Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should There Be A Unified BSD Operating System?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    The main foci of major BSD-derived operating systems have always been technical excellence and the ability to share their innovations others. A major strength of BSD-derived operating systems is that their developers consider the long term usefulness of changes to the platform as a whole. That is in contrast to various Linux distributions, which often accept short-sighted decisions of other groups without question, even when they conflict. If BSD-derived operating systems gain market share, it should be because they are doing things well, not because they abandoned principles that much of the Linux community has never had.

    With that said, the only significant things that the BSD community appears to lack at the moment are KVM, Network Manager, some wireless drivers and some graphics drivers, all of which could easily be ported if key Linux developers were to join the BSD community. If Linux developers joined the BSD community to do that, end users would be better off.
    /rant
    Drivers! What they need are drivers or at least don't break working ones with an update.
    Old SATA I controllers are not supported, newer ones are not supported and the one I found in the middle doesn't work properly since 8.3 any more.
    rant/

    Since I got a bloody nose with FreeBSD, it worked 1 year, then upgrade to 8.3 and tried ~6 months to get it working again (you cannot downgrade back to 8.2 since zfs is not compatible -.-). I am back on Gentoo Linux with that box and no data loss in the zfs pools.
    Last edited by disi; 11-13-2012, 10:15 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ryao View Post
      The main foci of major BSD-derived operating systems have always been technical excellence and the ability to share their innovations others. A major strength of BSD-derived operating systems is that their developers consider the long term usefulness of changes to the platform as a whole. That is in contrast to various Linux distributions, which often accept short-sighted decisions of other groups without question, even when they conflict. If BSD-derived operating systems gain market share, it should be because they are doing things well, not because they abandoned principles that the Linux community has never had.

      With that said, the only significant things that the BSD community appears to lack at the moment are KVM, Network Manager, some wireless drivers and some graphics drivers, all of which could easily be ported if key Linux developers were to join the BSD community. If Linux developers joined the BSD community to do that, end users would be better off.
      As a matter of principle, I always thought BSD had the upper hand. But that's not how it's all shaken out. Intel, for example, is doing a lot of work on Mesa and x.org to improve OpenGL compliance and so forth. Sure, BSD can benefit from this, but that's not why they're doing it. The large OSS user base is a linux user base.

      What I'm saying is probably somewhere between the law of diminishing returns, and the law of marginal utility.(considering where the OSS user base is at) As I said just a moment ago, there's strength in numbers.

      But even though I think that BSD has the upper hand based on some of the principles you laid out, the notion(and even the original article states this in the opening paragraph) that it's "bsd vs linux" is weird to me. It's OSS vs Microsoft and/or other corporations who seek to either make us dependent upon their sub-par(or even faulty) wares, over charge, or other such nonsense.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by disi View Post
        /rant
        Drivers! What they need are drivers or at least don't break working ones with an update.
        Old SATA I controllers are not supported, newer ones are not supported and the one I found in the middle doesn't work properly since 8.3 any more.
        rant/

        Since I got a bloody nose with FreeBSD, it worked 1 year, then upgrade to 8.3 and tried ~6 months to get it working again (you cannot downgrade back to 8.2 since zfs is not compatible -.-). I am back on Gentoo Linux with that box and no data loss in the zfs pools.
        Did you file a problem report with FreeBSD? As one of the Gentoo BSD developers, I would appreciate it if a problem report were filed for the SATA issue that you encountered. As the Gentoo Linux ZFS maintainer, I am very happy to hear that you enjoy ZFS on Gentoo Linux.

        Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
        As a matter of principle, I always thought BSD had the upper hand. But that's not how it's all shaken out. Intel, for example, is doing a lot of work on Mesa and x.org to improve OpenGL compliance and so forth. Sure, BSD can benefit from this, but that's not why they're doing it. The large OSS user base is a linux user base.

        What I'm saying is probably somewhere between the law of diminishing returns, and the law of marginal utility.(considering where the OSS user base is at) As I said just a moment ago, there's strength in numbers.

        But even though I think that BSD has the upper hand based on some of the principles you laid out, the notion(and even the original article states this in the opening paragraph) that it's "bsd vs linux" is weird to me. It's OSS vs Microsoft and/or other corporations who seek to either make us dependent upon their sub-par(or even faulty) wares, over charge, or other such nonsense.
        Intel's work has been ported to FreeBSD. I tried the port on FreeBSD 9.1-RC3 a few days ago and it works well. It currently requires that you add WITH_NEW_XORG=true and WITH_KMS=true to /etc/make.conf and build xorg and libdrm from their ports. However, I expect that they will have appropriate binary packages in time for the FreeBSD 9.1 release. I plan to merge this into Gentoo FreeBSD after we get our X server working on Gentoo FreeBSD.
        Last edited by ryao; 11-13-2012, 10:26 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
          I didn't have popularity in mind. "Hey, that BSD is soooooo unpopular...." That's a silly notion.
          Sorry, I misread then

          What I'm saying, is that there's strength in numbers.

          http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articl...and-linux.html

          The opening line:



          Then we should work together, instead of working separately.
          From the end user perspective this might be the most logical thing to do.
          However, most devs realize their own visions on the various BSDs. That's why there is not one single BSD OS.
          For example, Matt Dillon wanted a diferent approach to SMP on FreeBSD, but he wasn't allowed to(or whatever), so he forked FreeBSD and created DragonflyBSD.
          You won't get him or anyone working on it to develop for Linux.
          Same with OpenBSD, you sure as hell won't get Theo de Raadt to give up his vision on having the best security, which he can only realize with an own OS.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
            LOL Oh come on now. Macs are computers for elitists, let's be honest here.
            Macs are for girls and gays.

            Back to the "Linux and BSD should work together" part: They do. They are inspired by each other.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
              Macs are for girls and gays.

              Back to the "Linux and BSD should work together" part: They do. They are inspired by each other.
              I suggest you stop this childish behaviour.

              Comment


              • #22
                Nah. When people start to call Macs "elitist systems", it can't be much more childish.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Unified BSD? Not a snowball chance in the hell?

                  Oh, it's exactly like this comix. Will not work: different projects have different goals and managed to change both parts of user-mode code and kernel code in incompatible ways.

                  And they also failed to integrate corporations into their working processes. You see, BSD license allows to close code and don't give back anything. That's where it backfires. Corporations close all the code they can and never contribute anything to upstream. So whole project is slowed down. Linux does not haves this issue due to GPL requirements.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                    And they also failed to integrate corporations into their working processes. You see, BSD license allows to close code and don't give back anything. That's where it backfires. Corporations close all the code they can and never contribute anything to upstream. So whole project is slowed down. Linux does not haves this issue due to GPL requirements.
                    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTIyNzU

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                      Oh, it's exactly like this comix. Will not work: different projects have different goals and managed to change both parts of user-mode code and kernel code in incompatible ways.

                      And they also failed to integrate corporations into their working processes. You see, BSD license allows to close code and don't give back anything. That's where it backfires. Corporations close all the code they can and never contribute anything to upstream. So whole project is slowed down. Linux does not haves this issue due to GPL requirements.
                      That's right, Linux only has the 1 x month obligatory GPL violation and everyone arguing politics instead of writing code. Oh please.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        There are hundreds of Linux distributions and several BSD's ... and BSD needs unification?

                        But jokes aside, one unified BSD 'to rule them all' would be nice. Is the name TheBSD already taken?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
                          Nah. When people start to call Macs "elitist systems", it can't be much more childish.
                          you proved the opposite.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Ask yourself why these forks exist. Then revisit the question, and the simple answer is; no.

                            Why?
                            1. OpenBSD does puts too much emphasis on security, with a development model that hinders developmental progres on anything that is not security. This alone already invaliddates the question.

                            2. Dragon wants different scheduling styles, not compatible with FreeBSD.

                            3. NetB-...

                            Oh fsck it; NO!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                              Oh, it's exactly like this comix. Will not work: different projects have different goals and managed to change both parts of user-mode code and kernel code in incompatible ways.

                              And they also failed to integrate corporations into their working processes. You see, BSD license allows to close code and don't give back anything. That's where it backfires. Corporations close all the code they can and never contribute anything to upstream. So whole project is slowed down. Linux does not haves this issue due to GPL requirements.
                              The GPL allows corporations to avoid disclosing changes to code too. Facebook uses a ton of GPL software and I have not seen them disclose their changes to the GPL licensed components. For example, they maintain their own internal fork of MySQL and I doubt that any of the code in it will ever be released for use outside of Facebook. At the same time, Netflix is in a similar position with FreeBSD, but they are upstreaming their modifications:

                              http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/f...ne/068129.html

                              Juniper Networks also contributes code to FreeBSD. They are one of the companies that would have been forced to disclose changes under the GPL, yet they use FreeBSD and contribute improvements without a legal requirement to release anything.

                              With that said, nearly all of the code being contributed to Linux was written to further corporate interests and would have likely been contributed anyway. Virtually none of the code contributions are things that corporations were forced to release. Whenever a company has code that they do not want to release, they either use something other than Linux or keep it internal.
                              Last edited by ryao; 11-13-2012, 03:38 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Exactly how it is written in Linux From Scratch book:


                                Unification of Linux was only interesting for proprietary software.

                                Dear BSD, go unify, crap even more Instead of fighting with proprietary, you are fighting with a FLOSS operating system like a parasite. I bet, you already got blessing from your holy fathers microsoft & apple


                                When I see claims from BSD parasites like "BSD should work with Linux" or "Linux should not implement features that are not welcome/accepted within BSD", you only confirm your parasite behaviour. You essentially make the same developers to carry DOUBLE weight. The only reason why someone would claim this - is to slow down the development and fragment it.

                                BSD license is only good for *parts*. And even then, it is not far from "public domain", why bother?
                                Last edited by crazycheese; 11-13-2012, 03:56 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X