Put simply, electric vehicles don't meet my mission requirements: a midsize SUV or station wagon (think Chevrolet Equinox, Lexus RX, Subaru Outback) enclosed carrying capacity for stuff and/or people, able to travel 300+ miles at 70+ MPH away from the Interstate Highway System, and able to do it again in 15 minutes, indefinitely.
Or are you trying to provide an existence proof of Henry Spencer's famous saying: "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it - poorly."?
No, not at all. In this case, though, it's not going in because of the animosity of one developer to all things Google. He didn't even bother to see what the change was about before shooting it down in flames.
The OS people are quite often right. Not this time, though.
Of course, you ignore the multitude of technical arguments against it, centering on its monolithic nature and its propensity to devour everything in its path.
I don't have a lot of strong feelings about systemd, but it does strike me as fundamentally failing to understand Unix.
Actually, I use Linux Mint and OS X. Yes, I know Mint's an indirect Debian derivative, but 1) they derive directly from Ubuntu, which pays better attention to users, and 2) they don't call it GNU/Linux.
And Google has all of my details anyway; I switched from an iPhone to Android this last upgrade (a second-gen Moto X) because it integrates better with the stuff I was already using: Gmail, Google Voice, Google Calendar...
You know what? I'm not paranoid about Google. They don't care about me individually, and I opt out of their ad targeting. The rest I just don't care about.
Not that I was going to use a system that kowtows to RMS by calling itself GNU/Linux anyway, but the OS is there to support the software I use, and I use Chrome on Linux. If the OS won't support it, then I won't use it.
No, they do not have the right to take your work and claim it for their own. That right is reserved exclusively to you by the terms of the BSD license. That's what makes the Stallmanite claim that "they can take your work private" a bald-faced lie.
As for not understanding true freedom, get back to me when you have a right to keep and bear arms.
It's not freedom, because others are not free to do something that pisses you off but does not actually harm you. And no, having your code extended by others does not harm you. You have no right to their work.
It's only a shell of freedom. Then again, I long ago gave up on the idea that Europeans could actually understand true freedom...
But you're wrong. Another cannot take your BSD-licensed work as their own. You will, always and forever, own that work and be able to use and freely distribute it.
Another can use your BSD-licensed work as the base for their work, and use and distribute their work as they see fit. This is as it should be. Even in doing so, however, they cannot stop you from continuing to use, maintain, and improve your own work.
Compare this freedom with the GPL's mandate to only distribute others' work on the same terms as your own. What gives you the right to tell someone else what they can do with their work? How is this freedom?
Fucking for virginity, indeed. You must destroy that freedom in order to save it.
Ah, but that's the point: your analogy between the BSD license and the freedom to commit murder or arson is false. That's because the BSD license harms nobody, and grants freedom to programmers as well as users. The freedom to modify the code is meaningless if you are forced to give it away afterwards.
Not possible. They cannot prevent you from using your own work as you wish, under any circumstances, period, end of story. They can prevent you from using their work.
This kind of crap is the Stallmanite stork in trade: lay out a dystopian vision where programmers' work is taken away from them never to be seen again. If they'd quite peddling this lie, then things would be a lot calmer.
Uhm, no. If you need to restrict others' freedom, then ue the GPL - because that restricts freedoms int he name of preserving them. Just like the classic "fucking for virginity".
True freedom must necessarily include the freedom to do things that piss others off, or else it is not truly free. The difference between soi-disant "free software" and BSD-licensed code is that the latter includes the freedom to do things that piss RMS off.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Sony bought another company (Gaikai) years ago. This acquisition happened today.
Put simply, electric vehicles don't meet my mission requirements: a midsize SUV or station wagon (think Chevrolet Equinox, Lexus RX, Subaru Outback) enclosed carrying capacity for stuff and/or people, able to travel 300+ miles at 70+ MPH away from the Interstate Highway System, and able to do it again in 15 minutes, indefinitely.
How far away from being able to do that are we?
Linux's strength is that is is Unix.
Or are you trying to provide an existence proof of Henry Spencer's famous saying: "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it - poorly."?
No, not at all. In this case, though, it's not going in because of the animosity of one developer to all things Google. He didn't even bother to see what the change was about before shooting it down in flames.
The OS people are quite often right. Not this time, though.
Do you honestly think your vocal opposition would not stand in the way of another developer deciding to get it in?
Of course, you ignore the multitude of technical arguments against it, centering on its monolithic nature and its propensity to devour everything in its path.
I don't have a lot of strong feelings about systemd, but it does strike me as fundamentally failing to understand Unix.
"TSYNC is a new sandboxing flag for seccomp that was recently added to the Linux kernel." -- from the description of the change to Chromium
Sounds like more browsers should be using it.
Better attention to its users than Debian is a low bar to clear. I'll agree that Ubuntu has its own problems in that area.
You say that as though it's a bad thing.
To each his own.
However, for folks who want their OS to actually pay attention to their needs, it's yet another nail in Debian's coffin.
Because it's yet another reason not to use them.
Actually, I use Linux Mint and OS X. Yes, I know Mint's an indirect Debian derivative, but 1) they derive directly from Ubuntu, which pays better attention to users, and 2) they don't call it GNU/Linux.
And Google has all of my details anyway; I switched from an iPhone to Android this last upgrade (a second-gen Moto X) because it integrates better with the stuff I was already using: Gmail, Google Voice, Google Calendar...
You know what? I'm not paranoid about Google. They don't care about me individually, and I opt out of their ad targeting. The rest I just don't care about.
Not that I was going to use a system that kowtows to RMS by calling itself GNU/Linux anyway, but the OS is there to support the software I use, and I use Chrome on Linux. If the OS won't support it, then I won't use it.
Your 80mm mortar may have the edge in range, and you may be a trained soldier, but you obviously haven't learned the lessons of asymmetric warfare...
...because people don't like the idea of a language that turns something they should be doing anyway, code indentation, into a syntactic requirement.
Short-sighted of them
No, they do not have the right to take your work and claim it for their own. That right is reserved exclusively to you by the terms of the BSD license. That's what makes the Stallmanite claim that "they can take your work private" a bald-faced lie.
As for not understanding true freedom, get back to me when you have a right to keep and bear arms.
It's not freedom, because others are not free to do something that pisses you off but does not actually harm you. And no, having your code extended by others does not harm you. You have no right to their work.
It's only a shell of freedom. Then again, I long ago gave up on the idea that Europeans could actually understand true freedom...
But you're wrong. Another cannot take your BSD-licensed work as their own. You will, always and forever, own that work and be able to use and freely distribute it.
Another can use your BSD-licensed work as the base for their work, and use and distribute their work as they see fit. This is as it should be. Even in doing so, however, they cannot stop you from continuing to use, maintain, and improve your own work.
Compare this freedom with the GPL's mandate to only distribute others' work on the same terms as your own. What gives you the right to tell someone else what they can do with their work? How is this freedom?
Fucking for virginity, indeed. You must destroy that freedom in order to save it.
Bah. Stallmanite double-speak.
All right, someone mod that one +1 Funny.
Ah, but that's the point: your analogy between the BSD license and the freedom to commit murder or arson is false. That's because the BSD license harms nobody, and grants freedom to programmers as well as users. The freedom to modify the code is meaningless if you are forced to give it away afterwards.
Not possible. They cannot prevent you from using your own work as you wish, under any circumstances, period, end of story. They can prevent you from using their work.
This kind of crap is the Stallmanite stork in trade: lay out a dystopian vision where programmers' work is taken away from them never to be seen again. If they'd quite peddling this lie, then things would be a lot calmer.
Uhm, no. If you need to restrict others' freedom, then ue the GPL - because that restricts freedoms int he name of preserving them. Just like the classic "fucking for virginity".
True freedom must necessarily include the freedom to do things that piss others off, or else it is not truly free. The difference between soi-disant "free software" and BSD-licensed code is that the latter includes the freedom to do things that piss RMS off.
Pay the licenses, or out-compete them with freely available code. There's considerable experience by now that says the latter will win every time.
No, I'm not posting just to start a flamewar. As for substantiation, the data have been untrustworthy ever since Climategate.