Run Serenity as your Operating System!!! by STDOUBT

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Run Serenity as your Operating System!!!

POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Sunday, March 19, 2006 15:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3910
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:13 AM

Here's a really nice way to try out Linux.
(We all know "Windows" is nothing but high-tech
Alliance crap, right?!)
If you have broadband, download and burn a copy
of the new Elive distribution:
http://www.elivecd.org/gb/Download/0.4.2/

You can make your computer boot up from the CD,
run a full linux operating system, and it won't
touch your hard drive. When you're done, just
reboot without the disk in the drive, and you're
back to gorram windows.

I'm not sure if Thanatermesis named version 0.4
after our spaceship, but his distro is truly shiny!
Try it out people!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:29 AM

HIXIE129

Hi,

I went to the site but download buttons don't seem to work, any ideas?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:32 PM

STDOUBT

Well, the link on the left side of the page is
just a link to the page. Looks like it's mainly
just available via torrent (which if you have broadband, you *should* get and use Bittorrent).

If you want the iso directly, click on the part where it says "Support to SEED the torrent here".
That will show you a page where the iso is available. Also here: http://alien2thisworld.net/Elive/
Let me know if you have any other problems with
getting the iso.
EDIT: And please shout back about your experience running it on your machine!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:54 PM

STDOUBT

bumpin' & pimpin'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:59 PM

PINBALLWIZARD

What about us Mac users?

No, I am not insane, I am crazy. Thank you for asking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:40 PM

STDOUBT

Quote:
Originally posted by pinballwizard:
What about us Mac users?

No, I am not insane, I am crazy. Thank you for asking.

Since you asked... ;]

There are about 29 Linux distributions that run on
the PPC architecture. Sadly, none of them are code
named Serenity. Though I find it hard to imagine
that you're considering Linux given that you run
a Macintosh. They are good machines, but will eventually let you down in terms of Freedom (Apple are on the DRM bandwagon). If so inclined, check out the PPC version of ubuntu.
http://mirror.mcs.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/5.10/

You could always "upgrade" to a MacIntel... then you could most likely boot Elive 0.4 ;]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:27 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

They are good machines, but will eventually let you down in terms of Freedom (Apple are on the DRM bandwagon).

*rolls eyes* You're one of those GPL zealots aren't you.

Everyone will be getting bit by the DRM fiasco. It is not operating specific, it is content specific. Thus, if you want a certain content, if it is distributed only by DRM means, then your screwed whether you run Linux or *BSD or Mac or Windows or ...

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

If so inclined, check out the PPC version of ubuntu.
http://mirror.mcs.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/5.10/

I highly doubt many MacOSX users will find Linux a suitible alternative.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

You could always "upgrade" to a MacIntel...

Well, "upgrade" is rather a subjective term. Just saying (or implying) that Intel architecture is superior ludicrus. They are entirely different architectures and thus cannot be reliably compared.

Quite frankly, when I found out that Apple was switching from ppc to intel, I felt gutted. One of the reasons why I went to ppc was to get away from intel in the first place.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

then you could most likely boot Elive 0.4 ;]

Don't think so. There is something that Apple does with regards to there boot system that messes up things. I've only heard of one report of booting Linux, but the diffs describing how they did it, I believe, are still not published.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:36 PM

BELOWZERO

Um, Mac OS 10 is Unix anyhow, isn't it?

(I cheated. I have two hard drives. Can you say "dual boot"? erm. )

"Do not go gentle into that good night....
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. . ."
--Dylan Thomas

Though my soul may set in darkness
It will rise in perfect light.
I have loved the stars too fondly
To be fearful of the night.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:15 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by BelowZero:

Um, Mac OS 10 is Unix anyhow, isn't it?

Not really. The kernel is based on the FreeBSD kernel (I think Free). So, at the kernel level they are similar. But, if you look at the other parts of the system, they are designed quite different.

For instance, the libraries are all dynamic, period. From what I've read, even if you compile your program static, it doesn't statically link it. It just tells the system what to load at startup and etc.

Quote:
Originally posted by BelowZero:

(I cheated. I have two hard drives. Can you say "dual boot"? erm. )

Here I dual boot MacOSX and OpenBSD.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 1:16 PM

STDOUBT

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
*rolls eyes* You're one of those GPL zealots aren't you.

Now that's a nasty word, I'd say. I'd feign to slap you were I near ;]
But yeah, I'm one of those people who prefer
my software be GPL'd. Just helps guarantee I'll
have access to the code regardless of the whim of
some corporation. But zealots don't run nvidia
binary drivers do they? So you missed the mark there. BTW -did you actually READ "Free Software Free Society" or did you just see a picture of RMS and run screaming?

Quote:

Everyone will be getting bit by the DRM fiasco. It is not operating specific, it is content specific. Thus, if you want a certain content, if it is distributed only by DRM means, then your screwed whether you run Linux or *BSD or Mac or Windows or ...

DRM is a huge topic, and you're right it's not software specific. Its success will depend greatly on the hardware end. People buying machines that call home or go dead if you tinker with them...
Call me old fasioned, but I prefer 'general purpose' computers that obey my input.

Quote:

I highly doubt many MacOSX users will find Linux a suitible alternative.

So do I.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

You could always "upgrade" to a MacIntel...

Quote:

Well, "upgrade" is rather a subjective term. Just saying (or implying) that Intel architecture is superior ludicrus. They are entirely different architectures and thus cannot be reliably compared.

You explain beautifully what my quotation marks were trying to say.

Quote:

Quite frankly, when I found out that Apple was switching from ppc to intel, I felt gutted. One of the reasons why I went to ppc was to get away from intel in the first place.

I'm not overly schooled in arch, but yes, RISC always seemed a more reasonable way to go to me too, but here we are.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

then you could most likely boot Elive 0.4 ;]

Quote:

Don't think so. There is something that Apple does with regards to there boot system that messes up things. I've only heard of one report of booting Linux, but the diffs describing how they did it, I believe, are still not published.

I think you're right there re: the new MacIntel.
Good example of why I'm all zealot-ish about PC freedom. I don't like artificial limitations.
Good on ya for running a BSD! Far more proper than Linux to be sure.

Quote:

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

That's it! Fine! You wanna fly? F***ing fly!! ;]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 2:17 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
*rolls eyes* You're one of those GPL zealots aren't you.

Now that's a nasty word, I'd say. I'd feign to slap you were I near ;]
But yeah, I'm one of those people who prefer
my software be GPL'd. Just helps guarantee I'll
have access to the code regardless of the whim of
some corporation. But zealots don't run nvidia
binary drivers do they? So you missed the mark there. BTW -did you actually READ "Free Software Free Society" or did you just see a picture of RMS and run screaming?

*braces for holy war*

Please not that I'm not trying to be aggressive in the below, but entering a discussion. I'm putting things the way I see them, and if I'm coming across as prick-ish, it is not intended nor desired. Please keep that in mind when you read it as I'm told I can come off that way.

The problem I see with the [L]GPL is it takes freedom from me as a developer. Namely, my right to license my code how I see fit.

Sure the LGPL allows me to dynamically link to it without having to LGPL my code (with - again - some restrictions). But, why do I have to jump through hoops so that I can BSD/MIT/Artistic/etc license my code while using someone elses peice of code? Plus, the GNU foundation is encouraging people to stay away from the LGPL even for libraries.

And if the lib is GPL'd, then I just don't have the choice. I have to GPL my code as well. Similarly if I'm learning from someone elses code; we enter a legal grey area.

Quite frankly, I really don't see that as freedom.

But, I think that the FSF/GNU foundation sees it from an end-user point of view. The problem with that is that other, more liberal licenses achieve the exact same thing without placing undue restrictions on other developers.

The problem I have with organizations of this type is that they have turned the issue into an us vs them thing. In doing this, it has divided the open-source community as well.

I have even read (on gnu.org or fsf.org) where RMS actually is braging that readline has forced open at least one application. This isn't freedom, it's vindictive crap.

This is also a battle that open-source can't win. The corps have far more resources to direct to a problem than we ever could. If they wanted to take us out of the equation they could. Right now it's just that they see us a free labour. Let's just hope that the day never comes in which the corps see us as a liability.

On a similar note, Source Forge and BerliOS allow for any OSI approved license and will retain the code even if developement stops, it is continued closed somewhere else, etc. So, whether it is MIT or GPL, the code will always be out there.

But to answer you question of if I've read "Free Software Free Society"... don't think so. But, maybe, I've read a lot. I now tend to stay away from such things and just read the licenses themselves. Time consuming, but it cuts straight to the heart of the issue witout any idealogical crap involved. Just the merrits (or lack thereof) of the licenses are there. So far, I've compared GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT and Python licenses.

Each license has its place and its use should be based not on ideology, but on the needs of that particular project and its goals. Problem is, the line between these two seperate things has become blurred thanks to the propaganda of the GNU foundation (for better or worse).

Well now, that was a bit of a rant, now wasn't it?

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Call me old fasioned, but I prefer 'general purpose' computers that obey my input.

No disagreement here.

Haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but apparently there is some anti-DRM clause in the current draft (?) of the GPL v3. Seems to be a highly contraversial topic. Especially since Linus has spoken on it (/. had a story on it).

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

I'm not overly schooled in arch, but yes, RISC always seemed a more reasonable way to go to me too, but here we are.

*sigh* Yes we are.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

I think you're right there re: the new MacIntel.
Good example of why I'm all zealot-ish about PC freedom. I don't like artificial limitations.

I don't like artifical limitation put on me either. It's the reason why I don't like the GPL and the reason why you like it. Interesting how using the same fact can lead two different people to do very differen conclusions, isn't it

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Good on ya for running a BSD! Far more proper than Linux to be sure.

It works for me

But, I'm sure that wouldn't be true for others.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Quote:

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

That's it! Fine! You wanna fly? F***ing fly!! ;]

FINE! I'll fly the F***ing thing!!!

tee hee.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 3:33 PM

TIGER

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Here's a really nice way to try out Linux.
(We all know "Windows" is nothing but high-tech
Alliance crap, right?!) Try it out people!

Why is Linux better than windows? Advantages? Disadvantages? Is it faster? Simpler? Will my favorite software even work on another OS?

I'm a semi-computer savvy guy, but it seems like it may be risky to try a new operating system I know nothing about.

More info for a newbie would be greatly appreciated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 10:25 PM

STDOUBT

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
*braces for holy war*

BWAH!
No, no need for battle gear.
(apologies for so late replying - another lost weekend)

Quote:

Please not that I'm not trying to be aggressive in the below, but entering a discussion. I'm putting things the way I see them, and if I'm coming across as prick-ish, it is not intended nor desired. Please keep that in mind when you read it as I'm told I can come off that way.

The problem I see with the [L]GPL is it takes freedom from me as a developer. Namely, my right to license my code how I see fit.

Sure the LGPL allows me to dynamically link to it without having to LGPL my code (with - again - some restrictions). But, why do I have to jump through hoops so that I can BSD/MIT/Artistic/etc license my code while using someone elses peice of code? Plus, the GNU foundation is encouraging people to stay away from the LGPL even for libraries.

And if the lib is GPL'd, then I just don't have the choice. I have to GPL my code as well. Similarly if I'm learning from someone elses code; we enter a legal grey area.

Quite frankly, I really don't see that as freedom.

I'm not a programmer, so obviously I'm talking out of school, but I really thought GPL'd libs could be *used* by closed apps with no violation. I was under the impression that it's only when you incorporate GPL'd code into your app that you are required to provide source to end users! I've read the GPL and most of RMSs talk on it, and I just don't see where a dev would have to GPL his work unless GPL code is 'part and parcel' of said work.
You also must understand the ways in which the GPL protects developers.

Quote:

But, I think that the FSF/GNU foundation sees it from an end-user point of view. The problem with that is that other, more liberal licenses achieve the exact same thing without placing undue restrictions on other developers.

I don't believe *all* apps need to be open. I just appreciate the openness of apps I find useful.

Quote:

The problem I have with organizations of this type is that they have turned the issue into an us vs them thing. In doing this, it has divided the open-source community as well.

I have even read (on gnu.org or fsf.org) where RMS actually is braging that readline has forced open at least one application. This isn't freedom, it's vindictive crap.

This is also a battle that open-source can't win. The corps have far more resources to direct to a problem than we ever could. If they wanted to take us out of the equation they could. Right now it's just that they see us a free labour. Let's just hope that the day never comes in which the corps see us as a liability.

On a similar note, Source Forge and BerliOS allow for any OSI approved license and will retain the code even if developement stops, it is continued closed somewhere else, etc. So, whether it is MIT or GPL, the code will always be out there.

I agree the split between "OSS people" and "GPL people" is damaging. As an end user, Open means a bit more to me than GPL'd. The GPL'd aspect however, gives me the impression that the developer is more 'in love' with his work than, say, someone who licenses under BSD for example. Very subjective, yes, but remember -perception is everything. Whenever I see a bossassed BSD licensed app, I think either "well, that's abandoned to whoever wants to pick it up and exploit it", or "that app's so ubiquitous it may as well be under BSD (guts of UNIX type stuff).

I don't believe for a minute that the corps could "take us out of the equation". No way. Last ditch they could pay our 'reps' to outlaw non-DRM boxen, but you gotta know if that happens we really will build a darknet. People are too passionate about this stuff! Plus the glaring fact that outside of the US OSS is spreading faster than an Outlook Express worm ;]

Quote:

But to answer you question of if I've read "Free Software Free Society"... don't think so. But, maybe, I've read a lot. I now tend to stay away from such things and just read the licenses themselves. Time consuming, but it cuts straight to the heart of the issue witout any idealogical crap involved. Just the merrits (or lack thereof) of the licenses are there. So far, I've compared GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT and Python licenses.

Each license has its place and its use should be based not on ideology, but on the needs of that particular project and its goals. Problem is, the line between these two seperate things has become blurred thanks to the propaganda of the GNU foundation (for better or worse).

I'm glad you said 'for better or worse' ;] I'm hoping it's for the better. Realistically, you can't take ideology out of it. We're dealing with people. Human b33nz. Irrationality. The software, the platforms, the licenses, should exist to serve people. Even if they're crazy.

Quote:

Well now, that was a bit of a rant, now wasn't it?

I've seen worse ;] thx for keeping it nice.

===snip===

Quote:

Haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but apparently there is some anti-DRM clause in the current draft (?) of the GPL v3. Seems to be a highly contraversial topic. Especially since Linus has spoken on it (/. had a story on it).

I'll admit I haven't read that section of the draft. I don't enjoy migraines. Thing is, I understand DRM and I will never accept it. Not only is that a technical decision, it is an ideological one. I would encourage you SigmaNunki, or anyone interested in DRM to view the excellent video hosted here: http://yafc.net/
===snip===

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

I think you're right there re: the new MacIntel.
Good example of why I'm all zealot-ish about PC freedom. I don't like artificial limitations.

Quote:

I don't like artifical limitation put on me either. It's the reason why I don't like the GPL and the reason why you like it. Interesting how using the same fact can lead two different people to do very differen conclusions, isn't it

That is interesting but remember -if it's *your* code you can license it any way you want. You're being limited from using someone's (GPL'd) work in a way in which he'd rather you not. Beats the days when they wouldn't even show you the source eh?
I have nothing but sympathy and respect for any programmer. I can barely write a bash script. I support the GPL in it's role as a protector of developers. I do hate to think it's a hindrance, but let's face it -since the GNU came along we've seen unprecedented innovation in software. The best stuff of the past several years has come from "the community" not the corporations (OK maybe Apple), and I think it's a direct result of the bellyaching of people like RMS.

At the end of it, I hope my reply's been worth reading, and I'm sure we have more common ground than not!
===snip===

Quote:

FINE! I'll fly the F***ing thing!!!

Be my guest! :P

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:14 PM

STDOUBT

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
Why is Linux better than windows? Advantages? Disadvantages? Is it faster? Simpler? Will my favorite software even work on another OS?

I'm a semi-computer savvy guy, but it seems like it may be risky to try a new operating system I know nothing about.

More info for a newbie would be greatly appreciated.

Hi Tiger~
I've been replying to SigmaNunki for mmmm 2 hrs?
So forgive me if my answers are brusk!

Why is Linux better? Control. Flexibility. Only 6 or so viruses that just kinda work.
Advantages? Freedom. With enough learning, you can change any and all aspects of the system. Low or No cost. High satisfaction curve. Stability. Hard core stability when configured properly. Never forced to upgrade (buy product X if you want to keep using product Y). Again, with enough learning, can be made virtually unhackable (remotely). It will make you a babe magnet! (still waiting on that last one but I'm sticking to it:P)
Disadvantages? High learning curve. However, some distributions are making great leaps in usability even for non-techies. Still not "perfect"; can rarely cause even experienced users grief and agony.
Is it faster? Depends on how you configure it. Depends on which desktop environment you choose. Depends, but yes, it can be.
Simpler? Given one has good knowledge of both systems, Linux is *easier* to administer/maintain than Windows. <--note the period.

Will my favorite software even work on another OS? That depends. Many programs written these days are cross-platform. They have versions for Win, Mac and Lin/BSD. Most progs written for Windows have analogous programs in Linux land.
Chances are, whatever software you use in Windows has a *counterpart* under Linux. If it's software written FOR Windows, no -it won't work on Linux unless you implement some kind of emulation and even then it's iffy.

If you're using Windows, it's more risky to your system to surf nudie sites than it is to try a bootable (live) Linux CD. I recommend "Damn Small Linux", "Knoppix" and "Elive". Read up about it! Microsoft Windows is like your neighborhood, or your town. Linux is like the Galaxy!
Everything I've said about Linux also applies to the Berkely Software Distributions (NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD) to which Linux owes much if not everything...or wait -maybe I'm thinking MINIX LOL (sorry -inside joke)

I'm not on here trying to convert people, but it's always a shame to think how many people simply don't know there's an alternative to Windows.

I know I'll never go back. It was a process, but I look at computing in a whole new way now. My machine can do anything a Windows box can (except spew worms into the ether behind my back).
"Send error report?" heh -people buy that?
--
"No reports broadwaved, no warrants."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:43 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Be warned, this is a long one.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

BWAH!
No, no need for battle gear.
(apologies for so late replying - another lost weekend)

It's one of the things that I love about web forums. We reply when we can, and all posts from before stay put. It's nice if you have a horrid memory like me

Same disclaimer applies for this post. 3am is not when I get my most poetical moments

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

I'm not a programmer, so obviously I'm talking out of school, but I really thought GPL'd libs could be *used* by closed apps with no violation. I was under the impression that it's only when you incorporate GPL'd code into your app that you are required to provide source to end users! I've read the GPL and most of RMSs talk on it, and I just don't see where a dev would have to GPL his work unless GPL code is 'part and parcel' of said work.

When you use a library you include the header file for it in your code for function prototypes, etc. That is GPL'd. Also, when the program links with that library, it copies the code from the library into the output, GPL mixing with whatever the developer did.

Basically, with the GPL, if you use the lib, what you've done is considered a "derivative work" and thus must as well be GPL'd.

The LGPL allows you to include the header and use up to 10 (I think 10) lines of macros, etc within the header without violation. But, you still have to dynamically link to it so as to not copy in the lib's code during the linking process.

I think there is still some debate about this last one. I believe that RMS still thinks that LGPL libs behave like the GPL description above. Haven't checked up on this debate in a good chunk of time though.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

You also must understand the ways in which the GPL protects developers.

Not really. The only things that the GPL basically does is keep the original source and all derivative works GPL'd. Never understood how that protected me as a developer. After all, I own the copyright on the code, so why do I have to worry?

And if I was worried about profit, would I really be GPL'ing my code in the first place?

If there's something I'm missing due to my not completely understanding all the legal jargon in the GPL, let me know.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Quote:

But, I think that the FSF/GNU foundation sees it from an end-user point of view. The problem with that is that other, more liberal licenses achieve the exact same thing without placing undue restrictions on other developers.

I don't believe *all* apps need to be open. I just appreciate the openness of apps I find useful.

Never said ya did. And I definitly agree with what you just said

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

I agree the split between "OSS people" and "GPL people" is damaging. As an end user, Open means a bit more to me than GPL'd. The GPL'd aspect however, gives me the impression that the developer is more 'in love' with his work than, say, someone who licenses under BSD for example. Very subjective, yes, but remember -perception is everything. Whenever I see a bossassed BSD licensed app, I think either "well, that's abandoned to whoever wants to pick it up and exploit it", or "that app's so ubiquitous it may as well be under BSD (guts of UNIX type stuff).

Any particular reason why?

Because from a developer point of view, there is equal chance that a project that is GPL'd will fail/be abandoned as one that is BSD'd (or some other license for that matter).

There are a number of factors as I see it. One of the more important ones, IMO, is communittee support. Once that is lost, then the project typically becomes not fun, and thus gets dropped.

There are others to be sure, but none that I can think of that is license reasons. They are all human reasons.

Hell, just look at all the GPL'd projects that are marked inactive at sourceforge:

http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=358

And I can guarentte that many of the 10's of thousands of other projects are inactive as well. They just haven't be marked as such.

Don't know, maybe I just feel the need to defend the BSD as I license my stuff under it. Quite frankly, I have yet to run into a situation that the GPL would be an appropriate license for anything that I've done. Then again, I tend to overthink these things

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

I don't believe for a minute that the corps could "take us out of the equation". No way. Last ditch they could pay our 'reps' to outlaw non-DRM boxen, but you gotta know if that happens we really will build a darknet. People are too passionate about this stuff! Plus the glaring fact that outside of the US OSS is spreading faster than an Outlook Express worm ;]

I'm not saying that they can crush us by creating laws to ban OSS (which they may be able to do as they have untold amounts of lobbying power). I'm just saying that given the gigantic amount of resources the the corps collectively have, that they can start to rule open source.

It certainly is not happening now, but something similar is. Look at openoffice. Sun just won't let it go off on its own. They want to retain it.

Corps can also pay people to develope opensource and this is something that they are doing. But, what if one day they decided to do a lot of this and effectively take over a project(s)?

There is a lot of sinister things that corps can do to damage open source.

Not that they would. We were basically the misquito buzzing at there ears that was bloody annoying, but then became useful. As long as we are useful, they won't bother us.

Then again, the US does have the DMCA. Which, if I recall properly, has been used to shutdown projects before where those projects otherwise would have been difficult to shutdown at best.

Perhaps this is just my security minded paranoia bleeding into the other aspects of my life. Or maybe its because I have too much time on my hands. *shrug*

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Realistically, you can't take ideology out of it. We're dealing with people. Human b33nz. Irrationality. The software, the platforms, the licenses, should exist to serve people. Even if they're crazy.

Very true

But, as mentioned above, I don't like it when it starts to adversly affect me.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

I've seen worse ;] thx for keeping it nice.

Hopefully I've succeed again

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

I'll admit I haven't read that section of the draft. I don't enjoy migraines. Thing is, I understand DRM and I will never accept it. Not only is that a technical decision, it is an ideological one. I would encourage you SigmaNunki, or anyone interested in DRM to view the excellent video hosted here: http://yafc.net/

Not saying I'm for it. Certainly, I am definatly against DRM. I was just mentioning the GPL v3 thing for purposes of discusion.

Namely, does a comment that essentially governs content, belong is a license that is supposed to govern source code? It is an interesting question. At least to me

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

That is interesting but remember -if it's *your* code you can license it any way you want. You're being limited from using someone's (GPL'd) work in a way in which he'd rather you not. Beats the days when they wouldn't even show you the source eh?

Interestingly enough, when the inet started, that how things worked was, someone developed code and gave it way, or traded it with other developers. Then things closed, then they opened again.

See below for more.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

I have nothing but sympathy and respect for any programmer. I can barely write a bash script. I support the GPL in it's role as a protector of developers.

Thank you. But, you still going to have to explain this protecting thing. In all seriousness, I really don't understand it.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

I do hate to think it's a hindrance, but let's face it -since the GNU came along we've seen unprecedented innovation in software. The best stuff of the past several years has come from "the community" not the corporations (OK maybe Apple), and I think it's a direct result of the bellyaching of people like RMS.

Actually, no not really. It was the internet that did all that. RMS just happened to do his thing at about the same time.

---
Aside: I'd recommend reading "Just for Fun" by Linus. It's a good read, and as it describes the development of Linux from this days as a student to current. It also has some interesting comment about RMS.
---

Point of fact, when the GNU Foundation was still going around distributing its source through postal mail, the internet was already off and going. It was some time before the GNU Foundation discovered it and started to use it.

I believe it was around the time when the GNU Foundation's fatily flawed kernel (from design on up) was discovered to be fatily flawed and they found Linus's kernel.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

At the end of it, I hope my reply's been worth reading, and I'm sure we have more common ground than not!

It has, and I'm sure we do too

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Quote:

FINE! I'll fly the F***ing thing!!!

Be my guest! :P

Fine then!

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:54 PM

SIGMANUNKI

@Tiger:
To add to StDoubt's reply, everything he has said is true, with two additions:

If you play games, Linux is probably a bad choice for you. This has been changing, but at a very slow rate.

And:

If you're just going to use a LiveCD to do secure surfing, I'd also recommend checking out the Anonym.OS LiveCD. It's based on OpenBSD.

http://theory.kaos.to/projects.html

I haven't tried it as I don't have a x86, but it seems to be very popular. So, I gather it's worth a gander.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 9, 2006 1:54 AM

STDOUBT

Quick update: elive has seen a bugfix for the 0.4 "Serenity" version. 0.4.2 is up with many more download options!
http://www.elivecd.org/gb/Download/0.4.2/

Quote:

If you play games, Linux is probably a bad choice for you. This has been changing, but at a very slow rate.

Humbug! Poppycock I say! A veritable cornucopia of games exist for Linux/BSD!!! Have a gander at http://happypenguin.org/
Granted, while games like Unreal Tournament and QuakeIII run fine on Linux, the trouble is, you have to "know Linux" to install and run them.
Many many many games exist for Linux and BSD but it's true they generally won't be your 'blockbuster' buy-it-at-Gamespot-in-the-mall types of games.
Anyone remember Total Annihilation? I've heard it was quite popular. Well, there's a playable remake on happypenguin called TA Spring. It's 3D, and RTS and online multiplayer. There's a 3D space shooter called Vegastrike that's a must see. Hell, Fedora, SUsE, Debian, Mandrake all come with dozens of games pre-installed (yeah, mostly 2D 'baby-games' but...) How many come with Windows? OK, I feel better now.

Hey again, SigmaNunki~
I've done some reading, and gave some thought to all you've said. I have to say you've challenged my thinking WRT the GPL. I can see better now how it does place limitations on developers. Thing is, I still feel the "Four Freedoms" ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html (-url for other readers' benefit)) are immensely important and I also realize thay can be granted by other open licenses.

Quote:

There is a lot of sinister things that corps can do to damage open source.

Regarding your example of Open Office, and the ways in which the corp.s could try and own/shut down OSS projects, isn't the GPL about the only OSS license that could withstand those types of moves? Aren't some OSS licensed projects subject to being bought up and then closed? Couldn't Sun say 'screw it' and revoke the Open nature of OO.o? It seems with the GPL that'd be less likely.

Anyhow, you have made me think, and that's a feat ;]
I have come to the tentative conclusion that "Open Source" is more important than "GPL" for many many projects. If any license allows the 4 freedoms, I'm fine with it. "OSI Approved" is actually what I look for before I look for "GPL".

Quote:

Thank you. But, you still going to have to explain this protecting thing. In all seriousness, I really don't understand it.

If your code is GPL'd, as I understand it, a corp could never, after buying your 'product', close it and keep it away from the community. Then again, if it were GPL'd they'd probably be less interested in buying the code to begin with...
Hmmm -and I thought I envied developers ;]
You guys have it rough I'd say.

One more thing, I'll admit that the GPL is basically an ideological phenomenon. But the results of the 4 freedoms do bear on technical considerations. And again -any license could be written to grant the 4 freedoms. "GPL compatible" is better than not, but as I've said, I use closed drivers, and would use a closed app if I had to. But I wouldn't buy one. For the record, over the last year I have donated $cashey money to OSS projects that I value. Donated $0.00 to the corps.
I just wish there was a better way than PayPal to support OSS developers.
Anyhoo, brain fading.
May you find much success in the complex, fluctuating software industry, and may you never lose the simple love of the art of programming!

Perhaps it's a good thing that we have the tension between the GPL and 'other' OSS licenses. Diversification is strength after all.

EDIT: P.S. AnonymOS kicks ass!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:22 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Sorry it took so long to reply. I was away for the weekend and basically got a job offer as well. The offer required me to write a proof of competence site in PHP. He may be a buddy, but he told me that he's been burned by people saying that they could code PHP. Took me a little bit to get done what he wanted.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Humbug! Poppycock I say! A veritable cornucopia of games exist for Linux/BSD!!!

And I get burned by inaccuracy in my statments again. *sigh*

Yes, I know I there are games for Linux/BSD. But, I was talking about the commercial games rather than open-source ones.

Not knocking open-source games, I've just started one. It's just that there quality tends to be far less than there corporate counterparts.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Hey again, SigmaNunki~
I've done some reading, and gave some thought to all you've said. I have to say you've challenged my thinking WRT the GPL. I can see better now how it does place limitations on developers. Thing is, I still feel the "Four Freedoms" ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html (-url for other readers' benefit)) are immensely important and I also realize thay can be granted by other open licenses.

Thank you

And I must say that those four freedoms are definitely important. Certainly no disagreement here

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

isn't the GPL about the only OSS license that could withstand those types of moves?

No. But then again, no opensource license can totally withstand these types of things.

For instance, if a company (or any individual for that matter) ran an opensource project then closed it, the only way that it still could be opensource is if someone else had the code.

If no-one else had the code, then the community would lose it.

Now if the developer(s) wanted to change the license then we're getting into copyright law which changes from region to region. But, as it sits where I am physically, I beleive that the original copyright holder always has the option of changing the licensing.

So, if I wanted to, I could choose to dual license my stuff BSD for non-commercial use, and GPL for commercial use. Then at a later date change it to 100% BSD or 100% GPL or whatever.

All that being said, any code previously released under whatever license, would live on without the change.

It is a really tangled web of messy crappy stuff.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

If any license allows the 4 freedoms, I'm fine with it. "OSI Approved" is actually what I look for before I look for "GPL".

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Quote:

Thank you. But, you still going to have to explain this protecting thing. In all seriousness, I really don't understand it.

If your code is GPL'd, as I understand it, a corp could never, after buying your 'product', close it and keep it away from the community. Then again, if it were GPL'd they'd probably be less interested in buying the code to begin with...

Not really. If I am the copyright holder, I could sell a seperate different license to a corp. even if it is GPL.

Again, this gets into copyright law and isn't necessarily true for everywhere in the world. YMMV.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Hmmm -and I thought I envied developers ;]
You guys have it rough I'd say.

Well... errr... Umm.... Depends...

It can be simple, it can be difficult, depends on how much you care about licensing, etc.

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

One more thing, I'll admit that the GPL is basically an ideological phenomenon. But the results of the 4 freedoms do bear on technical considerations. And again -any license could be written to grant the 4 freedoms. "GPL compatible" is better than not, but as I've said, I use closed drivers, and would use a closed app if I had to. But I wouldn't buy one.

No disagreements here

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Anyhoo, brain fading.
May you find much success in the complex, fluctuating software industry, and may you never lose the simple love of the art of programming!

Today, mine never woke up. So, I hope the above was clear, etc.

Thanks

I wish you much success in whatever you do as well

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Perhaps it's a good thing that we have the tension between the GPL and 'other' OSS licenses. Diversification is strength after all.

I'll drink to that

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

EDIT: P.S. AnonymOS kicks ass!!!

tee hee

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE