Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging

[xeekei]

Most BSD users know Linux better than Linux users know BSD, so they may be right to do so.

Most != all. Actually, you'd be surprised how misinformed some BSD users are about Linux. So I do not think they are right in doing so most of the time.

How is that relevant for the subject?

Ironically, I used that as an example of you saying irrelevant things. Also trollish things.

Because the GPLv3 is still denying freedom.

No. The GPLv3 fixes the loopholes in the GPLv2. It also grants immunity to people whom crack DRM. DRM that is used to lock people out of GPL licensed software.

Making false statements requires a good source. My statements are not false.

All claims require evidence. I'm surprised you don't know this, we even base our justice systems on this principle.

Here's some, here's more, and that's just the tip of it.

I'll read this, thanks.

This one is a good example.

I'll also read this.

There is no "better" operating system. At least, BSD is Linux done right. Even Linus would have used it if it had been free in 1991.

The only reason Linus said so was because he at the time only wanted a Unix system on his Intel hardware. He said the same thing about Hurd. I've read quotes about him disagreeing quite a lot with the BSDs.

[Cthulhux]

It also grants immunity to people whom crack DRM. DRM that is used to lock people out of GPL licensed software.

... or non-GPL licensed software.

I've read quotes about him disagreeing quite a lot with the BSDs.

Linus disagrees quite a lot with most Linux distributors too.

[garegin]

Aaaah the Linux fanbois still hallucinating that the reason Linux is at 1% is because Microsoft is a monopoly. Did it ever occur to you that maybe Microsoft got where it is because for most people it fits their needs better than any Linux distro?

Microsoft got there because they understood the reason d'etre of computers. It's the applications stupid! The platform's worth is the richness and the quality of the content. No one gives a wet slap over your stupid Unix philosophy or that Windows has an "ugly architecture" underneath. The applications on Windows are much more polished and well made than the Linux equivalents. On servers the equation is almost completely different (and that's why Linux wins). It's all about the "server tools" that the OS provides like a virtualization platform, web frameworks, storage technologies (LVM, SAN), networking (that means advanced file sharing and directory services that scales up to huge workloads and doesn't choke).
Now you can see the big difference. As we speak, Windows is the best platform for applications, ie its the applications that are superior, not Windows. The same point could have been made for MSDOS and SunOS

[dee.]

This is a "new technology of BSD" news article thread, so yes, it mainly was.

No. You try to move the goalposts at every turn, which is a quality that marks you as a shitty troll.

What I'm saying is, when you started trolling about how "BSD is better than Linux nyah nyah" you made it not about people's personal choice for OS, but about which OS is better in general. Thus it's no use for you to try to backpedal into "oh but BSD works for me" when your claims get challenged.

Superior license -> no valid proof of so-called "popularity" -> a pretty lot of developers -> adequate hardware support. (All OSs support different hardware. Linux won't run on an iPod, right? Is that "poor hardware support"? BSD runs on a toaster. Get real.)

Stop trying to twist facts.

Number of archs Linux runs on > Number of archs FreeBSD runs on
Amount of hardware supported by Linux > Amounf of hardware supported by FreeBSD

These are facts and all the toasters in the world aren't going to change them. Have fun with your toaster OS, the rest of the world is moving towards truly open and free computing with Linux.

And btw, Linux DOES run on an iPod. Shows what you know...

They do (Darwin).

Which is entirely inadequate for running any MacOS software and thus irrelevant. MacOS takes parts of FreeBSD, adds in proprietary secret sauce to make it incompatible with FreeBSD. And any benefits that trickle down to FreeBSD/Darwin are purely at the whim of Apple.

The BSD license doesn't say "please don't share your source code".

No it doesn't, but it doesn't enforce it either. You're being disingenuous here and twisting the facts again. I already explained to you exactly how the BSD licensing model is inferior to copyleft, and you chose to ignore the entire paragraph. If you do this again I'll ignore you, I've had enough "conversations" with bo$$ and my troll tolerance is at an all time low.

The point was, that the GPL license allows collaborations even between competing corporations, because the license ensures that no one can abuse the contributions of others by making their own closed derivatives and using them for their own advantage. It's like an agreement, like the Geneva convention, that everyone agrees to for mutual benefit - this way, everyone can contribute code to Linux, and they can be certain the code stays open and will not be abused or proprietarized by others, keeping a level playing field. That's the power of the GPL, that's the single biggest reason why Linux attracts much more developers and much more corporate support than the BSD's.

The corporate interest on the BSD side is very different: they take what they want and do what they want, and maybe you get scraps. There's no common agreement of reciprocity to ensure that everyone collaborates on the same level.

It's like the anarcho-capitalist's fallacy: there can never be absolute freedom for everyone, because some people's freedoms always conflict with other people's freedoms. And if you try to remove all rules and laws to give freedom to everyone, you'll only end up giving all the power to whoever is strongest, and allowing them to oppress the weak. Which ultimately only results in freedom for the strongest.

That's why the Linux world is split into the thousands and BSD is a sane and living ecosystem.

Oh don't bullshit me. NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, WhateverBSD... a sane ecosystem? Please.

The truth of the matter is, the BSD side is just as "fragmented" as the Linux side, it has it's own camps and cliques. The only difference is, the BSD side is much smaller, and has far less usage applications, so naturally there are less factions than on the Linux side. Of course, there are different Linux distributions, because Linux runs on very diverse hardware, ranging from tiny embedded chips to supercomputers. It would be idiotic to expect the exact same distribution to run on both, since the needs are very different.

Now, I don't really have anything against BSD or the BSD license. I think if you want to use or develop a BSD-derivative, that's fine for you. But there are very real reasons why the BSD license is a poor choice for a kernel, let alone an entire operating system, and I have explained those reasons.

[dee.]

If any of the BSD-licence bashers would like to look on FreeBSD's mailing lists, or the FreeBSD Foundation Donors Listing, you'll notice that most companies using FreeBSD as the basis for their software generally contribute their patches back. Why is this? Simple-- it's far easier to maintain their modifications if it's part of the FreeBSD upstream tree, rather than doing so by themselves (waste of money). Donations are also useful for offsetting tax.

That's beside the point. The point is, that those corporations only contribute back what they choose to, it's entirely voluntary. Of course they contribute things back, when they don't want to maintain some piece of code themselves. It's nice to get some free labour from gullible geeks.

But they will never contribute back ALL of their modifications, and in effect, this means that in pretty much all cases, the proprietary derivative is entirely incompatible with the upstream. Can you run MacOS software on FreeBSD? Or PS4 games? No you can't. That's the problem right there: these corporations can take the free base of BSD, add their secret sauce, and use the resulting product to gain an advantage. The parts that don't matter that much to them, the parts that aren't part of the "secret sauce" get contributed back for free maintainership.

Compare and contrast with the Linux kernel: there's dozens of corporations, all working together, all releasing their modifications openly, because they can trust that the code also stays open - meaning that none of their competitors can do what the BSD-using corporations do: take their contribution, run with it, add secret sauce and profit. The fact that the code stays open for everyone is like a safety, a guarantee, that everyone - even competing companies - can safely contribute code, without having to fear that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

Conversely, that's also why on the BSD side, the corporations keep their secret sauce secret. There's no such guarantee, so instead of the enforced peaceful collaboration of Linux, it's every-man-for-themselves noman's land. Linux has the Geneva convention, while BSD has MadMax-style no-man's-land where everything goes and disputes get settled in the Thunderdome.

And that isn't really a downside, either-- trying to remain compliant with complex licences is an irritation.

No it's not, it's an imaginary problem. Plenty of companies are able to make succesful business with Linux, and the existence of multiple different licenses isn't stopping them.

It's why a large amount of the Chinese tablets running their own modified forms of Android do not release sources.

No, the reason of that is because of the rudimentary copyright law (and poor enforcement of it) in China, which pretty much means that the Chinese can take whatever license they come accross and wipe their arses with it.

[dee.]

Precisely.

I, for one, make my money as a web developer for a small company which requires libraries to be licensed under a license which allows us to keep our sources closed. The GPL basically would deny us to work at all.

Or implement your own libraries. Or use LGPL libraries.

Which is the maximum freedom. Why would anyone want to enforce other people to publicly release their code just because they use a certain piece of code for something different?

Why would anyone want to keep their own source closed entirely, when their work depends on open source libraries?

Are we done asking incredibly stupid questions now?

[Sergio]

That's beside the point. The point is, that those corporations only contribute back what they choose to, it's entirely voluntary.

Yes, sir... That is called FREEDOM.

Of course they contribute things back, when they don't want to maintain some piece of code themselves. It's nice to get some free labour from gullible geeks.

So companies are the devil, yet you are happy that Linux is driven entirely by them.

But they will never contribute back ALL of their modifications, and in effect, this means that in pretty much all cases, the proprietary derivative is entirely incompatible with the upstream. Can you run MacOS software on FreeBSD? Or PS4 games? No you can't. That's the problem right there: these corporations can take the free base of BSD, add their secret sauce, and use the resulting product to gain an advantage. The parts that don't matter that much to them, the parts that aren't part of the "secret sauce" get contributed back for free maintainership.

Again: FREEDOM.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
- Benjamin Franklin

Compare and contrast with the Linux kernel: there's dozens of corporations, all working together, all releasing their modifications openly, because they can trust that the code also stays open - meaning that none of their competitors can do what the BSD-using corporations do: take their contribution, run with it, add secret sauce and profit. The fact that the code stays open for everyone is like a safety, a guarantee, that everyone - even competing companies - can safely contribute code, without having to fear that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

So now companies are good... How 'free' Linux really is if it is virtually owned by these companies?

[Sergio]

I already explained to you exactly how the BSD licensing model is inferior to copyleft

Inferior? What make a licence 'inferior' to other?

The point was, that the GPL license allows collaborations even between competing corporations, because the license ensures that no one can abuse the contributions of others by making their own closed derivatives and using them for their own advantage. It's like an agreement, like the Geneva convention, that everyone agrees to for mutual benefit - this way, everyone can contribute code to Linux, and they can be certain the code stays open and will not be abused or proprietarized by others, keeping a level playing field. That's the power of the GPL, that's the single biggest reason why Linux attracts much more developers and much more corporate support than the BSD's.

The price to pay for freedom.

The corporate interest on the BSD side is very different: they take what they want and do what they want, and maybe you get scraps. There's no common agreement of reciprocity to ensure that everyone collaborates on the same level.

FREEDOM.

It's like the anarcho-capitalist's fallacy: there can never be absolute freedom for everyone, because some people's freedoms always conflict with other people's freedoms. And if you try to remove all rules and laws to give freedom to everyone, you'll only end up giving all the power to whoever is strongest, and allowing them to oppress the weak. Which ultimately only results in freedom for the strongest.

This analogy is just stupid.

Oh don't bullshit me. NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, WhateverBSD... a sane ecosystem? Please.

Each of these are different systems with sane ecosystems. Check out FreeBSD to see what I mean.

Now, I don't really have anything against BSD or the BSD license. I think if you want to use or develop a BSD-derivative, that's fine for you. But there are very real reasons why the BSD license is a poor choice for a kernel, let alone an entire operating system, and I have explained those reasons.

So GPL is the ideal license model if you want to become the next Windows... No, thank you!
BSD license is not a poor choice; FreeBSD adopts it and is a successfull operating system.

[dee.]

Yes, sir... That is called FREEDOM.

Freedom for whom? Freedom to hunt people for sport is a freedom too, but I wouldn't want everyone to be granted that freedom.

So companies are the devil, yet you are happy that Linux is driven entirely by them.

Discuss honestly or don't speak to me. I'm tired of shitty trolling.

Again: FREEDOM.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
- Benjamin Franklin

Nice buzzwords you have there. How about you respond with something resembling of intelligence and substance, and actually addressing the point at hand?

So now companies are good... How 'free' Linux really is if it is virtually owned by these companies?

Linux isn't owned by any company. You're a shitty troll.

Inferior? What make a licence 'inferior' to other?

Don't take things out of context. The BSD license may be fine for some purposes, but when it comes to a really large project like a kernel, where you need to worry about things like hardware support for multiple different platforms, things like that - you can clearly see that some licensing models are advantageous to others. I have already explained in detail why the GPL model is better for operating systems, especially when it comes to corporate contributions and ensuring that corporations play nicely (which, let's be honest, they most of the time won't do, unless you force them).

Corporations aren't good or bad. They're a double edged sword - they have tons of resources to invest in creating code and improving hardware support, but then, if you let them run free, they'll only mostly look out for their own benefit - most corporations aren't long-sighted enough to see the benefits of a healthy, competitive ecosystem voluntarily (just look at Apple and Microsoft). That's why corporations need to be reined in, the GPL does that nicely by placing some ground rules that ensures that no one can steal the other kids' juice boxes and everyone plays nicely on the same sandbox.

The price to pay for freedom.

The price to pay for stupidity, morelike.

FREEDOM.

BROKEN RECORD.

This analogy is just stupid.

Yeah, I can see that. It's so "stupid" that you can't even come up with any kind of reasonable counter-argument.

Each of these are different systems with sane ecosystems. Check out FreeBSD to see what I mean.

Oh, so when there are several Linux distros, which all are mostly compatible and use the same kernel, that's "evil fragmentation" but when BSD's fork everything it's somehow just "different systems and it's all fine"?

Wow, talk about rationalization and double standards...

So GPL is the ideal license model if you want to become the next Windows... No, thank you!

WTF? Where the hell do you get that from? Do you have brain problems?

BSD license is not a poor choice; FreeBSD adopts it and is a successfull operating system.

Succesful in toasters, yeah, I get it.

[name99]

* ... They do (Darwin)....

Which is entirely inadequate for running any MacOS software and thus irrelevant. MacOS takes parts of FreeBSD, adds in proprietary secret sauce to make it incompatible with FreeBSD. And any benefits that trickle down to FreeBSD/Darwin are purely at the whim of Apple.

I've no interest in this inane "debate"; but I'd point out that there is this thing called Android, based on Linux, and, it just so happens that the part that is released as open source is "entirely inadequate for running any Android software" --- for that you need a whole bunch of extra stuff which Google does NOT release as open source.

Which suggests that the whole issue has rather less to do than BSD vs GPL licensing, and rather more to do with the REALITIES of why and how ANY commercial company gets involved with open source...
We have examples of companies giving back (when they don't have to) under the BSD license. We also have examples of companies doing a darn good job of building an non-GLP'd wall around a GPL core.

If you want to argue the issue based on empirical real-world consequences ("which license has actually resulted in more software being shared with the world") you're going to have to provide real numbers of some sort. Because if you're just going to talk about "theory", and throw out examples against the license you hate, it's just as easy to find counter examples involving the license you love.