Wrong. Switches do not guarantee security. It would be trivial to fake your MAC address in order to listen to somebody else's traffic, not to mention Ethernet broadcasts.
Hopefully that shared code base won't have a heavy religious slant in the Linux direction. There are code bases out there just as good, if not better, that don't deserve to be chucked out the window just because it isn't Linux.
Oh please. The GPL is not the end all and be all of software licenses. Apache isn't under GPL (thank goodness) and look at the overwhelming support that it has enjoyed.
The GPL is not a magic pill that automatically makes all code it infects "special" or "better". It is a license, nothing more. Licenses have little (or nothing) to do with the quality of code.
Where are all the applications? In nearly all cases, same place you find Linux applications. FreeBSD has excellent Linux emulation. As for source-based applications, as long as the developer hasn't been sucked into writing Linux-specific trash (the ever popular 'linux' include directory, or/proc) it should compile just fine. Why do rabid Linux users insist on bringing this up all the time?
The GPL is less free than the BSD license because the FSF has conveniently redefined the meaning of the word "free". Free means no strings attached; the GPL forces you to provide source and infects any works it touches. How is that more free than "you can do whatever you want with this work as long as credit is given where credit is due"?
What does the fact that an operating system not being open source have to do with the ability to write applications for it? Just because something isn't open source doesn't mean it is any harder to develop for. I find developing under BeOS pretty easy, as a matter of fact. Nobody says you *have* to use the B class structure layed out for you. Prime examples would be the dozens of UNIX applications ported to the BeOS (ssh being a biggie).
Re:So what's the _real_ reason y'all hate Be?
on
Be Inc. IPO-bound
·
· Score: 1
Wrong. "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters." I don't see any reference to Linux in there; do you? There is more to life and technology than Linux. The sooner you realize that, the better.
While I might not agree with the action Harvard took, they were fully within their rights. There was no contract in place, and Ken was not a student. I fail to see any criminal intent here.
Please don't reduce the importance of "free speech" and the American First Amendment by crying censorship each time somebody is squelched. The First Amendment ONLY applies to the federal goverment.
Uhh.. why would you want to get BeOS off it and put Linux on it? What would be the point? The box was made to be used with BeOS; Linux isn't the end all and be all.
Eh, they don't sound particularly well copied to MD (ATRAC 3 or later encoding) unless the MP3 was encoded at 168Kb/s or faster. Otherwise, it sounds good. I use a Vortex-2 based sound card with digital optical out to copy Timidity output (among other things) to my portable MD recorder.
Ah, because the record company makes the lion's share of the profits gives you the right to rip of not only the record company (a legitimate business, regardless of their practicies), but also the artist! You truely are a music fan! *dripping sarcasm*
If you can't tell the difference between 128Kb/s MP3 and an original CD, you aren't a true audiophile. I can easily tell the difference on a 5.1 speaker system. Hell, even ATRAC 3-encoded MDs sound better than MP3 at only 128Kb/s.
Translation: I want to be able to play music I downloaded that I have no right to. Do not musicians deserve to be compensated? Don't give me that "record companies just steal all the revenue". Stealing is stealing. There is nothing inherently wrong with anti-piracy.. as long as the implementation is done correctly.
You don't understand the technology. Read up on why you can't "just do this".
Re:Righteousness of one license vs another.
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
How can you say Pedro is short-sighted when you just echoed his sentiments? Are you short-sighted too?
Re:In a perfect world, BSD would be the perfect...
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
You say having a good, working codebase is such a bad thing. You rabid GPL advocates are always going around with the scare tactic of "oh no, somebody MUST be stealing all your code!" First off, you can't steal what is given away freely. Second, as I've said time and time again in this discussion, the GPL is not a magic wrapper around your code, protecting it from the "evil" corporate coders who might steal your code. Get over yourself; maybe your code isn't worth stealing anyhow:)
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Switches do not guarantee security. It would be trivial to fake your MAC address in order to listen to somebody else's traffic, not to mention Ethernet broadcasts.
Hopefully that shared code base won't have a heavy religious slant in the Linux direction. There are code bases out there just as good, if not better, that don't deserve to be chucked out the window just because it isn't Linux.
Oh well, so much for being able to be used in other operating systems. I guess they're not terribly friendly to "open source" after all..
Oh please. The GPL is not the end all and be all of software licenses. Apache isn't under GPL (thank goodness) and look at the overwhelming support that it has enjoyed.
The GPL is not a magic pill that automatically makes all code it infects "special" or "better". It is a license, nothing more. Licenses have little (or nothing) to do with the quality of code.
They do use BSD in a *lot* of sections of the DoD. Ask anybody in geographic surveying..
Where are all the applications? In nearly all cases, same place you find Linux applications. FreeBSD has excellent Linux emulation. As for source-based applications, as long as the developer hasn't been sucked into writing Linux-specific trash (the ever popular 'linux' include directory, or /proc) it should compile just fine. Why do rabid Linux users insist on bringing this up all the time?
The GPL is less free than the BSD license because the FSF has conveniently redefined the meaning of the word "free". Free means no strings attached; the GPL forces you to provide source and infects any works it touches. How is that more free than "you can do whatever you want with this work as long as credit is given where credit is due"?
What does the fact that an operating system not being open source have to do with the ability to write applications for it? Just because something isn't open source doesn't mean it is any harder to develop for. I find developing under BeOS pretty easy, as a matter of fact. Nobody says you *have* to use the B class structure layed out for you. Prime examples would be the dozens of UNIX applications ported to the BeOS (ssh being a biggie).
Wrong. "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters." I don't see any reference to Linux in there; do you? There is more to life and technology than Linux. The sooner you realize that, the better.
While I might not agree with the action Harvard took, they were fully within their rights. There was no contract in place, and Ken was not a student. I fail to see any criminal intent here.
Please don't reduce the importance of "free speech" and the American First Amendment by crying censorship each time somebody is squelched. The First Amendment ONLY applies to the federal goverment.
What do First Amendment rights have to do with this? At last notice, enforcement of the First Amendment only applied to the federal government.
Big deal, FreeBSD and NetBSD have working USB stacks already; what happened to Linux's leading edge? ;)
*obvious flamebait*
Uhh.. why would you want to get BeOS off it and put Linux on it? What would be the point? The box was made to be used with BeOS; Linux isn't the end all and be all.
No. This is still wrong. The is no hybrid, there is no "based on ideas from", it's BeOS, pure and simple. There is no Linux involved, period.
Eh, they don't sound particularly well copied to MD (ATRAC 3 or later encoding) unless the MP3 was encoded at 168Kb/s or faster. Otherwise, it sounds good. I use a Vortex-2 based sound card with digital optical out to copy Timidity output (among other things) to my portable MD recorder.
Ah, because the record company makes the lion's share of the profits gives you the right to rip of not only the record company (a legitimate business, regardless of their practicies), but also the artist! You truely are a music fan! *dripping sarcasm*
Wow.. amazing how people can work in some sort of Microsoft conspiracy into everything from cold fusion to digital music distribution. Grow up people.
If you can't tell the difference between 128Kb/s MP3 and an original CD, you aren't a true audiophile. I can easily tell the difference on a 5.1 speaker system. Hell, even ATRAC 3-encoded MDs sound better than MP3 at only 128Kb/s.
Translation: I want to be able to play music I downloaded that I have no right to. Do not musicians deserve to be compensated? Don't give me that "record companies just steal all the revenue". Stealing is stealing. There is nothing inherently wrong with anti-piracy.. as long as the implementation is done correctly.
You don't understand the technology. Read up on why you can't "just do this".
How can you say Pedro is short-sighted when you just echoed his sentiments? Are you short-sighted too?
You say having a good, working codebase is such a bad thing. You rabid GPL advocates are always going around with the scare tactic of "oh no, somebody MUST be stealing all your code!" First off, you can't steal what is given away freely. Second, as I've said time and time again in this discussion, the GPL is not a magic wrapper around your code, protecting it from the "evil" corporate coders who might steal your code. Get over yourself; maybe your code isn't worth stealing anyhow :)
Huh? The BSD license requires you to retain the license. What the heck are you talking about?