Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.et.byu.edu!news.byu.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 16 Dec 1995 06:44:51 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <4atpt3$cqi@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a14v5$1lq@dyson.iquest.net> <4a2kme$32d@josie.abo.fi <4agsg2$bqc@uriah.heep.sax.de> <4ai8rk$maf@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> <4aj6tv$g98@park.uvsc.edu> <4amduo$rnd@news.siemens.at> <4ao7hn$rf8@park.uvsc.edu> <4apvl8$pgs@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30442 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10532
I have subtitled the four sections into which you've divided
this discussion. If you want to reply to multple statements,
please do so... as seperate postings.
bl03@uwrf.edu (BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM) wrote:
[[ ... ON PARTIAL INFORMATION AND THE TAKING OF RISKS: AN
EXERCISE IN WHY RISK ASSESSMENT IS NECESSARY ... ]]
] : If you don't have the information, you *can't* make a good
] : decision! This is exaclty the point of difference between a
] : good and a bad consumer! The bad consumer makes the decision
] : anyway.
]
] In some cases you have to start with Partial information when
] you get something. If you are looking for a Firewall..Heck
] there are LOT of sales fokes and lots of people telling you
] what you should get, but until you bring it back to your
] system and play with it. It might either be TOO strictive
] (like you need more then 20 filters) or it might be overly
] complex.
If you make a decision with "Partial information" you take a
risk. It is your choice whether you want to take this risk
or not, but forcing you to live with the consequences of your
actions is pretty much the basis of all social policy: Religion
(you go to hell), Government (you get fined, go to jail, or are
killed), Clubs (you can get kicked out), School (you can be
suspended or expelled), etc.
I have no sympathy for someone who makes a decision based
on "Partial information" that later results in negative
consequences.
You've suggested "bring it back to your system and play with it";
this is part of the process for increasing the completeness of
the information on which you base your decision.
] Depends on the takeover..If it was a stock takeover..You can't
] do anything about it.=) Since he would have 51% of the stock.
Oh well. It's a finite risk. And you're assuming I'm going
to go into a software investement that I can't back out of
without insisting on some guarantees. Like source escrow (a
typical arrangement for most large customers).
[[ ... ON THE MERITS OF OBEYING INTERFACE STANDARDS AND THE
DAMAGE THIS AUTOMATICALLY DOES TO INIGO'S "HITLER THE
CAPITALIST" SCENARIO ... ]]
] : ] AND dont tell me i'm a bad costumer because i use Oracle!!!
] :
] : Naw. You're a bad customer because you depend on your SQL
] : server being oracle instead of just depending on it being
] : an SQL server (which as a commodity item can be obtained from
] : other than Oracle). BTW: here I am assuming Oracle isn't
] : publically held and you stupidly didn't write SQL engine
] : independent query software, which means you have two marks
] : against you being a good customer.
]
] In most cause in order to gain the speed (like a company I'm
] doing work for) you might have to go and optimize your access
] for that SQL server.
If you use proprietary SQL extensions, you might as well use a
private API and quit pretending that what you have is an "SQL
client", since it isn't if it won't interoperate with other SQL
servers.
The point of SQL is to abstract the server and clients so that
products from different vendors can interoperate.
] : It's in my own self interest to continue to be a member of the
] : organism "all programmers". How is it in my best interest to
] : be a memebr of "Ingo Molnar's divine pecking order"?
]
] Umm...Excuse me...You are going off into what seems like a
] worthless debate.=) What does this have to do with life (or
] the price of tea in China?) Your argument has no purpose but
] to confuse the hell out of people.=)
The point is that Ingo is attempting to convince people that
the GPL is in everyones best interest, and that the BSD license
is not. He has yet to prove anything other than the fact that
in his ideal world, That's The Way Things Would Be.
[[ ... ON BAPTIST MINISTERS SHOUTING ABOUT THE EVILS OF ATHIESM
IN FRONT OF CATHOLIC CHURCHES, WHEN ALL THE ATHIESTS LIVE
ACROSS TOWN ... ]]
] : Why not "share" your opinion with the poor clueless minions
] : subserviating themselves to the evil Microsoft empire then? 8-).
]
] I think he tried and fails.=)
I think you removed his signature (supposedly) preventing
distribution of his post by the Microsoft Network. What is the
point of telling us this? We already believe in free software.
He should expend his efforts where he can gain results, which
is to say with the users of non-free software that are supposedly
paying to poerpetuate a social injustice.
[[ ... ON THE HARSH ECONOMIC REALITIES OF SOCIALISM, AND WHO
REALLY OPPOSES IT, AND WHY ... ]]
] As what has been said before...I personally feel that GPL has
] it's place. GPL has done a lot of good (look at perl..umm..=).
] As a Computer Science major non-programmer (Yes, I can program..
] But do I care to? Not normally.=) I've seen different groups
] take too much advantage of secret software (even API), and I've
] seen others attempt to use GPL and not return their changes
] (Umm..NeXT? <grin>) back for everyone. And I think there has
] to be a balance. If full API is given out instead of source
] I think that is fine, or if source is given out. But without
] either one of the two it's hard to improve something...
I've generally seen support for GPL from people who benefit from
it and opposition to GPL from those who would suffer under it.
Which is what you'd expect the split between the factions to be.
As a professional Software Engineer, I need companies to have
a research budget so that they can pay me to be a Software
Engineer.
You aren't a Software Engineer; you admit that you don't normally
care to program. So of *course* you will pick the option that
benefits you and freezes me out. You think you don't need
companies to have research budgets, and I think you're wrong.
I'm a bit more generous: I will tolerate GPL for things where
the net effect is to "raise the bar". Typically, I prefer to
raise the bar across the board: put all competitors on an equal
footing. GPL raises the bar by example, but has less immediate
impact on the "competition", since they can't simply "pull in"
the new baseline, they have to go and reinvent it. The BSD
license says "here's the bar, and here's how to clear it".
Many companies don't make the distinction, since in order to
be able to respond as quickly as their competitors to the bar
being raised, they'd have to get up off their laurels. This
is slightly more expensive in the short term than milking an
existing market until it dies of old age.
GPL suggests that everyone should become contract programmers
or product support people if they want to be paid for doing
programming. Software itself shouldn't be sold above and
beyond a reproduction fee. The economics of such a situation
dictate that the company that charges the least will get the
money. The company with the smallest R&D budget.
This is all because short term gains will outweigh long term
gains in the decision making process. Typical management
practice is to review employess on an annual basis. Typical
Harvard Business School practice is to review management on
a biannual basis. Typical Wall Street practice is to review
companies on a quarterly basis.
You now know what is called the "Fiscal Horizon" for the three
groups.
If Ingo truly wants to change things, he's got to realize that
he's trying to stuff the pellets "back in" to the wrong end
of the rabbit. The pellets don't come from this end.
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.