On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 15:44:05 UTC, ketmar via
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 07:54:53 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
That still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would
spend time collecting stats when it's pointless to quantify
anyway. If it's 20%, is it all of a sudden worth it for you?
i believe that when someone says "much more", he didn't take the
numbers from /dev/urandom, and he already has very impressive
else he would do comparisons? he must base his opinion on some
or... or i just can say that with my contributions Linux got
patches, so prise me -- and everyone will believe? i bet not, i
asked for at least numerical proofs. so i won't buy bs about
patches with android" without numbers at least. and then i will
show *what* parts was changed, just to make sure that this is
useless android-specific crap.
But nobody cares to prove it to you. I made an assertion that
patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show
that. If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother me.
see, m$ recently commits alot of patches, yet it's still very
say that "microsoft help develops Linux". what those patches do
compatibility with their proprietary "hyperv". useless crap. yet
numbers still looks impressive.
Except that Android obviously has nothing so narrow as Hyper-V to
which it's isolated to.
I've explained in detail what "doing well" means: these
hobbyist OSS projects, whether the linux kernel or gcc or
whatever you prefer, would be unusable for any real work
without significant commercial involvement over the years.
Not sure what's difficult to understand about that.
you didn't give any proofs. moreover, you simply lying, as gcc,
example, was perfectly usable long before commercial vendors
and i can assure you that Linux and GCC are not the only [F]OSS
projects which are very usable for "real work" (i don't know
"real work" and "unreal work" is, but hell with it).
What would be "proofs" of being made much more viable by
commercial involvement? As for linux and gcc not being the only
mature projects, every other one you can think of very likely
also benefited greatly from commercial investment.
It's not just corporations using permissive licenses. Many
more individuals choose a permissive license for their
personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux
and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past.
ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate
success? i knew that!
Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or
from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose
license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution,
use it in
proprietary closed-source version and make money from it.
If he's the author, how is he stealing your code? Google runs a
patched linux kernel on a million servers and mostly doesn't
release their patches, did they steal code from all linux kernel
i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until
product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to
product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely.
mean "the code i wrote without payment".
You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to code
others wrote on top of your code.
and i prefer GPLv3 over GPLv2 as GPLv3 closes tivoisation hole.
Yes, you mentioned that before.
You think OpenBSD did not also benefit from commercial help?
if you'll go this way you'll found that nobody using hand-made
computers for running FOSS software, so... i want numbers.
proofs that without such help the project will be in unusable
now. i don't know how you can make such proofs, but that's not
claims that without commercial proof FOSS is "not ready for
so it's not me who must give proofs. i'm telling you that...
emacs and GCC: emacs, GCC and GDB was perfectly usable before
corporations started to take FOSS movement seriously.
I see, you want "proofs," but "don't know how you can make such
proofs." Awfully convenient to demand proof and not define what
you'll accept as proof. As I said before, all the data is out
there, you're free to prove it to yourself.
you know what... the whole UNIX story started as "guerilla OS".
when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in
btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX.
This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not.
The viral GPL may have helped linux initially, when it was
mostly consulting/support companies like IBM and Red Hat using
open source, so the viral aspect of forcing them to release
source pushed linux ahead of BSD. But now that companies are
more used to open source and actually releasing products based
on open source, like Android or Juniper's OS or llvm, they're
releasing source for permissive licenses also and products
make a lot more money than consulting/support, ie Samsung and
Apple make a ton more money off Android/iOS than Red Hat makes
off OS support contracts.
why do you think that i should care how much money corporations
get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their
would sell it for a dime.
I already explained why: because that means they put more money
into permissively-licensed projects like AOSP, clang/llvm, etc.
So the writing is on the wall: by hitching themselves to a
better commercial model, permissive licenses and mixed models
are slowly killing off the GPL.
i already heard that. all that i can say is "those who don't
Stallman are doomed to live in the world Stallman describes".
thing that they help build such world *for* *me* too. so i
'em alone in their brave new world.
Stallman accidentally got some things right, but his turning FOSS
into some sort of idealistic crusade for pure open source, ie
free software, is hopelessly ignorant. That's why the GPL is
I wrote about some of this and suggested a new mixed model
almost five years ago:
this is all about the ways vendor can fuck me. but i don't want
fucked at all. and i don't care how much PITA for vendor it is,
What I predicted has basically come true with Android's
enormous success using their mixed model, though I think my
time-limited mixed model is ultimately the endgame.
like vendor don't care about my needs.
I don't see how they're doing anything to you, nor do I say
anything about a vendor's PITA.
Anyway, you seem ideologically committed to the GPL, no matter
how flawed it is, so I'll leave it here.