Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reasons Why You Should Not Use FreeBSD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Libreman View Post
    This has no relevance to the fact that by doing that he takes away those freedoms from the users that use it.
    How so? Users can continue to use original product and have access to it's source code without any restriction. How come they've lost their freedoms?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Kano View Post
      I dont think that you ever heard about freebsd jails, that should be enough for some types of virtualisation.
      Jails are just a mere "containers" rather than hypervisor, so in fact there is almost no virtualisation happens. There are 2 inherent disadvantages of this approach.
      • First, using this technology, you can't boot OS with a different kernel, even if needed. It's just kind of chroot.
      • Second, it relies on quite thin layer to isolate things. So it's more hackable than, say, Xen (all kernel bugs vs small hypervisor code bugs).
      On advantageous side, overhead from "containers" is minimal so it's close to bare metal speed. This applies not just to jails but to all similar kinds of containers as well. But you see, for hosters, OpenVZ overtook market from *BSD a while ago and become a "de facto standard" for them (slowly moving to full hypervisors as hardware becomes more powerful and supports virtualisation in hardware). OpenVZ comes with some issues (custom patched kernel of some lower version than usually) but it works. And it offers far better manageabily and many features needed to run in hosting environments. It could even perform live migration, transparently moving certain container to another host without stopping it. If things done correctly, nobody would even notice that container has been moved. Because service is not interrupted at all, up to keeping TCP connections alive! FBSD guys are still ages behind in their technology. For more simple uses, LXC+Cgroups would still offer more features than jails, most notably, resources scheduling and limiting and so on. OpenVZ currently builds on top of LXC+Cgroups boilerplate and extends it many ways, adding features missing in mainline kernels so far. It's laughable to see this. I can remember times linux fanboys had no words to counter *bsd fanboys. But it's 2012 and to me it looks like if their bet has been put on wrong horse.

      Also it is partly possible to run linux drivers in userspace.
      And why someone on the Earth would need this piece of headache? You see, Linux comes with source. It costs nothing (if you don't want to pay for support, etc). So you can just use it and have fun and profit. Rather than fight with those (unnatural) technical difficulties. It's not my fault someone incapable of writing drivers under "proper" license in a timely manner. In fact I partially attribute this failure to BSD license. You see, there are/were some vendors who took *BSD code pieces but "forgot" to return anything in exchange. That's one of reasons why BSD has been outrun by Linux where you should show your kernel code. As the result of this approach, Linux currently supports ton of hardware platforms, devices, etc. Including those you can actually buy. In fact many vendors supply it in their devices by default. Many SDKs for evalboards assume Linux as well, etc. And all this comes with source. When license offers option not to share source, it's tempting to do so. However this backstabs project as whole, slowing down it's development.

      Its not possible in kernel mode due to licencing
      That's where BSD politics comes in game. They care about padding interests of proprietary corporations and their abilities to close source in proprietary projects far more than about what would happen to their users. As for me it looks like if their licensing is their worst curse ever. If you allow in your laws to do some bad things, bad things would happen. Ironically, bad things happened to BSD guys themselves. Proprietary vendors took sources here and there and most of time they "forgot" to help their upstream in development. Just because it has been allowed by license. Some of those even cowardly switched to Linux ... when they got idea nobody would buy their "super-puper-proprietary-stuff" when there is opensource Linux, available free of charge.

      but you can for example run linux usb drivers for dvb devices from userspace, so basically you can drive similar hardware up to a certain point.
      Except that on Linux you just install OS and it works but in FBSD you should start heroic fight with dozen of technical difficulties instead. Half of them also comes from politics. At the end of day I need things running and I don't need extra headaches.

      You can also execute linux binaries so freebsd can run to a certain degree the same apps/games.
      But again, in Linux it would work out of the box. And you see, these guys dont even emulate all clone() flags in their stupid linuxlator. Because this would require to implement half of LXC in FBSD. This implies that Chromium (and other apps using it) would be unable to isolate themselves into LXC containers, etc. It's 2.6.24 kernel featiure, ages ago. Now it's 2012 and 3.4 kernel just launched. Why should I restrict myself to pre-2.6.24 artefacts then?

      I don't get why ppl try to make one system so bad, usually there is always a usecase where a system shines.
      Maybe because they had hard time to find that use case? In fact I only know 2 "usecases" where it "shines". Apple ripped off some code to (proprietary) MacOS X and Juniper did same for (proprietary) JunOS. So those two got their usecases and could be happy. For some obscure reason this does not looks like huge feature to me.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by blacknova View Post
        How so? Users can continue to use original product and have access to it's source code without any restriction. How come they've lost their freedoms?
        Simple! If device runs Linux, I can ask for source for device I'm using, learn it and change it if I need this. Will not work with Juniper and BSD "freedom" though, etc. So it's just a couple of corporations who can actually enjoy by BSD freedoms. And everyone else loses. As you see, I'm not as powerful as Juniper so I can't do a complete porting and development cycle on my own and almose everyone else seems to be quite the same. This also led to situation where FBSD formally supports MIPS but there is almost no real-world MIPS hardware where you can actually RUN it. So it looks like if BSD freedom is completely theoretical one

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by blacknova View Post
          How so? Users can continue to use original product and have access to it's source code without any restriction. How come they've lost their freedoms?
          Do I really need to repeat myself? I've said it already - I do not think it's hard to get unless you're trying very hard not to get it. Either you care about those freedoms in which case you want to protect them (GPL) and prevent others to use your code and take them away from the users of the modified software (they can do whatever they want with their own code) or you do not care about those freedoms in which case you do not mind somebody using your code and taking those freedoms away from its users.

          How can you care about preserving those freedoms, consider them important and use a license that allows to disregard them? It's inconsistent and doesn't make sense. And indeed when you just talk with people from both camps you'll find that's exactly the case, people from the "permissive" camp generally do no have much problem with Apple's walled gardens, using MS or other exploits specific to proprietary software - if they do have any complaint it's just technical. It's the opposite in the Linux camp, many people care mostly about the freedom and are willing to even let slide minor technical glitches or inadequacies to preserve it in the hope it will get solved long term (which it slowly is happening, step by step).

          It's not really hard to see the difference in mindset - of course there are exceptions in each camp and they tend to overlap but overall I find it quite accurate.
          Last edited by Libreman; 06-03-2012, 02:18 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            If somebody distributes copies of his modified versions to others under different conditions, only his modifications will be under different conditions, beacause original version is still available under the same conditions.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by disi View Post
              It's a work place and not my company.
              What I meant: people are scared if they cannot sue/blame anyone else.
              Take Amazon cloud: Companies upload data to their servers(mainframes) and if it gets lost they are out of business, BUT they can blame/sue Amazon for it.
              Interesting thought process.
              I suppose the thing is you can pursue a suit against pretty much anyone. I think, given the scenario you mentioned, they'd have as much luck with Amazon as with RH (assuming they had a service contract, of course) meaning that I don't think they'd have much luck with wither one unless it was a true fuck up (this would also be the case with msft).

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                If somebody distributes copies of his modified versions to others under different conditions, only his modifications will be under different conditions, beacause original version is still available under the same conditions.
                In another words you do not care if your (or someone's elses) code gets taken and re-released under conditions that do not grant its users the same freedoms the original did - I get that! You do not mind if someone uses your code to lock out other people out of those freedoms and denies them to them. And that's my entire point! But I, as many others, do care about that and that's why we advocate for GPL - because we want to protect those freedoms and grant them to as many people as humanly possible. That goal is not well served by "permissive" licenses, it takes just one proprietary fork with one user to make the world loose one person with software rights that they deserve. God knows how many we lost by Apple using "permissively" licensed chunks to make their crystal prisons.

                You do not see preservation of those freedoms as a worthy goal and that's ok, just be honest about it so I can vocally disagree with you

                Comment


                • #53
                  I think it's unfair to request from others to release their code under the same conditions.
                  If they don't like new conditions, they still have my original version.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by bsfmig View Post
                    OS X has a beautiful and elegant installer interface while ONLY ASCIIS are on BSDs.
                    Let alone the fact that OSX is a BSD, the fully FOSS BSD with an easy installer is called PC-BSD.

                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    1) Unlike Linux, they do not have package management system at all. No, really, they don't!
                    The PC-BSD team developed the PBI package management system for FreeBSD (PC-BSD is nothing but a pre-configured FreeBSD it's not even a fork). Install PC-BSD and PBI is there by default.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                      I think it's unfair to request from others to release their code under the same conditions.
                      If they don't like new conditions, they still have my original version.
                      Sure, I see it as much more unfair to deprive the users of the derived sw from my code the freedoms I believe are very important and everyone should have. You cater to the Apples of the world, I care about the Joes and Janes of the world. It strucks me as foolish to serve as a free labor for corporations that make billions and rarely if ever give back but if that's what you want to do then go for it.

                      Also, "their code"? They can release their code under whatever license they want regardless of what license you use, if they however want to incorporate your code that is a different matter and you certainly have a say, wouldn't you think? And if you think freedom is important, it is only fair those who want to use your code respect that and not violate it (which is accomplished by using GPL) however if you do not care about that freedom ... well, we already established that and I can see where you stand on that Suffice to say, we disagree on that one ...

                      Aand one more thing - it never seizes to amaze me to how convoluted thinking can a "permissive" line of reasoning lead without the advocate realizing the absurdity. You're so considerate of the one who decides to use your code that you think it is "unfair" to demand any condition of him, he may do anything and everything with what you've created - to do otherwise would be to "restrict him" ... but when the users of the modified software are concerned all of a sudden restricting them is absolutely of no concern to you, they may get spyware, adware, backdoors and trojans as far as you're concerned and they do not deserve the right to inspect the code. As long as the developer is allowed to do whatever the heck he wants you're happy? How this makes sense from the point of view of software freedom? You serve as a free labor for one (the developer) and have no concern for the other (the user), isn't that quite disproportionate? No wonder corporations love it LOL they get free stuff with no obligation not to abuse its users with it!
                      Last edited by Libreman; 06-03-2012, 05:22 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Author releasing under BSD already understand very well how his work could be used, If you are not author of code in question why do you care(bitching) about someone else work? Derivative product license could be changed by 3rd party, original code would be left under original BSD license, so no harm for original code users.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by blacknova View Post
                          Author releasing under BSD already understand very well how his work could be used, If you are not author of code in question why do you care(bitching) about someone else work?
                          You see, this is where you start to make up things and put them in my mouth that I've never actually said (if you believe otherwise, please quote me). I do not mind anybody releasing their code under BSD, as I've said in my previous reply very clearly - if coding for free and not minding that Apples of the world take your code and release it under terms that deny software freedom to its users is your thing then go for it! Please! None of my business ... but do not claim that you care about the freedom you allowed to be taken away because if you did you would use GPL to protect it from being taken, not BSD that offers no protections for those freedoms.

                          Derivative product license could be changed by 3rd party, original code would be left under original BSD license, so no harm for original code users.
                          Software is made with one universal goal in mind - to be used. If a 3rd party takes your code, re-releases it under non-free license and some users come to use it, those users are now using non-free software instead of the original free one so the total users of free software has shrunk - an exact opposite of what a person caring about software freedom would want. Using BSD has that exact effect, you pretend like the people using the BSD licensed work and those using the proprietary one live in totally different and isolated universes - this is not how the real world works. The existence of proprietary forks is going to influence the BSD licensed ones. I think that is pretty obvious for any rationally thinking person. I believe the fact that I'm explaining that simple reality means that we're beyond rational discussion and we veered into emotional defensive straw grasping manifesting itself when people run out of real arguments to support the position they dream would hold true but can not be supported by logical thinking.

                          So to sum up, the only thing I'm saying is that people advocating and releasing code under "permissive" licenses consciously or subconsciously (or without realizing it) do not care about those 4 essential freedoms as defined by FSF.

                          That is all I'm saying and I just want them to realize that and either change their license preference if they truly do care about those freedoms or be honest about not caring about them, that's all.
                          Last edited by Libreman; 06-03-2012, 05:58 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Negative, sir...

                            Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                            Let alone the fact that OSX is a BSD, the fully FOSS BSD with an easy installer is called PC-BSD.
                            The PC-BSD team developed the PBI package management system for FreeBSD (PC-BSD is nothing but a pre-configured FreeBSD it's not even a fork). Install PC-BSD and PBI is there by default.
                            1) PC-BSD seems to cover only desktops. However Linux distros could cover both desktop, servers and many other things. Properly designed package system simply does not cares if it desktop, server, or whatver else. It's just a different sets of packages. So you can even convert server to desktop and vice versa, if this needed at some point. Just a matter of packages selection. Should I admit it's convenient when you have such flexibility and power in your hands? Everything in system is a package. Great idea! Huge step forward compared to both ports, base system and PBI alltogether.
                            2) As far as I understand, PBI is a kind of stuff like MSI installer, where every program brings it's own copy of the libs. It's a huge step back! This maybe more or less convenient for proprietary software vendors but this is really bad for me.

                            In Linux, when someone finds "yet another security flaw in libpng", I have to just re-download small "libpng" package. Voila, all 30 programs using libpng in system are fixed and I'm secure again (because installing anything not through package manager is a really exceptional and uncommon). But in this "windows way/proprietary" approach things are much worse for me.

                            Since every program has it's own copy of "libpng" brought from "h*ll knows where", maybe some incompatible or custom versions, or even statically linked in,etc - there are some troubles arise. It can't be replaced in machine-automated ways anymore. I can't update just one small package and get all things fixed in one shot. PBI seems to make this foul approach even more convenient. That's what I call "defective by design". So, "negative, sir". I'm not going back to "90's style" software management. I had enough of it in 90s. Times have changed. So did I. I don't care if that's inconvenient for proprietary software vendors. Customer is always right. So either they have to deal with their troubles themselves or I'm not going to pay for inconvenient stuff. As simple as 2 + 2.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              There are just few the most important Linux distributions and nobody has to care about others.
                              * Debian
                              * Ubuntu
                              * Mint
                              * OpenSuSe / SuSe
                              * Fedora / CentOS / RHEL
                              * Mageia / Mandriva
                              * Arch
                              * Gentoo

                              That's a whole lot more than OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD and DragonflyBSD (is this project still relevant?) ... being those 3 the "mother" systems. Please visit http://distrowatch.com/

                              so it will be always behind Linux and proprietary systems, because they can take all of the advantages and you're left alone.
                              Like Chromium, Clang, FreeBSD and such, right? ... cool story bro
                              Won't revive the license war that is always revived, most of us already knows the arguments and the validity of them, even if we like to pretend that we don't ...

                              UFS, ext[1] and fat are real crap.
                              UFS2 is a whole different story to what UFS is ... check if it was a typo, thank you.
                              FreeBSD does support ext3 and ext4 ... that's the filesystem I used to backup my data and read it in FreeBSD.
                              And yes, FAT is crap.
                              Forgot about NTFS and dunno what other filesystem.

                              If zfs is production ready in BSD then it's great, but it is not so good for desktops
                              Check the thread, we are not talking about desktop (even that is arguable, because snapshotting and doing a rollback of a bad upgrade or having multiple versions of the OS installed is A HUGE PLUS for the user) .. and I'm glad to inform you that yes, it is production ready and every day is improving (like support for boot enviroments !!)

                              FreeBSD devs used to do some benchmarking, but when Linux developers showed their own benchmarks they stopped playing in this game.
                              Could you please elaborate? I do know about some areas where linux kicks FreeBSD in the face and I know about those benchmarks posted in the mailing lists, but I wanna hear about your arguments.

                              here were many proper benchmarks done in the past (like DNS one), but now they're irrelevant, because they're old. Linux use in enterprise computing suggests it's faster, more stable and reliable.
                              Like Windows being used in state infrastructure, corporate enviroments and desktops suggest is more stable, faster and reliable? wtf? nice pseudo "ad populum" argument.

                              Some can explain it's used out there, because there are companies behind Linux, but... there are reasons why there are companies behind it and not behind BSD (keep in mind I have enterprise computing on my mind here).
                              If you talk about HPC then it's YES, SCHED_ULE has some weird bugs and lack of native OpenCL and CUDA (linuxulator doesn't count) is one of those kicks in the face I mentioned.

                              FreeBSD contains 30 year old code, so it's hard to tell if it is younger.
                              Most of it was removed or cleaned in time ... remember the litigation?
                              but a code being older doesn't say anything about it's quality nonetheless.

                              When comes to automation I meant things like udev.
                              And the cute automounting that opens vulns by mounting what could be a malformed filesystem with generous flags like exec? really? Most of the *BSDs sacrifice this commodity for better security on the server where those systems aim.
                              for udev, the equivalent is devd ... research about it

                              Atheros is mainly OpenBSD merit
                              Yes, and it's one of the *BSDs ... if you wanna talk about one *BSD in particular, please, name it.

                              It's hard to find anti-BSD trolls at Linux distribution forums and I didn't ever find a Linux dev who trolls about BSD. Devs from FreeBSD trolls a lot about Linux.
                              Then you definitely are "special"
                              Trolling is not only made on mailing lists and forums (which I moderate and find SO MANY anti-bsd trolls ... one thing is pointing out deficiencies, which all of the BSDs have, and another thing is bashing blindly without knowing what you're shooting at), but also by cleaning your ass with standards, using GNUisms in code and not doing portable programming.

                              Regards.
                              Last edited by vertexSymphony; 06-03-2012, 08:18 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Libreman View Post
                                ... but do not claim that you care about the freedom you allowed to be taken away because if you did you would use GPL to protect it from being taken, not BSD that offers no protections for those freedoms.

                                Software is made with one universal goal in mind - to be used. If a 3rd party takes your code, re-releases it under non-free license and some users come to use it, those users are now using non-free software instead of the original free one so the total users of free software has shrunk - an exact opposite of what a person caring about software freedom would want. Using BSD has that exact effect, you pretend like the people using the BSD licensed work and those using the proprietary one live in totally different and isolated universes - this is not how the real world works. The existence of proprietary forks is going to influence the BSD licensed ones. I think that is pretty obvious for any rationally thinking person. I believe the fact that I'm explaining that simple reality means that we're beyond rational discussion and we veered into emotional defensive straw grasping manifesting itself when people run out of real arguments to support the position they dream would hold true but can not be supported by logical thinking.

                                So to sum up, the only thing I'm saying is that people advocating and releasing code under "permissive" licenses consciously or subconsciously (or without realizing it) do not care about those 4 essential freedoms as defined by FSF.

                                That is all I'm saying and I just want them to realize that and either change their license preference if they truly do care about those freedoms or be honest about not caring about them, that's all.
                                I note you overuse the word 'freedom'. What exactly is your definition of freedom?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X