Originally posted by Sergio
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
Oh, wait, no, they can't. They can't, for example, close their source code.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cthulhux View PostSeriously, stop trolling please. All that whining.
dee. has now been successfully added to your ignore list.
Sergio, please stop feeding him too. He won't understand.
Comment
-
The most funny part is some bsd fanboys are crying, because they can't steal the GPL code and use it with their projects. Why don't you respect freedom to release the code under GPL? Do you have any problems with this freedom? Why do you cry when developers take your bsd code and use it in GPL and proprietary projects? Didn't you know what bsd allows others to do? This just makes you ignorant and stupid. You release under bsd and I can wash my car with your code. I release under GPL and you can't touch it (unless your smart enough to use GPL as well), because it's exactly the way I want. Understood? It's damn stupid to release under bsd and beg others to give his changes back. It won't happen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sergio View Post"dee." and "XorEaxEax", I understand your points and appreciate the time you have invested in responding. Is not that I can't reply to your latest points, but really we could go on forever; we clearly have divergent thoughts.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostSorry for using the word 'vulnered'; I am not an english native speaker (I think this was obvious).
Originally posted by Sergio View PostI invite you to check out my project: http://sourceforge.net/projects/realboy/.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pawlerson View PostThe most funny part is some bsd fanboys are crying, because they can't steal the GPL code and use it with their projects. Why don't you respect freedom to release the code under GPL? Do you have any problems with this freedom? Why do you cry when developers take your bsd code and use it in GPL and proprietary projects? Didn't you know what bsd allows others to do? This just makes you ignorant and stupid. You release under bsd and I can wash my car with your code. I release under GPL and you can't touch it (unless your smart enough to use GPL as well), because it's exactly the way I want. Understood? It's damn stupid to release under bsd and beg others to give his changes back. It won't happen.
Your GPL fanboyism is as stupid as other people's BSD fanboyism, the truth is, as is very often the case, somewhere in the middle, both licenses have advantages and disadvantages, both licenses have their place. You calling BSD stupid and GPL smart does nothing but pointing out your own stupidity and fanboyism.
Go home.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dee. View PostYou shouldn't. You're free to use whatever you want. No one cares if you want to use BSD, but that's not what this was about. You started trolling about how BSD is superior and Linux sucks. I told you it isn't, because licensing -> low popularity -> less developers -> poor hardware support.
Well, you can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink...
No, you miss the point about how that doesn't matter. Why does Apple not release their modifications to BSD openly? Because if they did, someone could just take it, make their own proprietary MacOS, do improvements to the code, and start competing with Apple with an improved MacOS where all the improvements would be closed to Apple. The same thing for Sony - they will never openly release their BSD improvements that they made for Playstation.
However that doesn't mean that Apple doesn't release code, they infact do release code to the open source community. Actually a lot of code gets released by Apple.
On Linux and GPL, it's different. Many corporations can work together, release their improvements openly, so that they benefit us all, because they know that that situation can not happen - the GPL ensures that everything stays open, no one can take the code and hide it to gain an advantage to others, and this enables corporations - even ones that are in competition with each other - to collaborate and share code openly.
And that's the main point which makes Linux superior, the GPL licensing.
It facilitates collaboration accross many developers from many backgrounds and many corporations, and does it in a way that lets all of us benefit from the code. I say superior in the sense that Linux attracts much more developers, which means better support, newer features etc. If a BSD works better for your personal needs that's fine for you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by wizard69 View PostGPL3 is a horrific license, as such I keep my distance from it as much as possible. It is no surprise that many open source and commercial projects reject it completely and won't even touch software so licensed. If the alternative license like BSD don't allow for collaboration then why has the LLVM?CLang project been so successful? In fact it looks like more people and corporations are now working on LLVM and Clang than GCC. I just don't think you are being objective here.
On the Linux versus GNU Hurd situation, I don't remember why Linux got so popular in the beginning compared to Hurd, but right now, there is the GPLv3 versus GPLv2 situation. Again, GPLv2 (and v3 too) promotes collaboration in a more direct way: they enforce the derivatives to remain open. As long as it is GPLv2 (Linux is GPLv2), it is fine for most open source friendly companies, as their contributions will remain open (i.e., they are not giving a gift to their software competitors to just close). IIRC, on the early times, Hurd just went through redesign after redesign, while Linux provided a working kernel, and that was the only thing that really made a difference. Hurd tried to innovate too much, and got into a seemingly (at the time) eternal planning phase.
Comment
Comment