If any of you had actually read the Microsoft licenses, this goes back to NT 4.0, before service pack #1.
This license *ALSO* has a clause that if you make software, sell it to someone else and Microsoft is included in any lawsuit, *YOU* have to pay for Microsoft's defense.
If an application is 'only' a "linux" application, such an ability will allow the user to remain on the superior Windows platform. They get to run thier 'linux' app, and do not have to worry about the user having to make a choice about switching.
From the 'good for Linux POV'
This will allow people who are afraid of the concept of linux to see that it does not byte;-)
From the 'about time POV'
Given 180+ linux distros, BSD/SCO/Solaris/QNX/etc la, the declaration of the X86Open group that "the standard for interoperability is Linux ELF" perhaps vendors will get their collective crainums extracted from their rectums and decide that:
1) The don't need the infighting LSB whiners to agree on a 'common' platform.
2) Vendors make sure the code runs on systems like FreeBSD (which runs Linux binaries FASTER than Linux distos do), SCO, Solaris and projects like LINE. If they run there, and don't run on the your chosen version of the 180+ linux disro, the distro you have is broken. (if the people doing "linux compatibility" can get faster execution speeds and run big hunks of complex code like Oracle and VMware, they've done their homework)
3) Vendors then offer FORMAL support for the SCO/Solaris/BSD users, just like they would offer for RedHat.
Wasn't all the rage 5 months ago stories about how cell phones might cause cancer, tumors etc?
And one month ago, all the rage was stories about reducing the electrical power consumption?
As always, prifacy is a hot-button topic.
So, here we have a technology that increases the EM you are in, uses more power ( a waveguide (ie copper or glass) is always the prefered way to transmit information), AND broadcasts to every tom, dick and larry. And this is a GOOD thing because you have one less wire to manage?
Wow....you must all have very busy lifes that you can't fit wire placement into it, yet find time to worry about privacy/energy use/health concerns about EM.
1) Consider the past efforts. RealNames, AlterNIC, and one (I think) OpenNIC
RealNames and AlterNIC have been around for a LONG (internet that is) time. How often do you run into these? (I bet about as often as a Cue Cat sound on a TV that takes you to a web site)
2) The enemy of my enemy is my friend makes for a nice warm feeling for a few minutes, but is not good long term strategic planning. If you don't like ICANN, going off and embracing some alternative just BECAUSE it is an alternative and "would piss off ICANN" isn't good technical logic.
And the gods of the 'net like LOGICAL arguments.
3) Hate to tell you this, but the Internet goes beyond web browsers. Uniform Resource Identifiers need to be addressed. As the 'idea' here is 'we are gonna do this with browser add-ons', this shows these people are not thinking in terms of the big picture. Just a small, http: view.
To have the lawyers go over the code you write to make sure it does not infringe on the GPL takes money.
Software engineers who become lawyers/laywers who become software engineers are not cheap.
That doesn't mean they can't use Open Source however. NetBSD already boots, and doesn't have a long, lengthy license requiring a staff dedicated to preventing the release of company Intellectual Property as expressed in source code.
Claims of Linux stability and scalability fall apart rather quickly when its #1 advocacy site is constantly failing,
What basis do you make THIS claim?
The 'byline' is "news for nerds, stuff that matters". Slashdot has a BSD section.
What reasons do you have for thinking *THIS* site is the #1 advocacy site?
Re:I think we'd have more important problems
on
Rebooting The World?
·
· Score: 1
The typical *nix sysadmin or Perl hacker has a very specialised set of skills that only counts within the narrow environment in which they are confortable operating in.
Really?
See Chairman Mao as an example of the 'elite' 'functioning' outside their training.
Computing is not the first priority in this situation, nor is it even in the top ten.
Given the lack of electricity, the food demand VS food supply issues from such a destruction of the world technology, etc la, yes quake-playing computers would be low on the list.
Want more about this: Set your browsers back to 1998-1999 and read up about the Y2K "bug". Then s/Y2K Bug/some other bug/g
Rather than taking me to to what they were advertising, they dropped me at the home page and expected me to be motivated enough to actually track down their offering.
Instead, I used search engines and tracked down the item for 30% less.
Now, I just ignore them. If they flash or flutter about, all the more reason to ignore them. At least on Yahoo, they (used to) go through one flashing rotation and then stop.
The/. editor made the off-hand comment that 'vacuum tubes weren't common'. And, that just ain't so.
Want your CRT to give off lotsa X rays? Just crank up the High Voltage section. If instead of the 15KVA potential Mr. Electron is attracted to, there is a 45KVA potential, Mr. Electron would become VERY excited...and when Mr. Electron has to transfer energy, you will get more X-rays.
The lead in CRT's help to limit the effect of CRT radiation....but the CRT can become an good xray source.
Unless you took your Linux IPO millions and bought a LCD monitor, or live your life out of a lap top, most of the rest of us mortals sit in front of a vaccum tube based CRT and bathe in (reduced) radiation all day long.
Monitors have lead in them for a reason. And its the same reason if you plan on building an x-ray machine, you had better be damn careful...radiation is harmful. Hopefully the fact you can't just D/L this and run it will keep it out of the hands of irresponsible boobs we'll call xray kiddies.
If you blew your GPL chance, and can't convince whomever to go for dual-license or a BSD-style license, try to see if the will buy the logic behind the BRL-CAD project.
As I remember: American Tax dollars paid for this, it belongs to Americans. If you are an American, you have the right to use the code.
Oh, and if you REALLY care to fight on this....get a lawyer or 2.
Providing commerical support for "Linux"....do people mean:
1) RedHat
2) RedHat/Debian/whatever is determined to be a 'popular' version of Linux
3) Or support for SCO/UnixWare/BSD/Solaris X86/QNX that can run 'Linux ELF' binaries? (I don't know how good some of them are, but FreeBSD runs the Linux version of quake FASTER than Linux does, according to the tests done by the duke of URL)
Loki is the only vendor to date I am aware of who has said "Yes we will support our Linux games on BSD". Hopefully the BioWare staff will see the wisdom in capturing the (almost) entire X86 based unix market by supporting a Linux ELF format that will run using the facilites added to SCO/UnixWAre/BSD/Solaris x86/QNX.
I've been looking for that link for a long time. The last time I haerd about the total number of linux distros, it was 185. But with all the linux companies going titsup.com, I thought it would go down.
Linux has 150+ seperate distros.
Linux has 'the embedded people' the 'ppc people' the 'alpha people' and IBM's 'big iron people' all with seperate kernals, because they can't get their changes blessed by one man, Linus.
Linux has developers wanting to stop Linus being the controller of the changes to the kernel to prevent long delays and so they can introduce CVS control of the kernel.
Thoes are the few that pop to the TOP of my head. Now, care to provide more than a one line claim that "BSD has too many of its own schisims"? Care to document what *YOU* see as a schism?
If you don't know the answer to this Mr. Nelson, it shows you are unaware of the history. Or, you are using a restrictive definition of 'free software' where the only thing that qualifies is GPLed code.
Free/Net/Open are now based off the 4.4BSD Lite release. This was the release that Novell agreed to stop the litigation on.
BSD/OS has roots to 4.3BSD Net/2. For BSDI to have sold BSD based Unix, they had to pay for it.
Now you have been educated. (and I'm sure if I have a detail wrong, someone will point out where I'm wrong with a link or 2.)
Your use of the words free software, are you using the definition of RMS, Bruce Perens, or some special 'Russ' version? If you are using the RMS definition, no code is 'free' until a GPL has been slapped on it. In such a 'free == GPL' world, all you are doing is trolling here because BSD based systems do not have a GPL license and are therefore not 'free'. "we" can't discuss this until YOU define your words.
I do note that you did not respond to my point about Open Source and the use of a BSD license does not cause the divide you so bitterly complain about. (As you stated "To divide already thin resources") Why is that? I've offered up a simple solution to 'healing' the 'divide'...a place where code can benefit both the BSD and Linux projects. Are you in agreement then, and you now understand what you did not understand before about BSD? Can the community, newly healed with the revelation about how the BSD license conserves effort you so badly want conserved, look forward to you re-licensing all your code under a BSD-style license?
1) Name 500 million + software only companies.
2) Name 500 million + hadware companies that the hardware they sell would be useless without some form of embedded software.
The embedded world is the REAL place to be, if your goal is to make some money.
The Linux press trade knows that pushing Linux helps keep them employed. So anything pro-linux will get hyped. Look at SSC...publishers of embedded Linux. They offered up web space and mailing list space for a pro-linux group who wanted to attend the 'digital divide' conference, worded the press release that "open source" and "linux" was the only answer. As soon as someone mentioned BSD they ignored them, wouldn't offer up web space or change the press release. Joe Barr over at LinuxWorld created a press release that made it sound like Linus called BSD "a small group of programmers", yet Linus did not say such a thing. Or even Russ Nelson's post in this thread....as his paycheck is signed by RedHat, hence his anti-BSD stance.
Anytime you see something, you need to ask 'what is the motivation' for the comments. WindRiver would like to keep its dominate position. And the GPL concern is the ONLY way they can keep Linux at bay. Open Source can win...because BSD does *NOT* have this problem.
Linux, BSD, WindRiver, eCos and others will all be a player in the embedded space.
We could make Linux a stronger choice How about making OPEN SOURCE OSes a better choice? That way BSD, GNU/Linux and others *ALL* benefit?
So, it's a good thing to split the developer community? To divide already thin resources? If you develop under a BSD license *EVERYONE*, be they GPL or BSDed OSes can benefit. Picking the GPL is exclusionary of BSD. The GPL is the divider, the BSD license is the unifier.
As Bruce Perens said at TheBazzar "The great thing with the new 2 clause BSD license is you can put the GPL on it and protect the code"
I just don't understand *BSD*. No part of it. Well, okay, I understand BSDi. Everybody wants to make money off free software.
No, you do *NOT* understand BSDi.
BSDi's unmerged older self paid for an AT&T source license so they could market BSD/OS.
If the goal of selling a closed-source version for BSD-BSD/OS using Open Source code, then why did they buy the AT&T license? I look forward to your answer to this question Mr. Nelson.
Strangely enough, Linux seems very popular in the embedded world,
It is a big circle jerk. The embedded linux people write articles for the trade rags talking about Linux. Then someone else writes an article saying "we used linux here".
The vast number of embedded is WindRiver. eCOS has some, and there are companies using NetBSD.
If the concern is the GPL and its effect on your embedded project, and you want an Open Source OS, then pick a BSD.
Slashdot Mirror
If any of you had actually read the Microsoft licenses, this goes back to NT 4.0, before service pack #1.
This license *ALSO* has a clause that if you make software, sell it to someone else and Microsoft is included in any lawsuit, *YOU* have to pay for Microsoft's defense.
From a 'good for bill gates POV'
;-)
If an application is 'only' a "linux" application, such an ability will allow the user to remain on the superior Windows platform. They get to run thier 'linux' app, and do not have to worry about the user having to make a choice about switching.
From the 'good for Linux POV'
This will allow people who are afraid of the concept of linux to see that it does not byte
From the 'about time POV'
Given 180+ linux distros, BSD/SCO/Solaris/QNX/etc la, the declaration of the X86Open group that "the standard for interoperability is Linux ELF" perhaps vendors will get their collective crainums extracted from their rectums and decide that:
1) The don't need the infighting LSB whiners to agree on a 'common' platform.
2) Vendors make sure the code runs on systems like FreeBSD (which runs Linux binaries FASTER than Linux distos do), SCO, Solaris and projects like LINE. If they run there, and don't run on the your chosen version of the 180+ linux disro, the distro you have is broken. (if the people doing "linux compatibility" can get faster execution speeds and run big hunks of complex code like Oracle and VMware, they've done their homework)
3) Vendors then offer FORMAL support for the SCO/Solaris/BSD users, just like they would offer for RedHat.
If the PPC group can't get their changes into the linux kernel, (as has been noted on /.), they why does it matter?
Wasn't all the rage 5 months ago stories about how cell phones might cause cancer, tumors etc?
And one month ago, all the rage was stories about reducing the electrical power consumption?
As always, prifacy is a hot-button topic.
So, here we have a technology that increases the EM you are in, uses more power ( a waveguide (ie copper or glass) is always the prefered way to transmit information), AND broadcasts to every tom, dick and larry. And this is a GOOD thing because you have one less wire to manage?
Wow....you must all have very busy lifes that you can't fit wire placement into it, yet find time to worry about privacy/energy use/health concerns about EM.
1) Consider the past efforts. RealNames, AlterNIC, and one (I think) OpenNIC
RealNames and AlterNIC have been around for a LONG (internet that is) time. How often do you run into these? (I bet about as often as a Cue Cat sound on a TV that takes you to a web site)
2) The enemy of my enemy is my friend makes for a nice warm feeling for a few minutes, but is not good long term strategic planning. If you don't like ICANN, going off and embracing some alternative just BECAUSE it is an alternative and "would piss off ICANN" isn't good technical logic.
And the gods of the 'net like LOGICAL arguments.
3) Hate to tell you this, but the Internet goes beyond web browsers. Uniform Resource Identifiers need to be addressed. As the 'idea' here is 'we are gonna do this with browser add-ons', this shows these people are not thinking in terms of the big picture. Just a small, http: view.
Actually Linux is *NOT* cheaper to implement.
To have the lawyers go over the code you write to make sure it does not infringe on the GPL takes money.
Software engineers who become lawyers/laywers who become software engineers are not cheap.
That doesn't mean they can't use Open Source however. NetBSD already boots, and doesn't have a long, lengthy license requiring a staff dedicated to preventing the release of company Intellectual Property as expressed in source code.
Why yes it would be illegal.
:-)
Now, how do you suppose the copywrite holder is going to come forward and claim damages that decrypting the virus has done?
What would be MORE fun is to GPL and turn over the copyright for the virus to the FSF, and then ask them to defend the de-crypted code
And what about the lead used in the present monitor technology?
The lead rules comming into play in the EU will do more than concerns about the power consumption when it comes to promoting LCD monitors.
Claims of Linux stability and scalability fall apart rather quickly when its #1 advocacy site is constantly failing,
What basis do you make THIS claim?
The 'byline' is "news for nerds, stuff that matters". Slashdot has a BSD section.
What reasons do you have for thinking *THIS* site is the #1 advocacy site?
The typical *nix sysadmin or Perl hacker has a very specialised set of skills that only counts within the narrow environment in which they are confortable operating in.
Really?
See Chairman Mao as an example of the 'elite' 'functioning' outside their training.
Computing is not the first priority in this situation, nor is it even in the top ten.
Given the lack of electricity, the food demand VS food supply issues from such a destruction of the world technology, etc la, yes quake-playing computers would be low on the list.
Want more about this: Set your browsers back to 1998-1999 and read up about the Y2K "bug". Then s/Y2K Bug/some other bug/g
At one time, I tried banner ads.
Rather than taking me to to what they were advertising, they dropped me at the home page and expected me to be motivated enough to actually track down their offering.
Instead, I used search engines and tracked down the item for 30% less.
Now, I just ignore them. If they flash or flutter about, all the more reason to ignore them. At least on Yahoo, they (used to) go through one flashing rotation and then stop.
What next, do it yourself appendectomies?
Yes. That is project #15 in the "Suit YourSelf" home surgery kit.
(Marketing thought "Suit YourSelf" was a better name than "suture self")
The /. editor made the off-hand comment that 'vacuum tubes weren't common'. And, that just ain't so.
Want your CRT to give off lotsa X rays? Just crank up the High Voltage section. If instead of the 15KVA potential Mr. Electron is attracted to, there is a 45KVA potential, Mr. Electron would become VERY excited...and when Mr. Electron has to transfer energy, you will get more X-rays.
The lead in CRT's help to limit the effect of CRT radiation....but the CRT can become an good xray source.
Unless you took your Linux IPO millions and bought a LCD monitor, or live your life out of a lap top, most of the rest of us mortals sit in front of a vaccum tube based CRT and bathe in (reduced) radiation all day long.
Monitors have lead in them for a reason. And its the same reason if you plan on building an x-ray machine, you had better be damn careful...radiation is harmful. Hopefully the fact you can't just D/L this and run it will keep it out of the hands of irresponsible boobs we'll call xray kiddies.
If you blew your GPL chance, and can't convince whomever to go for dual-license or a BSD-style license, try to see if the will buy the logic behind the BRL-CAD project.
As I remember: American Tax dollars paid for this, it belongs to Americans. If you are an American, you have the right to use the code.
Oh, and if you REALLY care to fight on this....get a lawyer or 2.
Providing commerical support for "Linux"....do people mean:
1) RedHat
2) RedHat/Debian/whatever is determined to be a 'popular' version of Linux
3) Or support for SCO/UnixWare/BSD/Solaris X86/QNX that can run 'Linux ELF' binaries? (I don't know how good some of them are, but FreeBSD runs the Linux version of quake FASTER than Linux does, according to the tests done by the duke of URL)
Loki is the only vendor to date I am aware of who has said "Yes we will support our Linux games on BSD". Hopefully the BioWare staff will see the wisdom in capturing the (almost) entire X86 based unix market by supporting a Linux ELF format that will run using the facilites added to SCO/UnixWAre/BSD/Solaris x86/QNX.
Thank you!
I've been looking for that link for a long time. The last time I haerd about the total number of linux distros, it was 185. But with all the linux companies going titsup.com, I thought it would go down.
again, thanks for the link!
Newton OSs
Now HERE is a good reason for an open OS.
If I developed code for a Newton, and then the project gets Steved, I can smile and say:
-10061 error? Got that fixed.
No more hardware from Apple? Look. Ported over to the Psion hardware. Or the Cassiopia.
Open Sourced OSes protect us from vendors tanking our development platform.
b) Proven wrong by current events.
The "you can keep the changes private" matra is tired and shown to be bullshit. The GPL forces companies to cooperate,
Wrong. The GPL did not force the Virgin Webplayer to release its code under the GPL.
10,000 embedded linux boxes shipped...no source. In fact, the license PROHIBITED disassembly of the machine or code.
Linux has 150+ seperate distros.
Linux has 'the embedded people' the 'ppc people' the 'alpha people' and IBM's 'big iron people' all with seperate kernals, because they can't get their changes blessed by one man, Linus.
Linux has developers wanting to stop Linus being the controller of the changes to the kernel to prevent long delays and so they can introduce CVS control of the kernel.
Thoes are the few that pop to the TOP of my head. Now, care to provide more than a one line claim that "BSD has too many of its own schisims"? Care to document what *YOU* see as a schism?
If you don't know the answer to this Mr. Nelson, it shows you are unaware of the history. Or, you are using a restrictive definition of 'free software' where the only thing that qualifies is GPLed code.
Free/Net/Open are now based off the 4.4BSD Lite release. This was the release that Novell agreed to stop the litigation on.
BSD/OS has roots to 4.3BSD Net/2. For BSDI to have sold BSD based Unix, they had to pay for it.
Now you have been educated. (and I'm sure if I have a detail wrong, someone will point out where I'm wrong with a link or 2.)
Your use of the words free software, are you using the definition of RMS, Bruce Perens, or some special 'Russ' version? If you are using the RMS definition, no code is 'free' until a GPL has been slapped on it. In such a 'free == GPL' world, all you are doing is trolling here because BSD based systems do not have a GPL license and are therefore not 'free'. "we" can't discuss this until YOU define your words.
I do note that you did not respond to my point about Open Source and the use of a BSD license does not cause the divide you so bitterly complain about. (As you stated "To divide already thin resources") Why is that? I've offered up a simple solution to 'healing' the 'divide'...a place where code can benefit both the BSD and Linux projects. Are you in agreement then, and you now understand what you did not understand before about BSD? Can the community, newly healed with the revelation about how the BSD license conserves effort you so badly want conserved, look forward to you re-licensing all your code under a BSD-style license?
Think of these things:
1) Name 500 million + software only companies.
2) Name 500 million + hadware companies that the hardware they sell would be useless without some form of embedded software.
The embedded world is the REAL place to be, if your goal is to make some money.
The Linux press trade knows that pushing Linux helps keep them employed. So anything pro-linux will get hyped. Look at SSC...publishers of embedded Linux. They offered up web space and mailing list space for a pro-linux group who wanted to attend the 'digital divide' conference, worded the press release that "open source" and "linux" was the only answer. As soon as someone mentioned BSD they ignored them, wouldn't offer up web space or change the press release. Joe Barr over at LinuxWorld created a press release that made it sound like Linus called BSD "a small group of programmers", yet Linus did not say such a thing. Or even Russ Nelson's post in this thread....as his paycheck is signed by RedHat, hence his anti-BSD stance.
Anytime you see something, you need to ask 'what is the motivation' for the comments. WindRiver would like to keep its dominate position. And the GPL concern is the ONLY way they can keep Linux at bay. Open Source can win...because BSD does *NOT* have this problem.
Linux, BSD, WindRiver, eCos and others will all be a player in the embedded space.
We could make Linux a stronger choice
How about making OPEN SOURCE OSes a better choice? That way BSD, GNU/Linux and others *ALL* benefit?
So, it's a good thing to split the developer community? To divide already thin resources?
If you develop under a BSD license *EVERYONE*, be they GPL or BSDed OSes can benefit. Picking the GPL is exclusionary of BSD. The GPL is the divider, the BSD license is the unifier.
As Bruce Perens said at TheBazzar "The great thing with the new 2 clause BSD license is you can put the GPL on it and protect the code"
I just don't understand *BSD*. No part of it. Well, okay, I understand BSDi. Everybody wants to make money off free software.
No, you do *NOT* understand BSDi.
BSDi's unmerged older self paid for an AT&T source license so they could market BSD/OS.
If the goal of selling a closed-source version for BSD-BSD/OS using Open Source code, then why did they buy the AT&T license? I look forward to your answer to this question Mr. Nelson.
Strangely enough, Linux seems very popular in the embedded world,
It is a big circle jerk. The embedded linux people write articles for the trade rags talking about Linux. Then someone else writes an article saying "we used linux here".
The vast number of embedded is WindRiver. eCOS has some, and there are companies using NetBSD.
If the concern is the GPL and its effect on your embedded project, and you want an Open Source OS, then pick a BSD.
You blind BSD zealots might not like it, but the reality is, Linux was real open software while BSD was still a set of patches to a proprietary OS.
A set of patches?
What AT&T release ran on VAXen? Or Sun i386 boxes? Or the 300 series HP's?
Minix wasn't based on Unix at all,
Minix was a clone. To the best of anyone's knowledge, no AT&T code was harmed in the making of Minix.