Slashdot Mirror
New Sidekick Will Run NetBSD, Not Windows CE
jschauma writes "Many sites are reporting that the next Sidekick LX 2009/Blade, from Danger (acquired by Microsoft early in 2008), is going to run NetBSD as their operating system, causing Microsoft's recruiters to look for NetBSD developers."
Just asking.
This isn't exactly the first time Microsoft has leveraged BSD code in a product... cough, TCP stack, cough...
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
BSD is the only licence that is compatible with MS business practice.
MS is no stranger to Unix, they wrote Xenix long ago.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
About it being the only compatible free license, this is, unfortunately, very true. It's the only reason why I don't like using it. I don't think it's right to suck up code. Then again, recycling code... Gah, I don't know. BSD license makes me feel all conflicted inside!
My NetBSD toaster was lonely. Getting him a friend will be nice.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If you don't *like* the ramifications of the license, don't *use* it. Many are fine with the implications of the BSD license.
BSD is the only licence that is compatible with MS business practice.
So can I get windows and word with a BSD license?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This reminds me of the Hotmail Unix to Windows conversion a few years back. They failed the first time. But eventually got it right.
Look, BSD licensing allows the end user to do whatever their want with the code in question, as long as they follow the attribution requirements outlined in the licensing. How can you possibly make code more free than that?
Yes, I'm posting this from an Ubuntu laptop, while performing maintenance on a couple of Debian servers, and poking around at a CentOS server running several variants of Linux in virtual machines. So, yeah, I enjoy using GPL products. It doesn't mean the GPL bestows more freedoms on the end user, as it certainly contains more constraints than BSD licensing.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Microsoft's own Exchange servers have Postfix on their spam filtering boxen front-end. Not exactly eating their own dog food, when they have their own Forefront Security for Exchange.
This is the Postfix program at host mailxxx-xxx-R.bigfish.com.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The Postfix program
: host xxxxx-xxxx-mail5.customer.frontbridge.com[131.107.115.214] said: 550 5.7.1
$whois frontbridge.com,
Domain Name: FRONTBRIDGE.COM Registrar of Record: Corporate Domains, Inc. Administrative Contact: Microsoft Corporation Domain Administrator One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 US domains@microsoft.com +1.4258828080 Fax: +1.4259367329
$whois bigfish.com ,
Domain Name: BIGFISH.COM Registrar of Record: Corporate Domains, Inc. Administrative Contact: Microsoft Corporation Domain Administrator One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 US domains@microsoft.com +1.4258828080 Fax: +1.4259367329
no, they licensed it from AT&T. It later became SCO UNIX
What is...?
No but windows does have BSD code in it. Specifically ftp.exe and some zlib code.
cat
MS is no stranger to Unix, they wrote Xenix long ago.
Oh my God, is that an ASCII RickRoll?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Cool. Somebody tell Borland!
thegodmovie.com - watch it
More likely is that it never ran on Linux in the first place. It's pretty common for industrial VIP systems to use Linux under the hood while the back-end systems run something completely different. For example, check Netcraft's entries for Live Search. It claims that's running Linux to this day, which I know for a fact is not true.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
It ran on Solaris, not Linux. It is Windows Server end-to-end now.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
They licensed Xenix. I wouldn't call that "wrote".
This is why the developer community for the SK imploded. While there's still a core of hard-core SK developers out there, the majority of them moved on to greener pastures after the whole fiasco with Danger and their multiple personality disorder with regards to developers.
This, and their shit hardware QC, are why the Sidekick stopped being a real, going concern several years ago.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Seriously, this isn't surprising... NetBSD runs on everything. The NetBSD team spends a significant amount of time supporting a large number of platforms - be it a modern X86 server or a sun pizza box.
You'll notice that commercial entities like the BSD license (see: OS X) And, I don't think that the NetBSD developers will suddenly panic: "Someone's going to steal our code!" Contrary to what some here might feel, there is room for more than one open source operating system and, believe it or not, more than one license.
Back in the old days, slashdot had the BSD link right on the front page.
What are the constraints that GPL bestows on the end user? Right, none at all.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
I personally think it would be nice if everything was completely open, but I think that's the kind of utopic vision the world is not ready for.
I wish for the same thing, and look forward to the day when economic scarcity is no longer human concern.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Look, BSD licensing allows the end user to do whatever their want with the code in question
End users do not use source. End users use binaries. Granted, they can compile from source if they have it. GPL binaries come with source. BSD-based binaries in general don't. It can be 99% BSD code, 1% special closed source driver code but the whole comes without source and it does me fuck all good that it's 99% BSD. BSD is ultimate freedom for the ones with the source, GPL is a little less freemdom what you can do with the source, but it makes sure I will have the source in the first place.
Unless you limit yourself to pure BSD you as an end user have absolutely nothing, no more than if it was through and through proprietary. The freedome that you could try to figure to what bits and pieces of BSD they used, how they put them together and add the secret source yourself is illusory at best, possibly plain out illegal through patent law at worst. Maybe it could help some developer make a similar product, but as user of a closed-source derivative you have no ability to make small changes to improve or fix anything. You are at the vendor's mercy, you have the same lock-in issues, you have the same "embrace, extend, extinguish", they support only the platforms they choose and end support when they choose. "BSD based" means nothing to the end user except maybe that it was slightly cheaper to produce rather than reinvent the wheel.
Of course you can just stay with pure BSD. But then you're fighting a million companies that want to kill off the userbase that actually could improve that code by making them use properietary "value-added" versions instead. Let me take an example:
Linux user use Konqueror, finds bug in engine, patches source, has better Konqueror instantly, sends fix upstream, everyone gets a better Konqueror.
Mac user use Safari, finds bug, can't compile Safari but has to compile Webkit engine by itself, sends fix upstream, someday get an improved Safari.
The last is much, much more unlikely because it doesn't fix the end user's problem. The far more likely story is that he'd file a bug with Apple that may or may not do anything about it but then you're right back to classic "report error to vendor, wait for fix" just as if you reported an IE bug to Microsoft. I just don't see the appeal of "based on open source" because it is not anywhere near "open source". And the only advantage of the BSD over the GPL is to make products "based on open source".
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Last I knew (couple months ago) they used F5 BIG-IP. F5 BIG-IP runs a variant of Linux, although F5 BIG-IP did used to use NetBSD back around '04 (When it was clamed that Microsoft used NetBSD).
I'm positive they run IIS 6.0 in emulation.
You're right, none at all. Until you decide to change the code and redistribute it. Oops.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
The makers of this device have taken a free operating system and used it to build their product, from which they will make money. I don't see anything wrong with requiring them to release changes they have made, so that others can benefit.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
No, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The F5 BigIP does load-balancing and traffic management, it's not used for content delivery.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
Which isn't what the BigIP does. F5 is a company, BigIP is a hardware load-balancing and traffic-management system. I've seen 'em, I know what they do.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
Well... I need a mod down... Somehow I was brilliant enough to mix up the ARX and BIG IP
GG me...
No worries, we all get stuff mixed up from time to time.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
What are the constraints that GPL bestows on the end user? Right, none at all.
You're right, none at all. Until you decide to change the code and redistribute it. Oops.
What part of the term "end user" confuses you?
No but windows does have BSD code in it. Specifically ftp.exe and some zlib code.
Which is exactly the reason for all the BSD vs GPL holy wars.
GPL is about the freedom of the code: "I've shown you the code, if you use it, show your code to anyone who wants it". BSD is about the freedom of the software: "Hey, I wrote this. Use it."
Regarding Windows:
GPL: "Oh noes! They closed the source!"
BSD: "Cool, they're using my stuff! At least they got *that* part right."
It's actually the other way around - they used to show up in Netcraft as Linux servers even though they were IIS on Windows Server 2003 for a long time.
This is because the server version reported was actually Akamai's balancing and caching infrastructure in front of the Hotmail servers.
What? "No worries"? No, he was wrong! That means GEEK PUNISHMENT.
*gets the Windows ME powered Pentium 75 box*
It claims that's running Linux to this day, which I know for a fact is not true.
If Netcraft says it, it is true by the very definition of truth!
May Peace Prevail On Earth
When Microsoft sold Xenix to the Santa Cruz Operation ( Not the current SCO Group ), wasn't there a Non-compete clause in the agreement? I thought that Microsoft was not allowed to sell any Unix based operating system - and that would include any NetBSD derivative.
Microsoft have woken up to the fact that the only way to defeat Linux and the GPL is to support the BSD type licensed software.
What's the problem with that?
Every system has to have a basic set of rules. That basic set of rules is there to ensure that the system itself will continue to exist.
So for instance, democracy won't last very long if you allow a simple majority of voters to vote democracy out of existence. The dim witted might say that makes it more democratic to allow it, but the more thoughtful will see that if you allow the voters to put an end to their democratic rights, it actually becomes less democratic - less free.
We call those basic rules which protect our democratic rights a 'constitution' and the exact nature of the constitution determine exactly how free we will be.
Hitler was voted into power democratically, and then went to the people again to have them vote him dictatorial powers. Once it's done, it's awfully difficult to get it back. Look what it took to get democracy running again in Germany.
There is a similar situation with software licences. The GPL has its constitution built in. It says that the software it covers has been produced communally, and that if you wish to redistribute it, you must include the source code and the same license ( i.e. the same freedoms ) which existed with that code when you got hold of it.
The BSD license does not have such guarantees built in. Anyone can take that code, ignore the communal effort which went into producing it, close source the code and their own additions and benefit off the backs of the work of others.
The BSD license is not about freedom. It is about encouraging closed source monopolies with some free help, and this is an example of that happening.
Don't confuse open source with freedom. It'll soon all be gone if you do.
Sidekick? I can totally do this! I still have some old TSR code lying around...
MS is no stranger to Unix, they wrote Xenix long ago.
True except that they did not "write" Xenix. Xenix was a licensed fork from AT & T source code.
In another lifetime I once thought Microsoft was showing promise by bringing a Unix-like interface to PC DOS 2.0. Most of the code was half-assed and broken and I guess they kind of just left it that way.
Oh and for the folks whining about 6.1 aka Microsoft Windows 7 being a paid-for bug fix release over the previous one, that's really old news because PC DOS 2.1 was the same thing over 20 years ago. That was as much abuse as I could take from a company, but I guess others have different tolerances for pain.
fedora on ppc? Or ubuntu?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
If you're going to try to goatse us, you should at least try to hide the link.
"I've shown you the code, if you use it, show your code to anyone who wants it".
a bit wrong.
if you use it, nobody cares. if you modify and then give somebody else, you have to give them code of the modfications as well.
distribution, as opposed to use.
Rich
Offtopic? He's talking about the usage of BSD licensed code by Microsoft, how is this offtopic?
Dilbert RSS feed
I find it strange that until now there isn't a single comment on the open-ness of that platform. Yes, it may run a BSD flavour. Nonetheless, is the platform locked down? Is it possible for any end-user to reinstall the OS without the need of circumvention tools and hard hacks?
That, as I see it, is the single most interesting aspect of this article. After all, if the sidekick platform is locked down then it doesn't really matter it is running a BSD flavour. Moreover, it would once again emphasize the need for the legal constructs added to the GPL in the form of GPLv3.
So, is it locked down? Can it run linux?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Xenix? Wait, is that the Unix used by Xena, Warrior Princess?
I, as an end user, like the possibility to adjust the software to my needs even if I never redistribute it. How can a developer using the code in his work be an "end user"? That's not the "end", the end is the people is sells/gives the code to.
Dilbert RSS feed
Very poor moderation. MichaelSmith, we salute you for your non-offtopic comment.
Regarding Windows:
GPL: "Oh noes! They closed the source!"
BSD: "Cool, they're using my stuff! At least they got *that* part right."
Or rather:
GPL: "Oh noes! They closed the source!"
BSD: "Shit, they added bugs to my perfect code and the billions of users can't do a thing to fix it."
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Well, the thread is about a commercial OS containing open source code, so I guess we can assume distribution.
+1 Pedant, though
Amen to that! PC-DOS 2.0 on 180K floppy disks seemed like a step in the right direction. Why, there was even support for those fancy double-sided floppies! Subdirectories! Pipes (of a mangled sort)! Redirection! There was even a way to set your command-switch character to '-' instead of '/'! Yes, you could type: 'dir -w' for a wide listing... But then they never went any further, never changed the underlying CP/M-ness of the thing... I had almost forgotten.
Actually it was BSD variant and SUN Solaris.
Hotmail originally ran on a mixture of FreeBSD and Solaris operating systems.[12] Microsoft initially tried to move the FreeBSD portion of the architecture to a Windows NT 4.0 based system, but this failed. Later a project was started to move the system to Windows 2000. In June 2001 Microsoft claimed this had been completed; a few days later they retracted this and admitted that in fact some functions of the Hotmail system were still reliant on FreeBSD.[13]
I remember reading articles about Microsoft's attempts to shoehorn HoTMaiL onto NT 4.0 and repeatedly switching back. Ahhh, those were good times. Well except for the fact I had to switch from my HotMaiL account to a Yahoo account :(
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Ever boot an SCO box?
"Portions copyright Microsoft yadda yadda yadda".
Apparently you have never heard of sarcasm.
GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
Now I don't know if I am supposed to hate Microsoft still. Where are we on the hate-o-meter for MS? Surely this drops the needle down from Blazing Fury of a Million Suns to maybe Mildly Atrocious or American Idol or something. This is so hard to figure out.
Oh wait does "BSD is dyin" come into play here or not?
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
Could this be their big long-term plan? http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/01/microsoft_paten_1.html
Just an idea, Apple basically did this with OS X, only they put it on the desktop first, MSFT will just go in the other direction here
It's certainly worked for Apple in the last 5+ years.
My Sig Sucks
BSD: "Cool, they're using my stuff! At least they got *that* part right."
Unless "they" happens to be a Linux distribution.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Probably from the fact that the TCP/IP driver used to say it did. It was under BSD license with the advertizing clause.
I'm not sure exactly when they wrote their own, but I think it was after Win2k. So, I would think Vista or Server 2k3 might be it. (Gut feeling says Vista - but I haven't used Windows after 2k, so I haven't checked.)
Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
The way I see it, the BSD and GPL and Proprietary licenses are best understood be an analogy to the prisoners dilemma:
-BSD is always cooperate
-GPL is an eye for an eye
-Proprietary is always defect
Windows CE is dying
Eh, not really. Microsoft doesn't have a load balancer product. All the commercial ones out there are based on Linux or FreeBSD. Hell, MS uses some front-end caching proxies from commercial services that are really just Linux running Squid under the hood. They're buying very expensive special purpose machines from 3rd party companies, not running *nix "by choice", exactly.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
development was well underway when Danger got bought by MS. That means it was likely cheaper to just continue doing what they were doing rather than scrap the work and start again using Microsoft's stuff.
Hm, if only it worked that way. But out there in Biznis land that kind of rationality rarely prevails in my experience. The "NIH" and "OMG ITZ NOT MS" factors rank higher than "faster, better, cheaper" (i.e. anything not MS).
Plus, executives are, often, ah, "incented" to choose the Microsoft solution in the face of any technical or common sense objection. (See: Windows 4 Warships, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc)
you had me at #!
Microsoft is still evil.
you had me at #!
That's because that's the they that killed Kenny, and they're bastards.
Only on Slashdot will you see a comment on BSD licensing, in a story about NetBSD, get modded offtopic. All hail the glorious GPL, I guess.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Pardon me, but why is the zip code for Burlington, VT a secret troll code?
Just curious and stuff.
music lover since 1969
Really? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc758834.aspx
As the ACs have said.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
This is great a BSD post on slashdot and no BSD is dying post.
So It's official BSD in NOT dying netcraft confirms it.
"If a show of teeth is not enough, bite
Would you fucking morons ALL get off your high-horses? Freedom is being able to CHOOSE between any fucking license that suites your personal/business/religous/world view. Therefore: BSD == free, GPL == free and it's perfectly OKAY that BSD != GPL. Like one and not the other? Great, shut-up about it and use what you like.
Personally, I'm a big fan of both. Ifuckingmagine that.
Quack, quack.
Isn'z zlib LGPL?
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Isn'z zlib LGPL?
No
Actually, for the longest time, MS was going to move the Sidekick over to WinCE- they were even gearing up for it. Unfortunately, after many months of this (A year ago, in reality...), they have announced that they're doing it with a *BSD core and they're HIRING *BSD devs for it.
If you're doing what you're claiming, you don't spend 12 months doing it that way and then gear up for the other OS that you don't sell...doesn't look good to investors to spend 225 billion or so on someone to do something like this. ;-)
That's not all that looks bad for investors. WinMo 7 is coming out in 2010, a year behind schedule, which is an eternity with the Palm Pre coming out in 2009, Android gaining traction, and of course the iPhone and Blackberry all out-selling it with next-generation smartphones that are either iPhone-like or otherwise more stable and powerful devices than WinMo/WinCE.
Pipes (of a mangled sort)! Redirection! There was even a way to set your command-switch character to '-' instead of '/'! Yes, you could type: 'dir -w' for a wide listing... But then they never went any further, never changed the underlying CP/M-ness of the thing...
Indeed and the system calls introduced in 2.0 all had Unix style semantics. Sadly, 2.0 had a lot of bugs in that new code that made them barely usable.
But just to name one bug I found in DOS 2.0, if you descended into a subdirectory that textually was close to their fixed sized limit (128 I think) and tried to to `cd ..' the system would take a text string (saved as the current directory) and append `/..' to it and do unexpected things.
The way COMMAND.COM dealt with pipelines was more remeniscent of VMS DCL than anything else. When did the VMS guys go to Microsoft? 1982 sounds way too soon.
COMMAND.COM also supported /dev/ as a prefix for DOS devices ...
EVERYBODY who was somebody in those days was a Unix guy, so I wonder why they backtracked. Microsoft in my book went from the company that produced Apple Soft Basic (which was quite decent) to something that was buggy as hell and you had to pay for the bug fix release AND forego the developmental manuals that came with 2.0. Sleazy. Elune be praised that it was my work and roommate not me who paid for the only PC DOS pcs I ever had to use.
heh. well, i think it is important to be precise regarding licensing issues.
besides, a commercial os that would be modified inhouse wouldn't have to release the changes, so gpl applies to everybody equally. even if the said os is distributed, i think it is important to fully understand what exactly does gpl require.
Rich
Ok, Microsoft doesn't have an enterprise-level load balancer product. :-P
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
GPL is about the freedom of the code: "I've shown you the code, if you use it, show your code to anyone who wants it". BSD is about the freedom of the software: "Hey, I wrote this. Use it."
GPL is more about the rights of the upstream developer, and BSD is more about the rights of the downstream developer. They both are "more free" to one of the two parties, and "less free" to the other.
In my experience, no matter what the FSF's initial intentions, authors of GPL software are generally more concerned about reserving rights for themselves than preserving freedom for others. (That rule has plenty of exceptions.)
The construct of "end users" separate from people who are in some way contributors in the foss world is a somewhat new one.
Uhhh, how about CDDL, maybe with a LGPLesque clause?
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Actually, DEC programmers were/are on the NT team, You can even see it in some file system quirks. But I don't recall any earlier transfers. *shrug* Guess M$ isn't just crappyly reimplementing UNIX. They are also crappyly reimplementing OpenVMS.
My $0.02.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
The same people have different roles depending on their actions. The moment I redistribute something I cease to be an "end user", unless you claim that this term has no meaning whatsoever.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
I feel so torn. On one had here is a chance to be paid to work on netbsd. On the other hand the job is with Microsoft.
Time to stick a fork in it, it's done. Sidekick is gone and it's time to move on. Sure it could linger on and slowing languish taking a few good developers with it on the decent into obscurity. But face it, it's owned by MS and the official policy is to stomp anything that does not promote lock-in to Windows/Office. Look at the warning example of Foxpro and see what happens to a good product that MS can't compete with on quality but was too popular to shutdown outright.
Even if the offer is legit, which it probably, isn't, just wasting invaluable developer resources porting Microsoft Useless Widget from Windows CE to NetBSD is a human resources denial of service attack taking developer time away from something useful. An extreme version of that tactic was used against Borland and others. NetBSD is small enough that it is comparable in size to small companies, and taking out enough developers to sink the project is a realistic goal if some NetBSD developers, or potential developers, are naive or weak enough to turn quisling.
Face it. Sidekick is gone, M$ has it, and its now time to finish your mourning, face reality and move on. Start a new company.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Actually, DEC programmers were/are on the NT team, You can even see it in some file system quirks. But I don't recall any earlier transfers. *shrug* Guess M$ isn't just crappyly reimplementing UNIX. They are also crappyly reimplementing OpenVMS.
My $0.02.
VMS and Windows were the two reasons I learned UNIX.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.