BSD developers like to be exploited by rich capitalists thats why they use a weak license like BSD in the first place.
My my my, aren't you a feisty one. The same thing can be said about the Linux/GNU/GPL crowd.
"You know that new Blue Gene supercomputer from IBM really rocks? Well that's all my hard work with a few modifications! Don't I rock! Uhh, no I didn't get paid for it and all it is is just a huge profit for IBM...but I'm such a good work horse for IBM! I'm cool!"
Yeah and that's because userland is GPL'd! They _have_ to give back.
The userland is not GPL'd, you dumbfuck (forgive me, but you have to have been in a cave for the last 2 years to not know that the userland of OSX is BSD).
It makes little business sense for a company to volunteer to give back to the community (after all they put money into the modifications, why help out the competition potentially?), unless code is protected by the GPL.
In the case of Apple, they wouldn't be helping the competition, because PowerPC optimizations don't help Intel. In general, if a company takes open source code and doesn't give changes back to the community, then it doesn't hurt the open source commnunity. It's not like GCC would dissapear if Apple maintained their own. It's as if the company just didn't exist to the open source community.
This is precisely the reason why FreeBSD is less free than Linux.
Your logic is flawed, so your final statement holds no truth.
FreeBSD discourages the true ideals of Free Software, because it offers no protections to those wishing to contribute, including private companies.
BSD discourages the ideals of the Free Software Foundation and the GPL dictated by it, not of the free software community as a whole. Also, if your intent is that your code be "protected" from anyone developing it without releasing the changes, then the GPL is the licence to use. Private companies usually don't have this intent in mind, because by developing GPL'd code, they are releasing their developments to the public and therefore to their competitors.
Speaking of "protection" of code. What makes you so sure that GPL's code hasn't been copied by companies ? Who would know if they copied it, when the only thing they release is the binary. Also, you don't even have to copy word-for-word. You can just figure out how the code works, and write your own version of it. So the "protection" you get is kind of a false feeling of safety.
And if you think that if GCC had a BSD license that Apple would simply "give away" their modifications to GCC, you are pretty naive.
It would be in Apple's interest, for a wider acceptance, to have GCC work just as fast on a PowerPC as it would on an IA-32 computer, don't you think ?
And to call the GPL a silly expression of freedom is utterly insulting and completely sophomoric. I won't even respond to that. You clearly don't get what free software is all about.
Free software certainly isn't JUST about the GPL, that's for sure.
Yes, GPL software is used alongside proprietary software. Also, with the LGPL, you can go as far as using LGPL'd libraries in your proprietary software.
But the moment you merge GPL code with your proprietary code, the whole code becomes GPL'd. Companies usually develop GPL'd code so they can tap into the free workforce of open source developers. But some companies already have enough coders, and therefore releasing all their hard work to the public (and competitors) is usually not desired. This is where the BSD licence is more desirable. The BSD Licence is compatible with both open source and closed source development, this makes it more flexible than the GPL.
In the end, you use the licence that best suits your ultimate goal.
You are forgetting that FreeBSD suffers from a couple of serious process flaws -- it is an operating system which is truly at home neither in the open-source nor the proprietary markets primarily because, although the source is open, the development team is not.
Maybe your ideas about the Open-Source markets are somewhat limited to GPL only software. Open-Source refers software in which the source code is available and freely distibuatable/modifiable. This would include BSD into the Open Source market. Just because developers that use GPL don't like to have their source code included into closed source software, doesn't make them the only Open Source developers. Also, the development team isn't "open" because the BSD development process is such that only planned and thought out changes get integrated into the OS. In order to fill this criteria, there must be more than ONE person reviewing changes, and a concensus reached. I don't see what makes the development of BSD more closed than that of Linux, since Linux is controlled by ONE person (Linus), while the development of BSD is controlled by a core team of coders.
Ofcourse, you can fork either Linux and BSD and maintain it in any way you want, which would make neither one more open than the other, therefore your argument moot.
As for the proprietary market, BSD is more desirable, because you are not required that your changes to the OS be released back to the community. Take the LinkSys Linux case. LinkSys included linux into their routers and now are being thereatened by the FSF to release the changes to the public. Nevermind that these changes can hold trade secrets and would allow anyone to make a clone of LinkSys's product. Also Cisco is in the same situation, alto the conflict isn't publicized as much. (These were both articles on./)
Furthermore the license allows proprietary software to "steal" source code and use it.
Stealing is what you call it, but this is not what is happening. Sharing code without restriction is what the developers of BSD want. Again, you're in the GPL mindset. If a company took GPL software and used it in their closed software without releasing the changes, that would be STEALING. But this cannot happen to BSD, because the company is NOT REQURED to release anything to anyone. So therefore this isn't stealing. The company isn't doing anything illegal/wrong with BSD Licenced code.
The combination of these problems leads to a somewhat inferior OS.
From a completely technical point of view, BSD is quite on par with Linux, and in some areas of performance surpassing it. From an open source view, BSD is better than Linux, because you can import BSD code into Linux, but not the other way around, because you would have to change your BSD Licenced code to the GPL Licence. And from a corporate point of view, again BSD is better than Linux, because as a company you give back to BSD only what you need, and can keep your trade secrets to yourself. This is not possible when developing on GPL code, because you're required to release ALL the changes you've made.
So to restate your initial statement, it would seem that Linux is actually inferior to BSD, because BSD is at home in BOTH the open source and the corporate markets, while Linux is only ok in the open source markets.
...
Even in a worst case scenario, I don't see BSD completely dying. I think the developers are less into competition and more into a sort of idealized cooperation. As a result, even if BSD becomes more marginalized, I don't think that it will die outright. It will most likely outlive Netware, for example.
Who says that BSD is dying ? I personally think that BSD is more suited to survival than Linux is, because BSD has a more flexible licence that allows open source developers to use it, while also allowing companies to use it (and therefore contribute back to it). I don't see Linux code in Windows or OS X.. do you ?
It's interesting that the GPL licence is currently powerless to protect Linux against SCO hijacking the source code and doing whatever it wants with it. Considering that was the very reason the GPL was written, right now it's turning out to be a complete failure.
And it's also interesting that the BSD licenced OS's don't care about code hijack, and yet have the least problems with it.
Is it time to think about getting the GPL tested in the courts ? What's gonna stop Microsoft from using Linux source in their next Windows version ?
Please make sure to mention that the variable only works with/usr/ports/security/openssh-portable.. and that it won't work with/usr/ports/security/openssh.
Also, you may want to add NO_OPENSSH=true to your/etc/make.conf so that the base openssh doesn't get built and installed when you do a make buildworld.
#!/bin/sh get_char() { local GOOD=0 while [ $GOOD -eq 0 ] do RAND_C=`dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1 count=1 2>>/dev/null` if [ `echo "$RAND_C" | grep [0-9A-Za-z]` ] then GOOD=1 fi done }
get_string() { local INDEX=0 while [ $INDEX != 32 ] do get_char RAND_STR=`echo $RAND_STR$RAND_C` INDEX=`expr $INDEX + 1` done }
You must be a retard, because you obviously don't have simple comprehension skills.
The case was about LINKING to copyrighted material, not actually hosting it on the internet.
RTFA, dumbass.
I read the description posted on the MirBSD page but I still don't understand what niche MirBSD is supposed to cater to.
Is it optimized for pentium class processors and therefore offers a comparable speed increase than the other BSDs ? Why would a person need to use MirBSD ?
I found a Development Plan, but that's more like a todo list, and doesn't list the goals of the project.
I said iMac, not a convoluted version of Linux running on proprietary hardware.
It's not Linux you fucknut. It's a FreeBSD userland with a Mach kernel. (and FreeBSD isn't a "convoluted" version of Linux by a long shot)
You'd think the same zealots who insist on putting GNU/ in front of everything would know the difference.
iMac= small, cute microwave sized pc.. something I would feed an Opteron Cluster for breakfast..
An Opteron cluster is a HELLUVALOT more expensive than an iMac. Why you'd be comparing an iMac with an Opteron cluster in the first place I have no idea. They're not even in the same target market.
Make sure your head is skrewed on before you speak, otherwise you're talking out your ass.
Hmmm. Apps in the ports tree depend on the core. They depend on things like the libc and the kernel. Isn't there the possiblility that updating these could break apps built from ports?
Nope. FreeBSD has several compatability libraries (compat3x, compat4x, etc) so if you do indeed upgrade your kernel and userland from let's say FreeBSD 4.8 to 5.1, your ports will work just as they had before, because they'll be using the compat4x libraries.
Ports are totally separated from the core, by design.
Last time I checked, I could go to a redhat mirror and download the entire redhat distro for free. RedHat doesn't make money directly from the code they write (because of the GPL). They have to market their OS to their clients and actually sell support to their clients.
RedHat makes money from the support it provides for its code.
IBM also doesn't sell the GPL'd code. They sell the hardware that runs the code, and the proprietary applications that run on Linux. And support for their solutions.
So yes, you can't make money directly from GPL'd code (because if the code is GPLd you always have to allow access to the source to anyone), but you can make money because of the code.
Slashdot Mirror
Aparently the BSD crows have been driven away from Slashdot by the constant trolls.
... are there any sites that I'm missing ?
So were can I get BSD relevant news now ? I know there's deadly.org and bsdforums.org
LOL. A little self centric aren't we. BSD people don't care much about Linux's success, because BSD has also grown and become more successful.
How's this behavior different from any other capitalist corporation that wants to have every competitive edge against their competitors.
BSD developers like to be exploited by rich capitalists thats why they use a weak license like BSD in the first place.
My my my, aren't you a feisty one. The same thing can be said about the Linux/GNU/GPL crowd.
"You know that new Blue Gene supercomputer from IBM really rocks? Well that's all my hard work with a few modifications! Don't I rock! Uhh, no I didn't get paid for it and all it is is just a huge profit for IBM...but I'm such a good work horse for IBM! I'm cool!"
Yeah and that's because userland is GPL'd! They _have_ to give back.
The userland is not GPL'd, you dumbfuck (forgive me, but you have to have been in a cave for the last 2 years to not know that the userland of OSX is BSD).
It makes little business sense for a company to volunteer to give back to the community (after all they put money into the modifications, why help out the competition potentially?), unless code is protected by the GPL.
In the case of Apple, they wouldn't be helping the competition, because PowerPC optimizations don't help Intel.
In general, if a company takes open source code and doesn't give changes back to the community, then it doesn't hurt the open source commnunity. It's not like GCC would dissapear if Apple maintained their own. It's as if the company just didn't exist to the open source community.
This is precisely the reason why FreeBSD is less free than Linux.
Your logic is flawed, so your final statement holds no truth.
FreeBSD discourages the true ideals of Free Software, because it offers no protections to those wishing to contribute, including private companies.
BSD discourages the ideals of the Free Software Foundation and the GPL dictated by it, not of the free software community as a whole. Also, if your intent is that your code be "protected" from anyone developing it without releasing the changes, then the GPL is the licence to use. Private companies usually don't have this intent in mind, because by developing GPL'd code, they are releasing their developments to the public and therefore to their competitors.
Speaking of "protection" of code. What makes you so sure that GPL's code hasn't been copied by companies ? Who would know if they copied it, when the only thing they release is the binary. Also, you don't even have to copy word-for-word. You can just figure out how the code works, and write your own version of it. So the "protection" you get is kind of a false feeling of safety.
And if you think that if GCC had a BSD license that Apple would simply "give away" their modifications to GCC, you are pretty naive.
It would be in Apple's interest, for a wider acceptance, to have GCC work just as fast on a PowerPC as it would on an IA-32 computer, don't you think ?
And to call the GPL a silly expression of freedom is utterly insulting and completely sophomoric. I won't even respond to that. You clearly don't get what free software is all about.
Free software certainly isn't JUST about the GPL, that's for sure.
Yes, GPL software is used alongside proprietary software. Also, with the LGPL, you can go as far as using LGPL'd libraries in your proprietary software.
But the moment you merge GPL code with your proprietary code, the whole code becomes GPL'd. Companies usually develop GPL'd code so they can tap into the free workforce of open source developers. But some companies already have enough coders, and therefore releasing all their hard work to the public (and competitors) is usually not desired. This is where the BSD licence is more desirable. The BSD Licence is compatible with both open source and closed source development, this makes it more flexible than the GPL.
In the end, you use the licence that best suits your ultimate goal.
Or maybe you're just a zealot spreading FUD.
Are you sure you're not describing yourself ?
You are forgetting that FreeBSD suffers from a couple of serious process flaws -- it is an operating system which is truly at home neither in the open-source nor the proprietary markets primarily because, although the source is open, the development team is not.
Maybe your ideas about the Open-Source markets are somewhat limited to GPL only software. Open-Source refers software in which the source code is available and freely distibuatable/modifiable. This would include BSD into the Open Source market. Just because developers that use GPL don't like to have their source code included into closed source software, doesn't make them the only Open Source developers. Also, the development team isn't "open" because the BSD development process is such that only planned and thought out changes get integrated into the OS. In order to fill this criteria, there must be more than ONE person reviewing changes, and a concensus reached. I don't see what makes the development of BSD more closed than that of Linux, since Linux is controlled by ONE person (Linus), while the development of BSD is controlled by a core team of coders.
Ofcourse, you can fork either Linux and BSD and maintain it in any way you want, which would make neither one more open than the other, therefore your argument moot.
As for the proprietary market, BSD is more desirable, because you are not required that your changes to the OS be released back to the community. Take the LinkSys Linux case. LinkSys included linux into their routers and now are being thereatened by the FSF to release the changes to the public. Nevermind that these changes can hold trade secrets and would allow anyone to make a clone of LinkSys's product. Also Cisco is in the same situation, alto the conflict isn't publicized as much. (These were both articles on ./)
Furthermore the license allows proprietary software to "steal" source code and use it.
Stealing is what you call it, but this is not what is happening. Sharing code without restriction is what the developers of BSD want. Again, you're in the GPL mindset. If a company took GPL software and used it in their closed software without releasing the changes, that would be STEALING. But this cannot happen to BSD, because the company is NOT REQURED to release anything to anyone. So therefore this isn't stealing. The company isn't doing anything illegal/wrong with BSD Licenced code.
The combination of these problems leads to a somewhat inferior OS.
From a completely technical point of view, BSD is quite on par with Linux, and in some areas of performance surpassing it. From an open source view, BSD is better than Linux, because you can import BSD code into Linux, but not the other way around, because you would have to change your BSD Licenced code to the GPL Licence. And from a corporate point of view, again BSD is better than Linux, because as a company you give back to BSD only what you need, and can keep your trade secrets to yourself. This is not possible when developing on GPL code, because you're required to release ALL the changes you've made.
So to restate your initial statement, it would seem that Linux is actually inferior to BSD, because BSD is at home in BOTH the open source and the corporate markets, while Linux is only ok in the open source markets.
...
Even in a worst case scenario, I don't see BSD completely dying. I think the developers are less into competition and more into a sort of idealized cooperation. As a result, even if BSD becomes more marginalized, I don't think that it will die outright. It will most likely outlive Netware, for example.
Who says that BSD is dying ? I personally think that BSD is more suited to survival than Linux is, because BSD has a more flexible licence that allows open source developers to use it, while also allowing companies to use it (and therefore contribute back to it). I don't see Linux code in Windows or OS X .. do you ?
It's interesting that the GPL licence is currently powerless to protect Linux against SCO hijacking the source code and doing whatever it wants with it. Considering that was the very reason the GPL was written, right now it's turning out to be a complete failure.
And it's also interesting that the BSD licenced OS's don't care about code hijack, and yet have the least problems with it.
Is it time to think about getting the GPL tested in the courts ? What's gonna stop Microsoft from using Linux source in their next Windows version ?
Is Linux dying as opposed to *BSD ?
Japanese tv is much better quality (plot,storyline) than the U.S. crap we're seeing here. I guess that's more motivation to get better TV technology.
Please make sure to mention that the variable only works with /usr/ports/security/openssh-portable .. and that it won't work with /usr/ports/security/openssh.
Also, you may want to add NO_OPENSSH=true to your /etc/make.conf so that the base openssh doesn't get built and installed when you do a make buildworld.
#!/bin/sh
get_char() {
local GOOD=0
while [ $GOOD -eq 0 ]
do
RAND_C=`dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1 count=1 2>>/dev/null`
if [ `echo "$RAND_C" | grep [0-9A-Za-z]` ]
then
GOOD=1
fi
done
}
get_string() {
local INDEX=0
while [ $INDEX != 32 ]
do
get_char
RAND_STR=`echo $RAND_STR$RAND_C`
INDEX=`expr $INDEX + 1`
done
}
get_string
URI=`echo $RAND_STR | tr -d ' '`
fetch -o - http://$URI.com >>/dev/null 2>>/dev/null
exit 1
go ahead now .. give it a big kiss.
How about this: Fuck you troll.
You must be a retard, because you obviously don't have simple comprehension skills. The case was about LINKING to copyrighted material, not actually hosting it on the internet. RTFA, dumbass.
I read the description posted on the MirBSD page but I still don't understand what niche MirBSD is supposed to cater to.
Is it optimized for pentium class processors and therefore offers a comparable speed increase than the other BSDs ? Why would a person need to use MirBSD ?
I found a Development Plan, but that's more like a todo list, and doesn't list the goals of the project.
Please fill me in.
BSD is FUCK YOU.
fucking troll
It's not Linux you fucknut. It's a FreeBSD userland with a Mach kernel. (and FreeBSD isn't a "convoluted" version of Linux by a long shot)
You'd think the same zealots who insist on putting GNU/ in front of everything would know the difference.
iMac= small, cute microwave sized pc.. something I would feed an Opteron Cluster for breakfast..
An Opteron cluster is a HELLUVALOT more expensive than an iMac. Why you'd be comparing an iMac with an Opteron cluster in the first place I have no idea. They're not even in the same target market.
Make sure your head is skrewed on before you speak, otherwise you're talking out your ass.
Linux is dead. Long live BSD.
Make sure you're running FreeBSD 5.1 for in order for that package to install.
Also, your post isn't funny. Just redundant.
Hmmm. Apps in the ports tree depend on the core. They depend on things like the libc and the kernel. Isn't there the possiblility that updating these could break apps built from ports?
Nope. FreeBSD has several compatability libraries (compat3x, compat4x, etc) so if you do indeed upgrade your kernel and userland from let's say FreeBSD 4.8 to 5.1, your ports will work just as they had before, because they'll be using the compat4x libraries.
Ports are totally separated from the core, by design.
Opera is also available for free as ad-supported software.
Don't confuse selling the code with selling support for the code. GPLd code is always available for free (without support from the company).
Last time I checked, I could go to a redhat mirror and download the entire redhat distro for free. RedHat doesn't make money directly from the code they write (because of the GPL). They have to market their OS to their clients and actually sell support to their clients. RedHat makes money from the support it provides for its code. IBM also doesn't sell the GPL'd code. They sell the hardware that runs the code, and the proprietary applications that run on Linux. And support for their solutions. So yes, you can't make money directly from GPL'd code (because if the code is GPLd you always have to allow access to the source to anyone), but you can make money because of the code.