5 ms·

Congratulations. I hope Samsung nurtures the technical excellence at Joyent. Please, please continue to develop your public cloud offerings. Having options oth

by phaet0n 10y ago

Congratulations. I hope Samsung nurtures the technical excellence at Joyent. Please, please continue to develop your public cloud offerings. Having options other that the myopic, me-too, feature-matching, monoculture that is AWS/GCE/Azure is incredibly important. That said, for my use profile, you guys need to work on your price competitiveness. Hopefully Samsung will inject the necessary cash for economies-of-scale.

rms_returns 10y ago
> Congratulations. I hope Samsung nurtures the technical excellence at Joyent. I'm sure they will. They are a top contributor to open source: http://linuxcontrib-inn.rhcloud.com/ http://linuxcontrib-inn.rhcloud.com/
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Why is your link relevant? Joyent = Illumos, which is a fork of open-Solaris, not Linux at all.
  - benley 10y ago
    The point being that Samsung give a shit about contributing to open-source projects at all.
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      Have you used the browser on a Samsung Smart TV? They didn't give a shit about that.
      - ethbro 10y ago
        I think a lot of hardware companies are still in the "smart" transition phase. In the sense that they've only been offering a product line with GUI driven software component for the past ~5 years. Which means the larger companies* are probably on schedule for development to start slowing because of technical debt. And therefore solving that (modern development practices and open source involvement!) will become a competive advantage. * Sadly, the smaller companies will probably always be hacked-together-MVP stacks on top of whatever release they started dev on
    - fhars 10y ago
      The Samsung TV I got came with a pirated copy of linux, which is quite a feat (came with a copy of the GPL 3, which is a clear breach of the GPL 2 only license of linux).
      - egeozcan 10y ago
        Oh. I thought you could include v2 code in v3 codebases but not vice versa? I may need to go through my projects if that's really not the case.
        vertex-four 10y ago
        Linux has a specific amendment to the GPLv2 stating that it must always be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2, not the GPLv3 or any later version.
        tokenizerrr 10y ago
        Honest question, how is anyone expected to keep up with all of this? Software licenses are not all that interesting to me, I just like making things, but now I have to also read pages and pages of legalize for every single dependency. I thought it would be good enough to know most mainstream licenses, but apparently Linux has a modified version of the GPLv2? I would never notice that, nor would I trust myself to even comprehend it properly. It's starting to feel like I need to consult a lawyer before I could ever publish an open source project, and that's never going to happen. I'd rather just stop publishing.
        vertex-four 10y ago
        > apparently Linux has a modified version of the GPLv2? I would never notice that, nor would I trust myself to even comprehend it properly. The amendment is actually the first paragraph of the COPYING file. If you modify any of the terms of the license directy, you have to remove the preamble and refer to it as something other than the GPL. The other option for modifying the GPL is to distribute a separate LICENSE file alongside it stating something like "this software is released under the GPL, except for <specific changes>". When this happens, there's almost always an FAQ somewhere on the internet describing what the changes are intended to mean. So, basically - check the source files to see if they mention a license, then check if there's a file named LICENSE, then check if there's a file named COPYING. One of these should always point you to the right license. Additionally, as a point, it's not actually a modification of the license, merely a clarification - see section 9 of the GPLv2, which states that the program must explicitly state that it is usable under later versions of the GPL to be usable under later versions of the GPL. The boilerplate text that GNU give you to put at the top of each source code file does that by default, but, it's not required.
    - gribbly 10y ago
      They are legally bound to contribute their modifications back to Linux (if they distribute them), it may be a different matter when they don't have to. I can't say I know either way, however I do recall their Tizen SDK licensing not being accepted as open source due to it only granting the right to use certain components on 'Tizen Certified Platforms'.
      - Daviey 10y ago
        No.. they are obliged to provide the source... not contribute them back. (Although the cost of maintaining patches internally, makes it cheaper to contribute them back)
  - pazimzadeh 10y ago
    Quick wiki on Joyent: "In February 2014, Joyent announced a partnership with Canonical to offer virtual Ubuntu machines."
pwelch 10y ago
I second that. I also hope they add necessary resources to grow SmartOS.

by phaet0n 10y ago

rms_returns 10y ago

> Congratulations. I hope Samsung nurtures the technical excellence at Joyent. I'm sure they will. They are a top contributor to open source: http://linuxcontrib-inn.rhcloud.com/ http://linuxcontrib-inn.rhcloud.com/

bogomipz 10y ago
Why is your link relevant? Joyent = Illumos, which is a fork of open-Solaris, not Linux at all.
- benley 10y ago
  The point being that Samsung give a shit about contributing to open-source projects at all.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    Have you used the browser on a Samsung Smart TV? They didn't give a shit about that.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      I think a lot of hardware companies are still in the "smart" transition phase. In the sense that they've only been offering a product line with GUI driven software component for the past ~5 years. Which means the larger companies* are probably on schedule for development to start slowing because of technical debt. And therefore solving that (modern development practices and open source involvement!) will become a competive advantage. * Sadly, the smaller companies will probably always be hacked-together-MVP stacks on top of whatever release they started dev on
  - fhars 10y ago
    The Samsung TV I got came with a pirated copy of linux, which is quite a feat (came with a copy of the GPL 3, which is a clear breach of the GPL 2 only license of linux).
    - egeozcan 10y ago
      Oh. I thought you could include v2 code in v3 codebases but not vice versa? I may need to go through my projects if that's really not the case.
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        Linux has a specific amendment to the GPLv2 stating that it must always be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2, not the GPLv3 or any later version.
        tokenizerrr 10y ago
        Honest question, how is anyone expected to keep up with all of this? Software licenses are not all that interesting to me, I just like making things, but now I have to also read pages and pages of legalize for every single dependency. I thought it would be good enough to know most mainstream licenses, but apparently Linux has a modified version of the GPLv2? I would never notice that, nor would I trust myself to even comprehend it properly. It's starting to feel like I need to consult a lawyer before I could ever publish an open source project, and that's never going to happen. I'd rather just stop publishing.
        vertex-four 10y ago
        > apparently Linux has a modified version of the GPLv2? I would never notice that, nor would I trust myself to even comprehend it properly. The amendment is actually the first paragraph of the COPYING file. If you modify any of the terms of the license directy, you have to remove the preamble and refer to it as something other than the GPL. The other option for modifying the GPL is to distribute a separate LICENSE file alongside it stating something like "this software is released under the GPL, except for <specific changes>". When this happens, there's almost always an FAQ somewhere on the internet describing what the changes are intended to mean. So, basically - check the source files to see if they mention a license, then check if there's a file named LICENSE, then check if there's a file named COPYING. One of these should always point you to the right license. Additionally, as a point, it's not actually a modification of the license, merely a clarification - see section 9 of the GPLv2, which states that the program must explicitly state that it is usable under later versions of the GPL to be usable under later versions of the GPL. The boilerplate text that GNU give you to put at the top of each source code file does that by default, but, it's not required.
  - gribbly 10y ago
    They are legally bound to contribute their modifications back to Linux (if they distribute them), it may be a different matter when they don't have to. I can't say I know either way, however I do recall their Tizen SDK licensing not being accepted as open source due to it only granting the right to use certain components on 'Tizen Certified Platforms'.
    - Daviey 10y ago
      No.. they are obliged to provide the source... not contribute them back. (Although the cost of maintaining patches internally, makes it cheaper to contribute them back)
- pazimzadeh 10y ago
  Quick wiki on Joyent: "In February 2014, Joyent announced a partnership with Canonical to offer virtual Ubuntu machines."

pwelch 10y ago

I second that. I also hope they add necessary resources to grow SmartOS.