Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2001-01-02 Thread mouss
At 20:29 29/12/00 +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote: >Perfect for your purposes. I, as user (and with some machines >running on FreeBSD), want to be able to rebuild the kernel at any >time, and fix myself when needed. I don't want any binary packages >that can cause trouble and delay days. before

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2001-01-01 Thread Dennis
> > > >Core has stated in the past a strong desire for developers not to > > >break kernel interfaces within minor releases. > > > > > > 4.1 broke that "policy" rather badly. Perhaps its time to get rid of the > > mbuf macros, as any change to that structure breaks binary compatibility >in > > th

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-29 Thread Bosko Milekic
Dennis wrote: > >: Still, I personally believe, that "core" or general "freebsd community" > >: should explicitly state, that support for binary drivers and support for > >: easier inclusion of binary driver or just third party driver is eagerly > >: encouraged. And as much as possible, easy inclu

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-29 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dennis writes: : 4.1 broke that "policy" rather badly. Perhaps its time to get rid of the : mbuf macros, as any change to that structure breaks binary compatibility in : the worst way possible. Agreed. There are too many things that have been MFC'd that change th

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-29 Thread Marco van de Voort
> I work for a commercial company, and I did what I could to convince > people that *BSD is the way, and we're happily using FreeBSD. > now, we modiy the kernel sources, and this is a problem since this changes > the way people build the kernel. > what we did is provide procedures to modify the ke

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-29 Thread Dennis
>: Still, I personally believe, that "core" or general "freebsd community" >: should explicitly state, that support for binary drivers and support for >: easier inclusion of binary driver or just third party driver is eagerly >: encouraged. And as much as possible, easy inclusion of binary driver

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-28 Thread Mike Nowlin
> Again, you miss the point. Spending dollars advertising is arguably a more > valuable contribution than altering a few line of code or submitting a > driver for some obscure card. Key word here: "arguably", meaning "can be argued indefinitely", and loosely translates to "drop this argument -

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-28 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Taavi Talvik writes: : On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote: : : > If your company's infrastrucutre changes are made in a way that if : > the project adopted them it would help binary support, I'm sure that would : > be accepted. : > : > ie. if we just made fun

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-28 Thread Taavi Talvik
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote: > If your company's infrastrucutre changes are made in a way that if > the project adopted them it would help binary support, I'm sure that would > be accepted. > > ie. if we just made function foo() more generic and then you could > simply provide a KLD

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-28 Thread Bill Fumerola
On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 07:33:03PM +0100, mouss wrote: > I work for a commercial company, and I did what I could to convince > people that *BSD is the way, and we're happily using FreeBSD. > now, we modiy the kernel sources, and this is a problem since this changes > the way people build the kern

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-28 Thread Marco van de Voort
> >Afaik, anybody can spend any amount of advertising dollars he > >wants. > > Again, you miss the point. Spending dollars advertising is arguably a more > valuable contribution than altering a few line of code or submitting a > driver for some obscure card. Well, I don't think so. Good qualit

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-28 Thread mouss
just wanna jump in while it's hot... I work for a commercial company, and I did what I could to convince people that *BSD is the way, and we're happily using FreeBSD. now, we modiy the kernel sources, and this is a problem since this changes the way people build the kernel. what we did is provide

RE: FreeBSD vs. Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-28 Thread mouss
At 12:44 26/12/00 +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote: > > I ran into people at NASA who use Python because (beside being a good > > language) it isn't GPL. > >Pure paranoia. You don't have to share the code that is written IN >Python. Only modifications TO python (if it were GPL) what if you read b

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-28 Thread Peter Seebach
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dennis writes: >Again, you miss the point. Spending dollars advertising is arguably a more >valuable contribution than altering a few line of code or submitting a >driver for some obscure card. It depends a lot on the goals of the project. FreeBSD has pretty goo

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-28 Thread Dennis
> > >How many > > advertising dollars has Mr Kamp spent promoting the use of FreeBSD? > >Afaik, anybody can spend any amount of advertising dollars he >wants. Again, you miss the point. Spending dollars advertising is arguably a more valuable contribution than altering a few line of code or sub

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-28 Thread Marco van de Voort
> Mr Kamps comments are also "Well documented". I would think that EVERYONE > on this list would be offended by his insinuation that anyone that uses > FreeBSD and doesnt contribute source to FreeBSD is stealing. Where is that > outcry on that ridiculous idea? If you are offended by people usin

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-27 Thread Jeremiah Gowdy
> Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > > > > > Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings. > > > > United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f) > > > > My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the > > software (firmware is software), you can legally reverse

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-27 Thread Mike Smith
> At 05:14 PM 12/19/2000, you wrote: > >On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:25:43PM -0500, Dennis wrote: > > >Am I a thief because my company provides value added solutions without > > >source to our enhancements on a freebsd platform? If you are insulted that > > >other people are using your work without

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-27 Thread G. Adam Stanislav
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 11:44:34AM -0500, Dennis wrote: >>Then again, I may decide not to do it: My latest port submission has been >>sitting in the GNATS database for months, so why bother submitting more >>when nobody cares anyway? > >Welcome to the Animal Farm THIS was my point about the Fr

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-27 Thread Taavi Talvik
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, someone on freebsd-hackers wrote: > > They dont want your stinking binary contributions. Get used to it. > > Not suprisingly you're both wrong. Many binary-only ports exist > in the FreeBSD ports tree. World is not black and white. There are binary ports (for example netsc

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-27 Thread Bill Fumerola
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 11:44:34AM -0500, Dennis wrote: > At 05:14 PM 12/19/2000, you wrote: > >On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:25:43PM -0500, Dennis wrote: > > >Am I a thief because my company provides value added solutions without > > >source to our enhancements on a freebsd platform? If you are insu

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-27 Thread Dennis
At 05:14 PM 12/19/2000, you wrote: >On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:25:43PM -0500, Dennis wrote: > >Am I a thief because my company provides value added solutions without > >source to our enhancements on a freebsd platform? If you are insulted that > >other people are using your work without paying for

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-27 Thread Dennis
At 01:16 PM 12/19/2000, John Baldwin wrote: > >>We have a saying in Denmark, which I'm sure exist in as many forms > >>as there are languages in the world: > >> > >>"A thief belive everybody steals." > >> > >>Dennis, considering the recorded history of your arguments in our > >>mailing list a

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-27 Thread Mike Pritchard
Just a comment on this... I used to work for a pretty big Unix OS vendor in the operating systems development group. 90% of the bug fixes I applied were never found by the QA group (otherwise they would have been fixed long before I ever worked there :-). Where they really found problems were c

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-26 Thread Dennis
>. >Apparently you never did reverse engineering. When I did such things >I got the code de-compiled (manually) back to the C language. It's a >bit boring but not too much work even for the RISC machines (and >mauch easier for IA-32 than for RISC). And it's legal to do outside US >for the purpose

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-26 Thread Wes Peters
Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Murray Stokely wrote: > > > I want to create a comprehensive body of knowledge that can > > then be used to make fliers to hand out to Linux weenies at > ^ > > trade shows, published on bsdi.c

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-26 Thread Wes Peters
Alex Belits wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Wes Peters wrote: > > > > That depends on the type of "aggregation". If you produce a single-purpose > > device, like an "internet radio", the entire device has a single purpose, > > therefore every part of the device is "derived from" every other part

Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-26 Thread Neil Blakey-Milner
[ -hackers -> -chat ] On Tue 2000-12-26 (12:44), Marco van de Voort wrote: > > I ran into people at NASA who use Python because (beside being a good > > language) it isn't GPL. > > Pure paranoia. You don't have to share the code that is written IN > Python. Only modifications TO python (if it

RE: FreeBSD vs. Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-26 Thread Marco van de Voort
> I ran into people at NASA who use Python because (beside being a good > language) it isn't GPL. Pure paranoia. You don't have to share the code that is written IN Python. Only modifications TO python (if it were GPL) > For legal and security reason they cannot > share changes to code they m

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-25 Thread Alex Belits
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote: > Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 11:32:03 -0700 > From: Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Alex Belits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT > > In message <[EM

Re: RE: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-25 Thread Chris BeHanna
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Matt Dillon wrote: > Yes, it's a pretty sad state of affairs. What annoys me the most is > that companies actually believe they are protecting something when > they don't make their device driver source or hardware documentation > available. It has been well

Re: licenses (no long Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-25 Thread Wes Peters
Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alex >Belits writes: > : Your attorneys are stupid. > > Are they now? The GPL was designed to force companies to release > sources. The FSF put a lot of time and effort into it so that they > could force people to give back mods to gcc a

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-25 Thread Wes Peters
e: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs > > Linux, Solaris, > > and NT) > > > > > > Drew Eckhardt wrote: > > commercial companies have formal QA staff because their > > development staff either can't or won't do the QA > > themselves. >

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-25 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 07:40:35PM -0800, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > > Those are the kind of Linux people I dislike. Calmer people, rational > people, intelligent people, are often reasonable enough to simply be shown > FreeBSD, and they will comment on the merits of FreeBSD themselves. And they w

Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-25 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 10:39:40PM -0800, SteveB wrote: > ... > New comers to Linux are getting intimidated hearing the constant trash > talk. It's far more productive to talk about why 'BSD is better. Better yet, to try and see what good both have to offer, and make one's choises based on an `ob

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-25 Thread Gérard Roudier
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Peter Seebach wrote: > I may go looking. I have a passel of '875 cards that *don't* work, for > one reason or another. The symptom is, the card "probes" (it is identified > by the SRM console as an '875 rather than getting only product/vendor ID), but > the SRM console do

Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-25 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "SteveB" writes: : Since when is a product required to be open source to run on Linux? My : understanding was if an product was developed using GPL'd code or : libraries then that product is required to offer source. But just an : application running on Linux, that

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-25 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alex Belits writes: : Your attorneys are stupid. Are they now? The GPL was designed to force companies to release sources. The FSF put a lot of time and effort into it so that they could force people to give back mods to gcc and the like. It was applied to a k

RE: FreeBSD vs. Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-25 Thread SteveB
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Matt Dillon > Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 12:59 AM > To: Peter Seebach > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT > > > You guys ca

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-25 Thread Alex Belits
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote: > : No. This issue was beaten to death multiple times, large amount of > : software was created based on this, and its legality is absolutely > : certain by now. > > No. You are wrong. The fact that large amounts of software has been > created is irrel

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-25 Thread Matt Dillon
You guys can argue the GPL thing to death and still not come to a resolution. How many commercial products are running on top of linux and not sharing their source? Lots. See any lawsuits flying? I don't. Threats aside, it isn't going to happen. Threats with, it is sti

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alex Belits writes: : > That is your interpretation. Other lawyers disagree with that : > interpretation. : : No. This issue was beaten to death multiple times, large amount of : software was created based on this, and its legality is absolutely : certain by now

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Peter Seebach
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> , Alex Belits writes: >On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote: >> : This is simply not true -- unless your hardware is the result of >> : modification of GPL'ed program, something that I don't expect to see any >> : soon, as so far no hardware ever was GPL'ed in th

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Alex Belits
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote: > One could argue that adding a driver is a derived work. You are > modifying tables in the kernel with references to your device, and the > rest comes in under the contamination theory. Until the matter has > been properly adjudicated, you cannot say wit

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Sergey Babkin
Rik van Riel wrote: > > It's quite common for a manufacturer to completely stop > driver development once a particular model of hardware > (say a certain video card) is no longer sold. > > This, in turn, leads to the situation where the user has > to chose between the following options: > > 1.

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Peter Seebach
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien" writes: >On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 04:14:20PM -0600, Peter Seebach wrote: >> it's not possible to just set a bit and make it work with, say, a 3C875J >> card, >You sure? The PC164 that was Beast.freebsd.org had an 875 card: Yes, sure. The 3C875J is

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 04:14:20PM -0600, Peter Seebach wrote: > it's not possible to just set a bit and make it work with, say, a 3C875J > card, You sure? The PC164 that was Beast.freebsd.org had an 875 card: sym0: <875> port 0x1-0x100ff mem 0x8201-0x82010fff,0x82011000-0x820110ff irq

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > FreeBSD advocacy is prefectly alright. > > And there's nothing wrong with calling them Linux weenies in > FreeBSD circles :) I usually don't even say it that nicely when > I'm referring to the more rabid Linux "weenies": "Linux is > better than anyt

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Rik van Riel
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Julian Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Matt Dillon wrote: > > :Reverse engineering is a myth. The result is so inferior to high-level > > :language source code as to not be a concern, plus its illegal so it cant be > > :marketed. > > Reverse engineering is very legal,

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Peter Seebach
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rik van Riel writes: >THIS is the real reason for preferring source code support drivers. >Not even the usually higher quality of the open source drivers or >the faster availability of the manufacturer's drivers change this >situation. As a nice concrete example,

Re: RE: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Rik van Riel
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Matt Dillon wrote: > Yes, it's a pretty sad state of affairs. What annoys me the most is > that companies actually believe they are protecting something when > they don't make their device driver source or hardware documentation > available. It has been well

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Peter Seebach
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writ es: >One could argue that adding a driver is a derived work. You are >modifying tables in the kernel with references to your device, and the >rest comes in under the contamination theory. Until the matter has >been properly adjudicated, you cannot

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alex Belits writes: : WTF are you talking about? Derived work is the result of modification of : the original, not just something dependent on its functionality. One could argue that adding a driver is a derived work. You are modifying tables in the kernel with

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Warner Losh
Drew Eckhardt wrote: > To be pedantic, you only need to provide source for works derived > from GPL'd software which in this case means the kernel propper. User > land applications and device drivers may be shipped in binary-only > form because they are separate works, even when distributed in > a

RE: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-24 Thread SteveB
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Wes Peters > Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 11:29 PM > To: Drew Eckhardt > Cc: SteveB; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs >

Re: Software Patents. Was Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread Julian Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Mutsaers wrote: > >> "Julian" == Julian Stacey Jhs@jhs muc de <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> In Europe, software > >> patents do not exist and cannot be granted. > > Julian> Wrong ! Sadly ! That's the old simple theoretical world I > Julian> learnt about back in Univers

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-24 Thread David O'Brien
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 09:40:07PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Murray Stokely wrote: > > > I want to create a comprehensive body of knowledge that can > > then be used to make fliers to hand out to Linux weenies at > ^^^

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-24 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 12:28:36AM -0700, Wes Peters wrote: > isn't coming to the forefront: commercial companies have formal QA staff > because their development staff either can't or won't do the QA themselves. I would not agree with that at all. Commercial companies have format QA because it

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-23 Thread Alex Belits
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Wes Peters wrote: > > To be pedantic, you only need to provide source for works derived > > from GPL'd software which in this case means the kernel propper. User > > land applications and device drivers may be shipped in binary-only > > form because they are separate works, e

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-23 Thread Wes Peters
Drew Eckhardt wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, admin@bsdfan > .cncdsl.com writes: > >Here's the thing about open software that still concerns me. My > >background is with the major software development tools companies, so > >that is my point of reference. It is great that code is availa

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-23 Thread Wes Peters
Marco van de Voort wrote: > > [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > > > Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings. > > > > United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f) > > > > My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the >

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-23 Thread Wes Peters
Matt Dillon wrote: > > In that respect, I personally will not run anything inside my kernel that > I don't have source for. Now, I don't run frame-relay or T1's into > FreeBSD boxes, so I'm not commenting on your software specifically. I'm > commenting in general. The problem i

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-23 Thread Wes Peters
Drew Eckhardt wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > m writes: > >Yes but most commercial uses take advantage of the binary distribution > >capability of the BSD license AFTER they've poured their corporate dollars > >into enhancements. With linux you have to give your wor

RE: FreeBSD vs. Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-23 Thread SteveB
gt; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Jeremiah Gowdy > Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 7:41 PM > To: Rik van Riel; Murray Stokely > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT > > > > - Original Message -

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-23 Thread Jeremiah Gowdy
- Original Message - From: "Rik van Riel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Murray Stokely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 3:40 PM Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Murra

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-23 Thread Rik van Riel
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Murray Stokely wrote: > I want to create a comprehensive body of knowledge that can > then be used to make fliers to hand out to Linux weenies at ^ > trade shows, published on bsdi.com and/or freebsd.org, etc.. Haha

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-23 Thread Sergey Babkin
Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > > > Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings. > > United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f) > > My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the > software (firmware is software), you can legally reverse engineer the

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-23 Thread Sergey Babkin
SteveB wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 9:54 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs > > Linux, Solaris,

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-23 Thread Sergey Babkin
Dennis wrote: > > Source is more of a "hassle", binary loads right up. the SNMP package is a > great example. Doing it from source is a nightmare. Missing includes, wrong > paths. compile failures. The package loads right up and Im running. This is an example of why the build environment must be

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-22 Thread Drew Eckhardt
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Exactly the same in Europe, only the sharing parts are new for me. >The difference seems to be: >The problem is that in the US, it is legal to override this with the >licensing conditions. In Europe this right is inalienable. Some courts

Software Patents. Was Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-22 Thread Peter Mutsaers
>> "Julian" == Julian Stacey Jhs@jhs muc de <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> In Europe, software >> patents do not exist and cannot be granted. Julian> Wrong ! Sadly ! That's the old simple theoretical world I Julian> learnt about back in University in the late 70's, it Julian>

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-22 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
"SteveB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings. Hardware decisions > in general are mirrors of software cases. Hardware reverse > engineering tends to be legal. But with software they use Clean > programmer, Dirty programmer. In other words you can write

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-22 Thread Marco van de Voort
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > > Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings. > > United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f) > > My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the > software (firmware is software), you ca

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:03:23PM -0800, Gilbert Gong wrote: > > It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the > > enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official > > releases went through. Also volunteering to QA would be a good > > training ground to gain fami

RE: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread SteveB
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Jeremiah Gowdy > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 11:30 PM > To: SteveB; Drew Eckhardt; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT >> Trouble is

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread Jeremiah Gowdy
> Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings. United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f) My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the software (firmware is software), you can legally reverse engineer the software for the purpose of achiving

RE: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread SteveB
On > Behalf Of Drew Eckhardt > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 10:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT > > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Examiners at the European Patent Office http://w

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread Drew Eckhardt
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Examiners at the European Patent Office http://www.epo.org tell me: > Reverse engineering is legal in Europe, Illegal in USA. Back in the early nineties, Nintendo sued some one in America for reverse engineering the circuit included

Re: Software Patents. Was Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread Boris
Hello Julian, Thursday, December 21, 2000, 5:20:31 PM, you wrote: I really hope that software patent´s wont be possible in Europe. This would be a real problem for some of us who are not only consulting but developing, too. I remember that a lot of people try to get a patent on the lamest routi

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* Gilbert Gong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001221 18:45] wrote: > > It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the > > enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official > > releases went through. Also volunteering to QA would be a good > > training ground to gain familiari

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread Gilbert Gong
> It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the > enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official > releases went through. Also volunteering to QA would be a good > training ground to gain familiarity with a OS and a chance to > communicate with developers. > > S

Software Patents. Was Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread Julian Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Mutsaers wrote: > >> "babkin" == babkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > babkin> Sorry for a stupid question but why would not they patent > babkin> this protocol then ? For example, PostScript is patented > babkin> by Adobe and the only reason everyone is able to use it is > b

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread Julian Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Dillon wrote: > :If you want freebsd to remain a cult OS for hackers you are correct. > FreeBSD hasn't been a cult OS in a very long time, Dennis. You need to > open your eyes a little more. The OSS world has changed in the last > few years. > :Reverse engineering is a myth. The

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread Julian Elischer
Greg Black wrote: > > Mark Newton wrote: > > > I get concerned that those who point to a lack of a QA cycle in open > > source software are missing the point entirely: They're focussing on > > the 'process' they're familiar with so much that they don't seem to > > acknowledge that alternative a

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread Matt Dillon
:No, the original writer was trying to use a very general argument about the :absolute uselessness of binary code, which is disgustingly wrong. Im sure :you dont disagree. Your argument is sound only if the manufacturer doesnt :implement those "fixes" in their binary drivers, which they usually

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread Drew Eckhardt
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] m writes: >Yes but most commercial uses take advantage of the binary distribution >capability of the BSD license AFTER they've poured their corporate dollars >into enhancements. With linux you have to give your work away, making it >much less us

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread Greg Black
Mark Newton wrote: > I get concerned that those who point to a lack of a QA cycle in open > source software are missing the point entirely: They're focussing on > the 'process' they're familiar with so much that they don't seem to > acknowledge that alternative approaches can demonstrate simil

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread Dennis
At 01:22 PM 12/21/2000, Matt Dillon wrote: >:If you want freebsd to remain a cult OS for hackers you are correct. >: > > FreeBSD hasn't been a cult OS in a very long time, Dennis. You need to > open your eyes a little more. The OSS world has changed in the last > few years. Yes but

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread Mark Newton
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 11:53:50AM -0600, Peter Seebach wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "SteveB" writes: > >In the open source > >world is there a official QA process or group. Is there a FreeBSD > >test suite that releases go through. QA is unglamorous work, but > >needs to be do

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread David O'Brien
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:40:22PM -0800, SteveB wrote: > I don't have a lot of time, but I would volunteer if there was a QA > project. Good QA takes time. -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "uns

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread Kent Stewart
SteveB wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: Drew Eckhardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 12:15 PM > > To: SteveB > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs > &g

RE: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread SteveB
> -Original Message- > From: Drew Eckhardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 12:15 PM > To: SteveB > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs > Linux, Solaris, > and NT) > > > In mes

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread Drew Eckhardt
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, admin@bsdfan .cncdsl.com writes: >Here's the thing about open software that still concerns me. My >background is with the major software development tools companies, so >that is my point of reference. It is great that code is available and >fixes are made and pushed

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread Peter Seebach
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "SteveB" wri tes: >It would just make pitching FreeBSD and other open OS's in the >enterprise a lot easier if there was an QA process that official >releases went through. There might be; I haven't looked. I am pretty happy with the results of whatever's being don

RE: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread SteveB
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 9:54 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs > Linux, Solaris, > and NT) > > >In the open source &

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread Steve Kudlak
om: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Wes Peters > > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 12:28 AM > > To: Michael C . Wu > > Cc: Dennis; Boris; Murray Stokely; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, > >

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread Matt Dillon
:If you want freebsd to remain a cult OS for hackers you are correct. : FreeBSD hasn't been a cult OS in a very long time, Dennis. You need to open your eyes a little more. The OSS world has changed in the last few years. :Reverse engineering is a myth. The result is so inferior to

Re: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread Peter Seebach
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "SteveB" wri tes: >With commercial software (well at least the places I worked) nothing >could go out the door without a complete QA cycle performed on it. Yes. This is why the open systems have "releases" every so often; a release has been run through something m

RE: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT)

2000-12-21 Thread SteveB
ris; Murray Stokely; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Sitting on hands (no longer Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, > Solaris, and > NT) > > > "Michael C . Wu" wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 11:43:17AM -0500, Dennis scribbled: > > | > > | case and point: How ma

Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT

2000-12-21 Thread Dennis
At 05:48 AM 12/21/2000, you wrote: >[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > > At 07:58 PM 12/19/2000, Julian Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Dennis wrote to Boris et all: > > > > > > > > >Device Drivers > > > > >-- > > > > >I don_t like binary only device drivers

  1   2   >