That's a red herring. FreeBSD did not lack competent developers. They were held up by a court.

Many people also supported BSD, and recognized its greater freedom. No strings like GPL. And you "stolen" is a GPL party line, not BSD developer lost a line of code. Every single line of code they supplied remained available to them. Only proprietary coded added to a GPL base was not shared. Guess, what the SAME thing can happen with GPL code. You can use Linux as a base and pile on tons of proprietary code and never share it, never contribute it back. You just need to only internally distribute the derivative work within your organization.

So did the BSD folks. Which is why the Linux folks lifted some of that BSD code for Linux.

One, the larger community just wanted *nix on PC hardware. Most did not care about the politics of GPL.
Two, the larger community turned out to be the one who finished first, nothing more, the one not held up in court.

Again, the GPL party line. As mentioned above GPL can be looted too.

The truth is, some people are comfortable with a benevelent dictatorship. Others prefer complete freedom.

Actually the GPL has nothing against revenue. Hence charging for distribution being allowed. Hence not sharing changes or additions if you do not publicly distribute the code and keep its use internal to the org.

I AGREE that developers have the freedom of choice to go GPL or BSD. Its their work, its their choice.
What I DISAGREE over is that the politics of the GPL determined the winner, it was the courts.

Ah, thank you for demonstrating your political bias.

I was a a developer. Coming from a Unix based CS program. At my work many of us had a Unix background and were closely keeping an eye on things. We would have loved to switch our development PC to Unix. We evaluated SCO Xenix and something else whose name I have forgotten, small outfit, advertised in Byte magazine. Early 1990s we followed 386BSD and Linux. I've been using Linux since 1993. It was more stable than FreeBSD in 1993. That is what the majority of us cared about back in the day, those deciding based on the GPL were a fringe. Nothing wrong with them, they were just in the minority.

And if you really want to talk about who was the winner based on number of desktop users, that would actually be macOS. Which is Unix underneath the pretty graphics. BSD based.

The GPL today is a minor license, more permissive licenses are used far more often. GPL is really a legacy license due to Linux. The GPL has always been the choice with a minority of projects. Linux made the GPL, the GPL did not make Linux.

Oh it's created a better world....for them.

It won't help in any way because the pictures are sent home for more processing.

Casks leak. There is a whole industry around dealing with it. Deal with it.

Oh, you peaked in high school? You can stick your high school level understanding of economics up your ass next to your junior high school understanding of reproductive biology and your utter lack of ethics.

Moving the goalposts from detectable to significant. Pick a lane.

The data went from being in the cloud to being in the clouds

They don't need a reason.

I was going to say it's an excuse instead, but they don't need that either

Sounds like a you problem, not an everyone else problem. Get some therapy for your fetish. Or perhaps you treasure your victimhood too much to ever do anything about it. You be you.

I do as far as you know.

They are a well known product compared to camera phones? GTFOH with that clown shit

It'll be Turtles All the Way Down. :-)

I wonder what Great A'Tuin thinks about that.

It's a reasonable assumption given the things we know about Facebook

Back in the '90s I was chatting with a skript-kliddie who actually had an AOL logon like that. He figured that none of the CS drones could type it in right to nuke his account. You should have seen his face when I said the magic words: "copy and paste."

Most digital cameras filter it out these days. Sadly.