Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sony's PlayStation 4 Is Running Modified FreeBSD 9

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
    One could also argue that there's something wrong with the companies themselves, when they don't see the benefits of the open source development and business model. The BSD lisence is more liberal than GNU GPL anyhow, so that it lets the companies choose whether or not they want to contribute.
    And one could argue that you want them to contribute, thus enforce them to or they can do their own software without the community's work. But as already said, this really depends on what the programmer want his/her code for. If one want just to be helpful as Elanthis said, then BSD is far more successful at that. If you care about the project being contributed back, well, as I said it's probably better to enforce it. Another reason why a dev might prefer a copyleft license is because he feels if he doesn't charge his work, nobody should charge it. Although if this is the concern, then one could just add a clause that says derived works must be free as in beer, which at the same time would allow Sony's use (because they charge the console, not the OS) but not an hypothetical Windows' one, since they charge licenses to the software. IIRC id software used a (more restrictive) license that didn't allowed using the code with commercial purposes.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by shmerl View Post
      I second that. This GL bashing sounded more like a rant, than something real.
      The usual complaints against OpenGL is that its very verbose, and its very "Why cant you do this for me?" Imagine spending your entire life coding in C# or Java or Python (D3D11) and then having to code in pure C. Suddenly you're much closer to the hardware, which is great when you need to leak out those few percentage points of power, but when you're just trying to get something done quickly and cleanly and with as minimal amount of effort as possible to save time... its not so great.

      Those are the usual complaints I hear, personally if I would have a choice on a project I would go OpenGL just because I would want to hit as many platforms as possible.

      EDIT: Here's the story from the horses mouth... http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/...better-opengl/

      Speaking to bit-tech for a forthcoming Custom PC feature about the future of OpenGL in PC gaming, Carmack said 'I actually think that Direct3D is a rather better API today.' He also added that 'Microsoft had the courage to continue making significant incompatible changes to improve the API, while OpenGL has been held back by compatibility concerns. Direct3D handles multi-threading better, and newer versions manage state better.'
      Emphasis mine. That's a big deal... Microsoft did have the balls to break backwards compatibility with DirectX 10 and 11, they knew they needed to and they did it. OpenGL has kind of become like the X server... We're wrapping it in more and more and more extensions but the Core is still there, Khronos hasn't had the balls to be like "Fuck it. OpenGL X(5?) is a clean start, we're scrapping everything. Lets do this right."

      EDIT 2: http://seanmiddleditch.com/journal/2...-5-0-wishlist/

      Notice how a lot of his Wishlist involves breaking the fundamental legacies and traditions of OpenGL
      Last edited by Ericg; 06-23-2013, 06:28 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        I dont really get it... it makes not much sense for me.... If they would have portet the free linux drivers, if that would even possible because of lisensing (I think not) they would have needed to make many changes to it to be fast... so why would they not release that under linux.

        So that did not happen I guess.

        So what else... the catalyst. Its a pretty garbage driver totaly unstable... so if they are not able to make that thing usable under linux, how did they do it with a port to freebsd? Is it easier to create stable drivers for freebsd?

        Or is in LInux the Xserver the problem and the use some framebuffer thing thats way more primitive and because of that maybe more easy to make stable?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
          There's no other explanation, because choosing bsd over Linux as a gaming platform is no brainer.
          Slight, but important correction - not as a gaming platform, but as a toolbox to creating a gaming platform that is completely disconnected from parent.

          Comment


          • #35
            PS3 was on a modified BSD too, wasn't it?
            Will be interesting to see how emulators work out this time around since the code will be for x86, I wonder if there will be a native-esque BSD/Linux emulator.

            edit:
            anyone saying they chose BSD because "it's a better platform" is fooling themselves, they just wanted to steal someone's hard work without giving any credit.
            Not to mention Linux already has the Steambox on the way anyways... Valve has already helped the Linux community a lot(improved drivers, working directly with canonical, etc), what has Sony given to the BSD community?
            Last edited by peppercats; 06-23-2013, 06:42 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by UselessFileSystem
              Please back that up with evidence
              Evidence? Just check the logs for FreeBSD 9, Apple contributing some tech back was a big deal for that release.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                Khronos said at some point that they will create a new API which will break compatibility. That one was supposed to be OpenGL 2.0 from what I remember. Of course, they backed down and ended up being something only incremental instead of revolutionary.
                It was supposed to be OpenGL 3.0, google "OpenGL Longs Peak", but Khronos backed down due to "issues" and instead of breaking Backwards compatibility they "depreciated" the OpenGL 1 and 2 shit they didnt like and then 3.1 officially "removed it." Thats the whole thing with a Core and Compatibility contexts, it decides what parts of what versions you can and can't get access to.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by peppercats View Post
                  PS3 was on a modified BSD too, wasn't it?
                  Will be interesting to see how emulators work out this time around since the code will be for x86, I wonder if there will be a native-esque BSD/Linux emulator.

                  edit:
                  anyone saying they chose BSD because "it's a better platform" is fooling themselves, they just wanted to steal someone's hard work without giving any credit.
                  Not to mention Linux already has the Steambox on the way anyways... Valve has already helped the Linux community a lot(improved drivers, working directly with canonical, etc), what has Sony given to the BSD community?
                  Again... Not stealing. The BSD License says

                  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

                  1) Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
                  2) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
                  3) Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
                  BSD Developers knowingly and willfully choose the BSD License because they want the code in the hands of as many people as humanly possible regardless of the project in question. They just want their code out there being used. Enough of this "If you're not with us*, you're against us."

                  *Us being GPL supporters...or more specifically in this case, zealots. You're zealots plain and simple, you can't even respect the choices of OTHER people because if you COULD you wouldn't be jumping down their throats about them choosing the BSD License.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                    Again... Not stealing. The BSD License says



                    BSD Developers knowingly and willfully choose the BSD License because they want the code in the hands of as many people as humanly possible regardless of the project in question. They just want their code out there being used. Enough of this "If you're not with us*, you're against us."

                    *Us being GPL supporters...or more specifically in this case, zealots. You're zealots plain and simple, you can't even respect the choices of OTHER people because if you COULD you wouldn't be jumping down their throats about them choosing the BSD License.
                    I like how you already resorted to calling me a "GPL zealot" when you don't even know me.
                    If I see someone take another person's hard work just to profit off of it, even if he's giving it away for free for some retarded reason, I will forever call it stealing. There is no mental gymnastics you can do to stop me, sorry.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                      Sorry, but this is ridiculous. There are companies which support Linux all the time and some bits coming to bsd from time to time sounds like a joke.
                      Keep in mind, there's nothing demanding in the GPL that you submit your modifications back upstream. It just demands that you make them available IF you distribute binaries.

                      Google ran modified Ubuntu installations on their desktops and servers for a long time, probably making some pretty serious performance improvements that netted them A LOT of cash in the end and didn't contribute all or any of those changes back to Upstream.

                      Why can they do this? Because they kept them internal, as long as you don't distribute your changes outside of yourself (which would be to say: you dont willfully distribute binaries outside of your company) the GPL basically IS the BSD license.
                      Last edited by Ericg; 06-23-2013, 06:55 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X