Then take the code WAS Re:BSD vs. GPL license.
on
Corel Dropping WINE?
·
· Score: 1
Look, if the BSD license bothers you so much, and you have such a belief in a GPL license, then by all means take BSD licensed code and add a line of GPL code and GPL the BSD license code.
It would be MUCH more productive use of your time then comming onto slashdot and whining about the BSD licence. Go GPL the code, and make yourself happy.
>Someone should take the *BSD source, change the symantics of a single line of code, and relicense it under a proprietary license (eg. the M$ EULA). The BSD license allows it. Oh? What's this?
Many companys have. You can find BSD copywrites in Apple's Darwin, Microsoft's FTP, and Gosh, even GNU/Linux have taken BSD code and re-licensed it.
>The BSD license isn't that great after all?
The BSD licensed code is good enough for GNU/Linux to take and re-license. So, why do *YOU* have some problem that BSD licensed code is somehow bad?
There are MANY users of OpenSource who look at the rights of people are more important than the rights of objects. Personally, my right to use a tool (source code) as I damn well see fit is more important than the way the someone wants to force me to use it.
>>Sun OS was the BSD product. >SunOS is and always has been the name of Sun's Unix operating system. That's why uname says what it does. >SunOS 4.x was BSD. >SunOS 5.x is SYSV.
Ok... I mispoke. I'll include the 4.x next time. mea culpa. (I could try a defense based on sales lit calling the BSD version Sun OS and SYS V Solaris, but the uname result shows how dangerous trying to get computer history RIGHT is.)
Now YOUR turn to be wrong. >Solaris is the name of a particular bundle of software from Sun: it is the environment which includes SunOS,
Sorry. If Sun OS is included in Solaris, why doesn't software that worked with Sun OS 4.x need to have system calles changed to work with Solaris?
You should have specified version numbers.:-)
(Wait till this fun starts happening with Mac OS. The unix/nonunix version. Or how Windows is what? 3.1, NT, WinCE, Embedded NT, etc la)
I must patent this idea to prevent others from patenting this 1st, and therefore shutting me out of the market.
No matter how obvious, lame, or whatever the patent may seem, its better to have the un-enforcable patent on your side, than it is to NOT have it there.
Business is all about having an un-level playing field. And the more un-level you can make it, the better for you. Your stockholders demand high returns...and the best way to insure that is to have a government sponsored monopoly. Be it a patent, contract, or other such device.
I guess you can be thankful that to date Microsoft hasn't been the ones filing and getting such patents. I'm betting that Bill is now having them file on almost ANY idea.
And its the abuse of the system that will make it collapse. Be sure to take the time and draft a letter or 2 to your congress-critter about patent abuse....cite these as claims that the system needs to be re-thought.
What is the market you are serving? Why are customers going to come to you, and keep coming back to you over others? Does anyone in your group of people understand basic accounting? Do you know how to run the accounting package you have chosen? How are you going to link this accoutning package to your business?
And the REALLY big one: Do you have the money to do this?
Sweat, blood and credit card advances only go so far.
Go to the public library, any of the small business web sites, and even (gasp) the IRS and do some reading. They will tell you ALL kinds of questions you should be asking. Like Insurance, type of business org., etc.
After you have done the above mentioned research *THEN* start wondering about DS1 or DS3, colocation, etc.
And you know this because you WORK for Motorola in the cell phone division? Because you work for a cell phone company? Because you have asked Motorola?
As another poster pointed out, with FSF holding the copywrite on GCC, they can release SPECIAL version any way they want.
Now, given that I have had interactions with said technology, I know what I was told about it.
Because *YOU* do not like the message, you wish to shoot the messenger. And that is fine by me. The FACTS are that that particular GCC implementation, the code used to produce it isn't avaiable because of a special licence.
A more common compiler, the GCC on Data General boxes is ALLEDGED to have a similar special licence. I have no independant conformation on this however. Perhaps you have access to some DG equipment, and can take time to investagate it.
But odds are, you are just lazy, and won't bother to re-visit the issue.
Its too bad for Apple. They had the relationships with Sony. They had the engineers (32 now at Palm ). They could have licenced the Newton interface to Sony.
But, alas, Mr. Job's in a fit of ego, kill the Newton.
(as an aside: Mac OS X... Apple's Unix won't actually run on any of the machines sold by Apple today. Doesn't work on the latest G4/PowerBooks/iMacs. So much for the comittment eh?)
Before you have an aneurysm and kill off what brain cells you have....Motorola sells cell phone transmission equipment. Some of this equipment has Unix boxes. Motorola ships binaries of GCC on these machines. When asked for source, the asker was told NO. BECAUSE Motorola had a licensing agreement with FSF that allowed them NOT to have to ship their changes.
Want to prove/disprove this? 1) Buy a cell site 2) Confirm the GCC is there 3) Ask for the code
I'm all for facts....you don't believe this...then go buy your own damn cell site and prove it.
>This is all kosher. You can use GCC to write proprietary applications, and if you don't actually redistribute GCC, you are not required by the GPL to make your changes available.
*smile* but Motorola was asked for the changes to GCC that shipped on the machine. Hence the statement from Motorola that 'they had a seperate licence from FSF'
Anyone with access to Motorola Cell Phone transmitters wanna try again and document this?:-)
RedHat realizes that the battle for the desktop, aka replacing Microsoft, will be a hard-fought battle with Microsoft having a better chance because they have more money.
In the embedded market, if you work is what matters. Consider too, that what has kept Microsoft where they are today is the OS and the supporting software (Office, for example). In the embedded world, the supporting apps don't matter. (Note how WinCE isn't taking over as others thought it would.)
OpenSource therefore has the best chance in the embedded market. Cygnus is quite a player there, with most of its coders contracted out. (over 50% is what I read...) And, like it or not, the BSD licence better protects the embedded players in court than the GPL. How can *ANYONE* take you to court to force a source code release with the BSD licence? In the embedded world, one of the most important thing is the IP (Intellectual Property) of your product. BSD licence better protects IP as expressed in source. As GCC is a compiler, and a tool, it can be used to make code for any licence type, so Cygnus is a win/win GPL or not.
Oh, think this is good for OpenSource and the GPL? Try this: Motorola uses GCC on its switches. Ask Motorola for its changes to GCC. You won't get them. They say because they licenced them from FSF, they don't have to. (If you have products using Linux 'embedded', then write the companies and ask for the source code. See what they say, just for yucks.)
What matters is the Prudue Administration controls the paycheks of the people who give you your grades. And, in the games of acedemic politics, you, as the student are meaningless. One student doesn't matter. Because they can just get more students.
Your fellow students are there to get the sheepskin. Asking these students to go OUT of thier way takes them off their goal. *IF* you get some students to help you, to take up the banner WITH you, expect them to get dragged in and 'questioned'.
Best idea. 1) ask to keep the site 2) ask for the $ you spent making the site. At a min, the domain name.
Try to be reasonable. If they are un-resonable, then bow out. Its better than having a target painted on your back.
(if this is your last semester....then don't worry...be happy)
(Keep in mind one of the big menbers of BSA was Microsoft)
The effect of this BSA action will be: The public trading will go down. BSA will then go to its members and say "See how hard we work for you! Piracy is down! Give us more money."
The 'small time' pirate has nothing to worry about. For, if s/he is caught, what is the court going to do? Bankrupt them? That is why piracy continues. Until the software industry adopts a 'no tolerance' policy, AKA suing EVERYONE who pirates, forcing local DA's to press charges, the piracy will continue.
The NEXT group to go after the IRC channels will be, the Recording industry. When bandwith gets great enough, the film industry. (College campus trading of films show this)
And when IRC becomes burdonsome, yet another on-line method of swapping bytes will happen.
Its a loosing battle for the producer of bytes. The only way for them to make money is to offer better service. And, with Microsoft held up as the model of how to be a software company, I don't see quality or service improving anytime soon.
Lets see: Spyglass was to share the profits from the sale of Internet Explorer. Digital was to benefit from NT. (Oh, and NT was going to be VMS done right.) Sybase was going to benefit from its SQL partnership with M$. Microfocus was offered a deal. M$ was to take 10% of its cash across the whole product line so Microsoft would keep selling its COBOL product.
Microsoft has a history of leaving its partners in worse shape than before they started.
Now, I'm waiting for Radio Shack to get the short sticky brown end of the stick. Cuz thats the end most EVERYONE else has gotten.
Apple will shaft you as a developer. Ask: Apple ][ forever believers Newton Developers OpenDoc CHiRP/PREP, the Clone makers
And the NeXT developers who were told: YellowBox was the new platform of choice (Then why Carbon?) Intel version of Rhapsody
Ask consumers of Apple products if they feel shafted Ask: The Brittish if they feel Apple has treated them well. The buyers of the 500/450/400 Mhz machines. Clone buyers. PPC Owners who were supposed to have Rhapsody, as per WWDC 1997. Newton owners with the fatal -10061 bug Apple/// owners who believed the product had a 5 year life.
And on and on. Apple burns people like Microsoft. The only difference is you can live fat while being burned by Microsoft.
Onto Mac OS X....
Mac OS X has *ONE* big hurdle. NetInfo. Everyting is linked to NetInfo, as so you have to either re-compile common tools to de-netinfo things, add to tools NetInfo hooks, OR make double entries.
Your basic compile-and-go-model that we are now used to doesn't happen with Mac OS X because of NetInfo. If you need to touch the user info...you can't just compile and go.
>BSD is a clear case of stubborn pride and "not invented here" syndrome. Perhaps its EVEN simpler, that the BSD licence is more to the liking of developers who want to protect THIER rights to do what they want with their code, as opposed to the rights of the sourcecode to be free. (See the viral nature of GPL debates for further info)
>splitting 3rd party developers' tasks Perhaps if vendors supported ALL the forms of Linux, *INCLUDING* Linux emulation under SCO/Solaris/BSD, there would not be this 'splitting' you speak of, but provide no evidence of.
>start working together, united, in building a better OS In the same way the number of Linux distros exceed 100? (107 was a number posted on/.) If this is 'working together', I wonder what you'd see as seperate?
>Only after we all make peace Why don't YOU start....and stop posting flamebait, ya troll? Why don't *YOU* ask vendors to write code that runs with *ALL* the Linux implementations, INCLUDING SCO, Solaris AND BSD???
But really its not true, the last sentence that is.
"Free BSD is a particular flavor of the Unix operating system. It does an exceptionally good job. The operating system is distributed for free. Those that write enhancements to it are required to make those available to everyone."
All you have to do is provide the base YOU used, you don't HAVE to give back to the community. But, this desire to give back is what OpenSource is all about, now isn't it?
And know of a few others who have $25,000 the people at www.weber.com Would *LOVE* to have a reason to leave the Microsoft environment and return to Unix.
However, this is the 'facts' about the CAM/CAD market (as their customers tell them) Unless they are a Unix shop, they don't ask for Unix. No new customer for 1-1.25 years have asked about the Unix version. So, all they sell is the NT version.
TO DATE THERE HAVE BEEN NO QUERIES ABOUT LINUX! (and this is not an open invite to bother them. Unless you have the NEED for a $25,000 CAM package, don't be asking for a port)
So, for all the 'hype' (and self-hype on this site), none of their prospective customers are using Linux, or are considering Linux.
The engineering market has been resisting the pull to NT, but as far as the maker of software in this market is concerned...Unix is a dead issue.
(But do we want to?) Electronic Design News Sept 30, 1999 A final design bill of materials for a dual-band GSM phone should be less than $10, with the chip set accounting for about half that figure.
Microsoft (and others) have been trying to figure out a way to improve the revenue stream.
The way the shrink-wrapped world most of us life in goes like this: The package is sold (cash for producer) You use the package.
Barring some lame file format changes, or an OS change, if the software worked for you in 1980, and your needs haven't changed, why would you help the software developers bottom line by buying a new version? (And it is possible to run that 3.3 copy of CP/M WordStar:-) ) You can see why, to developers, Microsoft is the company they love to hate. Note too, how among the Macintosh faithful, how the Mac OS allowed older code to run un-modified worked to the Mac's advantage.
The model of a limited time license you need to re-up doesn't work well on the shrink-wrapped PC platform. (Although Microsoft has that as a 2 year site license for businesses using Office 97/98)
The model of charging a yearly maintenance fee is tried by many shrink-wrapped vendors. But, this is used more as a warranty program. In exchange for money, (and evening out our cash flow) we will send you the new software when we make it.
If you try to follow the model of buying the features you need, then the maintenance model doesn't work. And how does the vendor get more money out the users.
Ok, how about the model of a yearly licensing fee? This has not worked, other companies rush in and take your customers, by pointing out how they have a lower cost of ownership. (assuming an infinite ownership time)
Now, what if you charged a company or person every time they used a service (Really, the software)? This model is: Recession resistant. (if the business cycle takes a downturn, you can't sit out an upgrade cycle, now can you?) Evens out the cash flow Simpler to control the licenses and therefore the revenue stream. (harder to pirate)
Remember the stink about how Microsoft was going to rent software? And no one really wanted it? The ASP is just another form of rental. And a way to provide steady and increased cash flow.
If a hardware company that shows losses is worth SO much....
Why was IBM so low a few years ago? Why did Apple drop to sub $15...it was loosing money too.
http://www.pelagius.com/AppleRecon/991001a.html
With quotes like: The markets have been "living on borrowed time with borrowed money" ever since the first Fed rate cut in the fall of '98.
the Fed will assiduously remain in "Full Blown Bubble Protection Mode."
And greed is not a "Bad thing" as long as it's kept in perspective. But the majority of the people are not keeping it in perspective. That's the reason why so many are willing to push a lot of stocks way out of whack; the most telling are the Internet stocks.
It may be a New Market, but markets cycle, and the higher the upside, the lower the downside.
Some things to remember about the embedded market:
1) The present 8 bit processors work fine for many tasks. So why have all the bits needed for an OS when an 8051 or z80 will do the job. 2) The embedded market lives and dies (at least as far as management is concerned) by IP (Intellectual Property, not Internet protocol
Given 1 and 2, any of the 'modern' Oses (WINCE, QNX, EPOCH, Embedded NT, *BSD or even Linux) need 32 bits and relying on a GPLed code base opens you legally up to releasing part of your IP to 'the community'.
Even if you don't HAVE to release your code, do you, as a manufacturer, want to have to go to court to prove you don't have to a jury of your peers, is someone demands the code?
Most companies that have IP they want to defend don't want to take that risk, even if the cost of GPL is $0 per seat, and WINCE is $35.
There *IS* a choice to the GPLed Linux in the Open Source OS arena. It's BSD. And, the BSD license *DOES* protect the IP of others.
If the goal of the Open Source world is to promote Open Source, then why the drum beats for Linux, when, for the embedded world, BSD is a better choice to protect what the embedded world considers its most valuable asset - IP?
The kernel is all the same, so therefore they are all the same.
If that is true, yet another distro will not matter, now will it?
If GNU/Linux is all about the kernel AND the parts wrapped around the kernel, then another distro matters. And it would matter WHERE the distro got its start.
So, which is it? The kernel or the kernel AND parts that matter? You can't have it both ways. There is either one Linux or a whole bunch of them.
Kinda like SYS V Unix. And, one can look to history to see how well that worked as a marketing idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, if the BSD license bothers you so much, and you have such a belief in a GPL license, then by all means take BSD licensed code and add a line of GPL code and GPL the BSD license code.
It would be MUCH more productive use of your time then comming onto slashdot and whining about the BSD licence. Go GPL the code, and make yourself happy.
>Someone should take the *BSD source, change the symantics of a single line of code, and relicense it under a proprietary license (eg. the M$ EULA). The BSD license allows it. Oh? What's this?
Many companys have.
You can find BSD copywrites in Apple's Darwin, Microsoft's FTP, and Gosh, even GNU/Linux have taken BSD code and re-licensed it.
>The BSD license isn't that great after all?
The BSD licensed code is good enough for GNU/Linux to take and re-license. So, why do *YOU* have some problem that BSD licensed code is somehow bad?
There are MANY users of OpenSource who look at the rights of people are more important than the rights of objects. Personally, my right to use a tool (source code) as I damn well see fit is more important than the way the someone wants to force me to use it.
>>Sun OS was the BSD product.
:-)
>SunOS is and always has been the name of Sun's Unix operating system. That's why uname says what it does.
>SunOS 4.x was BSD.
>SunOS 5.x is SYSV.
Ok... I mispoke. I'll include the 4.x next time. mea culpa. (I could try a defense based on sales lit calling the BSD version Sun OS and SYS V Solaris, but the uname result shows how dangerous trying to get computer history RIGHT is.)
Now YOUR turn to be wrong.
>Solaris is the name of a particular bundle of software from Sun: it is the environment which includes SunOS,
Sorry. If Sun OS is included in Solaris, why doesn't software that worked with Sun OS 4.x need to have system calles changed to work with Solaris?
You should have specified version numbers.
(Wait till this fun starts happening with Mac OS. The unix/nonunix version. Or how Windows is what? 3.1, NT, WinCE, Embedded NT, etc la)
Sun OS was the BSD product.
Solaris is the result of Sun paying a one time licence to AT&T and then making changes/bringing in BSD compatibility.
(hence all the hate and discontent of some Sun users when Sun OS 4.x was dumped for Solaris)
How business is now being done is this:
I must patent this idea to prevent others from patenting this 1st, and therefore shutting me out of the market.
No matter how obvious, lame, or whatever the patent may seem, its better to have the un-enforcable patent on your side, than it is to NOT have it there.
Business is all about having an un-level playing field. And the more un-level you can make it, the better for you. Your stockholders demand high returns...and the best way to insure that is to have a government sponsored monopoly. Be it a patent, contract, or other such device.
I guess you can be thankful that to date Microsoft hasn't been the ones filing and getting such patents. I'm betting that Bill is now having them file on almost ANY idea.
And its the abuse of the system that will make it collapse. Be sure to take the time and draft a letter or 2 to your congress-critter about patent abuse....cite these as claims that the system needs to be re-thought.
You need to answer basic business questions 1st.
What is the market you are serving?
Why are customers going to come to you, and keep coming back to you over others?
Does anyone in your group of people understand basic accounting?
Do you know how to run the accounting package you have chosen?
How are you going to link this accoutning package to your business?
And the REALLY big one:
Do you have the money to do this?
Sweat, blood and credit card advances only go so far.
Go to the public library, any of the small business web sites, and even (gasp) the IRS and do some reading. They will tell you ALL kinds of questions you should be asking. Like Insurance, type of business org., etc.
After you have done the above mentioned research *THEN* start wondering about DS1 or DS3, colocation, etc.
>Actually, there never was such a statement.
And you know this because you WORK for Motorola in the cell phone division?
Because you work for a cell phone company?
Because you have asked Motorola?
As another poster pointed out, with FSF holding the copywrite on GCC, they can release SPECIAL version any way they want.
Now, given that I have had interactions with said technology, I know what I was told about it.
Because *YOU* do not like the message, you wish to shoot the messenger. And that is fine by me. The FACTS are that that particular GCC implementation, the code used to produce it isn't avaiable because of a special licence.
A more common compiler, the GCC on Data General boxes is ALLEDGED to have a similar special licence. I have no independant conformation on this however. Perhaps you have access to some DG equipment, and can take time to investagate it.
But odds are, you are just lazy, and won't bother to re-visit the issue.
Its too bad for Apple. They had the relationships with Sony. They had the engineers (32 now at Palm
). They could have licenced the Newton interface to Sony.
But, alas, Mr. Job's in a fit of ego, kill the Newton.
(as an aside: Mac OS X... Apple's Unix won't actually run on any of the machines sold by Apple today. Doesn't work on the latest G4/PowerBooks/iMacs. So much for the comittment eh?)
>But still kosher, if in fact they do have a license from the FSF
*ding* Give that poster a moderation up!
A 5 even.
This little point is something the GPL 'keep the source free' crowd don't quite grok.
Some source is 'free-er' than others. Especally if money is involved.
Before you have an aneurysm and kill off what brain cells you have....Motorola sells cell phone transmission equipment. Some of this equipment has Unix boxes. Motorola ships binaries of GCC on these machines. When asked for source, the asker was told NO. BECAUSE Motorola had a licensing agreement with FSF that allowed them NOT to have to ship their changes.
Want to prove/disprove this?
1) Buy a cell site
2) Confirm the GCC is there
3) Ask for the code
I'm all for facts....you don't believe this...then go buy your own damn cell site and prove it.
>This is all kosher. You can use GCC to write proprietary applications, and if you don't actually redistribute GCC, you are not required by the GPL to make your changes available.
:-)
*smile* but Motorola was asked for the changes to GCC that shipped on the machine. Hence the statement from Motorola that 'they had a seperate licence from FSF'
Anyone with access to Motorola Cell Phone transmitters wanna try again and document this?
RedHat realizes that the battle for the desktop, aka replacing Microsoft, will be a hard-fought battle with Microsoft having a better chance because they have more money.
In the embedded market, if you work is what matters. Consider too, that what has kept Microsoft where they are today is the OS and the supporting software (Office, for example). In the embedded world, the supporting apps don't matter.
(Note how WinCE isn't taking over as others thought it would.)
OpenSource therefore has the best chance in the embedded market. Cygnus is quite a player there, with most of its coders contracted out. (over 50% is what I read...) And, like it or not, the BSD licence better protects the embedded players in court than the GPL. How can *ANYONE* take you to court to force a source code release with the BSD licence? In the embedded world, one of the most important thing is the IP (Intellectual Property) of your product. BSD licence better protects IP as expressed in source. As GCC is a compiler, and a tool, it can be used to make code for any licence type, so Cygnus is a win/win GPL or not.
Oh, think this is good for OpenSource and the GPL? Try this: Motorola uses GCC on its switches. Ask Motorola for its changes to GCC. You won't get them. They say because they licenced them from FSF, they don't have to.
(If you have products using Linux 'embedded', then write the companies and ask for the source code. See what they say, just for yucks.)
It doesn't matter if you CAN win in court.
It doesn't matter if you are right.
What matters is the Prudue Administration controls the paycheks of the people who give you your grades. And, in the games of acedemic politics, you, as the student are meaningless. One student doesn't matter. Because they can just get more students.
Your fellow students are there to get the sheepskin. Asking these students to go OUT of thier way takes them off their goal. *IF* you get some students to help you, to take up the banner WITH you, expect them to get dragged in and 'questioned'.
Best idea.
1) ask to keep the site
2) ask for the $ you spent making the site. At a min, the domain name.
Try to be reasonable. If they are un-resonable, then bow out. Its better than having a target painted on your back.
(if this is your last semester....then don't worry...be happy)
(Keep in mind one of the big menbers of BSA was Microsoft)
The effect of this BSA action will be:
The public trading will go down.
BSA will then go to its members and say
"See how hard we work for you! Piracy is down! Give us more money."
The 'small time' pirate has nothing to worry about. For, if s/he is caught, what is the court going to do? Bankrupt them? That is why piracy continues. Until the software industry adopts a 'no tolerance' policy, AKA suing EVERYONE who pirates, forcing local DA's to press charges, the piracy will continue.
The NEXT group to go after the IRC channels will be, the Recording industry. When bandwith gets great enough, the film industry. (College campus trading of films show this)
And when IRC becomes burdonsome, yet another on-line method of swapping bytes will happen.
Its a loosing battle for the producer of bytes. The only way for them to make money is to offer better service. And, with Microsoft held up as the model of how to be a software company, I don't see quality or service improving anytime soon.
Lets see:
Spyglass was to share the profits from the sale of Internet Explorer.
Digital was to benefit from NT. (Oh, and NT was going to be VMS done right.)
Sybase was going to benefit from its SQL partnership with M$.
Microfocus was offered a deal. M$ was to take 10% of its cash across the whole product line so Microsoft would keep selling its COBOL product.
Microsoft has a history of leaving its partners in worse shape than before they started.
Now, I'm waiting for Radio Shack to get the short sticky brown end of the stick. Cuz thats the end most EVERYONE else has gotten.
>Looks to me like the horse to bet on is Apple.
/// owners who believed the product had a 5 year life.
Apple will shaft you as a developer.
Ask:
Apple ][ forever believers
Newton Developers
OpenDoc
CHiRP/PREP, the Clone makers
And the NeXT developers who were told:
YellowBox was the new platform of choice (Then why Carbon?)
Intel version of Rhapsody
Ask consumers of Apple products if they feel shafted
Ask:
The Brittish if they feel Apple has treated them well.
The buyers of the 500/450/400 Mhz machines.
Clone buyers.
PPC Owners who were supposed to have Rhapsody, as per WWDC 1997.
Newton owners with the fatal -10061 bug
Apple
And on and on. Apple burns people like Microsoft. The only difference is you can live fat while being burned by Microsoft.
Onto Mac OS X....
Mac OS X has *ONE* big hurdle. NetInfo. Everyting is linked to NetInfo, as so you have to either re-compile common tools to de-netinfo things, add to tools NetInfo hooks, OR make double entries.
Your basic compile-and-go-model that we are now used to doesn't happen with Mac OS X because of NetInfo. If you need to touch the user info...you can't just compile and go.
Besides your post being flamebait...
/.) If this is 'working together', I wonder what you'd see as seperate?
>BSD is a clear case of stubborn pride and "not invented here" syndrome.
Perhaps its EVEN simpler, that the BSD licence is more to the liking of developers who want to protect THIER rights to do what they want with their code, as opposed to the rights of the sourcecode to be free. (See the viral nature of GPL debates for further info)
>splitting 3rd party developers' tasks
Perhaps if vendors supported ALL the forms of Linux, *INCLUDING* Linux emulation under SCO/Solaris/BSD, there would not be this 'splitting' you speak of, but provide no evidence of.
>start working together, united, in building a better OS
In the same way the number of Linux distros exceed 100? (107 was a number posted on
>Only after we all make peace
Why don't YOU start....and stop posting flamebait, ya troll? Why don't *YOU* ask vendors to write code that runs with *ALL* the Linux implementations, INCLUDING SCO, Solaris AND BSD???
But really its not true, the last sentence that is.
"Free BSD is a particular flavor of the Unix operating system. It does an exceptionally good job. The operating system is distributed for free. Those that write enhancements to it are required to make those available to everyone."
All you have to do is provide the base YOU used, you don't HAVE to give back to the community. But, this desire to give back is what OpenSource is all about, now isn't it?
And know of a few others who have $25,000 the people at
www.weber.com
Would *LOVE* to have a reason to leave the Microsoft environment and return to Unix.
However, this is the 'facts' about the CAM/CAD market (as their customers tell them)
Unless they are a Unix shop, they don't ask for Unix.
No new customer for 1-1.25 years have asked about the Unix version.
So, all they sell is the NT version.
TO DATE THERE HAVE BEEN NO QUERIES ABOUT LINUX!
(and this is not an open invite to bother them. Unless you have the NEED for a $25,000 CAM package, don't be asking for a port)
So, for all the 'hype' (and self-hype on this site), none of their prospective customers are using Linux, or are considering Linux.
The engineering market has been resisting the pull to NT, but as far as the maker of software in this market is concerned...Unix is a dead issue.
(But do we want to?)
Electronic Design News
Sept 30, 1999
A final design bill of materials for a dual-band GSM phone should be less than $10, with the chip set accounting for about half that figure.
Analog Devices' ADS6523/6524 chip set
Microsoft (and others) have been trying to figure out a way to improve the revenue stream.
:-) ) You can see why, to developers, Microsoft is the company they love to hate. Note too, how among the Macintosh faithful, how the Mac OS allowed older code to run un-modified worked to the Mac's advantage.
The way the shrink-wrapped world most of us life in goes like this:
The package is sold (cash for producer)
You use the package.
Barring some lame file format changes, or an OS change, if the software worked for you in 1980, and your needs haven't changed, why would you help the software developers bottom line by buying a new version? (And it is possible to run that 3.3 copy of CP/M WordStar
The model of a limited time license you need to re-up doesn't work well on the shrink-wrapped PC platform. (Although Microsoft has that as a 2 year site license for businesses using Office 97/98)
The model of charging a yearly maintenance fee is tried by many shrink-wrapped vendors. But, this is used more as a warranty program. In exchange for money, (and evening out our cash flow) we will send you the new software when we make it.
If you try to follow the model of buying the features you need, then the maintenance model doesn't work. And how does the vendor get more money out the users.
Ok, how about the model of a yearly licensing fee? This has not worked, other companies rush in and take your customers, by pointing out how they have a lower cost of ownership. (assuming an infinite ownership time)
Now, what if you charged a company or person every time they used a service (Really, the software)? This model is:
Recession resistant. (if the business cycle takes a downturn, you can't sit out an upgrade cycle, now can you?)
Evens out the cash flow
Simpler to control the licenses and therefore the revenue stream. (harder to pirate)
Remember the stink about how Microsoft was going to rent software? And no one really wanted it? The ASP is just another form of rental.
And a way to provide steady and increased cash flow.
Or just obvious....
Now: What will the governement do? Pay for open source development?
If a hardware company that shows losses is worth SO much....
Why was IBM so low a few years ago?
Why did Apple drop to sub $15...it was loosing money too.
http://www.pelagius.com/AppleRecon/991001a.html
With quotes like:
The markets have been "living on borrowed time with borrowed money" ever since the first
Fed rate cut in the fall of '98.
the Fed will assiduously remain in "Full Blown Bubble Protection Mode."
And greed is not a "Bad thing" as long as it's kept in perspective. But the majority of the people are not
keeping it in perspective. That's the reason why so many are willing to push a lot of stocks way out of whack; the most
telling are the Internet stocks.
It may be a New Market, but markets cycle, and the higher the upside, the lower the downside.
Some things to remember about the embedded market:
1) The present 8 bit processors work fine for many tasks. So why have all the bits needed for an OS when an 8051 or z80 will do the job.
2) The embedded market lives and dies (at least as far as management is concerned) by IP (Intellectual Property, not Internet protocol
Given 1 and 2, any of the 'modern' Oses (WINCE, QNX, EPOCH, Embedded NT, *BSD or even Linux) need 32 bits and relying on a GPLed code base opens you legally up to releasing part of your IP to 'the community'.
Even if you don't HAVE to release your code, do you, as a manufacturer, want to have to go to court to prove you don't have to a jury of your peers, is someone demands the code?
Most companies that have IP they want to defend don't want to take that risk, even if the cost of GPL is $0 per seat, and WINCE is $35.
There *IS* a choice to the GPLed Linux in the Open Source OS arena. It's BSD. And, the BSD license *DOES* protect the IP of others.
If the goal of the Open Source world is to promote Open Source, then why the drum beats for Linux, when, for the embedded world, BSD is a better choice to protect what the embedded world considers its most valuable asset - IP?
The common argument about Linux is:
The kernel is all the same, so therefore they are all the same.
If that is true, yet another distro will not matter, now will it?
If GNU/Linux is all about the kernel AND the parts wrapped around the kernel, then another distro matters. And it would matter WHERE the distro got its start.
So, which is it? The kernel or the kernel AND parts that matter? You can't have it both ways. There is either one Linux or a whole bunch of them.
Kinda like SYS V Unix. And, one can look to history to see how well that worked as a marketing idea.