MX Linux Forum

I have played with most of the BSDs and the Illumos distributions and finally I decided to come back to MX. With me MX is the best

Oh, we hardly knew thee, goodbye!

hunghung wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:50 am Now I prefer the permissive MIT and BSD licenses than the restrictive GPL.

The only people restricted by the GPL are those who want to hide any changes they make in the code. The MIT & BSD licences permit private companies and individuals to steal the code and never feed back their improvements to everybody else.

Anyway, have fun with GhostBSD :-)

Do not forget that the most restrictions (and spyware) are in the CPU/GPU.No OS can avoid that.

I keep my hand in with BSD, just in case Linux becomes Systemd.......enjoy your Beastie Box. :)

Head_on_a_Stick wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:58 am ...
The only people restricted by the GPL are those who want to hide any changes they make in the code. The MIT & BSD licences permit private companies and individuals to steal the code and never feed back their improvements to everybody else.
...

Oh I didn't kwow ... I have to learn more about that, and basically it is a keyword subject.

Goodbye everyone!

Best of luck to you. With BSD and otherwise.
That was a nice goodbye!

Sorry to see you go. Thanks for your contributions!

I've used BSD systems and enjoyed them. The licensing difference was interesting, but not a real factor to me. More attractive was that one group (FreeBSD) manages the whole ball of wax: kernel, system utilities and end-user packaging, so that the system just felt more unified.

But there are downsides to the BSD world. For example, the Project Trident people are in the process of moving from TrueOS (FreeBSD base) to Void Linux for reasons of better hardware support and more up-to-date packages. Surprised me because I thought they were committed BSDers.

As for licencing, that's a whole can of worms that has been hashed endlessly. I would just say it's not entirely an either/or situation. Many BSD-using organizations (NetFlix is a prime example) find it to their benefit to contribute their changes back to the FreeBSD project, not because they are required to, but because it makes a better product that supports their business.

hunghung wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:50 am ...GhostBSD is more like MX, just work out of the box ...

End of October i read an article, "GhostBSD 19.10 released".
Thought that sounds very good, and is worth a try.

My limited bandwith and nearly a 2gb iso (surprised and wondering!) to download, hmh...
but, your words motivate me to watch a free hotspot.

MX will always stay here, because I persuaded a large part of my family and friends to do it.
The support is up to me...

Bye, Hunghung. Next time you eat phô think of me. (I miss it!) Have a great journey with your new OS.

(By the way you're still welcome to come back to the MX forum just to visit.)

I have been using MX for the past year and hands down it is my favorite os. it took me quite a time to make my system stable and the way i want it to work but once i have done it i can not think of any other os which is this close and personal to my heart. Enjoy GHostBSD.
I will try to convert every one i know to MX Linux. I had Mint, Ubuntu, Sparky, Variations of Fedora, ... but MX works out of the box on my 2012 DELL laptop.

Good Luck.

From the user perspective the license doesn't make a difference, neither type of licenses restricts you in the use of the OS and its tools.

From a developer perspective there are difference in how you expect people who use your code to behave, but unless you go to a level of "I won't shake hands with people who eat animals" type of activism/principles it doesn't matter much, set the license you want for the tools you write and so be it. Warren (original developer of MEPIS from which antiX and MX sprung) actually disliked GPL and especially GPL trolls who were bugging him so he used Apache license for the installer, so the MX installer still uses that license, most of all the mx-* tools (the one I worked on) use GPL, again, as a user you'd not see the difference.

As a user, I choose things that work better, with the license that allows me to use them how I wish, I find GPL perfectly adequate for that, I don't need to release closed source programs (which I guess is the only "freedom" GPL takes away).

But to use the vegetarian or vegan analogy, eat whatever sits better with your stomach and principles, it gets a bit tiresome when people preach to other people what to eat.

Adrian wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:37 am From the user perspective the license doesn't make a difference, neither type of licenses restricts you in the use of the OS and its tools.

From a developer perspective there are difference in how you expect people who use your code to behave, but unless you go to a level of "I won't shake hands with people who eat animals" type of activism/principles it doesn't matter much, set the license you want for the tools you write and so be it. Warren (original developer of MEPIS from which antiX and MX sprung) actually disliked GPL and especially GPL trolls who were bugging him so he used Apache license for the installer, so the MX installer still uses that license, most of all the mx-* tools (the one I worked on) use GPL, again, as a user you'd not see the difference.

As a user, I choose things that work better, with the license that allows me to use them how I wish, I find GPL perfectly adequate for that, I don't need to release closed source programs (which I guess is the only "freedom" GPL takes away).

But to use the vegetarian or vegan analogy, eat whatever sits better with your stomach and principles, it gets a bit tiresome when people preach to other people what to eat.

Surely it's only dogs who can be trained to 'sit' ( I know it didn't work with the wife!).
Though apparently even in dog eating parts of the world there is a vegan alternative called 'Not Poodle' !

Adrian wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:55 am Oh, we hardly knew thee, goodbye!

I'm just a random guy

Head_on_a_Stick wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:58 am

hunghung wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:50 am Now I prefer the permissive MIT and BSD licenses than the restrictive GPL.

The only people restricted by the GPL are those who want to hide any changes they make in the code. The MIT & BSD licences permit private companies and individuals to steal the code and never feed back their improvements to everybody else.

Anyway, have fun with GhostBSD :-)

And that's the part I liked about it. Imagine I'm a small software development company, e.g: I'm selling Image Manipulation software, and I'm using a library to process raw image. Would you prefer this library to be GPL or BSD? Do you want to open source everything because it's derived work from this library? Don't said about how your competitors could benefit from this. Imagine the Redhat situation, a random guy take your code and rebranded it with another name and turn back to compete with you? Or he would provide it free. And your product cost money. What would the customer choose? Do you really want this? Don't said with me you will sell support like Redhat does, it's utterly nonsense for this kind of software.

I would donate money back to library developer and consider contributing back the part I don't think could harm my business but I will never open source my software. The money is on his hand, he could use it to buy more beers or further develop his library, it's up to him. I'm not a robber, I give money back to him, despite this money can't be comparable to the benefits I got from his work or the actually prize of the library is. If you said it's not fair, I have to donate to him not that little money but the actual prize of the library itself, well, I will tell you, I would rather buy a proprietary library provide similar functionality, most of the time the quality of the proprietary one is much higher than the free one.

You said with the perspective of the customer. I also think for the developers. My dream is someday I could open a small software development company, selling scientific and engineering software. I know my dream will never come true. But I still prefer BSD license over the GPL.

Kulmbacher wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:21 am

hunghung wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:50 am ...GhostBSD is more like MX, just work out of the box ...

End of October i read an article, "GhostBSD 19.10 released".
Thought that sounds very good, and is worth a try.

My limited bandwith and nearly a 2gb iso (surprised and wondering!) to download, hmh...
but, your words motivate me to watch a free hotspot.

MX will always stay here, because I persuaded a large part of my family and friends to do it.
The support is up to me...

There's FuryBSD too. Trident's move to Void Linux isn't a big loss for the BSD as a new one come in quickly

turtlebay777 wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:43 am

Adrian wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:37 am From the user perspective the license doesn't make a difference, neither type of licenses restricts you in the use of the OS and its tools.

From a developer perspective there are difference in how you expect people who use your code to behave, but unless you go to a level of "I won't shake hands with people who eat animals" type of activism/principles it doesn't matter much, set the license you want for the tools you write and so be it. Warren (original developer of MEPIS from which antiX and MX sprung) actually disliked GPL and especially GPL trolls who were bugging him so he used Apache license for the installer, so the MX installer still uses that license, most of all the mx-* tools (the one I worked on) use GPL, again, as a user you'd not see the difference.

As a user, I choose things that work better, with the license that allows me to use them how I wish, I find GPL perfectly adequate for that, I don't need to release closed source programs (which I guess is the only "freedom" GPL takes away).

But to use the vegetarian or vegan analogy, eat whatever sits better with your stomach and principles, it gets a bit tiresome when people preach to other people what to eat.

Surely it's only dogs who can be trained to 'sit' ( I know it didn't work with the wife!).
Though apparently even in dog eating parts of the world there is a vegan alternative called 'Not Poodle' !

So you implied I'm dog?

JayM wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:25 am Bye, Hunghung. Next time you eat phô think of me. (I miss it!) Have a great journey with your new OS.

(By the way you're still welcome to come back to the MX forum just to visit.)

It's called phở, not phô. I like it too

Good luck with it!

everyone has a different definition of a-perfect-os in mind and is free to choose what he/she thinks is the best according to his/her needs. no one's forced to use something particular.
I was a manjaro user before knowing MX ,i still like it and is a great os,but i couldn't go on with the 'bleeding edge' nature of arch anymore, just a personal preference.
I personally had a very pleasing experience with MX since ver18.3 and so i'm still a newbie. but there's something rather 'magical' about MX that prevents me to think about any other os right now and I didn't experience some difficulties which i had in other distros.

anyway, i hope you get the best experience with GhostBSD and enjoy it!

Adrian wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:37 amAs a user, I choose things that work better

As a desktop user, I would also choose like you. I have just replaced my FreeBSD 11.3 with MX19. So far I'm pleased

Lol! welcome back, although this thread is suddenly very confusing

dolphin_oracle wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:45 pm Lol! welcome back, although this thread is suddenly very confusing

Why don't just delete it? It's embarrassed

seems like you are wasint the developers precious time.

hunghung wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:41 pm I have just replaced my FreeBSD 11.3 with MX19. So far I'm pleased.

Xin chào và chào mừng. Và nếu bạn có thắc mắc hoặc vấn đề, hãy thư giãn
và xây dựng chúng bằng tiếng Việt. Con mèo.

winemaker wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:49 pm seems like you are wasint the developers precious time.

I'm sorry

hunghung wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:55 amImagine I'm a small software development company, e.g: I'm selling Image Manipulation software, and I'm using a library to process raw image. Would you prefer this library to be GPL or BSD? Do you want to open source everything because it's derived work from this library? Don't said about how your competitors could benefit from this. Imagine the Redhat situation, a random guy take your code and rebranded it with another name and turn back to compete with you? Or he would provide it free. And your product cost money. What would the customer choose? Do you really want this? Don't said with me you will sell support like Redhat does, it's utterly nonsense for this kind of software.

I am politically opposed to the capitalist system so the fact that the GPL prevents companies from milking the code for profit at the expense of it's users is most definitely a benefit for me.

hunghung wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:55 amI would donate money back to library developer and consider contributing back the part I don't think could harm my business but I will never open source my software.

The GPL exists to protect software users from people like you.

hunghung wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:55 amYou said with the perspective of the customer.

No, I am speaking from the perspective of the user

fehlix wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:55 pm

hunghung wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:41 pm I have just replaced my FreeBSD 11.3 with MX19. So far I'm pleased.

Xin chào và chào mừng. Và nếu bạn có thắc mắc hoặc vấn đề, hãy thư giãn
và xây dựng chúng bằng tiếng Việt. Con mèo.

Please either lock this thread or just delete it. I'm prefer the later, though. I'm embarrassed!

Thread locked by request.