5 ms·

All software primarily used on Linux systems. You'll never ever see systemd outside Linux. Ever. BTW good luck with that mess too. Same with yast. You'll never

by X86BSD 10y ago

All software primarily used on Linux systems. You'll never ever see systemd outside Linux. Ever. BTW good luck with that mess too. Same with yast. You'll never see that outside Linux. Ever. You're creating quite the ecosystem of NIH and Linux only software. Btrfs, systemtap, etc. So "successful" is a seriously objective word as you use it. But good luck, you're going to need it methinks.

cyphar 10y ago
> Btrfs, systemtap, etc. It's not the Linux community's fault that Sun wanted to create a license that would make it GPL incompatible. If it were compatible, it probably would've been merged years ago. And CDDL is still copyleft, but it retains all of the restrictions with none of the benefits for users. So it's really the "worst" of both worlds. But you can put that in your pipe and smoke it if you like. > So "successful" is a seriously objective word as you use it. Did you mean "subjective"? Because I agree that those projects are objectively successful.
- X86BSD 10y ago
  It's funny how other open source projects had no problem adopting ZFS or it's license. Perhaps the issue isn't Sun or the CDDL but rather Linux and the GPL. Perhaps it's the GPL that isn't compatible with others. But that is the entire point of the viral nature of GPL. "You don't have to use our code." Your right and people are beginning not to. I mean seriously if you are so full of zeal you can't see Linux starting to circle the drain because of NIH, refusing to look outside their little tunnel vision world, while they reimplement things others are already solving, and reimplementing them badly, well then enjoy the ride. No one will obviously get you to see reason. But again enjoy your systemd and btrfs and systemtap and poorly implemented Linux only software. Also I don't smoke, so no pipe was involved in these posts.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    I'd be happy to use illumos or BSD if the community had strong convictions about free software. They generally don't, so I'll pass.
    - X86BSD 10y ago
      I'm not really sure how you can say that but again enjoy your zeal induced tunnel view. You can't get any more free than the BSDL short of public domain. And neither OS has any binary only parts or parts only available if you pay for them that I am aware of. So again i don't know how you view them as not having strong convictions about free software.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        They have no issue with their work being used for proprietary software. That's the opposite of having strong convictions about free software. Sure, they provide a mostly free operating system but they allow other people to take that code and enslave users. And I say that knowing that Linus doesn't care about software freedom either, it's just a development model to him. But at least it uses the GPL, so any code I contribute will never be used to enslave users. "More free" is not the point. It's caring about users enough to not allow someone to take advantage of them by taking your work and giving them a proprietary version. That's what the GPL provides which the BSD doesn't.
        X86BSD 10y ago
        "They have no issue with their work being used..." Stop. Right there. Do not pass go do not collect $200 dollars. There is where you should have stopped. People who write code and release it under a BSDL want people to use their code. ALL people! Users and business. That is called freedom. You, whoever you may be, are free to use this code any way you see fit just don't sue me. The GPL on the other hand hates proprietary software. Good for you. But keep in mind in your induced hatred of proprietary software, that it is usually proprietary software that innovates and pushes things forward. Free software developers are great. But they only work generally on things of interest to them. They don't solve the "hard" problems unless someone pays them too. Take ZFS. After fourty years of fs development what does OS have for FS's? Linux has btrfs? BSD is still using ffs, hammer maybe. That's really... Sad. It took millions of dollars and I don't even know how many man hours for sun to create ZFS. Or the UI. Look at what Apple has had to spend and the time require to create the HIG and the UI for OS X. And yes I'm sure some OS jackasses are going to attempt to declare kde or gnome etc as equal or superior to the OS X UI. But that is plain flat out disingenuous. They are not even in the same ballpark. And the apple UI is far from perfect! And the OS UIs are light years behind it. The point is the BSDL encourages everyone to use it. We believe in true freedom. Will bad people do bad things with it? Probably, but that's inevitable in a FREE society. The GPL on the other hand tries to enforce it's imperialistic view of "freedom" by the barrel of a gun. Or if you don't want to share that flawed world view don't use our code. Which is fine, your free to hold that belief. But don't call it freedom and don't expect people who understand freedom not to call you on your bullshit either. The GPL is not free. It has stings attached to its use. Continuing to claim otherwise is disingenuous at best and outright lying at worst. And i object to the wording "it's caring about users enough to not allow someone to take advantage of them by taking your work and giving them a proprietary version." This is absolute nonsense and bullshit Linux/GPL folks have been using for 20 years. You cannot make bsd licensed code proprietary. Period. What you can make proprietary is your own added value code on top of it. The original unmodified code is still free, still under the BSDL, still available for a user to take and use as he sees fit. The original code doesn't magically disappear to a land of unicorns and leprechauns the second someone forks it and modifies it in a proprietary way. That's simply untrue and disingenuous to keep vomitting that line.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    It's funny how other open source projects had no problem adopting ZFS or it's license. Not true; here's OpenBSD/OpenSSH developer Damien Miller on the CDDL: The CDDL is even more restrictive than the GPL and is far more legally pernicious. In particular: Clause 3.5 is a GPL-like "must distribute source" requirement. Worse, clauses 3.3 and 9 have no place in a free software license. I don't understand how anyone who has read the license could say that it is even remotely "compliant with the BSD philosophy". The GPL is far more acceptable than the CDDL. > Is there a chance to have star integrated into OpenBSD? Not with this license. If you want the BSDs to use star, then maybe you should license it with a BSD license. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=110806948606417&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=110806948606417&w=2 Here's Theo de Raadt: And now, because of "ZFS and dtrace", we should throw that entire Bostic-started effort out the window. Screw freedom, I need ZFS and dtrace. (...) Don't be fooled. In fact, I urge our users to investigate every person who has mentioned "ZFS and dtrace" together in the past. Their agenda is not the one that you or I believe in. Their agenda is division. http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/CDDL-vs-GPL-and-maybe-some-implications-for-BSD-tp47760p47762.html http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/CDDL-vs-GPL-and-ma...
    - X86BSD 10y ago
      Yeah so I'm not sure first of all quoting theo or openbsd folks is adding value to your argument. They are known to be quite, how should I say this, on the extreme side of things. And just because obsd holds this view that doesn't refute my statement. Illumos and FreeBSD are both OS and both are using it. So it is what it is.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Illumos didn't exactly "adopt" ZFS; it's a clone of Solaris created by core Solaris engineers, which just happened to live on beyond its original project. So essentially there's one project. Meanwhile, the GPL is used in FreeBSD, OpenBSD, MacOSX, Windows - and even SmartOS, an Illumos distribution.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vacri 10y ago
These days, git would be primarily used on OSX.

by X86BSD 10y ago

cyphar 10y ago

> Btrfs, systemtap, etc. It's not the Linux community's fault that Sun wanted to create a license that would make it GPL incompatible. If it were compatible, it probably would've been merged years ago. And CDDL is still copyleft, but it retains all of the restrictions with none of the benefits for users. So it's really the "worst" of both worlds. But you can put that in your pipe and smoke it if you like. > So "successful" is a seriously objective word as you use it. Did you mean "subjective"? Because I agree that those projects are objectively successful.

X86BSD 10y ago
It's funny how other open source projects had no problem adopting ZFS or it's license. Perhaps the issue isn't Sun or the CDDL but rather Linux and the GPL. Perhaps it's the GPL that isn't compatible with others. But that is the entire point of the viral nature of GPL. "You don't have to use our code." Your right and people are beginning not to. I mean seriously if you are so full of zeal you can't see Linux starting to circle the drain because of NIH, refusing to look outside their little tunnel vision world, while they reimplement things others are already solving, and reimplementing them badly, well then enjoy the ride. No one will obviously get you to see reason. But again enjoy your systemd and btrfs and systemtap and poorly implemented Linux only software. Also I don't smoke, so no pipe was involved in these posts.
- cyphar 10y ago
  I'd be happy to use illumos or BSD if the community had strong convictions about free software. They generally don't, so I'll pass.
  - X86BSD 10y ago
    I'm not really sure how you can say that but again enjoy your zeal induced tunnel view. You can't get any more free than the BSDL short of public domain. And neither OS has any binary only parts or parts only available if you pay for them that I am aware of. So again i don't know how you view them as not having strong convictions about free software.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      They have no issue with their work being used for proprietary software. That's the opposite of having strong convictions about free software. Sure, they provide a mostly free operating system but they allow other people to take that code and enslave users. And I say that knowing that Linus doesn't care about software freedom either, it's just a development model to him. But at least it uses the GPL, so any code I contribute will never be used to enslave users. "More free" is not the point. It's caring about users enough to not allow someone to take advantage of them by taking your work and giving them a proprietary version. That's what the GPL provides which the BSD doesn't.
      - X86BSD 10y ago
        "They have no issue with their work being used..." Stop. Right there. Do not pass go do not collect $200 dollars. There is where you should have stopped. People who write code and release it under a BSDL want people to use their code. ALL people! Users and business. That is called freedom. You, whoever you may be, are free to use this code any way you see fit just don't sue me. The GPL on the other hand hates proprietary software. Good for you. But keep in mind in your induced hatred of proprietary software, that it is usually proprietary software that innovates and pushes things forward. Free software developers are great. But they only work generally on things of interest to them. They don't solve the "hard" problems unless someone pays them too. Take ZFS. After fourty years of fs development what does OS have for FS's? Linux has btrfs? BSD is still using ffs, hammer maybe. That's really... Sad. It took millions of dollars and I don't even know how many man hours for sun to create ZFS. Or the UI. Look at what Apple has had to spend and the time require to create the HIG and the UI for OS X. And yes I'm sure some OS jackasses are going to attempt to declare kde or gnome etc as equal or superior to the OS X UI. But that is plain flat out disingenuous. They are not even in the same ballpark. And the apple UI is far from perfect! And the OS UIs are light years behind it. The point is the BSDL encourages everyone to use it. We believe in true freedom. Will bad people do bad things with it? Probably, but that's inevitable in a FREE society. The GPL on the other hand tries to enforce it's imperialistic view of "freedom" by the barrel of a gun. Or if you don't want to share that flawed world view don't use our code. Which is fine, your free to hold that belief. But don't call it freedom and don't expect people who understand freedom not to call you on your bullshit either. The GPL is not free. It has stings attached to its use. Continuing to claim otherwise is disingenuous at best and outright lying at worst. And i object to the wording "it's caring about users enough to not allow someone to take advantage of them by taking your work and giving them a proprietary version." This is absolute nonsense and bullshit Linux/GPL folks have been using for 20 years. You cannot make bsd licensed code proprietary. Period. What you can make proprietary is your own added value code on top of it. The original unmodified code is still free, still under the BSDL, still available for a user to take and use as he sees fit. The original code doesn't magically disappear to a land of unicorns and leprechauns the second someone forks it and modifies it in a proprietary way. That's simply untrue and disingenuous to keep vomitting that line.
- icebraining 10y ago
  It's funny how other open source projects had no problem adopting ZFS or it's license. Not true; here's OpenBSD/OpenSSH developer Damien Miller on the CDDL: The CDDL is even more restrictive than the GPL and is far more legally pernicious. In particular: Clause 3.5 is a GPL-like "must distribute source" requirement. Worse, clauses 3.3 and 9 have no place in a free software license. I don't understand how anyone who has read the license could say that it is even remotely "compliant with the BSD philosophy". The GPL is far more acceptable than the CDDL. > Is there a chance to have star integrated into OpenBSD? Not with this license. If you want the BSDs to use star, then maybe you should license it with a BSD license. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=110806948606417&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=110806948606417&w=2 Here's Theo de Raadt: And now, because of "ZFS and dtrace", we should throw that entire Bostic-started effort out the window. Screw freedom, I need ZFS and dtrace. (...) Don't be fooled. In fact, I urge our users to investigate every person who has mentioned "ZFS and dtrace" together in the past. Their agenda is not the one that you or I believe in. Their agenda is division. http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/CDDL-vs-GPL-and-maybe-some-implications-for-BSD-tp47760p47762.html http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/CDDL-vs-GPL-and-ma...
  - X86BSD 10y ago
    Yeah so I'm not sure first of all quoting theo or openbsd folks is adding value to your argument. They are known to be quite, how should I say this, on the extreme side of things. And just because obsd holds this view that doesn't refute my statement. Illumos and FreeBSD are both OS and both are using it. So it is what it is.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Illumos didn't exactly "adopt" ZFS; it's a clone of Solaris created by core Solaris engineers, which just happened to live on beyond its original project. So essentially there's one project. Meanwhile, the GPL is used in FreeBSD, OpenBSD, MacOSX, Windows - and even SmartOS, an Illumos distribution.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

vacri 10y ago

These days, git would be primarily used on OSX.