Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sony's PlayStation 4 Is Running Modified FreeBSD 9

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

  • Originally posted by Sergio View Post
    What GPL resembles is communism; only GPL shall exist, nothing more, nothing less. In what universe is that freedom? NOT IN MINE.
    I neither understand how this has anything to do with communism nor why how GPL supposedly wants to forbid you to have code under a BSD license. Take only X.org. It has chosen MIT as preferred license. I don't see how the GPL is in any way trying to prevent that.

    Comment


    • woow i read all the comments here and soo much bullshit about opengl i never heard in years.

      DO you know how much advantages OGL+Linux distro have over Win+DX? and yes its not that simple to use opengl But if you guys talk about the disadvantages please do it right and write also the advantages that its have and if you Don't know ASK!!

      And For the FreeBSD user i Hope that because PS4 based on FreeBSD Distro it will bring better Drivers (and don't forget that its still sony and they dont very friendly about this) .

      i never read the all BSD license agreement soo anyone can write or point on what specific area in the agreement Sony choose the reason to choose BSD over other license? because it must be very good reason to choose BSD and not because the BSD license itself , it because choosing other distro can simplified things for sony . soo why they make always the hard choice ? (and believe me i'm happy about it for the FreeBSD users because it can help in this area)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sergio View Post
        And what exactly is THE definition of freedom? Why should that be THE definition.
        Very good question in fact. If we'll look on current laws, we'll notice that most civilized people would agree definitions like this one or similar in spirit. That what makes laws to look like this. If everyone would be fine with anarchy/king of the hill model, shooting of 10 ppl on the street would go unpunished. However it's not a case. Community shows demand and then lawmakers have to respond. And this process happens to be quite universal. It's a basics of how groups of people are interacting.

        What GPL resembles is communism; only GPL shall exist, nothing more, nothing less. In what universe is that freedom?
        To some degree it's true. And there is reason: making a copy of program on it's own does not costs anything. That's what makes this approach valid and what makes it's odd to charge for copy of program on it's own.

        And btw, communism in it's core isn't evil on it's own. And not anyhow worse than capitalism or anything else. It's bad when it's enforced. But look, in future, technologuical development could allow virtually unlimited copying of any material objetcs at virtually zero prices. It's nothing wrong to order some widespread automations to do the jobs and get results. Free of charge. And it would cost nearly $0 just as memcpy() costs you nearly $0. Because it could be just as common as memcpy() happens to be these days. This strange world will be world of all and nothing. Because you don't need to store or "own" objects if you can create them on demand. Should you need a car, it could be assembled where you need it and disintegrated where you no longer need it. So only your ability to create object's model suitable for construction matters. I can't tell what exact technology would be. Maybe molecular assembly devices/nanobots/whatever else is able form matter to pre-programmed shapes. But I can see families of technologies and I can see their final destination will be this point. At this point techs converge and give birth to new super-abilities. You see, in this world some ideas from communism are not looking too wild. In fact, everyone could get what they want by just shaping and transforming matter into desired object. Composing of objects under software control is probably doomed to become common and widespread as technology advances. Then what? At final point you can assemble anything that does not violates laws of physics. In such world some core ideas from communism could actually work. At least there are no reasons why they would not. So if we'll disregard fear and propaganda and will consider only some rational parts, it could map very well to technologies development.

        And best of all: you can see early phases of all this today. 3D printers and CnC machines, robots, etc. All this is a very early form of new emerging technologies. But then techs will take a shape and will be improved. At some point they are doomed to reach destination endpoint: creation of any object, free of charge. It's promising to be very interesting to see how capitalists driven by greed have actually created set of technologies which can make capitalism really obsoleted. Just as it's getting obsolete to charge for a copy of program on it's own these days

        NOT IN MINE.
        Ok, then I definitely should live in your universe. Because there should be freedom to shot you and go unpunished, isn't it? I want to have my absolute freedom too in this case, if you can have it. Though, ideally, I would prefer freedom to order bunch of nanobots do slow disintegration of your butt. It should be more fun and you will have enough time to actually enjoy by your own logic applied to your own butt in most literal sense I can imagine. Then we'll see if you're really serious about giving everyone absolute freedom to do whatever they want to...

        Sure, thats what everybody says. The truth is that i've rarely found such a vague 'definition' of freedom; basically you use freedom in the definition of freedom. It's not as simple as that.
        There are no better definitions anyway. Some freedoms HAVE to be restricted just to prevent even more restrictions caused by using these freedoms. You see, it tends to self-balance at some point.

        The point is that freedom si a controversial term.
        Somewhat you're right. And I even agree that just as it's bad to enforce communism with a guns, it's also generally bad to force you to give up your freedoms. However, if your usage of your freedoms begins to harm others, I see no reasons why force should not be applied. It's completely fair to harm you in return.

        Again, you fail to define precisely what freedom means. And it's not your fault; it is really REALLY difficult to do so. That's why I see BSD as providing freedom, and GNU as resembling communism, while you seem to think that GNU provides freedom. Well, that's why the controversy never ends.
        BSD provides anarchy (which is considered by some people as form of freedom, even though it usually leads to dictatorship after some time). GPL provides civilized interaction of equal entities (which more or less resembles modern ways to apply laws). I clearly prefer second option.

        Let me just quote this guy Benjamin Franklin: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
        Very good quote. One of my favorite ones. The only thing is that to actually implement this principle, the Constitution has been created (or similar sets of laws and/or international treaties quite similar in spirit). And look, the Constitution actually DOES limits SOME of freedoms to some degree. Just to make sure other freedoms are remaining available to everyone and nobody can seize them. You see, freedom needs protection. GPL does the very same thing - it places so

        Anyway, stop dictating what freedom is and accept once and for all that the best you can do is say what freedom MEANS TO YOU.
        Oh, immediately after all laws cancelled and perfect freedom (aka anarchy) takes place. If it's not a case, let's stick to civilized approach and encourage it while discouraging "king of the hill" methods of doing things.

        Basically your speech implies that you're able to see your freedoms but absolutely failed to understand that evereyone else should have equal amount of freedom and that your use of your freedoms could impact freedoms of others. Hence your view seems to be biased - it's excessively egoistic (which is common for BSD nuts, looks like in the very deep of their spirit they're proprietary and greedy by their nature).

        Comment


        • Originally posted by nir2142 View Post
          DO you know how much advantages OGL+Linux distro have over Win+DX?
          There are at least some major advantage: no vendor lock-in. Portability. Basically, OpenGL is more or less the same in win, linux, mac, ios and android. WebGL is also very similar. So if program uses GL it's relatively easy to port it to whatever could run it and you not really depend too much on particular implementation, so you can have dozen and half of fallback options. OTOH in case of MS and Win they can completely screw you up by their decisions and there will be no way to override it. Furthermore, if you're not MS - you can't implement DX support in your own system because ... because MS thinks they can compete with a whole planet. And MS licensing terms and conditions are inconvenient and costly for many scenarios. I wish them luck in this approach. It looks like if they're rather would EPIC FAIL in each and every market I can imagine. Tablets? FAIL. Phones? FAIL. Supercomputers? FAIL. Web? FAIL. Desktop? Notebooks? Oh, they failed so hard that this market probably will collapse and tablets/phones will instead become mainstream computing devices for most users, seriously reducing role of desktops and notebooks in common life of usual people, shrinking PC market a lot. And most funny fail: MS learned us there is only x86 and win32 for years. Now they paid a good price for doing so. Market changed. ARMs become really good. But WinRT will die by horrible death because win32+x86 devs proved to be utterly incapable to switch to ARM and new api. This literally crashed winRT. There is no software. And no any single reason to use this system. LOL.

          And For the FreeBSD user i Hope that because PS4 based on FreeBSD Distro it will bring better Drivers (and don't forget that its still sony and they dont very friendly about this) .
          Ha-ha, you wish. While you "hope", Linux guys are rather not going to depend on Sony or someone else. And are writing opensource graphics stack instead. It's really interesting to see how some new powerful graphic subsystem takes shape in Linux kernel and how other parts of open stack are starting to use it. The only right way to do the things and the only safe way. And BSD guys started to consider KMS and so on only when open drivers ditched all old interfaces and things gone really hard so BSD nuts completely lack drivers. That's what called a bad project management. Not just guys unable to define their future, they also have to depend on someone else. Bad fate. It will be toy OS and free stuff for greedy and DRM inclined corps like sony/apple.

          As for me I can only wish to worst enemies to depend on sony/apple/... good will. That's what they deserve... .

          Comment


          • Originally posted by squirrl View Post
            GNU -- Free Software Foundation owns your code, you'll get sued
            Wrong. Unless you chose to transfer copyright to FSF, you remain the copyright owner. In this case FSF will be unable to sue violators on your behalf but if you can handle it yourself, not a big problem.

            So in fact, "everyone can used code on equal conditions". I think it's perfectly fair. If you use my code, I should be able to use your code either to keep things fair. Else you're e-parasite, sir.

            There is one notable exception though. If author wants to make some data format widespread at cost of code development success, it could be smart to release reference implementation under BSD license to ensure widest possible coverage data format can have. Caveat here is that someone can make project better and close source, effectively overtaking majority of users and don't contributing anything back.

            BSD -- You can own it, they can own it, anybody can own it.
            And at the end of day it sounds like that:
            - Either you get third-rate "free" crap and do all the things yourself (up to writing half of drviers/features again even if someone already did it but not opened their source),
            - Or you pay for commercial solution, give up all freedoms and only commercial solution vendor is who haves freedom to pwn you as they will.
            Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 06-26-2013, 04:01 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
              Your life is totally dominated by Stallman. Brainwashing at its best. Those terrorists that brainwash people in blowing themselves up couldn't have done a better job than the Stallman Cult...
              Negative. I've come to most of these conclusions myself with my own brain. By just working in software industry for years and observing different approaches and their results. If they're matching Stallman - fine for me. But I never bothered self to read Stallman statements anyhow seriously. I only bothered self to read different licenses and then take a look on outcome of various projects in more or less equal starting conditions. Linux clearly outperformed all BSDs for example. Even if BSDs had 10 more years to get things right. And even some corps were using them. But sure, they did not commited back. So at some point Linux outrun them. Most ironic example is WindRiver who messed up with bsdi and then... then they were forced to put it to garbage bin and use Linux. Because else others will do it and who would buy proprietary BSD fork when you can get opensource Linux? Very simple, isn't it?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                Right. But there is only one reason to close code: it's become better than original. It was improved. So one who closes it haves reasons to think they're now king of the hill. Else they would not need to close their source, lol.


                Sure. But in fact by default all corporations are greedy up to degree where it could impact project success. It's so funny to see BSD nuts are claiming it's "unfair" that so many corps are working in Linux and actually contributing to it. As for me, it appears GPL is a really good cure, which converts e-parasites into e-contributors. Much better form of life for sure.


                Sure. If I will buy PS4, I would lack any freedom to change source and use BSD "freedom". Hopefully you're not going to offer me to


                They refuse treat community as equals. Community put their job for everyone. They refuse to do the same. This what makes free BSD versions third-rate crap which is mostly unusable and losing to other OSes. Is this so hard to understand? Every decision haves it's price. Sony wins. Everyone else loses.


                Specifically, I have a freedom to show middle finger to those morons who want to get my money for their device and then dares to dictate me what to do, limit my rights with nasty DRM schemes and not giving rights to change system software to suit my needs. Effectively it looks like it is me who owes Sony something after buying their crap. This is really flawed approach to my taste.


                That's why there was GPL invented. It ensures that everyone can get equal set of rights. That's what makes game fair for all sides, both big and small. And we see, GPL worked better. BSD nuts had 10 more years to make somethinh worthy but in fact, free BSD versions are still complete crap. And only couple of commercial derivatives are anyhow able to do the things.

                So what? Couple corps won. Community lost. And since I'm not Sony and I don't like to be on losing side, I would rather stick to Linux. There are no "losing side" at all: everyone wins together. At the end of day, collaboration just proven to be more efficient. Fairly predictable outcome, should I admit .
                Let's see. We agree in believing the GPL is a better license. I guess we agreed in that BSD is a free license, too. I don't know of those that claim it's unfair that Linux gets more help from corps, if so, well, they are wrong because they chose the license who say "I'm not really that interested in anyone contributing back, if you want we are OK, but if you don't it's OK, too". If they cared about others contributing back, they should have chosen a license that enforces this. Otherwise, don't whine. I agree on that. The point in which we don't agree is that most coders on that camp really want (as in expect them, not as in welcoming them) contributions. If they choose the BSD license, I'm inclined to think they want to make a gift of their code, so anyone is free to make any use their code, without forcing to give something back, since that's basically what that license is for. I can't make an opinion about the actual tech things, because I didn't try it. I'm OK with Linux so there's no need for it.
                About being parasites, well, I have mixed feelings. I feel they SHOULD give something back, but they don't MUST give something back. The original author wanted it that way (or was pretty misinformed about the license he/she chose), so I'm no one to expect anything. The point is, they are allowed to use it without giving anything back, but it's not the polite thing to do.
                And about the freedom to show the middle finger, damn right you are. I do use that freedom, too. But I don't give the middle finger to the ones who made the BSD code, I think that's pretty noble of them.

                Also, even though I have no faith in Sony in regards of giving anything back (I remember they even banned installing Linux on their PS3, when they previously used the fact it was possible as one of their marketing strategies), AMD has nothing to lose releasing the binary driver. So, if at the driver level the PS4 OS is similar enough to the original BSD used and there's no IP issue, I believe it's possible they release a driver for BSD, which would be good for them.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by chrisb View Post
                  Yes, they beat up a strawman:
                  No, a toe-jam eating hippie lied about them in the 'media', was called on it, then ran away after an incredibly long thread: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119730630513821&w=2

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ninez View Post
                    no, you've been holding BSD license to GPL standards, expecting that it should offer you the same things, which it does not. nor should it. (since it is a completely different license).
                    Exactly, these licences serve different needs, there is no better or worse licence as 'better or worse' totally depends on the needs of the one who is evaluating them.

                    Now if we look at how these licences are typically used at large, we see that permissive licencing if often used when it comes to framework/component style code, and copyleft is often used when it comes to full application/solution style projects.

                    Again, different needs being reflected.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                      What GPL resembles is communism; only GPL shall exist, nothing more, nothing less. In what universe is that freedom? NOT IN MINE.
                      What the heck are you babbling about? By your definition everything carrying a EULA out there is communism.

                      You choose to use GPL licenced code, whenever you use someone else's code you are subject to their conditions, in the case of GPL the conditions are that you release derivatives under the same licence terms.

                      Unless you choose to use someone else's GPL licenced code you are not subject to these licence terms. That isn't communism by any stretch of the imagination.

                      Why is it that BSD and GPL fanboys are so quick to spew bullshit in the other direction? It's not a win or lose situation, these are DIFFERENT licences catering for DIFFERENT needs. They both serve their purpose.


                      As for the whole 'freedom' debate, it's just a propaganda word, what we are talking about here is rights, nothing more and nothing less.

                      The 'four freedoms' should be called the 'four rights' but I guess it didn't sound as catchy.

                      The rights in question are that of end user rights, this is what GPL is about. From a programmer perspective this means that they are end users if someone modifies their code and distributes it, which in turn means that they will benefit from those modifications should they want to.

                      This makes for a tit for tat mechanism which can often be beneficial to projects where lots of developers cooperatively create something.

                      But again, it's not the one true way, there is no one true way, just preferences.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                        As a matter of fact, even Stallman and the FSF recognizes the BSD license is a free software one.
                        Yeap, and they recognise that the GPL is not the best solution to everything as well. That's why they also created LGPL and maintain a list of GPL-compatible licenses.

                        Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                        As for me, it appears GPL is a really good cure, which converts e-parasites into e-contributors.

                        Sony wins. Everyone else loses.
                        You seem to like the word "parasite" a lot. But in truth, the relationship between BSD developers and Sony is commensalism. It may not be as good as mutualism, but it's not bad either.

                        Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                        But look, in future, technologuical development could allow virtually unlimited copying of any material objetcs at virtually zero prices. It's nothing wrong to order some widespread automations to do the jobs and get results. Free of charge. And it would cost nearly $0 just as memcpy() costs you nearly $0. Because it could be just as common as memcpy() happens to be these days. This strange world will be world of all and nothing. Because you don't need to store or "own" objects if you can create them on demand. Should you need a car, it could be assembled where you need it and disintegrated where you no longer need it. So only your ability to create object's model suitable for construction matters. I can't tell what exact technology would be.
                        It's called a replicator. But funny how you mention that, because replicating items is also a form of commensalism. You get an item, the designers of it don't get anything and don't lose anything.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
                          I neither understand how this has anything to do with communism nor why how GPL supposedly wants to forbid you to have code under a BSD license. Take only X.org. It has chosen MIT as preferred license. I don't see how the GPL is in any way trying to prevent that.
                          Well, there is one reason for Stallman saying this: "Isn't it ironic that the proprietary software developers call us communists? We are the ones who have provided for a free market, where they allow only monopoly."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                            No, a toe-jam eating hippie lied about them in the 'media', was called on it, then ran away after an incredibly long thread: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119730630513821&w=2
                            So they produced a silly comic strip that undermines the appearance of professionalism and maturity of the entire project, just because they got trolled by one person on a mailing list?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                              Very good question in fact. If we'll look on current laws, we'll notice that most civilized people would agree definitions like this one or similar in spirit. That what makes laws to look like this. If everyone would be fine with anarchy/king of the hill model, shooting of 10 ppl on the street would go unpunished. However it's not a case. Community shows demand and then lawmakers have to respond. And this process happens to be quite universal. It's a basics of how groups of people are interacting.
                              Yes, the pattern you claim is undeniable. Yet, obviously, it remains a question whether this tendency of what we call civilized people really pursues 'freedom'; maybe for these civilized people, security is far more important than true freedom. In any case, controversy prevails.

                              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                              To some degree it's true. And there is reason: making a copy of program on it's own does not costs anything. That's what makes this approach valid and what makes it's odd to charge for copy of program on it's own.
                              Of course it is valid. I don't agree, however, with Stallman's view of proprietary software: "Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity". However, the question is whether or not the GNU approach really represents freedom. Of course some people might argue that something that is imposed, or severly restricted, can hardly be considered a representation of freedom (Cuba?). Others might think that, in order to achieve true freedom, these restrictions are necessary.

                              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                              And btw, communism in it's core isn't evil on it's own. And not anyhow worse than capitalism or anything else. It's bad when it's enforced. But look, in future, technologuical development could allow virtually unlimited copying of any material objetcs at virtually zero prices. It's nothing wrong to order some widespread automations to do the jobs and get results. Free of charge. And it would cost nearly $0 just as memcpy() costs you nearly $0. Because it could be just as common as memcpy() happens to be these days. This strange world will be world of all and nothing. Because you don't need to store or "own" objects if you can create them on demand. Should you need a car, it could be assembled where you need it and disintegrated where you no longer need it. So only your ability to create object's model suitable for construction matters. I can't tell what exact technology would be. Maybe molecular assembly devices/nanobots/whatever else is able form matter to pre-programmed shapes. But I can see families of technologies and I can see their final destination will be this point. At this point techs converge and give birth to new super-abilities. You see, in this world some ideas from communism are not looking too wild. In fact, everyone could get what they want by just shaping and transforming matter into desired object. Composing of objects under software control is probably doomed to become common and widespread as technology advances. Then what? At final point you can assemble anything that does not violates laws of physics. In such world some core ideas from communism could actually work. At least there are no reasons why they would not. So if we'll disregard fear and propaganda and will consider only some rational parts, it could map very well to technologies development.

                              And best of all: you can see early phases of all this today. 3D printers and CnC machines, robots, etc. All this is a very early form of new emerging technologies. But then techs will take a shape and will be improved. At some point they are doomed to reach destination endpoint: creation of any object, free of charge. It's promising to be very interesting to see how capitalists driven by greed have actually created set of technologies which can make capitalism really obsoleted. Just as it's getting obsolete to charge for a copy of program on it's own these days
                              In general I think that communism severly restricts people's freedom (although we haven't actually defined 'freedom', it just 'feels' that way). As said before, maybe 'true freedom' actually need these restrictions, in which case maybe communism does in fact represent true freedom. Obviously, I don't have the answer; at most I can say what personally most approaches that ideal of freedom.

                              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                              Ok, then I definitely should live in your universe. Because there should be freedom to shot you and go unpunished, isn't it? I want to have my absolute freedom too in this case, if you can have it. Though, ideally, I would prefer freedom to order bunch of nanobots do slow disintegration of your butt. It should be more fun and you will have enough time to actually enjoy by your own logic applied to your own butt in most literal sense I can imagine. Then we'll see if you're really serious about giving everyone absolute freedom to do whatever they want to...
                              Well, the question is not whether we are willing to give up secutiry for some freedom; the question is just what freedom is. I never said such a thing as 'absolute freedom'; in my universe such a use of nanobots would be illegal, just as in this universe.

                              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                              There are no better definitions anyway. Some freedoms HAVE to be restricted just to prevent even more restrictions caused by using these freedoms. You see, it tends to self-balance at some point.
                              I do not accept what you say; it is incoherent having to give up freedom in order to have freedom. That is not to say that I have a definition of my own, however.

                              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                              Somewhat you're right. And I even agree that just as it's bad to enforce communism with a guns, it's also generally bad to force you to give up your freedoms. However, if your usage of your freedoms begins to harm others, I see no reasons why force should not be applied. It's completely fair to harm you in return.
                              I don't think the BSD guys are harmed when Sony, Apple or Juniper use their OS, even if they do not give back anything. So, if there is no harm, it can be considered free, and because BSD does not harm anyone, then BSD is free?
                              In the GNU case, apparantely nobody is being harmed either, so it would also be free.

                              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                              BSD provides anarchy (which is considered by some people as form of freedom, even though it usually leads to dictatorship after some time). GPL provides civilized interaction of equal entities (which more or less resembles modern ways to apply laws). I clearly prefer second option.
                              BSD provides a selfless approach: "Here you have this wonderful piece of code, we hope you can make the best of it and, of course, follow the same selfless approach. However, we do not force you so; it is your choice, your FREEDOM".

                              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                              Very good quote. One of my favorite ones. The only thing is that to actually implement this principle, the Constitution has been created (or similar sets of laws and/or international treaties quite similar in spirit). And look, the Constitution actually DOES limits SOME of freedoms to some degree. Just to make sure other freedoms are remaining available to everyone and nobody can seize them. You see, freedom needs protection. GPL does the very same thing - it places so
                              It is a valid point of view. It is also possible that we cannot live with TRUE freedom, an hence need all sorts of restrictions (i.e. we are not free).

                              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                              Basically your speech implies that you're able to see your freedoms but absolutely failed to understand that evereyone else should have equal amount of freedom and that your use of your freedoms could impact freedoms of others. Hence your view seems to be biased - it's excessively egoistic (which is common for BSD nuts, looks like in the very deep of their spirit they're proprietary and greedy by their nature).
                              What I say is that the matter is EXTREMELY controversial. In fact, over the time, it has been a deep intellectual activity to reflect about freedom. The way I see it, the ideals of freedom belongs to pure philosophy, and people have abused its use all throughout history. I have tendency for the BSD philosophy, yes, but I do not claim that it represents the "one and only true freedom". Being so radical makes you an arrogant, because you are actually implicitly claiming to hold the truth and, as we have seen, the truth is something far from being known.

                              Comment


                              • Let's see. We agree in believing the GPL is a better license. I guess we agreed in that BSD is a free license, too. I don't know of those that claim it's unfair that Linux gets more help from corps, if so, well, they are wrong because they chose the license who say "I'm not really that interested in anyone contributing back, if you want we are OK, but if you don't it's OK, too". If they cared about others contributing back, they should have chosen a license that enforces this. Otherwise, don't whine. I agree on that.
                                To my taste I qualify what happens to BSDs a "project management FAIL". Basically BSD guys are utterly bad whem it comes to project management. They usually have no clear goals and do not care about actual outcome. So while they had 10 years more than penguins had, they were outrun anyway. And license selection was is a part of project management failures. Not first and not last, sure.

                                The point in which we don't agree is that most coders on that camp really want (as in expect them, not as in welcoming them) contributions. If they choose the BSD license, I'm inclined to think they want to make a gift of their code,
                                A gift to parasite who never or almost never does something like that in return is a fairly wothless and dumb action. It could even be somewhat harmful if this encourages parasitism further. Spreading parasites is not a good deed.

                                so anyone is free to make any use their code, without forcing to give something back,
                                Right. But it only works well for very specific cases. In many other cases it plays a really bad joke. Ha-ha, some BSD devs are using proprietary OSes on their desktops. I don't know how OS developer could EPIC FAIL anyhow harder than that. If OS can't serve even developer's own needs so dev resorts to proprietary system, it's a clear indication of toy OS and EPIC FAIL of such project. They were outperformed by others really hard.

                                It is not very smart to gift your house just to figure out now you don't have place to live. That's what happened to BSD guys. I've seen at least some of BSD devs who resorted to MacOS or Windows. Some also use Linux, but it seems to cause them too much pain to recognize that some "similar" system performs orders of magnitude better than their design. So they usually stick to previous two. I don't know how devs can EPIC FAIL harder when it comes to writing OS. If OS is not good enough to serve even its developers, this sail is set for epic fail.

                                since that's basically what that license is for. I can't make an opinion about the actual tech things, because I didn't try it. I'm OK with Linux so there's no need for it.
                                Well, as I told, BSDs are known to have very bad project management. They run into dumb issues here and there. And they always did it this way. OTOH Torvalds was somehow smart enough to avoid major pitfalls, ranging from dumb licensing choice up to reusing copyrighted code and getting sued. In fact, successful project needs a good project manager. Torvalds managed to become a really epic PM, avoiding common pitfalls and building strong team.

                                About being parasites, well, I have mixed feelings. I feel they SHOULD give something back, but they don't MUST give something back.
                                It does not works this way. If you tell "you should not shot people" but will not provide actual retribution, some people will shot, "just because they can" and "because there was no retribution". And greedy corporate managers are exactly of this type when it comes to giving anything back. So either they "must" or "it's not going to work". That's what played really bad joke on BSDs. In ideal world where everyone is "good" it could work. In real world it's not a case. By default corporation only care about profit, as long as this does not leads to serious retribution.

                                The original author wanted it that way (or was pretty misinformed about the license he/she chose), so I'm no one to expect anything. The point is, they are allowed to use it without giving anything back, but it's not the polite thing to do.
                                And about the freedom to show the middle finger, damn right you are. I do use that freedom, too. But I don't give the middle finger to the ones who made the BSD code, I think that's pretty noble of them.
                                As for me there is nothing bold and brave in supporting parasitism. It's could be just dumb/careless or even harmful. There could be some exceptions where parasites are tricked to eat your "super-free" BSD-licensed bait and then starting to use free data formats in their software, even if it's proprietary one. This could improve data format adoption. But for other cases it could just screw up project without any good outcome like it happened to BSD OSes.

                                Also, even though I have no faith in Sony in regards of giving anything back (I remember they even banned installing Linux on their PS3, when they previously used the fact it was possible as one of their marketing strategies), AMD has nothing to lose releasing the binary driver. So, if at the driver level the PS4 OS is similar enough to the original BSD used and there's no IP issue, I believe it's possible they release a driver for BSD, which would be good for them.
                                You see, Sony could use heavily customized internals and AMD haves no good reasons to maintain extra code for driver for OS barely used by <0.01% of users. Wasting time to make happy literally some hundreds (or several thousands at very best) of people isn't a rewarding task. OTOH, making driver for PS4 is one-shot work. Only one type of hardware for a while. And only one subflavor of OS. Not a case with PC - completely different approaches.

                                And last but not least: I think Linux is better also because there is strong traction not to depend on any dumb close-source blobs. So no proprietary heads can dictate how to write Linux, leaving devs freedom to choose their ways. In particular, Linux KMS and DRI subsystems are really noteworthy. Guys are really up to building some powerful opensource graphic back-end which does not really needs proprietary drivers and encourages open ones while providing a number of really powerful and interesting features. OTOH BSD guys are such a losers they have to "hope" that some proprietary stuff will be adopted for them (which could never happen in worst case). To my taste it's a really pathetic way to lose control on OS development.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X