Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Mar 2011 02:00 UTC
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 468068
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
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.
RE[4]: Comment by Brynet
by BluenoseJake on Mon 28th Mar 2011 12:34
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Brynet"
Member since:2005-08-11
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.
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.
Really? Just because they don't use lock-in? That's really not FOSS, that's just information about your body/building. On the other hand, the medical profession has patented genes(or at least tried), did unauthorized experiments on patients (google syphilis and the American south, or LSD trials on prisoners in the US).
Doesn't sound much like FOSS to me, when you don't have control over your own body.
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.
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...
RE[4]: Comment by Brynet
by BluenoseJake on Mon 28th Mar 2011 12:28
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Brynet"
Member since:2005-08-11
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...
That has nothing to do with the Free Software model, you can do that with any service or product. You are free to use Windows if you don't like Linux, or vice-versa, that's just freedom of choice.
RE[3]: Comment by Brynet
by porcel on Mon 28th Mar 2011 12:34
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Brynet"
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.
RE[4]: Comment by Brynet
by BluenoseJake on Mon 28th Mar 2011 13:19
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Brynet"
Member since:2005-08-11
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.
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.
Microsoft does not stop you from helping yourself fix problems, the sheer volume of documentation MS publishes, the 2 free incidents, the free service packs, updates, free(as in beer) software is proof of that. They just don't give you the code, or the ability to change that code. MS doesn't sue websites with technical info or forums out of existence, they don't stop people from sharing information on how to fix or work around problems.
I can't speak about Apple, as I own none of their products, but it seems to me the behavior you are describing is not as prevalent as you seem to think.
RE[4]: Comment by Brynet
by mrstep on Tue 29th Mar 2011 00:12
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Brynet"
Member since:2009-07-18
So you write a book, sell 1 copy, and have others take it share it with all of their friends. Maybe make derivative books from it, change a chapter here or there, re-use your characters. No problems, right? You sold 1 copy, what are you complaining about?
If you want your own book to modify and share / re-sell, write it yourself instead of stealing it.
Member since:
2005-08-11
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.