Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging

[mrugiero]

I've no interest in this inane "debate"; but I'd point out that there is this thing called Android, based on Linux, and, it just so happens that the part that is released as open source is "entirely inadequate for running any Android software" --- for that you need a whole bunch of extra stuff which Google does NOT release as open source.

Care to name some of this stuff? Because, AFAIR, only Play and drivers (which aren't made by Google) are closed source. Dalvik is open source, SurfaceFlinger is open source, the input stack is open source (and it is even being used within Mir as of now, although they plan on making their own).

[Sergio]

Freedom for whom? Freedom to hunt people for sport is a freedom too, but I wouldn't want everyone to be granted that freedom.

To you, what is freedom? Is it pointing people with a gun forcing them to think like you (GPL)? Ohh, so much freedom! Hypocrisy...
The BSD licence gives you a code you are FREE to use; you can use it to develop whatever idea you have and be rich for that.

Discuss honestly or don't speak to me. I'm tired of shitty trolling.

What? First you imply that companies must not be trusted; you say that they never contribute back, and if they do, it is because "It's nice to get some free labour from gullible geeks.". Then you go on saying with pride how companies work together on Linux. Hypocrisy...

Nice buzzwords you have there. How about you respond with something resembling of intelligence and substance, and actually addressing the point at hand?

You are the one saying that the BSD resembles "anarcho-capitalist's fallacy", so how about stop stating such bull shit and "actually addressing the point at hand"?
STOP implying that GPL represents 'true' freedom and BSD does not; people have different definitions/ideals of freedom. Deal with it.

Linux isn't owned by any company. You're a shitty troll.

So, Linux is driven entirely by companies; almost 100% of the code is from companies (their needs, their interests); Linux depends entirely on companies. Now tell, who 'really' owns Linux?
BTW, I said "virtually owned by...". Replace 'virtually' with 'practically'.

Don't take things out of context. The BSD license may be fine for some purposes, but when it comes to a really large project like a kernel, where you need to worry about things like hardware support for multiple different platforms, things like that - you can clearly see that some licensing models are advantageous to others. I have already explained in detail why the GPL model is better for operating systems, especially when it comes to corporate contributions and ensuring that corporations play nicely (which, let's be honest, they most of the time won't do, unless you force them).

Ok, so GPL is 'superior' in this respect...

Corporations aren't good or bad. They're a double edged sword - they have tons of resources to invest in creating code and improving hardware support, but then, if you let them run free, they'll only mostly look out for their own benefit - most corporations aren't long-sighted enough to see the benefits of a healthy, competitive ecosystem voluntarily (just look at Apple and Microsoft). That's why corporations need to be reined in, the GPL does that nicely by placing some ground rules that ensures that no one can steal the other kids' juice boxes and everyone plays nicely on the same sandbox.

Yes, indeed the GPL trades freedom for security. Precisely what I dislike about it.

The price to pay for stupidity, morelike.

You call stupid people that don't agree with you... nice.

BROKEN RECORD.

Idiot...

Yeah, I can see that. It's so "stupid" that you can't even come up with any kind of reasonable counter-argument.

It is stupid because you are already assuming that everybody agrees on YOUR definition of freedom. But let us continue then with this kind of analogies. The GPL, its viral nature... doesn't it ressemble communism? Everybody is forced to be GPL; no diversity, no different opinions, nothing new... Yuck, communism...

Oh, so when there are several Linux distros, which all are mostly compatible and use the same kernel, that's "evil fragmentation" but when BSD's fork everything it's somehow just "different systems and it's all fine"?

Wow, talk about rationalization and double standards...

I never said anything about "evil fragmentation"; all I said is those systems (BSDs) have a sane ecosystem.

WTF? Where the hell do you get that from? Do you have brain problems?

No; for you people it is all about market share and being popular. Maybe here I overgeneralized and you aren't the case, but still...

Succesful in toasters, yeah, I get it.

So you must be popular like Linux to be successfull? Like you said: "BROKEN RECORD."!

[name99]

Care to name some of this stuff? Because, AFAIR, only Play and drivers (which aren't made by Google) are closed source. Dalvik is open source, SurfaceFlinger is open source, the input stack is open source (and it is even being used within Mir as of now, although they plan on making their own).

Play and drivers are essential to actually running Android apps...
The whole point of Google's update strategy is to move more and more of the app-level APIs (ie the equivalent of the newest parts of Cocoa) into Play.

Yeah, yeah, you can write some minimal app that doesn't need the Google proprietary stuff to run on Android. And you can compile some command-line app to run just fine on Darwin...
In both cases, to match people's actual expectations, you need the full package.

[mrugiero]

To you, what is freedom? Is it pointing people with a gun forcing them to think like you (GPL)? Ohh, so much freedom! Hypocrisy...
The BSD licence gives you a code you are FREE to use; you can use it to develop whatever idea you have and be rich for that.
It is stupid because you are already assuming that everybody agrees on YOUR definition of freedom. But let us continue then with this kind of analogies. The GPL, its viral nature... doesn't it ressemble communism? Everybody is forced to be GPL; no diversity, no different opinions, nothing new... Yuck, communism...

First, I share your point that all of us have differing opinions on what freedom is, and that in consequence no license is actually superior. However, you should consider the fact GPL doesn't force you to use the software. You might have your great idea. You might want it to be closed source and yours and only yours, and that's great for you (although I'd prefer it if you share it, it is your choice and you are allowed). But developers who chose the GPL are telling you this: "you can use this code, as we give it to you, but we expect you to be a good citizen too, and give back". It is your choice to use the code or to develop an in house solution, or to pay to a closed source developer who will grant you a license, or find a BSD/MIT licensed project useful for your project. It is not forced at all, you make your choice, you use the code and release your work, or you find another solution. It is not like communism at all, as it doesn't take your things, it doesn't take any rights from you, just imposes conditions to use someone else's work. A different story is when patents come to play, as at times there is actually no alternative but to use the patented solution (for example, you are not free to choose which compression algorithm your graphics card uses, and you might need the patented S3TC algorithm). I guess that's why the GPLv3 enforces royalty free licensing of patents. But yet again, without the GPLv3 you'd be stuck to convince the patent holder to give you explicit authorization to use his/her work (in countries with software patents, of course).

[dee.]

To you, what is freedom? Is it pointing people with a gun forcing them to think like you (GPL)? Ohh, so much freedom! Hypocrisy...

Since when has GPL forced anyone to think anything?

If you want to distribute GPL-licensed software, then you have to comply with the license. You can modify it for your own use and keep the changes to yourself all you want. In fact, if you don't distribute the software, then there's practically no difference between BSD and GPL. No one forces you to distribute GPL software, so I've no idea how the hell you think GPL software is somehow taking something away from you.

The BSD licence gives you a code you are FREE to use; you can use it to develop whatever idea you have and be rich for that.

In other words, the BSD license allows you to take code, for free, and modify it to your own purposes, and then put it under lock and key and not reciprocate - it enables people to selfishly take without giving back, to profit from other peoples' work.

What? First you imply that companies must not be trusted;

You apparently don't know the difference between implication and inference.

I'm responsible for my implications, you're responsible for your inferences. Let's keep it that way, otherwise it gets messy.

you say that they never contribute back, and if they do, it is because "It's nice to get some free labour from gullible geeks.". Then you go on saying with pride how companies work together on Linux.

That's exactly the point you moron, that's the benefit of GPL. It forces the companies who work on Linux to keep their code open and not close it down and run away with it, like regularly happens with BSD's.

Hypocrisy...

You're using that word again. I don't think it means what you think it means...

You are the one saying that the BSD resembles "anarcho-capitalist's fallacy", so how about stop stating such bull shit and "actually addressing the point at hand"?

I don't think you even know what you're talking about anymore.

STOP implying that GPL represents 'true' freedom and BSD does not; people have different definitions/ideals of freedom. Deal with it.

Oh, for sure, you're entirely allowed to go on thinking black means white and up is down, no one's going to stop you.

So, Linux is driven entirely by companies; almost 100% of the code is from companies (their needs, their interests); Linux depends entirely on companies. Now tell, who 'really' owns Linux?

Seriously? No one really "owns" Linux. Companies contribute code, but they do not dictate the development of Linux, they do not get to decide what gets accepted and what doesn't. Linus and the kernel devs have total control over what gets accepted in the kernel. Even Red Hat doesn't get their way, even though they contribute a lot of code.

Who owns Linux? You can't really ask that kind of question, because there's no answer. There's no CA/CLA in the kernel, so each piece of code is owned by whoever wrote it, and there's currently code from thousands of individuals in the kernel. All of the code is licensed under the GPLv2, which guarantees that it will never get closed down, it will always be free as in freedom.

BTW, I said "virtually owned by...". Replace 'virtually' with 'practically'.

Makes no difference, you're still wrong.

Ok, so GPL is 'superior' in this respect...

Yes.

Yes, indeed the GPL trades freedom for security. Precisely what I dislike about it.

No, the GPL trades freedom for more freedom in the long run. Basically, the only freedom it removes is the freedom to take away others' freedom.

You call stupid people that don't agree with you... nice.

Idiot...

Looks like your high horse just threw you off the saddle, cowboy.

It is stupid because you are already assuming that everybody agrees on YOUR definition of freedom. But let us continue then with this kind of analogies. The GPL, its viral nature... doesn't it ressemble communism? Everybody is forced to be GPL; no diversity, no different opinions, nothing new... Yuck, communism...

You suck at analogies... No one is forced to be GPL. No license has that kind of power.

A GPL-licensed software can dictate that all derivative softwares are also licensed under GPL. Meaning, if you modify GPL code, and distribute the modified version, it also has to be GPL. That is something the GPL forces, sure.

GUESS WHAT GENIUS? THE BSD LICENSE DOES THE EXACT SAME THING! If your software is licensed under the BSD license, you can't just take it and license it under whatever. It explicitly requires you to keep the license same. Just like the "evil" GPL! It simply allows corporations to close it in the sense that they don't need to release the source, so it's in effect the same as being proprietary, but the license still remains BSD.

You can even license a software with the BSD license and never release the source. It'd still be BSD-licensed, but in effect it would be the same as being proprietary.

I never said anything about "evil fragmentation"; all I said is those systems (BSDs) have a sane ecosystem.

For a given definition of "sane".

No; for you people

Racist.

it is all about market share and being popular. Maybe here I overgeneralized and you aren't the case, but still...

Getting more market share is good, because it means better hardware support, and with open source software, it means that all the improvements that come with increased adoption end up benefiting everyone. It's only rational to wish for higher adoption and market share.

I don't really care about the "popularity" aspect, personally. I don't mind using an unpopular OS that no one's heard about, but at the same time, there are definite benefits from mainstream adoption and it'd be silly to ignore them.

So you must be popular like Linux to be successfull? Like you said: "BROKEN RECORD."!

Well, for an operating system to be succesful, there needs to be some amount of people using it... or do you have some better way of measuring "success"? I'm looking forward to hearing it.

[dee.]

I've no interest in this inane "debate"; but I'd point out that there is this thing called Android, based on Linux, and, it just so happens that the part that is released as open source is "entirely inadequate for running any Android software" --- for that you need a whole bunch of extra stuff which Google does NOT release as open source.

Not really. You can even run Android apps in non-Android platforms, there's nothing closed about the clientside API. Granted, currently the softwares that allow running Android software outside Android happen to be proprietary, but that's simply a coincidence - there's really nothing stopping anyone from implementing an independent, open source Android runtime that runs on Linux or whatever platform.

Which suggests that the whole issue has rather less to do than BSD vs GPL licensing, and rather more to do with the REALITIES of why and how ANY commercial company gets involved with open source...
We have examples of companies giving back (when they don't have to) under the BSD license. We also have examples of companies doing a darn good job of building an non-GLP'd wall around a GPL core.

Since your initial observation was inaccurate, it makes your conclusion invalid.

Of course, the GPL isn't perfect. Nothing is. The GPL is designed by humans, and is thus only as perfect as anything human-designed - ie. not perfect. That's why they release new versions of it sometimes, it's why we're at version 3 for now.

However, it's entirely fallacious to claim "if there's no perfect solution, then it's the same if we do nothing". The protection GPL provides isn't perfect, but it's damn well better than no protection at all.

If you want to argue the issue based on empirical real-world consequences ("which license has actually resulted in more software being shared with the world") you're going to have to provide real numbers of some sort. Because if you're just going to talk about "theory", and throw out examples against the license you hate, it's just as easy to find counter examples involving the license you love.

It's simple. Look at the Linux kernel, see how many contributors there are. Look at the BSD's. You can see it clearly in how corporations treat Linux, vs. how they treat BSD. The GPL facilitates that collaboration, it attracts more developers, because they can be certain that their code won't get locked down by some company who then goes on to profit with it without contributing back.

And like I've said, I don't by any means hate the BSD license. It has it's place, it's fine for some things, and in some applications, there's practically no difference whether you use GPL or BSD. And sometimes there are benefits to it - for example, in software that implements standards, or libraries that are meant to run cross-platform, and so on.

However, the BSD license is very poorly suited for kernels or operating systems. And the reasons and results can be seen in practice, not just theoretically.

[Cthulhux]

Number of archs Linux runs on > Number of archs FreeBSD runs on

Number of irrelevant archs > number of relevant archs.

Amount of hardware supported by Linux > Amounf of hardware supported by FreeBSD

Like what?

No it doesn't, but it doesn't enforce it either.

Enforcing something means freedom? Oh.

Oh don't bullshit me. NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, WhateverBSD... a sane ecosystem? Please.

And now count the number of Linuxes again...?

[Cthulhux]

If your software is licensed under the BSD license, you can't just take it and license it under whatever. It explicitly requires you to keep the license same.

Nope.

[ceage]

Again: FREEDOM.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
- Benjamin Franklin

Freedom is an abstract concept. If one wants to talk in a meaningful fashion about applying that concept to the world, they need to get concrete. That's what you missed when you took that aphorism out of context. Franklin filled the concept with meaning by stating exactly which freedoms he thought were essential. That's just what the GPL is doing today.

[bridgman]

Nope.

Not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with dee., but the point about having to keep the BSD license is correct.