Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Reasons Why You Should Not Use FreeBSD
Collapse
X
-
Ah!
- Exchange (MAPI) and its groupware functionality missing.
- Telephony (ISDN to SIP gateways, Asterisk etc) missing.
- FreeBSD in the mobile space isn't too good.
- No Gluster file-system support.
- It doesn't yet support the latest graphics drivers (except for the NVIDIA binary driver, but the ATI and Intel drivers for FreeBSD are ages behind).
- The lack of suspend-and-resume for laptops.
- Incomplete ISDN support.
- Broken ports packages.
- It's easier to run Mac OS X than FreeBSD.
I would not trash an OS because it doesn't have (YET) userland stuff to handle MAPI, ISDN or any other non-kernel feature!
Comment
-
At work I use a linux workstation but I spend most of my time in console on FreeBSD 8.1 servers. They are both fine. The FreeBSD servers are more stable, but if they weren't that'd be very strange since they're dedicated servers.
I could set up a perfectly functional FreeBSD workstation but why would I? It takes about 100 fewer steps to set up a Linux workstation.
I could set up a perfectly functional, secure Linux server but why would I? It takes about 100 fewer steps to set up a jailed server with FreeBSD.
BSD or GPL? C'mon, the differences are obvious. Any developer can pick the appropriate one for their project. Arguing about which one is more 'free' is ridiculous. No amount of ideological rhetoric will change the dictionary -- the freedom to not publish your modifications is obviously just that: a freedom. Whether it restricts other's freedoms down the line doesn't even enter in to it because people are 'free' not to use those restricted versions.
A problem should only have to be solved once. Solving a problem over and over is a waste of resources. That is the reason for the BSD license, so that someone with a problem can get the code needed to solve that problem. If a license restricts my usage of the code, as the GPL potentially does, then I may have to solve that problem again by writing my own code. That means the GPL'd software isn't getting used and it means there's another, perhaps incompatible or not-as-good solution to the problem out there.
Microsoft solved its TCP stack problem thanks to the BSD license.
Apple solved its crappy OS problem thanks to the BSD license.
These were real problems and they were solved because the BSD license makes the solutions available with no strings attached (other than maintaining copyright.)
I'm not saying that this is 'right' or 'better' than the GPL -- the licenses serve different purposes. GPL's goal is to maintain a free software ecosystem, solving problems is a side benefit (and a necessity, or else why use it?) BSD's goal is to solve problems and having a free software ecosystem is a side benefit (and a necessity, or else nothing would ever get developed.)
Of course, this is all just my opinion (and based on BSD 'philosophy' material I've read, way back when) but it sure makes sense to me!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Korla Plankton View PostA problem should only have to be solved once. Solving a problem over and over is a waste of resources. That is the reason for the BSD license, so that someone with a problem can get the code needed to solve that problem.
GPL 'fixes' this by demanding that any source code modifications must be made available along a distributed binary, but of course this demand in turn makes the code in question unsuitable for proprietary projects or projects which will not accept the GPL licence for other reasons (like it's viral nature).
Bottom line, there is no perfect licence (which in turn is why we have so many licences out there), I will agree though that if you release a piece of 'perfect' code that no one will have any reason to fix/enhance and/or you have no interest in any enhancements made to it by others then it makes perfect sense to release it under as permissive conditions as possible.
Comment
-
My reason for disliking the BSD license is more selfish. If someone wants to base something on code I wrote and then make that proprietary, I want a cut. You want to use my work for proprietary software? Pay me and I'll grant you a proprietary license. If not, make your work fully open or gtfo.
People who work for IT companies and are already getting paid to write BSD code obviously don't care about this. Individuals who aren't getting paid to begin with should care.Last edited by RealNC; 04 June 2012, 06:05 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostIf someone wants to base something on code I wrote and then make that proprietary, I want a cut. You want to use my work for proprietary software? Pay me and I'll grant you a proprietary license.
Comment
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostI generally agree with you but it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be. If a company (or individual) picks up BSD licenced code, fixes or enhances that code and doesn't return these changes then you will again have to 'solve the problem over and over' if other people would want to have those fixes/enhancements (i.e duplication of effort).
What you describe is a non-open project adding a great new feature to solve some problem. They solved it for their commercial product but since it's such a great feature that everybody wants, its functionality eventually appears in a open project and the problem has been 'solved.' This is true whether you are talking about BSD or GPL (with the former fixing the problem for everybody and the latter fixing the problem for anyone who complies with the GPL.) So while the problem is solved more than once, the number of solutions is minimal and, once it is in the open, it doesn't need to be solved again. Unless it is only available under GPL and you are allergic to GPL for whatever reason.
Originally posted by XorEaxEaxBottom line, there is no perfect licence (which in turn is why we have so many licences out there), I will agree though that if you release a piece of 'perfect' code that no one will have any reason to fix/enhance and/or you have no interest in any enhancements made to it by others then it makes perfect sense to release it under as permissive conditions as possible.
Now one might say GPL avoids this by forcing the issue, but such companies wouldn't touch GPL software anyway so it's kind of a moot point. Also, just because a company is using BSD code doesn't mean they aren't giving back.
Anyway, we can get all esoteric and stuff but my main point was summed up in my previous post. That is to say, the BSD license and the GPL license are trying to achieve different goals. There's room for both. On that (and on most other things) I think we can agree
Comment
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostMy reason for disliking the BSD license is more selfish. If someone wants to base something on code I wrote and then make that proprietary, I want a cut. You want to use my work for proprietary software? Pay me and I'll grant you a proprietary license. If not, make your work fully open or gtfo.
People who work for IT companies and are already getting paid to write BSD code obviously don't care about this. Individuals who aren't getting paid to begin with should care.
PS in case it isn't abundantly clear, i'm joking. but i do think that if an individual wants to release under BSD, there's nothing wrong with that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by vertexSymphony View Post@0xBADCODE → Well, you're just yet another troll? ... I'm just going to do leave some "notes" not because of you (you just basically trimmed my message and answered what came out of your ass), but for the casual reader that may read your misinformation
This is where you show your lack of knowledge about the AT&T litigation that damaged the credibility of the BSDs for a long time,
also it's a little bit of what XorEaxEax and blacknova said.Now, just to repeat: No, a license that allows privative forks and someoe exercises that, that's not an abuse ... a GPL'ed software like the ffmpeg case I mentioned, well ... that's proper abuse
Now, you can jump to google and pretend that you already knew it.
WTF? have you ever writed something like specfiles AAND a port? because I can ASSURE you, that this is plain fucking simple (it's a meta port example, but it's an example of syntax): http://www.freebsddiary.org/meta-ports.php and with that, not only the port, the port system can generate the package for you.
I know distros with horrible repos that can't hold a candle to what FreeBSD offers (and I'm not thinking about *indie* distros)
So when it's linux it's ok, and when it's FreeBSD it's not?
As for indies, Debian or Centos do not really report to corporations. They are running on their own, powered by their communities. So I guess they qualify as "indies", aren't they?
well, surely you are a popular person among the users of distros like Slackware or Arch. lol
Then you have pkg_add to install the binary packages that the FreeBSD offers to you, of course, you'll loose some customization, but you don't seem to care about that ... in any case, you can mix binary packages AND ports
And this is where your lack of knowledge shines.
Corrupt packages, package manager database and I assure you that you'll be S.O.L in a heatbeat mostly because linux puts everything in /usr (and with the merge, now even more) compared to base system of FreeBSD being in that folder and *everything else* being STRICTLY on /usr/local ...
so you can just purge package database, rm -rf that and have a virgin OS.
I wanna see you trying to fix that in linux WITHOUT leftovers. because yes, I CAN ASSURE YOU that what I mentioned leaves ... NO LEFTOVERS
[QUOTE]1) You can install any gcc version you like, by now, that is[QUOTE]
I can but it's utter stupidity to offer ancient stuff by default. I consider this as absolutely dumbest way to do license politics and get own leg shot as the result. Good luck with this approach.
You don't (you don't have to do WHAT I like to do).So don't blame your ignorance on others.
and the system was of a comparable quality to what GCC4.2 produced.
Ports and binary packages DOES have dependency information. And you have "metapackages".
Well, shame on your lazy you !!! you could have installed gcc on a newer version, lol.
It's on a port (x11/nvidia-driver) that downloads and install the privative driver ... as entertaining as any linux distribution.
As virtualization is not my area, I'll avoid that topic as much as I can ... when it comes to package management, well, it depends on your needs, it can do some really cute stuff that linux package managers can't (at least without some problems), but it also MAY add moar complexity to maintenance on certain cases. it depends on the scenario, and again : the right tool for the right job.
I'll just ignore the unbearable and uninformed comments about ZFS and UFS2. I just can't find the patience to repeat myself and answer to what is clearly an uninformed aggression :S
Comment
Comment