I see nothing in that quote that mentions GNU at all? Nor anything that should.
The proper term for a generic distribution with the linux kernel at it's core is *gasp* Linux. Whether that distribution happens to include GNU application software or not (there is no reason it does, there are a number of utils that replace them, including the BSD versions) is really rather irrelevant. The operating system (ie the kernel in the case of a macro kernel system) is linux. So a distribution of applications along with the operating system (or kernel) is reasonably referred to in a generic sense as linux? What is the problem?
"Open source licenses may be broadly categorized into the following types: (1) those that apply no restrictions on the distribution of derivative works (we will call these Non-Protective Licenses because they do not protect the code from being used in non-Open Source applications); and (2) those that do apply such restrictions (we will call these Protective Licenses because they ensure that the code will always remain open/free)."
This statement is easily amended to be 100% accurate.
"Open source licenses may be broadly categorized into the following types: (1) those that apply no restrictions on the distribution of derivative works (we will call these Non-Protective Licenses because they do not protect the code from being used in non-Open Source applications); and (2) those that do apply such restrictions (we will call these Protective Licenses because they do protect the code from being used in non-Open Source applications)."
The GPL is for the benefit of the developer and the end users at large. BSD and the GPL both protect the first release of the software and ensure they are open. BSD stops with the first release, the GPL does not, the GPL ensures that derivatives are open as well.
To a business wanting to take derivative works and close them up, thus getting free slave labor (or the fruits of it anyway) instead of properly paying for the software with their own derivative code, there doesn't seem to be any benefit to the GPL. That's sort of the point.
Your a commercial nazi who simply wants my sweat to equate to not just free labor, but instant free labor where the result is already finished eh?
Tough shit, it doesn't work that way, any who distributes under the gpl isn't giving you something for nothing unless your an end user. They are giving you something for something. I don't want money, I want source code. Deal with it.
ok you get perl cleared, the sysadmin installs it on your machine (as a user in a business environment you of course should not be installing software).
At this point you have perl, so the sysadmin leaves it on your machine (Because of course, you shouldn't be uninstalling software either as a user, this should be a moot point since the sysadmin should have made doing this impossible for you).
Except that nobody can build these and sell them for just enough to keep operating, giving people a relatively inexpensive STM device.
With the GPL they not only could do that. But they could improve the device (perhaps porting the software to linux and replacing the card with a PCI Version for starters) and distribute that improvement whether this initial project decided to or not.
That reveals another big disadvantage. With the next server upgrade at the University this will likely disappear (like most anything of interest on a University server tends to do). At which point nobody can even mirror the old site and this free design will die.
If you don't agree to the GPL then it defaults to copyright law, which is much more restrictive than the GPL.
Under copyright law, having the copy is enough to let you use it, however you can't modify it, or distribute it ANY fashion. So it's sort of a moot point wouldn't you say?
That's an interesting way to look at it. However an Operating system is NOT the equivelent to a complete car.
An operating system is not useful by itself, in order to be useful you must have applications, just as an engine is not useful by itself. Actually that fits quite nicely. Your simply confusing what an operating system is. An operating systemm is just like an engine. What you and alot of others who support this GNU/Linux nonsense are thinking of as an operating system is actually a DISTRIBUTION, which bundles applications with the operating system to create something which is useful.
"Do you have a friend called "Mike"? Do you refer to him as "Mike's Brain"?"
Another flawed analogy but I'll bite. When you call him Mike your actually refering to his Brain, there is no need to specify. Of course the brain is not functional by itself, it needs various other parts in order to do anything useful. Most of those parts are primarily composed of water. If you replaced the parts would be he stop being Mike? or Merely be Mike with a cybernetic arm? Since the complete useful working distribution of Mike is mostly composed of water do you call him WATER/Mike? You could replace absolutely every piece except the brain and you would still have something which should be refered to as Mike.
That's true, technically MacOS X is a distribution.
"its kernel is independent and is called Darwin"
No, actually Darwin is a subset of the distribution, I believe you'll find that technically the OS in this case Mach.
"And Windows should be called by it's correct name: KERN386.DLL."
Windows is a micro kernel system, there are more files than KERN386.DLL which form the hardware abstraction. However there is quite a bit in the windows distribution nobody could sanely call the operating system, such as the gui, windows media player, msn messenger err windows messenger, the web browser.
"And there's no "Eric Stallman", unless something very strange has happened"
Your right of course, I laughed my arse off when I went back and read what I wrote. Hey it was early;)
"Read the GNU/Linux FAQ"
Nope, there's a GNU FAQ, and a linux FAQ, the two do not go together, therefore there is NO VALID GNU/Linux FAQ. However Linus may write one if he chooses to rename his operating system.
"Also, by your definition Debian GNU/KFreeBSD ( http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/ ) is FreeBSD. Even though, the only component common component is the FreeBSD kernel."
Why yes, that is correct. It's the Debian FreeBSD distribution. There is also a Debian linux distribution, I fail to see your point.
umm no, redhat had previously changed focus to work on ease of use and functionality. The Fedora change was redhat ditching download edition and giving a subdomain to a third party called Fedora who makes a modified redhat and telling people to fsck off and go download that instead.
*sigh* I fail to understand why so many people have trouble grasping this.
The operating system is the lowest level software api that abracts the software from the hardware. Therefore the operating system is Linux. The Linux operating system includes absolutely no gnu software whatsoever. It doesn't even require an equivelent to the function of any gnu software. You don't name the operating system after software which runs on it. Even if you lived in some twisted world in which you did, it would be "Linux OS that happens to be bundled with some gnu software and other things"
When you bundle software with the Linux operating system (in the case of linux the kernel is the operating system, in the case of some microkernel systems there are more players), it's called a "Distribution", the distribution is named by whoever puts it together and distributes it.
Exactly where does Eric Stallman come in? At what point exactly does he suddenly have right to rename the linux operating system or any particular distribution?
Even if your one of those oddballs who believes that an "operating system" includes applications which run on what is actually the operating system (including all the GNU utils that ESR grumbles about), you have GNU software, which can exist independent of the Linux kernel, in which case the end result is NOT linux. And you have the Linux kernel, which can exist completely independently of any GNU software. In which case you DO still have a linux operating system.
Most people load GNU untils on Solaris, will ESR be contacting Sun and advising them they should change the name to GNU/Solaris next? Or how about BSD, is it no longer BSD if alot of people run GNU software on it and suddenly it should be called GNU BSD?
It seems your probably not looking at the OTHER varient. Mozilla Thunderbird is to Mozilla Mail what Firebird is to the browser. Actually they are damn near identical. You don't have to open your browser to check your email anymore my friend;)
The topic is nudity, the tubgirl is something else altogether. I really fail to see how you find the next logical step to allowing hot chicks to roam nude and free on the streets is having them stick their asses inthe air and squirt liquid shit on the sidewalk.
That was hp last I checked since the merger with gateway (although the tides may well have shifted, I stopped paying attention to such nonsense long ago, hell the single largest pc vendor used to be Apple).
I haven't watched all the Phillips models going out. Sony no longer PRODUCES single standard drives, there are sony models still on the shelves that are single standard, but not in active production (hopefully writting this post isn't covered in my NDA).
"I think there's a strong correlation: 90% of all writers are unpublished; 90% of all writers are bad. Give or take (those numbers are probably underestimating the situation)"
Here is the biggest flaw in your argument (aside from your made up numbers), If 90% of whats out there is crap, that's means that 10% of it is not. I think that's a reasonable number. Now only 10% of what's out there is published. Here's the problem, 95% of what is published, is polished crap. That means that the other 9.95% of what's NOT crap was never published.
" The cover page can reveal a lot. Like, whether you have the faintest clue about the publisher's guidelines, whether you can compose anything resembling a coherent sentence, whether you've had the common sense to talk to an agent, etc. A lot of publishers don't even accept unsolicited manuscripts. So, if you send your "precious first novel" to one of these, you have no one but yourself to blame for the result. Investigate the publishers before trying to get published."
Thankyou for agreeing with me on this, out of the things you listed as reasons for objection only one of them actually has anything to do with writting rather than getting published. In fact let's look at a very real possibility, two writers of equal natural skill wrote manuscripts and submitted them.
Now one of them did everything right, agent, publishers market, crossed all his t's and dotted all his eyes and expeneded the effort to go about getting published the right way.
The other failed on all of the above, he failed be he instead expended that effort on actually writting and improving his writting ability.
The second writer who will be a superior writter (all other factors being equal, such as learning rate, ability to find the information, starting basis of education etc etc etc, and we've already covered inherient natural ability) would be rejected without his work ever being read because that cover page didn't follow the publishers guidelines or was unsolicited.
What publishers need to do is cut the crap, stop paying people 6 figures to read books. Hire in hordes of people from different demographics and have them read ALL the manuscripts.
Nonsense, aside from opposing religious factions (an element you'll see opposing the governments of most middle eastern nations) there is as yet any evidence to indicate that the opinion polls which ranked favor of Saddam in the high 90%+ category are anything but perfectly true. Aside from propoganda spouted by the enemy (iraq's enemy the US) there is nothing to indicate the people were oppressed into giving false opinions at all.
I'm not debating on whether or not Saddam was a good guy, only whether or not he was liked by the people of IRAQ. Let's see, he was fighting to reclaim parts of iraq which had been lost, recovering the homeland so to speak. In fact he succeeded. Then the greedy americans concerned about their oil supply came charging in. Saddam spit in their faces by lighting the oil fields the greedy Americans loved so much aflame (after all, that's not why iraq was there, it was there recovering the homeland) showing his disgust at their greed.
Then the greedy americans made false claims about weapons of mass destruction. Blew up one of their own bases in Saudi Arabia so they would have pity casualties, and used all this as an excuse to kill women and children with their bombs for 10yrs.
None of this is neccesarily my opinion, after all Im in the US and our news sources are heavily government monitored and controled, filled with propoganda on the subject. But it is a very feasible view from the shoes of an Iraqie with the information available.
I don't pay those developing the linux kernel to give a damn if there is an ugly worm terrorizing the nation including myself via a hole in the kernel. If I were to buy a copy of windows however, I AM paying for just that.
Who gives a shit about the general population. I really don't see what they matter. It's the technically competent who initially buy that sets vendors with an idea of what will eventually spread the masses. The average human cattle get their advice from the technically inclined via word of mouth.
-R is compatible with everything out there. What vendors are backing a technology on paper on goes so far when those vendors don't have the balls to release single format drives, Dell doesn't make drives and is the smallest of the big pc vendors. Sony makes dual format drives, Phillips makes dual format drives, Pioneer makes dual format drives.
Aside from being the most compatible, -R is drastically cheaper. Regardless of what your local store has discs priced at, you will find -R on the web for.30/disc in 50 and 100 packs. +R is over $1/disc, period.
Slashdot Mirror
I see nothing in that quote that mentions GNU at all? Nor anything that should.
The proper term for a generic distribution with the linux kernel at it's core is *gasp* Linux. Whether that distribution happens to include GNU application software or not (there is no reason it does, there are a number of utils that replace them, including the BSD versions) is really rather irrelevant. The operating system (ie the kernel in the case of a macro kernel system) is linux. So a distribution of applications along with the operating system (or kernel) is reasonably referred to in a generic sense as linux? What is the problem?
"Open source licenses may be broadly categorized into the following types: (1) those that apply no restrictions on the distribution of derivative works (we will call these Non-Protective Licenses because they do not protect the code from being used in non-Open Source applications); and (2) those that do apply such restrictions (we will call these Protective Licenses because they ensure that the code will always remain open/free)."
This statement is easily amended to be 100% accurate.
"Open source licenses may be broadly categorized into the following types: (1) those that apply no restrictions on the distribution of derivative works (we will call these Non-Protective Licenses because they do not protect the code from being used in non-Open Source applications); and (2) those that do apply such restrictions (we will call these Protective Licenses because they do protect the code from being used in non-Open Source applications)."
The GPL is for the benefit of the developer and the end users at large. BSD and the GPL both protect the first release of the software and ensure they are open. BSD stops with the first release, the GPL does not, the GPL ensures that derivatives are open as well.
To a business wanting to take derivative works and close them up, thus getting free slave labor (or the fruits of it anyway) instead of properly paying for the software with their own derivative code, there doesn't seem to be any benefit to the GPL. That's sort of the point.
Unless the legal advise isn't on salary. If they are on salary they dont want you targetted by the BSA because then they would have to work.
If they aren't and are a third party then they WANT you targetted by the BSA because that's how they get paid.
Your a commercial nazi who simply wants my sweat to equate to not just free labor, but instant free labor where the result is already finished eh?
Tough shit, it doesn't work that way, any who distributes under the gpl isn't giving you something for nothing unless your an end user. They are giving you something for something. I don't want money, I want source code. Deal with it.
ok you get perl cleared, the sysadmin installs it on your machine (as a user in a business environment you of course should not be installing software).
At this point you have perl, so the sysadmin leaves it on your machine (Because of course, you shouldn't be uninstalling software either as a user, this should be a moot point since the sysadmin should have made doing this impossible for you).
"anything under those licenses is no longer barred from downloading."
By the SYSADMIN of course, NOT the users. Users should never be installing software in a work environment.
Pure water falls from the sky on a fairly regular basis.
Except that nobody can build these and sell them for just enough to keep operating, giving people a relatively inexpensive STM device.
With the GPL they not only could do that. But they could improve the device (perhaps porting the software to linux and replacing the card with a PCI Version for starters) and distribute that improvement whether this initial project decided to or not.
That reveals another big disadvantage. With the next server upgrade at the University this will likely disappear (like most anything of interest on a University server tends to do). At which point nobody can even mirror the old site and this free design will die.
If you don't agree to the GPL then it defaults to copyright law, which is much more restrictive than the GPL.
Under copyright law, having the copy is enough to let you use it, however you can't modify it, or distribute it ANY fashion. So it's sort of a moot point wouldn't you say?
That's an interesting way to look at it. However an Operating system is NOT the equivelent to a complete car.
An operating system is not useful by itself, in order to be useful you must have applications, just as an engine is not useful by itself. Actually that fits quite nicely. Your simply confusing what an operating system is. An operating systemm is just like an engine. What you and alot of others who support this GNU/Linux nonsense are thinking of as an operating system is actually a DISTRIBUTION, which bundles applications with the operating system to create something which is useful.
"Do you have a friend called "Mike"? Do you refer to him as "Mike's Brain"?"
Another flawed analogy but I'll bite. When you call him Mike your actually refering to his Brain, there is no need to specify. Of course the brain is not functional by itself, it needs various other parts in order to do anything useful. Most of those parts are primarily composed of water. If you replaced the parts would be he stop being Mike? or Merely be Mike with a cybernetic arm? Since the complete useful working distribution of Mike is mostly composed of water do you call him WATER/Mike? You could replace absolutely every piece except the brain and you would still have something which should be refered to as Mike.
"Ok, then Mac OS X isn't an operating system"
;)
That's true, technically MacOS X is a distribution.
"its kernel is independent and is called Darwin"
No, actually Darwin is a subset of the distribution, I believe you'll find that technically the OS in this case Mach.
"And Windows should be called by it's correct name: KERN386.DLL."
Windows is a micro kernel system, there are more files than KERN386.DLL which form the hardware abstraction. However there is quite a bit in the windows distribution nobody could sanely call the operating system, such as the gui, windows media player, msn messenger err windows messenger, the web browser.
"And there's no "Eric Stallman", unless something very strange has happened"
Your right of course, I laughed my arse off when I went back and read what I wrote. Hey it was early
"Read the GNU/Linux FAQ"
Nope, there's a GNU FAQ, and a linux FAQ, the two do not go together, therefore there is NO VALID GNU/Linux FAQ. However Linus may write one if he chooses to rename his operating system.
"Linux is quite simply just a kernel"
Yes, in the case of a macro kernel, the kernel is the operating system.
"requires other programs (like ls) to be useful"
You'll find this is true of ANY operating system.
"Also, by your definition
Debian GNU/KFreeBSD ( http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/ )
is FreeBSD. Even though, the only component common component is the FreeBSD kernel."
Why yes, that is correct. It's the Debian FreeBSD distribution. There is also a Debian linux distribution, I fail to see your point.
umm no, redhat had previously changed focus to work on ease of use and functionality. The Fedora change was redhat ditching download edition and giving a subdomain to a third party called Fedora who makes a modified redhat and telling people to fsck off and go download that instead.
*sigh* I fail to understand why so many people have trouble grasping this.
The operating system is the lowest level software api that abracts the software from the hardware. Therefore the operating system is Linux. The Linux operating system includes absolutely no gnu software whatsoever. It doesn't even require an equivelent to the function of any gnu software. You don't name the operating system after software which runs on it. Even if you lived in some twisted world in which you did, it would be "Linux OS that happens to be bundled with some gnu software and other things"
When you bundle software with the Linux operating system (in the case of linux the kernel is the operating system, in the case of some microkernel systems there are more players), it's called a "Distribution", the distribution is named by whoever puts it together and distributes it.
Exactly where does Eric Stallman come in? At what point exactly does he suddenly have right to rename the linux operating system or any particular distribution?
Even if your one of those oddballs who believes that an "operating system" includes applications which run on what is actually the operating system (including all the GNU utils that ESR grumbles about), you have GNU software, which can exist independent of the Linux kernel, in which case the end result is NOT linux. And you have the Linux kernel, which can exist completely independently of any GNU software. In which case you DO still have a linux operating system.
Most people load GNU untils on Solaris, will ESR be contacting Sun and advising them they should change the name to GNU/Solaris next? Or how about BSD, is it no longer BSD if alot of people run GNU software on it and suddenly it should be called GNU BSD?
It seems your probably not looking at the OTHER varient. Mozilla Thunderbird is to Mozilla Mail what Firebird is to the browser. Actually they are damn near identical. You don't have to open your browser to check your email anymore my friend ;)
The topic is nudity, the tubgirl is something else altogether. I really fail to see how you find the next logical step to allowing hot chicks to roam nude and free on the streets is having them stick their asses inthe air and squirt liquid shit on the sidewalk.
That was hp last I checked since the merger with gateway (although the tides may well have shifted, I stopped paying attention to such nonsense long ago, hell the single largest pc vendor used to be Apple).
I haven't watched all the Phillips models going out. Sony no longer PRODUCES single standard drives, there are sony models still on the shelves that are single standard, but not in active production (hopefully writting this post isn't covered in my NDA).
"I think there's a strong correlation: 90% of all writers are unpublished; 90% of all writers are bad. Give or take (those numbers are probably underestimating the situation)"
Here is the biggest flaw in your argument (aside from your made up numbers), If 90% of whats out there is crap, that's means that 10% of it is not. I think that's a reasonable number. Now only 10% of what's out there is published. Here's the problem, 95% of what is published, is polished crap. That means that the other 9.95% of what's NOT crap was never published.
"
The cover page can reveal a lot. Like, whether you have the faintest clue about the publisher's guidelines, whether you can compose anything resembling a coherent sentence, whether you've had the common sense to talk to an agent, etc. A lot of publishers don't even accept unsolicited manuscripts. So, if you send your "precious first novel" to one of these, you have no one but yourself to blame for the result. Investigate the publishers before trying to get published."
Thankyou for agreeing with me on this, out of the things you listed as reasons for objection only one of them actually has anything to do with writting rather than getting published. In fact let's look at a very real possibility, two writers of equal natural skill wrote manuscripts and submitted them.
Now one of them did everything right, agent, publishers market, crossed all his t's and dotted all his eyes and expeneded the effort to go about getting published the right way.
The other failed on all of the above, he failed be he instead expended that effort on actually writting and improving his writting ability.
The second writer who will be a superior writter (all other factors being equal, such as learning rate, ability to find the information, starting basis of education etc etc etc, and we've already covered inherient natural ability) would be rejected without his work ever being read because that cover page didn't follow the publishers guidelines or was unsolicited.
What publishers need to do is cut the crap, stop paying people 6 figures to read books. Hire in hordes of people from different demographics and have them read ALL the manuscripts.
"Most of the population of Iraq hated Saddam"
Nonsense, aside from opposing religious factions (an element you'll see opposing the governments of most middle eastern nations) there is as yet any evidence to indicate that the opinion polls which ranked favor of Saddam in the high 90%+ category are anything but perfectly true. Aside from propoganda spouted by the enemy (iraq's enemy the US) there is nothing to indicate the people were oppressed into giving false opinions at all.
I'm not debating on whether or not Saddam was a good guy, only whether or not he was liked by the people of IRAQ. Let's see, he was fighting to reclaim parts of iraq which had been lost, recovering the homeland so to speak. In fact he succeeded. Then the greedy americans concerned about their oil supply came charging in. Saddam spit in their faces by lighting the oil fields the greedy Americans loved so much aflame (after all, that's not why iraq was there, it was there recovering the homeland) showing his disgust at their greed.
Then the greedy americans made false claims about weapons of mass destruction. Blew up one of their own bases in Saudi Arabia so they would have pity casualties, and used all this as an excuse to kill women and children with their bombs for 10yrs.
None of this is neccesarily my opinion, after all Im in the US and our news sources are heavily government monitored and controled, filled with propoganda on the subject. But it is a very feasible view from the shoes of an Iraqie with the information available.
I don't pay those developing the linux kernel to give a damn if there is an ugly worm terrorizing the nation including myself via a hole in the kernel. If I were to buy a copy of windows however, I AM paying for just that.
quite possible I'd say.
Who gives a shit about the general population. I really don't see what they matter. It's the technically competent who initially buy that sets vendors with an idea of what will eventually spread the masses. The average human cattle get their advice from the technically inclined via word of mouth.
-R is compatible with everything out there. What vendors are backing a technology on paper on goes so far when those vendors don't have the balls to release single format drives, Dell doesn't make drives and is the smallest of the big pc vendors. Sony makes dual format drives, Phillips makes dual format drives, Pioneer makes dual format drives.
.30/disc in 50 and 100 packs. +R is over $1/disc, period.
Aside from being the most compatible, -R is drastically cheaper. Regardless of what your local store has discs priced at, you will find -R on the web for
"Almost every new dvd player on the market can play both formats."
Yes and most dvd players out there aren't new.