Thats the revolutionary beauty of the GPL, it's like a spider plant. Adding GPL code to BSD or MIT code converts and liberates it from conversion to proprietary code and thus effectively make it freedom preserving GPL code.
It's quite ridiculous and it throws into question the sanity and normality of the people saying that. And most others will find it creepy or even sickening.
Only that that would be a level up for you, since Microsoft at least tries a little bit to let their FUD look like the truth, which seems to be way about your horizon.
Oh, Netflix? Those DRM-inclined nuts who also require silverlight M$ crap to play their content? Oh, now answer quickly: can you use Netflix services in your "adequate" BSD desktop, then? (and then BSD guys wonder why other ppl consider them proprietary footpads).for NetFlix and huge ISP's and hosting companies it is superb for server;
Oh, another proprietary nuts. And of course no full source for MacOS X. And absolutely no source for iOS. So with Liunx you can try to make your phone based on Linux stack if you want to. With BSDs only Apple can. That's where we can see how BSD "freedom" differs from GPL freedom...for Apple it is good as a base system (in union with Mach);
So, can I grab the source, learn it, change it, rebuild it and use it on Juniper hardware if I own one? No? Such a pity. BSD "freedom" strikes again. It turns out only Juniper haves rights and freedoms. Not their customers. Since I'm not Juniper, I see absolutely no reasons to welcome this approach. Especially granted the fact it's customer who pays money for everything. So this scheme does not looks fair to say the least.for Juniper it is great for embedded products;
And Linux just powers biggest, most successful startups (Google and Facebook to name a two), most of TOP500 supercomputers, millions of phones, routers, servers and so on. And even gaming industry started looking at it. So it's finally getting considered by people as OS suitable for desktops. Not something that BSDs could afford. Ironically, Linux took several percents of market in the web. BSDs had 10 more years to get there. Yet they're used thousands times less than Linux. This definitely indicates BSDs are inconvenient to use and/or lack many features.for McAfee it is great for their firewall product... yet for you it is crap.
Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 02-12-2013 at 06:06 AM.
Like i said, BSD users saying that BSD is right for them is equal to saying: "I prefer to be raped because I find it much more interesting then not being raped".
Sure people should be admitted to mental hospitals immediately.
There are no files in my copy of the Mesa git tree that include a GPL notice, though it is a rather old clone.Code:.\" @(#)e.tmac 2.31 (Berkeley) 5/21/88 .\" Modified by James Clark for use with groff. .\" .\" Copyright (c) 1988 Regents of the University of California. .\" All rights reserved. .\" .\" Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted .\" provided that this notice is preserved and that due credit is given .\" to the University of California at Berkeley. The name of the University .\" may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this .\" software without specific prior written permission. This software .\" is provided ``as is'' without express or implied warranty.
ISC dhcp software ships with a permissive license and support for Linux.
ncurses is permissively licensed, and likewise ships with support for Linux.
@0xBADCODEJust for reference: there are proprietary GUI stacks for Linux (Athene). That's basically the same as what you get from Apple with OS X, a FOSS command-line interface and kernel + proprietary GUI with some FOSS clients. Not that I care for either!
Netflix would be no more obligated to provide a client if they used Linux than they are now.
And the claim that the *BSDs had 10 more years is false: until BSD/Lite (June 1994), all BSD software was available only to those with Unix licenses (with the dubious exception of Net/2, which ostensibly should have been). By that time, Linux had reached 1.0. Linus Torvalds said that if BSD had been available when he started Linux, he would have used it instead.
No, dude, for most users it's completely unusable as desktop and would fail to serve their day to tay tasks with anyhow reasonable efforts to achieve this state. What do you expect from OS where half of GPUs will not work properly? And you see, you even did not answered if service proposed by you (netflix) would run on OS proposed by you (fbsd). Showcasing EPIC FAIL . It's so silly to advertise commercial DRMed service which you can't even use on your "adequate" desktop OS with reasonable efforts. Very impressive shooting of your own legs, lol.My sole point was that obviously BSD is far from being crap, as you stated on an earlier post.
It's just a point of reference to compare with. It's *nix-like and opensource so it's most adequate reference point to compare with. Is this hard to understand? We're not living in vaccuum, after all.What the fuck does Linux have to do here?
That's what called vendor lock-in. And that's what really suxx, especially if you have to pay your money for such a bad treatment.What the fuck if I can't get the source from Juniper?
The truth is here that these days it's usage shrinks and only most hardcore proprietary f...ks are using BSDs because it would allow them to keep source closed. Furthermore, to get first class experience with BSD-based, you have to pay to those f...ks and would be unable to enjoy by freedoms provided by opensource solutions. Or you can use third-rate stuff like freebsd for free. But in no way it's anyhow polished or friendly and you have to do most of job yourselfl. It has gone as far as many ex-proprietary corporations are using Linux these days (and provide source of course). All this situation caused Linux to outrun BSDs. Cooperation works better than bunch of hungry sharks trying to eat each other. That's where proprietary guys will fail...The truth is there are tons of top-class products depending on FreeBSD,
A lot? Lot compared to what? Compared to Windows it's nothing. Compared to MacOS it's nothing. Compared to Linux it's nothing. And for some reason BSD guys always mumble about lack of resources. If there are "so a lot of money is bet" why fbsd always lacks resources to do things right and in proper time, not 10 years later, when everyone ditched it? Great example is virtualisation. In Linux and in Windows it's available for several years out of the box. And freebds guys only started to implement it in some future version. Ha-ha, they lagged so much that they got booted from most installations. As far as I know, these days even apache and yahoo who are known to use BSD for ages are rather moved to Linux. Rats leaving a sinking ship?so a lot of money is bet on FreeBSD; yet for you it is a crap OS.
Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 02-12-2013 at 05:03 PM.