All shall fall

mpc still not forked.

You are free to think it.

I would rather use wangblows than those shit.

your life is discarted, and you know it
hahahahhha

overall you are fucking ignorant piece of shit

Tell me just one good argument about what i have said? Whats wrong about that philosophy?

opensolaris needs shitons of things done anyway

You know why RedHat is winning? Because you're a retard. You're borderline illiterate, all you do is autistically shriek proclamations of the apocalypse on imageboards, you shill unusable toy projects, and you will never lift a finger to build a viable one because you lack the IQ to do so. Fucking end yourself you worthless gypsy waste of oxygen.

There's no need to fork MPC at the moment. What would you even do after forking it?

The problem is the fact that you called openssl a small program and heartbleed was more about the unexperienced maintainer and corporate leeching. I can't do anything else with it but ignore as it's just the usual hipster bs i saw many times already.

...

If RedHat was all that good, mister smuggymug, then why is Docker STILL catching up to Illumos/Solaris Zones? Hmmm???

Shut up or hack up

Yes, they are a corporation and will do everything to make a profit. They do not care about anything else, even if it means fucking up entire way of computing, just add features to sell more shit. Enjoy your enterprise quality software, I'd rather run toy software written by gypsies than pottering, because his software is clearly not a toy. Yes, take pulseaudio for example, a marvelous piece of enterprise grade software engineering, where randomly inserting crackling for no apparent reason is a feature. It has happened to me on all computers I own (amd and intel hardware) on different distributions, including debian where stability is a main point. ALSA never had those problems. Just because someone is making money of something does not mean it is good.

Linux ecosystem is aping Solaris, but with crappier versions of what Solaris has done. Linux kernel vs Solaris kernel. Zones vs 'containers' or Docker. ZFS vs btrfs, systemdisease vs SMF, DTrace vs BPF, etc. Speaking of DTrace, how long has Solaris had full stack debugging now hint:over a decade, and GNU/Linux just got done implementing theirs relatively recently?!

Shoddy knockoffs from the bazaar or carefully crafted jewels from a meritorious cathedrals of real software engineers who don't have to deal with pajeet pooing his codebase for socjus?

Illumos could be a big player in the future if the Linux ecosystem takes a serious PR or trustworthiness hit.

GNU is Not Unix. Never has been, never will be.
I have to wonder, how do all these "muh UNIX philosophy" guys post this shit? Modern web browsers (except Links) do much more than "one thing." Same goes for media players, office suites, text editors, desktop environments and even the kernel.
The UNIX way is unsuitable for modern software development. That's not to say software should be light, functional and bug-free; just that the whole "le UNIX philosophy" doesn't hold up unless you want to spend all day looking at a terminal.

Unix philosophy is to make your user-shell behave like a programming environment. I.E. that you can build and compose simple 'function-like' objects into a larger complex 'function-like' object. So far as I can tell you can't do this in any GUI directly with point-and-click (or finger-tap) type interfaces (i.e. no composing your web browser's stdout to grep to notepad.exe).

In this way, Python could be an acceptable UNIX-like shell.

This is the inevitable result of linux growth.
It either dies a hero or becomes the new windows.
The only way for us to survive is to stay small.

...

lol enjoy your systemNSA freedom.

That's not minix or plan9. No one give a flying fuck about solaris in 2017.

Alright, I'll bite. FreeBSD's users are hipsters I'll give you that. But in terms of completeness it's a fully functional OS from the get go. and if your enough of an autist to keep the ports tree on DVD's you'll always have a functional operating system ready to adapt to the hardware you have on hand irregardless of whether or not you have an internet. connection. it runs on damn near anything from a easy bake oven to the fat folds underneath your cock, The lowest I've personally gone is a p2 233 with 256mb of ram idling at 55mb of ram. it's barebones enough to stroke gentoo ricer cocks and fancy enough to cater to your cockmongling "lol wat is rightclick" family members so you can stop getting interrupted during fap-sesions to find out that they forgot to plug in the mouse

TL:DR people who don't like BSD are the kinds of people whoms height of command line knowledge begins and ends with debians "apt-get"

FreeBSD is Linux-lite and their only value is to corporates looking for the cuck license.

...

If you don't like systemd you don't have to install it. I don't understand you.

BSD working fine for me.

Why do you argue like a jew? For any popular distro you have to install notsvchost. Even if you go through all the trouble of removing the malware you have to keep a dummy libnotsvchost.so or manually compile every package that "depends" on notsvchost.
Before you say "hurr just install LFS if you don't like it durr" go eat a dick.

would give new meaning to starting daemons.

You are a fucking idiot.

t. Oracle

Thanks NSAtan.

Please stop advertising FreeBSD. The more weeaboo horseshit lusers using FreeBSD, the worse. There is nothing wrong with gatekeeping to prevent Red Hat snoops and more glow-in-the-dark agency backdoors.

Also, in a way, in creating a comprehensive suite of simple utility programs you produce a 'language' which can have 'sentences' expressed for various environments. A given environment where your 'language' can't express a given 'sentence' for is a corner-case or bug which may necessitate adding another or modifying a 'term' in your 'language'. I'm almost sure this functionality could be replicated some-way in GUI form with flat and/or solid shapes, connectors, and other graphical icons.

GNU is Not UNIX is a cute name with which to say "Hey I ape this thing here but I'm totally not it!" with. Though lately some developers are taking it way too literally. Because of this and AGILE, code quality in GNU-land is suffering from morbidly obese code bases with architecture as an afterthought. IMO one major failing in AGILE is the lack of code ownership, and in cases of AGILE where there is some module ownership there is still a lack of a "core architecture team" which sets and regulates interfaces between the modules and preventing the various module owners from needlessly disrupting interfaces and thus all other module owners who have dependency on the module whose interface changes. There should be either a BDFL or BOFL benevolent oligarchs for life

Gommunists. They never think of cashflows, only teh feelz.

He is a jew loving jew, that's why.

Ah, yes, the times when simplicity was considered more important than program correctness. The times when your debugger segfaulted and overwrote core. The times when you had to memorize a textbook's worth of different command line argument parsers because there was no standard argument parser in UNIX. The times when the UNIX kernel exploded if UFS had a small error, instead of correcting it/returning an error because it was the "simplest" thing to do. Well, at least the Suns booted fast, amirite guise?!
I'm not saying simplicity is not important, but the UNIX philosophy of 'worse is better' is fucking trash and people writing programs with that mindset should drink bleach.

That's your problem right there.

Simplicity and correctness do go hand-in-hand. It is easier to verify the correctness of something simple vs the correctness of something complex.

Modern software is all fucked-up, that's why there's so many bugs and security problems. But you don't have to go "Unix" to write solid code. Terry Davis also keeps his stuff in check, and he doesn't like Unix at all ("they're all busy fighting the last war", "Linux wants to be a 1970's mainframe", etc.)

So what? I'd almost say good riddance. He already wrote plenty rants to divide the open-source community into "us and them". Also fuck the GPL licenses, if I really care about Freedom I will choose a license that respects other developers' freedoms as well... their freedom to use my code however the fuck they want. I have no obligation to protect users who use a derivative version of my software.
Would this matter? The rot is outside the kernel anyway, and I doubt that this will change when Linus dies.
Agreed. But do you notice how your uncucked GPL didn't stop it? There's a lesson for you in that.
So you call FreeBSD a meme but HURD somehow isn't? I have more faith and hope in ReactOS than in HURD. And keep your eyes peeled, it won't surprise me if HURD OS will have systemd in it by default.

So what? I'd almost say good riddance. He already wrote plenty rants to divide the open-source community into "us and them". Also fuck the GPL licenses, if I really care about Freedom I will choose a license that respects other developers' freedoms as well... their freedom to use my code however the fuck they want. I have no obligation to protect users who use a derivative version of my software.
Would this matter? The rot is outside the kernel anyway, and I doubt that this will change when Linus dies.
Agreed. But do you notice how your uncucked GPL didn't stop it? There's a lesson for you in that.
So you call FreeBSD a meme but HURD somehow isn't? I have more faith and hope in ReactOS than in HURD. And keep your eyes peeled, it won't surprise me if HURD OS will have systemd in it by default.

It's simpler than that. In the 90's, BSDi and FreeBSD were hella fast on x86 servers. Linux eventually caught up, but BSD was the king those days. People just kept using whatever they were familiar with and/or liked.

underrated comment

It's funny because the only reason we're talking about an "open source community" is thanks to Richard Stallman in the first place.

You've got it wrong. The open source community exists because they wanted to divide themselves from Richard Stallman's free software community. They don't want to promote user freedom.

The GPL licence's purpose is to protect software users from people who would fork free software into proprietary software.

There is no Hurd OS. There is only GNU OS and the Hurd is one part of GNU.

irc fags are posting again

Fuck off LARPer.

It's the GNU muh free pedantry that allowed seven years of critical computing history to pass before a working operating system was even created, by which time proprietary shitware had already cornered the market. Everything you're complaining about now you brought upon yourself with your own autistic neckbeardedness.

Kill yourself.

Gommies who call BSD a "cuck license" think like Bill Gates does about software: that it's the end-all be-all item of value and is ultimately "the product."

No it's not the software which is the item of value, but the ability and skill to convert a problem with boundary conditions into algorithms, then secure and efficient executable code. In the real world, it's not the code itself one produces which is of value, but the mind and skill behind it. A good programmer is both a good problem solver and good orator/linguist.

BSD is not a cuck license, it is a portfolio which opens opportunities elsewhere.

i think you mean systemd-doom

No, the GPL (and copyleft) exists because software is a tool, which is supposed to do what you, the user (developer/end user/whatever), wants. It makes sure users of the program will have the ability to do whatever the fuck they want (the 4 freedoms), like you would expect from any tool, like a saw or a hammer.
BSD licenses are for cucks because you consent to some faggot coming along and using your code in a proprietary project, which proprietary software has innumerable drawbacks (project is abandoned, can't continue it, can't audit, can't improve, can't port, can't fix shit, etc.) and 0 benefits.

Ask yourself, what's the point of proprietary software? What's so bad about including the source with the binaries? What's the point if not to restrict and limit users?
There is literally nothing positive to be gained from withholding the source (aside from maybe saving a few cents in bandwidth and disk space). Prove me wrong.
If code isn't of value, you wouldn't happen to have a problem with releasing it, would you? :^)
Yes it is. You could use almost any free copyleft license and everyone could see and use your 'code portfolio' just fine.

Why would they have to borrow BSD code to write a kernel for their operating system that was allegedly complete except for this missing piece?

Most people (and companies) will say that proprietary software prevents piracy, which is total bullshit.
The benefit* of proprietary software is that it cannot be studied and/or reimplemented by competitors. So Adobe can rest assured that the GIMP won't port Photoshop's latest features, Microsoft doesn't have to worry about other office suites attaining 100 % .docx compatibility, Apple can keep it's software locked into their OS and both Sony and Microsoft know that it will take years to get their console APIs/ABIs working on a regular PC for emulation purposes.
Proprietary software is about less competition and forcing users to use your products.

They didn't. But while GNU was being developed, BSD was stagnant thanks to patent trolls and copyright shenanigans.

Really makes you think.

Duh, that's because the human capital going into Adobe suite is not free. Human capital going into MS Office is not free. Please, go compare the two pairs of projects and tell me which is the hobby one and which has highly paid autists. Not all proprietary code is decent (see Oracle). Don't kid yourself though that Linux is secure-able from highly sophisticated adversaries. There are more eyes looking for bugs to sell than looking for bugs so they can get kudos for their bugtracker report count. As stated elsewhere, Linus' position on security is shit but hey: shit philosophy and shit architecture is the price of free amirite? :DDD

GPL IS THE GOMMIE PUBLIC LICENSE

Adobe say CS6 master collection vs All available FOSS offerings
Solaris (and now Illumos) vs Linux
MS Office vs LibreOffice
etc etc.

...

You'd likely have to cut a bunch of code you couldn't maintain. No one person can maintain the whole thing now.

no shit sherlock

You may need medical help.

wut

Agreed
That further supports my point; there's nothing positive in being forced to shell out hundreds of dollars on a platform if I want to play a game that was deliberately made exclusive.
So, basically vendor lock-in, which is actually a hindrance. Thanks for illustrating my point.

copyright was never good to begin with. It's a jew scheme pitched to the British parliament by the Stationers' Company as a last ditch effort to keep their veto rights on printing and publishing. It becomes even evident when you take into account the fact that printers purchased authors' manuscripts along with the rights for miserly compensation (otherwise they would generally refuse to publish them at all). Worst of all, copyright is supposed to encourage creativity and benefit society, which, to tell the truth is the opposite from what's it's doing.
Furthermore, it's not a "good" enforcement per se; there's shouldn't be a need to enforce user's freedom through a license. I'd much rather everyone abstained from using and/or producing non-free software at all.

Charging for copies of non-rivalrous, non-excludable goods is a retarded business model.
Not like the same could be said about Wangblows.

I'm not arguing that. But UNIX weenies tend to sacrifice correctness for a simpler program, which is the problem.

FSF's board is already part-way infiltrated by SJWs. GNU requires copyright assignment and FSF can change the license. RMS is the only brake on that train. I'm giving you a heads-up on a "that will never happen" scenario a few years before it happens. How will the end be worded, "to promote more freedom, there are now use restrictions in the GPL for fascists"?

I thought this was only recommended, so that the FSF could use their legal resources to help you out.
sage for probably being incorrect

Many of their core projects require assignment. It's how they changed the license to GPL3 of several key pieces of software.

Also, all your "or any later version" GPLed software (which is most GPLed software) could fall victim to a GPL4 that states, "to promote equality, women and minorities are exempt from these restrictions".

Or even a scheme where you pay the FSF to use GPL4ed software without restrictions, which is more likely with SJWs at the helm.

It may or may not be possible for them to add that to the GPLv4 in theory, but it would actually be illegal for them to do that to software they've received copyright assignment for.
When you assign copyright to the FSF it goes both ways. The FSF gets the copyright, but you get the promise that they'll keep it free. Specificially, one part of the contract is this:
>The Foundation promises that all distribution of the Work, or of any work "based on the Work," that takes place under the control of the Foundation or its assignees, shall be on terms that explicitly and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms. These terms shall not restrict which members of the public copies may be distributed to. These terms shall not require a member of the public to pay any royalty to the Foundation or to anyone else for any permitted use of the work they apply to, or to communicate with the Foundation or its agents in any way either when redistribution is performed or on any other occasion.
(emphasis mine)
dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html
The FSF knows what it's doing.

We have to stop it before it becomes self-aware.

What was wrong with SysVinit again?

Breddy depressing timeline OP. I hope you're not a prophet tbh.

GTFO Poettering.

This.

Nothing, though runit is even better,