Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
    RATM's Zach de la Rocha's voice was in my head when I was reading this rofl! And the drawing that's supposed to be the troll doesn't look like one.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
      Why should I care about the market share if it serves me well?
      You shouldn't. You're free to use whatever you want. No one cares if you want to use BSD, but that's not what this was about. You started trolling about how BSD is superior and Linux sucks. I told you it isn't, because licensing -> low popularity -> less developers -> poor hardware support.

      Yup, Apple mainly causes harm and trouble. I'm with you on this, still I fail to see your point.
      Well, you can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink...

      You miss the point that a BSD'ed software remains free regardless of all proprietary forks.
      No, you miss the point about how that doesn't matter. Why does Apple not release their modifications to BSD openly? Because if they did, someone could just take it, make their own proprietary MacOS, do improvements to the code, and start competing with Apple with an improved MacOS where all the improvements would be closed to Apple. The same thing for Sony - they will never openly release their BSD improvements that they made for Playstation.

      On Linux and GPL, it's different. Many corporations can work together, release their improvements openly, so that they benefit us all, because they know that that situation can not happen - the GPL ensures that everything stays open, no one can take the code and hide it to gain an advantage to others, and this enables corporations - even ones that are in competition with each other - to collaborate and share code openly.

      And that's the main point which makes Linux superior, the GPL licensing. It facilitates collaboration accross many developers from many backgrounds and many corporations, and does it in a way that lets all of us benefit from the code. I say superior in the sense that Linux attracts much more developers, which means better support, newer features etc. If a BSD works better for your personal needs that's fine for you.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by dee. View Post
        You shouldn't. You're free to use whatever you want. No one cares if you want to use BSD, but that's not what this was about.
        This is a "new technology of BSD" news article thread, so yes, it mainly was.

        Originally posted by dee. View Post
        licensing -> low popularity -> less developers -> poor hardware support.
        Superior license -> no valid proof of so-called "popularity" -> a pretty lot of developers -> adequate hardware support. (All OSs support different hardware. Linux won't run on an iPod, right? Is that "poor hardware support"? BSD runs on a toaster. Get real.)

        Originally posted by dee. View Post
        No, you miss the point about how that doesn't matter. Why does Apple not release their modifications to BSD openly?
        They do (Darwin).

        Originally posted by dee. View Post
        On Linux and GPL, it's different. Many corporations can work together, release their improvements openly, so that they benefit us all
        The BSD license doesn't say "please don't share your source code".

        Originally posted by dee. View Post
        And that's the main point which makes Linux superior, the GPL licensing.
        That's why the Linux world is split into the thousands and BSD is a sane and living ecosystem.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
          You miss the point that a BSD'ed software remains free regardless of all proprietary forks.
          http://noordering.wordpress.com/2009...l-is-not-free/
          For one thing, that dude uses a library as an example, but fails to mention the LGPL. If the developer wanted their library to be used in proprietary programs, they wouldn't have chosen the GPL.

          And the other thing is the usual confusion about what "free software" is. For BSD, it means the code is free, and anyone can use it for whatever purpose they want.

          The GPL means a program is (and stays) free. Nobody can extend the program without publishing the code for their additions. That means you can always examine the code for security problems, what formats are used for saving/exchanging data, fix bugs yourself, continue development/fork if the original developer loses interest/goes into a direction you don't like. A BSD application might get extended with proprietary extensions that make file formats incompatible, and make users dependent on the developer to fix bugs and continue development.

          In other words, BSD means "freedom for developers" while GPL means "freedom for users" - and since there are much more users than developers it obviously follows that GPL > BSD.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
            If the developer wanted their library to be used in proprietary programs, they wouldn't have chosen the GPL.
            Precisely.

            I, for one, make my money as a web developer for a small company which requires libraries to be licensed under a license which allows us to keep our sources closed. The GPL basically would deny us to work at all.

            Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
            For BSD, it means the code is free, and anyone can use it for whatever purpose they want.
            Which is the maximum freedom. Why would anyone want to enforce other people to publicly release their code just because they use a certain piece of code for something different?

            Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
            That means you can always examine the code for security problems
            Now that may explain the open-for-years bugs in Debian...

            Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
            In other words, BSD means "freedom for developers" while GPL means "freedom for users" - and since there are much more users than developers it obviously follows that GPL > BSD.
            The sheer number decides about importance? You're quite wrong here.
            Also, how does the BSD license decrease a user's freedom? Which part of FreeBSD is closed source, for example, avoiding anyone to review it?

            Comment


            • #21
              Both the BSD licence and the GPL licence is fine. If you don't care about greedy people using your code, sure. The people using the GPL though, does. You however claimed Linux to suck, which is irrelevant to the licence. Unless you actually meant "the GPL sucks" which is just your opinion. Linux is maybe the most powerful kernel on the planet, and coupled with the GNU userland, we get a very powerful OS. The BSD people spend more time bashing Linux (without providing evidence to their claims) then they do doing anything else. I don't get it. This is why the Linux world ignores BSD, because you people just act like children. It's all free software, so stop the infighting for crying out loud!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                You however claimed Linux to suck, which is irrelevant to the licence.
                You're kindly invited to review the first postings in this thread, the license discussion has been brought up by Linux fanboys.

                Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                The BSD people spend more time bashing Linux (....) then they do doing anything else. (...) because you people just act like children.
                Simply ignoring the "BSD Sucks Dicks" - or whatever name they currently chose - Linux fan trolls doesn't validate this statement either. I can't remember any BSD user called "Linsux LOL" here. Can you?

                So much about "acting like children".

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
                  ... Also, how does the BSD license decrease a user's freedom? Which part of FreeBSD is closed source, for example, avoiding anyone to review it?
                  You must be the most ignorant bsd fanboy ever...

                  Have a look here for a starter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...sed_on_FreeBSD

                  How many of the commercial products in this list have their code/modifications available for review?

                  Another famous example is the PS4, running modified FreeBSD. Where can we review this modifications?

                  So there you have your user freedom restricted quite clearly.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I'm not a fanboy. My main desktop OS is even Windows. Now guess what.

                    At least I try to bring some arguments, not only "click this link, EOD".

                    Another famous example is the PS4, running modified FreeBSD. Where can we review this modifications?
                    Probably nowhere, but that's not required, right? However, obviously misinformed folks here stated that "BSD = closed source" which is just wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      If any of the BSD-licence bashers would like to look on FreeBSD's mailing lists, or the FreeBSD Foundation Donors Listing, you'll notice that most companies using FreeBSD as the basis for their software generally contribute their patches back. Why is this? Simple-- it's far easier to maintain their modifications if it's part of the FreeBSD upstream tree, rather than doing so by themselves (waste of money). Donations are also useful for offsetting tax.

                      Although the BSD licence does not require you to contribute back, many still will. Companies are generally profit-focused. If a company has to create more work for itself, e.g. by needlessly maintaining their patches out of tree, it's an option they are unlikely to take. I suggest some of you grep through the FreeBSD source tree. You'll find a remarkable amount of code that has been contributed back from corporate users. But this is all irrelevant anyway. Whilst FreeBSD obviously appreciates contributions, it doesn't demand them. And that isn't really a downside, either-- trying to remain compliant with complex licences is an irritation. It's why a large amount of the Chinese tablets running their own modified forms of Android do not release sources.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        As an aside-- market share is really not as important as some people think. It is another cherry picked statistic. You can 'prove' just about anything by selecting the right statistics. For example, the latest release of Ubuntu has a smaller market share than Windows 98. Therefore Ubuntu's latest release is worse than Windows 98. The fact of the matter is, you cannot quantise how 'good' an operating system is. You can't say, for example, Windows has 10 goods, Ubuntu has 13, and FreeBSD has 20. Everything is relative, and depends on what context it is being used in.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
                          Market share means quality?
                          So, how much does Windows have?
                          Sure, Windows must have some quality with all it running on every home's router, your small home-office fileserver, in the digital video recorder/set top box under your TV, embed into your printer's server, kernel of Android phones, being also the most frequently deployed OS on super-computer clusters, very popular for webservers, used on most clouds, ... NOT.


                          Please wake up. They year of "Linux on everything else beside the desktop" has come long ago and has been reality for ages.

                          Linux is used pretty much everywhere, because it's good quality code, that is readily available, give lots of opportunity to modify. And thanks to its GPL nature, lots of these modifications end up back improving the main linux tree. Some times directly (as cluster developper porting the ZFS file system for all to use), some times after a while (the comunity got a little bit fed up of non maintainable "single purpose" forks that regularily happened for embed platform, where the hardware developers went for the fastest thing that they could write to support a given single piece of hardware, instead of trying to make something maintainable, extensible that could increase code re-use. Thus groups like Linaro stepped in, and over all, the linux community has managed to consolidate all this disparate zoo of vendor-specific patchs, into coherent platform drivers. Making Linux even more attractive todayy for embed).

                          BSD is also quite popular in these fields. (Though, its different license doesn't stimulate wide-scale industry collaboration like those seen in Linux. Improvement made by Apple and Sony won't benefit other BSDs, unlike the consolidation seen in Linux).

                          Windows is huge joke on anything else than home desktop and a few legacy enterprise services.
                          (Home desktop users aren't willing much to change. But even there, the current situation with the Windows 8.x family going in a weird direction and companies like Valve pushing as hard as they can for Linux, maybe in a few year down the line we'll see some change starting to appear.
                          On the enterprise and server market... well thankfully for microsoft, there's still Sharepoint, Exchange and a few legacy pipeline relying on Access databases or a big mess of legacy Visual Basic and ActiveX, etc. to keep them alive. For everything else...
                          Apache and co have all eaten IIS' lunch, file sharing on anything else than legacy enterprise servers (both end of the scale: both the small ready-to-use enclosure for home and SOHO, and the high-end server clusters) rely more often on Samba (and NFS where compatibility with Windows isn't required, etc.) than on Microsoft Filesharing Shares, Windows Azure is a (bad) joke with Linux and *BSD being almost all serious super computing business, even Java is often more used than VB.net and/or Access for "legacy shit that the enterprise can't get rid of", the most widespread phone/tablet OS is android, with Windows RT only running on a small specific subset of hardware available only at a couple of manufacturer. In Science all code prototyping is done with Python/R/Perl/C++ (in this order of preference) whereas almost nobody uses .NET outside enterprise contexts.)

                          (public displays are the only one occasionally displaying a bluescreen or a Windows XPE interface)

                          (same situation in the console world: for all the XBox-family powered by a Windows-derivative OS, there are Sony's playstations running a BSD-derivative and soon-to-arrive Linux-powered Steam-boxes)

                          We're living in a world well most of the big CPUs (anything bigger than a pico or avr microcontroller == anything with an ARM or bigger CPU) is running some Linux or BSD derivative, except for the few "more visible" desktop machines.

                          So remind-me again, what were you speaking about Windows market shares ?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            More troll feeding...

                            Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
                            Seriously? Like which? Please bring me MD5 sums.
                            If it is POSIX compatible and has the source available (as is almost all software running on Linux), it can be recompiled on BSD too (and other BSD derivate like Mac OS X, and even on windows with some POSIX compatibilty layer such as Cygwin/Mingw).

                            Even if it not, if its one of the few binary software released for linux, lots of BSDs have linux compatibility layers making the Linux ABI available (used to be popular to get linux binary games running on BSD). (So some of the remaining software can be used too.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                              Sure, Windows must have some quality with all it running on every home's router, your small home-office fileserver, in the digital video recorder/set top box under your TV, embed into your printer's server, kernel of Android phones, being also the most frequently deployed OS on super-computer clusters, very popular for webservers, used on most clouds, ... NOT.
                              Congratulations on having understood the principle of "operating system purposes".

                              Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                              Please wake up. They year of "Linux on everything else beside the desktop" has come long ago and has been reality for ages.
                              Interestingly, Linux only runs on my smartphone. Reality can be harsh, huh?

                              Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                              Linux is used pretty much everywhere, because it's good quality code
                              Hence the security holes.

                              Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                              that is readily available, give lots of opportunity to modify.
                              Hence the dozens of new distributions per month, incompatible with each other.

                              Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                              And thanks to its GPL nature, lots of these modifications end up back improving the main linux tree.
                              Hence the claim of some Debian developers that Ubuntu never gives anything back.

                              Wake up.

                              Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                              Improvement made by Apple and Sony won't benefit other BSDs
                              Half wrong. Apple invests a lot of time and money into FreeBSD.

                              Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                              Windows is huge joke on anything else than home desktop and a few legacy enterprise services.
                              I'm with you on that, OTOH, I also consider Linux to be a huge joke on anything at all, compared to the secure, stable and mature FreeBSD.

                              Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                              (public displays are the only one occasionally displaying a bluescreen or a Windows XPE interface)
                              So what you wanted to say is that only Windows has kernel panics ("bluescreens")? I see.

                              Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                              So remind-me again, what were you speaking about Windows market shares ?
                              Someone here claimed market share to be proving anything. Not me.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                                If it is POSIX compatible and has the source available (as is almost all software running on Linux), it can be recompiled on BSD too
                                Depending on the used libraries, yes.

                                While we're speaking of POSIX: Why are some Linux distributions (like Gentoo) not POSIX-compatible? Why doesn't the Linux community care about standards? BSD does.

                                Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                                Even if it not, if its one of the few binary software released for linux, lots of BSDs have linux compatibility layers making the Linux ABI available
                                FreeBSD runs Linux applications, Linux doesn't run FreeBSD applications. One more "pro" for FreeBSD then.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X