"the real advantages of the GPL is that I know what the license means without having to buy a lawyer."
Really? Can you dynamically link to a GPL library with non-GPL code?
are you sure? 100% sure?
"I don't remember exactly what it said, but it was about patents."
The CDDL explicitly grants you immunity from patents. the license says that they cannot sue you for infringing on any patents contained within the CDDL code, and if anyone's going to be sued for patents, it's Sun ( so if you extend OpenSolaris, for example, assuming you don't add any new patent infringements, you can't be sued by anyone for redistributing it. ie: you add some non-patent-infringing code to the kernel, redistribute it as $YOU-laris... NetApp can't sue you for infringing on their WAFL file system )
CDDL has a viral clause wit a very limited scope. That is, it is limited to the file, rather than GPL's "product".
There is nothing in the CDDL that prohibits the use of GPL code ( or the use of CDDL code in a GPL project ), other than you cannot change the license. Since the GPL wants you to change the license ( to the GPL ), this is where the fundamental difference is.
So yes, it's the GPL that doesn't let you play with other children... it wants everyone to be GPL or BSD
And this is precisely why, when Sun GPL'ed Java my response wasn't "yay, open source java", it was "Why on earth didn't they go CDDL?"
CDDL allowed people like FreeBSD and Apple to use the cool technology in OpenSolaris like ZFS & DTrace. It's a happy-fun-sharing license. GPL won't let you play nice with the other children.
I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to decide the risks of GPL just weren't worth it, and create their own JVM
"you could still manage the performance stuff with your big box of discs, but snapshots and cloning in near realtime without using up any space would not be that easy..."
Which is precisely why NetApp is scared of ZFS. Because it lets you do snapshots & cloning in near realtime without using any space.
This more granular access control sounds a lot to me like RBAC, which has been in solaris since solaris 9, it's in AIX and if memory serves OpenVMS as well.
I also think it's part of the SELinux patches that nobody ever applies
Linux is a kernel. A kernel's definition of usability involves well documented programming API's.
Usability is a problem for the desktop maintainers ( the KDE or GNOME guys ), not the kernel hackers.
Added bonus, the desktop maintainers can be OS agnostic if they like, so the usability gains that linux sees can easily transfer to BSD or OpenSolaris, should they turn out to be better kernels overall
Blackbox is just the name. Schwartz even said in his blog the reason why the one they've got touring around the country is black is because it looks cool. you can get it in whatever color you want
RMS is a hippie that thinks nobody should be allowed to make non-GPL software at all. It wasn't until people started not paying attention to him that FOSS outside of BSD took off at all in any real sense
That's unfortunate that it's not in more widespread use.
It's a good class of licenses, but The largest problems with the MPL are that everyone creates their own minor variant ( apple's licence, Sun's CDDL, myriads more) and that the GPL gets so much press time (people assume open source = GPL, so that's what they release their code under)
gcc + gstreamer-dev + gvim would take significantly less than 200 megs.
IDE's are by their very nature uselessly bloated
Re:%75 as effective as a prescription 3% the price
on
Science vs. Homeopathy
·
· Score: 1
Didn't the NIH, AMA, and a bunch of medical academics do some studies on it.
presumably...
They found it's more successfully then placebo and despite having no idea how it works currently they recommended increase use as a secondary treatment option and further research?
No. Not statistically significantly more effective. Whoever told you this was lying to you in a dangerous way.
"but their position on DRM doesn't really jibe with this"
And what position would that be? The one where they want to strong-arm record labels in to doing things their way, but when it comes to their own stuff ( like, for example, the Intel version of OSX that won't boot unless the TCPM contained in every intel macintosh is keyed by apple ), then it's all fair game?
Actually, I think Linus lucked in to success by AT&T's legal team.
If BSD's legal status weren't questionable in the early 90's, nobody would've used that buggy hobby kernel from Finland, we'd all be using the tried & true BSD operating environment
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
In general, unless you need a high degree of numerical accuracy, a 64 bit CPU will not run faster than a 32-bit CPU. A lot of times it will run slower because you clog the address bus with twice as much information ( memory addresses are twice as big )
That said, amd64 will be faster than ia32, not because of how wide the addresses are, but because amd64 has twice as many general-purpose registers.
Slashdot Mirror
"the real advantages of the GPL is that I know what the license means without having to buy a lawyer."
Really? Can you dynamically link to a GPL library with non-GPL code?
are you sure? 100% sure?
"I don't remember exactly what it said, but it was about patents."
The CDDL explicitly grants you immunity from patents. the license says that they cannot sue you for infringing on any patents contained within the CDDL code, and if anyone's going to be sued for patents, it's Sun ( so if you extend OpenSolaris, for example, assuming you don't add any new patent infringements, you can't be sued by anyone for redistributing it. ie: you add some non-patent-infringing code to the kernel, redistribute it as $YOU-laris... NetApp can't sue you for infringing on their WAFL file system )
Incorrect.
CDDL has a viral clause wit a very limited scope. That is, it is limited to the file, rather than GPL's "product".
There is nothing in the CDDL that prohibits the use of GPL code ( or the use of CDDL code in a GPL project ), other than you cannot change the license. Since the GPL wants you to change the license ( to the GPL ), this is where the fundamental difference is.
So yes, it's the GPL that doesn't let you play with other children... it wants everyone to be GPL or BSD
And this is precisely why, when Sun GPL'ed Java my response wasn't "yay, open source java", it was "Why on earth didn't they go CDDL?"
CDDL allowed people like FreeBSD and Apple to use the cool technology in OpenSolaris like ZFS & DTrace. It's a happy-fun-sharing license. GPL won't let you play nice with the other children.
I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to decide the risks of GPL just weren't worth it, and create their own JVM
Time machine for Solaris: # zfs snapshot mypool/myfs@`date +%m%d%H` ta da... no hackery involved, it's a shipping feature.
"you could still manage the performance stuff with your big box of discs, but snapshots and cloning in near realtime without using up any space would not be that easy..."
Which is precisely why NetApp is scared of ZFS. Because it lets you do snapshots & cloning in near realtime without using any space.
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/
Solaris is like a semitruck. Without it the commercial world would collapse.
I'm sorry... what?
a sufficiently motivated nigger could painstakingly review the machine code
Was that really necessary ?
This more granular access control sounds a lot to me like RBAC, which has been in solaris since solaris 9, it's in AIX and if memory serves OpenVMS as well.
I also think it's part of the SELinux patches that nobody ever applies
# zfs snapshot mypool/myfs@date
Time Machine wasn't modeled after rsync, it was modeled after ZFS
Why precisely do people think they need 64-bit applications?
Unless you're running something that can eat through a 32 bit address space like Oracle for example, you really don't...
absolutely they shove them together with some sort of striping/spanning/whatever; the point is that we're talking individual spindles here.
notice the use of the words "multi-terabyte disks" and not "multi-terabyte logical volumes"
"business users will certainly utilize multi-terabyte disks"
Eventually, sure, but at the moment the largest 2.5" SAS drive anyone'll sell you is 150GB
Linux is a kernel. A kernel's definition of usability involves well documented programming API's.
Usability is a problem for the desktop maintainers ( the KDE or GNOME guys ), not the kernel hackers.
Added bonus, the desktop maintainers can be OS agnostic if they like, so the usability gains that linux sees can easily transfer to BSD or OpenSolaris, should they turn out to be better kernels overall
Blackbox is just the name. Schwartz even said in his blog the reason why the one they've got touring around the country is black is because it looks cool. you can get it in whatever color you want
RMS is a hippie that thinks nobody should be allowed to make non-GPL software at all. It wasn't until people started not paying attention to him that FOSS outside of BSD took off at all in any real sense
That's unfortunate that it's not in more widespread use.
It's a good class of licenses, but The largest problems with the MPL are that everyone creates their own minor variant ( apple's licence, Sun's CDDL, myriads more) and that the GPL gets so much press time (people assume open source = GPL, so that's what they release their code under)
I'll add to that MPL. GPL vs. MPL vs. BSD is "make all code free" vs "keep my code free" vs "do as you wish"
gcc + gstreamer-dev + gvim would take significantly less than 200 megs.
IDE's are by their very nature uselessly bloated
Didn't the NIH, AMA, and a bunch of medical academics do some studies on it.
presumably...
They found it's more successfully then placebo and despite having no idea how it works currently they recommended increase use as a secondary treatment option and further research?
No. Not statistically significantly more effective. Whoever told you this was lying to you in a dangerous way.
"but their position on DRM doesn't really jibe with this"
And what position would that be? The one where they want to strong-arm record labels in to doing things their way, but when it comes to their own stuff ( like, for example, the Intel version of OSX that won't boot unless the TCPM contained in every intel macintosh is keyed by apple ), then it's all fair game?
Actually, I think Linus lucked in to success by AT&T's legal team.
If BSD's legal status weren't questionable in the early 90's, nobody would've used that buggy hobby kernel from Finland, we'd all be using the tried & true BSD operating environment
No, I'm saying Sun's under new leadership, and the new leadership is turning Sun in to the most open-source friendly company in the world
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
In general, unless you need a high degree of numerical accuracy, a 64 bit CPU will not run faster than a 32-bit CPU. A lot of times it will run slower because you clog the address bus with twice as much information ( memory addresses are twice as big )
That said, amd64 will be faster than ia32, not because of how wide the addresses are, but because amd64 has twice as many general-purpose registers.
yes you did.
No, they bought some drivers so that they could incorporate them in to the x86 version of Solaris
And I think that was McNealy anyways, not Schwartz