FreeBSD Catching Up To Linux DRM Graphics Drivers, In Sync With Git

[aht0]

Does this now open the door for wayland on FreeBSD?

https://twitter.com/matteomacy/status/764650779642728449

[Guest]

Please give me a link to a SINGLE occurrence where Linux took BSD code and the BSD community called them mad men as a result...

https://bsd.slashdot.org/story/07/09/13/156258/theo-de-raadt-on-relicensing-bsd-code

I didn't say they called someone mad men. I said they're behaving like that.

[aht0]

https://bsd.slashdot.org/story/07/09/13/156258/theo-de-raadt-on-relicensing-bsd-code

Couple of comments summarize the debalce rather nicely..

you can already use the code as it is
steps taken:
1. pester developer for a year to get it under another license.
- get told no, repeatedly

2. climb over ethical fence
3. remove his license
- get caught, look a bit stupid
4. wrap his license with your own
- get caught, look really stupid
5. assert copyright under author's license, without original work
- get caught, look even more stupid

1. The Linux community waited until OpenBSD developers were violating copyrights before raising the issue. In this case, the OpenBSD people complained about a diff posted to a mailing list that hadn't even been accepted
2. The Linux community raised the issue with two relevant mailing lists and a small group of other concerned parties. The OpenBSD people had the supposed BSD violation (that wasn't, because the diff hadn't been accepted at that stage) up on undeadly.org within 24 hours.
3. The Linux community made no specific allegations, and offered help with completing the driver. The OpenBSD people have essentially insulted the Linux community throughout this discussion.

1. The OpenBSD community went through hoops to claim that there never was a copyright violation because, like, the guy who put the code in the CVS repository intended, like, to change it and stuff. The Linux community has generally refrained from claiming that, if accepted, the diffs wouldn't violate any copyrights, except to point out that Theo is overreaching in that some of the files can, actually, be relicensed because they're dual licensed (an argument Theo has tried to counter by making the bizarre claim that a dual licensed file with a specific statement saying that the license of the GPL can be used instead of the BSD license must perpetually remain under the BSD license.)
2. The OpenBSD community, and Theo in particular, accused the Linux team of being "Inhuman". The Linux developers have made no such insults against their BSD accusers, despite having more cause to.

Theo's own summarization
GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope—the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back.

Theo de Raadt has notorious and conflicting personality, mind you.. Reason why he was asked to leave position of NetBSD senior developer. But at the same time, bunch of open sourced wireless drivers are a result of him pestering the manufacturers about it.

There was also "reverse incident" some months before "atheros" incident when one OpenBSD developer took code from bcm43xx Linux driver and ported it to OpenBSD bcw driver
Theo's comment
It will be resolved in our tree, but it is up to him which way he does it. But when you approach issues like this with comments like "We'd like you to start contacting us to resolve the issue now" and your first mail is cc'd to a couple hundred people.... in the future, please think more carefully, ok?

Because right now, in that mail, you've pretty much done Broadcom's job for them. You've told the entire BSD community who may want to use a driver for this chip later, that because of a few GPL issues you are willing to use very strong words—published very widely—to disrupt the efforts of one guy who is trying to do things for them. And, you are going to do this using the GPL, even. You did not privately mail that developer. No, you basically went public with it.

I'd say the "atheros driver" incident, and Theo's reaction to it is closely related to incident with Broadcom driver few months earlier.. First, one side bitches about copying the code, goes widely public about it instantly, then acting much the same themselves, grabbing a driver, removing notice of the original author alltogether which is actually violation of BSD licenses..
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Pot insulting kettle.

[starshipeleven]

Couple of cherry-picked comments to blatantly further my cause in the debalce rather nicely..

fixed.

[aht0]

We have a difference right there. You have a cause, advancing "good image of Linux" and arguing endlessly.. I do not have cause of "advancing good image of BSD" neither I care about winning arguments.

You CANNOT convince fanatic, especially with self-confirmed self-interest in the topic, even in real life, regardless of arguments, over web board it's a clear lost cause. Waste of time.

I pointed out facts, that's all. Also, I have opinions of my own I often point out, as offensive as they feel for true Linux fanatic. And often "bsd sucks, they are stupid for reason xxx xxx xxx" shouts get too loud for me to take it quietly..

[starshipeleven]

You have a cause, advancing "good image of Linux" and arguing endlessly..

Kinda, I try to stay as neutral as possible, and I mostly point out the total bs arguments on either side. That's my cause.

I do not have cause of "advancing good image of BSD" neither I care about winning arguments.

This is obviously false. I don't usually make unsupported and outlandish claims like "BSD have orders of magnitude less bugs than linux" or "BSD has a better network stack" or "BSD has invented a crapload of networking tools" or "a minimal BSD install boots faster than a full-fat misconfigured linux distro with systemd, THEREFORE systemd is crap".

You CANNOT convince fanatic, especially with self-confirmed self-interest in the topic, even in real life, regardless of arguments, over web board it's a clear lost cause. Waste of time.

Not my objective. My objective is exposing their game and possibly also reducing them to tears, mainly because it is fun, but also because that way anyone else isn't fooled by their ill intentions.

I pointed out facts, that's all. Also, I have opinions of my own I often point out, as offensive as they feel for true Linux fanatic. And often "bsd sucks, they are stupid for reason xxx xxx xxx" shouts get too loud for me to take it quietly..

Even assuming that's what actually happens, reacting to that with "Linux sucks, BSD is better for total bs reason xxx xxx xxx" isn't effective, and tends to attract unwanted attention.
Please use more mature and possibly true reasons to fight anti-bsd trolls.

[aht0]

Kinda, I try to stay as neutral as possible, and I mostly point out the total bs arguments on either side. That's my cause.

You are far from being neutral. Your views do not concern what's best for Linux and whole FOSS ecosystem but what's "best" from your point of view regarding yourself. Work is easier for yourself while using systemd, so it doesn't matter in the least that other Unix-like OSes suffer because of one Unix-like OS is becoming former-Unix-Like OS.

Kinda, I try to stay as neutral as possible, and I mostly point out the total bs arguments on either side. That's my cause.
This is obviously false. (a) I don't usually make unsupported and outlandish claims like "BSD have orders of magnitude less bugs than linux" or (b) "BSD has a better network stack" or (c)"BSD has invented a crapload of networking tools" or (d)"a minimal BSD install boots faster than a full-fat misconfigured linux distro with systemd, THEREFORE systemd is crap".

a) Unsupported? Are you perhaps claiming that CVE records comparison lies then?
FreeBSD (506): https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/s...pe=all&cves=on
Linux [kernel only](4829) :https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/s...pe=all&cves=on
4829/506=9.54 . Round it, you shall get 10. Which is defined as "magnitude".
That compares only security vulnerabilities of all sorts over time. It does not count in regressions which are also definable as "bugs". Correlating from one type of data into another, logical conclusion would be: if there are more security bugs in Linux, there with a probability approaching infinity, are also more regressive bugs than in BSD's.
What more "support" are you seeking?
Simple logic - more rash development philosophy -> more bugs.

(b) I think my claim was that "BSD has more mature network stack". Which could also mean, older. Which is factual and non-arguable.

(c)Please take it up with OpenBSD website handlers. Yeah, you found few pieces of what weren't. So it renders everything they do have invented, also void?

(d)"full-fat misconfigured" as default KDE configured-by-Novell devs-install? Without my input besides partitioning. It's something you should take it to Novell support. Not to me.
I, as plain "newbie" user, expect a full distro to work from under any angle. Your complaint that I should have dived under the hood and fixed dhcpd issue right there, is not an argument unless the distro in question is "Do-It-Yourself". It does not matter that my first SUSE was SUSE Linux 6.3 before it went under Novell. Full-fat distro should work as designed. Especially one with so long history behind it's back.

FreeBSD install btw was NOT minimal. You are plain wrong here. I think I mentioned I installed KDE on it. I measured time they both took booting into fucking KDE. KDE5 in OpenSUSE's case, KDE4 in FreeBSD's case.

So how it at once can be "full-fat distro" and "minimal-FreeBSD" when both are booting into KDE, without much else going on under hood, before I log in. It does not matter how much additional massive software like LibreOffice or whatever Novell put there, it won't be fucking loaded during boot along with KDE and thus does just not matter. Same with FreeBSD. It loads some additional services but it's going into KDE.

Not my objective. My objective is exposing their game and possibly also reducing them to tears, mainly because it is fun, but also because that way anyone else isn't fooled by their ill intentions.

"their game", "reducing them to tears because its fun".. conspiracy theorist with a school bully attitude? I did not parse out exact meaning whom you meant by "their game".

Even assuming that's what actually happens, reacting to that with "Linux sucks, BSD is better for total bs reason xxx xxx xxx" isn't effective, and tends to attract unwanted attention.
Please use more mature and possibly true reasons to fight anti-bsd trolls.

I don't fight anti-bsd trolls, I hope that some readers who might have ideas about using BSD/Solaris as viable alternatives to Linux (especially for their strong sides), are not being mislead by pro-Linux trolls.. So it does not matter if I win or lose an argument, making my arguments believable is what really matters. And you can't claim I just bash. I always try to add for what I based my opinion, adding an argument or a fact.

[starshipeleven]

Work is easier for yourself while using systemd, so it doesn't matter in the least that other Unix-like OSes suffer because of one Unix-like OS is becoming former-Unix-Like OS.

Nice troll, all parties involved have clearly chosen their path knowing the consequences. None is violating any contract or alliance, no wrongdoing.
So no, not caring about adult human beings that decided to choose their free path even if I think it isn't the best choice is not immoral.

a) Unsupported? Are you perhaps claiming that CVE records comparison lies then?

No, I'm just claiming that you should post citations when you make such claims, or at the very least provide them when asked (I posted a [citation needed] above)

Simple logic - more rash development philosophy -> more bugs.

Simple logic too --> more stuff supported and more features --> more bugs.
Also simple logic --> more usage outside of classical server role --> more testing on features not used in such roles --> more bugs discovered.

Simple logic again --> no note-worthy development of BSD --> waay too much bugs.

Logic is a useful tool but alone does not give guarantees on what is true and what is not.

Therefore, the actual truth is probably a bit less one-sided than "rash development --> more bugs".

(b) I think my claim was that "BSD has more mature network stack". Which could also mean, older. Which is factual and non-arguable.

"mature" in this context usually means "better", and you probably know this.
"older" means very little in this context, as "older" does not equal "better".

(c)Please take it up with OpenBSD website handlers. Yeah, you found few pieces of what weren't. So it renders everything they do have invented, also void?

Most of the stuff on that page was invented by third parties, dumbass. As I said, that's not "stuff invented by OpenBSD" like you think it is.

[QUOTE](d)"full-fat misconfigured" as default KDE configured-by-Novell devs-install? [QUOTE]Yes. Now recycling the stuff you just said:
It's something you should take it to Novell support. Not to me.
I, as plain "newbie" user, expect a full distro to work from under any angle. Your complaint that I should have dived under the hood and fixed dhcpd issue right there, is not an argument unless the distro in question is "Do-It-Yourself".

And my complaint was not a "you newbie should do it yourself", but a "if you want to make a fair comparison about systemd please fix distro issues first, since you are clearly able to".

I also assumed you were a newbie as veteran users would have fixed this on first boot, so I provided the answer to the newbie question "why openSUSE takes so long booting, I see systemd talking about network", so that even newbie users can fix it themselves by point and clicking around (something that is possible mostly in SUSE/OpenSUSE due to YAST).
That "dived under the hood" is something you pulled out of your ass, please refrain from doing so.

FreeBSD install btw was NOT minimal. You are plain wrong here. I think I mentioned I installed KDE on it. I measured time they both took booting into fucking KDE. KDE5 in OpenSUSE's case, KDE4 in FreeBSD's case.

I don't remember but I concede this.
A graphical DE is required in minimal desktop installations, and OpenSUSE installs quite a bit more stuff than FreeBSD (as you might have noticed due to longer installation times).

"their game", "reducing them to tears because its fun".. conspiracy theorist with a school bully attitude? I did not parse out exact meaning whom you meant by "their game".

All this stuff going on in forums is mostly a text-warping-and-information-finding-based game. Nothing more. Someone's game is trolling on shit, or fanboying on shit, someone else's is bashing them until they ragequit.
You said it already, chances one party convinces the other is 0%, I answered I do it for fun. It's more rational than answering that I do it for a better tomorrow or for kittens or whatever.

I don't fight anti-bsd trolls, I hope that some readers who might have ideas about using BSD/Solaris as viable alternatives to Linux (especially for their strong sides), are not being mislead by pro-Linux trolls.. So it does not matter if I win or lose an argument, making my arguments believable is what really matters. And you can't claim I just bash. I always try to add for what I based my opinion, adding an argument or a fact.

FYI: if you want to sound more believable you should stop bashing the other side so hard (i.e. systemd for example), or trying to find random bs reasons to shit on Linux.

Like that they hurt BSD or something by going their own way and making their own choices not keeping in mind BSD's interests too.
No really? Is that even wrong? Where is stated that Linux development should behave in a convenient way for BSDs?

Frankly I can't suggest any good reason to stay on BSDs for a desktop user (for servers and networking they do offer neat features and they are competitive outside the hardcore container things that are systemd-only stuff), but I suggest you to find some and state them instead of random bashing and trying to make BSDs look like poor and needy bullied by Linux.

[Guest]

a) Unsupported? Are you perhaps claiming that CVE records comparison lies then?
FreeBSD (506): https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/s...pe=all&cves=on
Linux [kernel only](4829) :https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/s...pe=all&cves=on
4829/506=9.54 . Round it, you shall get 10. Which is defined as "magnitude".
That compares only security vulnerabilities of all sorts over time. It does not count in regressions which are also definable as "bugs". Correlating from one type of data into another, logical conclusion would be: if there are more security bugs in Linux, there with a probability approaching infinity, are also more regressive bugs than in BSD's.
What more "support" are you seeking?
Simple logic - more rash development philosophy -> more bugs.

Your have it wrong. Linux is much more advanced, supports more file systems and so on. Simple logic is - more hardware support, more file systems, more features -> more bugs.

(b) I think my claim was that "BSD has more mature network stack". Which could also mean, older. Which is factual and non-arguable.

Another logic fail. Take graphic drivers for example. BSD have older graphic drivers, but they're very immature in comparison to Linux. The same about networking stack - it's behind Linux.

I don't fight anti-bsd trolls, I hope that some readers who might have ideas about using BSD/Solaris as viable alternatives to Linux (especially for their strong sides), are not being mislead by pro-Linux trolls.. So it does not matter if I win or lose an argument, making my arguments believable is what really matters. And you can't claim I just bash. I always try to add for what I based my opinion, adding an argument or a fact.

What for? They're not viable alternatives. An only strong side is zfs which doesn't follow UNIX philosophy at all.

[aht0]

Your have it wrong. Linux is much more advanced, supports more file systems and so on. Simple logic is - more hardware support, more file systems, more features -> more bugs.

better hardware support does not make it more advanced.

Another logic fail. Take graphic drivers for example. BSD have older graphic drivers, but they're very immature in comparison to Linux.

Concede for now. Until FreeBSD11 next month.

The same about networking stack - it's behind Linux.

Care to comment why Facebook was looking for Linux kernel engineer back in 2014. Stated as "seeking a Linux Kernel Software Engineer to join our Kernel team, with a primary focus on the networking subsystem. Our goal over the next few years is for the Linux kernel network stack to rival or exceed that of FreeBSD"

What for? They're not viable alternatives. An only strong side is zfs which doesn't follow UNIX philosophy at all.

[/quote]
Indeed? Why exactly not? Statement but zero reasoning.

Btw, with file systems, there is always FUSE option (not fusefs). You can handle ext4/ntfs whatever with it. It presumes reading documentation first.

Linux does not havenative production ready filesystem with deduplication and file compression. Btrfs does not count. It's not "ready". It could only use it's implementation of ZFS for it. IF it has the capability (I did not bother to check).