Originally posted by LinuxGamer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon
Collapse
X
-
Why is SystemD better than Upstart exactly?
I hold no special love for Canonical, especially after MIR, but SystemD is as bad as, say, X. It is almost an entire operating system. SystemD is the anti-thesis of Linux - it tries to do everything (remember udev?). As far as I'm concerned SystemD is the worse solution, at least until it becomes modular *for real*.
Comment
-
Originally posted by amehaye View PostAs far as I'm concerned SystemD is the worse solution, at least until it becomes modular *for real*.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Malizor View PostThe contributor also has this right.
AFAIK, he can also grant it to the whole world if he wants (eg. by publishing the patch with a BSD or MIT licence).
A patch is considered derivative work, so the only way to change the license would be all of the contributors agreeing, or being Canonical. The first is very unlikely, and the patch without the code base is useless. If there is only one contributor, which is the case where "the contributor has this right, too", then there's no reason to sign someone else's CLA.
Originally posted by benalib View Posthow about this
and this
Microsoft?s Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msn...munity.mspx#E3
On the openSUSE thing, I didn't read it, but assuming it's some kind of asymmetrical CLA, the fact other distros take non free approaches doesn't alleviate the problem on Canonical. Just pointing fingers won't make Canonical's CLA more free or more symmetrical.
Originally posted by nll_aThe less people have that "right" the better. Merely contributing to a project shouldn't give anyone permission to relicense the whole thing.
Originally posted by johnc View PostIt's interesting that the Ubuntu-related news stories tend to get the threads with the most posts.
Threads from stories about other distros = crickets.
Comment
-
Originally posted by nll_a
And totally ignoring the fact that
1) As per Richard Stallman You are FREE to relicense GPL software
2) the FSF demands you submit to a CLA and also to sign over the copyright to them.
SO it would seem that gcc and the entire gnu userspace runs afoul of Honton's reasoning in his crusade to bash others.
And we know he's going to try in a fruitless attempt to convice us by splitting hairs that the FSF CLA is good but Canonical CLA is bad.
Its a total red herring arguement. Its all GPL3.....The End.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LinuxGamer View PostDebian will not switch to systemd do to it's BSD kernels etc
For example here's a post from a debian dev who definitely seems to believe debian should switch to systemd: http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg...-portable.html
They also conducted a user poll (which the dev mentioned in that post), and ~62% of debian users that responded supported debian using systemd. I would say its a good bet that debian will switch to systemd in the future, its just the sensible thing to do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bwat47 View PostMost debian developers/users consider these alternate kernels to be "toy projects", and they won't really impact debian's decision to use systemd or not. Very, very few people use these alternate kernels. Afaik debian is actually moving towards using systemd.
For example here's a post from a debian dev who definitely seems to believe debian should switch to systemd: http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg...-portable.html
They also conducted a user poll (which the dev mentioned in that post), and ~62% of debian users that responded supported debian using systemd. I would say its a good bet that debian will switch to systemd in the future, its just the sensible thing to do.
Comment
Comment