NT is POSIX compliant in much the same sense as was the vivisected version of Windows compliant with Judge Jackson's order to split MSIE and Win95. Remember? I'm talking about the version that was completely useless and non-functional, the one where they removed MSIE and all shared libraries it used, producing something which wouldn't boot. In both cases, we have a textbook case of an arrogant company outrageously redefining the outer envelope of sheer contumacy.
If you truly believe that this alleged POSIX compliance is in the least bit useable, then please compile up trn or perl or nvi on that system. It's part of a sick and twisted joke, and the joke is on the American taxpayer, too. Read Heinz's article.
You know that is not true. For someone who talks about letting lies seep in, you are deliberately spreading FUD, which I find rather distasteful. My opinion of you just dropped a few points, Tom. I had thought you were above such tactics.
What tactics? Telling the truth?
Let's try it again. I keep thinking you'll understand if I speak slowly, or something.
You wrote:
The GPL is designed to ensure that the source code for a piece of software remains available to everyone at all times. That is all. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Of course, I don't think I'm wrong, either.:-)
Many licences do that, the LGPL, BSDL, and AL being amongst those. The GPL does something more: it sneaks its viral fingers into code that the licensing author didn't write and tells the owner of the new code what they can and cannot do. On the other hand, the LGPL et al. do not do that, because you can use them in your own code without risk of losing your rights.
I don't expect you to agree with me that this is desirable. I'm not even sure I honestly hope for you to believe what I'm saying is accurate. But I do expect you to realize that I am relating to you the situation to you in as truthful a manner as I believe it to be. In other words, just because I might be wrong does not mean I am insincere.
As for my complaining about the BSD advertising stuff, you are making an assumption. And you would be wrong. Just because you didn't see me doing it doesn't mean I was not working the issue. This was especially important to me because we wanted to use (more) BSD code in Perl, which is the context in which my lobbying occurred.
BSD is perfectly capable of running executables that were compiled by compilers other than gcc. If it were any other way, how did we ever get it to run on a PDP-11 or a VAX?
Choosing a slightly more modern example, if you run BSD on a Sparc, you can run executables that were compiled on SunOS or Solaris. You certainly don't think that those had to have been compiled using gcc, do you?
The coward had a stupid nonpoint, and I didn't feel like explaining the facts of life to him. It's hardly FUD.
You just did a fine job at describing the LGPL. The only difference between the two is that the GPL pretends to lay claim over someone else's work. The LGPL doesn't do that, nor does any other open source licence. This is really quite important.
Re:TOM CHRISTIANSEN YOU MISSED THIS ONE
on
FreeBSD at COMDEX
·
· Score: 2
I'm sure you can find ample sources for that viewpoint if you would bother to do your research. When you get to high school, you'll find that there's this neat thing called the Internet. It's call this other cool thing called search engines, and they have this groovy interface to pull up all kinds of nifty stuff. Enjoy.
The GPL conforms to the open-source definition. It does not prevent anyone from creating commercial software, it just prevents them from making that software closed-source.
You know, I'm quite close to agreeing with you there, but you have to understand that your definition of "commercial software" must be very very far from the one use those companies who make their living investing money in developing and selling software. That's what they think of as commercial software. And if they can't make back their investment by selling it, then they won't bother. See?
I shall never yield to the parties who would have be believe that two and two fail to make four. Nor should I. Inconsistency would compromise integrity. Let little lies seep in for the sake of political expediency, and you are lost.
Re:*BSD is hurting Open Source/Linux, time to stop
on
FreeBSD at COMDEX
·
· Score: 2
I think bsd has a long way to go before even reaching Linux's ease of use (which in itself has a long way to go to reach Windows ease of use
Ease of use for whom? If you mean Windows victims, then perhaps you're right, although I'm not sure I jump to any particular conclusion even given the assumed veracity of that particular premise.
However, if you mean ease of use for Unix programmers, then I lament to report that there, the burden of remedying the currently deficient usability concerns points quite strongly in the opposite direction.
O nameless and most unbrave coward, pray reveal unto me and this august body using precise quotations these last few hours scribed just what brutal invective and insidious vitriol bent upon wanton destruction of innocents and fellows that I am alleged to have hurled in neighboring followups to this our current featured article, and in the unfathomable circumstance of somehow finding myself in complete agreement with your stern judgment, I shall find myself with no other honorable recourse but to accept meekly yet gladly what penitence you have but recently pronounced as just and merited.
The GPL is designed to ensure that the source code for a piece of software remains available to everyone at all times. That is all. Nothing more, and nothing less.
I see a typo there: you wrote GPL when you meant LGPL.:-(
Ever heard of freedom of speech Mr. Christiansen? The poster was just pointing this guys [sic] anti-GPL bias which you obviously share. Thats[sic] not flaming, its [sic] intelligent discussion.
How quick you forget his first line:
I can't believe slashdot would ever post something Brett Glass would have to say.
Now, tell me about about "freedom of speech"? You might also consider this in a global context if you can manage that. Are you even aware of how many of your favorite countries don't have "freedom of speech" as the law of the land? And no, I don't consider its paucity of feature. Merely a note that you're projecting something on the world that is far less universal than you imagine.
The point was that he's just managed to present himself as another cowardly GPL flag waver and general rabble rouser, who, like so many others of his ilk, apparently doesn't have the integrity and conviction to post under his real name.
Brett obviously had thought these things through. To assert that Brett should be censored because he prefers free and open software over encumbered software is a revolting idea, and you should be ashamed of yourselves, one and all.
Re:*BSD is hurting Open Source/Linux, time to stop
on
FreeBSD at COMDEX
·
· Score: 2
I haven't noticed a tangable performance difference however I prefer linux because their is more support and because their is less arrogance.
Even if it did slow them down, it would be worth it to somepeople, because they would feel they'd be creating free software when only encumbered software previously existied.
Just remember that BSD predated the GNU copycat stuff by aeons. For a real education, go take a good look around on any of the Linuxes and notice how much BSD code is actually there. Don't take my word on it. See for yourselves. This selective blindness discredits you even further.
Would a bevy of moderators please track down all these cowards who are trying to create a bsd bashing festival and zap them into negativity?
Ever notice how you don't see raving loonies bashing Linux the way you see them bashing BSD? That should tell you something.
Seems to be right on the money to me. He's obviously thought about this.
But you know, Coward, if you keep posting this crap, you'll get enough -1's against your IP that you won't trouble us anymore. At least, that can be our hope.
Re:What ever happened to the Unix Pascal system?
on
FreeBSD at COMDEX
·
· Score: 2
Cool. Please make sure the openbsd people get it, too. Any idea how much difficulty it is to cross-port between the two? My guess is that it's trivial. Yes if that were true, you'd think we'd see more ports than we do.
First of all, gcc is hardly the definition of "standard".
Secondly, perhaps you might be so kind as to please remind me which revision of the standard added those silly C++ comments to C. I must have missed it.
suppose the DOJ could make it easier to compete with MS by making the driver interface GPLish with an exception for Windows itself
That's an intriguing notion, but it really does smell like a "taking", which means I don't think it would survive.
And you really wouldn't want to have MS level their guns at the GPL -- they'd crack it like an eggshell. You'd want to come up with a specific directive or licence not linked to anything else.
Don't you just love it when your favorite baseball team all grab bats and, completely ignoring the other team they're playing against, proceed to beat each other to bloody stupor?
We're all on the same team, guys, except for the raving loonies. Try to keep that in mind.
Please.
Re:*BSD is hurting Open Source/Linux, time to stop
on
FreeBSD at COMDEX
·
· Score: 2
[I can't believe I'm responding to such flamebait. I give it about 5 minutes before a moderator thwaps the parent article.]
You've made your assertions. Now back them up.
Linux has BSD beat on reliability, scalability, security and popularity, you claim. That's provably either false or misleading or both. For example, consider popularity. Windows has Linux beat on popularity. So what? Next, security. Oh come now. Shall we please track the number of exploits for various Linuxes, and compare them with those for, say, OpenBSD? 'Nuff said. Now this scalability thing. Yawn. BSD ran on minicomputers and minisupers years before Linux was even a figment of your imagination. And those were big iron by today's standards, with separate I/O processors and hundreds of concurrent interactive users. BSD runs on little tiny machines, too. BSD scalability is hardly an issue. Let's see, what was the other thing? Oh yes, reliability. Shall we compare mean-time-between-failure data? What are you talking about? I haven't seen either sort of machine go down on its own for the last couple years, and when it did, it was a Linux box, not a BSD box.
Your statement that BSD has done nothing innovative or positive for the OSI/Unix community is a blatant, flamethrowing, slanderous lie. I could list a hundred things. I challenge you to read the last 20 years worth of Usenix proceedings if you need details.
But I'm sure you don't need details. They would interfere with yours lies. Damn it, repeating a lie doesn't make it true. What the hell is wrong with some people?
Only because the judge said so. The standards people never bought that line of bull. I love the way the Evil Empire can make the government flush millions of dollars of spec development and testing down the drain like this. Those standards were developed to make an open, non-monopoly playing field. So much for that idea.
You don't have to like it, but the simple fact of the matter is that the GPL is a serious impediment to a lot of good, honest open source work. You can't blame the BSD people for wanting to make a free Unix. In my ever so humble opinion, the LGPL addresses most of the freeness problems in the GPL, and really should be used a lot more. However, I still suspect that even that's not free enough for BSD, and I'm not going to argue with them, because they're trying to do as much good for the world as they can. There are more axes of dissent here than meets the eye.
You are deeply confused. Check the definition of "open source". You'll see that it applies to BSD. Sure, SunOS and HP/UX and maybe even MacOS X have non-open parts, and they are or were BSD-derived, but you can say that about dozens of projects. {Open,Free,Net}BSD are quite up to fitting the definition. Pay attention next time.
To a greater or to a lesser extent than BSD and Linux? I assume you're only talking 1003.1 here, not 1003.2 or the other specs. Since MacOS X is BSD, and BSD is very committed to standards, do you think this means that it will be easy to port stuff to stuff to the new Mac servers too, for the same reason?
Slashdot Mirror
If you truly believe that this alleged POSIX compliance is in the least bit useable, then please compile up trn or perl or nvi on that system. It's part of a sick and twisted joke, and the joke is on the American taxpayer, too. Read Heinz's article.
Let's try it again. I keep thinking you'll understand if I speak slowly, or something.
You wrote:
Many licences do that, the LGPL, BSDL, and AL being amongst those. The GPL does something more: it sneaks its viral fingers into code that the licensing author didn't write and tells the owner of the new code what they can and cannot do. On the other hand, the LGPL et al. do not do that, because you can use them in your own code without risk of losing your rights.I don't expect you to agree with me that this is desirable. I'm not even sure I honestly hope for you to believe what I'm saying is accurate. But I do expect you to realize that I am relating to you the situation to you in as truthful a manner as I believe it to be. In other words, just because I might be wrong does not mean I am insincere.
As for my complaining about the BSD advertising stuff, you are making an assumption. And you would be wrong. Just because you didn't see me doing it doesn't mean I was not working the issue. This was especially important to me because we wanted to use (more) BSD code in Perl, which is the context in which my lobbying occurred.
Choosing a slightly more modern example, if you run BSD on a Sparc, you can run executables that were compiled on SunOS or Solaris. You certainly don't think that those had to have been compiled using gcc, do you?
The coward had a stupid nonpoint, and I didn't feel like explaining the facts of life to him. It's hardly FUD.
You just did a fine job at describing the LGPL. The only difference between the two is that the GPL pretends to lay claim over someone else's work. The LGPL doesn't do that, nor does any other open source licence. This is really quite important.
I'm sure you can find ample sources for that viewpoint if you would bother to do your research. When you get to high school, you'll find that there's this neat thing called the Internet. It's call this other cool thing called search engines, and they have this groovy interface to pull up all kinds of nifty stuff. Enjoy.
I shall never yield to the parties who would have be believe that two and two fail to make four. Nor should I. Inconsistency would compromise integrity. Let little lies seep in for the sake of political expediency, and you are lost.
However, if you mean ease of use for Unix programmers, then I lament to report that there, the burden of remedying the currently deficient usability concerns points quite strongly in the opposite direction.
O nameless and most unbrave coward, pray reveal unto me and this august body using precise quotations these last few hours scribed just what brutal invective and insidious vitriol bent upon wanton destruction of innocents and fellows that I am alleged to have hurled in neighboring followups to this our current featured article, and in the unfathomable circumstance of somehow finding myself in complete agreement with your stern judgment, I shall find myself with no other honorable recourse but to accept meekly yet gladly what penitence you have but recently pronounced as just and merited.
The point was that he's just managed to present himself as another cowardly GPL flag waver and general rabble rouser, who, like so many others of his ilk, apparently doesn't have the integrity and conviction to post under his real name.
Brett obviously had thought these things through. To assert that Brett should be censored because he prefers free and open software over encumbered software is a revolting idea, and you should be ashamed of yourselves, one and all.
Just remember that BSD predated the GNU copycat stuff by aeons. For a real education, go take a good look around on any of the Linuxes and notice how much BSD code is actually there. Don't take my word on it. See for yourselves. This selective blindness discredits you even further.
Would a bevy of moderators please track down all these cowards who are trying to create a bsd bashing festival and zap them into negativity?
Ever notice how you don't see raving loonies bashing Linux the way you see them bashing BSD? That should tell you something.
And you have failed your Hippocratic Oath, too.
What the devil is wrong with these people?
But you know, Coward, if you keep posting this crap, you'll get enough -1's against your IP that you won't trouble us anymore. At least, that can be our hope.
Cool. Please make sure the openbsd people get it, too. Any idea how much difficulty it is to cross-port between the two? My guess is that it's trivial. Yes if that were true, you'd think we'd see more ports than we do.
Secondly, perhaps you might be so kind as to please remind me which revision of the standard added those silly C++ comments to C. I must have missed it.
And you really wouldn't want to have MS level their guns at the GPL -- they'd crack it like an eggshell. You'd want to come up with a specific directive or licence not linked to anything else.
Udi went to Yahoo. :-)
We're all on the same team, guys, except for the raving loonies. Try to keep that in mind.
Please.
You've made your assertions. Now back them up.
Linux has BSD beat on reliability, scalability, security and popularity, you claim. That's provably either false or misleading or both. For example, consider popularity. Windows has Linux beat on popularity. So what? Next, security. Oh come now. Shall we please track the number of exploits for various Linuxes, and compare them with those for, say, OpenBSD? 'Nuff said. Now this scalability thing. Yawn. BSD ran on minicomputers and minisupers years before Linux was even a figment of your imagination. And those were big iron by today's standards, with separate I/O processors and hundreds of concurrent interactive users. BSD runs on little tiny machines, too. BSD scalability is hardly an issue. Let's see, what was the other thing? Oh yes, reliability. Shall we compare mean-time-between-failure data? What are you talking about? I haven't seen either sort of machine go down on its own for the last couple years, and when it did, it was a Linux box, not a BSD box.
Your statement that BSD has done nothing innovative or positive for the OSI/Unix community is a blatant, flamethrowing, slanderous lie. I could list a hundred things. I challenge you to read the last 20 years worth of Usenix proceedings if you need details.
But I'm sure you don't need details. They would interfere with yours lies. Damn it, repeating a lie doesn't make it true. What the hell is wrong with some people?
You don't have to like it, but the simple fact of the matter is that the GPL is a serious impediment to a lot of good, honest open source work. You can't blame the BSD people for wanting to make a free Unix. In my ever so humble opinion, the LGPL addresses most of the freeness problems in the GPL, and really should be used a lot more. However, I still suspect that even that's not free enough for BSD, and I'm not going to argue with them, because they're trying to do as much good for the world as they can. There are more axes of dissent here than meets the eye.
You are deeply confused. Check the definition of "open source". You'll see that it applies to BSD. Sure, SunOS and HP/UX and maybe even MacOS X have non-open parts, and they are or were BSD-derived, but you can say that about dozens of projects. {Open,Free,Net}BSD are quite up to fitting the definition. Pay attention next time.