I was happy as an iMac G5 owner, now I am a happy Linux user again: good news is coming from the growing linux-on-mac community.
I was happy as an iMac G5 owner, now I am a happy Linux user again: good news is coming from the growing linux-on-mac community.
i still don’t get it…why run linux on mac when you have mac os x? It’s a much better designed OS..
oh wait.. it’s the application support isn’t it.. I don’t think its that hard to port apps to it that are unix-based.
I’ve never really understood this actually
> I’ve never really understood this actually
Perhaps you don’t understand what freedom is.
Read : http://www.fsf.org/ (Free as in Freedom)
please quit asking this question. No one is forcing you to use linux on a mac. If you cannot answer the question for yourself then you do not need linux on your mac, period.
That’s a pretty valid question – he asks it because there hasn’t been a reasonable answer yet! (MacOS is why people buy Macs in the first place!!)
I want an answer to this question as well.
Even if it is just “because I am a linux fan and I like to play with it.”
That’s fine – I just want to understand a little better these “ppc nerds”
Once again. Why should I have to run Intel or AMD?
Apple makes great hardware as its based of an IBM chip.
Its just another nice option.
Basically it’s what my_name said: Freedom. We are not stating that people should drop MacOSX; we are not stating that MacOSX is worse; it’s Freedom that motivates this, Freedom to choose, Freedom to use.
> Perhaps you don’t understand what quality and productivity is.
Does MacOS X use free software ?
Answer : YES.
> Perhaps you don’t understand what quality and productivity is.
Does MacOS X use free software ?
Answer : YES.
There are two parts in the equation of software excellence. The machine part, and the human part. Open source community may be great at the machine part, but they really lack at the human part. That’s really where Apple comes in. Making all that code that flies around on sourceforge (and built themselves offcourse) actually fit together to meet the needs of the user in a very non-distracting way.
Apple’s hardware runs quiter, cooler, looks better, and uses less power. You can have the best of all worlds. Windows running in Virtual PC, running in Mac OS X, running on MOL, all on a Linux foundation.
“Apple makes great hardware as its based of an IBM chip.”
Apple CPU, Apple video card, Apple HDD, Apple CRT & LCD monitor… Apple is a great producer of hardware……GMFB.
BTW only the last Mac is based on IBM chip
Sure its a valid question, but this question is constantly asked over and over again. The answer is very broad and depends on who you ask. There is no answer, because logically everyone who has a g5 will run MacOS. I personally believe linux on a mac right now is simply because of “just because I can” philosophy.
Logically people shouldn’t really be running Linux on a brand new G5, but logic isnt everything – right?
“i still don’t get it…why run linux on mac when you have mac os x? It’s a much better designed OS..”
Welcome to OSnews. UTFS for all the previous discussions about this. Oh well, let me feed the troll:
* Because you can (TM).
* In some cases, functions better than MacOS9 or MacOSX.
* In some cases, less pricey and/or no support contract needed which is justified in some cases.
* Full opensource. Matters to some.
* Slightly other software available (Yep. e.g. ReiserFS4 doesn’t work on MacOSX).
Some arguments go both ways. Its all a matter of preference.
“Windows running in Virtual PC, running in Mac OS X, running on MOL, all on a Linux foundation”
Windows must run really fast in those conditions!
The simple answer to your question is becasue they want to run Linux. Sure you may think Mac OS X is a better platform but the next person may not like it at all.
Many people like running Linux because of the software, much of which is free. And many of the programs have not been, and may not be, ported to OS X.
Then you have the whole open source philosophy. Many people want open source software and only open source software. I know that the Darwin kernel which OS X uses is open source but much of their stuff is closed source (their custom GUI and most of their applications such as iTunes, iCal, etc.).
Asking why run Linux on a Mac is the same as asking why run Solaris on an x86 machine. The answer is always becasue some people prefer one operating system over the other. If nobody wanted to run Linux on Apple hardware nobody would have hacked it into the kernel.
I was recently looking around for PPC hardware (runs cooler, better power consumption, etc… if I’m not mistaken) and excellent performance. I was extremely interested in a PPC laptop, and as such apple was what I came up with for the most part. I’m aware we’re talkinga bout the G5 here, but if I had the money I would have one of those systems to.
I’ve used OS X… and I simply don’t like it. Linux is my OS of choice and I don’t see that changing for awhile. Although I probably would dual boot if for nothing more than known I’d have certain third party apps available if I really needed them.
Run Linux so you can run MOL [http://www.maconlinux.org]
😉
It basically means one less physical box for me. As a developer I can (and do) write code for Linux and OS X and at least do basic testing on both OS on the same hardware.
BTW only the last Mac is based on IBM chip
This is not true. I propose you get a clue.
If you meant to say that not all PPC processors are IBM, that’s correct. But you didn’t say so.
>> (MacOS is why people buy Macs in the first place!!)
That is not completely true. The number one reason to buy mac is the design. It just look cool. Away from the usual PC. I used to like compaq at one time only for the case design. HP killed that. But I guess nothing is forever.
one place linux is useful, is on an xserver, once it runs reliably enough (if it doesn’t already).
why? unlike apple’s server os, you can run linux on it without without a GUI. There are ways to remove the gui from apple’s os, but I couldn’t find one a number of months ago when we were trying to get a test box booting & running the server without one. we were also concerned about whether or not we could also apply apple os updates without re-instating the GUI.
why not just not use x86 chips? speed without the heat/power requirements. not everyone cares about this, admittedly.
as a desktop OS, well, that’s something my boss and I disagree on. He thinks it is pointless, whereas I like both desktops. The mac OS one is more polished, but I like the linux one better, due to a couple of apps I can stick on a taskbar and virtual screens where I can hide windows I need open but don’t want to see eg: media player churning thro a playlist and a shell window compiling an application. I also perfer yum & synaptic to any updater of free software which I have used on top of the mac OS.
In any case, choice is good because it is competition.
I’d be buying a PowerBook if I could get drivers for the Airport Extreme, Graphics Card, and it slept
I’d be buying a PowerBook if I could get drivers for the Airport Extreme, Graphics Card, and it slept
Hey, you stole my line. That’s what I always gripe about 🙂
why? unlike apple’s server os, you can run linux on it without without a GUI. There are ways to remove the gui from apple’s os, but I couldn’t find one a number of months ago when we were trying to get a test box booting & running the server without one. we were also concerned about whether or not we could also apply apple os updates without re-instating the GUI.
Edit /etc/ttys and add a hash before the line that starts the gui, remove a hash from the line that would start a console. Use the command-line tool “softwareupdate” to apply apple os updates.
Btw, xserves don’t even have a graphics card.
As you said, you don’t have to boot into the GUI. Secondly, did you try software update to update your software?
/usr/sbin/softwareupdate that is. Actually OS X has cli equivalents of pretty much all essential software.
Darwin is the core of Mac OS X, which is open source and completely free.
Does not answer question. Most consumers do not care about licensing of the software they use as long as it’s cheap. And when you buy a mac it usually comes with an OS.
I guess a lot are right. Some Linux people *must* have it (as well as some BSD people) I guess some people may want to insert a hard drive into their mac and install linux on it so they can use mac and linux on it for development purposes.
I would image that for development purposes woudl be best.
Furthermore, I’d assume that other PPC hardware out there by IBM, Genisi and freescale would all need OS’s for em… and using a mac is has lower TCO for development on the archetecture. (Praying that the development isn’t for a tied to mac-only platform)
my tid-bits
Maybe the Linux on PPC people like the Mac-hardware and they like GNU/Linux and couldn’t care less about OSX?
Not all Mac-hardware users are run of the mill consumers of Apple’s wares. Besides, the culture around GNU/Linux, will make it invade everything it can possibly run on.
Asking “Why are people running GNU/Linux PPC on Mac?” is like asking why gravity always pulls objects down. It’s a given that a number of people will always prefer to run GNU/Linux and preferably on anything with a chip.
Just because some people think it is rape to run anything but Mac OS on an Apple computer (opinion not fact), doesn’t stop others from doing precisely that, running something else than Mac OS.
“i still don’t get it…why run linux on mac when you have mac os x?”
I gave linux a try on my iBook, and I have to admit it felt much faster and much more responsive. With the lack of sound, airport extreme, decent laptop power management (such as even the basic idea of sleep), 3d graphics, and my beloved Cocoa, I switched back to OS X very very quickly.
Yes I know sound can work however I didn’t feel like tinkering and I did get my USB wireless nic to work however it would be a pain to carry around.
Just my $0.02
Darwin is the core of Mac OS X, which is open source and completely free.
This doesn’t cut it. There is no Freedom if the complete GUI of the OS is completely closed. It would be like slapping KDE on top of Windows XP and then proclaiming Windows to be Free Software.
Freedom should encompass the whole plumbing, so partly Free doesn’t cut it.
If I had a Mac I’d probably be running Ubuntu on top of it. Why? I like GNU/Linux. I like my Freedom to completely tailor it to my wishes. Mac OS X is decent, but pretty closed in what it has onboard. The base OS maybe darwin derived, but that is not Free enough.
I’m just curious, if you had a choice os a linux distribution (being completely free by your meaning) versus a closed source SuperiorOS (I am not claiming it would be Mac, linux, BSD, Windows, or anything, just something completely superior to any OS we know) what would you chose? linux because its “free”?
I think these days we have too many people caring about one product because its under X license or has X% open and some people have forgotten that some closed source products are actually quite good and possibly better (in some or in every area, I will let others decide that for themselves).
This always comes up. Personally, I use Linux on my old Powerbook because OS 9 sucks hard, and for a period of time I only had 64 MB RAM, and OS X didn’t even boot. Now that I use Linux, and it works perfectly, I see no reason to go back (even though I can). I only use Linux apps anyway, and I can do without the extra overhead of X11 on OS X. So what if OS X can run OpenOffice.org — there’s a reason why almost no Mac users use it. KDE’s KMail is also far better than Mail.app, but using it in OS X would just feel weird.
Also, Fink’s packages are far below Debian’s in quality.
“i still don’t get it…why run linux on mac when you have mac os x? It’s a much better designed OS.”
1) This website is called “osnews”. It’s about people that don’t believe in “one and big OS”, but about people who loves news about diferent operating systems
2) Mac os x is not “better designed” in my not so humble opinion, it has good and bad things. Linux may not be the best desktop OS, but it rocks on servers, it runs for example in the 512-cpu SGI’s beasts.
I think these days we have too many people caring about one product because its under X license or has X% open and some people have forgotten that some closed source products are actually quite good and possibly better (in some or in every area, I will let others decide that for themselves).
So where would there be a problem? You overlook that “open source” actually arose out of a personal despise of “licenses” and the whole construct of “intellectual property”. Whats wrong with having a personal aversion against IP and supporting and using products that fit in ones point of view?
You wouldnt use some carpets from india, produced with children labor, would you? Even if they were superior and better quality than you usual machinemade ones? Would you still compain that one actuall cares for something more than personal gain? How it came that altriusm suddendly became a problem, and suddendly “these days we have too many people caring”?
You’ve got a point with the India thing, I guess I just never applied that thought to computers. I am an advocate of open source and my prefered OS is FreeBSD however if something is closed source but worth it (such as Mac OS X) I don’t dismiss the thought of buying it.
If I was aware of something going on such as child labor (or anything just as bad or even thigns not as bad) then you are correct, even if superior I would not support it.
I use a LCD iMac running Ubuntu GNU/Linux at school. The partition map died. So I agreed to fix it if I could have my very own Linux box at school. I know linux, but I don’t know OSX that well. To me OSX seems clunky compared to gnome. I like the speed, administration (e.g. runlevels), and number of packages that exist for linux.
And I prefer my iMac compared to the schools Dells because it is just so damn sexy
Am I the only one having difficulty getting _good_ sound out of my iMac in Linux? I’ve tried Alsa, and OSS drivers, but the sound quality has been absolutely terrible. Furthermore in the little mixer applications such as asmix, you can choose between off, and first notch up (everything after that just increases distortion). Perhaps though, the problem could be a step away from the sound drivers and with the sound daemon… hmm…
thoughts? experiences? my mac is an iMac DV (400mhz 128mb ram, dvd). Generally having been using Debian, though have tried the other ppc distros such as gentoo and yellowdog.
i would like to receive all of your 0,02 dollar [0,02 cent is really low value] under my paypal account
anyone for it?
There is still only a small percentage of Linux apps that run directly in OS X – and most of those require the use of Fink or Darwinports.
I’ve also noticed that the majority of OS X software is either commercial or shareware – either way it costs money. Personally, I’m getting ready to buy an iBook, exclusively to run Linux. They’re small and light and inexpensive, and with Linux installed, I have access to WAY more free and open-source software than if I just ran OS X.
So in my case, 99% of my reasoning for installing Linux on a Mac, is so I don’t need to buy a thousand dollars worth of software to make it useful.
“why not just not use x86 chips? speed without the heat/power requirements. not everyone cares about this, admittedly.”
Um, it’s not like there’s no x86 solutions for this! The blade market is stuffed with them – Athlon and P4 mobile versions, Pentium M’s, Crusoes…
“Does not answer question. Most consumers do not care about licensing of the software they use as long as it’s cheap. And when you buy a mac it usually comes with an OS.”
What the hell? First you ask why anyone would run Linux on a G5 and now you’re talking about ‘most consumers’? Who the hell said this was anything to *do* with most consumers?
Why? Because GNU/Linux is a hacker’s dream come true. Go figure.
Why not? It gives you choice. You can use it as a learning tool. You can use it to recue a broken system. Install it on older PPC hardware and run a server/router/etc. Dunno …. I’m sure there are more.
“I’m just curious, if you had a choice os a linux distribution (being completely free by your meaning) versus a closed source SuperiorOS (I am not claiming it would be Mac, linux, BSD, Windows, or anything, just something completely superior to any OS we know) what would you chose? linux because its “free”? ”
yes. of course.
in the long term freedom to do what you can potentially do always matters. the whole set of gnu stuff exists and Linux prospers basically because people believed in using Free software technologies even when they were inferior to “superior” proprietary software.
if people had continued to use those “superior” proprietary software do you think Sun would have talked about open sourcing solaris?
“I guess I just never applied that thought to computers. I am an advocate of open source and my prefered OS is FreeBSD however if something is closed source but worth it (such as Mac OS X) I don’t dismiss the thought of buying it”
this is often called as pragmatic attitude but it is in fact a short sighted thing. if everybody had thought “pragmatically” like you do freebsd wouldnt have existed in the first place.
The thing that no one really wants to admit is that the whole “because windows sucks” thing has really just not been true ever since XP came out. There are windows security issues but honestly most people get viruses not because their OS sucks but because their OS is a)massively targeted and b)because they are stupid and open attachments they shouldn’t. The simple fact is that the XP desktop is pretty smoothe and integrated compared to gnome and KDE and it is most definitely less buggy than either. I have people ask me all the time why I run linux instead of windows and my answer is just that there are so few things in this world outside of my own personal friends and family that I can be a part of that are good and beautiful and maybe describing OSS that way sounds corny but it is how I and a lot of other people feel about it deep down.
Windows and OSX might be more mature and integrated but they are dirty proprietary bloodsucking bastards too. So there you go.
Oh yeah, something else: The I’m not trying to say that XP is *way* better. It isn’t. It’s just that I think it would be hard to argue for a desktop that anyone should use Linux over XP for technical or productivity reasons. That is the funny thing about OSX too. People have such an unwaranted erection over OSX just as much as people have such unwaranted negative feelings about windows. I laugh at the idea that OSX is so great. Seriously the sugary themes make me sick to look at after a while. WTF is up with only one mouse button??? I want my CD and floppy *now*. I dare you to try and connect their WiFi to an adhoc network with a linux gateway. Mac is mostly big on show and the fan boys just can’t get enough of that. If someone gave me a mac and I couldn’t install linux but I could install Windows, I would. That’s right fan boys! I’d install WINDOWS over your precious OSX.
I think it is pretty funny how everyone pretty much admits how bad OS9 sucked now that they have OSX to get off on when these are the same fan boys who were talking about how great Mac was even then. Maybe when OSX is replace my the next major Mac revolution at OSM or something eveyone will finally be able to admit how overrated OSX is.
Perhaps you don’t understand what freedom is.
Read : http://www.fsf.org/ (Free as in Freedom)
So how does a proprietry, single-supplier hardware platform fit into the definition of “freedom” ?
Does the fact that I don’t use winblowz, or slOw-S-10 not get through your thick head?
I think what most people have trouble figuring out is why someone would buy a Mac to run Linux when they could have a faster/cheaper/more flexible PC with better software and hardware support.
And I was really trying to stay out of this one.
“I think it is pretty funny how everyone pretty much admits how bad OS9 sucked now that they have OSX to get off on when these are the same fan boys who were talking about how great Mac was even then. Maybe when OSX is replace my the next major Mac revolution at OSM or something eveyone will finally be able to admit how overrated OSX is.”
You have to think in context. In the 90s, MacOS 9 didn’t suck at all. It sucks in comparision to OS X. But look at the competition of the time. We’re talking Win98. In comparison to what’s available now, everything back then sucked.
it doesn’t. But then, there isn’t an alternative. Every hardware platform you can usefully run a desktop computer on is proprietary. Life’s a bitch, ain’t it?
“You have to think in context. In the 90s, MacOS 9 didn’t suck at all. It sucks in comparision to OS X. But look at the competition of the time. We’re talking Win98. In comparison to what’s available now, everything back then sucked.”
That is bull. There are plenty of OS’s from that era that people did and do still love: Amiga, BeOS just to name the two top obsessions of the time. Of course in terms of hardware things have changed radically but in terms of UI the improvements have been mixed. There are some solid products now that sucked then (XP vs Win95) and there are some great products that are just gone now (BeOS). OS9 sucked then and it sucks now but all the Mac die hards would tell you for ever how great it is. Nothing has changed. (Ok, I will conceed that OSX is much much better than OS9 both from a UI and usability perspective and from a technical OS perspective (which is more obvious I guess) but that doesn’t mean that OSX worship is any more waranted. Gnome 2.8 and KDE 3.4 *are* in the same league IMO although admittedly lacking some polish and integration)
“So how does a proprietry, single-supplier hardware platform fit into the definition of “freedom” ? ”
it doesnt. free as in freedom can apply more readily to products where the reproduction cost is near zero unless artificially limited by copyright law.
this is the same answer to people who ask why software should be free when you car or gas for it wasnt
“Oh yeah, something else: The I’m not trying to say that XP is *way* better. It isn’t. It’s just that I think it would be hard to argue for a desktop that anyone should use Linux over XP for technical or productivity reasons”
actually as long as MS forces people to install stuff like IE and windows media player its pretty easy to point out the technical superiority of other platforms which enables choice
You also have to consider that there are a lot more Mac people now as OS X convinced a lot of people to switch. Some diehard Mac people today may have always hated OS 9 and only use Mac because of OS X.
I hated OS 9, and I didn’t have a Mac until OS X. If airport express drivers come out for linux and power management for laptops is better (or how about finished, it won’t even sleep), I will switch to linux on my iBook but until then…
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx
“# Any workstation will most likely be using Microsoft Windows XP. If you actually read their license agreement [microsoft.com] it is very easy to find clauses that would make any government worker with half a brain stem wet themselves. In sections 2.1, 2.4, and 6 you give them permission to snoop on your machine. The text is so broad that you pretty much give them permission to do whatever they want. Section 5 is so ambiguous that technically any file sharing voids the agreement. This is bad news if you allow other people to download/copy documents off your machine in a business setting. When you combine sections 7 and 8 you may be giving them permission to disable your ability to do any networking, including getting on the internet. Note that the final sentence of S8 says “any internet-based service”, they didn’t say “Any service provided by Microsoft via the internet”.
My personal favorite of XP’s EULA – Section 9 concerns upgrading and says “After upgrading, you may no longer use the software that formed the basis for your upgrade.” This means that if you have a CD of XP SP1 and upgrade to SP2, then according to this agreement you have to buy a totally new copy of Windows to reinstall should your system get hosed.
EULAs are intentionally vague, and chain the user with restrictions so draconian that it’s nearly impossible to use the software normally without voiding the EULA. Do some research, it is very easy to come up with a very long list of legal traps that would persuade a user away from proprietary software.
And then you can mention that Free Software does not come with such restrictions. Indeed, one of the basic points of the Free Software definition is that the software should be free to use in any way the user sees fit, without restrictions. A little research into this and you can have one hell of an argument.
# Proprietary document formats discriminate against the users, which is a very stupid thing for a government to do. In specific, Microsoft Word files are at best a nuisance. Users of a non-Microsoft OS may have troubles viewing them. Buying the hardware and software necessary to view them can be very costly, and discriminates against the poor. They can be troublesome for people with poor vision. By sending word files to distribute information you strengthen the “everybody uses it” mentality, and thus strengthen Microsoft’s monopoly. And so on. Combine this with my first point, and you can have a very convincing argument for Open Office. If you’re not making word files, then why buy a $600+ text editor?
# Freedom to modify – Why have a browser on a machine when you don’t need it? Why have a bunch of services running that only create vulnerabilities since you don’t use them? Why should they settle for an unchangable program designed for everybody, when you can use flexible programs designed for your needs? Using a slimmed down system reduces the risks of bugs, crashes, and security vulnerabilities, making the system less costly in terms of time and money.”
touche (or however you spell it)
You wouldnt use some carpets from india, produced with children labor, would you? Even if they were superior and better quality than you usual machinemade ones? Would you still compain that one actuall cares for something more than personal gain? How it came that altriusm suddendly became a problem, and suddendly “these days we have too many people caring”?
Guess you better stop using that computer made via Chinese/Taiwan child labor, then.
“That is bull. There are plenty of OS’s from that era that people did and do still love: Amiga, BeOS just to name the two top obsessions of the time.”
Nothing against those two, but they simply aren’t up to par anymore. They were way ahead of their time, but not anymore. The simple fact that they don’t take full advantage of current hardware limits them to the point where they don’t compare anymore.
“Of course in terms of hardware things have changed radically”
Fully agreed (how could I not?). It’s half the reason operating systems and software are improving.
“OS9 sucked then and it sucks now but all the Mac die hards would tell you for ever how great it is. Nothing has changed.”
A lot has changed. Everything else got better. A dead operating system (dead because it’s not being developed anymore) can’t compare to current offerings.
“Ok, I will conceed that OSX is much much better than OS9 both from a UI and usability perspective and from a technical OS perspective (which is more obvious I guess) but that doesn’t mean that OSX worship is any more waranted.”
The warranting of OS worship is beside the point, OS 9 was head and shoulders above Windows at the time, and seeing as Windows is so much more popular than everything else it’s become the standard to compare against.
“Gnome 2.8 and KDE 3.4 *are* in the same league IMO although admittedly lacking some polish and integration)”
Gnome and KDE are right up there, especially the latest versions, no argument there. The things keeping me off of them for day to day use are the applications I work with. They aren’t available.
“Also, Fink’s packages are far below Debian’s in quality.”
What the fsck are you talking about?
As somebody who spent a weekend dealing with the *nixy end of OS X (installed new harddrive, created an additional user account and spent several hours dealing with sofware install and permissions reassignments and preferences folders [btw fast user switching ROCKS!]) I find I have a limited patience for it. (Although I found this a fun user experience because I learned a few new things, had no real deadline pressure and lost no data.)
However, my patience for dealing with the *nixy end of things is limited. I tried to install fink and fink commander earler today and things are all borked up and a no-go, and I don’t feel like digging around to find out why “make” couldn’t “exec” and why I’m missing line 403 of services.pm
I’m like “whatever” because I’ve got some p-shop tutorials I’ve been meaning to do.
But, as I understand it, there are people who upon seeing the error message about missing line 403 are like “WOOT! The adventure begins! Yee-haw!”
I think they’re farking nutz, but I’ve had some conversations with friends about use of christ imagery on “Lost”, so …;)
I can think of a few great reasons for running Linux on a PPC box:
1.) Freedom// Apple’s OS is partially free, but many of the most interesting bits are not and this does bother some people who care about such things.
2.) Performance// Linux can be snappier than OS X, especially on older Apple hardware. This also goes for Linux centric platforms such as GNOME and KDE that run on Linux. Aqua is pretty, but it isn’t the fastest gun in the west, especially if your system doesn’t support Quartz Extreme.
3.) The Open Source Advantage// The Linux _kernel_, in many respects, is becoming more advanced than Darwin. The pace of development that is occuring on the Linux kernel is astonishing, as is the size of the Linux developer community. Many people do believe, as I do, that as time goes forward, it will be harder and harder to compete with systems that rely _fully_ on open source as their model of development and distribution. Size of the community of developers *does* matter.
4.) The Nerd Factor// Sometimes people just want to try something new and different, because they (like me) are nerds, and are obsessed with operating systems. Kinda the same reason people come to this site…
—-
Apple sure has done a great job building their non-free bits on top of Darwin. Aqua is a great interface, and OS X is a very usable OS. Here is hoping that the new freedesktop/Xorg technologies can help the penguinistas to catch up! I for one think that the gap _is_ narrowing. The latest GNOME 2.8 desktop is highly usable and is becoming more integrated.
PPC Linux nerds really do need better 3D support though if they are going to take advantage of these emerging technologies!
“Why run linux on a Mac when you have Mac OS X?”
It’s not a bad question to ask… especially when you can already install a great majority of linux apps directly into Mac OS X from source (or binary ports). These can be run via the OpenGL-accelerated X11 app from Apple. Heck, at work I can run Mac OS X and have fluxbox/enlightenment running simultaneously. I can use gnome apps, KDE apps, you name it… Gimp, OpenOffice, Nessus, nmapfe, even Netrek! I don’t even need a real linux distro!
it doesnt. free as in freedom can apply more readily to products where the reproduction cost is near zero unless artificially limited by copyright law.
Rubbish. “Free as in freedom” (a hypocritical and loaded phrase if ever there was one) has nothing to do with reproduction costs.
this is the same answer to people who ask why software should be free when you car or gas for it wasnt
The implication here is that software costs nothing to produce. This is patently ridiculous.
actually as long as MS forces people to install stuff like IE and windows media player its pretty easy to point out the technical superiority of other platforms which enables choice
This is a philosophical argument, not a technical one. Don’t try and dress up your personal preferences in the guise of “technical” attributes.
In sections 2.1, 2.4, and 6 you give them permission to snoop on your machine.
No, you don’t.
The text is so broad that you pretty much give them permission to do whatever they want.
Good thing it’s not legally binding then, right ?
Section 5 is so ambiguous that technically any file sharing voids the agreement.
S5 is meaningless without a legal definition of “commercial”. If you want to go with “popular definition” then commercial means “for profit”.
This is bad news if you allow other people to download/copy documents off your machine in a business setting.
Somehow I doubt you’d have much to worry about.
When you combine sections 7 and 8 you may be giving them permission to disable your ability to do any networking, including getting on the internet. Note that the final sentence of S8 says “any internet-based service”, they didn’t say “Any service provided by Microsoft via the internet”.
They can’t very well discontinue a service they aren’t providing, can they ?
EULAs are intentionally vague, and chain the user with restrictions so draconian that it’s nearly impossible to use the software normally without voiding the EULA. Do some research, it is very easy to come up with a very long list of legal traps that would persuade a user away from proprietary software.
Well, again, it’s a good thing EULAs aren’t legally binding then, isn’t it ?
And then you can mention that Free Software does not come with such restrictions. Indeed, one of the basic points of the Free Software definition is that the software should be free to use in any way the user sees fit, without restrictions. A little research into this and you can have one hell of an argument.
A little research would also show that one *isn’t* free to use “Free Software” in any way they see fit.
Proprietary document formats discriminate against the users, which is a very stupid thing for a government to do. In specific, Microsoft Word files are at best a nuisance. Users of a non-Microsoft OS may have troubles viewing them. Buying the hardware and software necessary to view them can be very costly, and discriminates against the poor.
Heh, well there’s a new bit of propoganda. Haven’t heard that one before.
Word viewer is a free download from Microsoft, however, sorry to burst your bubble. OEM copies of Office start at around the US$130 mark and compatible word processors like Wordperfect are only about US$50.
They can be troublesome for people with poor vision.
This just gets better and better. Are you here all week ?
Why are Word files any worse for people with poor vision than any other format of word processor file ?
Combine this with my first point, and you can have a very convincing argument for Open Office. If you’re not making word files, then why buy a $600+ text editor?
Firstly Word isn’t just a text editor.
Secondly, it doesn’t cost anything _close_ to $600.
Freedom to modify – Why have a browser on a machine when you don’t need it?
Why care ?
Why have a bunch of services running that only create vulnerabilities since you don’t use them?
So don’t run them, or firewall them.
Why should they settle for an unchangable program designed for everybody, when you can use flexible programs designed for your needs?
Because they lack the knowledge, time, inclination and/or desire to modify those flexible programs to equivalent levels of functionality ?
Using a slimmed down system reduces the risks of bugs, crashes, and security vulnerabilities, making the system less costly in terms of time and money.”
Not by any meaningful amount, available evidence would suggest.
Certainly, Linux is a more customisable and flexible platform – I don’t believe anyone has ever argued otherwise. However, the mistake you make is in the assumption those are attributes most people actually _want_. Reasonable argument and historical trends would suggest the exact opposite – most consumers want a simpler, functional, pre-packaged system that just works. I’m not aware of anyone who tries to make their life more complicated, or spend more time with tedious exercises like creating their own personalised Linux distributions.
How come when I choose to run OS X on my G5 it’s a slow EXPENSIVE POS, but if I run Linux it’s great hardware? Please you guys really need to make your mind up!
Linux is a great OS, but the amount of stuff that isn’t supported on Mac makes it next to useless for me, why not just get the cheaper x86 stuff? You guys are always comparing Dell boxes to OS X ones? What changed? Oh wait different rules if you use Linux?
/me goes back to using OS X!
“but logic isnt everything – right?”
When you’re talking code? Actually, logic IS not just everything, it’s ALL there is.
But I’m picking nits here. I set myself up for flame bait.
I don’t see a reason to run Linux on my Mac. I’m happy with the system as it is [well, some features beg a question here and there, but overall: happy as a bunny I].
When the Linux community wants to run their system on a Mac, and they can do it successfully: why not.
If they get tired of it, they can always install from the disks that came with the machine and still have a wonderful OS
.
Go forth and Penguin, you happy mongrels. There’s room enough for everybody.
If I were you, I’d run it on a PowerBook. Them be cool machines, slick, sexy and they allow you to be cool anywhere you go.
Go forth and Penguin, you happy mongrels. There’s room enough for everybody.
That was pretty funny. Nice quote, true as well. The best nerds are ones with an acute sense of humor.
A computer is nothing more than a tool, a very useful tool but a tool none the less. Why is it that so many people put so much passion and politics into the different parts of this tool? A program should be written so that it accomplishes a task or a set of tasks as quickly and intuitively as possible. I use whatever licensed program that I can afford and best suits the task that I want to do.
There is no reason to politicize software and in doing so you tend to limit the usefulness of the software itself because you are focused on the politics and not the actual program. If you want to be able to release the source, there are ways of doing this without being political.
Some of the packages in Fink just don’t work. Example: texdoctk fails to start, because it’s not packaged properly, and Fink can’t resolve its dependencies (AFAIR, the libraries it depends on don’t exist in Fink).
That sort of thing can happen (but happens rarely) in Debian unstable as well, but at least Debian is updated every day. When a broken package enters Fink, it stays there, broken, for a long time.
” Why Linux on PPC?”
Ähm, why not ?
Why OSX on PPC ?
Why not ?
Why AIX on Power ?
Why not ?
Why Windows on PPC ?
well, better not ….
Realy, you drive a Mercedes with gasoline from shell, or bp, or texaco or whatever you like ?
So, where is the beef ?
Gears,
Frank
Sorry, but I have to laugh at these people who mention freedom as their reason to run GNU/Linux. The GPL is extremely restrictive, almost as bad as proprietary software. GNU tools have a long history of embrace and extend (gcc, tar, dd, cpio, bash, etc). If you really cared about freedom you would be running *BSD.
While some view things that way, others realize that the point of the GPL is to prevent exclusion. Software that has been released under the GPL is designed to always remain free. This is seen by a restriction by some, but a protection by others.
I realize that others view the BSD style license as freer, as you can pretty much do *anything* with the code other than claim you wrote it. This is a valid position, and the debate over these two styles of license are endless.
I don’t think the GPL is almost as bad as proprietary software as you have the right to view, modify, contribute to and distribute the sources. I personally find the GPL and BSD licenses to be pretty equally acceptable. However, both are vastly superior, in my view, to licenses that restrict access to the code, which is what Apple unfortunately has chosen to do with the higher levels of their OS X software. While OS X is an amazing OS in many ways, I do think that Apple have missed an opportunity when they didn’t open up the whole OS X stack. I think, that in the very long term, open systems are going to win. This may sound foolish in the short term, as there is no denying that Mac OS X has been very successful.
Whether they will be able to keep up indefinitely with the global open source community remains to be seen. The community working on Darwin is orders of magnitude smaller.
That being said, I still would like to get a Macintosh system, and I would probably dual boot OS X and Linux on it, just because 😉
To run Linux on an IBM PPC 970 64 bit chip now thats why. When cheap mobo’s with this chip come out it may be a different matter.
Ehen Lenovo or some other Chinese manufacturer backed by IBM start selling mass produced 64 bit PPC’s designed for Linux then there might not be much point.
Except for freedom and that Gnome, KDE and XFCE4 are all more fun than OSX.
While some view things that way, others realize that the point of the GPL is to prevent exclusion. Software that has been released under the GPL is designed to always remain free. This is seen by a restriction by some, but a protection by others.
Please don’t use “free” when you mean “GPLed”.
While OS X is an amazing OS in many ways, I do think that Apple have missed an opportunity when they didn’t open up the whole OS X stack.
Would that be the opportunity to eliminate all potential value from their flagship products ?
Seriously, think about it. The vast bulk of people who buy Macs do it because of OS X. They pay a premium to do this and it is that premium that keeps Apple in business. What you are proposing would almost completely eliminate the customer base who pays that premium.
So, envisage a situation where _all_ of OS X is open sourced. It’s freely available for anyone to download, copy, modify, etc.
The first hit Apple takes is in revenue from upgrades – no-one is going to pay the yearly $139 to Apple when they can download it for free.
The next hit Apple takes is from the inevitable port to x86. Sure, it’s only used by a relatively tiny proportion of users (mainly due to lack of software) but in amongst that are still quite a few lost sales to Apple. More importantly, it leads to…
The next hit Apple takes is to their product reputation, following on from the inevitable suckiness of the x86 port and lack of available software for it.
The final nail in Apple’s coffin comes from the introduction of substantially cheaper “G5 PCs”, using IBM PPC CPUs but duplicating the flexibility, configurability, volume and lower prices of the PC market. They not only run most – if not all – OS X software, but they can be built to order and only cost about 2/3 as much.
Suddenly, Apple have hardly any revenue streams. No-one is buying their OS off the shelf to upgrade, their flagship product’s reputation has taken a walloping and no-one is buying their hardware because they can get almost exactly the same thing from the corner store for 2/3 the price.
Whether they will be able to keep up indefinitely with the global open source community remains to be seen.
The open source community has yet to *catch up*, let alone get ahead.
To run Linux on an IBM PPC 970 64 bit chip now thats why.
Advantage over a cheaper/faster/more configurable Athlon64 or Xeon/64 system being…?
While these issues are complex, and you make good points about Apple and their business model surrounding OS X… the statement you made:
Please don’t use “free” when you mean “GPLed”.
Indicates that you deem the GPL to be a non-free license. While you certainly have the right to make such an assertion, I do not agree with you. Many people, myself included, do consider the GPL to be free.
I do understand that some people prefer the BSD style “free” license, but again, there are large numbers of people on both sides of that debate.
Either work for me, I consider either to be essentially free.
While I personally belive that free systems will eventually prove to be superior to non-free systems, I acknowledge that more work remains to be done (esp in the desktop space). I also realize that I am in the minority on that point (especially on these forums). Yet there are a growing number of people who agree with me, including some corporations.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the medium to long term.
“How come when I choose to run OS X on my G5 it’s a slow EXPENSIVE POS, but if I run Linux it’s great hardware? Please you guys really need to make your mind up!”
Ever heard that from the same guy? And the Mac laptops are actually cheap. Try getting a good looking x86 laptop with a 12″ screen that runs for 6 hours. And what if’ve heard power management is fixed now so you can all check that box:)
“Try getting a good looking x86 laptop with a 12″ screen that runs for 6 hours.”
So you actually believe Apple’s claims? I own one. It only gets about 3.5 hours tops.
I don’t see that package anywhere in the stable tree. If you’re talking unstable/testing, then you have no right to bitch. If this is an issue that was a problem in the past then that sucks. In any event, this speaks about fink’s package management, not the packages themselves. If you are saying that fink is no debian, then I’ll agree — obviously. Debian is an OS, fink is a package manager for ported software.
As far as laptops go, my iBook is:
Cheap – not for a 12″
Good looking – not unless you *REALY* like white plastic
Runs for 6 hours – maybe with the monitor, airport, and speakers off
Useful – yes, I use it every day
before anyone says it, the PowarBooks don’t fit into those categories either. Good looking? Yes. Cheap or 6 hr/ batt life? Hell no. Unless you have two batteries and consider AC power “battery.”
cus i mostly run gpl apps for coding latex for writing docs most apps that i use on a dayly basis is gnu apps.
gnu apps feel relly out of place on the aqua desktop
i did try the xserver for osx but as i said it did feel realy out of place so then i booted osx to console mode and started the xserver from there and then i probobly had the slowest desktop on the planet.
so i started to dual boot to linux wich gave me a fast and responsive X. after 3months i hadnt booted in to osx once
cus there arent any osx applications that i use.
i like the design of apple hardware and osx is a really nice os but that dosent matter if the apps i use feel out of place.
My Vaio does 6 hours on one charge (with the screen off and the wireless off…..) and is 12″. It cost a lot more than an iBook, but its a lot older than an iBook and similarly powered – 1.2Ghz PIII-M, 512MB RAM. Its also lighter than the iBook and has pretty much the same features – 2x USB, Firewire, VGA out, wireless, modem, NIc – and even has audio IN, which the iBook doesn’t.
So you CAN get x86 machines that are like the iBook. They just cost more 🙂
It’s silly to ask why you’d want to run Linux on a Mac. MacOSX is nifty, but it’s not the same as Linux. Perhaps MacOSX is closer to Linux than Windows, but it’s not the same thing.
Is it better? Well, that would certainly depend on your criteria. I use various Windows (2K and XP), MacOSX, and Linux systems very frequently at work. I’m a scientist and use quite a bit of technical and custom applications and work with a research organization that has all three types of machines sprinkled about — in roughly equal proportion, strangely enough, though Linux more frequently in a server capacity.
In my work environment, I find that there are a wide range of applications (even technical ones) that still run under Windows (mostly 2K) — which is clearly regarded by the research organization and external collaborators as a “legacy platform” (both users and the core informatics support group). There’s a strong bias towards Win2K for instrumentation consoles (i.e., running an HPLC machine).
Bench scientists typically have a late-model Mac or PC on their desktop (about 50-50) with MacOSX or Win2K. A scant few have Linux desktops. The informatics groups are similarly split 50-50, but typically Linux desktop and Win2K or XP. In both environments, Windows clearly is only in use because of certain technical applications that are required. Of those applications, nearly 100% are being ported by the vendors from Windows to Linux or MacOSX in the next 6-9 months.
I digress. The point is that while some people feel very comfortable in the MacOSX environment, others find the KDE environment that we typically use to be cleaner and in many ways more flexible. Some people have a strong preference, others don’t — as you might expect. It’s really a matter of personal preference more than anything else. Most of my group initially preferred MacOSX, but after being exposed to KDE felt it to be more useful and natural for the type of work they do.
Given that the choice between Linux and MacOSX is one of opinion, so is the hardware. There’s lots of variety for PCs with regard to form-factor and features, and less so for Macs. However, Macs have great design, are quiet and cool, reliable, etc. Given that you can run Linux on either PC or Mac, now you’ve expanded your options. If you think the Mac hardware is superior by your criteria, but prefer the Linux environment, you have that option. It appears that a number of people are going that route.
As a developer, I can say that the GPL is not free. While 98% of programs cannot use GPLed code, 100% can use BSDed code. Also because of the GPL, Linux can take code from BSD (such as drivers) and improve them and not give them back and the BSD people are then left out. Not a good example of “free”.
“Perhaps you don’t understand what freedom is.
Read : http://www.fsf.org/ (Free as in Freedom)”
Apparently these people are very moralizing (so I already dont like them
), seems they even are aginst use of software patents?? Are they the same type of short sighted people that are against say medical patents and patents in general or are software patents somehow differtent from other patent use? (sorry Im not much of a programmer so I feel that I have to ask..why?)
seems they even are aginst use of software patents?? Are they the same type of short sighted people that are against say medical patents and patents in general or are software patents somehow differtent from other patent use? (sorry Im not much of a programmer so I feel that I have to ask..why?)
Because software is not a physical product with dozen years of research and engineering, it is just a mathematical/logical implementation of abstract idea, like how to sort alphabet and the like. Math is not patented, art is not patented, why software should be?
Instead software, like the rest of implementations of ideas (film plots, books, music), has a thing called copyright. This means that nobody can take your story (implementation) away from you, but they are free to write similar story (see hollywood).
Besides, if (and when) such patents are allowed, nothing would be done, because all the basic things would already be patented like continuous showing of images and doubleclick etc.
It’s like book about three little pigs in a house. Should it be allowed a patent? Isn’t copyright enough?
“As a developer, I can say that the GPL is not free. While 98% of programs cannot use GPLed code, 100% can use BSDed code. Also because of the GPL, Linux can take code from BSD (such as drivers) and improve them and not give them back and the BSD people are then left out. Not a good example of “free”.”
it does allow you to rip off others code and create proprietary variants. thats a lame excuse for calling it non free.
you dont get to kill others in any free country too?. do you call that non free?
it depends . right?
“A decision by MacDailyNews to shift its web site from Mac OS X to Linux has highlighted the fact that many prominent sites for Macintosh users are hosted on either Linux or FreeBSD.
Mac enthusiast sites hosted on Linux include MacDailyNews, MacWorld and MacCentral. Running on FreeBSD are MacintoshOS, MacMinute and the entire Mac News Network group of sites, including MacSurfer, Apple Insider, Mac Observer and the MacNN main site.
Only about 60K hostnames worldwide are currently hosted on the Mac OS, and just eight hosting firms house more than 1,000 Mac-based hostnames. The largest, with 4K hostnames, is Natel.net, an ISP in Fairfield, Iowa.
Mac sites’ choice of hosting platform gained visibility when USA Today columnist Andrew Kantor noted MacDailyNews’ recent switch to Linux. “I find this amusing — and telling,” Kantor wrote on his blog.
MacDailyNews said its decision to leave MacDock hosting was spurred by growing traffic and a desire to manage the site with the Expression Engine blogging/CMS software. To accommodate that transition, MacDailyNews shifted to the Pmachine Hosting service, which is operated by the authors of Expression Engine.
“Our travels from server to server have nothing to do with operating systems and everything to do with the capacity to handle our growing traffic at sustainable rates,” MacDailyNews told its readers. “We have also used Mac OS 9, Mac OS X and FreeBSD in the past. We probably will hit one or all of them again in the future — well, maybe not Mac OS 9.”
Even Apple itself periodically uses Linux in its hosting infrastructure for the Mac.com domain, most likely for caching and load balancing rather than actually hosting the site. Open source operating systems – and FreeBSD in particular – are seen as a palatable option for many Mac enthusiasts because of the lineage of the Mac OS X, which is based on the BSD implementation of UNIX. Mac OS X can run many BSD or Linux software packages once compiled for the platform.
Nonetheless, there are limits to the flexibility shown by Mac enthusiast sites, few of whom seem likely to follow the lead of the MacWorld Expo and host on Windows Server 2003. “Notice that we have never used a Windows-based server, nor will we ever,” said MacDailyNews.”
in http://www.netcraft.com
Well for those bunch of nerds, saying that Mac Os X is the only think that they will use, here is a example of some open mind!!!
well, there IS the case of older outdated ppc hardware (like a 7600/132 or an old beige G3 that are perfectly suited to run linux but aren’t really up to snuff when it comes to running OSX.
Now, the 7600 has a top-end RAM limit of (IIRC) 256M so again, it’s somewhat limited, however linux WILL run on it.
Then again I don’t see how this is so news-worthy other than it being 2.6 related. Yellow Dog has been porting Red Hat to PPC for years.
Of course people are more willing to use freebsd or linux for a server. You aren’t going to be using an imac g5 solely for a server. If you do, then there’s no hope for you. imacs are desktop computers which is where OSX beats the crap out of Linux and FreeBSD.
“The implication here is that software costs nothing to produce. This is patently ridiculous.”
No, the implication is that it has a near zero marginal cost of production. The costs involved in producing software are *one-time* costs. Once the software is produced, *re*producing it is virtually free. This is the economic situation with which free software deals. The original poster is quite right – because building a car requires massive ongoing infrastructure costs, the concept of an ‘open source car’ wouldn’t be as useful, because it’s not like anyone has a spare car factory in their back yard to tinker with the design.
“As a developer, I can say that the GPL is not free. While 98% of programs cannot use GPLed code, 100% can use BSDed code. Also because of the GPL, Linux can take code from BSD (such as drivers) and improve them and not give them back and the BSD people are then left out. Not a good example of “free”.”
So because you can’t use GPL code in your proprietary software you decide it’s not free?
Whine away. Nobody cares.
Indicates that you deem the GPL to be a non-free license. While you certainly have the right to make such an assertion, I do not agree with you. Many people, myself included, do consider the GPL to be free.
I’m sure the GPL meets the conditions of a “free license”. However, since it imposes restrictions, clearly it isn’t “free as in freedom”. “Free as in Free Software” would be a more honest way of saying it.
The LGPL is closer to “free as in freedom” than the GPL is. The BSDL closer again.
Either work for me, I consider either to be essentially free.
The GPL has *significantly* greater restrictions than the BSDL.
Yet there are a growing number of people who agree with me, including some corporations.
Its worth noting that all those corporations are only interested in free software from the perspective of tying it to their other non-free products.
Once you’ve used open source long enough, going back to closed source is rather like putting on a strait jacket. Oh it might be a very fashionable strait jacket with color coordinated straps and an Eddy Bauer logo on it and maybe even scented with perfume, but it is confining. Is it still a mystery for OSnews people? If you’re into Open Source, it’s because you’re ready for adventure. If you can’t handle it, think it’s too stressful, too much learning, too much effort, too much time, distracting you from Unreal Tournament, etc…that’s what Windows is for.
GPL vs. BSD debates are as old as the hills and really don’t go anywhere and don’t end.
”
Its worth noting that all those corporations are only interested in free software from the perspective of tying it to their other non-free products.
”
try again. there are examples to the contrary like redhat and fsf recognised free software companies
Why do i run Linux on mac hardware. Hmm let’s see. I have a perfectly good and functioning g4 Mac sitting in my office. OS 10.1 is way too slow and sluggish. Debian Linux is really fast and useful and runs better on this machine than an equivalent x86. I have not tried the latest version of OSX but linux beats the pants off of OSX right now on this machine, period. On a new mac with a fancy GPU i might stick with OSX maybe.
try again. there are examples to the contrary like redhat and fsf recognised free software companies
Red Hat ties RHEL to their support and updates.
“Red Hat ties RHEL to their support and updates.”
so what. Free software doesnt mean people are not allowed to sell it. go read the gpl license
if you want redhat el for free go download it from centos.org
are you saying the companies are not allowed to sell gpl’ed software from support?.
so what. Free software doesnt mean people are not allowed to sell it. go read the gpl license
As I said, most companies selling “free software” are only doing so in the context of tying it to their other non-free products.
if you want redhat el for free go download it from centos.org
In which case you lose 90% of the value of RHEL.
are you saying the companies are not allowed to sell gpl’ed software from support?.
No.
”
As I said, most companies selling “free software” are only doing so in the context of tying it to their other non-free products.
”
how the hell did rhel become non-free now?. are you saying that any commercial product is non-free. it should be noted that you are confusing a proprietary product and a commerical free product.
“In which case you lose 90% of the value of RHEL. ”
maybe in your imagination.
“are you saying the companies are not allowed to sell gpl’ed software from support?. ”
“No”
ok. so you support redhat in what they do but claim that redhat is something selling a non-free product. i dare you to show any piece of proprietary code in rhel
how the hell did rhel become non-free now?.
I never said it was non-free, I said it was tied to a non-free product. Namely their support products like RHN.
maybe in your imagination.
For most customers, the value in RHEL comes from one or more of three things:
* Support
* Platform certification (eg: Oracle)
* The Red Hat Network
Use one of the RHEL knockoffs and you lose all three of those things.
If you don’t need those things you’re better off using FreeBSD. Or another Linux distro if you feel obligated to Linux or have some Linux-only applications.
ok. so you support redhat in what they do but claim that redhat is something selling a non-free product. i dare you to show any piece of proprietary code in rhel
I didn’t say anything about proprietry code, I said it was tied to non free products. Those non-free products are (mainly) the support, software certification and RHN.
Either work for me, I consider either to be essentially free.
The GPL has *significantly* greater restrictions than the BSDL.
You again. Funny how you defend Microsoft’s EULA policies…
Anyway, “One man’s freedom is another man’s death.” You don’t have total freedom in the country where you live, because you are by law not allowed to murder another. Would you argue that because of that, you’re living in a ‘non-free society’?
The point here is that the BSD license can be used in proprietary or closed-source software thus in fact it doesn’t protect itself from exploitation. Literally anyone who ever had 1 in depth GPL vs BSDL discussion got that point already. Some repeat their own arguments pro either license ad infinitum though.
GPL is freedom with protection, much like laws on democratic republics, while BSD is susceptible to abuse and very thin line separates it from anarchy.