Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apple's OS X Launchd Being Ported To FreeBSD

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by nslay View Post
    Software licenses are software developer issues. Why so many software users care so much baffles me. The license does not change the user experience at all.
    Sorry, In what cave have you been sleeping past 20 years?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
      Good since FreeBSDs current init system sucks monkey balls. It's the most slow thing I have ever used in my life. You totally forget that you have a SATA 3 SSD installed. My Arch Linux installation is able to boot faster than FreeBSDs init is able to set the hostname. I'm not kidding.

      It's systemd btw not Sytemd or SystemD or systemD.
      If you're rebooting your server or desktop that often that the extra 10 seconds really matter then you're doing it wrong. The current FreeBSD init system isn't fast, but it works just fine. Personally, I think systemd is a POS. It's a pain to work with, requires a custom binary to look at the log and has a lot of dependencies. It's just annoying and didn't really fix anything. I still can't get my NFS mounts to wait for DHCP and DNS to settle, so every time I reboot my Arch box I have to manually mount my NFS mounts. Hacking in custom scripts isn't a solution for something that should be dead simple.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
        It seems most Open Source developers love GPL and hate bsd for they projects. It's GPL that encourages reusing the code. It's totaly opposite with bsd: when someone takes bsd code he relicense it under GPL or proprietary license. Bsd is just stupid and irrational and your post is nothing but bullshit. There are many more GPL projects than bsd.
        You are not allowed to re-license BSD code. The BSD code headers / comments have to stay in your code. However, you're allowed to make changes, compile it and not disclose those changes and/or just distribute binaries.

        Comment


        • #49
          Opensource is just an advertising buzz word used by BSD, Apple, Google and Solaris to try to potray themselves as being good guys. The true is that software licensing can only be classified into 3 catagories from most good to most evil:

          -Truly Free/Libre: GPL, AGPL

          -Proprietary: Apple/Microscoft/Google EULA

          -Pre-proprietary/Bondage (Permissive): BSD, MIT, Apache, CDDL

          It sounds counter-intuitive but the so called permissive licenses are actually more terrible then proprietary EULAs. Proprietary licenses acturally have the inherent flaw in which the act of banning modifications and redistribution acturally inpemedes the creation of more propreitary software.

          BSD and permissive on the other hand may be free to modify and redistribute but they allow the creation and prolifration of more proprietary software without any restraint. It’s just like WMDs and WMD makers. Proprietary software is more like WMDs themselves while BSD is more like WMD makers. Which of them is more evil? Of course it’s the WMD makers (aka BSD and permissive).

          This is why the fight should be concentrated mainly on BSDs not Windows, Apple or Google. Windows, Apple, Google and many modern proprietary slaveware are only the product of BSD (the main cause of the 21th century proprietary software).

          Unfortunalty, many (even the FSF) mistakenly treat BSD as an ally not as the true enermy. I sincerely hope that many will soon see the truth.

          Comment


          • #50
            BSD is a sad thing thing

            Comment


            • #51
              Sounds like BSD is be coming a OSX wannabe.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by nslay View Post
                Software licenses are software developer issues. Why so many software users care so much baffles me. The license does not change the user experience at all.
                Maybe because the user versus developer isn't a black/white issue either. I'm both a user and an amateur developer, and I want to write useful software. Open source code gives me tools to learn that I wouldn't be able to acquire otherwise.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by brosis View Post
                  I am dead serious bro. I am tired of proprietary bullcrap. I love and appreciate working on and working with libre software. Not same opinion as me? Go to hell (BSD).
                  I bet that you don't even run a FOSS only version of Linux.

                  So much for your hate of proprietary software.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by CthuIhux View Post
                    Take your medication BSD fan boy
                    Says the guy with multiple (including Pawlerson) accounts...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                      I bet that you don't even run a FOSS only version of Linux.

                      So much for your hate of proprietary software.
                      I run a FOSS only version of Linux, if you donīt count AMD firmware for radeon, that is. Wifi cards, router, printers, scanners, media servers, all run FOSS.
                      Why should i like proprietary? Sure, I have nothing against developers or companies that create any software, and their income.
                      Its that only open code and open model create advantages and are immune to many deeper problems that surfaced with proprietary approach.

                      In fact,even for android I never purchase proprietary software and always go for open solution and then just paypal the money to the creator.
                      Because, if build my workflow on something that may be easily discontinued and then unrevivable thanks to exclusive ownership rights, it would be a complete money waste.
                      Not to mention insecurity. Its pretty objective. I donīt hate developers, I just vote with money. I can do it, right?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by nslay View Post
                        But I'm not the fan boy here ...[

                        I don't share your black/white view of the software world, and I respect developers' choice of license (whether its proprietary, copyleft or permissive).
                        It's has nothing to this discussion. Proprietary licenses are bad for end users and other programmers, while bsd like licenses are bad for bsd licensed software.

                        I don't know why you assume that a copyleft license somehow encourages proprietary developers to make contributions. It's still the sole discretion of the companies and developers to contribute to a copyleft project.
                        I was talking about cases when copyleft (GPL) code is being used by proprietary developers. It not only encourages them to make contributions, but indirectly forces them to do so.

                        Further, I don't understand why you assume that a permissive license does not encourage these types of contributions either; this very thread and phoronix article serve as a contradiction to your statement (since launchd was written by Apple).
                        No, it's not a contradiction to my statement, because launchd is Apple project. If it was freebsd project and Apple would support it, it would be the way you have described. It sometimes happens, but very rarely.

                        Software licenses are software developer issues. Why so many software users care so much baffles me. The license does not change the user experience at all.
                        The answer is very simple: the license has effect on software that is used by users.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                          Says the guy with multiple (including Pawlerson) accounts...
                          You should really take his advise seriously. Take your medicine, please.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                            It's has nothing to this discussion. Proprietary licenses are bad for end users and other programmers, while bsd like licenses are bad for bsd licensed software.
                            Proprietary licenses could be bad for end users and other programmers. It really all depends on the terms (duh).

                            For libraries, BSD licensed software is better for developers since it does not add or change terms of the code linked against the library (that's obvious too). Copyleft is only good if you agree with those terms and plan to license your work under the same license. For end-user software, the license doesn't really matter (e.g. Linux, Firefox, FreeBSD, GIMP ... nobody but developers of these applications care about the license).

                            As the saying goes, you can have any colour as long as it's black.

                            I was talking about cases when copyleft (GPL) code is being used by proprietary developers. It not only encourages them to make contributions, but indirectly forces them to do so.
                            Yeah, and that's a big if there. With first hand experience in proprietary development, copyleft is avoided entirely. You might be surprised to learn that permissive licensed software isn't much better with very few permissively licensed components used at all. In our case, those permissive component aren't extended (so no internal contributions to these components). In general, we have to reinvent the wheel all the time (very irritating).

                            Permissive software has a better chance to see action in interesting problems a corporation or government faces. Meanwhile copylefted software is largely ignored when confidentiality is important.

                            No, it's not a contradiction to my statement, because launchd is Apple project. If it was freebsd project and Apple would support it, it would be the way you have described. It sometimes happens, but very rarely.
                            OK fair enough. Apple was nice enough to license it under a permissive license. OpenBSM would then as a better example of explicit contribution from Apple to FreeBSD where Apple kindly licensed OpenBSM under BSDL specifically for FreeBSD. FreeBSD developers probably still did all the integration work though.



                            The answer is very simple: the license has effect on software that is used by users.
                            But neither BSDL nor GPL have any noticeable user requirements. As these are the licenses of choice for the vast majority of FOSS, I still stand by my original statement: Software licenses are software developer issues ... at least for FOSS.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by brosis View Post
                              I run a FOSS only version of Linux, if you donīt count AMD firmware for radeon, that is. Wifi cards, router, printers, scanners, media servers, all run FOSS.
                              Why should i like proprietary? Sure, I have nothing against developers or companies that create any software, and their income.
                              Its that only open code and open model create advantages and are immune to many deeper problems that surfaced with proprietary approach.

                              In fact,even for android I never purchase proprietary software and always go for open solution and then just paypal the money to the creator.
                              Because, if build my workflow on something that may be easily discontinued and then unrevivable thanks to exclusive ownership rights, it would be a complete money waste.
                              Not to mention insecurity. Its pretty objective. I donīt hate developers, I just vote with money. I can do it, right?
                              I do count the AMD blob as firmware, as does Trisquel and every other FOSS Linux distribution, so you lie, you do run proprietary software, you hack
                              Why don't you just start writing proprietary software, you're already half way there if you're using it.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                                You should really take his advise seriously. Take your medicine, please.
                                Loser...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X