Linked by ddc_ on Thu 2nd Feb 2012 23:22 UTC
There are different reasons people use Unix-like operating systems, including configurable, availability free of charge, powerful command line interface an many more. Some people are motivated by the moral issue: they reject non-free software. Specifically for such users Free Software Foundation developed Guidelines for Free System Distributions and created the list of absolutely free ("as in freedom") distributions. In this article we are going to look at the most recent entry on the list - Parabola GNU/Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 505725
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-18
App developers work damn hard to keep their skills up to date, and to write quality, bug free software.
Like...Skype and Kazaaaaaaaaa and comet cursors and bonzai buddy?
Just pulling your leg though...
But there's room for both types of software, and to rule out things like device drivers is totally nuts.
Yeah, this thing annoys me too. I use almost only FOSS software but if someone wants to sell their closed-code for profit that's none of my business. I'll probably never buy their product in a million years but that's my choice.
Member since:2005-07-06
I use almost only FOSS software but if someone wants to sell their closed-code for profit that's none of my business. I'll probably never buy their product in a million years but that's my choice.
But that is the point entirely. FSF is not trying to get proprietary software outlawed. It is trying to get people to see the benefits of FOSS only.
The outcome is still the same though. If the majority of consumers forego proprietary for FOSS, there won't be much of a proprietary market left.
As an aside: Distributions are free to follow the FSF guidelines or not. So all pure FOSS distro's do so of their own volition.
Member since:2006-01-22
I'll probably never buy their product in a million years but that's my choice.
with drivers you have no choice. If the blobs are not platform specific they count as firmware. Otherwise it is anti-competitive, immoral and possibly illegal.
It seems that UEFI would solve this problem with bytecode drivers in UEFI. But don't hold your breath. If the process is not standardized with standard cross-platform exported interfaces (but with user-space blobs), it would mean the death of FOSS.
Member since:2006-09-21
Member since:2007-04-25
You mean like Apple telling developers targeting certain of its systems which tools to use?
What I'm missing is why FSF promoting a certain license philosophy, clearly defining what they mean, and then providing a list of certain products that conform to that philosophy for those who want to adhere to it is worse than a corporation promoting a certain license type and enforcing it in their market space by banning non-compliant software.
In both cases you get the same choice - don't use their products or recommended products.
I'm fine with both Apple (I use an iPad) and FSF (I use various Linux products on a lot of systems, and release some of my own software under GPL) as long as I still have a choice.
Can you clarify why you are upset?
Member since:2006-07-14
As a software developer the whole "proprietary software is illegal" thing really pi$$es me off.
Writing software is what I do for a living. If these people had their way, my job wouldn't exist.
And it should exist. App developers work damn hard to keep their skills up to date, and to write quality, bug free software. Why should the product of months (sometimes years) of hard graft not be allowed to be sold for profit?
Writing software is what I do for a living. If these people had their way, my job wouldn't exist.
And it should exist. App developers work damn hard to keep their skills up to date, and to write quality, bug free software. Why should the product of months (sometimes years) of hard graft not be allowed to be sold for profit?
No one is saying that. There are people that want libre software. There is nothing in any FSF license that prohibits anyone from selling the resulting product for money. There are people who do want all of their software to be libre-free. What's wrong with that? If you were supreme emperor of the world, would you ban free ( either libre or beer free) software?
I have nothing against FOSS, in fact I really want it to succeed. But there's room for both types of software, and to rule out things like device drivers is totally nuts.
By the other section of your comment, its kind of clear that you feel that FOSS is out to get you. In any case, its clear that Parabola isn't for you. Great. If there is room for both, then what the heck was the point of your comment? Live and let live. You have your choice from a complete no free software at all Operating system ( Windows) to do what ever the heck you want with it ( FreeBSD) to do everything with it except abuse other people's ability to do the same ( Debian Linux Parabola,etc).
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2007-03-26
As a software developer the whole "proprietary software is illegal" thing really pi$$es me off.
Writing software is what I do for a living. If these people had their way, my job wouldn't exist.
And it should exist. App developers work damn hard to keep their skills up to date, and to write quality, bug free software. Why should the product of months (sometimes years) of hard graft not be allowed to be sold for profit?
I have nothing against FOSS, in fact I really want it to succeed. But there's room for both types of software, and to rule out things like device drivers is totally nuts.
Writing software is what I do for a living. If these people had their way, my job wouldn't exist.
And it should exist. App developers work damn hard to keep their skills up to date, and to write quality, bug free software. Why should the product of months (sometimes years) of hard graft not be allowed to be sold for profit?
I have nothing against FOSS, in fact I really want it to succeed. But there's room for both types of software, and to rule out things like device drivers is totally nuts.
I think you're missing the point.
You said yourself that there's room for both types of software and this is one that caters for the free market.
If you sat down and thought about it, Windows massively outsells Linux and OS X isn't doing too badly these days either. Thus the non-free market is covered. So distributions like this are not trying to lot the downfall of Windows nor OS X (such a comment would be absurd), they're just offering users the option of other extreme.
As you said yourself, there's room for both. So I wouldn't get upset by it.
Member since:2010-12-22
>>>> Why should the product of months (sometimes years) of hard
>>>> graft not be allowed to be sold for profit?
You think you don't know what is Free Software mate...
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
"...Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding...."
"...Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!..."
It's not about allowing or not to be SOLD for profit. It's about having or not a copy of the source code with the binaries. That's all.
Member since:2009-08-18
http://penguinday.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/only-become-less/
The GPL is especially harmful against aspiring software developers. With BSD, you can take it, make it better, and sell it. Not with the GPL. (yes, you can sell it, but soon you will compete against a free as in beer modified version of your own program) For a small company, the best way to make money is selling licenses, the whole “make money through services” works best with big companies.
This is essentially what Oracle are doing with Unbreakable Linux, sell a RHEL but rebadged at a lower cost.
The whole thing is setup so you can't make a profit.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/articl...
A less publicized and unintended use of the GPL is that it is very favorable to large companies that want to undercut software companies. In other words, the GPL is well suited for use as a marketing weapon, potentially reducing overall economic benefit and contributing to monopolistic behavior.
Edited 2012-02-03 10:35 UTC
Member since:2011-12-22
Mr. Good Sir,
1st) It's about choices.
2nd) I sell my open source php & mysql code for profit. I get money from selling it, and they get the final result + the code. They can do what they want with it (+ I gave the source code quite good documentation too). So.. open source and profit.
3rd) Be confident with your skill, sir.
Member since:2007-04-25
And from the other side of the market, I've contacted the author of a GPL program (listed in the header of the source) and contracted to add features I needed to fulfill my web contract.
He made money. I made money. Why are some people so mad about that?
Proprietary isn't the only software business model.
Member since:2006-09-27
As a software developer the whole "proprietary software is illegal" thing really pi$$es me off.
First, please let me make a technical point. They say that all software should be FOSS. That doesn't mean making anything illegal. If software licenses were based on contract law, that would indeed make some kind of contracts illegal. But the fact is that copyright is not based on contract law, it's simply a legal monopoly. When you abolish a legal monopoly, you don't make anything illegal, you make legal what was previously illegal. On the other hand, if someone wants to abolish NDAs, then yes, that would be making something illegal.
Writing software is what I do for a living. If these people had their way, my job wouldn't exist.
There would still be custom software and SaaS. Google makes a lot of money with unreleased software.
And it should exist. App developers work damn hard to keep their skills up to date, and to write quality, bug free software. Why should the product of months (sometimes years) of hard graft not be allowed to be sold for profit?
No question about that.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
"This is my NeXTstation Turbo Color booting the Mac System 7.1 Operating System using a hardware add-on called 'Daydream'. The Daydream has a Mac ROM and a few custom ICs in it and hooked up to the NeXTs DSP port. Turns your NeXT into a full fledged 68k powered Mac." So cool.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
"The NetBSD Project is pleased to announce NetBSD 6.1, the first feature update of the NetBSD 6 release branch. It represents a selected subset of fixes deemed important for security or stability reasons, as well as new features and enhancements. Please note that all fixes in the prior security/bugfix updates (NetBSD 6.0.1 and 6.0.2) are also in 6.1."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
"At the end of a week in which Electronic Arts confirmed it wasn't developing a thing for the Wii U, one of the software engineers in EA Sports' Canada studio, in a series of since-deleted tweets, disparaged the console as 'crap' and suggested Nintendo should give up on hardware altogether. 'The Wii U is crap. Less powerful than an Xbox 360. Poor online/store. Weird tablet', tweeted Bob Summerwill, listed as a senior software engineer at EA Canada, in a reply to a tweet posting a link about EA's no-Wii U news. 'Nintendo are walking dead at this point'." The Wii U is turning into the 21st century's Virtual Boy.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
"In NixOS, the entire operating system - the kernel, applications, system packages, configuration files, and so on - is built by the Nix package manager from a description in a purely functional build language. The fact that it's purely functional essentially means that building a new configuration cannot overwrite previous configurations. Most of the other features follow from this." Interesting approach. A Linux distribution, sure, but with some very refreshing ideas about system configuration.
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Appfour added, among other features, C/C++ support to its new version of AIDE. From Android-IDE, "Now you can write parts of your app or your whole app in C/C++ on your device. AIDE supports the Standard Android NDK toolchain (GCC 4.6 + Bionic, STL, ...). No changes are necessary if you want to build an app developed on a PC with Eclipse. C/C++ development is fully integrated: Build errors appear in the error list and files can easily be navigated to with Go to file. The editor supports C/C++ syntax highlighting."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Ars nails it: "The answer is that Google did announce what amounts to a fairly substantial Android update yesterday. They simply did it without adding to the update fragmentation problems that continue to plague the platform. By focusing on these changes and not the apparently-waiting-in-the-wings update to the core software, Google is showing us one of the ways in which it's trying to fix the update problem."
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
"It is good for programmers to understand what goes on inside a processor. The CPU is at the heart of our career. What goes on inside the CPU? How long does it take for one instruction to run? What does it mean when a new CPU has a 12-stage pipeline, or 18-stage pipeline, or even a 'deep' 31-stage pipeline? Programs generally treat the CPU as a black box. Instructions go into the box in order, instructions come out of the box in order, and some processing magic happens inside. As a programmer, it is useful to learn what happens inside the box. This is especially true if you will be working on tasks like program optimization. If you don't know what is going on inside the CPU, how can you optimize for it? This article is about what goes on inside the x86 processor's deep pipeline."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
"It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. 'The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut,' he said. 'My gut told me to say yes.'" The world would've been a much different place - Apple would have been less dependant on Samsung for its chips, which probably would've meant less money for Samsung to develop its Galaxy business.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Glass is getting some love at Google I/O as well. New applications have been released - Facebook, Twitter, Evernote, Elle, Tumblr, and CNN. Perhaps more interesting: the newly announced Google Glass Developer Kit will allow offline applications and direct hardware access - great for hacking and expanding Glass' potential. This kit will really allow hackers to put Glass through its paces.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
"But Beck and Merrill decided that simply banning toxic players wasn't an acceptable solution for their game. Riot Games began experimenting with more constructive modes of player management through a formal player behavior initiative that actually conducts controlled experiments on its player base to see what helps reduce bad behavior. The results of that initiative have been shared at a lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and on panels at the Penny Arcade Expo East and the Game Developers Conference." Absolutely fascinating stuff. I'm a League of Legends player, and to be honest, the community isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I'm happy Riot games has the guts to employ science to address the issue.More News »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2005-10-19
As a software developer the whole "proprietary software is illegal" thing really pi$$es me off.
Writing software is what I do for a living. If these people had their way, my job wouldn't exist.
And it should exist. App developers work damn hard to keep their skills up to date, and to write quality, bug free software. Why should the product of months (sometimes years) of hard graft not be allowed to be sold for profit?
I have nothing against FOSS, in fact I really want it to succeed. But there's room for both types of software, and to rule out things like device drivers is totally nuts.
Edited 2012-02-03 02:56 UTC