Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BSDs Struggle With Open-Source Graphics Drivers

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by nightmarex View Post
    Really? I use Linux because I have a love of the CLI (well... Emulated ones where I can have multiple sessions or a TTY with screen on it not that single user/program crap). Making such claims is dubious at best.
    You != everyone, you need a larger sample size before you claim something is dubious.

    To the poster of Linux users are it's enemy. Well I have seen many elitist attitudes from Windows users as well as OSX/IOS that was far more berating than even what Capt. Crazy has posted. Doesn't seem to harm their platform so why are Linux elitist worse than those of other systems? Unless you were just being funny in that case dismiss the preceding statement.
    Well, if it's not RMS and his shenanigans chasing people away its the shenanigans of lovely people like Lennart Poettering who rather than scheduling his own talk would rather interrupt someone else's talk.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
      Well, if it's not RMS and his shenanigans chasing people away its the shenanigans of lovely people like Lennart Poettering who rather than scheduling his own talk would rather interrupt someone else's talk.
      Well considering that datenwolf didn't seem to do much if any research for his talk and spread misinformation of various projects (many of which Lennart had worked on) I think it was good for him to actually correct some of his claims. Lennart made the horrible talk at least somewhat interesting and fun. It's also quite usual to let the audience ask question and such during the talk.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Sergio View Post
        You are just plain wrong... Remember the academic origins of BSD; its license, therefore, was motivated by the academy. All this predates the whole "my license is more free than yours" bullshit. Any way, this proves that BSD doesn't hate GPL, and that BSD does not support closed source; this is impossible, since BSD predates all this. So, you can see GNU/GPL as anti-proprietary movements, while BSD is really proprietary-agnostic; yes, you can 'steal' BSD code, but that was not the motivation for BSD.
        No, YOU are plain wrong. The full BSD came after the first proprietary software was released. BSD license was and is motivated by freedom to make proprietary software. it's proprietary-friendly. Academia now adays also prefer the GPL as it keeps code open and thus more people can benefit.

        Stealing BSD code to make proprietary shit is the motivation of BSD. You can see this what Linux devs took BSD code and add GPL code to it. BSD fuckers start crying and threaden to sue them.

        Perhaps Unix took code from BSD, but also remember that their goal was to have a free (non AT&T) Unix, so they were actually fighting for freedom many years before Linux, GNU, FSF, etc.
        BSD was proprietary before stallman came and ask them to make thier code free. But rather then doing what stallman ask for, they set about making code that is free to be used for proprietary software.

        That's just your opinion; who are you to impose the definition of freedom to me?
        We are stopping you from helping proprietary software companies from taking away people's freedom.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by systemd rulez View Post

          BSD was proprietary before stallman came and ask them to make thier code free. But rather then doing what stallman ask for, they set about making code that is free to be used for proprietary software.



          We are stopping you from helping proprietary software companies from taking away people's freedom.
          Notwithstanding the spelling and grammar errors, what is your position of Richard Stallman promoting free codecs by supporting their distribution through a permissive software license?
          Is he wrong? Is it not 'free' enough for you?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by systemd rulez View Post
            No, YOU are plain wrong. The full BSD came after the first proprietary software was released. BSD license was and is motivated by freedom to make proprietary software. it's proprietary-friendly. Academia now adays also prefer the GPL as it keeps code open and thus more people can benefit.
            Here, a history lesson: http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensourc...k/kirkmck.html

            "Early in 1977, Joy put together the "Berkeley Software Distribution." This first distribution included the Pascal system, and, in an obscure subdirectory of the Pascal source, the editor ex. Over the next year, Joy, acting in the capacity of distribution secretary, sent out about thirty free copies of the system."

            As early as 1977 BSD Unix was promoting freedom; GNU/LINUX/GPL weren't even in plans.

            "Up through the release of 4.3BSD-Tahoe, all recipients of BSD had to first get an AT&T source license. That was because the BSD systems were never released by Berkeley in a binary-only format; the distributions always contained the complete source to every part of the system. The history of the Unix system and the BSD system in particular had shown the power of making the source available to the users. Instead of passively using the system, they actively worked to fix bugs, improve performance and functionality, and even add completely new features."

            According to history, everything you say is just plain wrong.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
              You != everyone, you need a larger sample size before you claim something is dubious.
              Well I do equal a user correct? Just saying, you know, your statement wasn't 100% factual and is probably baseless. If you had reference to insinuate that the majority Linux users are actually CLI-phobic I will concede your point but until you can I used myself as debasing reference.

              @Sergio nice read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...ory-simple.svg may of sufficed however.
              Last edited by nightmarex; 02-10-2013, 08:12 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                Again, it is in fact very simple: If you don't like permissive licenses then don't use them. You don't need to license your software under such a license and if you don't want to nobody is forcing you to use software that has a permissive license.
                You don't have to rewrite, because BSD and GPL are both permissive licenses and work very well.

                Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                Just go ahead, remove any permissive licensed software from your system and replace it with GPL software. Possibly you will have to write some of those replacements in the first place, like your X server for example.Arguing against permissive licenses, but posting from a system that makes extensive use of them is at least hypocritical, if not just an asshole move.
                I don't remember anything like that happening in GPL space. But in BSD space, yes, they are nazi BSD-only guys, they went ahead are rewrote stuff like .. whole userspace and new compiler. Yes, hypocritical asshole move.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Vim_User is analed

                  Vim_User, looks like your arguments backfired against you, Analed.

                  Analed deep.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by brosis View Post
                    You don't have to rewrite, because BSD and GPL are both permissive licenses and work very well.
                    The GPL is not a permissive license, it is a copyleft license, the only form of license some people here on Phoronix (like that systemd troll) are accepting. So I asked to just remove the software with permissive licenses, so that they aren't hypocritical assholes, bitching about a license while using a system that heavily depends on software that is put under a permissive license.

                    Vim_User is analed
                    Vim_User, looks like your arguments backfired against you, Analed.
                    Actually, no, they didn't, and if you would be half as educated about licenses as you pretend you would know that. Still waiting for your answers in the other threads regarding your contributions to the open source movement and how it works out for you not to use permissive licensed software.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by systemd rulez View Post
                      Vim_User, looks like your arguments backfired against you,
                      What about you? Are you ǹot bothered that most of what you say is plain wrong?
                      http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...060#post312060

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                        You are just plain wrong... Remember the academic origins of BSD; its license, therefore, was motivated by the academy. All this predates the whole "my license is more free than yours" bullshit.
                        Nope.
                        The academic origins of whom? Both GPL and BSD are academic. Because RMS is MIT and BSD is Berkley.

                        The differences - three differences:
                        1) RMS' GNU is rewritten from scratch, where BSD is copypaste - for which they got sued by AT&T.
                        2) GPL is no less academic than BSD; but within GPL its impossible to develop something in open and then close it down leaving everyone behind (linking to proprietary is and was ok). That, unless two existing license exploits are present:
                        - GPL is not the only license or
                        - copyright assignment is required.
                        3) freedom protection aspect of GPL, which is completely absent in BSD - so BSD is Public Domain. You can go argue its not, but without protection of conditions (like in GPL) its clauses possess the legitimate power of a void.

                        Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                        Any way, this proves that BSD doesn't hate GPL, and that BSD does not support closed source; this is impossible, since BSD predates all this.
                        No. Not proven. If its "academic", software for study, it does not mean anything.
                        GPL is both for production and for study.
                        BSD is only for study, because it does not protect anything - its an advertizing license. Publishing any commercial content under advertizing license means making public domain. Nobody does that, except they have patent portfolio to cover it, or/and its about an interface to something bigger and they target large userbase by making the interface widely compatible.
                        For production for BSD, the license is EULA. EULA is extremely restricting, not much "freedom" left.

                        If I am to choose between freedom license that only restricts removing that freedom, and freedom license that does not protect anything it claims and I end up with EULA in result, I choose GPL for freedom license.
                        Because BSD freedoms do not work since nobody cares about them, its anarchy.

                        On the hate point,Someone says, the power is within the difference. But then, look:
                        1) Apple bans GPL
                        2) MS bans GPL
                        3) BSD starts replacing everything GNU with BSD, because.. GPLv3 is limits their freedom to remove freedom. <- this, nothing else.
                        4) BSD chooses Apple as its partner
                        5) BSD trolls start posting FUD about how BSD is free and GPL is viral.

                        Do not be surprised, if you loose GPL folks and will be dependent upon your new proprietary friends which hate freedom.
                        Not only you lie about freedom, you troll GPL and support the force behind anti-freedom proactively.
                        Do not wonder if GPL people will give a fuck about you.

                        Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                        So, you can see GNU/GPL as anti-proprietary movements, while BSD is really proprietary-agnostic;
                        No.
                        GPL started because proprietary endangered the whole existence of UNIX and is sole purpose is to remove proprietary influence over the code it protects. Influence, not proprietary itself.
                        Proprietary is free to link runtime to GPL at any level and hence cooperate on binary level.
                        You can see that GNU/GPL is not anti-proprietary movement.

                        Proprietary-agnostic = freedom-agnostic. BSD does not actually care about anything, it just advertizes 1)authorship 2)absence of warranty/responsibility

                        Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                        yes, you can 'steal' BSD code, but that was not the motivation for BSD.
                        Perhaps Unix took code from BSD, but also remember that their goal was to have a free (non AT&T) Unix, so they were actually fighting for freedom many years before Linux, GNU, FSF, etc.
                        Yes, BSD motivation was "do anything about our code what you want".
                        Its kind of putting fire out with gasoline.
                        The only one who fights freedom is the one who preserves it by limiting the single right remove freedom. That's RMS and co.
                        For example, even if technology establishes under BSD license, no one can prevent major publisher from adding patented, closed source extensions to it and thus invalidating the BSD-licensed technology altogether in one move.
                        A lot of serious flaws unpatched to consider this anything close to freedom, by the reactions of BSD folks upon GPLv3, those are not bugs, but features.

                        Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                        That's just your opinion; who are you to impose the definition of freedom to me?
                        There is no such thing as "definition of freedom", there is freedom and there is anarchy. Freedom means "no slavery". Anarchy means allow everything.
                        Anarchy is not freedom - its void. An absence of any policy. This state is never possible, it is similar to null pointer.
                        Single entity within anarchy immediately postulates totalitarian monarchy(no anarchy). Two+ entities postulate either war (duocratie); or any agreement(which is not anarchy - because they postulate limits).
                        For anarchy to maintain, there should be zero entities or entities completely not acting in any way, because freedom to commit action of one entity will unavoidably cancel freedom of another entity.
                        That's not opinion, its not preference, that are facts.

                        My preference is GPL when it comes to freedom or proprietary when it comes to keeping secrets; everything in-between is not stable enough.
                        What secrets can you trust, is different matter as trust is a weakness.
                        Last edited by brosis; 02-11-2013, 11:09 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                          The GPL is not a permissive license, it is a copyleft license, the only form of license some people here on Phoronix (like that systemd troll) are accepting. So I asked to just remove the software with permissive licenses, so that they aren't hypocritical assholes, bitching about a license while using a system that heavily depends on software that is put under a permissive license.
                          GPL is permissive license, because it permits to do anything, except removing the right to do anything. Because the right "to remove rights" contradicts with right "to do anything", it is not considered as anti-permissive. This is single exception to freedom within GPL.
                          BSD is permissive license, because it permits to do anything. Including removal of freedom.

                          GPL is strong copyleft license, because it protects freedoms.
                          BSD is public domain, because it does not protect anything it claims.

                          GPL is permissive strong copyleft.
                          BSD is permissive public domain.

                          You asked to remove permissive license, which will leave you with proprietary (opposite) licenses like ... MacOSX.
                          Btw,.. VIM developer uses MacOSX, which is proprietary OS - not BSD OS. What "permissive licenses" are you talking about all of the sudden and why do you bitch and call people "assholes"?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            loss

                            Wow, this thread is a loss. I have seen some flaming and trolling on these forums before, but I don't recall any like this. Oh well, at least I learned that the forum has a killfile. I hope this does not become routine though.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by nightmarex View Post
                              If you had reference to insinuate that the majority Linux users are actually CLI-phobic I will concede your point but until you can I used myself as debasing reference.
                              You are a rounding error, not a debasing reference. Read the Ubuntu forums sometimes, you'll find that CLI use is the minority.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Teho View Post
                                Well considering that datenwolf didn't seem to do much if any research for his talk and spread misinformation of various projects (many of which Lennart had worked on) I think it was good for him to actually correct some of his claims. Lennart made the horrible talk at least somewhat interesting and fun. It's also quite usual to let the audience ask question and such during the talk.
                                Questions get asked during a question and answer period. Lennart was just being an asshole, and should have scheduled his own talk instead of hijacking someone else's talk to support his unnecessary projects.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X