[Golden Eagle]

No it doesn’t, BSD purposefully avoids using GPL code wherever possible, they have strong philosophical differences just as the article indicates. You still haven’t proven otherwise either, of course, your posts remind me of another Linux supporter last night who kept insisting that Linux was on more than about 1% of computers surfing the web despite evidence from multiple sources that’s about it. You guys are hilarious always trying to glorify Stallman and Linux, trying to claim there’s “lots” of GPL code in BSD when there’s not, nor do they want any at all, is just another example.

[Knitebane]

No it doesn’t, BSD purposefully avoids using GPL code wherever possible, they have strong philosophical differences just as the article indicates.

#uname -a
OpenBSD cerberus.knitebane.net 4.0 GENERIC#3 i386

#cc --version
cc (GCC) 3.3.5 (propolice) Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

BSD often uses GPL'd code. They compile all their software with a GPL'd compiler. They link to many GPL'd libraries. BSD has never been GPL-free.

Wishing it was true doesn't make it so.

[Dominick]

No it doesn’t, BSD purposefully avoids using GPL code wherever possible

Produce a document saying this from ANY BSD vendor. Anyone at all.

The rest of your post simply argues with another person, who is not me. You have not been able to prove the first assertion. You can't.

Back up what you say. BSD uses a lot of GPLed code.

[N3WBI3]

Its quite rude to talk about someone in the third person when they are in the room..

All I will say regarding the market share is in the end I said I believed between 1-3% and if you any webcounter accuratly reflects the real world at a level more granular than three percent I have a book for you to buy