Your tax payer dollars pay for your city park, yet you aren't free to set up a business in your city park; in fact, what you can do in your city park is quite restricted. And the purpose of those rules is so that everybody can enjoy the city park.
Your analogy is flawed. The city park is limited resource. The software could be copied and is an unlimited resource.
The right analogy is a very big park, where is enough space for everybody. In case of GPL - business is allowed but nobody could keep business secrets, so anybody could copy successful business solutions and basically businesses are unprofitable (as Linux companies are). In case of BSD - business as usual and anybody can enjoy city park without using businesses.
No, but I do think, once the open source hype is a bit over, or companies are more aggresively pushing proprietary again (after they let it slip a bit over the last years), lots of new code extending a BSD product will be proprietary and the 'good' version is locked again. Then the efforts have to be doubled again by open source developers. Which is a waste.
On the other hand if software is GPLed then no company give a damn about spending money on it's improvement if they can't benefit from it. Or benefit enough;)
The government does not act as a software distributor, thus there is no reason why the GPL should infringe upon the Government (IE the "user's") rights.
Are you sure the government does not act as software distributor? Yes, of course it does not trade software on market, but there are different channels..
First - it does develop software, for example here:
National Energy Research Scientific Computer Center- http://www.nersc.gov . Or here: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - http://www.lbl.gov. And software got to be distributed - it could go to private companies, to different governments and to individuals.
By the way the traceroute program was developed in LBL and was distributed everywhere. For other examples you may go to http://www.firstgov.gov/ and search for "software". There will be a lot of links.
Why is everyone against the GPL?
Because it is viral? Because in case people use it and distribute software GPL force them to do they do not want to do ( disclose their source code)?
BSD license restricts the developer (the developer can not develop further on his own source if a company patched a few lines proprietarily).
How did you come with that crazy idea that developer can not develop further? Have you actually read BSD license? Here : http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.h tml
In fact, it seems just as likely that RIM will release a version of the Treo 600 with BlackBerry service on it, as RIM and PalmSource have also announced a deal.
In fact there is a TreoMail service already available from HandSpring. TreoMail was developed by Visto which has their own service - MessageXpress. Also PalmSource have pressrelease about creating standart Palm mail client together with Visto : http://www.palmsource.com/press/2003/061803_visto. html
Just to complicate things there is a ViAir WirelessInbox mail solution and Viair merges with Visto.
So it looks like Good and RIM play Johnny-come-lately...
Re:Do younger minds absorb quicker?
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
Consider project under BSD license. It has 3 files:
main.c func1.c and func2.c. Only func2.c gets completely overwritten with GPLed code. In accordance with GPL all code became GPL. But if main.c and func1.c were not touched why license part should be changed?
I'm fine with different licenses for different code parts .
Out of curiosity, how does FreeBSD handle Linux binaries?
In my understanding it is more or less easy. FreeBSD and Linux have kernel calls numbered differently. In simplest case you have only to renumber kernel call. For example linux program calls write, it gets renumbered and FreeBSD kernel executes write. In fact things are more complicated - some linux calls should be reimplemented, there are differences in signal handling, different structures, ioctls etc. And if your program dynamically linked you have to install linux libraries.
Actually CVS commiters are not anonymous in any of *BSD. People became commiters because they know each other for a prolonged time as code developers.
Well, it is possible somebody submitted piece of code ripped off SCO. But it's unlikely. One reason that you have to substantially rework piece of kernel code just to allow to compile it. (The utilities are less of a problem - but they are not so important). The second reason that some developers who review code before committing it really know guts of a bunch of different Unixes. So their question would be - why it looks so SCOish? OK, third reason is that because commiters are not anonymous and person in question signed NDA and stole code - that person would be lawsuit defendant and nobody else.
Only GNU/FSF supported projects have more chances to survive in such attacks as paranoid check procedures is exactly what RMS is trying to do for years.
Does it mean RMS have a copy of SCO source and he comparing code line by line?
You are referring to some limited features set which not very important for most folks..
PAE (36bit memory addressing)
It needed on i386 boxes with more than 4GB RAM. It's usefulness is limited - you can't have process with more than 4GB size anyway. You better use real 64bit hardware. * DevFS
?? Devfs was supported since 2.0. It became MANDATORY in 5.1. * Name Service Switch
FreeBSD used host.conf switch which was adequate for most users.. It's kind of nice to have it and it was available for couple years as patch for people who really wanted it. * USB 2.0 support Hmm, Linux has it only for a year - not for "quite while". * Basic HTT (HyperThreading) Support It's usefulness is not proved - you can gain and lose with it. * ata driver flushes at shutdown * >2TB block devices How come Linux had it for quite while and just recently get rid of 2GB file size limit? * Filesystem volume labels Not very usefull, unless you have a lot of partitions/disks and then you're better off with vinum volume manager * O_DIRECT support ?? It was in FreeBSD since 4.4...
You may also say that FreeBSD does not have dir command and Linux had it for ages...Or colored ls output is a must on any server;)))
Re:What a pointless announcement,
on
FreeBSD 5.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How can the linux hardware support be so much better when freebsd is more stable?
Because in more code you have more bugs?;)
I have actually seen "hardware support" in Linux which was a major headache to force to work. Linux guys are just being too optimistic - if it looks like works - than it works! If it blows out later -it's a pilot error than;)
You don't know what circumstances are..
There are a lot of reasons to try out OS in emulator. Like the need to eliminate downtime or relabeling. And not all systems have space/controller/power for additional drive...
Since you can evaluate hardware compatability, speed, or stability of an OS when it's running under an emulator, what would you learn by such an effort? That grep and tar work the same under FreeBSD as under Linux?
Some folks just want to have 'a feel' of FreeBSD. And while grep and tar the same - awk is different
for example and pkg tools are something to play with.
Seriously, how can you be sure that SCO won't do it to BSD as well?
Because BSD (UC Berkeley and BSDi) already got sued by AT&T. The lawsuit was settled partly because UC Berkeley contrasued AT&T for the reason that AT&T included some uncredited BSD code into UNIX.
I believe they wanted to take Perl out because it was simpler to manage via the ports.
The main problem was fact that full Perl was quite bloated. Any 'limited' Perl install was then not official Perl... And yes, it was not easily manageable.
The major disadvantage of slow start is the fact that it starts from one segment onward, which is obviously worse than just halving the window.
Take a look at RFC 3390 - "Increasing TCP's Initial Window". It allows to start with up to 4 segments initially, which is very nice for general HTTP traffic.
Are you sure? British WWII carriers did have armored decks. American carriers did have wooden decks..
HMS Ocean is a Landing Platform, Helicopter ship.
HMS Albion and Bulwark are Landing Platform Dock ships. They designed rather to haul marines, not strike aircraft.
OK, take a look - http://www.hms.vengeance.btinternet.co.uk/skyhawk. htm
there is A-4 landing and launching from that carrier.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy is flawed. The city park is limited resource. The software could be copied and is an unlimited resource.
The right analogy is a very big park, where is enough space for everybody. In case of GPL - business is allowed but nobody could keep business secrets, so anybody could copy successful business solutions and basically businesses are unprofitable (as Linux companies are). In case of BSD - business as usual and anybody can enjoy city park without using businesses.
On the other hand if software is GPLed then no company give a damn about spending money on it's improvement if they can't benefit from it. Or benefit enough ;)
Are you sure the government does not act as software distributor? Yes, of course it does not trade software on market, but there are different channels..
First - it does develop software, for example here:
National Energy Research Scientific Computer Center- http://www.nersc.gov . Or here: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - http://www.lbl.gov. And software got to be distributed - it could go to private companies, to different governments and to individuals.
By the way the traceroute program was developed in LBL and was distributed everywhere. For other examples you may go to http://www.firstgov.gov/ and search for "software". There will be a lot of links.
Why is everyone against the GPL?
Because it is viral? Because in case people use it and distribute software GPL force them to do they do not want to do ( disclose their source code)?
How did you come with that crazy idea that developer can not develop further? Have you actually read BSD license? Here : http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.
well - it has SD/MM slot - so you can have it easily.
In fact there is a TreoMail service already available from HandSpring. TreoMail was developed by Visto which has their own service - MessageXpress. Also PalmSource have pressrelease about creating standart Palm mail client together with Visto : http://www.palmsource.com/press/2003/061803_visto. html
Just to complicate things there is a ViAir WirelessInbox mail solution and Viair merges with Visto.
So it looks like Good and RIM play Johnny-come-lately...
How about some hair dying before interview?
It is not exactly correct.
Consider project under BSD license. It has 3 files: main.c func1.c and func2.c. Only func2.c gets completely overwritten with GPLed code. In accordance with GPL all code became GPL. But if main.c and func1.c were not touched why license part should be changed?
I'm fine with different licenses for different code parts .
In my understanding it is more or less easy.
FreeBSD and Linux have kernel calls numbered differently. In simplest case you have only to renumber kernel call. For example linux program calls write, it gets renumbered and FreeBSD kernel executes write. In fact things are more complicated - some linux calls should be reimplemented, there are differences in signal handling, different structures, ioctls etc. And if your program dynamically linked you have to install linux libraries.
And yes it's clean off GPL.
There is always room for negotiation...
You have at least make a try. Well, if negotiation is failed then you are freee to go.
Or one can put it another way - You are the skillest they could find at your salary level ;)
Well, it is possible somebody submitted piece of code ripped off SCO. But it's unlikely. One reason that you have to substantially rework piece of kernel code just to allow to compile it. (The utilities are less of a problem - but they are not so important). The second reason that some developers who review code before committing it really know guts of a bunch of different Unixes. So their question would be - why it looks so SCOish? OK, third reason is that because commiters are not anonymous and person in question signed NDA and stole code - that person would be lawsuit defendant and nobody else.
Only GNU/FSF supported projects have more chances to survive in such attacks as paranoid check procedures is exactly what RMS is trying to do for years.
Does it mean RMS have a copy of SCO source and he comparing code line by line?
Sorry, it is bullshit. FreeBSD is for people who want their work to be done. Linux is often used by "kewl dude" crowd.
PAE (36bit memory addressing)
It needed on i386 boxes with more than 4GB RAM. It's usefulness is limited - you can't have process with more than 4GB size anyway. You better use real 64bit hardware.
* DevFS
?? Devfs was supported since 2.0. It became MANDATORY in 5.1.
* Name Service Switch
FreeBSD used host.conf switch which was adequate for most users.. It's kind of nice to have it and it was available for couple years as patch for people who really wanted it.
* USB 2.0 support
Hmm, Linux has it only for a year - not for "quite while".
* Basic HTT (HyperThreading) Support
It's usefulness is not proved - you can gain and lose with it.
* ata driver flushes at shutdown
* >2TB block devices
How come Linux had it for quite while and just recently get rid of 2GB file size limit?
* Filesystem volume labels
Not very usefull, unless you have a lot of partitions/disks and then you're better off with vinum volume manager
* O_DIRECT support
?? It was in FreeBSD since 4.4...
You may also say that FreeBSD does not have dir command and Linux had it for ages...Or colored ls output is a must on any server ;)))
Because in more code you have more bugs? ;)
I have actually seen "hardware support" in Linux which was a major headache to force to work. Linux guys are just being too optimistic - if it looks like works - than it works! If it blows out later -it's a pilot error than ;)
You don't know what circumstances are.. There are a lot of reasons to try out OS in emulator. Like the need to eliminate downtime or relabeling. And not all systems have space/controller/power for additional drive...
Since you can evaluate hardware compatability, speed, or stability of an OS when it's running under an emulator, what would you learn by such an effort? That grep and tar work the same under FreeBSD as under Linux?
Some folks just want to have 'a feel' of FreeBSD. And while grep and tar the same - awk is different for example and pkg tools are something to play with.
Because BSD (UC Berkeley and BSDi) already got sued by AT&T. The lawsuit was settled partly because UC Berkeley contrasued AT&T for the reason that AT&T included some uncredited BSD code into UNIX.
The main problem was fact that full Perl was quite bloated. Any 'limited' Perl install was then not official Perl... And yes, it was not easily manageable.
It is somewhere else.
Ha! That support will cost you. Unix/linux admins are not cheap. The only thing you win is a product cost - download from the Internet.
Well, european english and indian english are quit different - indian accents are pretty thick and hide british accent behind..
Take a look at RFC 3390 - "Increasing TCP's Initial Window". It allows to start with up to 4 segments initially, which is very nice for general HTTP traffic.
Because so many people in computer industry were born after 1975?
Are you sure? British WWII carriers did have armored decks. American carriers did have wooden decks..
HMS Ocean is a Landing Platform, Helicopter ship.
HMS Albion and Bulwark are Landing Platform Dock ships. They designed rather to haul marines, not strike aircraft.
OK, take a look - http://www.hms.vengeance.btinternet.co.uk/skyhawk. htm
there is A-4 landing and launching from that carrier.
No, you can have more choice and you can be more flexible with prices, but it still pricier than in 97...