Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should There Be A Unified BSD Operating System?

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

  • #46
    As for the question of a unified BSD, these sort of suggestions always sound perfectly reasonable at first glance, until you actually look at the reasons why they aren't one project to begin with.

    It has to do with endgoals, technological choices, and even ideology at times.

    Also when people point at Linux and saying it's not fragmented it's mainly true, but FreeBSD is no more fragmented, nor are OpenBSD or NetBSD or DragonflyBSD.

    These are all _different_ projects. they may share some code and even part of their names but again they are _different_ projects with all that this entails.

    KDE,GNOME,XFCE,*Box,*WM - GTK,QT etc etc... heck you can take it as far as WINDOWS/OSX/LINUX/BSD/HAIKU/REACTOS etc

    All projects which are in the same problem domain and again at a cursory glance would seem ripe for 'consolidation', but as soon as you look at the projects in any kind of detail you will see how there are reasons for why they are separate and why their respective developers have no interest in the other projects.

    Comment


    • #47
      XorEaxEax, I want to know. Do you write code or do you just freeload on what others have done?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by ryao View Post
        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.
        You have to read GPL. If you do not distribute binaries, you don't have to distribute source either. This allows to use GPLed code on your private servers/installations/whatever without giving back changes. If this an issue for developers, they will be better with AGPL license, which handles this use case and requires to release source in such cases as well. For me it looks like if it's not a big deal at the moment and usual GPL works quite well for Linux.

        In general GPL does it quite inconvenient or hard for most business models to exist without releasing source. This includes embedded, general purpose OSes (servers, desktops, etc) and so on. And Linux has seriously outperformed BSD-based competitors on these markets.

        You see, BSDs are 10 years older. So they had all chances to win. However, corporations behind them preferred not to disclose their improvements. Single company wins. Everyone else loses. Upstream project as whole getting stuck without resources and improvements. Then competitor appears and outruns it, using collaboration of members to improve it's development speed. So Linux does not faces lack of resources. If someone improves something and distributes it, they have to publish source as well. There are ways to workaround but risky, costly and dubious. And it would certainly make you unwelcome for kernel developers to say the least (do you remember "f...k you, Nvidia"?). So you will be on your own, not a part of process. This implies seriously increased development cost and so on.

        In short, GPL makes it very inconvenient to be parasite and far more convenient to be part of process. BSD license does not cares so at the end of day BSD systems are getting eaten by parasites who takes the code and never returns anything.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by ryao View Post
          XorEaxEax, I want to know. Do you write code or do you just freeload on what others have done?
          Hmm, granted that xor eax, eax leads to zero, I seriously doubt it

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by disi View Post
            Big in vpn stuff
            awesome company, good business...
            So juniper can do business on BSD. Everyone else can ... GTFO! And do all changes to BSD kernel themselves. Unfortunately this requires you to be huge corporation or so and willing to invest ton of bucks into new project, waste several years and so on. This also explains why small startup like Google ages ago or Facebook or whatever will stick to Linux.

            Now we can open our eyes and figure out that:
            1) Most modern SOHO routers/access points are using Linux.
            2) Modern TVs and TV boxes are using Linux.
            3) Android bases on Linux either.
            4) Small NASes, etc are running linux as well.

            Because people do not have to do the whole kernel adaptation and work is split over dozen and half of entities. Who could be competitors otherwise. But they all need good working kernel for their OS to be able to just start their competition. This serves as point for collaboration on topic. And it works.
            Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 11-14-2012, 01:25 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by ryao View Post
              XorEaxEax, I want to know. Do you write code or do you just freeload on what others have done?
              Hmm... not sure that I understand the distinction you make between writing code or 'freeloading', are you suggesting that anyone not writing code (open source code I assume) are freeloaders if they _use_ open source?

              Or was this not a question in a larger scope but something particularly directed at me, as in some ad hominem longshot of -'unless you write open source you should shut your mouth' or some such?

              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
              Hmm, granted that xor eax, eax leads to zero, I seriously doubt it
              Hey, don't knock the importance of zero!

              Reminds me of Futurama,

              Bender: What an awful dream, ones and zeroes everywhere... and I thought I saw a two.
              Fry: It was just a dream bender, there's no such thing as a two.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                Obviously this was not FSF's intention and there's the affero GPL licence which deals with this shortcoming.
                Almost no one outside of GNU uses this extremely horrible license, so maybe that wasn't a short coming to anyone else?

                If both companies were legally bound to release all their modifications then FreeBSD would move forward faster and Juniper and Cisco would have to compete on other strengths than 'the secret sauce'.
                Oh, you mean like the Apple/khtml debacle that had people whining about the unmanageably huge code dumps that met the terms of the license?

                Comment


                • #53
                  There should be none at all.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by ArchLinux View Post
                    There should be none at all.
                    And why do you think so?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by BitRot View Post
                      And why do you think so?
                      I don't. I just like to troll like some other stupid dumbasses in here.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                        Almost no one outside of GNU uses this extremely horrible license, so maybe that wasn't a short coming to anyone else?
                        Exactly! I need to steal this project that was licensed to specifically deny it!

                        FIGHT THIS IDIOCY.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by ArchLinux View Post
                          FIGHT THIS IDIOCY.
                          Debian already did:

                          http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal.../msg00047.html

                          The outcome was AGPLv3 was not DFSG free

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Wrong, my friend, the whole debate is about AGPL and what its definition considers to be a "user".

                            In no goddamn way does it mean that they hate GPL or that BSD is somehow "better" a license, yet isn't that exactly what you still managed to conclude in your tiny little head.

                            Or is it perhaps closed source that you're so eagerly promoting?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                              Yeah, a random link to a random discussion not saying what you quoted, I'm convinced... not.

                              From the main (free) Debian repository: owncloud (AGPL), otrs (AGPL)... it was a short fight it seems, AGPL won.

                              BTW, never heard of Launchpad or Gitorious?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                                Unfortunately AGPL won, it was a short fight. From the Debian (free) main repository: owncloud (AGPL), otrs (AGPL)...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X