The new version of the BSD license states the opposite
This is totally false. The clause you quoted is about endorsement and promotion, it has *nothing* to do with giving credits.
If you use any BSD code in your software, you MUST give credit to the author by distributing the BSD license along with your software, because that license is *still* covering the code you imported.
This is a widespread misconception in the GPL world - that you can "relicense" the BSD code. No, you can't. This misunderstanding is often used by some people who, like religious zealots, are out to "convert" the BSD code into GPL code. The latest case I saw was the arrogant (and anonymous..) creator of the GPL'd g4l project, who included code from the BSD'd g4u project but stripped away the original license. The copyright infringement is documented here by the g4u author. For the record: the creator of the g4l project "disappeared" and a new (also anonymous..) maintainer "appeared". This guy now claims that the current version of the g4l project doesn't infringe any copyrights. Even if this were the case, no public acknowledgement and no public apologies were ever made by the g4l maintainer(s) for what has been an episode of blatant code theft. -- Requiem for the FUD
BSD and GPL have a *very* different spirit. The first one is strongly academic (making the source available with no strings attached, just requiring the user to give credits where they're due), the latter is strongly political (anti-proprietary, and openly communistic since it aims to abolish private property as far as software is concerned).
I don't know about Sam Greenblatt, but the fact that you can't get rid of BSD makes most professional developers very happy. -- Requiem for the FUD
?? I also linked to randi.org and aaas.org. They're hardly porn sites... I don't know why the "jesussave" website redirects you - apparently it also happened to another poster - but anyway that "web1000" thing doesn't look like a porn site either. -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
The parts which were obviously manipulated (see before and after) are:
Dr. Andrew Miller - eyes Peggy Miller - eyes Timothy Allmon - eyes (if you can't see this one, the problem is in *your* eyes:) Dr. Troy Franklin - hair Jose Rosas - mouth Fred "Skeet" Hoskins - eyes
This is a pretty exhaustive proof that the website is a fake.
I don't feel like digging up this material again just to argue with you
I definitely don't need you to do it.. As i posted in a correction, the link I attached to the word 'proof' was wrong. The actual proof is here.
To sum it up: this is the members page as it is now, and this is what it was (it's stored in a cache site). The faces of the members were obviously edited (compare the eyes, especially. Arguably, they did it in order not to use the face of some actual people). This pretty much proves that the whole website is a fake.
OTOH, I totally agree that the anti-evolution movement is a reality (sadly). It's enough to look at what happens in some schools, as the CEO of the AAAS (the association that publishes Science) is denouncing.
I know it's goddamn off-topic, but this has to be said: Luckily, it *is* a fake.:)
Yesterday I fell for it. Then today I googled for "Fellowship University" (where the anti-evolutionist wacko allegedly teaches) and found nothing. So, I found proof that it's a fake - albeit extremely well done!!
I don't feel so bad for falling for it, since the great James Randi fell for it as well! But he soon corrected himself (here and here)
Btw, The JREF website is totally cool. A great resource to debunk all the quackery of our time (from parapsychology to homeopathy).
"I was considering inviting a girl over to install FreeBSD. Does this mean I'm a necrophile?"
If she looks like this, definitely not. But from your words, I infer you would install Linux rather than FreeBSD and, instead of a girl, you'd invite a big fat penguin. Now, just don't ask what *that* means.;) -- Requiem for the FUD
"If so, why don't we see BSD as popular as linux?"
That's pretty obvious: because the GPL is very favourable to large companies specialized in hardware/assistance (IBM, HP, etc), since it gives them the chance to compete on what they do best and undercut software companies. ( An interesting link )
"BSD fans tell you all the time that BSD license is better for getting businesses and large corporations behind the product."
I really don't think "BSD fans" tell it "all the time", because it would be wrong (unless you restrict that to *software* companies).
What BSD advocates might be telling "all the time" is that the BSD license is more free than the GPL, since it comes with fewer restrictions; that it's much shorter and it avoids legalese, in order to keep lawyers & law issues out of your way; and most of all, that the BSD license reflects an actual academic spirit, unencumbered by any political junk that has hardly anything to do with computer science.
The only point in favor of the GPL is that it's contributing to make the Microsoft monopoly end sooner - and that's actually good. For the rest, the GPL is just a political manifesto - a *communist* manifesto, to be precise, since its declared purpose is to put an end to private property as far as software is concerned.
"BSD license may be good for business, but it isn't as good for the community, and the users."
Of course it depends on what users you're talking about. For those users who are also professional programmers, the BSD license is obviously better, since it doesn't force you to disclose *your own* code whether you want it or not, like the GPL does.
I think the GPL pretty much sucks (compared to MIT/BSD licenses), but your FUD sucks even more. -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Stephen Samuel wrote the following bullshit: The only place that Microsoft has to include your copyright and the BSD license is in the source code, and nobody outside of Microsoft (and people who sign an NDA) are likely to see that source code.
Again, that's ridiculously false. Microsoft has to include "your copyright and the BSD license" in every *binary* distribution as well. It's clearly written in the BSD license:"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."
I asked you to get a clue. Now I must think that you actually enjoy making an ass of yourself.
Grandparent is objectively insightful (I wish I wrote it). And you (parent)... you know, you can advocate the GPL *and* be honest at the same time, it's not forbidden or something. Try again: it's not that hard!
If you like the ego bost of having a company like Microsoft take your code, close it off to you and make big money charging you (among other people) for access to your own code under their onerous EULAs, -- and if that ego boost is way more important than having your code free and useful to the entire community that uses it (and able to come back to you), then the BSD license is for you.
This is so wrong and clueless that it's actually funny.
Look: I'm *glad* that Microsoft monopoly is coming to an end. Not because I hate Microsoft or Bill Gates (I happen not to be an envious person..) but simply because *monopoly is bad* for everybody. So, the sooner it ends, the better. And GPL, notwithstanding the communistic principles that are behind it, is surely helping that moment to come a bit sooner: good.
But, I'll list here all the nonsense contained in the ridiculous sentence (it's just one sentence!) I quoted. 1) Microsoft can't "take your code". They can *use* it, if they give you proper credits by distributing your BSD license along with *any* software that contains your code. They *must* do it. 2) Microsoft can't "close it off". Your code of course remains free (truly free, IMHO, since it's BSD-licensed). The only thing that they can close off is their own modifications (i.e. *their own* code). 3) Microsoft can't "charge you for access to your own code". They can charge you for their modified versions. And of course, the market laws apply: if their modifications aren't *worth* the price they're charging, nobody's gonna buy their crap.
Get a clue. Please.
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Pure ignorance - please read the BSD license.
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's quite possible that Microsoft is still using the exact same code, but simply removed all the copyright notices as allowed by the amended BSD licence.
What kind of bullshit is this? You CAN'T remove the copyright notices by the code that is under a BSD license. This has nothing to do with the removal of the "advertising clause".
You CAN'T relicense any code that isn't either written by you or put in the public domain. If you use any BSD code in your software, you MUST give credit to the author by distributing the BSD license along with your software, because that license is *still* covering the code you imported.
Sorry if I used bold but this misunderstanding is quite widespread, and it's just fostered by the stupidity of those claiming, or implying, that BSD code can be "stolen".
Would you mind learning to promote your favourite license (in this case, GPL) without spreading FUD over other licenses like MIT or BSD? You know, nobody is forcing people to post comments when they don't know a goddamn thing of what they're talking about.
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
The modifications themselves may not be more than an effort in making the source incompatible with their product. Thats hardly something i want to fork the dough for. Can you say Kerberos?
I don't know about that case (could you explain or provide some links?). But what on earth would make me buy a piece of software, when it has *no* real enhancements compared to a freely available open source alternative?
My point is, the price I pay for a proprietary product that includes some BSD code is the price I pay for the *enhancements* to that code, because the BSD-licensed software is still a freely available alternative. If I pay for a proprietary product that has *no* advantages over its free alternative, then I'm paying money for nothing - i.e. I'm an ass.:)
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Because releasing something under a BSD license will result in a big corporation taking your hard work, smack a logo on it and after having made it incompatible with your version, charge YOU for it.
It seems that many GNU/Linux people don't understand that if the big corporation can charge for a modified version of my software, it means that the modifications they made are *worth* that price. Otherwise, everybody would just get the free, BSD-licensed copy.
So, they're *not* making money off my work, as you're implying: they can make money off *their own* modifications - seems fair enough to me.
What you call "the friggin license" is what many people consider a great example of liberalism and academic spirit.
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Actually it's becuase if I develop something under the BSD license then any company can come and take what I have done and repackage it...and sell it without any credit to me what so ever.
Totally false. Everybody including any BSD licensed code MUST give proper credits to the author, and include the license of that code (in this case, BSD) in any distribution of his work. Please have a look at the BSD license before making a fool of yourself - provided you weren't deliberately spreading FUD, of course. -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
>I never found adequate documentation for how to deal with it (most seemed to assume I already knew what I was doing).
I would suggest this excellent trilogy of articles about FreeBSD ports: Ports Tricks portupgrade Cleaning and Customizing Your Ports Together with the ports chapter on the FreeBSD Handbook, they should pretty much cover anything you'd need to know to work with ports - they did for me. And btw, as another poster already pointed out, the BSD section of Onlamp is a *great* source for BSD technical info.
I've also heard great things about NetBSD's pkgsrc system - I have to try it out some day. -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
I know this stuff hasbeenpostedbefore. But since I've seen that a 3-year-old post spreading FUD over BSD was modded up from "-1 Troll" to "+1 Funny", I thought that - at the risk of burning my karma - it was right to make available to the +1 readers an even funnier collection of *facts*.;)
The single best feature? Choosing the "best" is quite subjective. To me, it's definitely the ports system.
The closest thing you get in the Linux world is Gentoo's portage (which is modeled after *BSD ports). I've never tried it, but those who did found it quite different.
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
>Much more experience in troll squashing than I have. But I do it only when it's worth.;) Anyway, regarding the SMP model, I think it would be wise to wait, in order to say which is the best approach. I don't think it can be inferred by the literature, and all the camps still have a lot of code to write. And if I may suggest one thing, let's be more constructive in criticizing FreeBSD: it can have some regressions due to the new technology, but this hardly means anything regarding the validity of the design. FreeBSD's model might turn out the winner, in the light of BSD's reputation to ultimately do things the Right Way. We'll see
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
IMHO the corrections were both right, but they were made just to draw the attention away from what you were saying. Don't fall for it..;) -- Requiem for the FUD
I'm reluctant to post in BSD-related discussions on Slashdot because they tend to attract the most severely disturbed people on Slashdot (in addition to normal and better-than-normal people...).
I found that installing an easy Linux-based firewall box was an excellent way of getting familiar with Linux without risking my main computer.
I'd like to try setting up a *BSD firewall for the same reason - to get myself familiar with some BSD variation. Can anybody recommend a custom *BSD firewall distribution, or a comprehensive (and current) guide to setting up some-bsd-or-other as a firewall?
OpenBSD makes an excellent firewall, but FreeBSD and NetBSD are good as well, so it's really up to which BSD you'd like to learn first. Personally, I would recommend FreeBSD since it's the most popular, and that makes it an excellent starting point.
Could some kind soul explain me the joke?
I tried - and really bad! - to figure it out, but I really didn't get it.;) -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Slashdot Mirror
This is totally false. The clause you quoted is about endorsement and promotion, it has *nothing* to do with giving credits.
If you use any BSD code in your software, you MUST give credit to the author by distributing the BSD license along with your software, because that license is *still* covering the code you imported.
This is a widespread misconception in the GPL world - that you can "relicense" the BSD code. No, you can't.
This misunderstanding is often used by some people who, like religious zealots, are out to "convert" the BSD code into GPL code. The latest case I saw was the arrogant (and anonymous..) creator of the GPL'd g4l project, who included code from the BSD'd g4u project but stripped away the original license. The copyright infringement is documented here by the g4u author.
For the record: the creator of the g4l project "disappeared" and a new (also anonymous..) maintainer "appeared". This guy now claims that the current version of the g4l project doesn't infringe any copyrights. Even if this were the case, no public acknowledgement and no public apologies were ever made by the g4l maintainer(s) for what has been an episode of blatant code theft.
--
Requiem for the FUD
BSD and GPL have a *very* different spirit. The first one is strongly academic (making the source available with no strings attached, just requiring the user to give credits where they're due), the latter is strongly political (anti-proprietary, and openly communistic since it aims to abolish private property as far as software is concerned).
I don't know about Sam Greenblatt, but the fact that you can't get rid of BSD makes most professional developers very happy.
--
Requiem for the FUD
??
I also linked to randi.org and aaas.org. They're hardly porn sites...
I don't know why the "jesussave" website redirects you - apparently it also happened to another poster - but anyway that "web1000" thing doesn't look like a porn site either.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
The parts which were obviously manipulated (see before and after) are:
:)
Dr. Andrew Miller - eyes
Peggy Miller - eyes
Timothy Allmon - eyes (if you can't see this one, the problem is in *your* eyes
Dr. Troy Franklin - hair
Jose Rosas - mouth
Fred "Skeet" Hoskins - eyes
This is a pretty exhaustive proof that the website is a fake.
--
Requiem for the FUD
I don't feel like digging up this material again just to argue with you
I definitely don't need you to do it..
As i posted in a correction, the link I attached to the word 'proof' was wrong. The actual proof is here.
To sum it up: this is the members page as it is now, and this is what it was (it's stored in a cache site). The faces of the members were obviously edited (compare the eyes, especially. Arguably, they did it in order not to use the face of some actual people). This pretty much proves that the whole website is a fake.
OTOH, I totally agree that the anti-evolution movement is a reality (sadly). It's enough to look at what happens in some schools, as the CEO of the AAAS (the association that publishes Science) is denouncing.
--
Requiem for the FUD
The proof is here! Sorry.
It shows how the faces of the members were "edited".
I know it's goddamn off-topic, but this has to be said: :)
Luckily, it *is* a fake.
Yesterday I fell for it. Then today I googled for "Fellowship University" (where the anti-evolutionist wacko allegedly teaches) and found nothing. So, I found proof that it's a fake - albeit extremely well done!!
I don't feel so bad for falling for it, since the great James Randi fell for it as well! But he soon corrected himself (here and here)
Btw, The JREF website is totally cool. A great resource to debunk all the quackery of our time (from parapsychology to homeopathy).
--
Requiem for the FUD
"I was considering inviting a girl over to install FreeBSD. Does this mean I'm a necrophile?"
;)
If she looks like this, definitely not.
But from your words, I infer you would install Linux rather than FreeBSD and, instead of a girl, you'd invite a big fat penguin.
Now, just don't ask what *that* means.
--
Requiem for the FUD
"If so, why don't we see BSD as popular as linux?"
That's pretty obvious: because the GPL is very favourable to large companies specialized in hardware/assistance (IBM, HP, etc), since it gives them the chance to compete on what they do best and undercut software companies.
( An interesting link )
"BSD fans tell you all the time that BSD license is better for getting businesses and large corporations behind the product."
I really don't think "BSD fans" tell it "all the time", because it would be wrong (unless you restrict that to *software* companies).
What BSD advocates might be telling "all the time" is that the BSD license is more free than the GPL, since it comes with fewer restrictions; that it's much shorter and it avoids legalese, in order to keep lawyers & law issues out of your way; and most of all, that the BSD license reflects an actual academic spirit, unencumbered by any political junk that has hardly anything to do with computer science.
The only point in favor of the GPL is that it's contributing to make the Microsoft monopoly end sooner - and that's actually good.
For the rest, the GPL is just a political manifesto - a *communist* manifesto, to be precise, since its declared purpose is to put an end to private property as far as software is concerned.
"BSD license may be good for business, but it isn't as good for the community, and the users."
Of course it depends on what users you're talking about. For those users who are also professional programmers, the BSD license is obviously better, since it doesn't force you to disclose *your own* code whether you want it or not, like the GPL does.
--
Requiem for the FUD
I think the GPL pretty much sucks (compared to MIT/BSD licenses), but your FUD sucks even more.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Stephen Samuel wrote the following bullshit:
The only place that Microsoft has to include your copyright and the BSD license is in the source code, and nobody outside of Microsoft (and people who sign an NDA) are likely to see that source code.
Again, that's ridiculously false.
Microsoft has to include "your copyright and the BSD license" in every *binary* distribution as well. It's clearly written in the BSD license: "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."
I asked you to get a clue. Now I must think that you actually enjoy making an ass of yourself.
--
Requiem for the FUD
Grandparent is objectively insightful (I wish I wrote it).
And you (parent)... you know, you can advocate the GPL *and* be honest at the same time, it's not forbidden or something.
Try again: it's not that hard!
If you like the ego bost of having a company like Microsoft take your code, close it off to you and make big money charging you (among other people) for access to your own code under their onerous EULAs, -- and if that ego boost is way more important than having your code free and useful to the entire community that uses it (and able to come back to you), then the BSD license is for you.
This is so wrong and clueless that it's actually funny.
Look: I'm *glad* that Microsoft monopoly is coming to an end. Not because I hate Microsoft or Bill Gates (I happen not to be an envious person..) but simply because *monopoly is bad* for everybody. So, the sooner it ends, the better. And GPL, notwithstanding the communistic principles that are behind it, is surely helping that moment to come a bit sooner: good.
But, I'll list here all the nonsense contained in the ridiculous sentence (it's just one sentence!) I quoted.
1) Microsoft can't "take your code". They can *use* it, if they give you proper credits by distributing your BSD license along with *any* software that contains your code. They *must* do it.
2) Microsoft can't "close it off". Your code of course remains free (truly free, IMHO, since it's BSD-licensed). The only thing that they can close off is their own modifications (i.e. *their own* code).
3) Microsoft can't "charge you for access to your own code". They can charge you for their modified versions. And of course, the market laws apply: if their modifications aren't *worth* the price they're charging, nobody's gonna buy their crap.
Get a clue. Please.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
It's quite possible that Microsoft is still using the exact same code, but simply removed all the copyright notices as allowed by the amended BSD licence.
What kind of bullshit is this?
You CAN'T remove the copyright notices by the code that is under a BSD license.
This has nothing to do with the removal of the "advertising clause".
You CAN'T relicense any code that isn't either written by you or put in the public domain.
If you use any BSD code in your software, you MUST give credit to the author by distributing the BSD license along with your software, because that license is *still* covering the code you imported.
Sorry if I used bold but this misunderstanding is quite widespread, and it's just fostered by the stupidity of those claiming, or implying, that BSD code can be "stolen".
Would you mind learning to promote your favourite license (in this case, GPL) without spreading FUD over other licenses like MIT or BSD?
You know, nobody is forcing people to post comments when they don't know a goddamn thing of what they're talking about.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
The modifications themselves may not be more than an effort in making the source incompatible with their product. Thats hardly something i want to fork the dough for. Can you say Kerberos?
:)
I don't know about that case (could you explain or provide some links?). But what on earth would make me buy a piece of software, when it has *no* real enhancements compared to a freely available open source alternative?
My point is, the price I pay for a proprietary product that includes some BSD code is the price I pay for the *enhancements* to that code, because the BSD-licensed software is still a freely available alternative.
If I pay for a proprietary product that has *no* advantages over its free alternative, then I'm paying money for nothing - i.e. I'm an ass.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Because releasing something under a BSD license will result in a big corporation taking your hard work, smack a logo on it and after having made it incompatible with your version, charge YOU for it.
It seems that many GNU/Linux people don't understand that if the big corporation can charge for a modified version of my software, it means that the modifications they made are *worth* that price.
Otherwise, everybody would just get the free, BSD-licensed copy.
So, they're *not* making money off my work, as you're implying: they can make money off *their own* modifications - seems fair enough to me.
What you call "the friggin license" is what many people consider a great example of liberalism and academic spirit.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Actually it's becuase if I develop something under the BSD license then any company can come and take what I have done and repackage it...and sell it without any credit to me what so ever.
Totally false.
Everybody including any BSD licensed code MUST give proper credits to the author, and include the license of that code (in this case, BSD) in any distribution of his work.
Please have a look at the BSD license before making a fool of yourself - provided you weren't deliberately spreading FUD, of course.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
>I don't get it. Is this a troll? ;)
Pretty much.
Requiem for the FUD
>I never found adequate documentation for how to deal with it (most seemed to assume I already knew what I was doing).
I would suggest this excellent trilogy of articles about FreeBSD ports:
Ports Tricks
portupgrade
Cleaning and Customizing Your Ports
Together with the ports chapter on the FreeBSD Handbook, they should pretty much cover anything you'd need to know to work with ports - they did for me.
And btw, as another poster already pointed out, the BSD section of Onlamp is a *great* source for BSD technical info.
I've also heard great things about NetBSD's pkgsrc system - I have to try it out some day.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
But since I've seen that a 3-year-old post spreading FUD over BSD was modded up from "-1 Troll" to "+1 Funny", I thought that - at the risk of burning my karma - it was right to make available to the +1 readers an even funnier collection of *facts*.
FreeBSD:
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
"[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."
NetBSD:
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (30 Sep 2004)
OpenBSD:
OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)
*BSD in general:
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
The single best feature?
Choosing the "best" is quite subjective. To me, it's definitely the ports system.
The closest thing you get in the Linux world is Gentoo's portage (which is modeled after *BSD ports). I've never tried it, but those who did found it quite different.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
>Much more experience in troll squashing than I have. ;)
But I do it only when it's worth.
Anyway, regarding the SMP model, I think it would be wise to wait, in order to say which is the best approach. I don't think it can be inferred by the literature, and all the camps still have a lot of code to write.
And if I may suggest one thing, let's be more constructive in criticizing FreeBSD: it can have some regressions due to the new technology, but this hardly means anything regarding the validity of the design. FreeBSD's model might turn out the winner, in the light of BSD's reputation to ultimately do things the Right Way. We'll see
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
IMHO the corrections were both right, but they were made just to draw the attention away from what you were saying. ;)
Don't fall for it..
--
Requiem for the FUD
I found that installing an easy Linux-based firewall box was an excellent way of getting familiar with Linux without risking my main computer.
I'd like to try setting up a *BSD firewall for the same reason - to get myself familiar with some BSD
variation. Can anybody recommend a custom *BSD firewall distribution, or a comprehensive (and current) guide to setting up some-bsd-or-other as a firewall?
OpenBSD makes an excellent firewall, but FreeBSD and NetBSD are good as well, so it's really up to which BSD you'd like to learn first.
Personally, I would recommend FreeBSD since it's the most popular, and that makes it an excellent starting point.
If I were you I'd ask here as well, for any BSD-related issues
http://www.bsdforums.org/forums/
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Could some kind soul explain me the joke? ;)
I tried - and really bad! - to figure it out, but I really didn't get it.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.