Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Features Coming For FreeBSD 10

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by randomizer View Post
    No, you are obligated to provide the source code to anyone who you give the binaries to. You have no obligation to contribute to the project. Of course obligations don't necessarily get honoured. Want to take a guess at how many companies use GPL software or libraries in proprietary products and services?
    You rephrased and claimed contradiction.
    There is NO DIFFERENCE between obligated to provide source and contribute back. I never suggested that you need to participate directly in the project in order to contribute. VERY narrow minded you need to be to make that association.

    As for "honoring" the GPL.. of course some companies will rip off GPL code. The point though, is that when they're big enough that it matters, they can't afford to do that and get called out for it.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
      Please don't compare bleeding edge workstation/hacker/tester distros to enterprise linux servers. Your example of multi-year stability with security patches is nothing unique to BSD. I have production servers running uptimes of multiple-years as well, and not just dinky private office fileservers, rather high volume web and database servers that have all of russia and china pounding on my ports thousands of times daily.
      So were your servers not affected by the recent leap second or did your enterprise distro push out the fix in time?

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
        Please don't compare bleeding edge workstation/hacker/tester distros to enterprise linux servers. Your example of multi-year stability with security patches is nothing unique to BSD. I have production servers running uptimes of multiple-years as well, and not just dinky private office fileservers, rather high volume web and database servers that have all of russia and china pounding on my ports thousands of times daily.
        I didn't claim that maintaining stability branches and security updates didn't exist in other places. The point was that there's a single upstream vendor which maintains kernel and userland on all branches. Linux distros try to archive the same, but they're more like a middleman and stuff can easily fall through the cracks with the amount of patches going on in the Linux word.

        Note that I didn't post this to bash Linux, this was directed at the BSD bashers

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
          <insert GPL license fanatic response here>
          While GPL is a nice license, there's this argument that forcing 3rd parties to release source modifications isn't equal to a quality contribution.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            Because it's more popular.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            However, by saying FreeBSD is pathetic I don't think he was talking about stability. Linux and Unix like systems are the most stable. The problem with BSD is it's always behind, because of the lack of manpower. The features that are comming to FreeBSD 10 are already present in Linux.


            Will this shut up people who complain about PA and say it's a layer? What's more funny Windows and OS X are also using something like this, so if everyone is using such layer now, people should shut up, right?
            They probably added audio server, because Linux fans are complaining about lack of "futures" (bloat) on FreeBSD. Audio server is useless layer, unless they put all audio stuff in user space.

            They are trying to make BSD licensed Linux with ZFS.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
              modern init system like systemd
              FreeBSD's "outdated" init at least doesn't have 3D game engine built-in.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                Linux usually owns netcraft:

                http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...-may-2012.html

                However, by saying FreeBSD is pathetic I don't think he was talking about stability. Linux and Unix like systems are the most stable. The problem with BSD is it's always behind, because of the lack of manpower. The features that are comming to FreeBSD 10 are already present in Linux.



                Will this shut up people who complain about PA and say it's a layer? What's more funny Windows and OS X are also using something like this, so if everyone is using such layer now, people should shut up, right?

                What for? To take a look at meaningless and unfair comparison (KDE vs Unity)?
                Well, Linux certainly owns netcraft if you mean quantity. However, what I argued was that since january 2011, FreeBSD has ranked better than Linux in 10 out of 18 months. I argue that this proves that FreeBSD is at least as stable as Linux, since the tests obviously puts the most extreme demands on virtually every subsystem of the kernel. Moreover, since december 2010, FreeBSD wins 18 months while Linux 13 months. So, if this is not an argument showing the "rock solid" aspect of FreeBSD, and that it is even more stable than Linux, it should count as an argument showing that Linux is not more stable than FreeBSD, that is, FreeBSD is AT LEAST as stable as Linux.
                About manpower... I agree the obvious advantages of this. However, with all the atention (and resources) spent on Linux by the most powerful companies, how can you measure the actual freedom of Linux? Maybe not having so much attention can be a nice thing.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by a2r-l View Post
                  That should be promoted as a feature
                  lol ^ this.

                  BSD servers can be EXTREMELY stable, no question. As for using clang, well maybe it will catch more errors and make FreeBSD more stable for the speed trade off. *BSD to Linux is like Linux is to Windows, you trade stability for features and binary blobs along the way, you have to decide where the trade off pays off best for you.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Annoyed

                    Can there not be a post about X where X is not Linux without the discussion degenerating into Linux vs X?

                    For most of the topics posted that aren't about Linux, whenever I view the forums expecting insightful technical discussions in order to learn all I see are flame wars of Linux vs X, GPL vs X, etc...

                    It annoying and it does not help anyone.

                    Linux is what it is...
                    GPL is what it is...
                    X is what it is...

                    No amount of flame wars held on random forums will change this. I can't believe people cannot find better use for their time.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
                      Can there not be a post about X where X is not Linux without the discussion degenerating into Linux vs X?
                      No, because Linux fanboys always set the fire.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X