Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: Netflix Open Connect Network: FreeBSD, Not Linux

  1. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nslay View Post
    FreeBSD serving some serious data? That seems about right. HPC appliances like Panasas blades run FreeBSD to push 40 gigabit infiniband traffic. Do you really think these guys are "Good ole boys?" That would make for an interesting comparison: Lustre versus Panasas.

    Yeah, MS embracing FreeBSD ... right. What about the Novell pact they have? Remember those 30 some odd Microsoft patents Linux violates (EDIT: allegedly)? If you sign with SuSE you're immune! How about Moonlight and Mono (which are open source)?

    FreeBSD is very friendly in general.
    I don't see what you're trying to say here. They simply don't exist in HPC, so stop kidding. Yes, MS, Apple and any other company that's anti Linux. Novell is just a part of Linux and we know Novell sucks. It doesn't really matter if Moonlight (which seems to be dead now) and Mono are Open Source. Their made by MS fanboy or employee Icaza. No, they're usually friendly to MS and Apple, but hostile to Linux and real Open Source community.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Sounds like you need better lawyers, it's quite clear that GPL only affects distribution of binary code, this is the very reason FSF added another licence (AGPL) which prevents this should the code author not want to allow the 'application service provider' loophole (used by Google and many others) which exists in GPL. But it's up to the code author to explicitly prevent this by choosing AGPL (or any other licence which prevents this).
    You are a technical person. Try explaining to a judge and/or jury who's technology experience consists of Facebook that installing compiled software on a set of servers ISN'T distribution. Maybe they'd get it, maybe not, but it's not a risk they were willing to take.

    GPL has existed for over 20 years and the only lawsuits brought against offenders have been those who have distributed GPL-licenced _binary_ code without providing the source code.
    You mean the only people who have been caught. Just because there isn't a cop gunning doesn't make going 15 mph over the speed limit legal either.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    I don't see what you're trying to say here. They simply don't exist in HPC, so stop kidding. Yes, MS, Apple and any other company that's anti Linux. Novell is just a part of Linux and we know Novell sucks. It doesn't really matter if Moonlight (which seems to be dead now) and Mono are Open Source. Their made by MS fanboy or employee Icaza. No, they're usually friendly to MS and Apple, but hostile to Linux and real Open Source community.
    Nobody is kidding here. Just because you don't see FreeBSD on HPC doesn't mean it's not there. FreeBSD runs on Panasas blades and serves the high performance PanFS to Linux clients over infiniband. It's strong evidence that it's extremely capable of pushing serious data ... and that's exactly what Netflix does except that it doesn't use 40 gigabit low latency connections.

    Novell and Panasas serve as big gaping holes in your silly conspiracy theory.

    What you call the "real open source community" is hostile to anyone and anything not ascribing to GPL, even if it is also open source.

    Ever give away any of your old stuff and say, "Well, it has to be used this way and that way" ... that's the kind freedom GPL offers. You can have my old shorts as long as you wear it with a black or blue shirt and they must be the same brand.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by locovaca View Post
    You are a technical person. Try explaining to a judge and/or jury who's technology experience consists of Facebook that installing compiled software on a set of servers ISN'T distribution. Maybe they'd get it, maybe not, but it's not a risk they were willing to take.
    Not sure what you mean by 'they', Google and Facebook tons of others provide these services-online while not opening up their GPL-licenced modified linux versions they run in-house. I'd say they have pretty good lawyers which has done thorough interpretation on what their oblications are under GPL. Also FSF would not have created AGPL if they did not recognize that the GPL does not have any bearing on online services.

    Quote Originally Posted by locovaca View Post
    You mean the only people who have been caught. Just because there isn't a cop gunning doesn't make going 15 mph over the speed limit legal either.
    Ehh, been caught? I'm not following, what else could they be 'caught' for other than not complying with the licence which they agreed on when distributing GPL-licenced code? It's simple, if you distribute binary code licenced under GPL you need to make the source code available to the recipients. If you do not then you are violating the agreement and can be sued for compliance.

    Obviously very few GPL violations actually leads to a lawsuit, just like very few legal violations actually end up being penalized.
    But since you are legally bound to supply source code when distributing binaries containing GPL licenced code, you as a rights-holder has the option of suing should someone use your GPL licenced code without complying with the licence.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    It's conceivable that some SaaS deployments could end up with copyright snags, if you're serving more than just a pure API. For example, a GUI might contain copyrighted elements, and if you served it as an HTML5 interface or something superficially similar (X/RFB/RDP), you could theoretically run afoul of copyright (via "broadcast" if nothing else). I'd think that would be an edge case, though, and I've never heard of it actually happening (and it seems like the press would make a big deal out of it considering the current hype about "cloud computing" and SaaS).

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Awwww, madtrolls are mad that Netflix choosed FreeBSD instead of Linux for servers ... awwwwwww ♥

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stefanlasiewski View Post
    This is correct. While large companies like Facebook and Google do contribute code back to the Linux community, they aren't required to contribute back all of their modifications. It's great that they contribute back to the community, but you can bet that Facebook, Google, Twitter etc. haven't released *all* of their changes back to the community.

    Netflix's decision to use FreeBSD for their CDN was based on the technical merits of FreeBSD and because the engineers in charge of that project like FreeBSD. It's a great operating system with solid performance. It just doesn't have the mindshare of Linux-based operating systems. I use FreeBSD and Linux-based distros, and each have their strength and weaknesses.

    In addition, Netflix uses plenty of Linux. Just look at the job descriptions for the open positions.

    -= Stefan
    Best answer so far♥

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nslay View Post
    Nobody is kidding here. Just because you don't see FreeBSD on HPC doesn't mean it's not there. FreeBSD runs on Panasas blades and serves the high performance PanFS to Linux clients over infiniband. It's strong evidence that it's extremely capable of pushing serious data ... and that's exactly what Netflix does except that it doesn't use 40 gigabit low latency connections.
    Nobody is saying FreeBSD is not able to work for them. They can use Solaris or Windows as well. The main point is their stupid announcement and another one the decision wasn't technical.

    Novell and Panasas serve as big gaping holes in your silly conspiracy theory.
    My theory is MS does everything to make Linux weaker - Novell pact, Xapian and their mono and moonlight, secure boot. Netflix has very close relation with MS, so they chose MS friendly and anti-Linux FreeBSD.

    What you call the "real open source community" is hostile to anyone and anything not ascribing to GPL, even if it is also open source.
    BSD community have nothing to Linux and GNU. People should realize only Linux and GNU are the right way. BSD licensed products just makes Community weaker. It's Linux and GNU that's the essence of Open Source and they're fighting against monopoly. On opposite - BSD just serves them.

    Ever give away any of your old stuff and say, "Well, it has to be used this way and that way" ... that's the kind freedom GPL offers. You can have my old shorts as long as you wear it with a black or blue shirt and they must be the same brand.
    That's the kind of Freedom stupid folks don't understand. It's not about the code being 'whore', so you can do what you want with it. It's about Freedom to use, modify, protect your software and what's the most important - compete. BSD is a 'whore' license while GPL is a 'virgin' one.

  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vertexSymphony View Post
    Best answer so far♥
    Sadly, not so correct.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default Are you sure?

    Thinking that a company like Netflix choose an OS based on "sympathy", or because they have a "FreeBSD fan club" is just stupid!
    How hold are you guys? Do you know how much money is involved? Do you know something about the real world?
    For most of you, u*nix history starts when linux starts, that's not true.
    Both Linux and FreeBSD have their strong points, and if you can't understand this, you are just a bunch of Linux kiddies.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •