Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71

Thread: Apple's OS X Launchd Being Ported To FreeBSD

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nslay View Post
    Wow! What a bunch of convoluted bullshit that is ...
    When comes to your comment, yes.

    If you're a user, this issue doesn't even matter (so why do you care?).
    It matters a lot! Users gain the most from GPL projects, while they get usually nothing from BSD. It's because BSD is a permissive license.

    Does it somehow upset you that some permissive software you use daily found its way into some proprietary software?
    Yes, because proprietary is competition to Open Source. While BSD projects are open source they support their own competitors which is damn stupid. It's like giving weapons to your enemy for free, while he doesn't give you anything same time. It's not surprising he's stronger.

    I'll tell you that my FreeBSD experience remains unaffected by any code included in Darwin ...
    That's correct and it will remain that way. You won't get nothing from Darwin, so your experience (in positive way) won't be affected at all. Everything that I wrote here is obvious for most people. I wonder why it's not obvious for freebsd developers and other fanboys?
    Last edited by Pawlerson; 12-20-2013 at 01:44 PM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    When comes to your comment, yes.



    It matters a lot! Users gain the most from GPL projects, while they get usually nothing from BSD. It's because BSD is a permissive license.



    Yes, because proprietary is competition to Open Source. While BSD projects are open source they support their own competitors which is damn stupid. It's like giving weapons to your enemy for free, while he doesn't give you anything same time. It's not surprising he's stronger.



    That's correct and it will remain that way. You won't get nothing from Darwin, so your experience (in positive way) won't be affected at all. Everything that I wrote here is obvious for most people. I wonder why it's not obvious for freebsd developers and other fanboys?
    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). To claim that those who reject copyleft licenses somehow discourage code reuse excludes those who support permissive licenses and reject copyleft licenses. It's obvious that permissive licenses encourage more code reuse by a wider developer audience since this audience includes proprietary developers and developers who simply don't wish for copyleft licenses to extend those copyleft terms to their own work (which is understandable). A copyleft license only really encourages code reuse within the FOSS community. That's the duh part.

    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. 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).

    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.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enjolras View Post
    Are you serious ? Are you such a fanboy you're ready to accept bad design choices in a software just to avoid other reusing your work ? It's crazy. First, the license is supposed to achieve this goal, and second, just because you don't want other to reuse your work as they want (which harmless in my opinion, but ok, let's admit some people don't like that), you'll make your code worse, reducing the quality of the software for people who use it like you expected, and you make it harder for you to maintain ?

    It's amazing you can just suggest such a thing...
    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).

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delgarde View Post
    Nonsense... GCC isn't monolithic because of proprietary plugins - it's monolithic because it's an ancient code base that never had any pressure to make it modular. Whereas LLVM has been designed that way from the start, in the assumption that people want to integrate it with other tools like IDEs, instead of running from a command line or Makefile...
    While true, nothing prevented it redesign which did not happen (some indications) and there is a modularGCC effort. This is same as Linux kernel. Monolithic design may end up as a bunch of unreadable mess, wheres modular design may end up as a mess of dependencies within mess of unreadable. GCC was used for many years in IDEs. I tend to always prefer modular approach (if there is a point in being modular, that is) , however, it can be easily exploited into freemium, if you understand what I mean.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    Yes, because proprietary is competition to Open Source. While BSD projects are open source they support their own competitors which is damn stupid. It's like giving weapons to your enemy for free, while he doesn't give you anything same time. It's not surprising he's stronger.
    Proprietary is more complementary to opensource, than competition. Priorietary is competition to libre software.
    One can view opensource as next evolution step in out-sourcing of proprietary components, so instead being developed in India, they (parts) are available for those interested to cross-develop, show capability or are part of a freemium (similar to past shareware model). They are not meant for end-users, topmost for engineers.

    In the end, they are all belonging to proprietary, its sells/licenses and are paid from it. As such they are neutral to free/libre software so long their license is neutral (BSD) or outright enemy of free/libre software (CDDL, anything Apple and now anything Google etc).

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote 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?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    46

    Default

    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. Itís 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 itís 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.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    46

    Default

    BSD is a sad thing thing

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •