Unfortunately no.
397 karma · joined March 2, 2014
No it can not. Someone can stop releasing their previously BSD licensed code under the BSD license, but all the existing copies people got under the BSD license are still governed by it. This is exactly the same as with the GPL, or any other license.
I can't see any way to parse your statement such that it matches your claim of being experienced. Either you feel sed is on the same level as awk and rc, hence mentioning it together with them (unlike say, ls or grep or any of the other commands you didn't mention) as being one of the tools you would use instead of general scripting languge X. Or you meant using them together for one specific task rather than as a general "sometimes you would use one, sometimes you would use the other". In which case you don't realize that there is no reason to ever do that since awk can already do everything sed can.
>I've not used the rc shell
That's precisely what I pointed out was a problem. "I have no knowledge of one of the things I am comparing" is not a rebuttal to "you have no knowledge of one of the things you are comparing".
>My comments apply to all of those
And all of those are listed in the same category. This makes it rather self-evident that yes, he considers rc to be significantly different. Hence my suggestion that you try it and find out how you feel about it, rather than just assuming it is the same as bash.
>Also: plan 9 is Unix-like
No it is not. Linux is "unix-like". Plan 9 is a completely different OS, designed as a spiritual successor to unix, which was seen as having been corrupted. It is no more unix-like than windows is dos-like.
>So yes, it's a new(ish) thing with a naming conflict with something already well-known.
I never said otherwise. You asked "who names something new on Unix 'rc'?". I pointed out the obvious fact that it simply isn't the case. It is not something new on unix. Being upset that an operating system has a two letter command that another operating system also has is silly.
Yes it does. The hypocrisy inherent in this line of reasoning is that the GPL exists specifically because the distinction between "user" and "developer" is a false one. The GPL seeks to protect so called "developer freedoms" for all users. But then misguided GPL advocates turn around and present the false dichotomy of user vs developer in an effort to spread FUD about BSD/MIT/ISC/etc licenses.
>But for the majority of the people, who do not work in the one company releasing the binary, the GPL is infinitely freer
No it is not. Sqlite (public domain) is totally free. I can do literally anything with it. That is maximum freedom. Postgresql (BSD) is less free, I have to follow certain restrictions in order to do certain things with it. Mysql (GPL) is even less free. I have to follow more restrictions. This is trivially simple and obvious, which is why lying about it tends to earn downvotes.
That isn't a thing. I find it hard to believe you are genuinely as confused as you appear to be. I suspect the "silent downvotes" reflect the likelihood that you are being deliberately dishonest to spread FUD, as your particular example of FUD is older than a lot of the people posting here, so it is hard to believe anyone genuinely doesn't know better at this point.
A proprietary program that is a derivative of a BSD licensed program is not a BSD licensed program. It has literally nothing to do with what the BSD license offers you. The GPL is less free than the BSD license because it imposes more restrictions on you. This is incredibly simple and obvious. Many people believe those restrictions are important and good, and you may well believe that yourself. But that doesn't make those restrictions an increase in freedom. Just as some countries prohibit speech they deem objectionable, they may well believe that is better than free speech, but it doesn't make them freer than countries with free speech. Free speech includes the right to say things I don't like, just as free software includes the right to create software licensed under licenses I don't like.
At what time in the video does that happen? I didn't have time to watch the whole thing, but it doesn't appear that what you are suggesting was even brought up much less demonstrated?
And nobody names something new on unix rc. It is the plan 9 shell.
If the two languages are combined still simpler than the one language, then it is not more complex. Note that bash is not what you would be using if following his lists. Using rc+awk is way simpler and easier than ruby for any typical unixy scripting stuff (text mangling, process wrangling, etc).
It is a bit questionable to have netbsd in there since it isn't that bad, but I would assume the rationale is "it is more complex than openbsd".
The point is that it does not give them enough freedom. Notice how "public domain" is in the less harmful category? And all the licenses in that category as more free than the GPL?
But your reasoning assumes you are. You do make these mistakes. Everyone does. And languages that prevent them are not dulling your tools, they are putting handles on them. Insisting that you need to work with a blade with no handle is foolish. Claiming that people who use blades with handles are less capable than you is just plain absurd.
How is extreme programming even remotely related to engineering discipline? It is a bunch of randomly tossed together practices with no proven value or efficacy, pitched by people who were incapable of doing the job themselves, to teach other people how to do the job. YAGNI is controversial at best, and often creates far bigger problems that what it was intended to solve. And that is when it is combined with the rest of the rituals it was intended to work with. On its own it isn't even recommended by the people who made it up.
>As to Lean, it's rooted in Lean Manufacturing
The name is anyways, but that seems to be about it. Lean manufacturing was about eliminating things that don't add value for the customer. The lean fad in software development seems to be most often applied by people who can't even tell you who their customer might be, much less what adds value for them.
>If people are using those terms to justify shipping crap, then they're doing it wrong
If processes rarely work and any failure is dismissed as "you're doing it wrong", then your processes are worthless. This is "any failure can be attributed to you not following our religion correctly" thing is one of the major things that killed XP.
Basically everything that isn't a typical gnu/linux distro or osx. Bash is not a standard tool, it is a gnu specific shell. Posix requires env to exist, and requires it to exist in /usr/bin/. If you are using bashisms, then using /usr/bin/env bash will let people without bash see that your script is a bash script, and install bash to solve the problem. If you hardcode /bin/bash they have to fix your script.
> is the lowest common denominator /usr/bin/env or is it /bin/sh
Ideally you should use /bin/sh of course. But it is missing functionality some people want to use, so in that case using bash the portable way is preferred over using bash the unportable way.
I wish. They are still here and still copy+pasting commands they don't understand. The entire linux world is still dominated by these people. The whole "howto" culture is still very much alive and kicking.
No, but they tend to think they can.
That is pretty much a given. OpenBSD considers deficiencies in documentation the same as deficiencies in the software.
>or "making our website less shitty"
OpenBSD developers have nothing to do with openssl's website.
It already is used in OpenBSD. The changes are being made in the OpenBSD source tree.
But this is at odds with your previous observation, that BSDs have low adoption. They are vastly more simple than typical linux distros, a fact that linux users complain about when trying out a BSD system.
You mean IPC? While hardware support could make it faster, it is already plenty fast. The whole "L4 only introduces 3% overhead" thing is pretty old news at this point.
>I have played a lot with L4
Then you should know that the performance myths that come from mach's slowness are not accurate.
>Any user or application can't replace a privileged system server
Multi-user systems are a vanishingly small minority at this point. I don't think "you need to be in control of your computer" is a huge show stopper.
None of the stuff you mention. Openssl is not in need of funding, or more eyes. Even the developers say more money won't fix it. Openssl is broken. It is so far gone that it is not salvageable. It needs replaced, not funded.
How so?
>they don't really bring the flexibility typically promised.
Which ones have you tried?