Re:Why can't it be more like Linux?
on
Absolute OpenBSD
·
· Score: 1
The default install doesn't include emacs, so you'll have to suffer through vi.
It *does* include mg, which is a lite version of emacs. Emacs-like but you can't use your dot.emacs files. If you want real emacs, install it from ports.
As the admin of "openbsd dash newbies at sfobug dot org" I can assure you that we aren't hostile to newbies. Not everyone can be born a Unix Guru, so we try to help you learn Unix/OpenBSD. We don't do your work for you, but we'll tell you what FM to read. And we'll be polite about it.
That's why I like the BSD system. Install it from ports, and all depenancies will be installed for you. `make install clean` and walk away. I can install KDE3 that way (why I would *want* to install KDE is an exercise left to the reader. Hint: I would rather sodomize myself with a chainsaw)
1) It *HAS* to be BSD license. If not, it will be almost impossible to add.
2) It has to not suck. No offense, but most linux software out there sucks. By sucking, I mean it has to be free of all bugs, free of any linux-isms (like assuming we have an/opt directory), free of silly dependancies and the like.
3) Whatever it does, it has to do it *well*. BSD s dont take half assed programs.
4) It has to be useful. How useful is it? How much will a desktop user use it? How much will a server admin use it? Will it make a compile faster? Etc, etc.
5) If you make a BSD "clone" of a GPL program. Naturally, don't just take the GPL program, change a variable, and give it the BSD license, that's illegal. Re-implement all of the GPL features in a BSD licensed program, and you'll get the BSDs.
Granted, this isn't the only way to get into the BSDs, but these should give you a start.;-)
The BSD license lets people apply almost any license to my software, including most non-free licenses. If I wrote work under the BSD license, someone could modify it and sell the result with no source code, and I'd have no recourse at all. Anyone who wants can infect my BSD software with the non-free license virus.
That is the point of the BSD license. If you don't agree with it, don't use it. We let you use our code for any reason you want, so why are you bitching?
So, which license is more viral? It sounds to me as if the GPL is getting a bum rap here.
By the way, the BSD license allows you to apply the GPL to a modified BSD work. I've thought about organizing a GPL-ed thread derived from the body of existing BSD-licensed work, just to illustrate a lesson about the BSD license. That would really piss people off, but it would be legal.
It would be legal, but worthless. Unless you made some amazingly cool chnages, and released them under GPL, the BSD people will say "what the hell is that prick doing?", then get back to their code. Even then, they'll look at the code, and see if they can learn something, then apply what they have learned (legal).
Plenty of projects have done that, and the BSD people plain don't care. I am proud that Microsoft used BSD code in their OS. I'm proud that Linux used BSD code in their kernel. I'm proud that (almost) everyone has used BSD code in their project. Let them, it is our gift to the world.
I wouldn't run Linux if you paid me. I use BSD, and MacOS only (and MacOS only at work). I'd be forced to hurt you if you sugguested that I run Windows.;-)
(note: doesn't count for smart-ass slashdot comments)
I have a project to create a single floppy OpenBSD based firewall. FOAF http://theapt.org/openbsd/foaf.html . It works for me(tm) and is currently protecting my home network. I think other people are using it for their home networks, but no-one has told me such.
Just another alternative. BSD and MIT licensed. =)
That's why style(9) was created. Do it one way, the right way, MY way.;-)
(Also, ask all of your contributors to send patches in your style. If you are the main coder for a project, that is an easy thing to handle. If you are part of a team, have the team code in a particular style. Doesn't matter which one, as long as you guys are consistant.)
SSL only tells you if the pipe to the server is "secure". If they are running a proxy SSL server, you SSL to them, they copy your login/password, then forward the connection to the end destination (still SSL'd). Granted, you'd need lots of storage and bandwidth, but it is possible.
Firstly, I never said FreeBSD license. I said "BSD license". Secondly OpenBSD (the version I use, and care about) needs to be free "for use in baby-mulching machines, or to drop atomic bombs on Australia". GPL isn't free to do that.
I brought this up because the Plan9 people want the OpenBSD to take a look at their new license to import their compiler.
BSD protects the developers freedom, by allowing them to use it for any purpose what-so-ever. GPL hurts developers, because their code can't be fully shared. I have no problem with you using the GPL license, just stop calling it free, since it really isn't.
Lies. It is BSD like, as GPL is BSD like. It is not compatable with the BSD license, and none of the features may be incorporated into OpenBSD, due to licensing problems.
Don't talk about compatable. GPL isn't compatable with BSD license, so we can't use your guy's code. You guys can take all you want, but we can't take. I like how GPL is "free".
Pansies. Everyone knows that OpenBSD is the favorite tool of the terrorists. Even DARPA says so:
"As a result of the DARPA review of the project, and due to world events and the evolving threat posed by increasingly capable nation-states, the Government on April 21 advised the University to suspend work on the "security fest" portion of the project." (ie. the OpenBSD c2k3 hackathon) -- Jan Walker, (703) 696-2404, jwalker@darpa.mil
Slashdot Mirror
The default install doesn't include emacs, so you'll have to suffer through vi.
It *does* include mg, which is a lite version of emacs. Emacs-like but you can't use your dot.emacs files. If you want real emacs, install it from ports.
It will run fine until you cross over that 8G mark, and install a new kernel. Then you will have problems.
:P
OpenBSD is working on that, but no-one seems to be testing the code for it.
As the admin of "openbsd dash newbies at sfobug dot org" I can assure you that we aren't hostile to newbies. Not everyone can be born a Unix Guru, so we try to help you learn Unix/OpenBSD. We don't do your work for you, but we'll tell you what FM to read. And we'll be polite about it.
That's why I like the BSD system. Install it from ports, and all depenancies will be installed for you. `make install clean` and walk away. I can install KDE3 that way (why I would *want* to install KDE is an exercise left to the reader. Hint: I would rather sodomize myself with a chainsaw)
The OS* expects main to be int. If you don't want any command line arguments, then you use `int main(void)`.
[*] I mean POSIX/Unix-like OSs.
You ask for the listed price, plus court fees. That is a standard thing.
main is int, not void.
Yea, the Gestapo only went after true enemies of the state. Not some random people that were accidently flagged.
(Note: the above was sarcasm, and was in no way checked for accuracy)
I've met several. It's hard not to bust up laughing at someone, when they are just being polite, and chatting with you.
I think I injured myself when she said "aboot".
1) It *HAS* to be BSD license. If not, it will be almost impossible to add.
/opt directory), free of silly dependancies and the like.
;-)
2) It has to not suck. No offense, but most linux software out there sucks. By sucking, I mean it has to be free of all bugs, free of any linux-isms (like assuming we have an
3) Whatever it does, it has to do it *well*. BSD s dont take half assed programs.
4) It has to be useful. How useful is it? How much will a desktop user use it? How much will a server admin use it? Will it make a compile faster? Etc, etc.
5) If you make a BSD "clone" of a GPL program. Naturally, don't just take the GPL program, change a variable, and give it the BSD license, that's illegal. Re-implement all of the GPL features in a BSD licensed program, and you'll get the BSDs.
Granted, this isn't the only way to get into the BSDs, but these should give you a start.
The BSD license lets people apply almost any license to my software, including most non-free licenses. If I wrote work under the BSD license,
someone could modify it and sell the result with no source code, and I'd have no recourse at all. Anyone who wants can infect my BSD software
with the non-free license virus.
That is the point of the BSD license. If you don't agree with it, don't use it. We let you use our code for any reason you want, so why are you bitching?
So, which license is more viral? It sounds to me as if the GPL is getting a bum rap here.
By the way, the BSD license allows you to apply the GPL to a modified BSD work. I've thought about organizing a GPL-ed thread derived from the body of existing BSD-licensed work, just to illustrate a lesson about the BSD license. That would really piss people off, but it would be legal.
It would be legal, but worthless. Unless you made some amazingly cool chnages, and released them under GPL, the BSD people will say "what the hell is that prick doing?", then get back to their code. Even then, they'll look at the code, and see if they can learn something, then apply what they have learned (legal).
Plenty of projects have done that, and the BSD people plain don't care. I am proud that Microsoft used BSD code in their OS. I'm proud that Linux used BSD code in their kernel. I'm proud that (almost) everyone has used BSD code in their project. Let them, it is our gift to the world.
the compaq enginers who did it, left compaq to form phoenix tech.
Look at IBM or Intel. Compaq reverse enginnered IBM's BIOS.
I am proud that MS can incorporate OpenBSD code into Windows. That is the entire point of the BSD license. =)
I don't see how a judge applying GPL to all MS software would be a joy. I would look at it to figure out the API for Office docs, then run like hell.
woah! that's foul. NOT the screenshots ppl are looking for.
I wouldn't run Linux if you paid me. I use BSD, and MacOS only (and MacOS only at work). I'd be forced to hurt you if you sugguested that I run Windows. ;-)
(note: doesn't count for smart-ass slashdot comments)
fwiw, my setup does this as well. it takes about a week, and I update my server more often than that (I run -current on my server)
I have a project to create a single floppy OpenBSD based firewall. FOAF http://theapt.org/openbsd/foaf.html . It works for me(tm) and is currently protecting my home network. I think other people are using it for their home networks, but no-one has told me such.
Just another alternative. BSD and MIT licensed. =)
That's why style(9) was created. Do it one way, the right way, MY way. ;-)
(Also, ask all of your contributors to send patches in your style. If you are the main coder for a project, that is an easy thing to handle. If you are part of a team, have the team code in a particular style. Doesn't matter which one, as long as you guys are consistant.)
SSL only tells you if the pipe to the server is "secure". If they are running a proxy SSL server, you SSL to them, they copy your login/password, then forward the connection to the end destination (still SSL'd). Granted, you'd need lots of storage and bandwidth, but it is possible.
Because those are closed-source projects.
Firstly, I never said FreeBSD license. I said "BSD license". Secondly OpenBSD (the version I use, and care about) needs to be free "for use in baby-mulching machines, or to drop atomic bombs on Australia". GPL isn't free to do that.
I brought this up because the Plan9 people want the OpenBSD to take a look at their new license to import their compiler.
BSD protects the developers freedom, by allowing them to use it for any purpose what-so-ever. GPL hurts developers, because their code can't be fully shared. I have no problem with you using the GPL license, just stop calling it free, since it really isn't.
Lies. It is BSD like, as GPL is BSD like. It is not compatable with the BSD license, and none of the features may be incorporated into OpenBSD, due to licensing problems.
Don't talk about compatable. GPL isn't compatable with BSD license, so we can't use your guy's code. You guys can take all you want, but we can't take. I like how GPL is "free".
Pansies. Everyone knows that OpenBSD is the favorite tool of the terrorists. Even DARPA says so:
"As a result of the DARPA review of the project, and due to world events and the evolving threat posed by increasingly capable nation-states, the Government on April 21 advised the University to suspend work on the "security fest" portion of the project." (ie. the OpenBSD c2k3 hackathon)
-- Jan Walker, (703) 696-2404, jwalker@darpa.mil