1) the box was LEASED...so did the GPL apply?
2) Given *I* have no GPLed code in the linux kernel/on the web player the only people who have any kind of legal right are the authors. I am just 'a possessor' of the box...my standing for asking for code is weak.
3) An attempt to get the GPL invoked here has failed. (see the http://www.kenseglerdesigns.com elsewhere for the BBS system)
Note how IAN (the people providing the content) weren't paying the weather content provider. (the weather link went down the 6th)
Lots of wasted and duplicated efforts. Yes, Linux has alot of that.
150+ versions of Linux (wasted effort)
The GPL license causes people to have to re-write code so they can use it under license terms more acceptable than the GPL.
If it's essentially the same as Linux, Ok... lets say we can lump Linux AND BSD in the same marketshare. And, lets say 10 million Linux users. BSD runs at 20%, 2 million. 12 million total users. Which of these 'linux' things have more than 16.6% of the 'combined market'?
So BSD is the leader in this market.
I admit to not knowing much about it, Well, now you know that, based on conservation of efforts, BSD is a better choice.
The technically better product does not always win . How many years has Unix existed for X86. Yet there are more copies of Windows sold.
The GPL is one factor that could hamstring Linux. But only if a court case is brought that gets ugly for commercial interests. Look at the VirginConnect Linux box, and the way it is packaged. YET, no lawsuit on this matter exists. (perhaps it is because the VirginConnect members are LEASING the box from Virgin...)
A radical change in the GPL would also cause a problem with Linux. (if the GPL changes, and no effect is noted beyond some/. flamage...the change isn't readical)
Another thing which can damage Linux is the 180+ versions of Linux all clammoring for marketshare. Smacks of the UNIX versions of the 1980's.
(ok, who has a link to the "linux os versions counter page" I have heard reference to..this way we can all see the 180+ versions)
FreeBSD total users is at about 20% of the TOTAL of Linux. Think of any Linux distro that has 20+%? And BSDi is getting moeny from ISP's to work on and improve FreeBSD. ($5 mil from Yahoo and $5 mil from Livin' on the edge)
Given the final outcome of a Linux ELF binary as the X86 Unix standard Binary, the lasting effect of Linux might just be a standard binary.
Sorry. If BillG was a devils advocate, the letter would have mentioned BSD.
Yes, and GNOME started off as a "linux project" and has become a real UNIX project...amazing how that can happen....portable code forced out a project.
Neither is released as a stable product, both feature a microkernel and all the user space servers, etc
QNX started life as QUNIX 20+ years ago. They have shipped many products over the lifetime of the Canandian company that makes QNX.
This 'press release' is about the latest version is all. To place what QNX has delivered on VS what HURD has delivered on shows QNX has a history of delivering products that actually WORK, as opposed to a product that might work, one day.
If you don't feel QNX, as shipped, is a stable product, what DO you consider stable?
And the BSD effort was started and released to anyone with a AT&T license long before both.
That was then. This is now.
Now:
*Linux has 150 or more versions, all wanting to be as big as redhat or have an IPO like VA Research^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLinux.
*BSD has Apple + others, runs linux binaries.
For most users who want to "run linus binaries", guess what? *bsd or *linux....both will do that job! In fact, you can set up a Linux/BSD/Unix box to look exaclty the same to an end user...only the sysadmin will know the difference.
HURD has stalled from 1997, doesn't run Linux binaries, and doesn't even come close to the UNIX and Unix-like OSes.
HURD *MIGHT* one day end up as something. So might xMach, or the Novell OS clone, or (insert starting project here) If your interest is to be on the ground floor of something, then HURD might be for you. If you are interested in *EXPANDING* peoples views beyond 'just linux' or 'just windows' then HURD and its mention should be part of your 'stump speech'.
If, however, your goal in life is to read and post to/. Well, HURD is not there. And won't be for some time.
Given the high number of Linux forks, do you find it difficult to think in terms of the portability so your scripts can support the 180+ linux distros that now exist?
Linus does not like software control tools like CVS.
At some point CVS will happen. Someone (or group) will take a Linux kernel and check it into CVS, with or without Linus's blessing. And Linus will have to either get with the program, or get passed by. The real world of software development understands why source code control systems matter.
The method right now puts Linus in control. He's "the man". CVS takes away from Linus's "power".
If I am mis-quoting you, I'd like the CORRECT quote.
Why the engine and a link to redrok.
on
Air-Powered Cars
·
· Score: 2
>I've yet to read _why_ this fundamental change was made
Actually it was commented on.
It seems us Americans like stomping on the peddle and having the car move. So, to give the car 'pick up' they gave it a bigger engine. Was one of the only complaints. (and with global warming...the driving around in the cold won't matter!)
> storing that much energy in an extremely volatile format is just plain dangerous.
As oppsed to pinto?
Perhaps with the cheaper carbon-fiber technology, the safty issues have been addressed.
"The screenshot of Excel looks pretty much, well, like a screenshot of Excel. With this, two of the most persistent reasons not to run Linux appear to be fading; of course, what's to stop Microsoft from releasing versions that won't work under Wine, ever? That could be a good reason to stick with GNUmeric and pico."
If you are an un-educated person to the ways of Open Source....this makes it look like WINE is a linux only thing.
Using Linux as a shorthand for Open Source OSes is quicker, but this supstution for the word Linux would be equally effective
WINE on BSD/Linux
Unix and WINE (ok this upsets the camp that thinks Linux isn't unix:-)
WINE
BSD/Linux/OS of choice
OS of choice running WINE (this allows everyone to read in thier favorite OS)
(An observation: the sloppy substution of Hacker for cracker has gotten the term hacker re-defined Using Linux as shorthand for Open Source OS)
>Pat and Chris
I only know what I've heard Pat say, and what was here on/.
If VA only attracts Linux Zelots as sales/staff, what kind of solutions are they going to push? The pro-linux thing thusly becomes a big circle-jerk, all the time repeating a mantra of 'linux is the only open source os' rather than, say, 'BSD, HURD, Linux are Open Source OSes, and we have the best skill set with Linux, so that's what you'll get'
From a marketing POV, the 2nd POV requires the customer to think, and the 1st POV can become a droning chant. Repetitive chant - simple triple plus goodthink. Independent thought - evil sextuple badthink. (Oh, and a thinking customer might go elsewhere.)
Now, if something where to happen to Linux (GPL lawsuits, Linux/Cox/Hall all joined hands and declared Microsoft products better) to make the product un-appealing, VA Linux would 'return to its roots' and become VA Research and start supporing BSD in a heartbeat. Why? VA is just sniffing after the money.
And thusly we return to the main theme of the thread...if it is Open Source, its more than just Linux. Once this is the message in the minds eye of the public (as opposed to the present argument Open Source is linux, and nothing but linux) the 'community' will be left with the normal arguments of 'my algorithm is better than yours' and 'my license is more free than yours'...just like the old Unix areguments of 'my Unix is better, just because' and 'my price is better than yours'
Adopting a Open Source OS message that includes BSD/HURD and Linux (rahter than a present mindset of "linux is the only choice") will be far simpler and better on the palet than settling "GPL-BSD Who's more free" or "A micro Kernel sucks less than a Macro Kernel" or "vi is better than Emacs".
Things change....VA *USED* to be called VA Research and not VA Linux.
Pat Lynch mentioned the lack of support for BSD in the VA world, and got a reply from Chris DiBona responded this wasn't true, etc la. The complaint was WRT StarMedia and how Pat had to re-format each VA box and load BSD because there were no BSD pre-load options.
Having spoken with Pat tho, I have to agree, VA doesn't support BSD. (this was end 1999 timeframe)
When I visited the web-page yesterday and looked at the server line, it was all about Linux. (not supprised)
>Free software is great by them in general
There ya go! FSF and the efforts of RMS have managed to get 'Free software == GPL'. I don't agree, but what the hell, let them have the def. Given I'm letting them have the word 'Free', by your own admission (and using the most excellent thinking of one winner, everyone else looser:-) the GPL is great, and all other forms are some kind of sell-out. Sell out - evil. BSD is sell out, therefore evil.
This 'protect you from yourself/evil' is best shown by Bruce Perens statement: "The great thing about BSD licensed code is I can take the code, wrape it in a GPL license and keep the software free"
> trouble running any of the BSDs, since the hardware is pretty standard stuff
And I would not expect it either. Talking with a BSDi person about the eXtreme server line, BSD/Linux/Windows NT, its all good...so long as you sell a box.
Go look at the 'newsforge' site "News about open source" and then read the article about the BSD vs GPL licnese. Do you think the BSD licnese was given proper representation, or was the BSD license represented by a group of Pro-GPL people?
The VA orginization may SAY they 'like BSD, and we give it a fair airing' but the actions are lacking. (not totally absent, but a whole lot less than what it should be) And, considering that to get X done, you have to go thru Y people. If one of the Y is anti BSD, the process to get X done stops.
>The BSDs are great and have their well-known emphases and strengths, but there isn't as much in the way of interesting wackiness.
What do you want? A match with Hubbard/Hannum/Theo followed by Glass/RMS?
>are sincere.
And I don't doubt you ARE sincere. However, not everyone within VA are, and alas, these people are higher up in the chain than you. Some of them talk about 'open source' and then sneer at BSD.
Here's an udpate for everyone on the Virgin Webplayer
/ Merinata GPL violation.
This is in response to my original posting to the
Linux kernel mailing list; I'm including that post
here:
>I've read through months of archives, trying to find
a
>good place to report this, but have not been able to
>find anything.
>
>Where is a good place to report GPL violations
>concerning the Linux Kernel?
>
>I recently got a virign webplayer
>(http://www.virginconnectme.com/). It runs Linux as
>it's operating system. There's no mention of Linux or
>the GPL in the license that is included in the
manual.
>In fact the license in the manual concerning the
>"Software" is rather restrictive. And there's no
>mention of how to obtain the source for the kernel.
>
>The people who sell the machine to virgin, is Merinta
>(http://www.merinta.com/). You can verify that the
>machines virgin use are running linux
>(http://www.merinta.com/news/release000411.html). >Merinta, from what I understand from posts by
>(presumedly) employees of Boundless (their mother
>corporation) have many GPL violations according to:
>http://www.kenseglerdesigns.com/cgi-bin/UltraBoar d/UltraBoard.pl?Action=ShowPost&Board=vwg eneral&Post=17&Idle=0&Sort=0&Order=Descend&Page=0& Session=
I like the idea of all these new Internet devices
>coming out, running Linux. But it worries me that
>they'll all ignore the GPL as they go. Making it more
>difficult for fututre improvements in the kernel
code.
>
>
>
>I'm not on the Linux kernel mailing list. So please
CC
>me directly at jelwell@yahoo.com.
>
>Thanks,
>Joseph Elwell.
In my investigation to determine whether Virgin's
Webplayer, manufactured by Merinta, I've documented
the section of the License Agreement that deals with
the Software installed; that ships with the Virgin
Webplayer.
Section 2.2 of the member agreements reads as follows:
2.2 Webplayer Software License. Subject to the
provisions of this Agreement, we grant to you a
limited, non-exclusive, personal, non-transferable
license to use and display the Webplayer Software in
object code form only, solely as part of and as
necessary to use the Webplayer and the Virginconnect
Services. Except for the license granted to you above,
we (or our licensors) retain all right, title and
interest, including all intellectual property rights,
in and to the Webplayer Software. You may not attemp
(or authorize any attempt) to defeat, obstruct or
block any or all of the Webplayer Software
functionality, or to decompile, reverse engineer or
disassemble the Webplayer or the Webplayer Software.
Below is a listing of the filesystem that is currently
(roughly 7/28/2000); some sections I've not filled in
due the immensity of the files listed in those (and
subdirectories of those). If someone asks me nicely
-with reason - I'll fill those sections in:
Some highlights of the filesystem (which make me
believe they're also running a GNU system (which
wasn't mentioned on their press release - but is of
course heavily implied when they say the machine runs
the "Linux operating system".):
/usr/lib/libg++.so.2.7.2
/usr/lib/libg++.so.2.7.2.8
/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.7.2
/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.7.2.8
Re:NewsForge article on licensing differences
on
A Devil Of A BSDCon
·
· Score: 1
And the article is lacking, as it does not have a single pro BSD license person in the article.
The 'linux community' has a sub-set of voices who have money in Linux-centric stocks and have a vested interest in seeing 'linux succeed'. VA Research^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLinux is an example of a voice that won't promote BSD unless they have to. Given money == volume, it is no wonder the BSD message is shouted over.
The voices are fine, it is what the voices *SAY*....$0 OSes/Open Source OSes == Linux (and only linux) that cause the problem.
Taking snippits from here these quotes are WHY there seems to be a division, because there *IS* a division.
The Institute has not yet seen fit to include the only companies which market products and services many in the Third World can actually afford, the Linux companies. Now, anyone with 1/2 a clue or better knows that the ONLY companies that market products that are at a $0 cost option are NOT just Linux companies. There is BSD in the form of Darwin (the $0 option from Apple), FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.
So here is a 'linux voice' ignoring BSD, even thought the 'goal' of the voice is to help the 3rd world become aware of $0 options. Saying 'only linux' is being un-truthful.
Bruce P has a take on this, and I can understand his modivation:
Re: And BSD isn't affordable, nor corporate?
by Bruce Perens on Monday October 09, @03:31 AM BSD folks should be represented too. Hopefully, they can ask for representation in the same way the Linux folks are. Should the Linux folks fight their battles? I'd have no problem speaking out for them as a free software spokesperson. But I doubt that every Linux proponent should have to fight on the behalf of BSD.
Here is the source of a division.
If you are talking about 'open source alternatives to Micro$oft', then you should not be starting and ending with Linux. BSD is there, and you could always use HURD or even Minix. (if others have $0 options for personal/business use, please list em.) WRT HURD and Minix, there isn't alot of usefulness, so you are left with BSD.
When you talk about 'shrink-wrapped Linux binaries', do they even consider Solaris/SCO/BSD's Linux compatibility layer? If you don't think of BSD/SCO/Solaris, then you are adding to the division.
And, when someone approaches you and says: "Tell me about Linux", are they wanting to know about Linux, or are they "interested in knowing what they could run instead of Microsoft software" with Linux being the name on the tip of the tounge of the press.
(And Linus is in agreement with the POV that Choices to Microsoft should be varied.
That same attitude helps explain why Torvalds is so eager to counterbalance Microsoft's dominance. He wants computer users to have a choice among several operating systems, not just one from Microsoft. "I'm not rabid anti-Microsoft," he says. "But they make it so hard to compete.")
If *YOU* don't like the rift, what are you doing to bridge the gap? Do you say 'linux' as a shorthand for Open Source OS? When you ask vendors to create a 'linux binary', do you ask them to support BSD/SCO/Solaris with that linux binary?
And think about this:
Is it OK to go to a Windows technology roll-out to hand out Linux CD's, in the interest of letting ppl know about 'an option'?
Is it OK to go to a Linux Meeting and hand out BSD CD's, in the interest in expanding knowledge?
Slashdot Mirror
The bigger question becomes:
1) the box was LEASED...so did the GPL apply?
2) Given *I* have no GPLed code in the linux kernel/on the web player the only people who have any kind of legal right are the authors. I am just 'a possessor' of the box...my standing for asking for code is weak.
3) An attempt to get the GPL invoked here has failed. (see the http://www.kenseglerdesigns.com elsewhere for the BBS system)
Note how IAN (the people providing the content) weren't paying the weather content provider. (the weather link went down the 6th)
Lots of wasted and duplicated efforts. Yes, Linux has alot of that.
150+ versions of Linux (wasted effort)
The GPL license causes people to have to re-write code so they can use it under license terms more acceptable than the GPL.
If it's essentially the same as Linux,
Ok... lets say we can lump Linux AND BSD in the same marketshare. And, lets say 10 million Linux users. BSD runs at 20%, 2 million. 12 million total users. Which of these 'linux' things have more than 16.6% of the 'combined market'?
So BSD is the leader in this market.
I admit to not knowing much about it,
Well, now you know that, based on conservation of efforts, BSD is a better choice.
BSD is pretty fragmented too
And the 180+ linux versions don't represent fragmentation?
They did.
h asize=yahoo
http://www.bsdi.com/news/press/20000310.php?emp
BSDi also announced that Yahoo! Inc. will take an equity interest in the new company.
The technically better product does not always win . How many years has Unix existed for X86. Yet there are more copies of Windows sold.
/. flamage...the change isn't readical)
The GPL is one factor that could hamstring Linux. But only if a court case is brought that gets ugly for commercial interests. Look at the VirginConnect Linux box, and the way it is packaged. YET, no lawsuit on this matter exists. (perhaps it is because the VirginConnect members are LEASING the box from Virgin...)
A radical change in the GPL would also cause a problem with Linux. (if the GPL changes, and no effect is noted beyond some
Another thing which can damage Linux is the 180+ versions of Linux all clammoring for marketshare. Smacks of the UNIX versions of the 1980's.
(ok, who has a link to the "linux os versions counter page" I have heard reference to..this way we can all see the 180+ versions)
FreeBSD total users is at about 20% of the TOTAL of Linux. Think of any Linux distro that has 20+%? And BSDi is getting moeny from ISP's to work on and improve FreeBSD. ($5 mil from Yahoo and $5 mil from Livin' on the edge)
Given the final outcome of a Linux ELF binary as the X86 Unix standard Binary, the lasting effect of Linux might just be a standard binary.
devil's advocate
Sorry. If BillG was a devils advocate, the letter would have mentioned BSD.
Yes, and GNOME started off as a "linux project" and has become a real UNIX project...amazing how that can happen....portable code forced out a project.
Neither is released as a stable product, both feature a microkernel and all the user space servers, etc
QNX started life as QUNIX 20+ years ago. They have shipped many products over the lifetime of the Canandian company that makes QNX.
This 'press release' is about the latest version is all. To place what QNX has delivered on VS what HURD has delivered on shows QNX has a history of delivering products that actually WORK, as opposed to a product that might work, one day.
If you don't feel QNX, as shipped, is a stable product, what DO you consider stable?
And the BSD effort was started and released to anyone with a AT&T license long before both.
/. Well, HURD is not there. And won't be for some time.
That was then. This is now.
Now:
*Linux has 150 or more versions, all wanting to be as big as redhat or have an IPO like VA Research^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLinux.
*BSD has Apple + others, runs linux binaries.
For most users who want to "run linus binaries", guess what? *bsd or *linux....both will do that job! In fact, you can set up a Linux/BSD/Unix box to look exaclty the same to an end user...only the sysadmin will know the difference.
HURD has stalled from 1997, doesn't run Linux binaries, and doesn't even come close to the UNIX and Unix-like OSes.
HURD *MIGHT* one day end up as something. So might xMach, or the Novell OS clone, or (insert starting project here) If your interest is to be on the ground floor of something, then HURD might be for you. If you are interested in *EXPANDING* peoples views beyond 'just linux' or 'just windows' then HURD and its mention should be part of your 'stump speech'.
If, however, your goal in life is to read and post to
Given the high number of Linux forks, do you find it difficult to think in terms of the portability so your scripts can support the 180+ linux distros that now exist?
Ok.
What about ORBS.ORG?
They scan, looking for exploitable holes in e-mail programs. And log for vulnerabilites. Post the found vulnerable systems on the internet.
>I have a chance to pick up a new Powerbook for dirt cheap this week.
Think about this: Run Net or OpenBSD on the box if you want BSD. Otherwise, linuxppc.
With the addition of sheepshaver, you should be able to run Mac OS apps.
Linus does not like software control tools like CVS.
At some point CVS will happen. Someone (or group) will take a Linux kernel and check it into CVS, with or without Linus's blessing. And Linus will have to either get with the program, or get passed by. The real world of software development understands why source code control systems matter.
The method right now puts Linus in control. He's "the man". CVS takes away from Linus's "power".
They did grab code bits from Open and NetBSD.
Mac OS X.
And one day, it will work on other Unixes, only if Apple feels a threat from other OSes.
Then what *IS* the correct quote?
If I am mis-quoting you, I'd like the CORRECT quote.
>I've yet to read _why_ this fundamental change was made
Actually it was commented on.
It seems us Americans like stomping on the peddle and having the car move. So, to give the car 'pick up' they gave it a bigger engine. Was one of the only complaints. (and with global warming...the driving around in the cold won't matter!)
> storing that much energy in an extremely volatile format is just plain dangerous.
As oppsed to pinto?
Perhaps with the cheaper carbon-fiber technology, the safty issues have been addressed.
This gent has links to the concept of air powered cars.
www.redrok.com
the air car link
Ony in the movies or here on /. does shooting the gun out of the hand work.
"The screenshot of Excel looks pretty much, well, like a screenshot of Excel. With this, two of the most persistent reasons not to run Linux appear to be fading; of course, what's to stop Microsoft from releasing versions that won't work under Wine, ever? That could be a good reason to stick with GNUmeric and pico."
If you are an un-educated person to the ways of Open Source....this makes it look like WINE is a linux only thing.
Using Linux as a shorthand for Open Source OSes is quicker, but this supstution for the word Linux would be equally effective
WINE on BSD/Linux
Unix and WINE (ok this upsets the camp that thinks Linux isn't unix:-)
WINE
BSD/Linux/OS of choice
OS of choice running WINE (this allows everyone to read in thier favorite OS)
(An observation: the sloppy substution of Hacker for cracker has gotten the term hacker re-defined Using Linux as shorthand for Open Source OS)
Doth tho now grok-ith my POV?
>Pat and Chris /.
I only know what I've heard Pat say, and what was here on
If VA only attracts Linux Zelots as sales/staff, what kind of solutions are they going to push? The pro-linux thing thusly becomes a big circle-jerk, all the time repeating a mantra of 'linux is the only open source os' rather than, say, 'BSD, HURD, Linux are Open Source OSes, and we have the best skill set with Linux, so that's what you'll get'
From a marketing POV, the 2nd POV requires the customer to think, and the 1st POV can become a droning chant. Repetitive chant - simple triple plus goodthink. Independent thought - evil sextuple badthink. (Oh, and a thinking customer might go elsewhere.)
Now, if something where to happen to Linux (GPL lawsuits, Linux/Cox/Hall all joined hands and declared Microsoft products better) to make the product un-appealing, VA Linux would 'return to its roots' and become VA Research and start supporing BSD in a heartbeat. Why? VA is just sniffing after the money.
And thusly we return to the main theme of the thread...if it is Open Source, its more than just Linux. Once this is the message in the minds eye of the public (as opposed to the present argument Open Source is linux, and nothing but linux) the 'community' will be left with the normal arguments of 'my algorithm is better than yours' and 'my license is more free than yours'...just like the old Unix areguments of 'my Unix is better, just because' and 'my price is better than yours'
Adopting a Open Source OS message that includes BSD/HURD and Linux (rahter than a present mindset of "linux is the only choice") will be far simpler and better on the palet than settling "GPL-BSD Who's more free" or "A micro Kernel sucks less than a Macro Kernel" or "vi is better than Emacs".
Things change....VA *USED* to be called VA Research and not VA Linux.
:-) the GPL is great, and all other forms are some kind of sell-out. Sell out - evil. BSD is sell out, therefore evil.
Pat Lynch mentioned the lack of support for BSD in the VA world, and got a reply from Chris DiBona responded this wasn't true, etc la. The complaint was WRT StarMedia and how Pat had to re-format each VA box and load BSD because there were no BSD pre-load options.
Having spoken with Pat tho, I have to agree, VA doesn't support BSD. (this was end 1999 timeframe)
When I visited the web-page yesterday and looked at the server line, it was all about Linux. (not supprised)
>Free software is great by them in general
There ya go! FSF and the efforts of RMS have managed to get 'Free software == GPL'. I don't agree, but what the hell, let them have the def. Given I'm letting them have the word 'Free', by your own admission (and using the most excellent thinking of one winner, everyone else looser
This 'protect you from yourself/evil' is best shown by Bruce Perens statement: "The great thing about BSD licensed code is I can take the code, wrape it in a GPL license and keep the software free"
> trouble running any of the BSDs, since the hardware is pretty standard stuff
And I would not expect it either. Talking with a BSDi person about the eXtreme server line, BSD/Linux/Windows NT, its all good...so long as you sell a box.
Go look at the 'newsforge' site "News about open source" and then read the article about the BSD vs GPL licnese. Do you think the BSD licnese was given proper representation, or was the BSD license represented by a group of Pro-GPL people?
The VA orginization may SAY they 'like BSD, and we give it a fair airing' but the actions are lacking. (not totally absent, but a whole lot less than what it should be) And, considering that to get X done, you have to go thru Y people. If one of the Y is anti BSD, the process to get X done stops.
>The BSDs are great and have their well-known emphases and strengths, but there isn't as much in the way of interesting wackiness.
What do you want? A match with Hubbard/Hannum/Theo followed by Glass/RMS?
>are sincere.
And I don't doubt you ARE sincere. However, not everyone within VA are, and alas, these people are higher up in the chain than you. Some of them talk about 'open source' and then sneer at BSD.
>The only reason there exist any alternatives to closed, proprietary software
.
r d/UltraBoard.pl?Action=ShowPost&Board=vwg eneral&Post=17&Idle=0&Sort=0&Order=Descend&Page=0& Session=
/usr/lib/libg++.so.2.7.2
/usr/lib/libg++.so.2.7.2.8
/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.7.2
/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.7.2.8
Last time *I* checked, the BSD software license is free and open, and was in existance before the RMS concieved GPL.
>he is such a stubborn, uncompromising bastard.
Methinks that is the point of the AC in question....there is bound to be infringements.
An example:
on a GPL violation/and a lack of action.
Here's an udpate for everyone on the Virgin Webplayer
/ Merinata GPL violation.
This is in response to my original posting to the
Linux kernel mailing list; I'm including that post
here:
>I've read through months of archives, trying to find
a
>good place to report this, but have not been able to
>find anything.
>
>Where is a good place to report GPL violations
>concerning the Linux Kernel?
>
>I recently got a virign webplayer
>(http://www.virginconnectme.com/). It runs Linux as
>it's operating system. There's no mention of Linux or
>the GPL in the license that is included in the
manual.
>In fact the license in the manual concerning the
>"Software" is rather restrictive. And there's no
>mention of how to obtain the source for the kernel.
>
>The people who sell the machine to virgin, is Merinta
>(http://www.merinta.com/). You can verify that the
>machines virgin use are running linux
>(http://www.merinta.com/news/release000411.html)
>Merinta, from what I understand from posts by
>(presumedly) employees of Boundless (their mother
>corporation) have many GPL violations according to:
>http://www.kenseglerdesigns.com/cgi-bin/UltraBoa
I like the idea of all these new Internet devices
>coming out, running Linux. But it worries me that
>they'll all ignore the GPL as they go. Making it more
>difficult for fututre improvements in the kernel
code.
>
>
>
>I'm not on the Linux kernel mailing list. So please
CC
>me directly at jelwell@yahoo.com.
>
>Thanks,
>Joseph Elwell.
In my investigation to determine whether Virgin's
Webplayer, manufactured by Merinta, I've documented
the section of the License Agreement that deals with
the Software installed; that ships with the Virgin
Webplayer.
Section 2.2 of the member agreements reads as follows:
2.2 Webplayer Software License. Subject to the
provisions of this Agreement, we grant to you a
limited, non-exclusive, personal, non-transferable
license to use and display the Webplayer Software in
object code form only, solely as part of and as
necessary to use the Webplayer and the Virginconnect
Services. Except for the license granted to you above,
we (or our licensors) retain all right, title and
interest, including all intellectual property rights,
in and to the Webplayer Software. You may not attemp
(or authorize any attempt) to defeat, obstruct or
block any or all of the Webplayer Software
functionality, or to decompile, reverse engineer or
disassemble the Webplayer or the Webplayer Software.
Below is a listing of the filesystem that is currently
(roughly 7/28/2000); some sections I've not filled in
due the immensity of the files listed in those (and
subdirectories of those). If someone asks me nicely
-with reason - I'll fill those sections in:
Some highlights of the filesystem (which make me
believe they're also running a GNU system (which
wasn't mentioned on their press release - but is of
course heavily implied when they say the machine runs
the "Linux operating system".):
And the article is lacking, as it does not have a single pro BSD license person in the article.
The 'linux community' has a sub-set of voices who have money in Linux-centric stocks and have a vested interest in seeing 'linux succeed'. VA Research^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLinux is an example of a voice that won't promote BSD unless they have to. Given money == volume, it is no wonder the BSD message is shouted over.
The voices are fine, it is what the voices *SAY*....$0 OSes/Open Source OSes == Linux (and only linux) that cause the problem.
Taking snippits from here these quotes are WHY there seems to be a division, because there *IS* a division.
The Institute has not yet seen fit to include the only companies which market products and services many in the Third World can actually afford, the Linux companies.
Now, anyone with 1/2 a clue or better knows that the ONLY companies that market products that are at a $0 cost option are NOT just Linux companies. There is BSD in the form of Darwin (the $0 option from Apple), FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.
So here is a 'linux voice' ignoring BSD, even thought the 'goal' of the voice is to help the 3rd world become aware of $0 options. Saying 'only linux' is being un-truthful.
Bruce P has a take on this, and I can understand his modivation:
Re: And BSD isn't affordable, nor corporate?
by Bruce Perens on Monday October 09, @03:31 AM BSD folks should be represented too. Hopefully, they can ask for representation in the same way the Linux folks are. Should the Linux folks fight their battles? I'd have no problem speaking out for them as a free software spokesperson. But I doubt that every Linux proponent should have to fight on the behalf of BSD.
Here is the source of a division.
If you are talking about 'open source alternatives to Micro$oft', then you should not be starting and ending with Linux. BSD is there, and you could always use HURD or even Minix. (if others have $0 options for personal/business use, please list em.) WRT HURD and Minix, there isn't alot of usefulness, so you are left with BSD.
When you talk about 'shrink-wrapped Linux binaries', do they even consider Solaris/SCO/BSD's Linux compatibility layer? If you don't think of BSD/SCO/Solaris, then you are adding to the division.
And, when someone approaches you and says: "Tell me about Linux", are they wanting to know about Linux, or are they "interested in knowing what they could run instead of Microsoft software" with Linux being the name on the tip of the tounge of the press.
(And Linus is in agreement with the POV that Choices to Microsoft should be varied.
That same attitude helps explain why Torvalds is so eager to counterbalance Microsoft's dominance. He wants computer users to have a choice among several operating systems, not just one from Microsoft. "I'm not rabid anti-Microsoft," he says. "But they make it so hard to compete.")
If *YOU* don't like the rift, what are you doing to bridge the gap? Do you say 'linux' as a shorthand for Open Source OS? When you ask vendors to create a 'linux binary', do you ask them to support BSD/SCO/Solaris with that linux binary?
And think about this:
Is it OK to go to a Windows technology roll-out to hand out Linux CD's, in the interest of letting ppl know about 'an option'?
Is it OK to go to a Linux Meeting and hand out BSD CD's, in the interest in expanding knowledge?
>Linux is better than BSD on almost all fronts.
Here Mr. Cox calls FreeBSD
"really technically excellent Operating System. "
Looks like Alan is not dismissive like you.
> I want my email available wherever I go.... can access my POP account.
IMAP.
It lets you do what you are looking for.
If you don't get IMAP from ISP, and portable mail is important, then changing ISP's might be in order