yes they love it because they don't have to contribute back, that's the reason why Linux won, the only way for Linux to lose is for companies to contribute to BSD's despite the cuck license not requiring them to
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
you got it backwards, as usual gpl cucks don't understand how it really works
> GPL > companies throw big money to GPL project > The project become dependent to those companies and they become the de facto owners > other people fork the project > they now have to publish modification upstream -> working for free for big corps
> BSD > companies fund the project > other people can still fork it and not working for free
Big companies beneft more from GPL cucked project than from BSD
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
BSD is a corpo's wet dream, it lets them copy and paste shit, make it proprietary, fill it with malware and make tens of millions EASY. Just look at Edge and Opera.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
This logo is actually an open circle, the open box is a very common depiction. I cannot use my PC for longer than an hour without witnessing an open box depiction symbol. The theory is, god is drawing the pictures. And, he's doing it to confuse us. Obviously some of us are getting assfricking raped by this Black person.
Anyways, it's worth noticing how many depictions you'll find of open corners.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
There's even a banner ad on IQfy right now of a box with an open corner. It is extremely common. If you're reading this I suggest you go look on the internet for a box with an open corner. They are extremely common. There is also typically an additional message, he pairs them like keys. But, they don't actually tell us anything that helps us. They're meant to torture you with denial of pleasure I guess.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
There's even a banner ad on IQfy right now of a box with an open corner. It is extremely common. If you're reading this I suggest you go look on the internet for a box with an open corner. They are extremely common. There is also typically an additional message, he pairs them like keys. But, they don't actually tell us anything that helps us. They're meant to torture you with denial of pleasure I guess.
Looks like the meds are kicking in
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>god: I'll make the logo
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
GPL is better for corpos because they can become owner of the project
they can't do that in BSD licenced code, everyone can fork and compete with their own code
case study: Linux kernel
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Everyone can fork a GPL project too, moron. You just can't make it proprietary (why would you even want to, are you a subhuman?)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you can but you can't redistribute your code without sharing them with the stakeholders of the project, which in case of big GPL project are the founders (hence big corporation)
in the BSD case instead, the owners are the original developers who made the project available **for free** for anyone.
big corporation can fund and contribute, but **you** can compete with them by forking the project and modifying it, without having to share back **your** contribution back to corporation holding the project
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
*funders not founders
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>you can but you can't redistribute your code without sharing them
That is GOOD. Everything else is stealing public property
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>it allows you from making modification and making the project closed source
And that is a bad thing
True but you are also free to fork and make changes that break all compatibility 🙂
That is not good at all. It might be good in the past, when there were a lot of players with less skewed power distribution, and the industry was moved by hacker-centric culture
If a company fork a BSD project and make a proprietary sw either > its contribution is small and that means (You) can make the same thing > its contribution is substantial, and that implies that the company can ethically benefit from its **own** work
Again, the idea that a company can take a huge BSD project and make it proprietary and benefit from this move is utterly asinine. If that project actually substain a core part of the company business they are more than motivated to have the original project up to date and improved
What happens is that in the case of GPL, it's not really different from making the project stake-based. The end result is that whoever has more money becomes a de facto proprietary of the original project and the latter become dependent of the company's money
The even more problematic dynamic in sw case, is that now **everyone** making modifications now have to push back their own contribution upstream making them available to corporations in head of the monopoly
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>either >> its contribution is small and that means (You) can make the same thing >> its contribution is substantial, and that implies that the company can ethically benefit from its **own** work
What if a company forks the linux kernel but adds a new scheduling algorithm that nobody else knows that is much more efficient and useful? You forget these types >minor contribution LoC wise but with a lot of R&D and new algorithms
Remember how arithmetic compression was closed source for 20 YEARS until now and that held the entire industry back
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Non free software is never ethical.
Thanks for showing your true colours.
[...]
Non free software couldn't exist if it didn't require the spook of Intellectual Property and the threat of legal recourse against anyone willing to free it.
That's a bad thing.
I activate my trap card.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You may perceive GPL is actually a "fair" model because you see big companies contributing both monetary and with code to """"free"""" sw, while in reality it's because the project is actually **their** project or they are the entity which benefit the most from the project
> What if a company forks the linux kernel but adds a new scheduling algorithm that nobody else knows that is much more efficient and useful? You forget these types
What about that? Do you think a company has the men-power to maintain a 100-men-year effort equivalent project by themselves, in all the kernel aspects (fs, crypto, sec, networking, drivers, etc..) ?
If you can do that, it means **you** making those contributions can actually compete with more powerful companies. In the GPL case instead you have to give them your added value for free and they can crash your competition with money and infrastructure
If instead they made the contribution, why should they give them for free?
Non free software is never ethical.
Thanks for showing your true colours.
[...]
[...]
You are not a very powerful golem.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You don't understand basic economics.
If you were selling lemonade with ingredients listed then I could (if I wanted to) sell the same product for less next door and nothing could stop me.
That's why you can't name one for-profit BSD product.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
> You don't understand basic economics.
You are the one who doesn't understand economics
Maintaining big sw is extemely costly and formation is also a big cost. Both are actually cut thanks to GPL and the monopoly it induce
> If you were selling lemonade with ingredients listed then I could (if I wanted to) sell the same product for less next door and nothing could stop me.
That won't stop **anyone** from doing the same thing and that's what prevent (at least in part) monopoly formation
Think about the same thing, but from a less moronic perspective > Anon A make very nice lemonade recipe and make it public with GPL > Unilever take the recipe and make it their lemonade they can distribute thanks to their monopoly position > you take the same recipe, you improve it and you want to make your product > you are now forced to share your new improved recipe to Anon A > Unilever take your improved recipe from the original owner and improve their product and distribute it worldwide > you can't compete with them even if you are the one who improve it
That's exactly what happens with big GPL projects
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
> B-b-but big corpos also improve the original project
No shit, they make millions from working on it. You instead make nothing and every contribution you make to the original GPL code actually make them earning more money
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Who said anything about improving the project?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
no sw can seriously survive without maintainence and/or improvements
You can still use/study the original, free, BSD project
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
True but you are also free to fork and make changes that break all compatibility 🙂
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Open source software is a vector for malware so this argument is pointless
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Few and far between, not comparable to a black box that is 1000% guaranteed to be filled to the brim with fed spyware.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's not how the GPL works!
You don't have to "publish modifications upstream". You have to keep derivative works GPL.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
you have to push modification upstream if you want to distribute your fork
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You have to include source with binary which is GPL compliance
Anyone upstream who wants to maintain alignment with your fork has to do the work themselves.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Sure thing pal. Tell that to apple and sony
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Proprietary software is unjust and should not exist. Therefore requiring people to open up their proprietary code is always good and moral, not requiring it, is a cuck move. Always
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
BSD is not a license for proprietary SW
it allows you from making modification and making the project closed source but it does not affect the original project from which you can take the code and doing whatever you want
the net result of GPL license is to promote oligopolies/monopolies which rich big corporation can benefit from
> monopoly of the SW > no formation costs > free contributions > free R&D from academia and personal works
the idea that corporation still make money from directly selling a piece of SW is extremely childish. they make money from infrastructure and monopoly positions
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>it allows you from making modification and making the project closed source
And that is a bad thing
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
requiring anything is a cuck move thougheverbeit
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I activate my trap card.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I activate my trap card.
Non free software couldn't exist if it didn't require the spook of Intellectual Property and the threat of legal recourse against anyone willing to free it.
That's a bad thing.
Ah yes the quality linux code made from a bunch of patched together shit from random people forced to contribute back and devs too lazy to rewrite the shitty code but desperate enough to accept it as is so little Timmy can play Roblox and listen to cocomelon in their AirPods
Yes Chromium and Firefox is shipped with hardware acceleration working in openbsd no screen tearing is hardware dependant I guess I don't own Nvidia but its working with intel and some AMD cards
I like OpenBSD because it's clean as frick. The source code is clean, the userland is clean, it really satisfies my OCD. I could give a frick how "secure" it is. Unfortunately I need to use an OS that is more normie friendly in my daily life.
yes they love it because they don't have to contribute back, that's the reason why Linux won, the only way for Linux to lose is for companies to contribute to BSD's despite the cuck license not requiring them to
you got it backwards, as usual gpl cucks don't understand how it really works
> GPL > companies throw big money to GPL project > The project become dependent to those companies and they become the de facto owners > other people fork the project > they now have to publish modification upstream -> working for free for big corps
> BSD > companies fund the project > other people can still fork it and not working for free
Big companies beneft more from GPL cucked project than from BSD
btfod
this is why linux is enslaved to linux foundation big corpo members
i feel that bsd will become more popular as linux becomes worse from companies and morons thinking that in order to make it easier for normals to use, you have to dumb it down and make it more confusing. also wojaks edits are the lowest form of humor
corporate Linux distros got problematic for me about five years ago, and I didn't want to build and maintain yet another piece of shit, so I ported a bunch of stuff to freebsd and literally haven't had to think about it sense.
I'm lacking nothing. I'm not having to spend all my time reviewing documentation constantly to see what system design change that doesn't affect 80% of users just broke half my services, and I don't feel like I'm regressing into some horror show that was designed to be managed by corporate committee and can't be maintained by a lone sysadmin.
I can barely program for Linux these days, but I picked up the BSDs again after 20 years like I was home again. I didn't think I'd live to see Linux become a meme.
I have given NetBSD and OpenBSD a chance on my own hardware several times. I honestly see it working great in the server space but when I am using it on my personal hardware just trying to do normal desktop stuff with limited time it doesn't pan out for me. I am on board for using something better than GNU/Linux.
Openbsd has even less eyes on it than linux.
We've learned that linux is an unsafe os, case in point xz bug.
Openbsd is similar. Every os is unsafe. It's over, fossbros. Take the mac/windows pill.
A big enough company could take any successful BSD product (though none come to mind), change nothing but the name, and sell it for less and bankrupt their competitors through brute force.
Or charge the same amount and split the profits.
>A big enough company could take any successful BSD product (though none come to mind), change nothing but the name, and sell it for less and bankrupt their competitors through brute force.
That's actually what GPL allows. with BSD you can compete with code, even if you are not a powerful company like Google, Oracle and such
i like openbsd because the source code is small and easy to understand, so if there's an issue or hardware incompatibility or something else i want to change, i can just do that
also the manpages are really well written and their userspace utilities aren't filled with a bunch of useless garbage like gnu utils. overall openbsd is a worse experience than plan 9, but it's better than linux in pretty much every imaginable way. only real flaw with obsd is it's terrible for laptops. simplicity nets you absolutely terrible battery life.
Maybe but instead of OpenBSD I'd like to see NetBSD to see commercial use.It would be very suited for embedded systems since it is quite good when it comes to ports.
idk
No, it has no advantage over Linux other than the cuck license.
the cuck license is what makes it at disadvantage
For the developer yes, but companies love the cuck license.
As a dev one might think being able to steal strike IMPORT other peoples code line for line would be a boon.
yes they love it because they don't have to contribute back, that's the reason why Linux won, the only way for Linux to lose is for companies to contribute to BSD's despite the cuck license not requiring them to
you got it backwards, as usual gpl cucks don't understand how it really works
> GPL
> companies throw big money to GPL project
> The project become dependent to those companies and they become the de facto owners
> other people fork the project
> they now have to publish modification upstream -> working for free for big corps
> BSD
> companies fund the project
> other people can still fork it and not working for free
Big companies beneft more from GPL cucked project than from BSD
BSD is a corpo's wet dream, it lets them copy and paste shit, make it proprietary, fill it with malware and make tens of millions EASY. Just look at Edge and Opera.
This logo is actually an open circle, the open box is a very common depiction. I cannot use my PC for longer than an hour without witnessing an open box depiction symbol. The theory is, god is drawing the pictures. And, he's doing it to confuse us. Obviously some of us are getting assfricking raped by this Black person.
Anyways, it's worth noticing how many depictions you'll find of open corners.
There's even a banner ad on IQfy right now of a box with an open corner. It is extremely common. If you're reading this I suggest you go look on the internet for a box with an open corner. They are extremely common. There is also typically an additional message, he pairs them like keys. But, they don't actually tell us anything that helps us. They're meant to torture you with denial of pleasure I guess.
Looks like the meds are kicking in
>god: I'll make the logo
GPL is better for corpos because they can become owner of the project
they can't do that in BSD licenced code, everyone can fork and compete with their own code
case study: Linux kernel
Everyone can fork a GPL project too, moron. You just can't make it proprietary (why would you even want to, are you a subhuman?)
you can but you can't redistribute your code without sharing them with the stakeholders of the project, which in case of big GPL project are the founders (hence big corporation)
in the BSD case instead, the owners are the original developers who made the project available **for free** for anyone.
big corporation can fund and contribute, but **you** can compete with them by forking the project and modifying it, without having to share back **your** contribution back to corporation holding the project
*funders not founders
>you can but you can't redistribute your code without sharing them
That is GOOD. Everything else is stealing public property
That is not good at all. It might be good in the past, when there were a lot of players with less skewed power distribution, and the industry was moved by hacker-centric culture
If a company fork a BSD project and make a proprietary sw either
> its contribution is small and that means (You) can make the same thing
> its contribution is substantial, and that implies that the company can ethically benefit from its **own** work
Again, the idea that a company can take a huge BSD project and make it proprietary and benefit from this move is utterly asinine. If that project actually substain a core part of the company business they are more than motivated to have the original project up to date and improved
What happens is that in the case of GPL, it's not really different from making the project stake-based. The end result is that whoever has more money becomes a de facto proprietary of the original project and the latter become dependent of the company's money
The even more problematic dynamic in sw case, is that now **everyone** making modifications now have to push back their own contribution upstream making them available to corporations in head of the monopoly
>either
>> its contribution is small and that means (You) can make the same thing
>> its contribution is substantial, and that implies that the company can ethically benefit from its **own** work
What if a company forks the linux kernel but adds a new scheduling algorithm that nobody else knows that is much more efficient and useful? You forget these types
>minor contribution LoC wise but with a lot of R&D and new algorithms
Remember how arithmetic compression was closed source for 20 YEARS until now and that held the entire industry back
Non free software is never ethical.
Thanks for showing your true colours.
You may perceive GPL is actually a "fair" model because you see big companies contributing both monetary and with code to """"free"""" sw, while in reality it's because the project is actually **their** project or they are the entity which benefit the most from the project
> What if a company forks the linux kernel but adds a new scheduling algorithm that nobody else knows that is much more efficient and useful? You forget these types
What about that? Do you think a company has the men-power to maintain a 100-men-year effort equivalent project by themselves, in all the kernel aspects (fs, crypto, sec, networking, drivers, etc..) ?
If you can do that, it means **you** making those contributions can actually compete with more powerful companies. In the GPL case instead you have to give them your added value for free and they can crash your competition with money and infrastructure
If instead they made the contribution, why should they give them for free?
You are not a very powerful golem.
You don't understand basic economics.
If you were selling lemonade with ingredients listed then I could (if I wanted to) sell the same product for less next door and nothing could stop me.
That's why you can't name one for-profit BSD product.
> You don't understand basic economics.
You are the one who doesn't understand economics
Maintaining big sw is extemely costly and formation is also a big cost. Both are actually cut thanks to GPL and the monopoly it induce
> If you were selling lemonade with ingredients listed then I could (if I wanted to) sell the same product for less next door and nothing could stop me.
That won't stop **anyone** from doing the same thing and that's what prevent (at least in part) monopoly formation
Think about the same thing, but from a less moronic perspective
> Anon A make very nice lemonade recipe and make it public with GPL
> Unilever take the recipe and make it their lemonade they can distribute thanks to their monopoly position
> you take the same recipe, you improve it and you want to make your product
> you are now forced to share your new improved recipe to Anon A
> Unilever take your improved recipe from the original owner and improve their product and distribute it worldwide
> you can't compete with them even if you are the one who improve it
That's exactly what happens with big GPL projects
> B-b-but big corpos also improve the original project
No shit, they make millions from working on it. You instead make nothing and every contribution you make to the original GPL code actually make them earning more money
Who said anything about improving the project?
no sw can seriously survive without maintainence and/or improvements
You can still use/study the original, free, BSD project
True but you are also free to fork and make changes that break all compatibility 🙂
Open source software is a vector for malware so this argument is pointless
Few and far between, not comparable to a black box that is 1000% guaranteed to be filled to the brim with fed spyware.
That's not how the GPL works!
You don't have to "publish modifications upstream". You have to keep derivative works GPL.
you have to push modification upstream if you want to distribute your fork
You have to include source with binary which is GPL compliance
Anyone upstream who wants to maintain alignment with your fork has to do the work themselves.
Sure thing pal. Tell that to apple and sony
Proprietary software is unjust and should not exist. Therefore requiring people to open up their proprietary code is always good and moral, not requiring it, is a cuck move. Always
BSD is not a license for proprietary SW
it allows you from making modification and making the project closed source but it does not affect the original project from which you can take the code and doing whatever you want
the net result of GPL license is to promote oligopolies/monopolies which rich big corporation can benefit from
> monopoly of the SW
> no formation costs
> free contributions
> free R&D from academia and personal works
the idea that corporation still make money from directly selling a piece of SW is extremely childish. they make money from infrastructure and monopoly positions
>it allows you from making modification and making the project closed source
And that is a bad thing
requiring anything is a cuck move thougheverbeit
I activate my trap card.
Non free software couldn't exist if it didn't require the spook of Intellectual Property and the threat of legal recourse against anyone willing to free it.
That's a bad thing.
>cuck license
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
They would have to attract a lot of developers and up their marketing game by A LOT.
Does it even support CUDA?
cuck license
Ah yes the quality linux code made from a bunch of patched together shit from random people forced to contribute back and devs too lazy to rewrite the shitty code but desperate enough to accept it as is so little Timmy can play Roblox and listen to cocomelon in their AirPods
does it run a web browser with hadrware accel and no screen tearing?
Most Linux distros can't manage that
Yes Chromium and Firefox is shipped with hardware acceleration working in openbsd no screen tearing is hardware dependant I guess I don't own Nvidia but its working with intel and some AMD cards
no
OpenBSD doesnt have quite many software that are often sought after by Linux users
It does have all the bare minimum required for using a computer but not some more niche use Linux apps
wasted
redpilled
kys woajck spammer
I like OpenBSD because it's clean as frick. The source code is clean, the userland is clean, it really satisfies my OCD. I could give a frick how "secure" it is. Unfortunately I need to use an OS that is more normie friendly in my daily life.
alpine linux is the next best choice
btfod
this is why linux is enslaved to linux foundation big corpo members
i feel that bsd will become more popular as linux becomes worse from companies and morons thinking that in order to make it easier for normals to use, you have to dumb it down and make it more confusing. also wojaks edits are the lowest form of humor
corporate Linux distros got problematic for me about five years ago, and I didn't want to build and maintain yet another piece of shit, so I ported a bunch of stuff to freebsd and literally haven't had to think about it sense.
I'm lacking nothing. I'm not having to spend all my time reviewing documentation constantly to see what system design change that doesn't affect 80% of users just broke half my services, and I don't feel like I'm regressing into some horror show that was designed to be managed by corporate committee and can't be maintained by a lone sysadmin.
I can barely program for Linux these days, but I picked up the BSDs again after 20 years like I was home again. I didn't think I'd live to see Linux become a meme.
The kernel itself is corporate. That's the problem with nu-Linux.
Not on Desktop, but even on server I think micro-kernel is superior, so Redox will maybe bigger
well it is (no one uses it too)
no, and this is why
%3D%3D
I have given NetBSD and OpenBSD a chance on my own hardware several times. I honestly see it working great in the server space but when I am using it on my personal hardware just trying to do normal desktop stuff with limited time it doesn't pan out for me. I am on board for using something better than GNU/Linux.
no the best it can do for popularity is having a firewall solution like opnsense run on openbsd
Openbsd has even less eyes on it than linux.
We've learned that linux is an unsafe os, case in point xz bug.
Openbsd is similar. Every os is unsafe. It's over, fossbros. Take the mac/windows pill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EternalBlue
Linux will forever be more popular than any BSD-derivative because Linux is 2 syllables and BSD is 3
Explain the popularity of macOS then
It's 2 syllables as well
>2 syllables
>"mac oh ess"
How do you pronounce it?
whateverbsd is used a lot already, if you mean as your home pc's operating system then never don't be moronic
>and
Apple put BSD on the desktop making the rest irrelevant except for experiments and hobby coding.
A big enough company could take any successful BSD product (though none come to mind), change nothing but the name, and sell it for less and bankrupt their competitors through brute force.
Or charge the same amount and split the profits.
>A big enough company could take any successful BSD product (though none come to mind), change nothing but the name, and sell it for less and bankrupt their competitors through brute force.
That's actually what GPL allows. with BSD you can compete with code, even if you are not a powerful company like Google, Oracle and such
i like openbsd because the source code is small and easy to understand, so if there's an issue or hardware incompatibility or something else i want to change, i can just do that
also the manpages are really well written and their userspace utilities aren't filled with a bunch of useless garbage like gnu utils. overall openbsd is a worse experience than plan 9, but it's better than linux in pretty much every imaginable way. only real flaw with obsd is it's terrible for laptops. simplicity nets you absolutely terrible battery life.
what laptop? i get great battery life on my t480 but i only run twm
>great battery life
how many hours? I get 6 if I'm lucky on a t14 amd with dwm
good question, im afraid i dont know.
im used to potato battery life from an x200 with a shitty battery. ill have to test full to dead sometime.
Maybe but instead of OpenBSD I'd like to see NetBSD to see commercial use.It would be very suited for embedded systems since it is quite good when it comes to ports.
The problem is that netBSD has the "worse" documentation of the other BSDs
If there were an equivalent of the "Design and implementation of the FreeBSD operating system" or any of the Lucas books I would use net.
That is true. NetBSD's documentation is written in such a way that it causes your brain to malfunction at some point.