No, glibc developers never accepted strlcpy() and strlcat(). glibc provides several functions from BSD just to ease porting, but for some weird reason they don't want to accept these tiny functions to ease porting.
Right you are, Anonymous Coward. The GNUs are safe-coding refuseniks. Lucky me, I live in BSD la-la-land. It was Glib, IIRC, that received said patches. I believe Dave Wheeler (notorious Linux security guy?) patched Glib. Anyways, as I recall, GNOME dude Havoc Pennington was very reluctant to accept those no-nonsense functions. I just checked http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2000 -May/thread.html#00029 and it looks as if some messages were deleted in the archive (see "Re: Glib proposal: add strlcpy and strlcat to glib"), so it may be that History was just erased. Whatever, I'm a happy *BSD, so what do I care (actually, I do, because of endless stream of buffer overflows from safe-coding refuseniks).
For all the Beryl hype, I can't see how it increases usability. Actually, it seems the originating project was about providing a framework to test new solutions for the desktop, and it was quickly hijacked and morphed into a eye-candy project. Usability means having a Documents folder with 50000 items, and being able to find something. The little Folder metaphor, as we know, is a huge time-waster. By the way, GNOME's file manager can't really handle large volume of documents on an average computer, without choking for a minute or two. Ridiculous. GNOME is slow (and I blame that, amongst other things, on coding OOP with C, and compiling that with gcc). So, when I see people on Slashdot discussing KDE vs GNOME, I wonder if KDE or GNOME hackers have submitted the desktops to heavy stress. AFAIK, no such test are conducted on both solutions. Here are my suggestions:
1) Test browsers and other applications for memory leaks; test them by running for days on end;
2) Stress-test file managers by providing *large* volume of documents of *different* types;
3) Stress-test search engines in the desktops on *large* volumes of *different* types;
4) Test search engines on extracting meta-data from files - does it meet any benchmark based on statistics?
The only thing, so far, for me, that has come close to providing better desktop usability is Apple's Searchlight (although I haven't used GNOME's Beagle), but it also gets lost in a sea of meta-data.
CUPS still has those stupid dialogs and CUPS still remains one of the buggiest softwares out there. I'd say there's a 50% chance CUPS won't work on somebody's system.
The real problem isn't really the lack of desktops or window managers. The real problem is the lack of a decent file manager that's independent and that allows you to see content (e.g., see jpegs, see pdfs). ROX is not the answer. XFCE is not the answer. I wonder: could something like this benefit from Java? That would be a good idea, wouldn't it? You could have something light like Fluxbox, that have a power file manager, since you already hava Java installed. That would also be multiplatform.
Unlike you, the Gnome developers don't actually decide things based on their opinions alone, they apply widely used principles of UI design and they test their interfaces on "real people".
Last I checked (anout 2 years ago), GNOME had produced only one usability study (compare this with Micosoft Vista, that was tested on 90 families for an extensive period). All they really had besides that was a bunch of Human Interface guidelines sucked right out of Apple documentation (and a version that Apple has already updated). Has there been anything new? Please, enlighten me.
Two years ago IIRC the whole GOME usability discussion popped up in OSNews, involving its editor, Eugenia Loli-Queru. It became very clear that GNOME did not even accept patches. Not only that, they didn't even look at substantial percentage of patches. In another, more recent, example, the FreeBSD GNOME guy said that it was hard working with the GNOME hackers, because they practically only care about Linux (as opposed to KDE people, who were cooperative) and were not really focused on portability. A few years back, glibc maintainers refused to accept some OpenBSD suggestions reagarding C string functions (safer by design, from the OpenBSD team, with an extensive proven record in safe coding)- they only did so after two years, IIRC. So, yeah, it seems there's some problems with GNOME people.
I truly believe we need something like Godwin's Law for "'ZOMG! Autism!" turning up in a discussion.
You bet!
It's getting to be ridiculous to watch these pathetic guys, who really should be seeking therapy, to go and wave the "Oh, poor me, I'm a Math genius, I'm autistic, that'a why I look like a complete slob and girls don't approach me." Seek therapy. Work out. Shave. Shower. Make money. Read. Have sex. Enjoy life.
I'm only pointing out that reclusive geeks demonstrate very, very similar symptoms.(...) People who stay home and work, electing not to interact much with the outside world around them (...) The smarter we get, the less we're able to handle it. I
Will you quit with this rubbish ?! Linux is a perfectly well-adjusted human being - he is very successful, has a loving family (hence, he interacts with others - maybe just not with GNOME hackers), and is productive. There are plenty of smart people who cope very well with others. One's problems do not extend to the rest of mankind, you know?
pple's latest OS is built on the free, open source FreeBSD user land. Their web browser's rendering engine is based on KHTML, an open source toolkit developed in Konqueror. But Apple hasn't given much back to the community. Even what they are required by law to give back (enhancements to KHTML) has been done in large dumps rather than providing useful contribution to the Konqueror development team.
Shut up. You fucking troll. If knew anything you would know that it's not true. Do some fucking research. Use Google. Every single time, a Linux fanboy gets on/. and say these same wrong things. Apple has provided patches for FreeBSD and Darwin, has hired developers and, recently, gave FreeBSD a whole framework for auditing security events that they developed that will be in the 7.0 release. Oh, they didn't give it to your clique? Well, it's BSD code. Will you take it? Yes, I thought so. What do you expect of Apple? That they go over to the GNU project and help them finally get their act together on the fucking Mach microkernel? The GNU project has been on it for, like, years! Is it Apple's fault that they aren't able to make anything good of the same BSD code that Apple started with? What Apple did with the mach microkernel is documented. Don't expect Apple to play the Linux GPL game, because Apple has its own philosophy as to what kind of computer they want to the deliver. They don't play on the same league of mass marketed hardware - for better or for worse. Linux, OTOH, is just and 'add on' so IBM, HP and Dell can sell hardware - that's why they go along with the GPL license - they pretty much compete on the same arena, not because, e.g., IBM is Not Evil (did IBM release to the community at large their new real-time Java garbage collector - the Metronome? No. Case closed.) As for Linux software per se, we all know that Red Hat and SuSE play the same game at support than everybody else in the industry - including Microsoft. And nobody cares anymore about Debian GNU/Linux, dude.
The fact is, the original GNU project had not really developed great software. Do you think the gcc compiler of eons ago was really phenomenal? Really, I think not. I think any serious student could have written such software. The same goes for the original GNU userland. All GNU did was make software free. But, wait, BSD code was also free! But then came Linus and his student projects and the lawsuits involving Unix. The rest is history. But, please, get over the personality cult and the GPL/GNU zealotry. Personally, I don't use Linux, I hate the whole Linux "distros" thing, where you can't even install the same software in all because there are so many variations (and have hated them the minute I got my hands on BSDs - Net, Open and Free). I am a happy FreeBSD and Mac OS user and I am just glad that FreeBSD userland is on my Mac, I have no problem with that. I think its great that Apple feeds on BSD code, that they patch BSD code. The FreeBSD also folk have no problem with that. I'd much rather have Apple take BSD code that I'm familiar and confortable and secure in, then see them having a NIH syndrome. Besides, I'd much rather see FreeBSD userland on my computer than Broken Again Shell or any other stuff 'GNU' (but, BTW, I can have that if I want). As for KDE, the Qt ccompany is happy to engage in the "GPL dual licensing trap". You wanna develop with Qt? Better chip in, like, $4000. Also, all of KDE's Office applications are GPLed, so it's no wonder nobody ever built anything like a workflow framework around it. Hence, it's no wonder there's no such thing as a Linux competitor for Microsoft Office enterprise edition. But, blame the flop on somebody else - the evil Microsoft, the evil Apple, etc. Or else, GPL everything you do. Good luck starting a business with that. My suggestion: do like all the succesful GPLed company - sell a proprietary license, or screw your free software users by not giving any decent documentation, like some projects did, so th
Aditionally, you have to factor in all the software that comes with an Apple computer. Microsoft is pretty bare bones (at least, when I used them, many eons ago).
If Apple continues down this road of ignoring security reports of independent researchers and either not patching or taking too long to patch Mac OS then, in the long run, Apple is going to end up with the same bad reputation Microsoft has. Apple has not been serious with regards to the recent issues. There are 11 unpatched advisories in January, 9% of high criticality, 36% executed from remote, 31% involving privilege escalation, 8% system access. http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=statistics_200 7 As a Mac OS user I'm concerned. I guess I'm just spoiled by the open source operating systems I am used to, where security officers take security advisories seriously...
A real case of Microsoft using BSD-licensed code. The code in question is the Message Passing Interface "a library specification for message passing proposed as a standard by a broad-based committee of vendors, implementers and users."
Asked by eWEEK what Microsoft will give back to the open-source community for the MPI component, which is licensed under the BSD and not the GNU General Public License (GPL), Faenov said all fixes will be given back, while "we'll probably give the changes back as well."
Microsoft has also learned a lot about what is required for a software company to include an open-source technology component in its product, from ascertaining who has contributed that code to being able to make sure that all the licenses and permissions are in place, he said.
My money is on the Microsoft lawyers, instead of Groklaw's Mr. Dickhead, THE LAWYER.
It's simple, buddy: you can take BSD code, and close it. You do not have to share your changes. You must retain the BSD clause, to say that you have BSD code. If you add proprietary code to BSD code, it won't be contaminated. If you ship your BSD code on the wire for an offshore company under an NDA agreement, you won't violate the license (like you would under the GPL case). All you have to do is acknowledge that you have BSD code in your code.
Or as Theo de Raadt puts it: software which OpenBSD [BSD licensed code] uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
That is the spirit.
All that will come out of this is that Mr. Dickhead, the lawyer, will have his article being mentioned on Wikipedia, described as a "controversy." Which is bad enough, because we will have to bear FSF zealots and Linux fanboys here at/. mentioning the article as "proof" of the superiority of the GPL.
Lawyers, please keep your paws off the BSD license. Go play "I can misinterpret anything I read" at the FSF.
The GPL is the most common choice made and there's a reason for that.
Just stop with the FSF propaganda, will ya? The GPL is not the most common choice out there. The most commonly used licenses are licenses that can mix and mingle with proprietary code. Apache, Firefox, Perl, etc., none of those widely deployed goodies are GPLed.
So far, the GPL has been good for companies that actually sell you hardware, the Linux kernel just helping their sales, or Linux companies that sell you per-seat licenses (e.g., SuSE, RedHat), or companies that dual-license the code under a proprietary license and a GPL - often badly documented, if at all - version (e.g., MySQL).
Even GNOME and KDE refuse to use the GPL license. The KDE uses the GPL for all its applications (while it uses the LGPL for its libraries), and the result is that we are nowhere near to having a libre Unix desktop ready for the big corporation, because the GPL leaves no room for ISVs. That's what makes the Windows experience so rich: all that software ISVs made to mingle with Word and Excel, etc.
The interesting question here is what the implications are IF the code does find its way into "the community". What effect does that have on any copyright claims?
A simple case of theft of intellectual property. Jail time and huge, huge costs, if you mess with corporate America, probably.
The thing is that you can't compete with a Linux distro that has millionaire that you ship you 100 Ubuntu CDs for free. PC-BSD is probably the most user-friendly open source Unix out there.
All KDE libraries are licensed under the LGPL, but all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL.
It's no wonder that Linux has not made it into the corporate desktop. If small and large ISVs cannot develop products around applications, like you can in Windows using OLE, COM and.NET, then you will never reach the ammount of integration you need in some business/corporate setting, particularly in what regards eletronic document management. I mean, you can take software for Windows, third-party, and within minutes fashion you custom built GUI for e-documents. Linux/Unix is so far behind the curve.
Of course, you can go buy a QT license. Wait - It's cheaper if you develop for Microsoft. Plus, you get a larger return.
The GPL has hurt FOSS software more than it helped.
I guess we must just forget the fact the Theo De Raadt (one of the guys who created strlcpy), of OpenBSD, has produced a vastly better security track record in the OS he develops, than that of Linus' OS, right?
Linux security was pretty much a joke, years ago. They all laughed at it, at the OpenBSD side of the fence.
Slashdot Mirror
No, glibc developers never accepted strlcpy() and strlcat(). glibc provides several functions from BSD just to ease porting, but for some weird reason they don't want to accept these tiny functions to ease porting.
0 -May/thread.html#00029
Right you are, Anonymous Coward. The GNUs are safe-coding refuseniks. Lucky me, I live in BSD la-la-land.
It was Glib, IIRC, that received said patches. I believe Dave Wheeler (notorious Linux security guy?) patched Glib.
Anyways, as I recall, GNOME dude Havoc Pennington was very reluctant to accept those no-nonsense functions. I just checked
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/200
and it looks as if some messages were deleted in the archive (see "Re: Glib proposal: add strlcpy and strlcat to glib"), so it may be that History was just erased. Whatever, I'm a happy *BSD, so what do I care (actually, I do, because of endless stream of buffer overflows from safe-coding refuseniks).
For all the Beryl hype, I can't see how it increases usability. Actually, it seems the originating project was about providing a framework to test new solutions for the desktop, and it was quickly hijacked and morphed into a eye-candy project.
Usability means having a Documents folder with 50000 items, and being able to find something. The little Folder metaphor, as we know, is a huge time-waster. By the way, GNOME's file manager can't really handle large volume of documents on an average computer, without choking for a minute or two. Ridiculous. GNOME is slow (and I blame that, amongst other things, on coding OOP with C, and compiling that with gcc).
So, when I see people on Slashdot discussing KDE vs GNOME, I wonder if KDE or GNOME hackers have submitted the desktops to heavy stress. AFAIK, no such test are conducted on both solutions.
Here are my suggestions:
1) Test browsers and other applications for memory leaks; test them by running for days on end;
2) Stress-test file managers by providing *large* volume of documents of *different* types;
3) Stress-test search engines in the desktops on *large* volumes of *different* types;
4) Test search engines on extracting meta-data from files - does it meet any benchmark based on statistics?
The only thing, so far, for me, that has come close to providing better desktop usability is Apple's Searchlight (although I haven't used GNOME's Beagle), but it also gets lost in a sea of meta-data.
CUPS still has those stupid dialogs and CUPS still remains one of the buggiest softwares out there. I'd say there's a 50% chance CUPS won't work on somebody's system.
The real problem isn't really the lack of desktops or window managers. The real problem is the lack of a decent file manager that's independent and that allows you to see content (e.g., see jpegs, see pdfs).
ROX is not the answer. XFCE is not the answer.
I wonder: could something like this benefit from Java? That would be a good idea, wouldn't it? You could have something light like Fluxbox, that have a power file manager, since you already hava Java installed. That would also be multiplatform.
Unlike you, the Gnome developers don't actually decide things based on their opinions alone, they apply widely used principles of UI design and they test their interfaces on "real people".
Last I checked (anout 2 years ago), GNOME had produced only one usability study (compare this with Micosoft Vista, that was tested on 90 families for an extensive period).
All they really had besides that was a bunch of Human Interface guidelines sucked right out of Apple documentation (and a version that Apple has already updated).
Has there been anything new? Please, enlighten me.
Two years ago IIRC the whole GOME usability discussion popped up in OSNews, involving its editor, Eugenia Loli-Queru.
It became very clear that GNOME did not even accept patches. Not only that, they didn't even look at substantial percentage of patches.
In another, more recent, example, the FreeBSD GNOME guy said that it was hard working with the GNOME hackers, because they practically only care about Linux (as opposed to KDE people, who were cooperative) and were not really focused on portability.
A few years back, glibc maintainers refused to accept some OpenBSD suggestions reagarding C string functions (safer by design, from the OpenBSD team, with an extensive proven record in safe coding)- they only did so after two years, IIRC.
So, yeah, it seems there's some problems with GNOME people.
I truly believe we need something like Godwin's Law for "'ZOMG! Autism!" turning up in a discussion.
You bet!
It's getting to be ridiculous to watch these pathetic guys, who really should be seeking therapy, to go and wave the "Oh, poor me, I'm a Math genius, I'm autistic, that'a why I look like a complete slob and girls don't approach me."
Seek therapy. Work out. Shave. Shower. Make money. Read. Have sex. Enjoy life.
I'm only pointing out that reclusive geeks demonstrate very, very similar symptoms.(...)
People who stay home and work, electing not to interact much with the outside world around them (...)
The smarter we get, the less we're able to handle it. I
Will you quit with this rubbish ?! Linux is a perfectly well-adjusted human being - he is very successful, has a loving family (hence, he interacts with others - maybe just not with GNOME hackers), and is productive.
There are plenty of smart people who cope very well with others.
One's problems do not extend to the rest of mankind, you know?
pple's latest OS is built on the free, open source FreeBSD user land. Their web browser's rendering engine is based on KHTML, an open source toolkit developed in Konqueror. But Apple hasn't given much back to the community. Even what they are required by law to give back (enhancements to KHTML) has been done in large dumps rather than providing useful contribution to the Konqueror development team.
/. and say these same wrong things.
Shut up. You fucking troll. If knew anything you would know that it's not true.
Do some fucking research. Use Google.
Every single time, a Linux fanboy gets on
Apple has provided patches for FreeBSD and Darwin, has hired developers and, recently, gave FreeBSD a whole framework for auditing security events that they developed that will be in the 7.0 release. Oh, they didn't give it to your clique? Well, it's BSD code. Will you take it? Yes, I thought so.
What do you expect of Apple? That they go over to the GNU project and help them finally get their act together on the fucking Mach microkernel? The GNU project has been on it for, like, years! Is it Apple's fault that they aren't able to make anything good of the same BSD code that Apple started with? What Apple did with the mach microkernel is documented. Don't expect Apple to play the Linux GPL game, because Apple has its own philosophy as to what kind of computer they want to the deliver. They don't play on the same league of mass marketed hardware - for better or for worse. Linux, OTOH, is just and 'add on' so IBM, HP and Dell can sell hardware - that's why they go along with the GPL license - they pretty much compete on the same arena, not because, e.g., IBM is Not Evil (did IBM release to the community at large their new real-time Java garbage collector - the Metronome? No. Case closed.) As for Linux software per se, we all know that Red Hat and SuSE play the same game at support than everybody else in the industry - including Microsoft. And nobody cares anymore about Debian GNU/Linux, dude.
The fact is, the original GNU project had not really developed great software. Do you think the gcc compiler of eons ago was really phenomenal? Really, I think not. I think any serious student could have written such software. The same goes for the original GNU userland. All GNU did was make software free. But, wait, BSD code was also free! But then came Linus and his student projects and the lawsuits involving Unix. The rest is history. But, please, get over the personality cult and the GPL/GNU zealotry.
Personally, I don't use Linux, I hate the whole Linux "distros" thing, where you can't even install the same software in all because there are so many variations (and have hated them the minute I got my hands on BSDs - Net, Open and Free). I am a happy FreeBSD and Mac OS user and I am just glad that FreeBSD userland is on my Mac, I have no problem with that. I think its great that Apple feeds on BSD code, that they patch BSD code. The FreeBSD also folk have no problem with that. I'd much rather have Apple take BSD code that I'm familiar and confortable and secure in, then see them having a NIH syndrome. Besides, I'd much rather see FreeBSD userland on my computer than Broken Again Shell or any other stuff 'GNU' (but, BTW, I can have that if I want).
As for KDE, the Qt ccompany is happy to engage in the "GPL dual licensing trap". You wanna develop with Qt? Better chip in, like, $4000. Also, all of KDE's Office applications are GPLed, so it's no wonder nobody ever built anything like a workflow framework around it. Hence, it's no wonder there's no such thing as a Linux competitor for Microsoft Office enterprise edition. But, blame the flop on somebody else - the evil Microsoft, the evil Apple, etc. Or else, GPL everything you do. Good luck starting a business with that. My suggestion: do like all the succesful GPLed company - sell a proprietary license, or screw your free software users by not giving any decent documentation, like some projects did, so th
Aditionally, you have to factor in all the software that comes with an Apple computer.
Microsoft is pretty bare bones (at least, when I used them, many eons ago).
If Apple continues down this road of ignoring security reports of independent researchers and either not patching or taking too long to patch Mac OS then, in the long run, Apple is going to end up with the same bad reputation Microsoft has.0 7
Apple has not been serious with regards to the recent issues.
There are 11 unpatched advisories in January, 9% of high criticality, 36% executed from remote, 31% involving privilege escalation, 8% system access.
http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=statistics_20
As a Mac OS user I'm concerned. I guess I'm just spoiled by the open source operating systems I am used to, where security officers take security advisories seriously...
Yes. Simple.
I will list the conditions:
conditions.
What a moronic thing to have published on Groklaw.
A real case of Microsoft using BSD-licensed code. The code in question is the Message Passing Interface "a library specification for message passing proposed as a standard by a broad-based committee of vendors, implementers and users."
s p
Asked by eWEEK what Microsoft will give back to the open-source community for the MPI component, which is licensed under the BSD and not the GNU General Public License (GPL), Faenov said all fixes will be given back, while "we'll probably give the changes back as well."
Microsoft has also learned a lot about what is required for a software company to include an open-source technology component in its product, from ascertaining who has contributed that code to being able to make sure that all the licenses and permissions are in place, he said.
My money is on the Microsoft lawyers, instead of Groklaw's Mr. Dickhead, THE LAWYER.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1859439,00.a
I'm glad Australia is isolated down under and surrounded by sea water.
That way the viral interpretation of the BSD license can stay there.
Funny how the fuckers just add noise, isn't it?
It's simple, buddy: you can take BSD code, and close it. You do not have to share your changes. You must retain the BSD clause, to say that you have BSD code. If you add proprietary code to BSD code, it won't be contaminated. If you ship your BSD code on the wire for an offshore company under an NDA agreement, you won't violate the license (like you would under the GPL case).
1 8909527873&w=2
/. mentioning the article as "proof" of the superiority of the GPL.
All you have to do is acknowledge that you have BSD code in your code.
Or as Theo de Raadt puts it:
software which OpenBSD [BSD licensed code] uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they
people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including
modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching
machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=991
That is the spirit.
All that will come out of this is that Mr. Dickhead, the lawyer, will have his article being mentioned on Wikipedia, described as a "controversy." Which is bad enough, because we will have to bear FSF zealots and Linux fanboys here at
Lawyers, please keep your paws off the BSD license. Go play "I can misinterpret anything I read" at the FSF.
The GPL is the most common choice made and there's a reason for that.
Just stop with the FSF propaganda, will ya? The GPL is not the most common choice out there. The most commonly used licenses are licenses that can mix and mingle with proprietary code. Apache, Firefox, Perl, etc., none of those widely deployed goodies are GPLed.
So far, the GPL has been good for companies that actually sell you hardware, the Linux kernel just helping their sales, or Linux companies that sell you per-seat licenses (e.g., SuSE, RedHat), or companies that dual-license the code under a proprietary license and a GPL - often badly documented, if at all - version (e.g., MySQL).
Even GNOME and KDE refuse to use the GPL license. The KDE uses the GPL for all its applications (while it uses the LGPL for its libraries), and the result is that we are nowhere near to having a libre Unix desktop ready for the big corporation, because the GPL leaves no room for ISVs. That's what makes the Windows experience so rich: all that software ISVs made to mingle with Word and Excel, etc.
The interesting question here is what the implications are IF the code does find its way into "the community". What effect does that have on any copyright claims?
A simple case of theft of intellectual property.
Jail time and huge, huge costs, if you mess with corporate America, probably.
A simple fact, that Mr. Dickhead, the lawyer, totally missed.
Mod this guy up! HE reads licenses better than Mr. Dickhead, the lawyer!
I wish lawyers would keep their claws off the BSD license. Leave the love of legalese and the word labyrinth to the FSF and GNU.
Companies use the BSD license, and everyone knows what its "spirit" is.
Apparently, when lawyers need to have some attention, they will misread some legal text and publish a legal theses.
The thing is that you can't compete with a Linux distro that has millionaire that you ship you 100 Ubuntu CDs for free.
PC-BSD is probably the most user-friendly open source Unix out there.
All KDE libraries are licensed under the LGPL, but all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL.
.NET, then you will never reach the ammount of integration you need in some business/corporate setting, particularly in what regards eletronic document management. I mean, you can take software for Windows, third-party, and within minutes fashion you custom built GUI for e-documents. Linux/Unix is so far behind the curve.
It's no wonder that Linux has not made it into the corporate desktop. If small and large ISVs cannot develop products around applications, like you can in Windows using OLE, COM and
Of course, you can go buy a QT license. Wait - It's cheaper if you develop for Microsoft. Plus, you get a larger return.
The GPL has hurt FOSS software more than it helped.
Do "man hier" in a Debian system, and see if it ressembles the truth, even remotely.
Now do it in a BSD system. See?
Yeah, the GPL grants you the freedom to work for free for first-tier users, who then take your work and dual-license it, or sell per-seat licenses.
Yes, listen to the words of your gurus...
I guess we must just forget the fact the Theo De Raadt (one of the guys who created strlcpy), of OpenBSD, has produced a vastly better security track record in the OS he develops, than that of Linus' OS, right?
Linux security was pretty much a joke, years ago. They all laughed at it, at the OpenBSD side of the fence.
s/FPLed/GPLed