Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 87

Thread: Should There Be A Unified BSD Operating System?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    Yep. Why would anyone want unified APIs? ...
    Unified API or unified global API? Almost every component in Linux has a stable API.. for certain period of time. But "unified API" by means of "unified global API" or permanently stable API is only interesting for proprietary driver developers and proprietary applications. This is fact.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Almost every component in Linux has a stable API.. for certain period of time.
    "This house is not gonna explode... for a certain period of time."

    1) "NEAT! I'M SO ABOUT TO BUY IT!"
    2) "GTFO."

    Your choice.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    Juniper Networks also contributes code to FreeBSD. They are one of the companies that would have been forced to disclose changes under the GPL, yet they use FreeBSD and contribute improvements without a legal requirement to release anything.
    .
    Big in vpn stuff
    awesome company, good business...

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    For example, they maintain their own internal fork of MySQL and I doubt that any of the code in it will ever be released for use outside of Facebook.
    GPL has never has any impact on what people do with code 'in their home', only upon distribution. This has opened up the possibility of using modified GPL licenced software 'as a service' while not providing source code.

    Obviously this was not FSF's intention and there's the affero GPL licence which deals with this shortcoming.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    Juniper Networks also contributes code to FreeBSD. They are one of the companies that would have been forced to disclose changes under the GPL, yet they use FreeBSD and contribute improvements without a legal requirement to release anything.
    Under GPL they would have to release all their changes, not only what they deem appropriate. They will not release anything which they think can lose them a competitive edge, same goes for Cisco, this means that FreeBSD loses out.

    If both companies were legally bound to release all their modifications then FreeBSD would move forward faster and Juniper and Cisco would have to compete on other strengths than 'the secret sauce'.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    With that said, nearly all of the code being contributed to Linux was written to further corporate interests and would have likely been contributed anyway.
    The reason we are seeing so much open company sponsored development on Linux is because GPL makes a great licence for cooperative development. Companies know that everyone who wants to ship Linux code needs to provide their enhancements for all participants to use, this makes for a platform where you get away from the 'company a won't release their enhancements so why should company b release their enhancements' dilemma.

    You have to ask yourself why if -'BSD is so much better for companies' as BSD advocates state, Linux is enjoying so much more company support in the form of developers and code?

    Those who are totally delirious try to blame a lawsuit 20 years ago where all mindshare went to Linux. That's nonsense, if the BSD were so much better equipped to handle the needs of companies then it would have gained on Linux during these 20 years, not slowly faded into near oblivion.

    As it has turned out companies (particularly proprietary) LOVE picking up BSD/MIT licenced code, but they are (quelle suprise!) nowhere as willing to submit code under BSD/MIT.

    Meanwhile companies are much more willing to submit code under GPL conditions, which has lead to Linux incredible rise as the largest open source collaboration in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    Virtually none of the code contributions are things that corporations were forced to release.
    ??? If they ship GPL licenced code they need to submit they changes. Linux is GPL licenced.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    Whenever a company has code that they do not want to release, they either use something other than Linux or keep it internal.
    A company generally doesn't want to release anything which competitors can use, however if they AND their competitors are legally bound to do so then that solves the problem and creates a level playfield.

    If they keep their enhancements internal then again it's out of the scope of the GPL, but it also severely limits their use of said code.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    "This house is not gonna explode... for a certain period of time."

    1) "NEAT! I'M SO ABOUT TO BUY IT!"
    2) "GTFO."

    Your choice.
    My choice is (1) because my house is modern with open design - it adapts to always improving ground, the power comes from within its source
    Ofc, if you use closed bricks stone house with patented design of unknown origin, you house is gonna fall underground, unless your provider maintains and fixes it for you at certain high (due to proprietary design and resulting incompatibility) rates.

    But because the ground construction is very open too, some gardens (like Red Hood etc) offer private locations, where the ground is fixed for periods of up to 10 years. Ofc at acceptable maintaining rate... but at least regular soil inspections are included in price.

    Or... there are some free stable grounds of kingdom Debian and in Africa district LTS, many build their houses there, but the local folks ask for nothing and exactly that much they promise,... but it works!

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    As for the question of a unified BSD, these sort of suggestions always sound perfectly reasonable at first glance, until you actually look at the reasons why they aren't one project to begin with.

    It has to do with endgoals, technological choices, and even ideology at times.

    Also when people point at Linux and saying it's not fragmented it's mainly true, but FreeBSD is no more fragmented, nor are OpenBSD or NetBSD or DragonflyBSD.

    These are all _different_ projects. they may share some code and even part of their names but again they are _different_ projects with all that this entails.

    KDE,GNOME,XFCE,*Box,*WM - GTK,QT etc etc... heck you can take it as far as WINDOWS/OSX/LINUX/BSD/HAIKU/REACTOS etc

    All projects which are in the same problem domain and again at a cursory glance would seem ripe for 'consolidation', but as soon as you look at the projects in any kind of detail you will see how there are reasons for why they are separate and why their respective developers have no interest in the other projects.

  7. #47

    Default

    XorEaxEax, I want to know. Do you write code or do you just freeload on what others have done?

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    The GPL allows corporations to avoid disclosing changes to code too. Facebook uses a ton of GPL software and I have not seen them disclose their changes to the GPL licensed components.
    You have to read GPL. If you do not distribute binaries, you don't have to distribute source either. This allows to use GPLed code on your private servers/installations/whatever without giving back changes. If this an issue for developers, they will be better with AGPL license, which handles this use case and requires to release source in such cases as well. For me it looks like if it's not a big deal at the moment and usual GPL works quite well for Linux.

    In general GPL does it quite inconvenient or hard for most business models to exist without releasing source. This includes embedded, general purpose OSes (servers, desktops, etc) and so on. And Linux has seriously outperformed BSD-based competitors on these markets.

    You see, BSDs are 10 years older. So they had all chances to win. However, corporations behind them preferred not to disclose their improvements. Single company wins. Everyone else loses. Upstream project as whole getting stuck without resources and improvements. Then competitor appears and outruns it, using collaboration of members to improve it's development speed. So Linux does not faces lack of resources. If someone improves something and distributes it, they have to publish source as well. There are ways to workaround but risky, costly and dubious. And it would certainly make you unwelcome for kernel developers to say the least (do you remember "f...k you, Nvidia"?). So you will be on your own, not a part of process. This implies seriously increased development cost and so on.

    In short, GPL makes it very inconvenient to be parasite and far more convenient to be part of process. BSD license does not cares so at the end of day BSD systems are getting eaten by parasites who takes the code and never returns anything.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    XorEaxEax, I want to know. Do you write code or do you just freeload on what others have done?
    Hmm, granted that xor eax, eax leads to zero, I seriously doubt it

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    Big in vpn stuff
    awesome company, good business...
    So juniper can do business on BSD. Everyone else can ... GTFO! And do all changes to BSD kernel themselves. Unfortunately this requires you to be huge corporation or so and willing to invest ton of bucks into new project, waste several years and so on. This also explains why small startup like Google ages ago or Facebook or whatever will stick to Linux.

    Now we can open our eyes and figure out that:
    1) Most modern SOHO routers/access points are using Linux.
    2) Modern TVs and TV boxes are using Linux.
    3) Android bases on Linux either.
    4) Small NASes, etc are running linux as well.

    Because people do not have to do the whole kernel adaptation and work is split over dozen and half of entities. Who could be competitors otherwise. But they all need good working kernel for their OS to be able to just start their competition. This serves as point for collaboration on topic. And it works.
    Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 11-14-2012 at 01:25 AM.

Posting Permissions

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