Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free
on
NYSE Moves to Linux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually that's just not true. In the case of Linux components (such as Samba for example) you would log a bug on the project web site and if it's important or interesting enough you'd get a fix immediately, sometimes in less than a day. I know this is true as we did this recently for someone testing the Windows Vista SP1 release candidate.
Yes, we don't guarantee that but then we don't guarantee it for the NYSE either. The different with Linux and Free Software is that your bugs are treated exactly the same way as the bugs reported by the NYSE, as neither of you are paying the developers. Of course if you're the NYSE you need better service than that, which is why they buy a support contract from a vendor.
With proprietary software the chances of you getting developer attention like that are practically nil.
> Certain programs like Samba that went GPLv3 will likely have a GPLv2 fork.
People keep saying this. There's no evidence for it. All commercial Samba OEMs are contributing patches and code to 3.2 (the GPLv3 licensed version) as normal. No one has even mentioned the license change as an issue. Novell employees are still committing changes to GPLv3 version.
Stop getting steamed up about a minor license revision, you only end up looking really silly.
No one is going to do this. If they do they'll be rapidly left behind. Recent developments in 3.2 (the GPLv3 version) include large stack reductions for increased scalability of smbd's, along with many many other things.
I haven't heard anything from our OEMs to suggest the GPLv3 is a problem for anyone. And if they didn't like it I'd be the one they'd moan to:-).
No Miguel, it might be ok for a Microsoft standards doc (similar to the CIFS one in that respect, I've had to read both).
But it's a *terribly* written standard if you compare it to things like the IETF standards. Have you ever read other standards work than the ECMA stuff (not trying to be nasty here, just curious) ?
Wow, what interesting revisionist history you have there:-).
Yes, we know IDL was a better idea, we've always known that:-). It's taken a while to get to the point where we can start to remove the hand-marshalled IDL infrastructure originally added by the main author of the TNG fork:-). But we're there now. The Samba-tng fork happened over a disagreement about separate deamons, not over auto-generated IDL.
fully 65.74% are under the GPL with an additional 6.53% under the LGPL. If anyone is cutting themselves off from the mainstream it would be BSD and other types of license, it seems:-).
Nothing. That code doesn't link to Samba and so the license change has no effect. Apple are perfectly free to keep shipping Samba, as are all other vendors who obey the GPLv3. Jeremy.
No it isn't in error. "GPLv2-only" licenses are incompatible with both GPLv3 and LGPLv3, as they add additional conditions which are incompatible with GPLv2. It isn't the LGPLv3 code that is the problem, it's the "GPLv2 only". Thus the advice to relicense to "GPLv2 or later". See the FSF comments on this. Jeremy.
I doubt that. Why would NAS vendors need to fork ? It's not like dealing with GPLv3 is harder than dealing with GPLv2. I expect our vendors to just roll along with us, as will and vendor that doesn't have "discriminatory" patent agreements. Jeremy.
'Cos odd numbered releases mean "development" releases. People have been trained by the Linux kernel to think that. It's like odd numbered Star Trek movies, everyone knows they suck:-). Jeremy.
smbfs has been dead for a while. The replacement is CIFSFS. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your point of view:-) this isn't a Samba project, it's developed by Steve French of IBM, and I think it's under GPLv2 or later. Jeremy.
It wasn't meant to be "funny", it was meant to be an entertaining read.
That's not the same thing:-). When I submitted it to/. I didn't describe it as a "Hilarious rant", as it wasn't funny and not a rant:-). I described it as "Musings on DRM and Star Trek".
But hey, this is/. - they never run my submissions:-):-):-).
It wasn't meant to be "funny", it was meant to be an entertaining read.
That's not the same thing:-). When I submitted it to/. I didn't describe it as a "Hilareous rant", as it wasn't funny and not a rant:-). I described it as "musings on DRM and Star Trek".
But hey, this is/. - they never run my submissions:-):-):-).
There's a book about this future - "Rainbow's End" by Vernor Vinge. It's fiction.
You have no sense of history. Remember the "Clipper Chip" ? People were frightned of that for the same reasons you list here, and now all phones must come with an embedded Clipper chip. Oh wait.....
You want to live in fear and think you can hide from a scary future by not talking about it.
I refuse to live in fear.
If the only way Windows will win is by being legislated, then I'm happy to be on the losing side.
Hopefully we'll get to this, but I'm in the middle of a major DFS code rewrite at the moment (making DFS work with the POSIX extensions and UNIX filename components containing a \ character) so it might take a while.
I'd love Sun to donate this code, just like IBM did.....
Just an FYI to your engineering product manager. If you haven't already I'd encourage you to get in touch with the Team and let us know about your use.
For our OEMs we will usually provide help with security updates, advance warning of issues etc. and also help debugging complex problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they're true. Please help us. See here :
http://samba.org/samba/devel/
for details.
Thanks
Jeremy.
Yes it includes all AD protocols.
Jeremy.
Actually that's just not true. In the case of Linux components (such as Samba for example) you would log a bug on the project web site and if it's important or interesting enough you'd get a fix immediately, sometimes in less than a day. I know this is true as we did this recently for someone testing the Windows Vista SP1 release candidate.
Yes, we don't guarantee that but then we don't guarantee it for the NYSE either. The different with Linux and Free Software is that your bugs are treated exactly the same way as the bugs reported by the NYSE, as neither of you are paying the developers. Of course if you're the NYSE you need better service than that, which is why they buy a support contract from a vendor.
With proprietary software the chances of you getting developer attention like that are practically nil.
Jeremy.
> anyone SERIOUSLY engaged in religion and science understand they have nothing to do with each other.
Richard Dawkins, and many other great scientists, would disagree with you.
Jeremy.
Enderandrew wrote :
> Certain programs like Samba that went GPLv3 will likely have a GPLv2 fork.
People keep saying this. There's no evidence for it. All commercial Samba OEMs are contributing patches and code to 3.2 (the GPLv3 licensed version) as normal. No one has even mentioned the license change as an issue. Novell employees are still committing changes to GPLv3 version.
Stop getting steamed up about a minor license revision, you only end up looking really silly.
Jeremy.
No one is going to do this. If they do they'll be rapidly left behind. Recent developments in 3.2 (the GPLv3 version) include large stack reductions for increased scalability of smbd's, along with many many other things.
:-).
I haven't heard anything from our OEMs to suggest the GPLv3 is a problem for anyone. And if they didn't like it I'd be the one they'd moan to
Jeremy.
No Miguel, it might be ok for a Microsoft standards doc (similar to the CIFS one in that respect, I've had to read both).
But it's a *terribly* written standard if you compare it to things like the IETF standards. Have you ever read other standards work than the ECMA stuff (not trying to be nasty here, just curious) ?
Jeremy.
Wow, what interesting revisionist history you have there :-).
:-). It's taken a while to get to the point where we can start to remove the hand-marshalled IDL infrastructure originally added by the main author of the TNG fork :-). But we're there now. The Samba-tng fork happened over a disagreement about separate deamons, not over auto-generated IDL.
Yes, we know IDL was a better idea, we've always known that
Jeremy.
What happened to the quality trolls we used to have on slashdot ? These jokers aren't even trying....
:-).
I miss Klerk, he had *class*
Jeremy.
Somehow I don't think you're the real Miguel :-).
:-) :-).
Nice impersonation though, although a bit too obvious
Jeremy.
Wrong person full stop. :-)
:-)
You're confusing me with tridge. I don't know why people do that. He's the clever one, I'm just better at P.R.
Jeremy.
That's funny, according to this page :
:-).
http://freshmeat.net/stats/
fully 65.74% are under the GPL with an additional 6.53% under the LGPL. If anyone is cutting themselves off from the mainstream it would be BSD and other types of license, it seems
Jeremy.
Nothing. That code doesn't link to Samba and so the license change has no effect. Apple are perfectly free to keep shipping Samba, as are all other vendors who obey the GPLv3.
Jeremy.
No it isn't in error. "GPLv2-only" licenses are incompatible with both GPLv3 and LGPLv3, as they add additional conditions which are incompatible with GPLv2. It isn't the LGPLv3 code that is the problem, it's the "GPLv2 only". Thus the advice to relicense to "GPLv2 or later". See the FSF comments on this.
Jeremy.
I doubt that. Why would NAS vendors need to fork ? It's not like dealing with GPLv3 is harder than dealing with GPLv2. I expect our vendors to just roll along with us, as will and vendor that doesn't have "discriminatory" patent agreements.
Jeremy.
"When it's done" - sorry, don't know when that'll be. You'll have to ask Novell if they'll include it in SuSE, but I don't see why not.
Jeremy.
'Cos odd numbered releases mean "development" releases. People have been trained by the Linux kernel to think that. It's like odd numbered Star Trek movies, everyone knows they suck :-).
Jeremy.
smbfs has been dead for a while. The replacement is CIFSFS. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your point of view :-) this isn't a Samba project, it's developed by Steve French of IBM, and I think it's under GPLv2 or later.
Jeremy.
As I just said elsewhere in this thread....
:-). When I submitted it to /. I didn't describe :-).
/. - they never run my submissions :-) :-) :-).
It wasn't meant to be "funny", it was meant to be an entertaining read.
That's not the same thing
it as a "Hilarious rant", as it wasn't funny and not a rant
I described it as "Musings on DRM and Star Trek".
But hey, this is
Jeremy.
It wasn't meant to be "funny", it was meant to be an entertaining read.
:-). When I submitted it to /. I didn't describe :-). I
/. - they never run my submissions :-) :-) :-).
That's not the same thing
it as a "Hilareous rant", as it wasn't funny and not a rant
described it as "musings on DRM and Star Trek".
But hey, this is
Jeremy.
There's a book about this future - "Rainbow's End" by Vernor Vinge. It's fiction.
You have no sense of history. Remember the "Clipper Chip" ? People were frightned of that
for the same reasons you list here, and now all phones must come with an embedded Clipper
chip. Oh wait.....
You want to live in fear and think you can hide from a scary future by not talking about it.
I refuse to live in fear.
If the only way Windows will win is by being legislated, then I'm happy to be on the losing side.
Jeremy.
Not true. My mum really liked it :-). My wife however, had given up long before this :-) :-).
sentence
Jeremy.
Thanks for picking up on this :-). That is the real worry for me.
I come from a place that completely lost its manufacturing base,
and the results aren't pretty.
As my brother says of the new service economy, "never mind, we'll
all sell each other haircuts over the Internet."
Jeremy.
Hopefully we'll get to this, but I'm in the middle
of a major DFS code rewrite at the moment (making
DFS work with the POSIX extensions and UNIX filename
components containing a \ character) so it might
take a while.
I'd love Sun to donate this code, just like IBM
did.....
Jeremy.
Great to hear it !
Just an FYI to your
engineering product
manager. If you haven't
already I'd encourage
you to get in touch with
the Team and let us know
about your use.
For our OEMs we will usually
provide help with security
updates, advance warning of
issues etc. and also help
debugging complex problems.
Cheers,
Jeremy.