Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Mar 2011 02:00 UTC
Mac OS X When you run smbd -V on your Snow Leopard installation, you'll see it's running SAMBA version 3.0.28a-apple. While I'm not sure how much difference the "-apple" makes, version 3.0.28a is old. Very old. In other words, it's riddled with bugs. Apple hasn't updated SAMBA in 3 years, and for Lion, they're dumping it altogether for something homegrown. The reason? SAMBA is now GPLv3.
Thread beginning with comment 467938
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Brynet
by porcel on Sat 26th Mar 2011 06:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by Brynet"
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

There is nothing insightful about your comment. It represents the tired agenda of those that want to build walled gardens because they are afraid of what would happen in a world where ongoing collaboration was the norm.

Here´s an idea: Work like every other person does, including doctors, architects. You create some software, make some money by supporting it, extending it, but let your users fix your bugs if you won´t do it yourself.

The GPL3 is a great license in a world where big companies and patent trolls, sue small developers for their innovative ideas.

I have not been active in forums in a while, but seeing your senseless gibbering has given me the motivation to be.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 26th Mar 2011 16:48 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Doctors and architects produce products that are not naturally duplicable and transferrable, so they do not quite compete with each other the way software and computer hardware companies do. Professionals like doctors, lawyers, architects and scientists mostly sell their personal talents and time to their customers. One doctor can't see every potential patient in the world.

If you're in competition where the 'winner' can more easily take over everything, like the software industry where the cost of duplication is minimal, collaboration is less desirable. GPL tries to force it, but any company that is as highly successful as Apple has been over the past decade will probably want to limit and control their collaboration with competitors.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by BluenoseJake on Sun 27th Mar 2011 19:37 in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Here´s an idea: Work like every other person does, including doctors, architects. You create some software, make some money by supporting it, extending it, but let your users fix your bugs if you won´t do it yourself..


Every other person does not give their work away, and certainly does not allow people to fix "bugs" after the fact. If a Dr. replaces my shoulder, I certainly am not going to fix any errors he made myself, I'm going to go to another Dr. Same with an architect, if an architect designs my building, i certainly am not going to fix any problems myself, I will get an architect or an engineer too.

Most other professions do not use the OSS or Free Software model, and never can, or will.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Brynet
by ichi on Mon 28th Mar 2011 07:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Brynet"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Every other person does not give their work away, and certainly does not allow people to fix "bugs" after the fact. If a Dr. replaces my shoulder, I certainly am not going to fix any errors he made myself, I'm going to go to another Dr. Same with an architect, if an architect designs my building, i certainly am not going to fix any problems myself, I will get an architect or an engineer too.

Most other professions do not use the OSS or Free Software model, and never can, or will.


You don't fix problems yourself, but you get a detailed explanation along with radiographies/blueprints so you can get another doctor/architect/engineer to fix those problems.

I've yet to see any doctor/architect hiding information to their customers and/or forbidding them from hiring third parties to perform further modifications. It looks quite FOSS to me.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Brynet
by _txf_ on Mon 28th Mar 2011 10:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Brynet"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Every other person does not give their work away, and certainly does not allow people to fix "bugs" after the fact. If a Dr. replaces my shoulder, I certainly am not going to fix any errors he made myself, I'm going to go to another Dr. Same with an architect, if an architect designs my building, i certainly am not going to fix any problems myself, I will get an architect or an engineer too.

Most other professions do not use the OSS or Free Software model, and never can, or will.


But I am *free* to go to another doctor if I want a second opinion or feel that my current doctor isn't doing his job correctly. Likewise with an architect...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Brynet
by porcel on Mon 28th Mar 2011 12:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Brynet"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

But your doctor will not hide lie about your disease (your "bugs") or shouldn´t unless he is morally bankrupt. He will also provide all the diagnostic material that he has on you so that you can get a second opinion or even change doctors. In other words, he will allow others to build on his work, will share the results of his findings with others so that other specialists may treat you and so on and so forth.

Same goes for architects and building design.

You may want to continue to be paid for the same piece of code ad infinitum. It´s a very appealing proposition. It doesn´t mean it is the most ethical one, particularly if you prevent users from helping themselves or their friends by turning the act of sharing into a crime as most proprietary licenses do.

Reply Parent Score: 4