FEED Validator

for Atom and RSS and KML

Congratulations!

This is a valid RSS feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

line 1, column 38: Use of unknown namespace: http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008 [help]

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/200 ...
                                      ^

line 1, column 38: Unable to validate namespace: http://schemas.google.com/g/2005. See the Google Data specification at https://developers.google.com/gdata/docs/1.0/elements [help]

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/200 ...
                                      ^

line 1, column 0: description should not contain onblur attribute [help]

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/200 ...

line 93, column 191: Missing atom:link with rel="self" [help]

... </author><thr:total>9</thr:total></item></channel></rss>
                                             ^

Source: http://schily.blogspot.com/rss.xml

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/" xmlns:blogger="http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gd="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0" version="2.0"><channel><atom:id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600</atom:id><lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:22:55 +0000</lastBuildDate><title>Schily's Blog</title><description></description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/</link><managingEditor>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</managingEditor><generator>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>17</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-7112346431935905440</guid><pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:30:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2010-08-23T10:49:29.393-07:00</atom:updated><title>The OpenSolaris Governing Board resigns</title><description>It is sad news, the OpenSolaris Governing Board resigned today collectively with the following resolution: Motion concerning dissolution of the OGB Whereas Oracle has continued to ignore requests to appoint a liaison to work with the OGB concerning the future of OpenSolaris development and our community, and Whereas Oracle distributed an email to its employees on Aug 13 2010 that set forth Oracle’s decision to unilaterally terminate the development partnership between Oracle and the OpenSolaris Community, and Whereas, without the continued support and participation of Oracle in the open development of OpenSolaris, the OGB and the community Sun/Oracle created to support the open Solaris development partnership have no meaning, and Whereas the desire and enthusiasm for continuing open development of the OpenSolaris code base has clearly passed out of Oracle’s (and thus this community’s) hands into other communities, Be it Resolved that the OpenSolaris Governing Board hereby collectively resigns, noting that under the terms of the OpenSolaris Charter section 1.1 (and Constitution 1.3.5) the responsibility to appoint an OGB passes to Oracle. The motion was <a href="http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/2010_08_23_OGB_Agenda">accpeted</a> without any vote against. The OGB had not other way, as Oracle did not talk with the OGB since at least April (when the current OGB was constituted). On August, Friday 13th there was a <a href="http://pastebin.com/YtuvZkUJ">Letter from Oracle</a> that Oracle will shut down collaboration with the OpenSolaris Community. On August 18th, Oracle did the last public to the <a href="http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/">Mercurial source repository.</a> The community moves on to the free and open <a href="http://illumos.org">Illumos</a> project.</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2010/08/opensolaris-governing-board-resigns.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>5</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-2240866607796497586</guid><pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:55:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2010-08-03T14:45:00.022-07:00</atom:updated><title>To fork or not to fork</title><description>When people talk about OpenSource, they often ask whether a project is free enough to allow to create a fork from the original project. They never ask whether it makes sense to fork. When OpenSolaris was first published on June 14th 2005, people asked whether OpenSolaris is free enough to create a fork, they did not ask whether it makes sense to fork OpenSolaris. When OpenSolaris was announced by Sun on September 14th 2004, it was announced to become a true OpenSource project with co-development and collaboration between Sun and the community. It could not become 100% OpenSource in the first attempt as not all of the code was owned by Sun. When OpenSolaris did become OpenSource on June 14th 2005, Sun probably thought that this was more for an academic purpose, as important parts for the base of the Operating System where missing. When we did publish the first version of SchilliX based on the OpenSolaris code on June 17th 2005, nobody thought that this was possible. We did not fork as there was no need to fork, we just added missing code from the OSS community and code we did write ourself. After some years, the community still had problems to contribute into the OpenSolaris code base from Sun. As Sun did publish source and binaries for OpenSolaris on a regular base, nobody was interested in a fork. Then Oracle bought Sun and stopped publishing binaries for recent OpenSolaris releases and stopped talking to the community at the same time. Now more and more people started to talk about forking, but they felt helpless. Then a group of former Sun/Oracle employees and people from the community started to work on a truely open OpenSolaris base owned by the community and stored in the open. This group started to replace the closed source bits from Solaris by OSS code. Today this project has been announced under the name Illumos, see <a href="http://illumos.org">http://illumos.org/</a> Is this project a fork? No, we still believe that it is better to keep it as a maintained child of the OpenSolaris source from Oracle as this allows for collaboration with Oracle and that allows to let code flow in both directions. We however demonstrated that we now definitely can fork in case this will be needed, e.g. because Oracle stops publishing sources. OpenSource does not live from forking but from being able to fork in case forking could be needed.</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2010/08/to-fork-or-not-to-fork.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>4</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-556057931010165842</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:34:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2010-06-17T06:52:30.001-07:00</atom:updated><title>OSSCC clears OSS license jungle</title><description><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.osscc.net/"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 228px; height: 228px;" src="http://www.osscc.net/logo/osscc.png" border="0" alt="" /></a> Collaboration between different OpenSource Software groups and projects currently increasingly suffers from a wide variety of OSS licenses. This problem is caused by the imperfect compatibility of the licenses. The OSSCC (OpenSource Software Collaboration Counseling <a href="http://www.osscc.net/">www.osscc.net</a>) has the mission to foster collaboration between different OpenSource Software groups and projects. The OSSCC amongst others offers to counsel authors with making licensing decisions that allow best collaboration with other projects. To support such collaboration, OSS authors should select OSS licenses that are compatible with each other and that allow to create greater works based on code from different sources. For better collaboration, it would also desirable to select licenses that allow code flow from and to any project using an OSI compliant license to any other project using an OSI compliant license. As some licenses create a one-way of code flow towards the specific license, licenses need to be selected carefully in order to grant collaboration that is more than a one-way. To simplify license selection, OSSCC provides the OSSCC license interoperability guide together with a commented list of preferred OSS licenses. See: <a href="http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility">http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility</a> Licenses that allow to merge parts of the code from one work into other works are called compatible and support collaboration in the OSS area. When judging, OSSCC also considers problems problems that are caused by permissive licenses (like the BSD license) that does not make free of charge patent grants. The OSSCC intends to help with gaining legal certainty with collaboration in OSS projects. The statements regarding license compatibility are based on statements from independent lawyers (like Lawrence Rosen, the legal advisor of the OpenSource Initiative and Catherine Olanich Raymond, the wife of Eric Raymond). The OSSCC is proud to present the initial publication of an essay on <a href="http://www.osscc.net/pdf/QualipsoA1D113.pdf">OpenSource license compatibility</a> from Thomas F. Gordon. In future, other projects e.g. a platform for translations are planned.</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2010/06/osscc-clears-oss-license-jungle.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>3</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-1420243616869773953</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:01:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-10-05T07:11:01.496-07:00</atom:updated><title>Does Jim Zemlin harm the Linux Foundation?</title><description>Jim Zemlin recently in an InfoWorld article claimed<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/09/24/39NF-linux-killing-solaris_2.html"> Is Sun Solaris on its deathbed?</a> In this article, Zemlin only gives Linux and Microsoft a chance for the future. He then continues with the well known stereotypes we already read many times before from people who believe the best way to support Linux is to belittle other OpenSource projects. If DTrace was a minor feature as Zemlin claims, would FreeBSD, Apple and IBM adopt it? If ZFS was a minor feature, would FreeBSD and Apple adopt it? DTrace and ZFS have been adopted by others because the people behind FreeBSD Apple and IBM believe that they are important innovations and because the license is free enough to allow them to use DTrace and ZFS with their OS. At the same time, some people from the Linux camp still try to hide their missing will to integrate behind a so-called "license incompatibility". A license like the CDDL that allows to combine code under CDDL with code under any other license is supposedly incompatible with Linux? Do some people from the Linux camp really believe that the GPL is a non-free license? Well, the GPL is a free license and thus cannot require other projects to change their license if they are just delivered together with GPL code. There is no license incompatibility but a VFS incompatibility between ZFS and the Linux kernel. A code incompatibility can be resolved if there is a will. Some non-open-minded people cannot make a free license like the GPL non-free. POSIX compliant operating systems (like Solaris) and system that are similar to POSIX (like Linux) should not be enemies. People who develop OpenSource software should cooperate against non POSIX systems like Microsofts OS. People like Zemlin who like to drive a spearhead between different OpenSource projects have no place in our world. They should resign to allow other open-minded people to take their place. Our OpenSource world does not need Zemlin but visionary people who sopport OpenSource.</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2008/10/does-jim-zemlin-harm-linux-foundation.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>10</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-111918452623374939</guid><pubDate>Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:05:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-06-19T06:13:51.773-07:00</atom:updated><title>SchilliX is real now</title><description>SchilliX is an OpenSolaris-based live CD and distribution that is intended to help people discover OpenSolaris. When installed on a hard drive, it also allows developers to develop and compile code in a pure OpenSolaris environment. After 4 months of hard work, the first OpenSolaris based UNIX distribution is ready for download at schillix.berlios.de. Well, I should mention that the project started in December 2003 with the first discussions with Sun about a Solaris Live CD. Then in September 2004, there was a OpenSolaris summit in Santa Clara and the OpenSolaris Piolot started with a growing number of people (at last ~150) talking about the background. We needed to find a License and Sun did make a great job with cheking more than 9 million lines of code for encumberences. Let me describe what OpenSolaris is and what the differences to Schillix are. OpenSoplaris is currently the Sun O/N Source tree for Solaris. This source tree is much more than a kernel but a few things are missing in order to allow a boot to the multi user mode. The following pieces of code are missing: Libm The source is part of the Sun Compiler suite but Sun did OpenSource a 1993 version for BSD-4.4Lite. The effort to port a recent FreeBSD version was 5 days. bzip2/gzip These programs are free software and needed for Solaris, so they need to be added The Netscape LDAP libs They are needed for PAM and must be compiled from sources... LibXml2 This lib is a major prerequisite for SMF and needs to be compiled from sources. Some of the SMF tools are part of the Suninstall sources and needed to be replaced. Some small programs needed to be devloped to make a CD boot with few RAM possible. libz is of couse also needed The NIC drivers from Masayuki Murayama are nice to have and have been added Unzip is nice to have and has been added Wget is nice to have and has been added /opt/schily/bin/* is nice to have and even needed for some of the Sun Replacements. As /usr/ccs/bin/make is part of the Sun Compiler Sources, it had to be replaced by my 'smake' that is _the_ OpenSource "make" implementation that is closest to Sun Make. The main goal was to implement as much source/binary compatibility to Sun Solaris as possible. Something that was not simple, giving the fact of the missing libm. Load SchilliX from <a href="http://schillix.berlios.de">Berlios</a> and enjoy SchilliX. If you like it and if you like to help bus as a volunteer, please send me a mail...</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/06/schillix-is-real-now.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>30</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-111879019390788905</guid><pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:58:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-06-14T16:03:28.096-07:00</atom:updated><title>OpenSolaris is out, SchlliX will be out soon</title><description>SchilliX now boots from a split CD (root is mounted from a ramdisk and /usr from CD). The boot from CD takes one minute and needs 256 MB of RAM. The first SchilliX distribution will be published in a few days.</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/06/opensolaris-is-out-schllix-will-be-out.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>8</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-111727340030768123</guid><pubDate>Sat, 28 May 2005 09:39:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-05-28T02:49:11.883-07:00</atom:updated><title>SchilliX single user nearly complete</title><description>Since yesterday, smf/greenline is up and running and we are close before getting to a real single user mode. Only one single service description is still inconsistent and needs to be fixed. The network is up and running but still needs manual configuration. Once the issue with ifconfig -a plumb has been fixed, we will be able to autostart with dhcp from any supported nic card. As OpenSolaris goes public next month, I am sure we will be able to publish the SchilliX version in July.</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/05/schillix-single-user-nearly-complete.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>10</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-111713271687350871</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2005 18:29:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-05-26T11:48:02.916-07:00</atom:updated><title>First pure OpenSolaris based boot CD</title><description>Today, I managed to get a first shell prompt from a pure OpenSolaris (x86) based boot CD. Solaris x86 now boots using grub and a multiboot compliant kernel loader. Previous Solaris x86 versions did boot using a closed source 16 bit boot loader that roughly implemented a OpenFirmware interface to the kernel. For every boot device, there was a need to write and maintain a 16 bit driver. The boot CD I did build has been completely set up from scratch only using the compilation results. If you like to help us working on SchilliX - the first OpenSolaris based UNIX distribution, check schillix.berlios.de and write me a mail.</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/05/first-pure-opensolaris-based-boot-cd.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>13</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-111305036338253590</guid><pubDate>Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:05:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-04-09T06:01:08.736-07:00</atom:updated><title>Value, Marketing and Freedom</title><description>The Free Software Foundation speaks about Free Software but the GPL gives less freedom to authors and users of the code than e.g. the BSD license does. Why is the GPL more successful in the eyes of many people than the BSD license? One important reason of course is marketing. There is better marketing for the GPL as a result of the success of Linux. The other reason is the value of the software from the FSF in the 1980s. The GCC is of great value to people and the fact that it is of great value caused people to accept the license even though it does not give as much freedom as the BSDL gives. This acceptance has not been present from the beginning. In the beginning, the whole GCC has been published under the GPL and thus could not be used to compile software that itself has not been published under the GPL. For this reason, there has been an excited discussion about the usability of GCC. Later, the LGPL has been created and parts of the GCC (libgcc) has been put under LGPL. As we see, people are willing to accept a reduced freedom if the value of the software gives a compensation. Now, what happened to GPLd software in the past few years? The Free Software Foundation heavily reduced the effort in extending Free Software and instead started a campaign to _talk_ about Free Software instead. Other software meanwhile did improve or become Open Source. It seems that these ideas help to understand why Linux people did start a campaign against Open Solaris and the CDDL.... The BSD operating systems (although they give more freedom than Linux) don't look like a real threat for Linux as there is not enough marketing for BSD based operating systems. OpenSolaris however _is_ a real threat for Linux. OpenSolaris gives more freedom than Linux, it gives new impressing features and there is marketing. It seems that the reason for the FUD against OpenSolaris published by Linux people is caused by the fact that product of value and freedom found in Linux is smaller than the product of value and freedom available with OpenSolaris. A proof that OpenSolaris is on the right way? In the long term, real freedom always wins....</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/04/value-marketing-and-freedom.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>20</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-111304415662299363</guid><pubDate>Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:28:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-04-09T04:02:41.736-07:00</atom:updated><title>Work on SchilliX, the fiest OpenSolaris based UNIX is underway</title><description>Now that a pure self compiled OpenSolaris boots, we started working on completing our OpenSolaris based UNIX. The first version will be text only but isn't the rule for Open Source projects to publish often and to start early? Isn't there even a text based Linux (grml)? When I started this project, I was in fear that I would not get enough help. Now (since a month), I have an employed student on expense of Fokus Fraunhofer and a few people who are helping as volunteers. It seems that it is not too late for a real Open Source UNIX...</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/04/work-on-schillix-fiest-opensolaris.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>12</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-111166971911846070</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:06:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-03-24T05:08:39.120-08:00</atom:updated><title>Pure OpenSolaris boots on x86</title><description>Today, I have been able to boot from a disk that was empty before I did install a self compiled OpenSolaris on it. So we now reached a certain limit that makes it possible to start with creating a OpenSolaris based x86 distribution at BerliOS.</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/03/pure-opensolaris-boots-on-x86.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>1</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-110969787414628051</guid><pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:57:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-03-01T09:44:25.600-08:00</atom:updated><title>Cultural wars (Dreams of a Linux Bigot)</title><description>Tom Adelstein recently did write an <a href="http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/32325/"> article on LXer Linux News</a> with the title <H4>Linux Threat Posed by Microsoft and Sun: In Your Dreams</H4> He claims that Linux keeps building momentum and claims that companies like Sun spread disinformation about Linux. As he is well informed, I would tend to believe him if his article would contain less disinformation. Let us discuss the main disinformation he tries to spread, note that he tries to show us his disinformation as questions so he could later tell you that it was you who did give answers. Querying in a suggestive way however is just a clever way to hide the fact of spreading disinformation. <LI> "What percent of the Opensolaris.org project is actually made up of members of the Solaris team? And, does that constitute a community of developers or has Sun simply populated their so called community with Sun paid employees so that it looks like the broader open-source developers have embraced the project? " I am a member of the OpenSolaris Pilot and I know the people who are in the Pilot. There are a lot of highly skilled people from all over the world. We have people from USA: 70, India: 10, UK: 8, Germany: 7, France: 7, China: 5 Australia: 5, Canada: 3, Poland: 2, Israel: 1, Belgium: 1, New Zealand: 1. <LI> "What percent of Sun's infrastructure actually runs Linux internally?" From what I've seen, it seems to be a negligible amount (much less than 1%). <LI> Did Sun roll out JDS Linux internally as described or did Sun only offer it to Laptop users? Which version does Sun use? The Java Desktop system is not a Linux distribution but a GUI with better multi media support. JDS is part of Solaris 10 and may be selected as the default Solaris 10 desktop. <LI> What do you use on your desktop and laptop, Jonathan Schwartz? From the "cultural" experiences I got from looking inside Sun, I would expect him to run Solaris 10 on a Ferrari amd64 notebook. Sun does not run a major risk when competing with Linux, going back to Solaris brings Sun back to the roots; back to the ideas of a company that has been very successful with Operating system design, implementation and support. Linux is currently suffering from lack of competition in the OpenSource OS market. There are other OS operating systems but they do not have a good marketing. When OpenSolaris will be ready for everyone, this will change dramatically and it seems that the Linux bigots are in fear of this date. More and more people who work on the Linux kernel get tired from the way development is managed. Even people like Alan Cox now warn that there is a need for a change. People don't like Linux to be a "Kingdom" where a monarch or a small number courtiers govern the future. People with hacking skills rather like to make sure decisions are technology driven. Everybody who has the needed skill/knowledge for a specific subject should get the chance to be listned to. After OpenSolaris is available to everyone in Q2-2005, Solaris will not be governed by Sun anymore but by the <a href="http://www.opensolaris.org/cab/index.html">CAB,</a> a group of 5 people, 3 of them being not from Sun. The election period ends today and the names will be shown soon... My impression is that the fact that Sun does not like to dominate Solaris Like Linus Torvalds dominates Linux is the real fear of the Linux bigots.</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/03/cultural-wars-dreams-of-linux-bigot_01.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>7</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-110702714585974457</guid><pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:31:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-01-29T11:32:25.860-08:00</atom:updated><title>Do we need different levels of OSI compliance?</title><description>OSI (the Open Source Initiative <A href="http://www.opensource.org">http://www.opensource.org</A>)
 defines rules for Open Source licenses. Licenses that like to call
 themselves OSI compliant need to match these rules and get an approval
 from OSI. Do these rules still serve the demands of the OpenSource
 community of today?
 
 The most important issue in the OpenSource community of today is
 collaboration. In order to support collaboration, people need to be
 able to combine code from different authors which today often means
 code that has been published under different licenses. So a real
 Open Source license should allow the covered code to be used together
 with code from other OSI compliant licenses.
 
 Taking a closer look at the licenses listed at OSI, results in some licenses
 that are compatible to each other in a way that allows to include code
 covered under license a) in a project covered by license b) and vice versa.
 There are other licenses that do not allow this. Wouldn't it then be a
 good idea to call the licenses that are compatible to each other "first class
 OSI compliant" and the others "second class OSI compliant"?
 
 Let me give an example: I frequently read that code covered by the GPL and
 code covered by the BSD license are compatible to be used together within a
 single project. Is this really true?
 
 The GPL requires all projects that include code covered by the GPL to be licensed
 under the GPL.
 
 There is no problem with including a small part of BSD code inside a bigger
 project licensed under the GPL. This is not because both licenses are
 compatible but only because this kind of usage is tolerated by the authors
 of the code covered by the BSD license. However, you cannot include a small
 part of GPLd code into a bigger project licensed under the BSD license without
 losing the freedom of the BSD project.
 
 What the GPL tries to to is to try to change the license of other people's code.
 It is questionable whether this is compliant with the European Copyright law.
 
 How can this problem be avoided?
 
 The first step would be that OSI would list the licenses that are compatible
 to each others in both directions in a separate list.
 
 The second step would be to change the incompatible licenses. If e.g. the GPL
 would not require the whole project to be put under the GPL but just require
 that the whole project must not use code that is not under a OSI compliant
 license, the primary intention of the GPL would not be given up but the
 GPL would become compatible to most other OSI licenses.
</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/01/do-we-need-different-levels-of-osi.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>10</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-110668534466117426</guid><pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:31:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-01-25T13:27:20.096-08:00</atom:updated><title>OpenSolaris up and running</title><description>After 1 hour and 18 minutes of compiling on my
 1.7 GHz Pentium M notebook, I am ready with compiling
 OpenSolaris myself.
 
 After installing and booting 64 bit OpenSolaris on a dual Opteron Sun V20z
 I got:
 
 cat /etc/motd
 Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.10.1 schily Jan. 25, 2005
 SunOS Internal Development: joerg 2005-01-25 [schily]
 bfu'ed from /tmp/archives/i386/nightly/ on 2005-01-25
 
 uname -a
 SunOS mi 5.10.1 tonic-clone-i386..18-Jan-2005 i86pc i386 i86pc
 
 
 Well, I am not the first to succeed outside from Sun.
The first was Ben Rockwood <A href="http://cuddletech.com/blog/">http://cuddletech.com/blog/</A></description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/01/opensolaris-up-and-running.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>1</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-110648590132712706</guid><pubDate>Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:10:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-01-23T05:12:53.960-08:00</atom:updated><title>List of OpenSolaris Bloggers</title><description>James Dickens did create a list of OpenSolaris Boggers.
 
The list can be found <A href="http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2005/01/complete-list-of-open-solaris-bloggers.html">here</A>.</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/01/list-of-opensolaris-bloggers.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>1</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-110641874616938126</guid><pubDate>Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:40:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2005-01-22T14:21:17.146-08:00</atom:updated><title>New site for help & software for running Solaris on notebooks</title><description>It seems that a lot of people would like to get
 help for running Solaris on Notebooks.
 
 In order to create a single point of information and discussion has been created.
 
A website <A href="http://solmobil.berlios.de">solmobil.berlios.de</A> has been created where I a plan to set up a WIKI. A mailing list is available at <A href="http://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/solmobil-discuss">http://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/solmobil-discuss</A>.</description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/01/new-site-for-help-software-for-running_22.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>12</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9738600.post-110379978193321012</guid><pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:43:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2004-12-23T03:03:01.933-08:00</atom:updated><title>Linus thinks Solaris is a joke</title><description>Linus does not stop giving interviews on Solaris 10. The last I realized is at:
 
 http://news.com.com/Torvalds+a+Solaris+skeptic/2008-1082_3-5498799.html?tag=nefd.lede
 
 Among several, Linus slams on Solaris:
 
 "Solaris/x86 is a joke, last I heard."
 
 It is interesting to see that Linus only fetches his knowledge from other (doubtles biased) people instead of trying it himself and judging himself.
 
 It seems that Linus cannot escape his "I only watch my own belly button" mentality and even promises not to check Solaris after is has been finally announced and released as Open Source Software.
 
 So let us ask: Why is Linus constantly attacking Solaris?
 
 If Solaris was really on the declining branch and dying, why the hell Linus needs to attack it? If Linus was right, he could just recline relax and wait for it's death...
 
 It seems that Linus is in big fear of Solaris and the kind of openness it will offer once OpenSolaris is available to more people than only the participants of the OpenSolaris pilot.
 
 For me, Solaris is not a joke. I use it as my preferred development platform for many reasons. It comes with free and useful debuggers, it offers me stable and reliable interfaces and (important for my SCSI tools) it returns SCSI error codes from the drives correctly to applications.
 
 
 </description><link>http://schily.blogspot.com/2004/12/linus-thinks-solaris-is-joke.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Jörg Schilling)</author><thr:total>9</thr:total></item></channel></rss>

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

<a href="http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//schily.blogspot.com/rss.xml"><img src="valid-rss-rogers.png" alt="[Valid RSS]" title="Validate my RSS feed" /></a>

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//schily.blogspot.com/rss.xml

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms