I'm kidding, of course, but IIRC pkgsrc (and alikes, such as APT) has a number of limitations, for example a very limited ability to have multiple versions of the same package installed, making it less than optimal replacement.
(I believe a lot of people depend on ability to spin up a new version while the old is running, then do the cutover and shut down the old one after it's not is use.)
Capabilities aside, if you're reproducible and source-based, you're gonna survive binary artifact repository outages a lot better than if you're not.
If there were a comparable culling of the Nixpkgs binary cache, pipelines relying on Nix for their packages would be affected in a much less invasive way: they'd see Nix silently fall back to upstream sources, and reproducibly build from source, wherever the caches binary artifacts became unavailable.
Yeah. Just look what they got from that. Big corps using their work with hardly any upstream contribution (Apple, Sony, etc). At this rate BSDs will be deader than dead within a few years.
I don't know about you, but I can't eat code. That said, some people don't care about outside contributions or reuse, so I guess I find the pro-GPL partisanship more than a little misguided. Some people just have different goals, and that doesn't make them better or worse, just different.
And even then companies are famous for leeching on open source projects, with gpl you at least have some hope of companies leaving you alone or giving back something.
How is it "leeching" if I deliberately release my source code under a BSD license because I don't care if other people use it or not? It can't be "leeching" if I don't care about their contributions either. The only other scenario that would apply is if I wanted to be paid for my work... in which case neither a BSD-like license, nor the GPL, would be adequate.
This is the problem I have with GPL partisans: They refuse to accept that projects can be completed, or that anyone can have any interests other than GPL-compatible ones.
Using a pet project nobody is expected to use as an example is a nil point, I could release a pet project in "WTFPL" or "Fuck You Nobody Is Allowed To Use" license and it wouldn't make a difference , if the concerns are that low for said project.
Monetization in FOSS is a systemic issue, with few exceptions, but even then you are far more likely that companies won't want to risk leeching with a GPL like license than a permissive one because of the code sharing requirement, which MIT/BSD at best only incentives as goodwill because of complexity maintaining the project they rely on.
I also find it funny you create a strawman, i never stated any adoration of GPL.
> And even then companies are famous for leeching on open source projects, with gpl you at least have some hope of companies leaving you alone or giving back something.
Especially when you make clear the option to dual license and let them use it under a MIT/BSD style license, or something custom, if they pay you an appropriate amount.
What downfall, exactly? If I want to get paid, the GPL doesn't help me with that. If I don't care about outside contributions, the GPL doesn't provide any advantage. Insofar as I have written something that is complete in itself then a BSD license makes perfect sense.
>hardly any upstream contribution (Apple, Sony, etc)
Sony paid FreeBSD dev's, and the Apple kernel and coreutils are opensource, it's just they have not done anything FreeBSD is interested in, not like for example Netflix with in-kernel tls.
>At this rate BSDs will be deader than dead within a few years.
Yes yes you said that already 20 years ago, it's probably time to overthink it.
It's relevant because many people using Rust are using it for building web backends where high-performance systems language is not needed, yet the safe concurrency is required.
It's expensive to turn physical books into something my text to speech program can read. Typically about $25-35 to ship off the book to a scanning/OCR company and get back an epub.
