But Apple has nowhere near the market share of desktop computers that Microsoft has. Since Microsoft is so dominant, they operate under different rules.
And before you start going on about the GPL, there is no GPL issue with including proprietary software in a Linux distribution. This falls under "aggregation" in section 5.
Of course it does. What you may have overlooked is the fact that many proprietary software packages, even those that are zero-cost, carry restrictions on redistribution. That is one reason why Linux distributors may not be able to include such a package in the distro.
On one hand, while it is possible for more than one generator to exist on the same lines, it is impossible to distinguish which generator is producing which power; forcing the primary electric company in an area to allow competitors to 'use its power lines' would be absurd for technical reasons.
No, it isn't. We have such a system where I live, and it works well. We have one company that owns the grid, but multiple producers. Customers have to use the one grid company, but can choose which producer they want to produce their electricity.
How can you know that the electricity you use came from your producer? You can't, but that is also pretty irrelevant. You don't worry that the money that comes out of the ATM is the actual bills you used to make the deposit, do you? The same applies here.
Your electricity bill is divided into distribution cost and energy production cost. The distribution cost goes to the grid owner and the energy cost goes to your chosen energy producer. This makes it possible for energy producers to compete on price, as well as allows the consumers to choose an energy producer that appeals to conscience by e.g. not using imported electricity from dirty coal power plants, or even only using renewable sources for electricity generation.
I actually use the latter alternative, which guarantees that the same amount I use is produced at one of my supplier's "green" power plants, which in reality means 95% hydro power and the remaining 5% a combination of wind, solar and biomass based generation. And the green option was cheap too, only 0.2 cents per kWh on top of the normal energy cost, a small price for a clean conscience.
Isn't this the same Gartner that Laura DiDio worked for and suggested that Open Source software and especially Linux had no place in the then "today's world?"
I guess that you are referring to this gem:
The thing about Linux is, you can talk about a free, open operating system all you want, but you can't take that idea of free and open and put it into a capitalist system and maintain it as though it is some kind of hippie commune or ashram, because if you can do it like that, at that point I'm like, 'Pass the hookah please!'
But no, she didn't work for Gartner, she worked for the Yankee Group.
No, there are multiple implementations of a TCP/IP stack. I've heard that e.g. Linux uses its own implementation, and Microsoft claims to have reimplemented the stack for Vista.
I've also read that the IETF wouldn't accept a protocol specification as an internet standard if there aren't at least two independent implementations of the protocol, which wouldn't be the case if everyone was using the BSD stack.
I'd say that the opposite of commercial is non-commercial. Examples which (to me) are clearly commercial but still zero-cost are Internet Explorer and Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Actually, it is not related to the use of open source, but rather to the use of Unix and Unix-like operating systems. For users of Windows-based open source software, there is no such connection.:)
Not having to make choices at install time is EXACTLY the reason that ubuntu is good.
There is a difference between not having to and not being able to. It is a good thing that users don't have to select packages at install time, but it should certainly be an option.
Short of implementing SELinux, sudo gives me what I need for right now. I can see a day where SELinux will be more appropriate for some things, but until then...
I think that you have misunderstood what SELinux is all about. It is not a replacement for su or sudo, it is a completely different system. It allows the vendor/administrator to explicitly specify what privileges a specific process should have in fine-grained detail. Even though e.g. the apache account has read access to every file that everyone can read, SELinux enables you to specify that the apache process should be denied access to anything beyond its configuration file, its plugins and the web tree, even if it would have access according to the ordinary permissions system.
By restricting rights on this level of detail, a cracker exploiting a security hole in the apache process would not be able to access any file beyond those explicitly specified in the SELinux policy.
That may apply to the iPod Nano, but it sure does not apply to the large iPod, now called the iPod Classic. I know many nerds/geeks that have iPods, but all of them (including me) have the large iPods. But looking around on the underground (subway to you americans) train, the "cool" people have all iPod Nanos.
Theo might be (and very probably is) a very competent programmer. On the other hand, his communication skills are sorely lacking, as he can't make a statement without turning it into a flamewar over nothing. The word "diplomacy" seems to be entirely unknown to him.
And that is why I wouldn't (and don't) listen to him.
To take someone else's code and slap a stamp on it that requires that no one share modifications with the original author seems like it's against everything the FSF stands for.
Can you clarify what you mean? I cannot see where the GPL disallows sharing the improved code with the original author.
The problem is that we have two groups of people who both want similar aims
Similar aims? This entire flamewar has been quite enlighting, as it has shown that the BSD crowd happily supports proprietary software makers, while using every last straw to stop GPL developers from using BSD code. The BSD crowd has finally come out of the closet as the for-free supporters of proprietary software makers they are.
If these companies then make a commercially successful product based on 90% BSD licensed code then the BSD developers would have more bargaining power when it came to encouraging the remaining 10% to be open source as well.
I fail to see why the BSD crowd would have any more bargaining power in this case than if the proprietary developer used 10% or even 0% of the BSD code.
IBM started our defense, but they got bogged down with their initial legal position and it was Novell that ultimately won out.
IBM got bogged down? The case got stayed since it depended on the outcome of the Novell suit.
The fact is that linux would not be anywhere near where it is today if IBM and Novell had not fought SCO in court.
You make it sound like IBM and Novell came to Linux rescue and defended it from SCO. This was not exactly the case. SCO may have pursued a media campagin against Linux, but the lawsuit was targeted at IBM. IBM just defended themselves. Novell stepped in because SCO overstepped its bounds in claiming ownership over Unix. Since Novell had the opinion that Novell owned parts of Unix that SCO claimed to own, they surely called SCO out on it, which made SCO sue them for slander of title.
Ha ha! My iPod does update the playlists without synching!
It sure does. I use it all the time. I have several playlists that depends on star rating, including lists of top rated or unrated songs. Sometimes, when I feel like listening to new music, I listen to the unrated list, giving each track a star rating as I go along. The good songs appear on my top rated list without syncing, and those that get a low rating disappear without being added to another list. In fact, low rated songs are erased from the iPod at next sync, because I only autosync selected playlists, and everything that does not exist on any of those playlists is evicted.
The BSD licensed guys are pissed because someone took some code and locked them out of it, despite being rabidly pro the freedom to do exactly this.
They are only pro freedom to do this when the doers are proprietary software companies. When GPL developers do the same thing, it is a really really bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
But Apple has nowhere near the market share of desktop computers that Microsoft has. Since Microsoft is so dominant, they operate under different rules.
Of course. They are good for themselves.
Of course it does. What you may have overlooked is the fact that many proprietary software packages, even those that are zero-cost, carry restrictions on redistribution. That is one reason why Linux distributors may not be able to include such a package in the distro.
No, it isn't. We have such a system where I live, and it works well. We have one company that owns the grid, but multiple producers. Customers have to use the one grid company, but can choose which producer they want to produce their electricity.
How can you know that the electricity you use came from your producer? You can't, but that is also pretty irrelevant. You don't worry that the money that comes out of the ATM is the actual bills you used to make the deposit, do you? The same applies here.
Your electricity bill is divided into distribution cost and energy production cost. The distribution cost goes to the grid owner and the energy cost goes to your chosen energy producer. This makes it possible for energy producers to compete on price, as well as allows the consumers to choose an energy producer that appeals to conscience by e.g. not using imported electricity from dirty coal power plants, or even only using renewable sources for electricity generation.
I actually use the latter alternative, which guarantees that the same amount I use is produced at one of my supplier's "green" power plants, which in reality means 95% hydro power and the remaining 5% a combination of wind, solar and biomass based generation. And the green option was cheap too, only 0.2 cents per kWh on top of the normal energy cost, a small price for a clean conscience.
Yeah, I know. My guess at the outcome of this suit, since the US is a very corporation-friendly country, is this:
Corporations can steal from free software all they want, but individuals that steal (read: pirate) from corporations shall burn in hell.
That reminds me of this one.
I guess that you are referring to this gem:
The thing about Linux is, you can talk about a free, open operating system all you want, but you can't take that idea of free and open and put it into a capitalist system and maintain it as though it is some kind of hippie commune or ashram, because if you can do it like that, at that point I'm like, 'Pass the hookah please!'But no, she didn't work for Gartner, she worked for the Yankee Group.
No, there are multiple implementations of a TCP/IP stack. I've heard that e.g. Linux uses its own implementation, and Microsoft claims to have reimplemented the stack for Vista.
I've also read that the IETF wouldn't accept a protocol specification as an internet standard if there aren't at least two independent implementations of the protocol, which wouldn't be the case if everyone was using the BSD stack.
I'd say that the opposite of commercial is non-commercial. Examples which (to me) are clearly commercial but still zero-cost are Internet Explorer and Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Except in projects licensed under the GPL.
Despite their similar names, OpenSSH and OpenSSL are different projects. Or did you mean that the SSH server used OpenSSL?
Actually, it is not related to the use of open source, but rather to the use of Unix and Unix-like operating systems. For users of Windows-based open source software, there is no such connection. :)
Why not Hungry Hippie or Hairy Hippie? ;)
There is a difference between not having to and not being able to. It is a good thing that users don't have to select packages at install time, but it should certainly be an option.
I think that you have misunderstood what SELinux is all about. It is not a replacement for su or sudo, it is a completely different system. It allows the vendor/administrator to explicitly specify what privileges a specific process should have in fine-grained detail. Even though e.g. the apache account has read access to every file that everyone can read, SELinux enables you to specify that the apache process should be denied access to anything beyond its configuration file, its plugins and the web tree, even if it would have access according to the ordinary permissions system.
By restricting rights on this level of detail, a cracker exploiting a security hole in the apache process would not be able to access any file beyond those explicitly specified in the SELinux policy.
That may apply to the iPod Nano, but it sure does not apply to the large iPod, now called the iPod Classic. I know many nerds/geeks that have iPods, but all of them (including me) have the large iPods. But looking around on the underground (subway to you americans) train, the "cool" people have all iPod Nanos.
He can't, since he don't know what diplomacy is.
Theo might be (and very probably is) a very competent programmer. On the other hand, his communication skills are sorely lacking, as he can't make a statement without turning it into a flamewar over nothing. The word "diplomacy" seems to be entirely unknown to him.
And that is why I wouldn't (and don't) listen to him.
Can you clarify what you mean? I cannot see where the GPL disallows sharing the improved code with the original author.
Similar aims? This entire flamewar has been quite enlighting, as it has shown that the BSD crowd happily supports proprietary software makers, while using every last straw to stop GPL developers from using BSD code. The BSD crowd has finally come out of the closet as the for-free supporters of proprietary software makers they are.
If these companies then make a commercially successful product based on 90% BSD licensed code then the BSD developers would have more bargaining power when it came to encouraging the remaining 10% to be open source as well.I fail to see why the BSD crowd would have any more bargaining power in this case than if the proprietary developer used 10% or even 0% of the BSD code.
IBM started our defense, but they got bogged down with their initial legal position and it was Novell that ultimately won out.IBM got bogged down? The case got stayed since it depended on the outcome of the Novell suit.
The fact is that linux would not be anywhere near where it is today if IBM and Novell had not fought SCO in court.You make it sound like IBM and Novell came to Linux rescue and defended it from SCO. This was not exactly the case. SCO may have pursued a media campagin against Linux, but the lawsuit was targeted at IBM. IBM just defended themselves. Novell stepped in because SCO overstepped its bounds in claiming ownership over Unix. Since Novell had the opinion that Novell owned parts of Unix that SCO claimed to own, they surely called SCO out on it, which made SCO sue them for slander of title.
May I suggest the preview button before you post? Your comment is unreadable.
It sure does. I use it all the time. I have several playlists that depends on star rating, including lists of top rated or unrated songs. Sometimes, when I feel like listening to new music, I listen to the unrated list, giving each track a star rating as I go along. The good songs appear on my top rated list without syncing, and those that get a low rating disappear without being added to another list. In fact, low rated songs are erased from the iPod at next sync, because I only autosync selected playlists, and everything that does not exist on any of those playlists is evicted.
They are only pro freedom to do this when the doers are proprietary software companies. When GPL developers do the same thing, it is a really really bad thing.
Sure, but Linus wants it to run on locked hardware, so GPLv2 is fine to him.
+1, Insightful
As you probably understand, I have no mod points, and even if I had, I have already replied in this thread. :)