Slashdot Mirror

While I'm a Linux user myself, I also happened to stumble upon this while surfing a few months ago. IIRC based on some blog and mailing list posts I read at the time, the fundamental problem with soft updates on NetBSD (or soft dependencies, softdeps as they call it) was that they could never get the code stable enough for production usage.

Or to put it another way, soft updates work on FreeBSD because McKusick himself maintains the code. :)

So there's a major problem with Soft Updates, which is that you can't be sure that data has hit the disk platter and is on stable store unless you issue a barrier operation, which is very slow. What Soft Updates apparently does is assume that once the data is sent to the disk, it is safely on the disk. But that's not a true assumption! The disk drive, especially modern ones with large caches, can reorder writes which are sent to the disk, sometimes (with the right pathological workloads) for minutes at a time. You won't notice this problem if you just crash the kernel, or even if you hit the reset button. But if you pull the plug or otherwise cause the system to drop power, data in the disk's write cache won't necessarily be written to disk. The problem that we saw with journal checksums and ext4 only showed up on a power drop, because there was a missing barrier operation, so this is not a hypothetical consideration.

In addition, if you have a very heavy write workload, the Soft Updates code will need to burn a fairly large amount of memory tracking the dependencies and burn quite a bit of CPU figuring out which dependencies need to be rolled back. I'm a bit suspicious of how well they perform and how much CPU they steal from applications --- which granted, may not show up in benchmarks which are disk bound. But if the applications or the large number of jobs running on a shared machine are trying to use lots of CPU as well as disk bandwidth, this could very much be an issue.

BTW, while I was doing some quick research for this reply. it seems that NetBSD is about to drop Soft Updates in favor of a physical block journaling technology (WAPBL), according to Wikipedia. They didn't get a reference to this, nor did they say why NetBSD was planning on dropping Soft Updates, but there is a description of the replacement technology here: http://www.wasabisystems.com/technology/wjfs. But if Soft Updates is so great, why is NetBSD replacing it and why did Free BSD add file system journaling alternative to UFS?

Wasabi Certified BSD (WCB) is the ideal choice for OEMs seeking to obtain the benefits of an open source OS without the costs of the GPL license. WCB is today being used by Wasabi customers including Intel, Apple, Marvell, IBM, and many others.

When I bought a copy of Wasabi NetBSD (now just "Wasabi BSD"), they included a NetBSD Daemon case sticker. Fit perfectly, in fact it's still there! Of course, that PPro 200 box doesn't see a lot of use any more...

In case you have no clue what "Sarbanes-Oxley" is, you can check out official info and the Wikipedia article. Basically it is a set of laws that place limits on what companies (and those working for them, especially upper management) can do. This has mostly to do with declaring assets and transfers of money. It tries to prevent companies from defrauding investors and so on. These laws were enacted after the Enron scandal.

Wasabi's complaint is that under these laws, you have to declare all assets, including intellectual property. Their rationale is that using open-source software, you may be in violation of the law if you do not review and declare that usage.

As was pointed out last time this was discussed on slashdot, a company would only be in trouble if they were already doing something illegal: violating the GPL. If you violate the GPL, then you're misrepresenting your ownership of IP (claiming to have a license you don't), and thus are also violating Sarbanes-Oxley.

So what's the problem? If a company follows the GPL, then everything is fine. They have nothing to worry about. If they violate the GPL, then they're breaking multiple laws. So, as always, companies should make sure that what they are doing is legal. This in no way diminishes the extent to which GPL software can be used in commercial environments. Wasabi acts as if there is some tremendous additional legal burden to using GPL software. However it seems that Sarbanes-Oxley would equally apply if you mis-represented your ownership of non-GPL software. So there's no difference. (You can read the Software Freedom Law Center white paper for a more complete explanation.)

The SFLC wrote the paper titled "No Special Risk" ... Wasabi Systems alleged SO violations.

And no surprise...they advertise BSD-based products on their front page. (Not dissing Any of the BSDs, they're cool, IMO.)

If you are looking for a support company for embedded NetBSD, check out Wasabi Systems. If I'm not mistaken, several port maintainers either work for Wasabi or are in frequent contact with them.

Right. The source article at http://www.wasabisystems.com/gpl/ is not intended to discourage the use of GPL software; it's a not-so-subtle slam on some of Wasabi's competitors who are using Linux (with the GPL) in embedded systems and possibly not properly disclosing the IP issues to their investors. That might be a SOX violation, yes. But doesn't matter to Joe Linux User on the street. They aren't claiming there's anything wrong at the user end; just at the distributor end, if you improperly distribute modified Linux (or other GPL) products and don't release the source. In this, RMS and the Free Software Foundation agree. Wasabi is correct that their use of a Berkeley license makes their operations safer that way. But it also doesn't make a difference to a Linux-using vendor if the vendor obeys the GPL as the GPL requires...

Speaking of the GPL with embedded devices here is a the lowdown on BSD vs GPL licensing for embedded products.

Yes Wasabi systems makes netbsd products for embedded devices so they are biased, but most of what is said here is true.

If you work for this mysterious company you might want to let someone know. Offering the modified tools online and bundled with the cd is a good idea. If not then you may want to use some posix equilivants and BSD licensed material to avoid putting your employer under liability.

The GPL is not perfect which is why I am a bsd bigot. :-)

However linksys and netgear come with moddified linux and no source code in clear violation of the GPL. The FSF doesn't have the budget to sue so they keep intentionally violating the GPL. What are they going to do?

Since you couldn't find it yourself (or were too scared to), here: http://www.wasabisystems.com/pdfs/Linux_or_BSD.pdf

I'm now using this as a reference to Linux unportability because it DOES support what I'm saying, unlike your dumb ass.

An example you'll find elsewhere in this sub-thread:
The Linux memory management system is designed around the three-level MMU available on Intel x86 processors. For these and similar processors, this works extremely well. However, systems with other MMU designs are forced to suffer the complexity and performance impact of making the underlying hardware appear to function like a three level MMU system. In many cases this requires code to perform specific low level hardware access (for example to flush TLBs) to be scattered throughout the kernel. NetBSD, by comparison, has a cleanly designed pmap abstraction that provides a well-defined interface for the high level routines to perform virtual memory related operations. Each processor's low-level pmap code can then implement the data instructions and algorithms best suited to its MMU.

Will you please just die now? Give up: Linux is not abstract among architectures. It's a hack job and it's a damn miracle it even boots. It can't sustain many ports in-tree, that's why there are mips-sources, sparc-sources, alpha-sources, and so on. Fixes and improvements are not properly shared or cross integrated, so you never know how F'd up your Linux is compared to others. NetBSD has every port in one tree and it IS abstracted, so improvements affect everything related. If you had even once run it you'd notice. I have run Linux and NetBSD and I know the difference. It's nice to have corporations who research operating system architecture back it up.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, have a lookee at NetBSD Support From Wasabi Systems, Inc.

Groklaw dealt with this last week.

It was lazy journalism, quoting Wasabi Systems with a vested interest against the GPL. The short of it is that the GPL renders his business model obsolete, as manufacturers take the embedded linux road. Don't they teach research in America anymore?

Groklaw dealt with this last week.

It was lazy journalism, quoting Wasabi Systems with a vested interest against the GPL. The short of it is that the GPL renders his business model obsolete, as manufacturers take the embedded linux road. Don't they teach research in America anymore?

If you're asking about the OS, it's pretty good. The troll below was thinking of OpenBSD -- and a bit off the mark -- but basically, think OpenBSD without the security focus, with the conveniences of FreeBSD (sometimes done better; pkgsrc is rather sweet, and claims to handle builds on Linux as well!), relatively small installation size, cutting-edge features, and of course, ridiculous portability. Definitely Just The Thing for that 486DX2-50 collecting dust (unless it's to be a firewall or bastion host - then you want OpenBSD), and quite useful anywhere else as well.

If you're planning an 'intensive' workload (more specifically, "if you're planning something that will actually put stress on a $2,000+ server"), then FreeBSD and soon DragonFly will be worth looking into. (DragonFly will be cool for other reasons, but then, I'm a fanboy.)

As to this logo business... Well, in a perfect world, people would use BSDs more often, and accept any lingering 'incorrectness' to the logo (it's supposed to be a daemon, not a demon, so the saying goes) as the price paid for getting a great, maintainable, don't-even-have-to-follow-GPL-sharealike-rules OS. But pragmatically, a lot of NetBSD core seems to work for Wasabi Systems -- call them the RedHat of NetBSD, but of course, the overall NetBSD community doesn't quite have the size and clout of the 'Linux community,' so keeping those guys fed is more intrinsic to the project's survival in the near term. If the logo's losing them contracts (and what's worse than losing a contract for nontechnical reasons?), then hey, maybe it's time for the weird to turn pro.

I think this would be bigger news if DoCoMo had chosen NetBSD over Linux. NetBSD prides itself it being a portable and lightweight OS, but why doesn't it get more attention? You would think NetBSD's BSD license would be more attractive to manufacturers than Linux's GPL license. There is even commercial dev support for embedded NetBSD systems from Wasabi Systems, but they don't seem to be having much success in the cell phone arena.

Wasaaaaaaaaaabi! Wasabi!

The study should have included, among other options, embedded NetBSD. (And, no, I have no business association with Wasabi Systems; I just admire what they do.)

Quite sad to see Wind River in trouble ("The companyâ(TM)s revenue declined 20 percent last quarter" - Electronic News) as it decreases FreeBSD deployement among enterprises.

I don't know much about other firms using BSD (like Wasabi Systems) however it seems it's more difficult for them to sell BSD systems compared with Linux distributors.

Quite contradictoraly, BSD license is more "liberal" than Linux from the enterprise point of view which can use the code with minimal restrictions (FreeBSD License) Wind River and Wasabi Systems gives a generous access to their proprietary source to some bsd developpers)

As Linux gains momentum, I hope IT managers will see those nice BSD lurking around, using them, and helping maintaining them (like hiring developpers to work on these systems).

Actually NetBSD(wasabi) is capitalising on the fact that they are GPL-free.

A quote from their website.
NetBSD is free of the GPL. Its BSD license is the most flexible, business-friendly license available. Users may change the kernel or add drivers while keeping the changes entirely secret. With NetBSD, OEM's IP is secure and protected. /end of quote

It's that classic battle of GPL vs BSD licensing. There are now, today, more people running BSD,if you consider Darwin(osX,etc) BSD.the core sure is,but the mac os addon is not free...
What will win in the end (abstract as the "end" be)? licensing that protects/supports the interests the developer(GPL)or the consumer (BSD)? So far, surprising as it may sound, BSD is leading in user base, but GNU/Linux is far ahead with the developers(more applications made "for Linux").

I can only imagine there is a technical reason embedded device companies choose Linux/GPL over FreeBSD/BSD

Just ask Wasabi...

Hardware supported by NETBSD

Don't forget the samurai daemon!

Who needs a fat penguin or a yellow fish? This is the best mascot ever :)

this is not considered dangerous

goto the iSCSI on www

serve mine with ARM please

"netBSD is not dead its just on your disk and you dont know about it "

regards

John Jones

Fantastic to look at, even if you had no reason to be legitimately interested.

I'm looking at a 500k kernel (compressed) and a crunchgen'd set of binaries taht fit onto an 8MB flash with networking, a shell and far too many other things to really be considered embedded (stuff I need for other reasons). With trimming, I'm sure we could get it down to 4MB for truly embedded use.

Of course, these guys do embedded systems and own a respectable BSD when they bought BSDI. Of course, we can't figure out why they bought BSDi since their first year appeared to focus on pissing off existing customers when FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD were as good as or better than BSDi in many respects. At least if I want mediocre support, I can get it for free :)

And there are other folks in the free world doing embedded work too.

The bonus is that we don't have to put up with RMS yammering all the time. I watched and waited for HURD forever and just presumed that Emacs would get boot code. He can call that GNU/HURD all he wants. I still wish Linus has made the arbitrary choice of using the BSD-lite userland utils instead. At least the CSRG aren't as strident.

Wasabi Systems has been doing this for quite a while too.

" A better place to ask this would be the cypherpunks or wasbisystems.com crypto mailing lists..."

It was NetBSD support that was announced a little over a year ago. Should be in the /. archives, and see also this link and more recently this one

It was NetBSD support that was announced a little over a year ago. Should be in the /. archives, and see also this link and more recently this one

Wasabi Systems has made a viable capitalist business out of supporting people who are using embedded NetBSD in various devices.

When I tried installing Debian Woody on my Sun Sparcstation IPX firewall, it would freeze at the same point during every installation attempt. I emailed Debian's Sparc list for help. One person said they had the same problem, but no answers. Another person said the standard boot floppies were broken and to try some random Sparc boot floppies on some guy's random FTP server, but those had the same problem.

I gave up on Debian and installed NetBSD 1.5 without any problems. Even with Debian's cross-platform "support", I would still be very wary of using Linux on non-x86 platforms. You will still need to jump through many hoops. Is Linux only free if your time is worthless? Admittedly, NetBSD is not as sexy as Linux, but it supports many hardware platforms, has a "business friendly" license, and has commercial support.

Wasabi Systems, an embedded NetBSD company, is doing really well, last time I heard.

I can think of two right off the bat without any research, although you might not count the second one:

Wasabi Systems
Apple Computer

As far as I know Wasabi seems to be doing fine.

They even work in the embedded systems area.

No, I haven't seen any financial reports, but I've not heard of any trouble either.

--xPhase

In the story, a bird lays an egg and then convinces a kindly elephant named Horton to sit on it. Horton braves all manner of hardships -- heat, hold, even the indignity of being captured and displayed as a freak in a circus -- to remain with his charge until it hatches.

Whereupon, the bird immediately demands that Horton return the fruits of his labor to her.

Were she a modern Richard Stallman, she might have declared that it was a GPLed egg.

Writing a program -- like laying an egg -- isn't necessarily an easy task. However, bringing it to the marketplace and successfully selling it as a product -- especially in the presence of a free alternative -- is a much more difficult and dangerous one. The company that hopes to sell a product that's an improved derivative of one that's available for free is taking a big risk and must make a truly Hortonian (if I may coin the phrase) effort to be successful.

What Mr. Stallman and the GPL would ask is that the person who manages to do this -- against all odds -- get nothing.

CodeWeavers appears to believe that the emergence of products such as Lindows is a threat to it and/or to WINE. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the creators of such projects act in their own best interests, they will return all but the most strategically important code from their implementations to the WINE project, reserving for themselves only what is necessary to differentiate their product from what another vendor (e.g. Red Hat) might produce. This minimizes their maintenance costs, and may -- there's no sure thing here -- provide them with sufficient value added to survive in the presence of a free alternative.

To (L)GPL WINE, on the other hand, prevents such worthy products from ever seeing the light of day. It is, in essence, snatching back the egg from poor Horton after all of his hard work. And it won't benefit WINE or CodeWeavers. The companies' potential contributions will be lost, and CodeWeavers and WINE will gain them a reputation for being hostile to business. This will cause the consulting business from which CodeWeavers hopes to make money to dry up.

In short, the move is shortsighted and bad for all concerned.

CodeWeavers should look instead to the model of Wasabi Systems (http://www.wasabisystems.com/), which just received a round of venture capital funding worth more than $1M to port, publish, promote, and consult on NetBSD. NetBSD is truly free; it's published not under the restrictive GPL or LGPL but under the BSD License. And Wasabi is going strong; they just published a desktop package (consisting of NetBSD plus GUIs and applications) that is competitive with the best of the Linux distributions.

However, NetBSD was the first OS on it. See here for the Wasabi press release

eCOS, which Red Hat also licenses and sells, has a slightly more developer-friendly license, but the full implications of the license are difficult to determine because it is so verbose and its requirements are very complex.

The best licensing -- the type that will let embedded developers rest easy at night without fear of lawsuits or unexpected repercussions -- is the simplest: a truly free license such as the Apache or MIT X license. A truly free license does not place any constraints on how you may use the code; the only constraints are on what you can do to the originator (e.g. you cannot sue him or her for bugs). Wasabi Systems (http://www.wasabisystems.com) adapts NetBSD, which uses a simple, truly free license, for embedded systems. FreeBSD and OpenBSD are also easily embeddable. These are the operating systems of choice for embedded work; they're high quality code and the license will not come back to bite you. Ever.

--Brett Glass

1. Port NetBSD to our chips.CHECK
2. Actually CREATE one of the chips.
3. Convince someone to use it in a server.

Then how come they now sell freebsd in stores? And BSDi just got a nice check for 5billion from some isp in japan. NetBSD has a sponcer

Well, that may be true. I don't know. Keep in mind the word official

Yes there is OFFICIAL for NetBSD. It's a company called Wasabi Systems. It was formed a few months back by many of the core NetBSD group.

"NetBSD support for network applications, such as ICQ and messenger clients, is seriously lacking."

It is. Not everyone wants to port and compile source. Not everyone knows C. Most people don't. Slashdot is the only place where end-users don't exist, and you can tell somebody to `code it themself'.

I disagree. Most of all your GNU/Linux clients are already found in the ports tree. You should check it out.

Anyway, I would suggest 2 things when using a unix on the PPC.

• use NetBSD, particularly good if you're used to a more BSD way of life. Wasabi has a bootable CD
• use Debian. Granted it takes some reading to get a bootable CD going, but there are iso images available now. debian site

  The problems I've had with redhat based systems on the PPC (like Linuxppc2000 or YDL) have been numerous, ranging from default installs that don't install dependancies correctly (like kerberos for sshd) to a GCC compiler suite that cores when you try and build anything with a "warning! internal compiler error" message. It's sick.

  -Daniel

For a good corporate-suported Free UNIX on sparc, NetBSD + Wasabi Systems http://www.wasabisystems.com/ would seem to fit the bill. I've always had much better results on non-x86 hardware with NetBSD, too. It Just Works [tm] instead of being a constant uphill battle because most kernel coders, distro maintainers, etc. don't use that hardware.