Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BSDs Struggle With Open-Source Graphics Drivers

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

  • Sergio
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • intellivision
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • systemd rulez
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teho
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio
    replied
    Originally posted by brosis View Post
    BSD is closed source supporter and, because of that, second class OS.
    Usually those closed source "BSD brethren" are those interested in patent misuse and in proprietary everything with DRM to the max (like Apple banning whoever they desire).

    GPL is not and is against that. GPL does not simply "advertize" freedom, it protects it. This is why GPL is banned by Apple and Microsoft as well as hated by BSD. GPL freedom protection will disallow them to condone their dirty work, thus proving that BSD folk care a crap about freedom.
    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.
    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.
    Originally posted by brosis View Post
    BSD is pseudofreedom, GPL is freedom.
    That's just your opinion; who are you to impose the definition of freedom to me?

    Leave a comment:


  • Vim_User
    replied
    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. 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • brosis
    replied
    Originally posted by onicsis View Post
    The biggest threat to Linux is not BSD, Mac OS or even Windows is EVIL Patent System. Large companies like Google IBM or HP, Linux friendly in day to day life, support that system who threatens in the long term the entier Open Source World.
    No. Patents are not a threat, unless they are misused. And they are misused a lot - there is a dire need of reform. Patents should be completely free to use for opensource project and have 5-year validity tops for commercial projects, including using opensource software for that goal. Key technology and any "standards" should never be patented. This way, the inventor will have possibility to gain profit for invention, but only where it applies, without blockades.


    Originally posted by onicsis View Post
    Flamewars like Linux vs BSD should not ever exist.
    They spark exactly where the difference lies.

    BSD is closed source supporter and, because of that, second class OS.
    Usually those closed source "BSD brethren" are those interested in patent misuse and in proprietary everything with DRM to the max (like Apple banning whoever they desire).

    GPL is not and is against that. GPL does not simply "advertize" freedom, it protects it. This is why GPL is banned by Apple and Microsoft as well as hated by BSD. GPL freedom protection will disallow them to condone their dirty work, thus proving that BSD folk care a crap about freedom.

    BSD is pseudofreedom, GPL is freedom. When judgement day comes, holy RMS will exorcise the split-tongue beasts and right now they rage about it.

    Be aware, that GPL supporters have nothing against proprietary software, but they do have problem when proprietary masks itself as freedom software, thus misusing it.
    Last edited by brosis; 02-10-2013, 06:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nightmarex
    replied
    Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Linux users. They are lost without a gui.
    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.

    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.

    Originally posted by DanL View Post
    Do not feed the trolls...
    They don't put "Please do not feed bear signs!" there for no reasons this forum needs a pop up warning before allowing a post...

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Do not feed the trolls...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X