Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Mar 2010 22:32 UTC, submitted by aaronb
Legal It's time for bed over here, but before I turn in with a nice cup of tea and a Gilmore Girls episode, we've got some good news for you: SCO has been dealt yet another major blow in its baseless lawsuit against Novell. A jury has ruled that Novell owns the UNIX copyrights - not SCO.
Thread beginning with comment 416167
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: SCO
by lucas_maximus on Wed 31st Mar 2010 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SCO"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

GNU/Linux has the problem of having inconsistent documentation, breaking drivers (that did work) and reinventing the wheel (ALSA, PulseAudio) when there are already good software that could have been built upon. It very much the attitude of one of the software engineers at our place .. completely rewrite something from scratch because you don't like how some else has done it even thought it work.

Most of the BSD base system except for things like GCC are now not GNU.

Edited 2010-03-31 09:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: SCO
by righard on Wed 31st Mar 2010 09:38 in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

If they where before, aren't they re-inventing the wheel?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: SCO
by phoenix on Wed 31st Mar 2010 17:30 in reply to "RE[4]: SCO"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

If they where before, aren't they re-inventing the wheel?


For some things, they (BSDs) don't have a choice. The GNU project is moving to GPL3, which effectively prevents those bits from being included in the BSDs. For example, GCC will never be upgraded beyond 4.something because they've moved to GPL3. Thus, alternatives have to be developed.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: SCO
by Laurence on Wed 31st Mar 2010 14:34 in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

GNU/Linux has the problem of having inconsistent documentation,

That depends on the distribution

breaking drivers (that did work)

As opposed to a lack of drivers on other platforms?

and reinventing the wheel (ALSA, PulseAudio) when there are already good software that could have been built upon.

ALSA and PulseAudio are desktop tools and on the whole Linux is a better desktop OS than BSD or Solaris.

Most of the BSD base system except for things like GCC are now not GNU.

If we're talking about desktop systems then the base system should be transparent to users - which, for the most part, it is on desktop distros (eg Ubuntu). In fact, the very reason I dislike Ubuntu is because I wanted to play with the base system.

However, if we're talking about server systems, then why even mention ALSA / Pulseaudio as I'm struggling to think of any enterprise solutions that would require a soundcard let alone a sane sound driver model.

Furthermore, while BSD can make a perfectly adequate desktop OS (I've had FreeBSD as a working desktop as well as dedicated a file server), Solaris (read vanilla Solaris, NOT OpenSolaris) does not.

And finally, you talk about quality in your OS then go on to discuss BSD desktops, well my experience has taught me that a key quality desktop OSs should have is ease to build and maintain. The ports method on FreeBSD (as much as I loved it for the server) wasn't a patch on pacman (Arch) or apt-get (Debian) in terms of ease and speed of delivery. Sure, you might enjoy tinkering, but most desktop users don't.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: SCO
by phoenix on Wed 31st Mar 2010 17:32 in reply to "RE[4]: SCO"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

And finally, you talk about quality in your OS then go on to discuss BSD desktops, well my experience has taught me that a key quality desktop OSs should have is ease to build and maintain. The ports method on FreeBSD (as much as I loved it for the server) wasn't a patch on pacman (Arch) or apt-get (Debian) in terms of ease and speed of delivery. Sure, you might enjoy tinkering, but most desktop users don't.


pkg_add has existed on FreeBSD for many, many, many years. There's even a pkg_upgrade that can be used on binary-package-only systems (no ports tree installed). And the major ports managements tools (portmaster, portupgrade, portmanager) all include support for binary package upgrades.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: SCO
by toast88 on Wed 31st Mar 2010 21:32 in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

GNU/Linux has the problem of having inconsistent documentation, breaking drivers (that did work) and reinventing the wheel (ALSA, PulseAudio) when there are already good software that could have been built upon.

*yawn*. Why do the *BSD guys keep on bugging the Linux community all the time? If *BSD was really that much superior that BSD fanboys claim it is, why the hell are over 90% of worlds fastest computers (top500.org) running Linux? Do you think, the people who set up those clusters are rookies? Why is Google running Linux? Why does CERN run Linux (I saw the machines myself there)?

I tested *BSD several times and different versions. And let alone the FreeBSD installer made me vomit. It's centuries beyond debian-installer and I won't even talk about the package management here.

The Linux kernel is the largest software project in the world and it is the operating system which supports the most architectures (source: Greg-Kroah Hartman during his talk @FOSDEM 2010).

Why can't those *BSD guys just stop bitching around and just try to be better instead of telling people that Linux is crap? It's just really annoying that so many *BSD people keep on telling us that they have the better solution.

And seriously. If you ever *had* used PulseAudio you would knew that it is just not another audio stack. PulseAudio is a powerful set of daemons and utilities that make using modern audio hardware just fun. It's so easy to use bluetooth audio, re-direct audio input/output to other machines on the network and much much more. PulseAudio ROCKS.


It very much the attitude of one of the software engineers at our place .. completely rewrite something from scratch because you don't like how some else has done it even thought it work.

Yeah, and re-writing a lot of GNU tools from scratch just for the sake of having the tools covered by a BSD licence is not re-inventing the wheel then?

Adrian

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[5]: SCO
by darknexus on Fri 2nd Apr 2010 05:21 in reply to "RE[4]: SCO"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

While I agree that Pulseaudio is a good thing, it's not fully ready yet. It still has some bugs with certain audio cards, try using it with a Creative SB Audigy2 or other emu10k1-based card (some of the only cards left that actually still have full hardware mixing capabilities) and see what happens. It lags, cuts out, and in general is just not working right with these cards. Otoh though, it actually makes a lot of onboard chips, particularly buggy hda-intel based chips, actually work right without some of the annoying Dmix artifacts when doing a lot of resampling. There are also latency issues in Pulseaudio that make it unsuitable for audio editing and other realtime audio. You don't notice it with regular day-to-day use but try playing a synthesizer or using Audacity with it. For those kinds of things, you still need to set up JACK for best results. At least Pulseaudio can run on top of and use JACK, so you don't have to sacrifice one to get the other. It kind of reminds me of how the Windows situation used to be, you had the typical audio stack but if you wanted low-latency you installed and configured ASIO if your card supported it. At least in Linux the "if" part about being able to actually get low latency working with your card isn't an issue, but it's still some effort to set up.

Oops, got big time off topic didn't we?

Edited 2010-04-02 05:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2