I simply don't want to see any more splits due to semantic differences. Otherwise I'll just refer to the free software movement as the copylefted software movement and/really/ confuse the media.;) It is all about choice.. It just seems silly when people who make the same choice also choose to split into two different camps, thus becoming a mostly symbiotic yet mildly parasitic being to one another.
At least in this case. There really shouldn't have been any reason for a rift to occur in the free software movement, forking off into the open source software movement. People will always have differing opinions, however.. I don't care about all that, though. Not really. I just want to promote understanding. Hence my verbose, rapid-fire arguements against corrupting the use of the term "free software".;)
I enjoyed the exchange, however, though I refuse to use the GPL with regards to highly stylized games (generic ones are cool, though). Other than, yeah, the GPL is damn nifty. Hee hee..
Not unless the law has changed..
on
Dear Mr. Straw
·
· Score: 2
I looked into it a while back, and though IANAL, it seemed to me that you had to be one of a few things: 1) a business person looking for new business oppurtunities (who doesn't want to boost their economy?) 2) someone with job skills immediately transferable to the Canadian job market (and who spoke enough conversational English/and/ French to get by) 3) someone fleeing their country due to some kind of prosecution (often religious or political) 4) if you have a relative in Canada who agrees to sign some stuff and "be responsible" for your financial well-being for up to 10 years.. The last of those 4 (presented in incorrect order, I believe) being the easiest.. If you have a relative in Canada.;) Being your average person who wants to immigrate (sense 2) is, naturally, the most difficult way to get in.
Of course, if you only wanted short term residency, the options opened up quite a bit. Like if you wanted to go to school there. However, you got the boot as soon as you left school and there were some/harsh/ restrictions on what kind of jobs you could get (that is, only those revolving around your major;).
If what I used to know now stands incorrect, that would certainly be exciting (I understand those laws are updated every 6 months to a year or so).. It would certainly open up my options as far as moving somewhere more hospitable is concerned.
Damn straight. Companies like Nortel kind of scare me, though. I always did like Canada's less restrictive laws. Yet another reason why I want to move there. However, I'm a bit annoyed at the law that prevents one from becoming a permanent resident (barring special exceptions) unless you know conversational French. Seems like that would only make sense in Quebec (and who the hell wants to live there..? *ducks and covers*).. The only thing knowing French in Canada will save you from is Canadians who like to say "cute" things about Americans that they can't understand..;) Of course, if you do know French, you get to read everything.. twice.. (yes, this all assumes one knows English.. but then, you kind of have to in order to be reading this, right?)
I'd much prefer those offerings than that of Mr. "I invented the Internet.. Who's this Tim Berners-Lee guy?" or Mr. "My father was a loser who couldn't get a second term even though Clinton did but you'll vote me in because he's my father anyway".. Ugh. I might actually vote if McCain and Bradley get nominated.;)
Actually.. (Offtopic remark to offtopic joke ;)
on
Dear Mr. Straw
·
· Score: 2
I don't think McCain is all that bad, so far. I, like many others, have suffered under the delusion that one party is liberal, and the other is conservative, when they are really just two like-minded groups fighting over the same piece of pie.;)
"This is why such sober organisations as British Telecom, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft have publicly criticised the Bill at each stage of its development."
Microsoft doing some good in the world besides giving us the WAV format? Nifty. I'm still not sure I would refer to them as "sober" (they seem to prefer free beer to free speech.. most of the time, anyway;).
"Right, the GPL restricts your rights to guarantee the rights of others."
I'm not sure I follow. Even if this were true (the usual arguement is that the designer is then bereft of their rights, which are then dispersed into the community as a whole), the GPL only restricts what the designer of the software allows it to restrict. GPL'ed software is just as useless to proprietary people as proprietary software is to the rest of us, with regards to a certain point of view.
"But I think that "Open Source" is more discriptive of the idea of the GPL then "free" does."
Not really. Open source is an easily corruptible term. In fact, most businesses have already corrupted it (no thanks to people such as ESR and his followers). All open source means is that you get to look at the code. Thus, the NPL and SCSL are both "open source", but come nowhere close to doing what the GPL aims to achieve. Non-believers really should read the Philosophy section of the GNU Project's Web site.
For a more eclectic point of view, think about the Alamo. The defenders of the Alamo said they were free. Not free today, yesterday, or even tomorrow, but forever. They would not later be stripped of their freedom, and made into slaves due to someone else's whim. They would fight anyone who sought to take away their freedom. This is the kind of ideal that the GPL and the philosophy behind it represents. Sure, the defenders of the Alamo couldn't make the Mexican Army happy that way, but is that something they really wanted to do..? In order to stay free you have to stand up for yourself. BSD licensing.. does not do this.
To quote Stallman himself: "Non-copyleft licenses such as the XFree86 and BSD licenses are based on the idea of never saying no to anyone--not even to someone who seeks to use your work as the basis for restricting other people. Non-copyleft licensing does nothing wrong, but it misses the opportunity to actively protect our freedom to change and redistribute software. For that, we need copyleft." So, before you say that the GPL isn't "free", think again about what kind of "freedom" we are really talking about.
"The GPL ensures that the code will always be open source. "Free" implies the ability to do anything you want with it. The BSD allows this."
As I said, a usual BSD fanatic point of view. This isn't the kind of "freedom" Richard Stallman is advocating, however. Again, refer to the aforementioned section of the FSF site. And the BSD license does/not/ allow me to do whatever I want with it. The two licenses aren't precisely compatible, so I can't integrate GPL'ed and BSD'ed software freely (that is, mix the code in the same program). That's not entirely "free" based on the way you seem to define the term, now is it?
"There are benefits to each. Don't forget that. We need them both. But they *do* serve different purposes."
Yup. Of course not. Nope. Yup.
I much prefer the LGPL to the BSD flavor of licensing. Much much prefer. Of course, I'd rather the GPL, but sometimes you just/have/ to set a standard by using the LGPL because you need to succeed (and not because you just want to be popular).
In closing, I shall quote Stallman one last time: "Friends, free software developers, don't repeat a mistake. If we do not copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can defend freedom, not just for ourselves, but for ourw hole community."
I shall also cite an example: "The spirit of both licenses is to allow users access to the source code of the programs they are running, so that they can make modifications to suit their needs, and that they can share this code with others. However, while the BSD license only encourages people to share the improvements they make, the GPL requires people to do so if they want to distribute their modifications. Since Tim felt that people were exploiting Kaffe without contributing their improvements back to the main code base, he decided to use the more restrictive GPL for versions of Kaffe that are more recent than 0.9.2." That's from the Kaffe home page.. The licensing FAQ, to be specific.
The now obligatory cheap shot: In short, there's a big difference between being liberal and being "someone's bitch" just because you want to be popular.;)
Care to point to a good (re: specific) resource which tracks the entire history of BSD to, well, whatever was derived from it? Like Free/Net/Open.. The various project pages sure don't do the most exciting job of doing so.;)
However, The History of the NetBSD Project might prove to be of some interest to a few.. Specifically the little graphic toward the bottom. Not the most precise thing in the world, but it certainly suggests that NetBSD and FreeBSD aren't based solely on 4.4 Lite..
It all goes back to that "promote understanding" thing, which I'm all for. I personally don't find tracking the history of *BSD to be the most exciting thing in the world, but it could prove.. useful.. in certain situations.
"You have to remember that Mac OS X is based off of a lot of NeXTstep code, and also a lot of NetBSD code (or possibly FreeBSD code, I'm not sure)."
..I was talking specifically about BSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD. I guess I could have been a little more specific when I said "derivatives", but I was certainly not talking about NeXTstep or anything else, really. I'm not sure why I bothered with any derivatives, however, since the post I replied to only mentioned "BSD".:)
I was a little too vague, I imagine. At the time I wrote that post, I was thinking about an article I'd read previously where one of the members of one of the "port Linux to Mac" projects was saying that Apple should just make the hardware and let them make the OS. It would certainly save them time and money since they wouldn't have to develop anything in that area ("they" being Apple).
"If Apple were to GPL Mac OS X, they would still be the principal developers for, at the very least, quite some time (look at how Mozilla started) and would probably not make money from it."
At any rate.. Mozilla would have more support if it was GPL'ed rather than MPL'ed. The license sucks. Not as much as the NPL, but enough. So would most any GPL'ed project that had any worth to it at all.
"OTOH, Dell is not a principal developer of either RH or Windows."
Of course not. The point being, a lot of people might be more excited about the new PPC chips developed by IBM and Motorola if you could use them in a Mac without being subject to MacOS. I know of a few myself, at the very least. Personally, I'm still waiting for all of the promised architecture support that Debian is slated to have in the hopefully not-so-distant future.;)
" "I see Linux as irrelevant from my perspective as an advocate for everyday computer users," says Joe Ragosta, maintainer of the Complete Macintosh Page. "It's a great geek OS for people who want to be cooler than everyone else... As such, there's no way it can compete for the average user. Heck, I've dealt with enough average users who can't figure out where the 'start' menu is, much less how to install and manage a Linux system. While the newer versions are better in this regard, they're nowhere close to the ease of use of the Mac, or even Windows." "
This guy is a complete and utter tool (you saw it here first, Kish's first use of "format tags" on Slashdot). Who here actually uses GNU/Linux to be "cool"? And what makes this luser think that GNU/Linux isn't going to swiftly evolve into something for your average hacker/and/ Joe Public? And who else is getting sick of the "easy to use" card? I personally find GNU/Linux a/lot/ easier to use than either Windows or MacOS.. No OS is intuitive, and thus, "easy to use".. Some are simply easier for certain people to learn than others.
..at least not on the scale you wrote about.;) It's simply about choice. Some people seem to think it's just a popularity contest still, however.. It's just about providing an alternative in case someone wants it. It's not supposed to be about forcing that alternative down someone's throat.
"Wow, I can't believe this is an issue. Are Linux users really out to stifle other OSs?"
There are fanatics who use utter deception, outright lies, and other misconceptions on/both/ sides of the *BSD vs. GNU/Linux fence. Personally, I despise them all. I'm all for choice. If you don't like the GPL, fine. Don't use it. If you don't like other licenses, fine, don't use them. If you don't like such and such OS, fine. Don't use it already! Just don't lie about any of the above just to "get more mindshare" as one FreeBSD drone who is a little too able to impress his opinions on the public once told me was ok. Just let the truth be known and let everyone decide for themselves. The free software movement isn't about coddling people, ok? It's about choice. Let's keep it that way.
BSD- or X-style licenses are simply one step away from being public domain. Saying the GPL isn't free, no matter what else you say, is ludicrous. If the GPL were "free" in the way BSD fanatics think of the term, no one would give a damn about "free software" (or "open source" or whatever other even more ambiguous term you want to use instead of the correct one..).
Free software is all about making it free for everyone, and making damn sure that it stays that way.. Because if you don't have the sledgehammer ready in case someone tries to take that free software and make it proprietary, someone is going to do just that. Every time. That's why *BSD isn't nearly as popular. The GPL is certainly less restrictive than most any other license. The BSD license is pretty much pointless. It might as well not even be a license.
I'm not sure what you were aiming to accomplish by reiterating something all of us/should/ know, though you seemed to do a remarkable job of clouding the issue with some very odd semantic takes on things.
Unix, BSD, subsequent derivatives.. Their implementations (each one considered individually) would of course be rather consistent due to their heritage, and the fact that relatively small groups work on the OS proper. Thus, being consistent is relatively easy.
"The more I delve into Linux, the more I get confused by the different ways everything has to be done. I think this is a symptom of the "hack it till it just works" mentality."
Are you referring to the kernel proper? If so, I'm sure a lot of people would like to point out how incredibly anal Torvalds really is, and just how elegant anything suggested for inclusion in the kernel really has to be in order to "make the grade".;)
At any rate, the "hack till it just works" seems to be an increasingly common misconception typically associated with GNU/Linux and its various advocates. Perhaps some day people will think of some more devious FUD to cater to the masses with.
"I'm not a *nix person, but I will venture a guess anyway.:) I'd say that the BSD code is more mature than Linux. For example, as I understand, Linux doesn't work well in multiprocessor systems."
BSD and its derivatives are direct descendants of the original Unix. Thus they use a lot of tried and true code. However, they also suffer from a lot of really horribly archaic code. The Linux kernel advances a little slower than it could because Torvalds is seriously anal, and doesn't allow for any kind of kludge. In the end, this is going to pay off.. big time. Elegance is not to be underestimated, even if it takes a little time.
"How would you ensure profitability by just building the hardware?"
That's paramount to asking how Dell makes money even though they don't build Windows or Red Hat. Besides, you don't exactly see people buying MacOS. They buy the computer. AFAIK, you are only allowed to put MacOS on a Mac anyway (not that it would be useful/desirable to stick it on a non-Mac in the first place). Thus they aren't really selling the software, they are selling the hardware. How do they make a profit? By not spending money building the software and just make the hardware. Same sales, less money to put up to get them. Perhaps even more sales.
"Obviously, the goals of free software are going to clash head-on with you if you try to make your hardware work "best" with the software that you're developing in the open."
Just build good hardware. Don't try to give yourself an "edge" a la Wintel. It's what we all want, anyway. Good hardware.
I believe the poster to whom you are replying to mentioned that/FreeBSD/ doesn't run on PPC. Not exactly the same thing as NetBSD. A la:
"As far as I know, FreeBSD doesn't yet run on PowerPC (a port is underway perhaps?)."
AFAIK: Unix is simply Unix. Classic. BSD is yet another fork in Unix development. A derivative. NetBSD is a derivative of BSD. FreeBSD and OpenBSD forked off from NetBSD. Thus are there three major flavors of BSD that are "free". Only only is called FreeBSD, however.;)
"I think one of the major problems with tossing around the phrase "easy-to-use" is that no-one ever really defines who is supposed to find it easier."
Too true.
"Ultimately, if the "ease-of-use" factor strays too far below the user's skill/knowledge level, s/he's going to find the OS getting in their way with too many wizards and "are you sure?" dialogs. If "ease-of-use" was keyed to a more advanced user, the user's going to be intimidated by the system, and may never use it to the fullest."
I disagree. Having a GUI and a CLI on the same OS is hardly any kind of innovation. And it allows for precisely the paradoxical thing trying to be accomplished.
"Does the system get out of their way once they've learned these tasks? Or does it force them to continue to use the "easy-to-use" wizards and whatnot?"
Even in Windows you could switch over to DOS and avoid all that if you knew the system well.:) However, I would like to make a point that while the GNU/Linux overall GUI should make things simpler, it should/never/ be dumbed down to the level of Windows. That's just more annoying than.. useful.
"The real problem here is that there is no such thing as one-size-fits all. Personally, I think that is misguided and silly to try to do it. Look @ Windows. It tries to be all things to all people, and as a result, isn't. Is that what we want Linux to aspire to? I don't think so..."
As you pointed out earlier, there's no way for a computer to be immediately usable by someone with no aptitude for computing at all (and no experience). However, you can certainly design a system that allows for advanced users to "get at the computer" (unlike MacOS), yet appeal to those who do not wish to use the more advanced capabilities of their system (like [insert favorite "suck" OS with a pretty GUI here]). Hell, even advanced users find X to be useful as well as entertaining.;)
Besides, when you come right down to it, Windows isn't really a good example for much of anything except what a really good marketing campaign will do for sales. There's certainly no true comparison between GNU/Linux and Windows. GNU/Linux is on a much higher level..
"The interesting challenge for linux: Keep the command-line power for those who want it, but a consumer user should NEVER have to see it."
For one, there already is a lot of drive that has been pushed behind the "user-friendly desktop environment with pretty graphical interfaces and all the other things Joe Public has come to know and love, even point and click!" category. Joe Public will probably never try to custom install an OS on his own. He doesn't even have to do that with Windows. Whenever you buy a Windows computer, it's already pretty much set up and ready to go (well, except for those stupid "registration" things I've been seeing a lot of.. damn those are annoying), and they usually include a little disc that allows you to reinstall.. a real no-brainer reinstall. This would hardly be difficult to do for GNU/Linux. Preconfiguration is Joe Public's best friend. Once the GUI apps become more user-friendly, and the computer companies stop thinking that GNU/Linux is just a "server OS", then this "challenge" will have been accomplished. After all, it's not like you're condemned to spend your entire life in X. You can go to the command-line if you want to. Joe Public probably won't want to. Just like Joe Public doesn't switch out of the Windows GUI and play around in DOS, even though he could. Ha!
"I love my Macs, but I can easily say that Macs will always be a niche product, and so will Linux."
I rather doubt GNU/Linux will be relagated to a "niche market". Considering the development model and its growing support, there's nothing it could not theoretically accomplish. However, it's becoming less of a "theory" every day.. What will actually happen is anybody's guess, but I seriously doubt GNU/Linux will incur the intense beating Java did after the hype settled down.;)
"How can you get that worked up just because someone says that they like to use a Mac? Or Windows?"
Personally, I could care less what anyone uses on their desktop. It's when people involve themselves in a holy war and introduce their slanted views as reasons why, say, Windows is "technically superior" to GNU/Linux that makes me whip out the beating stick (I'd say clue-by-four, but you know, most of those nuts couldn't get a clue if it were a sledgehammer caving in their skull).;)
"Any moron can learn HTML."
Yes and no.. Sure, anyone can learn HTML.. sort of. I've yet to see/any/ Web site that structures HTML as well as I do (and no, I'm not being egotistical.. it's ridiculously easy to make perfectly compliant, legible HTML source.. the point is, few bother to either a) learn how or b) use what they learned effectively). Most "Web designers" think if you throw up a few Active Server Pages, Java applets, and JavaScript crap, you're "studly". I think it's pathetic. Keep it nice, keep it clean. I have, however, seen a few HTML compliant sites that were better than your average corporate or "home page" site (yeah, I lump those together because they usually suck just as bad as the other).
"Apple succeeds in the face of obsolecsence because it is easy to use. Windows exists because it's users don't have to know anything to type up a letter and print it out."
As someone pointed out in a previous discussion, these GUIs aren't precisely "intuitive". Sure, they may be a little easier for Joe Public to grasp than other interfaces, but you might be surprised at how many people can't even figure out how to use Windows. At all. Thus do I disagree. You have to know something about it to use it. It's just that many people have been conditioned by it and so/see/ it as being "intuitive".. I wasn't born knowing how to use Windows, I learned it. Of course, some people grasp these things easier than others.. But learn it they still have to do.;)
Rather doubtful. Changing the world is a silly notion at best. The most you can hope for is changing your own little part of it, or making your own contribution to making it a better place. It's the sum of all of these little contributions from each individual that shapes the future of our world. Everything about each individual shapes this future. Each in their own, very small way, but since we have so many very small contributions to the world, unwitting or not (you simply can't help but affect your surroundings.. even with inaction), the world is constantly evolving. As do all things. And of course the world is more than just the sum of its parts.;)
By the way, if everyone contented themselves with whatever, and didn't care about changing the world for the better, the world would change. It would grow steadily worse. Without people to care about the world, the people in it, and how everything affects everything else, just where would we be? Someone has to take on some responsibility. Especially in an age where apathy is a more and more acceptable alternative to the average person every day..
"Unix was very important for computing, and so was Apple's GUI."
Still are. No need for the past tense, here.
"But in the same way that the Windows GUI is not innovative but rather based on Apple's, isn't Linux based on Unix?"
A couple of key points need to be asserted here.. 1) Ambiguous usage of the term "based on" can get one into a lot of semantic trouble.. 2) Yeah, the Windows GUI is a MacOS GUI clone AFAIK, but there's a problem.. it was reinvented.. quite poorly..
To elaborate on point 1: NetBSD is "based on" BSD, which is "based on" Unix. The Windows GUI is a clone of the MacOS GUI, and GNU/Linux is a Unix clone. They are clones and not "based on" because they are not derived from the original source code. They are different implementations that attempt to achieve the same goals as what they are "cloning".
"Windows market share dwarfs that of the MacOS and it's quite possible that Linux will dwarf the market share of Unix, but Linux will never be innovative in the revolutionary sense that Unix was."
The idea behind GNU/Linux is/quite/ innovative for this day and age. Your comment basically implies to me that you don't believe GNU/Linux will be any significant change from Unix. I would like to differ. Most operating systems I know of were either created by a company, or derived from one that was. GNU/Linux is neither. And it's turning the software community on its head. Not in the way Java did, either. Java had hype, but no punch. GNU/Linux is a serious sock to your jaw, and doesn't even have a focused marketing campaign.. yet it has caught fire and now everyone's eyes are on it as it edges closer and closer to being friendly enough to Joe Public that he will want to install it on his desktop.
Besides, GNU/Linux only truly aimed to be compatible with Unix. POSIX helps us to play nice with each other. Now the software being written for GNU/Linux is taking off in every direction imaginable. Soon the differences between Unix and GNU/Linux will dwarf the similarities for many. Most of its base components that were designed as free alternatives to the more traditional ones are already a bit more powerful. GZIP, anyone? Besides, most clones are poor reinventions of the wheel. And stay that way. This one evolves. And never sat still for anyone or anything trying to force it to play the "poor cousin" to anything else, least of all Unix. Personally, I can't wait until Berlin is ready for some serious action.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course not.. It was Al Gore. ;)
No, the chances of getting a straight answer out of me on this thread are decidedly not good. Why? Because it's funny. So laugh. :)
I simply don't want to see any more splits due to semantic differences. Otherwise I'll just refer to the free software movement as the copylefted software movement and /really/ confuse the media. ;) It is all about choice.. It just seems silly when people who make the same choice also choose to split into two different camps, thus becoming a mostly symbiotic yet mildly parasitic being to one another.
At least in this case. There really shouldn't have been any reason for a rift to occur in the free software movement, forking off into the open source software movement. People will always have differing opinions, however.. I don't care about all that, though. Not really. I just want to promote understanding. Hence my verbose, rapid-fire arguements against corrupting the use of the term "free software". ;)
I enjoyed the exchange, however, though I refuse to use the GPL with regards to highly stylized games (generic ones are cool, though). Other than, yeah, the GPL is damn nifty. Hee hee..
I looked into it a while back, and though IANAL, it seemed to me that you had to be one of a few things: 1) a business person looking for new business oppurtunities (who doesn't want to boost their economy?) 2) someone with job skills immediately transferable to the Canadian job market (and who spoke enough conversational English /and/ French to get by) 3) someone fleeing their country due to some kind of prosecution (often religious or political) 4) if you have a relative in Canada who agrees to sign some stuff and "be responsible" for your financial well-being for up to 10 years.. The last of those 4 (presented in incorrect order, I believe) being the easiest.. If you have a relative in Canada. ;) Being your average person who wants to immigrate (sense 2) is, naturally, the most difficult way to get in.
Of course, if you only wanted short term residency, the options opened up quite a bit. Like if you wanted to go to school there. However, you got the boot as soon as you left school and there were some /harsh/ restrictions on what kind of jobs you could get (that is, only those revolving around your major ;).
If what I used to know now stands incorrect, that would certainly be exciting (I understand those laws are updated every 6 months to a year or so).. It would certainly open up my options as far as moving somewhere more hospitable is concerned.
Damn straight. Companies like Nortel kind of scare me, though. I always did like Canada's less restrictive laws. Yet another reason why I want to move there. However, I'm a bit annoyed at the law that prevents one from becoming a permanent resident (barring special exceptions) unless you know conversational French. Seems like that would only make sense in Quebec (and who the hell wants to live there..? *ducks and covers*).. The only thing knowing French in Canada will save you from is Canadians who like to say "cute" things about Americans that they can't understand.. ;) Of course, if you do know French, you get to read everything.. twice.. (yes, this all assumes one knows English.. but then, you kind of have to in order to be reading this, right?)
I'd much prefer those offerings than that of Mr. "I invented the Internet.. Who's this Tim Berners-Lee guy?" or Mr. "My father was a loser who couldn't get a second term even though Clinton did but you'll vote me in because he's my father anyway".. Ugh. I might actually vote if McCain and Bradley get nominated. ;)
I don't think McCain is all that bad, so far. I, like many others, have suffered under the delusion that one party is liberal, and the other is conservative, when they are really just two like-minded groups fighting over the same piece of pie. ;)
"This is why such sober organisations as British Telecom, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft have publicly criticised the Bill at each stage of its development."
Microsoft doing some good in the world besides giving us the WAV format? Nifty. I'm still not sure I would refer to them as "sober" (they seem to prefer free beer to free speech.. most of the time, anyway ;).
"Right, the GPL restricts your rights to guarantee the rights of others."
I'm not sure I follow. Even if this were true (the usual arguement is that the designer is then bereft of their rights, which are then dispersed into the community as a whole), the GPL only restricts what the designer of the software allows it to restrict. GPL'ed software is just as useless to proprietary people as proprietary software is to the rest of us, with regards to a certain point of view.
"But I think that "Open Source" is more discriptive of the idea of the GPL then "free" does."
Not really. Open source is an easily corruptible term. In fact, most businesses have already corrupted it (no thanks to people such as ESR and his followers). All open source means is that you get to look at the code. Thus, the NPL and SCSL are both "open source", but come nowhere close to doing what the GPL aims to achieve. Non-believers really should read the Philosophy section of the GNU Project's Web site.
For a more eclectic point of view, think about the Alamo. The defenders of the Alamo said they were free. Not free today, yesterday, or even tomorrow, but forever. They would not later be stripped of their freedom, and made into slaves due to someone else's whim. They would fight anyone who sought to take away their freedom. This is the kind of ideal that the GPL and the philosophy behind it represents. Sure, the defenders of the Alamo couldn't make the Mexican Army happy that way, but is that something they really wanted to do..? In order to stay free you have to stand up for yourself. BSD licensing.. does not do this.
To quote Stallman himself: "Non-copyleft licenses such as the XFree86 and BSD licenses are based on the idea of never saying no to anyone--not even to someone who seeks to use your work as the basis for restricting other people. Non-copyleft licensing does nothing wrong, but it misses the opportunity to actively protect our freedom to change and redistribute software. For that, we need copyleft." So, before you say that the GPL isn't "free", think again about what kind of "freedom" we are really talking about.
"The GPL ensures that the code will always be open source. "Free" implies the ability to do anything you want with it. The BSD allows this."
As I said, a usual BSD fanatic point of view. This isn't the kind of "freedom" Richard Stallman is advocating, however. Again, refer to the aforementioned section of the FSF site. And the BSD license does /not/ allow me to do whatever I want with it. The two licenses aren't precisely compatible, so I can't integrate GPL'ed and BSD'ed software freely (that is, mix the code in the same program). That's not entirely "free" based on the way you seem to define the term, now is it?
"There are benefits to each. Don't forget that. We need them both. But they *do* serve different purposes."
Yup. Of course not. Nope. Yup.
I much prefer the LGPL to the BSD flavor of licensing. Much much prefer. Of course, I'd rather the GPL, but sometimes you just /have/ to set a standard by using the LGPL because you need to succeed (and not because you just want to be popular).
In closing, I shall quote Stallman one last time: "Friends, free software developers, don't repeat a mistake. If we do not copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can defend freedom, not just for ourselves, but for ourw hole community."
I shall also cite an example: "The spirit of both licenses is to allow users access to the source code of the programs they are running, so that they can make modifications to suit their needs, and that they can share this code with others. However, while the BSD license only encourages people to share the improvements they make, the GPL requires people to do so if they want to distribute their modifications. Since Tim felt that people were exploiting Kaffe without contributing their improvements back to the main code base, he decided to use the more restrictive GPL for versions of Kaffe that are more recent than 0.9.2." That's from the Kaffe home page.. The licensing FAQ, to be specific.
The now obligatory cheap shot: In short, there's a big difference between being liberal and being "someone's bitch" just because you want to be popular. ;)
Care to point to a good (re: specific) resource which tracks the entire history of BSD to, well, whatever was derived from it? Like Free/Net/Open.. The various project pages sure don't do the most exciting job of doing so. ;)
However, The History of the NetBSD Project might prove to be of some interest to a few.. Specifically the little graphic toward the bottom. Not the most precise thing in the world, but it certainly suggests that NetBSD and FreeBSD aren't based solely on 4.4 Lite..
It all goes back to that "promote understanding" thing, which I'm all for. I personally don't find tracking the history of *BSD to be the most exciting thing in the world, but it could prove.. useful.. in certain situations.
"You have to remember that Mac OS X is based off of a lot of NeXTstep code, and also a lot of NetBSD code (or possibly FreeBSD code, I'm not sure)."
..I was talking specifically about BSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD. I guess I could have been a little more specific when I said "derivatives", but I was certainly not talking about NeXTstep or anything else, really. I'm not sure why I bothered with any derivatives, however, since the post I replied to only mentioned "BSD". :)
I was a little too vague, I imagine. At the time I wrote that post, I was thinking about an article I'd read previously where one of the members of one of the "port Linux to Mac" projects was saying that Apple should just make the hardware and let them make the OS. It would certainly save them time and money since they wouldn't have to develop anything in that area ("they" being Apple).
"If Apple were to GPL Mac OS X, they would still be the principal developers for, at the very least, quite some time (look at how Mozilla started) and would probably not make money from it."
At any rate.. Mozilla would have more support if it was GPL'ed rather than MPL'ed. The license sucks. Not as much as the NPL, but enough. So would most any GPL'ed project that had any worth to it at all.
"OTOH, Dell is not a principal developer of either RH or Windows."
Of course not. The point being, a lot of people might be more excited about the new PPC chips developed by IBM and Motorola if you could use them in a Mac without being subject to MacOS. I know of a few myself, at the very least. Personally, I'm still waiting for all of the promised architecture support that Debian is slated to have in the hopefully not-so-distant future. ;)
" "I see Linux as irrelevant from my perspective as an advocate for everyday computer users," says Joe Ragosta, maintainer of the Complete Macintosh Page. "It's a great geek OS for people who want to be cooler than everyone else ... As such, there's no way it can compete for the average user. Heck, I've dealt with enough average users who can't figure out where the 'start' menu is, much less how to install and manage a Linux system. While the newer versions are better in this regard, they're nowhere close to the ease of use of the Mac, or even Windows." "
This guy is a complete and utter tool (you saw it here first, Kish's first use of "format tags" on Slashdot). Who here actually uses GNU/Linux to be "cool"? And what makes this luser think that GNU/Linux isn't going to swiftly evolve into something for your average hacker /and/ Joe Public? And who else is getting sick of the "easy to use" card? I personally find GNU/Linux a /lot/ easier to use than either Windows or MacOS.. No OS is intuitive, and thus, "easy to use".. Some are simply easier for certain people to learn than others.
..at least not on the scale you wrote about. ;) It's simply about choice. Some people seem to think it's just a popularity contest still, however.. It's just about providing an alternative in case someone wants it. It's not supposed to be about forcing that alternative down someone's throat.
"Wow, I can't believe this is an issue. Are Linux users really out to stifle other OSs?"
There are fanatics who use utter deception, outright lies, and other misconceptions on /both/ sides of the *BSD vs. GNU/Linux fence. Personally, I despise them all. I'm all for choice. If you don't like the GPL, fine. Don't use it. If you don't like other licenses, fine, don't use them. If you don't like such and such OS, fine. Don't use it already! Just don't lie about any of the above just to "get more mindshare" as one FreeBSD drone who is a little too able to impress his opinions on the public once told me was ok. Just let the truth be known and let everyone decide for themselves. The free software movement isn't about coddling people, ok? It's about choice. Let's keep it that way.
BSD- or X-style licenses are simply one step away from being public domain. Saying the GPL isn't free, no matter what else you say, is ludicrous. If the GPL were "free" in the way BSD fanatics think of the term, no one would give a damn about "free software" (or "open source" or whatever other even more ambiguous term you want to use instead of the correct one..).
Free software is all about making it free for everyone, and making damn sure that it stays that way.. Because if you don't have the sledgehammer ready in case someone tries to take that free software and make it proprietary, someone is going to do just that. Every time. That's why *BSD isn't nearly as popular. The GPL is certainly less restrictive than most any other license. The BSD license is pretty much pointless. It might as well not even be a license.
I'm not sure what you were aiming to accomplish by reiterating something all of us /should/ know, though you seemed to do a remarkable job of clouding the issue with some very odd semantic takes on things.
Unix, BSD, subsequent derivatives.. Their implementations (each one considered individually) would of course be rather consistent due to their heritage, and the fact that relatively small groups work on the OS proper. Thus, being consistent is relatively easy.
"The more I delve into Linux, the more I get confused by the different ways everything has to be done. I think this is a symptom of the "hack it till it just works" mentality."
Are you referring to the kernel proper? If so, I'm sure a lot of people would like to point out how incredibly anal Torvalds really is, and just how elegant anything suggested for inclusion in the kernel really has to be in order to "make the grade". ;)
At any rate, the "hack till it just works" seems to be an increasingly common misconception typically associated with GNU/Linux and its various advocates. Perhaps some day people will think of some more devious FUD to cater to the masses with.
"I'm not a *nix person, but I will venture a guess anyway. :) I'd say that the BSD code is more mature than Linux. For example, as I understand, Linux doesn't work well in multiprocessor systems."
BSD and its derivatives are direct descendants of the original Unix. Thus they use a lot of tried and true code. However, they also suffer from a lot of really horribly archaic code. The Linux kernel advances a little slower than it could because Torvalds is seriously anal, and doesn't allow for any kind of kludge. In the end, this is going to pay off.. big time. Elegance is not to be underestimated, even if it takes a little time.
"How would you ensure profitability by just building the hardware?"
That's paramount to asking how Dell makes money even though they don't build Windows or Red Hat. Besides, you don't exactly see people buying MacOS. They buy the computer. AFAIK, you are only allowed to put MacOS on a Mac anyway (not that it would be useful/desirable to stick it on a non-Mac in the first place). Thus they aren't really selling the software, they are selling the hardware. How do they make a profit? By not spending money building the software and just make the hardware. Same sales, less money to put up to get them. Perhaps even more sales.
"Obviously, the goals of free software are going to clash head-on with you if you try to make your hardware work "best" with the software that you're developing in the open."
Just build good hardware. Don't try to give yourself an "edge" a la Wintel. It's what we all want, anyway. Good hardware.
I believe the poster to whom you are replying to mentioned that /FreeBSD/ doesn't run on PPC. Not exactly the same thing as NetBSD. A la:
"As far as I know, FreeBSD doesn't yet run on PowerPC (a port is underway perhaps?)."
AFAIK: Unix is simply Unix. Classic. BSD is yet another fork in Unix development. A derivative. NetBSD is a derivative of BSD. FreeBSD and OpenBSD forked off from NetBSD. Thus are there three major flavors of BSD that are "free". Only only is called FreeBSD, however. ;)
"I think one of the major problems with tossing around the phrase "easy-to-use" is that no-one ever really defines who is supposed to find it easier."
Too true.
"Ultimately, if the "ease-of-use" factor strays too far below the user's skill/knowledge level, s/he's going to find the OS getting in their way with too many wizards and "are you sure?" dialogs. If "ease-of-use" was keyed to a more advanced user, the user's going to be intimidated by the system, and may never use it to the fullest."
I disagree. Having a GUI and a CLI on the same OS is hardly any kind of innovation. And it allows for precisely the paradoxical thing trying to be accomplished.
"Does the system get out of their way once they've learned these tasks? Or does it force them to continue to use the "easy-to-use" wizards and whatnot?"
Even in Windows you could switch over to DOS and avoid all that if you knew the system well. :) However, I would like to make a point that while the GNU/Linux overall GUI should make things simpler, it should /never/ be dumbed down to the level of Windows. That's just more annoying than.. useful.
"The real problem here is that there is no such thing as one-size-fits all. Personally, I think that is misguided and silly to try to do it. Look @ Windows. It tries to be all things to all people, and as a result, isn't. Is that what we want Linux to aspire to? I don't think so..."
As you pointed out earlier, there's no way for a computer to be immediately usable by someone with no aptitude for computing at all (and no experience). However, you can certainly design a system that allows for advanced users to "get at the computer" (unlike MacOS), yet appeal to those who do not wish to use the more advanced capabilities of their system (like [insert favorite "suck" OS with a pretty GUI here]). Hell, even advanced users find X to be useful as well as entertaining. ;)
Besides, when you come right down to it, Windows isn't really a good example for much of anything except what a really good marketing campaign will do for sales. There's certainly no true comparison between GNU/Linux and Windows. GNU/Linux is on a much higher level..
"The interesting challenge for linux: Keep the command-line power for those who want it, but a consumer user should NEVER have to see it."
For one, there already is a lot of drive that has been pushed behind the "user-friendly desktop environment with pretty graphical interfaces and all the other things Joe Public has come to know and love, even point and click!" category. Joe Public will probably never try to custom install an OS on his own. He doesn't even have to do that with Windows. Whenever you buy a Windows computer, it's already pretty much set up and ready to go (well, except for those stupid "registration" things I've been seeing a lot of.. damn those are annoying), and they usually include a little disc that allows you to reinstall.. a real no-brainer reinstall. This would hardly be difficult to do for GNU/Linux. Preconfiguration is Joe Public's best friend. Once the GUI apps become more user-friendly, and the computer companies stop thinking that GNU/Linux is just a "server OS", then this "challenge" will have been accomplished. After all, it's not like you're condemned to spend your entire life in X. You can go to the command-line if you want to. Joe Public probably won't want to. Just like Joe Public doesn't switch out of the Windows GUI and play around in DOS, even though he could. Ha!
"I love my Macs, but I can easily say that Macs will always be a niche product, and so will Linux."
I rather doubt GNU/Linux will be relagated to a "niche market". Considering the development model and its growing support, there's nothing it could not theoretically accomplish. However, it's becoming less of a "theory" every day.. What will actually happen is anybody's guess, but I seriously doubt GNU/Linux will incur the intense beating Java did after the hype settled down. ;)
"How can you get that worked up just because someone says that they like to use a Mac? Or Windows?"
Personally, I could care less what anyone uses on their desktop. It's when people involve themselves in a holy war and introduce their slanted views as reasons why, say, Windows is "technically superior" to GNU/Linux that makes me whip out the beating stick (I'd say clue-by-four, but you know, most of those nuts couldn't get a clue if it were a sledgehammer caving in their skull). ;)
"Any moron can learn HTML."
Yes and no.. Sure, anyone can learn HTML.. sort of. I've yet to see /any/ Web site that structures HTML as well as I do (and no, I'm not being egotistical.. it's ridiculously easy to make perfectly compliant, legible HTML source.. the point is, few bother to either a) learn how or b) use what they learned effectively). Most "Web designers" think if you throw up a few Active Server Pages, Java applets, and JavaScript crap, you're "studly". I think it's pathetic. Keep it nice, keep it clean. I have, however, seen a few HTML compliant sites that were better than your average corporate or "home page" site (yeah, I lump those together because they usually suck just as bad as the other).
"Apple succeeds in the face of obsolecsence because it is easy to use. Windows exists because it's users don't have to know anything to type up a letter and print it out."
As someone pointed out in a previous discussion, these GUIs aren't precisely "intuitive". Sure, they may be a little easier for Joe Public to grasp than other interfaces, but you might be surprised at how many people can't even figure out how to use Windows. At all. Thus do I disagree. You have to know something about it to use it. It's just that many people have been conditioned by it and so /see/ it as being "intuitive".. I wasn't born knowing how to use Windows, I learned it. Of course, some people grasp these things easier than others.. But learn it they still have to do. ;)
Rather doubtful. Changing the world is a silly notion at best. The most you can hope for is changing your own little part of it, or making your own contribution to making it a better place. It's the sum of all of these little contributions from each individual that shapes the future of our world. Everything about each individual shapes this future. Each in their own, very small way, but since we have so many very small contributions to the world, unwitting or not (you simply can't help but affect your surroundings.. even with inaction), the world is constantly evolving. As do all things. And of course the world is more than just the sum of its parts. ;)
By the way, if everyone contented themselves with whatever, and didn't care about changing the world for the better, the world would change. It would grow steadily worse. Without people to care about the world, the people in it, and how everything affects everything else, just where would we be? Someone has to take on some responsibility. Especially in an age where apathy is a more and more acceptable alternative to the average person every day..
"Unix was very important for computing, and so was Apple's GUI."
Still are. No need for the past tense, here.
"But in the same way that the Windows GUI is not innovative but rather based on Apple's, isn't Linux based on Unix?"
A couple of key points need to be asserted here.. 1) Ambiguous usage of the term "based on" can get one into a lot of semantic trouble.. 2) Yeah, the Windows GUI is a MacOS GUI clone AFAIK, but there's a problem.. it was reinvented.. quite poorly..
To elaborate on point 1: NetBSD is "based on" BSD, which is "based on" Unix. The Windows GUI is a clone of the MacOS GUI, and GNU/Linux is a Unix clone. They are clones and not "based on" because they are not derived from the original source code. They are different implementations that attempt to achieve the same goals as what they are "cloning".
"Windows market share dwarfs that of the MacOS and it's quite possible that Linux will dwarf the market share of Unix, but Linux will never be innovative in the revolutionary sense that Unix was."
The idea behind GNU/Linux is /quite/ innovative for this day and age. Your comment basically implies to me that you don't believe GNU/Linux will be any significant change from Unix. I would like to differ. Most operating systems I know of were either created by a company, or derived from one that was. GNU/Linux is neither. And it's turning the software community on its head. Not in the way Java did, either. Java had hype, but no punch. GNU/Linux is a serious sock to your jaw, and doesn't even have a focused marketing campaign.. yet it has caught fire and now everyone's eyes are on it as it edges closer and closer to being friendly enough to Joe Public that he will want to install it on his desktop.
Besides, GNU/Linux only truly aimed to be compatible with Unix. POSIX helps us to play nice with each other. Now the software being written for GNU/Linux is taking off in every direction imaginable. Soon the differences between Unix and GNU/Linux will dwarf the similarities for many. Most of its base components that were designed as free alternatives to the more traditional ones are already a bit more powerful. GZIP, anyone? Besides, most clones are poor reinventions of the wheel. And stay that way. This one evolves. And never sat still for anyone or anything trying to force it to play the "poor cousin" to anything else, least of all Unix. Personally, I can't wait until Berlin is ready for some serious action.