251–256 of 256 posts
SmartOS will be on ARM within 12 months. Calling it.
It's pretty much welded to x86 and it's entire design is server-only. It'd be much, much harder to port than just using Android.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would you prefer Windows? I would prefer sgi IRIX 6.5, but that's dead. In the absence of IRIX, illumos and SmartOS are the next best thing, so that is my next preference. > Because that's where the world was heading in the 90s. > History happened, and what it shows is that Linux arose at a time when EVERYONE thought that Windows was going to steal Unix's throne. Not everyone. I went through the entire '90's using…
> Not everyone. BSD wouldn't have been free software without Stallman (he convinced them to release their changes under a free software license publicly). Same with OpenSolaris (the idea of free software wouldn't have existed). So, GNU was central to us not being in a world dominated by proprietary software. But GNU was never going to be ready (Hurd will never be finished), so Linux offered us the opportunity to live…
Maybe you would be living in a much worse world, if your entire world up to that point in time consisted of Microsoft(R) Windows(R) and an intel based PC tin pail.
I was fine with using a binary only version of Solaris, IRIX, and HP-UX; so long as I could get those gratis, along with compilers and software RAID, that was fine by me, as I had no interest in building my own OS at that point in time (unlike now). I also grew up on Commodore computers, where, when one bought a computer, it would come with detailed schematics, and the hardware was documented in detail[1][2].
I can only offer you empathy for the world you grew up in, but that does not give you the right, nor are you correct in assuming, that everyone else lacked the same freedoms you lacked: not everybody grew up in the United States which has fascist copyright laws. The country where I grew up did not have any copyright laws, and if it weren't for that, it would still be in the dark ages of Informatics and computer science, and I would not have ever become a computer professional. Other countries, for example Sweden and Spain, still have lax copyright laws, and thank goodness for that. The point is, don't make the error of assuming that the entire world was mis-fortunate and lacked freedom in this sense.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Hardware-Reference-Manual-technical-r...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Amiga-Memory-Kernel-Reference-Manual/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not everyone. BSD wouldn't have been free software without Stallman (he convinced them to release their changes under a free software license publicly). Same with OpenSolaris (the idea of free software wouldn't have existed). So, GNU was central to us not being in a world dominated by proprietary software. But GNU was never going to be ready (Hurd will never be finished), so Linux offered us the opportunity to live…
> Yes, the kernel Linux has _many_ problems. But without it, we would be living in a much worse world than even the most broken of Linux interfaces and semantics. But GNU/Linux definitely was a saviour for Unix. Maybe you would be living in a much worse world, if your entire world up to that point in time consisted of Microsoft(R) Windows(R) and an intel based PC tin pail . I was fine with using a binary only version…
That's not the point at all. You didn't have any software freedom -- how did you modify your software? It's great that you could distribute it in your country, but you didn't have the means to practically modify software.
Also, gratis isn't the point. I don't care if I have to pay for GNU/Linux or any other software, I just care about whether or not I get software freedom as a result.
> not everybody grew up in the United States which has fascist copyright laws
I didn't grow up in the US.
> don't make the error of assuming that the entire world was mis-fortunate and lacked freedom in this sense.
You lacked the practical freedom to modify software (okay, so you didn't have copyright but if you don't have the source then you can't pracically modify your software without spending far too much time reverse-engineering it). I hate to break it to you, but you did lack freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They have some amazing engineers (especially at HQ in Korea), but the main obstacles are partly Korean culture in general (especially as it pertains to engineers) and partly the management practices of the company. Can you explain the cultural aspects (and management shortcomings) in more detail for those of us who haven't experienced Korea? Thanks.
Haven't experienced a Korean workforce first hand, but as a Korean I can probably provide some insight into the culture. In general, the culture is very hierarchical (respecting elders) thus seniority and age play a big factor in leadership. I would assume that this makes it very easy for mediocre (but good enough to survive) management to stay in positions far too long. Asian culture, but Koreans especially, can be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, the kernel Linux has _many_ problems. But without it, we would be living in a much worse world than even the most broken of Linux interfaces and semantics. But GNU/Linux definitely was a saviour for Unix. Maybe you would be living in a much worse world, if your entire world up to that point in time consisted of Microsoft(R) Windows(R) and an intel based PC tin pail . I was fine with using a binary only version…
> I was fine with using a binary only version of Solaris, IRIX, and HP-UX; so long as I could get those gratis, That's not the point at all. You didn't have any software freedom -- how did you modify your software? It's great that you could distribute it in your country, but you didn't have the means to practically modify software. Also, gratis isn't the point. I don't care if I have to pay for GNU/Linux or any other…
In a program called a debugger, which back then was known as a monitor. You pressed a button, and the monitor was started from a cartridge, or you loaded a monitor, and then you loaded the machine code. And then you stepped through that disassembled code, and then you inserted a breakpoint in a strategic place. And when the program would stop execution, you'd consider the state of the program, and then you'd make the desired modifications, either by changing the existing processor instructions, or by adding your own code and hooking it in. Worked for an entire generation of crackers, I don't see what the big deal is.
So in that sense, there was no closed source, as nobody can really hide machine code, and believe you me, people have tried, and then some! But to a cracker, to a really good coder, every piece of code is open source, because there is nowhere to hide.
A much bigger deal was if you were not capable of this, because it meant you were a lamer and didn't make the cut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code and modifies it? No damage is done to the original. This is more about the fact that when they take it it's worse for the project than a proprietary fork. When BSD/MIT/(other permissively licensed code) is used, modified, and re-licensed to GPL, the permissive project can't take those improvements without also re-licensing. The CDDL indeed save…
> >What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code and modifies it? No damage is done to the original. > This is more about the fact that when they take it it's worse for the project than a proprietary fork. ... Who is it worse for? First of all, that almost never happens. But for users, there's no difference (if anything it's an improvement because they now have better protection of their fr…
"Nope—the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out.
Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back." — Theo de Raadt, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt
The GPL actively reduces freedom.