Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:14 UTC, submitted by Charles A Landemaine
Permalink for comment 170573
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-02
If he is a bot , then I have been really fooled.
(and perhaps he is a bot.. I dare not say for sure).
Thanks... that one made me laugh
I'm not exploding in a tremendous rage, just slightly annoyed. Tremendous rage is a very big thing, and something that rarely happens for me.
There are so many open source and Free Software alternatives to PC-BSD that the loss of it wouldn't be so bad. So I'll just lean back and relax.
It's actually very easy to create a fork - the problem is to maintain the fork. Just like it is easy to create a distribution, but difficult to maintain it (the latter is a huge job).
Forks are easy under the BSD _if_ you have the code. We have the FreeBSD code used in PC-BSD and we have code to replace the PBI-system, so we're not in trouble. But personally I don't think PC-BSD will go closed-source. That's unlikely in my eyes. But if it did, it would do little or no harm to the community. It _is_ replaceable.