1) The Timex Datalink watch. 2) an old Office 95 licence
1) The watch code is licensed ONLY for Windows 3.1, WFW and Windows 95. YET the watch box says NT is supported. A call to Timex was 'oh, that is a typo'
2) The clause that says you can only run the code on PROPERLY LICENCED copies of the windows operating system. If you didn't send in the warranty card -> licence is not "proper", and therefore you were in violation of the licence.
And a personal fav - Clause f of the EULA that says 'if you get sued and Microsoft is named, you have to pay M$'s lawyer bills.'
Linux has many different distros, all trying to gain mind-share. Sameness VS the market leader won't help you grow, and odds are you will shrink.
So, Debian is trying something to be DIFFERENT. They are going to appeal to the 'free source' crowd. They are going to try to say 'our distro is most free'. Remember, at one time there was a rumor/mention that the Debian group was going to take the BSD kernel and wrap the code they wrap about the Linux Kernel.
>This is flamebait. The comment is not pro-linux therefore you call it flamebait. YET YOUR NEXT SENTENCE you admit that: >Yes, the vast number of distros can get a little bit chaotic Looks to me like you AGREE with my point, you just grade the chaos, I left it ungraded.
I note how you didn't address the point about how programs don't work from one distro to another.
>one of the BSDs would have a functional desktop if the various Linux distros hadn't been so "chaotic" Really? Tell that to Apple and Mac OS X. Tell that to Afterstep. Looks like BSD has *2* functional desktops tha have nothing to do with Gnome or KDE. Oh, wait...you are defining desktop as 'looks like Microsoft's offerings'. Silly me, I guess I want something better in my life. How DARE *I* doubt the linux collective at/.!
Hey, as far as I'm concerened, the original post was a troll. 'why bother with BSD/how long can it last'. But lets say it was a ligit concern....is not the fragmentation of the 150+ linux distros a concern?
I'm happy for you that the GPL works for you. But for people with IP concerns, the GPL doesn't work. And the BSD code is the way to go, and will continue to go.
BSD is the 'second' Unix. AT&T is the 1st. So, why is a 3rd Unix - Linux needed? Consider Sun built their company on BSD, and Apple is moving to BSD. To date, what does Linux have to show for it? A bunch of high flying IPO's and little profit.
>It seems that so much effort is being thrown into Linux that too me it would make sense that Linux will emerge on top eventually by the sheer development/advancement effort thrown into it.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean things like GNOME? Or GIMP? Or sendmail? If so, guess what....all of these are on BSD.
>Does Linux really need more "competition" besides trying to compete against the Redmond giant?
150+ different Linux distro shows how Linux has its own problems with "competition". An example of this 'problem' is shown by the web site featured on/., redhatisnotlinux.org.
Linux is too busy "competing" with itself. If you feel that BSD development is a waste of time due to the 'sheer development' of Linux, then you should be wailing about how Linux has so many versions.
Given that BSD has the BSD licence, it friendly to the intellectual property concerns of big companies. The GPL is all about getting all source code published, and this does not match the adjenda of most companies with IP concerns.
What package management? Linux package management blows goats. It tells me I need a bunch of files and dies. If it knows what it needs it sould go get them.
FreeBSD ports and packages have had the ability to update themselves and get/install the needed parts for years. So all I have to do is say "I want cyrus" and it goes gets gmake/tcl/autoconf/whatever else it needs if they are not already installed.
"own" is relative. People have them 'leased' to them.
file:// lets you look at the basic file layout. Things like lilo.conf, the same file system structure, and http://www.espial.com/linux.html shows a picture of the Virgin box. I belive my 'research' is correct.
>See, DEC employs competent, professional engineers, who know fluff when they see it.
Ahhh, so THATS why Dave Cutler (a VMS Architect) now works for Microsoft and was lead engineer on NT.
DEC gets rid of their fluff and sends it to Microsoft! Of course if Compaq thought VMS was worth supporting they'd have staff to do the job.
And, that is why Ken Olsen refused to support Unix, because VMS was SO much better. Hey, wasn't VMS on the 'soon to be discontinued' chopping block? Didn't 80% of shops moving from VMS to Unix opted to not run DEC's Unix?
>It does not run any kind of pee-cee and requires a serious computer Like BSD?
>Since you use Linux, Nope, I use BSD. You may have heard about BSD, it was developed on DEC hardware.
> you are used to software which is riddled with bugs, There ya go, confusing BSD and Unix with Microsoft's offerings.
>which is unreliable, insecure, and prone to constant crashes. But guess what: not all software is like that. You are right. BSD is not like those Microsoft programs.
You'd be a MUCH less bitter VAXman if you ran BSD on them VAXen you have.
>I don't use ANY stolen Microsoft software any more.
Good for you!
Given that if you are using stolen Microsoft code your rights are nill, what rights and accountability did you GAIN by buying that Microsoft code?
The EULA applies, and the quote of "MICROSOFT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO ACCOUNTABILITY OR FAULT IN THE FAILURE OF SAID PRODUCT." is valid.
So, lets connect the dots, as you won't answer the accountability question, and instead launch into a comment on stolen software.
Lets look at OpenSource
1) You claim No accountability (Reality: Most OpenSource has a contract that says the author is not responsible and is to be held harmless) 2) Code is aviable to fix bugs if you find one 3) Bug fix time can be under a week 4) Abandoned programs are supportable by users who find the program still useful
Now lets look at closed source 1) Contract claims No accountability 2) No code is aviable to fix bugs if you find one 3) Bug fix can be never 4) Abandoned programs are abandonded, never to run on newer platforms
Looking at this list, OpenSource puts a burden of responsibility on the user to support themselves, whereas because you can't support yourself with closed source, the burden is (supposed) to be elsewhere. Yet, no closed source company has a LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to take on that burden. If you are not into personal empowerment or the rights of individuals to control the tools they use, I can see where the 'promise' of some closed source behemoth holding your hand and guiding you along is a sedutive siren song.
As you are an opinionated AC, the question is this: What accountability does Microsoft have to their code?
>To amplify your point, when Open Source projects 'screw up' they just disappear. The number of fairly good packages I used to run on Slackware a few years ago that won't even build on a new Slack system (i.e. Xwave) are saddening. It's part of why I don't take Linux very seriously any more.
Then get off your sorry ass and port the code. Or, pay someone to port it for you, if you don't have the skills.
If it is not important enuf for you to port it, or pay someone to port it, then move on. It would appear that xwave wasn't all that exciting if no one is using it.
So, to make a DVD to FireWire work with all the options looks like a quagmire of problems like getting a current loopback terminal to work with a Windows CE device.
Mac OS X has BSD and is BSD just as much as any set-top/pda/virginconnect box running Linux is Linux.
UserLand is what you./configure and make/gmake of it. Nothing stopping anyone from taking the ports collection of FreeBSD and patching code to run on Mac OS X.
>The other thing to consider, of course, is the castly different user bases. Unix boxes will often get used by geeks who like being able to bost aout an uptime in months,
Hrmmmm, the 20K users on the e-mail box can't *ALL* be geeks.
>As I post this message my OS 9 server(it provides email and backup services for a small company) has an uptime count of 840 hours 37 minutes and 35 seconds. That's pretty good stability,
And I set up a BSD box on a 486 with 32 meg of DRAM handling 20,000 seperate e-mail users that has 228 and 847 DAYS of uptime. If you use the Micro$oft downtime methods, it was up for over 1000 days. (They had to unplug it to move the box.)
840 hours is not a timescale Unix users consider 'long'
Slashdot Mirror
1) The Timex Datalink watch.
2) an old Office 95 licence
1) The watch code is licensed ONLY for Windows 3.1, WFW and Windows 95. YET the watch box says NT is supported. A call to Timex was 'oh, that is a typo'
2) The clause that says you can only run the code on PROPERLY LICENCED copies of the windows operating system. If you didn't send in the warranty card -> licence is not "proper", and therefore you were in violation of the licence.
And a personal fav - Clause f of the EULA that says 'if you get sued and Microsoft is named, you have to pay M$'s lawyer bills.'
Linux has many different distros, all trying to gain mind-share. Sameness VS the market leader won't help you grow, and odds are you will shrink.
So, Debian is trying something to be DIFFERENT. They are going to appeal to the 'free source' crowd. They are going to try to say 'our distro is most free'. Remember, at one time there was a rumor/mention that the Debian group was going to take the BSD kernel and wrap the code they wrap about the Linux Kernel.
Then score one for Debian. 'bout time someone did that.
>This is flamebait.
/.!
The comment is not pro-linux therefore you call it flamebait. YET YOUR NEXT SENTENCE you admit that:
>Yes, the vast number of distros can get a little bit chaotic
Looks to me like you AGREE with my point, you just grade the chaos, I left it ungraded.
I note how you didn't address the point about how programs don't work from one distro to another.
>one of the BSDs would have a functional desktop if the various Linux distros hadn't been so "chaotic"
Really?
Tell that to Apple and Mac OS X.
Tell that to Afterstep.
Looks like BSD has *2* functional desktops tha have nothing to do with Gnome or KDE.
Oh, wait...you are defining desktop as 'looks like Microsoft's offerings'. Silly me, I guess I want something better in my life. How DARE *I* doubt the linux collective at
>The rest of your trolling about competition?
Hey, as far as I'm concerened, the original post was a troll. 'why bother with BSD/how long can it last'. But lets say it was a ligit concern....is not the fragmentation of the 150+ linux distros a concern?
I'm happy for you that the GPL works for you. But for people with IP concerns, the GPL doesn't work. And the BSD code is the way to go, and will continue to go.
>Linux is a decentralized development model.
Yea, with the 150+ linux distros its not decentralized, it is chaos.
Programs that work with one linux distro won't work with another.
>Is BSD really needed?
/., redhatisnotlinux.org.
BSD is the 'second' Unix. AT&T is the 1st. So, why is a 3rd Unix - Linux needed? Consider Sun built their company on BSD, and Apple is moving to BSD. To date, what does Linux have to show for it? A bunch of high flying IPO's and little profit.
>It seems that so much effort is being thrown into Linux that too me it would make sense that Linux will emerge on top eventually by the sheer development/advancement effort thrown into it.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean things like GNOME? Or GIMP? Or sendmail? If so, guess what....all of these are on BSD.
>Does Linux really need more "competition" besides trying to compete against the Redmond giant?
150+ different Linux distro shows how Linux has its own problems with "competition". An example of this 'problem' is shown by the web site featured on
Linux is too busy "competing" with itself. If you feel that BSD development is a waste of time due to the 'sheer development' of Linux, then you should be wailing about how Linux has so many versions.
Given that BSD has the BSD licence, it friendly to the intellectual property concerns of big companies. The GPL is all about getting all source code published, and this does not match the adjenda of most companies with IP concerns.
What package management? Linux package management blows goats. It tells me I need a bunch of files and dies. If it knows what it needs it sould go get them.
FreeBSD ports and packages have had the ability to update themselves and get/install the needed parts for years. So all I have to do is say "I want cyrus" and it goes gets gmake/tcl/autoconf/whatever else it needs if they are not already installed.
Yet they were bought out by Intel, so the use of this technology won't happen.
Good to see some comments about the possibility of SMP and Athlon.
"own" is relative. People have them 'leased' to them.
file:// lets you look at the basic file layout. Things like lilo.conf, the same file system structure, and http://www.espial.com/linux.html shows a picture of the Virgin box. I belive my 'research' is correct.
And, to date, my letter to Virgin is unanswered.
Virgin has the VirginConnect 'web device' that is also based on some variant of Linux.
Yet, no source code for it. And no offer of source code.
What is the point of the GPL advantage of Linux, if the code is denied?
*clap* *clap*
An example of what this gent says is all the non-portable, Linux specific code out there.
The 'old timers of Uniux' would write portable code, code ment to run on more than one Unix form.
Mentoring is key. But the 'young turks' have to get over themselfs to realize this.
>Under strict development guidelines this can be reduced (e.g. NASA space shuttle code)
Got a link for this?
>See, DEC employs competent, professional engineers, who know fluff when they see it.
Ahhh, so THATS why Dave Cutler (a VMS Architect) now works for Microsoft and was lead engineer on NT.
DEC gets rid of their fluff and sends it to Microsoft! Of course if Compaq thought VMS was worth supporting they'd have staff to do the job.
And, that is why Ken Olsen refused to support Unix, because VMS was SO much better. Hey, wasn't VMS on the 'soon to be discontinued' chopping block? Didn't 80% of shops moving from VMS to Unix opted to not run DEC's Unix?
>It does not run any kind of pee-cee and requires a serious computer
Like BSD?
>Since you use Linux,
Nope, I use BSD. You may have heard about BSD, it was developed on DEC hardware.
> you are used to software which is riddled with bugs,
There ya go, confusing BSD and Unix with Microsoft's offerings.
>which is unreliable, insecure, and prone to constant crashes. But guess what: not all software is like that.
You are right. BSD is not like those Microsoft programs.
You'd be a MUCH less bitter VAXman if you ran BSD on them VAXen you have.
>I don't use ANY stolen Microsoft software any more.
Good for you!
Given that if you are using stolen Microsoft code your rights are nill, what rights and accountability did you GAIN by buying that Microsoft code?
The EULA applies, and the quote of "MICROSOFT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO ACCOUNTABILITY OR FAULT IN THE FAILURE OF SAID PRODUCT." is valid.
So, lets connect the dots, as you won't answer the accountability question, and instead launch into a comment on stolen software.
Lets look at OpenSource
1) You claim No accountability
(Reality: Most OpenSource has a contract that says the author is not responsible and is to be held harmless)
2) Code is aviable to fix bugs if you find one
3) Bug fix time can be under a week
4) Abandoned programs are supportable by users who find the program still useful
Now lets look at closed source
1) Contract claims No accountability
2) No code is aviable to fix bugs if you find one
3) Bug fix can be never
4) Abandoned programs are abandonded, never to run on newer platforms
Looking at this list, OpenSource puts a burden of responsibility on the user to support themselves, whereas because you can't support yourself with closed source, the burden is (supposed) to be elsewhere. Yet, no closed source company has a LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to take on that burden. If you are not into personal empowerment or the rights of individuals to control the tools they use, I can see where the 'promise' of some closed source behemoth holding your hand and guiding you along is a sedutive siren song.
As you are an opinionated AC, the question is this: What accountability does Microsoft have to their code?
>To amplify your point, when Open Source projects 'screw up' they just disappear. The number of fairly good packages I used to run on Slackware a few years ago that won't even build on a new Slack system (i.e. Xwave) are saddening. It's part of why I don't take Linux very seriously any more.
Then get off your sorry ass and port the code. Or, pay someone to port it for you, if you don't have the skills.
If it is not important enuf for you to port it, or pay someone to port it, then move on. It would appear that xwave wasn't all that exciting if no one is using it.
Now, if such a thing was said about Linux on /., the comment would be now at -1 flamebait.
Got proof that you have to pay the osopinion people to post a story there?
Oh, no proof?
FireWire may 'work', but I have yet to see this with my own eyes.
d ware/19990131.freebsd-hardware
d ware/19990131.freebsd-hardware
Yes, I can get still photos off my DV camera. But, I can't capture movies.
ftp://ftp.uec.ac.jp/pub/firewire/
I remember reading a post that compared FireWire and the DV parts to the RS-232 spec...and how fractured the RS-232 implementation is. I can't find it, but I did find one making a comment about all the DV encoding options.
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=75 961+81135+/usr/local/www/db/text/1999/freebsd-har
and one making a reference to the landmines of IP with respect to Firewire.
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=55 282+59269+/usr/local/www/db/text/1999/freebsd-har
So, to make a DVD to FireWire work with all the options looks like a quagmire of problems like getting a current loopback terminal to work with a Windows CE device.
Mac OS X has BSD and is BSD just as much as any set-top/pda/virginconnect box running Linux is Linux.
./configure and make/gmake of it. Nothing stopping anyone from taking the ports collection of FreeBSD and patching code to run on Mac OS X.
UserLand is what you
>The other thing to consider, of course, is the castly different user bases. Unix boxes will often get used by geeks who like being able to bost aout an uptime in months,
Hrmmmm, the 20K users on the e-mail box can't *ALL* be geeks.
>As I post this message my OS 9 server(it provides email and backup services for a small company) has an uptime count of 840 hours 37 minutes and 35 seconds. That's pretty good stability,
And I set up a BSD box on a 486 with 32 meg of DRAM handling 20,000 seperate e-mail users that has 228 and 847 DAYS of uptime. If you use the Micro$oft downtime methods, it was up for over 1000 days. (They had to unplug it to move the box.)
840 hours is not a timescale Unix users consider 'long'
>Unless the virus causes extensivedamage or advertizes Linux , these postings are getting quite old.
Please show where it says News for Linux. Or News for Linux Nerds. Or where Nerd is defined as Linux.
The attitude that the *ONLY* OpenSource project, or in your case-Nerds, helps to DIVIDE a larger community which would be farther ahead to unite.
>ead alan cox's papers
Got any proof to back this up? The rest of your rant is without merit, so I'd be happy to see a URL where Mr. Cox makes claims of 'stealing'.
(I guess if you are trolling and mention alan cox, you don't get flamebait, but get a +1)
According to securityfocus Linux is #2 for most announcements, with NT in the lead.
Given the number of security announcements for Linux, exactly HOW is BSD less secure?
Debian 2 2 29 5
FreeBSD 4 2 18 6
HP-UX 8 5 7 3
IRIX 26 13 8 3
Linux (aggr.) 10 23 84 30
MacOS 0 1 5 0
MacOS X Server 0 0 1 0
NetBSD 1 4 10 3
OpenBSD 1 2 4 2
RedHat 5 10 38 17
Solaris 24 31 34 6
Windows 3.1x/95/98 1 1 46 11
Windows NT 4 6 99 34