Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!chi-news.cic.net!uwm.edu!newsspool.wisc.edu!koala.uwec.edu!daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu!tigger!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: 14 Dec 1995 19:58:32 GMT Lines: 154 Message-ID: <4apvl8$pgs@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu> References: <489kuu$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> NNTP-Posting-Host: tigger.acc.uwrf.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950726BETA PL0] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30997 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10877 Terry Lambert (terry@lambert.org) wrote: : mingo@news.siemens.co.at (Ingo Molnar) wrote: : ] : ] Terry Lambert (terry@lambert.org) wrote: : ] : This is not a bad model. Consumers who do not do a proper job : ] : of picking the company which they buy from are screwed. This : ] : provides a nice, desirable, evolutionary pressure which has the : ] : effect of eliminating bad consumers. : ] : ] This has nothing to do with "being a bad consumer". If you dont have the : ] information, how can you make a good decision?? It's much more like russian : ] roulette. Currently we are going towards "monopolized information", and : ] i just dont like that. : : If you don't have the information, you *can't* make a good : decision! This is exaclty the point of difference between a : good and a bad consumer! The bad consumer makes the decision : anyway. : In some cases you have to start with Partial information when you get something. If you are looking for a Firewall..Heck there are LOT of sales fokes and lots of people telling you what you should get, but until you bring it back to your system and play with it. It might either be TOO strictive (like you need more then 20 filters) or it might be overly complex. : ] So what do you do if ... Hitler took over Oracle, and he would : ] declare that: : ] : ] " Oracle as a product is discontinued, because i want it so. : ] The source code is already destroyed, all backups are burned. : ] No more Oracle!" : ] : ] a pretty irrealistic, but possible scenario. He has the right to do so, and : ] because no source code is published, all the information is lost. And quite : ] a few companies would be screwed. If Oracle was GPLed, no such thing would : ] be possible. : : Well, assuming your example came to pass: as a stockholder or : board memebr of Oracle, a publically held corporation, I'd : fire Hitler and get someone else in there. And if there was : anyone stupid enough to "just follow orders", I'd fire them : too. : Depends on the takeover..If it was a stock takeover..You can't do anything about it.=) Since he would have 51% of the stock. : ] AND dont tell me i'm a bad costumer because i use Oracle!!! : : Naw. You're a bad customer because you depend on your SQL : server being oracle instead of just depending on it being : an SQL server (which as a commodity item can be obtained from : other than Oracle). BTW: here I am assuming Oracle isn't : publically held and you stupidly didn't write SQL engine : independent query software, which means you have two marks : against you being a good customer. : In most cause in order to gain the speed (like a company I'm doing work for) you might have to go and optimize your access for that SQL server. : ] Secrecy is power. : : Information is power. Secrecy is a form of centralization of : control of information. So are governments. Why are you : arguing with me instead of attempting to abolish governemnts? : Information is power..Agree..Secrecy is a method of containing power.=) : ] : Open source code forces licensing and other contractual mechanisms : ] : to be used. Otherwise, there is no benefit to being the first : ] : to invent anything, since it costs less to copy it from you : ] : competitor. : ] : ] yeah, the interests of "humanity" is not the same as the interests : ] of a company. : ] : ] In a "free source code" model, humanity would be a big "company", : ] developing new source (and paying for the costs). : : Thank you Karl Marx... "From each according to his ability, to : each according to his need". : : Sorry, but your first statement is correct: the interests of : "humanity" *aren't* the same as the interests of a company. Or : a nation, or a state, or a county, or a municipality, or an : individual. : : Each are organisms, and each will, as organisms are wont to do, : act in their own self interest. : Won't act in their own self interest??? I say congress acts in it's own self interest when it gives itself a pay raise mixed in with major bills.=) : The trick is to get the self interest of subsidiary organisms : to line up with the encompassing organism... to establish a : symbiotic relationship with the encompassing organism. It's : in the long term best interest of the encompassing organism to : encourage this happening. : : It's in my own self interest to continue to be a member of the : organism "all programmers". How is it in my best interest to : be a memebr of "Ingo Molnar's divine pecking order"? : Umm...Excuse me...You are going off into what seems like a worthless debate.=) What does this have to do with life (or the price of tea in China?) Your argument has no purpose but to confuse the hell out of people.=) : ] : Thus there is no mechanism for amortizing developement costs over : ] : a product life cycle, and thus there is no money for research : ] : and thus we have "putter"'s writing all our code. : ] : : ] : See why sane people reject the idea? : ] : ] sane = "people who want to make alot of money" ? : : People who want to encourage quality an progress, and see that : in order to do so, one must spend on R&D. : : ] if you are a developer who invents something new and you keep it secret, you : ] have a certain kind of power. The fully egoistic approach: "use it to make : ] money". The fully communistic approach: "share it" : ] : ] I dont like the communistic one, but yours is ways too egoistic :) : ] : : Why not "share" your opinion with the poor clueless minions : subserviating themselves to the evil Microsoft empire then? 8-). : I think he tried and fails.=) : FYI: I have contributed large amounts of code to various projects : in my time. I just don't think other people should be bludgeoned : into contributing as ell in order to use my contribution. It would : considerably cheapen the value of my gift to give with one hand : and club into submission to my philosphy with the other. I will : generally contribute code any time I see it as "raising the bar" : across the board, and won't contribute it to advantage a single : party: I sell it to cause the advantaged party to be me. : 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... Maybe this should move to Comerical NON-OPEN-STANDARDS vs BSD/GPL/LGPL/Comerical Open standards.=) Intead of BSD vs Linus Vs BSD vs GPL/LGPL. =)