I don't know what 2.x fixation you have. Another poster suggested that you were talking about 4BSD and its development. I'll accept this as such and explain why what you said was wrong.
The fact that BSD revisions have been at 4.x has nothing to do with AT&T licensing issues. With the disbandment of the CSRG as we knew it, 4.4BSD (Encumbered and Lite) became the final release under the CSRG and that was that. No new BSD releases have been made since 4.4BSD, as the CSRG doesn't exist in the manner it did as recently as 10 years ago. Now, you said that "*BSDs" will release under 4.x for an eternity. Bullshit. OpenBSD is at 2.7, FreeBSD is at 4.0, and NetBSD is at 1.4.2. The versioning of these projects is fully up to their release engineers, as AT&T (Well, USL) can't touch them: the settlment placed 4.4BSD-Lite in the clear, and all projects based on it are therefore in the clear (And Net|Free both updated their sourcebases to come complaint, it was only the removal of two encumbered files that entailed. OpenBSD came up after this legalization of Free|Net, therefore it is unencumbered as well).
The *BSDs have no legal trouble now from USL. 4.4BSD is in the clear, as are all of the *BSDs.
Gnome should not be dependant on X at all. It should only need GTK+ (or some other implementation of the GTK+ API).
What should be done to make everyone happier, and I don't know what is being done to achieve this, is to agree on a standard widget set, and have both Qt and GTK+ applications take the same theming hints, etc. Frankly, I shouldn't be able to open a program written with Qt and one written with GTK+ and be able to tell the difference. But I can. (I'd add motif in there, but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon)...
If you're near to the location in question..
on
Advertising Via GPS
·
· Score: 1
do you need an ad for it? I certainly don't need an ad for Burger King when I'm next to it- the sign is good enough. It would seem that advertising is most needed when what you're trying to sell isn't at hand. So how else could this be used?
But MACH _is_ a BSD. Mach was based on 4.2BSD, and by the time Mach 2.5 rolled around it was enhanced by code from 4.3BSD.
In fact, the improvements from CMU/MACH eventually made its way into 4.4BSD... most notably the VM subsystem.
Want proof? Besides any BSD/UNIX family tree, or the 4.4BSD book, there's always the following URL: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/mach/ public/www/FAQ.html Despite all of the mentions of 4.3BSD, if you're too lazy to follow the URL or just want a summary, this line covers all bases: Before you can get a Mach license, you must have a Fourth Berkeley Software Distribution (4.3BSD) license.
Please don't try to correct someone when you don't know what you are talking about!
There're not enough bounty hunter jobs in the world
You must be living in the woods. I know a couple people who are bail enforcement agents both part and full time. There's certainly enough work, as people will _always_ skip.
Or if you're the crazy, suicidal type, you could try going after bin Laden.
However, Linux extends this idea to things that are needed for serious work. Having procfs _replace_ sysctl is A Bad Idea.
I understand his complaint about numbering sysctl branches and nodes, but it's not as big of a deal as he makes it out to be- things don't get drastically changed with this practically ever.
The fact is, being able to get your data with one or two syscalls is fast. A lot faster than having to drag the VFS code into things. Case in point? Here's a look at top on a sourceforge box:
PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND 7014 bugg 18 5 1156 1156 844 R N 0 6.8 0.2 0:02 top
6.8% of the processor. (this box has 238 processes)
What kind of processor is this? model name : Pentium III (Katmai) stepping : 3 cpu MHz : 598.506870
Unacceptable. Procfs is great for users who want to read things, but programs need to have a lower level interface for the sake of speed, and code simplification. It's a lot easier to use sysctl than it is to open up a file and read the data from it, hate to break it to you.
I rejected BSD since anyone could then lift my code, and incorporate it into theirs without even credit or attribution unless I had the "obnoxious advertising clause" in. Furthermore, they could make improvements that they could sell, but I would never see.
You obviously aren't familiar with the BSD license then. Reread the first two clauses (these are _not_ the advertising clauses):
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
You can't possibly want to be given more credit than this.
This really stuck in my craw. I don't like plagiarists. I think the amount of BSD code that Micriosoft and Sun hoisted into their proprietary OSes is scandalous. The developers and UC Berkeley got virtually nothing back from them.
1. Sun gives them credit. Go back and look at your SunOS/Solaris source files/documentation.
2. I'd assume Microsoft gives them credit as well. If they don't, they are in violation with the license. They could just as easily violate the GPL too, you know.
In addition to the ones others have covered, if you say "No" three times in a row, they have to hang up or they are in violation of harassment laws. While not all employees know this, most companies have taught this during "telemarketer-training" because they don't want to get sued
Try it sometime. "Hello, we are calling on behalf of" "No, no, no"
We're talking BSDI here- the company that was formed by some of the world's biggest open-source gurus at the time, the CSRG at Berkeley, when they found out they were no longer going to recieve money to work on BSD. Considering they didn't think they could survive off of open source, they did what they had to so they could continue working and not starve. Might I add they've given back to FreeBSD and NetBSD over the years. Now they've gone full circle, and are open-source again. Neat, huh?:)
If you didn't have time for both, you shouldn't have posted and instead went and read the article to get the answer. Nobody here was hired to summarize articles for you.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that BSD revisions have been at 4.x has nothing to do with AT&T licensing issues. With the disbandment of the CSRG as we knew it, 4.4BSD (Encumbered and Lite) became the final release under the CSRG and that was that. No new BSD releases have been made since 4.4BSD, as the CSRG doesn't exist in the manner it did as recently as 10 years ago. Now, you said that "*BSDs" will release under 4.x for an eternity. Bullshit. OpenBSD is at 2.7, FreeBSD is at 4.0, and NetBSD is at 1.4.2. The versioning of these projects is fully up to their release engineers, as AT&T (Well, USL) can't touch them: the settlment placed 4.4BSD-Lite in the clear, and all projects based on it are therefore in the clear (And Net|Free both updated their sourcebases to come complaint, it was only the removal of two encumbered files that entailed. OpenBSD came up after this legalization of Free|Net, therefore it is unencumbered as well).
The *BSDs have no legal trouble now from USL. 4.4BSD is in the clear, as are all of the *BSDs.
What should be done to make everyone happier, and I don't know what is being done to achieve this, is to agree on a standard widget set, and have both Qt and GTK+ applications take the same theming hints, etc. Frankly, I shouldn't be able to open a program written with Qt and one written with GTK+ and be able to tell the difference. But I can. (I'd add motif in there, but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon)...
A man can always dream! :)
Actually, the commerical out and out
:)
suggested using 2 tablets for faster relief.
And showed 2 tablets falling into the water, etc.
Sales did nearly double, however. True story!
You should trust my PGP signatures
more than a handwritten one.
You can get away with fake inked signatures with
very little information. Faking a PGP signature..
I'm actually a BSD user. Thought that was fairly well known (catching up on replies to my articles tonight)
I've been preparing all of my life for this.
s
e
u
take coins and key
sw
e
s
se
Good luck with the Cyclops! The name of his master will kill him..
I've been trying to beat Zork for the past 10 odd years. I'm going to do it before the millenium, I promise you!
Of course FreeBSD allows for symbolic links. They've been around for a long time- 4.2BSD or so. Fully documented in the D&I of 4.4BSD..
If you are _sure_ about symlinks not working on SunOS, then that was probabaly because they were disabled for a reason.
You shouldn't go and call the work that someone spent a large portion of their undergraduate carrer working on a hack.
Uhm, it's called Light of Other Days.
Duh.
do you need an ad for it? I certainly don't
need an ad for Burger King when I'm next to it- the sign is good enough. It would seem that
advertising is most needed when what you're trying to sell isn't at hand. So how else could this be used?
Each has its advantages, so keep both- don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But MACH _is_ a BSD. Mach was based on 4.2BSD, and by the time Mach 2.5 rolled around it was enhanced by code from 4.3BSD.
In fact, the improvements from CMU/MACH eventually made its way into 4.4BSD... most notably the VM subsystem.
Want proof? Besides any BSD/UNIX family tree, or the 4.4BSD book, there's always the following URL:/ public/www/FAQ.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/mach
Despite all of the mentions of 4.3BSD, if you're too lazy to follow the URL or just want a summary, this line covers all bases:
Before you can get a Mach license, you must have a Fourth Berkeley Software Distribution (4.3BSD) license.
Please don't try to correct someone when you don't know what you are talking about!
MACH _is_ a BSD, silly.
You must be living in the woods. I know a couple people who are bail enforcement agents both part and full time. There's certainly enough work, as people will _always_ skip.
Or if you're the crazy, suicidal type, you could try going after bin Laden.
And does Commander Keen not predate Wolfenstein 3D?
OT yes, but that's not how id set up it's distribution channel. Not unless I'm very mistaken.
We just saw Linux From Scratch- and not counting those, there are still over 100 Linux distributions. Do all of these have to be supported?
When you've got several distributions, you have to accept this. It's the cost of not working together.
I understand his complaint about numbering sysctl branches and nodes, but it's not as big of a deal as he makes it out to be- things don't get drastically changed with this practically ever.
The fact is, being able to get your data with one or two syscalls is fast. A lot faster than having to drag the VFS code into things. Case in point? Here's a look at top on a sourceforge box:
PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
7014 bugg 18 5 1156 1156 844 R N 0 6.8 0.2 0:02 top
6.8% of the processor. (this box has 238 processes)
What kind of processor is this?
model name : Pentium III (Katmai)
stepping : 3
cpu MHz : 598.506870
Unacceptable. Procfs is great for users who want to read things, but programs need to have a lower level interface for the sake of speed, and code simplification. It's a lot easier to use sysctl than it is to open up a file and read the data from it, hate to break it to you.
So you consider it plagarism for your name to be only in the help->about button? Would you rather have the software be named after you? :P
Anything more can become "obnoxious" such as the advertising clause.
Let's say someone answers "yes" to the initial question. Then you go and tell them they shouldn't have bought one. That doesn't make any sense!
You obviously aren't familiar with the BSD license then. Reread the first two clauses (these are _not_ the advertising clauses):
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
You can't possibly want to be given more credit than this.
This really stuck in my craw. I don't like plagiarists. I think the amount of BSD code that Micriosoft and Sun hoisted into their proprietary OSes is scandalous. The developers and UC Berkeley got virtually nothing back from them.
1. Sun gives them credit. Go back and look at your SunOS/Solaris source files/documentation.
2. I'd assume Microsoft gives them credit as well. If they don't, they are in violation with the license. They could just as easily violate the GPL too, you know.
Try it sometime. "Hello, we are calling on behalf of" "No, no, no"
Then again, it's easier to just hang up.
You also leave out MACH is 4.2BSD based. It came from BSD, and a lot of it returned to BSD. (Excuse the late reply, just checked for replies today)
I don't know where you have been, but Apple has already "gone opensource". See MacOS/X and Darwin for more information.
We're talking BSDI here- the company that was formed by some of the world's biggest open-source gurus at the time, the CSRG at Berkeley, when they found out they were no longer going to recieve money to work on BSD. Considering they didn't think they could survive off of open source, they did what they had to so they could continue working and not starve. Might I add they've given back to FreeBSD and NetBSD over the years. Now they've gone full circle, and are open-source again. Neat, huh? :)
If you didn't have time for both, you shouldn't have posted and instead went and read the article to get the answer. Nobody here was hired to summarize articles for you.