Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 6.0 to Target Wireless Devices
BSDForums writes "FreeBSD is hoping to move beyond the server and desktop market by providing expanded wireless support. FreeBSD developer Scott Long said that 'one of the primary reasons for improving wireless support is to give companies the tools to put FreeBSD into their wireless devices. The guy at FreeBSD who is adding wireless support is under contract from wireless companies to do the work.'"
This is an interesting development. Companies have been using Linux in their wireless boxes due to the lack of any viable alternative. Due to the GPL, these companies were forced to publish their changes to the kernel, which has allowed the number of cool hacks we've been seing. Clearly, those companies would rather keep their changes proprietary, so BSD based systems are much more attractive to them. While it's nice to see improved hardware support to another free operating system, this might bring adverse consequences in the long run. We'll see...
The filesystem is the package manager
as someone who works for a company that uses many variants of linux in their products, i can tell you that most companies dont have a clue about the GPL and the parts about giving away _their_ code comes as a shock to them.
i see more and more companies turn to BSD licensed stuff, such as the *BSD OSes
(no linux vs BSD flame, please)
The beautiful part is that OpenBSD is NOT in a competition with anybody despite what your post asserts. The OpenBSD developers have goals that are in line with their ideals and they haven't strayed from them and the developers certainly aren't out to "corner wireless development."
You make it sound like 2 companies competing against each other when it's just FreeBSD's developers losing sight of their ideals and doing thing the easy, non-OpenSource way.
This guy is way out there
In other words, the use of the Linux kernel allows free software users can pressure these would-be proprietors into helping them maintain our software freedom for derivative works so long as one leverages their laziness. That is, as long as one doesn't distribute proprietary kernel modifications.
Given FreeBSD's willingness to include proprietary software (see discussions between FreeBSD and OpenBSD developers and advocates surrounding technical specifications for cards -- FreeBSD is happy to include whatever the proprietor delivers, OpenBSD wants specs so they can write and maintain their own drivers), this "improved" hardware support may end up being nothing more than a means to deliver more proprietary software to users.
Digital Citizen
Well, since I can't load the page, I'll tell you how to fix it.
/etc/default/make.conf for the parts about DOITNOW_*, and copy all the DOITNOW_* stuff over to /etc/make.conf, making sure to change them from ="NO" to ="YES". Then make sure that FIXITNOW_ENABLE="YES". That'll fix your issues.
Just bodwangle the zapfor module, and then look at the
I see a number of companies switching to BSD so they don't have to give away their code like they do with the GPL
that wireless is dying now?
Jonathanjk.com
God help us if someone ran FreeBSD on routers, oops, oh wait, someone does. Some little company known as Juniper. JunOS is derived from FreeBSD.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Juniper uses FreeBSD (they call it 'JunOS'). Their routers have become quite popular for very high traffic installations, due in no small part to the efficient networking code of the FreeBSD kernel. Also, don't forget that the f-root name server (actualy a distributed network of servers) is exclusively FreeBSD.
And I'm sure that someone will think that this just isn't pure. Like the Olympics, which was once ruled that only self-supporting people who could do it for "The Love of the Sport" were worthy.
Personally this is a great move for OSS, and a vote of confidence in the value of freely available Unixs by the companies. I hope it becomes a model for each part of the industry to do more to support their devices (graphic cards, USB plug in devices, you name it) to the free and OSS communities!
I will be disappointed if there is a single negative comment about this aspect of how the work is being funded and getting done!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Like many articles about BSD, this one will surely have a ton of comments along the lines of "Oh no, companies don't want to give away their code, so they're all going to use BSD licensed software and the world is going to end!". This arguement is, in almost all cases, bullshit. Why? Because usually it's not the operating system that matters so much as the software on top of it, and Company X has just as much control of their own program with Linux as with BSD (or Windows, etc.). Most products do not require significant changes to the OS, if any at all, and even in those products that do, far more of the products value comes from the company's own software.
So stop it people, the sky isn't falling.
This is not intended to be a flame as I really like FreeBSD as well. FreeBSD could learn a lot from the OpenBSD project in this area. I have been absolutely amazed at OpenBSD's out of the box wireless detection configuration. I installed OpenBSD on my laptop over my WPC11 wireless NIC without effort. I also had the same results with the WMP54G.
Umm... I think you got the point reversed. The poster was talking about the fact that you can take BSD licensed code, make changes to it to support your product, and not be forced to give your work to anyone else (for example your competition).
While we all understand the idea behind the GPL, many businesses will simply not even consider using OS's based on it because of the forced nature of it. FreeBSD stands to get a lot of users because of this in the embedded space.
Now, the gamble with the BSD license is that people might use the code without ever contributing back. But the bet is that the big companies will give some sort of kickback to the projects, even if it is not the complete solution.
An example of this is practice would be Apple and KHTML. While Apple has not completely given everything it could have given, the KHTML project has benefited from Apple using a derivative of KHTML. We can argue about whether it is enough, but it is benefit that Apple would not have contributed if KHTML were GPL rather than BSD. Management would not have touched it with a 10 foot pole.
Actually, KHTML is LGPL.
I agree with your comment, but you mention that the bet is that companies will foster further development of the projects even if they're not forced to provide code back [I'd quote but I'm posting this from links]. I have my doubts.
The filesystem is the package manager
Well, it might be for some, but I think that most companies would be fine with publishing any minor kernel modifications made to Linux. The real reason why companies are a little afraid of the GPL is that there is always the potential for lawsuits. Granted, it's a remote possibility, but a possibility all the same; most companies would rather not be bothered with the GPL if given a choice.
And this is where FreeBSD can give people a choice. And assuming it's just as good as Linux, it's a better choice due to legal issues.
One last thing about the GPL is that most companies don't see distributing changes as a free endeavor. Someone has to be in charge of overseeing the process - and labour isn't free. In addition, distributing the changes requires other resources (like bandwidth) which, while not very expensive, just add to the complexity of using Linux. While this might be a minor issue, it's still an issue that companies would rather avoid.
And what happens when the slashdot community burns a company for forgetting to post something, or posting modifications that are difficult to utilize. Remember Apple and Konqueror?
Oh well, but to respond to your last point, I don't think there will be many adverse consequences. The work currently being paid for by these companies is under the BSD license and I don't see them being that protective of the kernel. The GUI however is another story.
Willy
There was talk early in the year about Linux forking if you read slashdot.
The issue was non GPL binary drivers in the kernel and module support.
First off its Powell and the FCC and not greedy capitalists making the decisions to stay closed with wifi. Its required infact to be a licensee of the FCC to have permission to sell your product.
Now the greed has spread to all markets in computers as the FCC could change its rules for any product that produces EMI. Also greed and the length it takes to file a patent makes closed source drivers attractive to protect their IP. Their shareholders demand it.
Its a mess but at least wireless companies are legally obligated to stay closed source for that reason. Someone hacking on a wifi router could wreck havoc for things like airplanes and other equipment utilizing radio waves.
http://saveie6.com/
It's a lot easier to develop for FreeBSD since it has one consistent version controlled set of user space and kernel code with timed regular releases.
It is stable and companies don't have to worry as much about keeping their own specially forked version to support their device,
Yes, but who says the whole system needs to be BSD licensed? Or GPL licensed? If you use BusyBox what does it matter wether thats GPL or BSD licensed when you have not made any modifications? Same for uClibc.
uClibc may work with FreeBSD. The Debian GNU/KFreeBSD guys have the FreeBSD kernel working with a non-BSD userland space. This would mean one could use (parts) of the BSD licensed kernel, write modifications, and license them under whatever although i'm not sure uClibc also works.
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
You may have your doubts but history simply proves that they do (not all of them, but quite a few still)
FreeBSD has a thing called netgraph, from its manpage:
HISTORY
The netgraph system was designed and first implemented at Whistle Commu-
nications, Inc. in a version of FreeBSD 2.2 customized for the Whistle
InterJet.
Then, from man jail:
AUTHORS
The jail feature was written by Poul-Henning Kamp for R&D Associates
http://www.rndassociates.com/ who contributed it to FreeBSD.
Of course PHK is a core member of the fbsd team, but that doesn't change that it was written and payed for by a commercial user of the system and then contributed to it.
There is a simple very good reason for companies to contribute their changes, given that they get accepted:
It saves them the cost on maintaining such a component and keeping up with the development of the system.