FreeBSD Looks At Making Wayland Support Available By Default

[starshipeleven]

GPL says derivative works need to be open, BSD allows proprietary derivatives. I'm not sure that makes it more "permissive" though. I still remember the "advertising clause" fiasco:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html

Allowing proprietary derivatives (aka not enforcing Copyleft) is exactly what makes a license "permissive".

Adding some text with small font somewhere semi-hidden is not exactly an issue. They already do so for the various crap mandated by law. And even if they don't... there is very little risk of getting sued anyway over something so trivial (also because most BSD projects don't have budget nor organizations ready to get into legal battles, unlike GPL projects and Linux).

[starshipeleven]

You completely missed the idea. At one point one's values may simply shift, along with preferences.

That's more reasonable than what you posted before, but still think you are pushing this harder than it is in reality.

Especially if change for the sake of change does not interest you at all but you do appreciate OS that is designed, not evolved randomly.

You are mistaking slow development with "design".
BSD is developed at a far slower pace than Linux, but it follows the same general "evolution" principles where there is a shared source repo, a team of people on a mailing list and someone adds stuff if his peers agree, or makes a hard fork if they don't and he thinks his change is important enough (DragonflyBSD for example). There is just far less people adding new stuff.
Which again may be a good thing if you like stability, but is NOT the same as "design".

For the userspace this may or may not apply as applications and DEs are shared with Linux (and sometimes Windows), and I don't know how fast/well stuff is ported. (yes I never used FBSD with a GUI, only headless systems)

I am 36. Do I qualify as "old raunchy guy"?

I used that (and the "veteran unix admin" one) to describe a state of mind, something that isn't linked to the subject's actual age.
In this case, it's a kind of person that crystallized on something when he was "young" and then does not accept even the slightest variation from it.

You might qualify, or you just might just be using Linux wrong and got burned by that (which is another thing entirely), or you might just be trolling. Can't say from here.

I simply like BSD's because I do not have to fucking relearn things in every 6 months and my computers at home stay online a lot longer using BSD's compared to any hobbyst Linux testbed.

Stop installing hobbyst Linux testbed distros. Seriously, this is the part I have more issues with.

There is nothing to relearn on most consumer-oriented distros, especially in LTS releases that are frozen for 5 years.
Most changes are under the hood, irrelevant for the end user, as long as you choose a simple and stable DE (anything that is not GNOME 3 or Cinnamon, and KDE basically) you should be fine for decades.

[aht0]

I hope you realize how fucking sad this is. You're basically saying that the only point of FBSD is being a more extreme Devuan (a distro born out of hate and ignorance).

You completely missed the idea. At one point one's values may simply shift, along with preferences. Devuan offers me personally nothing. But the said shift won't happen before gaining years of experience with Linux and then trying BSD. It may never happen, it may happen after trying BSD for the n-th time and migrating gradually (me). At some point BSD's shortcomings may feel smaller than ones of Linux. Especially if change for the sake of change does not interest you at all but you do appreciate OS that is designed, not evolved randomly.

No I have not. Apart from the vocal minority of "old raunchy guy" types that are too old to accept change even if it is for the best, or "Veteran Unix Admin" (aka systemd hater) types there are plenty of people on BSD that has chosen it for other reasons.

I am 36. Do I qualify as "old raunchy guy"? I work in military/police/border troops (troops under internal ministry) not as system admin. Computers are just hobby for me though I have played with them since mid-90's. I simply like BSD's because I do not have to fucking relearn things in every 6 months and my computers at home stay online a lot longer using BSD's compared to any hobbyst Linux testbed.

[starshipeleven]

QNX is on the rise (it's currently mostly being used in cars by companies like Ford and even Mercedes has a few cars with QNX on-board, but they are closing in on more deals), so not all Unixes are dead. But yeah, most of them are, like HP-UX and whatnot.

The reason it is on the rise is that QNX is a RTOS (realtime OS) microkernel aimed at embedded systems, while bulk of Unixes were basically server OSes with artificial vendor lock limitations that competed and plain lost against Linux (offering the same stuff, but without the same bullshit vendorlock).

QNX does have features that allow it to compete or even be better than Linux in embedded applications.

[starshipeleven]

It's there for former Linux users who get finally tired of messing around with software analogue of live fragmentation grenade with safety pin pulled and want serious , coherent, well documented operating system.

I hope you realize how fucking sad this is. You're basically saying that the only point of FBSD is being a more extreme Devuan (a distro born out of hate and ignorance).

Which is not.

Haven't you noticed that migration tends to be Linux -> BSD, not much vice versa.

No I have not. Apart from the vocal minority of "old raunchy guy" types that are too old to accept change even if it is for the best, or "Veteran Unix Admin" (aka systemd hater) types there are plenty of people on BSD that has chosen it for other reasons.

[starshipeleven]

As far as I know, large companies like Google, Facebook, etc got fed up with proprietary appliances and are designning their own, Linux based things boasting open firmwares. So they could integrate management/diagnostics/etc to their infrastructure management reasonably, etc. Not to mention there is no vendor-lock on the way, so nobody would suddenly screw 'em.

FreeBSD or permissive licensed stuff would allow them to do the same.

And sony consoles... yet another showcase of DRMed anti-user hardware.

Yeah, having a permissive license is liked most by such kinds of companies that prefer to not disclose the source of their device's firmware.
Another example is JunOS (JUNIPER firewall/router firmware).

[aht0]

Serious "LOL" at responses. Just to throw more gasoline into fire..

The point of BSD, since it was asked:
It's there for former Linux users who get finally tired of messing around with software analogue of live fragmentation grenade with safety pin pulled and want serious , coherent, well documented operating system.

Haven't you noticed that migration tends to be Linux -> BSD, not much vice versa.

[andre30correia]

unix is diying because of big companies, ppl work to freebsd and apple go there and take the things without paying or helping

[Vistaus]

Sure, you wouldn't. BSD users tend to be utterly irrational beings. Maybe because there're no rational reasons to prefer BSDs (except fucking greed and proprietary mindset, going such a great lengths it makes it irrational and self-destructive either).


Sure thing, you're doomed to praise proprietary backdoored vendor-locked OS coming with bizarre EULA and spyware which costs some bucks. Because BSDs suck as desktop and BSD users are irrational and stubborn enough to fail to admit Linux could have some point. That's a whole point of BSD users mindset. "Anything but Linux", eh? Ironically, this mindset tends to plaly poor jokes on its owner, turning one into utterly irrational creature. Who is really wrong person to ask to do any technical jobs. Companies may really want to fire individuals like this, because this grossly irrational approach hurts their large-scale missions/goals hell a lot.


Which are mostly on their deathbeds, thanks to greed, vendorlocks and resulting shitty ecosystems which tends to cause overall failure of OS development, making this crap uncompetitive or pointless.


Somehow the only known use of this "free" thing is Intel Management Engine. Something hostile and unwanted. When it comes to free choice, nearly nobody in sane mind uses Minix. Because it quite pointless as general purpose OS. But it serves as showcase of BSD licensing. Minix started before Linux did. Now we can compare state of projects and draw some conclusions about project management and licensing stuff.

QNX is on the rise (it's currently mostly being used in cars by companies like Ford and even Mercedes has a few cars with QNX on-board, but they are closing in on more deals), so not all Unixes are dead. But yeah, most of them are, like HP-UX and whatnot.

[SystemCrasher]

embedded it's not really common on low-end stuff where Linux dominates, but on more powerful embedded systems like firewalls/routers and Sony consoles yeah it's used.

As far as I know, large companies like Google, Facebook, etc got fed up with proprietary appliances and are designning their own, Linux based things boasting open firmwares. So they could integrate management/diagnostics/etc to their infrastructure management reasonably, etc. Not to mention there is no vendor-lock on the way, so nobody would suddenly screw 'em. And sony consoles... yet another showcase of DRMed anti-user hardware. Showcase of BSDish ecosystem development is a bonus. You see, PS4 based on FreeBSD. What is the most ironic thing about it? Original FreeBSD still suxx when it comes to HW support. Most funny part? APUs similar to those used in PS4 are kinda unusable in FreeBSD. That's how BSDish ecosystems really perform. So no wonder BSD nuts would praise Windows, haha.