Re: Thanks guys
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:01:08AM -0800, Grant Cooper wrote: There are so many different types of UNIX. If freeBSD is so great why won't natural selection begin and let some of these Unix flavors die? Really, wouldn't it be a better world if we had just a couple open source OS? Why ? That's why it's Open-Source, it breaks the monopoly of closed source. Ok, 20 flavours of Linux and at least 3 of *BSD; well...that's the way it goes...All OS'es should be Open-Sourced..especially in these dangerous days ! Mind you I am not sure how many volunteers there would be who would wish to wade through what is rumoured to be 30 million lines of code that constitute Windows2000. I've been doing some background reading and correct me if I'm wrong. But I came across of at least 30 active different open source and commercial Unix flavors (and I'm sure that's a drop in the bucket)? And my last comment is about the commercial Unix flavors. If they cost so much - are they more bug free, better support, more people working on it. $12, 000 for a licence is alot of money. Bug-free.. ROFL. Oh No ! HP-UX, Solaris, AIX ... etc. etc. cannot be described as bug-free my friend. The responsivenes of voluntary effort to systems like FreeBSD and some (but not all) versions of Linux, would astonish some IT managers who think if you don't pay it must be worthless...that is despite FreeBSD's long pedigree and quite well-known fame for stability. Well, I just like to say that I think FreeBSD is great. My first real unix experience and I couldn't have done it without the support of the FreeBSD lists and free tutorials. Well I think it's jolly good as well :) -- Regards Cliff Sarginson The Netherlands [ This mail has been checked as virus-free ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Thanks guys
Cliff writes: Ok, 20 flavours of Linux and at least 3 of *BSD; well...that's the way it goes... Actually, it's not the number of versions that exist that is important, it's the degree of similarity among them. Twenty operating systems that are 98% compatible is much less of a problem than two operating systems that are only 5% compatible. Something that runs in an X environment on one version of UNIX will often run on several other versions of UNIX as well, but a program that runs on Windows will not run at all on the Mac without being rewritten. All OS'es should be Open-Sourced..especially in these dangerous days ! A nice wish, but developing operating systems costs an incredible amount of money, and the money has to come from somewhere, and the easiest way to raise the money is by making the OS proprietary and selling it. Open operating systems are nice when they exist, but since nobody has the resources to support them in a totally reliable and responsive way, choosing them for mission-critical applications is risky, unless one has on-site experts to maintain them if required. For many other purposes, they might be quite suitable, however. In the olden days, mainframe vendors would sell the hardware and almost throw in the OS as an afterthought, since the hardware was useless without the OS, and since the OS couldn't be used on any other hardware. They'd even provide source code so that customers could modify the OS. It worked well, but that is not a a viable model for smaller systems, because it makes it easy to take a proprietary OS and use it on different but compatible hardware (much harder for Macs than for Windows or UNIX, though). Also, customer modifications were a nightmare for support organizations--and that would be a million times worse with smaller systems, given that there are so many people of limited skill and high motivation tweaking so many smaller systems. Mind you I am not sure how many volunteers there would be who would wish to wade through what is rumoured to be 30 million lines of code that constitute Windows2000. Exactly. Writing an OS like that costs several billion dollars, and supporting it costs millions more. How would you find the money for open-source code? Then again, one might argue that 30 million lines is too much for an OS (and I tend to agree), but that's a separate issue. One nice thing about UNIX--in part because of its history, I suppose, and in part because it is largely open-source--is that it doesn't suffer from the extreme bloat of Windows or Mac operating systems. This applies only to the OS itself, though, not to bloated GUI environments that might run on top of it, which seem to have the same problem as Windows and the Mac. Well I think it's jolly good as well :) So do I. FreeBSD is a great operating system. Simple, performant, secure, reliable, accessible, and free. It would be nice to see a desktop OS with the same characteristics one day, but for various reasons, I question whether that will ever even be possible. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Thanks guys
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:48:44AM +0100, Cliff Sarginson wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:01:08AM -0800, Grant Cooper wrote: There are so many different types of UNIX. If freeBSD is so great why won't natural selection begin and let some of these Unix flavors die? Really, wouldn't it be a better world if we had just a couple open source OS? Why ? That's why it's Open-Source, it breaks the monopoly of closed source. Ok, 20 flavours of Linux and at least 3 of *BSD; well...that's snip -- Regards Cliff Sarginson The Netherlands 20 flavours of Linux? A quick search at http://www.linux.org/dist/ with criteria Any Language, Any Category and Intel Compatible returns 149 distros. Even moving the Caterory to Mainstream/General Public returns 56. Nathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Thanks guys
- Original Message - From: Nathan Kinkade [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:33 AM Subject: Re: Thanks guys On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:48:44AM +0100, Cliff Sarginson wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:01:08AM -0800, Grant Cooper wrote: There are so many different types of UNIX. If freeBSD is so great why won't natural selection begin and let some of these Unix flavors die? Really, wouldn't it be a better world if we had just a couple open source OS? Why ? That's why it's Open-Source, it breaks the monopoly of closed source. Ok, 20 flavours of Linux and at least 3 of *BSD; well...that's snip -- Regards Cliff Sarginson The Netherlands 20 flavours of Linux? A quick search at http://www.linux.org/dist/ with criteria Any Language, Any Category and Intel Compatible returns 149 distros. Even moving the Caterory to Mainstream/General Public returns 56. Nathan That's more than I'd care to have in my ice cream shop :-) Interesting that an additional RPM, moving apache from usr/local/www to /usr/local/etc/www and changing the angle of Tux's head contrives to make something different Oh, well. time to move this to -chat? KDK To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Thanks guys
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:07:23PM +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote: I doubt that. Open source is written by volunteers who still have to have day jobs. If all software was open source, there'd be no jobs to support the volunteers writing open source, and so open source would destroy itself, and you'd be back to proprietary software. This effect will keep open source in check. You incorrectly assume that all those day jobs involve writing software. That is not necessarily so. It is quite possible for a volunteer writing open source code to have a day job that does not have anything at all to do with computers. You also incorrectly seem to assume that all proprietary software is written to be sold at retail. This is not so. A significant fraction of the proprietary software written is intended for in-house use. (Consider for example the computer systems of many government agencies and large companies and instituitions. Much of the code in those systems is developed in-house and never sold.) You can also consider all the software for embedded systems, where the software is not the primary product, but some physical device utilising the software. Of course, software companies could write software and then distribute the source, but no company that wants to survive can afford to do that--it would be giving away its only source of revenue. Not necessarily. You could develop software on order for some customer that needs some special software that is not available off the shelf. Then, after they get the software they wanted and you got paid, the source is released. You get paid, your customer got the software they wanted, anybody who wants to can get the source. Everybody is happy. None of the above means that all software necessarily should be open source, just that your arguments against it doesn't hold. One kind of software where proprietary off-the-shelf software does have a place is software that the average open-source programmer finds boring (since nobody will write boring code without being paid for it) and where no single entity is prepared to spend a large amount of money to have it developed, yet there still are many people who need that kind of software. Examples of this class of software is things like spreadsheets, word processors and presentation programs. There do exist some open source programs of this kind but they are mostly not quite as good as their commercial counterparts and there are very volunteers working on them, yet there are lots of people who need them. -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Thanks guys
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:49:52PM +0100, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: Grant Cooper wrote: I've been doing some background reading and correct me if I'm wrong. But I came across of at least 30 active different open source and commercial Unix flavors (and I'm sure that's a drop in the bucket)? And my last comment is about the commercial Unix flavors. If they cost so much - are they more bug free, better support, more people working on it. $12, 000 for a licence is alot of money. Basically, what you are paying for is having a big company backing up the product and guarantee you that it will work. I Wrong. Have you read any of the license agreements normally accompanying commercial software? The big companies generally don't guarantee a bloody thing about the software, least of all that it will work correctly. would not say that they are bugfree, but if you find a bug, you can call your vendor and demand that they fix it. If you run a Just because you demand it doesn't mean they will even acknowledge that the bug exists, let alone fix it. free OS, you cant make any kind of demands. Most bugs are fixed You can make demands on open source programmers too. It won't do you any good, but you can do it. just as fast or even faster in the free OS's out there, but if they are not, you cant make them fix it. You can't make the big companies fix their software either. For proof of this consider Microsoft and all the viruses targeting Outlook Express. -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Thanks guys
Erik writes: Have you read any of the license agreements normally accompanying commercial software? The big companies generally don't guarantee a bloody thing about the software, least of all that it will work correctly. Yes, they do, and generally they will support what they sell. If they don't, it soon ceases to sell. The extensive disclaimers in licensing agreements are mainly to protect against liability, not to avoid providing support. Additionally, many vendors charge for support beyond a certain minimum. While this is not included with the original purchase, at least it is available--the same cannot be said for most open-source software. Just because you demand it doesn't mean they will even acknowledge that the bug exists, let alone fix it. They will, and they do. Most vendors know who is paying their bills. You can make demands on open source programmers too. It won't do you any good, but you can do it. And that's why open-source software is risky for important applications and large organizations. You can't make the big companies fix their software either. Yes, you can. They want your money, and they know they'll stop getting it if you are dissatisfied with support. For proof of this consider Microsoft and all the viruses targeting Outlook Express. Microsoft didn't write the viruses, and the viruses are not bugs, so I don't see the relevance of this comment. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Thanks guys
I don't think that FreeBSD-Questions is the forum for this discussion. - Michael Hogsett Erik writes: Have you read any of the license agreements normally accompanying commercial software? The big companies generally don't guarantee a bloody thing about the software, least of all that it will work correctly. Yes, they do, and generally they will support what they sell. If they don't, it soon ceases to sell. The extensive disclaimers in licensing agreements are mainly to protect against liability, not to avoid providing support. Additionally, many vendors charge for support beyond a certain minimum. While this is not included with the original purchase, at least it is available--the same cannot be said for most open-source software. Just because you demand it doesn't mean they will even acknowledge that the bug exists, let alone fix it. They will, and they do. Most vendors know who is paying their bills. You can make demands on open source programmers too. It won't do you any good, but you can do it. And that's why open-source software is risky for important applications and large organizations. You can't make the big companies fix their software either. Yes, you can. They want your money, and they know they'll stop getting it if you are dissatisfied with support. For proof of this consider Microsoft and all the viruses targeting Outlook Express. Microsoft didn't write the viruses, and the viruses are not bugs, so I don't see the relevance of this comment. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
