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!
My NetBSD toaster was lonely. Getting him a friend will be nice.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
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 but windows does have BSD code in it. Specifically ftp.exe and some zlib code.
cat
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
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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
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 #!
Really? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc758834.aspx
One can only assume a disproportionate number of bridges there.
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.