The older BSD licenses required certain phrases to appear in advertisements for the software.
This is FUD spread by the obnoxious GNU people.
Here is the clause:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: [...]
It is quite clear that you only have to give due credit when the software with said clause is being totted as a feature of whatever you are advertising.
- BSD assumes an small central group ("cathedral") of authors (such as CSRG), who want to retain control over the end product.
Yeah? I thought it was the BSD license who would let anyone do whatever they want with the code, while GPL not only imposes restrictions to it's distribution (source must be made available) but also to your freedom in changing it (all changes should be distributed under the same license).
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
And now, let me quote you: with all advertisments for your own product.
It is very explicit that you must only place that comment *IF YOU MENTION THE CODE YOU ARE USING IN THE ADVERTISEMENT*. For example, the new OS by Apple need only have that in it's advertisement if it said "includes NetBSD code!" or something like that.
In other words, it's a claim credit clause. If they are going to use the presence of the code as advertisement, they need to give credit to it in the advertisement.
Stop spreading baseless FUD.
Userland threads is faster
on
*BSD News
·
· Score: 1
It is not true that the performance is similar. The performance of userland threads is much higher than that of kernel threads. On FreeBSD, up to 3.1-RELEASE (but not 3.1-STABLE) that has been obscured by a performance bug in the pthreads library, but feel free to compare an application with a significant amount of threads (try 100) on any kernel threads implementation of any OS versus the FreeBSD pthreads library on 3.2-RELEASE.
And this gets score 1??? Is Slashdot now condoning FUD?
There is no ongoing financial difficulties with any of the BSDs. Usenix is not funding the pressing of BSD/Debian cdroms, they are funding the cds they will distribute to Usenix visitors.
75% of message arriving? Notes mailing is much more reliable than standard internet mail, thanks to it's powerful DSN capabilities, to which smtp cannot yet compare to, even if one was garanteed to have them.
No biff? No.forward? You have never ever SEEN it, have you? Notes mail is database-based, it's routing done through highly programmable database merging, and all system is programmable. Notes mail system is actually a Notes application, in fact.
I prefer SMTP, but don't spread FUD. You know nothing about Notes.
Your reply is quite correct. Furthermore, I wrote "recent release of Red Hat 6.0", which should made it even more clear.
Alas, a second paragraph existed, which did mention FreeBSD in a as least offensive manner as I could manage. I guess CmdrTaco did not like my slamming of Windows instead...:-)
Non-sense. The ability to effectively use 4 GB of RAM is related to memory bandwidth, which is *not* related to word size (these systems do use more than 32 bits for memory transfers).
I think your problem is one of envy...:-) BTW, FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE *cannot* go all the way to 4 GB without some serious tuning, so there you have.
Slashdot Mirror
The older BSD licenses required certain phrases to appear in advertisements for the software.
This is FUD spread by the obnoxious GNU people.
Here is the clause:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: [...]
It is quite clear that you only have to give due credit when the software with said clause is being totted as a feature of whatever you are advertising.
- BSD assumes an small central group ("cathedral") of authors (such as CSRG), who want to retain control over the end product.
Yeah? I thought it was the BSD license who would let anyone do whatever they want with the code, while GPL not only imposes restrictions to it's distribution (source must be made available) but also to your freedom in changing it (all changes should be distributed under the same license).
Don't FUD.
Let me quote:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
And now, let me quote you: with all advertisments for your own product.
It is very explicit that you must only place that comment *IF YOU MENTION THE CODE YOU ARE USING IN THE ADVERTISEMENT*. For example, the new OS by Apple need only have that in it's advertisement if it said "includes NetBSD code!" or something like that.
In other words, it's a claim credit clause. If they are going to use the presence of the code as advertisement, they need to give credit to it in the advertisement.
Stop spreading baseless FUD.
It is not true that the performance is similar. The performance of userland threads is much higher than that of kernel threads. On FreeBSD, up to 3.1-RELEASE (but not 3.1-STABLE) that has been obscured by a performance bug in the pthreads library, but feel free to compare an application with a significant amount of threads (try 100) on any kernel threads implementation of any OS versus the FreeBSD pthreads library on 3.2-RELEASE.
If you install the source code from 3.1, it will be over so fast you'll think it didn't work. :-)
:-)
Well, ok, maybe not *THAT* fast on a 33.6, but fast enough.
I don't know about NetBSD and OpenBSD binaries, but I'd be surprised if the Linux Civ:CTP binaries don't work on FreeBSD... :-)
Yeah, I was wondering these days what was the deal with new releases of SuSE, Red Hat, the new kernels, etc... :-)
I know that some people *did* object to a FreeBSD one month ahead of schedule, but with *everyone* else doing it, there was really no option.
And this gets score 1??? Is Slashdot now condoning FUD?
There is no ongoing financial difficulties with any of the BSDs. Usenix is not funding the pressing of BSD/Debian cdroms, they are funding the cds they will distribute to Usenix visitors.
75% of message arriving? Notes mailing is much more reliable than standard internet mail, thanks to it's powerful DSN capabilities, to which smtp cannot yet compare to, even if one was garanteed to have them.
.forward? You have never ever SEEN it, have you? Notes mail is database-based, it's routing done through highly programmable database merging, and all system is programmable. Notes mail system is actually a Notes application, in fact.
No biff? No
I prefer SMTP, but don't spread FUD. You know nothing about Notes.
So what if that machine handled 900mb per day without sweat? It would take 1024 days to reach a 960 Gigabytes mark.
Your reply is quite correct. Furthermore, I wrote "recent release of Red Hat 6.0", which should made it even more clear.
:-)
Alas, a second paragraph existed, which did mention FreeBSD in a as least offensive manner as I could manage. I guess CmdrTaco did not like my slamming of Windows instead...
Non-sense. The ability to effectively use 4 GB of RAM is related to memory bandwidth, which is *not* related to word size (these systems do use more than 32 bits for memory transfers).
:-) BTW, FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE *cannot* go all the way to 4 GB without some serious tuning, so there you have.
I think your problem is one of envy...
I think he was talking about RAM/disk.