Slashdot Mirror
Eclipse/BSD Released by Bell Labs
howardjp writes "Bell Labs has released Eclipse/BSD, a quality of service research platform based on FreeBSD 3.4. From the Web page: 'Eclipse provides flexible and fine-grained QoS support for applications. Its design allows legacy or Eclipse-unaware applications to provide QoS without the need of modification or recompilation. A simple API is provided for (new) applications to take addvantage [sic] of the fine-grained QoS support.'"
Please pardon me for asking this question:
Will we ever see a Linux version of QoS?
I suspect that Lucent didn't do a Linux "Eclipse" because Lucent doesn't buy into the GPL mindset. Therefore, if there ever is a need to get a similar thing for Linux, somebody else must take up the task.
Is there someone like that out there amongst the Linux community?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
You are wrong, man !
The movie "Titanic" was rendered using Linux, _not_ FreeBSD.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Actually, it shows just how free it is. Lucent has taken the product and released a version which benefits everyone involved, including the developers of the modification.
FreeBSD is aimed at high end stuff. It has SMP and a bunch of perofromance twekaing that the other BSD's lack. That's why it was used for rendering Ccap for Titanic.
I use OpenBSD and Linux personally.
There is another school of thought that says that it is more important to provide a consistent QOS than a variable QOS that is dependent on system load. I've heard of some work on user interfaces that is consistent with this philosophy. Users will adapt to a faster response time and become irritated when the system doesn't maintain a fast response time, even if the slower response time of a heavily loaded system is the same as the old system's response time. The nervous system and brain tune themselves to the response time of the system.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Nobody here knows
What QOS systems are
At least i sure don't
The posts will all be
offtopic BSD flames
cruel and ignorant
Natalie Portman
will probably dominate
the whole discussion
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"This is why I don't really like the BSD *AT TIMES* because it allows people to take a work, slap a restrictive license on it, and resell it in a way that the people who created the work on which it's based can't even use it freely."
If you take just five seconds to look at ftp.cdrom.com, you'll find that FreeBSD is still there! Yes it is! Nothing has been stolen. No copyrights have been subverted. No licenses altered. All the code that was free yesterday is still free today and will remain free tomorrow.
Lucent's patch to FreeBSD is just that, a patch. It is Lucent's code. FreeBSD did not write it, and has no claim over it. It doesn't matter if it's derived code or not, because it's still not FreeBSD's code!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
... it's a research platform... meant to allow and enable development of QoS architecture and/or applications. I don't think it's really intended (nor recommended) for a production environment, though I have not looked at all at it...
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
- Retrofitting Quality of Service into a Time-Sharing Operating System
- Quality of Service Support for Legacy Applications
- Disk Scheduling with Quality of Service Guarantees
and for the power point enabled: Quality of Service Support in Eclipse/BSDNoel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
kayaking
When I first glanced at this article, I just assumed that the licensing terms were the same as FreeBSD. I could easily have gone away assuming this; it's only when I read some comments I realised that it was non-free. A great many people will read the headline and assume that this is BSD-licensed stuff. Obviously if everyone was completely observant this wouldn't be a problem, but maybe the headline should have explicitly mentioned the licensing.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Its EXTREMELY BSD. the BSDL essentially says "you can take this source code, modify it, and relicense it, as long as you indemnify the original authors and give due credit"
This is prefectly within anyone's rights, in fact, the BSD community ENCOURAGES this type of thing.
Remember, us as BSD developers want to make money off our code, and be compensated for time spent. The Bell Labs/Lucent people have spent alot of time and money into these modifications. If you don't like the licensing terms, you can take the FreeBSD 3.4 code and modify it yourself, OR just simply not use it.
The GPL has nothing to do with this. the GPL is a completely different license, that does not allow for this type of thing. Had it allowed for modification and sale of Linux source, then Lucent *might* have used that instead.
Remember, each license has a different goal in mind. the GPL is "Viral" and is inherited by its children. The BSDL only effects one generation unless the person modifying also applies the BSDL.
-Pat
-- FreeBSD - The Power to Serve NetBSD - of course it runs NetBSD OpenBSD - Armed to the Gills Three tools in our
If you'd taken the time to look at the site, you would have seen that they are distributing a *PATCH* against FreeBSD 3.4, not the entire distribution. That means that the license applies only to the code they've written, not to the BSD source.