BSD grep has been imported to 9.0-CURRENT on July 22, 2010. It has been obtained from the OpenBSD and the FreeGrep projects to make it appropriate for our needs to provide GNU compatibility and let ports build without problems. GNU compatibility is almost 100%, the only missing feature is -P (--perl-regex), which is not possible to support without having PCRE in base system and anyway, it was disabled in GNU grep for the same reason.
Somewhat ironic as OS X includes PCRE. Not sure why Apple didn't stay with GNUgrep.
I'm kind of curious what they'll do about Emacs. It doesn't have a BSD-licensed counterpart like everything else they've removed... Maybe they'll just leave it out.
Is it all GNU software that's being purged, or just the GPLv3 licensed stuff? If the latter, I can't say I blame them. The former case can go either way but I guess it's good to future-proof early.
A lot of people have a lot of weird superstitions about the GPL. It's probably useful to read the license sometime. It may also be useful to acquire a basic understanding of copyright law, if you are a software developer.
Long answer: One of the conditions for contributing code to the GNU project is assigning copyright to the FSF. That means they're legally the sole copyright holders for all software they distribute. The official reason for this is so they can pursue GPL violations in court without involving the actual authors of the code. It also permits them to change the license on any of their software. Finally, there are various reasons they might be able to do this anyway even if they didn't have the copyright assignment rule, so long as the new restrictions didn't conflict with whatever license the original software was distributed under.
That's really fucked up. (I trust they won't do such a thing, but I didn't think such a thing could be possible)
So if they licensed it to you as GPL, and then say "From now on, shareware is the way forward!" then you can continue to share yours as GPL, fork it, etc.
But, I think if they were to go rogue it would be a matter of forking a GPL-licensed version of the software and continuing development on that under an open license.
And all this is ignoring that most GNU programs are licensed under a GPL variant and any future version, so they would not need the copyright to upgrade the license anyway.
OS X is a completely different story. If you ever used BSD before, you know how it feels 'almost' like linux, barring a few differences. It's the same with OS X. Besides package management (which is greatly alleviated by Homebrew) and so-so integration of X applications, I can't say I miss my Ubuntu laptop at all.
But I was cheating, I'd use it for SSH and rxvt in combination with xming to establish a forwarded X session. (And x-mouse and alt-drag for that nearly authentic mouse behaviour.) Desperate times, desperate measures.
They fixed that. On newer OS X versions you can download the Command Line Tools (just 110mb) from Apple's website. You just need a free account: https://developer.apple.com/downloads
I get a compiler from BSD, which is the source of Apple's code, without needing any account. Apple didn't need an account to get that code from BSD. Apple seems to do a disservice to the notion of the BSD license, which is not to impose restrictions on people (e.g. making them get a developer "account").
OSX is not BSD, but there's no way it could even think about calling itself "UNIX" and getting certified as such without all the BSD code they took.
What else is OS X? It's a kernel from CMU. And whiz bang graphics. And lots of annoyances.
What an outrageous thing... They force you to create a free account that wastes quite literally 6 minutes of your time... It's unacceptable, how dare they??!!1 (<-- sarcasm)
Is Clang BSD-licensed?
Many projects use Clang/LLVM for their OpenCL implementations.
Ubuntu has introduced a number of refinements to the dpkg world that have been pretty good.
Most useful, in my mind, is their set of tools for working with PPAs. They're much simpler to run than setting up an entire new repository of packages.
echo deb http://repo.net/ unstable main >> /etc/apt/sources.list
Yeah, apt and dpkg are great compared to what else was available a decade ago. But that doesn't mean that Ubuntu's additions, however incremental, are worthless or somehow inferior to Debian. Incremental gains are still gains.
Ubuntu's additions are nice. But they are minor improvements to apt/dpkg. Without them apt and dpkg would still be phenomenal.
Running a custom mirror, signing packages, managing keyrings on the mirror, and getting them on all systems is nontrivially harder than using a PPA and associated scripts.
Now, I run a mix of Ubuntu and Debian systems. I don't use PPAs that much, but when I do they're just plain easier.
Yes, it's an incremental gain, but that's a gain. It makes them better. They weren't first, but they're innovating. Sometimes, the "innovations" aren't fantastic especially some of the more harebrained stuff on desktop (PulseAudio, avahi). But no longer is Ubuntu just a Debian rip-off: They're producing new and useful additions.
The relative merits are debatable, and so I'm not going to continue that thread. In the end, it boils down to X + epsilon > X, for any epsilon > 0.
It sounds to me like you're trying to make a different argument: that Debian's package management was a bigger deal, in some sense, than Ubuntu's incremental improvements on it.
I'm probably going to tap out here, because this doesn't seem like it's going to become productive.
Of course a decade of writing portable C across BSD and Linux systems might make this a bit easier for me than others. And it's worth it to me to avoid the Linux desktop experience (which I did use as my primary desktop from 1996 til about 2 years ago).