I have. Still ass. doesn't go lighter when it's backgrounded, stays the same dark grey as if it were foregrounded.
Open-Source seems good for getting a job 90% finished and completely ignoring the 10% polish required to make it an app of the same quality as closed-source
The canadian version of the DMCA's been introduced 3 or 4 times already and died on the floor each time.
It looks like the US-DMCA has shown it's teeth enough that people are actually caring enough for it to be a politically unfavourable piece of legislation to pass.
All I have to say is "god bless the appointed senate, and it's somber second thought", without which it would've passed before parliament had time to dissolve
"Smart money's on AIX disappearaing as soon as IBM can get its AIX customers to migrate to Linux."
And with that, it's clear you've never been an IBM customer of any value to them. If you were, it becomes immediately clear that they use Linux in order to look good to the outside and as an advertisement for AIX. As soon as you call them looking to drop a quarter million on Linux/POWER hardware, they'll try to push AIX on you.
"But in any case, why is it that IBM should be required to open source AIX in order to be considered open source friendly? I wasn't aware that there was an edict that all propietary software must be open sourced in order for a company to be considered friendly to OS."
Sun did exactly that. And the OSS community seems to hate Sun for some reason
Sun bought some x86 drivers from SCOX outright so they could open up Solaris. McNealy made the comment because of a deal Sun made with AT&T ages ago that gave them rights as good as ownership over all the code SCOX was claiming linux infringes on. McNealy was also a jerk.
And as for IBM's contributions... any idiot can sponsor a couple engineers to work on a project that sells their hardware. Sun is the only company so far to take their previously closed source flagship products ( all of them. Java, SPARC, and Solaris ) and give them to the F/LOSS community
Seems to me that IBM's reputation as being the friendly giant to open source is unfounded, particularly in light of how much many members of the open-source community hate Sun.
Whereas Sun gave away their crown jewels, IBM won't even give away their garbage
"It was Sun's decision to use a incompatible license. Not Linus. Linus even stated he was willing to relicense the kernel under GPLv3 to make it capable of using code from Solaris when Sun talked of licensing it under GPLv3, however since he mentioned that - Sun suddenly didn't talk about it anymore."
And so what, they're free to license it as they please. They chose an Apache style license because they have lot of third-parties that want to link in to the kernel ( hardware mfr's, filesystem vendors ( norton ) )
Solaris is also a much better operating system.
"If that were true, I wouldn't have hardware support issues on hardware that works fine Linux distributions, nor would I find it so slow compared to running Linux on the same x86 hardware. Plus, there no vast repositories that provide what Ubuntu/Debian has, nor is there even a recent up to date KDE (3.5.x) available."
So you're saying windows is better than Linux? As for software repos: blastwave, SFE, sunfreeware, IPS. Take your pick
Argue semantics all you like, but the GPL does prevent you from releasing something which incorporates someone else's code unless your code is also GPL. CDDL also ensures that you can't make other people's code closed-source, but you are allowed to incorporate it in a project with no license pollution.
That's why FreeBSD has zfs and linux doesn't. The GPL won't let Linux integrate it ( because Sun won't make the license GPL or BSD ). It's not the CDDL's fault that the GPL won't allow linking with non-GPL code
A license like apache, mozilla or the CDDL also prevent you from closing up *other people's* code. You still have to share. They just allow you to link it to *your* code under whatever license you feel like releasing *your code* under
Particularly with the last two examples, sometimes a dual GPL/Proprietary license helps things. The GPL is viral, so if you're selling a library, you can sell it to people that want to sell things
The solution to that isn't to turn in to stallman, the solution is to promote well-defined stable ABI's in software.
There's a reason Solaris is as successful as it is (and isn't as "successful" as any number of the now-dead UNIXes built in the late 80's) , and that's because of the guaranteed stable ABI's on most of the system interfaces
failover to a good machine, swap out the bad one during annual maintenance. Sun already has a product for dealing with that particular issue ( Sun Cluster ) and it's open-source
Slashdot Mirror
I have. Still ass. doesn't go lighter when it's backgrounded, stays the same dark grey as if it were foregrounded.
Open-Source seems good for getting a job 90% finished and completely ignoring the 10% polish required to make it an app of the same quality as closed-source
I wonder when they're going to fix the "looks-like-ass-on-a-mac" issue
The canadian version of the DMCA's been introduced 3 or 4 times already and died on the floor each time.
It looks like the US-DMCA has shown it's teeth enough that people are actually caring enough for it to be a politically unfavourable piece of legislation to pass.
All I have to say is "god bless the appointed senate, and it's somber second thought", without which it would've passed before parliament had time to dissolve
"Smart money's on AIX disappearaing as soon as IBM can get its AIX customers to migrate to Linux."
And with that, it's clear you've never been an IBM customer of any value to them. If you were, it becomes immediately clear that they use Linux in order to look good to the outside and as an advertisement for AIX. As soon as you call them looking to drop a quarter million on Linux/POWER hardware, they'll try to push AIX on you.
"But in any case, why is it that IBM should be required to open source AIX in order to be considered open source friendly? I wasn't aware that there was an edict that all propietary software must be open sourced in order for a company to be considered friendly to OS."
Sun did exactly that. And the OSS community seems to hate Sun for some reason
You seem to recall incorrectly.
Sun bought some x86 drivers from SCOX outright so they could open up Solaris. McNealy made the comment because of a deal Sun made with AT&T ages ago that gave them rights as good as ownership over all the code SCOX was claiming linux infringes on. McNealy was also a jerk.
And as for IBM's contributions... any idiot can sponsor a couple engineers to work on a project that sells their hardware. Sun is the only company so far to take their previously closed source flagship products ( all of them. Java, SPARC, and Solaris ) and give them to the F/LOSS community
This is no different from Solaris, yet Sun managed to open-source it
When IBM open-sources AIX, I'll call them an open-source friendly company.
Until then, they're just not actively hostile.
Meanwhile Sun spent a few years leading up to the OpenSolaris project fixing those exact same issues...
Seems to me that IBM's reputation as being the friendly giant to open source is unfounded, particularly in light of how much many members of the open-source community hate Sun.
Whereas Sun gave away their crown jewels, IBM won't even give away their garbage
Re: price.
Health care budget, 2005: $19bn
Population of Canada: 33,390,000 (approx.)
$19bn / 33,390,000 = approximately $569 / year, or $47/month.
Average health insurance premium in the USA: $308/month.
Still think that it's cheaper?
Compare Solaris 8 to Red Hat 5. They're both kinna painful to use. Redhat5 is newer.
Linux's GPL forbids importing code from the CDDL.
"It was Sun's decision to use a incompatible license. Not Linus. Linus even stated he was willing to relicense the kernel under GPLv3 to make it capable of using code from Solaris when Sun talked of licensing it under GPLv3, however since he mentioned that - Sun suddenly didn't talk about it anymore."
And so what, they're free to license it as they please. They chose an Apache style license because they have lot of third-parties that want to link in to the kernel ( hardware mfr's, filesystem vendors ( norton ) )
Solaris is also a much better operating system.
"If that were true, I wouldn't have hardware support issues on hardware that works fine Linux distributions, nor would I find it so slow compared to running Linux on the same x86 hardware. Plus, there no vast repositories that provide what Ubuntu/Debian has, nor is there even a recent up to date KDE (3.5.x) available."
So you're saying windows is better than Linux? As for software repos: blastwave, SFE, sunfreeware, IPS. Take your pick
No.
Use OpenSolaris instead.
Linux's GPL forbids importing code from the CDDL. Solaris is also a much better operating system.
Or more to the point, OpenSolaris... because that's where it came from
*cough*
are there other open-source processors ?
Argue semantics all you like, but the GPL does prevent you from releasing something which incorporates someone else's code unless your code is also GPL. CDDL also ensures that you can't make other people's code closed-source, but you are allowed to incorporate it in a project with no license pollution.
That's why FreeBSD has zfs and linux doesn't. The GPL won't let Linux integrate it ( because Sun won't make the license GPL or BSD ). It's not the CDDL's fault that the GPL won't allow linking with non-GPL code
"What systems aren't nix-based?"
VMS is still in widespread use
"I'd say it has now surpassed Unix."
Yeah, which is why DTrace & ZFS, a real kernel debugger, RBAC, and multiple simultaneous scheduling classes are great features of Linux and not UNIX
Oh, wait... that's Solaris, a real UNIX, not Linux that has them
A license like apache, mozilla or the CDDL also prevent you from closing up *other people's* code. You still have to share.
They just allow you to link it to *your* code under whatever license you feel like releasing *your code* under
Java. MySQL. Qt.
Particularly with the last two examples, sometimes a dual GPL/Proprietary license helps things. The GPL is viral, so if you're selling a library, you can sell it to people that want to sell things
The solution to that isn't to turn in to stallman, the solution is to promote well-defined stable ABI's in software.
There's a reason Solaris is as successful as it is (and isn't as "successful" as any number of the now-dead UNIXes built in the late 80's) , and that's because of the guaranteed stable ABI's on most of the system interfaces
Wow, they've invented a neutered version of RBAC.
way to be innovative.
So Google should go out of their way to violate the laws of the land in which they reside?
Google's a business. If you have issue with the embargoes, take it up with the government that passes the laws they're subject to.
failover to a good machine, swap out the bad one during annual maintenance. Sun already has a product for dealing with that particular issue ( Sun Cluster ) and it's open-source
and they have the internet, which means they can order pizza via the internet...
flawless plan!