>the licesnse that MySQL is under does not come anywhere close to meeting the open source definition
Exactly. So why not move to a product that has it, like Oracle/Informix/...., or, if you are going to spend the $, why not invest the $-time in PostgreSQL, a database that IS opensource?
Is there any reason beyond: MySQL is what we have been using, so now we will continue to use it?
MySQL has said: On Roll-Back "MySQL has made a conscious decision to support another paradigm for data integrity, " Ok, fine, that is a design choice. If they wanted it(rollback), they would have designed it in.
PostgreSQL has rollback, and just needs database replication, and they would LOVE to see that feature.
So, why work with MySQL, other than "it is what we have always done" or "We didn't think of another option"? Are you hoping to have them change the licence?
Really? I look at the ftp program in NT, Apple's Mac OS X, and even Linux, and find BSD code.
Looks like plenty of people support the use of BSD in open AND closed source.
>In a case like this BSD developers should either focus on releasing a better and more secure linux, And Linux NEEDS this help based on the money I make fixing Linux boxes that have been broken into. I hope it takes a long time to get around to fixing Linux...I *LIKE* making money off of Linux, and it only helps me install BSD....once these people get sick of Linux and being hit by script kiddies.
Look at redhatisnotlinux.org. This site: 1) claims to not be an anti-red-hat site. 2) trying to get the world to see that linux is more than redhat
Given one of the options is: >CompileFarm, for comercial entities to build binary distributions for ALL MAJOR Linux distributions.
It looks like there is not ONE LINUX to join...but MANY Linuxes to pick from. So which Linux distro do you want us to do free work on?
>WHy do we have soo many different unix variants. Answer this question: Why are there over 150 Linux versions?
Given all the different distros, and the need for a special compile farm, it looks like Linux is more fragmented than the commerical Unix world ever was.
What is worldpilot? Worldpilot is a web server application that provides you with a web based organizer and messenger. Among others it provides you with the following features: IMAP based web mail client Contact and Address book Notes ToDo's Calendar with support for repeating events Workgroup sharing with broadcasting and subscriptions
*ding* give the parent post a cigar (and some karma)
It all depends on the contract.
The 'advertising agent' I did work with wanted 3X the cost of the web-site for the client to "own" the design. She claimed such pricing was 'standard' for the industry.
I called her nutz. She doesn't "do the new media" anymore, and I don't work with her.
Suggestion: Let anyone who works with the Ad company doing the suing about the lawsuit. And make as much of this dirty laundry public.
They should sue the posters. Any obligation/. has should be limited to giving the IP address and date of the poster.
The posters broke the law, and/. is nothing more than a common carrier.
(obJonKatz Comment: The flip side of viewing the world this way means that Mr. Katz MAY HAVE violated some copywrite laws WRT the/. comments that make up his book. He has a defense of 'fair use' however...perhaps the people who feel offended they were taken advange of shoudl in turn use the same law and attempt to go after/reach a settlement with Mr. Katz.)
That is an example of the people who are doing the code-writing being unwilling to do the work to port their code.
ESR, the man who keeps talking about how 'BSD deserves more attention than they get', he has source and RPM versions of fetchmail....no ports, and no package format versions.
The samba team, mozilla, and many MANY others seem to 'forget' the other OSes. It is their perogative.
>We've got Linux, what the heck to we need Free/Open/NetBSD(I) for?
Given that BSD existed long before Linux, The same question can be asked...why work on Linux?
Linux is nothing but a rip-off of Unix, whereas BSD is from the code of Unix.
(how are those 2 answers, troll? Given you claim you were not trolling, perhaps the above 2 answers will be understandable in a non-trolling way.)
How about this: the GPL licence (the freedom of the tool) VS BSD (the freedom of the human) Some people think the freedom to do what the human wants to do to a tool (sourcecode/resulting executable) is MORE important than the rights of a tool. The human race has gotten to where we are today via tool usage, and the GPL is more restrictive about how the tool is to be used than the BSD Licence.
>It's not a question to be dismissed. Sure it can. You make these 'grand proclamations' about how linux is wonderful, yet you provide no facts. Just bluster.
>Standards are just needed so badly. Who decides these 'standards'? *YOU*? You are nothing but an AC trolling. The only 'sptandard' I'm seeing from you is "linux"....which has what, 150+ seprate versions? The redhatisnotlinux site acknologies these version ARE fragmented and different when they advocate "build binary distributions for ALL MAJOR Linux distributions. " Real good idea....lets get behind a standard with 150+ different versions.
>spreading our development efforts so thinly As you are *SO* concerend about such then advocate these measures: 1) The LSB should include ANY OS that wants to support the API via a compatibility layer 2) All userspace code sould be under a BSD licence so EVERYONE can share the code 3) All drivers should be BSD licenced so everyone can share 4) People who write code for Linux should be going to the old tomes/old hackers and asking how to make PORTABLE code, such that ALL UNIX(tm) forms can benifit from the program.
The final point, as made by ESR, is monoculture==bad, diversity==good. This is better expressed as the History of Unix development. Many ideas are tried, and what wins out is the "better" idea. Without the diverse code base to TRY new ideas, you end up going down blind allies.
What you advocate is picking one path, and somehow I'm betting most of the world would find following a troll down a blind ally to be unpalitable
What people care about is the data and the ability to have code that gets the data, plays with the data, and outputs the results.
An example is Oracle Finactionals. It is an accounting package. Once you have your accounting package on database X, you then can intergrate all your other stuff into database X.
If PostgreSQL wants to take on "the big boys" they have to be willing to back an accounting package. Get a good-quality accounting base, and users will add ties for POS, Inventory, etc.
Then explain the compiler and tools that are included in cell phone switches, for which there is NO SOURCE for. This doesn't fit the model you mention.
Then what does SOURCE incompatibility have to do with Linux standard BINARIES?
Source incompatibilities have more to do with programmers not being versed in portable code. In the old days of Unix we wrote code to work on the many flavors of Unix. New programmers need to read the old documents on code portability...to be educated that the code world does not begin and end with Linux. But, if you are busy pushing a "world domination" 'tude, then how will the new coders come to understand code portability?
>Most Linux code itself can be compiled What is "linux code"? The Kernel? Or Userspace? A large part of the "linux" userspace is old-fashioned Unix code ported to Linux, as Yet Another Unix Version.
Ok, then explain why BSD and the BSD's Linux compatibility layer isn't even mentioned in the press release.
The BSD licence is about code sharing, isn't it? BSD allows sharing with closed-commerical projects, GPL projects, and anything but public domain. Why is BSD a 3rd class (not even mentioned) Remember that Gary Johnson has said that he supports full LSB compatibility for BSD.
If it is because you thought the GPL ment no closed source forks, guess what...you were misinformed. Now you ARE properly informed.
Don't like the FSF selling GPLed code in closed source versions? Create the GTG that has the HQM licence (fsf and gpl and next letters) and say you are exactly like the FSF managed GPL, but you don't sell rights to make a closed source version. If you views are better, you will have people stop making GPLed code and making HQM licenced code instead.
(If you feel better the 1st time I posted this idea about a closed GPL fork, it got pushed to -1 flamebait, then moderated back up when others said 'yes this did happen'. Others have been pissed over it, because they saw the GPL as some kind of religious thing. If we want a REAL flame-fest with religious ovetones, lets get Brett Glass to junp in on this thread. Mr. Glass baits GPLers quite well.)
>The newly formed Free Standards Group > was organized to accelerate >the use and acceptance of open source > technologies through the >application, development and promotion of >interoperability standards > for open source development.
Ok, so where are the calls to make sure this "Linux Standard" will be including Linux compatibility options?
>any LSB-compliant application will run >successfully on any LSB-compliant Linux >distributions.
Again, what about vendors that use a Sys V or BSD kernel and wish to support Linux via a Linux compatibility layer?
>increasing compatibility among Linux and other >open source distributions and in helping to >support software vendors and developers to port >and write software for open source >such as Linux.
Nice, but vague. If it is OpenSource, it doesn't NEED the LSB like shrink-wrapped binaries does it? Look at all the code as FreeBSD ports and the same code as Linux distros rpm/deb/whatever
>LSB would also help >SCO's Server Software Division by increasing >Linux compatibility with SCO operating platforms.
So why is SCO a 2nd class citizen in this? Why is the concept of Linux Compatibility layers buried at the end? Such should be at the top of the press release, because the LSB is the 1st *REAL* chance of a unified-shrink-wrapped-unix binaries in the history of Unix.
Assigning the rights to the FSF allows them to sell these rights for closed sourced versions of the code.
Example: GCC sold to Motorola
Re:The irrationality of "the next big crash" omens
on
Irrational Exuberance
·
· Score: 1
>Back when the united states had the great depression in the 1930's we put ecconomic safeguards that essentially prevent something like that from happening again.
Really? Because it has not happened YET does not mean it won't happen again. The only way to prove the system does not work is for the system to fail.
>i don't think i've ever heard of an open source hardware project.
I have:
a 32000 based motherboard project. Did 2 board runs. Here on/., open sourced processors http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/29/084520 1&mode=thread Ham radio schematics Computer schematics (as swapped at the Homebrew computer club, etc)
Bullshit. You can reverse engineer it. Would having the code make your life easier, you betja. Is this a good use of your time? That is something you will have to decide.
The NetBSD people do this kind of thing all the time. Getting a Dreamcast to boot BSD is an example.
For all you know the project was poorly documented, and 1 or 2 engineers wrote all the code, and when they left the project died.
The 32 engineers who left apple and the newton projects had the working knowledge of NI. No staff, no product. (ok, so 32 is more than 1 or 2 but hey, its a fake example based on a RL example)
Slashdot Mirror
>the licesnse that MySQL is under does not come anywhere close to meeting the open source definition
Exactly. So why not move to a product that has it, like Oracle/Informix/...., or, if you are going to spend the $, why not invest the $-time in PostgreSQL, a database that IS opensource?
Is there any reason beyond: MySQL is what we have been using, so now we will continue to use it?
MySQL has said:
On Roll-Back
"MySQL has made a conscious decision to support another paradigm for data integrity, "
Ok, fine, that is a design choice. If they wanted it(rollback), they would have designed it in.
PostgreSQL has rollback, and just needs database replication, and they would LOVE to see that feature.
So, why work with MySQL, other than "it is what we have always done" or "We didn't think of another option"? Are you hoping to have them change the licence?
>At the moment BSD does not have enough support
Really? I look at the ftp program in NT, Apple's Mac OS X, and even Linux, and find BSD code.
Looks like plenty of people support the use of BSD in open AND closed source.
>In a case like this BSD developers should either focus on releasing a better and more secure linux,
And Linux NEEDS this help based on the money I make fixing Linux boxes that have been broken into. I hope it takes a long time to get around to fixing Linux...I *LIKE* making money off of Linux, and it only helps me install BSD....once these people get sick of Linux and being hit by script kiddies.
>TIMe Join LINUX
Which Linux?
Look at redhatisnotlinux.org. This site:
1) claims to not be an anti-red-hat site.
2) trying to get the world to see that linux is more than redhat
Given one of the options is:
>CompileFarm, for comercial entities to build binary distributions for ALL MAJOR Linux distributions.
It looks like there is not ONE LINUX to join...but MANY Linuxes to pick from. So which Linux distro do you want us to do free work on?
>WHy do we have soo many different unix variants.
Answer this question: Why are there over 150 Linux versions?
Given all the different distros, and the need for a special compile farm, it looks like Linux is more fragmented than the commerical Unix world ever was.
The mass shooting of the employees behind this screw up won't happen, so, sorry, no happy endings here.
Worldpilot is already out and mature.
What is worldpilot?
Worldpilot is a web server application that
provides you with a web based organizer
and messenger. Among others it provides
you with the following features:
IMAP based web mail client
Contact and Address book
Notes
ToDo's
Calendar with support for repeating events
Workgroup sharing with broadcasting and
subscriptions
Are they the ones who do the .rpm that you cited?
*ding* give the parent post a cigar (and some karma)
It all depends on the contract.
The 'advertising agent' I did work with wanted 3X the cost of the web-site for the client to "own" the design. She claimed such pricing was 'standard' for the industry.
I called her nutz. She doesn't "do the new media" anymore, and I don't work with her.
Suggestion: Let anyone who works with the Ad company doing the suing about the lawsuit. And make as much of this dirty laundry public.
They should sue the posters. Any obligation /. has should be limited to giving the IP address and date of the poster.
/. is nothing more than a common carrier.
/. comments that make up his book. He has a defense of 'fair use' however...perhaps the people who feel offended they were taken advange of shoudl in turn use the same law and attempt to go after/reach a settlement with Mr. Katz.)
The posters broke the law, and
(obJonKatz Comment: The flip side of viewing the world this way means that Mr. Katz MAY HAVE violated some copywrite laws WRT the
That is an example of the people who are doing the code-writing being unwilling to do the work to port their code.
ESR, the man who keeps talking about how 'BSD deserves more attention than they get', he has source and RPM versions of fetchmail....no ports, and no package format versions.
The samba team, mozilla, and many MANY others seem to 'forget' the other OSes. It is their perogative.
>We've got Linux, what the heck to we need Free/Open/NetBSD(I) for?
Given that BSD existed long before Linux, The same question can be asked...why work on Linux?
Linux is nothing but a rip-off of Unix, whereas BSD is from the code of Unix.
(how are those 2 answers, troll? Given you claim you were not trolling, perhaps the above 2 answers will be understandable in a non-trolling way.)
How about this: the GPL licence (the freedom of the tool) VS BSD (the freedom of the human) Some people think the freedom to do what the human wants to do to a tool (sourcecode/resulting executable) is MORE important than the rights of a tool. The human race has gotten to where we are today via tool usage, and the GPL is more restrictive about how the tool is to be used than the BSD Licence.
>It's not a question to be dismissed.
Sure it can. You make these 'grand proclamations' about how linux is wonderful, yet you provide no facts. Just bluster.
>Standards are just needed so badly.
Who decides these 'standards'? *YOU*? You are nothing but an AC trolling. The only 'sptandard' I'm seeing from you is "linux"....which has what, 150+ seprate versions? The redhatisnotlinux site acknologies these version ARE fragmented and different when they advocate "build binary distributions for ALL MAJOR Linux distributions. " Real good idea....lets get behind a standard with 150+ different versions.
>spreading our development efforts so thinly
As you are *SO* concerend about such then advocate these measures:
1) The LSB should include ANY OS that wants to support the API via a compatibility layer
2) All userspace code sould be under a BSD licence so EVERYONE can share the code
3) All drivers should be BSD licenced so everyone can share
4) People who write code for Linux should be going to the old tomes/old hackers and asking how to make PORTABLE code, such that ALL UNIX(tm) forms can benifit from the program.
The final point, as made by ESR, is monoculture==bad, diversity==good. This is better expressed as the History of Unix development. Many ideas are tried, and what wins out is the "better" idea. Without the diverse code base to TRY new ideas, you end up going down blind allies.
What you advocate is picking one path, and somehow I'm betting most of the world would find following a troll down a blind ally to be unpalitable
1) Get a list of the 317K banned users
2) take a mailing list...perhaps that list of people you don't like
3) merge 1 and 2 on the from Napster provided.
Result? People from part 2) get letter from lawyer telling them they are being sued for piracy of Metallica "art"
> Why should there be source for the cell phone switches? And why should "the compiler and tools" be part of such a switch?
Then obviously you have never had to make sure these beasts keep running and current.
>rumors, rather than verificable data.
Considering I've SEEN this 'data', why don't YOU verify it? Go buy a phone switch.
Almost no one care about Databases Per-say.
What people care about is the data and the ability to have code that gets the data, plays with the data, and outputs the results.
An example is Oracle Finactionals. It is an accounting package. Once you have your accounting package on database X, you then can intergrate all your other stuff into database X.
If PostgreSQL wants to take on "the big boys" they have to be willing to back an accounting package. Get a good-quality accounting base, and users will add ties for POS, Inventory, etc.
Then explain the compiler and tools that are included in cell phone switches, for which there is NO SOURCE for. This doesn't fit the model you mention.
In Moto's case...they bought the rights.
>There IS such thing as source incompatibility,
Then what does SOURCE incompatibility have to do with Linux standard BINARIES?
Source incompatibilities have more to do with programmers not being versed in portable code. In the old days of Unix we wrote code to work on the many flavors of Unix. New programmers need to read the old documents on code portability...to be educated that the code world does not begin and end with Linux. But, if you are busy pushing a "world domination" 'tude, then how will the new coders come to understand code portability?
>Most Linux code itself can be compiled
What is "linux code"? The Kernel? Or Userspace? A large part of the "linux" userspace is old-fashioned Unix code ported to Linux, as Yet Another Unix Version.
So, to say 'linux code' what DO you mean by this?
Oh, so it is about code sharing?
Ok, then explain why BSD and the BSD's Linux compatibility layer isn't even mentioned in the press release.
The BSD licence is about code sharing, isn't it? BSD allows sharing with closed-commerical projects, GPL projects, and anything but public domain. Why is BSD a 3rd class (not even mentioned) Remember that Gary Johnson has said that he supports full LSB compatibility for BSD.
(I look forward to your repy Mr. Polk.)
Take a step back and ask WHY you are mad.
If it is because you thought the GPL ment no closed source forks, guess what...you were misinformed. Now you ARE properly informed.
Don't like the FSF selling GPLed code in closed source versions? Create the GTG that has the HQM licence (fsf and gpl and next letters) and say you are exactly like the FSF managed GPL, but you don't sell rights to make a closed source version. If you views are better, you will have people stop making GPLed code and making HQM licenced code instead.
(If you feel better the 1st time I posted this idea about a closed GPL fork, it got pushed to -1 flamebait, then moderated back up when others said 'yes this did happen'. Others have been pissed over it, because they saw the GPL as some kind of religious thing. If we want a REAL flame-fest with religious ovetones, lets get Brett Glass to junp in on this thread. Mr. Glass baits GPLers quite well.)
>The newly formed Free Standards Group > was organized to accelerate
>the use and acceptance of open source
> technologies through the
>application, development and promotion of >interoperability standards
> for open source development.
Ok, so where are the calls to make sure this "Linux Standard" will be including Linux compatibility options?
>any LSB-compliant application will run >successfully on any LSB-compliant Linux >distributions.
Again, what about vendors that use a Sys V or BSD kernel and wish to support Linux via a Linux compatibility layer?
>increasing compatibility among Linux and other
>open source distributions and in helping to >support software vendors and developers to port >and write software for open source
>such as Linux.
Nice, but vague.
If it is OpenSource, it doesn't NEED the LSB like shrink-wrapped binaries does it? Look at all the code as FreeBSD ports and the same code as Linux distros rpm/deb/whatever
>LSB would also help
>SCO's Server Software Division by increasing >Linux compatibility with SCO operating platforms.
So why is SCO a 2nd class citizen in this? Why is the concept of Linux Compatibility layers buried at the end? Such should be at the top of the press release, because the LSB is the 1st *REAL* chance of a unified-shrink-wrapped-unix binaries in the history of Unix.
You forgot:
Assigning the rights to the FSF allows them to sell these rights for closed sourced versions of the code.
Example: GCC sold to Motorola
>Back when the united states had the great depression in the 1930's we put ecconomic safeguards that essentially prevent something like that from happening again.
Really? Because it has not happened YET does not mean it won't happen again. The only way to prove the system does not work is for the system to fail.
>There is little cause to worry.
Sure....you just keep telling yourself that.
> X was GPLed around the time that beta 0.6 came into being.
Got proof?
>By failing to GPL it, the Xfree86 team has discouraged a major portion of the Gnu/Linux community from using it.
Better tell the Linux distro people from shipping it.
>i don't think i've ever heard of an open source hardware project.
/., open sourced processors http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/29/084520 1&mode=thread
I have:
a 32000 based motherboard project. Did 2 board runs.
Here on
Ham radio schematics
Computer schematics (as swapped at the Homebrew computer club, etc)
Need more?
But without the source, I have nowhere to begin.
Bullshit. You can reverse engineer it. Would having the code make your life easier, you betja. Is this a good use of your time? That is something you will have to decide.
The NetBSD people do this kind of thing all the time. Getting a Dreamcast to boot BSD is an example.
For all you know the project was poorly documented, and 1 or 2 engineers wrote all the code, and when they left the project died.
The 32 engineers who left apple and the newton projects had the working knowledge of NI. No staff, no product. (ok, so 32 is more than 1 or 2 but hey, its a fake example based on a RL example)
Think of it..... the cobra personality chip and the user can install the fangs/poison.
Odds are such mods will ship after sonly ships the pit-bull kit for the Abio.