I'd say 98% of the Slashdot crowd doesn't care about the source other than to follow the "if it's not source, it's crap" mantra. BeOS just plain works. An added bonus, I can compile a great many available utilities typically meant for the Unix world on my BeOS/x86 machine at work thanks to the available compiler that ships *with* BeOS. Heck, the shell is a slightly modified "bash", and if you look in/boot/beos/bin on a properly setup machine, you'll find a lot of your typical Unixy utilities.
Please. This is not a show stopper. How does this restrict the actual freedom of the use of the code? Does it infect other projects it touches, requiring you to relicense your existing code? Does it require you to distribute source for YOUR code, be it in the original product or in a value-added solution? Please, you rabid GNU cheerleaders need to find something else to harp on. The BSD-style license is as "free" (unfortunately, the FSF has mangled the meaning of the word free) as free can get, short of public domain source. The GPL is a lot more restrictive than a BSD-style license.
I can't remember the last time I used a floppy. Can you? I don't see a lack of floppy as a mistake; I see it as a company trying to put a tired old technology to rest, where it belongs.
Yes, Sun has given us Java. There is nothing inherently wrong with Java; unfortunately, there seem to be more non-developers out there who decide to moan about how bad it supposedly is. As for Jini, it isn't really "vaporware" as it actually exists. Never heard about the demos they pulled off a little while back? Not to mention the notice it got at last JavaOne. Vaporware has to be defined as lack of existance. Jini doesn't fit that role.
Re:Let's define "dead"...
on
DIVX is dead
·
· Score: 1
I can tell the difference between 128 Kbit/s MP3s and MD disks encoded with ATRAC 3 and later, so I hope MDs stick around for a while. I have yet to find anything more portable while still allowing me more flexibility than an MP3 player.
Linux, IMO, is not quite ready for prime time when a nasty TCP/IP stack bug is allowed to kill a running 2.2.x kernel remotely by anyone. Obviously more QA needs to be done *rolls eyes* Every OS has bugs, every OS has little conditions that cause it to burp or hiccup. They get fixed. It's no big deal.
You don't once mention MacOS X or NetBSD/macppc. MacOS X runs exceedingly well on G3 PowerMacs, from the original beige boxes forward to the rev D iMacs and G3 "pretty" towers. NetBSD is a proven operating system that has been ported to more archtectures than any other OS in existance and runs quite well, even on an iMac.
Unnecessary testing? Let somebody know that next time a RH6 install crashes from some remote crash condition that exists in certain versions of the 2.2 kernels. BTW, your email account runs under FreeBSD. Aren't you glad for the "unnecessary" testing involved there?
Re:It's not just a music player...
on
Empeg Shipping
·
· Score: 1
Ah, very nice, perhaps then I can go in, delete Linux, and install some alternate operating system. Or is it really this open? I can't get to the website, of course.
Undoubtedly, they were talking *useful* or *mainstream* ports. I wouldn't call the "port" to the Dragonball CPU on the PalmPilots terribly useful for anything other than "gee-whiz" sort of thing.
The ISP I do work for sometimes (when their admin breaks things) doesn't "support" any version of UNIX mostly because it's an encouragement for Joe Public user to go out and buy a copy of Linux or whatever, install it, then whine to us to provide the same level of support that Windows and MacOS users get. Rant all you want, supporting newbie UNIX users is *not* an easy task.
I don't think he was trolling. Don't be so paranoid; the UCB/BSD style of licensing does have it's advantages. One thing I've always wondered that rabid GPL advocates continue to spout is how does a company "stealing" (another issue, you can't steal what is freely given away with no strings attached) something licensed with a BSD-style license diminishing the original code? It doesn't.
Good lord, I hope not. Why would SGI think of limiting the inpact of XFS by placing it under GPL? I hope they consider some other less restrictive license that won't infect any works it touches.
Wow.. all you rabid OpenSource/GPL advocates scream and scream for years and years for Apple to show some initiative. They do so, and you do nothing but flame them. Try to focus on the positives of this situation, otherwise the rest of the corporate world will just see the OpenSourcers as a pack of yipping hyenas, ready to rip any newcomers to shreads.
Ahh.. Typical of the content I've come to expect on Slashdot. I shouldn't really respond, but I will anyhow. People who tie UCB/BSD-style licensing to their code do so of their own free will. Nobody is "stealing" their code, because even if Microsoft or whoever uses the code in a binary-only product, your code is still free.
Being scared away because something is BSD-derived or has a license other than the GPL is pretty closed-minded. Go check your favorite Linux distribution and you'll find a lot of stuff with some "Regents" copyrights, lifted from BSD.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say 98% of the Slashdot crowd doesn't care about the source other than to follow the "if it's not source, it's crap" mantra. BeOS just plain works. An added bonus, I can compile a great many available utilities typically meant for the Unix world on my BeOS/x86 machine at work thanks to the available compiler that ships *with* BeOS. Heck, the shell is a slightly modified "bash", and if you look in /boot/beos/bin on a properly setup machine, you'll find a lot of your typical Unixy utilities.
'Open Source' is not a magic bullet that will automatically fix everything about a project. Stop looking to pound in screws with a hammer.
Please. This is not a show stopper. How does this restrict the actual freedom of the use of the code? Does it infect other projects it touches, requiring you to relicense your existing code? Does it require you to distribute source for YOUR code, be it in the original product or in a value-added solution? Please, you rabid GNU cheerleaders need to find something else to harp on. The BSD-style license is as "free" (unfortunately, the FSF has mangled the meaning of the word free) as free can get, short of public domain source. The GPL is a lot more restrictive than a BSD-style license.
FreeBSD has had X10 support for quite some time.
Wow. Exactly the same attitude the poster was probably refering to.
I can't remember the last time I used a floppy. Can you? I don't see a lack of floppy as a mistake; I see it as a company trying to put a tired old technology to rest, where it belongs.
And without sufficient value added, who is going to (perhaps) buy this re-released software? And how does this possibly damage the original source?
Yes, Sun has given us Java. There is nothing inherently wrong with Java; unfortunately, there seem to be more non-developers out there who decide to moan about how bad it supposedly is. As for Jini, it isn't really "vaporware" as it actually exists. Never heard about the demos they pulled off a little while back? Not to mention the notice it got at last JavaOne. Vaporware has to be defined as lack of existance. Jini doesn't fit that role.
I can tell the difference between 128 Kbit/s MP3s and MD disks encoded with ATRAC 3 and later, so I hope MDs stick around for a while. I have yet to find anything more portable while still allowing me more flexibility than an MP3 player.
Linux, IMO, is not quite ready for prime time when a nasty TCP/IP stack bug is allowed to kill a running 2.2.x kernel remotely by anyone. Obviously more QA needs to be done *rolls eyes* Every OS has bugs, every OS has little conditions that cause it to burp or hiccup. They get fixed. It's no big deal.
Wrong. GPL is much more restrictive than the "Artistic" license because of it's "viral" abilities.
You don't once mention MacOS X or NetBSD/macppc. MacOS X runs exceedingly well on G3 PowerMacs, from the original beige boxes forward to the rev D iMacs and G3 "pretty" towers. NetBSD is a proven operating system that has been ported to more archtectures than any other OS in existance and runs quite well, even on an iMac.
Unnecessary testing? Let somebody know that next time a RH6 install crashes from some remote crash condition that exists in certain versions of the 2.2 kernels. BTW, your email account runs under FreeBSD. Aren't you glad for the "unnecessary" testing involved there?
Ah, very nice, perhaps then I can go in, delete Linux, and install some alternate operating system. Or is it really this open? I can't get to the website, of course.
Undoubtedly, they were talking *useful* or *mainstream* ports. I wouldn't call the "port" to the Dragonball CPU on the PalmPilots terribly useful for anything other than "gee-whiz" sort of thing.
The ISP I do work for sometimes (when their admin breaks things) doesn't "support" any version of UNIX mostly because it's an encouragement for Joe Public user to go out and buy a copy of Linux or whatever, install it, then whine to us to provide the same level of support that Windows and MacOS users get. Rant all you want, supporting newbie UNIX users is *not* an easy task.
I don't think he was trolling. Don't be so paranoid; the UCB/BSD style of licensing does have it's advantages. One thing I've always wondered that rabid GPL advocates continue to spout is how does a company "stealing" (another issue, you can't steal what is freely given away with no strings attached) something licensed with a BSD-style license diminishing the original code? It doesn't.
Good lord, I hope not. Why would SGI think of limiting the inpact of XFS by placing it under GPL? I hope they consider some other less restrictive license that won't infect any works it touches.
Icecast's MP3 "shout" client runs just fine on my Mac. Oh, by the way, it's running MacOS X. :)
Uhh.. http://icecast.linuxpower.org/
Wow.. all you rabid OpenSource/GPL advocates scream and scream for years and years for Apple to show some initiative. They do so, and you do nothing but flame them. Try to focus on the positives of this situation, otherwise the rest of the corporate world will just see the OpenSourcers as a pack of yipping hyenas, ready to rip any newcomers to shreads.
Ahh.. Typical of the content I've come to expect on Slashdot. I shouldn't really respond, but I will anyhow. People who tie UCB/BSD-style licensing to their code do so of their own free will. Nobody is "stealing" their code, because even if Microsoft or whoever uses the code in a binary-only product, your code is still free.
Being scared away because something is BSD-derived or has a license other than the GPL is pretty closed-minded. Go check your favorite Linux distribution and you'll find a lot of stuff with some "Regents" copyrights, lifted from BSD.
The GPL hasn't even been tested in a court of law yet. Nobody knows if it will even stand up to a rigorous testing by high-priced lawyers.
Alpha support "somewhat" working? It works fine for me. Please don't spread FUD.