kernel. So, Tux would be entirely illogical. Rather, a GNU/Linux box should have Tux and a the GNU mascot, as would a GNU/FreeBSD box have the beastie instead of Tux.
Linux != GNU, which is something way to many people don't understand.
Re:A few questions from another illiterate fool...
on
Debian FreeBSD Distro?
·
· Score: 1
How is the HURD truly free and the Linux kernel is not? Both are under the GPL, both will have core teams that restrict what is inputted, etc. And I wont even get into the argument of whether the GPL is freer than the BSDL (it is all by definition, whether you mean freedom, or free software).
I'm a bit uneasy at the Debian project, but the more I think about it the more I like it. If the maintainer is not a spoiled GPL advocate (here I mean the type of person who rants about screwing over BSD projects, GPLing their code, etc), than its good. He will try to make it a benefit for the BSD community and hopefully give code back that they can use. My only fears is whether this is will try to fragment FreeBSD, though as there will always be FreeBSD, Inc, and if they are careful, there should be little harm. Still, chaos is more likely.
The Debian project is for free software, that is open source. They are also for freedom, so supporting many kernels isn't bad. If they do everything correctly, it will simply be the Debian enviroment with numerous kernels to choose from. FreeBSD is known for high performance and stability, but not as the greatest worksation/home system, where as Linux is. Take the kernel that does the best for your needs, keep everything else the same so little administration worries, and propigate. That is an interesting goal, and I hope I'm right as far as it being Debian's.
I do, however, wish to see a good reason for "GNU/FreeBSD". Whereas they might convert to everything but the kernel GPL, my understanding was RMS wanted GNU/Linux soley because GNU played a major role, and continues to, for Linux's development. Linux also requires GNU software to function, and always has. The BSD varients have not, and converting over so that they do doesn't mean GNU plays a significant role in development, as the kernel will still be maintained by FreeBSD, Inc.
I think Tom just has his own opinions, and has stated them without attacking anyone. Instead, you seem very happy at the notion of attacking him, and calling anything you disagree with FUD. I don't call anyone's personal opinion FUD, because they are not trying to create it, they are stating their beliefs. Would you call Marx's statements against capitalism FUD if you disagreed with them? What about religious beliefs? Do you believe in God? Is everyone who says otherwise trying to create FUD? They are opinions.
FUD is an action in trying to create fear, uncertenty, doubt, for a cause to swing people over to your side. MS does this by lying, knowlingly, to keep ISVs in check, and the public suspicious of non-MS software. Those are lies for deception. Tom is not trying to decieve you, he is stating his own opinion. You are creating FUD by trying to create doubt; suspicion against Tom. In that effect, you come off to create a statement of 'here's a BSD guy! He's trying to con you! Fear him! Fear them!' Whether you mean to do this or not, its how I see it. Am I creating FUD by stating anything you don't like hearing? My opinions, since I do find Tom making some, not all, accurate arguments, while you try to belittle his stature, quite annoying.
I've stated a fact as I've seen it. I must be some raving lunitic, trying to spread FUD because I have an opinion. Sir, censorship is by no means noble. If you wish to prove Tom wrong, I recomend you (hey, and Tom too) help me (and a few others) write about licenses, to clear up confusions. And if you ignore this option, than you truly have no right in attempting to demean others for their opinion, instead of pointing them to a reference where they can be educated.
I nowhere stated that the lawsuit had an immediate cause-and-effect relationship to the fate of Jolix. I would not have done so, since, as a one-time 386BSD user myself, I know that the situation was quite a bit more complex.
ugh.. that would kill off the possible explanation that the lawsuit did anything to 386BSD. So.. this is getting a bit to offtopic from the whole article's point, anyway. I still think that you asserted, perhaps incorrectly, that the lawsuit or tension from the lawsuit or anything indirectly caused by the lawsuit created the split in BSD. Obviously you know better, so there's no point squabbling about word choices. Probably about time to kill this thread unless you wouldn't mind sharing some good history about 386BSD, why you went with Linux over BSD, etc.
Now, I don't object to you reading into that a great deal more than I wrote. However, don't complain to me about what you then come up with
I didn't realize I was complaining, I merely wanted to point out where your remarks were sketchy. I don't think I read into that bold statement to much, because it states that the lawsuit indirectly caused the split. Where I'd be interesting in hearing is exactly why 386BSD died. If your saying that 386BSD would not have died, and thus likely never have split, if not for the fears due to the lawsuit, then I understand. However the most I've heard is that Bill lost interest and was annoyed at the massive amounts of bug fixes/enhancements, etc pooring in. Why he lost interest I don't know.
That might be a valid criticism if my article had included any sort of chronology. But it did not
Let me point you to where I, at least, got the impression that you did include a basic chronology.
One fine day, grad student Keith Bostic came to the BSD lead developers, inspired by Richard M. Stallman's (remember him?) GNU Project, and suggested replacing BSD's remaining AT&T work to create a truly free BSD. Dreading the confrontation likely to result with AT&T, they tried to stall by assigning Bostic the difficult part of this task, rewriting some key BSD utilities. This back-fired when he promptly did exactly that. So, they grumbled but then completed the job, and tried to prevent AT&T from noticing what they had done.
AT&T did notice, panicked, and sued. That, too, is a long story best omitted. Under the stress of the lawsuit, freeware BSD split into three camps (FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD). But there were also several proprietary branches, made possible because U.C. Berkeley's "BSD License" allowed creation of those: Sun Microsystems' SunOS, Tenon Intersystems' MachTen, BSDI's BSD OS, and NeXT Computer's NeXTStep OS all came out for sale without public access to source, and were all based on the Berkeley BSD source code.
.. later on you imply.
A third reason for forking also exists, and may hit the GNU/Linux community eventually: specialization. You may recall that this is what ultimately happened with the three free BSD variants -- although stress from the clash-of-the-titans AT&T v. U.C. Berkeley lawsuit arguably made that situation unique.
That statement I bolded is entirely incorrect. We know from the time-table that FreeBSD and NetBSD were derived from 386BSD, which came before the lawsuit. We also know from Theo's archive that OpenBSD splitting from NetBSD had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Where the camps had trouble, which I'll point you straight to SVLUG's history page, is that the lawsuit created tension. My understanding is that the free BSD derivatives where substantially better than Linux, but because their future was rocky, many supporters embraced Linux instead.
Also, the old tale is that AT&T sued because BSDI used 1-800-ITS-UNIX, and UCB was sued as a result. I'm not sure if that's true, since its all 3rd or 4th hand knowledge (not even close to 2nd hand:-).
Your history of the Unix forks isn't as bad, but it appears that you have the chronology confused a bit. The splits in the BSD camp predated the AT&T/BSDI/UC Berkeley lawsuit, for example.
Your exactly right. The time table of BSD shows Rick is incorrect. If I remember correctly (and whatever I say is from reading around. I wasn't into UNIX then), Bill Joltz took the BSD code and began removing AT&T code. He then released his implements under a free license so that BSD could was held back. However, as he lost interest in the project and wouldn't maintain it (he could have been the Trovalds of BSD, perhaps), and both FreeBSD and NetBSD sprouted up by developers. 386BSD eventually died, and of course OpenBSD sprouted off of NetBSD (Theo's archive of why seems to give him good reason).
Here's where I'm a bit mucky on things. I thought Bill Joltz told free developers that they couldn't use his code, and there was a scramble to move FreeBSD to 4.3BSD-lite.
I am glad Rick pointed out that BSD splitting had very good reason that and that if such existed for Linux, it would split too. I don't believe the GPL prevents forking, because the reason Rick noted (that any improvements would return be integrated to Linux), is the same with BSD. However, I believe the GPL reduces forking by creating the idea that there is a dictatorship, while BSD groups create whole bodies to look after the code. People think of Alan Cox and Linus Trovalds when they think of who looks over the kernel, while they think of FreeBSD, Inc., when they want to improve that system. Both have core members, just the way they present themselves looks different (while it might not be).
That's the point. You couldn't distribute SSH in america to foriegners. OpenBSD is based in Canada (so it gets passed all the mess US laws), so yes.
I think, but I likely have this confused, that US developers couldn't design a free implement because of the patents and export laws. When OpenSSH came out, I remember one of my LUGs chatting about wanting to port or copy (whichever got Linux the most credit), but were annoyed because US developers would only hurt the project.
Others have thrown universities out there, so here's another, Illinois Tech. Here's what I know:
1. Top ranking as an engineering school. When I checked out schools for CS, it was #17 in the nation (forget who ranked).
2. Has distance learning centers in various countries. I believe Africa and Brazil are two, but I don't remember. Increasing. Only university expanding in this way.
3. Has IIT TV, which lets others watch the classes and call in questions to the teacher. This is during class - realtime. These students must take the same exams, quizzes, and labs. They can also come to classes if they wish.
I don't know much... but its better than ZD University or what ever garbage is out there.
I sure hope NIF meets its goals. Last I heard basicly $300 million was stolen from the project (3 investigations are underway), the project is understaffed, management loves to screw everything up (ie, created lots of delays by not actually conducting the research), etc. Origionally it was to be ready for initial operation in 2001 or 2002, now the hope is 2004. LLNL is full of problems because everyone except the scientists, from my understanding, are fools. The security people don't do their jobs, steal equipment, have lied under oath when accusing personel, etc. Its just so messy I'd be surprised that anything gets done, but all the real scientists I've met from there are really smart...
Oh yeah, its so much worse than coal plants that fill the atmosphere with CO2 and is a major cause of global warming. Fusions low-level and small amount of radioactive waste which can be controlled safely is worse than all of the toxic material that can take 1,000s of years that is just 'let out' for humanity to enjoy.
Most power sources are not a boon to the enviroment. Many fusion reactors are also poorly built, using designs that are fundalmentally flawed. Reactors can be made to never melt down, though most are cheaper and a more 'popular' style choosen by politicians. I really doubt that the heat from nuclear reactions will drasticly hurt the enviroment, though I'm not sure about the changes in heat output. You might find something when looking at the laser projects over at llnl.gov, where they have resources on fusion and fission.
Both of you seem to believe that the military gains nothing from fusion research, in the area of nuclear weaponry. That's quite wrong. The calculations for nuclear reactions using lasers, ie. Nova, NIF, and older lasers, transfer quite well to weaponry. ne of the key points with NIF is that you can basicly the same experiments as a nuclear blast inlab and with far less radiation (and cost, etc). As the stockpile stewardship programs decrease the ways of research and the materials that can be used, the military funds this research so it can always be ahead nuclear ready. To keep others from conducting nuclear tests, much of this research is available to ally nations, which is why the Nova laser was copied in all but paint color (except for France, which the U.S. built for them).
Well, at least this is what I remember being told, and might have it a bit mixed up. Fairly often I can talk to a lead engineer on the NIF (LLNL) project.
I never called AMDa "bad company" nor would I. Your taking many liberties on what I was saying.
1. I never said Intel wont lose money. I said that it wont hurt them, and that to me means a major drain in capital. Intel has tried to undercut AMD at times so AMD will lose more profits, and Intel's hope is leave the market. Unlike AMD, Intel has deep pockets which means if they lose profits, but so does AMD - AMD will have a rougher time than Intel. That holds true in any market, as long as the bigger business is not losing a significant amount to empty their pockets.
Intel x86 chips are still standard in Dell laptops and desktops, as well as many other large resellers. Smaller chains and stores sell a good deal of AMD based machines, but also many Intel based ones too. Intel has pressured motherboard manufactures in attempts to hurt AMD even more.
2. AMD's brand name is not as well known or well acreditted as Intel's. Intel lived of the Pentium brandname for years, which has for the most part been in good light. Before that the public knew of Intel because they have always been the major supplier of PC processors, which the Intel Inside campaign strengthened. Businesses and even the non-computer savy public would sooner trust Intel than AMD - its all through name brands. I've read numerous articles claiming that businesses will be weary towards multi-proccessor AMD machines, as Intel has proven itself in SMP over the years. Read Creating the Digital Future by Albert Yu. Oh, and I never said something new cannot be better, it just has a hard time replacing the old.
3. Being a standard choice for resellers means Intel has significant market. That does not mean AMD and chipset/motherboards will not be compatable (though I remember the software warnings of incompatabilities before the K6).
4. AMD obtained a significant market share by undercutting Intel. People do care, but AMD lost significant profits combatting the Celeron processor. Intel made significant money by creating chips cheaper than its rivals on other platforms. I agree people do care, but that doesn't mean everyone immediately flocks for the cheapest brand.
5. I mentioned the exploits in showing that Intel has not spent money on R&D in the x86 processor business compared to AMD. Intel has merely made tweaks to a processor and than resold it, while AMD has reserched, tested, and brought to market new chip designs. Why would anyone be happy that Intel has exploited its userbase by refusing to improve its technology if being idle creates such massive profits? One could easily say the same with Microsoft Windows, considering how it used Windows 98, and soon Windows Millenium. It created Windows 95, and will exploit that codebase with tweaks for 5 or more years. Its the same.
If your right that Intel scrapped their P7 design, than Intel's in trouble. Plain and simple. All they have left is to use the hype of the IA-64 technology to sell their new high end chip, and perhaps begin to pay attention to the personal computer market after AMD wins it. AMD's competing for survival, Intel for deeper profits. Guess who has, and will continue, to work in the intrests of consumers?
Sorry, had to run to class and made a booboo. Should have reread.:)
On the differences between socialism and communism, socialism does not reject capitalism. Fourierian socialism, from my understanding, tries to create incentives for work (which communism doesn't have) and yet keep exploitation as small as possible. John Stuart Mill says that the best form of society is the one that makes the majority happy. Socialism seems to work towards that goal, while other forms entirely neglect the happiness of a group or a set of groups.
For now, in my opinion I see socialism as communism that (at least to some degree) works. Communism has fundalmental flaws, and the various socialist schemes each try to solve some, or all of these.
The CPU market for Intel is not really that threatened by AMD. Even if the Athlon is better by all accounts, Intel wont loose enough market share to really hurt them. AMD generally cannot fill orders, does not have a trusted brand name, and unlike Intel is not a standard choice (or the standard) for resellers.
So the giant is loosing some money as those 'in the know' buy from its competitors. How many people are buying machines and don't know, or don't care? Intel's still the king, and that wont change on a dime. Considering their exploits of the P6 architecture, they've spent all of their R&D on a new design, and hopefully a P7 design too. What will really hurt Intel is if both, especially IA-64, don't float well on the market and leave IBM, Motorola, Sun, Compaq, and AMD to eat Intel's market share.
Intel expaning outward is a good move. Look at Soney and IBM. If one section looses market, they're so widespread that most likely another will gain, and profits will even out. And that's still profits, so lifes good. If IBM kills the PowerPC line, they have hard drives, software, etc. all gaining in market share. So lifes good.
I don't quite agree with ESR's position, because he seems to mungle up what freedom is. If he only kept to a definition, like the one in the dictionary, and didn't say that x was free (but in y way) and z is free, but bad because its to free, and everything else can be free or not but are totally evil. That's my take on his view of open source / published licenses, and it gets really annoying.
Then, since he's been accepted by someone as a major figure in the open source community (where as he can only, if at all, speak for the GPL community), he incorperates his views of society in with this stuff. I don't want his politics, especially when so many believe it represents me. He's a member of the Libertarian party, which on its goals sounds good, but in its implentations, i.e. no income tax, is bent on improving the situation of the wealthy. It wishes to fix things through the private business and not government programs. Look at American history, those programs came about because private business either refused to provide them or used them soley for exploitation.
His remarks on social structures are generally absurd and disgusting. I tried asking him once why he states, in a manner of under all extremes socialism is evil and equal to facism, whereas if you read on the material (i.e., Marx for understanding, John Stuart Mill for comparisions, ideas, structures, etc), that's a misleading statement its sickening. Yet, this is thrusted onto me because he supposedly represents me. His views of freedom are only those that make him more successful, not those that make mankind better.
If the choice was for ESR to continue to support the open source (correction, the GPL) movement, while forcing his politics to be known and thereby be thought to trickle down to me, and in doing so demean and degrade anyone who opposes his views, or nothing at all - I'd choose nothing. I'm free to have my own opinions, my own beliefs and causes, and so is Raymond. I merely don't believe he accepts my freedom if it collides with his political goals.
To my knowledge, which isn't much about how the communist governments gained control (been years since I studied that), they didn't follow Marx's guideline. Marx said that the prolotariates would rise up, create a "prolotariate dictatorship," and then communism would come about. Which basicly means Marx never thought much at all on the whole 'how will Communism emerge' nor did he really explain how it would work. Mostly, Marx just explained faily accurately history in terms of economics and the eploitation of the working class.
So, I'm not sure if these communist nations should be called true communism, or thought of in conjunction to Marxian communism.
Actually, from my understanding was that Orwell was anti-Communist, and communism is indead different from socialism. The symbol for Big Brother is a take off of Stallin. At the time of writing communist Russia and facist Germany (Hitler) two big concerns. He takes a good chunk from both, actually. I just remember being told a few times it was to show communism can be an anti-utopia.. but then with the prols kept in submission, I your probably right that it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, all those bad geeks who are making software that you can tweak and sell to your heart's desire, code that is generally well trusted and used as the backbone to thousands of corperate networks... And to top it off, they don't have some special political goal to force ideology upon us! My god man, they must be stopped. Giving away high quality code with no royalties except (perhaps) some small bit of credit and telling me I can believe whatever I damn well want. Evil, evil, evil!
Now I feel so uneasy with the world. I think I'm going to go wach tv for a solid 8 hours and let the commercial propiganda convince me the world is a great place, and even better for $99.95!
He's a pretty good guy about the beastie, and only copyrighted because DEC tried to steal it for Ultrix. That's all I know, I asked him if he'd recount the whole story, but he said he may someday on his web page. I don't see any reason why the beastie should be morphed (more like mutilated) for some mascot game. Debian should have Tux and the GNU mascot on GNU/Linux, and a beastie (their own, or FreeBSD's) with GNU's mascot on their FreeBSD varient.
If someone asks, and they are polite about how they act towards the BSD community, and the beastie, then there shouldn't be a problem. I would be quite surprised if either side did anything foul.
Tux is only a Linux mascot, and Linux is a kernel. And, they aren't using the Linux kernel, they are using the FreeBSD kernel. So, Tux would be entirely illogical. Rather, a GNU/Linux box should have Tux and a the GNU mascot, as would a GNU/FreeBSD box have the beastie instead of Tux.
Linux != GNU, which is something way to many people don't understand.
How is the HURD truly free and the Linux kernel is not? Both are under the GPL, both will have core teams that restrict what is inputted, etc. And I wont even get into the argument of whether the GPL is freer than the BSDL (it is all by definition, whether you mean freedom, or free software).
I'm a bit uneasy at the Debian project, but the more I think about it the more I like it. If the maintainer is not a spoiled GPL advocate (here I mean the type of person who rants about screwing over BSD projects, GPLing their code, etc), than its good. He will try to make it a benefit for the BSD community and hopefully give code back that they can use. My only fears is whether this is will try to fragment FreeBSD, though as there will always be FreeBSD, Inc, and if they are careful, there should be little harm. Still, chaos is more likely.
The Debian project is for free software, that is open source. They are also for freedom, so supporting many kernels isn't bad. If they do everything correctly, it will simply be the Debian enviroment with numerous kernels to choose from. FreeBSD is known for high performance and stability, but not as the greatest worksation/home system, where as Linux is. Take the kernel that does the best for your needs, keep everything else the same so little administration worries, and propigate. That is an interesting goal, and I hope I'm right as far as it being Debian's.
I do, however, wish to see a good reason for "GNU/FreeBSD". Whereas they might convert to everything but the kernel GPL, my understanding was RMS wanted GNU/Linux soley because GNU played a major role, and continues to, for Linux's development. Linux also requires GNU software to function, and always has. The BSD varients have not, and converting over so that they do doesn't mean GNU plays a significant role in development, as the kernel will still be maintained by FreeBSD, Inc.
wow... damnit.. should write/read slashdot at 4am. hehe.. misread your replies... sorry.
I think Tom just has his own opinions, and has stated them without attacking anyone. Instead, you seem very happy at the notion of attacking him, and calling anything you disagree with FUD. I don't call anyone's personal opinion FUD, because they are not trying to create it, they are stating their beliefs. Would you call Marx's statements against capitalism FUD if you disagreed with them? What about religious beliefs? Do you believe in God? Is everyone who says otherwise trying to create FUD? They are opinions.
FUD is an action in trying to create fear, uncertenty, doubt, for a cause to swing people over to your side. MS does this by lying, knowlingly, to keep ISVs in check, and the public suspicious of non-MS software. Those are lies for deception. Tom is not trying to decieve you, he is stating his own opinion. You are creating FUD by trying to create doubt; suspicion against Tom. In that effect, you come off to create a statement of 'here's a BSD guy! He's trying to con you! Fear him! Fear them!' Whether you mean to do this or not, its how I see it. Am I creating FUD by stating anything you don't like hearing? My opinions, since I do find Tom making some, not all, accurate arguments, while you try to belittle his stature, quite annoying.
I've stated a fact as I've seen it. I must be some raving lunitic, trying to spread FUD because I have an opinion. Sir, censorship is by no means noble. If you wish to prove Tom wrong, I recomend you (hey, and Tom too) help me (and a few others) write about licenses, to clear up confusions. And if you ignore this option, than you truly have no right in attempting to demean others for their opinion, instead of pointing them to a reference where they can be educated.
I nowhere stated that the lawsuit had an immediate cause-and-effect relationship to the fate of Jolix. I would not have done so, since, as a one-time 386BSD user myself, I know that the situation was quite a bit more complex.
ugh.. that would kill off the possible explanation that the lawsuit did anything to 386BSD. So.. this is getting a bit to offtopic from the whole article's point, anyway. I still think that you asserted, perhaps incorrectly, that the lawsuit or tension from the lawsuit or anything indirectly caused by the lawsuit created the split in BSD. Obviously you know better, so there's no point squabbling about word choices. Probably about time to kill this thread unless you wouldn't mind sharing some good history about 386BSD, why you went with Linux over BSD, etc.
Now, I don't object to you reading into that a great deal more than I wrote. However, don't complain to me about what you then come up with
:^)
I didn't realize I was complaining, I merely wanted to point out where your remarks were sketchy. I don't think I read into that bold statement to much, because it states that the lawsuit indirectly caused the split. Where I'd be interesting in hearing is exactly why 386BSD died. If your saying that 386BSD would not have died, and thus likely never have split, if not for the fears due to the lawsuit, then I understand. However the most I've heard is that Bill lost interest and was annoyed at the massive amounts of bug fixes/enhancements, etc pooring in. Why he lost interest I don't know.
Oh, and thanks for your aproval.
That might be a valid criticism if my article had included any sort of chronology. But it did not
:-).
Let me point you to where I, at least, got the impression that you did include a basic chronology.
One fine day, grad student Keith Bostic came to the BSD lead developers, inspired by Richard M. Stallman's (remember him?) GNU Project, and suggested replacing BSD's remaining AT&T work to create a truly free BSD. Dreading the confrontation likely to result with AT&T, they tried to stall by assigning Bostic the difficult part of this task, rewriting some key BSD utilities. This back-fired when he promptly did exactly that. So, they grumbled but then completed the job, and tried to prevent AT&T from noticing what they had done.
AT&T did notice, panicked, and sued. That, too, is a long story best omitted. Under the stress of the lawsuit, freeware BSD split into three camps (FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD). But there were also several proprietary branches, made possible because U.C. Berkeley's "BSD License" allowed creation of those: Sun Microsystems' SunOS, Tenon Intersystems' MachTen, BSDI's BSD OS, and NeXT Computer's NeXTStep OS all came out for sale without public access to source, and were all based on the Berkeley BSD source code.
.. later on you imply.
A third reason for forking also exists, and may hit the GNU/Linux community eventually: specialization. You may recall that this is what ultimately happened with the three free BSD variants -- although stress from the clash-of-the-titans AT&T v. U.C. Berkeley lawsuit arguably made that situation unique.
That statement I bolded is entirely incorrect. We know from the time-table that FreeBSD and NetBSD were derived from 386BSD, which came before the lawsuit. We also know from Theo's archive that OpenBSD splitting from NetBSD had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Where the camps had trouble, which I'll point you straight to SVLUG's history page, is that the lawsuit created tension. My understanding is that the free BSD derivatives where substantially better than Linux, but because their future was rocky, many supporters embraced Linux instead.
Also, the old tale is that AT&T sued because BSDI used 1-800-ITS-UNIX, and UCB was sued as a result. I'm not sure if that's true, since its all 3rd or 4th hand knowledge (not even close to 2nd hand
Hey Nick, please correct the poster's link to Kirk McKusick's softupdates page. Its .html, not .htm. No 8.3 filename lengths for UNIX. :-)
I saw this on digital theator news. I'm surprised how slow slashdot is on this stuff. It was there for a few days.
I do wish more people didn't think, 'oh no.. what will become of south park' rather than 'damn.. that's sad.'
Your history of the Unix forks isn't as bad, but it appears that you have the chronology confused a bit. The splits in the BSD camp predated the AT&T/BSDI/UC Berkeley lawsuit, for example.
Your exactly right. The time table of BSD shows Rick is incorrect. If I remember correctly (and whatever I say is from reading around. I wasn't into UNIX then), Bill Joltz took the BSD code and began removing AT&T code. He then released his implements under a free license so that BSD could was held back. However, as he lost interest in the project and wouldn't maintain it (he could have been the Trovalds of BSD, perhaps), and both FreeBSD and NetBSD sprouted up by developers. 386BSD eventually died, and of course OpenBSD sprouted off of NetBSD (Theo's archive of why seems to give him good reason).
Here's where I'm a bit mucky on things. I thought Bill Joltz told free developers that they couldn't use his code, and there was a scramble to move FreeBSD to 4.3BSD-lite.
I am glad Rick pointed out that BSD splitting had very good reason that and that if such existed for Linux, it would split too. I don't believe the GPL prevents forking, because the reason Rick noted (that any improvements would return be integrated to Linux), is the same with BSD. However, I believe the GPL reduces forking by creating the idea that there is a dictatorship, while BSD groups create whole bodies to look after the code. People think of Alan Cox and Linus Trovalds when they think of who looks over the kernel, while they think of FreeBSD, Inc., when they want to improve that system. Both have core members, just the way they present themselves looks different (while it might not be).
That's the point. You couldn't distribute SSH in america to foriegners. OpenBSD is based in Canada (so it gets passed all the mess US laws), so yes.
I think, but I likely have this confused, that US developers couldn't design a free implement because of the patents and export laws. When OpenSSH came out, I remember one of my LUGs chatting about wanting to port or copy (whichever got Linux the most credit), but were annoyed because US developers would only hurt the project.
But this is more than free speech, this is liberty.
Others have thrown universities out there, so here's another, Illinois Tech. Here's what I know:
1. Top ranking as an engineering school. When I checked out schools for CS, it was #17 in the nation (forget who ranked).
2. Has distance learning centers in various countries. I believe Africa and Brazil are two, but I don't remember. Increasing. Only university expanding in this way.
3. Has IIT TV, which lets others watch the classes and call in questions to the teacher. This is during class - realtime. These students must take the same exams, quizzes, and labs. They can also come to classes if they wish.
I don't know much... but its better than ZD University or what ever garbage is out there.
I sure hope NIF meets its goals. Last I heard basicly $300 million was stolen from the project (3 investigations are underway), the project is understaffed, management loves to screw everything up (ie, created lots of delays by not actually conducting the research), etc. Origionally it was to be ready for initial operation in 2001 or 2002, now the hope is 2004. LLNL is full of problems because everyone except the scientists, from my understanding, are fools. The security people don't do their jobs, steal equipment, have lied under oath when accusing personel, etc. Its just so messy I'd be surprised that anything gets done, but all the real scientists I've met from there are really smart...
Oh yeah, its so much worse than coal plants that fill the atmosphere with CO2 and is a major cause of global warming. Fusions low-level and small amount of radioactive waste which can be controlled safely is worse than all of the toxic material that can take 1,000s of years that is just 'let out' for humanity to enjoy.
Most power sources are not a boon to the enviroment. Many fusion reactors are also poorly built, using designs that are fundalmentally flawed. Reactors can be made to never melt down, though most are cheaper and a more 'popular' style choosen by politicians. I really doubt that the heat from nuclear reactions will drasticly hurt the enviroment, though I'm not sure about the changes in heat output. You might find something when looking at the laser projects over at llnl.gov, where they have resources on fusion and fission.
Both of you seem to believe that the military gains nothing from fusion research, in the area of nuclear weaponry. That's quite wrong. The calculations for nuclear reactions using lasers, ie. Nova, NIF, and older lasers, transfer quite well to weaponry. ne of the key points with NIF is that you can basicly the same experiments as a nuclear blast inlab and with far less radiation (and cost, etc). As the stockpile stewardship programs decrease the ways of research and the materials that can be used, the military funds this research so it can always be ahead nuclear ready. To keep others from conducting nuclear tests, much of this research is available to ally nations, which is why the Nova laser was copied in all but paint color (except for France, which the U.S. built for them).
Well, at least this is what I remember being told, and might have it a bit mixed up. Fairly often I can talk to a lead engineer on the NIF (LLNL) project.
=)
I never called AMDa "bad company" nor would I. Your taking many liberties on what I was saying.
1. I never said Intel wont lose money. I said that it wont hurt them, and that to me means a major drain in capital. Intel has tried to undercut AMD at times so AMD will lose more profits, and Intel's hope is leave the market. Unlike AMD, Intel has deep pockets which means if they lose profits, but so does AMD - AMD will have a rougher time than Intel. That holds true in any market, as long as the bigger business is not losing a significant amount to empty their pockets.
Intel x86 chips are still standard in Dell laptops and desktops, as well as many other large resellers. Smaller chains and stores sell a good deal of AMD based machines, but also many Intel based ones too. Intel has pressured motherboard manufactures in attempts to hurt AMD even more.
2. AMD's brand name is not as well known or well acreditted as Intel's. Intel lived of the Pentium brandname for years, which has for the most part been in good light. Before that the public knew of Intel because they have always been the major supplier of PC processors, which the Intel Inside campaign strengthened. Businesses and even the non-computer savy public would sooner trust Intel than AMD - its all through name brands. I've read numerous articles claiming that businesses will be weary towards multi-proccessor AMD machines, as Intel has proven itself in SMP over the years. Read Creating the Digital Future by Albert Yu. Oh, and I never said something new cannot be better, it just has a hard time replacing the old.
3. Being a standard choice for resellers means Intel has significant market. That does not mean AMD and chipset/motherboards will not be compatable (though I remember the software warnings of incompatabilities before the K6).
4. AMD obtained a significant market share by undercutting Intel. People do care, but AMD lost significant profits combatting the Celeron processor. Intel made significant money by creating chips cheaper than its rivals on other platforms. I agree people do care, but that doesn't mean everyone immediately flocks for the cheapest brand.
5. I mentioned the exploits in showing that Intel has not spent money on R&D in the x86 processor business compared to AMD. Intel has merely made tweaks to a processor and than resold it, while AMD has reserched, tested, and brought to market new chip designs. Why would anyone be happy that Intel has exploited its userbase by refusing to improve its technology if being idle creates such massive profits? One could easily say the same with Microsoft Windows, considering how it used Windows 98, and soon Windows Millenium. It created Windows 95, and will exploit that codebase with tweaks for 5 or more years. Its the same.
If your right that Intel scrapped their P7 design, than Intel's in trouble. Plain and simple. All they have left is to use the hype of the IA-64 technology to sell their new high end chip, and perhaps begin to pay attention to the personal computer market after AMD wins it. AMD's competing for survival, Intel for deeper profits. Guess who has, and will continue, to work in the intrests of consumers?
Sorry, had to run to class and made a booboo. Should have reread. :)
On the differences between socialism and communism, socialism does not reject capitalism. Fourierian socialism, from my understanding, tries to create incentives for work (which communism doesn't have) and yet keep exploitation as small as possible. John Stuart Mill says that the best form of society is the one that makes the majority happy. Socialism seems to work towards that goal, while other forms entirely neglect the happiness of a group or a set of groups.
For now, in my opinion I see socialism as communism that (at least to some degree) works. Communism has fundalmental flaws, and the various socialist schemes each try to solve some, or all of these.
The CPU market for Intel is not really that threatened by AMD. Even if the Athlon is better by all accounts, Intel wont loose enough market share to really hurt them. AMD generally cannot fill orders, does not have a trusted brand name, and unlike Intel is not a standard choice (or the standard) for resellers.
So the giant is loosing some money as those 'in the know' buy from its competitors. How many people are buying machines and don't know, or don't care? Intel's still the king, and that wont change on a dime. Considering their exploits of the P6 architecture, they've spent all of their R&D on a new design, and hopefully a P7 design too. What will really hurt Intel is if both, especially IA-64, don't float well on the market and leave IBM, Motorola, Sun, Compaq, and AMD to eat Intel's market share.
Intel expaning outward is a good move. Look at Soney and IBM. If one section looses market, they're so widespread that most likely another will gain, and profits will even out. And that's still profits, so lifes good. If IBM kills the PowerPC line, they have hard drives, software, etc. all gaining in market share. So lifes good.
I don't quite agree with ESR's position, because he seems to mungle up what freedom is. If he only kept to a definition, like the one in the dictionary, and didn't say that x was free (but in y way) and z is free, but bad because its to free, and everything else can be free or not but are totally evil. That's my take on his view of open source / published licenses, and it gets really annoying.
Then, since he's been accepted by someone as a major figure in the open source community (where as he can only, if at all, speak for the GPL community), he incorperates his views of society in with this stuff. I don't want his politics, especially when so many believe it represents me. He's a member of the Libertarian party, which on its goals sounds good, but in its implentations, i.e. no income tax, is bent on improving the situation of the wealthy. It wishes to fix things through the private business and not government programs. Look at American history, those programs came about because private business either refused to provide them or used them soley for exploitation.
His remarks on social structures are generally absurd and disgusting. I tried asking him once why he states, in a manner of under all extremes socialism is evil and equal to facism, whereas if you read on the material (i.e., Marx for understanding, John Stuart Mill for comparisions, ideas, structures, etc), that's a misleading statement its sickening. Yet, this is thrusted onto me because he supposedly represents me. His views of freedom are only those that make him more successful, not those that make mankind better.
If the choice was for ESR to continue to support the open source (correction, the GPL) movement, while forcing his politics to be known and thereby be thought to trickle down to me, and in doing so demean and degrade anyone who opposes his views, or nothing at all - I'd choose nothing. I'm free to have my own opinions, my own beliefs and causes, and so is Raymond. I merely don't believe he accepts my freedom if it collides with his political goals.
To my knowledge, which isn't much about how the communist governments gained control (been years since I studied that), they didn't follow Marx's guideline. Marx said that the prolotariates would rise up, create a "prolotariate dictatorship," and then communism would come about. Which basicly means Marx never thought much at all on the whole 'how will Communism emerge' nor did he really explain how it would work. Mostly, Marx just explained faily accurately history in terms of economics and the eploitation of the working class.
So, I'm not sure if these communist nations should be called true communism, or thought of in conjunction to Marxian communism.
Actually, from my understanding was that Orwell was anti-Communist, and communism is indead different from socialism. The symbol for Big Brother is a take off of Stallin. At the time of writing communist Russia and facist Germany (Hitler) two big concerns. He takes a good chunk from both, actually. I just remember being told a few times it was to show communism can be an anti-utopia.. but then with the prols kept in submission, I your probably right that it isn't.