What is the future of the BSD?

[JX8p]

This is incorrect. Recent revisions of GCC have improved debugging information quality beyond of LLVM.
It is only stagnant on BSD and Apple, which stayed with outdated GPL2 version. Its their problem - not only the BSD platform is undermanned and bugged, it is also highly license intolerant.

It is intolerant only of the GPL v3. And debugging information is but a small part of what makes a compiler good. Clutching at straws. BSD platform is most certainly not 'bugged' either; nor is it particularly 'buggy'.

Since when has windumbs become *internet*? In fact, one can extrapolate BSD helped microsoft to start internet conquest via infamous IE EEE.

One could extrapolate that, but one would be wrong, and clutching at straws.

One should note that without the BSD TCP/IP stack (and without it being under the BSD licence) the internet would be set back, by virtue of the lack of a good and stable implementation of an API open in source and based on an open standard. This is not just about Windows. This is about just about everything that made the modern internet possible.

[profoundWHALE]

What is the future of the BSD?

I ask this because OpenBSD had no money to pay the electricity bill and would be closed if had not appeared donor to pay this bill.

Not worth investing in an operating system that is about to be terminated.

They had a lot of donor support and they aren't going anywhere for a long time. It's main point? Permissive license. Lots of companies end up grabbing BSD source code and modifying it for custom solutions.

Another reason, OS X is much more popular or at least well known than it used to be, and BSD applications should be really easy to port over and vice versa.

[brosis]

It is intolerant only of the GPL v3. And debugging information is but a small part of what makes a compiler good. Clutching at straws. BSD platform is most certainly not 'bugged' either; nor is it particularly 'buggy'.

So has been Hammer2 working good recently? Or ZFS on BSD not crashing every moment, unlike on opensolaris? Or the softupdate journaling mess?

Low manpower, because people don't like to work for free for corporations. Case with Canonicals GPL3+CLA proves it.
Why has Apple started LLVM and refused to move to GPL3 based GCC? Because they explicitly want tivoization in form of DRMing the software to hardware.
And BSD that is picky about having explicitly non-copyleft license. Still wondering why manpower is low? Its pure proprietary corporation tool, its destiny hangs totally from it.

One could extrapolate that, but one would be wrong, and clutching at straws.

One should note that without the BSD TCP/IP stack (and without it being under the BSD licence) the internet would be set back, by virtue of the lack of a good and stable implementation of an API open in source and based on an open standard. This is not just about Windows. This is about just about everything that made the modern internet possible.

Actually no.
A solid libre (GPL or even lesser copyleft) implementation that adheres to some standard protocol is far better than a generic stack on permissive license that is for anyone to take and deviate.
EEE would be just impossible in that case, any otherwise licensed implementation wouldn't get enough power to misuse own position.
Remember Mozilla? Its actually loosing now explicitly because its not stronger copylefted (software, not rendering library).

Notably BSD actually never rises above libraries. Its proprietary supervisors forbid it. By cutting costs. It would be a classical shelf space incentive conflict.
If one wants quality free/libre user application, its unthinkable without copyleft.

[JX8p]

So has been Hammer2 working good recently? Or ZFS on BSD not crashing every moment, unlike on opensolaris? Or the softupdate journaling mess?

Low manpower, because people don't like to work for free for corporations. Case with Canonicals GPL3+CLA proves it.
Why has Apple started LLVM and refused to move to GPL3 based GCC? Because they explicitly want tivoization in form of DRMing the software to hardware.
And BSD that is picky about having explicitly non-copyleft license. Still wondering why manpower is low? Its pure proprietary corporation tool, its destiny hangs totally from it.

HAMMER2 is in development, and ZFS on FreeBSD crashing? Uhuh. Certainly hasn't affected me!

BSD might be used by corporations but it is developed primarily by hobbyists. That is why you cannot kill it.

[quoute]Actually no.
A solid libre (GPL or even lesser copyleft) implementation that adheres to some standard protocol is far better than a generic stack on permissive license that is for anyone to take and deviate.
[/QUOTE]

And which few corporations would even bother using! They would reimplement it badly and you'd have an incompatible mess.

Notably BSD actually never rises above libraries. Its proprietary supervisors forbid it. By cutting costs. It would be a classical shelf space incentive conflict.

What?

If one wants quality free/libre user application, its unthinkable without copyleft.

OpenSSH comes to mind as a particularly good example of free/libre open-source software that is not copylefted.

[brosis]

HAMMER2 is in development, and ZFS on FreeBSD crashing? Uhuh. Certainly hasn't affected me!

Sure public bugs are not affecting you.

BSD might be used by corporations but it is developed primarily by hobbyists. That is why you cannot kill it.

I am not trying to kill it, I am just stating the obvious. And it is NOT developed by hobbyists - it is developed by corporation employees as a hobby.

And which few corporations would even bother using! They would reimplement it badly and you'd have an incompatible mess.

I am totally getting your love shower for proprietary corporation quality! Oh my!
Of course they will reimplement it, they do it anyway. Quality of their proprietary software is their own business and copyleft implementation will secure their inability to deviate the standard in the direction of braking or hijacking it, they can compare and benchmark own toys against it anytime.

What?

Notably BSD actually never rises above libraries. Its proprietary supervisors forbid it. By cutting costs. It would be a classical shelf space incentive conflict.
^^^^ That.

OpenSSH comes to mind as a particularly good example of free/libre open-source software that is not copylefted.

Libre = copylefted.
MIT/BSD != copyleft.
OpenSSH != libre software.
It is a service utility with inconvenient text-based configuration.

Putty is a good example of what you tried to mention, but its also rather an utility with primitive goal and heavy emphasis on technical aspect, not user-friendliness. It will be a real problem to find something less technical and more geared towards users as a complete or task-oriented solution outside of MIT/BSD. Something like pacmanager. It will drop out either as GPL or as proprietary, nigh impossible as MIT/BSD/Apache.

[JX8p]

Sure public bugs are not affecting you.

They certainly aren't.

I am not trying to kill it, I am just stating the obvious. And it is NOT developed by hobbyists - it is developed by corporation employees as a hobby.

You mean some of the developers are. Not all of them are.

I am totally getting your love shower for proprietary corporation quality! Oh my!
Of course they will reimplement it, they do it anyway. Quality of their proprietary software is their own business and copyleft implementation will secure their inability to deviate the standard in the direction of braking or hijacking it, they can compare and benchmark own toys against it anytime.

Actually, it's a criticism of the fact that proprietary corporations will reimplement it - POORLY. Things will break in mysterious ways and nothing will interact as it should do. Copyleft implementation is worthless here; the most important thing of all is an open standard, followed by a permissively licenced portable implementation (so people don't make awful reimplementations).

Libre = copylefted.
MIT/BSD != copyleft.
OpenSSH != libre software.
It is a service utility with inconvenient text-based configuration.

The fact is that I haven't found any real definition of Libre Software beyond "it's another term for Free Software". It's a term that you are applying arbitrary standards to. Even Stallman agrees that the BSD/MIT licenses are Free Software; he prefers the GPL for obvious reasons, of course.

[endman]

BSD is not good

For those of you who keep saying that BSD is good please see this demonstration showing why in is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hQkhyTOpks

[0xBADCODE]

I do not think BSDs have bright future.

BSDs are known for exceptionally bad project management. Ranging from hitting legal issues due to "stolen" code (ain't it cool community can work for corps but corps are not willing to do the same for BSDs and rather sue this naive people if they dare to take code?) and up to failing to recognize modern requirements (decent package management, virtualisation and containers, resources policing, device drivers, etc). So at the end of day these seems to be some third rate systems which are mostly useful for small bunch of corporations (Sony, Apple, Juniper... what else I forgot?) to take free code without any requirements to contribute back. and bunch of masochistically inclined people who still use this stuff for some obscure reasons (though many of those usually resort to some proprietary systems, especially on desktops/laptops, that's why I consider their mumblings about BSD freedoms as bullshit). I doubt BSDs would totally die as long as someone want to use it and write the code. Though numbers of BSD users are pretty low these days. Most popular BSD around (FreeBSD) haves about 0.01% of use as desktop or even less than that (most of web stats woukd let if to fly below radar, not being interested in counting below 0.01% of market share).

So speaking for myself I think investing $$$ to BSDs is something like investing to garbage bin. The only output I can see is some reduction of TCO for sony and apple, which isn't likely to be very interesting goal for me.

And as for GPLv3... haha, GPLv3 plugs some holes some cheaters found. Then these cheaters got unhappy. Woo-hoo! Now they can't fool devs anymore. And padding interests of these cheaters by BSD ppl is looking really pathetic. EPIC FAIL in project management, guys. Strange that BSD ppl fail to see this way leads to NOWHERE.

[Sergio]

BSDs are known for exceptionally bad project management. Ranging from hitting legal issues due to "stolen" code (ain't it cool community can work for corps but corps are not willing to do the same for BSDs and rather sue this naive people if they dare to take code?) and up to failing to recognize modern requirements (decent package management, virtualisation and containers, resources policing, device drivers, etc).

The battle with AT&T just proves that BSD was leading the way to open source; they did not have the advantage of having a reference as to what problems they could get into. It is difficult when you actually are standing on unknown grounds, you know... That is why BSD's history is about innovation.
Next, are you forgetting about jails (way before Linux)? ZFS? DTrace? Capsicum? What are the modern equivalents in the Linux world? Btrfs? Don't make me laugh.

So at the end of day these seems to be some third rate systems which are mostly useful for small bunch of corporations (Sony, Apple, Juniper... what else I forgot?) to take free code without any requirements to contribute back.

Could you explain how an infrastructure such as Netflix's Open Connect depend on a "third rate" system? How is it possible for a "third rate" system to handle "30% of nightly home Internet traffic"?
FreeBSD is world class, and that hurts you.

I doubt BSDs would totally die as long as someone want to use it and write the code. Though numbers of BSD users are pretty low these days. Most popular BSD around (FreeBSD) haves about 0.01% of use as desktop or even less than that (most of web stats woukd let if to fly below radar, not being interested in counting below 0.01% of market share).

So, what is Linux's market share in the desktop? What a fucking moronic argument...
Bad news to you: BSD will never die.

So speaking for myself I think investing $$$ to BSDs is something like investing to garbage bin.

Fortunately no body gives a fuck about what you think.

And as for GPLv3... haha, GPLv3 plugs some holes some cheaters found. Then these cheaters got unhappy. Woo-hoo! Now they can't fool devs anymore. And padding interests of these cheaters by BSD ppl is looking really pathetic. EPIC FAIL in project management, guys. Strange that BSD ppl fail to see this way leads to NOWHERE.

Long live the GNU Communist Party!

[Sergio]

For those of you who keep saying that BSD is good please see this demonstration showing why in is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hQkhyTOpks

http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com is dying...