Why Linux is better then Windows and Mac OS X from my experience

I want to say Linux reigns supreme over Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Mac OS 10.9 and FreeBSD. I had Debian in high school Linux +. RHEL in 2004, OpenSUSE in 12^th grade. Then I was introduced to Knoppix in 2005 Linux+. Ubuntu in 2007, Fedora in 2008 Linux+, Cent OS from 2012. FreeBSD in 2012. In the beginning with Windows XP, I dual booted Debian with Windows. Windows blue screen of death crashed and then I used the NTFS-3g driver to get stuff off Windows in Linux until 2010. I stored my MP3s on a “MP3” partition I used with Partition Magic and later G-Parted so I wouldn’t lose that partition. In 2013, I changed the mp3 partition from a NTFS file system to EXT4 file system. I kept my mp3s and photos on DVDR so I could retrieve all of them after my operating system crashed or my hard drive was fried.tu Beginning in 2014, I realized that an old Ubuntu OS can survive six years with some kernel updates and that I wouldn’t lose my mp3s on the EXT4 partition, because my computer was just like a old Apache web server! The Only other OS that lasted from 2015 since Mac OS X 10.9 where the hard drive says I used for 2 months total uptime and 500 starts. My Linux I used from 2014 says the hard drive was used for 1 year 10 uptime and 4442 startups. In the linux, the sometimes file manager crashed, but not the OS. Windows XP, Windows Vista Windows 7, Windows 8.1 would freeze up completely after 18 hours. I used stream ripper to stream Shoutcast onto the hard drive in Windows where after 18 hours, Windows XP or Windows Vista would have a frozen screen. I don’t get viruses in Linux. I don’t get Trojans in Linux. I remember getting viruses or Trojans on Windows and having to reformat the hard drive, reinstall apps, and mp3 files totaling 6 hours. Windows sometimes installs viruses with Windows updates. Windows 10 does timentry while linux doesn't. I had virtual machines in 2012, but sometimes the save state of the images failed and the operating system on that image cold booted. I still wanted windows to play Windows PC games so I kept it updated to Windows 10. Windows 10 has Windows explorer crash. Windows 8.1 always seemed to freeze from PC Games and Youtube videos! Windows 10 isn't that stable. There's a reason why hospitals are using Windows 7 and Windows XP. When you repair Windows 10, the Windows Update takes 12 hours during the re-install. This software for my Linux called PlayonLinux installs a lot PC games from the 2000s. My 8-core Intel Mac with Mac OS 10.9 became a photography, retro videogame emulator and mp3 storage. I wanted a iphone since 2015, because then I have imessage, and 5 years of OS updates. I got an ipad, because I thought it was going to be a Nintendo 3DS like with mobile games. I played Poker, Solitaire, Super Mario Run, Mario Kart Tour and Pokemon Go on the ipad so far. PC-BSD 10 worked great, had OS stability, but the files were obsolete within months and no updates. Android phones slows down or have performance problems after 2 years. I had experience with FreeBSD 8.2 to FreeBSD 12.1. Then PC-BSD only had months before the upload respiratory with the current latest software version was broken with my operating system. Linux updates its repositories for 4 years, then you can update Firefox and libreoffice manually for additional 3 years. PC-BSD wouldn’t dual boot with Windows unless it had Unix File System and not ZFS file system. My guess is FreeBSD beats Windows, because Playstation 4 beats Xbox One in sales. Linux is free because 1000s of people submit code every year, Microsoft uses it to run Microsoft Azure. It's free because the Linux Organization is backed by big corporations like Microsoft, IBM,Intel, Google, Samsung, Vmware, there is freedom with what you want to do with the OS. Linux users had a grudge against how exe files where downloaded, because their terminal works 100% of the time. A single command will update everything you have installed to the latest features. You can update whenever you want or never. It has live kernel updates that only require a reboot, but reboot when you want to. Linux can run on supercomputers to a toaster. You can install Linux on updated laptops or the Raspberry Pi. On a catastrophic event, Linux will probably keep running. The drivers are open source too in Linux so they will be supported long after the manufacture discontinues support. Because there is 1000s of eyes on the code, vervalance is better. KDE and Gnome have desktop themes that can make the desktop more Windows-like or Mac-like since KDE 3.5 in the mid- 2000s. If you like the terminal a lot, you can use X-Windows, the most basic desktop environment. Since all the GNU programs are in the same folders, distribution hopping can be done. If you want to be most secure, you can run Tails Linux off a USB and use Tor browser. I don't check my email constantly, because the ROI is better then immediate response. The video editing in KDENLIVE and photo editing in GIMP is better then Photoshop and Power Director. The hours doing stuff is cutdown. If I move a lot of files, I'll use Crusader in Linux. Windows works 1 way. Mac OS works 1 way. You just accept their limitations.

You Can Now Run Linux on Sony's PlayStation 4 (4.55)

f you ever dreamed of running a Linux-based operating system on your Sony PlayStation 4 gaming console with firmware 4.55, it looks like it's now finally possible thanks to the hard work of a few skilled developers.

Developer Valentin Breiz recently updated his PS4 Linux Loader, a simple payload tool designed with a single goal in mind, to let you run Linux on your Sony PlayStation 4 gaming console, to support some PlayStation 4 models running firmware 4.55.

This is possible thanks to IDC's kernel exploit for firmware 4.05, which has now been updated for firmware 4.55 too. However, for now it looks like running Linux on PlayStation 4 only works with some PS4 models having a FAT filesystem.

The compatible PlayStation 4 models are CUH-1102A, CUH-1115A, and CUH-1116A with a FAT file system and firmware 4.05 or 4.55, but support for models CUH-1216, CUH-1216A, CUH-1216B, and CUH-1208B is in the works too.

Here's how to run Linux on your PlayStation 4

If you have one of the PlayStation 4 "FAT" models mentioned above running firmware 4.55 or 4.05, you can try to run a GNU/Linux distro by downloading the bzImage and initramfs.cpio.gz files from here and put them on a USB flash drive formatted as FAT32.

Put the USB stick containing the bzImage and initramfs.cpio.gz files in any of PlayStation 4's USB ports and then point the built-in web browser to http://darbness.com/ps4 to send the payload using netcat, or use Valentin Breiz's PS4 Payload Sender tool.

More details can be found on GitHub, where the developer notes the fact that he's currently working on porting the MN864729 transmitter in Linux to add video output support for newer PlayStation 4 models.

We can't confirm you'll have a full-featured GNU/Linux experience on your PlayStation 4, but you can try it yourself. Let us know if it actually worked for you, but keep in mind that, for now, it doesn't look like you'll be able to install a Linux distro on your PlayStation 4.

Installed PC-BSD 10.0

I have stable Radeon R9 270x drivers for the PC-BSD 10.0.  Some RC releases had Radeon drivers, but some RC releases didn’t.  PC-BSD 10.0 had  RC1 – RC7 before RTM release.
New features for PC-BSD 10:

• PC-BSD is now 25-30% faster.
•  PC-BSD 10 dual boots with GRUB 2.0 so it can boot with latest Linux or Windows 8.1.
•  ZFS version has been updated.
•  MATE 1.6.1,
• Cinnamon Desktop Environment,
• KDE 4.10.5,
•  XFCE 4.10
• LXDE.
• Works in Virtual Box and VMware Player fine.  Installed in 20 minutes!

General Public License vs. BSD License

Gpl newspeak, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html all code contributors to FSF are obliged to sign over their copyright to RMS. Imagine the implication if Richard Stallman could have all copyright of everything assigned to him personally. He would then be able to target Christians and Israel by discouraging manufacturers from providing them with hardware that of necessity will use such copyrighted code. It is a false premise that some fair dispenser of GPL justice by a Robocop walks around enforcing the terms of the GPL on an equality basis: GPL enforcement is arbitrary by the copyright holder, and such license does not apply to the copyright holder such as FSF.

The Linux (GPL) copyright holders employed by Google, IBM and Redhat allows these employers to dictate the behavior of those that don't employ the majority of them such as Nvidia and the hacker brewing the next Facebook in his garage. By employing the Linux copyright holders Google was able to create the Android operating system and not release back the code modifications because the GPL restriction only applies to the licensees and not the copyright masters, whom Google effectively control by their monthly pay check. Therefore the Linux code base can only be implemented in such a way as dictated by the Linux copyright employers, such as Redhat litigating against a hacker for incorporating the Linux "mount"(GPL2) command in order to destroy his business, yet allow another party to use "mount" in closed source projects after paying Redhat lots of money because the GPL restriction in MySQL, Mount etc. does not apply to Oracle and Redhat the copyright holders. GPL allows Oracle , Google and Redhat to use highly motivated slave labor who are confusing their access to the source with Equality source like *implementation* of the source. Having merely access to the source code is like somebody who thinks that having access to Solar energy patents is the same as implementing the ideas.

There is no company listed on an exchange that could possibly be a commercial viability if they were to publish all their ideas. Of necessity a start-up or hacker will incorporate GPL code to facilitate his products or business without publishing everything. GPL allows copyright holders such as Google and Redhat to practice selective communism. Communism is the centralization of ideas and the regulation of their implementation. Socialism is the centralization of the means of production. The distinction between these two concepts is fuzzy today because we are in the information age, it differs from its more dichotomous meaning during the times of Lenin and Stalin. Today with advances in robotics anything can be produced decentralized, this is being prevented with copyright emulating the effect of [[patents] and outright patents of course. Centralizing ideas in the hands of copyright holders such as Redhat, Google and IBM enables them to use indirection and prevent decentralized manufacturing.

Using Microsoft as a lightning rod for hacker discontent, Eben Moglen and RMS have deceived coders to sterilize vast swaths of algorithmic abstractions such as mount, ping, tracert, ncurses into copyright holders , which in turn are employed by Google, IBM, Redhat, Oracle etc. allowing them to prevent the implementation of unsanctioned code by competitors to these monopolies using Churches thesis. Prof.Moglen is on the same level as a trade unionist socialist wanting "job creation" - http://lwn.net/Articles/434318/ . There are over 67 software licenses and thousands of "job creators" , fabricating different incantations of copyright restrictions on the populace - the legal profession creating jobs for themselves. BSD Equality source limits the scope for money making litigation by the legal profession.

GPL imposes restrictions on what you can and can't do with code, in such a way that the restriction only applies to the non-copyright holders and not for example Oracle, the copyright holder of MySql. This enables Google, IBM, Redhat to 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' any would be competitor by either incorporating him as their indentured servant working for a monthly salary for them or ruining him financially with bogus copyright lawsuits.

    By employing the coders who locked up algorithmic abstractions in the Linux GPL code base, as influenced by Linus Torvalds, RMS and Eric Raymond, Google, IBM, Redhat are emulating the effect of a software patent because they have gained effective control of the algorithms using indirection.

Redhat's employment of the Linux copyright holders allows them to litigate against any company or garage hacker making money out of Linux by forcing them to reveal all their code , while not imposing such litigated restriction on those who pay them lots of money to them or become their indentured servant.
GPL and BSD Edit

    http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html#GPL-ADVANTAGES
    http://slashdot.org/story/99/06/23/1313224/FeatureGPL-vs-BSD
    http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/open-source/gpl-bsd-and-suckerism/
    http://www.freebsdnews.net/2008/07/18/bsd-license-vs-gpl-license/
    http://slashdot.org/~Chemisor/journal/143017
    http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/07/08/1832255/Linguistic-Problems-of-GPL-Advocacy
    http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=506636+517178+/usr/local/www/db/text/1999/freebsd-hackers/19991003.freebsd-hackers
    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5935 Explains how BSD allows ideas to remain free.
    http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/open-source/gpl-bsd-and-suckerism/ Arguments as why BSD must be used and not GPL

GPL adovates have missed one of the key points that makes the BSD license do so much good for the world. The BSD license, by allowing people to use its code in commerical products, promotes commercial products following open standards.

The classic example is TCP/IP. There are a lot of commercial products out there using the Berkeley TCP/IP stack, and one of the big reasons for that is that it's cheaper than developing their own protocol stack or even buying one. The value we see from this is the network effect; that a device communicates using the Berkeley TCP/IP stack rather than Novell's IPX stack or Microsoft's networking stack benefits all of us, because we can much more easily communicate with it (even, perhaps, in ways that the author did not intend). Open standards are even more important to freedom for computer users than open source. (Having source code and patents documenting an idea is nice, but it's not much good if it doesn't permit you to inter operate with other platforms out there or implement the idea itself. Linux is popular because it talks to other computers.) Therefore, I'd say that the Berkeley license has done more than any other license to bring us to the state today where we have a lot of freedom in our computing choices. Freedom means the freedom not to share an idea based on derivative ideas. A company is free to tweak the TCP/IP protocol in a commercial product without having to release the derived code, with GPL they would be forced to release any derivation.

The VLC project copyright holders relicensed their GPL code as LGPL, in order to allow the widespread adoption of VLC by companies who are not going to release their code as GPL or BSD etc. But because the copyright was not vested in a single or few authors but in *everybody* who contributed code, each of them had to be contacted and had to give permission. In the http://www.fsf.org incessant cult-like repetition of 'free software' they don't point out to programmers to be careful as to who will eventually own the copyright. This is deliberate because once to many programmers have copyright under say GPL3 or GPL then just one or a few copyright holders could prevent the majority from relicensing to something more sensible such as BSD or LGPL.

There is not a single idea held by anyone that isn't somehow a derivative of another idea by somebody else. GPL advocates expect to be recognized for 'their' ideas, ideas which are most probably somebody else's who didn't seek recognition. GPL doesn't allow a user the freedom to do with the code whatever he wishes, but like copyright and patents restricts its usage. A restriction isn't freedom, restricting the implementation of ideas leads to Unintended_consequences, such as the inability to commercialize an idea.

If the TCP/IP was released under GPL it would have prevented Microsoft from adopting it. Forcing Microsoft to use their proprietary protocol by forbidding them to use TCP/IP out of spitefulness could have established the Microsoft networking stack as a de-facto standard like their Office suite is a standard, with catastrophic consequences for society as a whole. Many GPL advocates are over-estimating their own importance and the importance of the code they contribute. They have an undue desire for recognition on trivialities - Parkinson's Law of Triviality, also known as bikeshedding or the bicycle shed example. GPL is a restriction placed on the licensee by the copyright holder, with such restriction not applying to the licensor. Freedom means that a person has the right not to share his derived ideas, with GPL thousands of developers are forced to share their ideas with the copyright holder like http://www.fsf.org , who in turn get corrupted by "corporate sponsors" to only enforce the GPL restriction against the competitors of powerful companies who have carved up the economy between themselves. Linux Torvalds for example recently received a "reward" by fronting organization for these corporate sponsors , a bribe for somebody who presents himself as a messianic figure handing out his autograph, to encourage Torvalds to do as they please(this needs citations, Torvalds prevents Stallman from forcing GPL3 on the Linux kernel because GPL suites corporations who employ the Linux kernel developers, thus buying themselves immunity from GPL enforcement, while corrupting the FSF to engage in arbitrary GPL enforcement against their competitors.)

GPL license is like the restriction on derived ideas we have with HackPatents, patents documents the idea, but doesn't allow its implementation without permission.
Open source or Equality source ? Edit

"Open source" and RMS "free software" are not public domain. http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/1999062802310NWSM Nowhere does Raymond make the distinction between public domain and proprietary code. BSD, MSFT closed, GPL, GPL3 etc. is defined as proprietary code by copyright law. There is no such thing as "open source" or "free software" in terms of copyright law, these terms are weasel-worded lies. The proprietors are free to call their master/slave relationship anything they want such as "I am little teapot licence", "free softwware licence" or "open source license", because copyright law allows them to do such. Any code acceptance by the FSF to their GCC compiler is done by the contributor signing over his copyright to the FSF. FSF remains the sole copyright holder. The copyright holders(there can be any number) of code under say GPL3 can licence such code in closed source(meaningless term?) projects without anybody knowing about it. Oracle for example are using the MySQL code base in their commercial products because they bought the copyright and do not have to publish their code as dictated by the GPL license, because the GPL license only applies to the licensees and not to Oracle, the sole copyright holder.

Linux Torvalds, RMS and FSF are attempting to legislate their version of atheist morality, their world view is the stimulus/response Skinner Markov process behaviorism , which Chomsky has shown with his universal innate grammar theories isn't correct. Torvalds, RMS and FSF views humans as Pavlovian pooches who must be made to yelp with a GPL cease and desist letter and thankfully wag their tails to their knowledge copyright holding commissars on being re-allowed to use such GPL copyrighted proprietary code.

All code in terms of copyright law is either proprietary or public domain, a fact that Eben Moglen from http://www.fsf.org tries his best to conceal. Only proprietary code can be licensed as GPL, BSD and Microsoft closed license or any other license by a proprietary copyright holder: GPL code is defined as proprietary code by copyright law, RMS is legally and factually incorrect to assert the converse. BSD clause-3 is an attempt by a proprietor to emulate public domain while avoiding liability for code implementation. Public domain is freedom. Copyright law defines something as either free or restricted(copyright). RMS , Linus Torvalds, Eric Raymon is using "freedom" or its dissimilar term "open source" as metaphor for dictated behavior as proprietors over the restrictees or licensees.
Meaningless terms Edit

RMS makes the distinction between "custom software" and "proprietory software" which is meaningless. Copyright law only defines something as public domain or proprietory.
Copyrigth on gcc compiler Edit

http://www.fsf.org as the copyright holder of gcc must practice their freedom speech: why don't the fsf.org make lets say 10,000 coders fellow copyright holders?

The GPL license on the gcc compiler applies only to the licensees(slaves) and not to Richard Stallman himself or Linus Torvalds(masters). Eric s. Raymond regrets his initial support for GPL(this needs citations). Torvalds and RMS views open source code as philosophy, or pragmatic methodology where they as copyright holders of such open source code licenses(GPL) the code too thousands of code restrictees who must provide back their innovations to them, innovations they in turn can license in closed source projects but not allowing the restricted licensees to have the same rights as they have, since the GPL licensees working for free aren't the copyright holders. Using Newspeak they have deceived GPL coders into mistaking open source with Equality source: the terms under which the open source code is made open doesn't apply to the copyright holder, with Equality source the public domain is emulated. Linus Torvalds assures us his GPL licensing as a copyright holder is based on exchange: you release your code, and Torvalds in exchange will give more code back. But this is not an obligation on his part as licensor, many GPL copyright holders license their code in closed source projects for remuneration without anybody knowing about it.

The wikipedia commercial software , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source obfuscations attempts to twist the legally defined dichotomy between public domain(free) and copyright(proprietary) as laid down by the courts. Every shred of information is either proprietary(restricted) or public domain(free, Equality source), which the Wikipedia articles don't make clear.
Redhat as single legal entity Edit

Redhat is sole copyright holder of their distribution because they employ coders with such coders not becoming associate copyright holders because under copyright law Redhat and its employees are considered a single entity. The Linux kernel itself has thousands of copyright holders, while Redhat figured out a scheme whereby the can leverage GPL code but still maintain copyright (not sure about this, it needs further research). IBM, Redhat, Google and other "corporate sponsors" of the Linux kernel programmers, employ these very same programmers and copyright holders. They have come to an agreement that between them no GPL enforcement will take place, Google's Android system uses Linux code without releasing back such modifications.

Confused? You should be, SCO Unix couldn't figure it out. They correctly asserted that you can't make money by giving everything away for free. What they could not grasp is that by using Churches thesis the illusion that Equality source is created under GPL.

RMS wishes that if only the governments of the world would copyright the alphabet and sign over the copyright to him, then he as global idea atheist dictator will show us how communism is really supposed to work .

RMS ,Torvalds and FSF have deceived both GPL and BSD proponents. For some reason even http://www.freebsd.org seems either unable or unwilling to clarify the difference between copyright and public domain. MSFT bought the TCP/IP stack from the BSD copyright holders for $10mil. They did this to avoid having to give credit to the copyright holders as specified in the BSD license. If they used the TCP/IP stack as dictated by the license, then no payment to the owners of the BSD copyright would have been needed. The same type of exemption could have been made if TCP/IP was under GPL by the copyright holders. Both BSD and GPL proponents don't understand this legal fact in terms of copyright law.(Must all the copyright holders give permission?)
GPL is proprietary software Edit

GPL is a copyright proprietary license; without an author who owns the copyright it is meaningless. An owner of the copyright must be established in order to make the copyright enforceable and license under which he licenses the code. The only alternative to this under copyright law is the public domain which is emulated with Equality source and not open source . All licensing such as GPL, BSD etc. is subject to copyright law. Proprietary is the characteristic of a proprietor, by having the exclusive legal right, or exclusive title to something, an owner. Proprietary software is owned software, the owner of the code can license his master/slave relationship under the following terms:

    I'm a little teapot license
    GPL
    BSD
    coo-coo-clock license

Whether the licensing terms are meaninful or meaningless is irrelevent because copyright law allows the master to license as he wishes.

The FSF owns gcc through their copyright on the gcc compiler, they have retained exclusive legal rights to gcc. Red Hat is the copyright holder of Gluster and Oracle bought the copyright to MySql. Red Hat, Oracle and FSF as licensors of their proprietary software licensed their code to the licensee under the GPL license, the GPL restrictions only apply to the licensees and not the copyright holder. GPL regulates the behavior of software in a master/slave relationship, much like Microsoft regulates their users. Richard Stallman, FSF and Linux Torvalds in presenting themselves as messianic figures, have deceived GPL coders into believing that they are not in a master/slave licensor/licensee relationship with the copyright holder.

As proprietors of MySql, Gluster and GCC they can initiate arbitrary legal action against companies while not targeting others. All derived code that the licensees provide back to Oracle(licensor) can be used by Oracle in closed source projects. FSF as copyright holder of gcc revoked the GPL license for the more restrictive GPL3 , forcing BSD unix forks to adopt the Clang compiler and get rid of all GPL code.

In a semantic smoke and mirrors exercise FSF have convinced the public that if code is under the GPL license then the licensor and licensee can use the code under the same terms. GPL only places an obligation on the licensee , not the licensor. Thus Red hat will litigate against anyone using its Gluster code in violation of the GPL as it sees fit while releasing closed source code to anyone as it sees fit. FSF and RSM usage of proprietary and free confuses this point. There are basically only two concepts: Proprietary and Public domain. The omission in the GPL propagandizing at http://www.gnu.org and http://www.fsf.org on the utilization of GCC as opposed to the Clang compiler is that FSF retains the copyright, which establishes them in a dominant position over the users(GPL licensees). This is not what freedom and equality means.

BSD license was created to prevent liability litigation over code released to the public domain(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_software). Most countries are subject to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention which defines that something is either proprietary or in the public domain. Only proprietary code can be released under a license such as BSD and GPL. This allowed for example the Pixhawk code licensed under BSD to relicensed under LGPL when they merged with the http://www.diydrones.com project. RMS can't redefine the legal concept of Proprietary as the opposite of Public domain by using the terms free(GPL) and permissively free(BSD): something is either proprietary or public domain(free). What Stallman refers to as freedom under GPL is actually dictated behavior of the licensee by the licensor - http://onlamp.com/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html

    (Pending: BSD clause-3 seems to release copyright to public domain and thus once BSD it can't be relicensed to some other code ...don't know will get back to this...)

    ...Linux Format UK - December 2012 ..p.61.... the code is effectively held in common..... All are free to read, study and share it. As such, it's impossible for workers to be locked in by those above them in the class system, since at any time they can choose to put the means of production, the code to use for their own ends....

The code is held in common by which licensor and how many copyright(licensors) holders are there? Copyright law doesn't restrict the number of copyright holders. In the quote the "...held in common ..." it isn't made clear as to who these "commoners" are: they are the copyright holders, establishing a master/slave relationship with licensees using GPL, which by definition means they are above the licensees of GPL. Companies can't as the licensee of Red hat's Gluster(GPL) produce a product under their own terms, while Red hat can use their derived code under any terms such as releasing derived code under a closed product and not releasing the derived ideas back to the company again.
Redhat code acceptance policy Edit

I am not sure, but as I understand it if the Redhat GPL proprietor(owner) accepts code into their project by a person that is not an employee, then that person automatically obtains copyright. Redhat and it's employees are considered a single legal entity under copyright law. Redhat will never allow therefore a non-employee to contribute code or only under a contract of not obtain shared copyright. Thus you have to become a paid slave of them,not able to run your business in order to commit back improvements. This is an important omission that RMS and Linus Torvalds makes when handing out their autographs. Therefore the entire code sharing experience that is supposed to take place in theory under GPL on an Equality source footing can by the copyright holder be dictated to be in a master/slave relationship.

Copyright law allows the licensor to license the code under any number of licenses and to instigate arbitrary legal action or no legal action against any licensee: this is not what "freedom" is supposed to be. Freedom is only works released under the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_software. Only a copyright holder can release something as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft and revoke such license. Copyleft is a form of licensing that is used to maintain copyright conditions for the licensor while delegating reduced rights to the licensee while making the licensee believe he has the same rights, much like the pigs in Animal Farm thought they had equal rights.

(Pending: Socialism is the centralized means of production, Communism is the centralization of ideas or allowed behavior/ideas. Redhat would ideally want to have all copyright on all of Linux, this would enable them to use slave labor working for free while under the delusion that as licensees of GPL they are on an equal standing with the licensor. )

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html .... ...Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them....

Redhat on Linux in the Firescount UAV Edit

Redhat stated p.53 Linux format magazine Dec.2012: ".....It's kind of funny to see people say ".Ooh, Linux is in the Firescout". It's going to force cataclysmic changes in the GPL No! It's not a cataclysmic event, it's a contract...."

The "contract" he refers is the contract that copyright holders of Linux made with the US government. While the licensees of GPLm, not being copyright holders of Linux are in no position to do this. (...this section needs more citations and alternative views.....). It should be obvious that the military can't release their detailed software designs on the Firescout as the GPL dictates, but because the GPL doesn't apply to the Linux copyright holders(licensors) they made an exemption after being paid lots of money. The unfairness in this is that the GPL users of Linux Busybox can't pull the same stunt: where is their freedom to use Linux in violation of GPL. Why is the US government exempted but not Sony by the Busybox copyright holders? Vast swaths of the Linux kernel developers are employed by major companies such as Redhat and Google. As employees who have to eat at the end of the month, those Linux copyright holders not providing their permission to have GPL violated by strong actors have a very good incentive not to deny it either. Therefore by employing the copyright holders of Linux or paying their Linus Torvalds salary as an independent maintainer of Linux , Redhat is able to leverage Linux code in closed systems such as government military software, where the derivative work can't for obvious reasons be made public.
Church's Thesis Edit

This process of subverting the original ideals of RMS that everybody will be 'free' and have equal terms access is known as Church's Thesis(http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_archive/gpl.shtml#GPL%20and%20Corba) . RMS and the RIAA are on opposite sides of the freedom debate, but they do share one common enemy "Church's Thesis" http://cs.fit.edu/~ryan/glossary.html.

    A direct result of Church's Thesis is that no matter what you're trying to do, there's always a way to do it with one more level of indirection, or one more after that, or one more after that, or .... There's always a way to cheat *any* system you have in place, so unless you're willing to take draconian measures that will make a lot of legitamate uses illegal, you'll just have to accept it.

An example of Church's thesis are pyramid investment schemes indirection by selling nutritional products as a cover for financial fraud. The actual goods themselves could have been purchased much cheaper or are purchased not because the consumer actually wants the product but because more people will be recruted into the scheme.

Redhat provides the US government with Linux services as the copyright holder(master), in a way that you as GPL(slave) licensee can't. They use legal tricks as the copyright holder to prevent the GPL deceived from providing the same services, they are an example of Church's Thesis: leverage the work of GPL licensees to make money in closed products , while making the licensee think(using the incessant chanting of 'freedom') they are on the same equality standing as the licensor.
Alphabet under public domain not copyright Edit

Pending: alphabet is under public domain. Ideally RMS and the FSF would like the letter @e@ to be under copyright held by the FSF. IF the FSF holds the copyright to the gcc compiler then why not give them the copyright on the entire alphatbet? Then literally everything we do and say could be involved in FSF "platinum member corporate sponsored" litigation. It would allow the FSF to become a global idea superpower, able to target those their "corporate sponsors want targeted".
GPL and cloud computing Edit

http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_archive/gpl.shtml#GPL%20and%20Fair%20use The GPL does NOT prevent corporate interests from exploiting your work with no remuneration to you. For example, if I can arrange my money-making scheme so that all your GPL'ed code is running on my server somewhere, and the clients are just accessing it over the web, guess what? I'm making money from your code, and I don't have to give it to anyone.

Clint/server approaches can take a lot of the bite out of GPL. Look at TiVo. They are certainly benefiting greatly from Linux, but the guts of their stuff runs as an application, and so does not have to be GPL'ed. They take the regular Linux kernel, make a few mods (which they GPL), and then use it to run their proprietary application. And then there is component-based computing: COM on the Windows side, and CORBA everywhere else. GPL, which is fundamentally based on a dying model of how computer programs work, provides basically no protection then.
RMS uses 'freedom as metaphor for 'behavior'Edit

RMS uses freedom as a metaphor for behavior or dictated behavior. His FSF holds the copyright on the GCC compiler. The GPL doesn't change the ownership of a snippet of code. It only changes the terms under which others can use that code. The original author still retains the copyright to do whatever the he wants with his code. (merge this section: The original author, who is the copy(right|left holder, can do whatever he pleases, including putting it into a proprietary system. Nobody ELSE can do that, and it's an important distinction. GPL is all about redistribution.)

    (pending work this section in later: Oracle bought the mysql copyright, this allows them to take all GPL forks of mysql and release the innovations under their own proprietary databases. Thus the whole point of having people give back under GPL was defeated)

The original author can release the same code under multiple licenses.He could license it under all 67 licenses currently available. Lets presume an irrational actor from say Iran pinches off $4bil in oil funds and employs 10000 coders all being promised that the code will be released as BSD, but because Iran is the copyright holder they instead release it under lets say 1200 licenses, thus sterilizing the code because it would tie up companies in endless litigation with the copyright holder.

Google is openly violating the GPL clause of Linux with its Android system by not releasing code back. If an injunction is obtained against Google, the only way they would be allowed to re-use Linux once they comply is all the hundreds of copyright holders on Linux give their permission: they will never all give such permission. (add busybox section later at another edit date)

    pending: (this section needs citations) One option would be for the oil producing countries to assemble a war chest of $10bil and bribe enough copyright holders of Linux to start enforcement action against Google and others violating GPL. It would be one means of sterilizing the Linux code base. The drafters of the GPL could not have known that major GPL projects important in the functioning of our economies would have hundreds or even thousands of copyright holders and that with enough oil money bribes they could wreck mayhem.

Stallman as GCC copyright holder wants the licensees to engage in a certain behavior. If such behavior meets his moral code he calls it freedom. Coders should only have the 'freedom' to engage in behavior as sanctioned by Stallman. Thus he Newspeaks 'restriction' into 'freedom'.

Both patents and copyright allows the licensor to license an idea to the licensee with specific terms that lays down the "behaviour" of the licensee. Under GPL which applies only to the licensee the behavior required of the licensee is to release all derivative works back to the licensor.

PENDING: Nobody can legally define what a derivative work is to begin with. (will come back to this later at another edit date of this page)

Since my behavior is outlined by the licensor I do not have the freedom to behave in a manner outside the terms of the copyright holder of GCC or a patent holder. RMS pulled an Orwellian Jedi doublethink mind trick by restricting my behavior to his MORAL code and deceived the wider Linux community to say that behaving in the manner he wants is Freedom. Read Animal Farm from George Orwell.

RMS deceived coders to say: Restriction is freedom! Much like the animals in animal farm chanted Slavery is freedom!. He pandered to communist resentment and people's desire to eliminate all class differences.

Lets be very clear about this: A restriction isn't a freedom. If there is any restriction about how one is allowed to develop an idea then it is George Orwell Newspeak to call such restriction a freedom.

GPL allows people with resentments to ensnare the rest of the world with it. They resent Steve Job's and Bill Gates being billionares. In this state of resentment they want to use the GPL for assured mutual destruction, like is happening with with environmental destruction of forests because 2000 idea restricting HackPatents are making patented commercial StirlingEngines unavailable to Africans.

    Pending: place in section about Ogg Vorbis and theora under BSD in an attempt to get Microsoft to adopt the standard so that windows and linux can play the same files. Instead we have the defacto mp3 and Mpeg-4 standard under license restrictions. GPL proponents don't understand that if Linux can't communicate with Windows at all, then Linux will become utterly irrelevant. GPL prevents microsoft from adopting Linux code, thus preventing communication between them, establishing Windows as a defacto standard for applications.

Opensource newspeak Edit

Opensource is a form of newspeak to obfuscate that it actually mirrors the effect of a patent: access to the source code is provided by the copyright holder such as Redhat , but one is restricted in how it can be implemented - HackPatents. Redhat implements the code released back by the licensees in their own closed solutions. It is deceitful to call a restriction on the licensee a freedom. GPL advocates must sort out their terminology and use properly defined terms to reflect what they mean as defined in dictionary's. A licensor / licensee relationship isn't "freedom", it is a master/slave relationship.

    (Pending: If the US government releases GPL code then nobody can implement closed solutions of it? What scheme is Redhat upto for them to leverage government code in closed solutions, while nobody else can)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license BSD licenses are a family of permissive free software licenses. The original license was used for the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD), a Unix-like operating system after which it is named.

GPL is labeled free software while BSD is labeled permissive free which is Orwell Newspeak obfuscation. Something isn't eiher free or permissively free it is either restricted or free.

    .... wishing to publish BSD-licensed software which relies upon separate programs using the more-restrictive GNU GPL....

Note the more-restrictive(GPL) from the article as opposed to permissive free. GPL is uses free and more-restrictive interchangeably. Restrictions leads to unintended consequences. Ideally there should be no restrictions on any idea whatsoever, no copyright ect. We would now have had a cheap cure for cancer available had it not been for the unintended consequences of idea restricting patents, GPL and copyright. Microsoft, Apple and GE are working the system, what has to change is the law. BSD developers and Stallman(GPL) agree that all copyright and patents must be disbanded. Since this isn't going to happen BSD takes the pragmatic view by realizing that commercial companies will provide code back since it is in their commercial interest to have a global pool of developer knowledge by people. GPL communism tries to take out its frustrations with the legal system on Microsoft, leading to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

    More recently, the law of unintended consequences has come to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system tends to create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.[7][8][9][10] Akin to Murphy's law, it is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them.

Communists tried to regulate every facet of human interaction, restricting the freedoms of people and ideas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZemhXvN2stE&NR=1&feature=endscreen states that Stallman started the free software movement, this is incorrect as the MIT BSD like license was available before his GPL restriction as an answer to copyright restriction. GPL forces users to provide code back to a government agency who released it as GPL , without the government agency having to release code back to the developers but still able to use the code internally and derive benefits from extending the code, since government agencies and corporations are considered a single legal entity or person by law. This defeats the whole expectation of GPL coders that entities would be forced to release modifications back to them or they wouldn't be able to use their ideas.
Theo Edit

http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070901041657

    GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope—the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back.

products Edit

Ironport, isilon, ncircle, netapp, netscaler, juniper, sandvine, pallisade, avid, nokia, vxworks, thomson , panasas, symmetricon


GPL and Google: the fine printEdit

Many GPL advocates are actually communists with the view that there shouldn't be any class differences and that nobody must make money of their ideas without them getting a cut.

Google is using GPL code internally, generating wealth with it and not releasing their code modifications. A communist using the GPL to fight the corprotism(which he confuses with the free market) don't understand that he is in anycase not deriving direct financial benefit. Many communists have spent months of their lives behind GPL code, which was then used by Google, without Google paying them a cent.

Thus rather use the BSD license and at least formalize what is taking place in reality. GPL is a form of communism that will not allow any idea to be commercialized. As a commercial company there must be derived ideas that Google can't release to the public domain. One can't expect a company to invest Billions of dollars in hardware to release a product and release detailed exact descriptions of what they did. Imagine that all commercial companies be forced to release their internal trade secrets and suppliers, it would prevent people from investing in the first place. http://www.stallman.org/ logic is that Sasol must provide a DVD containing detailed blueprints on its implementation of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process petrol production process. Since this isn't going to happen like it isn't going to happen that Vodacom will suddenly allow free access to its 900Mhz spectrum we need to be realistic and rather implement the BSD pragmatic approach - http://sasecurity.wikia.com/wiki/GPL_and_BSD#Help_Vodacom_rather

BSD encourages but doesn't force companies to release back their derived ideas. Apple has done many code releases back to http://www.freebsd.org and many of the core BSD developers work for Apple. GPL advocates and anybody else were free to buy Apple stock and share in the companies wealth. Yahoo releases back code to the postgresql BSD, keeping their in-house modifications current with the main SQL fork, allowing them to employ postgreSQL developers for proprietary coding. For Yahoo, Google, Sasol etc. to have a business case they must be able to use algorithmic abstractions documented by others, without publishing such modifications.

GPL thus penalizes those trying to sell electronic products using such GPL code, while Sasol uses GPL code internally to sell petrol, but Sasol can't be sued for selling an end product. In both cases an end product is being sold, in both cases GPL code is used to provide such product, yet only the electronic product is actually able to be targeted in litigation.

Telecom firms I explained under Crime and Bandwidth solution are legal firms with an antenna on their roof engaging in Rent seeking, recycling math algorithms on FpGa devices. GPL,Copyright and HackPatents holders and coders also are rent seekers, expecting money each time their ideas are used. This has resulted in an Aristocracy lording over indentured slaves, who don't have the money like Apple, IBM to patent ideas and aren't being allowed to setup their own businesses using patentend ideas.

This has partially resulted in 25% of world GDP being concentrated in the hands of 200 companies. This is not a failure of capitalism or the freemarket but Newspeak obfuscation by the powerful mind control entities CNN, Fox news. etc. who don't want the public to understand this. The solution to this isn't more restrictions on ideas and their implementation, which is what the GPL license is.
GPL fragmented the Unix base Edit

GPL splintered the BSD freebsd Unix base(Ubuntu, Red hat etc), thousands of sharp minds are wasting their time building a better bike-shed, not able to incorporate the superior file management system under BSD(nuclear power plant). Red Hat used clever legal tricks to in effect leverage the work done by developers under GPL but not release back these innovations. They have made it clear to their paying clients that there will be some form of retribution if they release code to others. Red Hat worked out a scheme whereby they are making money of GPL code but not giving back some of these modifications. (this need citations, I have lost the article and will cite it once found again)

http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html provides a list of Nvidia driver issues. The complexity of Linux is scaling out of control due to a fragmented developer base and design flaws. BSD is more centralized.

    Problems stemming from the vast number of Linux distributions: No unified configuration system for computer settings, devices and system services. E.g. distro A sets up networking using these utilities, outputting certain settings residing in certain file system locations, distro B sets up everything differently. This creates confusion for users.

    Due to unstable Linux and constantly changing kernel APIs/ABIs Linux is ineffective for companies which cannot push their drivers upstream into the kernel for various reasons like their closedness (NVIDIA, ATI, Broadcom, etc.), or inability to control development or co-develop (VirtualBox/Oracle, VMWare/Workstation, etc.), or licensing issues (4Front Technologies/OSS).

    "...There should be no reason why you can't take the last release that AMD made for that HD3200 and have it run perfectly on the latest distro and the fact that you stand here and admit that it doesn't work just shows what is wrong with linux in a nutshell...."

Too many devs tinkering with drivers , kernel and low level internals with not thinking through the effect this has on backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is required, because most software companies aren't going to pay a team of devs to constantly rebuild their products to cope with fragmented changes.

Shuttleworth could have done like Google did with Android and fork the thing away from the devs so that real stability and BSD style central management could be brought to bare instead of the cat herding we have now, but it was not to be.

Linux has beautiful UIs, and tons of software, but retailers won't touch the product if installing it on a system and 6 months later its broken its own drivers because decentralized dev's changed low level system files and disabled the retailer's customer WiFi or sound...(Add Pulse section later)
Gluster New speak Edit

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

http://community.gluster.org/q/why-did-gluster-choose-gnu-gpl-agpl-instead-of-bsd-license/

...BSD license allows proprietary derivatives and forks of Gluster software. GNU GPL and AGPL defends software freedom better than BSD license. We would like to ensure enhancements to Gluster software to be contributed back to the community....

Gluster not allowing their ideas to be used elsewhere without documenting such derived ideas is a restriction and specifically not a freedom. They are owned by Red-hat. Redhat is a corporate entity that retains the copyright on Gluster, there is no community held copyright on Gluster.


Copyright holder forks Tcpreplay into GPL Edit

Aaron Turner the copyright proprietor of Tcpreplay was the only person with the legal power to make a GPL license in addition to his existing BSD license. Only the copyright holder can do this, but this did not allow him to revoke the BSD, he merely forked the development away from the BSD branch, which could still continue to be used by developers. In his http://synfin.net/sock_stream/technology/code/tcpreplay/why-tcpreplay-went-gpl article the usual point of how this will guarantee our freedoms under equality terms is given. What he did not mention is that the GPL restriction can be revoked for those using his GPL fork after paying him lots of money, because the GPL restriction does not apply to the proprietor. If something has a proprietor, then in terms of copyright law it isn't free(public domain).
later Edit

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/


Apple issues Edit

Steve Jobs stated ....... Apples makes the best notebooks on the planet .... Which is true, but what he failed to mention is that this is because Apple patented key technologies that doesn't allow other hardware vendors to reproduce similar products. The solution is to disband HackPatents and copyright, not add additional patent like restrictions with the GPL license. We must not fight restrictions like HackPatents with an incantation of the same restriction - GPL.
kEdit

section on SSL allowing windows and linux to talk to one another.


Help Vodacom rather Edit

The cell companies are running a rent seeking scam. There are various responses to this:

1) Distributed denial of service attack by sprinkling thousands of FpGa devices with the 3G protocol stack in peoples gardens. This could lead to a severe backlash and is a resentful, angry option like GPL allows angry communists to live out their classless society fantasy, leading to unintended consequences. Any large scale uncontrollable attack on the cell masts could lead to cell companies paying enough bribes to both the ANC and DA to change the constitution to provide Icasa with real powers and completely shut down all wireless networks: be careful what you wish for. Trying to destroy the commercial viability of cell companies could backfire badly.

2) The pragmatic option, grasping the reality of the situation and adapting to it. Try and see the situation from Vodacom's perspective and reduce their cost of doing business by allowing them to install for free mini-cell towers(femto cells) on your roof and even interlinking them using the opensource Ronja FreeSpaceOptics.

By reducing Vodacom's cost of doing business and forming a partnership between communities everybody benefits, enabling Vodacom to reduce their prices and still make a profit and not enabling them to demonize freedom loving people who will use the spectrum on 700,600,400Mhz etc. Since their business is so entrenched in 900Mhz no unauthorized usage of this spectrum must take place: we will not extend the same principle to 400Mhz - Unlimited bandwidth

Their present cost structure involves setting up expensive large towers, they have to raise their prices to recoup their costs and provide a return on investment. The GPL communist mindset would object and say that this isn't fair, sure life isn't fair, GPL supporters wants to wait for a classless fair society before allowing their ideas to be used. We have a limited lifespan on this earth, by the time 'fairness' arrives all of those reading this will be long dead.
GPL newspeak Edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

    Free software, software libre or libre software is software that can be used, studied, and modified without restriction, and that can be copied and redistributed in modified or unmodified form either without restriction, or with restrictions that only ensure that further recipients have the same rights under which it was obtained and that manufacturers of consumer products incorporating free software provide the software as source code.

pending merge with issue on derived works by lawyer and programmer under the UNIX secion.
Links Edit

http://www.itworld.com/storage/295325/red-hats-new-patent-troll-weapon-gpl-violation

    Red Hat has taken a unique step in defending itself from a patent infringement claim from Twin Peaks Software: a counterclaim that Twin Peaks is in copyright violation on mount, the file management app that is licensed under the GPLv2. Not only is Red Hat seeking GPL compliance, it's also going after Twin Peaks for damages and is seeking an injunction on Twin Peaks' own roduct sales. mount, the document goes on to emphasize is licensed under the GPLv2, and can be freely used and distributed as long as the terms of the GPL are met - specifically, if you make a change to mount's code and distribute those changes, you have to make those changes freely available under the GPL so others can take advantage of the innovation. Red Hat has been the copyright holder of Mount - 2.10m beginning in May 2000 and of Mount 2.12a since March of 2004.

Having copyright on mount is like having copyright on the alphabet, the tools of our language should not be under any restrictions. Redhat can also use their defensive weapon offensively by extorting concessions out of others not targeting them in patent trolling for sole purpose of shutting down a competitor, thus emulating the effect of a patent. This is not what GPL proponents had in mind, their restriction was being used in unintended ways as per Church's thesis.

    BSD mailing list
    Nvidia linux drivers
    Eben Moglen
    http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/3FA34DA6-CD7A-44C1-9D8A-4AB90106BB4D.html tcp in bsd
    http://fsfe.org/campaigns/gplv3/barcelona-rms-transcript#q11-banning-bad-use Tivoisation
    http://slashdot.org/story/01/06/20/1249203/Bill-Gates-Says-GPL-Is-Like-Pac-Man pack-man
    http://news.slashdot.org/story/00/05/01/1052216/thus-spake-stallman
    https://fitnessfortheoccasion.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/anti-gpl-crowd-doesnt-get-it/
    http://compgroups.net/comp.os.linux.misc/licensing-question-public-domain-to-gpl/575077
    http://archive09.linux.com/feature/30273
    https://cyberpolitics.wordpress.com/category/lecture-notes/
    http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before/ Stallman on freedom, does not say a word about the copyright holder and makes and legally meaningless distinction between proprietary and commercial. Something is either proprietary or public domain.

Finally Got PC-BSD 9.2

FreeBSD with KDE 4.10.5 is here! I know FreeBSD isn't Linux Mint, but it is KDE 4.10.5.
BSD is often seen as Linux’s
scarier cousin. Its name is
mentioned in hushed tones and
its users are thought of as elite
programmers and über sysadmins.
However, when we went to the PC-BSD
website to download the latest ISO, we
saw the main screenshot featured
Facebook and a YouTube video of funny
cats. Not exactly leet browsing material.
Perhaps it is for mere mortals after all.
PC-BSD aims to be user-friendly, like
a BSD equivalent of Linux Mint. Of
course, BSDs aren’t like Linux distros
because they don’t all share kernel –
though their features are broadly
similar, the main projects all maintain
their own. You could perhaps think of
PC-BSD, though, as a distro of FreeBSD.
Installation couldn’t have been
easier: just select Desktop or Server
and set it to work. Once it’s done, the
system walks you through creating a
user and you’re done. Frankly, a few
popular Linux distros could learn a thing
or two about user-friendly installation
“PC-BSD aims to be
user-friendly, like a BSD
version of Linux Mint.”
from PC-BSD. The install gives you a
KDE desktop, though other
environments are available. The only
slight blip was a warning message
telling us that we had less than 50GB of
hard drive space. This seemed a little
excessive, given that the install only
took up 7.2GB, and a message like this
might cause people to worry that the
install will fail. We ignored the warning
and it worked fine on our 20GB disk.
If it weren’t for the logo on the
desktop, many Linux users wouldn’t
realise they weren’t using a penguin-
flavoured OS. The range of apps
installed by default seems a little light,
though, considering the 3.4GB
download. There’s no office suite,
Konqueror is the only web browser, and
there’s little else of interest – you have
to install everything you need.
PC-BSD comes with the famous
ports package management system,
It may carry the cute exterior of KDE (pun intended), but underneath beats
the heart of a BSD.
but GUI-loving users needn’t be afraid.
There’s also AppCafe which is a fully
graphical software installation that’s
one of the best we’ve come across.
There’s only about 1,100 apps here –
we say only because there’s almost
70,000 on the Ubuntu Software Centre
– but you should find software for most
common tasks. There were a few
surprises, like Apache OpenOffice
instead of the more popular LibreOffice
(or even Calligra Suite given the OS’s
predilection for KDE). As we said,
there’s software to suit most tasks, but
you don’t have as much choice as you
may be used to. You still have the option
of installing open source software the
old fashioned way, and most Linux
software should compile on BSD.
On files
For years, the biggest difference
between BSD and Linux has been the
way they deal with filesystems. BSD’s
ZFS has long been the envy of Linux
sysadmins. This version of PC-BSD
comes with lpresnap which simplifies
the process of taking ZFS snapshots,
though at the moment it’s only available
on the command line. A graphical
version is promised for the next version.
ZFS now works on Linux, and BTRFS
is also starting to be used, so the
www.tuxradar.com
technical gap between the two systems
is closing. At the same time, though,
some of the BSDs (especially PC-BSD)
have become easier to use, closing the
game on Linux in that respect.
Unless you have an ideological
preference for the BSD licence over the
GPL, it’s hard to give you a specific
reason to give BSD a try – but we highly
recommend that you take it for a spin
anyway. Not because of any great
technical difference, but because it
gives you another view of a free
Unix-like OS – and it’s easy enough to
whip up in a virtual machine or on a
spare computer

Government doesn't use FreeBSD, Linux is hacker's dream

Healthcare.gov proves why Linux is inferior to FreeBSD or openBSD, period. The healthcare.gov running Red Hat Enterprise Linux and it is a hacker's dream.

Playstation 4 runs FreeBSD 9.1!

PlayStation 4 (PS4) is an upcoming video game console from Sony Computer Entertainment. Announced as the successor to PlayStation 3 during a press conference on February 20, 2013, it will launch on November 15, 2013, in North America, and November 29, 2013, in Europe and Australia,[9][10] and will compete with Nintendo's Wii U and Microsoft's Xbox One, as part of the eighth generation of video game consoles.

Moving away from the complicated Cell architecture of the PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4 will feature a simpler AMD processor, in hopes of attracting a broader range of developers and support for the system. Sony also plans to place more focus on social gameplay, incorporating a "share" button on the new controller and making it possible to view in-game play streamed live from friends. The console will focus on interactivity with other services and devices, including Gaikai, a cloud-based gaming service that will offer streaming video game content; PlayStation App, which will connect smartphones and tablets into a second screen to enhance gameplay; and PlayStation Vita, which will be able to play a majority of the games through Remote Play.
Contents

According to lead architect Mark Cerny, development on Sony's eighth-generation video game console began as early as 2008. Less than two years earlier, PlayStation 3 had launched after months of delays due to issues in production. The delay placed Sony almost a year behind Microsoft's Xbox 360, which was already approaching 10 million units sold by the time the PS3 launched. PlayStation Europe CEO Jim Ryan said Sony wanted to avoid repeating the same mistake with PS3's successor.

In 2012, Sony began shipping development kits to game developers consisting of a modified PC running the AMD Accelerated Processing Unit chipset.These development kits were known as Orbis. In early 2013, Sony announced that an event known as PlayStation Meeting 2013 would be held in New York City on February 20, 2013, to cover the "future of PlayStation". Sony officially announced PlayStation 4 at the event. They revealed details about the console's hardware and discussed some of the new features it will introduce. Sony also showed off real-time footage of games in development, as well as some technical demonstrations. Sony released more information about the console and presented the device itself in June 2013 at the Electronic Entertainment Expo.

The company revealed release dates for North America, Central America, South America, Europe & Australia as well as final pieces of information at the Gamescom conference in Cologne, Germany on August 20, 2013. The console will be released on November 15, 2013 in the United States and Canada, followed by further releases on November 29, 2013, in Australia, Europe, North America, Central America & South America. The PS4 has also been scheduled for a December 2013 launch in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia, ahead of the console's Japanese début on February 22, 2014.
Hardware

The console design was not revealed at the press conference revealing the console, since the design and specifications were still being finalized. However, some technical specifications about the console were announced. The technology in PlayStation 4 will be relatively similar to the hardware found in personal computers. This familiarity should make it easier and less expensive for game studios to develop games for PS4. The physical console was finally unveiled by Sony at E3 2013.

According to Eurogamer, Sony will make a loss of $60 per unit sold for $399 at launch, but expect to immediately recoup the losses through PlayStation Plus subscriptions and game sales.
Technical specifications
Main article: PlayStation 4 technical specifications

PlayStation 4 will use a processor developed by AMD in cooperation with Sony. It will combine a central processing unit (CPU) and graphics processing unit (GPU), as well as other components such as a memory controller and video decoder. The CPU consists of two quad-core Jaguar modules totaling 8 x86-64 cores. The GPU consists of 18 compute units to produce a theoretical peak performance of 1.84 TFLOPS. The system's GDDR5 memory is capable of running at a maximum clock frequency of 2.75 GHz (DDR equaling 5500 MHz).[32][33] The console will contain 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, 16 times the amount of RAM found in the PS3 and is expected to give the console considerable longevity. It also includes secondary custom chips that handle tasks associated with downloading, uploading, and social gameplay. These tasks can be handled seamlessly in the background during gameplay or while the system is in sleep mode. The console also contains an audio module, which can support in-game chat as well as "a very large number" of audio streams for use in-game.

Its read-only optical drive is capable of reading Blu-ray Discs at speeds of up to three times that of the PS3's. The console will feature a hardware on-the-fly decompression module boosting optical disc reading speed and buffer unread data when a game is not actively accessing the optical drive, forming part of Sony's PlayGo strategy. Like PlayStation 3, the Blu-ray Disc drive should be capable of reading 16-layer 400 GB discs. Although the console will support photos and videos at 4K resolution, the system is not expected to be able to render games beyond 1080p. The console will include a 500 gigabyte hard drive for additional storage,[44] which can be upgraded by the user.

PlayStation 4 will feature WiFi and Ethernet connectivity, Bluetooth, and two USB 3.0 ports. An auxiliary port will also be included for connection to the PlayStation Camera, a motion detection digital camera device first introduced on the PS3. A mono headset, which can be plugged into the DualShock 4, will come bundled with the system. Audio/video output options include HDMI TV and optical S/PDIF audio. The console does not have an analog audio/video output.

Although not available on the system at launch, the PS4 will feature a 'Suspend mode' feature. This places the console in a low-power state, while allowing users to immediately resume their game once the console is awoken. The console will also be able to download content such as game and OS updates while it is in this state.[49][50]
Controllers
Main articles: DualShock 4 and PlayStation Move
PlayStation Move controllers

DualShock 4 will be PlayStation 4's primary controller, retailing at US$59/€59/£54. Similar to the DualShock 3, it will connect to the console via Bluetooth 2.1+EDR. The DualShock 3, however, will not be compatible with PS4. The DualShock 4 will be equipped with several new features, including a built-in two-point capacitative touch pad on the front of the controller, which is clickable. The controller will support motion detection via a three-axis gyroscope and three-axis accelerometer and improved vibration, as well as being the first PlayStation first-party controller to feature official support for the Windows PC platform. It will include a non-removable,[55] rechargeable lithium-ion battery tentatively capable of storing 1000 mAh. The tentative design weighs 210 g (7.4 oz), has dimensions of 162 × 52 × 98 mm (6.4 × 2.0 × 3.9 in), and has a rubber or etched plastic backing to enhance grip. The design shown at Sony's launch event was "near final".
DualShock 4 controller

The controller will feature several output connectors. Its stereo jack (3.5 mm TRRS connector) will support the connection of a headset to allow a user to speak and hear audio simultaneously. A micro-USB port, an extension port, and a mono speaker will also be included. The controller can be charged via micro-USB, a dedicated charging station, or the console (even when the console is off).

DualShock 4 will feature the following buttons: PS button, SHARE button, OPTIONS button, directional buttons, action buttons (triangle, circle, cross, square), shoulder buttons (R1/L1), triggers (R2/L2), analog stick click buttons (L3/R3) and a touch pad click button. These mark several changes from the DualShock 3 and other previous PlayStation controllers. The START and SELECT buttons have been merged into a single OPTIONS button. A dedicated SHARE button will allow players to upload videos from their gameplay experiences. The joysticks and triggers have been redesigned based on developer input. The joysticks now will feature a concave surface.

DualShock 4 will also feature a light bar that can display different colors. The colors will help identify players and alert them with critical messages such as low health.[46] It also will interact with a camera attachment that perceives movement and depth by using the controller's light bar. It is based on the existing technology used in the PlayStation Move. Existing PlayStation Move controllers will be supported on PS4.
PlayStation Camera
PlayStation Camera device

PlayStation Camera, initially named PlayStation 4 Eye, is a motion sensing input device for PlayStation 4. It will include two 1280×800px cameras. The lenses will operate with an aperture of f/2.0, with 30 cm focusing distance, and an 85° field of view.[46] The dual camera setup will allow for different modes of operation, depending on the target application. The two cameras can be used together for depth-sensing of objects in its field of vision, akin to the Xbox 360's Kinect peripheral.[59] Alternatively, one of the cameras can be used for generating the video image, with the other used for motion tracking.

PlayStation Camera will also feature a four-channel microphone array, which helps reduce unwanted background noise and may even be used to issue commands.[57] It is tentatively set to be 186 × 27 × 27 mm (7.3 × 1.1 × 1.1 in) (width × height × depth), with a weight of 183 grams (6.5 oz).It will record video in RAW and YUV (uncompressed) formats and will connect to the console via an auxiliary port.[46] The PlayStation Camera will be released as a separate, add-on accessory,[44] priced at US$59/€49/£44.
Companion devices
Main article: Remote Play

Smartphones, tablets, and PlayStation Vita can interact with PlayStation 4 as second screen devices. Companion devices can also wake the console from sleep mode.

PlayStation Vita can be used for streaming video directly from the console to the handheld, allowing supported games to be played remotely.[62] Sony hopes to make all PS4 games playable on PlayStation Vita. Developers can add Vita-specific controls for use via Remote Play.

The PlayStation App will allow mobile devices to interact with PlayStation 4, similar to Xbox SmartGlass. It will be available for iOS and Android smartphones and tablets.[24] Gamers can use this application to, for example, purchase PS4 titles while away from home and have them remotely downloaded to the console, watch live streams of other gamers, and view in-game maps while playing games.
Software and services
PlayStation 4 system software screenshot shown at the 2013 meeting

PlayStation 4 runs an operating system called "Orbis OS." The current prototypes are based on the FreeBSD operating system. Although the console does not require an Internet connection to function, it will provide "richer" functionality when it is connected to the internet. The PlayStation Network (PSN) will allow players to access a variety of cloud-based services from PlayStation Store, including Music Unlimited and Video Unlimited subscription services. Customers can browse titles and stream games via Gaikai to demo them almost instantaneously. Online multiplayer access requires a subscription to PlayStation Plus, a policy new to PlayStation consoles, but free-to-play titles such as DC Universe Online, PlanetSide 2 and Warframe will be playable without a subscription, and asynchronous functions such as online leaderboards can still be accessed.[68] Furthermore, owing to the need to subscribe for online multiplayer, Sony will not allow online passes to be used on the system by any publisher. Sony intends to expand and evolve the services it offers over the console's lifespan.
User interface

PlayStation 4 will replace the XrossMediaBar with a new customizable interface titled PlayStation Dynamic Menu. The user profile for players will show recent activity, their full name, and other details in addition to their unlocked Trophies. The PS4 home screen will feature personalized content from friends. Services from third-party vendors, such as Netflix and Amazon Instant Video, will also be accessible within the new interface. It will be possible to multitask during gameplay, such as opening a web browser while playing a game.

Social features

Sony is focused on "social" aspects as a major feature of the console. Although the console will have improved social functionality, the features are optional and can be disabled. Gamers will have the option to use real names with friends, in addition to a nickname in other situations when anonymity is important.
Sharing

The DualShock 4 controller includes a "share" button, allowing the player to cycle through the last 15 minutes of gameplay to select a screenshot or video clip appropriate for sharing. Media is uploaded seamlessly from the console to other PSN users or social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

"Ustream's integration within PS4 consoles will put gamers on a new media field. They will have the ability to direct, produce, and star in their own video game production, simply by being an awesome (or not so awesome!) gamer."
—Ustream co-founder Brad Hunstable

Live broadcasting

Gamers can browse live video of titles their friends are playing through the PS4 interface, with cross-game camera and microphone inputs, spectate or assist in their game to help them overcome difficult obstacles, and broadcast live video of one's own gameplay via public services Twitch and Ustream, allowing friends to view and comment on them from other web browsers and devices.
Games
See also: List of PlayStation 4 games

Sony Computer Entertainment of America chief executive officer Jack Tretton said games for PlayStation 4 will range in price from US$0.99 to $60.00. Games on PlayStation 4 will not be region-locked, so games purchased in one region can be played on consoles in all regions. Additionally, gamers can trade, lend, and re-sell their games, as buying a game means it is owned by them forever.

Sony hopes to make it easier for independent game developers to develop titles for PS4.[29] At the 2013 E3 Sony event, the company revealed that they will allow developers to self-publish their titles on PlayStation Network for PlayStation 3, 4, and Vita systems.[80] The company further announced at least ten indie titles that will make their console debut on PlayStation 4 by the end of 2013.

In addition to the physical media available at retailers, all PlayStation 4 titles can be purchased online.[82] Additionally, every game can be test played for free.[83] Players can sign into any PS4 console to access their entire digital game library. Sony will not prohibit the trading of disc-based games and will not require the console to periodically check in online to validate game legitimacy.

The system will feature downloadable content similar to what is available on other PlayStation platforms.
PlayGo

PlayGo will allow quicker access to supported games. When a title is selected online, only a portion of the game data has to be transferred to the system before it can be started (e.g. the first level), with the remaining parts downloading during play, reducing waiting time. If users prefer to play their game directly from disc, PS4 will install data to the hard drive during play, eliminating loading times. This is accomplished via the system's secondary processor. Similarly, system updates are downloaded seamlessly in the background without interruption. PS4 also features technology that attempts to determine trends, including titles a gamer is likely to express interest in next, and then automatically download a small percentage of those games in the background, even in sleep mode, in order to save time.
Backward compatibility

Sony has confirmed that PlayStation 4 will not natively support PlayStation 3 games. While the company has yet to also rule-out on-console emulation of some previous generations, the company has detailed plans to explore cloud-based emulation of previous generations as a long-term solution to the challenges of backwards compatibility.

Sony is planning to launch a cloud-based streaming service through Gaikai, a company acquired by Sony in July 2012. The service will emulate and render previous generations of PlayStation games, streaming them to the PS4 and the Vita, over the internet.
Reception

Reception to the console from developers and journalists has been positive.

Mark Rein of Epic Games praised the "enhanced" architecture of Sony's system, describing it as "a phenomenal piece of hardware".[92] John Carmack, programmer and co-founder of id Software, also commended the design by saying "Sony made wise engineering choices", while Randy Pitchford of Gearbox Software expressed satisfaction with the amount of high-speed memory in the console.

Eurogamer called the graphics technology in the PS4 "impressive" and an improvement from the difficulties developers experienced on PlayStation 3.[35] Ted Price, president and CEO of Insomniac Games, said: "As a longtime partner of Sony's we've enjoyed some pretty awesome console tech over the last couple of decades and it looks like the PS4 will continue that trend. I think most of us in the console development world are always looking for more horsepower, more memory, more storage, faster load times... Sony showed clear evidence that we're getting those boosts with this console. However since we at Insomniac love creating new IP, what seems particularly cool is the Gaikai streaming which should allow you to experience console IP on different types of devices."

After Sony's E3 2013 press conference, IGN responded positively to Sony's attitude towards indie developers and trading games, stating they thought "most gamers would agree" that "if you care about games like [Sony] do, you'll buy a PlayStation 4." PlayStation 4's removable and upgradable hard drive also drew praise from IGN, with Scott Lowe commenting that the decision gave the PS4 "another advantage" over the Xbox One, for which the hard drive cannot be accessed.

GameSpot called PlayStation 4 "the gamer's choice for next-generation", citing its price, lack of restrictive digital rights management, and most importantly, Sony's efforts to "acknowledge its consumers" and "respect its audience" as major factors.
Sales

As of August 2013, SCEE has been quoted as saying that over one million preorders have been placed for PlayStation 4.
Brazil

On October 17, 2013, Sony announced that the PlayStation 4 will cost R$3,999. The cost was explained by a Sony Brazil representative to be largely due to the Brazilian government's high import charges, which were estimated to make up 60-70% of the cost. Mark Stanley, Sony's general manager of Latin America, released a statement on October 21 with regards to the price of the PlayStation 4. The included chart shows the Brazilian government's taxes and import fees are 63% (R$2,524), which in addition to other fees, raised the price of the PlayStation 4 to R$3,999. Stanley also stated that Sony is in discussions with Brazilian officials to reduce the import taxes and fees, and will try to begin locally producing the PlayStation 4 to reduce the price, as it did with the PlayStation 3.
After Sony's E3 2013 press conference, IGN responded positively to Sony's attitude towards indie developers and trading games, stating they thought "most gamers would agree" that "if you care about games like [Sony] do, you'll buy a PlayStation 4." The PlayStation 4's removable and upgradable hard drive also drew praise from IGN, with Scott Lowe commenting that the decision gave the PS4 "another advantage" over the Xbox One, which has an inaccessible HDD.

GameSpot also states that PlayStation 4 is "the gamer's choice for next-generation", citing the price, the lack of restrictive digital rights management, and most importantly, Sony's efforts to "acknowledge its consumers" and "respect its audience" as major factors. GameSpot editor Tom McShea wrote that "by saying no to the used game restrictions and always-online that Microsoft is so happily implementing on the Xbox One, Sony has elevated the PlayStation 4 as the console to grab this holiday season."