Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "A senior OpenBSD developer has complained on a mailing list that upstream vendors of free and open source software are adding in changes without any thought of whether downstream users could adapt to the change. Marc Espie said this would hurt smaller players by not allowing them to keep up with the changes. Basically what is happening is that numerous changes are being made to Linux and smaller projects like OpenBSD cannot keep up with the changes. And, according to Espie, not all these changes are strictly necessary."
Thread beginning with comment 548328
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: He's totally right
by Laurence on Fri 11th Jan 2013 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: He's totally right"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

No boycott of BSD has been mentioned. Choosing to use programs that happen not to be BSD is not boycotting. The article only goes as far as to mention "laziness".

I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about how some individuals specifically chose not to run Free/OpenBSD because of the license. My comment was directly in response of one 'OSNewser' stating exactly this.

Did you stop and think for a minute that the fact that "GPL people" do use Firefox, Apache and Xorg is because it is a matter of pragmatism and not principle?

Well yes, obviously. But you've completely missed my point. I was saying that the very people who whine about the licence *BSDs are released under and refuse to use those OSs for those reasons, are the same people who happily use other software with almost identical licences. My point was those people are using double standards. My point was such laziness in principles are more than just pragmatism, but arguably just an excuse to hide the real reason for not wanting to use *BSDs; because it's slightly different.

It's exactly the same as fanboys who bitch about Debian being better or worse than Gentoo. Or KDE and GNOME rights. Or even the vi / emac wars. Except in this instance, licences are a completely irrelevance excuse.

Again, no boycotting is happening on the GPL side.

Already disproved. Read up.


As we established, the fact that "GPL people" often use non-GPL software on their systems liberally because of pragmatic concerns is the very opposite of zealotry.

But if they were pragmatic then they equally wouldn't oppose OpenBSD (or even FreeBSD) because of it's licence.

So the pragmatics are not those I take issue with. It's the vocal few.


The zealotry is on the BSD side. How hard is it to implement sed -i?

You're really not listening to my point; I'm not talking about developers (licence zealotry is more understandable if you're releasing code), I'm talking about users. And only a small subset of users at that (I'm in no way tainting all Linux users as BSD-bigots lol).

But you never do understand any of the points I put across. Whether I explain them badly or you're just closed to any opinions other than your own - maybe a bit of both? I don't know, but I think we should just give up now while this discussion is amicable ;)

Edited 2013-01-11 08:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: He's totally right
by kwan_e on Fri 11th Jan 2013 11:11 in reply to "RE[5]: He's totally right"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"Again, no boycotting is happening on the GPL side.

Already disproved. Read up.
"

Nope. The person you were responding merely stated their preference. They're not boycotting. They're prefering GPL over BSD if the GPL exist.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: He's totally right
by Laurence on Fri 11th Jan 2013 11:46 in reply to "RE[6]: He's totally right"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Nope. The person you were responding merely stated their preference. They're not boycotting. They're prefering GPL over BSD if the GPL exist.

That's essentially the same thing. I will grant you that the term 'boycott' can be quite emotive, but the crux is the same: refusing to use one product as a personal protect (in this case, against non-GPL copyleft licences)

I should point out that I wasn't intending to criticise him specifically (though in hindsight I can see why you thought I was). He did say that he also preferred Linux (as a user) to OpenBSD and that he might consider BSD if he worked for an ISP. So he was definitely more pragmatic and the licences were just one of many reasons. But it was his comment that reminded me of some of the conversations I've had in the past with less open minded individuals. As he said himself, there are plenty of people who cite licences as a reason not to use BSD technology and you often see working production-ready technology completely re-written for Linux because said technology isn't GPL - which strikes me as an immense waste of everyone's time.

(and don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Linux nor implying that BSD is in any way perfect. I facepalm over the arguments FreeBSD zealots raise about GPL in their OS. I just wish the FOSS community got alone instead of all this dumb infighting that happens)

Edited 2013-01-11 11:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2