Posted on 09/29/2006 8:45:47 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
When Bill Clinton made his speech to the Labour Party conference, he bamboozled a few by finishing with the word "Ubuntu".
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.guardian.co.uk ...
I'm not spinning or lying, that's your lone area of expertise not mine. The BSD's that are given away for free aren't being used for supercomputers or being sold by China and other communists without a dime back to the U.S. Until free BSD's are running foreign supercomputers, or being sold by foreign governments without a dime back to the U.S., you obviously have no issue. Not that you actually care, anyway, since you support the foreign use of Linux supercomputers using US hyperthreading technology given to them for free.
I'm not spinning or lying, that's your lone area of expertise not mine. The BSD's that are given away for free aren't being used for supercomputers or being sold by China and other communists without a dime back to the U.S. Until free BSD's are running foreign supercomputers, or being sold by foreign governments without a dime back to the U.S., you obviously have no issue. Not that you actually care, anyway, since you support the foreign use of Linux supercomputers using US hyperthreading technology given to them for free.
Your endless attacks on me are the obvious proof, and your endless assertions that you don't care if foreign products are better doesn't justify them. I want American products to retain their superiority, I do not want US technology given away to the rest of the world for free, and unless you have a problem with either one of those things then what is your supposed problem?
You're quintessentially accusing not only me, but everyone on this thread of cyber-treason. So where's the evidence? Where did I or anyone say that using American products is bothersome?
Where is that unadulterated post? Where's that so-called smoking gun?
In the words of FD: put up or shut up. Seriously. We're getting tired of your bloating these threads with crud and scaring away people who might want tech help.
Your post will be completely ignored by the troll, unless it thinks it can take a phrase here and there and spin it into something else completely off the wall. I really wish Jim would just permanently ban the disruptor altogether. It learns nothing whatsoever from its periodic forced vacations.
So your issue is not (1) The license itself because BSD is far more permissive than Linux, or (2) Technical Abilities because BSD can do anything Linux can do. Your issue is how other people use the software. I'm not saying this to pick a fight I'm just trying to get at the root of why its ok for BSD to give away UNIX technology (which is far closer to true UNIX than Linux is) to anyone with no restriction but its not ok for Linux to do it with restrictions.
Only in your ignorance. So, tell me again how Ubuntu has Russian influences?
And I'd still love to hear your take on those abusive proprietary licenses.
IMHO, there's an irrational fear of Linux...
Though what about Solaris--isn't that closer to straight Unix than Linux?
No it can't, free versions of BSD don't have IBM adding in multiprocessing capability, so foreign governments don't use BSD for their supercomputers, they use Linux, even though BSD has been around longer. Upgrades to Linux by IBM and other US companies, which are given away for free, and are then used to power supercomputers for countries like Iran is the issue. Don't act concerned because we know you are not, you've only argued in favor of those transfers for at least a year now, and your obvious red herring of BSD has nothing to do with it.
A half-truth.
4.4BSD can't. However, the newest BSD derivatives (FreeBSD, Darwin, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Darwin/Mac OS X) have support, if only somewhat experimental in nature.
Keep in mind that there's a reason why the BSDs (incl. Mac OS X Server) are on the rise when it comes to the OS of choice for servers...
This is almost too easy. Two of the most popular BSD ("US Unix") variants are OpenBSD and NetBSD. Theo de Raadt, a South African, was a founding member of NetBSD and is the founder of OpenBSD. MicroBSD is from Bulgaria, and PicoBSD is from Poland.
There's your foreigners "making free copies of US Unix code." Game, set, match, slam-dunk, home run, töööööör! This is fun.
LOL so Apple OSX came from South Africa, or at least that's the kind of nonsense we keep hearing here. While you obviously couldn't wait for your next chance to glorify foreign software, obviously they aren't capable of actually developing any worthwhile O/S on their own, and are forced to build knock offs of our already existing and superior products. Why you boys then prefer these foreign knockoffs to the American originals is what you refuse to ever address. Don't worry, we don't have to guess.
Nobody here said that. You are again trying to distract from the fact that I soundly proved you absolutely wrong. Wait, I actually proved N3WBI3 right, as by your own criteria he does have a "leg to stand on."
Why you boys then prefer these foreign knockoffs to the American originals is what you refuse to ever address.
An OS being foreign has nothing to do with our decision making. And how are you fitting Linux into this, "foreign clone" or "American product others steal"?
It appears that when a superior and/or less expensive foreign product is available, you'd rather have me use an inferior American one in my American business, therefore making my American business less competitive.
I just proved you don't know what you're talking about, and that you'll go to any unethical measure in order avoid admitting it.
Trying to claim the "B" in "BSD" somehow means "South Africa" proved your ignorance, not mine. You have a lot to learn, but you might start with geography.
Looks like you need a geography lesson too.
From the article: "In this paper we discuss the design and implementation of Fellowship, a 300+ CPU, general use computing cluster based on FreeBSD."
So BSD does have multiprocessing ability. With this in mind I say again:
So your issue is not (1) The license itself because BSD is far more permissive than Linux, or (2) Technical Abilities because BSD can do anything Linux can do. Your issue is how other people use the software. I'm not saying this to pick a fight I'm just trying to get at the root of why its ok for BSD to give away UNIX technology (which is far closer to true UNIX than Linux is) to anyone with no restriction but its not ok for Linux to do it with restrictions.
"...the guy you mentioned was only a team member..."
So is Mark Shuttleworth. All he does is fund Ubuntu.
"...and doesn't even appear to be Russian LMAO."
Neither is Mark Shuttleworth.
However, you thought the Russia connection was worth mentioning when talking about Ubuntu, but not UNIX. Why is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.