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."
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.
My NetBSD toaster was lonely. Getting him a friend will be nice.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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
That was always one of my favorite MS facts, unfortunately they switched to IIS a few years ago. Netcraft confirmed it :)
I love that this story comes out just after the latest NetBSD came out and everyone was leaving cynical "why do they still bother" comments. :-)
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
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
You mean, Hotmail used to run FreeBSD before Microsoft bought it, and for the 4+ years it took them to migrate it over to Windows without failing?
Hotmail itself has never run on Linux. It may however have some of its content delivered by Akamai's CDN, which does run Linux (but not Apache).
http://astutehosting.com/
Of course no. Hotmail run Apache on Linux :)
Hotmail never ran on Linux. Originally, before Microsoft bought it, it was running on FreeBSD with Apache, with some backend servers running Solaris.
Microsoft had a lot of trouble switching to Windows, and even after they claimed they had migrated, they had to admit that some things were still running on BSD.
However, by now I'm sure they've had enough time to finish that switch.
Incorrect; Hotmail never ran on Linux. It did continue to use Apache for some time, however.
Hotmail, when originally purchased, ran on FreeBSD and Solaris. Portions of it were moved to NT, running on Apache in the POSIX subsystem of the NT kernel (at the time, Apache for Win32 was not available, and Apache was miles ahead of IIS). This is one of the few cases I know of where the POSIX subsystem was used internally by Microsoft, although it is still under development and available in recent NT-based operating systems (some editions of Vista and Win7, and their server equivalents).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
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.
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 second server is obviously a known IIS/Win2003 box.
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
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."
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.
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.
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.
You mean like the way Linus Torvalds did when he used the work that everyone from Thompson and Ritchie to Allman and McKusick had done in designing the system he cloned?
I'm not criticizing Linus, writing open source code to open systems APIs is a Good Thing. My point is that EVERYTHING we do is done on the back of others.
And if this is another step in Microsoft's slow and reluctant journey from proprietary APIs back to open ones, that's good too.
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.
But eventually got it right.
No they didn't, they made it run on Windows.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News