http://news.com.com/OpenBSD+founder+makes+funding+plea/2100-7344_3-6053096.html?tag=nl
Sucks, hopefully people will start donating to support the cause.
Just one reason that closed source is better. People take advantage of the good nature of open-source, free products. :(
Government doesn't help that organization???
They should... :o
Quote from: DeploY on March 23, 2006, 05:13:12 PM
Government doesn't help that organization???
They should... :o
Why should taxpayers pay to support an organization that only a few people will ever glean direct benefit from? If they can't compete with others in the marketplace, the organization shouldn't keep existing. It's nothing more than Darwinian economics. If you think the organization should stay afloat,
donate the money yourself.
I can see we gained a new liberal. Joy of joys.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=5284.msg61425#msg61425 date=1143152520]
Quote from: DeploY on March 23, 2006, 05:13:12 PM
Government doesn't help that organization???
They should... :o
Why should taxpayers pay to support an organization that only a few people will ever glean direct benefit from? If they can't compete with others in the marketplace, the organization shouldn't keep existing. It's nothing more than Darwinian economics. If you think the organization should stay afloat, donate the money yourself.
I can see we gained a new liberal. Joy of joys.
<3. I complete agree with you MyndFyre. :D
Quote from: Newby on March 23, 2006, 05:08:52 PM
Just one reason that closed source is better. People take advantage of the good nature of open-source, free products. :(
That doesn't mean closed source projects are better. It only means people suck. I'm just hoping that this isn't a foreshadow of what lies in the near future for bsd and other followers of the free distribution and open source movements. Unfortunately, I can't afford to donate, but I definately would if I could. It's a shame that the major companies that use their products don't contribute more..
It probably is. People mooching is getting worse and worse. It's starting small (BitTorrent and piracy and such, stuff that doesn't matter in life; I am capable of getting a 10:1 ratio on torrents and still be the only seed on the entire torrent...which is pathetic) but it's just a foreshadow of what's to come. :/
* Predicts other open source projects begin donating excess funds into OpenBSD/OpenSSH
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=5284.msg61425#msg61425 date=1143152520]
Quote from: DeploY on March 23, 2006, 05:13:12 PM
Government doesn't help that organization???
They should... :o
Why should taxpayers pay to support an organization that only a few people will ever glean direct benefit from? If they can't compete with others in the marketplace, the organization shouldn't keep existing. It's nothing more than Darwinian economics. If you think the organization should stay afloat, donate the money yourself.
I can see we gained a new liberal. Joy of joys.
"Only a few people"? Are you insane?
Quote from: iago on March 23, 2006, 07:15:50 PM
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=5284.msg61425#msg61425 date=1143152520]
Quote from: DeploY on March 23, 2006, 05:13:12 PM
Government doesn't help that organization???
They should... :o
Why should taxpayers pay to support an organization that only a few people will ever glean direct benefit from? If they can't compete with others in the marketplace, the organization shouldn't keep existing. It's nothing more than Darwinian economics. If you think the organization should stay afloat, donate the money yourself.
I can see we gained a new liberal. Joy of joys.
"Only a few people"? Are you insane?
That's what I was thinking.. Let's start with major servers and things internally handled by an IT department. I would be willing to wager OpenBSD is used quite a bit because of its security, if nothing else.
Quote from: iago on March 23, 2006, 07:15:50 PM
"Only a few people"? Are you insane?
I was speaking relatively.
If it is used (for free) by any (and I mean *any*) major corporation, that corporation could *EASILY* support a $200,000/yr enterprise, particularly if they're only paying half of that. Then the corporation could get a tax write-off and the bonus of being able to ask to have a "funds generously donated by XXX" (not porn) in some dialog or packaging.
And I attempted to qualify that people *directly* use it, by which I mean to say that internet servers that I use, even if they're OpenBSD, unless I'm shelling to them, I'm not directly using them, but using them through a web application.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=5284.msg61469#msg61469 date=1143163686]
If it is used (for free) by any (and I mean *any*) major corporation, that corporation could *EASILY* support a $200,000/yr enterprise, particularly if they're only paying half of that. Then the corporation could get a tax write-off and the bonus of being able to ask to have a "funds generously donated by XXX" (not porn) in some dialog or packaging.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=5284.msg61425#msg61425 date=1143152520]
Why should taxpayers pay to support an organization that only a few people will ever glean direct benefit from?
Does not compute. If the company writes it off their taxes, it's the same as the government supporting them directly, only instead of giving the money to organization directly, they're taking it out of what a company would have to pay them. Same net loss.
Quote from: Hitmen on March 23, 2006, 09:17:11 PM
Does not compute. If the company writes it off their taxes, it's the same as the government supporting them directly, only instead of giving the money to organization directly, they're taking it out of what a company would have to pay them. Same net loss.
OK, so what you're saying is that you don't know how taxes work.
Company A makes US$15m. They donate US$50k to the OpenBSD project.
They report to the government that they made US$14,950,000 for the year. Income is then taxed based on that figure.
Do you know why that's how it works?
Because they effectively *didn't* make that money.
Now, if you want to argue over government policy regarding taxes for non-profit organizations, that's another debate.
Incidentall, OpenBSD has brought us such software as OpenSSH. OpenSSH is used in UNIX, Linux, BSD, and most networking equipment (routers, switches, etc.) that aren't made by Cisco. That's quite a lot.
Out of curiousity, iago, how many routers/switches/etc does your workplace/school use that aren't Cisco? I know they're widely used, but my school uses almost entirely Cisco. We have a few Linksys switches (a gig switch runs the pipe between our file servers and another one somewhere else in our MDF), but there aren't many other things that aren't Cisco.
From my understanding, Cisco networking gear is the best in the industry, but you really pay for it.
Well, I was thinking not so much of switches/routers/etc. (we actually had a lot of Netgear and some Juniper, and other stuff, not a whole lot of Cisco). The backbone stuff was Cisco, but not the stuff we managed.
Anyway, I was thinking of appliances. Firewalls (fortinet, etc), IPSes (TopLayer, Proventia, etc), even a distributed storage network (SAN) that I forget who made it all used OpenSSH (or a variation of it).
I try to avoid Cisco. I don't like their level of honesty. But that's a whole different story.
Juniper bought me lunch once, and it was a friggin' awesome lunch, so I like them. I'd promote them for sure, Cisco would never buy me lunch.
Quote from: iago on March 23, 2006, 11:52:24 PM
Well, I was thinking not so much of switches/routers/etc. (we actually had a lot of Netgear and some Juniper, and other stuff, not a whole lot of Cisco). The backbone stuff was Cisco, but not the stuff we managed.
Anyway, I was thinking of appliances. Firewalls (fortinet, etc), IPSes (TopLayer, Proventia, etc), even a distributed storage network (SAN) that I forget who made it all used OpenSSH (or a variation of it).
I try to avoid Cisco. I don't like their level of honesty. But that's a whole different story.
Juniper bought me lunch once, and it was a friggin' awesome lunch, so I like them. I'd promote them for sure, Cisco would never buy me lunch.
Hehe, we do have a bunch of 5-port switches (and a few in more "backboneish" IDF's), but our main infrastructure is almost entirely Cisco. I'm not entirely sure who makes our firewall, but I know CPWall (or whoever manufactures that) makes our web filter. We actually do have a NAS (we call it that for "Network Area Storage," I'm not entirely sure if that's the same thing, since I've heard the term "SAN" before too).
I think Cisco is similar to Microsoft in the respects of prices/strives to succeed in the business realm.
I want a free lunch! :(
Quote from: Sidoh on March 24, 2006, 12:04:38 AM
Hehe, we do have a bunch of 5-port switches (and a few in more "backboneish" IDF's), but our main infrastructure is almost entirely Cisco. I'm not entirely sure who makes our firewall, but I know CPWall (or whoever manufactures that) makes our web filter. We actually do have a NAS (we call it that for "Network Area Storage," I'm not entirely sure if that's the same thing, since I've heard the term "SAN" before too).
I think Cisco is similar to Microsoft in the respects of prices/strives to succeed in the business realm.
I want a free lunch! :(
Well, the reason I don't like Cisco is because of the whole Michael Lynn fiasco (see Google). Cisco was trying to hide a vulnerability, and went to great lengths to destroy the life of/discredit the person who announced it, Lynn. If you can't trust your network hardware, what's left to trust? I'd rather them be open and honest about it.
In any case, I think SAN = Storage Area Network. Probably the same thing, or same principle.
Quote from: iago on March 24, 2006, 12:09:32 AM
Well, the reason I don't like Cisco is because of the whole Michael Lynn fiasco (see Google). Cisco was trying to hide a vulnerability, and went to great lengths to destroy the life of/discredit the person who announced it, Lynn. If you can't trust your network hardware, what's left to trust? I'd rather them be open and honest about it.
In any case, I think SAN = Storage Area Network. Probably the same thing, or same principle.
I definitely agree; that's really lame. I didn't know they'd done that. Regardless, I still repsect the quality of their devices.
Hehe. We just put two NAS's in this year. They're our only Linux boxes... :(
Ah, the SAN is a custom OS. I don't know much about it.
Quote from: iago on March 24, 2006, 12:55:09 AM
Ah, the SAN is a custom OS. I don't know much about it.
Hehe, yeah. They use the Linux kernel, but they don't use any sort of specific distribution.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 23, 2006, 11:21:43 PM
Out of curiousity, iago, how many routers/switches/etc does your workplace/school use that aren't Cisco? I know they're widely used, but my school uses almost entirely Cisco. We have a few Linksys switches (a gig switch runs the pipe between our file servers and another one somewhere else in our MDF), but there aren't many other things that aren't Cisco.
From my understanding, Cisco networking gear is the best in the industry, but you really pay for it.
I believe Linksys is owned by Cisco. If not, there is some affiliation there.
Quote from: mynameistmp on March 24, 2006, 04:13:57 PM
I believe Linksys is owned by Cisco. If not, there is some affiliation there.
Yes, Cisco recently bought Linksys (~1.5 years ago), but Linksys still manufactures their own equipment, though. It's just Cisco-funded now. :)