GPL'ing Solaris won't save SUN
Mike Cox
a big mistake. Solaris, when GPL'ed will have the same marketshare as one
of those *BSDs.
The reasons a GPL'ed Solaris would fail are the following:
1. Solaris lacks drivers that would enable it to run on the vast hardware
that is in the x86 world.
2. IBM would never get behind a GPL'ed Solaris. Linux has the feature that
you can run it on ANY hardware and run all your favorite apps! You write
your app on a PC and then when it is a hit move it to some big iron. If you
have to re-write your GPL'ed Solaris app to run it on a pSeries, why just
not write that app in Linux where you have IBM's 100% comitment?
3. A GPL'ed Solaris would have a lack of independant developers because it
is very unrewarding to write software for a niche OS. Linux has the
mindshare. Look how few BSD developers there are compared to Linux.
4. Linux has the mindshare of the vast majority of *nix users. Sure, there
will be Solaris users that will use a GPL'ed Solaris, but it will be a niche
market.
SUN would be better off leaving Solaris closed sourced and rebranding it so
the Linux fanatics would embrace it. If you GPL Solaris, the Linux fanatics
think you are competing with them, and they will spread FUD against Solaris.
If you make Solaris linux friendly by rebranding it to something like
"SolarisLX", signifying its linux affinity, Linux fanatics will embrace
Solaris. But SUN will also have to do what IBM did and make Linux run on
EVERY SUN box. That way, users get the "write once, run on any machine"
that they get when they use Linux (with the notable exception that linux
doesn't run on upper-end SUN boxes).
e7
> Schwartz said that SUN is working on GPL'ing Solaris. Unfortunatly, that
> is
> a big mistake. Solaris, when GPL'ed will have the same marketshare as one
> of those *BSDs.
>
> The reasons a GPL'ed Solaris would fail are the following:
>
> 1. Solaris lacks drivers that would enable it to run on the vast hardware
> that is in the x86 world.
Surely you are making a mistake here. Its not $olaris that need to work
with PCs, but applications working in GNU/Linux that must work in machines
running $olaris. GNU/Linux developers all around the globe
are beginning to take the lion's share of product development funds,
and they need to port their PC applications to $olaris machines,
or throw them out and replace them with 64 bit powerful PCs.
Rich Teer
> Schwartz said that SUN is working on GPL'ing Solaris. Unfortunatly, that is
No he didn't. Sun is considering open sourcinbg Solaris,
but the GPL isn't one of the licenses being considered,
But being a stupid troll, you don't actually care about
facts, do you?
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming",
publishing in August 2004.
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
Gavin Maltby
... the same old drivel as in other recent posts. Come on Mike, at least
get some new material. By my reading your argument hasn't gone down
as especially convincing one way or the other anywhere - you're just repeating
it below. Anyway, if all you say is so true and self-obvious then what are so
apparently so afraid of, and why the need to raise such a noise about
what you say is clearly going to be a failing product?
> Schwartz said that SUN is working on GPL'ing Solaris. Unfortunatly, that is
> a big mistake. Solaris, when GPL'ed will have the same marketshare as one
> of those *BSDs.
GPL'ing == opensourcing?? There's been no announcement on what the opensource
license would be.
[drivel deleted]
>
> SUN would be better off leaving Solaris closed sourced and rebranding it so
> the Linux fanatics would embrace it. If you GPL Solaris, the Linux fanatics
> think you are competing with them, and they will spread FUD against Solaris.
Ah, I think we're getting a better idea of where you are coming from.
Your idea of competition in the opensource OS market is that linux be allowed
the luxury of being unrivalled for the N years it will take for it to become
nearly as mature as many of the commercial OS offerings. I can't see the
consumer benefit in that.
> If you make Solaris linux friendly by rebranding it to something like
> "SolarisLX", signifying its linux affinity, Linux fanatics will embrace
> Solaris. But SUN will also have to do what IBM did and make Linux run on
> EVERY SUN box. That way, users get the "write once, run on any machine"
> that they get when they use Linux (with the notable exception that linux
> doesn't run on upper-end SUN boxes).
Hey, if you think a Sun SPARC Linux release branded as "SolarisLX" involves
just a quick rebranding of Solaris then you really do have a lot to be
afraid of!
Gavin
Speaking for myself, as always
Bruno Saverio Delbono
> But being a stupid troll, you don't actually care about
> facts, do you?
Amen to that.
Joerg Schilling
Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> Schwartz said that SUN is working on GPL'ing Solaris. Unfortunatly, that is
>
>No he didn't. Sun is considering open sourcinbg Solaris,
>but the GPL isn't one of the licenses being considered,
Correct.
The guidline is: It should give benefits to users and it must not harm Sun.
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schi...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Mike Cox
"Rich Teer" <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@zaphod.rite-group.com...
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>
> > Schwartz said that SUN is working on GPL'ing Solaris. Unfortunatly,
that is
>
> No he didn't. Sun is considering open sourcinbg Solaris,
> but the GPL isn't one of the licenses being considered,
Then why opensource it? IF a regular person can't make modifications to it
without being a SUN engineer then what is the point? A BSD license will
just keep the good stuff out of the community.
Besides, in *MY* post, I said opensourcing Solaris was a bad idea. My idea
was to just rebrand Solaris, "SolarisLX" after making all linux binaries
compatible with Solaris [including the various RPM package models]. Then
after rebranding Solaris, make Linux run on every SUN box. That way SUN can
once again say, "write once, run anywhere"! That way someone who writes an
app on their x86 machine can scale it to a SUN box if they need it.
For example, if I were to write my linux app, my only choice is to go to IBM
when I need to scale it.
> But being a stupid troll, you don't actually care about
> facts, do you?
I am just a passenger on a boat telling the captin there is an iceberg
ahead. Unfortunatly, the captin is drunk. I have an iintrest in SUN
staying viable because right now the only option for moving an x86 Linux app
is to go to IBM. If SUN got their act together and accepted Enterprise OSes
like Solaris are Commodity items then SUN would be a lot better.
In Johnathan Schwartz's blog he even mentions that when railroads
standardized on a specific rail gauges, more benefits occured.
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20040712#commodities_railroads_and
_how_sun
But he then claims Enterprise operating systems are *NOT* commoditites, even
though they are. You can get a Unix enterprise OS from SUN, IBM, HP. What
needs to happen now is that the "rail gauges" [operating systems] of the
computer world need to standardize on one gauge, and that gauge is Linux.
To deny that is to be put in the ash heap of history.
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20040718#responding_to_ross
Obviously he shapes what a "commodity" *IS* to suit their already
predetermined business model. Changing to meet market demands apparently is
not in SUN's DNA. Even IBM had to cut prices on its mainframes when Lou
Grestner came in. They also standardized on an OS, Linux because Lou
Grestner understands commodity business because he came from one. Microsoft
and IBM changed with the times, and if SUN doesn't it will end up like the
dinasaurs CRAY, DEC, among others.
Gavin Maltby
> I am just a passenger on a boat telling the captin there is an iceberg
> ahead. Unfortunatly, the captin is drunk. I have an iintrest in SUN
> staying viable because right now the only option for moving an x86 Linux app
> is to go to IBM. If SUN got their act together and accepted Enterprise OSes
> like Solaris are Commodity items then SUN would be a lot better.
This is like asserting that cars are commodities and that therefore
all cars have the same features, and that it follows that they should
all be much the same price etc. Even if we stretch the definition of
"commodity", Solaris is firmly at the luxury high-spec end of the market.
You can consider OS as commodities if you like, but that in no way
makes "Enterprise OSes like Solaris" (sic) equivalent to some OS that
I put together over the last weekend.
Gavin
Speaking for myself
Rich Teer
> Then why opensource it? IF a regular person can't make modifications to it
> without being a SUN engineer then what is the point? A BSD license will
> just keep the good stuff out of the community.
I'm not going to waste any more time "debating" this with a clueless
troll; you're beneath my contempt.
[... Rest of drivel snipped ]
alt
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> Then why opensource it? IF a regular person can't make modifications to
>> it
>> without being a SUN engineer then what is the point? A BSD license will
>> just keep the good stuff out of the community.
>
> I'm not going to waste any more time "debating" this with a clueless
> troll; you're beneath my contempt.
>
> [... Rest of drivel snipped ]
>
Sorry about the x-posting. Mike Cox is a known "wintroll" in C.O.L.A. In the
future if you see a x-post to this group, complain to his ISP. It's far
more effective.
--
Donovan Hill
Canadian, Linux User, All around nice guy!
Joerg Schilling
Mike Cox <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Rich Teer" <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote in message
>news:Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@zaphod.rite-group.com...
>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>>
>> > Schwartz said that SUN is working on GPL'ing Solaris. Unfortunatly,
>that is
>>
>> No he didn't. Sun is considering open sourcinbg Solaris,
>> but the GPL isn't one of the licenses being considered,
>
>Then why opensource it? IF a regular person can't make modifications to it
>without being a SUN engineer then what is the point? A BSD license will
>just keep the good stuff out of the community.
YOu like to verify that you are a troll?
The BSD license is more free than the GPL is.
Besides that, there are many other possible license models.
Paul Eggert
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> Schwartz said that SUN is working on GPL'ing Solaris.
>
> No he didn't. Sun is considering open sourcinbg Solaris,
> but the GPL isn't one of the licenses being considered,
What source do you have for that information? Back in April
Schwartz said "Maybe we'll GPL it. We're still looking at that."
See <http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/04/30/HNsolarisgpl_1.html>.
If Sun is going to open-source Solaris, then the GPL is a good choice.
If Sun went with a BSD-style license, they'd be giving the crown
jewels to Microsoft. But Microsoft won't touch GPL'ed code (and even
if they changed their mind about that issue, they'd still lose).
My fear is that Sun will go with a more-restrictive license than the
GPL. That is, I worry that Sun will use a license that will give Sun
many of the disadvantages of the open-source model but few of the
compensating advantages. If that's all they're going to do, they
might as well not change the license at all.
Sun doesn't have to use only the GPL. The could use a GPL-compatible
licens, such as the licenses that Perl and Python use. That might
work well too.
Frank Cusack
> "Rich Teer" <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@zaphod.rite-group.com...
>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>>
>> > Schwartz said that SUN is working on GPL'ing Solaris. Unfortunatly,
> that is
>>
>> No he didn't. Sun is considering open sourcinbg Solaris,
>> but the GPL isn't one of the licenses being considered,
>
> Then why opensource it? IF a regular person can't make modifications to it
> without being a SUN engineer then what is the point?
Marketing.
> A BSD license will
> just keep the good stuff out of the community.
>
> Besides, in *MY* post, I said opensourcing Solaris was a bad idea.
And it probably is.
But it may be a cheaper alternative to making the kernel API available.
/fc
Rich Teer
> What source do you have for that information? Back in April
I'm one of a small number of community representatives that Sun
is discussing their open source Solaris plans with, under NDA.
Much more than that I can't say, but the people we're talking
with are managers and engineers directly involved with the project.
Mike Cox
"Gavin Maltby" <G_a_v_i_n....@sun.com> wrote in message
news:cemgei$e1l$1...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...
> Mike Cox wrote:
>
> > I am just a passenger on a boat telling the captin there is an iceberg
> > ahead. Unfortunatly, the captin is drunk. I have an iintrest in SUN
> > staying viable because right now the only option for moving an x86 Linux
app
> > is to go to IBM. If SUN got their act together and accepted Enterprise
OSes
> > like Solaris are Commodity items then SUN would be a lot better.
>
> This is like asserting that cars are commodities and that therefore
> all cars have the same features, and that it follows that they should
> all be much the same price etc.
That is pretty much correct. Most cars do have the same features, they have
wheels, a radio, government mandated safety features and gas mileage. Most
new cars are even in the same price range. And when one manufacturer lowers
the price with incentives, all the other ones follow with similar deals.
So you are right, cars are pretty much commodities.
> Even if we stretch the definition of
> "commodity", Solaris is firmly at the luxury high-spec end of the market.
> You can consider OS as commodities if you like, but that in no way
> makes "Enterprise OSes like Solaris" (sic) equivalent to some OS that
> I put together over the last weekend.
Exactly. Linux is a luxury car that is free. Now all the other luxury car
makers will have to match that price to move product.
> Gavin
>
> Speaking for myself
Bruno Saverio Delbono
> Exactly. Linux is a luxury car that is free. Now all the other luxury car
> makers will have to match that price to move product.
You have absolutely no idea on how businesses work. In fact, I'm
appalled at your level (or lack) of intelligence. Do you think IBM,
Redhat, SuSE etc. give linux away for free? Go back and run Fedora or
something similar on your PeeCee.
GreyCloud
Rich Teer wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>
>>Then why opensource it? IF a regular person can't make modifications to it
>>without being a SUN engineer then what is the point? A BSD license will
>>just keep the good stuff out of the community.
>
>
> I'm not going to waste any more time "debating" this with a clueless
> troll; you're beneath my contempt.
>
> [... Rest of drivel snipped ]
>
Hehehe... I see you stepped into some Mike Cox and got it all over your
shoes.
--
---------------------------------
My other computer is a VAX.
Donn Miller
>
> In article <2n7to8F...@uni-berlin.de>,
> Mike Cox <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Then why opensource it? IF a regular person can't make modifications to it
> >without being a SUN engineer then what is the point? A BSD license will
> >just keep the good stuff out of the community.
>
> YOu like to verify that you are a troll?
>
> The BSD license is more free than the GPL is.
>
> Besides that, there are many other possible license models.
I don't see the point in Sun using some pre-existing open source
license. My guess is that Sun will do like Netscape and Apple did, and
create their own license, e.g. the Sun Open Source License, which will
draw on ideas taken from and be compatible with the BSDL and GPL.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Jesse F. Hughes
> Mike Cox wrote ...
>
> ... the same old drivel as in other recent posts. Come on Mike, at
> least get some new material. By my reading your argument hasn't
> gone down as especially convincing one way or the other anywhere -
> you're just repeating it below. Anyway, if all you say is so true
> and self-obvious then what are so apparently so afraid of, and why
> the need to raise such a noise about what you say is clearly going
> to be a failing product?
Mike Cox is the pseudonym of a garden variety troll on
comp.os.linux.advocacy. He typically plays the role of a Windows
advocate. If he had two neurons to rub together, he'd be dangerous.
Not that you're taking him seriously, but don't think of him as one of
"ours" (COLA's).
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a
completely unintentional side effect." -- Linus Torvalds
JEDIDIAH
Of course they do. They are LEGALLY OBLIGATED too.
Anything of relevance for any of the "enterprise" distributions is
free for the taking by anyone that wants to create a generic variant.
This is a simple and obvious consequence of the GNU GPL.
> something similar on your PeeCee.
Why run Fedora when there's Debian?
With Redhat & SUSE you pay for the SUPPORT. This is the extra 20% per
year that would be charged to you by Oracle (if you used them instead
of postgres).
Oracle could still be gratis (instead of 60K per cpu) and Oracle would
still have a way to make money.
This is how gratis solaris works.
--
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.
They brought us the email virus.
In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \
The Ghost In The Machine
<j...@cs.tu-berlin.de>
wrote
on 2 Aug 2004 21:47:01 GMT
<cemcol$41s$1...@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>:
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@zaphod.rite-group.com>,
> Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>>
>>> Schwartz said that SUN is working on GPL'ing Solaris. Unfortunatly, that is
>>
>>No he didn't. Sun is considering open sourcinbg Solaris,
>>but the GPL isn't one of the licenses being considered,
>
> Correct.
>
> The guidline is: It should give benefits to users and it must not harm Sun.
>
I'll admit to wondering whether they'd just take the Java
source code's license, which was fairly restrictive
last I looked.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<mikeco...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:39:31 -0700
<2n8j9rF...@uni-berlin.de>:
>
> "Gavin Maltby" <G_a_v_i_n....@sun.com> wrote in message
> news:cemgei$e1l$1...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...
>> Mike Cox wrote:
>>
>> > I am just a passenger on a boat telling the captin there is an iceberg
>> > ahead. Unfortunatly, the captin is drunk. I have an iintrest in SUN
>> > staying viable because right now the only option for moving an x86 Linux
> app
>> > is to go to IBM. If SUN got their act together and accepted Enterprise
> OSes
>> > like Solaris are Commodity items then SUN would be a lot better.
>>
>> This is like asserting that cars are commodities and that therefore
>> all cars have the same features, and that it follows that they should
>> all be much the same price etc.
>
> That is pretty much correct. Most cars do have the same
> features, they have wheels,
Yes, that's a feature.
> a radio,
Not sure if that's a feature or not. On most cars it's an option,
unless you're referring to the rather standard bare-bones AM/FM unit.
> government mandated safety features
Yes, that's a feature.
> and gas mileage.
That's more likely a measurement mandated by government, than a feature.
> Most new cars are even in the same price range.
Dunno about that; priced out an Insight and a Hummer H2
lately? :-) And then there are specialty markets such as
Rolls Royce and Ferrari -- but you did say "most", not
"all", so we'll leave it at that. :-)
> And when one manufacturer lowers
> the price with incentives, all the other ones follow with similar deals.
Standard ogliarchical behavior, unfortunately. Ideally, we'd have
more manufacturers; the problem is that there's an awful lot of
NRE in developing a new car model.
>
> So you are right, cars are pretty much commodities.
>
>> Even if we stretch the definition of
>> "commodity", Solaris is firmly at the luxury high-spec end of the market.
>> You can consider OS as commodities if you like, but that in no way
>> makes "Enterprise OSes like Solaris" (sic) equivalent to some OS that
>> I put together over the last weekend.
>
> Exactly. Linux is a luxury car that is free. Now all the other
> luxury car makers will have to match that price to move product.
Especially since it blows the doors off the competitive product.
Or was that "the competitive product blew its own doors off",
a la the '74 Pinto?
The top part of the windshield might even be blue...
[.sigsnip]
Paul Gress
>
> Exactly. Linux is a luxury car that is free. Now all the other luxury car
> makers will have to match that price to move product.
>
>
Microsoft is like McDonalds, Billions of people like it, but not best
quality.
Unix is like a fine restaurant, less people use it, but the food is superb.
Linux is like a picnic, everybody brings food and its all free, but you
can't tell how good the quality is.
Paul
Joerg Schilling
Paul Gress <pgr...@pb.net> wrote:
>Linux is like a picnic, everybody brings food and its all free, but you
>can't tell how good the quality is.
And you have
Mustard, bananas, gherkins, kake, ....
because nobody was able to set up a plan who should bring what kind
of food ;-)
Paul Eggert
> My guess is that Sun will do like Netscape and Apple did, and
> create their own license
Sun has already done that. Several times. They have a complicated
licensing repertoire that I'll bet not one in 10,000 professional
programmers understands. They've got the Sun Community Source Licence
(SCSL). They've got the Sun Industry Standards Source License
(SISSL). And they've got the Sun Public License (SPL). Sometimes it
seems like they use a different license for every product they turn out.
And (as far as I know -- it's hard to keep track) all their special
licenses are incompatible with the GPL. That's Sun's privilege, of
course. But it's terrible marketing.
Say what you like about the GPL -- but it's clear, and lots of
customers understand it, and it does the job. It's serving Sun well
in larger efforts like OpenOffice and in smaller ones like
evolution-jescs. If Sun yet again comes up with their own
incompatible-with-GPL license, they'll have yet another uphill battle
convincing the world to pay attention to it, much less understand and
use it.
Here's the acid test: can I take a module out of Sun's open-source
distribution, modify it, and redistribute the result freely as part of
(say) my Linux kernel? If I can do that, then Sun's open-source
license will be useful to me and to lots of other people; if not, then
I'm not sure it's worth Sun's time to come up with Yet Another Sun
Software License.
John D Groenveld
Paul Eggert <egg...@twinsun.com> wrote:
>Say what you like about the GPL -- but it's clear, and lots of
>customers understand it, and it does the job. It's serving Sun well
Donald Becker didn't seem to understand it.
<URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=YOQZ6.2015%24AV6.236977%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
John
groe...@acm.org
Vlad Grama
> Here's the acid test: can I take a module out of Sun's open-source
> distribution, modify it, and redistribute the result freely as part of
> (say) my Linux kernel? If I can do that, then Sun's open-source
> license will be useful to me and to lots of other people; if not, then
> I'm not sure it's worth Sun's time to come up with Yet Another Sun
> Software License.
Personally I don't think you will be allowed to take parts of the
Solaris source and drop them into Linux. The whole idea of open
sourcing Solaris is not to take its nice features and port them to
Linux.
Citing an answer from Sun's Bryan Cantrill: "... We're not doing this
[ open sourcing ] to become a technology donor to Linux; we're doing
this to give our customers the advantage of having the source code,
and being able to customize and contribute to Solaris as they see
fit."
Although Solaris and Linux have similarities they're not the same.
Opensourcing will hopefully create a larger community around Solaris
and encourage people to contribute their work. Solaris users and
developers for Solaris.
Hopefully this would also drive a good kind of competition between
Linux and Solaris developers. That can only help both OSes
Vlad.
JEDIDIAH
You're on crack. Nothing in that article demonstrates that Becker (or anyone)
else is incapable of understanding the GPL. Becker clearly grokked the GPL
based on this article. The only issue of contention were people that didn't
fully examine the "infringing items under dispute". Even then, Becker claims
that his point becomes obvious to people once they examine the "infringing
tool".
He never claims to misunderstand the GPL. He never claims that anyone else
misunderstands the GPL. He never states anything that would imply that the
GPL is difficult to understand by anyone. He demonstrates a solid grasp of
the GPL himself.
Use it to your hearts desire, but any derivative works must remain GPL.
UNIX admin
> licenses are incompatible with the GPL. That's Sun's privilege, of
> course. But it's terrible marketing.
LICENSING >>is not<< marketing. It is licensing.
It *may* create undesired publicity, but that does not make it MARKETING.
> Say what you like about the GPL -- but it's clear, and lots of
> customers understand it, and it does the job. It's serving Sun well
> in larger efforts like OpenOffice and in smaller ones like
> evolution-jescs. If Sun yet again comes up with their own
> incompatible-with-GPL license, they'll have yet another uphill battle
> convincing the world to pay attention to it, much less understand and
> use it.
GPL is a viral license; anything GPL released and used also warrants and
result to be GPLed. That is >>not<< freedom, that is blackmail coupled with
an ultimatum: if you want to use this product/code, you >>MUST<< also
release any work based on it under the same license. That is dictatorship
and is nowhere near freedom.
THE FACT that someone may be fine with that and accept such terms and
someone may not, is another matter! Please let us not mix APPLES and
ORANGES!!!
> Here's the acid test: can I take a module out of Sun's open-source
> distribution, modify it, and redistribute the result freely as part of
> (say) my Linux kernel? If I can do that, then Sun's open-source
> license will be useful to me and to lots of other people; if not, then
> I'm not sure it's worth Sun's time to come up with Yet Another Sun
> Software License.
We don't know that yet, because Sun hasn't open sourced Solaris at this
time.
GreyCloud
Out of curiosity, is gcc GPL?
Hamilcar Barca
> GPL is a viral license; anything GPL released and used also warrants and
> result to be GPLed. That is >>not<< freedom
Nobody believes opinions provided by Windows users about licensing or
freedom. You're a miserable troll.
--
"Ironically, Microsoft's efforts to deny interoperability of Windows with
legitimate non-Microsoft applications have created an environment in which
Microsoft's programs interoperate efficiently only with Internet viruses."
-- Daniel Geer.
Jeff C,
"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in message
news:BtydnYE6fM0...@bresnan.com...
>
> Out of curiosity, is gcc GPL?
>
>
Yes..But just because you compile something with GCC does not mean that the
resulting executable is
covered by the GPL.
Joerg Schilling
Wrong up to ~ 1990.
GCC could not be used to compile non GPLd software because of the viral
effects of the GPL. Then the LGPL has been created.......
UNIX admin
the
> resulting executable is
> covered by the GPL.
That's because the resulting executable isn't derived or based on GCC source
code.
UNIX admin
> freedom. You're a miserable troll.
Just a minute here. Why am I immediately labeled as a "Windows user" and "a
miserable troll"?
It sounds like a case of Linux zealotry to me. Anybody who doesn't think
that the GPL is the greatest thing since sliced bread is a "Windows user"
and "a miserable troll".
Now what does that remind me of??? Ah, yes. "We are Borg." Why should
everyone think the same?
Just for the record, I happen to >>LIKE<< OpenSource software, I happen to
>>USE<< OpenSource software very heavily, and I'm far from a Windows user,
since my main platforms of choice are Solaris, IRIX, and HP-UX.
Having stated all that, that >>DOES NOT<< mean that I necessarily like GPL.
In fact, I firmly believe GPL stinks. That's my opinion. If you want to be
a revolutionary and a zealot, you can stick it where the Sun don't shine.
Hamilcar Barca
08:54:23 +0200), UNIX admin wrote:
>> Nobody believes opinions provided by Windows users about licensing or
>> freedom. You're a miserable troll.
>
> Why am I immediately labeled as a "Windows user"
Is this part of your article
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
forged? If not, you're a Windows user.
> and "a miserable troll"?
Because of your kooky misinterpretation of the GPL.
> It sounds like a case of Linux zealotry to me.
I didn't mention Linux as you'll note when you re-read my article.
> Anybody who doesn't think that the GPL is the greatest thing since
> sliced bread is a "Windows user" and "a miserable troll".
Regardless of the state of the GPL, your interpretation is kooky. Anybody
who uses Windows, including you, is a Windows user. Anybody who posts
kooky misinterpretations is a troll. You simply aren't very good at it.
> Just for the record, I happen to >>LIKE<< OpenSource software, I happen
> to >>>USE<< OpenSource software very heavily,
>>>I<<< >>>NEVER<<< >>>said<<< >>>you<<< >>>DIDN'T<<< >>>and<<< >>>it's<<<
>>>IRRELEVANT<<< >>>anyway<<< >>>.<<<
> and I'm far from a Windows user, since my main platforms of choice are
> Solaris, IRIX, and HP-UX.
You're using Windows.
> Having stated all that, that >>DOES NOT<< mean that I necessarily like
> GPL.
>>>LIKING<<< the >>>GPL<<< has nothing to do with >>>it<<<.
> In fact, I firmly believe GPL stinks. That's my opinion.
So what? That may or may not be based on your inability to understand it.
It's your public misinterpretation of the purpose of the GPL that makes
you a miserable troll.
> If you want to be a revolutionary and a zealot, you can stick it where
> the Sun don't shine.
No Scott McNealy? No Jonathan Schwartz? Including you, that'll be three
enormous egos we won't have to deal with, Mr. >>>self-proclaimed<<<
>>>UNIX admin<<<.
--
"There is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system ...
It would be so much work to move over that [Microsoft customers] hope we
just improve Windows rather than force them to move."
-- Aaron Contorer (General Mananger, C++) memo to Bill Gates. 21 Feb 1997
UNIX admin
>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
>
> forged? If not, you're a Windows user.
Yes, I currently use Outlook Express to read newsgroups. If that makes me
"a Windows user", whatever. The fact of the matter is that I currently have
no choice. And to top it all off, this was done before my time, so it's not
like I decided to do it (and I wouldn't).
But here is the best part: if that alone makes my arguments unworthy, it
says a hell of a lot more about you then it does about me.
Tell me, at which exact point in time had pragmatism been abandoned in favor
of madness???
> Because of your kooky misinterpretation of the GPL.
Oooh, I see. I understand now. Anybody who doesn't like the GPL, or doesn't
interpret it in the way that pleases you, is "a Windows user" and "a
miserable troll".
Well, certainly there's a LOGICAL ARGUMENT that clearly favors your line of
reasoning.
> I didn't mention Linux as you'll note when you re-read my article.
Mention it now, then. Do you not run it? And do you not think it is the
greatest thing since sliced bread along with the GPL?
And BTW, OSS does not mean the GPL.
> Regardless of the state of the GPL, your interpretation is kooky. Anybody
> who uses Windows, including you, is a Windows user. Anybody who posts
> kooky misinterpretations is a troll. You simply aren't very good at it.
I know what and who I am, and you certainly don't have the validity or the
authority to tell me that. And on a personal note, I take offense to that.
Nevertheless, since you >>SEEM<< to know the TRUE meaning of the GPL, why
don't you enlighten all of us:
Is it not true, that any works derived or based on a product that is GPL
licensed must also be released under the GPL?
YES OR NO?
> You're using Windows.
SO WHAT?!? I also use Solaris and IRIX and HP-UX for all my mission
critical stuff! But logically, that does not have anything to do with my
arguments, or yours; that is pure ZEALOTRY on your part!!!
Again, when had pragmatism been abandoned for folly and madness???
> So what? That may or may not be based on your inability to understand it.
> It's your public misinterpretation of the purpose of the GPL that makes
> you a miserable troll.
Then you interpret it for me. Show us how it's done, and how we *should be
thinking*.
> No Scott McNealy? No Jonathan Schwartz? Including you, that'll be three
> enormous egos we won't have to deal with, Mr. >>>self-proclaimed<<<
> >>>UNIX admin<<<.
Yes, I am a UNIX admin. It is my calling in life. If I were to be born
again, I would choose the same profession, and I'm proud of that.
If you don't like it, you can stick that where the Sun don't shine as well.
And another thing: please explain to me how ZEALOTRY is *better* than
TROLLING, or even *just OK* (even though I know I'm not trolling, because I
haven't started all of this, but whatever). I would really be interested to
know the answer to that one.
Frank Cusack
> GPL is a viral license; anything GPL released and used also warrants and
> result to be GPLed.
Yes and no. Yes, GPL is viral. No, it does not force you to GPL your
stuff. GPL is only concerned with distribution. If you do not
distribute your modifications, you do not need to publish the source.
Forcing modifiers to publish source code if they distribute the
modifications is quite fair.
> That is >>not<< freedom, that is blackmail coupled with
> an ultimatum: if you want to use this product/code, you >>MUST<< also
> release any work based on it under the same license. That is dictatorship
> and is nowhere near freedom.
Sigh. This *is* freedom. Liberty comes at a price, and that price
here is enforcement of continued liberty. Well, it might not quite be
freedom but it is certainly not dictatorship. Don't want to
distribute modifications to code which you leeched off of in order
to reduce cost of development? Then develop your own code and don't
use someone else's work. No one forces you to use GPL code.
On 11 Aug 2004 06:14:09 GMT j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
> Wrong up to ~ 1990.
>
> GCC could not be used to compile non GPLd software because of the viral
> effects of the GPL. Then the LGPL has been created.......
No. gcc could absolutely be used for non GPL software. You might be
thinking of libiberty, libgcc, and the crt support, but AFAIK those
pieces of code have always been unencumbered by GPL. The actual
license for those is either the "runtime GPL" or the real LGPL. Both
absolutely allow use (linking) with non-GPL code. Certainly the bsd's
have never had an issue with it.
I've never studied the history so even if you are correct (ie, if the
library pieces were under GPL and therefore viral), this has nothing
to do with gcc itself. If you wrote your own runtime support you
could always have used gcc.
/fc
Jeff C,
"Joerg Schilling" <j...@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote in message
news:cfcdfh$ra9$1...@news.cs.tu-berlin.de...
> In article <X_eSc.238121$%_6.233863@attbi_s01>,
> Jeff C, <jcr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in message
>>news:BtydnYE6fM0...@bresnan.com...
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, is gcc GPL?
>
>>Yes..But just because you compile something with GCC does not mean that
>>the
>>resulting executable is
>>covered by the GPL.
>
>
> Wrong up to ~ 1990.
>
> GCC could not be used to compile non GPLd software because of the viral
> effects of the GPL. Then the LGPL has been created.......
>
Hang on..let me check the clock on my Windows machine.....odd..It seems to
indiate that this is 2004. About 14 years after yor "~" date. Someone said
you were a windows user but that can not be right. Windows does
not support TCP/IP..Using your logic that would be the appropriate response
to a question like "does windows support TCP/IP?" Since it did until winsock
was created in the early ~90s...
Since the GNU compiler was not even close to real until the late 80's your
"Wrong" statement applies so a condition
that is both old, and not a serious fraction of the time when GCC existed
and not even a completely correct statement since the LGPL was created to
allow linking to GNU libc. One can use GCC with proprietary libc libraries.
There are plenty of things that I don't always love about the GPL (when it
is incompatible with certain types of works) however it is not as if
non-GPL licenses have no problems of their own.. (e.g. limiting free speech
with respect to benchmarking of certain proprietary licenses).
Joerg Schilling
Frank Cusack <fcu...@fcusack.com> wrote:
>On 11 Aug 2004 06:14:09 GMT j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
>> Wrong up to ~ 1990.
>>
>> GCC could not be used to compile non GPLd software because of the viral
>> effects of the GPL. Then the LGPL has been created.......
>
>No. gcc could absolutely be used for non GPL software. You might be
>thinking of libiberty, libgcc, and the crt support, but AFAIK those
>pieces of code have always been unencumbered by GPL. The actual
>license for those is either the "runtime GPL" or the real LGPL. Both
>absolutely allow use (linking) with non-GPL code. Certainly the bsd's
>have never had an issue with it.
WRONG.
Around 1987, there have been hot discussions just about this topic.
>I've never studied the history so even if you are correct (ie, if the
>library pieces were under GPL and therefore viral), this has nothing
>to do with gcc itself. If you wrote your own runtime support you
>could always have used gcc.
Let me repeat it:
As the named pieces of SW have been linked together with _your_ software
_and_ as they have been under GPL, they did enforce your SW to be under
GPL too - at least if you did like to let it out of your house.
As this is what you like to do with commercial SW, GCC could not be used
for commercial SW.
LGPL has initially created for this GCC purpose only.
Joerg Schilling
Jeff C, <jcr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hang on..let me check the clock on my Windows machine.....odd..It seems to
>indiate that this is 2004. About 14 years after yor "~" date. Someone said
>you were a windows user but that can not be right. Windows does
>not support TCP/IP..Using your logic that would be the appropriate response
>to a question like "does windows support TCP/IP?" Since it did until winsock
>was created in the early ~90s...
You must be onb crack :-( go away!
Beardy
> In article <0ynSc.239777$%_6.213444@attbi_s01>,
> Jeff C, <jcr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hang on..let me check the clock on my Windows machine.....odd..It seems to
>>indiate that this is 2004. About 14 years after yor "~" date. Someone said
>>you were a windows user but that can not be right. Windows does
>>not support TCP/IP..Using your logic that would be the appropriate response
>>to a question like "does windows support TCP/IP?" Since it did until winsock
>>was created in the early ~90s...
>
>
> You must be onb crack :-( go away!
>
Wrong - crackheads apparently often gain an insight into sentience
unachievable by non-crackheads - but can't remember what it was when
they have come down ;-)
But he should go away definitely; or at least peddle this crap in cola only.
Hamilcar Barca
> Yes, I currently use Outlook Express to read newsgroups. If that makes me
> "a Windows user", whatever.
It makes you a Windows user by definition, regardless of your claims to
the contrary.
> The fact of the matter is that I currently have no choice.
Have you notified the local police that you're being held prisoner?
> But here is the best part: if that alone makes my arguments unworthy, it
> says a hell of a lot more about you then it does about me.
Yes, it does. It says that I'm a Windows user (who claims to not be a
Windows user), I claim to be a "UNIX admin" (but I don't have enough
sense not to run OE), and I'm forced to do both.
> Tell me, at which exact point in time had pragmatism been abandoned in favor
> of madness???
False and hysterical claims about the GPL have never been pragmatic.
>> Because of your kooky misinterpretation of the GPL.
>
> Oooh, I see. I understand now. Anybody who doesn't like the GPL, or doesn't
> interpret it in the way that pleases you, is "a Windows user" and "a
> miserable troll".
No, you don't see. Someone like you who claims it says something it
doesn't is a "miserable troll". The fact that you're a Windows user is a
separate issue.
> Well, certainly there's a LOGICAL ARGUMENT that clearly favors your line of
> reasoning.
There was no LOGICAL ARGUMENT in your kooky misinterpretation which
says the GNU project is "dictatorship".
>> I didn't mention Linux as you'll note when you re-read my article.
>
> Mention it now, then.
No. Your idiocy has nothing to do with Linux or Solaris.
> Do you not run it? And do you not think it is the
> greatest thing since sliced bread along with the GPL?
That's a miserable attempt to divert attention from your stupid claims
(e.g., "[the GPL] is blackmail coupled with an ultimatum").
> And BTW, OSS does not mean the GPL.
That's another failed attempt to change the subject.
> And on a personal note, I take offense to that.
The solution is for you not to be ignorant in public.
> Is it not true, that any works derived or based on a product that is GPL
> licensed must also be released under the GPL?
>
> YES OR NO?
NO, THERE'S NO BLACKMAIL, ULTIMATUM, OR DICTATORSHIP IN THE GPL, SHIT FOR
BRAINS.
> Then you interpret it for me. Show us how it's done, and how we *should be
> thinking*.
No. Have someone else read it to you.
> And another thing: please explain to me how ZEALOTRY is *better* than
> TROLLING, or even *just OK*
*Pointing* *out* *your* *LACK* *OF* *COMPREHENSION* *and* *DIVERSION*
*ATTEMPTS* *is* *not* *ZEALOTRY*.
Linønut
> As the named pieces of SW have been linked together with _your_ software
> _and_ as they have been under GPL, they did enforce your SW to be under
> GPL too - at least if you did like to let it out of your house.
> As this is what you like to do with commercial SW, GCC could not be used
> for commercial SW.
You're mistaken. You can build anything you want with gcc and release your
project under any license. Building with is not linking to.
> LGPL has initially created for this GCC purpose only.
No, it was created for certain libraries.
Anyway, go to gnu.org for the final word.
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Linųnut
Joerg Schilling
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lin=F8nut?= <=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8...@bone.com?=> wrote:
>Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Joerg Schilling:
>
>> As the named pieces of SW have been linked together with _your_ software
>> _and_ as they have been under GPL, they did enforce your SW to be under
>> GPL too - at least if you did like to let it out of your house.
>> As this is what you like to do with commercial SW, GCC could not be used
>> for commercial SW.
>
>You're mistaken. You can build anything you want with gcc and release your
>project under any license. Building with is not linking to.
You did not read my last posting and you don't know the history :-(
UNIX admin
There is nothing false, and even less histerical in my claims. Furthermore,
I don't claim anything. The GPL does.
> That's a miserable attempt to divert attention from your stupid claims
> (e.g., "[the GPL] is blackmail coupled with an ultimatum").
Just like you made an even more miserable stab at me using Windows. There is
no difference, it was irrational on your part, and you embarrased yourself
in the process. Logically speaking, my using Windows to post has nothing to
do with the GPL.
> > Is it not true, that any works derived or based on a product that is GPL
> > licensed must also be released under the GPL?
> >
> > YES OR NO?
>
> NO, THERE'S NO BLACKMAIL, ULTIMATUM, OR DICTATORSHIP IN THE GPL, SHIT FOR
> BRAINS.
Nice try.
Does one have to release derivative works based on a GPLed product, if they
intend to distribute their derivative, YES OR NO?
YES OR NO?
Beardy
[ excised thru boredom... ]
>
> *Pointing* *out* *your* *LACK* *OF* *COMPREHENSION* *and* *DIVERSION*
> *ATTEMPTS* *is* *not* *ZEALOTRY*.
>
Chaps, can we *please* take this one away from the NG, or at least move
it to a flame NG instead? Or at least plonk each other, and let's hear
no more from this subthread.
Failing this, get together somehow, and settle it over a beer or seventeen.
GreyCloud
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> In article <X_eSc.238121$%_6.233863@attbi_s01>,
> Jeff C, <jcr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in message
>>news:BtydnYE6fM0...@bresnan.com...
>>
>>>Out of curiosity, is gcc GPL?
>
>
>>Yes..But just because you compile something with GCC does not mean that the
>>resulting executable is
>>covered by the GPL.
>
>
>
> Wrong up to ~ 1990.
>
> GCC could not be used to compile non GPLd software because of the viral
> effects of the GPL. Then the LGPL has been created.......
>
Then you might try and explain that one to Apple Computer Co.
They've used gcc to compile OS X.
GreyCloud
UNIX admin wrote:
Hmmm... what about the libraries that the compiler links to?
Frank Cusack
> Let me repeat it:
>
> As the named pieces of SW have been linked together with _your_ software
> _and_ as they have been under GPL, they did enforce your SW to be under
> GPL too - at least if you did like to let it out of your house.
NO. GPL is not an EULA and does not restrict usage. GCC does not
link together with your software, only libgcc, libiberty and crt
support do. You are free to write your own versions of those and then
you can use gcc, if the licensing of those pieces infects your code.
Currently the licensing for those pieces is either LGPL or runtime
GPL, are you saying that before 1990 that was not the case?
Please clarify if you still think gcc itself is a problem.
> As this is what you like to do with commercial SW, GCC could not be used
> for commercial SW.
This has nothing to do with commercial or non-commerical. GPL doesn't
have any restriction based on whether or not you charge money for
software. (I know you understand this, I just want to clarify because
this is a sloppy argument that uninitiated folks always read and then
think the issue is $$$.)
/fc
Hamilcar Barca
Yet another Windows user wrote:
>> False and hysterical claims about the GPL have never been pragmatic.
>
> There is nothing false, and even less histerical in my claims. Furthermore,
> I don't claim anything. The GPL does.
Your claims of "blackmail", "ultimatum", and "dictatorship" are separately
and jointly both false and hysterical. If you maintain the GPL makes
these claim, please cite the specific section(s).
> Just like you made an even more miserable stab at me using Windows.
I said you were and Windows user and you denied it. Then, you admitted it.
> Logically speaking, my using Windows to post has nothing to
> do with the GPL.
So, there was no reason for you to deny it.
> Nice try.
It wasn't a particularly good try, and you failed. The issue is and
always has been your misinterpretation of the GPL -- quoting you -- as
"blackmail", an "ultimatum", and "dictatorship". This is ignorance,
hysteria, and Microsoftism in action.
> Does one have to release derivative works based on a GPLed product, if they
> intend to distribute their derivative, YES OR NO?
NO, THERE'S NO BLACKMAIL, ULTIMATUM, OR DICTATORSHIP IN THE GPL, SHIT FOR
BRAINS.
Hamilcar Barca
-0700), Frank Cusack wrote:
> GPL is not an EULA and does not restrict usage.
The GPL is exactly equivalent to a EULA but under a different name.
It grants certain rights ("freedoms" and has certain restrictions.
Dave Uhring
> [stop crossposting this bullshit to COLA]
I really wish you *would* continue the cross-posts to COLA. Then I would
not see this wholly off-topic crap on a UNIX NG.
Frank Cusack
No, EULA limits usage by the end user. GPL has no [legal]
implications whatsoever for the end user.
EULA is probably not legally binding, but GPL probably is. (Both are
untested.)
/fc
Frank Cusack
Before 1990?
/fc
GreyCloud
Frank Cusack wrote:
Of course not. I asked if gcc is GPL and the answer is YES.
So if apple uses gcc to compile OS X and sells it with Apples own EULA
I'd say that you can develop apps even o/ses with gcc and not have to
worry about the GPL.
GreyCloud
Frank Cusack wrote:
I remember buying a source code tracer/debugger that was built using
gcc. Bought it in 1998 for $140.
Frank Cusack
Joerg isn't arguing that gcc being GPL is a problem, he's arguing that
*before 1990* it was a problem. Please read carefully.
/fc
Joerg Schilling
Frank Cusack <fcu...@fcusack.com> wrote:
>On 11 Aug 2004 12:29:14 GMT j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
>> Let me repeat it:
>>
>> As the named pieces of SW have been linked together with _your_ software
>> _and_ as they have been under GPL, they did enforce your SW to be under
>> GPL too - at least if you did like to let it out of your house.
>
>NO. GPL is not an EULA and does not restrict usage. GCC does not
>link together with your software, only libgcc, libiberty and crt
>support do. You are free to write your own versions of those and then
>you can use gcc, if the licensing of those pieces infects your code.
>Currently the licensing for those pieces is either LGPL or runtime
>GPL, are you saying that before 1990 that was not the case?
I don't know how I could be more obvious..... or is this a problem coming from
the English language?
>Please clarify if you still think gcc itself is a problem.
I did ALWAYS write that GCC _WAS_ a problem until ~ 1990.
>> As this is what you like to do with commercial SW, GCC could not be used
>> for commercial SW.
>
>This has nothing to do with commercial or non-commerical. GPL doesn't
>have any restriction based on whether or not you charge money for
>software. (I know you understand this, I just want to clarify because
>this is a sloppy argument that uninitiated folks always read and then
>think the issue is $$$.)
GPL does not allow you to link closed source (to be more explicit: non GPL)
code together with GPLd code. This did exactly happen with old GCC versions.
Joerg Schilling
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> Wrong up to ~ 1990.
>>
>> GCC could not be used to compile non GPLd software because of the viral
>> effects of the GPL. Then the LGPL has been created.......
>>
>
>Then you might try and explain that one to Apple Computer Co.
>They've used gcc to compile OS X.
????
Start to explain, why you believe that Apple did already have MacOS X
15 years ago.......
Linønut
>>> GPL is not an EULA and does not restrict usage.
>>
>> The GPL is exactly equivalent to a EULA but under a different name.
>> It grants certain rights ("freedoms" and has certain restrictions.
>
> No, EULA limits usage by the end user. GPL has no [legal]
> implications whatsoever for the end user.
>
> EULA is probably not legally binding, but GPL probably is. (Both are
> untested.)
Untested by cases, that is. The MS EULA has been informally tested by BSA
storm troopers, while the GPL has been informally tested by the FSF. As an
example of the latter, you can now find source code on the Linksys web site.
Linønut
> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>> Wrong up to ~ 1990.
>>Then you might try and explain that one to Apple Computer Co.
>>They've used gcc to compile OS X.
> ????
> Start to explain, why you believe that Apple did already have MacOS X
> 15 years ago.......
Guys, guys, this is normal miscommunication on Usenet. Chill daddy.
GreyCloud
Ok. What was being offered before 1990 that was useful?
GreyCloud
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> In article <sa6dnSyeMs-...@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Wrong up to ~ 1990.
>>>
>>>GCC could not be used to compile non GPLd software because of the viral
>>>effects of the GPL. Then the LGPL has been created.......
>>>
>>
>>Then you might try and explain that one to Apple Computer Co.
>>They've used gcc to compile OS X.
>
>
> ????
>
> Start to explain, why you believe that Apple did already have MacOS X
> 15 years ago.......
>
I see now. What was the point of arguing about something back in 1990?
I'm interested in the here and now. You can't do anything about the past.
Beardy
>
> You can't do anything about the past.
>
<OT> The present is just just the product of successful juggling of
blood-alcohol levels in the past.
</OT>
Toomas Soome
>>
>> Joerg isn't arguing that gcc being GPL is a problem, he's arguing that
>> *before 1990* it was a problem. Please read carefully.
>>
>
> Ok. What was being offered before 1990 that was useful?
>
nothing, there was no computer industry before 1990... :)
toomas
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.
-- Leonard Levinson
GreyCloud
Toomas Soome wrote:
> In comp.unix.solaris GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>>>Joerg isn't arguing that gcc being GPL is a problem, he's arguing that
>>>*before 1990* it was a problem. Please read carefully.
>>>
>>
>>Ok. What was being offered before 1990 that was useful?
>>
>
>
> nothing, there was no computer industry before 1990... :)
>
Of course there was... VMS. :-)
--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.
JEDIDIAH
On 2004-08-12, Frank Cusack <fcu...@fcusack.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:05:35 -0600 GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> Frank Cusack wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:41:58 -0600 GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <X_eSc.238121$%_6.233863@attbi_s01>,
>>>>>Jeff C, <jcr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:BtydnYE6fM0...@bresnan.com...
>>>>Then you might try and explain that one to Apple Computer Co.
>>>>They've used gcc to compile OS X.
>>> Before 1990?
>>>
>>
>> Of course not. I asked if gcc is GPL and the answer is YES.
>> So if apple uses gcc to compile OS X and sells it with Apples own EULA
>> I'd say that you can develop apps even o/ses with gcc and not have to
>> worry about the GPL.
>
> Joerg isn't arguing that gcc being GPL is a problem, he's arguing that
> *before 1990* it was a problem. Please read carefully.
The GPL is the same now as it was then.
Obviously, the license of the program that generates your output
files is completely irrelevant. This is not the sort of thing
that can be construed as derivative work.
While RMS might like to try this, his lawyers probably informed
him that it would likely not fly and that the first federal judge
that saw such a license would overturn it.
The GPL still must be consistent with it's legal context.
--
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.
They brought us the email virus.
In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \
JEDIDIAH
> In article <m3ekmdu...@magma.savecore.net>,
> Frank Cusack <fcu...@fcusack.com> wrote:
>>On 11 Aug 2004 12:29:14 GMT j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
>>This has nothing to do with commercial or non-commerical. GPL doesn't
>>have any restriction based on whether or not you charge money for
>>software. (I know you understand this, I just want to clarify because
>>this is a sloppy argument that uninitiated folks always read and then
>>think the issue is $$$.)
>
> GPL does not allow you to link closed source (to be more explicit: non GPL)
> code together with GPLd code. This did exactly happen with old GCC versions.
That's a matter of the code in question. That "problem" is something
that hasn't changed. It is as much of a problem now in 2003 as it was in 1990.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the compiler. You seem confused.
The Ghost In The Machine
<mi...@cumulus.com>
wrote
on Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:34:43 -0600
<X56dnTUVYY2...@bresnan.com>:
>
>
> Toomas Soome wrote:
>
>> In comp.unix.solaris GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Joerg isn't arguing that gcc being GPL is a problem, he's arguing that
>>>>*before 1990* it was a problem. Please read carefully.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ok. What was being offered before 1990 that was useful?
>>>
>>
>>
>> nothing, there was no computer industry before 1990... :)
>>
>
> Of course there was... VMS. :-)
>
Heh...well, I'll admit I liked VMS on VAXen (the VAXen
themselves weren't bad either although not exactly
barnburners by today's standards -- I don't know what
the latest microVaxen can do, though). I merely need
to quibble with the "industry" portion here; VAXen were
(are?) an industry but some of them ran BSD (at least,
the one in my alma mater's engineering department did,
circa 1982). VMS, however, is software.
There was also Chelmsford, a city that among other things
had Apollo Computers, a nice 68000/Z80 based computer
(this according to one of their motherboards I looked
at once) which was a good engineering workstation --
and ultimately died.
Funny thing; they both ended up at Compaq somewhere, along with HP.
As for gcc -- I'm not sure if there was a gcc before 1990
(though it wouldn't surprise me if there was; I knew about
DECUS tape trees :-) ); I remember there being a djgpp
which was a C++ compiler running on DOS, though. Not a bad
setup, if a bit primitive by today's standards -- but then,
so were:
- Windows 1.0
- GEM
- DOS
- CP/M
- AtariTOS
- Workbench 1.0 (part of AmigaDOS)
:-)
The original PC could run at 4.77 MHz and had 64K of RAM, capable
of expansion to 640K -- this was back in 1983. A nice picture
of such a beast is at
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/IBM_PC
Since today's groundlevel computers can run at 3.0 GHz
and have 128MB or 256MB of RAM, one can compute the
timedouble factor (D(S0,S)=(2004-1983)*log(2)/log(S/S0)):
CPUSpeed: then: 4.7 MHz, now: 3.0 GHz. D=2.26 year
RAM: then: 64K. now: 128MB. D=1.91 year
Network: then: 1200baud. now: 1.5 Mb. D=2.04 year
Disk: then: 5MB. now: 50 GB. D=1.58 year
Display: then: 640x400x2 = 512000 pixelcolors.
now: 2560x2048x16M = 88 trillion pixelcolors. D=0.768 year
Amazing.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
GreyCloud
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
> <mi...@cumulus.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:34:43 -0600
> <X56dnTUVYY2...@bresnan.com>:
>
>>
>>Toomas Soome wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In comp.unix.solaris GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Joerg isn't arguing that gcc being GPL is a problem, he's arguing that
>>>>>*before 1990* it was a problem. Please read carefully.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ok. What was being offered before 1990 that was useful?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>nothing, there was no computer industry before 1990... :)
>>>
>>
>>Of course there was... VMS. :-)
>>
>
>
> Heh...well, I'll admit I liked VMS on VAXen (the VAXen
> themselves weren't bad either although not exactly
> barnburners by today's standards -- I don't know what
> the latest microVaxen can do, though).
There aren't any new ones being made. But there are a few used ones for
sale.
> I merely need
> to quibble with the "industry" portion here; VAXen were
> (are?) an industry but some of them ran BSD (at least,
> the one in my alma mater's engineering department did,
> circa 1982). VMS, however, is software.
>
> There was also Chelmsford, a city that among other things
> had Apollo Computers, a nice 68000/Z80 based computer
> (this according to one of their motherboards I looked
> at once) which was a good engineering workstation --
> and ultimately died.
>
> Funny thing; they both ended up at Compaq somewhere, along with HP.
>
> As for gcc -- I'm not sure if there was a gcc before 1990
> (though it wouldn't surprise me if there was;
There was. I've seen old byte C compiler comparison charts and gcc was
in there.
Time does change things. Too bad someone can't take the best feature of
each platform and roll it up into one. ( And it isn't M$ either)
I still remember the excellent stereo sound quality and graphics
animation capabilities of the Amiga back in the 80's. Beat everyone
elses platform hands down.
UNIX admin
> which was a C++ compiler running on DOS, though. Not a bad
> setup, if a bit primitive by today's standards -- but then,
> so were:
>
Workbench WAS NOT part of AmigaDOS, nor was it primitive; in fact, it
supported advanced preemtion-like multitasking with amazing responsiveness.
It can still do one thing that no other window manager can do, and that's
running different resolutions *CONCURRENTLY* on the same physical display.
AmigaDOS (shell) ran as a windowed task inside Workbench. On AmigaOS,
anything windowed ran under Workbench, not the other way around.
Truth of the matter is, both AmigaDOS and Workbench made calls to
exec.library. AmigaDOS was implemented in dos.library (which made calls to
trackdisk.device), and Workbench in intuition.library, both of which
introduced the concepts of shared, REENTRANT libraries to home computing.
Can you imagine having a GUI toolkit ala Qt or GTK2 implemented as a shared
library -- "intuition.library" -- all the way back in 1985? Do you realize
how advanced that was?
We won't even get into RAMDisk:, managing more than two floppy drives; 982KB
storage capacity on a double density 3.5" floppy; on-the-fly per-device or
per-directory compression; and so on.
Indeed, there was nothing primitive about Amiga Workbench(TM).
GreyCloud
UNIX admin wrote:
Of all the computers that went by the wayside due to poor management,
Amiga is the one I miss most.
The Ghost In The Machine
<tripi...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:17:31 +0200
<411e3b20$0$4873$5402...@news.sunrise.ch>:
>> DECUS tape trees :-) ); I remember there being a djgpp
>> which was a C++ compiler running on DOS, though. Not a bad
>> setup, if a bit primitive by today's standards -- but then,
>> so were:
>>
>> - Workbench 1.0 (part of AmigaDOS)
>
> Workbench WAS NOT part of AmigaDOS, nor was it primitive;
Maximum display resolution (IIRC) was maybe 1280x1024x2
(as in 4 colors), just before Commodore died. Nowadays,
that's primitive. However, everything else you state
below is in fact correct; I've seen no other system that
can simultaneously display multiple-resolution screens,
although I've heard rumors about some high-end Macs
maybe having that capability sometime in the future.
One limitation in the Amiga: the multiple resolutions were
scanline-implemented, which means one can slide up and down
but not left and right. It still was quite impressive --
and would still be today if the resolutions could get up to
2048x2048x32 bit. Presumably that's a bandwidth/buscycle
problem.
One quibble: the Amiga was a splitsystem so that's
why you're correct there; the Exec was in ROM (or in
Kickstart, loadable via floppy, in A1000 models), whereas
the "higher" level (one could quibble about that, too;
Exec knew about doubly-linked lists but the original DOS
(up to maybe 1.3 or so; I don't have anything newer) used
a lot of singly-linked BCPL pointers, which were basically
shifted right 2 bits for some very unfathomable reason)
was somewhere on disk, mostly in LIB: (usually defined
as SYSTEM:Lib, if memory serves -- note that Amiga's
filesystem is case-preserving but not case-sensitive,
much like NTFS is today, only more reliable and with a
far saner if more verbose partitioning structure :-) ).
So partly mea culpa, though it depends on how one looks at it.
> in fact, it
> supported advanced preemtion-like multitasking with amazing responsiveness.
> It can still do one thing that no other window manager can do, and that's
> running different resolutions *CONCURRENTLY* on the same physical display.
> AmigaDOS (shell) ran as a windowed task inside Workbench. On AmigaOS,
> anything windowed ran under Workbench, not the other way around.
Actually, Workbench was a little weird. Of course part of
it was that Amiga was one of the few systems that actually
has a separate *background window* spec (set a flag in the
request structure, and one gets a borderless affair that
otherwise responds to mouse clicks and such much like other
windows; in a pinch one could even *replace* Workbench
with some custom hacks). I'd have to look now but AFAIK
most programs would simply default to the Workbench screen
(Intuition would use that screen if one didn't otherwise
specify, IIRC), or open their own screen -- and Workbench
didn't interact with the programs as such once they had
their windows up. (I forget whether Amiga had across-program
drag and drop; I doubt it. Of course one can move file icons
around.)
One could define two background windows, but the second
one gets behind the first and becomes rather useless. :-)
A fairly straightforward implementation, as GUIs go, and
while Intuition had to know about Workbench, the knowledge
(AFAICT) was minimal -- and all Intuition had to do was
open a default display screen if none was specified;
Workbench simply opened its windows on the default screen.
(I believe, though would have to look now, that one can
hack Workbench into opening its backwindow on another
screen, as well.)
>
> Truth of the matter is, both AmigaDOS and Workbench made calls to
> exec.library. AmigaDOS was implemented in dos.library (which made calls to
> trackdisk.device), and Workbench in intuition.library, both of which
> introduced the concepts of shared, REENTRANT libraries to home computing.
> Can you imagine having a GUI toolkit ala Qt or GTK2 implemented as a shared
> library -- "intuition.library" -- all the way back in 1985? Do you realize
> how advanced that was?
>
> We won't even get into RAMDisk:, managing more than two floppy drives; 982KB
> storage capacity on a double density 3.5" floppy; on-the-fly per-device or
> per-directory compression; and so on.
>
> Indeed, there was nothing primitive about Amiga Workbench(TM).
>
And it died anyway, to be replaced by Windows schlock.
Ah, Amiga. Perhaps someone out there will eventually
resurrect it (or the Atari 1040, just to be perverse :-)
) -- although nowadays it would have to heavily support
OpenGL to have any hope at all, and OpenGL could emulate
the Amiga, at least the simpler Viewports, fairly easily
(the sliding viewports would merely be textured quad
objects).
But wouldn't that be neat? :-) One could imagine "XGL"
(well, we have GL on X with DRI anyway, but there's
so much more that X could do with GL -- like tilting the
windows into the visual display, as some demos of
Sun's new desktop show, or having 3D icons pop out of
the window visually [that's a capability that may or may
not be useful], things like that).
Robin KAY
> one gets behind the first and becomes rather useless. :-)
I'm not sure whether by 'background window' you mean a screen itself or
merely a particular type of window on a screen. The Amiga could display
multiples screens at once, each with it's own display mode courtesy of
the copper co-processor. You could could drag down, for example, Deluxe
Paint's title bar to reveal Workbench running underneath.
> Ah, Amiga. Perhaps someone out there will eventually
> resurrect it (or the Atari 1040, just to be perverse :-))
http://os.amiga.com/
http://www.aros.org/
--
Wishing you good fortune,
--Robin Kay-- (komadori)
GreyCloud
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
That's what happens when you have bad management. Commodore management
was too busy trying to build a PC clone and not paying attention to what
was really hot. Back then the Amiga was the best for the money.
I sure do miss the Amiga.
Tom Wilson
>
> That's what happens when you have bad management. Commodore management
> was too busy trying to build a PC clone and not paying attention to what
> was really hot. Back then the Amiga was the best for the money.
> I sure do miss the Amiga.
>
That PC clone, the Colt, was undoubtedly one of the worst machines made.
What posessed them to build a DOS-Level comptible (as opposed to true
BIOS level) clone and ignore a machine that was years ahead of its' time?
The Amiga had a "cool factor". I remember its' launch and reading an
article about Andy Warhol using one to paint a portrait of Debby Harry
(Blondie).The graphical capabilities were light years ahead of anyone
else at the time.
--
Tom Wilson
Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is
supposed to be doing at the moment.
-- Robert Benchley
UNIX admin
> (as in 4 colors), just before Commodore died. Nowadays,
> that's primitive. However, everything else you state
> below is in fact correct; I've seen no other system that
> can simultaneously display multiple-resolution screens,
> although I've heard rumors about some high-end Macs
> maybe having that capability sometime in the future.
> One limitation in the Amiga: the multiple resolutions were
> scanline-implemented, which means one can slide up and down
> but not left and right. It still was quite impressive --
> and would still be today if the resolutions could get up to
> 2048x2048x32 bit. Presumably that's a bandwidth/buscycle
> problem.
That depends on which ChipSet one is talking about; AGA ChipSet could
display 1280x512x256 or greater, depending on what the monitor was capable
of, and how much CHIP RAM one had. And yes, it was a buscycle problem, among
other things.
Don't forget the AGA HAM8 mode, which could display 262,000-something colors
simultaneously.
"Modern" Amigas nowdays easily produce 24-bit 1280x1024 or higher, but
Phase5, the firm that made the CyberGraphX cards, has been out of business
for several years now.
> One could define two background windows, but the second
> one gets behind the first and becomes rather useless. :-)
You could switch between those by clicking on the "window" icon in the upper
right hand corner (intuition built-in gadget), or pull the title bar down,
and bring the focus onto the screen behind the current one.
> And it died anyway, to be replaced by Windows schlock.
> Ah, Amiga. Perhaps someone out there will eventually
> resurrect it (or the Atari 1040, just to be perverse :-)
It has been resurected. It's called the AmigaOne (www.eyetech.co.uk).
The problem is that the cost of development is so high for this company,
that when the HW came out, it was already outdated.
It's a next generation Amiga platform that's merely sporting modern PC
implementations: PCI-66, PC-bucket RAM, PowerPC G5 CPU, Articia Custom chip
and some other mumbo-jumbo... but compared to my PC-bucket, it's overpriced
and underpowered.
In summary, they didn't innovate, just brought the next gen Amiga to
something remotely comparable to a PC-bucket. With a PPC CPU, and PPC
native AmigaOS 4.
> But wouldn't that be neat? :-) One could imagine "XGL"
> (well, we have GL on X with DRI anyway, but there's
> so much more that X could do with GL -- like tilting the
> windows into the visual display, as some demos of
> Sun's new desktop show, or having 3D icons pop out of
> the window visually [that's a capability that may or may
> not be useful], things like that).
I believe AmigaOS 4 sports built-in MESA support... but the whole thing is
shot: it was an OS from the future in 1993, but now it's just way behind.
Anything that doesn't have a unified FileSystem access (/ FS), doesn't use
ELF and has a hacked-on memory management is just busted.
Of course one could argue that is all available with running Linux on this
platform, but it's just way too expensive... way too little bang for the
buck.
UNIX admin
> was too busy trying to build a PC clone and not paying attention to what
> was really hot. Back then the Amiga was the best for the money.
> I sure do miss the Amiga.
It wasn't necessarily bad management in the classic sense, it was bad
management in so much that it was corrupt. Mohamed Ali wass basically
embezzling Commodore, and when there was nothing more to steal, he simply
quit. Commodore went bankrupt.
UNIX admin
> article about Andy Warhol using one to paint a portrait of Debby Harry
> (Blondie).The graphical capabilities were light years ahead of anyone
> else at the time.
And so were the mutitasking, audio and disk capabilities.
You could concievably have 4GB+2MB of RAM... in 1993. It was just a matter
of money!
Amiga FFS supported drives 4GB in size, or partitions of 4GB apiece back
when hard disks were 40MB. So you could stick a 200GB drive and split it up
into partitions of 4GB in size (or apply the FS patch, and have the whole
200GB to SYSTEM:) (;-) Of course, there were no 200GB drives then!
The Ghost In The Machine
<koma...@myrealbox.com>
wrote
on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:37:54 +0100
<109270662...@lotis.uk.clara.net>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> One could define two background windows, but the second
>> one gets behind the first and becomes rather useless. :-)
>
> I'm not sure whether by 'background window' you mean a screen itself or
> merely a particular type of window on a screen. The Amiga could display
> multiples screens at once, each with it's own display mode courtesy of
> the copper co-processor. You could could drag down, for example, Deluxe
> Paint's title bar to reveal Workbench running underneath.
I am referring to a background Window, not a Screen. The Amiga
had both.
Bsaically, the Workbench would get a Screen (I'm not sure if it
was Workbench or Intuition who opened the default screen now),
and then open a background window thereon using (I think)
the BACKGROUND flag. The window is borderless and partially
covered up by the title bar.
>
>> Ah, Amiga. Perhaps someone out there will eventually
>> resurrect it (or the Atari 1040, just to be perverse :-))
>
> http://os.amiga.com/
> http://www.aros.org/
>
Hmm...857,190 hits for the latter? Impressive. Not sure what
to make of the former; it looks like some sort of
support page for existing equipment.
It is, however, copyrighted 2002-2004 Amiga, Inc. Weird, but
heartening; the checkered ball lives. :-) (My Amigas might need
a new network card, though. Mine are all coax... :-/ )
The Ghost In The Machine
<4121f2ca$0$4885$5402...@news.sunrise.ch>:
>> Maximum display resolution (IIRC) was maybe 1280x1024x2
>> (as in 4 colors), just before Commodore died. Nowadays,
>> that's primitive. However, everything else you state
>> below is in fact correct; I've seen no other system that
>> can simultaneously display multiple-resolution screens,
>> although I've heard rumors about some high-end Macs
>> maybe having that capability sometime in the future.
>> One limitation in the Amiga: the multiple resolutions were
>> scanline-implemented, which means one can slide up and down
>> but not left and right. It still was quite impressive --
>> and would still be today if the resolutions could get up to
>> 2048x2048x32 bit. Presumably that's a bandwidth/buscycle
>> problem.
>
> That depends on which ChipSet one is talking about; AGA ChipSet could
> display 1280x512x256 or greater, depending on what the monitor was capable
> of, and how much CHIP RAM one had. And yes, it was a buscycle problem, among
> other things.
>
> Don't forget the AGA HAM8 mode, which could display 262,000-something colors
> simultaneously.
>
> "Modern" Amigas nowdays easily produce 24-bit 1280x1024 or higher, but
> Phase5, the firm that made the CyberGraphX cards, has been out of business
> for several years now.
Still not quite enough -- I'm using 2048x1536x24, with some GL capability
(it's a slow nVidia card -- it came with the Dell, and the Dell is
not all that new, either -- it's a Precision 530).
>
>> One could define two background windows, but the second
>> one gets behind the first and becomes rather useless. :-)
>
> You could switch between those by clicking on the "window" icon in the upper
> right hand corner (intuition built-in gadget), or pull the title bar down,
> and bring the focus onto the screen behind the current one.
I'm referring to Windows, not Screens. You're right in
that Screens could be reordered (assuming a Windows isn't
covering up the control bar, which happened occasionally!).
The proper (more or less) way to do it is to create
a Screen and then open a background Window on that
screen. (Screens don't take keyboard and mouse events.)
An alternative is to open a standard (framed) Window, or
set of Windows; the Screen in that case is simply a blank
background -- although I'd have to look to see if there
was an override to make the Screen a patterned background,
though the background Window makes more sense in that case,
even if it's not taking keyboard and mouse events.
(And yes, I have the books. :-) They're probably a bit
dated now, though.)
>
>> And it died anyway, to be replaced by Windows schlock.
>> Ah, Amiga. Perhaps someone out there will eventually
>> resurrect it (or the Atari 1040, just to be perverse :-)
>
> It has been resurected. It's called the AmigaOne (www.eyetech.co.uk).
> The problem is that the cost of development is so high for this company,
> that when the HW came out, it was already outdated.
>
> It's a next generation Amiga platform that's merely sporting modern PC
> implementations: PCI-66, PC-bucket RAM, PowerPC G5 CPU, Articia Custom chip
> and some other mumbo-jumbo... but compared to my PC-bucket, it's overpriced
> and underpowered.
>
> In summary, they didn't innovate, just brought the next gen Amiga to
> something remotely comparable to a PC-bucket. With a PPC CPU, and PPC
> native AmigaOS 4.
Well, they've good taste in microprocessors, at least. :-)
>
>> But wouldn't that be neat? :-) One could imagine "XGL"
>> (well, we have GL on X with DRI anyway, but there's
>> so much more that X could do with GL -- like tilting the
>> windows into the visual display, as some demos of
>> Sun's new desktop show, or having 3D icons pop out of
>> the window visually [that's a capability that may or may
>> not be useful], things like that).
>
> I believe AmigaOS 4 sports built-in MESA support... but the whole thing is
> shot: it was an OS from the future in 1993, but now it's just way behind.
> Anything that doesn't have a unified FileSystem access (/ FS), doesn't use
> ELF and has a hacked-on memory management is just busted.
But required, perhaps, for backward compatibility. :-/
>
> Of course one could argue that is all available with running Linux on this
> platform, but it's just way too expensive... way too little bang for the
> buck.
>
Heck, at one point I had Linux running on my A3000. (It's
probably still alive but my coax network side is rather dead.
Sigh.)
Gernot Hassenpflug
>> Here's the acid test: can I take a module out of Sun's
>> open-source distribution, modify it, and redistribute the
>> result freely as part of (say) my Linux kernel? If I can do
>> that, then Sun's open-source license will be useful to me and
>> to lots of other people; if not, then I'm not sure it's worth
>> Sun's time to come up with Yet Another Sun Software License.
Vlad> Personally I don't think you will be allowed to take parts
Vlad> of the Solaris source and drop them into Linux. The whole
Vlad> idea of open sourcing Solaris is not to take its nice
Vlad> features and port them to Linux. Citing an answer from
Vlad> Sun's Bryan Cantrill: "... We're not doing this [ open
Vlad> sourcing ] to become a technology donor to Linux; we're
Vlad> doing this to give our customers the advantage of having the
Vlad> source code, and being able to customize and contribute to
Vlad> Solaris as they see fit."
Apart from the competition you mention, there is the issue of needless
duplication due to licencing issues. For me, I think one of the main
ideas behind free software (yes, I don't have a grasp of the
semantics) is that it gives users the opportunity to use the software
for something innovative the original designers never contemplated. I
think 'not making Solaris donate to Linux' is a completely false way
of looking at the idea of open-sourcing, and is as restrictive as a
poprietary view.
--
G Hassenpflug RASC, Kyoto University
Richard L. Hamilton
Paul Eggert <egg...@twinsun.com> writes:
> At Tue, 03 Aug 2004 02:53:39 -0400, Donn Miller <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> writes:
>
>> My guess is that Sun will do like Netscape and Apple did, and
>> create their own license
>
> Sun has already done that. Several times. They have a complicated
> licensing repertoire that I'll bet not one in 10,000 professional
> programmers understands. They've got the Sun Community Source Licence
> (SCSL). They've got the Sun Industry Standards Source License
> (SISSL). And they've got the Sun Public License (SPL). Sometimes it
> seems like they use a different license for every product they turn out.
>
> And (as far as I know -- it's hard to keep track) all their special
> licenses are incompatible with the GPL. That's Sun's privilege, of
> course. But it's terrible marketing.
>
> Say what you like about the GPL -- but it's clear, and lots of
> customers understand it, and it does the job. It's serving Sun well
> in larger efforts like OpenOffice and in smaller ones like
> evolution-jescs. If Sun yet again comes up with their own
> incompatible-with-GPL license, they'll have yet another uphill battle
> convincing the world to pay attention to it, much less understand and
> use it.
>
> Here's the acid test: can I take a module out of Sun's open-source
> distribution, modify it, and redistribute the result freely as part of
> (say) my Linux kernel? If I can do that, then Sun's open-source
> license will be useful to me and to lots of other people; if not, then
> I'm not sure it's worth Sun's time to come up with Yet Another Sun
> Software License.
It's useful to me just for troubleshooting, even if I never compile a
line of it.
It's also useful as a massive collection of examples, of drivers,
filesystems, etc.
But the bottom line is not that of the ideologue, or even the contributor
and participant; it's that of the investor. Unless there's a cash value
answer when one of them asks "what's in it for me?", it shouldn't be done.
--
mailto:rlh...@smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil
Lasik/PRK theme music:
"In the Hall of the Mountain King", from "Peer Gynt"
Toomas Soome
> Apart from the competition you mention, there is the issue of needless
> duplication due to licencing issues. For me, I think one of the main
> ideas behind free software (yes, I don't have a grasp of the
> semantics) is that it gives users the opportunity to use the software
> for something innovative the original designers never contemplated. I
> think 'not making Solaris donate to Linux' is a completely false way
> of looking at the idea of open-sourcing, and is as restrictive as a
> poprietary view.
put it into solaris kernel.... remember network driver developer kit issue?
toomas
--
"I'd love to go out with you, but I'm having all my plants neutered."
Mike Cox
Then why the hell should a linux advocate even care if SUN is going to
Open Source Solaris? If a person who is not a SUN engineer/employee
cannot make changes to the CVS or take code and put it in another OS
(aka BSD license), then it has no value.
Heck, even MS took a bunch of BSD TCP/IP code and used it in Windows.
In terms of commercial value, BSD is the best license for commercial
companies because they can use BSD code in commercial products without
revealing their source, the GPL is best for goodies because everyone
is forced to share. The Solaris Open Source License will have nothing
going for it apparently.
I think this will be a case of "What if they opensourced a product and
nobody cared" type of thing. Everyone who wants a true enterprise
Open Source solution will just continue to go to IBM and use Linux on
the mainframe. AIX is being gutted for Linux, and if Solaris code
isn't avaliable to be gutted and put into Linux, then SUN won't have
an enterprise level Linux OS on their bread and butter machines.
Customers will see that, and avoid SUN enterprise hardware. SUN needs
to see that no one cares about Solaris or any other propriatery UNIX.
They have paid for propriatery UNIX for decades, and it is now a
commodity.
If SUN is going to Open source Solaris, the *only* viable license IS
the GPL, for the REASON that all the enterprise code could be put INTO
LINUX. Yes, I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that is the
only way Open sourcing Solaris would work, because then the Linux
people could port Solaris goodies into Linux and then Linux would run
on every expensive highend SUN box.
Alan Coopersmith
|Then why the hell should a linux advocate even care if SUN is going to
|Open Source Solaris?
Perhaps they shouldn't.
|If a person who is not a SUN engineer/employee
|cannot make changes to the CVS or take code and put it in another OS
|(aka BSD license), then it has no value.
Maybe no value to you, but it still has lots of value to lots of other
people, even with those restrictions.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith * al...@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coo...@Sun.COM
http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/ * http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Rich Teer
___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__ NOT |
/ \ feed the |
/ \ \ trolls |
/ _ \ \ ______________|
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ \ __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming",
published in August 2004.
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
Mike Cox
> mikeco...@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) writes in comp.unix.solaris:
> |Then why the hell should a linux advocate even care if SUN is going to
> |Open Source Solaris?
>
> Perhaps they shouldn't.
They don't. And CEOs don't either. If you talk to people in IT, SUN
is becoming the definition of clueless. Most Unix shops are now run by
Linux advocates, look how quickly Linux is replacing Unix. If Linux
advocates don't guide the PHB to SUN (and they won't if it doesn't
have a TRUE Linux strategy), then IBM will get all SUN's business.
Funny how quickly the tables turn. Throughout the 90's SUN was eating
IBM's mainframe business, and now SUN is totally clueless.
> |If a person who is not a SUN engineer/employee
> |cannot make changes to the CVS or take code and put it in another OS
> |(aka BSD license), then it has no value.
>
> Maybe no value to you, but it still has lots of value to lots of other
> people, even with those restrictions.
I really don't care what SUN does or what Linux advocates do. I'm a
Windows user, and my company is a successful windows shop. I'm just
pointing out that SUN is more delusional then the Linux camp. Linux
will never win the desktop, and open-sourcing Solaris will fail. If I
were running SUN, I'd keep Solaris closed source, add Linux affinity,
rebrand Solaris 10 to show that linux affinity, and then get Linux to
run on every single SUN box. Those are the things that will stop
SUN's hemoraging of customers.
UNIX admin
> the GPL, for the REASON that all the enterprise code could be put INTO
> LINUX. Yes, I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that is the
> only way Open sourcing Solaris would work, because then the Linux
> people could port Solaris goodies into Linux and then Linux would run
> on every expensive highend SUN box.
I hope that doesn't happen, because that would mean taking a perfectly good
OS and shoving it into a wannabe-UNIX with an identity crisis.
UNIX admin
> is becoming the definition of clueless. Most Unix shops are now run by
> Linux advocates, look how quickly Linux is replacing Unix. If Linux
> advocates don't guide the PHB to SUN (and they won't if it doesn't
> have a TRUE Linux strategy), then IBM will get all SUN's business.
> Funny how quickly the tables turn. Throughout the 90's SUN was eating
> IBM's mainframe business, and now SUN is totally clueless.
But that doesn't make Linux better. In fact, Linux has severe problems when
it comes to integrating it into the enterprise infrastructure, for example
into an NIS/NFS/AutoMounter/CacheFS network.
Linux support is more expensive than Sun's own. The only thing it has going
for it is bigger (not necessarily better) PC-bucket HW support and the fact
that in runs on ultra-cheapo PC-bucket hardware. And therein lies the
misconception that Linux is cheaper.
But it is not cheaper, it is more expensive than Solaris. Well actually, we
can't even compare it with Solaris, because Linux is just the kernel, and
not an OS. So much for our
IT-takeover-one-size-fits-all-magically-solves-all-problems-and-generates-to
ns-of-money-runner-upper.
Peter Köhlmann
>> They don't. And CEOs don't either. If you talk to people in IT, SUN
>> is becoming the definition of clueless. Most Unix shops are now run by
>> Linux advocates, look how quickly Linux is replacing Unix. If Linux
>> advocates don't guide the PHB to SUN (and they won't if it doesn't
>> have a TRUE Linux strategy), then IBM will get all SUN's business.
>> Funny how quickly the tables turn. Throughout the 90's SUN was eating
>> IBM's mainframe business, and now SUN is totally clueless.
>
> But that doesn't make Linux better. In fact, Linux has severe problems
> when it comes to integrating it into the enterprise infrastructure, for
> example into an NIS/NFS/AutoMounter/CacheFS network.
Such as?
> Linux support is more expensive than Sun's own.
Sayxing so does not make this true
> The only thing it has
> going for it is bigger (not necessarily better) PC-bucket HW support and
> the fact that in runs on ultra-cheapo PC-bucket hardware. And therein lies
> the misconception that Linux is cheaper.
Tell us more about this
> But it is not cheaper, it is more expensive than Solaris. Well actually,
> we can't even compare it with Solaris, because Linux is just the kernel,
> and not an OS. So much for our
>
Our? Since when is an Outhouse Fast Shit user one of "we"?
>IT-takeover-one-size-fits-all-magically-solves-all-problems-and-generates-to
> ns-of-money-runner-upper.
Good thing that you don't know anything about what you're talking about
--
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware
Christopher Browne
> Alan Coopersmith <al...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote in message news:<cgdlup$g73$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>> mikeco...@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) writes in comp.unix.solaris:
>> |Then why the hell should a linux advocate even care if SUN is going to
>> |Open Source Solaris?
>>
>> Perhaps they shouldn't.
>
> They don't. And CEOs don't either. If you talk to people in IT, SUN
> is becoming the definition of clueless. Most Unix shops are now run
> by Linux advocates, look how quickly Linux is replacing Unix. If
> Linux advocates don't guide the PHB to SUN (and they won't if it
> doesn't have a TRUE Linux strategy), then IBM will get all SUN's
> business. Funny how quickly the tables turn. Throughout the 90's
> SUN was eating IBM's mainframe business, and now SUN is totally
> clueless.
The shop I'm in is actively migrating to AIX, not becase they have a
"better Linux strategy," but because we trust IBM's hardware a bit
more than we trust Sun's hardware.
We've had "cheapo Linux systems" with better uptimes than we've been
getting on the Sun hardware, and we _need_ much better uptimes than
Sun has given us.
That's not about licensing; the only _possible_ merit of "open
sourcing Solaris" would be if that allowed us to self-diagnose some of
the problems, and that would likely merely demonstrate that our people
are more competent at diagnosis than Sun's people, and further, that
the hardware is faulty. Which would be an eminently Pyhrric victory.
>> |If a person who is not a SUN engineer/employee cannot make changes
>> |to the CVS or take code and put it in another OS (aka BSD
>> |license), then it has no value.
>>
>> Maybe no value to you, but it still has lots of value to lots of other
>> people, even with those restrictions.
> I really don't care what SUN does or what Linux advocates do. I'm a
> Windows user, and my company is a successful windows shop. I'm just
> pointing out that SUN is more delusional then the Linux camp. Linux
> will never win the desktop, and open-sourcing Solaris will fail. If
> I were running SUN, I'd keep Solaris closed source, add Linux
> affinity, rebrand Solaris 10 to show that linux affinity, and then
> get Linux to run on every single SUN box. Those are the things that
> will stop SUN's hemoraging of customers.
Selling reliable scalable hardware at not-too-outrageous prices is
what will stop the loss of customers.
We're dropping two Sun E4500 servers from service next month that we'd
quite like to "drop" from 40,000 feet. THAT is the sort of thing
that's hurting Sun, not the lack of "open source strategy."
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sgml.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #73. "I will not agree to let the heroes go
free if they win a rigged contest, even though my advisors assure me
it is impossible for them to win." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Hamilcar Barca
> In fact, Linux has severe problems when it comes to integrating it into
> the enterprise infrastructure, for example into an
> NIS/NFS/AutoMounter/CacheFS network.
Please support this uncorroborated assertion, and include with it your
proof the GPL is "blackmail", coupled with an "ultimatum", resulting in
"dictatorship".
> But it is not cheaper, it is more expensive than Solaris.
Include support for this uncorroborated assertion.
Dragan Cvetkovic
> Forced to use Outhouse Distress, Windows User wrote:
>
>> In fact, Linux has severe problems when it comes to integrating it into
>> the enterprise infrastructure, for example into an
>> NIS/NFS/AutoMounter/CacheFS network.
>
> Please support this uncorroborated assertion, and include with it your
> proof the GPL is "blackmail", coupled with an "ultimatum", resulting in
> "dictatorship".
I am not the person who said the above, but we also have terrible problems
with automounting with Linux clients. Whenever we change something on our
NFS servers, all other machines (Solaris, BSD) pick the changes without
problems, but Linux machines have to have their automounter restarted (be
it autofs or amd, be it Linux Debian or RH or Fedora) and occasionally even
rebooted to fix unmountable home directories with stale entries etc etc.
I guess that has nothing to do with GPL.
Dragan
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
UNIX admin
> proof the GPL is "blackmail", coupled with an "ultimatum", resulting in
> "dictatorship".
Should I be serving you breakfast too? You have Google like everybody else.
Unless you want to continue foaming around your mouth because somebody dared
to write that the GPL sucks, and that Linux isn't the greatest thing, you
can do your own homework.
Anyway, you're either completely fanatical and therefore playing dumb, or
you really are a few fries short of a happy meal.
Paul Floyd
<hami...@tld.always.invalid> wrote:
> Forced to use Outhouse Distress, Windows User wrote:
>
>> In fact, Linux has severe problems when it comes to integrating it into
>> the enterprise infrastructure, for example into an
>> NIS/NFS/AutoMounter/CacheFS network.
>
> Please support this uncorroborated assertion, and include with it your
In my experience _all_ versions of DeadRat that I have used have
NIS/NFS/AutoMounter implementations that are a load of wank. Zero
problems with HP-UX and Solaris. But with Linsux, any attampt to copy a
file between continents is doomed to fail.
I think that this is what you get when you use software written by
people that think they are "too good" to follow standards.
A bientot
Paul
--
Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr (for what it's worth)
Surgery: ennobled Gerald.
Richard L. Hamilton
While I disagree that it has "no value" under those restrictions, and am
not necessarily proposing those particular restrictions, I don't
personally give a damn _what_ a "linux advocate" cares about. And for
turnabout, as long as Linux drivers are GPL'd rather than LGPL'd, I see
the advantage giving away everything in exchange for a little. I see the
point as improving the value of Solaris to Sun's customers, not improving
all other free software everywhere at the expense of Sun.
> Heck, even MS took a bunch of BSD TCP/IP code and used it in Windows.
> In terms of commercial value, BSD is the best license for commercial
> companies because they can use BSD code in commercial products without
> revealing their source, the GPL is best for goodies because everyone
> is forced to share. The Solaris Open Source License will have nothing
> going for it apparently.
So you know what it's going to look like, that you can judge it to be
useless? You must have some sources that nobody else has, like a
time machine to look into the future.
Personally, I think they ought to do a BSD-like license for drivers,
create new uncommitted (in the sense that it would be understood that the
interface might change in future versions) documentation of some internal
interfaces (like the vfs/vnode interface needed to create new
filesystems) and license the documentation similarly, and for everything
else, create a license that allows only licensees to share changes, and
only when they're going to be used with Solaris. Also, there should be
a mechanism to move parts from the more restrictive to the more free
if/when it becomes clear that doing so provides more value to Sun by
supporting their customers better.
But that's just my opinion; I have no connection with Sun other than as
someone who uses their products (and has no control or inflence over any
money other than for the very small amount of stuff I might spend for home
use).
> I think this will be a case of "What if they opensourced a product and
> nobody cared" type of thing. Everyone who wants a true enterprise
> Open Source solution will just continue to go to IBM and use Linux on
> the mainframe. AIX is being gutted for Linux, and if Solaris code
> isn't avaliable to be gutted and put into Linux, then SUN won't have
> an enterprise level Linux OS on their bread and butter machines.
> Customers will see that, and avoid SUN enterprise hardware. SUN needs
> to see that no one cares about Solaris or any other propriatery UNIX.
> They have paid for propriatery UNIX for decades, and it is now a
> commodity.
You're putting ideology ahead of practicality again. Stallman does enough
of that for everyone (although the alternative perspective is useful even
if only by contrast).
> If SUN is going to Open source Solaris, the *only* viable license IS
> the GPL, for the REASON that all the enterprise code could be put INTO
> LINUX. Yes, I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that is the
> only way Open sourcing Solaris would work, because then the Linux
> people could port Solaris goodies into Linux and then Linux would run
> on every expensive highend SUN box.
Aha, the bottom line. "One OS to rule them all." Sounds like the
talk of the Dark Lord, whether he hangs out in Redmond or in geekdom.
The analogy goes further - if any one with sufficient power succeeded
in dethroning the current occupant of that title, they'd simply end
up becoming just like them, whatever their intentions. That much influence
is inherently corrupting.
No one OS can be, or ever will be, perfect for all situations (however
much shrinkwrap application vendors [who mostly _aren't_ into Open Source])
might like that. And if any one thing took over everywhere, it would get
weaker over time simply due to lack of competition. Nor do separate Linux
distros entirely answer the need for competition - AFAIK, none of 'em do
what enterprise customers want, namely pay decent attention to backwards
compatibility, and be driven by customer needs rather than what attracts
the interest of the programmers.
Richard L. Hamilton
>> mikeco...@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) writes in comp.unix.solaris:
>> |Then why the hell should a linux advocate even care if SUN is going to
>> |Open Source Solaris?
>>
>> Perhaps they shouldn't.
>
> They don't. And CEOs don't either. If you talk to people in IT, SUN
> is becoming the definition of clueless. Most Unix shops are now run by
> Linux advocates, look how quickly Linux is replacing Unix. If Linux
> advocates don't guide the PHB to SUN (and they won't if it doesn't
> have a TRUE Linux strategy), then IBM will get all SUN's business.
> Funny how quickly the tables turn. Throughout the 90's SUN was eating
> IBM's mainframe business, and now SUN is totally clueless.
If clueless == not kissing ass to a matter of fashion (Linux), then
I'm all for being clueless.
>> |If a person who is not a SUN engineer/employee
>> |cannot make changes to the CVS or take code and put it in another OS
>> |(aka BSD license), then it has no value.
>>
>> Maybe no value to you, but it still has lots of value to lots of other
>> people, even with those restrictions.
>
> I really don't care what SUN does or what Linux advocates do. I'm a
> Windows user, and my company is a successful windows shop. I'm just
> pointing out that SUN is more delusional then the Linux camp. Linux
> will never win the desktop, and open-sourcing Solaris will fail. If I
> were running SUN, I'd keep Solaris closed source, add Linux affinity,
> rebrand Solaris 10 to show that linux affinity, and then get Linux to
> run on every single SUN box. Those are the things that will stop
> SUN's hemoraging of customers.
If you have Linux affinity (that is, being able to run Linux binaries
and compile Linux source with considerably less effort), what point
is there in porting Linux to every single Sun box, just to be able to
say you did? WTF does that do for real customers? Whatever you may
think, the Linux fashion police will never take over most enterprises;
Linux may be _used_ in most enterprises in certain roles where it
suits well, but that's a matter of using the right tool for the job,
not a matter of putting one OS everywhere.
Frank Cusack
It's already happening (lxrun, and now Janus). How is more compatibility
bad?
/fc