You didn't answer or didn't post any counterarguments to what I already wrote, but you're the one who's repeating same bull all the time. It makes bsd zealots to look even worse with yours logic or rather without it :)
Originally Posted by Sprewell
That's what I said. As you said BSD OS's benefit from other licenses and while we're talking mainly about the GPL I assume you meant the GPL. While Linux (GPL) is far more popular, it droves and keeps in good shape X11, KDE, Gnome development and it keeps BSD still alive. It doesn't matter if BSDs have been around, because they didn't ever bring such attention like Linux and some other GPL projects.
Linux keeps non-GPL software alive? Even though the BSDs have been around and running them for much longer?
Why they can't? Can you answer? TDR was bitching bsd license, because people were sucking what they ever wanted from OpenSSL and give nothing back.
What?! If you don't know about the BSD relicensing issue with Theo DeRaadt, where even the FSF said GPL devs can't just take BSD code and ditch the BSD license, like some GPL guys tried to do, then you're clearly ignorant of the real issues here.
Nope. OS X is a proprietary desktop and BSD are not. If you want a proprietary Linux then it's even bigger shame Phoronix posted such idiotic bull. OS X isn't much more successful and it's not a *BSD merit it's more successful then Linux. It's more successful, because of reasons I already posted, but you're still repeating same bull. OS X is damn poor OS with poor market share as for OS aiming at desktops since beginning. In contrary, Linux has great market share in the server side (this is one of the first areas which Linux was aiming for) and HPC.
Sharing code makes BSD better because it has led to a much more successful desktop like Mac OS X. :p
Primary Linux goals - server and HPC - great success. Its model rocks.
Primary OS X goals - desktop - very poor success. Its model sucks.
I see, anyone can do what they want with BSD-licensed code...[/QUOTE]
It's not the first time there's no logic in your claims. If this is true then why did you mentioned TDR before?
Of course it's not. If anyone can do what he wants in some country, so including killing it's a true freedom in your logic?
but that's not true freedom.
They're still living thanks to this.
The BSD license still benefits from GPL software for the same reason monraaf gave: we run GPL-licensed software like GNOME or git on BSD
They can be GPL as well and I bet they will be even in a better form right now.
ust as linux would be useless without permissively-licensed software like Apache or X11.
According to statistics it mainly runs on Linux straw man.
I see, so Apache only runs on linux? :D
I explained this. Apache is just one of the many other projects and it runs mainly on Linux, so GPL software. Linux, GCC, KDE, Gnome are far more successful then they're BSD equivalents (if any...). So it's funny how you say BSD is more successful.
Funny how you say GPL is far more successful than BSD right after using Apache, which is under a permissive license like BSD, as your evidence of popular open source software.
I don't have to speak with the lier do I?
The GPL has done well in certain niches, but if you actually look at how much BSD code is used vs GPL
For example, at this moment there are 47,392 projects that use GPL out of the 68,854 total projects that use OSI-approved licenses. That is, about 69% of the roughly 69,000 projects that use OSI-approved licenses, use GPL.
Phoronix posted the trolls article. Nice. GPL kills BSD - look at server and desktop market. I don't like speaking to idiots, because it's a waste of time, but I'm quite persevering. It's Linux which is to kill OS X (like it kills *BSD), because OS X was earlier on desktops.
BSD kills GPL, just as Mac OS X kills desktop linux. :)
Webkit is bsd licensed? It's a kthml fork. I'm not interested what is more likely or not in your opinion, because you already showed you're saying bull :) The flag BSD products like Freebsd and others are nearly dead. However, you can probably say they have won.
As for why those projects are successful, a lot of it has to do with corporate funding. Companies who use a service model, like IBM or Red Hat, are more likely to fund GPL code, while companies who want to incorporate code into a product, like Apple with their BSD userland or WebKit or llvm, are more likely to fund BSD code. The BSD products win because their economics scale. :D
I'm now sure I'm speaking to damn troll and a moron. I see I don't even have to repeat to the rest of your bull. However, If you want to say something next time then quote parts you want reply to. But, you being a troll I don't expect you will do so.
And there's a lot in that tree. Google started with the 2.4.18 kernel - but they patched over 2000 files, inserting 492,000 lines of code. Among other things, they backported 64-bit support into that kernel. Eventually they moved to 2.6.11, primarily because they needed SATA support. A 2.6.18-based kernel followed, and they are now working on preparing a 2.6.26-based kernel for deployment in the near future. They are currently carrying 1208 patches to 2.6.26, inserting almost 300,000 lines of code. Roughly 25% of those patches, Mike estimates, are backports of newer features.