-- 06/01/01 21:44 -0800 - Jeremiah Gowdy Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and
NT - Not a bunch of licence Jihad crap:
Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is redefining
the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet has val
Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is
redefining
the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet has value.
free (fr) adj. Costing nothing; gratuitous:
Yeah, and 'gay' means 'joyful'.
You're saying the most common definition of "free" isn't no cost ?
[ The dict command is your friend ]
1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under
restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's
own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's
own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
In a message dated 1/7/2001 11:27:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
[ The dict command is your friend ]
1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under
restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's
own impulses,
Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is
redefining
the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet has value.
free (fr) adj. Costing nothing; gratuitous:
Yeah, and 'gay' means 'joyful'.
You're saying the most common
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
You're saying the most common definition of "free" isn't no cost ?
I'm a free man, not a commercial sample!
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
Hi
Could you people please take this flamewar off our lists?
Thanks!
M
--part1_f8.65bd20b.278a2f74_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/7/2001 11:27:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
[
"Jeremiah Gowdy" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uuuuh, I'm gonna have to agree with Murray that there is a complete
dearth of free software for Windows. Go search shareware.com, or
Tucows, or any of the other Windows-centric software sites, and just
TRY to find most of the same tools or
What's so "free" about software that you don't pay money for? Pretty much
nothing compared to software that you are /free/ to modify and /free/ to
use
any way you want is "free". There is very little of that for Windows
compared to for Unix in general.
Okay, this levels of "free" concept
ANTI_PROTON BEAM
I found this message to be so off base, that I felt it necessary to
reply. I hope the original author wil not mind.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is redefining
the word "free" to mean something that
At 20:29 29/12/00 +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Perfect for your purposes. I, as user (and with some machines
running on FreeBSD), want to be able to rebuild the kernel at any
time, and fix myself when needed. I don't want any binary packages
that can cause trouble and delay days.
before
Core has stated in the past a strong desire for developers not to
break kernel interfaces within minor releases.
4.1 broke that "policy" rather badly. Perhaps its time to get rid of the
mbuf macros, as any change to that structure breaks binary compatibility
in
the worst way
: Still, I personally believe, that "core" or general "freebsd community"
: should explicitly state, that support for binary drivers and support for
: easier inclusion of binary driver or just third party driver is eagerly
: encouraged. And as much as possible, easy inclusion of binary drivers
:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dennis writes:
: 4.1 broke that "policy" rather badly. Perhaps its time to get rid of the
: mbuf macros, as any change to that structure breaks binary compatibility in
: the worst way possible.
Agreed. There are too many things that have been MFC'd that change
the
Dennis wrote:
: Still, I personally believe, that "core" or general "freebsd community"
: should explicitly state, that support for binary drivers and support
for
: easier inclusion of binary driver or just third party driver is eagerly
: encouraged. And as much as possible, easy inclusion of
Mr Kamps comments are also "Well documented". I would think that EVERYONE
on this list would be offended by his insinuation that anyone that uses
FreeBSD and doesnt contribute source to FreeBSD is stealing. Where is that
outcry on that ridiculous idea? If you are offended by people using
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dennis writes:
Again, you miss the point. Spending dollars advertising is arguably a more
valuable contribution than altering a few line of code or submitting a
driver for some obscure card.
It depends a lot on the goals of the project. FreeBSD has pretty good
At 12:44 26/12/00 +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote:
I ran into people at NASA who use Python because (beside being a good
language) it isn't GPL.
Pure paranoia. You don't have to share the code that is written IN
Python. Only modifications TO python (if it were GPL)
what if you read before
just wanna jump in while it's hot...
I work for a commercial company, and I did what I could to convince
people that *BSD is the way, and we're happily using FreeBSD.
now, we modiy the kernel sources, and this is a problem since this changes
the way people build the kernel.
what we did is
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
The amount of free Windows software is much less than what is
available for Unix.
I almost choked to death on my Submarina Sandwich when I read
this. I think you need to take a step back and think a bit on
this one. Do you really think the
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
If you slant your judgement so far against the other products,
it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about
(no offense). You need to point out the pros and cons of ALL
three systems. Not just the pros of FreeBSD and the cons
At 17:07 28/12/00 -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
If you slant your judgement so far against the other products,
it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about
(no offense). You need to point out the pros and cons of ALL
three
Afaik, anybody can spend any amount of advertising dollars he
wants.
Again, you miss the point. Spending dollars advertising is arguably a more
valuable contribution than altering a few line of code or submitting a
driver for some obscure card.
Well, I don't think so. Good quality and
On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 07:33:03PM +0100, mouss wrote:
I work for a commercial company, and I did what I could to convince
people that *BSD is the way, and we're happily using FreeBSD.
now, we modiy the kernel sources, and this is a problem since this changes
the way people build the kernel.
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote:
If your company's infrastrucutre changes are made in a way that if
the project adopted them it would help binary support, I'm sure that would
be accepted.
ie. if we just made function foo() more generic and then you could
simply provide a KLD,
Uuuuh, I'm gonna have to agree with Murray that there is a complete
dearth of free software for Windows. Go search shareware.com, or
Tucows, or any of the other Windows-centric software sites, and just
TRY to find most of the same tools or applications you take for
granted on your Unix box.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Taavi Talvik writes:
: On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote:
:
: If your company's infrastrucutre changes are made in a way that if
: the project adopted them it would help binary support, I'm sure that would
: be accepted.
:
: ie. if we just made function
Again, you miss the point. Spending dollars advertising is arguably a more
valuable contribution than altering a few line of code or submitting a
driver for some obscure card.
Key word here: "arguably", meaning "can be argued indefinitely", and
loosely translates to "drop this argument -
Just a comment on this...
I used to work for a pretty big Unix OS vendor in the operating systems
development group. 90% of the bug fixes I applied were never found by
the QA group (otherwise they would have been fixed long before I ever
worked there :-). Where they really found problems were
At 01:16 PM 12/19/2000, John Baldwin wrote:
We have a saying in Denmark, which I'm sure exist in as many forms
as there are languages in the world:
"A thief belive everybody steals."
Dennis, considering the recorded history of your arguments in our
mailing list archives, hearing you
At 05:14 PM 12/19/2000, you wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:25:43PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
Am I a thief because my company provides value added solutions without
source to our enhancements on a freebsd platform? If you are insulted that
other people are using your work without paying for it
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 11:44:34AM -0500, Dennis wrote:
At 05:14 PM 12/19/2000, you wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:25:43PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
Am I a thief because my company provides value added solutions without
source to our enhancements on a freebsd platform? If you are insulted
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, someone on freebsd-hackers wrote:
They dont want your stinking binary contributions. Get used to it.
Not suprisingly you're both wrong. Many binary-only ports exist
in the FreeBSD ports tree.
World is not black and white.
There are binary ports (for example
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 11:44:34AM -0500, Dennis wrote:
Then again, I may decide not to do it: My latest port submission has been
sitting in the GNATS database for months, so why bother submitting more
when nobody cares anyway?
Welcome to the Animal Farm THIS was my point about the FreeBSD
At 05:14 PM 12/19/2000, you wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:25:43PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
Am I a thief because my company provides value added solutions without
source to our enhancements on a freebsd platform? If you are insulted that
other people are using your work without paying for
Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings.
United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f)
My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the
software (firmware is software), you can legally reverse engineer the
The current work in progress is available at :
http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
- Murray
Okay, I read your page and printed it out, and went over it a few times. A
couple of things bothered me, but for the most part I
I ran into people at NASA who use Python because (beside being a good
language) it isn't GPL.
Pure paranoia. You don't have to share the code that is written IN
Python. Only modifications TO python (if it were GPL)
For legal and security reason they cannot
share changes to code they
[ -hackers - -chat ]
On Tue 2000-12-26 (12:44), Marco van de Voort wrote:
I ran into people at NASA who use Python because (beside being a good
language) it isn't GPL.
Pure paranoia. You don't have to share the code that is written IN
Python. Only modifications TO python (if it were
Alex Belits wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
That depends on the type of "aggregation". If you produce a single-purpose
device, like an "internet radio", the entire device has a single purpose,
therefore every part of the device is "derived from" every other part.
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Murray Stokely wrote:
I want to create a comprehensive body of knowledge that can
then be used to make fliers to hand out to Linux weenies at
^
trade shows, published on bsdi.com and/or
.
Apparently you never did reverse engineering. When I did such things
I got the code de-compiled (manually) back to the C language. It's a
bit boring but not too much work even for the RISC machines (and
mauch easier for IA-32 than for RISC). And it's legal to do outside US
for the purpose of
You guys can argue the GPL thing to death and still not come to
a resolution. How many commercial products are running on top of
linux and not sharing their source? Lots. See any lawsuits flying?
I don't. Threats aside, it isn't going to happen. Threats with, it
is
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
: No. This issue was beaten to death multiple times, large amount of
: software was created based on this, and its legality is absolutely
: certain by now.
No. You are wrong. The fact that large amounts of software has been
created is
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Matt Dillon
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 12:59 AM
To: Peter Seebach
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT
You guys can argue the GPL thing to death and still
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "SteveB" writes:
: Since when is a product required to be open source to run on Linux? My
: understanding was if an product was developed using GPL'd code or
: libraries then that product is required to offer source. But just an
: application running on Linux, that
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Peter Seebach wrote:
I may go looking. I have a passel of '875 cards that *don't* work, for
one reason or another. The symptom is, the card "probes" (it is identified
by the SRM console as an '875 rather than getting only product/vendor ID), but
the SRM console
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 10:39:40PM -0800, SteveB wrote:
...
New comers to Linux are getting intimidated hearing the constant trash
talk. It's far more productive to talk about why 'BSD is better.
Better yet, to try and see what good both have to offer, and make one's
choises based on an
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 07:40:35PM -0800, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
Those are the kind of Linux people I dislike. Calmer people, rational
people, intelligent people, are often reasonable enough to simply be shown
FreeBSD, and they will comment on the merits of FreeBSD themselves.
And they will
SteveB wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Wes Peters
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 11:29 PM
To: Drew Eckhardt
Cc: SteveB; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs
Linux, Solaris
Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alex
Belits writes:
: Your attorneys are stupid.
Are they now? The GPL was designed to force companies to release
sources. The FSF put a lot of time and effort into it so that they
could force people to give back mods to gcc and the
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Matt Dillon wrote:
Yes, it's a pretty sad state of affairs. What annoys me the most is
that companies actually believe they are protecting something when
they don't make their device driver source or hardware documentation
available. It has been well
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 11:32:03 -0700
From: Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Alex Belits [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alex
Belits writes:
: Your attorneys
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 12:28:36AM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
isn't coming to the forefront: commercial companies have formal QA staff
because their development staff either can't or won't do the QA themselves.
I would not agree with that at all. Commercial companies have format QA
because it
Peter Mutsaers wrote:
"Julian" == Julian Stacey Jhs@jhs muc de [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In Europe, software
patents do not exist and cannot be granted.
Julian Wrong ! Sadly ! That's the old simple theoretical world I
Julian learnt about back in University in the late
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Wes Peters
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 11:29 PM
To: Drew Eckhardt
Cc: SteveB; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs
Linux, Solaris,
and NT)
Drew
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warner Losh writ
es:
One could argue that adding a driver is a derived work. You are
modifying tables in the kernel with references to your device, and the
rest comes in under the contamination theory. Until the matter has
been properly adjudicated, you cannot say
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Matt Dillon wrote:
Yes, it's a pretty sad state of affairs. What annoys me the most is
that companies actually believe they are protecting something when
they don't make their device driver source or hardware documentation
available. It has been well
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rik van Riel writes:
THIS is the real reason for preferring source code support drivers.
Not even the usually higher quality of the open source drivers or
the faster availability of the manufacturer's drivers change this
situation.
As a nice concrete example,
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 04:14:20PM -0600, Peter Seebach wrote:
it's not possible to just set a bit and make it work with, say, a 3C875J
card,
You sure? The PC164 that was Beast.freebsd.org had an 875 card:
sym0: 875 port 0x1-0x100ff mem 0x8201-0x82010fff,0x82011000-0x820110ff irq 0
Rik van Riel wrote:
It's quite common for a manufacturer to completely stop
driver development once a particular model of hardware
(say a certain video card) is no longer sold.
This, in turn, leads to the situation where the user has
to chose between the following options:
1. don't
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
One could argue that adding a driver is a derived work. You are
modifying tables in the kernel with references to your device, and the
rest comes in under the contamination theory. Until the matter has
been properly adjudicated, you cannot say with
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, Alex Belits writes:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
: This is simply not true -- unless your hardware is the result of
: modification of GPL'ed program, something that I don't expect to see any
: soon, as so far no hardware ever was GPL'ed in the first
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alex
Belits writes:
: That is your interpretation. Other lawyers disagree with that
: interpretation.
:
: No. This issue was beaten to death multiple times, large amount of
: software was created based on this, and its legality is absolutely
: certain by now.
Dennis wrote:
Source is more of a "hassle", binary loads right up. the SNMP package is a
great example. Doing it from source is a nightmare. Missing includes, wrong
paths. compile failures. The package loads right up and Im running.
This is an example of why the build environment must be
SteveB wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 9:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs
Linux, Solaris,
and NT)
In the open source
world
Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings.
United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f)
My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the
software (firmware is software), you can legally reverse engineer the
- Original Message -
From: "Rik van Riel" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Murray Stokely" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Murray Stokely wrote:
Drew Eckhardt wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m writes:
Yes but most commercial uses take advantage of the binary distribution
capability of the BSD license AFTER they've poured their corporate dollars
into enhancements. With linux you have to give your work away,
Matt Dillon wrote:
In that respect, I personally will not run anything inside my kernel that
I don't have source for. Now, I don't run frame-relay or T1's into
FreeBSD boxes, so I'm not commenting on your software specifically. I'm
commenting in general. The problem is
Marco van de Voort wrote:
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings.
United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f)
My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the
software
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
To be pedantic, you only need to provide source for works derived
from GPL'd software which in this case means the kernel propper. User
land applications and device drivers may be shipped in binary-only
form because they are separate works, even
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings.
United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f)
My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the
software (firmware is software), you can
"SteveB" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings. Hardware decisions
in general are mirrors of software cases. Hardware reverse
engineering tends to be legal. But with software they use Clean
programmer, Dirty programmer. In other words you can write a
"Julian" == Julian Stacey Jhs@jhs muc de [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In Europe, software
patents do not exist and cannot be granted.
Julian Wrong ! Sadly ! That's the old simple theoretical world I
Julian learnt about back in University in the late 70's, it
Julian changed
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Exactly the same in Europe, only the sharing parts are new for me.
The difference seems to be:
The problem is that in the US, it is legal to override this with the
licensing conditions. In Europe this right is inalienable.
Some courts feel
"Michael C . Wu" wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 11:43:17AM -0500, Dennis scribbled:
|
| case and point: How many of us are sitting on our hands waiting for DG to
| have time to fix the latest snafu in the if_fxp driver? You cant blame him
| for having a job and earning a living, but the
Dennis wrote:
At 07:58 PM 12/19/2000, Julian Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis wrote to Boris et all:
Device Drivers
--
I don´t like binary only device drivers. The code of an operating
system is more complex than a driver. if a company does not want to
"babkin" == babkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
babkin Sorry for a stupid question but why would not they patent
babkin this protocol then ? For example, PostScript is patented
babkin by Adobe and the only reason everyone is able to use it is
babkin that Adobe had explicitly
on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux,
Solaris, and
NT)
"Michael C . Wu" wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 11:43:17AM -0500, Dennis scribbled:
|
| case and point: How many of us are sitting on our hands
waiting for DG to
| have time to fix the latest snafu in the if_fxp driver?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "SteveB" wri
tes:
With commercial software (well at least the places I worked) nothing
could go out the door without a complete QA cycle performed on it.
Yes. This is why the open systems have "releases" every so often; a
release has been run through something more
:If you want freebsd to remain a cult OS for hackers you are correct.
:
FreeBSD hasn't been a cult OS in a very long time, Dennis. You need to
open your eyes a little more. The OSS world has changed in the last
few years.
:Reverse engineering is a myth. The result is so inferior
Stokely; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux,
Solaris, and
NT)
"Michael C . Wu" wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 11:43:17AM -0500, Dennis scribbled:
|
| case and point: How many of us are sitting on our hands
waiting for DG to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "SteveB" wri
tes:
It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the
enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official
releases went through.
There might be; I haven't looked. I am pretty happy with the results of
whatever's being done
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], admin@bsdfan
.cncdsl.com writes:
Here's the thing about open software that still concerns me. My
background is with the major software development tools companies, so
that is my point of reference. It is great that code is available and
fixes are made and pushed out,
-Original Message-
From: Drew Eckhardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 12:15 PM
To: SteveB
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs
Linux, Solaris,
and NT)
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], admin@bsdfan
SteveB wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Drew Eckhardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 12:15 PM
To: SteveB
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs
Linux, Solaris,
and NT)
In message
[EMAIL
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:40:22PM -0800, SteveB wrote:
I don't have a lot of time, but I would volunteer if there was a QA
project.
Good QA takes time.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 11:53:50AM -0600, Peter Seebach wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "SteveB" writes:
In the open source
world is there a official QA process or group. Is there a FreeBSD
test suite that releases go through. QA is unglamorous work, but
needs to be done.
I
At 01:22 PM 12/21/2000, Matt Dillon wrote:
:If you want freebsd to remain a cult OS for hackers you are correct.
:
FreeBSD hasn't been a cult OS in a very long time, Dennis. You need to
open your eyes a little more. The OSS world has changed in the last
few years.
Yes but most
Mark Newton wrote:
I get concerned that those who point to a lack of a QA cycle in open
source software are missing the point entirely: They're focussing on
the 'process' they're familiar with so much that they don't seem to
acknowledge that alternative approaches can demonstrate similar
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m writes:
Yes but most commercial uses take advantage of the binary distribution
capability of the BSD license AFTER they've poured their corporate dollars
into enhancements. With linux you have to give your work away, making it
much less useful.
:No, the original writer was trying to use a very general argument about the
:absolute uselessness of binary code, which is disgustingly wrong. Im sure
:you dont disagree. Your argument is sound only if the manufacturer doesnt
:implement those "fixes" in their binary drivers, which they
Greg Black wrote:
Mark Newton wrote:
I get concerned that those who point to a lack of a QA cycle in open
source software are missing the point entirely: They're focussing on
the 'process' they're familiar with so much that they don't seem to
acknowledge that alternative approaches
Matt Dillon wrote:
:If you want freebsd to remain a cult OS for hackers you are correct.
FreeBSD hasn't been a cult OS in a very long time, Dennis. You need to
open your eyes a little more. The OSS world has changed in the last
few years.
:Reverse engineering is a myth. The
It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the
enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official
releases went through. Also volunteering to QA would be a good
training ground to gain familiarity with a OS and a chance to
communicate with developers.
Steve
* Gilbert Gong [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001221 18:45] wrote:
It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the
enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official
releases went through. Also volunteering to QA would be a good
training ground to gain familiarity with a
Hello Julian,
Thursday, December 21, 2000, 5:20:31 PM, you wrote:
I really hope that software patent´s wont be possible in Europe. This
would be a real problem for some of us who are not only consulting but
developing, too.
I remember that a lot of people try to get a patent on the lamest
Of Drew Eckhardt
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 10:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Examiners at the European Patent Office http://www.epo.org tell me:
Reverse engineering is legal in Europe
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:03:23PM -0800, Gilbert Gong wrote:
It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the
enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official
releases went through. Also volunteering to QA would be a good
training ground to gain familiarity
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
