f



Microsoft to Linux: "Don't run, you'll only die tired."

Forget Linux. Try FreeBSD.

0
anathema (196)
2/10/2006 4:38:59 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

37 Replies
475 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 17

Is that a social diesease?

0
2/10/2006 4:40:36 AM
The racist, liar and software thief Ana Thema (flatfish) nymshifted:

< snip flatfish droppings >

You lately nymshifted to

Abbie Diaz, Aftab Singh, Allen Cusimano, Allie Perkins, Allison Juergans,
allison_hunt1969, Ana Thema, Anna Banger, anonymous, Archie, Archie Moss
Bunker, Archie Watermann, Baba Booey, Babu Singh, Bill Thomson,
bill.gates.loves.me, bison, Bjarne Jensen, BklynBoy, bonobo magilla, Boyce
Mabri, BSEE, Buster, Charles LeGrand, Charlie, Choppers McGee, Chris
Thomas, Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn, Clippy, Collie Entragion, Colon
Singh, common cold, Connie Hines, Corrie, Corrie Titlaand, Curtis Wilson,
dbx_boy, Deadpenguin, Debbie, Devon Dawson, dismoqualifetch, Donn Carlsbad,
Dr.Long John Jones, Elliot Zimmermann, Elwin Winters, Emmanuel Arias, Fawn
Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, frank boson, Franz Klammer, Fred Simmons,
gabriele howorth, Gary Stewart, GayClod, George Cotton, George Littlefield,
Gilbert, Gilbert Goiter, Gilbert Hochaim, gilligan, Greg Finnigan, Greg
Laplante, Hans Kimm, Harry Hilton, Harvey Fogel, Heather, Heather69,
Heather Trax, Heddy Seafield, hepcat, Hugh Himless, Ishmeal Hafizi, itchy
balls, Ivan Mctavish, IvanaB, Jeff Szarka, Joe Josephson, John, John
Shelton, Jorge Jorgensen, Jose Lopez, juke_joint, kaptain kaput, Karel
Olish, Karla Snodgress, kathy_krantz, Kendra, Kenny Dugan, Kent Dorfman,
Kyle Cadet, L Didio, Laura Shillingford, Le Farter, Le Yammy, Les Turner,
Leslie Bassman, Lilly, Lindy, Linux Exposer, Lisa Shavas, Lisa Cottmann,
Lois Hunt, Long, long_tong_ling, Lukumi Babalu Aye, Luna Lane, Major Mynor,
Manny, McSwain, Mogumbo, Moses, Mooshoo Bong Singh,
narrows_whitefish@yahoo.com, nate_mcspook, okto_pussy, organ.creep, OSS KDE
User, Paddy  McCrockett, Patricia, Patty Poppins, percy samson, Peter
Gluckman, Peter Kohlmann, Phil, Phillip Cornwall, phoung, phoung quoak,
pickle_pete, Piss Clam, Poopy Pants McGee, Quimby, Quinton Magee, Quizno
Backer, Rich, Richard P. Johnson, Richie, Richie O'Toole, Robert Strunk,
rothstein_ivan, Sally Vadi, Sammy, Sammy Whalen, Saul Goldblatt, Schlomo
Smykowski, Sharon Cackle, Sharon Hubbasland, Sean, Sean Fitzhenry, Sean
Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown, Sherlock Holmes , Simon, sista
sledgehammer, slacker.mcspritze, Spammy_Davis, spanny_davis, Stephan
Simonsen, Stephanie Mannerz, Stephen, Stephen Olsen, Stephen Townshend,
SuckyB, SunnyB, Susan Bladder, Susan Lapinski, Susan Wong, Suzie Wong,
Swampee, Ted Bennington, Terri Sorensen, The Beaver, Thorsten, Timmy
Luncford , Toby Rastus Roosovelt III, Tomas Bicsak, Tomas Lucatorto, Tori,
Tori Wassermann, Torre Stanslaand, Trace Dennison, Tracee, Traci,
trailerpark, Trina Swallows, Trolly, Trudi Simpkins, Tryxie Lustern, Uday
Shankar, Vince Fontain, Vladimir Yepifano, Walter Bubniak, Wang Mycock,
Wasser, Wendy Duzz, Whizzer, Wilbur J, willy watkins jr, Willy Wong, Winnie
Septos, Wobbles, Yanick Schmuley and zyklon_C.  
Plus many, many, many more.
-- 
Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
2/10/2006 11:11:23 AM
Ana Thema wrote:

> Forget Linux. Try FreeBSD.
> 
Of course.  That way sweaty Balmer can steal all of your code.

-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
0
mist (19747)
2/10/2006 8:04:58 PM
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:

> Ana Thema wrote:
> 
> > Forget Linux. Try FreeBSD.
> >
> Of course.  That way sweaty Balmer can steal all of your code.
> 

You know, that argument is about the silliest reason I've ever heard not to
use FreeBSD. They've swiped a handful of things over the years, but if there
was any GPL stuff they really wanted, they'd find one way or another to get it.
0
notamisfit (769)
2/10/2006 8:59:38 PM
George Ellison wrote:

> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>Ana Thema wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Forget Linux. Try FreeBSD.
>>>
>>
>>Of course.  That way sweaty Balmer can steal all of your code.
>>
> 
> 
> You know, that argument is about the silliest reason I've ever heard not to
> use FreeBSD. They've swiped a handful of things over the years, but if there
> was any GPL stuff they really wanted, they'd find one way or another to get it.


The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is 
obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.  And I wouldn't be 
a bit surprised if M$ has already found a way to circumvent the GPL.
But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict not to 
use any GPLed code in their software.

-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
0
mist (19747)
2/11/2006 6:25:21 AM
GreyCloud wrote:

> The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is
> obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.

When MS uses BSD-licensed code according to the BSD license terms it's
considered "taking advantage", but when Linux hypocrites do the same it's
not a problem?  Right?

cola nuts: "do as we do, not as we say....wait, scratch that... do as we
say, not as we do... yeah! that's it!...wait wait... [long pause]... I'll
get back to you on this"



> And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if M$ has already
> found a way to circumvent the GPL.

I'm sure if they enlist Rex Ballard he could show them how to interpret the
GPL in their favor.



> But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict
> not to use any GPLed code in their software.

And you made an edict to close your Boeing CU accounts because they use
Windows servers.



0
nospam11 (18349)
2/11/2006 6:46:43 AM
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:

> George Ellison wrote:
> 
> > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:
> >
> >>Ana Thema wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Forget Linux. Try FreeBSD.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Of course.  That way sweaty Balmer can steal all of your code.
> >>
> > You know, that argument is about the silliest reason I've ever heard
> > not to
> > use FreeBSD. They've swiped a handful of things over the years, but if there
> > was any GPL stuff they really wanted, they'd find one way or another to get it.
> 
> 
> The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is
> obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.  And I wouldn't
> be a bit surprised if M$ has already found a way to circumvent the GPL.
> But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict not to
> use any GPLed code in their software.
> 

Kudos to them. I really don't see the problem with MS using the BSD-licensed
code, because it enabled MS to follow standards vice trying to kill them.
Besides, the networking stack was developed with taxpayer money, and IMO
putting something like that under a copyleft license is just wrong.

I think that bringing up something like this as a reason not to *use* 
FreeBSD, however, is just pointless FUD. Apple's use of BSD didn't cause
all the BSD boxes to evaporate or become non-free, and nothing Microsoft can
do is capable of causing the same.
0
notamisfit (769)
2/11/2006 11:16:39 AM
After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Kudos to them. I really don't see the problem with MS using the BSD-licensed
> code, because it enabled MS to follow standards vice trying to kill them.
> Besides, the networking stack was developed with taxpayer money, and IMO
> putting something like that under a copyleft license is just wrong.

<scooby doo> Arrrroooo??? </scoobydoo>

> I think that bringing up something like this as a reason not to *use* 
> FreeBSD, however, is just pointless FUD. Apple's use of BSD didn't cause
> all the BSD boxes to evaporate or become non-free, and nothing Microsoft can
> do is capable of causing the same.

True.  It is just funny that MS makes all this noise about "we need to
get paid" and "the GPL is a cancer", but they don't mind poaching a
freebie if they feel they have to.

-- 
Q:  Why does a GNU/Linux user compile his kernel?
A:  Because he can.
0
iso
2/11/2006 1:15:09 PM
Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> writes:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> 
> > Kudos to them. I really don't see the problem with MS using the BSD-licensed
> > code, because it enabled MS to follow standards vice trying to kill them.
> > Besides, the networking stack was developed with taxpayer money, and IMO
> > putting something like that under a copyleft license is just wrong.
> 
> <scooby doo> Arrrroooo??? </scoobydoo>
> 

Perhaps I should clarify. I think that this kind of stuff (developed at a 
public institute of higher learning with my tax dollars) should be under
permissive licensing conditions (ie BSD, MIT X11). Putting it under a 
proprietary license is wrong, and putting it under a restrictive strong-
copyleft license and effectively denying it to conventional software
companies is IMO no better.

> > I think that bringing up something like this as a reason not to *use* 
> > FreeBSD, however, is just pointless FUD. Apple's use of BSD didn't cause
> > all the BSD boxes to evaporate or become non-free, and nothing Microsoft can
> > do is capable of causing the same.
> 
> True.  It is just funny that MS makes all this noise about "we need to
> get paid" and "the GPL is a cancer", but they don't mind poaching a
> freebie if they feel they have to.
> 

0
notamisfit (769)
2/11/2006 1:22:49 PM
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:22:49 -0500, George Ellison wrote:

> Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> writes:
> 
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o'
>> wisdom:
>> 
>> > Kudos to them. I really don't see the problem with MS using the
>> > BSD-licensed code, because it enabled MS to follow standards vice
>> > trying to kill them. Besides, the networking stack was developed with
>> > taxpayer money, and IMO putting something like that under a copyleft
>> > license is just wrong.
>> 
>> <scooby doo> Arrrroooo??? </scoobydoo>
>> 
>> 
> Perhaps I should clarify. I think that this kind of stuff (developed at a
> public institute of higher learning with my tax dollars) should be under
> permissive licensing conditions (ie BSD, MIT X11). Putting it under a
> proprietary license is wrong, and putting it under a restrictive strong-
> copyleft license and effectively denying it to conventional software
> companies is IMO no better.

How would a GPLed tcp/ip stack effectively deny it to conventional
software  companies?

(snip)

-- 
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

0
trollfeed (965)
2/11/2006 2:02:07 PM
Rick <trollfeed@trollfeed.com> writes:

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:22:49 -0500, George Ellison wrote:
> 
> > Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> writes:
> > 
> >> After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o'
> >> wisdom:
> >> 
> >> > Kudos to them. I really don't see the problem with MS using the
> >> > BSD-licensed code, because it enabled MS to follow standards vice
> >> > trying to kill them. Besides, the networking stack was developed with
> >> > taxpayer money, and IMO putting something like that under a copyleft
> >> > license is just wrong.
> >> 
> >> <scooby doo> Arrrroooo??? </scoobydoo>
> >> 
> >> 
> > Perhaps I should clarify. I think that this kind of stuff (developed at a
> > public institute of higher learning with my tax dollars) should be under
> > permissive licensing conditions (ie BSD, MIT X11). Putting it under a
> > proprietary license is wrong, and putting it under a restrictive strong-
> > copyleft license and effectively denying it to conventional software
> > companies is IMO no better.
> 
> How would a GPLed tcp/ip stack effectively deny it to conventional
> software  companies?
> 

They would have to release source to the portions of their program/operating
system that incorporated the stack. If the stack ran in kernel mode, they've
pretty much lost the entire OS (just look at the FSF crying wolf over the
nVidia kernel module for an example). Bear in mind that there are no impartial
enforcement bodies for the GPL, and the issue pretty much boils down to one
between copyright holder and recipient (do universities really want to spend
the money to track down any potential license violation?)


I may not like big software companies or the products they sell, but they 
pay taxes too, and they ought to be able to reap the benefits of what those
tax dollars pay for without significant fear of losing rights to their own code.

Just my 0.02 on the matter.
0
notamisfit (769)
2/11/2006 2:17:17 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> writes:
>
> Perhaps I should clarify. I think that this kind of stuff (developed at a 
> public institute of higher learning with my tax dollars) should be under
> permissive licensing conditions (ie BSD, MIT X11). Putting it under a 
> proprietary license is wrong, and putting it under a restrictive strong-
> copyleft license and effectively denying it to conventional software
> companies is IMO no better.

They can use GPL software as long as they provide the code.  Linksys?

I wouldn't mind tax dollars funding a BSD-type project, if the
government would also insure that a company cannot use the project in an
anticompetitive manner.

Like, for example, how many companies use tax-funded research to create
patented drugs.

-- 
Q:  Why does a GNU/Linux user compile his kernel?
A:  Because he can.
0
iso
2/11/2006 2:52:23 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> I may not like big software companies or the products they sell, but they 
> pay taxes too, and they ought to be able to reap the benefits of what those
> tax dollars pay for without significant fear of losing rights to their own code.

Why?  Is it like paying support money for milk or other dairy products,
or paying farmers not to grow food?  Why should a company be able to
leverage tax-sponsored research and then be free to charge even more
to those who use their products?

-- 
Q:  Why does a GNU/Linux user compile his kernel?
A:  Because he can.
0
iso
2/11/2006 2:59:15 PM
[DFS:]
> When MS uses BSD-licensed code according to the BSD license terms it's
> considered "taking advantage", but when Linux hypocrites do the same it's
> not a problem?  Right?

There is a big difference.  The OSS movement is working on *creating*
options and alternatives, while M$ is trying to *destroy* and eliminate
(never mind the legality of their means) options and alternatives.

-Ramon

Microsoft to Linux: "Don't run, you are too far ahead and are making
progress to fast. Wait! I am suppossed to be the leader!".

0
ramon (1518)
2/11/2006 3:00:56 PM
Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> [DFS:]
>> When MS uses BSD-licensed code according to the BSD license terms
>> it's considered "taking advantage", but when Linux hypocrites do the
>> same it's not a problem?  Right?
>
> There is a big difference.  The OSS movement is working on *creating*
> options and alternatives, while M$ is trying to *destroy* and
> eliminate (never mind the legality of their means) options and
> alternatives.

That's your ignorant opinion, but it's not the issue at hand.

The issue is typical Linux/cola nut hypocrisy: it's OK for everyone except
MS to use the BSD code according to the license terms.




> -Ramon
>
> Microsoft to Linux: "Don't run, you are too far ahead and are making
> progress to fast. Wait! I am suppossed to be the leader!".

For better or worse - better for the most part - they are the leader and
have been for some 15 years.  Admittedly, the Linux/OSS world moves very
fast in some areas.  But that's the nature of an experimental, open-source
ecosystem in which everyone can contribute.


0
nospam11 (18349)
2/11/2006 6:37:38 PM
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:37:38 -0500, DFS wrote:

> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> [DFS:]
>>> When MS uses BSD-licensed code according to the BSD license terms it's
>>> considered "taking advantage", but when Linux hypocrites do the same
>>> it's not a problem?  Right?
>>
>> There is a big difference.  The OSS movement is working on *creating*
>> options and alternatives, while M$ is trying to *destroy* and eliminate
>> (never mind the legality of their means) options and alternatives.
> 
> That's your ignorant opinion, 

It seems to me it is an informed opinion.

> but it's not the issue at hand.
> 
> The issue is typical Linux/cola nut hypocrisy: it's OK for everyone except
> MS to use the BSD code according to the license terms.

It's not hypocrisy.

>> -Ramon
>>
>> Microsoft to Linux: "Don't run, you are too far ahead and are making
>> progress to fast. Wait! I am suppossed to be the leader!".
> 
> For better or worse - better for the most part - they are the leader and
> have been for some 15 years. 

... they have been creaking laws all that time.

> Admittedly, the Linux/OSS world moves very
> fast in some areas.  But that's the nature of an experimental, open-source
> ecosystem in which everyone can contribute.

-- 
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

0
trollfeed (965)
2/11/2006 6:49:51 PM
> That's your ignorant opinion, but it's not the issue at hand.

Which of my 2 assertions are you challenging?

a) OSS is creating alternatives and options
b) Microsoft is trying to get rid of alternatives and options
c) Both

-Ramon

0
ramon (1518)
2/11/2006 7:04:28 PM
DFS wrote:

> GreyCloud wrote:
> 
> 
>>The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is
>>obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.
> 
> 
> When MS uses BSD-licensed code according to the BSD license terms it's
> considered "taking advantage", but when Linux hypocrites do the same it's
> not a problem?  Right?
> 

I wouldn't mind if they did use BSD code, but only if they turn around 
and contribute back into the code base... but they don't.  For them it 
is a freebie bin free for the taking.  Then they turn around and call it 
innovation when in reality it is a lie.

> cola nuts: "do as we do, not as we say....wait, scratch that... do as we
> say, not as we do... yeah! that's it!...wait wait... [long pause]... I'll
> get back to you on this"
> 

You're a bit wierd.  I guess you spent too much time in the Idaho compound.

> 
> 
> 
>>And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if M$ has already
>>found a way to circumvent the GPL.
> 
> 
> I'm sure if they enlist Rex Ballard he could show them how to interpret the
> GPL in their favor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict
>>not to use any GPLed code in their software.
> 
> 
> And you made an edict to close your Boeing CU accounts because they use
> Windows servers.
> 

Yeup.  They no longer have my business.  My money, my call.
But then you derail the thread to pursue pointless ankle biting.



-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
0
mist (19747)
2/11/2006 7:17:35 PM
George Ellison wrote:

> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>George Ellison wrote:
>>
>>
>>>GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ana Thema wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Forget Linux. Try FreeBSD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course.  That way sweaty Balmer can steal all of your code.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You know, that argument is about the silliest reason I've ever heard
>>>not to
>>>use FreeBSD. They've swiped a handful of things over the years, but if there
>>>was any GPL stuff they really wanted, they'd find one way or another to get it.
>>
>>
>>The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is
>>obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.  And I wouldn't
>>be a bit surprised if M$ has already found a way to circumvent the GPL.
>>But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict not to
>>use any GPLed code in their software.
>>
> 
> 
> Kudos to them. I really don't see the problem with MS using the BSD-licensed
> code, because it enabled MS to follow standards vice trying to kill them.
> Besides, the networking stack was developed with taxpayer money, and IMO
> putting something like that under a copyleft license is just wrong.
> 
> I think that bringing up something like this as a reason not to *use* 
> FreeBSD, however, is just pointless FUD. Apple's use of BSD didn't cause
> all the BSD boxes to evaporate or become non-free, and nothing Microsoft can
> do is capable of causing the same.

Apple also contributed back into the system, unlike what M$ did.
It isn't FUD when M$ never puts anything or contributes anything back 
into the BSD code base.  Oh NO!  That would violate company policy and 
put their own coding at risk.  If they did, someone may just find code 
that didn't really belong to them and file a lawsuit.


-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
0
mist (19747)
2/11/2006 7:19:37 PM
George Ellison wrote:

> Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>
>>>Kudos to them. I really don't see the problem with MS using the BSD-licensed
>>>code, because it enabled MS to follow standards vice trying to kill them.
>>>Besides, the networking stack was developed with taxpayer money, and IMO
>>>putting something like that under a copyleft license is just wrong.
>>
>><scooby doo> Arrrroooo??? </scoobydoo>
>>
> 
> Perhaps I should clarify. I think that this kind of stuff (developed at a 
> public institute of higher learning with my tax dollars) should be under
> permissive licensing conditions (ie BSD, MIT X11). Putting it under a 
> proprietary license is wrong, and putting it under a restrictive strong-
> copyleft license and effectively denying it to conventional software
> companies is IMO no better.
> 

Fine.  Then why isn't Windows free.  I paid my taxes, right?

-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
0
mist (19747)
2/11/2006 7:20:38 PM
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:25:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

> The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is 
> obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.  And I wouldn't be 
> a bit surprised if M$ has already found a way to circumvent the GPL.
> But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict not to 
> use any GPLed code in their software.

This is not a "fact".  The history of the TCP/IP stack in Windows is well
documented.  They licensed a stack from Spider software, who, in turn, had
most likely *PAID* for a license to the berkeley regents.  The copyright on
the BSD code pre-dates the BSD license, which means the only legal way to
use that NON-bsd licensed code was to pay for it.  In other words, MS
wasn't using an open source version of the berkeley stack.

Further, the spider stack was removed and completely rewritten, though
certain utilities (such as ftp.exe) remain.
0
erik38 (8626)
2/11/2006 7:44:29 PM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:25:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
> 
> 
>>The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is 
>>obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.  And I wouldn't be 
>>a bit surprised if M$ has already found a way to circumvent the GPL.
>>But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict not to 
>>use any GPLed code in their software.
> 
> 
> This is not a "fact".  The history of the TCP/IP stack in Windows is well
> documented.  They licensed a stack from Spider software, who, in turn, had
> most likely *PAID* for a license to the berkeley regents.  The copyright on
> the BSD code pre-dates the BSD license, which means the only legal way to
> use that NON-bsd licensed code was to pay for it.  In other words, MS
> wasn't using an open source version of the berkeley stack.
> 
> Further, the spider stack was removed and completely rewritten, though
> certain utilities (such as ftp.exe) remain.

Then why didn't they pull out of the code the Berkeley comments?
Remember, this *was* discussed in COLA.


-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
0
mist (19747)
2/11/2006 9:48:40 PM
George Ellison wrote:
> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:
> 
>> George Ellison wrote:
>>
>>> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Ana Thema wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Forget Linux. Try FreeBSD.
>>>>>
>>>> Of course.  That way sweaty Balmer can steal all of your code.
>>>>
>>> You know, that argument is about the silliest reason I've ever heard
>>> not to
>>> use FreeBSD. They've swiped a handful of things over the years, but if there
>>> was any GPL stuff they really wanted, they'd find one way or another to get it.
>>
>> The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is
>> obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.  And I wouldn't
>> be a bit surprised if M$ has already found a way to circumvent the GPL.
>> But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict not to
>> use any GPLed code in their software.
>>
> 
> Kudos to them. I really don't see the problem with MS using the BSD-licensed
> code, because it enabled MS to follow standards vice trying to kill them.

Kerberos.

> Besides, the networking stack was developed with taxpayer money, and IMO
> putting something like that under a copyleft license is just wrong.
> 
> I think that bringing up something like this as a reason not to *use* 
> FreeBSD, however, is just pointless FUD. Apple's use of BSD didn't cause
> all the BSD boxes to evaporate or become non-free, and nothing Microsoft can
> do is capable of causing the same.


-- 
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
0
theletterk3 (2489)
2/11/2006 10:01:23 PM
TheLetterK wrote:
> George Ellison wrote:
> > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:
> >
> >> George Ellison wrote:
> >>
> >>> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Ana Thema wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Forget Linux. Try FreeBSD.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Of course.  That way sweaty Balmer can steal all of your code.
> >>>>
> >>> You know, that argument is about the silliest reason I've ever heard
> >>> not to
> >>> use FreeBSD. They've swiped a handful of things over the years, but if there
> >>> was any GPL stuff they really wanted, they'd find one way or another to get it.
> >>
> >> The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is
> >> obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.  And I wouldn't
> >> be a bit surprised if M$ has already found a way to circumvent the GPL.
> >> But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict not to
> >> use any GPLed code in their software.
> >>
> >
> > Kudos to them. I really don't see the problem with MS using the BSD-licensed
> > code, because it enabled MS to follow standards vice trying to kill them.
>


> Kerberos.

Not sure if that's a question or an answer. But I had a scary "Kerberos
moment" earlier today. About a week ago I installed the Kerberos client
on my SuSE 10.0 machine and configured it to authenticate me against
the Active Directory server that's in the basement. Works great. There
was an annoying 15 second delay each time I logged in but I chased down
the problem and authentication/single-sign-on is now instantaneous.

But freaking today it quit working on me. I go to log in to SuSE and it
keeps rejecting my password. It worked perfectly until today and now
this... WTF?

Ahhh, but there is an easy explanation. Somehow the system clock on my
machine was off by an hour. (Didn't notice it at first... was too busy
trying to log in.) Kerberos has this time-slew parameter and the
difference between the two systems can't be more than 20 minutes. Once
I set the right time it worked perfectly again.





>
> > Besides, the networking stack was developed with taxpayer money, and IMO
> > putting something like that under a copyleft license is just wrong.
> >
> > I think that bringing up something like this as a reason not to *use*
> > FreeBSD, however, is just pointless FUD. Apple's use of BSD didn't cause
> > all the BSD boxes to evaporate or become non-free, and nothing Microsoft can
> > do is capable of causing the same.
> 
> 
> -- 
> "There is nothing I understand." - Shit

0
lqualig (4343)
2/11/2006 10:13:45 PM
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:48:40 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:25:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is 
>>>obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.  And I wouldn't be 
>>>a bit surprised if M$ has already found a way to circumvent the GPL.
>>>But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict not to 
>>>use any GPLed code in their software.
>> 
>> 
>> This is not a "fact".  The history of the TCP/IP stack in Windows is well
>> documented.  They licensed a stack from Spider software, who, in turn, had
>> most likely *PAID* for a license to the berkeley regents.  The copyright on
>> the BSD code pre-dates the BSD license, which means the only legal way to
>> use that NON-bsd licensed code was to pay for it.  In other words, MS
>> wasn't using an open source version of the berkeley stack.
>> 
>> Further, the spider stack was removed and completely rewritten, though
>> certain utilities (such as ftp.exe) remain.
> 
> Then why didn't they pull out of the code the Berkeley comments?
> Remember, this *was* discussed in COLA.

The comments are in the utilities, not the stack.
0
erik38 (8626)
2/11/2006 11:07:01 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> But freaking today it quit working on me. I go to log in to SuSE and it
> keeps rejecting my password. It worked perfectly until today and now
> this... WTF?
>
> Ahhh, but there is an easy explanation. Somehow the system clock on my
> machine was off by an hour. (Didn't notice it at first... was too busy
> trying to log in.) Kerberos has this time-slew parameter and the
> difference between the two systems can't be more than 20 minutes. Once
> I set the right time it worked perfectly again.

I think Larry's getting addicted to freedom!

-- 
Q:  Why does a GNU/Linux user compile his kernel?
A:  Because he can.
0
iso
2/11/2006 11:30:16 PM
Lin=F8nutlin=F8nut@bone.com wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > But freaking today it quit working on me. I go to log in to SuSE and it
> > keeps rejecting my password. It worked perfectly until today and now
> > this... WTF?
> >
> > Ahhh, but there is an easy explanation. Somehow the system clock on my
> > machine was off by an hour. (Didn't notice it at first... was too busy
> > trying to log in.) Kerberos has this time-slew parameter and the
> > difference between the two systems can't be more than 20 minutes. Once
> > I set the right time it worked perfectly again.
>
> I think Larry's getting addicted to freedom!


Not sure that I would go as far as "addicted" but it's been pretty
cool. It's actually fun again in a geeky sort of way. I use to do a
*lot* of stuff on my computer. Learning things, experimenting with
stuff and things like that. But then I basically got bored. In the
windows world I felt like I pretty much been there and done that with
everything.

So now I have a "new toy." Something different. There's new stuff
everywhere and I guess that I enjoy learning new things. It's also fun
in the way that driving a new/different car is fun. (No remarks about
quality being implied here...) Even if you own a pretty nice car and
you get some rental car at the airport. It's just fun to drive
something different. Linux is like that.

It's nice and quiet around the house today (big snow storm coming) so
I've had time to chill and fool around with this stuff. Today was a
fun/interesting/productive day. There was that little "kerberos thingy"
but it only took 5-10 minutes to realize the system clock was off by an
hour.

The coolest thing I found is the "Window->Show Terminal Emulator"
feature on Konqueror. I do a lot of my work from the command line but I
find it easier to browse around in a GUI. This excellent feature gives
me the best of both worlds.

The mail setup with Thunderbird and storing the mail on a networked
folder works perfectly. I found a way to "share" address books and
filter-rules as well. (Files get copied from the server during login.)
Now that all this is working perfectly it means that it's time to tear
it all down and setup an IMAP server. (Maybe I'll hold off on that for
now.)

Another cool thing that I got working was GRUB. It finally recognizes
my RAID drive with NT on it. (Before it would just print out random
data and freeze.) I had to modify the menu.lst file with some custom
load steps. I actually did this before but there's a line in there [
rootnoverify(hd3,0) ] that I changed to [ rootnoverify(hd3,0) 3 ] and
this did the trick. I printed a "grub command reference" out last week
but it must have been for an older version of grub. This reference made
no mention of the last '3' parameter which is what finally did the
trick.

Later.

- LQ

0
lqualig (4343)
2/12/2006 2:22:20 AM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:48:40 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
> 
> 
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:25:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is 
>>>>obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.  And I wouldn't be 
>>>>a bit surprised if M$ has already found a way to circumvent the GPL.
>>>>But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict not to 
>>>>use any GPLed code in their software.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is not a "fact".  The history of the TCP/IP stack in Windows is well
>>>documented.  They licensed a stack from Spider software, who, in turn, had
>>>most likely *PAID* for a license to the berkeley regents.  The copyright on
>>>the BSD code pre-dates the BSD license, which means the only legal way to
>>>use that NON-bsd licensed code was to pay for it.  In other words, MS
>>>wasn't using an open source version of the berkeley stack.
>>>
>>>Further, the spider stack was removed and completely rewritten, though
>>>certain utilities (such as ftp.exe) remain.
>>
>>Then why didn't they pull out of the code the Berkeley comments?
>>Remember, this *was* discussed in COLA.
> 
> 
> The comments are in the utilities, not the stack.

IOW, nothing has changed.


-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
0
mist (19747)
2/12/2006 5:44:36 AM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> espoused:
> DFS wrote:
> 
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is
>>>obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.
>> 
>> 
>> When MS uses BSD-licensed code according to the BSD license terms it's
>> considered "taking advantage", but when Linux hypocrites do the same it's
>> not a problem?  Right?
>> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind if they did use BSD code, but only if they turn around 
> and contribute back into the code base... but they don't.  For them it 
> is a freebie bin free for the taking.  Then they turn around and call it 
> innovation when in reality it is a lie.
> 

It's actually worse than that - Microsoft have been, and continue to be,
publicly highly critical of the GPL;  why?  because they can't just
/take/ the work, make a profit from it for themselves, and return
nothing.  The don't understand a model where there is mutual gain or
reward, they only understand models where they win and others lose.

-- 
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
I have learned silence from the talkative,
toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind.
		-- Kahlil Gibran
0
mark.kent (15323)
2/12/2006 7:51:22 AM
After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Another cool thing that I got working was GRUB. It finally recognizes
> my RAID drive with NT on it. (Before it would just print out random
> data and freeze.) I had to modify the menu.lst file with some custom
> load steps. I actually did this before but there's a line in there [
> rootnoverify(hd3,0) ] that I changed to [ rootnoverify(hd3,0) 3 ] and
> this did the trick. I printed a "grub command reference" out last week
> but it must have been for an older version of grub. This reference made
> no mention of the last '3' parameter which is what finally did the
> trick.

You can also get a grub command-line and play with different options on
the fly.

-- 
Q:  Why does a GNU/Linux user compile his kernel?
A:  Because he can.
0
iso
2/12/2006 3:25:18 PM
Lin=F8nutlin=F8nut@bone.com wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > Another cool thing that I got working was GRUB. It finally recognizes
> > my RAID drive with NT on it. (Before it would just print out random
> > data and freeze.) I had to modify the menu.lst file with some custom
> > load steps. I actually did this before but there's a line in there [
> > rootnoverify(hd3,0) ] that I changed to [ rootnoverify(hd3,0) 3 ] and
> > this did the trick. I printed a "grub command reference" out last week
> > but it must have been for an older version of grub. This reference made
> > no mention of the last '3' parameter which is what finally did the
> > trick.
>
> You can also get a grub command-line and play with different options on
> the fly.

Which is exactly what I was doing. You basically press "c" from the
menu and it takes you to the grub> prompt. This is one of the reasons I
had to *print* the grub reference... having it on disk isn't useful
when you haven't booted an OS yet.

The main PITA is that it takes 100-seconds from ctrl+alt+del to the
point where it loads grub. And when you're sitting there watching it
check memory and identify drives it seems like it takes 3X as long.

But I would normally go to the grub> prompt and have at it from there.
A few lucky times it would reload grub itself and I could try again.
Most of the times it would display some error or random data and
freeze. Then it's back to ctrl+alt+del and wait another 100 seconds.

0
lqualig (4343)
2/12/2006 4:47:00 PM
Mark Kent wrote:

>>I wouldn't mind if they did use BSD code, but only if they turn around 
>>and contribute back into the code base... but they don't.  For them it 
>>is a freebie bin free for the taking.  Then they turn around and call it 
>>innovation when in reality it is a lie.
>>
> 
> 
> It's actually worse than that - Microsoft have been, and continue to be,
> publicly highly critical of the GPL;  why?  because they can't just
> /take/ the work, make a profit from it for themselves, and return
> nothing.  The don't understand a model where there is mutual gain or
> reward, they only understand models where they win and others lose.
> 

Which points to their greed and unscrupulous business behaviour.


-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
0
mist (19747)
2/12/2006 6:42:58 PM
"Larry Qualig" <lqualig@uku.co.uk> writes:

> Lin�nutlin�nut@bone.com wrote:
> > After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> >
> > > Another cool thing that I got working was GRUB. It finally recognizes
> > > my RAID drive with NT on it. (Before it would just print out random
> > > data and freeze.) I had to modify the menu.lst file with some custom
> > > load steps. I actually did this before but there's a line in there [
> > > rootnoverify(hd3,0) ] that I changed to [ rootnoverify(hd3,0) 3 ] and
> > > this did the trick. I printed a "grub command reference" out last week
> > > but it must have been for an older version of grub. This reference made
> > > no mention of the last '3' parameter which is what finally did the
> > > trick.
> >
> > You can also get a grub command-line and play with different options on
> > the fly.
> 
> Which is exactly what I was doing. You basically press "c" from the
> menu and it takes you to the grub> prompt. This is one of the reasons I
> had to *print* the grub reference... having it on disk isn't useful
> when you haven't booted an OS yet.
> 
> The main PITA is that it takes 100-seconds from ctrl+alt+del to the
> point where it loads grub. And when you're sitting there watching it
> check memory and identify drives it seems like it takes 3X as long.
> 
> But I would normally go to the grub> prompt and have at it from there.
> A few lucky times it would reload grub itself and I could try again.
> Most of the times it would display some error or random data and
> freeze. Then it's back to ctrl+alt+del and wait another 100 seconds.

Another thing I like about the BSD's. Hit the three-finger salute or type in
reboot (as root, one thing I don't like about them), and the system goes down
in like 15 seconds tops.
0
notamisfit (769)
2/12/2006 7:30:37 PM
On 2006-02-11, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> [DFS:]
>>> When MS uses BSD-licensed code according to the BSD license terms
>>> it's considered "taking advantage", but when Linux hypocrites do the
>>> same it's not a problem?  Right?
>>
>> There is a big difference.  The OSS movement is working on *creating*
>> options and alternatives, while M$ is trying to *destroy* and
>> eliminate (never mind the legality of their means) options and
>> alternatives.
>
> That's your ignorant opinion, but it's not the issue at hand.

	SURE it is. That idea is infact the central tenet that defines
Free Software in general and separates Linux from FreebSD. This is also
what leads to the GNU/Linux camp characterizing Microsoft's use of BSDl
software as sleazy.

>
> The issue is typical Linux/cola nut hypocrisy: it's OK for everyone except
> MS to use the BSD code according to the license terms.

	Considering how much Microsoft likes to rant about innvoation, I am
not convinced that they have suitably met the license terms of the BSD. They
certainly have never met the spirit of it.

[deletia]

-- 
....as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
2/13/2006 5:23:19 PM
On 2006-02-11, George Ellison <notamisfit@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:
>
>> George Ellison wrote:
>> 
>> > GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:
>> >
>> >>Ana Thema wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Forget Linux. Try FreeBSD.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Of course.  That way sweaty Balmer can steal all of your code.
>> >>
>> > You know, that argument is about the silliest reason I've ever heard
>> > not to
>> > use FreeBSD. They've swiped a handful of things over the years, but if there
>> > was any GPL stuff they really wanted, they'd find one way or another to get it.
>> 
>> 
>> The fact that the Berkely tcp/ip stack is found inside M$ windows is
>> obvious of the fact that they took advantage of them.  And I wouldn't
>> be a bit surprised if M$ has already found a way to circumvent the GPL.
>> But from what was published earlier from M$, they made an edict not to
>> use any GPLed code in their software.
>> 
>
> Kudos to them. I really don't see the problem with MS using the BSD-licensed
> code, because it enabled MS to follow standards vice trying to kill them.

	Have you ever even read any Winsock documentation?

	I really don't think that you could have and still describe Microsoft's
implementation of sockets in such a manner. Winsock is "embrace and extend"
at it's finest.

	Although to be somewhat fair to M$, they did have to adapt a Unix
library to an OS which at the time really didn't have repectable multitasking.


> Besides, the networking stack was developed with taxpayer money, and IMO
> putting something like that under a copyleft license is just wrong.

	No it isn't. There's really not much good reason for allowing 
such derivative works to be copyrightable. They essentially allow trivial
additions to the public domain to suddenly be able to to be taken out of 
the public domain again.

	The musical equivalent would be if I changed a couple of bars
in Love Me Do and got to keep that as my own personal intellectual 
property.

[deletia]
-- 
....as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
2/13/2006 5:28:28 PM
On 2006-02-11, George Ellison <notamisfit@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> writes:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>> 
>> > Kudos to them. I really don't see the problem with MS using the BSD-licensed
>> > code, because it enabled MS to follow standards vice trying to kill them.
>> > Besides, the networking stack was developed with taxpayer money, and IMO
>> > putting something like that under a copyleft license is just wrong.
>> 
>> <scooby doo> Arrrroooo??? </scoobydoo>
>> 
>
> Perhaps I should clarify. I think that this kind of stuff (developed at a 
> public institute of higher learning with my tax dollars) should be under
> permissive licensing conditions (ie BSD, MIT X11). Putting it under a 
> proprietary license is wrong, and putting it under a restrictive strong-
> copyleft license and effectively denying it to conventional software
> companies is IMO no better.

	No it isn't. All the copyleft prevents is the relevant code being
treated as some corps' personal and private property. Allowing that ability
to exclude others from a resource created through tax funding is clearly
more wrong than preventing others to directly profit from it.

	You proceed from this false notion that for profit entities cannot
derive monetary gain from objects they don't exert exclusive ownership over.

	This simply isn't so.

[deletia]

	Exploiting a tool and owning it are two quite distinct things.

-- 
....as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
2/13/2006 5:32:05 PM
The point is that there are no legal or technological barriers to using
BSD code in proprietary code.  And Microsoft is using quite a bit of
BSD and similarly licensed Open Source code in Windows, especially
Windows XP.  Microsoft has also been using NCSA code which was
originally released on terms similar to GPL, but the NCSA, after
selling an extensible version to Microsoft - unilaterally rewrote the
license.

In retaliation, thousands of patches to NCSA and BSD code have been
released exclusively under the GNU Public License.

This doesn't stop Microsoft completely, but it does increase the cost
because GPL patches have to be "clean room reengineered" into something
that can be implemented under a Microsoft license.  Furthermore, the
defense against copyright violations consists mainly of strict
Nondisclosure Agreements (NDAs) which prevent the person analyzing the
GPL code, and the person implementing the specification provided by the
analyst - from telling anyone - even within Microsoft - how they
created the code.  Typically, the specifications are passed only by the
highest ranking executives in the company - who have everything to lose
by disclosing - and are more likely to run to Microsoft's legal
department if anyone starts asking questions.

The bigger problem with BSD is the issue of forking.  The Linux kernel
is consistent across all distributions, along with key libraries such
as glibc.  All operating systems suffer from libarary conflicts - On
Windows it's commonly called "DLL Hell".  One of the advantages of Open
Source libraries is that you have consistent libraries and core
functions across systems.  There is less NEED to implement proprietary
versions of applications which are dependent on previous versions of
libraries.

Linux isn't perfect, but at least you don't have every third party
application trying to install it's own private version of a favorite
library or DLL.

The irony is that many BSD implementations, such as FreeBSD have been
less agressive about rolling out revolutionary enhancements.  This is
one of the reasons that we have so many BSD servers running years
between reboots.

0
rex.ballard (3732)
2/13/2006 6:43:54 PM
Reply: