1) If they had disabled a linux distro (.5% marketshare also) Do you think the issue would have taken this long to resolve?
2) The ID number that was 'just taken' *IS* well documented. To ignore 'industry standard' documentation is *NOT* how you design products. Even if you are only stepping on the sale of *ONE* unit.
Apps to make it USEFUL matter!
on
Palmtop NetBSD
·
· Score: 1
You would have a better chance of:
1) Buying from SCO the $19.95 (or so) ancient Unix Source licenses
2) taking said source and trying to shoehorn THAT onto a Palm
I have a Altos multi-user Z80 and a set of Unix System III for that beast. If they could make System III work on a Z80, I'm betting you could make a system III-inspired port to the palm. I think the memory in a palm is bigger than the hard disk:-)
.
The Palm, like a Newton is just bad hardware to target a modern unix to.
If you wanted to spend time in the "oh, let me make code for handheld" space, and at the end of the day have people applaud your work for providing usefulness to the largest group, there is a need for non-bloated code in the user app area. All the functions that come built into the palm/Newton 2100 came bundled with/Palm Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HWinCE^H^H^H^HPocket Windows/MagicCAP/Windows for Pen/daVinchi/etc need to be duplicated somehow. And duplicated without needing GNOME+GKE+other+damn+bloat+making+things+more+like +windows+code+bloat+every+day.
Its kinda like having a Unix Kernel loaded with no userspace apps. It just kinda sits there and doesn't *DO* much. Without userspace apps that allow work to get done, the port to small doesn't help when the code is written with the idea that you have megabytes of memory and lotsa diskspace with a big 21 inch monitor to see it all.
And, to create low-overhead user space apps, you don't NEED anything other than your present desktop Unix! A bargan at 2x the price.
It is sad. FreeBSD has 15-20% of the "Open Source OS Market". Had they impacted any Linux distro that had 15%-20% marketshare, do you think it would have taken IBM this many months to fix the problem?
Microsoft must be able to use short sound bites and attack Linux at its 'core strengths' that will be hard to impossible to change. It will not be on obscure technical issues, or saying "no, the Microsoft product doesn't suck in stability like the Linux zelots claim."
A perceived positive for Linux is the GPL license.
And it is the one thing that can not be corrected for with the addition of more code.
Another perceived positive is the wealth of distributions.
Again, this is fine point for Microsoft to point out. What 'linux' do you choose? None of the linux distro companies are going to say "Oh, gee, for the unification of the Linux market to protect it from Microsoft, we are going to close our doors"
Like the "free has no value" argument, the arguments have to be simple and reduced to non-technical reasons.
The final method will be the courts. They will beat others over the head with software patents/NDA's/the courts.
And, face it. The 'geeks' don't do well VS non-technical and legal based arguments.
Congratz! You have poked the 8000 kilo gorilla with sticks long enough that now its mad. The only thing to be resolved is, while poking the gorilla with sharp sticks did you just anger it, or will the blood loss slow the gorilla up?
Re:If they do it at all, it has to be soon
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
It served its purpose in making Solaris knowledge/affinity more widespread. If it had been free (beer) from the start and had a bigger HCL, it would probably be most of the places that Linux is today.
Remember the design goal of Linux: Linus wanted a UNIX he coudl afford. Had *ANY* of the commerical Unixes been free (or, say $20) there would be no Linux. Hurd, Minux or BSD, perhaps, but Linus would not have done the what he did.
We asked earlier whether you felt if Linux would be threatened by OS X, with the possibility of OS X working on x86 machines, has your answer changed?
Are you going to keep asking the same question over and over until the loyal/. rabid Linux zelots get all worked into a mob equipped with fork()s?
What about Apple having success bothers you? (Apple may fall on its face with Mac OS X also. The original plan was NeXTSTEP->Yellowbox and Intel based Rhapsody->Mac OS X. Due to a lack of positive customer feedback, Apple changed the plan to what it is today)
What about a Unix on the desktop bothers you?
Is your view of the OS market the same as Microsoft's?.....where the only position to be is that you have marketshare and others do not.
Lets pretend that the Linux Zelot gets their wish....a whole world of Linux kernels. Then what? All the 180+ linux distros all fighting, it will be a repeat of the 1980-1990 Unix versions fighting, only moreso.
Be happy for Apple, rather than threatened. Apple has moved slightly away from the 1980's 'closed mac' ideal and more to the 1970's red book Apple ][ days. Rather than taking the BSD and Mach code and locking up the changes for no one to see, they opted to release it for others to look at.
I guess if it's BSD you can change the liscense and that's fine,
No.
You can not CHANGE the copyright on the BSD code. You can use the code in any way that allows you to honor the license clauses.
Considering the clauses are:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.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.
3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4.Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Most use of BSD code can honor these clauses. #3 was deemed incompatible with the GPL. And, it seems many users of BSD code didn't follow clause #3. So, the university dropped #3.
The removal of clause #3
3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Just because #3 is gone, this does not mean #1 and #2 clause go away.
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.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.
The poster who stated:
If so, you don't even have to let them know the code is there anymore and don't have to credit them
IS WRONG
You have to credit them. And you have to let others know that the code has BSD origins.
You just don't have to do it in the advertising materials is all.
I thought the U of Berkeley removed the advertising clause to their license. This was covered on/.
And what is so hard about actually READING the BSD license?
Oh, wait, as this AC points out...this is/.
If so, you don't even have to let them know the code is there anymore and don't have to credit them
WRONG, wrong, wrong.
All of the documentation and software included in the 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite Releases is copyrighted by The Regents of the University of
California.
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.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.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
As you can see, you HAVE to keep the copywrite and disclaimer. You HAVE to keep the copywrite on the code.
Now, you can ADD other copywrites which do not conflict. But you CANNOT do as the AC suggests.
If they had kept on plodding with newton, not only would they be ahead of game with the likes of Palm,
1) The newton was not 'plodding', it was a source of a (small) profit at the end, as opposed to the 250-500 million loss it had to date. The Newton Inc group had wonderful plans....
2) The newton would not have displaced the palm. For under $300, you can get a palm. Even the prototype pocket Newton (a palm sized newton) was unable to hit the sub $500 mark.
Newton OS was that much more beefier that the Palm it could have been the platform of choice for the wireless information device market
There were only 2 successful settlements for the way Apple dumped the newton. One was in the telecom industry, they were using the 2100 as a base platform.
When Jobs became El Jefe at Apple, the Newton engineers left in mass to palm. If Jobs had managed to buy Palm computing, these same employees would have left again. The only Newton-centeric talent left at Apple was the group who delivered NCU 1.5 years late and riddled with features like a 2 gig free space limit. (Yes, if you have more than 2 gig free space, NCU doesn't work.) Once the 32 engineers left for Palm, the Newton was dead.
Oh well...bye bye Apple
The big dog is Micro$oft. If you believe Open Source and Unix is the "next big thing", Apple has the Unix angle and the Open Source angle. If Apple upsets the old NeXTSTEP/new cocca developers, they have an exit option this time around.....GNUSTeP. Apple has to tread lightly, less they drive away more developers.
Look through their mail archives, and you will find the leaders of the LSB are all focused on making it easier for COMMERCIAL software companies to write Linux software.
Bah. The *ORIGINAL* selling out happened long before.
Just like the 1980's "Great Unix Unification" effort, when UNIX was going to have 'one interface' and be able to act as 'one market', the common binary on X86 effort was to obtain Unity. With this Unity, developers could be approached and told "write once, to this standard. Run all of these places."
The in-fighting and "use our implementation" ended up with "linux ELF" as the "standard". Ok fine.
The LSB group will NEVER obtain a workable standard because it is not SEEN to be in the interest of the bigger players in the linux market to allow the smaller players a "software stamp of approval". The "runs on redhat" stamp makes the use of RedHat a "supported option" instead of unsuported in the case of the other 180+ linux distros. And to choose "supported" or "unsupported" is an easy choice.
The LSB will only obtain the reluctant approval of RedHat and their bretheren when some outside force makes them feel their existance is threatened. At the moment, nothing like this exists. And the feeling that "Open source will take over - hence Linux will take over" makes a waiting game a win for RedHat and the other big players.
The LSB (or whatever standard replaces it) should be a standard anyone can Bake-Off their binary application against. And, any of the linux distros of the week should be able to run said application that was Baked-off VS the LSB.
If the "Linux community" (as opposed to the GNU/Linux community) wanted to show they had some balls, they'd:
1) Pubically throw up their hands and say "for 2+ years of effort, we have nothing to show, therefore this process is a failure."
2) Admit that "The goal however is worthwhile"
3) Point to the Linux emulation/compatibility modes of SCO/BSD/Sun and state "These are your bake off targets" under the idea that "If your Linux binaries can run on these machines, they should run anyplace else." Becasue for all the talk about how 'quickly' the 'open source world' can move, movement on the LSB has not happened. Code exists to provide a 'bake off' standard.
At a minimum, a "standard" would allow for more companies to have one less excuse to *NOT* produce programs that run on the "non Microsoft, non Macintosh" platforms. At a maximum, RedHat and others would see such a declaration as a 'threat' and actually MOVE to publish a "sanctioned standard". A standard the SCO/BSD/Sun would be able to get behind. A standard that can GROW the whole market.
All submissions must be created using Linux and native Linux tools
Lets see 'native linux tools'
Given most of the tools used on a Linux distro are Unix tools 1st and formost, such a grand statement shows how 'out of touch' the "linux community" is.
Insightful. Good post. The plain truth is that *BSD is in decline. *BSD is suffering an ongoing loss of user base. I've been looking at the numbers; and The numbers don't lie.
What numbers?
Where/who are they from?
What URL's to back up your statement of decline?
Oh, thats right. You don't HAVE facts to back up your statement....just bluster.
Make your trolling interesting....come up with some real URL's.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad ORBS is finally running a more responsible list.
That remains to be seen. They *MIGHT* actually become something useful.
But, if ORBS continues with the spite listings in the normal listings, then they still won't be useful.
You'll get to see 1st hand if they will actually not test sites that have asked not to be tested.
You don't seem to be listening.
Lets see what 'we' can agree on.
The partition IDs are well documented. Do you accept this as a true statement?
IBM makes claims about how they follow standards in the industry. Do you agree this statement is true?
If you agree the above is true, then how did a 'standards following firm' manage to take a well documented ID for FreeBSD?
And, please explain why IBM's ANSWER to the problem was 'it is not supported' rather than 'It looks like we took the ID. We will engineer a fix'
Links for you to do some research.
http://bsdtoday.com/2000/November/News342.html
http://slashdot.org/bsd/00/11/29/1855248.shtml
If you bother to actually research this, you will see that IBM stuck its head in the sand, rather than handle the situation.
1) If they had disabled a linux distro (.5% marketshare also) Do you think the issue would have taken this long to resolve?
2) The ID number that was 'just taken' *IS* well documented. To ignore 'industry standard' documentation is *NOT* how you design products. Even if you are only stepping on the sale of *ONE* unit.
You would have a better chance of:
:-)
e +windows+code+bloat+every+day.
1) Buying from SCO the $19.95 (or so) ancient Unix Source licenses
2) taking said source and trying to shoehorn THAT onto a Palm
I have a Altos multi-user Z80 and a set of Unix System III for that beast. If they could make System III work on a Z80, I'm betting you could make a system III-inspired port to the palm. I think the memory in a palm is bigger than the hard disk
.
The Palm, like a Newton is just bad hardware to target a modern unix to.
If you wanted to spend time in the "oh, let me make code for handheld" space, and at the end of the day have people applaud your work for providing usefulness to the largest group, there is a need for non-bloated code in the user app area. All the functions that come built into the palm/Newton 2100 came bundled with/Palm Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HWinCE^H^H^H^HPocket Windows/MagicCAP/Windows for Pen/daVinchi/etc need to be duplicated somehow. And duplicated without needing GNOME+GKE+other+damn+bloat+making+things+more+lik
Its kinda like having a Unix Kernel loaded with no userspace apps. It just kinda sits there and doesn't *DO* much. Without userspace apps that allow work to get done, the port to small doesn't help when the code is written with the idea that you have megabytes of memory and lotsa diskspace with a big 21 inch monitor to see it all.
And, to create low-overhead user space apps, you don't NEED anything other than your present desktop Unix! A bargan at 2x the price.
It is sad. FreeBSD has 15-20% of the "Open Source OS Market". Had they impacted any Linux distro that had 15%-20% marketshare, do you think it would have taken IBM this many months to fix the problem?
NetBSD will be ported to it in earnest :-)
Linux sucks a whole lot more.
Redhat
VA Linux
Microsoft must be able to use short sound bites and attack Linux at its 'core strengths' that will be hard to impossible to change. It will not be on obscure technical issues, or saying "no, the Microsoft product doesn't suck in stability like the Linux zelots claim."
A perceived positive for Linux is the GPL license.
And it is the one thing that can not be corrected for with the addition of more code.
Another perceived positive is the wealth of distributions.
Again, this is fine point for Microsoft to point out. What 'linux' do you choose? None of the linux distro companies are going to say "Oh, gee, for the unification of the Linux market to protect it from Microsoft, we are going to close our doors"
Like the "free has no value" argument, the arguments have to be simple and reduced to non-technical reasons.
The final method will be the courts. They will beat others over the head with software patents/NDA's/the courts.
And, face it. The 'geeks' don't do well VS non-technical and legal based arguments.
Congratz! You have poked the 8000 kilo gorilla with sticks long enough that now its mad. The only thing to be resolved is, while poking the gorilla with sharp sticks did you just anger it, or will the blood loss slow the gorilla up?
It served its purpose in making Solaris knowledge/affinity more widespread. If it had been free (beer) from the start and had a bigger HCL, it would probably be most of the places that Linux is today.
Remember the design goal of Linux: Linus wanted a UNIX he coudl afford. Had *ANY* of the commerical Unixes been free (or, say $20) there would be no Linux. Hurd, Minux or BSD, perhaps, but Linus would not have done the what he did.
We asked earlier whether you felt if Linux would be threatened by OS X, with the possibility of OS X working on x86 machines, has your answer changed?
/. rabid Linux zelots get all worked into a mob equipped with fork()s?
Are you going to keep asking the same question over and over until the loyal
What about Apple having success bothers you? (Apple may fall on its face with Mac OS X also. The original plan was NeXTSTEP->Yellowbox and Intel based Rhapsody->Mac OS X. Due to a lack of positive customer feedback, Apple changed the plan to what it is today)
What about a Unix on the desktop bothers you?
Is your view of the OS market the same as Microsoft's?.....where the only position to be is that you have marketshare and others do not.
Lets pretend that the Linux Zelot gets their wish....a whole world of Linux kernels. Then what? All the 180+ linux distros all fighting, it will be a repeat of the 1980-1990 Unix versions fighting, only moreso.
Be happy for Apple, rather than threatened. Apple has moved slightly away from the 1980's 'closed mac' ideal and more to the 1970's red book Apple ][ days. Rather than taking the BSD and Mach code and locking up the changes for no one to see, they opted to release it for others to look at.
And it has been in production longer than apt-get.
The *BSD ports with make.
BSD leads. Linux follows.
How do *YOU* know that I'm not a she?
Hell, I could even be transgendered, on my way from being a he to a she, or a she to a he.
I could even be a eunich who uses unix.
(Besides, the wife whould ge upset if the GF dumped me. Now she has to get a new playtoy....for all you know)
*smile*
As opposed to using 'he' as the non-gender specific pronoun. Perhaps s/he?
Would you perfer it? Or perhaps IT?
If you read BSD stories at -1, you'll see this troll post this same text over and over. She never backs any of this up with actual credible numbers.
/.
The majority of linux and BSD users don't post. And a large number don't read
I guess if it's BSD you can change the liscense and that's fine,
No.
You can not CHANGE the copyright on the BSD code. You can use the code in any way that allows you to honor the license clauses.
Considering the clauses are:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.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.
3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4.Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Most use of BSD code can honor these clauses. #3 was deemed incompatible with the GPL. And, it seems many users of BSD code didn't follow clause #3. So, the university dropped #3.
No, the original poster is *NOT* correct.
The removal of clause #3
3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Just because #3 is gone, this does not mean #1 and #2 clause go away.
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.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.
The poster who stated:
If so, you don't even have to let them know the code is there anymore and don't have to credit them
IS WRONG
You have to credit them. And you have to let others know that the code has BSD origins.
You just don't have to do it in the advertising materials is all.
Actually the use was NOT in accordance with the license of the time.
It is easy to find advertising material for NT that did not follow clause #3.
3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Today, if the CD or documentation has the copywrite and disclaimer, they are OK.
I thought the U of Berkeley removed the advertising clause to their license. This was covered on /.
/.
And what is so hard about actually READING the BSD license?
Oh, wait, as this AC points out...this is
If so, you don't even have to let them know the code is there anymore and don't have to credit them
WRONG, wrong, wrong.
All of the documentation and software included in the 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite Releases is copyrighted by The Regents of the University of
California.
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.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.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
As you can see, you HAVE to keep the copywrite and disclaimer. You HAVE to keep the copywrite on the code.
Now, you can ADD other copywrites which do not conflict. But you CANNOT do as the AC suggests.
Sure they *could* have used BSDs ipf.
Lets see.
the License for the ipf (IP Filter code) is:
Copywrite (c) 1993-1997 by Darren Reed
The code is *NOT* 'BSD's' The code is Darren Reed's.
And it would be nice if you noted the 'OpenBSD' solution is IP Filter by Darren Reed.
If they had kept on plodding with newton, not only would they be ahead of game with the likes of Palm,
1) The newton was not 'plodding', it was a source of a (small) profit at the end, as opposed to the 250-500 million loss it had to date. The Newton Inc group had wonderful plans....
2) The newton would not have displaced the palm. For under $300, you can get a palm. Even the prototype pocket Newton (a palm sized newton) was unable to hit the sub $500 mark.
Newton OS was that much more beefier that the Palm it could have been the platform of choice for the wireless information device market
There were only 2 successful settlements for the way Apple dumped the newton. One was in the telecom industry, they were using the 2100 as a base platform.
When Jobs became El Jefe at Apple, the Newton engineers left in mass to palm. If Jobs had managed to buy Palm computing, these same employees would have left again. The only Newton-centeric talent left at Apple was the group who delivered NCU 1.5 years late and riddled with features like a 2 gig free space limit. (Yes, if you have more than 2 gig free space, NCU doesn't work.) Once the 32 engineers left for Palm, the Newton was dead.
Oh well...bye bye Apple
The big dog is Micro$oft. If you believe Open Source and Unix is the "next big thing", Apple has the Unix angle and the Open Source angle. If Apple upsets the old NeXTSTEP/new cocca developers, they have an exit option this time around.....GNUSTeP. Apple has to tread lightly, less they drive away more developers.
Look through their mail archives, and you will find the leaders of the LSB are all focused on making it easier for COMMERCIAL software companies to write Linux software.
Bah. The *ORIGINAL* selling out happened long before.
Just like the 1980's "Great Unix Unification" effort, when UNIX was going to have 'one interface' and be able to act as 'one market', the common binary on X86 effort was to obtain Unity. With this Unity, developers could be approached and told "write once, to this standard. Run all of these places."
The in-fighting and "use our implementation" ended up with "linux ELF" as the "standard". Ok fine.
The LSB group will NEVER obtain a workable standard because it is not SEEN to be in the interest of the bigger players in the linux market to allow the smaller players a "software stamp of approval". The "runs on redhat" stamp makes the use of RedHat a "supported option" instead of unsuported in the case of the other 180+ linux distros. And to choose "supported" or "unsupported" is an easy choice.
The LSB will only obtain the reluctant approval of RedHat and their bretheren when some outside force makes them feel their existance is threatened. At the moment, nothing like this exists. And the feeling that "Open source will take over - hence Linux will take over" makes a waiting game a win for RedHat and the other big players.
The LSB (or whatever standard replaces it) should be a standard anyone can Bake-Off their binary application against. And, any of the linux distros of the week should be able to run said application that was Baked-off VS the LSB.
If the "Linux community" (as opposed to the GNU/Linux community) wanted to show they had some balls, they'd:
1) Pubically throw up their hands and say "for 2+ years of effort, we have nothing to show, therefore this process is a failure."
2) Admit that "The goal however is worthwhile"
3) Point to the Linux emulation/compatibility modes of SCO/BSD/Sun and state "These are your bake off targets" under the idea that "If your Linux binaries can run on these machines, they should run anyplace else." Becasue for all the talk about how 'quickly' the 'open source world' can move, movement on the LSB has not happened. Code exists to provide a 'bake off' standard.
At a minimum, a "standard" would allow for more companies to have one less excuse to *NOT* produce programs that run on the "non Microsoft, non Macintosh" platforms. At a maximum, RedHat and others would see such a declaration as a 'threat' and actually MOVE to publish a "sanctioned standard". A standard the SCO/BSD/Sun would be able to get behind. A standard that can GROW the whole market.
I know she's a troll. Her 1st efforts included the 'Applixware won't be comming out with a 5.0 native binary for BSD' as part of her anti-BSD FUD.
If it was anti-linux centered stuff, the 'slashdot filters' would be written to stop it from posting.
Any time a BSD story makes it to the front page, she's there trolling. And, if she REALLY cared about the 'facts' she's post some.
All submissions must be created using Linux and native Linux tools
Lets see 'native linux tools'
Given most of the tools used on a Linux distro are Unix tools 1st and formost, such a grand statement shows how 'out of touch' the "linux community" is.
Insightful. Good post. The plain truth is that *BSD is in decline. *BSD is suffering an ongoing loss of user base. I've been looking at the numbers; and The numbers don't lie.
What numbers?
Where/who are they from?
What URL's to back up your statement of decline?
Oh, thats right. You don't HAVE facts to back up your statement....just bluster.
Make your trolling interesting....come up with some real URL's.