The article was about BSD, not Linux. Have many--or ANY--Linux articles (read: not Linux-vs-BSD) said how BSD is equal to or better than Linux at Aspect #foo? If so, point me to it.
384K is actually the lowest `guaranteed' speed. 1.5 MB is the highest speed you can get downward from them on that specific ADSL configuration.
The General Public License
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
The GPL is indeed as `bad' as many have said before. Whether by intention or by accident, people are being deceived by the GPL. I know several people who have slapped GPL notices on their code without really reading it. I honestly believe that the GPL should seriously spell out the details in the actual comment that goes on the code.
That sort of thing exists everywhere. To say it is specific to Linux is to say fenders are specific to Hondas. The reason Linux is so popular is because it's Linux. To be more specific, it's because of its history -- Linus Torvalds writing his own kernel because he didn't like what he could use at the time. He released it under a 'free' license and for some reason, people began flocking to it. Eventually, it became the big hip thing.
The Emacs vs. vi vs. ed, ksh vs. csh vs. sh, ANSI vs. K&R, etc. all existed way before Linux came into existance.
Re:FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MicrosoftBSD...
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
"(24 Nov, 1997) - Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) has released SCO (NASDAQ: SCOC) from a contractual obligation
to continue including outdated Microsoft code in future UNIX Systems and paying royalties on that code."
from a contractual obligation to continue including outdated Microsoft code in future UNIX Systems and paying royalties on that code. along with "Microsoft has released SCO" are the real key points in this quote -- this isn't the same agreement.
The other quote you provide is far too obscure to me.
Re:FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MicrosoftBSD...
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
Re:FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MicrosoftBSD...
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
As for Microsoft BSD, it's quite possible. It's very possible. And they can easily make it incompatible with the other *BSD's and Linux. And if they get their way wrt the US Universal Product Code, they can even stop people from reverse engineering the results. So they'll be able to build off of the ideas free software developers create without having to share those ideas back. And we'll be back to reinventing the wheel all over again.
Incorrect. SCO will not allow Microsoft to do this. In fact, it would be illegal.
The BSD is a very concise and free license that allows the licenser to allow the source code to be free and also be availible to companies provided they follow the following conditions:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
The BSD license is also much, much less complicated:
The BSD license has far fewer catches and companies that are interested in being able to profit off of their product will be happily able to integrate that into their source code provided the integration and distribution goes under the above conditions.
There are a few `mistakes' that have gotten out somehow that the BSD license is not what it is. Here they are:
The BSD license allows a company to make a small change to the code and say they wrote it.
This is not true. The original author is the one who gets the credit for it, not the person to make the last change.
The BSD license is less free than the GPL.
The BSD license allows for distribution with less catches and it allows the licenser (usually the author) to decide whether or not he or she wants to distribute the source code.
Hopefully this clears up some of the misunderstandings that people on the GPL side may be having.
That's not the way to do it. Just report them to their ISPs and their accounts will be deleted, most likely. I got a bunch of spam over the past few weeks, and I've reported it to their ISPs. I got one seriously cool response:
The account was cancelled and all fines applied.
That feels better than just 31337 qrax0r1ng h1s bawx with muh l33t r00t sk1lz because you know he's actually been fined a couple hundred dollars (as his ISP's site said).
He didn't dump Linux, there's only one FreeBSD server. Dumping a mostly proven existing solution for something new because Jesse kept insisting it isn't a good idea anyway. I'm extremely pleased to see they're taking this one step at a time. If it works, they might switch. FreeBSD also might not be for them. Perhaps there will be feedback to the FreeBSD community from those who run Slashdot so that we can fix the code.
...is this: If Southwestern Bell allows Unix systems, why doesn't Bellsouth? I don't see the problem anyway, if the user says he or she will take care of setup/etc.
UNIX work station (Sun and HP) minimum or 8Mb RAM and 25Mb available on the hard drive
I talked with the sales rep and technical support -- they said it would work, mainly because it's simply an Ethernet interface to their ADSL connector technology.
Excellent! That's where I am, and I have been 'approved' for DSL service. My phone line is in perfect condition (I could say less for the other line I use for the phone...) and I'm close enough to the office. I look forward for speeds faster than expected as you depicted.
It seems that Southwestern Bell will be covering all of the ADSL 'fields' in my area, however, since I have not ordered it yet (although I'm still optimistic) I can't make sure about that. Their rates seem pretty good for the lower speed ADSL -- roughly $50/month with a single account with a dynamic IP address and roughly $80/month for 5 static IP addresses with a dedicated connection. However, for the second one, they claim they do not provide the router, etc. They do provide the ADSL splitter and an Ethernet card (Kingston 10baseT, IIRC).
How ironic, over the past two or so years, it's been "This `Y2K will be all hell!' is so much BS" -- how wrong Australians probably think we were. The perfect Y2K problem.
IDE is okay for occasionally-accessed small amounts of data, but for things like workstations or servers (servers like wcarchive), SCSI is definitely the best choice.
That such a popular FTP mirror will be naturally sending a lot of data. The 1 Terabyte mark was expected by anybody who's been paying attention to the latest hardware upgrade on the server. The claim that the 1 TB mark was faked can be easily refuted by the popularity of wcarchive.
Slashdot Mirror
The article was about BSD, not Linux. Have many--or ANY--Linux articles (read: not Linux-vs-BSD) said how BSD is equal to or better than Linux at Aspect #foo? If so, point me to it.
384K is actually the lowest `guaranteed' speed. 1.5 MB is the highest speed you can get downward from them on that specific ADSL configuration.
The GPL is indeed as `bad' as many have said before. Whether by intention or by accident, people are being deceived by the GPL. I know several people who have slapped GPL notices on their code without really reading it. I honestly believe that the GPL should seriously spell out the details in the actual comment that goes on the code.
That sort of thing exists everywhere. To say it is specific to Linux is to say fenders are specific to Hondas. The reason Linux is so popular is because it's Linux. To be more specific, it's because of its history -- Linus Torvalds writing his own kernel because he didn't like what he could use at the time. He released it under a 'free' license and for some reason, people began flocking to it. Eventually, it became the big hip thing.
The Emacs vs. vi vs. ed, ksh vs. csh vs. sh, ANSI vs. K&R, etc. all existed way before Linux came into existance.
That was under a list of misconceptions.
I agree with you.
from a contractual obligation to continue including outdated Microsoft code in future UNIX Systems and paying royalties on that code. along with "Microsoft has released SCO" are the real key points in this quote -- this isn't the same agreement.
The other quote you provide is far too obscure to me.
Do you have a URL?
:%s/freedom/openness/
Incorrect. SCO will not allow Microsoft to do this. In fact, it would be illegal.
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
The BSD license is also much, much less complicated:
$ wc -l bsd-style-copyright
27 bsd-style-copyright
$ wc -l
339
The BSD license has far fewer catches and companies that are interested in being able to profit off of their product will be happily able to integrate that into their source code provided the integration and distribution goes under the above conditions.
There are a few `mistakes' that have gotten out somehow that the BSD license is not what it is. Here they are:
This is not true. The original author is the one who gets the credit for it, not the person to make the last change.
The BSD license allows for distribution with less catches and it allows the licenser (usually the author) to decide whether or not he or she wants to distribute the source code.
Hopefully this clears up some of the misunderstandings that people on the GPL side may be having.
That feels better than just 31337 qrax0r1ng h1s bawx with muh l33t r00t sk1lz because you know he's actually been fined a couple hundred dollars (as his ISP's site said).
Anything else?
Where does this guy's proof come from, anyway?
He didn't dump Linux, there's only one FreeBSD server. Dumping a mostly proven existing solution for something new because Jesse kept insisting it isn't a good idea anyway. I'm extremely pleased to see they're taking this one step at a time. If it works, they might switch. FreeBSD also might not be for them. Perhaps there will be feedback to the FreeBSD community from those who run Slashdot so that we can fix the code.
...is this: If Southwestern Bell allows Unix systems, why doesn't Bellsouth? I don't see the problem anyway, if the user says he or she will take care of setup/etc.
Southwestern Bell's ADSL ' How does it work?' section states:
UNIX work station (Sun and HP) minimum or 8Mb RAM and 25Mb available on the hard drive
I talked with the sales rep and technical support -- they said it would work, mainly because it's simply an Ethernet interface to their ADSL connector technology.
Excellent! That's where I am, and I have been 'approved' for DSL service. My phone line is in perfect condition (I could say less for the other line I use for the phone ...) and I'm close enough to the office. I look forward for speeds faster than expected as you depicted.
It seems that Southwestern Bell will be covering all of the ADSL 'fields' in my area, however, since I have not ordered it yet (although I'm still optimistic) I can't make sure about that. Their rates seem pretty good for the lower speed ADSL -- roughly $50/month with a single account with a dynamic IP address and roughly $80/month for 5 static IP addresses with a dedicated connection. However, for the second one, they claim they do not provide the router, etc. They do provide the ADSL splitter and an Ethernet card (Kingston 10baseT, IIRC).
OpenBSD is probably the least used BSD Unix.
...) calls are used does not make it the most secure.
See this page for an errata listing. Just because crypto and 'n' (strncpy, snprintf, vsnprintf
It's a pretty good design. However, I believe the color scheme used on the site could definitely use some work, they don't go well together.
How ironic, over the past two or so years, it's been "This `Y2K will be all hell!' is so much BS" -- how wrong Australians probably think we were. The perfect Y2K problem.
Absolutely! This is the first time any public FTP server has transferred over 1 terabyte of data.
IDE is okay for occasionally-accessed small amounts of data, but for things like workstations or servers (servers like wcarchive), SCSI is definitely the best choice.
You're confusing terabytes with megabytes, I'm afraid. A megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes, whereas a terabyte is 1,099,511,627,776 bytes.
That such a popular FTP mirror will be naturally sending a lot of data. The 1 Terabyte mark was expected by anybody who's been paying attention to the latest hardware upgrade on the server. The claim that the 1 TB mark was faked can be easily refuted by the popularity of wcarchive.