Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: OpenBSD Is Now Forked As Bitrig

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Seems like fashion to me. CLANG/LLVM produces slower code than GCC, but new is sexy! As for the features, let's wait a year or three and see where this thing is at.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Commercial/Free != Opensource/Proprietary.


    Not incubator. Brainwasher.

    These guys are so open, they will strip you out of your weapons to protect your freedom and will call this true freedom.

    "Non viral" zomg Any BSD is as viral as it gets, because it is incubator for proprietary blobs.

    I have idea. Why bother, just write "Code for our proprietary systems for free" and you are set. At least you won't lie
    Heh, they grab a body of other people's work (OpenBSD), slap a new name on it and try to grab some credit. If they were serious they'd *contribute to OpenBSD*.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garegin View Post
    openbsd's homepage really takes the cake on out of touch nerds. they make debian look like channel.
    Different style, so what? It's the OS we're interested in, not the graphic design.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoohoo View Post
    Heh, they grab a body of other people's work (OpenBSD), slap a new name on it and try to grab some credit. If they were serious they'd *contribute to OpenBSD*.
    There is small problem, OpenBSD is not very contributor friendly.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Yes, bullsh!t companies like it very much ...
    I think the point he's trying to make is that BSD license allows closing of the code: binaries can be sold without making source available.

    Which IMHO is neither here nor there - you pick your license and you take your chances.

    The anger seems to come from that this group of people speaks of their license as open source, but BSD license is only as open source as a user of it chooses to be, whereas GPL denies the right to close the source.

    By way of example, remember Darwin and Apple? Yes you can still get Darwin, it's still "open source", but the license used in it's development allowed Apple to grab a copy of the code, add to it and release the product as Mac OSX, and not acknowledge Darwin devs at least as far as profit is concerned. That was kinda sleazy IMHO, and had Darwin been GPL'd then Apple could not legally have stolen all that work.

    Don't worry, I'm wearing my teflon and asbestos suit today, have at me.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoohoo View Post
    By way of example, remember Darwin and Apple? Yes you can still get Darwin, it's still "open source", but the license used in it's development allowed Apple to grab a copy of the code, add to it and release the product as Mac OSX, and not acknowledge Darwin devs at least as far as profit is concerned. That was kinda sleazy IMHO, and had Darwin been GPL'd then Apple could not legally have stolen all that work.
    Apple is the original developer of Darwin at least according to Wikipedia.

    Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
    In July 2003, Apple released Darwin under version 2.0 of the Apple Public Source License (APSL), which the Free Software Foundation (FSF) approved as a free software license. Previous releases had taken place under an earlier version of the APSL that did not meet the FSF's definition of free software, although it met the requirements of the Open Source Definition.
    The first version of the Apple Public Source License was approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Version 2.0, released July 29, 2003 conforms to the Free Software Foundation guidelines, and is also approved by the OSI. The Free Software Foundation approved the Apple Public Source License 2.0 as a free software license and say it is acceptable for developers to work on projects that are already covered by this license. They recommend, however, that developers do not release new projects under this license, because the partial copyleft is not compatible with the GNU General Public License and allows linking with files released entirely as proprietary software.[3] The license does, however, require that if any derivatives from the original source are released externally, that the source be made available.
    So Darwin is actually licenced under copyleft licence that is similar to GPL. You can download its source code from here. So I seriously fail to see the issue here and also it's not stealing if it's permitted by the licence.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoohoo View Post
    Seems like fashion to me. CLANG/LLVM produces slower code than GCC, but new is sexy! As for the features, let's wait a year or three and see where this thing is at.
    To be fair, CLANG is close to GCC, and is significantly newer [and thus, has more optimisations that have not been implemented yet]. I expcet CLANG/LLVM to be faster then GCC within two to three years. And as far as the toolset goes, its not even close: CLANG/LLVM is far, far superior to what GCC offers.

    From a developer standpoint, I'll take ease of development any day, and simply accept a 10% performance penalty.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teho View Post
    Apple is the original developer of Darwin at least according to Wikipedia.


    So Darwin is actually licenced under copyleft licence that is similar to GPL. You can download its source code from here. So I seriously fail to see the issue here and also it's not stealing if it's permitted by the licence.
    Well, it's on Wikipedia so must be true.

    Darwin was developed using a community model (unpaid developers) and included some Apple people. Apple did not start the Darwin project IIRC, but did become it's sponsor at some point. Much of the work was done pre-2000 during the 1990s. I think the license was a BSD variant, it certainly let people contribute work and it certainly let Apple take all that work and apply some changes, then close source the result, and sell the result as OS X. I can't call that copyleft because while Darwin source can be downloaded (as I noted in my OP), none of the additions in OS X can be.

    Point is Darwin source could always be downloaded - even before as you (or wikipedia) say, Apple "released it in 2000". Exactly when the Darwin code base reached production quality Apple grabbed a copy and vanished - it had what it wanted: an OS developed on the cheap.

    Can't pull that kind of stunt in a GPL'd project. And as I said, you pick your license and you take your chances.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    - Use social networks to disseminate information and news.
    I have a hard time taking them seriously after that.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    To be fair, CLANG is close to GCC, and is significantly newer [and thus, has more optimisations that have not been implemented yet]. I expcet CLANG/LLVM to be faster then GCC within two to three years. And as far as the toolset goes, its not even close: CLANG/LLVM is far, far superior to what GCC offers.

    From a developer standpoint, I'll take ease of development any day, and simply accept a 10% performance penalty.
    Not having found the GCC toolchain arduous, or at any rate no more so than any other command line compiler, I can only take you at your word wrt ease of development.

    I've always been a performance man, I care about that 10%.

    When LLVM/Clang exceeds GCC in speed of generated code I will probably switch.

Posting Permissions

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