Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 115

Thread: BSDs Struggle With Open-Source Graphics Drivers

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightmarex View Post
    Really? I use Linux because I have a love of the CLI (well... Emulated ones where I can have multiple sessions or a TTY with screen on it not that single user/program crap). Making such claims is dubious at best.
    You != everyone, you need a larger sample size before you claim something is dubious.

    To the poster of Linux users are it's enemy. Well I have seen many elitist attitudes from Windows users as well as OSX/IOS that was far more berating than even what Capt. Crazy has posted. Doesn't seem to harm their platform so why are Linux elitist worse than those of other systems? Unless you were just being funny in that case dismiss the preceding statement.
    Well, if it's not RMS and his shenanigans chasing people away its the shenanigans of lovely people like Lennart Poettering who rather than scheduling his own talk would rather interrupt someone else's talk.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Well, if it's not RMS and his shenanigans chasing people away its the shenanigans of lovely people like Lennart Poettering who rather than scheduling his own talk would rather interrupt someone else's talk.
    Well considering that datenwolf didn't seem to do much if any research for his talk and spread misinformation of various projects (many of which Lennart had worked on) I think it was good for him to actually correct some of his claims. Lennart made the horrible talk at least somewhat interesting and fun. It's also quite usual to let the audience ask question and such during the talk.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    You are just plain wrong... Remember the academic origins of BSD; its license, therefore, was motivated by the academy. All this predates the whole "my license is more free than yours" bullshit. Any way, this proves that BSD doesn't hate GPL, and that BSD does not support closed source; this is impossible, since BSD predates all this. So, you can see GNU/GPL as anti-proprietary movements, while BSD is really proprietary-agnostic; yes, you can 'steal' BSD code, but that was not the motivation for BSD.
    No, YOU are plain wrong. The full BSD came after the first proprietary software was released. BSD license was and is motivated by freedom to make proprietary software. it's proprietary-friendly. Academia now adays also prefer the GPL as it keeps code open and thus more people can benefit.

    Stealing BSD code to make proprietary shit is the motivation of BSD. You can see this what Linux devs took BSD code and add GPL code to it. BSD fuckers start crying and threaden to sue them.

    Perhaps Unix took code from BSD, but also remember that their goal was to have a free (non AT&T) Unix, so they were actually fighting for freedom many years before Linux, GNU, FSF, etc.
    BSD was proprietary before stallman came and ask them to make thier code free. But rather then doing what stallman ask for, they set about making code that is free to be used for proprietary software.

    That's just your opinion; who are you to impose the definition of freedom to me?
    We are stopping you from helping proprietary software companies from taking away people's freedom.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by systemd rulez View Post

    BSD was proprietary before stallman came and ask them to make thier code free. But rather then doing what stallman ask for, they set about making code that is free to be used for proprietary software.



    We are stopping you from helping proprietary software companies from taking away people's freedom.
    Notwithstanding the spelling and grammar errors, what is your position of Richard Stallman promoting free codecs by supporting their distribution through a permissive software license?
    Is he wrong? Is it not 'free' enough for you?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by systemd rulez View Post
    No, YOU are plain wrong. The full BSD came after the first proprietary software was released. BSD license was and is motivated by freedom to make proprietary software. it's proprietary-friendly. Academia now adays also prefer the GPL as it keeps code open and thus more people can benefit.
    Here, a history lesson: http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensourc...k/kirkmck.html

    "Early in 1977, Joy put together the "Berkeley Software Distribution." This first distribution included the Pascal system, and, in an obscure subdirectory of the Pascal source, the editor ex. Over the next year, Joy, acting in the capacity of distribution secretary, sent out about thirty free copies of the system."

    As early as 1977 BSD Unix was promoting freedom; GNU/LINUX/GPL weren't even in plans.

    "Up through the release of 4.3BSD-Tahoe, all recipients of BSD had to first get an AT&T source license. That was because the BSD systems were never released by Berkeley in a binary-only format; the distributions always contained the complete source to every part of the system. The history of the Unix system and the BSD system in particular had shown the power of making the source available to the users. Instead of passively using the system, they actively worked to fix bugs, improve performance and functionality, and even add completely new features."

    According to history, everything you say is just plain wrong.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    You != everyone, you need a larger sample size before you claim something is dubious.
    Well I do equal a user correct? Just saying, you know, your statement wasn't 100% factual and is probably baseless. If you had reference to insinuate that the majority Linux users are actually CLI-phobic I will concede your point but until you can I used myself as debasing reference.

    @Sergio nice read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...ory-simple.svg may of sufficed however.
    Last edited by nightmarex; 02-10-2013 at 08:12 PM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    Again, it is in fact very simple: If you don't like permissive licenses then don't use them. You don't need to license your software under such a license and if you don't want to nobody is forcing you to use software that has a permissive license.
    You don't have to rewrite, because BSD and GPL are both permissive licenses and work very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    Just go ahead, remove any permissive licensed software from your system and replace it with GPL software. Possibly you will have to write some of those replacements in the first place, like your X server for example.Arguing against permissive licenses, but posting from a system that makes extensive use of them is at least hypocritical, if not just an asshole move.
    I don't remember anything like that happening in GPL space. But in BSD space, yes, they are nazi BSD-only guys, they went ahead are rewrote stuff like .. whole userspace and new compiler. Yes, hypocritical asshole move.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    83

    Default Vim_User is analed

    Vim_User, looks like your arguments backfired against you, Analed.

    Analed deep.


  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    You don't have to rewrite, because BSD and GPL are both permissive licenses and work very well.
    The GPL is not a permissive license, it is a copyleft license, the only form of license some people here on Phoronix (like that systemd troll) are accepting. So I asked to just remove the software with permissive licenses, so that they aren't hypocritical assholes, bitching about a license while using a system that heavily depends on software that is put under a permissive license.

    Vim_User is analed
    Vim_User, looks like your arguments backfired against you, Analed.
    Actually, no, they didn't, and if you would be half as educated about licenses as you pretend you would know that. Still waiting for your answers in the other threads regarding your contributions to the open source movement and how it works out for you not to use permissive licensed software.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,044

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by systemd rulez View Post
    Vim_User, looks like your arguments backfired against you,
    What about you? Are you ǹot bothered that most of what you say is plain wrong?
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...060#post312060

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •