Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 02:01:25 -0400 From: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> To: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why are so many FreeBSD haters on this list? (Troll bait) Message-ID: <CAGBxaX=baPYj__4scds27y%2BfZ0XcycYDwuZ8Qki-y0XuJVoocQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20200425055723.00e6f974@archlinux> References: <CAGBxaXk0Abwzk08aUFiNutTpADzAx4btFa0sWjuCoT_Awa=zuQ@mail.gmail.com> <6222c6ca-4709-d800-2d3a-59913bd2cf2a@gmail.com> <f5a0170f-a97d-c961-8a4f-95e1c1454dda@gmail.com> <CAGBxaXksjGrWJWXYzMg18sV7RAU8nsR1QRSPc6OJx7QdoiDvgw@mail.gmail.com> <20200425055723.00e6f974@archlinux>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 11:57 PM Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions < freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 17:56:15 -0400, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > >[snip] Yes there are ups and downs but that is true of all software and > >the downs are normally more controlled and easier to deal with stuff in > >ports then as binaries on Linux; if comes to worst I can always fix > >small issues right in the source. [snip] I would rather use M$ then > >Linux! > > You can fix small issues right in the source of *BSD as well as in the > source of Linux. This is not an advantage of *BSD over Linux, but it's > an advantage of *BSD and Linux over Windows. > Please learn to read I was talking about fixing them in *BSD (not Linux). Linux's binary only distributions with no easy to use way to build by third party developers was what I was referring to as being hard to patch (of course you can always get the source and blunder your way through an undocumented and largely non-standardized methods of build from source with no real way of making sure you have all the required packages to compile against [yes as you say there is some work to make this more like ports but every single one I have used like Gentoo's makes horrific assumptions]). I never said anything about how this compares or does not compare to Windows. > > You are absolutely unqualified. Says someone who can't be bothered to read a complete message to see what it actually says (not what you want/think it says). Either that or you purposely take what people say and twist it around to your own misunderstandings. Additional just as I have no clue about how qualified or unqualified you are for anything outside of what you have said here I suggest you do the same with other people. For example I could of said equally personal and derogatory things about you and your professional life, but I didn't because to do so would be making potentially incorrect and unwarranted generalizations about you. While I might be blunt about answering what you said I didn't go beyond it and it is intellectually dishonest for you to not do the same. So please unless you have actually looked at my paid work for example make no judgements about it's quality (just as I have made none about yours). If you do want to see some of it ask me and I will send some of the code from the open-sourcable parts of the work, til then please shut up on the matter or personal qualifications. > > Note, that I feel the need to correct your constantly spread > misinformation about Linux or licenses does not imply that I hate > FreeBSD or any other operating system, neither does it imply, that I > feel confident with Linux or any other operating system. > Not spreading misinformation just showing that your *narrow* view of what they allow and don't allow is the only possible view (nor even the only possible "correct" one). Since this is a FreeBSD mailing list the only concern I or anyone else has about GPL that it not pollute the ability to use FreeBSD (and non-GPL'ed ports) as the part of a commercial product (no matter how the product is constructed/linked to the OS/ports). Like I said before if you want the actual arguments to why FreeBSD dislikes GPL see the article on freebsd.org on it, https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/index.html, (which I didn't write or have any input on) which gives them. BTW I agree with every last argument made in that article. But perhaps the conclusion will be the most convincing summary of my argument: "In contrast to the GPL, which is designed to prevent the proprietary commercialization of Open Source code, the BSD license places minimal restrictions on future behavior. This allows BSD code to remain Open Source or become integrated into commercial solutions, as a project's or company's needs change. In other words, the BSD license does not become a legal time-bomb at any point in the development process." So do everyone a favor and stop attempting convince us that the above consensus is somehow not true or does not apply to someone writing custom software. In short how @#$ dare you say you have the right to take my work and provide no compensation in return, that is not social progress (as you claim for GPL) it is just simple theft. Also unless you haven't looked at modern software development processes it is almost impossible to make anything useful without building on someone elses work, which means you *MUST* honor whatever license the other work is under and if GPL was the only thing out there you would be forcing a lot of otherwise talented people to either not make software or deny them a livelihood. > > I also do not wish to discuss with you, I only want to correct the > misinformation in the interests of readers. > Since you are one of the trolls I wished to draw out with this thread you will get a discussion even if you didn't want one. > I recommend objectiveness when deciding what computer bundle to chose. > It's a always a bundle, made of hardware, operating system, user > applications. > No it is not one solid bundle under US law it is illegal for a hardware manufacturer to force you to use a specific OS and applications. (See US v. IBM [1969] and US v. Microsoft [2000]) The law does allow the manufacturer to preinstall software but requires it be removable by the end user (in this context firmware is not software). Therefore the system one builds is up to them and what licenses to use is up to them. All a license can say is what other licenses are legally compatible with them and which ones are not and under what cases they are compatible. GPL has made it very clear the only compatible licenses for downstream developers to use are viral ones that force you to give away your code (or make it so if you try to sell it someone else can come along and undercut you to force you to sell it for free). GPL has declared BSD is incompatible for this reason and that is the real reason FreeBSD tries to avoid GPL (not my argument about making a living, per se, which is just a nice side effect of BSD vs. GPL). Some people are using computers as tools. Tools must fulfil several > criteria. > And one those criteria is to make a living so why do you insist that somehow one such use (the one that makes the rest of the computer useful to end users) is "evil" if it makes money? > > Some people are using computers for self purpose, if so it becomes a > belief. Those people do not know, they belief and claim that their > belief is knowledge. > "for self purpose" makes no grammatical sense. I assume you mean for selfish purposes. Sorry to tell you but sometimes someone has to a little selfish if they need to make a living. I don't think your landlord will react very well if you tell them they should support your selfless use of computers by not charging you rent. -- Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGBxaX=baPYj__4scds27y%2BfZ0XcycYDwuZ8Qki-y0XuJVoocQ>