Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD Continues Work On Ridding Its Base Of GPL-Licensed Software

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
    First, the VCS is not the base of an OS.
    And second, git is GPL v2 (and I think also LGPL) which is a little less "messy".
    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.

    Comment


    • #12
      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.
      True, it looks more like a fashion choice: all our utilities fall under the same license. Or something.

      Comment


      • #13
        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.
        BSD's are different to Linux in that the scope is a lot larger. Where as Linux is just released as as a standalone kernel the BSD's include userspace tools that are typical in POSIX/nix along with the kernel (in Linux this is completely separate)

        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.

        Comment


        • #14
          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.

          Comment


          • #15
            Even BSD trolls are gone.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
              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.
              If you’re OpenBSD that is true but last I checked, FreeBSD has LKMs for keeping interfaces alive, versioned after old major releases.

              Comment


              • #17
                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.
                Well, honestly Windows approach with AD sucks as well, at least NFS is harder to hack. i like OpenAFS a lot tho

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
                  Well, honestly Windows approach with AD sucks as well, at least NFS is harder to hack. i like OpenAFS a lot tho
                  That's what I was thinking too. For all of its shortcomings, the Linux/Unix world is still superior to the alternative from Redmond. Even more so during the dot-com boom era as referenced by anarki2. I remember very clearly how horribly crashy the NT4 / Win 2000 / Win 2003 server products were. They fell over if you looked at them funny, and required a reboot after every mouse click it seemed like. TCP/IP services were an afterthought, as was the entire storage stack. Linux was light years ahead, and still is.
                  Last edited by torsionbar28; 16 January 2021, 10:42 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                    True, it looks more like a fashion choice: all our utilities fall under the same license. Or something.
                    Linux is a fashion choice and awful at that.
                    Last edited by brad0; 16 January 2021, 10:47 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Largely irrelevant OS does largely irrelevant things?

                      I seriously wish this wasn't the case.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X