Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD



Daveman750 <dsimcha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Could you have possibly picked more of a flamebait topic and Subject
header, Dave? (Oh well. I like FreeBSD very much, by the way. To
answer your question about whether OS X proves BSD's a "viable desktop
platform": No, but PC-BSD and FreeSBIE do.)

> Simple: Being able to see the source code is only an important
> personal, as opposed to collective, freedom, for the small minority of
> people who are actually programmers. On the other hand, compiling
> source code is annoyingly slow and relatively difficult when it cones
> to things such as build environments.

This begs the question of why you feel you would be _obliged_ to
compile binaries locally (as opposed to choosing to do so).

Frankly, realistically speaking, you're talking proprietary-software
companies' OS wishlists. About which they care, but many of the rest of
us really don't.

And, by the way, not that I personally care, but running binaries from
one distribution on another is just a matter of satisfying their
dependencies, so your original claim isn't true, either.

Also, a few minutes' contemplation will reveal benefits from open source
(or, for that matter, proprietary licensing with source code access)
irrespective of whether you personal can program.

> Elaborating on the whole binary compatibility thing....

No thanks.

> Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I can't imagine why
> else they would package things separately for each of these distros.

OK, you're wrong.

Each distro necessarily maintains a minor, periodic fork in order to
comply with distro-specific build policies, etc. Which in no way
prevents running each others' binaries, if you actually care.

(/me has gone through the exercise of running Oracle RDBMS on
non-certified distributions, which is an edge case, recommended only for
the curious, and yet feasible.)

--
Cheers,
Rick Moen "vi is my shepherd; I shall not font."
rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Psalm 0.1 beta
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: [Full-Disclosure] THCIISSLame exploit
    ... The whole idea was binaries vs source code. ... problem with people releasing exploits. ... Yes, but you are able to compile the exploit code yourself, are you not? ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • [Full-Disclosure] viruses being sent to list
    ... First Amendment defines free speech. ... Therefore binaries do not belong to full disclosure. ... Source code postings are exempt from litigation because of the ... 3., Filters only deal with binaries, not source code. ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • RE: Possible gpl problem?
    ... distribution at all can acquire the source code. ... discriminate on the basis of who is trying to enforce the agreement. ... If I say "any third party may hire my services for $200/hr", ... the binaries knows how to obtain the source code. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Possible gpl problem?
    ... are selling GPL licensed software. ... licensed software are entitled to a copy of the source of the binaries ... have to give source to those who receive binaries. ... If you ever distribute binaries _without_ source code, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: RedHat CEO says home users shouldnt use Linux
    ... > actually did go and read both the GPL and the GPL FAQ ... > binaries created from GPL'ed source are owned by the creator of those ... If you just use existing GPL source code and compile it, ... If, however, you use some GPL code, add some of your own code, compile it, ...
    (linux.redhat)