Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!koala.uwec.edu!daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu!cakerwood!not-for-mail From: bl03@uwrf.edu (BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Date: 16 Dec 1995 21:05:15 GMT Lines: 105 Message-ID: <4avcab$bk5@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu> References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a14v5$1lq@dyson.iquest.net> <4a2kme$32d@josie.abo.fi <4agsg2$bqc@uriah.heep.sax.de> <4ai8rk$maf@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> <4aj6tv$g98@park.uvsc.edu> <4amduo$rnd@news.siemens.at> <4ao7hn$rf8@park.uvsc.edu> <4apvl8$pgs@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu> <4atpt3$cqi@park.uvsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cakerwood.acc.uwrf.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950726BETA PL0] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30504 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10571 Terry Lambert (terry@lambert.org) wrote: : [[ ... ON THE HARSH ECONOMIC REALITIES OF SOCIALISM, AND WHO : REALLY OPPOSES IT, AND WHY ... ]] : : : ] As what has been said before...I personally feel that GPL has : ] it's place. GPL has done a lot of good (look at perl..umm..=). : ] As a Computer Science major non-programmer (Yes, I can program.. : ] But do I care to? Not normally.=) I've seen different groups : ] take too much advantage of secret software (even API), and I've : ] seen others attempt to use GPL and not return their changes : ] (Umm..NeXT? <grin>) back for everyone. And I think there has : ] to be a balance. If full API is given out instead of source : ] I think that is fine, or if source is given out. But without : ] either one of the two it's hard to improve something... : : I've generally seen support for GPL from people who benefit from : it and opposition to GPL from those who would suffer under it. : : Which is what you'd expect the split between the factions to be. : : As a professional Software Engineer, I need companies to have : a research budget so that they can pay me to be a Software : Engineer. : : You aren't a Software Engineer; you admit that you don't normally : care to program. So of *course* you will pick the option that : benefits you and freezes me out. You think you don't need : companies to have research budgets, and I think you're wrong. : Right now I have a Linux box at work that is pretending to be a Macintosh doing Apple File Service...and it's prending to be a windows machine by support SMB (via Samba). I personally don't *WANT* to use this solution if I my way I'd either be using Novell 4.x or UnixWare...Or some supported commerical product. I do believe that companies need a reseach budget...no where did I ever say that..In the above comment I said I've seen people attempt to do a lot of things. : I'm a bit more generous: I will tolerate GPL for things where : the net effect is to "raise the bar". Typically, I prefer to : raise the bar across the board: put all competitors on an equal : footing. GPL raises the bar by example, but has less immediate : impact on the "competition", since they can't simply "pull in" : the new baseline, they have to go and reinvent it. The BSD : license says "here's the bar, and here's how to clear it". : BSD give them the bar and says,"Here it is...all free...no R&D cost become some other smuck did it..And no requirements to say..'So and so did such and such part..' Because it could be considered Adveritising." Is this better then... GPL goes, "Here is what the bar is at...If you want to use us...you have to give credit and return back your R&D so no one can be taken advanage of." (I'm posing a question...I'm to the point I refuse to take sides because it's just plan stupid...Each has their place...And I'm glad each exist!) : GPL suggests that everyone should become contract programmers : or product support people if they want to be paid for doing : programming. Software itself shouldn't be sold above and : beyond a reproduction fee. The economics of such a situation : dictate that the company that charges the least will get the : money. The company with the smallest R&D budget. : Is this true? FSF believes this...I don't see that written in any of the GPL stuff.=) I know a lot of contract programmers (one of my bosses is one..And indirectly that makes me one) and I swear he charges $50 to $100 an hour for NeXTStep programming. Do you think he's getting his money out of it? I don't believe that GPL makes that DRAMATIC effict on R&D...I could open up LameBSD..Sell it and never do a SINGLE kernel or utility patch and attempt to hid the fact of who I 'stole' it from..(It would not work..but hey..You couldn't stop me.) That seems like it would have WORSES of an affect on R&D. If your company does release anything back under BSD, you might as well kiss it goodbye from my standpoint. : This is all because short term gains will outweigh long term : gains in the decision making process. Typical management : practice is to review employess on an annual basis. Typical : Harvard Business School practice is to review management on : a biannual basis. Typical Wall Street practice is to review : companies on a quarterly basis. : : You now know what is called the "Fiscal Horizon" for the three : groups. : : : : If Ingo truly wants to change things, he's got to realize that : he's trying to stuff the pellets "back in" to the wrong end : of the rabbit. The pellets don't come from this end. : I admit (like I've done in every message.=) that BSD has it's place..Commerical software (thank heavens for GAMES!=) has it's place. And even GPL/GNU has it's place. 40% of the base Admin utilites (a bit high?) are based off of GPL code...Like perl...I wouls say that 30% are from BSD..and the remaining is PURE commerical. Without GPL..I think it might be more of a hellish life for *BSD* and Linux.=)