Page 26 of 30 « First 162425 26 2728 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
Copernicus's Avatar
Copernicus is offline Copernicus
2011-03-03 , 19:40
Posts: 1,986 | Thanked: 7,698 times | Joined on Dec 2010 @ Dayton, Ohio
#251
Originally Posted by daperl View Post
X, su, sudo, vi, a terminal and bash (the default shell) come pre-installed and pre-configured on every Mac.

EDIT:

As does ssh, sshd, scp.
FYI, you can run X, vi, bash, ssh, and a huge pile of other stuff on Windows if you really want; the Cygwin project has put in a huge effort rebuilding all sorts of apps that normally run on Unix to instead run on Windows.

But yes, you do have to put a whole lot more work into porting an app like, say, bash from Unix to Windows than between different flavors of Unix.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Copernicus For This Useful Post:
rm42's Avatar
rm42 is offline rm42
2011-03-03 , 19:51
Posts: 963 | Thanked: 626 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Connecticut, USA
#252
And lets not forget KDE on Windows:

http://windows.kde.org/
__________________
-- Worse than not knowing is not wanting to know! --

http://temporaryland.wordpress.com/
 
zimon is offline zimon
2011-03-03 , 19:54
Posts: 1,341 | Thanked: 708 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#253
What is the file system hierarchy like in Android and iOS?
Is there for example all those directories in the main level, or how much it differs from FHS?
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
 
daperl's Avatar
daperl is offline daperl
2011-03-03 , 19:58
Posts: 2,427 | Thanked: 2,986 times | Joined on Dec 2007
#254
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
FYI, you can run X, vi, bash, ssh, and a huge pile of other stuff on Windows if you really want; the Cygwin project has put in a huge effort rebuilding all sorts of apps that normally run on Unix to instead run on Windows.

But yes, you do have to put a whole lot more work into porting an app like, say, bash from Unix to Windows than between different flavors of Unix.
I used cygwin for a long time, it was excellent. But I've been Windows-free for a few years now.
__________________
N9: Go white or go home
 

The Following User Says Thank You to daperl For This Useful Post:
Capt'n Corrupt's Avatar
Capt'n Corrupt is offline Capt'n Corrupt
2011-03-03 , 20:02
Posts: 3,524 | Thanked: 2,958 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Delta Quadrant
#255
Originally Posted by rm42 View Post
More on the future of your Windows Phone.

http://bsdly.blogspot.com/2011/02/pr...microsoft.html

While not specifically about Windows Phone, it is about how Microsoft handles email. And therefore what you can expect to have on your future Windows Phone.
That sounds like a bleeding nightmare!
 
Copernicus's Avatar
Copernicus is offline Copernicus
2011-03-03 , 20:07
Posts: 1,986 | Thanked: 7,698 times | Joined on Dec 2010 @ Dayton, Ohio
#256
Originally Posted by zimon View Post
What is the file system hierarchy like in Android and iOS?
Is there for example all those directories in the main level, or how much it differs from FHS?
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
This is the problem with Android and iOS: it doesn't matter at all what their file system hierarchy is, because as a user, you have no access to it. (At least I know this is the case with iOS; I'm fairly certain it is the same with Android, although I've never used an Android device personally.)

The interface allows you to execute apps. Period. It shows you the apps you can run, and allows you to select between them. Very simple, very elegant, very limited, very boring.
 
exo is offline exo
2011-03-03 , 22:21
Posts: 45 | Thanked: 20 times | Joined on Jul 2010
#257
Originally Posted by rm42 View Post
Because it is permissive, it allows closed source forks. It allows for embrace, extend, extinguish scenarios. That is why Microsoft would love that all open source was released under a BSD style license.
Of course, that's other people having the ability to use it however they want, hence the term 'permissive', but it all depends on your point of view. Personally I prefer a more permissive license because if people aren't interested in contributing to open source I hardly think it's reasonable to try to force them to see things my way. Same thing with why the GPLv3 hasn't been adopted for Linux, it's too restrictive, sure it protects some freedoms, but it does so by taking other freedoms away. And quite a lot of people prefer the freedoms offered by GPLv2 over the restrictions of GPLv3.

There is no one best solution, it all depends on how much you want to force others to do things your way. The good thing is that we have a range from the most permissive to the most restrictive OSS licenses to choose from.
 
JamesBond@ge is offline JamesBond@ge
2011-03-03 , 23:06
Banned | Posts: 726 | Thanked: 497 times | Joined on Aug 2010 @ Gravesend, UK
#258
Originally Posted by abill_uk View Post
Where do you get off you blithering fool, your just as bad as the brotherhood of nutcases on this forum !.

Trying to win brownie points with them are we ....sucker !!!.
I'm not here to score brownie points from anyone.

But if I had a choice of aligning with myself with forum users who have a certain degree of intelligence and can teach me a thing or two, and yourself who create posts that simply make me cringe...well it's a no brainer really.

I suspect that you have a condition along the lines of Autism or Aspergers syndrome which could go some way to explaining your wayward, incoherant rambling on here, so I'll lay off.
 
rm42's Avatar
rm42 is offline rm42
2011-03-03 , 23:15
Posts: 963 | Thanked: 626 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Connecticut, USA
#259
Originally Posted by exo View Post
Of course, that's other people having the ability to use it however they want, hence the term 'permissive', but it all depends on your point of view. Personally I prefer a more permissive license because if people aren't interested in contributing to open source I hardly think it's reasonable to try to force them to see things my way.
Have you released anything in a BSD style license? Can you point me to it, or are you just saying that because you like to prey on those that do?

Originally Posted by exo View Post
Same thing with why the GPLv3 hasn't been adopted for Linux, it's too restrictive, sure it protects some freedoms, but it does so by taking other freedoms away. And quite a lot of people prefer the freedoms offered by GPLv2 over the restrictions of GPLv3.
Bringing Linux to GPLv3 would be quite a difficult task due to the fact that there are a huge number of copyright holders. Linus does seem more inclined to stay with the GPLv2, but a lot of other Linux kernel coders do favor the GPLv3. So, it is not completely out of the question that one day Linux will be GPLv3. For the moment, GPLv2 is serving the purpose.

Originally Posted by exo View Post
There is no one best solution, it all depends on how much you want to force others to do things your way. The good thing is that we have a range from the most permissive to the most restrictive OSS licenses to choose from.
I agree. And I would never presume to force any one to copyleft their code if they don't want to. The solution is simple. Just like I can't take closed source code and turn into copyleft code, don't use copylefted code for your closed source programs. Write your own.
__________________
-- Worse than not knowing is not wanting to know! --

http://temporaryland.wordpress.com/
 
exo is offline exo
2011-03-03 , 23:54
Posts: 45 | Thanked: 20 times | Joined on Jul 2010
#260
Originally Posted by rm42 View Post
Have you released anything in a BSD style license? Can you point me to it, or are you just saying that because you like to prey on those that do?
Prey on those who do? Is that your assumption of permissive license users?

I worked as a defence contractor and licensed as much of the code under BSD license as possible so it could be used in proprietary environments and improved without them having to go through the arduous process of code review (due to security) to contribute changes back. I don't need their changes but using a BSD license for the code was mutually beneficial, it means they can use my code without obligation and i can give that code away to anyone i want who can also use it without obligation. I could have licensed it under GPL but I didn't see any reason to.

Bringing Linux to GPLv3 would be quite a difficult task due to the fact that there are a huge number of copyright holders. Linus does seem more inclined to stay with the GPLv2, but a lot of other Linux kernel coders do favor the GPLv3.
It's Linus' 'tit-for-tat' that he has always been fond of that pushed him to GPLv2 in the first place, it means he gets what he wants and doesn't have to add restrictions for other peoples' agendas, like preventing TiVoization.

The solution is simple. Just like I can't take closed source code and turn into copyleft code, don't use copylefted code for your closed source programs. Write your own.
But you can use copyleft code in closed source programs, there's nothing wrong with linking to an LGPL'd library, you just can't relicense that code.
 
Reply
Page 26 of 30 « First 162425 26 2728 Last »

Tags
bada rox, give me bada, meego rules, sir abill sir !, windowsce blows

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:54.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top