Just install the package. You don't have to compile. Unless you want or don't want something in which case you choose the appropriate flags from the Makefiles. This gives FreeBSD users the same ease of installing tha Debian has plus fine-tuned control. You know, pkg_add (like apt-get install, ok?)
Come to think about it, just about all open source "community" languages are hack upon hack: Perl, PHP, Python and Ruby.
The ones that aren't are designed by people with a foot in Academia or Industry (or a mix): Eiffel, Common Lisp, Scheme, SML, Haskell, Java, C, C#, C++, Smalltalk.
Why people think Ps and Rs are better than the Cs the Js the Es and Ss is beyond my comprehension. Maybe because it takes a longer time to study some languages in the non P+R group. This is were syntax simplicity is a big win, IMHO: Eiffel, Scheme, and Python have it.
the freedom to change, or port to another platform, the software that you purchased or downloaded. This is the original philosophy of the Free Software Foundation, and the GNU project, who were collectively the inspiration for the "open source" movement.
No. This is how it was in the Unix world before the Web. This was/is the spirit behind Unix and the BSD license. This at a time when "sharing code" meant senting tapes through the mail.
There's TEPATCHE for binary updates.http://www.gwolf.org/soft/tepatche/ I don't see Theo and all supporting binary updates. And this, I think, because of the security goal. But I may be wrong. For instance, remember when Debian's servers were cracked (about 1 1/2 year ago, AFAIK)? What if you installed a binary with malicious code?
But in fact, why don't they officially support binary updates? What's the "official" answer on this issue?
At least, that seems like a reasonable motivation. OTOH, system administrators probably will automate their own process of applying patches. There's the XML for vulnerabilities for non-base software (http://www.vuxml.org/openbsd/index.html, also.
You like Mozilla? RMS didn't write that. You like xorg-x11? RMS didn't write that. You like the Linux or BSD Kernel? RMS didn't write that. You like any modern version of GCC? RMS didn't write that. You like KDE or Gnome? RMS didn't write those. You like... and so on and so on.
Let me pick up on that: Do you use Mozilla? Apache? GNOME? Perl? JBOSS? OpenSSH? Guess what? None of those important softwares are under the GPL. The GPL license has largely failed to have widespread acceptance for crucial open source/free software applications. Except for GNU userland (which, for instance, nobody on other Unixes care about), all you really have is the Kernel, and a few other projects (OpenOffice.org).
Name the software that became GPLed because of a GNU software library? CLISP. Not many people use that implementation of Common Lisp (not that it's bad at all), which is Stallman's great (unnamed) example.
I would like to see GPL advocates set up a simple business, like selling CCD security cameras together embedded Linux and a GPLed SDK. Which means: giving it all away to the competition.
There would be BSD but the concept and ideology behind Free Software may not exist -- BSD may be filed under "university science" ideology only).
Sure. Like BSD Sockets, that's Academia, not Real World (TM), right?
What buttheads don't seem to understand is the tremendous business machine behind Linux: HP, IBM, etc. And their business is selling hardware. Not really Linux. Linux is a just a cheap commodity for those firms.(http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Stra tegyLetterV.html)
It depends on the kind of software you write. As I said in another post, it's not gratuitous that GNOME, Apache, Mono, JBOSS, choose licenses that are business-friendly.
Thanks for the false glorification of BSD license over GPL.(...) At least GPL will prevent the one-way looting that BSD allows (case of Mac OS X and BSD kernel in point).
I know it's bad practice to reply to Cowards, but I don't want this common misconception to slide by.
"OpenBSM is an open source implementation of Sun's Basic Security Module (BSM) Audit API and file format. BSM, which is a system used for auditing, describes a set of system call and library interfaces for managing audit records (...)
OpenBSM is derived from the BSM audit implementation found in Apple's open source Darwin operating system, which upon request, Apple relicensed under a BSD licence to allow for integration into FreeBSD and other systems. The Darwin BSM implementation was created by McAfee Research under contract to Apple, and has since been extended by the volunteer TrustedBSD team. OpenBSM appears in FreeBSD 7.0, and may be merged into future FreeBSD 6.x releases."
FUD all you want GPL fanboy...And learn to respect and acknowledge people with a different world view and way of going about doing things. When will you GPL fanatics quit BSD-bashing?
Quite a few people in India are beginning to switch to Linux.
So, what's India gonna do with Linux? Take an airplane and fly to another continent for huge contracts on Linux deployments?
Or are they just going to put a CVS repositories for GPLed applications, like spreadsheet programs or business integration software that anyone will be able to copy? When the time comes to sell support, will you fly people to the U.S. (clearly, Indians are better off than Pakistanis, who are at a disadvantage here because of U.S. Customs...they might risk being sent to Guantanamo) I think there's a real possibility that an American firm steps in to provide that support, don't you? Or perhaps you'll open a subsidiary in the U.S. Do Indians get 5-years visas for that? Maybe...if there aren't a lot of unemployed American WASPs screaming at Congress...
I hope Indians think about that when the FSF goes on their World Apáidetus Tour for Developing Economies.
I say it again and again...The answer is not Linux...but BSDs...
Having the source code available to study, modify, fix etc., can only be helpful in education. Unless someone can explain how closed source provides such an opportunity.
Fallacy. You seem to imply there can be no situation like in the BSD scenario (or MPL, or Apache, or LPGL, etc.) where you have proprietary modification AND access to code.
Slashdot Mirror
Building a High-performance Computing Cluster Using FreeBSD
0 3/
0 4/
Brooks Davis, Michael AuYeung, Gary Green, Craig Lee
The Aerospace Corporation
El Segundo, CA
{brooks,lee,mauyeung} at aero.org, Gary.B.Green at notes.aero.org
© 2003 The Aerospace Corporation
Presented at BSDCon 2003, September 8-12 2003.
http://people.freebsd.org/~brooks/papers/bsdcon20
Grid Computing with FreeBSD
Brooks Davis
The Aerospace Corporation
El Segundo, CA
{brooks,lee} at aero.org
© 2004 The Aerospace Corporation
Presented at the UseBSD SIG of the 2004 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, June 27 - July 2, 2004, Boston, MA.
http://people.freebsd.org/~brooks/papers/usebsd20
My 2 cents on Linux: kernels 2.6s will bork under heavy load. Haven't seen this happen on my BSDs.
Linux, BTW, does not produce core dumps for the kernel AFAIK, unless you patch it. IMHO, an underdeveloped aspect of it.
Just install the package. You don't have to compile. Unless you want or don't want something in which case you choose the appropriate flags from the Makefiles.
This gives FreeBSD users the same ease of installing tha Debian has plus fine-tuned control.
You know, pkg_add (like apt-get install, ok?)
If you're savvy to feel choosy between GNOME or Kde, you'll have no problem installing your choice on FreeBSD. It's very easy.
RedHat is after Mono (Novell).
RedHat wants to beat Sun, too.
When (and if) they do that, they'll release all their GPLed code without Makefiles, like they did in the past. And charge per-seat licenses.
Wow! Amazing! It's no wonder people are starting to consider Java for numerical code.
Great, usefull post.
Release it under GPL.
The Java libraries under the GPL? Are you crazy?
Clearly, you live in your parent's basement.
Come to think about it, just about all open source "community" languages are hack upon hack: Perl, PHP, Python and Ruby.
The ones that aren't are designed by people with a foot in Academia or Industry (or a mix): Eiffel, Common Lisp, Scheme, SML, Haskell, Java, C, C#, C++, Smalltalk.
Why people think Ps and Rs are better than the Cs the Js the Es and Ss is beyond my comprehension. Maybe because it takes a longer time to study some languages in the non P+R group. This is were syntax simplicity is a big win, IMHO: Eiffel, Scheme, and Python have it.
the freedom to change, or port to another platform, the software that you purchased or downloaded. This is the original philosophy of the Free Software Foundation, and the GNU project, who were collectively the inspiration for the "open source" movement.
a pter_2_part_one/index.xml?pn=1
No. This is how it was in the Unix world before the Web. This was/is the spirit behind Unix and the BSD license. This at a time when "sharing code" meant senting tapes through the mail.
Get your facts straight, and learn a little bit about the history to which the Linux crowd and GNU are tributaires. Free software existed before the FSF. Read the following article:
"BSD Unix: Power to the people, from the code"
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/fsp/2000/05/16/ch
And unlike Perl and PHP, Ruby has the potential to be an enterprise-scale language
You mean, Perl, as in Amazon?
C'mon...don't be such a fanboy.
And this is modded insightful...
SML with MLton (optimizing compiler) fares better than Ocaml, according to this:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/ml.php
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/ocaml.php
Two SML implementations are SML/NJ, MoscowML.
You don't know what you're talking about!
Installing certified Java SDK on FreeBSD now is as simple as:
#pkg_add diablo-jdk-freebsd6-1.5.0.06.00.tbz
NetBSD and OpenBSD can also run Java through ports.
The FreeBSD situation is special: the FreeBSD foundation has negotiated a license and now has certified Java 1.5 JDK and JRE binaries for FreeBSD 5.4 and 6.0.
Ooops, sorry. Tepatche is not about binary updates.
There's TEPATCHE for binary updates.http://www.gwolf.org/soft/tepatche/
I don't see Theo and all supporting binary updates. And this, I think, because of the security goal. But I may be wrong. For instance, remember when Debian's servers were cracked (about 1 1/2 year ago, AFAIK)? What if you installed a binary with malicious code?
But in fact, why don't they officially support binary updates? What's the "official" answer on this issue?
At least, that seems like a reasonable motivation. OTOH, system administrators probably will automate their own process of applying patches. There's the XML for vulnerabilities for non-base software (http://www.vuxml.org/openbsd/index.html, also.
You like Mozilla? RMS didn't write that. You like xorg-x11? RMS didn't write that. You like the Linux or BSD Kernel? RMS didn't write that. You like any modern version of GCC? RMS didn't write that. You like KDE or Gnome? RMS didn't write those. You like ... and so on and so on.
Let me pick up on that:
Do you use Mozilla? Apache? GNOME? Perl? JBOSS? OpenSSH?
Guess what? None of those important softwares are under the GPL. The GPL license has largely failed to have widespread acceptance for crucial open source/free software applications. Except for GNU userland (which, for instance, nobody on other Unixes care about), all you really have is the Kernel, and a few other projects (OpenOffice.org).
Name the software that became GPLed because of a GNU software library? CLISP. Not many people use that implementation of Common Lisp (not that it's bad at all), which is Stallman's great (unnamed) example.
I would like to see GPL advocates set up a simple business, like selling CCD security cameras together embedded Linux and a GPLed SDK. Which means: giving it all away to the competition.
There would be BSD but the concept and ideology behind Free Software may not exist -- BSD may be filed under "university science" ideology only).
a tegyLetterV.html)
Sure. Like BSD Sockets, that's Academia, not Real World (TM), right?
What buttheads don't seem to understand is the tremendous business machine behind Linux: HP, IBM, etc. And their business is selling hardware. Not really Linux. Linux is a just a cheap commodity for those firms.(http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Str
Sports? That's you're great example?!
It depends on the kind of software you write. As I said in another post, it's not gratuitous that GNOME, Apache, Mono, JBOSS, choose licenses that are business-friendly.
I'll use quotes...
Thanks for the false glorification of BSD license over GPL.(...) At least GPL will prevent the one-way looting that BSD allows (case of Mac OS X and BSD kernel in point).
I know it's bad practice to reply to Cowards, but I don't want this common misconception to slide by.
Here's a fact: FreeBSD-6.0 includes OpenBSM. Let me quote Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSM
"OpenBSM is an open source implementation of Sun's Basic Security Module (BSM) Audit API and file format. BSM, which is a system used for auditing, describes a set of system call and library interfaces for managing audit records (...)
OpenBSM is derived from the BSM audit implementation found in Apple's open source Darwin operating system, which upon request, Apple relicensed under a BSD licence to allow for integration into FreeBSD and other systems. The Darwin BSM implementation was created by McAfee Research under contract to Apple, and has since been extended by the volunteer TrustedBSD team. OpenBSM appears in FreeBSD 7.0, and may be merged into future FreeBSD 6.x releases."
FUD all you want GPL fanboy...And learn to respect and acknowledge people with a different world view and way of going about doing things. When will you GPL fanatics quit BSD-bashing?
As admirable and noble I think your acts are, in terms of Politics, the word is called "miniball."
Quite a few people in India are beginning to switch to Linux.
So, what's India gonna do with Linux? Take an airplane and fly to another continent for huge contracts on Linux deployments?
Or are they just going to put a CVS repositories for GPLed applications, like spreadsheet programs or business integration software that anyone will be able to copy? When the time comes to sell support, will you fly people to the U.S. (clearly, Indians are better off than Pakistanis, who are at a disadvantage here because of U.S. Customs...they might risk being sent to Guantanamo) I think there's a real possibility that an American firm steps in to provide that support, don't you? Or perhaps you'll open a subsidiary in the U.S. Do Indians get 5-years visas for that? Maybe...if there aren't a lot of unemployed American WASPs screaming at Congress...
I hope Indians think about that when the FSF goes on their World Apáidetus Tour for Developing Economies.
I say it again and again...The answer is not Linux...but BSDs...
Having the source code available to study, modify, fix etc., can only be helpful in education. Unless someone can explain how closed source provides such an opportunity.
Fallacy. You seem to imply there can be no situation like in the BSD scenario (or MPL, or Apache, or LPGL, etc.) where you have proprietary modification AND access to code.