Well... in my opinion (and I believe everybody's opinion who favour GPL over BSD or similar licenses) the GPL is "much, much more free and open" because it ensures the "chain of freedom" down the road by forcing people to not close the modified source under certain conditions (what is known as the "viral" aspect of the license).
Thus, by removing *just one* degree of freedom, it ensures that the source will be free forever, enhancing the world's knowledge pool, etc. That is, removing just one degree of freedom (freedom to close the source) really *expands* the overall freedom.
Now, I won't go over what is better WRT business and the like. But when we talk about freedom, I think the GPL really nails it.
Well, I totally agree with you on this one. And I hope that, while they are at it, all these companies embracing GNU/Linux as their OS of choice declare it openly and distribute their GPL source code to the customers. Because there are sooooo bloody many GPL violations these days, specially in the embedded market...
If any of you know of any violation, PLEASE do report it at GPL Violations.
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~val/fs_slides.pdf
A (very) brief history of UNIX file systems for the average computer layperson. Includes the super cool file system feature chart showing which file systems have which features.
Are you serious? Or you just want to provoke? When Google comes preinstalled in 90% of the computers as the default webpage, then I will get your point. NO-ONE ever pushes anyone to use Google, but M$ employes A LOT of cash in pushing people to use their "OS", crashing other people's business, etc. Why do they use it? Because it ROCKS, and it is the best search engine available. M$ is what Google is because of monopoly, money and extorsion. Get that right, and you will understand many things on/. and many many other corners of the Internet.
M$ did not innovate, ever, nor they will anytime soon. No offence to the millions of programmers that work for M$, I mean, sometimes, you just need the money, but personally, my morals are way too high to work for a bunch of assholes.
Perhaps people would be interested in reading the TRUTH about Kirlian Photography, another "urband legend" of some crappy parapsichologist... Check it out HERE.
I mean, sure, they might _only_ distribute free software, but that's only because LinEx was a little tiny project aimed for a very restricted environment at first (or so I understand it). It was done for the government institutions of Extremadura (a region of Spain) and specially for the public educational institutions, so kids in primary schools could start using computers "the free way".
So RMS saying that about Debian... sounds completely unfair!! Specially when Debian has a HURD port (I dunno from anyone else running such!).
RMS... please!!! life is not always back or white...
> MS does do a good job of testing their windows code (can't speak for office --- those nerds need to learn a thing or two about threads and finally put clippy out of his pathetic misery). They test their code far more thoroughly than ANYONE who does open source including Red Hat, IBM and others.
Uhm, right....
counting that they are the _ONLY_ one that can actually debug their source code, they ought to invest as much time as the _whole_ open source community over a period of what? 3-6 months?
That's why they use so much time, but the same eyes see the same errors, while having a wide variety of eyes usually covers a broader spectrum faster.
I understand your point there... I mean, there are a LOT of "wannabe" script-kiddies around, that would just learn a tiny little bit of cut-n-paste and gcc -o attack_them bug.c to go and "hack" around!
The problem here then is _WHO_ handles the security bugs info. That is, if I know that my bug will be taken care by the vendors/developers ASAP, and we put a "well-defined" time window of X days for them to fix it before they release, then I could agree.
BUT, we know that the morons which want (LOOOVE for God sake!) this non-release security info plan are MSoft and people of that kind! People that, unless some big-ass script-kiddy knocks down THEIR own servers, would do JACK to fix the stuff unless next release costing N$ comes out.
My proposal.:-)
Someone makes a security bug weblog not controled by THEM (aka companies like MSoft), we aaall shift to that, leave securityfocus and those places alike empty, and we only do the time-delay process for _REALLY_ fuck-up stuff like the ssh-bug or any open source project, but NOT for commercial software. That way, the open source community will be fine, AND THOSE WHO SAY OPEN SOURCE IS NOT SECURE will have to work and clean up their shit code.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... in my opinion (and I believe everybody's opinion who favour GPL over BSD or similar licenses) the GPL is "much, much more free and open" because it ensures the "chain of freedom" down the road by forcing people to not close the modified source under certain conditions (what is known as the "viral" aspect of the license).
Thus, by removing *just one* degree of freedom, it ensures that the source will be free forever, enhancing the world's knowledge pool, etc. That is, removing just one degree of freedom (freedom to close the source) really *expands* the overall freedom.
Now, I won't go over what is better WRT business and the like. But when we talk about freedom, I think the GPL really nails it.
My 2 cents!
No, thank you for your help in pushing all that stuff into the open :)
Cheers!
Well, I totally agree with you on this one. And I hope that, while they are at it, all these companies embracing GNU/Linux as their OS of choice declare it openly and distribute their GPL source code to the customers. Because there are sooooo bloody many GPL violations these days, specially in the embedded market...
If any of you know of any violation, PLEASE do report it at GPL Violations.
Keep up the community work!
Hi, I am not the parent but in case you find it useful...
:D) kernel hacker, Val Henson:
Here are two links from a cool, smart (and gorgeous
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~val/review/choosing.pdf
Choosing and tuning Linux file systems
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~val/fs_slides.pdf
A (very) brief history of UNIX file systems for the average computer layperson. Includes the super cool file system feature chart showing which file systems have which features.
Cheers,
Maaaan, sorry but I had to bite...
/. and many many other corners of the Internet.
Are you serious? Or you just want to provoke? When Google comes preinstalled in 90% of the computers as the default webpage, then I will get your point. NO-ONE ever pushes anyone to use Google, but M$ employes A LOT of cash in pushing people to use their "OS", crashing other people's business, etc. Why do they use it? Because it ROCKS, and it is the best search engine available. M$ is what Google is because of monopoly, money and extorsion. Get that right, and you will understand many things on
M$ did not innovate, ever, nor they will anytime soon. No offence to the millions of programmers that work for M$, I mean, sometimes, you just need the money, but personally, my morals are way too high to work for a bunch of assholes.
Cheers,
--
J. Javier Maestro
Next time, use Google properly ;-)
--
J. Javier Maestro
Specially when LinEx is a distro based on Debian!
I mean, sure, they might _only_ distribute free software, but that's only because LinEx was a little tiny project aimed for a very restricted environment at first (or so I understand it). It was done for the government institutions of Extremadura (a region of Spain) and specially for the public educational institutions, so kids in primary schools could start using computers "the free way".
So RMS saying that about Debian... sounds completely unfair!! Specially when Debian has a HURD port (I dunno from anyone else running such!).
RMS... please!!! life is not always back or white...
> MS does do a good job of testing their windows code (can't speak for office --- those nerds need to learn a thing or two about threads and finally put clippy out of his pathetic misery). They test their code far more thoroughly than ANYONE who does open source including Red Hat, IBM and others.
Uhm, right....
counting that they are the _ONLY_ one that can actually debug their source code, they ought to invest as much time as the _whole_ open source community over a period of what? 3-6 months?
That's why they use so much time, but the same eyes see the same errors, while having a wide variety of eyes usually covers a broader spectrum faster.
I understand your point there... I mean, there are a LOT of "wannabe" script-kiddies around, that would just learn a tiny little bit of cut-n-paste and gcc -o attack_them bug.c to go and "hack" around!
The problem here then is _WHO_ handles the security bugs info. That is, if I know that my bug will be taken care by the vendors/developers ASAP, and we put a "well-defined" time window of X days for them to fix it before they release, then I could agree.
BUT, we know that the morons which want (LOOOVE for God sake!) this non-release security info plan are MSoft and people of that kind! People that, unless some big-ass script-kiddy knocks down THEIR own servers, would do JACK to fix the stuff unless next release costing N$ comes out.
My proposal. :-)
Someone makes a security bug weblog not controled by THEM (aka companies like MSoft), we aaall shift to that, leave securityfocus and those places alike empty, and we only do the time-delay process for _REALLY_ fuck-up stuff like the ssh-bug or any open source project, but NOT for commercial software. That way, the open source community will be fine, AND THOSE WHO SAY OPEN SOURCE IS NOT SECURE will have to work and clean up their shit code.
Now, THAT'S a plan, hey? :-)