Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bye bye BSD, Hello Linux: A Sys Admin's Story

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

  • #31
    GPLv3 is a non-starter in the Enterprise. GPLv2 is still used and will continue to be but no company with proprietary information will ever use GPLv3. Bring it up in a meeting and get laughed out of the room.

    BSD on the other hand, no qualms from the legal department whatsoever.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by litfan View Post
      GPLv3 is a non-starter in the Enterprise. GPLv2 is still used and will continue to be but no company with proprietary information will ever use GPLv3. Bring it up in a meeting and get laughed out of the room.

      BSD on the other hand, no qualms from the legal department whatsoever.
      Of course GPL 3 is there so that companies cant use the code from non-companies primary without agreeing to it. Of course companies (except some good like redhat) dont give a shit about their users.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
        Of course GPL 3 is there so that companies cant use the code from non-companies primary without agreeing to it. Of course companies (except some good like redhat) dont give a shit about their users.
        So by your logic a company that doesn't use GPLv3 doesn't care about it's customers? Gotcha, thanks for letting us know your opinion is worthless and we can just dismiss you outright.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by blackiwid View Post

          If it would not be "opensource" microsoft could not "stolen" it, if it would be gpl they would have needed to opensource the hole windows at least the hole kernel.

          ^^
          Thats the real difference between Linux zealot and a BSD zealot. You can't "steal" BSD. It is freely given to do WHATEVER you will.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by litfan View Post
            So by your logic a company that doesn't use GPLv3 doesn't care about it's customers? Gotcha, thanks for letting us know your opinion is worthless and we can just dismiss you outright.
            I think he was saying something more along the lines of: "Companies only care about their customers enough to continue taking their money, and GPL3 is perceived as a threat to this philosophy". While its nice that some of the AMD/RH/Intel guys swing by this forum from time to time, we need to remember that the business people from those companies don't give a shit about any of us beyond the transfer of our money into their wallets. As long as everyone is on the same page, I really don't have a moral objection to that.

            Comment


            • #36
              Every company's main care is money, regardless the license.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                Every company's main care is money, regardless the license.
                But some choose a model that doesnt suck for their customers... and some do.

                Some pay more money if they can afford it, some dont. as other example.

                But GPL (3) costs no money so I don?t see a big reason to not do it, except u want to enslave yourself, also u get maybe more work done from others because most people dont want that companies use their stuff to make money and getting no money out of it, or to promote nsa-spysoftware.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                  But some choose a model that doesnt suck for their customers... and some do.

                  Some pay more money if they can afford it, some dont. as other example.

                  But GPL (3) costs no money so I don?t see a big reason to not do it, except u want to enslave yourself, also u get maybe more work done from others because most people dont want that companies use their stuff to make money and getting no money out of it, or to promote nsa-spysoftware.
                  Yep, we have a real idiot here folks. Move along, nothing to see but a monkey flinging poo.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by MartinN View Post
                    The very source of Apple's success since Jobs took back the reigns was these two and only these two things - the paradigm shift from OS 9 to OS X (incorporating BSD/UNIX/Mach as the OS driving their new platform), and the second, equally as important event - moving away from PPC to Intel. These events introduced the pivotal moment, the paradigm shift that gave rise to the new Apple.

                    Cook could do the same - but I'm not yet seeing how Linux would make an equally great impact in their already successful OS/hardware portfolio, particularly when you consider they have resources to turn Mach or whatever BSD aspect of the underlying OS they want, inside out.... One thing I'd love to see is the death of Windows hastened as much as possible... so maybe something along them lines.... not sure...
                    I don't think so. What changed in apple that led to their peak (which, of course, is on its way back down), was a couple of new gadgets that they marketed very aggressively -- first their mp3 players, then their phones. That is all. Although their PC's did certainly improve (from a technical standpoint) with the move from version 9 to 10, it really didn't have any huge impact on their customers, since the BSD part of their OS is outside of the awareness of any of their [real] customers. Their customers are all about the UI and the namefad, neither of which actually do anything for people needing their computers for actual productivity -- i.e., the majority of people in the market for computers.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
                      The BSD license is very attractive for companies that want to have their own proprietary OS running on something like say, a router or server. Otherwise they just run Linux with their proprietary software running on top. The other thing it's great for is educational purposes. Some students actually develop something that people would buy, and they can sell it to a company.
                      BSD vs GPL really doesn't have any impact on servers, since the GPL only obligates you to provide source back to distributions of GPL protected code itself, not to the services offered through the use of GPL code. The problem here is that one of the big barriers to selecting BSD as the kernel behind some proprietary device like a router, is that BSD simply does not have the hardware support for those devices. The big reason for the propagation of Linux is, in fact, the GPL. If you want to ship something with Linux running on it, then whatever changes you made to support it are now available for everybody. That makes it much much simpler to adopt for the next guy, because at least part of their work has already been done for them.

                      Yes, the GPL can be a barrier to selecting Linux as well, so it comes down to deciding between doing more work to keep your secrets and reinventing several wheels in the process, or doing less work and sharing it. Unless there is something tangible to gain by keeping your source code secret, you will obviously choose Linux. With Linux, you hire one kernel coder for a couple of weeks to implement support for your new hardware. With BSD, you hire three dozen for six months.... but that's ok, because your super secret source code remains a secret.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X