Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 Arrives Late, Pushes Back Final

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by soupbowl View Post
    The linux community is no longer Open source friendly, they are only linux friendly, they are just like windows junkies.
    I laugh that you post a link about non linux kde users are less then 1% of their user base as some sort of point. When a company says
    1% of their users are linux users, you'll scream and shout that they need to support your OS.
    If you want to take ownership of KDE on FreeBSD, nothing stops you. They sure won't. They're saying that it represents so much work for only a few users that it stretches their resources thin. Instead of spinning their wheels supporting a bad operating system that is totally ancient as far as desktop use goes, they have decided to focus on Linux. I can't see where they made a mistake.

    If something was going to triple your expenditure of effort for half a percent more users and lead to a bad experience everywhere from trying to support the subset of Linux functionality that exists on FreeBSD, would you do it?

    To answer your other question, I don't particularly care where proprietary software developers shove their code, but I could make suggestions.
    Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-19-2011, 06:12 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by soupbowl View Post
      Sorry, I should say the phoronix community.
      Of course the Linux community only cares about Linux, I'll pardon your slip up. FreeBSD: "Dammit, quit improving Linux, it makes us look bad!" "Why can't you be happy using interfaces from 1999!?!?"
      "You're so rude, bunch of meanies!"

      PS: For the love of God, even Windows has changed their video driver interfaces four times since 1999! Grow up!

      The difference is that Linux deletes obsolete crap and leaves BSD holding the bag. I can see why you're mad.
      Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-19-2011, 06:18 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        lol, I'm not mad, but keep troll'n. I am actually entertained.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
          I think I've said everything I want to say about the BSDs, if my point hasn't come across by this point I'm either doing something wrong or preaching to people who don't want to listen. I'd guess the second part.

          Nvidia as a company disgusts me, their driver might be decent, but it is proprietary and they actively oppose any attempts to make it work at all with freely licensed open source software. The political activities of their senior management is another prong in my two-pronged "I don't buy Nvidia because..." argument. Their board is like a bunch of stodgy old cigar smoking villains from a James Bond movie who do things like take company money to hand out to the theocrats in California to help pass Proposition 8.
          There's the difference between you and some of us: you let your ideology dictate your decision making when it involves technical issues.

          I have listened to the arguments about BSD and Linux for an awful long time. It's not that I don't listen...I have already heard what you are preaching and quite frankly I simply disagree with your stance. This isn't based on emotional or ideological stuff...it's based on my experiences with both licenses and OS's.

          As for hating Nvidia for some consipiracy theory/political stuff...well...that's certainly your prerogative. Doesn't really add any weight to your technical and legal arguments though.

          Anyway, you see...we are fortunate to have all these choices. Just because you don't agree with BSD license etc. etc. doesn't mean you have to get on a soapbox saying how 'bad' it is and how the GPL is the end all be all to 'open source'. Again...sounds eerily familiar to the <insert other OS zealot here> using arguments against your beloved GPL'ed Linux. Remember those days?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by golfer View Post
            There's the difference between you and some of us: you let your ideology dictate your decision making when it involves technical issues.

            I have listened to the arguments about BSD and Linux for an awful long time. It's not that I don't listen...I have already heard what you are preaching and quite frankly I simply disagree with your stance. This isn't based on emotional or ideological stuff...it's based on my experiences with both licenses and OS's.

            As for hating Nvidia for some consipiracy theory/political stuff...well...that's certainly your prerogative. Doesn't really add any weight to your technical and legal arguments though.

            Anyway, you see...we are fortunate to have all these choices. Just because you don't agree with BSD license etc. etc. doesn't mean you have to get on a soapbox saying how 'bad' it is and how the GPL is the end all be all to 'open source'. Again...sounds eerily familiar to the <insert other OS zealot here> using arguments against your beloved GPL'ed Linux. Remember those days?
            Remember them? They're still going! Even though BSD can't run a modern desktop system and they are trying to escape the GPL even when it means using inferior software.

            Comment


            • #36
              If you believe FreeBSD is inferior software, why post here at all? It's not like we're excited to read your troll posts, DaemonFC. You obviously do not value the advanced features server admins can appreciate in FreeBSD and other server operating systems. I suggest you restrict yourself to desktop/graphics/Linux forums instead, and allow others to post in the BSD forums without these silly flamewars of an appalling low level.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                If you believe FreeBSD is inferior software, why post here at all? It's not like we're excited to read your troll posts, DaemonFC. You obviously do not value the advanced features server admins can appreciate in FreeBSD and other server operating systems. I suggest you restrict yourself to desktop/graphics/Linux forums instead, and allow others to post in the BSD forums without these silly flamewars of an appalling low level.
                Yes I can't understand why some people have a need to fuel animosity between Linux/BSD users, why? This seemingly everpresent 'in-figthing' between Linux and BSD extremists is utterly pointless as it won't lead to anything even remotely productive. Yet, in both camps there are those who seem hellbent on severing any ties between these two unix descendants and their respective users. Again, why? It's f***ing tiresome to watch.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                  If you believe FreeBSD is inferior software, why post here at all? It's not like we're excited to read your troll posts, DaemonFC. You obviously do not value the advanced features server admins can appreciate in FreeBSD and other server operating systems. I suggest you restrict yourself to desktop/graphics/Linux forums instead, and allow others to post in the BSD forums without these silly flamewars of an appalling low level.

                  I agree with sub.mesa's sentiment.

                  The rest is addressed at Daemon.

                  Yes, Daemon...the arguments against *nix continue to this day. Having said that, it was far worse 10+ years ago. Far more people have embraced *nix...and a lot of the hogwash spewed by zealots has clearly been curtailed. Enter the Linux zealots. And here we go all over again.

                  Now...as for your half-truths and other such malarky. FreeBSD can certainly run a 'modern' desktop just fine (it's actually quite easy). You, because of some ideological beliefs, refuse to do so. That certainly is your prerogative and I don't have any problem at all with your stance. But to sit here and continue your misguided tirade against BSD is really just flat out silly. Why don't you pressure ATI to produce a driver? I dunno...worked for Nvidia (those greedy buggers!). Nvidia cards work perfectly fine with BSD desktops. Sorry your choice of hardware precludes you.

                  There is no 'best' in computing (especially OS's). Clearly, you seem to think there is...and that's where you are going astray imho.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                    No, they use code ACCORDING to the licence it's under, they give back according to their preferred licence. If you see yourself as a BSD advocate then why the hell would you argue against the use of BSD code in GPL projects? Saying it's fine if BSD code is used in proprietary projects while complaining about it being used in GPL projects makes no sense.
                    I said X. You said Y is absurd, therefore not Y. If you read what I said, you would see that nothing I said had anything to do with that.

                    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                    Then you must be totally against proprietary code, not to mention commercial proprietary code. Hell, even the BSD licence DEMANDS that you keep the copyright appropriation, I mean how can they claim ownership of numbers?... absurd was it?
                    All files on your computer are numbers. By having licensing in the first place, you are claiming ownership of numbers. It is absurd, but what is more absurd is the contradiction that is the GPL, which claims to make things free, but then takes advantage of the legal mechanism used to restrict people from modifying software to do the same thing in its own special kind of way. That is what I tried to explain above. If you cannot understand that, then please find something else to do with yourself.

                    By the way, as for proprietary code, I don't like it, but there isn't much I can do about it.
                    Last edited by Shining Arcanine; 11-21-2011, 10:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
                      I said X. You said Y is absurd, therefore not Y. If you read what I said, you would see that nothing I said had anything to do with that.
                      You said 'GPL Advocates take what they want and never give anything back', I said that GPL advocates GIVE back, but under their preferred licence, just like BSD advocates give back under their preferred licence, just like CDDL advocates gives back under their preferred licence etc etc.

                      Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
                      By having licensing in the first place, you are claiming ownership of numbers.
                      So you are against licences and code ownership alltogether. Why not just say so, and why even argue about licence A vs licence B then since you find the very idea of them absurd?

                      Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
                      ...contradiction that is the GPL, which claims to make things free, but then takes advantage of the legal mechanism used to restrict people from modifying software to do the same thing in its own special kind of way
                      Since 'free' in your opinion leaves out anything copyrighted then the only thing you would call free would be public domain. BSD code certainly is not 'free' since it's copyrighted (in your words 'ownership of numbers'). GPL doesn't restrict anyone from modifying code at all, it merely demands that if you distribute that modified code to a third party you have to provide them with the source code aswell. For your own purposes you can modify the code as much as you want and never publish the source code.

                      Now the 'freedom' in GPL refers to keeping the code 'free' as in 'kept open'. I don't agree with the choice of words myself, as in my opinion it's about 'end user rights' and should be called as such, but those are semantics, it's what it does in practice that is of importance. In practice GPL requires the source code being available to end users and as such is unsuitable for proprietary code, BSD does not require the source code to be available to end users and as such is suitable for inclusion into proprietary code. It's up to the code author to decide which approach he/she wants for his/her code should he/she want to licence it as open source. And if you want to use his/her code then you have to comply with the conditions he/she has set. You may find this absurd but copyright exists nonetheless.

                      Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
                      By the way, as for proprietary code, I don't like it, but there isn't much I can do about it.
                      There's nothing you can do about code ownership resulting in licenced code either as it's based on the same premise as proprietary code, which is that anyone who writes code is the owner of that code and has copyright over that code unless he/she explicitly relinquishes that right. You are by your own definition against all code ownership on the grounds that it's all numbers at the end of the day, as such you are against all licences and obviously against proprietary code as it's all based upon copyright.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I said that GPL advocates GIVE back, but under their preferred licence
                        If you use code with a different license, say BSD, then it is nice to give any modification of that code back to their original license. The GPL requires this, because you cannot borrow code from GPL, change it, and license the whole thing as BSD.

                        In reality that means that GPL is a one-way street. They take from others, but no one else can benefit from GPL. With BSD it is the other way around.

                        One valid argument, however, is that GPL guarantees that any development on the code will not be proprietary. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion. But the reality is that GPL means a one-way street while BSD means a two-way street.

                        Important software licensed as GPL is not really free and should be rewritten at one point or another with a true liberal license. The only real restriction should be that you cannot claim you wrote it yourself; basically that is what the BSD license says. The major argument in here is that the code can be used for as many purposes, without requiring to be rewritten and human work being done redundant. One guy does the work, everyone can profit. That's the idea of sharing to make everyone better.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                          If you use code with a different license, say BSD, then it is nice to give any modification of that code back to their original license.
                          Nothing really prevents this as the code author has the right to dual-licence his code. So if someone uses BSD code and enhances it he can release those enhancement as both GPL and BSD licenced code. AFAIK this is often the case.

                          Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                          Important software licensed as GPL is not really free and should be rewritten at one point or another with a true liberal license.
                          Why? Don't get me wrong, I see nothing bad with rewriting 'important software' as BSD licenced but I also fail to see why it 'should' be rewritten. Unless there is a practical problem for BSD systems to use the GPL licenced software I personally find it to be a waste of resources. Granted I don't know exactly what you mean by 'important software' but I can think of tons of software I deem important which poses no practical barriers (as in licencing) for being used by BSD systems. Unless you mean that GPL software should be rewritten under BSD so they can be used in proprietary projects, which I personally would consider an even greater waste or resources.

                          Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                          The major argument in here is that the code can be used for as many purposes, without requiring to be rewritten and human work being done redundant.
                          Sounds very nice and all, but in reality someone comes along and takes that source code, improves it and don't give those improvements back, thus requiring those improvements 'having to be rewritten and human work being done redundant.'. There's no 'perfect licence' simply because this is not a perfect world.

                          Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                          One guy does the work, everyone can profit. That's the idea of sharing to make everyone better.
                          As long as the 'one guy' is ok with doing all the work so that everyone can profit. Sometimes the 'one guy' does the work and wants to benefit from any enhancements done to his work, there's nothing wrong with that and for him GPL is a good choice.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                            Nothing really prevents this as the code author has the right to dual-licence his code. So if someone uses BSD code and enhances it he can release those enhancement as both GPL and BSD licenced code. AFAIK this is often the case.
                            The question was about giving code changes back in another license. If a BSD project is being incoporated by a GPL project, which alters/improves the code, then they will release the new adaptations as GPL, not as BSD code. For the original BSD project to gain anything by these adaptations, they would need to change their own license from BSD to GPL. Otherwise, they can not incorporate any of the changes back to their own project. That's why it is a one-way street for GPL, while BSD itself is two-way street.

                            Why? Don't get me wrong, I see nothing bad with rewriting 'important software' as BSD licenced but I also fail to see why it 'should' be rewritten.
                            A good example might be the GCC compiler collection. They began to release as GPL v3 starting with some version (4.3 or so? I don't recall). This means FreeBSD can and should not use this version anymore, as it limits the deployment of FreeBSD and makes FreeBSD itself more restrictive, especially considering FreeBSD has a strong power base in larger companies and governments, who are not willing to be subject to the GPL v3 license. There may be more arguments against GPL v3 that I'm unfamiliar with.

                            A good compiler collection that is universal and ubiquitous is what I consider 'important software'. Such software should not be released under a very restrictive license (which I consider GPL v3) to be, because that means it cannot be widely used and at one point another project will have to redo all the work. The whole point of open source is that we can share eachothers work and not have to reinvent the wheel for every new project/idea/software.

                            I don't see a major objection in some software being GPL v3, but important infrastructure should never have such a restrictive license IMO. Remember the XFree86 project? They changed their license at one point, to be incompatible with GPL. This is pretty much the same issue, but now the other way around. The result was that their changes had to be rewritten and basically the whole project was replaced by the X.org project. Restrictive licenses for such important infrastructure projects are basically unacceptable and unproductive. I can't see anyone benefiting from this.

                            Sounds very nice and all, but in reality someone comes along and takes that source code, improves it and don't give those improvements back
                            That is indeed one consequence of being liberal: you do not force people to give back, though you encourage people to do so. By not forcing them, your liberal project is usable by anything and anyone, without ever needing to be rewritten due to license concerns. Due to the widespread usability, it is reasonable to expect the project would be more popular than with a very restrictive license. This causes more contributors. Perhaps in percentage less would give code back than GPL, but the opposite could be true as well.

                            As long as the 'one guy' is ok with doing all the work so that everyone can profit.
                            That is the whole point of open source software. One guy does the work, i.e. make Firefox, so that 'we' may all use it without having to write our own browsers/OS/software ourselves. Even GPL allows commercial use of the application. So in essence what you say applies to all open source software, copyfree or copyleft.

                            If you want to benefit from your work, then either write proprietary code and sell it, or try to gain other sources of revenue, like selling support, being available for custom functionality (companies, governments), selling merchandise, etc.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                              Nothing really prevents this as the code author has the right to dual-licence his code. So if someone uses BSD code and enhances it he can release those enhancement as both GPL and BSD licenced code. AFAIK this is often the case.


                              Why? Don't get me wrong, I see nothing bad with rewriting 'important software' as BSD licenced but I also fail to see why it 'should' be rewritten. Unless there is a practical problem for BSD systems to use the GPL licenced software I personally find it to be a waste of resources. Granted I don't know exactly what you mean by 'important software' but I can think of tons of software I deem important which poses no practical barriers (as in licencing) for being used by BSD systems. Unless you mean that GPL software should be rewritten under BSD so they can be used in proprietary projects, which I personally would consider an even greater waste or resources.


                              Sounds very nice and all, but in reality someone comes along and takes that source code, improves it and don't give those improvements back, thus requiring those improvements 'having to be rewritten and human work being done redundant.'. There's no 'perfect licence' simply because this is not a perfect world.


                              As long as the 'one guy' is ok with doing all the work so that everyone can profit. Sometimes the 'one guy' does the work and wants to benefit from any enhancements done to his work, there's nothing wrong with that and for him GPL is a good choice.
                              You can say whatever you want about the GPL, but it's not Linux that is rifling through Apple's garbage can looking for scraps is it?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                                The question was about giving code changes back in another license.
                                Yes and I said that you can (and this happens) give back code changes under TWO or even MORE licences. It's not exclusive.

                                Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                                A good example might be the GCC compiler collection. They began to release as GPL v3 starting with some version (4.3 or so? I don't recall). This means FreeBSD can and should not use this version anymore, as it limits the deployment of FreeBSD and makes FreeBSD itself more restrictive,
                                I have to ask, what exactly in GPLv3 was it that made it impossible for FreeBSD to use it? They had (and have) no problem using GCC 4.2 which is GPLv2 licenced.

                                Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                                especially considering FreeBSD has a strong power base in larger companies and governments, who are not willing to be subject to the GPL v3 license. There may be more arguments against GPL v3 that I'm unfamiliar with.
                                GCC post 4.2 (and thus licenced as GPLv3) is used in larger companies and certainly governments aswell, again I don't see what in GPLv3 vs GPLv2 would hinder this adoption and I would really want to know.

                                Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                                A good compiler collection that is universal and ubiquitous is what I consider 'important software'. Such software should not be released under a very restrictive license (which I consider GPL v3) to be, because that means it cannot be widely used and at one point another project will have to redo all the work.
                                Not widely used? Are you saying GCC post 4.2 is NOT widely used? What are you smoking? It's likely the most widely used compiler toolchain in the world (yes, even though OSX and FreeBSD doesn't ship GCC post 4.2, there's a reason post 4.2 GCC releases are quickly available in ports). Again, I want to know why GPLv3 is unacceptable for FreeBSD/Apple given that companies I've worked for have no problem compiling and shipping proprietary binaries using a GPLv3 licenced GCC toolchain, just like they had no problem doing so with a GPLv2 licenced GCC toolchain. Also companies like IBM, AMD, Intel, Red Hat have no problem not only using but also contributing large amounts of code to GPLv3 licenced GCC. The only thing I can think of in GPLv3 vs GPLv2 which would cause Apple atleast to refrain is the patent clause given how eager Apple is to engage in patent suits.

                                Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                                By not forcing them, your liberal project is usable by anything and anyone, without ever needing to be rewritten due to license concerns.
                                And again, by people keeping improvements to themselves, these improvement efforts needs to be duplicated. So the whole 'saves duplicated effort' is not a universal truth just because it's liberally licenced.

                                Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                                Due to the widespread usability, it is reasonable to expect the project would be more popular than with a very restrictive license. This causes more contributors. Perhaps in percentage less would give code back than GPL, but the opposite could be true as well.
                                No, I don't see a clear rule indicating that it would cause more contributors. I could use anocdotal evidence like contributor difference between Linux vs BSD's but that's not the TRUTH either. Over the years my impression is that generally for frameworks, languages, libraries where a restrictive licence would pose a practical problem and/or where there's little reason to keep your improvements proprietary there's a high use of liberal licences BSD/MIT even LGPL etc. In other areas where a restrictive licence poses no practical problems, like applications (gimp, inkscape, blender, ffmpeg, x264 etc etc) GPL is extremely popular.

                                Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                                That is the whole point of open source software. One guy does the work,
                                No, while it's ONE of the points of open software, another is collaborating in developing open source software. GPL ensures that all improvements are made available to everyone which is the basis for collaborative work.

                                Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                                Even GPL allows commercial use of the application. So in essence what you say applies to all open source software, copyfree or copyleft.
                                Yes, unlike what many seem to think GPL (or rather FSF) is not against making money out of software, nor that GPL licenced software must be free in cost. It merely demands that the source code has to be made available to the recipient.

                                Originally posted by sub.mesa View Post
                                If you want to benefit from your work, then either write proprietary code and sell it, or try to gain other sources of revenue, like selling support, being available for custom functionality (companies, governments), selling merchandise, etc.
                                Nonsense, as stated above you can benefit from your work with others improving on it and allowing you the use of those improvements, which is something GPL enforces. 'Benefiting' is not exclusively a monetary concept.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X