Originally posted by bug77
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
FreeBSD Continues Work On Ridding Its Base Of GPL-Licensed Software
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 7
-
Originally posted by microcode View Post
FWIW, it's pretty hard to see the point in getting rid of gcov or dialog either. Neither of these are deeply integrated with anything, they are just ordinary programs running in userspace. There is nothing preventing them from integrating their preferred libraries, if those actually offer any benefit; but it seems in reality to be a silly endeavor with no particular benefit aside from "feeling copyfree" about things that aren't worth embedding in the first place.
- Likes 7
Comment
-
Originally posted by microcode View Post
FWIW, it's pretty hard to see the point in getting rid of gcov or dialog either. Neither of these are deeply integrated with anything, they are just ordinary programs running in userspace. There is nothing preventing them from integrating their preferred libraries, if those actually offer any benefit; but it seems in reality to be a silly endeavor with no particular benefit aside from "feeling copyfree" about things that aren't worth embedding in the first place.
So for them its a bigger deal because BSD;s will typically fix user space programs so them getting rid of GPL here has its benefits.
Fun fact, this perk of BSD's also means they are able to break interfaces and fix interfaces since they control both the kernel and the nix/POSIX environment and bundle them together. As an example, Linux still has to keep broken interfaces/tools because Linux doesn't want to break userspace where as these typically get fixed in BSD, the ehto0/wlan0 naming scheme is an example of this.
- Likes 6
Comment
-
This is the last thing they should care about IMO. The OS is on brink of irrelevancy and they blunder about with 30 year old licensing flame war issues. I used to really love freeBSD back in the 2000s but they were already kinda stuck in the past back then. Never looked back since I found Arch.
- Likes 10
Comment
-
Originally posted by mdedetrich View Postthis perk of BSD's also means they are able to break interfaces and fix interfaces since they control both the kernel and the nix/POSIX environment and bundle them together. As an example, Linux still has to keep broken interfaces/tools because Linux doesn't want to break userspace where as these typically get fixed in BSD, the ehto0/wlan0 naming scheme is an example of this.
Comment
-
Originally posted by anarki2 View Post
NFS (like most traditional Unix software) is a pile of garbage in terms of AuthN and AuthZ, regardless of the security of the transport channel. The octal permissions, sticky bit, "ACL" which is mostly just a gimmick and has no resemblence to actual ACLs, groups not being able to hold groups, and all the other ridiculous limitations dating back to the 80s or even 70s, it just blows my mind how the Unix world actually survived the 2000s Internet explosion until most AuthZ and AuthN stuff essentially moved from the OS to higher levels (in most of the cases, to webapps). Do you know how you can prevent a Docker user from gaining sudo rights? I tell you: no way. That's Docker AuthZ for ya.
So no, NFS having or lacking TLS support is the least of my concerns.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by jrch2k8 View PostWell, honestly Windows approach with AD sucks as well, at least NFS is harder to hack. i like OpenAFS a lot thoLast edited by torsionbar28; 16 January 2021, 10:42 PM.
- Likes 6
Comment
Comment