Originally posted by NoEffex
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 Arrives Late, Pushes Back Final
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by NoEffex View PostAssuming the former, if you were a programmer in any way shape or form you'd realize that FreeBSD is written better.
Originally posted by NoEffex View PostI'd rather release my software under the BSD license
Originally posted by NoEffex View Postbecause the only way anything is going to be remotely successful is if people have the freedom to do with it what they want (Including use in proprietary software). I oppose the GPL and have for quite some time. It's useful for the Linux kernel and stuff like GCC but for random applications it's not.
ffmpeg, x264, VLC, mplayer, valgrind, gcc, samba, git, mercurial, gimp, inkscape, blender, abiword, audacious, emacs, avidemux, qemu and these are just from the top of my head. Not even remotely successful, huh?
Either you are trolling or your reality distortion field is set to 'extremely high'.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DaemonFC View PostMy GPU doesn't work but they found the time to rewrite grep to avoid the GPL. *yawn*
Rewrite thousands of lines of code that already existed because we hate the GPL: check
Version of ZFS that is already stale: check
NIH some features that have been in Linux since 2007: check
Working Radeon HD 5000+: Deferred indefinitely
X.org Server: 4 versions behind
At least we're unpaid Apple employees that don't give a damn if our software stays freely available or openly licensed: double check
1. Really really incredibly stupid
2. Trolling
Assuming the former, if you were a programmer in any way shape or form you'd realize that FreeBSD is written better. This is crucial when it comes to managing servers that perform very important roles, because if anything bad happens then it's the system admins fault. In my experiences there's only one Linux installation that never had to be manually rebooted due to crashes (Kernel crashes, entirely different hardware among the crashes). I have never had to restart a FreeBSD installation.
Not just that but Btrfs is somewhat not viable on an enterprise level. It performs terribly. It probably won't perform well for a long time. ZFS is the only thing that when attached to something that performs very near Linux (FreeBSD) performs well enough to be worth it AND has the wonderful features it does.
In regards to the GPL, it isn't "free". It's very very restricted. I'd rather release my software under the BSD license because the only way anything is going to be remotely successful is if people have the freedom to do with it what they want (Including use in proprietary software). I oppose the GPL and have for quite some time. It's useful for the Linux kernel and stuff like GCC but for random applications it's not.Last edited by NoEffex; 29 November 2011, 02:18 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sub.mesa View PostIf 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by scjet View Postblah blah blah.
Your "pretending" that you know nuthin' about Servers has only convinced me that u're nuthin' but a trolling liar....
Hence your "petty rants" of BSD. But just to cheer your day up a bit, I will say that OpenBSD is almost as disgusted with freebsd as you are.
It really bother's you that FreeBSD is still around, almost as much as the fact that Linux also can't get rid of it.
"The BSD Things In Life Are Free"
Leave a comment:
-
FreeBeastie is still alive n' well
Originally posted by DaemonFC View PostServers? I don't run a server, I run a desktop. Linux is great as a desktop, BSD ....
Your "pretending" that you know nuthin' about Servers has only convinced me that u're nuthin' but a trolling liar....
Hence your "petty rants" of BSD. But just to cheer your day up a bit, I will say that OpenBSD is almost as disgusted with freebsd as you are.
It really bother's you that FreeBSD is still around, almost as much as the fact that Linux also can't get rid of it.
Well, NEWSFLASH, the *BSD's are gonna be around long, long, long after you and me are worm dung, and in many derivatives, incantations, and "Serv"ings.
Get Over It already, friend.
don't like the *BSD's as a desktop ???, then don't use it man.
"The BSD Things In Life Are Free"
Last edited by scjet; 29 November 2011, 07:04 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
They could use modern GCC licensed under the GPL 3, it's just that FreeBSD's bosses at Apple and other proprietary software companies don't like the idea that they have to release their right to sue the user of anything they give code to.
And that's fine, I just wish they'd stop lying about why they don't like the GPL.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sub.mesa View PostThe question was about giving code changes back in another license.
Originally posted by sub.mesa View PostA 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,
Originally posted by sub.mesa View Postespecially 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.
Originally posted by sub.mesa View PostA 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.
Originally posted by sub.mesa View PostBy not forcing them, your liberal project is usable by anything and anyone, without ever needing to be rewritten due to license concerns.
Originally posted by sub.mesa View PostDue 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.
Originally posted by sub.mesa View PostThat is the whole point of open source software. One guy does the work,
Originally posted by sub.mesa View PostEven GPL allows commercial use of the application. So in essence what you say applies to all open source software, copyfree or copyleft.
Originally posted by sub.mesa View PostIf 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostNothing 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.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: