Senior Member
If you want to take ownership of KDE on FreeBSD, nothing stops you. They sure won't. They're saying that it represents so much work for only a few users that it stretches their resources thin. Instead of spinning their wheels supporting a bad operating system that is totally ancient as far as desktop use goes, they have decided to focus on Linux. I can't see where they made a mistake.Originally Posted by soupbowl
If something was going to triple your expenditure of effort for half a percent more users and lead to a bad experience everywhere from trying to support the subset of Linux functionality that exists on FreeBSD, would you do it?
To answer your other question, I don't particularly care where proprietary software developers shove their code, but I could make suggestions.
Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-19-2011 at 05:12 PM.
Senior Member
Of course the Linux community only cares about Linux, I'll pardon your slip up. FreeBSD: "Dammit, quit improving Linux, it makes us look bad!" "Why can't you be happy using interfaces from 1999!?!?"
"You're so rude, bunch of meanies!"
PS: For the love of God, even Windows has changed their video driver interfaces four times since 1999! Grow up!
The difference is that Linux deletes obsolete crap and leaves BSD holding the bag. I can see why you're mad.
Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-19-2011 at 05:18 PM.
Phoronix Member
lol, I'm not mad, but keep troll'n. I am actually entertained.
Junior Member
There's the difference between you and some of us: you let your ideology dictate your decision making when it involves technical issues.
I have listened to the arguments about BSD and Linux for an awful long time. It's not that I don't listen...I have already heard what you are preaching and quite frankly I simply disagree with your stance. This isn't based on emotional or ideological stuff...it's based on my experiences with both licenses and OS's.
As for hating Nvidia for some consipiracy theory/political stuff...well...that's certainly your prerogative. Doesn't really add any weight to your technical and legal arguments though.
Anyway, you see...we are fortunate to have all these choices. Just because you don't agree with BSD license etc. etc. doesn't mean you have to get on a soapbox saying how 'bad' it is and how the GPL is the end all be all to 'open source'. Again...sounds eerily familiar to the <insert other OS zealot here> using arguments against your beloved GPL'ed Linux. Remember those days?
Senior Member
Remember them? They're still going! Even though BSD can't run a modern desktop system and they are trying to escape the GPL even when it means using inferior software.
Junior Member
If you believe FreeBSD is inferior software, why post here at all? It's not like we're excited to read your troll posts, DaemonFC. You obviously do not value the advanced features server admins can appreciate in FreeBSD and other server operating systems. I suggest you restrict yourself to desktop/graphics/Linux forums instead, and allow others to post in the BSD forums without these silly flamewars of an appalling low level.
Senior Member
Yes I can't understand why some people have a need to fuel animosity between Linux/BSD users, why? This seemingly everpresent 'in-figthing' between Linux and BSD extremists is utterly pointless as it won't lead to anything even remotely productive. Yet, in both camps there are those who seem hellbent on severing any ties between these two unix descendants and their respective users. Again, why? It's f***ing tiresome to watch.
Junior Member
I agree with sub.mesa's sentiment.
The rest is addressed at Daemon.
Yes, Daemon...the arguments against *nix continue to this day. Having said that, it was far worse 10+ years ago. Far more people have embraced *nix...and a lot of the hogwash spewed by zealots has clearly been curtailed. Enter the Linux zealots. And here we go all over again.
Now...as for your half-truths and other such malarky. FreeBSD can certainly run a 'modern' desktop just fine (it's actually quite easy). You, because of some ideological beliefs, refuse to do so. That certainly is your prerogative and I don't have any problem at all with your stance. But to sit here and continue your misguided tirade against BSD is really just flat out silly. Why don't you pressure ATI to produce a driver? I dunno...worked for Nvidia (those greedy buggers!). Nvidia cards work perfectly fine with BSD desktops. Sorry your choice of hardware precludes you.
There is no 'best' in computing (especially OS's). Clearly, you seem to think there is...and that's where you are going astray imho.
Senior Member
I said X. You said Y is absurd, therefore not Y. If you read what I said, you would see that nothing I said had anything to do with that.
All files on your computer are numbers. By having licensing in the first place, you are claiming ownership of numbers. It is absurd, but what is more absurd is the contradiction that is the GPL, which claims to make things free, but then takes advantage of the legal mechanism used to restrict people from modifying software to do the same thing in its own special kind of way. That is what I tried to explain above. If you cannot understand that, then please find something else to do with yourself.
By the way, as for proprietary code, I don't like it, but there isn't much I can do about it.
Last edited by Shining Arcanine; 11-21-2011 at 09:18 AM.
Senior Member
You said 'GPL Advocates take what they want and never give anything back', I said that GPL advocates GIVE back, but under their preferred licence, just like BSD advocates give back under their preferred licence, just like CDDL advocates gives back under their preferred licence etc etc.
So you are against licences and code ownership alltogether. Why not just say so, and why even argue about licence A vs licence B then since you find the very idea of them absurd?
Since 'free' in your opinion leaves out anything copyrighted then the only thing you would call free would be public domain. BSD code certainly is not 'free' since it's copyrighted (in your words 'ownership of numbers'). GPL doesn't restrict anyone from modifying code at all, it merely demands that if you distribute that modified code to a third party you have to provide them with the source code aswell. For your own purposes you can modify the code as much as you want and never publish the source code.
Now the 'freedom' in GPL refers to keeping the code 'free' as in 'kept open'. I don't agree with the choice of words myself, as in my opinion it's about 'end user rights' and should be called as such, but those are semantics, it's what it does in practice that is of importance. In practice GPL requires the source code being available to end users and as such is unsuitable for proprietary code, BSD does not require the source code to be available to end users and as such is suitable for inclusion into proprietary code. It's up to the code author to decide which approach he/she wants for his/her code should he/she want to licence it as open source. And if you want to use his/her code then you have to comply with the conditions he/she has set. You may find this absurd but copyright exists nonetheless.
There's nothing you can do about code ownership resulting in licenced code either as it's based on the same premise as proprietary code, which is that anyone who writes code is the owner of that code and has copyright over that code unless he/she explicitly relinquishes that right. You are by your own definition against all code ownership on the grounds that it's all numbers at the end of the day, as such you are against all licences and obviously against proprietary code as it's all based upon copyright.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote