Should There Be A Unified BSD Operating System?

[Hamish Wilson]

The GPL defends the right of people to redistribute source code, which sounds rather liberal to me (just as a liberal democracy is so supposed to ensure freedom of speech and freedom of expression through the practice of the law). BSD sounds more like a variant on some from of Libertarian doctrine.

[Sergio]

It's a neverending and, to some extent, even pointless, discussion; there's probably no other example where a word can have so many interpretations and ideals. I refer, of course, to the word 'freedom'.

[Desiderantes]

If Minix had been available without being full of issues it is very likely that Linus simply would have picked this for his OS and never developed Linux.

If Hurd had been available instead of not it is very likely that Linus simply would have picked this for his OS and never developed Linux.

Linus Torvalds created an OS? Howdy lord, i though he just stopped with Linux, the kernel.

[ArchLinux]

Linus Torvalds created an OS? Howdy lord, i though he just stopped with Linux, the kernel.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...A/SwRavCzVE7gJ:

Hello everybody out there using minix -

I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things).

I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work. This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)

Linus ([email protected])

PS. Yes ? it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT portable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.

fewafweafaeawefwae

[0xBADCODE]

Oh, where BSD loses? I can show where.

Would you mind telling me explicitly what in the code is lacking that has likely been improved by some company, but not disclosed?

Okay, you want it? Then, get it. Linux supports many embedded devices and somesuch. Say, ARM and MIPS based. This is a whole bunch of devices. Phones, tablets, TVs and set-top boxes, various embedded controllers, IP cameras and recorders, SOHO routers and access points and zillion of other devices I forgot. Basically as of 2012 if you see some smart embedded device, there is very high chance it runs Linux. And there are reasons for doing so.

In Linux GPL forces corporate guys to release source. In BSD license does not forces them to do so. Result? Virtually all BSDs utterly suxx on mentioned platforms. At very best BSDs have some formal support for some ARM and MIPS based devices. But it's very far from perfect. Usually only CPU core supported. And it's up to you to code all peripheral drivers. Sure, few companies like Juniper managed it, but you will not benefit from it. And since you can't create SoC IC on your kitchen, it's going to be some "minor" problem when you're about to boot OS on some SoC and then getting OS to do something useful for you.

So when it comes to Linux there is ususlly some GCC-based SDK and Liunx kernel, both with sources. So anyone interested can improve/fork/integrate to mainline or whatever. Not a case with BSD.

Let's assume you're developer. You've got neat ARM or MIPS prototyping board and planning to make some cool device based on this design. You can choose Linux where you'll be forced to release source but it already works, allows you to sell something valuable to customers "almost now" and so on. And you're granted access to GPLed SDK and kernel so you can change them to address your custom needs if you need it. Now about BSD. Historically there has been choice between closed-source stuff from some proprietary vendor and making all hard things yourself. Yes, writting all SoC drivers, and so on. Then you getting idea there is no good flash file system or alive busybox equivalent. And dozen and half of other troubles. It has gone so far that most BSD distros just do not dare to enter this area at all due to lack of resources to create anything working. So you have to be huge corporation to be able to cope with all this crap and make something working and based on BSDs. Should I admit it takes ton of resources and bucks to complete all these jobs? Linux turns out to be seriously cheaper in development. This also can give you idea why startups preferring Linux as well.

This is not a joke. For example, well known embedded company, WindRiver has been forced to ditch their proprietary BSD fork in favor of Linux when they got idea that these days anoyone hardly needs closed-source BSD fork which loses to opensource Linux anyway . Basically BSDs were knocked off from embedded market. Same happens on server market as well. Linux is definitely able to defend it's code better, forcing corporations to symbiosis mode rather than parasitic mode. And it works.

[XorEaxEax]

You'd like us to believe that you are a liberal, but it is clear from your arguments that you are not.

In every conversation on this forum about anything licensed under a permissive license, your stand is clearly made for the authoritarian nature of the gpl.

Oh but I am liberal when it comes to licences, I will defend the code authors/owners right to choose the licence or to keep it proprietary, I have argued against people saying proprietary use of BSD licenced code is stealing and other such nonsense right here on Phoronix. Please point me to my arguments where I state otherwise. Just a few posts back I made my personal licence preferences clear, which vary depending on context.

My favourite OS is Haiku which is permissively licenced (MIT)

What is the 'authoritative' nature of GPL? It's licence, a set of conditions for use just like any other licence.

As for why I think GPL makes for a better licence to cooperate under for companies I've made that clear also, which is that companies is generally the equivalent of the most selfish greedy person you can find and they pretty much never want to give anything away, particularly when it can gain a competitor and this is where the GPL comes in handy.

And it is sad, I've read numerous times of company representatives saying they've saved up so and so much money from using open source. If they would only donate a small percentage of those savings back then I have no doubt open source in all forms and licences would flourish.

Of course you don't give a shit about this either way since you are just here trolling.

[ArchLinux]

By the way, staalmannen, you were so full of sh*t when you said this:

Secondly, the most probable reason why BSD on i386 did not win over Linux despite being technically far more advanced for several years is spelled "UNIX wars". There was lots of legal uncertainty at the time about BSD and this really hurt it. If BSD i386 had been available without this issue it is very likely that Linus simply would have picked this for his OS and never developed Linux.

It wasn't a question of 386BSD not being available without the lawsuit but the fact that it wasn't available at all two years _before_ the whole thing.

It was finished in -92. A year _after_ Linux. The legal trouble began in -93.^[1][2]

[yogi_berra]

What is the 'authoritative' nature of GPL?

Authoritarian, not authoritative. One license offers the freedom of the former Soviet Union, you are free to do whatever you want as long you give up your own rights. One license offers real freedom.

Learn to tell the difference.

Of course you don't give a shit about this either way since you are just here trolling.

yet I have still contributed more lines of code to more OSS projects than you.

[JanC]

There are hundreds of Linux distributions and several BSD's ... and BSD needs unification?

The differences in linux distros are mostly in userspace (package management, default DE, etc.), the differences in the BSDs are often in the kernel (and system tools, to some degree).

[Hamish Wilson]

Authoritarian, not authoritative. One license offers the freedom of the former Soviet Union, you are free to do whatever you want as long you give up your own rights. One license offers real freedom.