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 468126
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Brynet
by ichi on Mon 28th Mar 2011 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Brynet"
Member since:

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.

It's not just absence of lock-in, you get full information about what's been done, how and why, be it a surgical intervention or a drug treatment.

Drugs on medical treatments are diagnosed based on the active principle, and documentation on it's full composition and effects (and hence the reasoning behind the prescription) is publicly available.
You can request any other doctor to take on your illness at any point and continue from there, with full access to all your medical records and complete info about your previous treatment.

When it comes to architecture, you have access not only to the blueprints but also to a comprehensive list of the materials used.

I wouldn't consider subjects of unauthorized experiments to be actual "customers". If they were to be considered patients that would be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, and as such a exception rather than the norm.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Brynet
by BluenoseJake on Mon 28th Mar 2011 15:31 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Brynet"
BluenoseJake Member since:

That still isn't the same as software development, foss, or otherwise, it's different issue all together. One (the doctor) has no choice, he isn't working for himself, building a product, he is dealing directly with you, and your body. It's your body, and you might die if he withholds information/treatment whatever. You don't have a choice in using another body if yours is malfunctioning. You can change doctors, that's it.

The other is software development, where the developer is building a product. He has the right to distribute the product anyway he wants, and you have the right to use a different product. You have the right to demand timely fixes to bugs, something a doctor can't provide. The developer has a right to get paid. The doctor gets paid whether you die or not. It's in his best interests to make all the relevant facts available to you. It might not be in the developers best interests to release the code. It may not be in his best interests to close the code. That's up to him, and it's up to you if you use it.

They are not the same, in any way.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Brynet
by ichi on Mon 28th Mar 2011 15:55 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Brynet"
ichi Member since:

You are grasping at straws there: both doctors and architects (the examples given, but you can find that in other professions) provide full comprehensive documentation of their work (ie. the "source", not just abstracts), from procedures down to materials, which can be used by anyone else to make improvements or fix errors.

If the public availability of blueprints and used materials is not akin to FOSS (to the extent it can be, being completely unrelated professions) I don't know what it is.

That was the OP's point.

Reply Parent Score: 3