Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenBSD 6.4 released

openbsd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#171

Post by mmt »

lmaximus1983 wrote: post #170
mmt wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'Secret' purely internal use of modified GPL software is not a violation - if the modified software is never distributed publicly, there's no issue. As the parent pointed out, purely-internal isn't what he meant. Distribution can be non-public, which is distribution nonetheless. Such distribution would require availability of source, but that availability wouldn't be public , if the original distribution wasn't pub…

The event did occur. I saw the source with my own eyes. The point that you keep on ignoring is that the OP said "companies have to contribute back". One of my points is that they don't even do it though they legally should. License arguments wasn't the point of my response. The point is that people will abuse goodwill and pretending that it doesn't happen is naive.

> The event did occur. I saw the source with my own eyes.

You didn't say so, and, even now, you're only implicitly saying there was a GPL violation. The details are important, in order to further understanding.

> The point that you keep on ignoring is that the OP said "companies have to contribute back".

I'm pretty sure I'm not ignoring it, because it didn't happen. That's likely the source of my confusion. You've certainly said so repeatedly, but I'm missing where anyone else in the conversation has said so (hence my thinking it's a strawman).

> One of my points is that they don't even do it though they legally should.

This does sound like you are, again, saying there are circumstances where contributing "back" is legally required, which is the assertion that prompted my own original response. I don't believe those circumstances ever exist. The only obligation is providing (contributing) source code forward. Only when "forward" is the public at large does that end up being, as a side effect, "back".

> The point is that people will abuse goodwill and pretending that it doesn't happen is naive.

I doubt anyone here is actually naive enough to believe it never happens, but there may be a belief that it's rare or exceptional. Without large-sample-size evidence, this can be short-circuited to the usual cynicism vs. "people are basically good" argument.

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#172

Post by [deleted] »

lmaximus1983 wrote: post #169
mmt wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again GPL doesn't magically make people contribute back, That's my understanding, as well, but that was never asserted, only "play nice", (re-)"release under the GPL", and "gets to live as long as people value it" as you were able to quote upthread. This seems like contributing forward , not back, or downstream, not upstream. The eventual effect, for publically-released software, usually ends up being an upstream c…

This is classic. I've been around the block mate. Apparently I am responding to a strawman after the OP actually replied and said my assessment of what they said was correct. This is why I dislike speaking to the FSF crowd. It is much like a religion (as far as I am concerned).

[deleted]

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#173

Post by peter_hansteen »

heywire wrote: post #24
mruts wrote: post #13

Linux is a depressing mess after you've used OpenBSD. Such a high quality system, with stellar documentation. It's unfortunate that Linux has become so popular even though the BSD's are so much better. A bad historical accident. Damn you Linus...

Is OpenBSD suitable for use on a laptop? I have a Dell Latitute 7370 running KDE Neon, and it runs really well. All hardware is supported, battery life is on-par with Windows, etc. Would OpenBSD work well on this laptop?

More likely than not, you will be up and running inside of minutes.

My most recent laptop upgrade ran like this: http://bsdly.blogspot.com/2017/07/openbsd-and-modern-laptop....

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#174

Post by JdeBP »

4ad wrote: post #152
JdeBP wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not originally it wasn't. That was a change in 10.2 . * https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/a-mini-faq-on-pkg.49694/p... * https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-announce/2...

It's the default now, and 10.2 was released over three years ago. What exactly is your point?

That your configuring your system to be on these update cycles is very probably why your system is on these update cycles. This should have been abundantly clear.

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#175

Post by lmaximus1983 »

mmt wrote: post #171
lmaximus1983 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The event did occur. I saw the source with my own eyes. The point that you keep on ignoring is that the OP said "companies have to contribute back". One of my points is that they don't even do it though they legally should. License arguments wasn't the point of my response. The point is that people will abuse goodwill and pretending that it doesn't happen is naive.

> The event did occur. I saw the source with my own eyes. You didn't say so, and, even now, you're only implicitly saying there was a GPL violation. The details are important, in order to further understanding. > The point that you keep on ignoring is that the OP said "companies have to contribute back". I'm pretty sure I'm not ignoring it, because it didn't happen. That's likely the source of my confusion. You've ce…

> This does sound like you are, again, saying there are circumstances where contributing "back" is legally required

NOPE. The context is the original posters words. We are talking about that and I am saying that contributing back doesn't happen magically because of the GPL.

I suggest you learn to keep the context of the argument in mind rather than keep focusing on being pedantic.

I am done with this conversation now.

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#176

Post by mmt »

lmaximus1983 wrote: post #175
mmt wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The event did occur. I saw the source with my own eyes. You didn't say so, and, even now, you're only implicitly saying there was a GPL violation. The details are important, in order to further understanding. > The point that you keep on ignoring is that the OP said "companies have to contribute back". I'm pretty sure I'm not ignoring it, because it didn't happen. That's likely the source of my confusion. You've ce…

> This does sound like you are, again, saying there are circumstances where contributing "back" is legally required NOPE. The context is the original posters words. We are talking about that and I am saying that contributing back doesn't happen magically because of the GPL. I suggest you learn to keep the context of the argument in mind rather than keep focusing on being pedantic. I am done with this conversation now…

> the original posters words

Since those words never mentioned contributing back, I was, understandably confused.

> I am saying that contributing back doesn't happen magically because of the GPL.

I don't see where anyone was saying otherwise, ergo you're arguing against a strawman.

> keep the context of the argument in mind rather than keep focusing on being pedantic

That only works for making a (counter-)argument, not attempting to understand the argument(s) in the first place.

In the instant case, I'm now convinced that any disagreement was based on a flawed premise, or there was no disagreement at all. My understanding of hwo the GPL functions (and is intended to function) remains unchanged.

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#177

Post by jhasse »

snvzz wrote: post #141
pjmlp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence why companies are now trying to move away from Linux on embedded, e.g. ARM mbed, RTOS, Zephyr, Fuchsia, ....

Nothing to do with the license. These systems do things that Linux just can't. Linux is no RTOS, nor does it have a pure microkernel architecture. It can't do anything where latency guarantees are needed (hard realtime) nor high assurance, nor any actual semblance of security. I suggest these posts: https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernel... https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/

Fuchsia definitely has something to do with the license. Currently Google is forced to release their changes to the kernel.

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#178

Post by snvzz »

jhasse wrote: post #177
snvzz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing to do with the license. These systems do things that Linux just can't. Linux is no RTOS, nor does it have a pure microkernel architecture. It can't do anything where latency guarantees are needed (hard realtime) nor high assurance, nor any actual semblance of security. I suggest these posts: https://microkerneldude.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/microkernel... https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/

Fuchsia definitely has something to do with the license. Currently Google is forced to release their changes to the kernel.

I really do not see a connection between both sentences.

There's far enough technical reasons to ditch Linux for a cleaner design.

Re: OpenBSD 6.4 released

#179

Post by trasz »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #165
trasz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were true, BSD-licensed projects like PostgreSQL, LLVM, Xorg, or Apache would die off long time ago, replaced by their GNU-licensed counterparts. Yet we're witnessing the exact opposite happening. Licenses don't work like you think they do. In fact, they work backwards: the decision whether to release the source or not doesn't depend on the license, it's the license - and thus the choice of existing software…

Using the GPL doesn't guarantee you that your project will take over the world. Using a BSD licence doesn't automatically doom your project. But in the case of the Linux kernel, its use of the GPL appears to be the reason for its success - it's not that it always had compelling technical advantages over BSD. This is Torvalds' idea, not mine [0] (though he doesn't speak to Linux-vs-BSD directly) > Sure, Sony doesn't g…

Then again, it didn’t help GNU Hurd, or othe GPL-licensed systems. So my guess - given a number of examples - is that it’s not the license that helped Linux.
Post reply on HN