Correct. In fact, this article was written before the merger took place. As proof, here is an early version of the article I sent to -advocacy for comments on January 27th.
Anonymous crime reporting is fine. Anonymous crime accusing is an altogether different story; I don't think very few people have ever been, or ever will be, prosecuted on the basis of truly anonymous accusations without corroborating evidence.
Because you have to be living under a rock to not know Seagrams owns Universal. The original poster is simply a dumbass and that is why I didn't moderate him up.
Hey, you mean I could get paid to do this? Wow, Walnut Creek has been holding out on me:)
Re:If I wanted an under-powered, under-used OS,
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
It is an older RedHat release, 5.2 or 6.1.
Of course, if you know jack, you'd know that uname -a wouldn't tell you the distro.
Re:Can it be good if it's built for a certain Chip
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
Now please explain how this is troll? Off-topic, yeah, well, ya. Once again, my comment just a few screenfulls down stands, moderation was Slashdot's worst idea.
They removed the advertising clause from the Berkeley distributions. They did not and cannot remove it from the actual implementations of FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.
Re:I Suspect they Ripped off a BSD
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
Most new code. And there is so little of it, there is not enough to get a working OS out of it. A number of authors have come up with licenses which are not BSD, but are completely free and still are incompatible with the GPL. The beer-ware license is my favorite among them.
Re:Can it be good if it's built for a certain Chip
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
I phrased it poorly. I should have used the word clone somewhere. However you can find that in a number of books on the history of Microsoft. But, let's say that it is not false. Look at the CP/M API and compare it to the DOS API. You'll find almost no differences.
Re:I Suspect they Ripped off a BSD
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
That middle paragraph doesn't make any sense. Let me try again.
The GPL will not let you link against BSD code because the GPL mandates no additional restrictions in the license over what is required by the GPL proper. The BSD license requires acknowledgement of use which counts as an additional restriction.
Re:If I wanted an under-powered, under-used OS,
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
howardjp@dragon:~$ uname Linux howardjp@dragon:~$ file `which true` /bin/true: Bourne shell script text
Re:I Suspect they Ripped off a BSD
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
Comments 45 and 46 say pretty much the same thing, so I will answer both at once.
The GPL prevents you. You cannot remove any of the of licensing restrictions in the BSD license and one of them is the advertising clause. You can add restrictions to the BSD license though. You cannot GPL BSD code because the GPL forbids it (no additional restrictions). This is why you can take a BSD program commerical but never GPL one.
I have heard that Stallman did this to intentionally screw over the BSD developers. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it had the opposite effect. Mach had to be rewritten from scratch to get around this problem for use in the HURD.
Re:Can it be good if it's built for a certain Chip
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 3
Excluding products from a certain company
If, by this, you mean Microsoft, NT is portable (has run on Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC). Windows is an extension to DOS which was a straight-on port of CP/M from the 8080.
Re:I Suspect they Ripped off a BSD
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
Well, if they ripped off FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD, it can't be GPL'd. They'd have to rip off one of the 4BSD releases and they didn't run on Intel. They could steal code from Mach for the x86 support, but, one again, then they can't GPL it.
They must have stolen from GNUMach, Linux, Flux, Fiasco, or a related system.
Re:If I wanted an under-powered, under-used OS,
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
This doesn't surprise me. In fact, the Minix true probably out performs a lot of other systems. Remember how little the OS is going to do to get in the way here. It must out perform Linux since the GNU implementation of true is a shell script. This is just one of many stupid things GNU programmers due.:(
It's been set several times and I just threw out the paper copy of the press release. Let me look for a minute...ahh, here it is. Unfortunetly, I do not recall the exact circumstances and they are not listed here. But, I think it was a new release of Red Hat, or a new release of Slackware, or a new release of FreeBSD. Possibly a combination of them. I wish I could be more help. Emailing one of the FreeBSD lists should get a response.
Once again, you have it backwards. Solaris is the result of a merger between SunOS and SVR4. SunOS is based on 4.1BSD and 4.2BSD which predate Solaris by 5-10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. In fact, this article was written before the merger took place. As proof, here is an early version of the article I sent to -advocacy for comments on January 27th.
That's because Anthony Hopkins freaking rules. Only two other people could have delivered that line that well: Sean Connery and James Earl Jones.
Actually, no. The story is now archived and always displayed with the highest ranked comments first.
Anonymous crime reporting is fine. Anonymous crime accusing is an altogether different story; I don't think very few people have ever been, or ever will be, prosecuted on the basis of truly anonymous accusations without corroborating evidence.
You must not read Jon Katz articles.
Because you have to be living under a rock to not know Seagrams owns Universal. The original poster is simply a dumbass and that is why I didn't moderate him up.
reporting a crime
But in the United States, one had the right to face one's accuser. Anonymous crime reporting makes that more difficult.
No money changed hands in the production of this article.
Hey, you mean I could get paid to do this? Wow, Walnut Creek has been holding out on me :)
It is an older RedHat release, 5.2 or 6.1.
Of course, if you know jack, you'd know that uname -a wouldn't tell you the distro.
Now please explain how this is troll? Off-topic, yeah, well, ya. Once again, my comment just a few screenfulls down stands, moderation was Slashdot's worst idea.
How can it possibly compete with Linux in terms of stability/driver support?
Windows can compete in driver support. NT can in both. The BSDs can in stability. Solaris can in stability. So can Tru64 and SCO.
Moderation always was Slashdot's biggest mistake.
They removed the advertising clause from the Berkeley distributions. They did not and cannot remove it from the actual implementations of FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.
Most new code. And there is so little of it, there is not enough to get a working OS out of it. A number of authors have come up with licenses which are not BSD, but are completely free and still are incompatible with the GPL. The beer-ware license is my favorite among them.
I phrased it poorly. I should have used the word clone somewhere. However you can find that in a number of books on the history of Microsoft. But, let's say that it is not false. Look at the CP/M API and compare it to the DOS API. You'll find almost no differences.
That middle paragraph doesn't make any sense. Let me try again.
The GPL will not let you link against BSD code because the GPL mandates no additional restrictions in the license over what is required by the GPL proper. The BSD license requires acknowledgement of use which counts as an additional restriction.
howardjp@dragon:~$ uname
Linux
howardjp@dragon:~$ file `which true`
/bin/true: Bourne shell script text
Comments 45 and 46 say pretty much the same thing, so I will answer both at once.
The GPL prevents you. You cannot remove any of the of licensing restrictions in the BSD license and one of them is the advertising clause. You can add restrictions to the BSD license though. You cannot GPL BSD code because the GPL forbids it (no additional restrictions). This is why you can take a BSD program commerical but never GPL one.
I have heard that Stallman did this to intentionally screw over the BSD developers. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it had the opposite effect. Mach had to be rewritten from scratch to get around this problem for use in the HURD.
Excluding products from a certain company
If, by this, you mean Microsoft, NT is portable (has run on Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC). Windows is an extension to DOS which was a straight-on port of CP/M from the 8080.
Well, if they ripped off FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD, it can't be GPL'd. They'd have to rip off one of the 4BSD releases and they didn't run on Intel. They could steal code from Mach for the x86 support, but, one again, then they can't GPL it.
They must have stolen from GNUMach, Linux, Flux, Fiasco, or a related system.
This doesn't surprise me. In fact, the Minix true probably out performs a lot of other systems. Remember how little the OS is going to do to get in the way here. It must out perform Linux since the GNU implementation of true is a shell script. This is just one of many stupid things GNU programmers due. :(
It's been set several times and I just threw out the paper copy of the press release. Let me look for a minute...ahh, here it is. Unfortunetly, I do not recall the exact circumstances and they are not listed here. But, I think it was a new release of Red Hat, or a new release of Slackware, or a new release of FreeBSD. Possibly a combination of them. I wish I could be more help. Emailing one of the FreeBSD lists should get a response.
Perfect for trying to convince the boss that this "three dee bee ess" stuff you're using to keep the company running is up to the task.
:)
Excellent, I wrote it with one of my old PHBs in mind.
Are you on crack?!?
Sun paid SCO nearly a billion dollars for the rights to SVR4!
Once again, you have it backwards. Solaris is the result of a merger between SunOS and SVR4. SunOS is based on 4.1BSD and 4.2BSD which predate Solaris by 5-10 years.