The saddest thing.

Apparently Microsoft did take some BSD code and include it in their networking stack.

There are some pretty liberal BSD licenses out there that allow you to largely just pilfer the code. Apple has proven you can have a commercial, closed-source OS built on BSD.

I’d love to see Windows develop a Windows API built upon a core of BSD/Unix technologies.

I read that M$ took some opensource code too … it didn’t help them much though. Vista is still a mess. :eek:

I didn’t realize MAC was built on Linux code. :confused:

XP was their best iteration. Esp. with SP2. I don’t know what they were trying to accomplish with Vista, but it didn’t work. It’s fun to fool around with for about the first week but then you grow bored with how slow it is and the lack of 3rd party (free) addons.

Whatever they do they need to unbloat (is that a word??) it before they release it.

That’s absolutely the problem IMHO. They’ve gone for geegaws at the expense of efficiency and sparkle at the expense of effectiveness; a mistake in the marketplace (I hope) which will give Linux a little lift in uptake. Every bit helps.

Darwin (operating system) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I’ll be dogged. So that is how it happened. Interesting. I remember now that Apple bought NeXtStep. You can still get it as a WM for most Linux Distros though I think it now goes under the name Aferstep or something else.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!

GI JOE!

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Seems like a lot of advances in computers have been made by climbing on the backs of others who rarely get the credit.

Does anyone even know the name of the guy Gates paid 10K for his DOS operating system?

enderandrew wrote:
> There are some pretty liberal BSD licenses out there that allow you to
> largely just pilfer the code. Apple has proven you can have a
> commercial, closed-source OS built on BSD.
>
>
You do you believe it is pilfering the code. I’d argue the case that
these BSD licenses are actually more open then GPL licenses.

69_rs_ss wrote:
> enderandrew wrote:
>> There are some pretty liberal BSD licenses out there that allow you to
>> largely just pilfer the code. Apple has proven you can have a
>> commercial, closed-source OS built on BSD.
>>
>>
> You do you believe it is pilfering the code. I’d argue the case that
> these BSD licenses are actually more open then GPL licenses.
Should read “Why do you believe it is pilfering the code?”

The purpose of the BSD license originally was to open the code, and credit the author.

Yes, the BSD is license is more open because it has fewer restrictions than the GPL. I won’t suggest that all the restrictions in GPLv3 are necessary. I do find it ironic than many GPL advocates really don’t seem to get that more restrictions don’t make something more open. They scream freedom while limiting it.

Yet the BSD license offers next to no protection for the code.

I believe a happy medium can exist, but I’m not sure that license currently exists.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:36:03 GMT
Psquared <Psquared@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:

>
>enderandrew;1841761 Wrote:
>> Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!
>>
>> GI JOE!
>
>Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Seems like a lot of advances
>in computers have been made by climbing on the backs of others who
>rarely get the credit.
>
>Does anyone even know the name of the guy Gates paid 10K for his DOS
>operating system?
>

Tim Patterson, if I’m not mistaken. Or, he might have sold it to
Seattle Computer, first – the memory is a little hazy. :slight_smile:

And, I think it was $50,000 but I’m not sure . . .


Kevin Nathan (Arizona, USA)
Linux is not a destination, it’s a journey – enjoy the trip!

Linux 2.6.25.9-0.2-pae
10:17am up 5 days 13:28, 15 users, load average: 0.39, 0.45, 0.53

Have you got a link to a relevant item in that mailing list – or to the mailing list, or some more info, a start place – I’m interested because I want to learn howto make custom boootable CDs of ver 11 etc.

There use to be a URL with a guide for creating a live CD, but its broke (I get a 403 every time I try). Here is the LiveDVD creation “how to”:
LiveDVD - openSUSE

IMHO not for the faint hearted.

Hey oldcpu – no it’s not but I have a bigger plan where Suse is a live CD for some disaster prevention software I would like to experiment with making. If I can’t hack the Suse live CD there are others already available, but I’d really like to do something with Suse if at all possible.

FYI here’my larger plans

KDE4 just is not ready, and Novell fell for it.

I think it is getting close thou.

While I installed openSUSE-11.0 KDE-3.5.9 on my test/backup PC (I don’t have the temperament for cutting edge software), yesterday I downloaded and burned this KDE org produced openSUSE-11.0 KDE-4.1 live CD (not an installer CD) and played with it:
“KDE Four Live” CD](http://home.kde.org/~binner/kde-four-live/)
I was able to setup my repos, do some network printing, play some media, etc …

I was impressed. Its still not perfect, but based on that live CD view, I believe I will install KDE-4.1 when openSUSE-11.1 comes out.

True, and that is where I would put the blame–not KDE. The KDE guys stated repeatedly that 4.0 was not for the average user.

However, I think that openSUSE has done a great job. 4.0 was pretty good for me, and never “ate my cat” or anything of the sort. 4.1 RC is out, and has the required stability and functionality for the average user, IMO.

While not discounting that there have been problems out there, I think what is overlooked is the fact that a whole lot of the time, the PEBKAC. I know it often does for me: Is madwifi working yet for openSUSE 11.0 - openSUSE Forums, Zypper and Yast offer different updates - openSUSE Forums.

I hesitated to write this, and I’m sure some will take it to be a rant/flamebait or whatever. All of the ranting on by people both on this forum and others is just starting to leave a really bad taste in my mouth. I have been using Linux for about 6 years, tried several distros, and who knows how much software. Some of it worked, some did not, and some left my mouth hanging open. Most of the time, however, things worked, and when they didn’t, often it was a result of my doing.

I would just like people to take a step back, and realize that not everything is perfect; sometimes, we create our own mess; if we would like to fix things, we need to be able to recognize that fact and constructively contribute to the environment we’re in, and not rant on endlessly…

BTW, this was not intended towards anyone in particular, including this thread. It was just something I felt I needed to say. Hopefully it will be taken in the manner in which it was written.

No need to disparage Novell. I don’t think they fell for “it” because they included 3.5.9 for those who wanted stability. I am using KDE4.1 RC1 because I was sick of looking at my girlfriend’s MAC and I was sick of Vista choking my laptop. I don’t mind a few glitches here and there and my system has NEVER crashed. It’s failed to start a few times, but never crashed.

oldcpu wrote:

> The release of openSUSE-11.1 will be sooner than the normal 9-month
> cycle. It is planned for Dec-2008 (ie within 6-months), so I think
> that does show the KDE-4 instabilities are prompting Novell/SuSE-GmbH
> to take some action. They are also a BIG kde supporter, they are
> encouraging KDE4 updates, which is another way they are taking action.
>

I think this has more to do with the SLED 11 release schedule, there were a couple of implications to that in the ML. So may be safe to assume that SLED 11 will have a highly-refined-but-version-behind KDE 4.1.

It’s kind of a drag, because it means openSUSE will miss the window for KDE 4.2, which is where the latest cool stuff is going now that 4.1 is frozen, just as they missed the window for 4.1 with 11.0. Then again, they had the skill on-hand to backport as much as possible from 4.1 into 4.0.x, so I suspect it will be the same with 11.1.

Just my 2c…

Cheers,
KV