I was happy as an iMac G5 owner, now I am a happy Linux user again: good news is coming from the growing linux-on-mac community.
iMac G5 Preliminary Support in Linux Kernel
132 Comments
2004-12-14 5:10 am
Anonymous
Well, no, but there’s certainly a limit to what can be done under the GPL. It’s a nice simple plain text document with a beginning, a middle and an end. It’s finite.
I think you missed the point. The typical GPL zealot’s argument as to why the GPL is the “most free” is because it “protects freedom”. They seem to not understand what the line of reasoning entails and how additional restrictions can be laid on with the ultimate result of “protecting freedom”, depending on how the person doing the “protecting” wants to define “freedom”.
2004-12-14 5:18 am
Anonymous
I think you missed the point. The typical GPL zealot’s argument as to why the GPL is the “most free” is because it “protects freedom”. They seem to not understand what the line of reasoning entails and how additional restrictions can be laid on with the ultimate result of “protecting freedom”, depending on how the person doing the “protecting” wants to define “freedom”.
Why use the word zealot for those who may enjoy the protections that the GPL offers? To be honest, your virulence against the GPL smacks more of zealotry than anything.
Honestly, if you prefer to use software that is distributed under the BSD or the LGPL licenses, than go ahead. No GPL police will come after you.
GPL vs. BSD is a pointless debate really. Use the license that will accompish what YOU want it to.
2004-12-14 6:13 am
Anonymous
“Because you have to pay to use it ? ”
that only proves you get your terminology completely wrong. you fail to differentiate between sofware and service. also between proprietary software from commercial free software.
”
I doubt you’d find many people out on the street who equated “free” with the conditions imposed by the GPL, however. ”
unless you, many people do.
“How is using code in a manner its authors specifically made possible “abusing” ? ”
because it doesnt serve any useful purpose for the commons
“Which are basically just more fine-grained descriptions of “Support”. ”
thats very funny. learn to read
“Actually, being a fairly typical customer I most certainly can. ”
thats arrogantly assuming you are a typical customer.
”
Only without any form of guarantee past a nod and a wink. It’s that guarantee that Red Hat offers that makes their product *sellable*.”
you know how many people use centos?. no ask any webhosting company
you are total anti gpl troll who doesnt understand a word of whats being spoken
rhn is a service. support is a service. we dont call them non-free. non-free is a terminology specifically used to denote proprietary products. learn the difference
“I wanted your opinions, not regurgitated RMS. However: ”
people who attack someone personally just have accepted that they dont have any intellectual arguments left
”
All of these “freedoms” are available to those who make their code available under the BSDL. The main difference is the BSDL also gives someone the “freedom” to _ignore_ them. ”
there is every such freedom to ignore them when *using* gpl. read claus 6
2004-12-14 7:32 am
Anonymous
Please ignore drsmithy. How could you take anyone seriously who calls Red Hat Enterprise Linux proprietary because you have to pay for services?
It is complex for him/her to fathom that freedom in almost any context has a price tag. And the price tag is not necessarily 0 pounds and 00 pennies.
History is littered with anecdotes of people, nations and entities that have lost lifes in the name of freedom. I wonder how he would quantify such freedoms in monetary values?
Even when I download a free copy of Linux from the Internet, I, or someone, has to pay for the bandwith. I, or someone, has to pay for the CDROM I burn Linux unto. I, or, someone, has to pay for the CDRW that burns Linux unto the CDROM. I’m not even going to cover electricity bills, hardware cost, maintainance cost, the cost of the time I would have spent making money instead of downloading Linux, etc.
Ahem, now, with a little insight, lets leave him to ponder upon what freedom actually means, and uhmmm, how much it actually costs.
Meh, I don’t believe I actually got myself into this.
2004-12-14 7:57 am
Anonymous
“All of these “freedoms” are available to those who make their code available under the BSDL. The main difference is the BSDL also gives someone the “freedom” to _ignore_ them.”
…and, you should have continued, the freedom to compel others to ignore them also.
2004-12-14 8:01 am
Anonymous
No, I really don’t think I’ve missed the point. I do indeed believe the GPL is about protecting freedom, in the sense that you place your code under the GPL if you wish others who desire the use of that code to be compelled to continue allowing its free use by others. You place your code under the BSD license if you wish to grant an absolute liberty to use that code, including the liberty to make derivatives of it less free than either the BSD license itself or indeed the GPL. I agree that in your sense of the word ‘free’ the GPL is ‘less free’ than the BSD (though I think that’s a good thing rather than a bad thing, in the same way that a well-written libel law is a good thing). However, I also believe the GPL is a better license for protecting freedom, as it guarantees an absolute minimum level of useful freedom in any derived code, whereas the BSD license does not. Clear?
2004-12-14 8:05 am
Anonymous
“people who attack someone personally just have accepted that they dont have any intellectual arguments left
”
Actually Dr. Smithy has not been attacking very many people and has put some fairly clear arguements to different statements. You should try to actually argue with his arguements not paint him off as an anti-GPL zealot.
I would also like to hear that person’s actual opinions. I never let a group of people define my political belief and I don’t think anybody else should. This is why I don’t like it when people are asked about their opinion on something, they link a group’s website. That’s not *your* opinion but rather the opinion of a group.
“there is every such freedom to ignore them when *using* gpl. read claus 6”
Depends on your definition of *using*. I am a developer. Therefore my main definition of using would be to use part of the code in my program. If I were to use a library or a program inside of my program, I then do *NOT* have the freedom to license my own program however I want even if I don’t make it closed source or proprietary I think is how you label them.
“that only proves you get your terminology completely wrong. you fail to differentiate between sofware and service. also between proprietary software from commercial free software.
”
Not really, I think that the FSF or whatever makes the terminology very confusing! It should be called something different so that we don’t have to thing to distinguish which one it is. Also proprietary is not a fair label in my opinion because a lot of software has released their protocols and file formats which makes it not proprietary by normal standards.
“unless you, many people do.”
I’m assuming unlike here. Actually I’m sure that if you did a random poll of 500 normal working citizens (not going to a cs college or something) and asking them what they think of when they hear the term free software, they will mostly (90%+) think of software that does not cost any money.
“because it doesnt serve any useful purpose for the commons ”
Actually if it gives the common person a better program to accomplish his tasks, then yes it does serve a useful purpose.
“thats very funny. learn to read ”
This is an attack just so you know.
“you are total anti gpl troll who doesnt understand a word of whats being spoken ”
This also is an uneeded attack. He understands everything from what I can tell.
2004-12-14 8:22 am
Anonymous
Being free means being without restrictions. However, since some people abuse that situation, society has seen fit to impose restrictions on behaviour. The more restrictions there are, the further away from “free” that society is. People who say “we live in a free society” really mean “we live in a society whose restrictions don’t affect me”.
Hello! Great drsmithy, you’re getting there. That was all i wanted to hear. Now that you appear to understand the benefit of a society with certain protections to guarantee freedom or happiness, perhaps you can also understand why some argue the GPL is more free than public domain / revised BSD / MIT/X11. I already understand your viewpoint, heard it a zillion times, and am not interested in reading it yet again.
‘GPL is more free’ is actually not my viewpoint given i tend to view it pragmatic. I also have little interest in the zillionth license war except making this very point about relative freedom. Others in this thread appear to put lots of time in this thread and appear to be a bunch of BSD and GPL zealots. Remember, the most funny BSD zealots are the MVPs 
—-
Not really, I think that the FSF or whatever makes the terminology very confusing!
They defined the definition of ‘free software’. OSI defined the definition of ‘open source’. Hence we speak about ‘free according to the FSF’ and ‘free according to the OSI’. Its a set of rules which apply *using* copyright.
Most people refer to either of these, some use Microsoft’s definition which is the same as the OpenVMS one: if you’re able to read the source, but are not allowed to modify/run/distribute your changes then its still open source according to Microsoft.
2004-12-14 9:13 am
Anonymous
If the combined intellect of the many inspired and talented people who contributed to this post [no sarcasm intended] had devoted some decent time to develop an application for OS X [and don’t use 10.1 anymore, please. I waited until 10.2 before I migrated because there were still too many problems with it -and I know you’re going to say that there are still too many problems with it-] or a port of a good application still not available on the Mac, it would be that much better of a good OS.
And you want it to be a better OS because you know, whether you will admit to it or not, that there is quite a bit of good in it. You can make it better. Do.
But don’t put a dog sniffing its butt in the search feature, please. Think of the children!
2004-12-14 2:44 pm
Anonymous
“Actually I don’t, I just believe Microsoft should be able to say how and where their product is used (even if they have no real way of enforcing it). ”
Don’t you get it? MS gets to say you have to pay whatever price, and abide by certain rules. The GPL says you can have the code, but you must give your users the same rights you had. That’s the “price” of the software. If you don’t like it, DON’T USE GPL CODE. Move along to different code. No one put a gun to your head and made you use the GPL or GPL’d code.
Why does MS have the right to put those restrictions down, but someone who wants to use the GPL doesn’t?
2004-12-14 3:04 pm
Anonymous
I’m always amazed at the GPL debates. If you don’t get it or like it, don’t use it. It’s a tool for people who want it. Some people like everyone sharing code. And they don’t want to release code under a BSD-style license just to have someone put it in their proprietary code. They went to all that work to promote code-sharing and people who won’t share are benefiting from it. So they put the code under the GPL. That basically says it must remain public domain.
Other people don’t care if others use their code, or even want proprietary companies to use their code. In either case a BSD-Style license would be appropriate.
And of course, you can use a license that doesn’t give any rights to the source.
In each case, it’s up to the developper to decide what they want to use. Use of GPL code can limit your license choices, but so can use of other types of code. If you don’t like the license on code you are considering, find other code. You don’t have any Natural Rights to their code. If they use an open source license, they are giving you the code at the cost of some restrictions. Don’t like the cost? Move along.
But don’t get hacked off because other people are ok with the restrictions. It’s their right, because it’s their code.
2004-12-14 4:51 pm
Anonymous
“I’m assuming unlike here. Actually I’m sure that if you did a random poll of 500 normal working citizens (not going to a cs college or something) and asking them what they think of when they hear the term free software, they will mostly (90%+) think of software that does not cost any money. ”
thats true of gpl code too.
“Actually if it gives the common person a better program to accomplish his tasks, then yes it does serve a useful purpose. ”
perhaps you dont understand what commons means…
“Depends on your definition of *using*. I am a developer”
gpl is not written for proprietary developers who want to use other people’s software without contributing anything back.
its written for users. period.
2004-12-14 5:16 pm
Anonymous
Its funny, normally everytime when there is a news about new Hardware from Apple. People tell how expensive it is and that you can get the same speed with intel/AMD boxes at 20% of the price. And here people buy this ‘expensive’ macs to run linux on it. They just could buy this intel/AMD boxes for 500$ and have much more speed as the other people always try to tell us. Maybe Apple i not sooo expensive or is there another reasen that people pay more ? must be, I think =)
2004-12-14 7:06 pm
Anonymous
Don’t you get it?
Judging by the number of people replying and saying things I either already know or have already said in another post, I daresay I do “get it”.
MS gets to say you have to pay whatever price, and abide by certain rules. The GPL says you can have the code, but you must give your users the same rights you had.
Ie: Abide by certain rules. Wow, sounds just like what I’ve been saying.
If you don’t like it, DON’T USE GPL CODE. Move along to different code. No one put a gun to your head and made you use the GPL or GPL’d code.
Much like Microsoft products, right ?
Why does MS have the right to put those restrictions down, but someone who wants to use the GPL doesn’t?
At no stage have I ever suggested or condoned the idea of Microsoft having more “rights” than GPL developers.
2004-12-14 8:11 pm
Anonymous
Much like Microsoft products, right ?
Exactly. I don’t like their license, so I don’t personally use it. (Professionally, I have to unless I switch jobs). And I don’t waste my time trying to convince everyone else to think the way I do about their license.I live and let live.
At no stage have I ever suggested or condoned the idea of Microsoft having more “rights” than GPL developers.
I reread your posts, and no, I guess you haven’t. You have spent a lot of time arguing your view of freedom vs. others.
You think the BSD-style licenses provide more freedom. Great. Does everyone else need to feel that way too?
2004-12-14 9:24 pm
Anonymous
Why use the word zealot for those who may enjoy the protections that the GPL offers?
I don’t. I use the word zealot for those people who like to redefine the meanings of words to suit their views and then present those views as objective truth based on those redefinitions.
To be honest, your virulence against the GPL smacks more of zealotry than anything.
I’m not saying anything about the GPL that isn’t written into it. My “virulence” isn’t against the GPL per se (although I don’t particularly like it), it’s against the people who I feel deceptively advocate it.
2004-12-14 9:35 pm
Anonymous
that only proves you get your terminology completely wrong. you fail to differentiate between sofware and service. also between proprietary software from commercial free software.
Incorrect. I simply apply the same perspective as businesses.
unless you, many people do.
Many people certainly do. I doubt you’d find many of those people outside of a small circle of software developers, however.
because it doesnt serve any useful purpose for the commons
Ah. Which definition of “commons” would that be, exactly ? Because I’m having a difficult time thinking of someone who could possibly benefit – but doesn’t – from having an almost completely unrestricted repository of code available to them.
thats very funny. learn to read
They’re still basically just more fine-grained descriptions of “Support”.
thats arrogantly assuming you are a typical customer.
No, that’s experience. Arrogance is making the assumption _without_ experience.
you know how many people use centos?. no ask any webhosting company
I asked “any webhosting company”. They use FreeBSD.
rhn is a service. support is a service. we dont call them non-free. non-free is a terminology specifically used to denote proprietary products. learn the difference
Actually outside of the rarefied atmosphere of OSS zealotry, “non free” usually means “have to pay for” or “restricted by conditions”.
Which is, as I have stated numerous times, the way most open source software is treated by businesses “selling” it – as a resource to be tied to other non free products.
people who attack someone personally just have accepted that they dont have any intellectual arguments left
Firstly, that’s not an attack.
Secondy, you still haven’t addressed the first arguments.
there is every such freedom to ignore them when *using* gpl. read claus 6
“6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.”
I’m not seeing much there about being able to ignore the additional restrictions the GPL imposes over the BSDL.
2004-12-14 9:37 pm
Anonymous
Please ignore drsmithy. How could you take anyone seriously who calls Red Hat Enterprise Linux proprietary because you have to pay for services?
An excellent point. Fortunately I never said anything of the sort.
It is complex for him/her to fathom that freedom in almost any context has a price tag. And the price tag is not necessarily 0 pounds and 00 pennies.
It’s complex for me to fathom a point I’ve been making ?
History is littered with anecdotes of people, nations and entities that have lost lifes in the name of freedom. I wonder how he would quantify such freedoms in monetary values?
I wouldn’t.
Ahem, now, with a little insight, lets leave him to ponder upon what freedom actually means, and uhmmm, how much it actually costs.
I’ve already pointed out the only objective definition of freedom available numerous times. Alas, many people like to try and redefine the word for their own ends, muddying the discussion.
2004-12-14 10:05 pm
Anonymous
it doesn’t. But then, there isn’t an alternative. Every hardware platform you can usefully run a desktop computer on is proprietary. Life’s a bitch, ain’t it?
They may indeed be (technically, if not practically) proprietry, but they’re certainly not all single sourced.
That also still avoids the question of why, if “freedom” is so important, why someone so concerned would prefer one of the more closed platforms of the market.
No, the implication is that it has a near zero marginal cost of production.
Which is false. Software has a near zero marginal cost of *re*production. Creating that product in the first place to reproduce is very expensive. As note straight after.
This is the economic situation with which free software deals.
Indeed. Unfortunately the “economic situation” of free software has yet to find a sustainable (volunteer work is not a sustainable solution) way to deal with that initial production cost.
The original poster is quite right – because building a car requires massive ongoing infrastructure costs, the concept of an ‘open source car’ wouldn’t be as useful, because it’s not like anyone has a spare car factory in their back yard to tinker with the design.
And here we see the typical fluidity of the definition of “free” that gets used. At the start of the topic, “free” was referring to the concept of “free software”, but here, “free” is referring to “without cost”>
The original poster was actually responding to a query as to how a proprietry, single-sourced platform fits into “freedom”. His answer, like yours, is just a dodge.
It’s quite possible to have a “free” hardware platform where “free” has the same intention as it does in “free software”. That you need billions of dollars worth of infrastructure to duplicate that platform is completely irrelevant to the issue of “free as in freedom”.
Or so the people who insist “free software” has nothing to do with “free as in beer” say, anyway.
2004-12-14 10:32 pm
Anonymous
Many people certainly do. I doubt you’d find many of those people outside of a small circle of software developers, however.
—
the world’s most used free software license is gpl.
They’re still basically just more fine-grained descriptions of “Support”.
—-
no. false claim
”
Indeed. Unfortunately the “economic situation” of free software has yet to find a sustainable (volunteer work is not a sustainable solution) way to deal with that initial production cost. ”
free software has been in the industry for more than a decade. witness apache,bsd, linux et all. you can claim anything you want. facts prove otherwise
“An excellent point. Fortunately I never said anything of the sort. ”
of course you did.
“I’m not seeing much there about being able to ignore the additional restrictions the GPL imposes over the BSDL.”
you were talking ignoring the freedom, not ignoring the restrictions.
2004-12-14 10:58 pm
Anonymous
“The original poster is quite right – because building a car requires massive ongoing infrastructure costs, the concept of an ‘open source car’ wouldn’t be as useful, because it’s not like anyone has a spare car factory in their back yard to tinker with the design.
And here we see the typical fluidity of the definition of “free” that gets used. At the start of the topic, “free” was referring to the concept of “free software”, but here, “free” is referring to “without cost”>”
Eh? What? You’ll notice that in the paragraph you quote, the word ‘free’ appears exactly…no times. Open source / ‘free’ software works because the capital barriers to working on software source code are trivial – you need a computer and a text editor. There are millions of people who possess these things and lots of them have the inclination, for whatever reason, to hack on source code. Open source / ‘free’ cars, industrial robots, airplanes, any kind of heavy plant like that *wouldn’t* work because the only people with the necessary elements to work on cars are…car manufacturers. The capital barrier to working on cars is too high. The benefits of open source / ‘free’ software depend on the low barrier; in a situation with a high capital barrier there’s just no point in the model, you get none of the benefits.
2004-12-14 11:07 pm
Anonymous
“It’s quite possible to have a “free” hardware platform where “free” has the same intention as it does in “free software”. That you need billions of dollars worth of infrastructure to duplicate that platform is completely irrelevant to the issue of “free as in freedom”.”
Well, of course it’s possible! My point is that it’s not *likely to happen*, and therefore in the meantime I’d rather use a non-open-source computer than not use a computer at all. If there was a viable ‘open hardware’ computer available – even if it wasn’t quite as good as the alternative – i’d use it. (I intend to buy one of the open-source video cards that was discussed here recently, if the project comes to fruition). BTW, my main computer is based on an AMD processor. There are at least four different companies producing x86-architecture chips that are completely compatible with each other (Intel, AMD, VIA and Transmeta are the ones I can come up with off the top of my head, I know there’s others) – hardly seems like a single source to me. PowerPC isn’t single source either, since both IBM and Motorola make PowerPC chips. So what architecture were you referring to as single-source, anyway? Itanic?
2004-12-15 12:57 am
Anonymous
Actually I think I might run linux on a Mac, but I think it is more likely that I’d just compile my apps for MacOSX.
But why I’d might run linux on Mac:
1. I really like KDE (I reserve the feeling love for family, girls, friends and pets) 😉
2. I know and really like the way linux operates.
3. All the software I use are running on linux (and most also on PPC) but I’m not as sure wheater or not it’ll run under MacOSX.
Why I’d buy a Mac even if I’d run linux on it:
1. The small iBook (12″), about the size of an A4-paper, weights almost nothing.
2. The iBook also has a nice design, it looks great.
3. It shouldn’t get as hot as an x86-arch laptop.
Why I’d properly keep MacOSX arround.
1.: Gentoo has an port of portage (alpha-stage) to MacOSX, let one run most applications in portage on MacOSX.
2.: MacOSX has a great visual side and feel to it, that I don’t think even KDE on linux can match (and thats saying some).
First thing I’d replace or add is however a 3+ bottom mouse.
2004-12-15 1:23 am
Anonymous
I can’t believe that I actually read this whole thread….
In all scencerity, what a bunch of nonsense. Each license type has it’s purpose and is good in it’s own right. As a consumer, I’ll choose a product based upon it’s merits which includes it’s legal uses. When doing development, I’ll pick a license appropriate to my goals:
Commercial: If I want to make money off the work while retaining control and my competative advantage.
GPL: If I want to give away the work but ensure that I will have access to any useful value add features provided by others.
BSDL: If I want to give away the work.
For a point of clarification, the original work is least restricted (and therefore more free) under a BSD license. The GPLC is really about inheritence and derivitaves. This component guarentees that future versions will be no less free, while the BSDL does not provide this guarentee.
Again, each license has it’s purpose. The good/bad discussion without taking into account the developers intent/goals is pointless.
2004-12-15 2:25 am
Anonymous
I just thought of an excellent way to make my point about capital barriers clearer. Would the free / open source software model work if compilers were actual machines that couldn’t be copied and cost $2bn each?
Heck no. Does this mean there’s somehow something wrong with the F/OSS software model? No.
Funny how you defend Microsoft’s EULA policies…
Actually I don’t, I just believe Microsoft should be able to say how and where their product is used (even if they have no real way of enforcing it).
Funny how you seem to think other people should be able to tell Microsoft how they can license their products. Seems rather hypocritical to me.
Anyway, “One man’s freedom is another man’s death.” You don’t have total freedom in the country where you live, because you are by law not allowed to murder another. Would you argue that because of that, you’re living in a ‘non-free society’?
In the context of “free” being held up to its strict definition, or being compared to a society that has fewer restrictions on citizen behaviour, certainly.
As usual, however, you ask a loaded question in the form of “have you stopped beating your wife yet” ? I imagine your next comeback is going to be “outrage” that I supposedly believe murder should be legal.
Being free means being without restrictions. However, since some people abuse that situation, society has seen fit to impose restrictions on behaviour. The more restrictions there are, the further away from “free” that society is. People who say “we live in a free society” really mean “we live in a society whose restrictions don’t affect me”.
The point here is that the BSD license can be used in proprietary or closed-source software thus in fact it doesn’t protect itself from exploitation.
I imagine anyone deliberately releasing their code under the BSDL wouldn’t consider its usage in proprietry software to be “exploitation”. Indeed, I’d be rather surprised (and disappointed) if they did.
Literally anyone who ever had 1 in depth GPL vs BSDL discussion got that point already. Some repeat their own arguments pro either license ad infinitum though.
That’s because those arguments are simple facts that don’t change. Unlike the rather fluid and subjective definition of “freedom” used by GPL zealots.
The BSDL has fewer restrictions than the GPL. Therefore, *by definition* it is closer to being “free”.
The trouble with the “preserving freedom” line of reasoning is there’s no logical limit to what can be done in the name of “preserving freedom”.
GPL is freedom with protection, much like laws on democratic republics, […]
What freedom do you feel the GPL protects ?
[…] while BSD is susceptible to abuse and very thin line separates it from anarchy.
How can the BSDL be “abused” ?
” I said it was tied to a non-free product. Namely their support products like RHN.
”
how is rhn a non-free product?
”
I didn’t say anything about proprietry code, I said it was tied to non free products. Those non-free products are (mainly) the support, software certification and RHN.”
oh. software can be free because the reproduction cost is near zero. the above cannot be and is not covered by fsf or osi. you better start learning economics first
”
Actually I don’t, I just believe Microsoft should be able to say how and where their product is used (even if they have no real way of enforcing it). ”
thats utter crap. MS has been enforcing the EULA for more than a decade. show me a single court case where they have failed
”
That’s because those arguments are simple facts that don’t change. Unlike the rather fluid and subjective definition of “freedom” used by GPL zealots.
”
there is no zealotry involved here. freedom is a rather loaded word which happens to have a different meaning in different places depending on the context
“The BSDL has fewer restrictions than the GPL. Therefore, *by definition* it is closer to being “free”. ”
by this definition a country which allows people to kill others is more free than a country which restricts such crime. bsd is anarchic. its rather ironic than zealots like you who want to exploit bsd code use it as an argument for being “free”
“What freedom do you feel the GPL protects ? ”
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
“How can the BSDL be “abused” ?”
by proprietary competitors who abuse bsd code to improve their own products without giving anything at all back and calling open source cancer and communistic. ever heard of the MS windows TCP/IP stack?
”
For most customers, the value in RHEL comes from one or more of three things:
* Support
* Platform certification (eg: Oracle)
* The Red Hat Network ”
you cannot and should not speak for “most” of the customers. for customers there are definitely other values
1) well tested integrated product
2) long lifecycle
3) quick security updates
4) platform
5) domain knowledge
6) software compatibility
all these are available in centos too.
here it is again for you folks who missed it:
“That is the funny thing about OSX too. People have such an unwaranted erection over OSX just as much as people have such unwaranted negative feelings about windows. (snip)”
the same argument that os-x is a superior operating system over linux and why would anyone run linux over os-x, is the same that can be made about xp vs os-x.
xp, minus a few losses in specific categories, beats os-x overall.
‘there’s no limit to what can be done in the name of ‘defending freedom”. Well, no, but there’s certainly a limit to what can be done under the GPL. It’s a nice simple plain text document with a beginning, a middle and an end. It’s finite.
how is rhn a non-free product?
Because you have to pay to use it ?
oh. software can be free because the reproduction cost is near zero. the above cannot be and is not covered by fsf or osi. you better start learning economics first
Right. This from the person who appears to think software costs nothing to create and that the “fsf and osi” hold sole domain over what people should call “free”.
thats utter crap. MS has been enforcing the EULA for more than a decade. show me a single court case where they have failed
I think you’ll find that “enforcement” relied on things other than just the EULA.
there is no zealotry involved here. freedom is a rather loaded word which happens to have a different meaning in different places depending on the context
Well, it would be helpful if those definitions were laid down at the start of a discussion.
I doubt you’d find many people out on the street who equated “free” with the conditions imposed by the GPL, however.
by this definition a country which allows people to kill others is more free than a country which restricts such crime.
Yep. Just like a country that has basically unlimited free speech is “more free” than a country that restricts crimes like libel, slander and “hate speech”.
bsd is anarchic. its rather ironic than zealots like you who want to exploit bsd code use it as an argument for being “free”
What gives you the idea I want to “exploit” it ? How do you “exploit” BSDL code ? Is that like “exploiting” a Christmas present ?