http://www.osnews.com/story/8132/Poll_FreeBSD_s_Popularity Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:18:45 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 8. Not Free enough

Is that Free as in freedom (BSD), or free as in restricted (GPL)?

The BSDi lawsuit of days gone by killed the momentum. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It's really nice when you have a major corporation like IBM making tv commercials for you, companies like Sun and SGI offering largs amounts of code, money and marketing and still others packaging of distros. That's the difference. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? BSD sucks because it's Unix. Nobody likes Unix. At least the linux userspace improves. Still stuck on with a big kernel lock? Lame.

The license doesn't help either. Why would anyone want to contribute to something that can be stolen by MS or whoever and used against you? Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? have DHCP..then FreeBSD(and the others) connect
with no problem..(in my old job I had this)
Right now I'm stuck with ppp0E(ppp over ethernet)
and trying to get this to work on FreeBSD 5.1
is a royal pain..
After reading the much scattered "documentation"
and q/a in via google and trying the "suggestions"
nothing worked. (standard realtek ethernet rl0)
I found that my best bet was
Roaring Penguin ppp0e(which works like a charm on
slackware linux) client.
While it installed fine it could not connect..
a glance at the roaring penguin docs showed why:

pppd , the ppp daemon was too old on my FreeBSD.
so I search the web for pppd source code and
download it(via linux of course on shared dos partition)
unpack it only to find that it can only be compiled
for FreeBSD 3.0 (or earlier versions). Is this
STRANGE OR WHAT?

no wonder BSD isn't more popular..as a desktop
of course.
Since I am a glutten for punishment , I will see
if OpenBSD works any better. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Vote: None of the Above.

There should be an option that FreeBSD is technically inferior to GNU/Linux, presently.

BTW BSD isn't technically UNIX. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? - too hard to setup
- lack of drivers
- technical inferiour as a desktop OS compared to Linux Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Speak anything but crap!!!!..... FreeBSD socks??????..... jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaj.... the best joke i ever heared. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? To me, many of the poll options seemed a bit circular in reasoning, at least when comparing BSD to Linux. It seems like it'd be fair to say that at one point, the amount of advocacy, drivers, development, applications, and install ease was equal between the two Oses. And all those things are functions of popularity, yah?

So the question would be, what factor independent of popularity effects started the popularity feedback loop going for Linux?


Or, I'm missing something big and obvious. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This really is a bad poll. Anyone active in the unix community and familiar with FreeBSD can easily give you two reasons. The _only_ two reasons that FreeBSD is not as popular as linux.

1. Firstly, there was the AT&T trial years ago that put the BSD/OS code's legitimacy in serious question. This was, actually, the reason that Linus first created linux. If not for that lawsuit, it is likely that he would never have created linux. Or at least not put the effort into it that it would have ever gotten out of its infancy.

2. Secondly... Well... by the time the AT&T thing was settled, linux was already on the rise to the point that it had won the OSS *nix popularity contest. Simple momentum has carried it since. It's the entire snowball effect... once it gets rolling it just keeps getting bigger. (much like MS)

As for the poll options:
No. 2 is wrong -- there are quite a few developers coding for it. And most userland utilities are coded for POSIX more than the linux system.

No. 3: Who really cares about how "traditional" it is. If anything, it might be more POSIX standards compliant -- which can't be a bad thing, can it?

No. 5: This is sometimes a problem... but strangely enough, I've found that in some areas fBSD has better driver support than linux (the best example of this is in RAID controllers)

No. 6: Same as No. 2

No. 7: People do not use *nix systems (with the exception of OSX) because they are user-friendly or easy. Anyone that says otherwise is mentally retarded.

No. 8: This is quite possibly the most retarded statement of all. The BSD/MIT license is _MORE_ free than the GNU license. You can argue until you're blue in the face which is better, but you cannot dispute that you are more free to do with the software what you want when you use the BSD/MIT style license than you would be using GNU licensed software. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I can't belive about what people are talking about, technical inferiority when just a couple a months ago every benchmark point that FreeBSD is more fastest than linux, when the highest uptime are registered to FreeBSD (www.netcraft.com).....

come on!!!!!! Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The license doesn't help either. Why would anyone want to contribute to something that can be stolen by MS or whoever and used against you?

It isn't stealing. If you knew your code was better than the rest, you'd consider letting everyone use it too. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 06:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I guess OSNews really has sunk to Slashdot's level... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Things like Not many developers involved and Not much momentum/advocacy for example are all related to the type of freedom the bsd license has.

The bsd license is about maximizing personal freedom by placing pretty much no restrictions on what you can do with the code. Licenses the linux stuff tend to use are about maximizing community freedom by placing certain restrictions on what you can do with the code.

Hardware companies looking to support one of these have been choosing linux because it is in their best interest to have a strong community code base and to prevent closed source forks of the code they contribute. When someone like ibm gives code away they do it to sell more hardware. They do not want someone to take this code and using a closed source fork make their hardware look more attractive than ibm's. They want software to pretty much get out of the picture so the sale can be more mainly on hardware and support, areas where ibm feels it has an advantage.

So because of a license companies more comfortable releasing code that not part of their primary revenue source. To me this is why companies like intel, ibm and hp chose linux over bsd. This is what provided linux with its advantage in terms of number of developers, advocacy, and momentum. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Netcrafts benchmarks of uptime are incorrect. Linux until 2.5 and above, in the vanilla kernels could not have an uptime past about 397 days this though, has been fixed. Netcraft even states they can not accurately determine site uptime, on their own site.

I have not seen one good benchmark that points to FreeBSD being clearly superior to Linux systems, presently.

BSD did win the USL vs BSDi lawsuits and an unencumbered (AT&T UNIX free source code) version of BSD 4.4 lite was released later, that all the BSD's are based from. I'm not sure how this impedes development, as we all know Linux development continues inspite of SCO's blubberings. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1. You can not play games on it.
2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
4. There is no support available for it.
5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
7. You have to compile everything and know C.
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
10. It is dying. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I belive the main reason as BSD is not popular is because
Linux is overhyped & that is what is hurting BSD. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Very well said.

It is silly to say that BSD is "more free" than Linux. It really depends on how you look at it. One could argue that the fact that BSD code can be made unfree is proof that its freedom is more fragile. When a developer choooses to release under the GPL, he does so because he wants his code to stay free - it is a personal choice, to go against that would go against the developer's freedom to license his code.

In fact, both BSD and Linux are free, but in different ways. As theorz indicated, the Linux kind of freedom is better for community-building, which explains why the Linux community is bigger (if a bit more chaotic) than the BSD one. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I would say that is all FUD, and untrue :/ Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? One could argue that the fact that BSD code can be made unfree is proof that its freedom is more fragile.

It can't be made unfree anymore than GPLed code. If a company bases a product off of BSD code, the original BSD code IS STILL FREE. Nothing changes that. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If a gpl application is modified by a company and distributed, those modifications must also be gpl. If a bsd liscensed application is modified, it can be modified forever, there is no provision in keeping changes public. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Let's ignore "history" other than where it is useful in describing the present: because whether there was a legal issue over BSD/OS or whatever is entirely irrelevant to the emperical observation of how things are today: Linux has substantial momentum and support (financial, commercial, etc).

The BSD advocates need to think commercially and understand how they can keep market share in light of Linux, and a few of the key points seem to be the BSD license (allowing custom kernels -- e.g. the insides of Juniper routers or Apple's desktop), and the out-of-the-box consistency that BSD offers. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I understand that, but it does not make the original code unfree. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? No. 7: People do not use *nix systems (with the exception of OSX) because they are user-friendly or easy. Anyone that says otherwise is mentally retarded.

I must be mentally retarded, then. I use Debian as a web server because I have found it to be the easiest and most user-friendly web server. I use Debian because I am lazy. I'm too lazy to use more than a single neuron to install software, too lazy to put a head on the server, and too lazy to accept limitations on where I can admin it from anyway.

So I guess I'm lazy and retarded. Damn. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1. Grow up, gaming isnt everything
2. I bet your grandma could use OS X
3. X has to be the most customizeable window environment out there, and with a good WM, the best preforming one.
4. A lot of people are willing to help, you just cant make a phone cal for it. Heard of Google?
5. So what?
6. Try reading the very first paragraph on www.freebsd.org
7. ./configure, make, make install. wow, thats hard.
8. My Powerbook is a freeBSD 5.x machine under the hood, with a bit of mach thrown in. It has very current hardware that works very very well.
9. Many of the same programs are available for linux and freeBSD, but you dont like compiling things, so i'll give you that one.
10. Not only is FreeBSD going strong, so is OS X. Show me some evidence that it's dying. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I prefer Beastie, the FreeBSD mascot, to Tux, the Linux penguin. And the name 'FreeBSD' sounds cooler than 'Linux'. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Wow that is one great troll. I think it includes it all. Good job! Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? And then consider that many developers don't want to release their hard work under the BSD license: why let corporate bastards exploit you?

rehdon Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The BSD liscense does offer some things the GNU GPL does not provide for, as in keeping changes to a system propreitary.

Though TiVo, and some Cisco routers do use Linux as a base system, and Linux is also gaining ground in embedded devices, this is a strange phenomenon. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >I guess OSNews really has sunk to Slashdot's level...

I suggest the freebsd people *use* this poll to actually benefit them, by learning what people think it's their biggest problem regarding spreading the word. I created the poll, because I want to help FreeBSD. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Recently no one can compare FreeBSD 4-STABLE branch with Linux 2.6, that's sure... and FreeBSD 5x is in development, then is unfair to compare with Linux too.... what I was saying is all about a time ago, not now. But you can't go and say "someone is superior" without taking the final face of two projects and measure their behavior. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I mentioned presently. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1. BSD has less developer because many developer think if they share code under BSD license then it may be stolen by big corporations.

2. Not too much momentum and advocacy. Linux fan boys for sure are good at it.

- Personally i like FreeBSD more because its much faster than linux (I compared FreeBSD 4.8 to Redhat 9). Also FreeBSD doesn't have 100s distros which i hate about linux.

If freeBSD keep through this Linux momentum for couple of years, i feel it will come as a winner.


_Wolf_ Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? And then consider that many developers don't want to release their hard work under the BSD license: why let corporate bastards exploit you?

Uhhuh, but "corporate bastards" often prefer BSDL (yeah, GPL is more widely used, probably because it is hyped), and they have deep pockets, and good developers.

Seriously, it is just a combination of advocacy and luck. GNU/Linux users are often a bit more zealous than *BSD users, and "convert" more friends, family, etc. Besides that it is largely a matter of luck, Linux got momentum when BSDi was in court.

That said, *BSD is widely used, but just not by the average home user. *BSD is more unixy, and home users want nice installers, GUI configuration tools, etc. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://www.critical.ch/bsdvslinux/ Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Darwin is heavily FreeBSD-influenced, and the NT Kernel is often reported to have huge portions borrowed from BSD, so in a way, there are much more users of BSD code than Linux. 8)

Seriously, this is sort of the whole issue of the BSD license. Contributers to FreeBSD simply have to accept that their code will probably be used by people not directly using FreeBSD. As a result, I think you're making more people happy, but there are going to be less straight-up FreeBSD users. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't know if NT based Windows systems really has any source code in it that is BSD. But I know Services For UNIX as distributed by Microsoft does have BSD code in it. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 07:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Though TiVo, and some Cisco routers do use Linux as a base system, and Linux is also gaining ground in embedded devices, this is a strange phenomenon.

Because there is no real incentive to make their code proprietary. With those products, TiVo and Cisco sell hardware and services, not software. That's the commoditization of the OS for you...

BTW, you're right that you can't make the original BSD code unfree - but you can for derivatives. As I said, (faulty) arguments can't be made both ways why one is "freer" than the other, but the bottom line is that it's a false debate to begin with. Both are free, differently. One isn't freer than the other. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Microsoft said that they will remove all GPL code from SFU before they bundle it standard with Windows. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It is very simple. FreeBSD is not designed with the average end-user in mind. I hope that changes as it is a very good system. Likewise with OpenBSD.

But until mere mortals can easily install it, FreeBSD's market will primarily be as a web server OS. Nothing wrong with that.

It would also help FreeBSD's case if you could find a company that offered 5-year support agreements for FreeBSD.

Finally, I think, the operating system market is too crowded and there just isn't room for more than three players, Mac OS X, Linux and Windows. When I say this, I mean that commercial software makers and hardware manufacturers have very little interest in supporting 10 different platforms. Even Linux, which has a very extensive collection of drivers, suffers from this problem to a given extent.

For the above reasons, both of the FreeBSD and Linux communities would gain a great deal if much of the man power that now goes to FreeBSD would switch to Linux, but that is very unlikely to happen.

I believe the FreeBSD developer would bring a great deal of discipline and experience to Linux. This is a matter of setting aside your personal ego for the greater good in an attempt to create a free operating system that has a chance of being used by the wider public.

Will it happen? Probably not, but I wish reason would prevail over passion on these issues. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Uhhuh, but "corporate bastards" often prefer BSDL (yeah, GPL is more widely used, probably because it is hyped), and they have deep pockets, and good developers.

As it has been remarked often about Linux (at least on Groklaw and by people who understand the GPL), the GPL licence actually is better for corporations because it creates a level playing field forcing them giving back improvements to the original software. This is particularly true for hardware companies (IBM, HP, etc.), but also for all software companies who don't want to be locked in by the OS maker (Oracle).

OTOH onsider what happened to the BSD code used by Microsoft: what have they given back? Nothing, excluding of course more lock-ins through their software, a race to software patents, an ongoing attempt to lock-in media playing through DRM, and a generous funding to the ultimate Linux lock-in attempt, SCO legal war against IBM and Linux.

So you see that this is the (apparent) paradox of complete freedom of software: ultimately, it fires back against you, you the developer and you the user.

This is one of the reasons of Linux' success, there are others of course. Any attempt to explain it with a "bit of advocacy and much luck" argument is a gross, misinformed simplification (no offense meant, but that's how it is).

rehdon Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree, and I also agree that will never happen.

FreeBSD is not a bad design though, it is unified and its installation is not that much different from Slackware. If a company got ahold of it like Sun, I am sure they will be able to progress it to the point of Linux in technical feats in a few years. And a company could design a user friendly installer. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ...is because I can't install it on extended partitions. Every BSD flavour I tried insists on being installed on a primary partition. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Oh well, here we go. :-)

1. You can not play games on it.

Games like XBill are masterpieces. You cannot ignore such classics. Bring it on, John Carmack!

2. It cannot be used by my grandma.

What are you talking about? Grandmothers are überskilled BSD hackers. They just don't like showing it, because then there wouldn't be any jobs in the IT sector for young people like us.

3. It lacks a GUI of any note.

Yes

http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/

It

http://freebsd.kde.org/

Certainly

http://pluto.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/FreeBSD/ports/packages/xfce/

Does.

4. There is no support available for it.

You have to ask your grandmother more than once. She won't let you know any of the fun stuff the first time, remember?

5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.

When I tried it, I did spot parts of SkyOS, Windows and a tiny bit of AmigaOS in it. Fortunately you can shuffle parts of it around, but the OS fragments can be defragmented using Windows' defrag tool, to put together an entirely new OS. Now if the above made any sense to you, I'm gonna go shave some potatoes now.

6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.

You are correct on that note. These imposters should be imprisoned for their statements. All these x86 users have been tricked into believing they were running a BSD OS.... it's just sad.

7. You have to compile everything and know C.

Again ask your grandmother. She knows.

8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.

Ridiculous, last time I checked, support was only poor 98% of the time. Not always. Sheesh.

9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.

Not so. GNU/Linux doesn't even exist.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/08/26/1443201.shtml?tid=88&tid=1...

See?

10. It is dying.

How can it be dying, if all the BSD hacking grandmothers know so much about it and do so much with it? FreeBSD is the underworld of BSDs. It may not show up in the poll, but that's because most grandmothers never vote in such polls. They're too busy hacking.

--

Fight FUD with FUD, I always say. :-) Hope it was entertaining... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? PPPoe is documented in the handbook - http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/pppoe.htm... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Recently no one can compare FreeBSD 4-STABLE branch with Linux 2.6, that's sure... and FreeBSD 5x is in development, then is unfair to compare with Linux too.... what I was saying is all about a time ago, not now. But you can't go and say "someone is superior" without taking the final face of two projects and measure their behavior.

Umm no, you can compare Linux 2.6 with both branches. If you want to compare the latest stable branches, then compare Linux 2.6 with FreeBSD 4, if you want to just compare the latest and greatest code, compare Linux 2.6 with FreeBSD 5.

Anyway, FreeBSD 5 will be going "stable" soon, so that will remove your last excuse after all these years. What is going to happen when FreeBSD 5-STABLE is shown to be slower than Linux 2.6? Will all FreeBSD zealots vanish in a puff of smoke? Or will pigs take flight? Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What a load of crap! Oh, well, here goes:


1. You can not play games on it.

You can. I have. They will.

2. It cannot be used by my grandma.

Neither can linux. Or windows, for that matter, really. Of course, my grandma doesn't like computers in the first place.

3. It lacks a GUI of any note.

Well, that's a matter of opinion; I consider KDE and Gnome (both included in FreeBSD) to be of note, since they are the leading DEs for free *nix.

4. There is no support available for it.

That depends on your definition of support. Paid support? Well, no. Unless you count my hosting company. They give me wonderful support for the FreeBSD server my clients' web sites reside on. Community support? Awesome. Documentation? Equally awesome.

5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.

Huh? I don't have much knowlege on this...

6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.

Hah! In what universe?? My PII/300 and Duron/950 will beg to differ.

7. You have to compile everything and know C.

No, you don't. But, you can if you wish.

8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.

My Nvidia Geforce FX video card works great. As well as my new Epson scanner. Oh, did I mention my 2-month-old Dell DJ audio player works fine?

9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.

Hmmm...I guess I just imagined that I used the (install-time option) Linux Binary Compatibility that is part of the distro.

10. It is dying.

It is? Well, someone tell that to all the people who run it, then.

Ok, so BSD in any flavor (other than OSX) isn't ready for the desktop. It wasn't supposed to be! Sure, I can change the landing gear on my airplane and land on water with it, but I'm not going to use it as a boat just because it floats. That's what boats are for! In case analogy is not your strong point, BSD is not a desktop OS. It does what it was made for, and it does a wonderful job of that. I would choose a BSD over Linux any day to run a server. For desktop use, I have Slackware and, more recently, Suse. In other words, the right tools for the right job. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Oops...well I guess great minds think alike...although I took the more serious route ;-) Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The installations
Drivers drivers drivers
Filesystems to connect to everybody else on filesystem level Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? There's plenty of drivers, plenty of developpers, plenty of momentum. In in fact, there's also plenty popularity.
I for one do not feel the need for a FreeBSD hype, like the Linux hype. It's been said before but: Linux is for those who hate Windows, BSD is for those who love UNIX. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? As it has been remarked often about Linux (at least on Groklaw and by people who understand the GPL),

That is a fallacy .


the GPL licence actually is better for corporations because it creates a level playing field forcing them giving back improvements to the original software. This is particularly true for hardware companies (IBM, HP, etc.), but also for all software companies who don't want to be locked in by the OS maker (Oracle).

No, it is not better, to make use of the advantages of opensource as a company you want other people to be able to contribute fixes, code, etc. The problem is that after s/b else adds code he/she is also copyright holder, and you can't use the resulting codebase in propietary products without giving away the sources. In contrast, if the code is BSDL-ed one can take it, modify it, and use it in propietary products with no problems.

The only remedy is to let all contributors sign copyright papers to assign the copyrights to that specific company. Though, I don't think many GPL-minded people like that.

Besides that, if you use Linux in a propietary product you'll have to deal with a whole army of GPL-fans that want your code and company investments in development.

OTOH onsider what happened to the BSD code used by Microsoft: what have they given back? Nothing, excluding of course more lock-ins through their software, a race to software patents, an ongoing attempt to lock-in media playing through DRM, and a generous funding to the ultimate Linux lock-in attempt, SCO legal war against IBM and Linux.

I'd like to give two comments: most BSD developers don't care, they gave away the code with roughly two rules:

1. Don't pretend you wrote it.
2. Don't sue us when it breaks.

BTW. without BSD code the same would have happened (probably with less standardisation of TCP/IP stacks, etc.). Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? FreeBSD is really great, the installation is as easy as Debian or Slackware (when you've understood what's meant by that partitions and slices), hardware support is mostly good enough (although support for multimedia devices could be better), most packages you know from Linux are already installed with default installation, with KDE, Gnome, XFCE and WindowMaker you have the choice.

But there're still some things I miss when using *BSD, e.g.
- a framebuffer device, which makes it possible to view your console with 1024x768x16 @ 85 Hz if you do not want to run X
- the package- and ports-system is great but apt-get is much more comfortable

Something I don't undertand when using OpenBSD:
The installation is not very difficult when using the documentation on the homepage and all you have to do after installation is well described, you feel happy with all that chrooted Apache and so on. But when you login the first time, why don't that cursor keys and the delete-key do what anybody expect? OK, it's the csh and you can use ksh or bash if you like to, but if this behavior is the first impression somebody will get after installation... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Ok, so I booted BSD from the CD like Knoppix. It worked and was interesting. Then I tried to install like Knoppix and it seemed that would not work.

Then deciding to give FreeBSD a chance I downloaded the 5.2.1 iso's and booted them. I only got that far as the menu seemed very confusing and I did not manage an installation. I probably could have battled the installation, but realized that software would be harded to come by. (eg Java, or vendor applications that I have for Linux). Not having a good Java implementation hurts quite a bit, even lack of .NET implementation hurts.

My point is that BSD is probably pretty good, but it simply does not have the momentum that Linux does. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Well now, this is just a bunch of interesting opioins. And for thoes opionions are my resonses which would also fall under the catagory of opioions:

1. You can not play games on it.
Yes you can like UT, Quake and most Linux games.

2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
Sure it can, just set up Gnome or KDE (I prefer fluxbox but I am not your grandma). My 10 year old nephew loves playing BZFlag. He wants his own *nix machine. He is so cute. And my newphew is cute, thats not an opinion, its truth. Just install *bsd and your grandma can use Mozilla, Balsa or sylpheed and etc. She will do fine, try it.

3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
Gnome, KDE, Fluxbox, Blackbox, Xfce, EDE and more. Take a look at www.freebsd.org/ports

4. There is no support available for it.
Check out www.freebsd.org/ports and you will see that their are over 10,000 ports sitting their, read to install either by:
pkg_add -r packagename

or go into your ports directory and type

make install clean

5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
Please provide facts.

6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
Well, it just doesnt run on x86. Somewhat true. It runs on X86/IA32, IA64, RISC, ARM and more.

7. You have to compile everything and know C.
I dont know C and have been using it for the last 4 years. Well, I must just be gifted, or not.

8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
Please, provide facts. Check out the comprehensive compatiblity lists. *BSD's were the first to get USB and WiFi.

9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
Actually, *BSD have a driver that emulates Linux. There are quite a few applications that *BSDs use that use that driver and they all work flawlessly. You can also install various GNU tools sets as well as the default *BSD versions of thoes tools sets. Choice is such a wonderful thing.

10. It is dying.
With so many releases and such a tight release schedual, how can it be dying. I wish I was that vibrant and I am alive (kinda). So to this I say O'please troll.

This list has been copied and paster for years with no one ever responding. Installing *bsd takes me 1/2. Easy self-explaitory install. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Then deciding to give FreeBSD a chance I downloaded the 5.2.1 iso's and booted them. I only got that far as the menu seemed very confusing and I did not manage an installation. I probably could have battled the installation,

The FreeBSD Handbook describes the installation quite well.

but realized that software would be harded to come by. (eg Java, or vendor applications that I have for Linux). Not having a good Java implementation hurts quite a bit, even lack of .NET implementation hurts.

True. On the other hand both NetBSD and FreeBSD can run the Linux JDK very well, and you can compile a native JDK via pkgsrc-wip (NetBSD) and probably through the port collection on FreeBSD. .NET is no problem, Mono runs on FreeBSD, and AFAIR Microsoft even released a C# compiler for FreeBSD. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Yes, FreeBSD has native Java support, which has been certified by Sun Microsystems. Take a look:

http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/downloads/java.shtml

So many rumors and not enough facts. Please check out my note above. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Windows does have *bsd code in it. I will look for the web page on MS site that lists the BSD license agreement.

As for the unix utilitis for Windows, that is made by internix (www.internix.com) which uses openbsd as their code base. All the tools are OpenBSD. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Simply by luck. The same reason Windows is the most popular desktop OS now--they got lucky. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I started using FreeBSD some years ago.
First as server then I tried it as Desktop.

Now I'm using Debian.

What FreeBSD is missing are:
1) a simple tool to keep up-to-date my OS and my packges, such as apt-get (i know pkg_add exists and there is a tool to keep the sytem upgraded, but they are not as simple as apt-get to manage)
I don't have time and resources to compile from sources.
2) this is not a freebsd fault but it seems to me that to install java i have to compile it from sources
3) to run acroread i have to install the linux emulation, right ?
Using linux I have the guarantee to find a lot of desktop app linux native.

As I said that's my humble experience. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If i were to use FreeBSD, i'd wonder what additional features it would provide besides my current Debian. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. I sure know a few. PF is an example. But for desktop usage, i don't see any and compiling from source (or source patching) is something i hate. I also dislike the standard layout on BSD in general which means its hard to use it as local terminal and i've never found out how to fix it. The problem doesn't occur when one uses remote login via e.g. SSH. I'm sure BSD users have problems with Linux distributions, hence they chose a BSD. It all boils down to preference and in order to analize this a poll such as here could be used but i don't think the options reflect the popular options as has been already critized.

Besides that, if you use Linux in a propietary product you'll have to deal with a whole army of GPL-fans that want your code and company investments in development.

As if there aren't BSD fans and zealots. All too often, people who i meet who use BSD on their desktop are some bunch of BSD zealots who claim anything which is less free sucks because of its license. For example, see some comments of Theo Deraadt, check some discussions on Deadly.org. But, more important, is that this is just how i perceive a group of people and such experience can never be used as a fact cause it is biased. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1. Don't pretend you wrote it.

Bzzt. Wrong. Used to be that way with the advertising clauses. Now you don't have to do that. All that's required is you do not try to make the authors incur any liability from the consequences of the use, or flaws in their code.

If I had a team of coders, and was going to relase code to the public, I'd use something like the APSL or the GPL, because it does prevent people from co-opting your code without giving any credit. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 3) to run acroread i have to install the linux emulation, right ?
Using linux I have the guarantee to find a lot of desktop app linux native.

This is an interesting point. What WineX and Transgaming do [as opposed by WineX CVS and WINE] is standard profiles for (popular) applications, games. If one would allow this for Linux emulation on FreeBSD making it easier for a FreeBSD user to run Linux applications, games that would make the user experience better. Such could be a non-profit or commercial effort. If it already exists, please provide a link to the relevant information. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You think I didn't try that?
I live in Korea and the ISP may have slightly different
ppp protocol here - I don't know this but I have
heard it may happen

For whatever reason it does not work
Actually when i do a ping [some address]
I get a "0.0.0.0 No route to host"
message even though tun seems to be configured.
Even got the "connected" message once.
Is this a problem with enabling IPv6 maybe?

What I do suggest is that desktop development is not
a priority for FreeBSD ..too bad cause as a C programmer
I would love to compare it to my slackware setup Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Lets face it the reason Linux has jumped ahead is because IBM, Cisco and everyone else has to give back to the Linux cdommunity. In an ideal world the BSD lic works but on earth people have to be obligated to help-or give back. the BSD lic ensure that BSD will never get the help Linux will and also means limited lifetime before it eventually dies. BSD was a better OS now it is about even (as of 2.6 kernel Linux is actually getting into the technical lead) but while Linux is running ahead BSD is now starting to play keep up and it is only a matter of time before that is not good enough t stay in the game. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Bzzt. Wrong. Used to be that way with the advertising clauses. Now you don't have to do that. All that's required is you do not try to make the authors incur any liability from the consequences of the use, or flaws in their code.

Wrong!


* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.


The BSDL clearly states that binary distributions must reproduce the copyright notice, etc. "in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.". That boils down to "don't pretend you wrote it". Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What FreeBSD is missing are:
1) a simple tool to keep up-to-date my OS and my packges, such as apt-get (i know pkg_add exists and there is a tool to keep the sytem upgraded, but they are not as simple as apt-get to manage) I don't have time and resources to compile from sources.

Well, one of the tools to upgrade your system is "portupgrade" and I find it to be excellent at its job. Is it easier to use apt-get? I am fond of both tools. I guess this would be a matter of preference. If I remember correctly there is a binary update tools for FreeBSD, I believe that its called FreeBSD-update. FreeBSD is more a source based install and upgrade proceedure. Both have pro's and con's.


2) this is not a freebsd fault but it seems to me that to install java i have to compile it from sources

There is a binary version of JDK and JRE (native) for FreeBSD. It is listed in one of my comments above.

3) to run acroread i have to install the linux emulation, right ?
To run Acroread you do need to run emulation. However there is no speed differences between the two versions (that I have noticed). Its actually binary compatibility mode. If functions more as a translator for system calls. If your thinking of something like WINE, no, its not like that.

Using linux I have the guarantee to find a lot of desktop app linux native.

I have actually have had the Linux Apps run faster on FreeBSD with binary compatibility mode than on Linux itself.

"As I said that's my humble experience." Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If one would allow this for Linux emulation on FreeBSD making it easier for a FreeBSD user to run Linux applications, games that would make the user experience better. Such could be a non-profit or commercial effort. If it already exists, please provide a link to the relevant information.

I use the following Linux applications on NetBSD:

* Sun JDK 1.4.x
* Opera 7.5x
* TextMaker
* PlanMaker
* Wordperfect 8.1
* StarOffice
* Heretic II

They all run without a problem, and only with a unnoticable 1% or 2% performance degradation (for translating Linux system calls to NetBSD system calls). The same story applies to FreeBSD. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I smell the blood of a GPL zealot.

It's kinda hard to be "more free" than the BSD license. Public domain, maybe, but that's about it.

I certainly hope you're not suggesting the GPL (or any of its variants) is "more free" than the BSD license ? Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It is silly to say that BSD is "more free" than Linux.

True enough. Correctly, one would state the BSD license is "less restrictive" than the GPL (and variants) predominant in Linux code.

It really depends on how you look at it.

No, it doesn't. The BSD license has less restrictions than the GPL license and only marginally more restrictions than code without any copyright protection at all (ie: in the public domain).

This is not debatable, it is indisputable fact.

One could argue that the fact that BSD code can be made unfree is proof that its freedom is more fragile.

BSD code can no more be made "unfree" by inclusion in proprietry products than Disney's pillaging of the public domain can make the original stories "unfree".

When a developer choooses to release under the GPL, he does so because he wants his code to stay free - it is a personal choice, to go against that would go against the developer's freedom to license his code.

In that case, the developer has made a mistake. If all the developer wants to do is make sure *his* code remains free, he doesn't need the GPL, he just needs the BSD or perhaps the LGPL.

If, on the other hand, the developer wants *other people's code* - that utilises his code - to *also* be GPLed, then he should use the GPL.

If you are a developer, the GPL is not about *your code*, it's about *other people's code*. That is its whole reason for existance - to "encourage" other people to GPL *their code*.

In fact, both BSD and Linux are free, but in different ways. As theorz indicated, the Linux kind of freedom is better for community-building, which explains why the Linux community is bigger (if a bit more chaotic) than the BSD one.

No, they aren't "free, but in different ways" (sounds like an oxymoron to me). BSD is "more free" than Linux.

The restrictions imposed by the GPL have the effect of "forcing" more code to be GPLed (as designed). It's certainly possible this is a cause of a larger level of popularity for Linux, but IMHO bigger historical reasons were the AT&T lawsuits and the snobbiness of the BSD community. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Linux is hyped too much Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? As it has been remarked often about Linux (at least on Groklaw and by people who understand the GPL), the GPL licence actually is better for corporations because it creates a level playing field forcing them giving back improvements to the original software.

Uh, a "level playing field" is the *last* thing corporations want - a corporation wants the deck stacked as much in their favour as possible.

Now, if you were talking about *customers*, then you'd have a point. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I like FreeBSD. It's a fast, stable workhorse that performs well under load and just works. Its provided as a complete operating environment with a nice handbook and all the source code. Its development is like a tree that has fallen over to the right. One branch (the trunk) is where the development occurs and the branches on the right are the forked projects using the BSD technology or creating FreeBSD system derivatives.

For my Desktop, I prefer Linux. The linux development process is like a tree that has fallen over to the left. the branches (developer effort) combine to make the trunk (looking at it left-to-right). Each distribution can specialise in which packages are put together to form the complete product, and each package has this many-to-one development process. That's why Linux will overtake BSD in terms of technology. Each part has hundreds or sometimes thousands of developers forming one package (such as the kernel itself, or the GUI) whereas FreeBSD is like a one-to-many process where new technology from a complete operating environment gets split into many sub-projects and forks.

Make sense? Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think the BSDs are more free, more stable code, all drivers work from the start (good GENERIC kernels instead of striped ones requiring recompilation), good base of software, better documentation, less changes, good ports system, easier to find errors since everyones stuff is the same, and so on.

But then I do use freebsd (or dragonfly right now). Only bad thing I can think of is that same code requires tweaking to compile (but then there already exists almost 10.000 ports or so so that's a non-issue), which leaves me with ONE problem: Winex-cvs doesn't compile and I don't think there exist precompiled winex binaries.
Ah, plus ATI is stupid enough not releaseing drivers for freebsd, but that's not freebsd fault. We need more open development of drivers and maybe a drivers standard instead of all oses on it's own. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think linux has much more 'buzz' going on, I think this is because linux has a different audience then FreeBSD, that audience needs the 'buzz'

As for FreeBSD being an inferior desktop OS, I'll give my personal expereinces on that. I started using linux, ran various distributions, but ended up with liking slackware the most because it's the most 'clean'. After some linux time I tried out netbsd and freebsd, they instantly grew on me, I never had much trouble with them or I could fix it.

Now recently I've tried out linux again with 2.4.26 and 2.6.7 kernel...My expereince sofar is compared to these new distros that FreeBSD is an excellent desktop OS, applications launch much quicker, everything feels much more responsive, much more solid, much more clean, more powerfull. FreeBSD is also much easier to maintain, update and fix.

You may call me a fanboy, but I really like linux, I started with linux, I've run linux for quite some time, I hug the penguin...My switch to FreeBSD is not of a fanboyish nature but a practical one, I found the OS suprisingly superior. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? To me it seems that Free BSD not being as easy to use, install & configure (for normal, non-geek users, that is... I know that many of you geeks may find BSD very easy... ;-) is the biggest reason for Free BSD not being as popular as Linux. Remember that Linux started to become more popular only after the rise of Redhat, Mandrake, SUSE and other such easier to use distros, from newbie point of view. There still is no BSD "Mandrake" or "Xandros". Related to the geeky, difficult to use image of BSD are the big problems of BSD having less hardware and 3rd party support than Linux.

Another reason: Many FOSS developers just like the GPL more than the BSD licensing, including Linus Torvalds and many other big and small names among FOSS developers.

Also often the GPL license seems to prevent too much forking of the FOSS code (for example, there are several different BSD kernels but basically only one Linux kernel).

Many developers who dedicate their (often free) time, skills and energy to the development of free and open source software, prefer that their code and also the derivative code remains free for the benefit of themselves and others as much as possible. It is just logical. So at least the new code developed by others and based on the old code is the payment the original developers get for their efforts if nothing else. That is a major motivation behind the rising popularity of FOSS. The BSD licensed software doesn't seem to encourage so much FOSS developer interest (although, of course, also the BSD license may suit some situations and people better in some cases). Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? if FreeBSD would change their installer for the OS to be more user friendly like Slackware's ncurses installer and offer to just set mount points for disc partitions i would install it...

so i don't use it because the installer for the OS is too primitave and without features i need... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "It is silly to say that BSD is "more free" than Linux.

True enough. Correctly, one would state the BSD license is "less restrictive" than the GPL (and variants) predominant in Linux code.

It really depends on how you look at it.

No, it doesn't. The BSD license has less restrictions than the GPL license and only marginally more restrictions than code without any copyright protection at all (ie: in the public domain).

This is not debatable, it is indisputable fact."

Except for that last sentence a valid point however naming it as "restrictions" is just using the opposite of "freedom", but more accurate (which is why i like it more). The point does not lie in the argument of direct freedom, but of indirect freedom which lie in cause-and-effect situations such as proprietary software.

When using a TAZ-like point of view BSD/MIT/Public domain code is certainly more free. When relating to the future, it is very debatable (which future is in practice anyway .

The freedom of one is a restriction to another applies here too; which means there is no pure thing called freedom which is able to apply in practice as indisputable fact. Those who do not understand this, do not understand what freedom in theory is -- IMO.

I call the people who call by definition the GPL more free GPL zealots and the people who call by definition BSD/MIT/PD more free BSD/MIT/PD zealots and i call both short-sightened. What matters is the purpose which ain't (only) freedom. My opinion is none of these is more free and i could even easily relate that opinion to proprietary software or DRM... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? That is a fallacy .

Not really, read it as "You have probably already heard of this by now" and not as a reason for what follows.

In contrast, if the code is BSDL-ed one can take it, modify it, and use it in propietary products with no problems.

The scenario you are describing advantages some corporations, the one I was describing advantages some corporations, developers and users: guess which one I'd choose any time.

Besides that, if you use Linux in a propietary product you'll have to deal with a whole army of GPL-fans that want your code and company investments in development.

As the basic principle of the GPL is "do what you want with this, but give back to others your improvements", that only seems fair to me. Besides that, GPL is only related to distribution: if you need GPL code internally, for your own use, you can do whatever you want with it, provided you don't redistribute it.

most BSD developers don't care, they gave away the code with roughly two rules

I have lots of respect for BSD developers, but, hey, you hit the nail right on the head here: they don't care about the use that can be made of their code, they don't care about easy installs, they don't care about desktop use, they don't care about easy program installation, and so on. Is it really so much of a surprise that the rest of the world (except MS) doesn't care about *BSD?

Sorry, but whatever BSD's merits I can clearly see why it's been progressively marginalized.

rehdon Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have been using Linux distros (many varied ones SUSE-->MANDRAKE-->GENTOO-->ARCH-->FEDORA-->YOPER-->A RCH) for years now and a few months back tried out FreeBSD. Web-browsing is much faster, installation is a piece of cake, kernel compilation and tweaking is easy. Also, everything is documented extremely well. I currently have my PC set up to boot to both and alternate, depending on my mood. Programs seem to compile quite a bit quicker as well. I've enjoyed using it. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It sure appears that in the last few days, Eugenia is using her position of power to castrate other open source operating systems. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Forget, at least for a moment, the theoretical arguing over which license is perhaps more free and what's not. (The BSD zealots seem no better in this respect than the GPL zealots, sometimes even the contrary...) Instead, consider which kind of licenses may be more useful, to developers, users and the community in general.

For example, which kind of licenses encourage more FOSS developer interest - if that's what you want - etc? In the end, it is the usefulness of the license what matters much more than some rather distant philosophical ideals about software freedom.

The GPL is all about the community, the benefit of the whole community. The GPL may restrict some commercial and proprietary implementation though which restricts its "freedom". But though the BSD license may be more free, it doesn't seem to encourage as much developer interest and dedication as the GPL licensed FOSS does. Also many big companies like IBM & Novell seem to like to license their FOSS rather under the GPL than the BSD license. Because that way they get all the fruits like new code and bug fixes, and no other company gets a chance to reap all the benefits without giving anything back.

I'm not saying that a certain license is better than the other, and, frankly, I don't even care too much. All kinds of licenses may have their uses, pros and cons. But the GPL has certainly already proven its usefulness for the community (commercial and non-commercial community alike).

I'm rather sure that the FOSS phenomenon would be much smaller withouth the GPL license. If there was no GPL yet, it would have to be developed. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? There are many good reasons why Mac OS X is based off Freebsd, because unlike linux, if you program something for it, it just works everywhere in freebsd, while to call a program production worthy in linux, they need to have many computers running with 30 or 40 different versions of linux to test unfortunately.. and Linus isn't making it any better with his lack of ABI support.


The problem with freebsd however has been that fail to present it as a multimedia based platform, which if they did, they would not only have a highly secure platform, but one that had great potential in overtaking linux rapidly, and possibly kill linux eventually. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Wow! You guys really need to get a life! Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I dont think the license is making the difference, if *BSD was GPL the situation would be pretty much the same.

As said before the difference is in audience, people that run *BSD want a solid unix operating system, many linux users want a free, secure, opensource windows clone.

If there was an opensource MS windows there would not be such a big linux audience, but there would still be an equal *BSD audience.

This might be a daring statement but probably not far from the truth.

The buzz is certainly not bad, because all opensource software benefits from linux in the spotlight. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think the big reasons are:

1) lack of vendor support compared to Linux distributions, which in turn lessens driver support (ATi being a big thing for me personally, sigh, shoulda bought NVidia)

2) less users so it's harder to find answers to troubleshooting questions not found in the (rather good) documentation

3) the installer is still very technical, there are many questions it asks users that most would be scared to answer or not know how to answer properly Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? well atleast among my friends you couldnt be more far from the truth. i love unix like operating systems and i dont feel any ill towards windows i even run it sometimes on my laptop.

but of the unix like os i just preffer the way things are done in linux i still run bsd but then mostly netbsd on odd hardware. that most linux users just want a free windows clone is complitly bull Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? lol there are different linux kernels every distro includes its own patches and such, and GPL stops forking, what about:

XFree86>>XOrg?
Redhat>>Mandrake
Fedora>>Cobind
SuSE>>Sun JDS
Slackware>>Slax

when some developers dont agree with the project they tend to fork it. all the BSD licence means is that you dont have to make your fork's SourceCode available to everyone. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I've been watching it's popularity grow and grow.
The same as been happening to Linux though, it's seems we have room for all

It's much easier to develop specialized distros under Linux, it seems. Then again, very few have tried to do the same with the *BSDs. Maybe it's just not worth it: besides a friendlier installer and GUI admin tools, what more could be done?

Packaging is excellent, filesystem structure is coherent and simple, and the documentation is much better than a lot of commercial OSes out there. You'll find it very difficult to see a Linux distro with so many and so organized documentation. Just beautiful.

From Juniper routers to Apple computers to Windows net utilities like FTP and PING to QNX (which will replace Cisco IOS in their new routers), *BSD is there.

Responsible companies which want to be able to choose their licenses and avoid bad reputation over their closed-source products use BSD code. Cisco, Linksys and others used GPL code without releasing the source and got bad reputation over it, but now they know they don't need to do it again.

Hardware companies like IBM and HP have nothing to fear from GPL, so they can actually benefit from the hype.

About commercial BSD support, read on:

http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/consult_bycat.html
http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/consultants.html
http://www.openbsd.org/support.html


About love and care for the source, Debian was the closest to what the BSD developers have done, a well-built system made to last. Despite releasing it under the BSD license.
BSD license means you only want credit, not necessarily new code.

GPL zealots have the illusion that their work gets protected by their license and no one can do a closed fork on their project, but I wonder how hard is it to rewrite the code (maybe even with automatic tools) to an unrecognizable form before compiling so the GPL zealots would never know they had been ripped off. After all, source is open, exposed. Just like BSD.


Bruno Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I know BSD usres like to have a single, centralized, os which controls *all* the os ie: Freebsd is not just a kernel but mix of a kernel, libraries, etc.


Linux is not centralized. This has advantages and disadvantages. Disadvantages can be lack of "uniformity", Advantages...there're distros for servers, distros for desktops, etc. Personalization is great. This doesn't happens with BSD OSs. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Linux is not centralized. This has advantages and disadvantages. Disadvantages can be lack of "uniformity", Advantages...there're distros for servers, distros for desktops, etc. Personalization is great. This doesn't happens with BSD OSs."

But it does happen in the BSD field. Not just as customizations but as completely new projects:

ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-current/src/share/misc/bsd-...


Bruno Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What FreeBSD is missing are:
1) a simple tool to keep up-to-date my OS and my packges, such as apt-get (i know pkg_add exists and there is a tool to keep the sytem upgraded, but they are not as simple as apt-get to manage)
I don't have time and resources to compile from sources.

It's called portupgrade, and it can install binary packages as well. As for the base system: yes, you must recompile if you want to catch security patches. But recompiling is the fastest way to get these patches, you don't have to wait for binaries to be created for you.

2) this is not a freebsd fault but it seems to me that to install java i have to compile it from sources

This is due to Sun's licensing.

3) to run acroread i have to install the linux emulation, right ?

This is due to Adobe. Go ask them for a FreeBSD-native binary. Btw I use xpdf, not acroread.

Using linux I have the guarantee to find a lot of desktop app linux native.

Most Linux apps are open source, so you can compile them on FreeBSD as well (made even easier with the Ports system). And FreeBSD offers binary packages for most of these apps.

You type "apt-get install gaim", I type "pkg_add -r gaim". They both go fetch the packages (+ dependencies) from a repository on the 'Net and install them locally. What's the difference?

As I said that's my humble experience.

And this is mine. ;-) Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I suggest the freebsd people *use* this poll to actually benefit them, by learning what people think it's their biggest problem regarding spreading the word. I created the poll, because I want to help FreeBSD.

While it's certainly true that FreeBSD has it's fair share of failings, it's clear that the main reason for the vast majority of the complaints against it here is that most of the nay sayers are brainwashed Linux/GPL zealot retards, spewing the most inane non-sense, bullshit, and just plain lies out of malice or ignorance.

But then, like Slashdot, this place seems a breeding ground for both Linux/GPL zealots and ignorance. They go hand in hand. The only thing that could top this is if you had your husband write another one of his "insightful" reviews. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What I mean is a lot of linux users want to run windows apps and play windows games etc., they are trying to replace windows with linux, which is not bad, I think it's excellent, but I think that is the reason linux is much more in the spotlight. The linux community is making a lot of noise to get all sorts of stuff (hardware,software mostly supported by windows) supported on linux, and it takes on 'evil giant windows' and is gaining and getting a lot of attention from that.

*BSD is a unix descendant, a lot of people using it have a different approach, they want to run unix(and have done for decades), not replace windows. Altough I think it also makes a fine replacement as desktop OS, perhaps people now begin to see that and *BSD gets hyped a bit...

most hype and 'popularity' is always toward the desktop/consumer market, the proffesional and server market have been using *BSD for years, I dont think it's popularity there changed a lot, it's always been one of the top operating systems in that market. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think the main reason is that there isn't quite as much attension on the BSD as there is on Linux.
It doesn't get "Is not ready for the desktop" and "The counter claims". There isn't an MS campain against it (I do know Linux and populair before). And you don't see many articles that argument which is more secure Windows or BSD.
All in all not as much free (as in beer) publicity as Linux gets. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I normally never reply but in this case i would like to say that
Mac OSX is FreeBSD based and its popular and has all the things that the poll sugest it has not. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I've been using linux for many years and had pretty much stuck with my distro of choice, slackware. I love to play around with different OS's and well lets just say that new OS turned out to be OpenBSD. I now run a combination of OpenBSD and FreeBSD servers and havn't looked back since.

As another poster said, use the right tools for the job. I run OS X and Slackware on the desktop and OpenBSD and FreeBSD on the server end. Quit complaining about whether linux or bsd is better and try and focus on whats really important; what suits you best for your needs? Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? is this your new style? Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? There haven't been many people describing their experience with FreeBSD here, so I'll tell you mine. I am just starting to use it on a machine I bought not too long ago, that will (at least temporarily) replace a dying Linux box on my home network.

Installation was a little tricky to master at first. I suppose my first mistake was to install with the "mini-iso" cd. It didn't seem to have ports with it, so there was no software to install. I attempted to fetch some things I wanted (X, Python, a desktop) with ports and discovered that this was a time-consuming process. So I decided I would get the complete images on CD and reinstall. So I attempted a complete reinstall, but I am not sure it did much more than install ports. Since the "mini-iso" was 4.9 and the complete images I got were version 4.10, this may have messed up ports, because it could not find some packages I wanted when I used pkg_add. As it turns out, this was not a problem, since you can point to a package on the FreeBSD site with a URL.

So I did pkg_add for GNOME... no problem, it installed and runs flawlessly. For Samba and Apache, I had to point pkg_add to the packages that were made for 4.9-release (what I have installed). They both installed just fine, and with the usual editing on httpd.conf, I have Apache running static web pages. The next steps are to get Samba running (it was a challenge with Linux, too) and to install and run PHP and MySQL.

What drew me to FreeBSD is the possibility that configuring a server would be easier than Linux. My main criticism of Linux is that some distros (e.g. RedHat) vary from the "canonical" configuration of some services on Linux. You are dependent on the distro vendor for packages that will run on your system. I like the idea that with FreeBSD, you are dealing with one distro that is laid out in one particular way. Plus, there is one place you can go to get binary packages that will work with your system. Upon further reflection, maybe it would have been just as profitable for me to look for a stripped down Linux distro, install a minimal text-mode system, then use a package management tool like yum to add and update the SW on my system. So far, so good-- for someone who knows Linux, FreeBSD isn't too hard to understand. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm using FreeBSD 5.3-BETA2 right now. It rocks. It's not about popularity (because in that case, Windows wins) but about power and more power. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1. You can not play games on it.

Well, you can play as many games on it as you can play on Linux, which, admittedly, isn't much.

2. It cannot be used by my grandma.

Neither can Linux. Hell, most grandmas probably can't effectively use even the MacOS.

3. It lacks a GUI of any note.

It has exacactly the same GUI's as Linux: KDE3, Gnome2, Windowmanager, Afterstep, Enlightenment, etc.

4. There is no support available for it.

I presume you mean, other than the man pages which are far superior to the Linux man pages, the OReiley site, BSDForums, usenet, a number of popular books, and it's own website.

5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.

OK, I'll admit, I have no idea what you are talking about. It has a monolithic BSD kernel with a collection of BSD versions of Unix programs, all of which comprise the OS. Pretty parallel situation with Linux.

6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.

Nonsense. Of course it can. FreeBSD in particular runs on a number of platforms. NetBSD runs on more platforms than any other OS, I would venture to guess.

7. You have to compile everything and know C.

No you don't. Packages are pre-compiled binaries that can be installed. Ports are source. 99% of the time the ports require no knowledge of anything to install other than make install.

8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.

That is true for Linux as well, though in general FreeBSD might have less cutting edge support than Linux. Neither match Windows or MacOS. At least I can get sound to work on FreeBSD which is something I cannot do on Fedora Core 2.

9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.

Nonsense. You can install a Linux compatibility layer when you install the OS.

10. It is dying.

LOL.

Maybe what you should have said, to save typing, was: I don't like FreeBSD because I am completely ignorant of it and too lazy to learn anything about it. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree that this poll is absolutely absurd. If FreeBSD is not as popular as some linux distros it's not mainly because of any of these reasons. It's just because linux is trendy and receives a lot of attention and people don't really care trying out all the possible options before settling with one OS. Other than that one would be hard pressed to find any application missing on FreeBSD that linux has and BSD is clearly more free than GPL.

I found BSDs to be much more coherent and usable than any of the linux distros. For instance linux gcc/glibc/kernel incompatibility issues were severe and upgrade of any of them was quite difficult if one wants to maintain the compatibility. Also if I want to download a binary application for linux usually this application is compiled for popular distros and it's therefore very hard to find something that works on your system if you use a modified system and deviate from any of these distros.

I believe apart from the initial installation procedure any average user would be happier running FreeBSD than any other linux distros because of the quality of documentation and this coherence. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Actually, the original post was so off the wall and flat out wrong, that I figured it was a joke.

We don't know why one thing is more popular than another. There's no good reason for it. It's about momentum, word of mouth, networking, press.

We know Windows is the most popular OS, mySQL is more popular than Postgres, PHP is the most popular scripting language. Are they so popular because they are the 'best'. Of course not.

So and so uses it, so I have that support. There are these books and documentation, a lot of activity on this support group, etc. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What do you expect, news is slow lately. Eugenia had to come up with something to keep the banner ads loading. Regardless, she definitely could have done better than this POS poll. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I've never seen so much FUD slung against FreeBSD in my life quite frankly.

Hope euginia is happy of the results from this crappy poll. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think M$ have a "B plan" if it cannot stop linux. M$ will put a unix layer on top of its Windows NT kernel and probably will use "stolen" code from *BSDs.

M$ already have Services For Unix which uses OpenBSD code. What M$ gives to OpenBSD project ? A banana...

This is the reason why M$ hates Linux and GPL. M$ cannot stop or steal linux and GPL softwares. The only way is spreading FUD and using SCO to do dirty tricks. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I think M$ have a "B plan" if it cannot stop linux. M$ will put a unix layer on top of its Windows NT kernel and probably will use "stolen" code from *BSDs."

How can you "steal" BSD code? It's just not possible.

"M$ already have Services For Unix which uses OpenBSD code. What M$ gives to OpenBSD project ? A banana..."

How about the credit of seeing OpenBSD code being selected for mainstream products, like OS X? A banana is a GPL zealot thinking that his exposed code can't be rewritten and used in a proprietary product without being noticed...

"This is the reason why M$ hates Linux and GPL. M$ cannot stop or steal linux and GPL softwares. The only way is spreading FUD and using SCO to do dirty tricks."

Well, the dirtiest trick they have is patents. And that will hurt us all, BSD or GPL. Somewhat I think they've unleashed the patent poison to protect themselves from GPL, hence the GPL FUD may be guilty for all this... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? BSD is what you get when a bunch of Unix hackers sit down to try to port a Unix system to the PC. Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers sit down and try to write a Unix system for the PC.

BSD is far more advanced for what linux is today. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Mac OS X is not FreeBSD. However it does contain *BSD code. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Try Linux for 6 months. Try FreeBSD for 6 months. The choice is obvious. Linux looses. FreeBSD is hidden behind Linux, but it's so much easier to:
- install
- setup
- setup firewall, PF, samba, networking & security in general
- use ports/packages
- manage
You have all you need on the FreeBSD web site. You can also find good books that tell it all (AbsoluteBSD, The complete FreeBSD guide, The FreeBSD handbook...)
With Linux, it's so complicated, and the Linux community are nothing more that pedant geeks that "help" treating you as ignorants. When you are serious with OS, you don't want Linux. You want professionalism. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "BSD is far more advanced for what linux is today"

Which is why linux is working in servers with docens of CPUs and FreeBSD 5.3 won't be able to go beyond 6-8 CPUs - read a (somewhat) recent post from Baldwing in freebsd-smp.


(Not that I dislike BSDs, but I _hate_ when the come with this "superiority" attitude, when it's quite clear that it's not true nor the contrary either) Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I used FreeBSD exclusively on my PC until Mac OS X came out--another BSD. FreeBSD is simply heads and shoulders above many other Unix or Unix like systems. Its rock solid, stanle and has a great community. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? he he your funny Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? " BSD cerainly has some arguments on its side
By ralph (IP: ---.dip.t-dialin.net) - Posted on 2004-08-29 07:53:07
http://www.critical.ch/bsdvslinux/"
i just loooove BSD :p Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think Chuck (the freeBSD daemon) is sexier than Tux (the Linux fat penguin).
And the image FreeBSD has is "more power" and "more security".
Just my own taste ;-) Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm sick of GPL arguements and BSD arguements.

This site leans toward the GPL and linux politically, so a poll here is not really fair.

However.. Linux is obviously more popular since there are big companies advertising it.

I mean jez, you can put an advertisement saying how george bush didnt start the iraq war and run it over and over and people would beleive it. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? one of the reasons, i think, is that linux made propaganda from the beginning that it was free unlike windows, and justified its very existence on that basis. Of course everybody was waiting something like that, no matter if it was linux, freebsd, beos, or anything else. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I cannot believe the last option. You people have really gone off the deep end here. This completely reminds me of some religious extremests:

"You are free to live under the rule of our god, otherwise you are not free."

!?!? That's the last straw. I'll be finding my "OS news" elsewhere from now on. Preferably some place who uses the traditional dictionary definiton of the word 'free'. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'd say the major reasons BSD lags behind Linux in popularity are a.) Linux was available first, seizing the momentum, and b.) BSD isn't significantly different enough from Linux to merit a change-over.

Anything I need a free unix-like OS to do, I can do with Linux. While it might be argued that BSD enjoys some technical superiority (and I don't claim to know whether it does or doesn't), is the margin of superiority significant enough to merit having to learn the ins and outs of another operating system to take advantage of them? Or to put it another way, are the benefits derived from using BSD over Linux great enough to justify the "cost" in time and effort to become familiar with a new OS?

I use Linux because I discovered it first. I've been using it for years, I'm comfortable with it, and it does all the things I need it to do. Other than using OS X, I've never really used any of the BSD's, simply because I never had a need to. There just aren't any features that BSD offers that Linux doesn't that justify having to put in the time, effort and pain required to learn a new OS. Using Linux is the line of least resistance.

Now, if I was in Apple's or Microsoft's position, and I wanted to build a proprietary product on top of an open-source infrastructure, then I would probably chose a BSD licensed product just like Apple did (license issues and such). But I'm not in that business, so that kind of constraint doesn't apply to me. I initially used Linux because I needed an x86 based unix-like OS, couldn't afford an SCO license, and Linux was what I found when I went looking. I've been satisfied enough with it that I never felt the need to look for something else. Unless I perceive there's a significant advantage to using BSD instead of Linux, I probably won't use it.

BSD's definitely have role to play in the free software ecosystem, particularly as the basis for commercial products (see Apple). But for my personal use, I've little reason to abandon something I'm familiar with and serves my purposes for something I'm not familiar enough with to work with easily.

It comes down to a cost/benefit question - does the benefit of using BSD justify the cost of having to learn a new OS? For me, personally, they don't. That could change if BSD becomes available with a rash of new features I feel I just can't live without. But at the moment, I'm not aware of any. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? We use FreeBSD exclusively on production environments.
One of the strongest points on FreeBSD (and NetBSD/OpenBSD) is the ports/packages collection.
Many people are unaware of this mechanism.
For example, on Linux, you install an RPM and if it fails dependencies, you have to manually download all the needed RPMs.
This is very tedious!
On FreeBSD, you have a complete source tree of packages, and it's as easy as changing to the correct directory and typing: "make install".
The mechanism will automatically download ALL dependency packages, compile them and install them for you.
The closest thing to this, on Linux, is Debian's "APT-GET", and it still doesn't match the functionality of FreeBSD's ports collection.
Not to mention that the curent ports collection is now over 10,000 packages, all available at your fingertips.
Another strong point is the 64 bit FFS2 file system with soft updates, which is superior to ANY current file system used by Linus. Even XFS, ReiserFS, etc.
And remember: Linux is only a kernel. FreeBSD is a complete operating system Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I disagree. The BSDL isn't more free than the GPL - they are differently free. However, coming from an anti-GPL zealot, I shouldn't expect anything else than the usual flamebaiting...

By making sure that derivative works remain free, the GPL promotes freedom of code. It protects a developers right to make his creation, and derivative works built on his creation, remain free.

Look at it this way: America is often lauded as the "land of the free" - and in fact freedoms are guaranteed to its citizens. What guarantees those freedoms? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Now, the Constitution is full of restrictions (i.e. "Congress shall make no law...") and so is the Bill of Rights. Those restrictions are there to protect the freedom of individuals - because one's freedom ends where another one's begins.

The fact is that words like "free" and "freedom" are so loaded, have so many different meanings in different contexts, that making such sweeping affirmations as "BSD is more free than Linux" (or, for that matter "Linux is more free than BSD") is erroneous by definition.

Anyway, unless I'm mistaken, there's GPLed apps in a typical *BSD distribution, just like there's BSDL code in a typical Linux one...

I know subtlety is often lost on a zealotous mind, but try to make an effort. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "For example, on Linux, you install an RPM and if it fails dependencies, you have to manually download all the needed RPMs. "

Pure FUD ! All modern linux distributions have one of the following programs

apt-get
yum
urpmi

who automagically resolve dependencies for you.

And if you want something like BSD ports you can use Gentoo or other source-based distributions. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? GPL zealots have the illusion that their work gets protected by their license and no one can do a closed fork on their project, but I wonder how hard is it to rewrite the code (maybe even with automatic tools) to an unrecognizable form before compiling so the GPL zealots would never know they had been ripped off.

That would actually be quite hard - harder than writing your own code from scratch, that's for sure.

Code obfuscation isn't something that's easy to do, and as far as I know there are no tools that can do this.

So indeed developers who choose to distribute their code under the GPL (and that doesn't mean they're zealots, by the way) are in fact protected by it. Sorry to burst your anti-GPL bubble. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I'd say the major reasons BSD lags behind Linux in popularity are a.) Linux was available first, seizing the momentum, and b.) BSD isn't significantly different enough from Linux to merit a change-over. "

a) *BSDs were available first, but facing the AT&T lawsuit. So Linux, initially based on Minix, became the first free and legally clean free X86 Unix clone.

b) If you're used to Slackware they're not so different. Except the *BSDs have a package management system as good as Gentoo or Debian (you can do binary or source updates). Documentation is best than everything else I've seen.

"I initially used Linux because I needed an x86 based unix-like OS, couldn't afford an SCO license, and Linux was what I found when I went looking."

As I answered on a), the first legally clean x86 free Unix-like OS. But I find ironic the point about SCO license these days


I totally agree with you: use what fits your needs best.

Companies that sell hardware or services will continue to use GPL: they can't get hurt and hype is helpful.

Companies that sell software products, like games and desktop software that doesn't need support will continue to use BSD code, it's the only way to use OSS and survive.

GPL helps services. BSD helps products. By products I mean every piece of software that can't make revenue from services.

Have a look at the feedback on this article at Newsforge:

What if Doom 3 were open sourced?

http://entertainment.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/08/02/1228248&... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? the Linux community are nothing more that pedant geeks that "help" treating you as ignorants.

No they're not. Please stop flamebaiting - there's room for all of us. It's not our problem if you're bitter about the fact that Linux is more popular than the BSDs.

You've got some gall calling Linux users arrogant, given the brazen arrogance of your own post... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "You are free to live under the rule of our god, otherwise you are not free."

!?!? That's the last straw. I'll be finding my "OS news" elsewhere from now on. Preferably some place who uses the traditional dictionary definiton of the word 'free'.

Frankly, i agree. Its a troll, simple.

Controversial, though incomplete / non-argumented crap like this supports my theory OSnews needs trolls to get some more pageviews more and more...

Recently, there has been posted quite some crap including the Philips discussion, Haiku "editorial". Its simply not constructive after it got posted, and needs a low-level discussion to get up to something constructive. Sad, really but good websites don't last long.

Heh, what does popularity indicate anyway? If populair would indicate quality it would certainly say something about Windows, OpenVMS and Tron. Luckily, it does not, because hordes of people are not qualified to male a (rational) choice nor they base a choice only on quality.

10. It is dying.

LOL.

Next time you read "BSD is dying" you can safely ignore that post without even thinking anyone takes it serious because its one of those one-liners by anti-BSD trolls such as e.g. "GNAA" does on Slashdot, among others. Nothing new, we know its bull already. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Slow news day? Or do you just love to watch the fireworks that erupt when you pit Linux users vs FreeBSD users & GPL supporters vs BSDL supporters? These articles and threads are all the same. They bring out the worst from both sides spewing FUD about the other. So sad. Instead of trying to get the suporters of these two great Open Source OS's to help one another, all I see is another attempt to divide. I guess Eugenia's check from Redmond cleared... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? BSD is far more advanced for what linux is today.

Advanced in what way? Please be more specific. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'd say the major reasons BSD lags behind Linux in popularity are a.) Linux was available first, seizing the momentum, and b.) BSD isn't significantly different enough from Linux to merit a change-over.

I'd like to agree here with, althought BSD was available first, wasn't it? The explanantion should be: Linux gained popularity faster.

As a site note: The reason, Linux gained popularity faster, was the GPL, IMHO. Most developers don't like to share their code when other's are not forced to share back improvements.

In a short form: GNU/Linux got more code > more consumer apps (and drivers) > more popularity > more developers > more code > more consumer apps > ...

So, why should a user bother with *BSD ? Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "That would actually be quite hard - harder than writing your own code from scratch, that's for sure.

Code obfuscation isn't something that's easy to do, and as far as I know there are no tools that can do this.

So indeed developers who choose to distribute their code under the GPL (and that doesn't mean they're zealots, by the way) are in fact protected by it. Sorry to burst your anti-GPL bubble."

Anytime, buddy

But code is still exposed, rewriting from scratch looking at your code shouldn't be as hard as thinking the code from scratch. So you'll only catch the lazy ones


Cheers,
Bilu Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Face it, the new generation of Unix users don't want to have to dig around in the config files just to get a plain GUI system running. We want useful desktops and quick, clean installs.

I'm not talking out of my hat on this one. I've been experimenting with the BSD varients the last few weeks and have found that FreeBSD and OpenBSD are more difficult than even Debian/Slackware/Gentoo to install (I consider 'installing' the process of gettin me to a system that boots into X and gives me a decent window manager (IceWM is my current prefrence).

NetBSD is easier to get to a text-install than the other two, but X is still a giant PITA. Open/Free have a huge problem with their disk partitioning. Its hard to understand (at least coming from the Linux perspective) and their tools don't do anything to try to make it easier.

Throw in the fact that driver support is lacking in some areas, SMP support is brand new from my understanding, and they seem to prefer csh to bash (once you're used to tab-completion and keypad arrow history there's no going back).

None of this should be taken as a criticism of the *BSD folk's contributions to the community! Where would be be without OpenSSH, or OpenBSD's emphasis on continually security auditing the code (which in many cases is common between BSD and Linux).

bcl Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Okay, I just read your latest post and I'm sorry for describing you as anti-GPL. You obviously have a more nuanced opinion than that.

However, I would like to remark on this:

Companies that sell software products, like games and desktop software that doesn't need support will continue to use BSD code, it's the only way to use OSS and survive.

In fact, a game company could use GPLed code without much problems. That doesn't mean that the actual sold product could be redistributed freely - because games are a lot more than code. Most of what makes a game unique isn't code at all, but art and gameplay assets, such as character models, animations, textures, voices, levels, etc. These elements (which represent most of a game's budget, incidentally) don't have to be GPLed, since the GPL concerns code. So you could have a game with a free engine, but proprietary content.

For productivity software, the issue is more problematic. But you shouldn't lump in games, as they are not your typical software product. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? But code is still exposed, rewriting from scratch looking at your code shouldn't be as hard as thinking the code from scratch. So you'll only catch the lazy ones

Indeed, there is nothing preventing someone from looking at OSS code, getting inspired from its methods and procedures, and writing proprietary code inspired from it (unless there are patent issues). That's perfectly legit - and in fact nearly all code is inspired from previous effort. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Try Linux for 6 months. Try FreeBSD for 6 months. The choice is obvious. Linux looses.

I tried Linux and *BSD for a year. I choose Debian GNU/Linux as my main desktop box. So I wonder how you were able to fathom that FreeBSD is the better choice after a 6 month trial period? I still have FreeBSD installed but I rarely use it for anything but tinkering.

FreeBSD is hidden behind Linux, but it's so much easier to:

Easier in your opinion right? Lets make that clear.

- install
- setup
- setup firewall, PF, samba, networking & security in general
- use ports/packages
- manage

If you didn't mention that your were using FreeBSD, I would have sworn you were refering to any major modern Linux distro above.

You have all you need on the FreeBSD web site. You can also find good books that tell it all (AbsoluteBSD, The complete FreeBSD guide, The FreeBSD handbook...)

Same at the Debian site. There might not be that many Debian books published but, the documentation is satisfactory enough that a book is not needed.


With Linux, it's so complicated, and the Linux community are nothing more that pedant geeks that "help" treating you as ignorants.

Ahh there we go. Your "FreeBSD elitist of a troll" nature has revealed itself. Typical. Speaking on topics he knows nothing about. You are no better then any Linux, MacOS X, or Windows zealot.

When you are serious with OS, you don't want Linux. You want professionalism.

LMAO. Were you on an acid trip when you posted that nonsense? Both OSs perform a task and do it well. You can be professional on either two, heck you can even be professional on a Windows box. The real question I want to know is are YOU serious? Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? While BSD zealots say that the centralized development model (a BSD system is a complete operating system, not only a kernel like linux) is better because it is more uniform, linux distributions provide more diversity of applications and features.

There are linux distributions for joe users (like linspire), for tech users (like Fedora), for nerds (like slackware and debian) and for ultra-nerds (like gentoo). You have graphical, ncurses-based and text based installers.

And BSD ? You have FreeBSD and NetBSD for ultra-nerds and OpenBSD for ultra-ultra-nerds. There are none BSD version for joe and normal users... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Face it, the new generation of Unix users don't want to have to dig around in the config files just to get a plain GUI system running. We want useful desktops and quick, clean installs."

For cripes sakes! Keep your 'GUI's out of my *BSD. The beauty of managing a system via text interface seems to be lost on you, or as you put it 'the new generation of UNIX users'.

Just how hard is it to type a simple 'cd /usr/ports/category/app && make install distclean', or 'pkg_add -r app'? This no harder than the MS/Apple way, fire up browser search for X_app download, swim through 'installation software'. As for text based configs, it's pretty much a one shot deal, set it and forget it. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Marcelo: And BSD ? You have FreeBSD and NetBSD for ultra-nerds and OpenBSD for ultra-ultra-nerds. There are none BSD version for joe and normal users..."

Yes there is. It is called MacOS X.

Much like the title of Star Trek -The Next Gerenation, episode 74 and 75. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "So, why should a user bother with *BSD ?"

The problem with Linux is it's decentralized nature, above all. It's hard to document an OS with so many definitions for it.

It pissed a lot of Linux users when Red Hat got accepted as standard and apps and books were developed on it, but would you want a book on the basics like upgrading for every Linux distro around?

Slackware is the closest thing to *BSDs in the filesystem structure and services.

Debian is the closest on community, documentation, binary upgrades and structure definitions: they cared about a standard menu, internationalization everywhere (not just X), and other stuff. I'm not saying that *BSDs are working on this specific issues, but the community spirit of developing a system rather than throwing software together is there.

Gentoo has learned a lot on source upgrades from BSD.

To me, *BSD is the best of Debian, Slack and Gentoo. The best of breed.

A friendly FreeBSD-based distro would be a killer, I'm sure. Fast and easy to maintain. But Debian is also easy to maintain and the Linux kernel supports more multimedia hardware, so it would be better even if it would be slower (not saying that it is slower, just saying hardware support is more important on a friendly distro).


"In a short form: GNU/Linux got more code > more consumer apps (and drivers) > more popularity > more developers > more code > more consumer apps > ..."

Hype worked great, didn't it?
I wonder if Linus never released the Linux kernel under GPL we would be using HURD these days Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? In fact, a game company could use GPLed code without much problems. That doesn't mean that the actual sold product could be redistributed freely - because games are a lot more than code. Most of what makes a game unique isn't code at all, but art and gameplay assets, such as character models, animations, textures, voices, levels, etc. These elements (which represent most of a game's budget, incidentally) don't have to be GPLed, since the GPL concerns code. So you could have a game with a free engine, but proprietary content.

But what if an engine sells more than the content, like in Id Software games? I'm sure they'd rather open the content and close the engine


Cheers,
Bilu Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Ok if you like linux use linux if you like a *BSD use a *BSD

Plain simple

Non of them are better than the other one

I use Arch linux on my desktop and Use FreeBSD for my servers when it comes to Web and Mailservers

The problem with Linux is that there are so many different flavors
Suse, RedHat, Mandrake, Slack you'll name them.
But they all have there drawbacks.
Suse with Yast i can not get used to Yast
Mandrake I do not know it just does not feel right ( proberly my bad)
Slack package management is not that great for me
Arch i truly love with there pacman package management.
Gentoo broke my system one's to many.

FreeBSD on my desktop well it is way to slow and Arch linux is way more responsiness Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? FreeBSD is not as popular as Linux, because:
1. Other
304 (11 %)

I wonder what the heck "other" was for these people.

2. Not many developers involved
134 (5 %)

This one I don't know. I've never counted them. But is software like cooking? Do too many developers spoil the pot?

3. Not much momentum/advocacy
893 (34 %)

This is definately a very huge one in my opinion. I guess in most people's opinion as well. This is the one I voted for. The BSD camps are very quiet and very reserved. I bet with more noise they'd be noticed alot more. They need alot more marketing and lot more press. More books. More articles. More of everything.

Perhaps more "neat and cool" features would be nice. Stuff to add that special "bling bling" for new users. I don't know exactly what this might entail. Actually, if the default .cshrc or .profile files were just modified to add prompt coloring and stuff by default it might wooo new users. It might be somthing as simple as that. Basically, add some usability hacks to things. Working HOME and END keys would be nice on the command line.

4. Too traditional of a unix
169 (6 %)

I don't know, but I find this to be a good thing. I guess since most Linux users are young, they don't understand the beauty of traditional Unix. FreeBSD doesn't try to be something else (ex. MS Windows). It's a Unix server and workstation and a damn good one at that too.

5. Not enough drivers
352 (13 %)

FreeBSD has supported everything I have thrown at it. The only thing I wouldn't mind having is more webcam support. It would be fun to setup a webcam server just for kicks. Maybe more support for more multi-port serial devices so I can setup a PPP (RAS for windows people) server at work. Perhaps more telephony stuff would be neat too. It would be intersting to see FreeBSD in the VoIP world.

6. Not enough third party application support
231 (9 %)

Yeah, I have to agree with this one as well. This is probably my second choice. It would be nice to have more support from commercial software vendors. I don't care if it's closed source, more software would be good.

7. Not as easy to use/install
356 (13 %)

I really feel sorry for those that have a hard time installing FreeBSD. I mean, FreeBSD isn't all that hard to install or is it that I'm a very advanced user. The installer is practically a ncurses "Wizard" type installer. How hard can that be?

As far as use goes, well I can understand that for someone new to Unix a shell prompt really isn't that inviting. Yeah, most Linux installations drop you into a Windows-like enviroment. But that really teaches you nothing about what just happened behind the scenes. I'm the type of user that wants to know what's going on, what got installed, where it's installed, what files I need to configure. You know, the Unix way of doing things. The right way of doing things under Unix.

This one if any, would have been my third choice. I mean, yes I do find it easy but perhaps they could streamline things a bit better. Perhaps provide more help for options. Maybe make a GUI installer, although I don't find that to be very important. A script based self installer would be nice for unattended setups. Although, I think it might have this but I'm not sure.

8. Not Free enough
123 (4 %)

This one I do not understand at all. I think the only reason why FreeBSD isn't free enough is because it does have some GNU software in it. Otherwise, it would be free in practically every sense of the word. With FreeBSD you can use it for whatever the hell you want. Close it up? Go for it. Do whatever. That's freedom. The that's the beauty of the BSD license.

Anyway, that's my take. Yes the BSD do fall behind which is a shame because they're all very technicall excellent. They have a very slow growth.

The really sad thing though. As much as I admire BSD, I don't think that will change. I would much like it to change, but I doubt it will. I hope I'm proven wrong. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Please comment on this:

On software services (where support sells) and products where the content matters more that the engine, GPL helps.

On software products (where support doesn't sell) and specifically on those where the engine matters more than the content, GPL hurts.

About content and engine, I was talking about desktop software like games, enciclopaedias, office suites, authoring programs.

About software services, I'm talking about software on which the support matters more than the code itself.


Would like to get you opinion on this.


Cheers,
Bruno Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It's because of the AT & T lawsuit that Linux is more popular. Linux was able to gain traction with developers because everyone was scared that AT & T would come down on them like 10 tons of $hit for stealing their intellectual property. By the time the lawsuit was cleared up and it was decided that FreeBSD wasn't infringing on AT & T's intellectual property, many developers that would have eagerly contributed work to FreeBSD had settled on Linux instead. FreeBSD is a fantastic OS. It's performance is equal or slightly better than Linux, most apps that you would run on Linux can be compiled for FreeBSD or already exist in the ports tree, and it has the Linux emulation layer so you can run Linux apps if you need to. Gnome and KDE run on FreeBSD, making it a decent home desktop system, and it's robustness as a server platform is legendary. The choice of BSD vs. GPL has undoubtedly had some effect as to the number of developers who focus on Linux, rather than FreeBSD, but the root cause is the lawsuit ten years ago. The loss of momentum killed FreeBSD's chances to challenge Windows on the X86 platform. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "4. Too traditional of a unix
169 (6 %) "

I think this might be the only really one on the list. When you the Complete FreeBSD, and Grog is talking about how un-Unixlike Open Office ("it breaks a number of conventions"), then tells that he wrote the whole book in Emacs, and oh yeah, he's got issues with floppy disks too. Well, it basically just makes BSD and its users look behind the times. Naturally not all BSD users are like that, but some of the old school types might just be frightening people away with their antiquated ideas. Night of the living uber geeks. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree with you on everything but this:

The loss of momentum killed FreeBSD's chances to challenge Windows on the X86 platform.

It was never the intent of FreeBSD to challenge Windows, but more about challenging Solaris. As someone said "Linux is for those who hate MS, BSD is for those who love Unix".

Although there are so different distros that it is possible to love Unix in some distros, and "hate M$" in others.

The GPL momentum was indeed good for all the OSS communities. Modern democracy started with revolutions, but we all learned to get along somewhat these days.

We couldn't have passed the OSS filosophy to everyone if it wasn't the GPL advocacy. But evolution continues and we'll probably stabilize on something better than GPL or BSD, like Creative Commons Licenses for example.

IMHO it would be better to enforce APIs and standards than code openness. So it would be possible to do full-featured commercial-driven software without locking out the open-source version that originated it. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? BSD is just too good and pure to be used by *normal* people . I hope it never achieves the fanfare Linux has now, I plan to run to BSD if Linux becomes mainstream and broken...

I think partially Linux is more progressive than BSD, linux for example seems to cast compatibility to the wind when there is a better way, but I'm no expert.

But the main reason is this. Tux. Admit it, all ya'll (always wanted to say that) use linux cause of the penguin... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "But code is still exposed, rewriting from scratch looking at your code shouldn't be as hard as thinking the code from scratch. So you'll only catch the lazy ones "
Figuring out someone elses code and copying it is probably harder than just looking up arguments on the best way to do something and then writing the code....
If you need conceptual help you probably won't just zoom through the code and instantly understand it.
This is like copying people's code for college homework. You'll spend more time interpretting their code than just asking them what they did would have taken. Unless you try to simply change names and style, in which you may get in trouble.. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? But the main reason is this. Tux. Admit it, all ya'll (always wanted to say that) use linux cause of the penguin...

We should disguise the Beastie as Batman to scare the Pinguin away >;D Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? BSD is what you get when a bunch of Unix hackers sit down to try to port a Unix system to the PC. Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers sit down and try to write a Unix system for the PC.

I've got a better one:

FreeBSD is for people who love unix.
Linux is for people who hate Windows. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/2003/10/Features110.html

Here is just one benchmark where FreeBSD 5.x is out performed, by linux 2.4.x SuSe kernel's by almost a margin of two in some of the benchmarks.

BSD's users have deluded themselves that they still have a superior system than GNU/Linux systems, presently; even in the server department and networking.

I am quite sure that there are more benchmarks, which concur with this.

I personally can think of more companies which distribute software under the GPL than the BSD liscense. And other shops like Google who have made changes to Linux, though they as of yet have not distributed the changes; which is perfectly legal. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? BSD is for intelligent people who probably don't smoke much Cannabis.

So most of us lazy potheads are probably choosing something easy like Linux and leaving BSD for the smart ones. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I love how the monkeys clamour about the GPL "protecting" your code from the "evil corporations". Well, guess what, the "evil corporation" can "steal" your precious GPL code and put it in a closed source product and there's no way you'd know about it. And for those who'll pipe in with the, "But I'll just open it up with a hex editor...", guess what, you've just broken the license agreement to use that software, regardless if it was your code to begin with, or not, which brings me to my second point, the GPL has commoditized programmers. Let's face it, unless you are a coding machine like SkyOS's Robert, or you think up some wild and crazy algorithm that's not even close to anything out there today, you are completely and easily replaceable, usually by someone that will do it for nothing. I mean, come on, do all you GPL monkeys think that you are superior to programmers for hire? I'm sure some will come out with a plethora of bs to try and explain how they are not or how that they are doing what they do for love, do you not think that most programmers for hire are doing it because they both love what they do and want to make a living off of it? Sure, I met a few people in college that went into the programming field to make a buck, but they did not last to long (school and/or industy) and were the minority. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? @Adam,

Fact #1:
Google runs mostly FreeBSD. Not linux.

Fact #2:
It's all a matter of stability. FreeBSD is by far more stable than any Linux kernel, and that's an industry fact.
In commercial environments, we choose stability over speed ANY time.

Fact #3:

Nasa runs mostly, for many reason, FreeBSD and NetBSD:
http://netbsd.binarycompass.org/gallery/research.html#tcp_sat_nasa Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The problem with Linux is it's decentralized nature, above all. It's hard to document an OS with so many definitions for it.

Yes, that is indeed a point. But, IMHO, GNU/Linux will get more consistent in the future because the Linux newbies don't have the patience to work out all the differences.

Hype worked great, didn't it? I wonder if Linus never released the Linux kernel under GPL we would be using HURD these days Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? About BSD vs GPL, you didn't show disagreement with this:

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=8132&offset=120&r...

About benchmarks, that ain't a networking or server benchmark. BSD never claimed to be better in the multimedia field, and MPlayer is primarily developed on Linux. At that time it even crashed under FreeBSD when compiled with thread support IIRC. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I've never actually seen any accurate measures of the relative popularity of FreeBSD versus any of the Linux distros. I'm not personally convinced that it's that much less popular; all the ISPs I know use FreeBSD, not Linux; even some of the "Linux" game servers I know are actually using FreeBSD's Linux emulation feature. Most of the really serious server users out there swear by FreeBSD over Linux... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Perhaps more "neat and cool" features would be nice. Stuff to add that special "bling bling" for new users. I don't know exactly what this might entail."

What's cool about FreeBSD is that it is stable. It is the commitment *not* to include superfluous stuff that allows it to achieve this.

In a serious environment, it is better to have less but better supported hardware rather than much imperfect hardware support.

Linux is cool for other reasons. One being that it serves as a sort of Minor League for potential FreeBSD users. People that are serious about linux will eventually get tired of the distro dance and seek something that changes less.

And if you want to play games, get a PlayStation. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? People that are serious about linux will eventually get tired of the distro dance and seek something that changes less.

Thats why we have Debian "Stable"


Anyways....

I came from a strickly Windows background and have used Linux as my main OS for the past 2 years.

I tried FreeBSD but was unimpressed by the very poor hardware support.


Linux : It just works! Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Yes, that is indeed a point. But, IMHO, GNU/Linux will get more consistent in the future because the Linux newbies don't have the patience to work out all the differences.

That's one of the reasons why I think a friendly FreeBSD-based distro would be a killer. Not as much as a x86 version of OS X, but still...

LSB was the major engine pushing for standartization and consistency under Linux. Debian also worked a lot on consistency, but for their project only. Freedesktop.org is pushing desktop standartization, so it goes both for BSD and Linux.

I honestly find it hard to see Linux distros seeking consistency. The only seeking that will happen is chasing Novell modifications. Or something else in the X userland, but not in the console userland.

Can you even imagine a standard packaging system on Linux???
Now you know why I think a friendly x86 BSD would be a killer.

For example, without the lawsuit it could have been that Linux nor Hurd gained enought attention and that developers would have arranged themselves that other use their code for commercial interests without sharing back. But as a result, it could have been that *BSD would now be as decentralized as GNU/Linux.

I honestly can't see how defecting developers from BSD to Linux or Hurd would make the BSDs decentralized. The opposite would be much more logical for lack of human resources.

Viewed this way, BSD might now appear as "clean" or "best of breed" just because the popularity of GNU/Linux works as a form of "shield" against the diverse interests, users got.

Rewritten could mean cleaner. But centralized can mean cleaner also.

Don't forget it's easier to rip BSD to GPL than the opposite, so Linux could have gone "best of breed" easier if it was centralized.

Some users at least think that GNU/Linux's popularity has bad effects. They only forget that a system falls down to irrelevance without popularity, just as Amiga and others did. IMHO, and without any bad attitute, this will be also the fate of the *BSDs in 5 or 10 years...

Threads like these have the same hyping effect over Linux that Linux had over Windows. BSD showing quality, Linux showing critical mass... well, you know the rest of the story from the "Windows vs Linux" comic book. Don't lose the next episode Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? almost all businesses i have dealt with use BSD over linux - they just done;t declare it! Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? For example, without the lawsuit it could have been that Linux nor Hurd gained enought attention and that developers would have arranged themselves that other use their code for commercial interests without sharing back. But as a result, it could have been that *BSD would now be as decentralized as GNU/Linux.

"I honestly can't see how defecting developers from BSD to Linux or Hurd would make the BSDs decentralized. The opposite would be much more logical for lack of human resources."

Ooops, misunderstood that one, sorry
(understood it as BSD developers fleeing to Linux or Hurd because they had grown enough attention even without the AT&T issue)

I guess you're right, software goes as the community leads. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ...more attention and advocacy. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? But what if an engine sells more than the content, like in Id Software games? I'm sure they'd rather open the content and close the engine

You're referring to a very small part of the videogame industry: Id and the Unreal team, plus others who develop game engines. The bulk of the videogame industry is content-based, from Electronic Arts to Nintendo to Activision, etc., all the way down to the small developers. Id and the other engine makers, though they have a profound impact on the development of future games, are not representative of the game development and publishing industries.

But you raise an interesting point: Id does indeed make a lot of its revenue by licensing their game engine, so it wouldn't make sense to open-source it. Carmack wouldn't be able to buy yet another sports car if they did...

However, Id has in fact released older engines as open-source, such as the Quake engine. They're not expecting major revenue for it anyway...incidentally, they didn't open the content. You can freely download the Quake engine, but no the Quake content... Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? But you raise an interesting point: Id does indeed make a lot of its revenue by licensing their game engine, so it wouldn't make sense to open-source it. Carmack wouldn't be able to buy yet another sports car if they did...

Be fair, he would had got any if he open-sourced Doom and rest right from the beginning >:)

However, Id has in fact released older engines as open-source, such as the Quake engine. They're not expecting major revenue for it anyway...incidentally, they didn't open the content. You can freely download the Quake engine, but no the Quake content...

That's because the content is portable most of the times.
If you were using Linux/BSD/whatever, you could port the open-source engine, and THEN *buy* Quake ;D

So after the engine is sold they do care about selling the content, just like any other game manufacturer Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I know you're just a troll, but I wanted to respond to this particular part.

Well, guess what, the "evil corporation" can "steal" your precious GPL code and put it in a closed source product and there's no way you'd know about it.

Unless a whistleblower came along, then the company could be sued for millions.

It does seem to me, however, that you're advocating Open Source Software as the only way to make sure that code isn't misappropriated... :-P

And for those who'll pipe in with the, "But I'll just open it up with a hex editor...", guess what, you've just broken the license agreement to use that software,

So you post it anonymously on a newsgroup...

Seriously, if a company is comitting a wrongdoing by using copyrighted material, who cares if you've broken the license agreement or not? Breaking the license agreement means you are not authorized to use the software. That pales in relation to knowingly using someone else's intellectual property in a commercial product.

Legally, your argument doesn't stand. Go troll somewhere else. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? That's because the content is portable most of the times.
If you were using Linux/BSD/whatever, you could port the open-source engine, and THEN *buy* Quake ;D

So after the engine is sold they do care about selling the content, just like any other game manufacturer

That's my point exactly. You can open-source game engines (i.e. software), but open-sourcing content (i.e. art and gameplay assets) is more problematic. Anyway, in most of the games the characters are owned by a licensor or publisher, so a developer can't even consider distributing the content in the non-software equivalent of an open-source license.

Disclaimer: I work for a console game developer. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Just want to say to you we've been having a great talking with different points of view sometimes but allways civilized.
And in the middle of a thread like this, it feels great!

I just wanted to show to you that the GPL license is not allways good.
The BSD license is pretty neutral, but that also means it's not as good in some cases as GPL.

The best approach IMHO would be a license that enforces APIs or standards rather than code.
That would allow commercial development without locking out its open-source origin.
Maybe this balance is impossible but IMHO is worth trying.

I'd like to have your opinion on this:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=8132&offset=120&r...

Cheers,
Bilu Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? By making sure that derivative works remain free, the GPL promotes freedom of code. It protects a developers right to make his creation, and derivative works built on his creation, remain free.

Firstly, keeping *derivative works* "free" isn't a right. That's not the original creators work, it's their work *and* someone elses.
Secondly, the GPL does that by *restricting* what other people can do with GPLed code. That is not "more free", it's "less free".

The fact is that words like "free" and "freedom" are so loaded, have so many different meanings in different contexts, that making such sweeping affirmations as "BSD is more free than Linux" (or, for that matter "Linux is more free than BSD") is erroneous by definition.

The term is only loaded if you want it to be (usually by trying to talk about things like "better freedom" or "different freedom"). The simple fact is the BSD license has less restrictions than the GPL license.

You may wish to argue that the restrictions the GPL uses are there to "encourage" people to "do the right thing" - much like the restrictions in the US Consitution and Bill of Rights - but that doesn't change the simple fact that those restrictions place more conditions on usage than the BSD license's restrictions. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Main BSD problem is BSD license (and best linux advantage is GPL license). With BSD license, no one corporation will spend money on BSD, and without this, BSD will be no more than a test of laboratory.
It is simple and hard, but this is. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Quoting...

Fact #1:
Google runs mostly FreeBSD. Not linux.

Fact #2:
It's all a matter of stability. FreeBSD is by far more stable than any Linux kernel, and that's an industry fact.
In commercial environments, we choose stability over speed ANY time.

I would like to see some definative links to support this, I personally have never heard of this before. I have never seen a stability benchmark between FreeBSD and Linux, and I have never seen any benchmark where FreeBSD wins handsdown against Linux or even Windows 2000.

Primarily when I used FreeBSD it was because of uniformity and its package management system. Though I have noticed no differences in stability or performance between FreeBSD and Linux. Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? On software services (where support sells) and products where the content matters more that the engine, GPL helps.

On software products (where support doesn't sell) and specifically on those where the engine matters more than the content, GPL hurts.

About content and engine, I was talking about desktop software like games, enciclopaedias, office suites, authoring programs.

About software services, I'm talking about software on which the support matters more than the code itself.

Can anybody say something about this? For or against? Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? For people who prefer BSD kernels but like GNU userland and "bazar" way of development:

http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/

http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/ Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? For people who prefer BSD kernels but like GNU userland and "bazar" way of development

But I'd rather find the opposite

Then again, I already did:

Slackware Linux with NetBSD pkgsrc Packages
http://users.piuha.net/martti/comp/slackware/slackware.html Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? whats not friendly about bsd?

they've ported anaconda to bsd, everything on linux runs on bsd... you can install all the gnu commands on bsd. The installer is easy too.. just as easy as a text linux one.

when you get it set up and running its about the same when your running a single or dual box.

now now now... If you want a *friendly* bsd then you must not be working on servers. Furthermore, for the desktop you can create scripts that will install an entire desktop with a click of the enter key.

The bottom line comes down to this:

If the problem is that FreeBSD isn't friendly enough for you in pretty wrapping paper then you shouldn't be managing a server for any company. peroid. i should as hell wouldn't hire you if that's the reason you hate bsd. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1. You can not play games on it. HAH. you can run all linux games on it, and it has some cool games for itself. you can install kde and gnome

2. It cannot be used by my grandma. She can't use windows either.
3. It lacks a GUI of any note. KDE & GNOME are't GUI's???...but they are in the install ports cd.
4. There is no support available for it. i provide support.
5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes. HAH, untrue. Linux is more of a combination of other OS's and theres notthing wrong with it. even windows have other OS code in it. BSD kept only bsd code from the unix branch of it.
6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform. damn thats stupid
7. You have to compile everything and know C. stupid again
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor. FreeBSD has awsome server hardware support. support for the multimedia is another story.
9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux. untrue
10. It is dying. use has gone up according to surveys and netcraft Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? @Anonymous

"Fact #1:
Google runs mostly FreeBSD. Not linux. "

Don't lie, please, Google has never lied about there involvment with Linux, Linux scales alot nicer than BSD, thus the main reason why Google uses it. Throughout the development of the 2.5.x kernel, Google put alot of effort into making the new kernel to work better for them. Its never been a secret that Linux has been the OS of choice for Google.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.google.com

"Fact #2:
It's all a matter of stability. FreeBSD is by far more stable than any Linux kernel, and that's an industry fact.
In commercial environments, we choose stability over speed ANY time. "

Linux scales better, uses less resources, more widely supported, and is more stable. Everything is Subjective, You can say anything about an OS to make it 'look and 'sound better. Please stop spreading lies about Linux to boost your BSD ego. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "they've ported anaconda to bsd"

Interesting. I've googled, searched at freebsd.org and freebsdfoums.org and found nothing. Can you post a link?

I know DragonflyBSD is developing their own graphical installer, but that's about it. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.yahoo.com Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Incredible... I wonder if this will be the most commented OSnews story ever..? I agree with the one who suggested that some geeks should get a life.

All Eugenia did was put a nice little poll online: Why isn't FreeBSD more popular? What's wrong with that question? Yet, there are dozens of comments only bashing Eugenia for putting such a poll online, and even insulting her personally for it...

Everybody reading OSnews knows that though FreeBSD is used a lot and is a fine OS, Linux is used even more, especially on desktops, and it is a fine OS too... Still, some people seem to get mad & crazy if someone even mentions those facts...

Besides:
FreeBSD has perhaps more in common with Linux than there are differencies. FreeBSD and Linux are on the same open source boat in most things. What benefits the other is usually beneficial for the other too. For example, many people have got interested in BSD or Linux after trying the other first. Both are open source operating systems, based on UNIX ideas. Even a huge part of the software is basically the same for both.

So why do some seem to be such black-and-white, narrow-minded OS zealots? Wouldn't cooperation and a little more respect and understanding for others be a better solution? Just try it, please, it works. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? For people who prefer BSD kernels but like GNU userland and "bazar" way of development:

http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/

http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/

Although people looking for that are just _weird_.

Probably the single best feature of the BSDs is their userlands. How anyone could actually prefer the hideous patchwork quilt of the GNU userland is beyond me. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Firstly, keeping *derivative works* "free" isn't a right. That's not the original creators work, it's their work *and* someone elses.

It is, if the original creator wishes it so. You can't do derivatives from my work if I don't give you explicit permission to do so.

So the GPL preserves the rights of developers who want their work and derivatives of their work to remain free.

Are you saying that conditions that guarantee freedom are somehow detrimental to that freedom?

BSDL and GPL both represent different visions of freedom. Stating that one is freer than another is therefore a matter of opinion, not fact. You've presented your opinion, I respect it, now we'll have to agree to disagree. I swore a long time ago that I'd stay out of BSDL vs. GPL arguments, since I consider these the biggest waste of time possible. Both are good, and both are used extensively for the BSDs and Linux. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Seriously, how does author know FreeBSD isn't as popular as each distro? Can the author site a specific source where this info was obtained or is it merely an opinion stated as fact?

If you use a source such as Netcraft, you'd see more than one million *NEW* ip addresses using FreeBSD servers this year. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If a recent JVM was released for freebsd it would help.
Not that I care much about that though, linux fills my needs and is more versatile. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Just to remind you all, be sure to sign the "Macromedia Flash For *BSD Petition": http://arameus.net/petition/index.php Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It is, if the original creator wishes it so. You can't do derivatives from my work if I don't give you explicit permission to do so.

That's not a right. It is - as you correctly point out - a "permission". A "condition of usage", if you prefer.

Are you saying that conditions that guarantee freedom are somehow detrimental to that freedom?

Strawman. The conditions aren't "guaranteeing freedom", they're imposing conditions on using someone's source code.

BSDL and GPL both represent different visions of freedom.

No, they don't. One represents generosity in close to its purest form ("take it, use it, just don't pretend it's yours"), the other represents a system where source code is the currency instead of money ("take it and use it, but be prepared to give anything you use it with back").

Neither are "completely free" - but the BSDL is a hell of a lot less restrictive than the GPL.

Stating that one is freer than another is therefore a matter of opinion, not fact.

It's not a matter of opinion of all. The GPL imposes more restrictions than the GPL license. This can *trivially* be assessed and shown objectively. Therefore - for those who believe in degrees of freedom - it is "less free".

All the other fluff that people go on about - the *impact* the licenses have - are the opinion part.

You've presented your opinion, I respect it, now we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm quite happy to agree to disagree on the impact of the GPL and accompanying opinions, however, which license is "more free" is not something that is debatable.

I swore a long time ago that I'd stay out of BSDL vs. GPL arguments, since I consider these the biggest waste of time possible. Both are good, and both are used extensively for the BSDs and Linux.

Personally I don't think the GPL is particularly good - it has too much potential to be massively unfair and is was clearly designed with the objective of eliminating the ability to charge for software. IMHO the LGPL is a much fairer and more equitable way to license code that maximises the benefit to all and provides the fewest drawbacks to both developers *and* software vendors. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm confused that so many people claim to have problems installing FreeBSD. Personally, I think it has one of the easiest to use installers I have seen. Now, I said "easy to use," not "pretty." It probably has one of the ugliest installers of any modern operating system, but it does everything you could want an installer to do, unless what you want it to do is put up a pretty background picture while it is installing.

At least the darn thing constantly gives feedback, unlike the more GUI oriented installers like, say, Windows. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This news article dated July 11, 2004 shows an INCREASE of over 1 million NEW domains based on FreeBSD for a total of 2.5 million domains running FreeBSD. This increase happened over the past year--perhaps due to the SCO scare?

NetCraft currently shows that 4 out of the top-10 sites are running FreeBSD.

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3367381

So the question is: where did the author of the poll get his info? Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? That's not a right. It is - as you correctly point out - a "permission". A "condition of usage", if you prefer.

Please don't obfuscate. You first stated that "keeping derivatives free" wasn't a right. I stated that it is a right for the IP owner, since he can set whatever conditions he wants on the use of his IP. Therefore, you were wrong in stating that it wasn't a right.

Now you change tunes and claim something else entirely. In fact, you're confusing the licensor's right with the permission granted to the licensee.

We can't have a rational debate if you keep sidestepping arguments like this.

Strawman. The conditions aren't "guaranteeing freedom", they're imposing conditions on using someone's source code.

Conditions guarantee that the work - and derivatives - will remain free. That to me is guaranteeing freedom.

One represents generosity in close to its purest form ("take it, use it, just don't pretend it's yours"), the other represents a system where source code is the currency instead of money ("take it and use it, but be prepared to give anything you use it with back").

False. You don't have to rerelease modified GPL code if you don't want to. If you re-release it, then the derivative has to be free as well.

Enforcing freedom isn't "less free".

It's not a matter of opinion of all.

I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.

The GPL imposes more restrictions than the GPL license. This can *trivially* be assessed and shown objectively.

More restrictions doesn't mean less free if those restrictions are there to ensure that derivatives will be as free as the original.

which license is "more free" is not something that is debatable.

Of course it is. We are debating it right now. Anyway, you have the right to your opinion, just like I have the right to my opinion that they are both free, but differently.

Personally I don't think the GPL is particularly good - it has too much potential to be massively unfair and is was clearly designed with the objective of eliminating the ability to charge for software.

Uh, no. There's nothing preventing you from charging for GPL software - Linux distro makers do so everyday.

And it can't be unfair if it protects the freedom of the developer to release code and make sure that code, along with derivatives, remain free.

But, as I've said, you're entitled to your opinion, you're even entitled to claim that your opinion is fact, just like I'm entitled to disagree with both those assertions, for the reasons stated above. We'll have to agree to disagree that this is a matter of opinion, it seems... Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't care that it's used less than linux. Linux is too popular, it's not my thing. Just as I don't listen to pop music, I don't use linux. :-)

I consider FreeBSD to be more stable and secure, although this is just my IMHO and I do not claim that it is actually this way and not the other way around. :-)

P.S. I come to try OpenBSD someday! Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I like FreeBSD because it is a better server OS. I think it is better as a desktop operating system, but that is only my opinion. However, there are cold, hard facts that cannot be argued with based on scientific, objective facts available here: http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/socket.png that show FreeBSD, even with debug code on, and as a technology preview, is better than all known server operating systems on the market today. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The guy who did those benchmarks, conclusion was that Linux was the best all around system. In addition the Linux tested there is also a test version, I believe Linux test-7. The authors comments about the socket benchmark are as follows.

"However, all contestants scale equally well, there are no clear losers. And the overall latency in this benchmark is so low that the results are interchangeable in practice."

http://www.javaworld.com/jw-10-1999/jw-10-volano.html
http://www.volano.com/report/index.html
http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm

Here are three benchmarks where FreeBSD has the worst performance, though it is admitted these are old.

I personally would like to see a real world benchmark comparing the latest stable Linux release vs FreeBSD 5.3. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? * Linux 2.6.0 test-7 and a comparison between 5.3 RELEASE and the latest Linux stable kernel.

I think it is unfair that some FreeBSD users continue to "bastardize" Linux, when it is a clear competitor to it in serving, having equal or better performance. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? if yer looking for a good graphical installer for *BSD with ncurses, web/cgi interface watch out for bsdinstaller(aptly named eh?) from DragonFLYBSD (forked from FreeBSD 4.) which imho has the potential to kick FreeBSD's ass in the speed/stability arena.

[1] http://www.bsdinstaller.org
[2] http://www.dragonflybsd.org Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? " Linux scales alot nicer than BSD"

Depends on the BSD.

Are you aware that QNX, SunOS, IRIX, MIPS-OS, MacOS X (which mostly runs on dual cpus)are all derived from bsd?

and Solaris has the best of bsd and the best of system v.. true64 actually has a bit of bsd in it.

ODDLY ENOUGH... IRIX was derived from BSD.. HMMM SGI.. Isn't SGI famous for their outstanding scalability..?! Ofcourse IRIX has some other OS code in it, but what OS dosen't?


Interesting. I've googled, searched at freebsd.org and freebsdfoums.org and found nothing. Can you post a link? [If you are on the FreeBSD mailing list you should have noticed it, it's not some big huge public release and something most people dont care about] Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 'nuff said. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I previously posted that most of Google uses FreeBSD.
What I really meant Yahoo.com
Sorry, it was a mistake. Google does use Linux more than FreeBSD.
But then, www.boogle.com search engine does uses FreeBSD LOL
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.boogle.com Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Quoting

Are you aware that QNX, SunOS, IRIX, MIPS-OS, MacOS X (which mostly runs on dual cpus)are all derived from bsd?

Actually this is misleading. MacOSX runs on multiple CPU's and scales well though Mac OS X is not entirely BSD, but instead has a Mach Micro Kernel running a FreeBSD based component.

Low level Memory management, scheduling, IPC, VM and SMP is all done in the Mach Microkernel, not in the FreeBSD based component running on top of Mach. This is probably true for QNX.

I know NASA plans on building a cluster of over 10 thousand processors collectivly running Linux, I also know they are not doing this for FreeBSD. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think pretty much everyone agrees that BSD *was* superior up until Linux 2.6, for any number of reasons( BSD is much more mature, perhaps better design, etc).

But the point is that IBM ALONE has invested $3 Billion dollars over the past 5yrs.Even if Linux wasent the best, it [ is now | will be]. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Not according to the benchmarks I posted, Linux performs better even the 2.2 and 2.4 kernel series. Though I am sure there was a point during Linux's infancy when FreeBSD did perform much better.

I have no clue how BSD has a better design, though I plan on investing some money on the Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD operating system, just to investigate.

We should do a benchmark against 5.3 and the latest 2.6 kernel, I personally am not sure who will win, especially with the refinement of ULE and multi threaded network stack in FreeBSD :? Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? FreeBSD really has a big problem with hardware support,
and i like freebsd but i like using my computers! Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "BSD is far more advanced for what linux is today."

"Advanced in what way? Please be more specific."

We have less trolls. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? FreeBSD is my choice for a server OS because it really is the _simplest_ UNIX I have ever used. For those looking for a "keep it simple stupid", clean, well-organized operating system, where there are few surprises than you cannot go wrong with FreeBSD.

The ports collection is fantastic, the init system is simple, config files are simple and easy to modify, and everything you install in addition to the base system is nicely added to /usr/local (as it should be).

I cannot think of an easier OS to setup and use for a nice, clean, easy to deploy server. "The Power to Serve" indeed. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > But the point is that IBM ALONE has invested $3 Billion dollars over the past 5yrs.
> Even if Linux wasent the best, it [ is now | will be].
Because we all know that more money makes better software...
Windows must great. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Linux:
mostly-harmless bird (maybe has diseases)

FreeBSD:
Satan, Lucifer, the Devil... will lead you into
temptation, eternal damnation, burning in Hell,
fall from grace, your soul cast into the fire, etc.

Um... I'll take the bird. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? FreeBSD is my choice for a server OS because it really is the _simplest_ UNIX I have ever used. For those looking for a "keep it simple stupid", clean, well-organized operating system, where there are few surprises than you cannot go wrong with FreeBSD.

The ports collection is fantastic, the init system is simple, config files are simple and easy to modify, and everything you install in addition to the base system is nicely added to /usr/local (as it should be).

I cannot think of an easier OS to setup and use for a nice, clean, easy to deploy server. "The Power to Serve" indeed.

That's why I like it too. People can argue about which is more scalable, which is faster etc. until they turn blue in the face. The question is: which makes a bigger difference for most of us? Small differences in some benchmarks or the overall usage of the system?

For most purposes you probably won't see a big performance difference between the BSDs and various linux distros. So take your pick. Choose a BSD or a linux distro that you feel most comfortable with. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Are you aware that QNX, SunOS, IRIX, MIPS-OS, MacOS X (which mostly runs on dual cpus)are all derived from bsd?

"Using BSD code" and "derived from BSD" are not synonymous.

And there's no way in hell there's more dual CPU OS X boxes out there than there are single CPU OS X boxes. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Actually this is misleading. MacOSX runs on multiple CPU's and scales well though Mac OS X is not entirely BSD, but instead has a Mach Micro Kernel running a FreeBSD based component.

I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably make a claim that OS X "scales well" when the biggest machine it runs on only has 2 CPUs.

It *should* scale well, but there is not yet any evidence that it *does*. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 200th comment w00t...

Well, anyways, freeBSD is my favorite!! Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Guess what will never happen? Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Please don't obfuscate. You first stated that "keeping derivatives free" wasn't a right. I stated that it is a right for the IP owner, since he can set whatever conditions he wants on the use of his IP. Therefore, you were wrong in stating that it wasn't a right.

It seems we have a fundamental disgreement on what constitutes a right. I don't even believe copyright - despite its name - is a right. So, the concept of a fundamental right saying person A can dictate how person B's ideas may be used because person B used some of person A's ideas is, as far as I'm concerned, ludicrous.

Even for people who do accept that copyright is a "right", I can't see how dictating how other people can use their own ideas based on that "right", can also be a "right". To me, that's the sort of logic that would conclude a landlord also owns his tenant's furniture because it's in his house.

Conditions guarantee that the work - and derivatives - will remain free.

Please don't obfuscate. Conditions that guarantee *derivatives* are *GPLed*. The original code needs no protection whatsoever to "remain free", it just needs to remain available.

That to me is guaranteeing freedom.

If you wish to consider "freedom" and "the GPL" synonymous, then yes, I suppose it is. I doubt you'll find many people outside of a narrow slice of the IT community who'll agree with you on that, however.

False. You don't have to rerelease modified GPL code if you don't want to. If you re-release it, then the derivative has to be free as well.

As I said, you have to be _prepared_ to give anything you do using GPLed code back. Not all circumstances demand that you do, but you should always be prepared to (I wonder if a rogue employee uploading some in-house software to a bunch of anonymous FTP sites counts as "distribution"...?).

More restrictions doesn't mean less free if those restrictions are there to ensure that derivatives will be as free as the original.

Yes, it does.

"Free" means unrestricted. The more restrictions you impose, the further away from "free" you move.

The restrictions placed on individuals living in strictly religious communities are supposed to be there to ensure the soul is "free" to enter heaven. Would you try and argue people in those communities are "more free" than individuals living *without* those restrictions on how they live their lives ?

Uh, no. There's nothing preventing you from charging for GPL software [...]

True enough, there's nothing preventing you charging for air, either.

However, the practical fact of the matter is you can't sell GPLed software on any sort of scale because anyone you sell it to can immediately turn around and give it away to the whole world.

[...] - Linux distro makers do so everyday.

Most of them are selling services and/or hardware, not software. The software is incidental.

Everyone always waves their hands and says "you can charge for GPLed software", but I've yet to see any proposals that aren't:

1. applicable only to some tiny niche market; or
2. tied to non-open software and/or services and/or usage contracts and/or hardware; or
3. dependant on some aspect of the software being "closed" - eg: copyrighted/trademarked graphics.

The only one of these that is really workable at any scale is #2 - and even then only in certain circumstances. Ironically, at the fundamental level, this is nothing more than subscription software, that same model everyone likes to attack closed-source software vendors for trying to move to.

#3 is just blatant hypocrisy, IMHO.


Of course, this lack of possible selling oppotunities is entirely understandable, given it's one of the primary purposes of the GPL, but I'm always amazed by people who try to argue it isn't so.

And it can't be unfair if it protects the freedom of the developer to release code and make sure that code, along with derivatives, remain free.

It most certainly can be unfair. Simply consider the situation where a developer has used GPLed code for only a negligible - say less than 10% - portion of their project. Having to GPL the entire thing - >90% their own, original work - because of that is not fair.

The LGPL is fairer because it only requires improvements and changes to the LGPLed code be returned to the community. The developer's own, unique work remains theirs to do with as they please. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? BSDL/GPL?

It would have been sweet if DragonflyBSD came with Reiserfs4.
But dreams are far from reality Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "burning in Hell, fall from grace, your soul cast into the fire"

Geez, that would have been the Raiders and Cardinals on Saturday night. 102 degrees at game time (7 PM). Temperature dropped a whole 3 degrees during the course of the game. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It seems we have a fundamental disgreement on what constitutes a right. I don't even believe copyright - despite its name - is a right.

Actually, it is. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right, though it has an expiration period (recently extended by the Sonny Bono act).

So, despite your belief, it can be easily demonstrated that copyright is, in fact, a right.

So, the concept of a fundamental right saying person A can dictate how person B's ideas may be used because person B used some of person A's ideas is, as far as I'm concerned, ludicrous.

It may be ludicrous to you, but that's the law. Period. If you make a derivative of someone else's idea, you need permission to distribute it.

Please don't obfuscate.

Please don't be a smart-ass.

Conditions that guarantee *derivatives* are *GPLed*.

The software is GPLed, not the conditions. Perhaps you should think this through before posting it.

If you wish to consider "freedom" and "the GPL" synonymous

As usual, you put words in people's mouth, and twist what they are saying around to cover for the fact that you don't have a solid argument to stand on. I don't consider "freedom" and the GPL to be synonymous, I have never claimed as such. I was merely pointing out that the argument can be made that the GPL guarantees the freedom of code and of its derivatives.

As I said, you have to be _prepared_ to give anything you do using GPLed code back.

No you shouldn't. If you don't want to redistribute it, you don't have to. The GPL is quite clear in this regard.

Not all circumstances demand that you do, but you should always be prepared to (I wonder if a rogue employee uploading some in-house software to a bunch of anonymous FTP sites counts as "distribution"...?).

The rogue employee could be liable for copyright infringement. The software wouldn't be considered as redistributed by the company, who could continue to use the software in-house. Again, the GPL is quite clear regarding this.

"Free" means unrestricted. The more restrictions you impose, the further away from "free" you move.

That's a narrow definition of freedom. Some freedom must be restricted to protect the freedom of others. If I am to live free of harm, then others must be restricted in their freedom to cause me harm. Does that make us less free? No, it doesn't. It just goes to show that guaranteeing certain freedom means restricting others. That's what I meant when I said that the BSDL and GPL are both free, but in different ways.

Of course, if you want to cling to simplistic world views, that's your right - it seems to me, however, that you're not talking about freedom at all, but anarchy.

Most of [the distro makers] are selling services and/or hardware, not software. The software is incidental.

Really? AFAIK, Mandrake's main revenue is from selling the software. That, and the Mandrake Club membership.

You seem to forget that large corporations and governments will in fact buy GPL software (and the service contracts that go with them), even though they could just download it and copy them.

Of course, this lack of possible selling oppotunities is entirely understandable, given it's one of the primary purposes of the GPL

Really? Funny, I didn't happen to find anything about this on the FSF's website...unless you're into conspiracy theories! Sorry to burst your bubble, but the primary purpose of the GPL is not to prevent anyone from selling anything.

Again, case in point: Mandrake Linux. I've personally bought three of their boxed sets. So I'm living proof that your argument is groundless.

It most certainly can be unfair. Simply consider the situation where a developer has used GPLed code for only a negligible - say less than 10% - portion of their project. Having to GPL the entire thing - >90% their own, original work - because of that is not fair.

It is entirely fair, because the developer made a conscious decision to use GPLed code. If the developer doesn't want to GPL his code, then he simply has to use non-GPLed code. There's absolutely nothing unfair about it. In fact, it is the contrary that would be unfair - because it would use the code in a manner contrary to the wishes the code's owner, therefore encroaching on his constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

In any case, considering the great popularity of the GPL, I think it's fair to say that most developers disagree with your views on how fair it is...

Well, it was fun demolishing your arguments, as usual. Time to go to bed now...from past posts, I know well enough that you are obsessed with always having the last word, so I'll let you have it. I'm content with agreeing to disagree.

(But, really, copyright is a guaranteed right. Read up on it some day...) Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? When an OS absolutely positively must be reliable - FreeBSD is often chosen for the job. Linux continues to gain lots of cool features, but not everyone wants cool features - some want peace of mind. When engineers build a machine that must be able to function unattended for long periods of time, they don't choose Windows and they don't choose Linux. They choose the OS they expect can run 2-7 years without crapping out. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? for me, the following reasons push me to linux and not *BSD

linux has a much larger momentum. the OS as a whole, from kernel to GNU packages seems to evolve so much quicker. *BSD gains from this to a certain degree but as most packages are designed for linux first, and then need ported to *BSD, all the *BSDs seem to be a bit behind.

i like to quick pace of kernel development, the way kernel advancement seems to keep my machine up to date without any hardware upgrades as each advancement improves my desktop experience.

i also am a big fan of the new reiser4 fs and have been following it for some time. currently it is a linux only filesystem and may stay that way. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? - It is no reason to use it. I have Linux or Windows. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? FreeBSD is my choice for a server OS because it really is the _simplest_ UNIX I have ever used. For those looking for a "keep it simple stupid", clean, well-organized operating system, where there are few surprises than you cannot go wrong with FreeBSD.

The ports collection is fantastic, the init system is simple, config files are simple and easy to modify, and everything you install in addition to the base system is nicely added to /usr/local (as it should be).

I cannot think of an easier OS to setup and use for a nice, clean, easy to deploy server. "The Power to Serve" indeed.

If you want it really simple and clean, you should check out NetBSD or OpenBSD. Of the two, I find OpenBSD the most usable, NetBSD is too stripped down for me.

FreeBSD is a great OS too (I use it as a desktop), but it's more bloated and more chaotic than the other two.

GH Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Actually, it is. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right, though it has an expiration period (recently extended by the Sonny Bono act).

America != The World.

Please don't tell me the US Constitution is your measure of "rights", because it certainly isn't mine - personally I consider health care to be much more of a "right" than gun ownership.

Copyright is a legal fiction. It has no meaning outside of modern law, no counterpart in the natural world and is used for little more than protecting obselete corporate business models. Those don't sound like attributes of something worth considering a basic human right to me.

It may be ludicrous to you, but that's the law. Period. If you make a derivative of someone else's idea, you need permission to distribute it.

Actually, you usually need permission just to make the derivative in the first place (I've often wondered how people with photographic memories are supposed to avoid copyright infringement).

Something being a law doesn't make it any less stupid.

The software is GPLed, not the conditions. Perhaps you should think this through before posting it.

The conditions in the GPL guarantee the derivatives will be GPLed. Perhaps you should read comments in context before trying to be a smart arse ?

As usual, you put words in people's mouth, and twist what they are saying around to cover for the fact that you don't have a solid argument to stand on. I don't consider "freedom" and the GPL to be synonymous, I have never claimed as such.

Your comments:

"So the GPL preserves the rights of developers who want their work and derivatives of their work to remain free."

"Are you saying that conditions that guarantee freedom are somehow detrimental to that freedom? "

"Conditions guarantee that the work - and derivatives - will remain free. That to me is guaranteeing freedom. "

Seems to me you're interchanging "GPL" and "free" or "freedom" pretty much at will.

I was merely pointing out that the argument can be made that the GPL guarantees the freedom of code and of its derivatives.

Yes, if you consider "freedom" and "GPL licensed" to be the same thing.

The GPL guarantees that *derivative code* will be *GPLed*. "The GPL" != "freedom". Please stop saying "the GPL guarantees code will remain free" when you mean "the GPL guarantees code and its derivatives will remain, or become, GPLed".

Again, "licensed under the GPL" is not "free", it is just "licensed under the GPL".

No you shouldn't. If you don't want to redistribute it, you don't have to. The GPL is quite clear in this regard.

Yes, but if you do redistribute it - or any part of it - it has to redistributed under the conditions of the GPL. Therefore, you should be _prepared_ to give it all out under the GPL, because that might have to be done.

There's a very good reason why companies using open source code in their proprietry products (like Apple) are being very careful to keep GPLed code at arm's length.

That's a narrow definition of freedom.

No, it's *the* definition of freedom.

Some freedom must be restricted to protect the freedom of others. If I am to live free of harm, then others must be restricted in their freedom to cause me harm. Does that make us less free? No, it doesn't.

Yes, clearly it does - *by definition*.

This is where you get subjective, when you start talking about the *impact*. Are Americans "more free" because they have the right to own guns and say whatever they want ? Or, are Australians "more free" because we have better social security and strict libel and defamation laws ?

It just goes to show that guaranteeing certain freedom means restricting others. That's what I meant when I said that the BSDL and GPL are both free, but in different ways.

And you're still wrong. Neither are free, they just have difference types of restrictions. The BSDL having significantly less than the GPL.

Of course, if you want to cling to simplistic world views, that's your right - it seems to me, however, that you're not talking about freedom at all, but anarchy.

Ah, the anarchy card. I was wondering when that was going to come out. Seems to me we need another Godwin's law dealing with "freedom" and "anarchy".

Really? AFAIK, Mandrake's main revenue is from selling the software. That, and the Mandrake Club membership.

Sounds like the "Mandrake Club" is that service I was talking about. And don't forget the support and proprietry software that comes with the box sets.

You seem to forget that large corporations and governments will in fact buy GPL software (and the service contracts that go with them), even though they could just download it and copy them.

You seem to forget (or simply don't realise) that most of the corporations *have* to buy it because they need "certified platforms" for existing software and contractual guarantees of support.

Again, case in point: Mandrake Linux. I've personally bought three of their boxed sets. So I'm living proof that your argument is groundless.

I shall have to remember your newly found high regard for anecdotal evidence in future discussions.

It is entirely fair, because the developer made a conscious decision to use GPLed code.

This does not imply the result is fair. Particularly when said result might not actually become unfair until some time down the track.

If the developer doesn't want to GPL his code, then he simply has to use non-GPLed code. There's absolutely nothing unfair about it. In fact, it is the contrary that would be unfair - because it would use the code in a manner contrary to the wishes the code's owner, therefore encroaching on his constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

I shall have to remember this reasoning as well, the next time you're going on about "the Microsoft tax" and per-CPU licensing.


Whether or not a developer willingly uses GPLed code is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fairness of the outcome of using that code.

In any case, considering the great popularity of the GPL, I think it's fair to say that most developers disagree with your views on how fair it is...

Given how many developers have a deep misunderstanding of what the GPL does (eg: "it only means improvements to my code are given back to the community" or "it means no-one can use my code without giving something back") or what it attempts to do ("it's all about keeping code free"), I don't consider that to be a particularly compelling bit of reasoning.

Well, it was fun demolishing your arguments, as usual.

"The US constitution defines rights".
"It's the law".
"The GPL means free".
"'Real freedom' means not being able to do some things".
"Freedom is anarchy".
"Popular means better".

Yep, I'm reeling from those crushing refutations.

Time to go to bed now...from past posts, I know well enough that you are obsessed with always having the last word, so I'll let you have it. I'm content with agreeing to disagree.

Ah, so I'm "obsessed with having the last word" but you're just "demolishing my arguments". Right. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? We have been teached several times, that the better one is not automatically the more popular one.

Linux got some momentum and got the image of being *the* open source operating system. How many Linux users know that the BSDs exist? (How many FreeBSD users tried out NetBSD?

Which is not always good, as it attracted that crowd that can't live without coloured prompts and translucent x11 window managers. :-)

Regards,
Marc Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Yes, it is really popular for its FLEXIBILITY. If you want, you can do things to make FreeBSD satisfy your needs. Hope every user/admin needs. You can't do something with other OSes, howewer, with FreeBSD you can suffer the thing. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It is sad that people are so reluctant to try different things. They are missing out on a lot of experiences. Using FreeBSD and OpenBSD (I haven't got to try NetBSD yet.) as well as different Linux distributions and Unixs and any other OS I have the time to try out. realy helps me understand where the hardware ends and the software begins. Back when I was only using DOS (I used MS, and PC DOS) I though all PC operating systems had a A: B: C: drive then when I switched to Linux I learned about mounting and the /dev structure so I know the OS really handles these things and it it up the programmer to set up how the user interfaces with hardware. As well when I tried out freeBSD I was amaized that there was a graphical arrow over what still seems to me as a text screen. (I can usually tell if it is a frame buffer or not). Plus when I get a problem with one OS I can use a concept that I learned in an other OS to get it fixed. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Also often the GPL license seems to prevent too much forking of the FOSS code (for example, there are several different BSD kernels but basically only one Linux kernel)."

I don't see the problem, since I can choose the BSD kernel which best fits my usage, I don't see that coming from Linux and I don't see why it's a bad thing.

The BSDs still share the good stuff between them, you just got more choice.

Ignore the word fork, and talk about choices. The OSS gives you lots of choices on for example browser or mp3-player, do you see that as a problem aswell? I think it's nice I can choose the one which best fits my purpose, konqueror for snappy browsing, mozilla for evil webpages, mpg123 or other in console and xmms or juk in X.

The BSD-license might be a bad choice for a developer which doesn't want anyone to "steal his work", but well just don't release it under BSD-license, that doesn't stop you from using BSD. On the other hand the GPL efficiently stops you from makeing your own product after gaining knowledge from others code, which isn't the case with BSD-licensed code. Beeing able to learn from others solutions seems like a good thing to me. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? America != The World.

Did I mention I'm Canadian?

Please don't tell me the US Constitution is your measure of "rights", because it certainly isn't mine - personally I consider health care to be much more of a "right" than gun ownership.

I don't care much for the second amendment myself, but the U.S. constitution - and the Bill of Rights - are superb documents. Nowhere on the planet is Free Speech as protected as it is in the U.S. - not even in Canada.

Copyright is a legal fiction. It has no meaning outside of modern law, no counterpart in the natural world and is used for little more than protecting obselete corporate business models. Those don't sound like attributes of something worth considering a basic human right to me.

You're grasping at straws here. "No counterpart in the natural world?" What law does?

Copyright may not be a basic human right, but it is a right nonetheless. And it is not only used to protect "obsolete corporate models", but also individual IP and innovation.

The conditions in the GPL guarantee the derivatives will be GPLed. Perhaps you should read comments in context before trying to be a smart arse ?

Hey, you're the one who wrote a nonsensical statement ("the conditions are GPLed"), not me!

No, it's *the* definition of freedom.

Funny, when I checked Merriam-Webster online, there were about a dozen definitions. Which goes back to what I was saying earlier: different freedoms.

Please stop saying "the GPL guarantees code will remain free"

No, I wont. The GPL guarantees code and its derivatives will remain free (as in "Free Software"). If you don't like that definition of free, then you're welcome not to use it. Meanwhile, I'm "free" to use it as much as I want.

Ah, the anarchy card. I was wondering when that was going to come out. Seems to me we need another Godwin's law dealing with "freedom" and "anarchy".

I think you participating in a thread should be it's own Godwin's Law...

And you're still wrong.

That's a matter of opinion. I think you're wrong. That makes us even. Why can't you just leave it at that?

Oh, I forgot, you're obsessed with having the last word. Well, I'll see how far you're ready to go...

Neither are free,

Well, freedom being relative, I claim that both are indeed free when compared to proprietary software. And both are equally free, in different ways.

I shall have to remember this reasoning as well, the next time you're going on about "the Microsoft tax" and per-CPU licensing.

Whether or not a developer willingly uses GPLed code is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fairness of the outcome of using that code.

Therefore it is possible to sell GPL software. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

I shall have to remember this reasoning as well, the next time you're going on about "the Microsoft tax" and per-CPU licensing.

Really? Please give one instance of me complaining about the Microsoft Tax and per-CPU licensing?

Whether or not a developer willingly uses GPLed code is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fairness of the outcome of using that code.

On the contrary, it is completely relevant. The permission to use the code is only given if conditions are observed. It is completely fair.

Given how many developers have a deep misunderstanding of what the GPL does (eg: "it only means improvements to my code are given back to the community" or "it means no-one can use my code without giving something back") or what it attempts to do ("it's all about keeping code free"), I don't consider that to be a particularly compelling bit of reasoning.

Yeah, well nobody really cares what arrogant internet posters like you think. I know a couple of developers, and it seems to me they understand the GPL and Free Software a lot better than you.

"The US constitution defines rights".
"It's the law".
"The GPL means free".
"'Real freedom' means not being able to do some things".
"Freedom is anarchy".
"Popular means better".

Yep, I'm reeling from those crushing refutations.

Well, since I did not say any of these things (despite you using quotes) I'll take that as a sign of desperation on your part.

Ah, so I'm "obsessed with having the last word" but you're just "demolishing my arguments". Right.

That's exactly it. Glad to see that you finally got it. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I use alsa, I make music. Is there an active sound scene in the BSD community? Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Andrew Tanenbaum has given exact explanation of this in is book Modern Operating Systems.
http://cs.vu.nl/~ast is is home page. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I recently converted the last remaining FreeBSD server of our company to Debian GNU/Linux. FreeBSD Java support is quite horrible. The developers had to resort to restarting our web application every night at 3am to prevent mid-day crashes. The exact same application has been running rock-solid for over 2 weeks now on Debian, same as on the development system, which all run Linux. Our Zope based applications have also seen a 2x performance increase!

-fooks Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think it's just momentum. I tried FreeBSD out when I had a a free computer. I'd already been using Linux for awhile by this point. There are some other comments on OSNews I wrote about my experiences.

In short, it actually ran a lot faster than Linux did on the same system. I didn't investigate it too much to figure out why, but my first reaction was, "Wow." It may well have been that I was running a lighter kernel (relatively speaking) or something, but it did impress, out of the box.

Frankly, I didn't find anything that FreeBSD couldn't do that my Linux desktop could. If I weren't just so used to my specific Linux distro, and know what I know now, and was just starting out, FreeBSD might be a serious contender for my desktop. There have been some strange comments here about what FreeBSD lacks, but for me, it didn't lack anything. It didn't provide a whole lot (there were a few things) in addition to what I have in my preferred Linux distro, but it did match it. I had X with sound up and running without any problems.

I found installation to be quite easy - the FreeBSD handbook is quite good; make sure you read it and follow along if you're going to do an install. Also, O'Reilly's "The Complete FreeBSD," recommended by someone here at OSNews, actually, turned out to be a very well written, concise guide. I actually refer to it occasionally for Linux-related questions, since a lot of information is true for both.

I would imagine that most intermediate to advanced Linux users could probably make the switch to FreeBSD with a minimum of hassle. A few things are done differently, but it's not a major paradigm shift. From what I saw, the similarities between FreeBSD and Linux far, far outnumber the differences.

You don't hear much about FreeBSD on the news, and you don't see tons of FreeBSD magazines at Barnes and Noble. The only thing I can figure out is it's momentum and marketing - at *least in terms of the desktop user*. I know several people who run Linux desktops with xBSD firewalls/routers. I think there's room on any home network for a FreeBSD machine. As for it's use as a server in a production environment I cannot say, but I know UC Berkeley has had some nice successes with it

I love the ports. I am happy to have a somewhat similar system in Gentoo. Package management in FreeBSD worked well for me; I had all of FreeBSD installed, with a KDE desktop running in, maybe an hour to 90 minutes, being a first timer. The installer isn't flashy, but it's no harder than Debian's. It's also well documented. You may have problems if you don't read the easy-to-follow, concise handbook.

Maybe if I was a hardcore developer or something I'd have a distinct preference for FreeBSD or Linux, but as more of a "power user" who scripts and does web-related work, I'd be quite happy with FreeBSD. I like it quite a lot. If something were to happen to the GPL legally, or something which were to cripple Linux development for some time to come, from a technical standpoint, I'd have no problems moving to FreeBSD. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Oh I just wanted to add -- I can see how people could have a serious emotional distaste for Windows if they're forced to use it all day. For the majority of users, a desktop is a desktop, but for people who use their computers intensively, Windows can be a serious drag. Enough of one that I switched.

It seems like a lot of wasted energy (in my opinion) for BSD and Linux users to be sniping at each other. Both are more alike than they are different. Maybe it's like why brothers fight so much; I don't know. But I do think that people who have strong opinions between, say, FreeBSD, and Linux, ought to run the opposing OS for 6 months or so, get up to speed with it, and see if there are any dramatic differences in terms of running it daily. (And they should do this with recent versions of the OS. One thing I am positive about is that Linux of today is radically dissimilar in terms of the aggravations involved, with the Linux of even 2 years ago; things have improved drastically, especially as relates to package management).

I'm wondering whether I missed something, in the sense that details differed but it would be hard for me to get worked up about either OS, as it compares and contrasts with the other.

One other comment a few people made about FreeBSD being difficult to install -- this may be the whole crux of the argument against using overly friendly Linux distros with flashy GUIs for everything - while absolutely in the beginning you save time in clicking around to get things up and running, you kind of cheat yourself a bit if you don't get used to dealing with config files. When the latest version of a bit of software comes out, there's always the possibility it will have a new configuration directive somewhere, and that the GUI won't be updated to account for it immediately. What it comes down to is, if you're used to Windows and GUIs with checkboxes, config files initially seem like a step backward to geek primitivism, but in reality, they're not really any more complicated than GUIs are, provided configuration directives are well documented and defined.

Because I chose to run a Linux distro without any GUIs provided as the base install, I kind of got used to dealing with config files right from the beginning. Like many Linux users I came from years and years of running Windows and having little experience with UNIX-like OSes. Initially I kind of groaned about having to deal with config files, but now, years later, I have the option of using lots of GUIs like webmin and what have you, and choose not to. Nothing's hidden from you in a config file. It's all there to peruse, printout, reorder, deal with things like inheritance and other things that can be difficult or confusing to represent in a GUI. Speaking just from my own personal experience, you ultimately save time and will be less frustrated if you get used to editing config files, and then maybe down the road choose to use a GUI, rather than the other way around. The important thing here is that in the long run it will save you time and aggravation. The argument always goes that "my grandmother" or "Aunt Tillie" if your name is Eric Raymond, will have trouble using or installing an OS. Well in reality, both your grandmother and Aunt Tillie couldn't probably install Windows either - remember, they get their computers from, say, Dell, where it's already installed. And then they get viruses, spyware, and Bonzi Buddies, and you're over there fixing things because Windows encourages (by not enforcing otherwise) people to run their system as an Administrator, for ease of use. If your grandmother tried to re-install Windows, chances are she'd blow her partitions to hell and lose all of her data. If your grandmother told you she was going to reinstall Windows, *probably* you'd say, "No, don't do that, I'll be right over." So really the only people who should be installing OSes are people with some modicum of understanding of what is going on *anyway*.

Because I deal mainly with Debian and Gentoo, both of which are very text-oriented during the install (especially Gentoo, which doesn't even have an installer), FreeBSD's installer was, to me, trivial. It was like Debian's, for the most part. My grandmother couldn't do it, but there are probably many 8 year olds out there who could. Yeah, you'll have to read some, and take a little time during the install to make sure you're doing it right (if you're totally new to it) - but in the end, you'll learn something about your system, and maybe you'll be able to troubleshoot it a little better. Aside from bugs and illogical quirks in some installers (which can make things complicated for new users indeed), I have to wonder how many people just get immediately annoyed when they don't understand something, won't take 5 minutes to google on it, and just write it off as a "complicated installer for geeks." I'm not trying to flame anyone here, but man, there's nothing complicated about installing FreeBSD, Debian, or any other OS I've yet used which has a text-based/curses installer.

If you're a grandma who just doesn't have any interest in computers beyond a few apps, it's one thing.

But, if you decide you're going to run a UNIX-like OS because Windows isn't good enough for you, I find it hard to believe that anything other than, well, total sloth, is really getting in your way. If you think you need Linux or FreeBSD, you're probably smart enough to get them installed at least to the point you can login to the console. I really do think the basic need or desire to run a UNIX-like OS corresponds with ability to at least get it installed (complicated hardware support issues aside - this is a valid exception and complaint, though it's usually not the OSes fault as much as the manufacturer's).

I think people know this, and I think they should patiently just take a single Saturday afternoon and try out the things they're so quick to bash. There may be good reasons not to run FreeBSD, but the difficulty of the installer just isn't one. Really. I'm not all that bright, don't know C, don't really code, and aside from having to look up a few things (how partitions are referenced, for example - different in FreeBSD, but simple enough), I'm pretty confident anyone with just basic computer experience could get this up and running without much hassle. There are places you can go for help. I didn't find the FreeBSD people, at least on IRC where I went for help on a few things, to be crusty or elitist at all. I got the sense that another Linux user was trying out their beloved OS.

It's natural and healthy that people would have preferences between the BSDs and Linux, but it's strange to me that anyone would have enough of a preference to be emotional about it. Whereas, I do understand why, if you're forced to use it for many hours a day, you might feel this way about Windows.

Seriously, if you use Linux, especially something like Gentoo, Slackware or Debian, try FreeBSD. Maybe your experience will be wildly different than mine, but I bet you'll like it. You may not prefer it to your own Linux distro, but you'll probably dig it nonetheless. Likewise, if you're a FreeBSD person who hasn't tried Linux in awhile, or has only tried the Mandrake/Suse/Fedora style distros, try Debian, Slackware, or the infamous Gentoo. Bet you'll find things to like there.

The hardcore preferences people have just don't make tons of sense to me. But again, I'm not a developer or kernel hacker, so maybe I'd feel more strongly if I was. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It most certainly can be unfair. Simply consider the situation where a developer has used GPLed code for only a negligible - say less than 10% - portion of their project. Having to GPL the entire thing - >90% their own, original work - because of that is not fair.

Since when as anyone forced developers to use GPLed code? If they want to use GPL, they have to follow the rules. There is no free lunch. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You can build the World's best mousetrap and people will come to your door...

...if they can find it.

Advertising and promotion are absolutely essential. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Did I mention I'm Canadian?

Your hostname did.

You're grasping at straws here. "No counterpart in the natural world?" What law does?

Property ownership, freedom of speech, self protection. Pretty much all of the important ones.

Copyright may not be a basic human right, but it is a right nonetheless. And it is not only used to protect "obsolete corporate models", but also individual IP and innovation.

It is used for the former vastly more often than it is used for the latter.

Hey, you're the one who wrote a nonsensical statement ("the conditions are GPLed"), not me!

I made no such statement. The actual flow of conversation:

Y: Are you saying that conditions [that the GPL imposes] that guarantee freedom are somehow detrimental to that freedom?

M: Strawman. The conditions aren't "guaranteeing freedom", they're imposing conditions on using someone's source code.

Y: Conditions guarantee that the work - and derivatives - will remain free. That to me is guaranteeing freedom.

M: Conditions that guarantee *derivatives* are *GPLed*. The original code needs no protection whatsoever to "remain free", it just needs to remain available.

Funny, when I checked Merriam-Webster online, there were about a dozen definitions. Which goes back to what I was saying earlier: different freedoms.

So which of those definitions indicate "free" is defined as having arbitrary restrictions ?

No, I wont. The GPL guarantees code and its derivatives will remain free (as in "Free Software"). If you don't like that definition of free, then you're welcome not to use it. Meanwhile, I'm "free" to use it as much as I want.

It's not a matter of "not liking it", it's a matter of it being *wrong*.

As I said, if you wish to redefine "free" as "licensed under the GPL", then your statement holds.

Oh, I forgot, you're obsessed with having the last word. Well, I'll see how far you're ready to go...

Is it relevant to anything other than your pompous conceit ?

Therefore it is possible to sell GPL software. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

I'm not quite sure how you get to that conclusion from my comment, but I never said it was literally impossible to sell GPL code, I said it was practically impossible by virtue of the fact anyone you sell it to can then give it away to the rest of the world.

Well, since I did not say any of these things (despite you using quotes) I'll take that as a sign of desperation on your part.

It's not meant to be quotes of your comments, it's meant to be paraphrasing of your (repeated ad-nauseum) arguments. Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? what personality disorder must linux users have to be constantly bringing up these little popularity contests? were you runts, picked on as little kids by all the big, bad unix folks? do you have an inferiority complex that makes you scream and jump, "we're unix too!....no wait, we're BETTER than unix!!"

it's just software, get a life and use whatever os that gets the job done.

ps: freebsd rules Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Property ownership

Well, this is where you blatantly contradict yourself. Copyright is there to protect intellectual property. Saying that copyright isn't a right amounts to saying you don't have a right to property.

[Copyright] is used for the former vastly more often than it is used for the latter.

Irrelevant. It is used for both, and that is what matters.

I made no such statement.

I'm sorry, but you did. You even wrote it again:

"Conditions that guarantee *derivatives* are *GPLed*."

Unless you're writing in fragmented sentences (which would explain some of your contradictions), the subject of the verb "are" in the above sentence is "Conditions". You are therefore stating that the "conditions are GPLed", which doesn't make much sense.

So which of those definitions indicate "free" is defined as having arbitrary restrictions ?

What about "free from harm"? In order to be free from harm, restrictions must be put on everyone's ability to harm others (including mine).

"Sugar-free" means without sugar, as in restricted from having any sugar.

But that's besides the point, really. As I said before, you're looking at this the wrong way. The GPL ensures that the code (and derivatives) remain free. It is concerned with the freedom of the actual code, not of developers who'd like to produce derivative works with it. The BSDL is concerned with the freedom of the developer.

GPL = code and derivatives remain free, no matter if people want to make it unfree = promotes freedom from proprietary exploitation

BSDL = derivative can be made unfree = promotes freedom of proprietary exploitation

Both are free, but in different ways.

It's not meant to be quotes of your comments

Sure, that's why you put it into quotes, right?

it's meant to be paraphrasing of your (repeated ad-nauseum) arguments.

Okay, then you won't mind if I paraphrase your own posts:

"developers are clueless"
"intellectual property is not a right"
"it's unfair if you can't use someone else's work without their permission"
"conditions are GPLed"
"the US Constitution is a poor measure of personal rights"
"there is only one definition for the word 'free'"
"if you modify GPLed code you are forced to release it"
"you can't charge money for GPLed software"
"private property is a natural right, but intellectual property isn't"
"which license is more free isn't debatable, even though we've been debating it quite a lot"

You're priceless.

(Oh, and you're welcome to report this post for moderation as well...) Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Well, this is where you blatantly contradict yourself. Copyright is there to protect intellectual property. Saying that copyright isn't a right amounts to saying you don't have a right to property.

"Intellectual property" is a legal fiction. Ideas aren't physical property. They're not even remotely similar.

I'm sorry, but you did. You even wrote it again:

"Conditions that guarantee *derivatives* are *GPLed*."

Unless you're writing in fragmented sentences (which would explain some of your contradictions), the subject of the verb "are" in the above sentence is "Conditions". You are therefore stating that the "conditions are GPLed", which doesn't make much sense.

The subject is "derivatives". As in the derivatives of the GPLed code. Here, I'll write it another way you might be able to understand:

The conditions imposed by the GPL on source code ensure that derivatives of that code will also be licensed under the GPL.

What about "free from harm"? In order to be free from harm, restrictions must be put on everyone's ability to harm others (including mine).

Untrue. They don't _have_ to be in place by definition, only when others actually try to harm each other.

"Sugar-free" means without sugar, as in restricted from having any sugar.

Creative English if ever I've seen it.

But that's besides the point, really. As I said before, you're looking at this the wrong way. The GPL ensures that the code (and derivatives) remain free. It is concerned with the freedom of the actual code, not of developers who'd like to produce derivative works with it. The BSDL is concerned with the freedom of the developer.

No, the BSDL is concerned with "the freedom of the code". The GPL is concerned with "the freedom of the code and any other code that might use it".

GPL = code and derivatives remain free, no matter if people want to make it unfree = promotes freedom from proprietary exploitation

Sure, if you consider "GPLed" and "free" to be synonymous.

BSDL = derivative can be made unfree = promotes freedom of proprietary exploitation

Personally, I like to think it promotes generosity and leading by example.

Sure, that's why you put it into quotes, right?

Given that none of the text appeared literally in any of the posts authored by you, I figured the fact they weren't supposed to be literal quotes would make be reasonably obvious.

Okay, then you won't mind if I paraphrase your own posts:

Knock yourself out. Although I see you've managed to completely misinterpret everything I've said.

"developers are clueless"

A lot of Open Source developers are misinformed or have been misled by GPL zealots.

"intellectual property is not a right"

Correct. It's a legal privilege. Like, say, being incorporated.

"it's unfair if you can't use someone else's work without their permission"

The GPL has the potential to be very unfair.

"conditions are GPLed"

I don't even know where to start with this one.

"the US Constitution is a poor measure of personal rights"

The US Constitution should not be considered the only measure of rights, nor the best one.

"there is only one definition for the word 'free'"

There are several in the dictionary, but they all say basically the same thing.

"if you modify GPLed code you are forced to release it"

If you modify GPLed code you should be prepared to release it. You might not have to - but then again you might.

"you can't charge money for GPLed software"

It's practically impossible to sell GPLed software on its own.

"private property is a natural right, but intellectual property isn't"

Physical property has a parallel in the natural world, intellectual property does not.

"which license is more free isn't debatable, even though we've been debating it quite a lot"

Which license has fewer restrictions isn't debatable.

(Oh, and you're welcome to report this post for moderation as well...)

Thanks for the offer, but I don't consider it something that needs moderating. Tue, 31 Aug 2004 04:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Intellectual property" is a legal fiction. Ideas aren't physical property. They're not even remotely similar.

If you want to get philosophical about it, the idea of physical property is as much fiction as intellectual property. "Owning" something is a construction of the mind which has evolved into a social convention.

Meanwhile, as far as the law is concerned, intellectual property is quite real, and it's worth billions of dollars.

So, on the philosophical side, both forms of properties are illusions, while on the legal side both are very real. In either case, you lose. Nice try.

Here, I'll write it another way you might be able to understand

You mean, one that's written in proper english?

Untrue. They don't _have_ to be in place by definition, only when others actually try to harm each other.

Come on, this is getting pathetic. You should have quit two posts ago...

Okay, since people can potentially harm each other, and have done, and do so, and will do so, then those restrictions have to be in place.

Again, you don't seem to understand the concept of law. I don't know why I'm wasting my time on such poor rethoric - all of that because you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong.

No, the BSDL is concerned with "the freedom of the code". The GPL is concerned with "the freedom of the code and any other code that might use it".

Not use it: be a derivative of it. Case in point: using a GPLed program under Windows. Plenty of code interact with the GPL code, and yet it doesn't become GPLed code.

Meanwhile, BSDL is not concerned with the freedom of the code, but rather the developer, because said developer can take the code, modify it, and redistribute it as proprietary code.

Sure, if you consider "GPLed" and "free" to be synonymous.

No, the affirmation stands on its own. Let me repeat it:

"GPL = code and derivatives remain free, no matter if people want to make it unfree = promotes freedom from proprietary exploitation"

You haven't shown how any part of this sentence isn't true. You have claimed it isn't, but you haven't disproved it in any way.

Given that none of the text appeared literally in any of the posts authored by you, I figured the fact they weren't supposed to be literal quotes would make be reasonably obvious.

Given your tendency to twist around words, that is paraphrase while changing the meaning to suit your own purposes, I think you're simply admitting to your own dishonesty here.

Knock yourself out. Although I see you've managed to completely misinterpret everything I've said.

Yes, I followed your example and did exactly as you did.

A lot of Open Source developers are misinformed or have been misled by GPL zealots.

An unsubstantiated allegation. You're full of those, aren't you?

Correct. It's a legal privilege. Like, say, being incorporated.

No, it's a right, just like the right to private property. It is in the States, it is in Canada, it is in almost every country in the world (except maybe North Korea...).

Here, knock yourself out...it seems you've got a lot to learn about the subject:

http://sunsite3.berkeley.edu/copyright/

The GPL has the potential to be very unfair.

It's too bad you can't present a valid argument to support this assertion. What WOULD be unfair would be to use someone's intellectual property without their permission.

Funny world you live in: white is black, and black is white. Next you'll be telling me that the sky is really red...

I don't even know where to start with this one.

Start by learning to write clear english sentences.

The US Constitution should not be considered the only measure of rights, nor the best one.

Would you care to give a better legally-binding document protecting basic rights? (Hint: the Declaration of Human Rights is a great document, but it's not legally biding per se.)

This should be fun.

There are several in the dictionary, but they all say basically the same thing.

Really? I seem to remember something about "free beer"...

If you modify GPLed code you should be prepared to release it. You might not have to - but then again you might.

No, you wouldn't have two. There is no reason why you should be forced to. There is no provision in the GPL forcing you to release modified code. None. Please read the damn thing, and try to understand it. You obviously haven't.

It's practically impossible to sell GPLed software on its own.

Demonstrably false, if only by the Mandrake boxed sets on the shelf above me.

Don't ge me wrong - you won't make billions selling it. But the question here is to know if it's possible to do so, and the answer is yes.

Man, don't you get tired of being proven wrong on every point you try to make? If I was in your place, I certainly would.

Physical property has a parallel in the natural world, intellectual property does not.

Uh, no it doesn't. There are neither natural nor magical bonds that tie me to my property - it's all part of the social contract that is known as the Law (and customs, as well).

I'd like to know which country you live in, where there are no intellectual property rights...

Which license has fewer restrictions isn't debatable.

Please re-read the preceding paragraph. The questions is not which license has fewer restrictions, but rather which license is freer. It depends on how you define "free software", and it is most certainly open for debate. You see, definitions are also part of the social contract.

Just agree to disagree, and we'll get on with our lives. I'll go on claiming that the GPL and BSDL are equally but differently free (a positive, unifying message) while you can go on pretending that the BSD is freer (perpetuating divisive flamebait).

Thanks for the offer, but I don't consider it something that needs moderating.

If you say so - though I've got to wonder who else is still reading this thread...I'll just keep blaming you, if you don't mind. Tue, 31 Aug 2004 05:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "FreeBSD Java support is quite horrible. The developers had to resort to restarting our web application every night at 3am to prevent mid-day crashes."

Java is "quite horrible". Tell your "developers" to program in C++. "Problem" solved. Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If you want to get philosophical about it, the idea of physical property is as much fiction as intellectual property. "Owning" something is a construction of the mind which has evolved into a social convention.

"Owning" physical property sans legal systems requires nothing more than being able to stop someone else from taking it.

Try *making* someone forget something - it's pretty hard.

You mean, one that's written in proper english?

There's nothing wrong with the English of the comment I made, as long as you read it in context.

Come on, this is getting pathetic. You should have quit two posts ago...

Okay, since people can potentially harm each other, and have done, and do so, and will do so, then those restrictions have to be in place.

Because there hasn't been a single murder since murder was outlawed, right ?

Again, you don't seem to understand the concept of law. I don't know why I'm wasting my time on such poor rethoric - all of that because you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong.

I perfectly understand the concept of law. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the definition of freedom, however. Perhaps your belief is that people without law cannot be free ?

Not use it: be a derivative of it. Case in point: using a GPLed program under Windows. Plenty of code interact with the GPL code, and yet it doesn't become GPLed code.

Heh. And you like to accuse me of twisting words.

Meanwhile, BSDL is not concerned with the freedom of the code, but rather the developer, because said developer can take the code, modify it, and redistribute it as proprietary code.

The BSDL *is* concerned with "the freedom of the code", it's just not concerned with "the freedom" of *derivative code*.

No, the affirmation stands on its own. Let me repeat it:

No amount of repetition will change the fact that statement only holds if you consider the GPL and "free" to be synonymous. Something that is GPLed is not "free", it is GPLed.

You haven't shown how any part of this sentence isn't true. You have claimed it isn't, but you haven't disproved it in any way.

I'm not seeing any definitions in the dictionary for "free" that say "licensed under the GPL".

Given your tendency to twist around words, that is paraphrase while changing the meaning to suit your own purposes, I think you're simply admitting to your own dishonesty here.

Yet you don't seem to be disagreeing with my paraphrasing of your arguments.

Yes, I followed your example and did exactly as you did.

Which of your arguments did I misinterpret, and how ?

An unsubstantiated allegation. You're full of those, aren't you?

It's an observation - and I'm pretty sure I don't make any more of them than anyone else.

It's too bad you can't present a valid argument to support this assertion.

Sure I can. Someone with a project that is 10% GPL, 90% their own work having to GPL the 90% that is their own work.

What WOULD be unfair would be to use someone's intellectual property without their permission.

Assuming you don't pretend it's your own, why ?

I suppose you always used to get cranky at school whenever anyone copied off you as well, right ?

Would you care to give a better legally-binding document protecting basic rights? (Hint: the Declaration of Human Rights is a great document, but it's not legally biding per se.)

Uh, how would it be relevant ?

Really? I seem to remember something about "free beer"...

Ah, I understand one of your problems. RMS's rants are not dictionaries.

There is no provision in the GPL forcing you to release modified code. None. Please read the damn thing, and try to understand it. You obviously haven't.

Distributing software with GPLed code in it requires you to distribute the source code. I believe it's one of the major points.

Demonstrably false, if only by the Mandrake boxed sets on the shelf above me.

How does that falsify that selling GPLed software on its own is practically impossible ?

But the question here is to know if it's possible to do so, and the answer is yes.

No, the question here is to know if it's *practically* possible to do. Ie: is it a practicable method for generating sufficient revenue.

Most everyone I've ever met knows what the colloquialism "practically impossible" means. I've no doubt you do as well and I must say your faux ignorance/innocence is simply juvenile.

Uh, no it doesn't. There are neither natural nor magical bonds that tie me to my property - it's all part of the social contract that is known as the Law (and customs, as well).

Those "natural bonds" are being able to pick something up and not let anyone else have it.

Just agree to disagree, and we'll get on with our lives. I'll go on claiming that the GPL and BSDL are equally but differently free (a positive, unifying message) while you can go on pretending that the BSD is freer (perpetuating divisive flamebait).

Yes, well, it's well known the truth is never a popular message.

If you say so - though I've got to wonder who else is still reading this thread...I'll just keep blaming you, if you don't mind.

Whatever floats your boat. But it certainly *isn't* me. Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? An interesting discussion, guys. :-) Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This poll is potentially misleading. I think the concept of reputation is far more important than the concept of popularity, since it's an OS we're talking about.

As far as I know, FreeBSD's commitment has always been for technical excellence, and not for crusades against Microsoft and proprietary software (note that I consider the end of Microsoft's monopoly a very good thing for everybody).
So, I really fail to see where the issue is.

Of course, the more advocacy the better. But I would concentrate on reliability, performance and, in general, fitness to the purpose. Simply, this is what makes an OS great.

Of course I want FreeBSD to get the popularity it deserves, but above all I'd like it to remain the best Free OS available on the planet an admin could choose for most purposes.

I hope FreeBSD developers will go on with their effort (which is academic, and not political) throwing new ideas and solutions into the project, just like they've always done.
As far as I can understand they don't lack sponsorship, since their great work is universally recognized (I'm thinking of Apple and Yahoo, but not only).

So, I'd just say: keep it up. :-) Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Of course I want FreeBSD to get the popularity it deserves, but above all I'd like it to remain the best Free OS available on the planet an admin could choose for most purposes.

I think both NetBSD 2.x and DragonflyBSD will be going after that place as well in the near future

Competition between FreeBSD 5.x and DragonflyBSD in terms of SMP will get very interesting...

I wonder if these Linux guys really know how much code and "inspiration" the Linux kernel has got from FreeBSD, namely VM and scheduler. Before 2.4.10 the Linux kernel had much less performance than FreeBSD. Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Try *making* someone forget something - it's pretty hard.

Sigh. You really don't get it, do you? It's not about knowing something, it's about others preventing from the commercialization of IP.

There's nothing wrong with the English of the comment I made, as long as you read it in context.

You made a fragmented, unclear sentence.

Because there hasn't been a single murder since murder was outlawed, right ?

This is completely irrelevant. The fact is that there are murder laws in place to dissuade and punish future murders.

You really are trying to argue that the sky isn't blue.

I perfectly understand the concept of law.

That is not at all apparent from your posts.

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the definition of freedom, however. Perhaps your belief is that people without law cannot be free ?

Indeed. Without law, freedom cannot exist, because the stronger will inevitably enslave the weaker.

The BSDL *is* concerned with "the freedom of the code", it's just not concerned with "the freedom" of *derivative code*.

Therefore, one could make the argument that the GPL is more free, because it doesn't concern itself only with the freedom of the code, but of its derivatives as well...

No amount of repetition will change the fact that statement only holds if you consider the GPL and "free" to be synonymous. Something that is GPLed is not "free", it is GPLed. I'm not seeing any definitions in the dictionary for "free" that say "licensed under the GPL".

Again, you didn't disprove any part of that affirmation, because you can't. Thanks for playing.

It's an observation - and I'm pretty sure I don't make any more of them than anyone else.

If it's not supported by some kind of data, then it's a worthless observation, because you can't claim to know the motives behind every (or even most) developers that choose the GPL.

It's BS, in other words.

Which of your arguments did I misinterpret, and how ?

By your misquoting? Pretty much all of them.

Sure I can. Someone with a project that is 10% GPL, 90% their own work having to GPL the 90% that is their own work.

What if that 10% is essential to making the software work? What if it took twice as long to write that 10%?

Anyway, this is besides the point, because that 10% can only be used with the authors' permission. End of story.

Distributing software with GPLed code in it requires you to distribute the source code. I believe it's one of the major points.

But that's not what you were saying. Again, you try to weasel out of a tight spot by changing your story. You were saying that conditions might force you to redistribute it - however, you're not forced to redistribute ANY code if you don't distribute binaries. And use within a corporation is NOT considered redistribution.

How does that falsify that selling GPLed software on its own is practically impossible ?

Because it's done. Therefore it cannot be impossible.

No, the question here is to know if it's *practically* possible to do. Ie: is it a practicable method for generating sufficient revenue.

Mandrake does. I've checked their recent reports and the club is no longer their primary source of revenue. Their main source of revenue is sale of boxed sets to individuals and corporations.

Those "natural bonds" are being able to pick something up and not let anyone else have it.

Really? Can you pick up acres of land? 'cause you can certainly own it!

Meanwhile, you can forcibly prevent someone from making money off of your IP, just like you can forcibly defend your private property. In order to prevent chaos and the rule of the strongest over the weakest, laws were introduced to protect both kind of properties. You can debate it all you want, it won't make it less true.

Yes, well, it's well known the truth is never a popular message.

That would be relevant if you were speaking the truth, instead of circular logic, narrow interpretations and strawman arguments.

Talk to you later, when I'll disprove your weak arguments yet again... Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't use FreeBSD (or any BSD) for the same reason many of my friends do not use it. The BSD License! I have contributed a great deal to OS software because I knew that any improvements made to MY software would be given back to me. If I only had the BSD license to choose from, I would still be using Windows.

It is blatantly ignorant to believe that "if it was not for Linux/AT&T lawsuit/etc.. BSD would have become Linux." I know too many Linux developers who would NEVER consider contributing on BSD licensed code to believe that statement is true. Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? if you think FreeBSD is harder to install than Linux, then you are a damn idiot. Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? @brockers

So you don's use BSD because of the BSD license. So you don't want to contribute code freely for all to use as they wish without restrictions out of the goodness of your heart. Gee, talk about selfish. All I hear is MY code, MY this, MY that. ME, ME, ME. Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Sigh. You really don't get it, do you? It's not about knowing something, it's about others preventing from the commercialization of IP.

No, it's not. Copyright has little to do with the "commercialisation" of "IP" (at least in principle, though perhaps not in more recent times).

If the only thing copyright sought to do was stop person B commercialising person A's "IP", then I'd have much less of a problem with it (the concept wouldn't be any less silly, but at least the objective would be reasonable). But, it doesn't - copyright seeks to stop *any* copies, *regardless of their purpose. You do not need to be commercialising someone else's "IP" to be guilty of copyright infringment (which being me back to the photographic memory example - how is someone with a photographic memory able to live without breaking copyright law ?).

You made a fragmented, unclear sentence.

The sentence is perfectly clear and stands on its own *when read in context*.

Do you pull random sentences out of the middle of newspaper articles and complain to the author because those sentences - without context - are fragmented and unclear ?

This is completely irrelevant. The fact is that there are murder laws in place to dissuade and punish future murders.

It's entirely relevant. Your assertion is that laws impose restrictions to ensure "freedom from harm". However, they clearly *don't* do that because people are still harmed.

The law doesn't *stop* things from happening, it simply provides an avenue for action _after the fact_. The law is not a meaningful deterrent - like those little padlocks on luggage, all it does it keep honest people honest.

I sit here "free from harm" not because the invisible hand of the law is holding back the slavering hordes from harming me, but because no-one wants to harm me.

Indeed. Without law, freedom cannot exist, because the stronger will inevitably enslave the weaker.

I didn't realise "freedom" was such a recent invention.

Therefore, one could make the argument that the GPL is more free, because it doesn't concern itself only with the freedom of the code, but of its derivatives as well...

Or one could simply note that it is "less free" because it imposes more restrictions.

If it's not supported by some kind of data, then it's a worthless observation, because you can't claim to know the motives behind every (or even most) developers that choose the GPL.

I never claimed to.

Mandrake does. I've checked their recent reports and the club is no longer their primary source of revenue. Their main source of revenue is sale of boxed sets to individuals and corporations.

Which is their primary source of revenue isn't important. The issue is whether or not selling the GPLed software - and *only* selling the GPLed software - is generating sufficient revenue. I can't say I'm interested enough to examine their financials in details, but I do see they've only just managed to turn a profit in the last year after some pretty big losses. Seems to me they're still a fair way behind the curve.

I also feel compelled to point out that one or two examples doesn't define a trend.

Really? Can you pick up acres of land? 'cause you can certainly own it!

I could stop other people from using acres of land.

Meanwhile, you can forcibly prevent someone from making money off of your IP, just like you can forcibly defend your private property.

"IP" laws aren't about stopping people making money off of other's "IP". They're about stopping people "possessing" other people's "IP" _at all_.

Talk to you later, when I'll disprove your weak arguments yet again...

Is there any reason why you feel the need to keep saying this ? Do you think you need to remind people what you're doing ? Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? No, it's not. Copyright has little to do with the "commercialisation" of "IP" (at least in principle, though perhaps not in more recent times).

Actually, copyright has a lot to do with commercialization of intellectual property. That's mainly why it was invented. Here, since you like definitions, the one found in Merriam-Webster:

"the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&a...

See, commercial exploitation is right up there in the definition. They even use the word "right".

If the only thing copyright sought to do was stop person B commercialising person A's "IP", then I'd have much less of a problem with it (the concept wouldn't be any less silly, but at least the objective would be reasonable).

I can't imagine how you can find the concept of ownership of literary, musical, artistic, and otherwise creative work "silly." A copyright is a temporary monopoly granted on the expression of an idea: not the idea itself, nor the method - that would be patents. In my opinion, the monopoly is way too long - the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act has raised to 95 years, mostly due to Disney if you ask me. But that's besides the point. In the modern world, the concept of intellectual property is as important as that of material property.

BTW, IP consists of not only of copyrights, but also patents, trade marks (brands) and trade secrets. Not all apply equally well to software - patents are an especially bad idea in software, as they stifle innovation. If you're looking for unfair, take a good look at patents.

The sentence is perfectly clear and stands on its own *when read in context*.

It is not up to you to judge if your sentence was clear or not, but rather up to your interlocutor, your audience.

But since you invoke context, let's have a look at it. I wrote:

"Conditions guarantee that the work - and derivatives - will remain free."

The subject of the sentence is "conditions". The predicate is "guarantee that the work - and derivatives - will remain free."

You wrote:

"Conditions that guarantee derivatives are GPLed."

What is the subject of this phrase? Is it "conditions that" or "Conditions that guarantee derivatives"? The first one doesn't sound right at all. You can easily say: "I introduced some new conditions that guarantee derivatives." But if you can't say "I introduced some new conditions that."

So we can safely say that the noun phrase "conditions that guarantee derivatives" is the subject of the sentence you wrote. This leaves "are GPLed" as the predicate. The structure therefore appears to be:

[conditions that guarantee derivatives] [are GPLed]

In other words, you basically said that the conditions were GPLed, which doesn't mean anything. What you meant to say is "Conditions guarantee that derivatives are GPLed." You inversed two words, making a sentence that was still grammatically correct but which made little sense. Hence the confusion.

I think that's pretty much all there is to say about this. Meanwhile, I asked you in a precedent post if you could cite me legally-binding documents that protect individual rights better than the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You still haven't provided any. I will keep asking.

"This is completely irrelevant. The fact is that there are murder laws in place to dissuade and punish future murders."

It's entirely relevant. Your assertion is that laws impose restrictions to ensure "freedom from harm". However, they clearly *don't* do that because people are still harmed.

They don't "ensure" freedom from harm, they "increase" it. They increase it through dissuasion and punishment, as I previously stated. Dissuasion, because some of what you call "honest" people might not be as good if there not the threat of prison or fines. Punishment, because by putting criminals away the law are prevents further crimes that they might have committed.

The law is not a meaningful deterrent - like those little padlocks on luggage, all it does it keep honest people honest.

Are you seriously claiming that things would be pretty much the same if there were no laws? Wow. I didn't think you'd take denial that far...

I sit here "free from harm" not because the invisible hand of the law is holding back the slavering hordes from harming me, but because no-one wants to harm me.

Somehow, I find that hard to believe.

"Indeed. Without law, freedom cannot exist, because the stronger will inevitably enslave the weaker."

I didn't realise "freedom" was such a recent invention.

How old do you think it is? How old do you think the concept of law is?

I can't say I'm interested enough to examine their financials in details, but I do see they've only just managed to turn a profit in the last year after some pretty big losses. Seems to me they're still a fair way behind the curve.

Do you know how Mandrake lost their money? By trying to diversify into edutainment. It was a disaster, but it had nothing to do with the sale of GPLed product. They were actually turning out a profit before the edutainment fiasco.

They're not a single example. SuSE and RedHat also make money from selling GPLed software; even though that's not the bulk of their revenue, selling GPLed software is possible because some people like to get a box and manuals and the convenience of pre-burned CDs.

I could stop other people from using acres of land.

Without a recourse to laws, you'd have to take the matter in your own hands, i.e. use force or other methods of coercition. I don't see why, in a similar context, one couldn't use force or coercition to stop people from commercially using one's intellectual property.

The more you try to make your point, the more you support mine.

"IP" laws aren't about stopping people making money off of other's "IP". They're about stopping people "possessing" other people's "IP" _at all_.

They, among other things, are about stopping people making money off of other people's IP without their permission. If I own IP, I can license it to others, either for money or under certain conditions.

I'm currently working with a license (a famous cartoon character) for a video game. My company will make money off of it, and so will the publisher, and so will the licensor (who owns the IP). The publisher will get limited distribution rights for the IP. This is legal because they have an agreement with the licensor. Now, if Joe Game Developer were to publish a game based on that license without ever consulting the license owner, you can bet those IP laws would prevent Joe from making money off of someone else's IP.

Is there any reason why you feel the need to keep saying this ? Do you think you need to remind people what you're doing ?

People? I don't think there's anybody else reading our long-winded rants on this thread. I'm just taunting you, that's all.

See you tomorrow. I probably won't be able to respond before tomorrow night, though, I've got a big day ahead. But I'm free all week-end - let's take this thread to 300! Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? haha this prooves one point.

None of the Current BSDs are like the origional BSD.

Calling FreeBSD or NetBSD the a BSD distro is pointless!

Also, tell me an open source operating system that is popular that does not have code from other operating systems.


It dosen't matter about linux, dosent matter about freebsd netbsd qnx solaris etc .. forget the license soap opera

just use what works faster and scales better.. oh yeah dont forget the TCO.

That's freebsd to me for some apps.. some linux for some apps. great thing they're both free.

time to be nice Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Really... what kind of person posts a retarded poll like this? I ask you with tears in my eyes... what type?

BSD IS NOT LINUX - GET OVER IT.

People use BSD because:
a) they like it
b) they want to
c) there's some particular thing they want to do

People use Linux because:
a) they like it
b) they want to
c) there's some particular thing they want to do

It's about choice - leave this idiotic flaimbait poll out of it.

I would really expact better of a site like this... Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Actually, copyright has a lot to do with commercialization of intellectual property. That's mainly why it was invented. Here, since you like definitions, the one found in Merriam-Webster:

"the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)"

It's one factor out of three.

I can't imagine how you can find the concept of ownership of literary, musical, artistic, and otherwise creative work "silly."

Same reason I think the concept of "owning" a mathematical equation silly.

A copyright is a temporary monopoly granted on the expression of an idea: not the idea itself, nor the method - that would be patents.

So how much success do you think you will have recording a cover of some copyrighted song and selling it ?

In my opinion, the monopoly is way too long - the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act has raised to 95 years, mostly due to Disney if you ask me.

That's 95 years *after the death of the copyright holder*. How anyone can possibly support the idea of copyrights extending beyond the death of the author is beyond me.

But that's besides the point. In the modern world, the concept of intellectual property is as important as that of material property.

Primarily to support corporate profiteering.

BTW, IP consists of not only of copyrights, but also patents, trade marks (brands) and trade secrets. Not all apply equally well to software - patents are an especially bad idea in software, as they stifle innovation. If you're looking for unfair, take a good look at patents.

Patents have to be applied for and - by and large - really only do concern themselves with people profiting from other people's "IP". In that sense, they're less flawed than copyright.

It is not up to you to judge if your sentence was clear or not, but rather up to your interlocutor, your audience.

You seem to be the only person who has had trouble.

But since you invoke context, let's have a look at it.

[...]

"Conditions that guarantee derivatives are GPLed."

What is the subject of this phrase? Is it "conditions that" or "Conditions that guarantee derivatives"?

Well, y'see, there's actually *two* subjects to the sentence. The "conditions" - that is, the conditions imposed by the GPL, as is obvious from the context of the sentence - and the "derivatives" - that is, code that is derived from other GPLed code.

So we can safely say that the noun phrase "conditions that guarantee derivatives" is the subject of the sentence you wrote. This leaves "are GPLed" as the predicate. The structure therefore appears to be:

[conditions that guarantee derivatives] [are GPLed]

Try this:

[conditions] [that guarantee derivatives] [are GPLed].

It's a follow-on sentence. A fragment of a discussion. It's meaningless without context. I'm writing in a forum and working under the assumption readers are moving from one post to another and don't need to be reminded at every stage of the topic under discussion. It's supposed to be read like verbal transcript, not an essay.

Meanwhile, I asked you in a precedent post if you could cite me legally-binding documents that protect individual rights better than the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You still haven't provided any. I will keep asking.

To what end ? Why are "legally binding documents" protecting individual rights "better than the US Constitution" even relevant to any part of this discussion ? At no stage have I suggested the Constitution is wrong. At no stage have I suggested the Constitution is bad. At no stage have I suggested any other "legally binding document" was better. All I have said is that it shouldn't be considered the only measure of basic rights.

They don't "ensure" freedom from harm, they "increase" it. They increase it through dissuasion and punishment, as I previously stated. Dissuasion, because some of what you call "honest" people might not be as good if there not the threat of prison or fines. Punishment, because by putting criminals away the law are prevents further crimes that they might have committed.

It's an interesting idea, this "you are only free when they are free from harm". When am I "free from harm" ? Is it when the law says someone can't physically assault me ? Is it when the law says someone can't verbally abuse me ? Is it when the law says someone can't try and rip me off ? Is it when the law says someone can't sell me bad food ? Is it when the law says I can't eat whatever I want ? Is it when the law says I can't inadvertently harm myself ? Is it when the law says I can't deliberately harm myself ? Is it when the law says I can't ask someone else to harm me ? Is it when the law says I can't think "harmful thoughts" ?

At which point am I "free from enough" to be "free" ? How many restrictions does it take ?

Are you seriously claiming that things would be pretty much the same if there were no laws?

No. I am saying the concept of freedom would still exist if there were no laws.

How old do you think it is?

I would say it's been around for as long as life has and has probably been "conceived" for as long as intelligent life has existed.

How old do you think the concept of law is?

I seem to recall some bloke called Hammurabi codifed the first set of laws. Google tells me that was back around 1800BC.

Without a recourse to laws, you'd have to take the matter in your own hands, i.e. use force or other methods of coercition. I don't see why, in a similar context, one couldn't use force or coercition to stop people from commercially using one's intellectual property.

Do you think you could stop someone humming a song you played them if you couldn't hear them ? Do you think you could make someone with a photographic memory forget a book you wrote ?

Copyright is *much* more expansive that just stopping person A commercially using person B's 'intellectual property', it's about stopping person A 'having' person B's 'intellectual property' _at all_. If it was only about "commercialisation", then all those people downloading music and all those people with warezed software they never even install, let alone use, wouldn't be doing anything illegal.

Not all countries have those "fair use" principles that you're undoubtedly going to try and use as counterpoints, either. Principles that only exist due to *legal challenges* as they are not inherent - indeed, they are directly opposed - to the principle of copyright (and I don't think they're codifed in the US Constitution either).

For example, in Australia it is illegal to record just about everything (there are a few exceptions) off of TV *for any purpose* (including time-shifting). Of course, no-one ever gets prosecuted for doing so but it is illegal. Moreover, it is clearly *supposed* to be illegal under the principle of copyright.

People? I don't think there's anybody else reading our long-winded rants on this thread.

Well, there do appear to be new posts that are from other people.

I'm just taunting you, that's all.

Ah, you must be French-Canadian. Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Sneaky, responding to a thread that has gone off the main page...

Oh well, here I go!

It's one factor out of three.

In other words, it's pretty important, proving you wrong. Also, the definition state that it's a right, proving you wrong again.

Same reason I think the concept of "owning" a mathematical equation silly.

A mathematical equation is not the same thing as a text, a song, a movie or a computer program. The two don't even come close. Once again, you are wrong.

So how much success do you think you will have recording a cover of some copyrighted song and selling it ?

Well, since a song is an expression of an idea (both through lyrics and melody), then you are simply proving my point. Thanks.

Primarily to support corporate profiteering.

Funny how you defend corporate profiteering by saying that the BSD is better than the GPL, but condemn it when deseperately trying to argue that IP rights are not important.

Anyway, forget corporate profiteering. What about authors? Songwriters? Artists? Don't they deserve to be compensated for their original work?

You've dug yourself a pretty deep hole, boy. You should really have quit five posts ago. Now you just look silly.

You seem to be the only person who has had trouble.

Well, since I'm about the only person reading your posts, it seems that you should be concerned about it...

Well, y'see, there's actually *two* subjects to the sentence.

I think you should revise your grammar: sentences can only have one subject. It can be a compound subject (i.e. "cats and lions are felines") or it can be a noun phrase (i.e. "the chicken I ate last night was very good"), but sentences have only one subject.

In the case of a compound subject, you can actually remove either one of them and the sentence still makes sense. In the example above, you could say "lions are felines" and it still makes sense. With your sentence, what we have is "that guarantee derivatives are GPLed" which is an incorrectly structured sentence.

The more you try to weasel out of this one, the worse you come out looking. Just admit you wrote a bad sentence and that I called it out.

It's a follow-on sentence. A fragment of a discussion.

Even as a fragmented sentence, it was confusing and meant something else that you wanted. Admit it.

To what end ? Why are "legally binding documents" protecting individual rights "better than the US Constitution" even relevant to any part of this discussion ?

Because you claimed that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not good measure of rights. I asked you to indicate which ones would be. You haven't, because you were really talking without thinking it through.

No. I am saying the concept of freedom would still exist if there were no laws.

The concept, but not the reality. Then again, seeing as how you claim that IP is not a right despite evidence to the contrary, it seems clear that you are not interested in the real world, but would rather stay in your own bubble of rethoric.

I would say it's been around for as long as life has and has probably been "conceived" for as long as intelligent life has existed.

I disagree. If no one is there to articulate the concept, then it doesn't exist. And I'm pretty sure that it got articulated at about the same time as the first laws were.

Do you think you could stop someone humming a song you played them if you couldn't hear them ? Do you think you could make someone with a photographic memory forget a book you wrote ?

Humming a song is not misusing someone else's IP. You can even make a single copy for backup purposes. These things are known as "fair use". Learing and retaining information, even photographically, has nothing to do with IP infringement. I'm sorry, but that's a stupid example. However, if the person with photographic memory were to reproduce the book completely and then publish it, he would be infringing.

Please, learn a bit more about IP laws before debating them.

Copyright is *much* more expansive that just stopping person A commercially using person B's 'intellectual property', it's about stopping person A 'having' person B's 'intellectual property' _at all_.

False. It is about stopping person A from reproducing and redistributing person B's IP.

If it was only about "commercialisation", then all those people downloading music and all those people with warezed software they never even install, let alone use, wouldn't be doing anything illegal.

Completely false. Downloading warez or mp3s is not illegal, sharing them on the Internet is. The acquisition in itself breaks not law, but the distribution does.

You are clearly ignorant of what IP law covers. Please get a clue before arguing things that can easily be proven wrong.

Principles that only exist due to *legal challenges* as they are not inherent - indeed, they are directly opposed - to the principle of copyright (and I don't think they're codifed in the US Constitution either).

False again. "Fair use" is part of copyright law. Stop arguing and start reading up on it, you might look less like a fool in the next thread about this.

Well, there do appear to be new posts that are from other people.

However, that doesn't prove that they are reading our rants.

Ah, you must be French-Canadian.

Indeed. And yet here I am correcting your english grammar... Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Sorry about the missing italics closing tag. I should have used the Preview button. Oh well, I'm sure you'll be able to work it out. Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? In other words, it's pretty important, proving you wrong. Also, the definition state that it's a right, proving you wrong again.

Where I come from, one out of three is a minority - and it states copyright is a "legal right". Ie: one *granted* by legal precedent, not *inherent*.

A mathematical equation is not the same thing as a text, a song, a movie or a computer program. The two don't even come close.

Unless, apparently, it's printed on the photocopied page of a textbook.

Funny how you defend corporate profiteering by saying that the BSD is better than the GPL, but condemn it when deseperately trying to argue that IP rights are not important.

Please show where I supported corporate profiteering by saying the BSDL is better than the GPL. Heck, I don't think I've even said the BSDL is better at all, just that it has less restrictions.

Anyway, forget corporate profiteering. What about authors? Songwriters? Artists? Don't they deserve to be compensated for their original work?

Of course they do. We just need a fairer system than copyright to do it with.

I think you should revise your grammar: sentences can only have one subject.

Repeat after me. This is not an English competition. We are not writing formally. We are conversing on an informal internet forum.

The more you try to weasel out of this one, the worse you come out looking. Just admit you wrote a bad sentence and that I called it out.

Yep, you got me. It makes perfect sense in context and style, communicates precisely what I meant to say and if read alound in context wouldn't even raise an eyebrow, but it's technically incorrect.

Even as a fragmented sentence, it was confusing and meant something else that you wanted. Admit it.

A bit like that one there, perhaps ?

Because you claimed that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not good measure of rights.

No, I didn't. I said:

"Please don't tell me the US Constitution is your measure of "rights", because it certainly isn't mine - personally I consider health care to be much more of a "right" than gun ownership."

'Measure' in this context clearly meaning 'only' or 'best'. Ie: I don't consider the US Constitution to be the single best representation of basic rights in existence.

The concept, but not the reality.

The reality is even *with* laws no-one is "free from harm" and with restrictions on what they can do, they aren't even 'free' in concept.

Then again, seeing as how you claim that IP is not a right despite evidence to the contrary, it seems clear that you are not interested in the real world, but would rather stay in your own bubble of rethoric.

Well, y'see, that's because if all anyone ever did was talk about the status quo, they wouldn't be very interesting discussions.

I disagree. If no one is there to articulate the concept, then it doesn't exist. And I'm pretty sure that it got articulated at about the same time as the first laws were.

Would that count as an 'observation' "not supported by some kind of data" and, therefore, "worthless" ?

Slavery has probably been around longer than codfied law. To me that implies freedom - at least in concept - has as well.

I would propose to you that no-one needs to "articulate the concept" for it to exist. Even a bird knows the difference between being caged and uncaged.

Humming a song is not misusing someone else's IP. You can even make a single copy for backup purposes.

It certainly is by the concept of 'copyright'. It's reproducing a song without permission. Playing loud music in public is only marginally different in concept, and that's also against the spirit of copyright (and probably the law in some places).

Or have you forgotten about that time the girl scouts got in trouble for singing copyrighted songs around the campfire ?

You can't always make a backup either - like here in Australia, for example.

Learing and retaining information, even photographically, has nothing to do with IP infringement.

Yes, it does. You are reproducing copyrighted information in your brain. How is that any different from photocopying it from a book, copying it off the internet, or recording it from someone else's CD ? All of these things are illegal in most countries.

Heck, the inherent nature of the internet caused (and is still causing in some places) all sorts of technical legal headaches because of all the copying it requires just to work.

I'm sorry, but that's a stupid example.

I would have said ridiculous - but it is that way deliberately to try and illustrate the silliness of copyright.

However, if the person with photographic memory were to reproduce the book completely and then publish it, he would be infringing.

Certainly in Australia, if he reproduced it at all he would be infringing. Not to mention that such a reproduction - even if only for personal use - is 'illegal' by the principles embodied by copyright, albeot allowed in many jurisdictions (again, due to hard-fought legal precedents and *not* the fundamental concept of copyright).

Please, learn a bit more about IP laws before debating them.

Not everywhere has copyright laws as liberal as Canada. Most of them (that have copyright laws at all) are much more strict (one of the reasons I'm considering moving there).

I wouldn't count on having all those "fair use" rights forever, either - the media companies are fighting tooth and nail to have them removed.

It is about stopping person A from reproducing and redistributing person B's IP.

Again, not in all jurisdictions and certainly not in principle. Any reproduction of "IP" made without the copyright holder's consent - even if made directly from the original and only for personal (ie: not redistribution) use - is at the very least a copyright infringement in principle (and often in law, depending on where you are).

Downloading warez or mp3s is not illegal, sharing them on the Internet is. The acquisition in itself breaks not law, but the distribution does.

Would that count as a "bad sentence" ?

Downloading warez and MP3s most certainly *is* illegal in most jurisdictions (although not in Canada, IIRC, lucky you).

You think Microsoft wouldn't prosecute someone using an unlicensed copy of Office ?

False again. "Fair use" is part of copyright law. Stop arguing and start reading up on it, you might look less like a fool in the next thread about this.

Please decide whether you want to consider copyright a 'law' or a 'right' (since 'rights' are supposed to transcend 'laws' by being "inalienable"). Is "fair use" a 'right' or a 'law' ? If it's a 'right', can you show where in, say, the US Constituion it is ? The WIPO, who insists copyright is a basic human right, certainly doesn't consider "fair use" a right, saying it is a matter for local law.

Oh, and "fair use" certainly isn't part of copyright law in every country.

As an aside, something I really find amazing about copyright is that socialist European societies actually produced a vastly more restrictive, individualistic and negative-for-society-at-large copyright regime than places like the US, with it's strong capitalism/individual property ownership/every-man-for-himself culture.

Indeed. And yet here I am correcting your english grammar...

In my experience, people who didn't learn English as a mother tongue (don't know if that applies to you) have much better technical grammar than people who did. Conversely, they often have difficulties with non-formal grammar, colloquialisms, slang and things that are written as they would be said, rather than as they should be (formally) written. Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Where I come from, one out of three is a minority - and it states copyright is a "legal right". Ie: one *granted* by legal precedent, not *inherent*.

All rights are legal rights. There are no inherent rights. They are all derived from law.

Unless, apparently, it's printed on the photocopied page of a textbook.

Uh, no. The formulas in a textbook aren't covered by copyright. The text that explains them and the concepts behind them are, however.

Each new argument about this reveals your lack of knowledge. There are only two of us left reading this, and you're spectacularly failing to convince. Of course, I'm not about to get you to admit that you're wrong either, so we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Please show where I supported corporate profiteering by saying the BSDL is better than the GPL. Heck, I don't think I've even said the BSDL is better at all, just that it has less restrictions.

So you simply don't believe in IP rights because people can make money off of it? Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I believe that IP rights are important.

'Measure' in this context clearly meaning 'only' or 'best'. Ie: I don't consider the US Constitution to be the single best representation of basic rights in existence.

And I asked you to name me a better one. You haven't.

It certainly is by the concept of 'copyright'. It's reproducing a song without permission.

Please indicate to me a single example of someone being sued for copyright infringement because they hummed a song.

Or have you forgotten about that time the girl scouts got in trouble for singing copyrighted songs around the campfire ?

I'd love a link, to see how that story turned out. I'm not saying the RIAA isn't going overboard - I hate these guys and their tactics - but that doesn't mean that IP rights in themselves are silly. Don't throw the baby with the bathwater.

Yes, it does. You are reproducing copyrighted information in your brain.

Whaaaaaaaat? No you're not, you're perceiving copyrighted information. That's nothing like reproducing - for starters, you can't redistribute your brain's perception - even if you're one of the rare people with photographic memory.

I'm sorry, but are you trying to make me break OSNews' posting terms by calling you a moron? Because it's almost working. I better stop before I give in. Fri, 03 Sep 2004 05:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments