No one can take your "freedom" with the BSD license. Code released as BSD is freely available forever. People can use the code in proprietary works, but I fail to see how that hurts the users any more than Bill Gates not giving them a truck full of money hurts them.
Desktop users don't buy OSes, but if their computer is running Linux and "won't work with their monitor", they will return it and tell other people not to buy a penguin computer.
It takes a lot of work to develop an OS. A hardware manufacturers is not going to do that, and then give it away to all of the other hardware manufacturers. OSS software groups won't make it user friendly enough. You're right, that OSS already has the server components, but that doesn't directly impact the user experience.
I have no problem with the GPL. If a developer wants access to all derivative works of his software, the GPL is great. But if the developer just wants to share it with everyone, BSD is better.
Or we could, you know, use reason and common sense. Not everything must be in absolutes. If you have a knife, you can take control of a lot of people. With a pencil, you'll be laughed at.
But as others pointed out, if you really want a GPLv3 kernel, take a BSD kernel and redistribute it under GPLv3 and base a new distro off that and you're good to go. Debian could do it overnight on the FreeBSD port.
Then you wouldn't need the GPLv3 at all. Without any hardware support, DRM isn't an issue.
Apple has contributed a lot to open source software. BSD has won in the arrangement. Maybe.00000001% of Mac users would otherwise be running FreeBSD if OS X had not come around.
The choice between BSD and GPL reflects what a developer wants. If they want others to help with their software and want rights to all derivatives of their software, they choose GPL. If they just want to share what they make, they choose BSD.
I don't think that GPL software will make it to the majority of users' desktops. It is just too hard to make profit from Desktop Linux. Unlike a server, support for a Desktop OS can't be worth enough to make enough money to develop the software, or it won't ever sell.
Now, I'm well aware that interested developers will make good software without monetary incentive. But they will make it for themselves. OSS relies on developers interested in it. Paid software relies on consumers paying money to buy the OS. Competition means that it has to improve from a user's perspective. Since Microsoft has no competition, it isn't very good in many respects.
The best thing for software is not Free Software. It would be a "monopoly" on open standards, and many competing standardized OSes.
What you pointed out is exactly why "GNU/Linux" is ridiculous. The GNU utilities are very important, but many others are equally important to desktop linux. Are we going to call it Ubuntu Debian/GNOME/xorg/Mozilla/Trolltech/OO.o/apache/.. ./GNU/Linux? PHBs would fall asleep before IT had even finished naming it. Linux is a good name and easily imparts what kind of OS a distribution is. Beyond that, the name of a distribution indicates all of the parts other than Linux. You can't really have Debian Linux without GNU, etc. You can have it on a different kernel.
Moreso, perhaps, than Linux, but not really. A lot of people replace their computers after a relatively short time because of viruses. That is not just working. They also need a lot of tech support from groups like Geek Squad, where they are sold things they do not need and told they need them for their computer to work. That is not just working. Mac OS X is closest to Just Working, but even it isn't all the way there. Toasters, on the other hand, do Just Work.
I understand some of what your saying, but lack of a decent file browser? Compared to Explorer? Am I the only one that finds Explorer utterly unbearable? I feels "web 2.0"-ish, and has no decent hierarchal view (icons and list only show one folder at a time). It is also impossible to get anywhere (like my home folder), without clicking through a thousand folders, half of which tell me I am too dumb to use the contents, so they are hidden. The preferences are impossible to find. The control bar takes up 1/5 of the window, with gigantic buttons, half of which are useless. The search function is ridiculous, with impossible to find options and a silly animation. The menus aren't "right". Things are in odd places, and some functionality is only in the control bar or contextual menus (all of it should be available from the main menus).
I partially agree with what you said, but this is a serious issue that needs to be fixed. Optimally, even the king of all idiots and all of his idiot horses and all of his idiot men should not be able to "0wnz0r" his computer through idiocy.
Another qualification for a good name is verbability. If a name can't be verbed (which is what I just did to the noun "verb"), the project won't be as successful as one that can. Think about Google vs. Yahoo. Which is more successful? The verbable one.
I think this is one of the main problems with Wikipedia. Whenever a/. comment asks a question like "what is BSD" or "what does TWAIN stand for" I want to tell them to look it up on Wikipedia. But you can't verb "Wikipedia". It makes it far easier to say "Google it".
Would "wikped" make a suitable verb form of Wikipedia?
I think it would be better if the content of Wikipedia was read through by experts in each subject, and any errors fixed, and then added to a WIkipedia 1.0 .
99/100 people don't know what region coding is. Of the 1/100 people that do know, 1/10 care, and 1/10 of those care enough to not buy a region coded player.
Apple released a bunch of new products today, so it makes sense their are a lot of posts about it. Ubuntu didn't do anything of note today, so it makes sense it is not filling up the front page.
The editors have a conservative streak? That is amusing. Or are you forgetting the editors' comments (in the story summaries) about the free market being a failure, fahrenheit 9/11 being very insightful and wishing it would sway voters, and numerous other such comments? Most of/. is very far from conservative.
Slashdot Mirror
You're merely jealous that you don't have excellent karma. :D
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Linux is much more secure for most users. If you can't install the OS, and use it, you won't have any security problems.
No one can take your "freedom" with the BSD license. Code released as BSD is freely available forever. People can use the code in proprietary works, but I fail to see how that hurts the users any more than Bill Gates not giving them a truck full of money hurts them.
Desktop users don't buy OSes, but if their computer is running Linux and "won't work with their monitor", they will return it and tell other people not to buy a penguin computer.
It takes a lot of work to develop an OS. A hardware manufacturers is not going to do that, and then give it away to all of the other hardware manufacturers. OSS software groups won't make it user friendly enough. You're right, that OSS already has the server components, but that doesn't directly impact the user experience.
I have no problem with the GPL. If a developer wants access to all derivative works of his software, the GPL is great. But if the developer just wants to share it with everyone, BSD is better.
Or we could, you know, use reason and common sense. Not everything must be in absolutes. If you have a knife, you can take control of a lot of people. With a pencil, you'll be laughed at.
Then you wouldn't need the GPLv3 at all. Without any hardware support, DRM isn't an issue.
Apple has contributed a lot to open source software. BSD has won in the arrangement. Maybe .00000001% of Mac users would otherwise be running FreeBSD if OS X had not come around.
The choice between BSD and GPL reflects what a developer wants. If they want others to help with their software and want rights to all derivatives of their software, they choose GPL. If they just want to share what they make, they choose BSD.
I don't think that GPL software will make it to the majority of users' desktops. It is just too hard to make profit from Desktop Linux. Unlike a server, support for a Desktop OS can't be worth enough to make enough money to develop the software, or it won't ever sell.
Now, I'm well aware that interested developers will make good software without monetary incentive. But they will make it for themselves. OSS relies on developers interested in it. Paid software relies on consumers paying money to buy the OS. Competition means that it has to improve from a user's perspective. Since Microsoft has no competition, it isn't very good in many respects.
The best thing for software is not Free Software. It would be a "monopoly" on open standards, and many competing standardized OSes.
THAT needs to be emailed to the FSF.
What you pointed out is exactly why "GNU/Linux" is ridiculous. The GNU utilities are very important, but many others are equally important to desktop linux. Are we going to call it Ubuntu Debian/GNOME/xorg/Mozilla/Trolltech/OO.o/apache/.. ./GNU/Linux? PHBs would fall asleep before IT had even finished naming it. Linux is a good name and easily imparts what kind of OS a distribution is. Beyond that, the name of a distribution indicates all of the parts other than Linux. You can't really have Debian Linux without GNU, etc. You can have it on a different kernel.
Well in that case, 640k of memory is excessive for a Windows user. Maybe 6k, just in case they come out with a fancier BSOD.
Moreso, perhaps, than Linux, but not really. A lot of people replace their computers after a relatively short time because of viruses. That is not just working. They also need a lot of tech support from groups like Geek Squad, where they are sold things they do not need and told they need them for their computer to work. That is not just working. Mac OS X is closest to Just Working, but even it isn't all the way there. Toasters, on the other hand, do Just Work.
I prefer: sudo killall xorg && rm -R /
I understand some of what your saying, but lack of a decent file browser? Compared to Explorer? Am I the only one that finds Explorer utterly unbearable? I feels "web 2.0"-ish, and has no decent hierarchal view (icons and list only show one folder at a time). It is also impossible to get anywhere (like my home folder), without clicking through a thousand folders, half of which tell me I am too dumb to use the contents, so they are hidden. The preferences are impossible to find. The control bar takes up 1/5 of the window, with gigantic buttons, half of which are useless. The search function is ridiculous, with impossible to find options and a silly animation. The menus aren't "right". Things are in odd places, and some functionality is only in the control bar or contextual menus (all of it should be available from the main menus).
A gas tank won't explode nearly as badly as a gigantic battery. It may catch fire easier, though.
I partially agree with what you said, but this is a serious issue that needs to be fixed. Optimally, even the king of all idiots and all of his idiot horses and all of his idiot men should not be able to "0wnz0r" his computer through idiocy.
Another qualification for a good name is verbability. If a name can't be verbed (which is what I just did to the noun "verb"), the project won't be as successful as one that can. Think about Google vs. Yahoo. Which is more successful? The verbable one.
/. comment asks a question like "what is BSD" or "what does TWAIN stand for" I want to tell them to look it up on Wikipedia. But you can't verb "Wikipedia". It makes it far easier to say "Google it".
I think this is one of the main problems with Wikipedia. Whenever a
Would "wikped" make a suitable verb form of Wikipedia?
I think it would be better if the content of Wikipedia was read through by experts in each subject, and any errors fixed, and then added to a WIkipedia 1.0 .
99/100 people don't know what region coding is. Of the 1/100 people that do know, 1/10 care, and 1/10 of those care enough to not buy a region coded player.
It is not meant to withstand an RPG. That is just to describe how tough it is.
Behold the telecrapper 2000. That'll get you added to all of their do not call lists.
Sure, the do not call list might be easy, but not nearly as funny or rewarding as the Telecrapper 2000.
"Some people, when confronted with a problem, think I know, I'll use regular expressions. Now they have two problems."
RITTAVG TMTS ALKSA TKSTS ATAS AFE! ameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Apple released a bunch of new products today, so it makes sense their are a lot of posts about it. Ubuntu didn't do anything of note today, so it makes sense it is not filling up the front page.
The editors have a conservative streak? That is amusing. Or are you forgetting the editors' comments (in the story summaries) about the free market being a failure, fahrenheit 9/11 being very insightful and wishing it would sway voters, and numerous other such comments? Most of /. is very far from conservative.
Must I use the tags, to ward against ridiculous moderators?