FreeBSD 9.0 Released

An anonymous reader writes "FreeBSD 9.0 has been released. A few highlights include: A new installer, bsdinstall(8) has been added and is the installer used by the ISO images provided as part of this release, The Fast Filesystem now supports softupdates journaling, and Kernel support for Capsicum Capability Mode, an experimental set of features for sandboxing support."

Comments

Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[bonch]

As noted in the release notes, FreeBSD 9.0 includes Clang/LLVM, the goal is to be rid of all GPL dependencies by version 10.0. At the 2011 LLVM Developers' meeting, Brooks Davis covered the effort in bringing in LLVM for 9.0 and the work remaining for 10.0 to replace GCC. The move was originally intended for 9.0, but there wasn't enough time to get it all done, particularly due to the thousands of pieces of software in the ports tree that still require work. GPLv3 is cited as the catalyst for all this, for preventing cooperation between free and proprietary software sectors.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with GPL? I haven't been paying any attention to news surrounding this and so honestly don't know.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[halfaperson]

Yeah, that's why large IT companies like IBM, Intel and even Microsoft are contributing to the BSD:s and not to Linux. Oh, wait..

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Overly Critical Guy]

IBM and Intel do it to sell hardware and support. God knows why Microsoft does.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods are tracked by IP. He'd have to go somewhere else to reply without negating his downmod.

Now, he COULD have posted, then modded. Slashdot allows that as long as you post AC, but again it tracks by IP so it won't let you mod your own AC posts.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[iggymanz]

just a case of "different", not wrong. GPL can't be used in some cases where BSD licensed code can, for example one can distribute modified BSD code without providing the source code as long as its done the way the BSD copyright mandates.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[halfaperson]

Oh, you mean sell hardware and support to companies that wants to use Linux on their hardware? But I was just told that's companies didn't want that due to the GPL?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Overly Critical Guy]

I was actually just joking, but I've had anonymous trolls talk about using open proxies, so it's not as if IP-tracking is some kind of barrier unless Slashdot prohibits open proxies in that case.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Qzukk]

People with entitlement complexes and inability to understand simple instructions get surprised when someone gets angry after they take code that says "You can use this as long as you make the result GPL" and use it without making the result GPL.

They could have written their own or taken someone else's code with a more permissive license like BSD, but suggesting this causes them to react like the guy who defends his use of TPB for his movie watching by declaring he has some sort of right to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without having to pay for it.

You want it, you follow the rules to get it buddy. If you don't like the rules, nobody's forcing you to get it.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MrHanky]

SharkLaser is Microsoft shill. The GPL is against Microsoft's interests. bonch is an Apple shill.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Overly Critical Guy]

Companies with proprietary software don't want to deal with the GPL, no. Hardware companies don't care because Linux is a free-as-in-beer operating system for their products that they can contribute as much or as little to as they want.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[newcastlejon]

Now, he COULD have posted, then modded.

I think it's the other way round. ;)

Nope.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

How is it a troll to point out that the GPL has caused a lot of problems that would be obviated by using BSD-licensed code (as one example, just look at the deal LG signed with Microsoft for "linux protection").

The GPL is an evolutionary dead end. It's one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time - what could go wrong?" Now we know a few things that DID go wrong. There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[causality]

What's wrong with GPL?

It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back. You see, some people are childish and the most visible mark of childishness is a sense of entitlement. This causes them to feel somehow cheated if you place a few conditions on code that is otherwise free, that no one is forcing them to use if the conditions don't suit them. I think phrases like "you mean I have to actually HIRE my OWN PROGRAMMERS if I really must insist that everything be done exactly the way I want?!" are often uttered with outrage during their corporate meetings.

I mean hey, launching a commercial product with most of the work already done for you, for free, is a nice racket if you can get it. But if the developers intend to allow this, they wouldn't use GPL, they would use a BSD-type license. For reasonable people, this is not a problem. Reasonable people think either "hey, this code is available for free and we have no problem complying with the license, so we can enjoy all the effort that has already been done for us and build on that", or they think "the terms of that license aren't compatible with our business model, or we're afraid of how a court may interpret them, so we can't use that code, oh well, this has not harmed us in any way so we really have no complaint".

For everyone else, there is a need to demonize whatever it is that doesn't perfectly suit them even though they are under no obligation to use it. Sort of like the Puritannical types who want to shut down "offensive" shows that no one is making them watch and criminalize victimless behaviors among consenting adults that no one is forcing them to participate in. The mentality is never this direct and honest, and always covers itself up with a phony excuse, but if not for that its motto would be "it's not good enough that *I* don't do something I don't like, oh no, I have to make certain no one else can do it either!"

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Posts like yours are why GPL gets called "communist."

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MrHanky]

How would the BSD license have saved LG and others for signing patent licenses with Microsoft? Let me rephrase that: The BSD license would not have helped LG at all.

Also, why the fuck should FOSS users care about what Apple does for their own closed-source OS? Before you say Darwin, consider the fact that not a single soul uses Darwin as his main OS. Why? Because it's shit.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Brian Feldman]

Yeah, companies sure never support FreeBSD.

Oh, wait...

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=Y&DwnldID=17509

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

For one, it would have saved on the file system patents - zfs (as just one example) is not covered by microsoft patents. Now, if you can show a single patent that Microsoft is exerting against LG, Samsung, etc., that they could also stick it to BSD, you're welcome to try.

You won't be able to, because they all signed NDAs as part of the deal, but we know that the file system is one area - memory is another, and BSD doesn't use the same algorithms.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing's wrong with the GPL. The only problem is that the GPLv3 closed "loopholes" that previously allowed appliance manufacturers to ship FreeBSD-based boxes as-is under the GPLv2. I'll assume FreeBSD don't want to kick their userbase in the nuts (Unix enthusiasts as well as professionals relying on the OS for their business), they're sticking to the GPLv2 for every software in the base system (think kernel plus the bare minimum to have a running box).

While alternatives exist, FreeBSD is mostly a "compile everything yourself" system and for the reasons mentioned above they're stuck with GCC 4.2 which has been EOL'd upstream for quite some time. LLVM/Clang provides a modern compiler suite, actively maintained, that could be used in place of GCC to build a stock FreeBSD box. Other replacements are being worked on : binutils, gdb, groff, readline.

As a user and if I were to complain, I'd say that it's regrettable that some developers are required to do some NIH work instead of improving or adding features just because of license wars. But hey, that's just me.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

There's plenty of code that's been "given back" into BSD - including by commercial companies. You might want to look at opensource.apple.com for a few hundred examples, many of which are also used in most linux distros.

You wouldn't even be on the net today if it weren't for BSDs networking stack, which both linux and microsoft use.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MrHanky]

No, you're by far the worst on this site. Even SuperKendall has some other interests than advertising for Apple and slandering Apple's competition. You evidently don't.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Eivind Eklund]

What's wrong with GPL?

It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back.

You misspelled "everything" as "anything".

If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.

I mean hey, launching a commercial product with most of the work already done for you, for free, is a nice racket if you can get it. But if the developers intend to allow this, they wouldn't use GPL, they would use a BSD-type license. For reasonable people, this is not a problem. Reasonable people think either "hey, this code is available for free and we have no problem complying with the license, so we can enjoy all the effort that has already been done for us and build on that", or they think "the terms of that license aren't compatible with our business model, or we're afraid of how a court may interpret them, so we can't use that code, oh well, this has not harmed us in any way so we really have no complaint".

If you can't see how the GPL dominating a market can do harm to groups of people that can't use the GPLed version but needs customisations - then you've not thought hard enough about the problem. Think about monopolies and "embrace, extend, extinguish", just performed with software given away gratis with restrictions.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[causality]

The GPL is an evolutionary dead end. It's one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time - what could go wrong?" Now we know a few things that DID go wrong. There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.

I have heard this line of reasoning before and there is one thing I think it overlooks. Maybe I'm wrong, so I'll say there is one thing I don't understand about it.

FreeBSD (and NetBSD and OpenBSD) have been around roughly as long as Linux has, since the early 1990s. How do you explain the fact that *BSD is a niche OS most users have never heard of, while usage of Linux skyrocketed and it became something that most Joe Sixpacks have at least heard of if not something they actually use as a Windows alternative?

It would appear that the GPL is superior in terms of attracting developers and establishing a userbase on standard PC hardware in a Windows-dominated world.

Do you believe that's a coincidence and Linux had other factors in its favor that *BSD does not? I don't think so myself but I'm open to the possibility.

Regarding Apple's choice for OSX, it seems evident they had no intention of contributing back to the community anyway. If Linux were under a BSD license and this caused them to base OSX on Linux, what difference would that make? Should Linux users put a notch on their belt if that happened? It still wouldn't cause one single line of Apple code to be contributed back to the original developers (the most I know of is them sponsoring occasional events). It sounds like an empty feel-good concern to be blunt.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[bonch]

Also, why the fuck should FOSS users care about what Apple does for their own closed-source OS? Before you say Darwin, consider the fact that not a single soul uses Darwin as his main OS. Why? Because it's shit.

Um...millions of OS X and iOS users are using Darwin as their main OS, as it is the foundation for those operating systems.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[rb12345]

What difference does using a BSD-like licence in place of the GPL actually make in terms of patents?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Guy Harris]

Also, why the fuck should FOSS users care about what Apple does for their own closed-source OS? Before you say Darwin, consider the fact that not a single soul uses Darwin as his main OS. Why? Because it's shit.

Um...millions of OS X and iOS users are using Darwin as their main OS, as it is the foundation for those operating systems.

That depends on what he meant by "[use] Darwin as his main OS". If he meant "use raw Darwin, as built from the source at opensource.apple.com", rather than "use an OS whose core is Darwin", I suspect he's right - you could try building Darwin from source, and get the drivers you need for your hardware, and, if you want a GUI, get X11 running on the bare hardware etc., but that would, I think, be a lot of work.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MrHanky]

Use the ZFS file system on SD-cards for compatibility with Windows? Great idea. Except, of course, Windows can't read ZFS, and neither can any other popular desktop OS. So basically, you suggest using an SD-card file system that's totally unsuitable for SD-cards and compatible only with FreeBSD and Solaris, to save a couple of dollars per phone on patent licensing.

You must be some kind of idiot genius.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[causality]

If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.

And if that's not to their liking, the only thing they miss out on is the gratis skilled labor of strangers. They are still free to write their own code under any license they want. I just don't see the problem, unless of course there is a sense of entitlement to something no one actually owes them. That's the only explanation for why anyone would experience any distress over this.

If you can't see how the GPL dominating a market can do harm to groups of people that can't use the GPLed version but needs customisations - then you've not thought hard enough about the problem. Think about monopolies and "embrace, extend, extinguish", just performed with software given away gratis with restrictions.

How does GPL "dominate" a market? By that I mean: what's stopping these hypothetical groups from hiring their own programmers to write their own software that is licensed any way they like? A patent could definitely do that, but the GNU Public License is not a patent. If I am a developer who uses the GPL, how am I "doing harm" to you by not giving you my work for free? Again, only a false belief that you are entitled to my labor would make you feel "harmed" in any way.

What non-patented feature can you name for me in a GPL'ed project that an independent commercial project could not also implement? They would have to write their own code, sure, but if you really believe that constitutes "embrace, extend, extinguish" then you don't really understand what that term means. "Embrace, extend, extinguish" is not possible without closed source and/or patents.

That's too bad (for them only) some people feel offended that they can't just copy-and-paste someone else's code into their project, but nothing is stopping them from using their own original code to match every feature found in any non-patented GPL'ed project.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually.

It annoys and horrifies the thousands of developers that develop for platforms where the GPL is incompatible with libraries they must use or is not allowed by the platform rights holder.

There are many projects that used to be GPL/LGPL that are heavily used in the game developer community that are now BSD/MIT/zlib licensed, and they see even more contributions than they did before because more developers are able to use them for projects. (See Ogre3D, SDL for just of many two well-known examples.)

The GPL may be an appropriate license for some developer communities, but in others, it actually *reduces* the number of contributions and users of a project.

Like most things, one size does not fit all.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[preaction]

FreeBSD (and NetBSD and OpenBSD) have been around roughly as long as Linux has, since the early 1990s. How do you explain the fact that *BSD is a niche OS most users have never heard of, while usage of Linux skyrocketed and it became something that most Joe Sixpacks have at least heard of if not something they actually use as a Windows alternative?

BSD had patent/copyright concerns from System V that were not fully addressed at the time Linux rose to prominence. This is why you hear "This is the year of the Linux desktop" instead of "This is the year of the BSD desktop". This is basic *nix history here, folks.

It would appear that the GPL is superior in terms of attracting developers and establishing a userbase on standard PC hardware in a Windows-dominated world.

Correlation is not causation.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Lawrence_Bird]

The primary basis of Free/Net/Open BSD existed long before Linux. Not a diss on Linux, just saying. Ref: here

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tautog]

I guess that it shouldn't be surprising that the first post is more interesting and informative than the summary it comments on...

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

Apple hired several of the FreeBSD devs, and lots of the code was, and continues to be, given back to the FreeBSD project. Also, in case you haven't noticed it, that Apple-sponsored code includes the rewrite to WebKit that all you Chrome users like so much. You might want to check out the other stuff here and here. Also, if you use CUPS to print anything, thank Apple - they bought the source code from the original developer. Use zeroconf for networking? Thank Apple for their open standard (as opposed to Microsoft's closed one, which wasn't adopted by the IETF).

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[makomk]

This is the exact opposite of the truth. There is nothing in the BSD license, the BSD distros, or any similar license that would stop Microsoft from carrying out their patent protection racket - it's just that they have no strategic reason to do so because the competition they care about is all Linux-based. On the other hand, some of the clauses in the GPL could make it rather harder to pull off if enforced...

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

Why would android devices need file system compatibility with non-android devices? If you want to transfer data, you don't open up the device and remove the memory chip - you do it over wifi or whatever networking floats your boat. Next you'll be demanding that we keep fat12 compatibility for transferring data using floppies.

This is the 21st century. Please get with the program.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Guy Harris]

It's still based off of BSD code. "Derivative works" and all that. You can't make a compatible stack w/o using it.

"Compatible" with what? It might be more work to develop an Internet protocol stack from scratch without using the BSD code, but I rather doubt it's impossible to develop such a stack without using the BSD code.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[causality]

There are reasons not to use GPL not having to do with modifying code, but simply running the code. E.g. GPL'd libraries.

Libraries are generally licensed under the LGPL. The LGPL is specifically designed to avoid the imaginary problems you bring up. From that link (emphasis mine):

The LGPL places copyleft restrictions on the program governed under it but does not apply these restrictions to other software that merely link with the program.

If you're going to be childish and call me names like "moron" and "zealot", you should least demonstrate a basic familiarity with the facts. If you feel a need to deal with things that way, it is a sure sign you are reacting emotionally and not proactively evaluating anything reasonably. Against anyone who remains reasonable, you are going to make yourself look foolish. Just for your future reference.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Toonol]

None. It's a nonsensical argument.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

Wanna bet? If Microsoft could sue Apple over OSX using FreeBSD they would do it in the blink of an eye. They would LOVE to collect tolls from Apple on every iPad and iPhone.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Microlith]

If you can't see how the GPL dominating a market can do harm to groups of people that can't use the GPLed version but needs customisations - then you've not thought hard enough about the problem.

So they can customize them and not distribute it. Or are you interested in locking your customers into a dependency on you?

Think about monopolies and "embrace, extend, extinguish", just performed with software given away gratis with restrictions.

Fucking please. Yet another idiotic implication of the GPL that is not merely utterly false but impossible.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MightyYar]

Every time I post on Slashdot, my home server gets a request from Slashdot checking for an open proxy.

216.34.181.51 - - [12/Jan/2012:19:44:41 -0500] "GET http://bsd.slashdot.org/ok.txt HTTP/1.0" 404 204
$ host 216.34.181.51
51.181.34.216.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer slashdot.org.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

So, you have the source for the Vista and Win7 stack to back up your claims? Didn't think so. And why would they not continue to use parts of it, especially since they have to to maintain compatibility with older software, and it's not like they're not allowed to.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

You wouldn't even be on the net today if it weren't for BSDs networking stack, which both linux and microsoft use.

That's ridiculous. I'm all for acknowledging BSD's contributions, but you can't possibly claim nobody would've implemented a stack if the BSD project hadn't. It's as ridiculous as saying the FreeBSD project wouldn't have existed until today without GCC.

Of course we would be on the net, someone else would've written a networking stack for Linux and Microsoft would have either written their own or bought one of the companies which sold third party stacks for Windows.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Microlith]

Please. Many people eject the SD card in their device and plug it into their desktop systems to transfer files. In any case, FAT/exFAT are standard filesystems for SD cards and must be supported to be compliant.

But go ahead and make up whatever world you want to defend your position. It works better when it aligns with reality.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the GPL. Ext2/3/4 is GPL'ed and it's not subject to MS patents. Your argument is non existent.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Guy Harris]

So, you have the source for the Vista and Win7 stack to back up your claims? Didn't think so.

Err, umm, you're the one making claims about the NT 6 networking stack, not me. I just questioned your "You can't make a compatible stack w/o using [the BSD networking code]" claim, wondering what you meant by "compatible" there.

Do you have the source to it to back up your claim that "It's still based off of BSD code."?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

So what do e.g. Oracle, SAP and Google if not proprietary software? Cheese?

Of course they use Linux, because they're not ignorant and know they can run proprietary software on it without having to touch their licenses. The GPL only affects derivative works, which userland applications running on the Linux kernel aren't considered to be.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MrHanky]

Linux is fully capable of not using removable storage and patent encumbered file systems (it's got a wide range), yet phone manufacturers choose to use them anyway. Evidently, they're even willing to pay for the privilege. You still haven't found out how BSD would help LG.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[shutdown -p now]

It's not just for SD cards, it's also for internal memory. Pretty much any Android 2.x phone, when you plug it via USB, acts as a USB mass storage device, so you can directly copy files to/from its memory. In Honeycomb and ICS, they have moved on to MTP, so that they don't have to unmount the filesystem on the phone when it's connected, and some 2.x phones (like Galaxy S2) have backported that.

And before you say "WiFi", it doesn't cover all scenarios. What if I visit an acquaintance, and want to show them some photos?

Anyway, what does this have to do with Linux vs FreeBSD to begin with - as you claimed in your post that started this thread? If Android was based on FreeBSD and it used FAT, it would be similarly vulnerable to Microsoft patents on FAT. On the other hand, if it didn't use FAT, it wouldn't be vulnerable to those patents even as is, with the Linux kernel.

So far you have failed to demonstrate any specific code or feature that is 1) present in Linux, 2) absent in FreeBSD, and 3) would infringe on some Microsoft patent. The ball is firmly in your court on this one. Until you give a specific example, your posts are pure FUD.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[shutdown -p now]

And what makes you think that OS X or iOS do not use certain things that are licensed from MS? In fact, there is provably at least one such feature in iOS - namely, ActiveSync support.

This does not mean that MS is actually "collecting tolls" from Apple, because two companies have a cross-licensing patent agreement dating back to late 90s. But it may well be collecting something - and, similarly, Apple may well be collecting something from MS as well (WP7 uses the "bouncy overscroll" UI effect that is known to be patented by Apple).

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[shutdown -p now]

If you can't see how the GPL dominating a market can do harm to groups of people that can't use the GPLed version but needs customisations - then you've not thought hard enough about the problem.

The question is, would the market as a whole be better off or worse off when said groups of people are harmed?

Think about monopolies and "embrace, extend, extinguish", just performed with software given away gratis with restrictions.

And how, exactly, would you do embrace-extend-extinguish with something GPL-licensed? Or even get a monopoly in the first place?

The whole point of GPL (or rather FOSS in general) is that fork is free. The barrier to entry to compete is zero. A monopoly can only form in these circumstances by being "good enough" for the majority of users, and it will only remain a monopoly for as long as it remains good - if a better fork appears, users can and do switch very fast.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft is a hardware company?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Sancho]

Do they really? On Android, you can just plug it in and enable USB sharing. This still requires that the desktop be able to read the filesystem on the SD card (so I'm just being a little pedantic), but to remove the SD card would be pretty bad, since apps can run from it. I've even seen phones where the battery completely covered the card, meaning you'd have to disable your phone in order to pop it out.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[saleenS281]

OSX can read ZFS.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[saleenS281]

Easy. When Linux first took off BSD was in the middle of a lawsuit with AT&T. By the time it was all settled, Linux had already gained significant momentum. It definitely wasn't licensing or features that caused it to take off.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[treewojima]

Um...millions of OS X and iOS users are using Darwin as their main OS, as it is the foundation for those operating systems.

Foundation != the OS itself. Yes, OS X is built around a Darwin core, but it adds so much extra and *COMPLETELY NON-UNIXY* functionality on top of that, that it is, for the average user, a different operating system for all intensive porpoises. Same way that Android is based around Linux, yet most Android phone users never even see a hint of Linux in their day-to-day use of their phone. I doubt they'd even know what Linux was. Just like your standard Apple fan wouldn't know what Darwin was or why it was relevant.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[saleenS281]

Yes, only tiny companies like NetApp, EMC, Juniper and Dell.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[bmo]

Windows is a legacy OS and Microsoft's refusal to adopt advancing standards just shows everyone just how non-innovative and moribund it actually is.

Transfer the files over the network. Bam, done.

Why should I have to physically be in the same place as my home server in order to transfer files from my portable device to it. Why?

--
BMO

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Microlith]

On Android, you can just plug it in and enable USB sharing.

Depends, is it a large amount of files? PC-based readers can often go faster due to the CPU dependency on data transfers to these cards, let alone the battery eating power usage clocking the CPU up will do.

but to remove the SD card would be pretty bad, since apps can run from it.

And if you never need to remove it, more power to you. But it stands that it can be pulled out and placed in a PC, and if a user goes and does this and windows offers to format it (and erases all their data) then the vendor will be in a world of hurt.

I've even seen phones where the battery completely covered the card, meaning you'd have to disable your phone in order to pop it out.

I've seen those too. I haven't, however, seen those on most current smartphones. Rather, they're under the battery cover or along the edge somewhere under a cover of some sort.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MeNeXT]

I used to agree with you but I came to realize that the rules were created for people like you and the old me. As long as we played by the rules the others kept us in our little box.

Their rules go something like this;

1) As log as I don't get caught I do what I want. I tell everyone else what the rules are.
2) Do what ever it takes to make rule # 1 work.
3) Create rules for others to follow. Change rules so they do not apply to you.
4) Punish severely anyone who doesn't follow to the rules.

As an example TPB . It is an equalizing factor to the copyright rule that has been extended by stepping on everyone's rights so they will enforce rule number 3.

As far as I am concerned if I purchase a DVD to own I will view it as I choose where I choose and how I choose. If I an not "allowed" to it should be clearly stated on the package that I am not purchasing a DVD but it is a license. NOT IN SMALL UNREADABLE WRITING but clear large print as large as the title of the DVD so I can make an informed decision and not have to discover that when I get home that my DVD player no longer supports the new and improved error encoding.

Sorry buddy I started playing their game and I purchase large amounts of IP and use it on my TERMS. When everyone becomes "honest" then I will be "honest". So for now LONG LIVE TPB.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Sancho]

And if you never need to remove it, more power to you. But it stands that it can be pulled out and placed in a PC, and if a user goes and does this and windows offers to format it (and erases all their data) then the vendor will be in a world of hurt.

"It can be done" is a far cry from "many people do."

And the /vendor/ would be in a world of hurt? I guess maybe in today's litigious society, but the blame rests completely on the user and Microsoft.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

How much would Microsoft give to be able to attack Apple right at the core - OSX? Think of it of a minute - then ask yourself which alternate universe they would have to be in to have overlooked that.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

How is it FUD that Microsoft has not, in all these years, been able to attack OSX? It's not like they're BFF.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Sancho]

Fair enough, but since it mounts in Windows, it has to present something that Windows can read. Regardless of whether or not the underlying filesystem is e.g. Fat32, it would probably present as Fat32 using some sort of translation layer, which might mean it was infringing on patents.

They could also require software to read the card, but that's less user-friendly. Might as well just add an ext2 driver and require that the user install that.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

It's not about the license itself, but the underlying code. BSD == A T & T == lots of patents. The Regents of the UofC settled that they have the right to distribute BSD with those patents because AT & T did not contest it after knowing about it for years. That same "right" doesn't extend to Linux.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Fri13]

Apple did study Linux operating system and even made own branch with it, called MkLinux what is still available. Apple's idea was to make Linux a Server-Client architecture operating system instead a Monolithic and get Linux to Macintosh. In MkLinux project they sliced Linux functions to servers and used Mach microkernel with them and so on they got MkLinux. http://www.mklinux.org/

MkLinux were Apple's first Open Source project. Today Apple has dozens of Open Source projects http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1072/

Then Apple went, toke a Mach microkernel, Network protocols, Filesystems and few other OS functions from (monolithic) FreeBSD Operating System to as servers and made nice package with I/O Kit and got a XNU operating system what is a Server-Client operating system by architecture instead Monolithic like the Linux is.

It seems it has nothing to do with the license, as XNU operating system is 100% Open Source and Free Software as OSI and FSF have both accepted the license what Apple used to license that XNU operating system http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Apple just wanted to get Server-Client architecture for their operating system instead monolithic.
Everyone knows the famous debate between Linus and Andrew about how Monolithic architecture is obsolete for operating systems and Server-Client architecture is the future.

Linux is great proof how monolithic architecture for operating system can be very powerful and flexible, when just watching list where Linux really is... Super computers, embedded systems (DVD players, DVB-boxes, Digital TV's), Desktop computers, Laptops, Workstations, Rendering farms, Home/Corporation servers and not to forget... Linux is most used operating system on smartphones... As Apple chose to use Linux as operating system in Android. There are other Linux distributions like Tizen, Harmattan, Bada (using RTOS operating system as well) and many others. Even Nokia bought few weeks ago a Norwegian software company "Smarterphones" what developed Linux distribution "Smarterphones" and Nokia might be planning to replace NOS (Nokia Operating System) and S40 (software platform + GUI) with it and that would mean Linux gets even more support.

In other hands.... while XNU can probably be second popular Open Source and Free Software operating system on markets... GNU projects own HURD operating system what is as well following a Server-Client architecture like XNU, Minix, NT... Has not get stable or ready at all.
FreeBSD is as well monolithic operating system and so is OpenBSD and NetBSD (according wikipedia).

GPL license is great for the community (read it like every human and every country and every government and every corporation) but it is not great for those who are greed, biased and very short sighted people who wants to slave others under their control and control when and what innovation is released and control that with patents and hiding knowledge what other humans has helped them to gain.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[hhw]

If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.

And if that's not to their liking, the only thing they miss out on is the gratis skilled labor of strangers. They are still free to write their own code under any license they want. I just don't see the problem, unless of course there is a sense of entitlement to something no one actually owes them. That's the only explanation for why anyone would experience any distress over this.

Or maybe, because the rest of us lose out on the 90% they would have given back?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[causality]

As an example TPB . It is an equalizing factor to the copyright rule that has been extended by stepping on everyone's rights so they will enforce rule number 3.

A regular individual guy who happens to have some programming talent, and decides to give me the fruits of his skilled labor at no charge, and says I may use it as much as I want and do anything I want with it except for a few reasonable restrictions ... that is a person I respect. He is not asking much. He is in fact giving to me more than he is asking from me. I have no problem respecting his wishes. They are quite reasonable. This person is dealing with me as an equal and doing so with equitable terms.

The RIAA and the MPAA lost this kind of respectability a long, long time ago if they ever had it to begin with. What they want for themselves is not reasonable. What they already take for themselves is never, ever enough. They have this insatiable need for more and more but are not themselves willing to give more and more. They do not want to deal as equals. They want to dominate. The terms they want are extremely one-sided in their favor only and continue to become worse as time passes.

Friend, these two are not in the same boat and do not deserve to be treated according to the same standard. A reasonable person could indeed agree that what you wrote in your post can, should, and often does apply to the *AAs of the world. But I just can't justify treating a generous, reasonable programmer the same way. I have no problem honoring that which is honorable, nor would I refuse to respect that which is respectable.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[shutdown -p now]

You are still refusing to give a single example of some Microsoft patent that would apply to Linux but not FreeBSD, with everything else equal.

Until then, it is FUD. You do not know what patent arrangements Apple and MS might have.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Fri13]

Nope... The operating system in OS X is XNU. Darwin is just XNU + compilation settings and tools. XNU is Server-Client architecture operating system, instead Monolithic like Linux is.

Any system program, library, application program etc, does not work without operating system. Not even your development programs, text editors or others work without operating system.

You can download XNU operating system from Apple Open Source site. You can study code and even FSF has accepted Apple license what is used as Free Software license (still incompatible with GPL). From here http://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1699.24.8/ you can download whole source code for XNU operating system. You get Mach microkernel, I/O Kit, FreeBSD parts of network protocols, filesystems and so on. The microkernel in XNU operating system is 3.0 by version.

Android is just one distribution for Linux operating system. But unlike XNU, Linux is monolithic operating system. And Open Handset Alliance (what develops Android) is currently bringing Linux back to mainline. The Linux what is used in Android has been hosted as well on Linux GIT but it has just been own branch, now it is going to be joined back.

One reason why Android has been so successful, is that people don't know that they are using Linux operating system. Same thing is with Ubuntu, where people has false believes that they use "Ubuntu operating system" while they really use Linux Operating System and distribution called "Ubuntu". If they would know the truth, they would cry and have sleepiness nights wondering what they are going to do because "Linux" is so 'difficult to use'.

It is just sad that most people are victims of marketing propaganda and they don't have a clue what technology is being used and how it works.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[hhw]

That's ridiculous. I'm all for acknowledging BSD's contributions, but you can't possibly claim nobody would've implemented a stack if the BSD project hadn't. It's as ridiculous as saying the FreeBSD project wouldn't have existed until today without GCC.

Of course we would be on the net, someone else would've written a networking stack for Linux and Microsoft would have either written their own or bought one of the companies which sold third party stacks for Windows.

Sure, except the Linux stack and the Microsoft stack probably wouldn't have been compatible, meaning fragmented networks. In other words, either no universal network of networks i.e. the Internet, or everyone would have been forced to go with Microsoft's solution. One of the benefits of a very liberal license is it's easy for other Operating Systems to adopt. OpenSSH is another obvious example of this.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[synthespian]

You're either naive or uninformed. Others have mentioned the lawsuit problems BSD was having at the time Linux was released, so I needn't comment on that. You just need to read up.

Linux was backed by companies that, in fact, make a lot of money selling proprietary software too (besides hardware). One of the main supporters is a patent champion. The GPL has allowed these companies to rally against Sun Microsystems. They did. They succeeded. Solaris is now a fraction of what it was. Great. Now, I've yet to see aviation and medical mission-critical software run on Linux. Nobody's that crazy (except for the special case of the military certified real time Linux whose source code, BTW, is pretty hard to find...*if* you find it that is...Anyways, that's not a "normal" Linux. And I've never seen Stallman cry out "where's the code" for those military-certified Linux kernels).

Not only that, but as Sun was getting targeted, a lot of people migrated to Windows (NT, at the time). So the net result is that you have less diversity, less security, more Windows, more IBM...(Oh, not to forget HP's Unix down the drain). Big fucking accomplishment it was having less Unix diversity. Hooray for the GPL... Hooray for "market forces". None of that was supported by revenue from Linux server support, I don't think anyone would be so dishonest as to claim that...It all fit Oracle, IBM and Microsoft very well. Hell, you wanna complain about Apple? They put Unix on the desktop! For the masses! How long has Gnome been trying that (and failing miserably)? *AND* they give code back (LLVM, recent big example).

In what regards "apps", let me point out that FreeBSD's ports tree is second only to Debian's in number. But I'm not sure if that's a fair comparison, because Debian's would be a broken, half-ass release, whereas the FreeBSD release with the maximum port number is a production-quality release. Bananas and oranges. So, if you mean to use "the sheer number of apps developed on Linux" as support for your argument, well it's not. I would say that those apps aren't Linux-only. They are Unix apps (hence, they're on BSDs too).

What you really have to explain is, if the *BSDs are so lame, how come they're still around? How come OpenBSD is so secure, when Linux isn't (hell, Debian has been compromised not once, but twice!)? How come FreeBSD keeps churning out innovations that outpace Linux? Better yet, innovations that were implemented first *for* FreeBSD, like the new capabilities framework (and I'm guessing you are clueless about the importance of those buzz words...). How come the donations to the FreeBSD *increased*?

Compare that with the Big Iron-backed Linux, and the distro that has a millionaire throwing money at it (with the balance book still in the red for Canonical). The *BSDs stand on their own merits. When you point to Linux's success, you gotta mention the oddball millionaire that supports Ubuntu, and the big iron strategy to rally against Sun (and others, like Red Hat's *per seat* licensing).

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

You see thats the thing. The OS X that people interact with is not darwin. Its running ON TOP of darwin. You could run OS X / Aqua quite happily on top of a number of other platforms, the underlying kernel isn't really what makes OS X great.

If you're going to slap X11 on top of it, you may as well run Linux or FreeBSD and get better hardware support.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Sancho]

Well Samba runs over IP, which means that you have to have the device connected to the computer via IP, and without NAT between them (not something you can guarantee if you don't own the network.) Otherwise, you need to be doing IP over USB, which again would require a driver.

It's not out of the ordinary. I use 2 wireless networks regularly that don't allow communication between wireless devices.

Now requiring a driver is fine, but again, if you have to install software on the computer anyway, you could obviously and easily devise a solution which wasn't patent encumbered.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

Um. If the original TCP/IP stack was GPLed (rather than a reference implementation being available under a BSD license), TCP/IP would not have taken off and we would not have the internet we have today. BECAUSE people could take the BSD tcp/ip stack and port it quite simply to their OS, it became a standard.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

That's my point! BSD, GPL, the license is irrelevant! What matters is if you implement vfat, not the license!

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

BSD is not a niche OS. It is used by Netapp, Juniper, Apple and many others. Apple have contributed HEAPS back to the open source community and it is stuff that is pretty valuable/useful. Apple do not contribute Aqua back to the community, that was entirely their own work. however various technologies such as GCD, Webkit, OpenCL, etc are. Plenty of open source originates within apple and is then released for that matter, but don't let that get in the way of your GPL zealotry.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

You see this is the thing. BSD people WANT PEOPLE to take their code and use it for commercial development. So long as the code is out there and making the world a better place. If microsoft/apple/juniper/netapp/whoever get better products on shelves due to their use of BSD code, we win. If the code was GPLed, no one would be able to add their own work to develop a product and have some sort of competive advantage (their own additions) to make money with.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

I just don't see the problem, unless of course there is a sense of entitlement to something no one actually owes them

Here's one: the GPL is hostile to the development/promotion of standards. If the original reference TCP/IP stack was GPLed, you wouldn't be posting here via TCP/IP.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

Or are you interested in locking your customers into a dependency on you?

Its called a competitive advantage, and no business is going to spend time and money developing a product without the potential of getting one. High end routers, storage arrays, etc? Never going to happen with GPLed code.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[jimi1x]

Now, I've yet to see aviation and medical mission-critical software run on Linux.

I think you may want to revisit your statement. I used to work in a hospital. We had medical equipment that ran embedded Linux. I currently work for a bank. We have ATMs that run embedded Linux. Our CCTV system runs embeded Linux in the cameras. Did you know that a lot of banking mainframes run on Linux? I'd argue completely against your statement that no mission critical software runs on Linux.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

As Apple chose to use Linux as operating system in Android.

Um, no they didn't.

Also, HURD is still a work of fiction, and Tizen is as dead as webOS. As for the GPL, it is as full of holes as swiss cheese, ever since the courts ruled (Game Genie) that to be a derivative work, the final result must be saved in a fixed format, not ram - so you can dynamically link proprietary code to GPL code, and even patch GPL code in memory, w/o releasing your source.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

Sure, except the Linux stack and the Microsoft stack probably wouldn't have been compatible, meaning fragmented networks.

Why? There were multiple compatible stacks already before MS implemented theirs from BSD.

I don't see why exactly would MS or Linux develop a stack which wouldn't be compatible with the networks that already existed and were standards in many places. It's not like the Internet appeared after Windows 95.

And we in fact have plenty of protocols which have different but compatible implementations. Why would TCP/IP be any different?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

TCP/IP was already a standard in many places before MS got around to implement their stack, and it had different but compatible implementations from the start (according to documents, Stanford, University College of London and BBN all had their own).

It seems to me TCP/IP was a standard because DARPA pushed for it, not because of BSD.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[synthespian]

I suppose your argument was to be pro-GPL, but I hope you come to realize that you just supported the following argument as a corollary:

  By writing more GPL software, we are pushing companies to write more proprietary software that duplicates functionality and for which they will file for patents.

(Maybe it's not a coincidence that IBM is the force behind Linux and at the same time has filed for more patents? --- Relation between the two is not clearly established in this argument)

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

We know that AT&T tried to take down BSD and failed. While most of the AT&T patents have expired, none of the copyrights have. BSD won the right to use those copyrighted materials in the Regents of California case. Think of it - if AT&T couldn't do it, the same principle applies as in that case - the code has been out there for subsequent versions for a LONG time, and to succeed in a lawsuit, they'd have to show not only that they were unaware of the existence of the BSD code, but that a reasonable practitioner exercising due diligence would be in the same boat. That's not the case with linux, which Microsoft was very careful to make noises about patent infringement quite quickly, so as to preserve their legal options.

In other words, the same patent that is being infringed in both is only suit-proof in BSD. Only the copyright protection, not the patent protection, is granted via the BSD license to products such as Linux.

It's a real rats nest, and that's why the manufacturers are settling. Even if they can show that the code in question is BSD-licensed code, only BSD-derived kernels would be covered.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

No "could" be used about it. CLANG can currently compile the kernel + world and most ports.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

You forgot apple :D

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[JAlexoi]

And IBM has no proprietary software? Funny, was the massive friction between Global Business Services and Software Group all in my head for 6 years? BTW: Both divisions produce proprietary software that runs on Linux.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[synthespian]

There are reasons not to use GPL not having to do with modifying code, but simply running the code. E.g. GPL'd libraries.

Libraries are generally licensed under the LGPL. The LGPL is specifically designed to avoid the imaginary problems you bring up. From that link (emphasis mine):

The LGPL places copyleft restrictions on the program governed under it but does not apply these restrictions to other software that merely link with the program.

If you're going to be childish and call me names like "moron" and "zealot", you should least demonstrate a basic familiarity with the facts. If you feel a need to deal with things that way, it is a sure sign you are reacting emotionally and not proactively evaluating anything reasonably. Against anyone who remains reasonable, you are going to make yourself look foolish. Just for your future reference.

Doesn't the fact that most libraries allow for mingling with proprietary code mean that the purported success of the GPL is just a chronic brain fart Linooxers keep having?

You GPL defenders contradict yourselves every time... On the one hand it's touted as evidence for the sheer power of the GPL that Google uses GPLed software. OTOH, you don't seem to have a beef with the fact that they keep the source changes as their own, not releasing it. But if it were BSDed software, that might happen, and then it would be proof of sheer Evil Incarnate. WTF.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[bcrowell]

If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.

They can give 0% back if they don't redistribute. If they're redistributing, then they're in the software business, so why in the world do they expect to be entitled to other people's software?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[multi io]

There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.

Yeah, and the reason is probably that Linux didn't exist when Next incorporated BSD code into what later became OSX. When Apple did the same thing again 10 years later, they may have had architectural reasons (essentially "merging" back the improvements that had been done in the BSD code in the meantime), I don't know. For every commercial vendor who uses BSD, you find two that use Linux, so your argument doesn't seem to hold water too well. And then there's the code sharing argument: It may well be that GPL code is harder to incorporate into commercial codebases, but that may be balanced by the fact that, since the GPL forces contributors to publicize their improvements, more code may become available to incorporate in the first place,

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

For every commercial vendor who uses BSD, you find two that use Linux, so your argument doesn't seem to hold water too well.

Actually, you just made my argument for me. All the people being sued, threatened, or agreeing to pay the Microsoft "Linux Tax" are running Linux. I don't hear tell of any Microsoft "BSD Tax".

A search for Microsoft Linux Tax finds the majority of mobile manufacturers paying Microsoft for a license to use Linux. A search for Microsoft BSD Tax or Microsoft Solaris Tax or Microsoft Plan9 Tax or Microsoft FreeDOS Tax? Nah.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[evilviper]

Yeah, that's why large IT companies like IBM, Intel and even Microsoft are contributing to the BSD:s and not to Linux. Oh, wait..

They mostly contribute to the kernel, which is strictly GPLv2.

Point to a GPLv3 project they're contributing substantial amounts of code to, and you'll have a point, rather than feigned ignorance...

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[evilviper]

The problem is really with GPLv3, which has absolutely onerous restrictions, trying to prevent Tivoization of GPL'd code, or rather remake the world into RMS' dystopian fantasy land. But don't take my word for it... Read Linus' opinion on GPLv3

In a broader context, most companies hate GPL and other copyleft licenses in general (LGPL is usually minimally okay), because it's like a worm... Someone can bring it in without you knowing about it, and all of a sudden, you're subject to terms which may make you go out of business all-together (if one large piece of software is your main product). No such problem with freer licenses. And interestingly enough, there is much less of a problem with proprietary code.

You see, with proprietary code, perhaps you already have a license for if. Perhaps you need to re-negotiate the license to include this new usage. Or perhaps it was completely illegal, and now you have to either go to company X with hat in-hand and negotiate a license for your former illegal use, and continued use going forward, or perhaps you'll continue to use it, and hope you don't get caught.

In any of those (proprietary code) cases, it's just a question of money. Maybe it'll be a lot, maybe it'll be a little, but the company wants your money, and will probably work something out with you, unless you're direct competitors...

With GPL'd code, this doesn't work. If it's a small, one-man project, you can try negotiating a license, and probably get one. But if that one-man is an RMS-esque extremist, or if it's the work of multiple people, too many to possibly track down... No amount of money is enough to allow you to keep your copyright on your own code, likely with many millions of dollars invested in it...

THAT is why the GPL scares companies.
Remember Windows' source code leaking out onto the internet years ago? Open source developers were afraid it was done intentionally, so Microsoft could make the case that other projects stole their publicly available source code, used it without permission, and demand exorbitant, insane license fees. These two situations really are surprisingly similar from a software companies' perspective.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[ae1294]

Bluetooth yo... it's the bomb....

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[evilviper]

How do you explain the fact that *BSD is a niche OS most users have never heard of, while usage of Linux skyrocketed and it became something that most Joe Sixpacks have at least heard of if not something they actually use as a Windows alternative?

Most experts explain it as being because of the AT&T vs BSD lawsuit. Until that was decided, FreeBSD was in murky waters few were willing to go along with. And it happened at exactly the wrong time, when i386 systems were growing in popularity, and people wanted some Unix-like OS to run on it, and really wanted it for free.

Network effects kicked-in at that point. Linux got more developers because it was getting more press (and a lone student writing an OS is a better story than Berkley's largess), and it got more press because it was getting more developers, and it got more press because it got more press.

And the definitive counter-point to GPL supporters, is network services... Anyone can name a million and one network services that became defacto standards. BIND *is* DNS. Sendmail *is* SMTP. The BSD TCP/IP stack *is* the internet protocol, and it's bugs and limitations have become the standard.

The most recent example is OpenSSH. It wasn't FreSSH that gained 98% market share in a few years... Nope. And until OpenSSH, crypto was massively overdue, yet none of the alternatives caught-on... Licensing had a hell of a lot to do with that... always does.

NFS was in the same boat... Sun released NFS with an open license (not GPL'd), and it became the standard. NFSv3 was massively crufty and overdue for replacement, yet the dozens of GPL'd network file systems with modern features ever caught on... NFSv4 finally came out, with the main implementation under a free license, that finally made progress.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[torsmo]

W(ho)TF opened the door to these Linux/OSX/Microsoft lackeys?!!?! This is OUR thread, for God's sake!!! We decide the bloody agenda!!

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Guy Harris]

If it works, and it conforms to the IETF norms (which it HAS to to work, then it has to include a lot of the same code. Otherwise, it wouldn't conform to the norm, and would be broken, right? :-)

Wrong. Next question?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

Considering that the BSD network stack is pretty much THE reference, whatever you code has to stay compatible with it. So you're going to need to copy ALL the BSD constants, and ALL the BSD typedefs, and you had better make sure that you implement the exact same API. Otherwise, you won't have something that complies with the standard - and it won't work. So, tell us, how are you going to write something that complies with the standard without those constants, typedefs, and api? Magic? Time machine? Million Monkeys?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[drsmithy]

The proper way to implement this was to use a native (non-Windows) file system, and let people transfer their files using wifi or a $3 mini/micro usb cable.

WiFi - apart from the performance constraints - means running something like Samba on the phone to share files, which brings with it a whole bunch of other problems that need to be addressed.

A USB cable wouldn't make any difference since the phone still needs to present a block device in a format Windows understands (so a FAT variant or NTFS). Once you're at that point, there's no reason NOT to just format the SD card natively to that same filesystem.

A FAT license is clearly the best engineering decision once you actually spend more than a second's knee-jerk analysis.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Guy Harris]

Considering that the BSD network stack is pretty much THE reference, whatever you code has to stay compatible with it.

"Compatible" at the API level or "compatible" at the network level? ("Compatible" at the API level is irrelevant, as it's not going to happen; PE is not a.out or ELF.)

So you're going to need to copy ALL the BSD constants,

No, you're not. Nobody's going to give a damn about AF_DATAKIT/PF_DATAKIT, for example. You're only going to have to copy the names of the ones that matter, namely AF_INET and AF_INET6.

and ALL the BSD typedefs,

Again, you'll only have to copy the ones used in socket calls.

So, tell us, how are you going to write something that complies with the standard without those constants, typedefs, and api? Magic? Time machine? Million Monkeys?

So, tell us, how are you going to write something that complies with various UN*X standards without using the code of an existing implementation?

As indicated, you don't have to copy the exact definitions of the constants; even the existing *BSDs don't all have the same numerical value for AF_INET6 (28 in FreeBSD and DragonFly BSD and 24 in NetBSD and OpenBSD; it's 30 in Mac OS X and presumably iOS).

In any case, even if they copied and pasted some typedef calls, that, in and of itself, doesn't mean that it's derived from the BSD code in any interesting way.

As for the "api", an API isn't code, it's documentation. There are a number of cases where multiple implementations of an API exist without sharing code. (You may have heard of some software called "the Linux kernel" and "the GNU C library" - and those APIs include more than the socket calls, so arguing that the Linux networking code may have been in part based on the BSD socket code is insufficient to dismiss those examples.)

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[rtfa-troll]

Even from your own point of view, you should be able to see, that instead of discussing what's good about FreeBSD, the entire discussion has been redirected into a more boring rehash of the GPL arguments that are had on Slashdot regularly. There's some value to that; it might even be worth a separate posting; but if people get the impression that FreeBSD is all about licensing then, to be frank that's a negative for quite a few of them.

bonch had his post fully formed at the time the article was put up. This is clearly the main thing he has to say about FreeBSD. The thing which, from his point of view, is most important that we discuss. Do you really think that is because he's interested in FreeBSD? Have you considered that perhaps he sees FreeBSD as a competitor and would rather that it's launch discussion is designed to put off people who are using Linux in the hope that they try one of his employer's operating systems?

Personally, I think it would do lots of Linux people a whole load of good to learn more about *BSD, especially OpenBSD. However, they aren't going to do that if FreeBSD is defined by a bunch of people who are running an extremely negative agenda with little positive. Even if your main thing in life is hatred of the FSF and pushing FreeBSD is a means to that end, I think you can see that tonch is trolling in order to misdirect the conversation and supporting him is against your interests.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Guy Harris]

It's not about the license itself, but the underlying code. BSD == A T & T == lots of patents.

[Citation needed]. The AT&T lawsuit was about copyrights, not patents; see the settlement of the lawsuite. The only patent I know of is the set-UID patent, which AT&T donated to the public.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Guy Harris]

For one, it would have saved on the file system patents - zfs (as just one example) is not covered by microsoft patents.

Neither are extN (or,, for that matter, UFS). VFAT*, however, is, regardless of whether it's implemented by BSD code or Linux code or..... I'm not sure whether "FAT classic"; if not, and if the SD cards just use Boring Old FAT Classic (8.3 names and all), you might be able to avoid those patents.

You won't be able to, because they all signed NDAs as part of the deal, but we know that the file system is one area - memory is another,

"Memory" in what sense? Are you asserting that there are some memory management algorithms that Microsoft have patented, and that Linux is violating those patents but...

and BSD doesn't use the same algorithms.

...BSD isn't? If so, well, [citation needed].

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[lordholm]

Not anymore...

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

OK, name a protocol that has started out GPL, and become used anywhere outside of Linux?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[B2382F29]

I can't think how often I hear this stupid FUD.
The GPL can NOT force you to open your source, this is complete and utter Bullshit.
If you don't adhere to the terms of the GPL, you don't have a license to use the code, simple as that.
This means there is NO difference whether you use GPL code without adhering to the terms or whether you use someone else's proprietary code.
In both cases you are liable for damages. In one case you have the ADDITIONAL possibility to get compliant by releasing your source as GPL. But you still can do the same thing as with proprietary code, i.e. replacing the code that you "stole" with your own code.

NEITHER does prevent you from being liable for damages by having used the code, it is just that most GPL developers don't sue for damages.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[eugene_roux]

Or maybe, because the rest of us lose out on the 90% they would have given back?

Which, strangely enough, also sounds like an aggravated sense of entitlement...

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Um. If the original TCP/IP stack was GPLed (rather than a reference implementation being available under a BSD license), TCP/IP would not have taken off and we would not have the internet we have today. BECAUSE people could take the BSD tcp/ip stack and port it quite simply to their OS, it became a standard.

Well, be that as it may, the FSF recognizes this situation, that's why the wrote the LGPL (lesser/library GPL).

And the GPL doesn't seem to have hurt, e.g. the GCC, GDB, Linux, or a host of other projects uptake.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[dwindura]

What does licensing have anything to do with promoting standard? If the original TCP/IP stack was GPLed, people will still able to write the code from scratch using the TCP/IP standard.
Look at Linux, does it use the BSD'ed TCP/IP stack. Nope, it was written from scratch. It does not need to copy the BSD'ed TCP/IP stack. If Linux can do it, then other people should be able to do the same (i.e.: if TCP/IP stack was GPL'ed, people still can create TCP/IP stack from scratch using whatever license they want, it's a bloody standard).

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MrHanky]

Whatever. It's not like Windows and Android can't transfer data over a network. You just failed at making a point.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[LizardKing]

There are also reports that the Sony's OS for the PlayStation 3 is based on FreeBSD.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[evilviper]

This means there is NO difference whether you use GPL code without adhering to the terms or whether you use someone else's proprietary code.

I explained, in detail, why this statement is utterly incorrect. You chose not to read it. Could it be the world isn't so much filled with "FUD" as it is the facts don't happen to agree with your dogma, EVERYONE ELSE MUST BE WRONG?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

Bad example - linux DID copy the BSD constants and typedefs. This is no secret. I guess you missed the whole "linux kernel headers" issue, as well as the "there's SCO code in linux" (that turned out to be code from BSD).

NEXT!

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MachineShedFred]

Two things:

1. All the legal issues between the Regents of the University of California (the copyright holders on BSD) and AT&T (copyright holders on UNIX System 5 at the time) had not been resolved in 1991 when Linus Torvalds wrote his first kernel, which he did to get around AT&T in the first place.

2. Linux became a mature OS right when the Internet was exploding, and received a massive amount of hype from the tech pubs; thus increased mindshare in the PHB crowd. What the PHBs get interested in flows down.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[wzzzzrd]

As noted in the release notes, FreeBSD 9.0 includes Clang/LLVM, the goal is to be rid of all GPL dependencies by version 10.0

While an honorable aim from their point of view, it strikes me as quite odd seeing one open source project coding a lot just to avoid using another open source project.

BTW, if it weren't for the viral GPL, we'd have no commercial open source worth speaking of. Seriously, without a serious and commercial operating system licensed under the GPL, the world would be a world with open source filling the niche that shareware once lived in. We'd be pretty much left with the 3 business models concerning software: Microsoft's, IBM's and Apple's.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Kjella]

There are reasons not to use GPL not having to do with modifying code, but simply running the code. E.g. GPL'd libraries.

Libraries are generally licensed under the LGPL.

[[citation needed]] The LGPL serve a specific purpose for libraries that want to be GPL internally but allow linking to proprietary software, but there are very many libraries that are GPL licensed. Either because the developers quite intentionally don't want it used in proprietary software, or practically because they wanted to reuse some GPL code from a non-library project. Even though the FSF made it they've also strongly encouraged people to license all their code as GPL, library or not.

Anyway, blame copyright law for any ambiguity here. If you are creating a derivative work, the GPL applies. If you are merely using it without creating a derivative work, the GPL does not apply. It's a wonder the GPL has existed for 20 years and yet it seems nobody can give a straight answer on what exactly a derivative work is when it comes to computer software. Or maybe it's just that nobody wants to push that particular issue in court.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

This is a discussion that needs to be had, over and over, until the reality sinks in. Personally, I don't care if people use FreeBSD or Menuet something they cobbled together after a month of beer-and-pizza-fueled keyboard-bashing.

The reality is that there are patent trolls out there, they've got money and influence. Microsoft is one of them, obviously, and the "Linux Tax" that most of the device manufacturers make it clear that there's the threat of an additional cost down the road to anyone and everyone who uses Linux.

Microsoft can't make the same claims against BSD because those claims would be "tolled" by the passage of time. It's why Microsoft made all that noise early on about their IP being in Linux - to preserve the right to sue.

Copying BSD code to "make good" any affected portions isn't the solution, because the BSD license only grants the right to copy the code - the "patent shelter" doesn't go along for the ride, any more than your acquired right to use a path on private property after years of doing so doesn't extent to anyone else. So there's a problem, and the GPL doesn't protect against it. Neither does the BSD license - BUT the BSD history does. The exact same (hypothetical) code, with the same (hypothetical) patent infringements, can exist in both, but it's simply too late for Microsoft to even try to make a claim over any hypothetical 10-year-old code when they have remained silent about it for so long.

What they couldn't do via SCO, they've succeeded in doing directly. Most analysts believe they're making more profit off of their "Linux Licenses" for Android than they are off of selling WP7 licenses, and it's only going to get worse.

It certainly doesn't make me happy - to the contrary, I wish that software patents, and those who support them, would just DIAF. But that's not the world we live in, and we have two choices - ignore the problem, or address it. If you have a better solution, preferably one that doesn't involve either an armed insurrection or cameras and sheep, I'm sure LG, Samsung, HTC, etc., would like to hear it. So would I.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

The whole thing about BSD is that Microsoft cannot make a claim against it because of the passage of time. Speaking hypothetically, there could be old BSD code that infringes Microsoft IP the exact same way that Linux apparently does (because LG, Samsung, HTC, etc. are paying hundreds of millions of dollars for *something*), but BSD is immune from those claims. Nothing to do with licensing, everything to do with the simple passage of time and Microsoft not making any public statements about possible BSD infringement - unlike how they've been moaning and groaning for more than a decade about Linux, so their right to sue was not "tolled" by the passage of time in the case of Tux.

Even direct copying of the BSD code into Linux would not give it shelter, the same way that your acquired right to walk on someone elses' private property doesn't extend to 3rd parties. This is a problem that could be fixed by the device manufacturers (and google) switching to BSD as the base. Why doesn't Google? Simple - Microsoft isn't putting any pressure on THEM - after all, as long as Microsoft can continue to collect hundreds of millions of dollars a year in the form of a "Linux Tax" on Android, why should they kill the goose that lays the golden patent troll $$$?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

The interesting part is that even if BSD *were* in violation of the same patents, it's immune due to the passage of time and Microsofts' failure to assert a claim.

So, you could have the exact same code in both BSD and Linux from 10 years ago. Microsoft has been b*****ing about it for more than a decade, but only wrt Linux. So, they can "tax" Linux users (like they're doing with Android), but they can't "tax" BSD users, with the exact same code and the exact same patents in play.

It's not even a question of BSD license or GPL - just which one Microsoft publicly targeted because they saw it as a threat to their business.

So, switching to BSD would give shelter from the "Linux Tax" on devices, but Google is certainly in no hurry to do so, because Microsoft isn't asking them for $$$. Google's real stake is in advertising - that the device manufacturers have to pay Microsoft isn't their problem.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Kjella]

Protocols don't have licenses, implementations do. I can't really think of a protocol, but the whole OpenDocument standard which has been adopted by some BSD and proprietary software grew out of OpenOffice.org, which was LGPL licensed. So yes, you can go from *GPL only to becoming a widely implemented standard, but it's not going to happen as often as with a BSD reference implementation where you can just integrate it directly.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MightyYar]

Windows can't read ZFS, and neither can any other popular desktop OS.

Apple gets away with selling a phone that needs a software install (iTunes) in order to talk to the computer. Not sure why LG or Samsung couldn't do the same.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[multi io]

A search for Microsoft Linux Tax finds the majority of mobile manufacturers paying Microsoft for a license to use Linux. A search for Microsoft BSD Tax or Microsoft Solaris Tax or Microsoft Plan9 Tax or Microsoft FreeDOS Tax? Nah.

Yeah, because the BSDs' marketshare is too small. When MS "taxes" other OS vendors with patent licenses, they earn money and potentially diminish the other OS's influence, but they also pay a political price. So they don't do it against vendors who are irrelevant.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[saleenS281]

Yes anymore. Just because the package doesn't come installed from the factory from Apple doesn't mean it isn't actively being developed and supported.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

I hate to break it to you, but the number of people who use OpenDocument is insignificant.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[fyonn]

HFS+

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MrHanky]

Samsung's and LG's priority is selling phones, avoiding Microsoft patent fees comes somewhat lower on the list. If two Android phones are equal except for removable storage, then the one with removable storage is the one people will buy (it's cheap upgradability). For Samsung and LG, it makes business sense to pay. Even with Microsoft's fees, Android phones tend to have far better hardware for the money than Windows phones (which is one reason why they sell more and allegedly make more money for Microsoft).

Apple can drop certain functionality because they own the whole platform. Same with Amazon and their Kindle: other ebook readers, which tend to use an Adobe DRM format, almost all have support for Micro-SDHC. For Amazon, it's better to give away some cloud storage to tie you to the platform.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

But who said anything about a protocol starting out as GPL? Did you even read the post I was replying to?

We're discussing the contributions of the BSD project, not the licenses. DARPA contracted with BBN and two other organizations to develop a TCP/IP stack for BSD, which then improved on it and was therefore chosen as the reference implementations.

As far as I can see, if the BSD project hadn't existed, DARPA would still have contracted with BBN to develop TCP/IP, it would still make it the default protocol on DARPANET, which would still compel Linux and Microsoft to develop their compatible versions.

BSD helped, but saying the Internet wouldn't exist without it is completely far-fetched.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tokul]

preventing cooperation between free and proprietary software sectors

What kind of cooperation you are talking about? Taking something without giving back is not called cooperation. It is called leeching or parasitism.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MightyYar]

I'm not criticizing LG or Samsung's business and marketing decisions - just pointing out that using an alternative filesystem isn't completely absurd.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

The facts are simple:

1. Device manufacturers are ostensibly paying "protection money" for Linux

2. Android is under a separate (and mostly bogus) attack by Oracle. Microsoft can NOT "license" Android without taking on liability for those licenses if Oracle succeeds, and while we might make fun of how stupid Microsoft can be, even they are not *that* stupid ... though that would be a fun one to watch ...

How long before they go to large data centers and say "nice operation you have there ... pay us a license or die"?

Whatever the patents are, they mostly only have a few years (5 or so) to run, so I expect them to make their next move some time in the next year or two before they expire.

Maybe they never will do it - but if they do, that's a heck of a lot of money in play to wring some extra bucks out of some older technology, and maybe more importantly, tie up a competitor in more legal battles. Having tasted the "free money" from the Linux devices tax, they're going to want more, so it's a reasonable bet they'll try to do everything that their proxy SCO tried, now that they've got the kinks worked out.

Rather than screaming how "it ain't ever gonna happen" (just like I used to believe that Microsoft would never be able to "tax" linux - looks like I wasn't the only one who got that wrong), maybe it's time to work harder against software patents, and also CYA by being ready to switch OS? And in the meantime, all other things being equal, if you're developing a new product from scratch, which OS would be the safer bet to avoid being shark bait?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[danbob999]

There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.

Of course. And that reason is that they wanted to keep OS X a proprietary OS.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[danbob999]

If you don't want to use FAT you can use EXT4. ZFS has some advantages but these are not really important for SD cards.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[danbob999]

Apple gets away with selling a phone that needs a software install (iTunes) in order to talk to the computer. Not sure why LG or Samsung couldn't do the same.

You just described why I didn't buy an Apple phone. Having to install iTunes just to transfer files from phone to PC sucks.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

Repeat after me "Android is NOT an OS or Linux". Say it 10, 20, 100 times - however long it takes. The two are completely separate issues.

Also, wrt BSD as a "safe haven" because of laches; it's not just to the people who had a copy at the time. That would be an end run around the whole doctrine of laches. It's not the *owners* of copies f BSD, but BSD itself, that is okay.

Microsoft simply waited too long to sue over BSD, so unless someone breaks the silence over WHAT patents are involved, we'll never know if they're also in BSD or not, but it's irrelevant in either case.

Smart people would look at this as an opportunity. Dalvek was a hack job - google has said that the whole idea was to get something that was quick to market and that people could easily write code for. If they have half a brain (I'm sure they do), they'll be working on a new version that doesn't use dalvek, to get better performance and battery life, because that will keep costs and weight down (smaller batteries while still getting longer running time and better performance - and that's become a real differentiator.).

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

The *can't* do it against BSD because of the doctrine of laches. They *can* do it against Linux because they have been whining loudly for more than a decade, so there's no similar "they slept on their rights" argument, as there is with BSD. And they can't claim ignorance of BSD, since they openly used BSD code themselves.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[causality]

Doesn't the fact that most libraries allow for mingling with proprietary code mean that the purported success of the GPL is just a chronic brain fart Linooxers keep having?

No, it means the general philosophy of GPL is to maximize the freedoms of developers and users, including their freedom to run proprietary code if that's what they feel like doing. Isn't that better than saying there is only One True Way(tm) and anyone who does not conform is some kind of heretic? I think so, but then I'm not a zealot. I think the GPL is wonderful, a real blessing that has enriched my experience, but I wouldn't dream of telling someone else what they should use.

To give you one example for whatever that is worth ... in practice, the only proprietary code running on my own systems is the Nvidia graphics driver (though I could use Open Source'ed Nouveau) and a couple of Windows video games I use via Wine. Nothing essential for the system or for getting my work done depends on proprietary code, though there's no reason why someone else's system couldn't be otherwise.

You GPL defenders contradict yourselves every time... On the one hand it's touted as evidence for the sheer power of the GPL that Google uses GPLed software. OTOH, you don't seem to have a beef with the fact that they keep the source changes as their own, not releasing it. But if it were BSDed software, that might happen, and then it would be proof of sheer Evil Incarnate. WTF.

Honestly, unless Google sends jack-booted thugs to my door who wave guns around and say "do things our way, or else" then I really don't care what Google does with computers owned by Google and operated by Google. If I have a big problem with Google, my option is to not use their products and services. They otherwise don't need my personal approval and nor should they.

You have to understand one thing or you're going to keep making the same error. When you write to me quoting my words, you are dealing with me. I am an individual, not some nebulous composite of what other people said. I don't go around touting Google's actions as some kind of victory for GPL. If GPL software benefits Google, good for them. If not, I hope they find something else that works. Is this something I worry about in my life? No.

Having said that ... Google is fully compliant with the GPL because Google is keeping their modifications in-house. They are not distributing them. I cannot go download the binaries from a public repository. Under the GPL, Google is therefore under no obligation to provide their source. If Google wants to release source, that's mighty nice of them. If they choose not to, that's okay too. The only thing I expect is that they comply with whatever license they choose to use. As I know, they are. So, what would I complain about, exactly? Hypothetical what-ifs and could-have-beens? Please. That's just silly.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

Actually, there were many reasons:

1. The linux api was too much of a moving target;
2. BSD was more stable;
3. Unlike the Linux world, about 3/4 of the BSDs are using FreeBSD, so there's a "standard" as to what a BSD should look like, unlike the mess that continues with the various linux distros moving stuff all over the place;
4. The ports system makes more sense. Major upgrades are far less likely to leave you with a hosed box or other problems;
5. The FreeBSD developers were willing to be paid to work on Darwin, and in return, a lot of that code got plugged back into FreeBSD because it's easier to have the original developers continue to maintain it rather than keep a separate fork alive.

That the end product can be shipped without source is icing on the cake. Everything else being equal (for example, if Linux was dual-licensed w. both GPL and BSD), Linux would still not have made the cut, for the above reasons.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MightyYar]

I meant that they seem to be doing well in the market despite this extra step, not that every person would be happy with it.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[FooBarWidget]

Your web browser speaks HTTP. However an operating system reading the contents of a mobile device involves treating it as a block device. There is no commonly-used high-level file access protocol over USB. Unless the device can emulate an FAT filesystem over a block device interface (is this even possible without huge amounts of resources?) the device's filesystem has to be formatted as FAT.

The alternative is to create your own file access protocol and force the user to install a custom application that speaks this protocol, e.g. how iTunes interfaces with the iPad/iPhone. This really, really sucks, you now have to install iTunes everywhere.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[FooBarWidget]

Heck, "mission critical" is overrated. Some ATMs run Windows!

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

However an operating system reading the contents of a mobile device involves treating it as a block device

Flash memory devices don't give direct access to the filesystem - their actual block size is usually WAY larger than what they present to the host system. You're not really formatting it a block at a time (host systems' concept of a block), or writing to it a block at a time (again, host systems' concept of a block).

The underlying file system can be anything - even just a large chunk of battery-backed ram, where "block size" is meaningless at the hardware level.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[FooBarWidget]

I believe his point was that BSD'ed code promotes standards by allowing anybody to easily incorporate the code. Suppose that the original TCP/IP stack was GPL'ed. Others could still have written their own TCP/IP stack, but would they have bothered to do that or would they just have invented their own proprietary standards instead of bothering with TCP/IP at all? BSD'ing the code makes TCP/IP the path of least resistance.

I don't necessarily agree with this point of view but I can see the reasoning.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[FooBarWidget]

He isn't. He's complaining about people's apparent false sense of entitlement. Avoiding GPL is perfectly acceptable. Avoiding GPL *and complaining that GPL has harmed you* displays a false sense of entitlement.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[minor_deity]

ZFS would not have made an iota of difference as the filesystem patents in question cover technologies (har.) used by FAT, which is implemented by Android because FAT is the defacto standard for removable drives/SD cards.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[jbolden]

There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.

Yeah the reason was that NeXT was founded in 1985, the very first Linux was released in 1991. And some ideas were taken from Apple Lisa, where design started in 1978.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[jbolden]

The issue is whether they used not why didn't they use it. Asserting that you can't think of a good reason is not proof they didn't, especially when they were very explicit they did a complete rewrite.

And the reason they rewrote it for Vista from scratch is that Microsoft has created certain intermediate layers in their networking stack that offer features which are Windows specific. For example an advanced exception handling mechanism which goes beyond standard TCP/IP

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[jbolden]

Almost all the protocols predate the GPL and certainly predate the rise of open source. This might be a better question in 20 years. But...

WebDAV is the big one. Gnutella is a less important one.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Guy Harris]

Bad example - linux DID copy the BSD constants and typedefs. This is no secret.

To which "BSD constants and typedefs" are you referring? They certainly had their own #defines for various UN*X constants, because they wanted to be UN*X-compatible. The numerical values for some of them differ from instruction set architecture to instruction set architecture (meaning that they can't have duplicated the BSD values for those on all platforms), presumably because they wanted to provide binary compatibility with at least some programs from a "native" operating system on the platforms in question, e.g. SunOS 5.x on SPARC, Digital/Tru64 UNIX on Alpha, etc..

As for typedefs, they do have typedefs in, for example, the 1.3.10 linux/types.h for both the BSD and System V unsigned integral values, but, again, defining some constants and typedefs that are used in a given API in order to implement that API doesn't mean you have to use the code that implements that API in your own implementation (if that were true, the Regents of the University of California would have lost the AT&T lawsuit...).

I guess you missed the whole "linux kernel headers" issue,

To which "linux kernel headers" issue are you referring? The one about the Android C library headers being derived from the Linux kernel headers and the question about whether copying them into a BSD-licensed library violated the GPL?

as well as the "there's SCO code in linux" (that turned out to be code from BSD).

Erm, no. There were several bits of SCO code that SCO asserted were in Linux. In one slide they showed the BPF interpreter and claimed it was copied from SCO; in fact, Linux has a clean-room implementation of the BPF interpreter (and originally had no BPF interpreter), not copied from the BSD interpreter, so Linux didn't have a copy of the BPF interpreter from BSD (unlike SCO Unix), it had its own independent implementation. However, that was not the only bit of SCO code they claimed was in Linux; they also claimed, for example, that some allocation routines that date back to old AT&T Unix - older versions of BSD happened to have it because they were derived from AT&T Unix, and code that implemented read-copy-update (which originally came from Sequent's Dynix, not from BSD). Go read Bruce Perens' analysis of SCO's slide show for details.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[FooBarWidget]

Uh, yeah, so? My point is that the filesystem installed on the device is what the OS sees and your post says nothing to refute that assertion. Your flash device is not going to emulate an FAT filesystem when there is in fact an ext2 filesystem on it.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[jbolden]

And it happened at exactly the wrong time, when i386 systems were growing in popularity, and people wanted some Unix-like OS to run on it, and really wanted it for free.

Not really. If you look at the usage totals during those crucial years they weren't very high. That is not and was not a dominant marketshare. The issue was simple, the early adopters of Linux were from two groups:

a) Solaris users, who knew Sys-V
b) Windows power users that required lots of hand holding and education.

The BSD community wasn't interested in supporting either of those communities.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[danbob999]

Apple forked BSD, so they don't care about #1. And it's not as if OS X was to FreeBSD as Ubuntu was to Debian. OS X do not update itself to the latest freeBSD unstable on each release. It was forked once and for good. That do not mean that there is no longer some code sharing but it requires porting.
#2 is the same thing as #1 if I undertstand it right
#3 do not matter to Apple at all since they never intended to make a standard BSD or a standard Linux.
#4 do not matter either as Apple do not use the BSD port system

So only point #5 is valid. And even then, many developpers are paid by corporations to work on both linux and their proprietary stuff, so it can be done too.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[VortexCortex]

Software is not the protocol it implements. Otherwise, it wouldn't be patentable now would it?

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[danbob999]

most people are not aware of that extra step however

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MightyYar]

Yeah, actually "most people" seem to not want to ever connect the two devices at all!

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[B2382F29]

Wow, either you really don't understand the GPL at all, or you are a shill.
It's not a dogma, it's just basic copyright.
Without license (i.e. if you do not adhere to the GPL), the issue becomes just a copyright issue.

Your comment:
"With GPL'd code, this doesn't work. If it's a small, one-man project, you can try negotiating a license, and probably get one. But if that one-man is an RMS-esque extremist, or if it's the work of multiple people, too many to possibly track down... No amount of money is enough to allow you to keep your copyright on your own code, likely with many millions of dollars invested in it..."

IS WRONG.

You are NOT obliged to release YOUR code, you are ONLY required to stop using (replacing) the non-licensed code (i.e. the portions of GPL code that you incorporated into your project without having a valid license).

Please explain how you think this differs from having other unlicensed (not-GPL) code in your project.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[evilviper]

Please explain how you think this differs from having other unlicensed (not-GPL) code in your project.

As I said: "re-negotiate the license"

Explain to me how I would go about negotiating a license to continue selling my proprietary product, which relies heavily on, say, the Linux kernel.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[evilviper]

Software is not the protocol it implements

Of course not. But when a protocol is just starting out, it's much, much easier to port some code, than to completely rewrite it for your platform. Microsoft certainly had the money to write their own implementation, yet they just dropped-in the whole BSD TCP/IP stack. Everyone loves free code, and free code is how protocols get their feet in the door.

Go ahead... PROVE ME WRONG. Name a protocol that's now very popular, that was based on some GPL'd software. Things like rsync might have gotten far more traction (directly replacing FTP perhaps?) if only they'd had a freer license. Of course we'll never know, but I have yet to hear a solid counter example.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[danbob999]

And yet, they will carry an extra USB key to be able to move their files around.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[Fri13]

Sorry, meant to say the company what started Android.

And Tizen use Linux as its operating system, so it is not different.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[B2382F29]

You are as free to renegotiate with the authors whether they use GPL or any other license.

What you are talking about is not about the license but about having more that a single code owner which is a valid point but has nothing to do with the GPL.

The same thing could also be said about BSD (or any other license apart from the code being public domain). If you want to use the code without attribution, you will also have to renegotiate which might prove as difficult as renegotiating the Linux kernel license.

Additionally the example of the Linux kernel is intellectually dishonest.
Normally you don't create derivative works from the kernel but you use it to run your program, which does not make it a derivative work.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[evilviper]

Normally you don't create derivative works from the kernel but you use it to run your program, which does not make it a derivative work.

"Normally" people don't write code at all. So your statements, while maybe technically correct in their exceedingly narrow scope, are the intellectually dishonest ones.

One word: Modules.
Second word: Android

The same thing could also be said about BSD (or any other license apart from the code being public domain). If you want to use the code without attribution, you will also have to renegotiate which might prove as difficult as renegotiating the Linux kernel license.

No, because "attribution" is an absolutely trivial requirement. Throwing in a one-line attribution won't make a software company go out of business.

As far as I can tell, you can't argue with my original statement, and do understand and agree that open source projects with "onerous" copyleft licenses are a big problem for companies. The only takeaway I got from this thread appears to be that you more or less just don't want me to SAY IT out loud.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

You missed my point on how many devices don't need to use the standard because their storage is either not removable, or very hard to remove, so that people transfer their data via other methods than physically moving the chip from one device to another (and that this can be done for everyone).

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

#3 was very important, as they were shooting for, and received UNIX certification.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[MightyYar]

LOL, are you sure you are talking about "most people"? I only know students and fellow geeks that do that! (Actually, I haven't carried one around since I started using DropBox.)

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[B2382F29]

"Normally" people don't write code at all.

Yeah, also "normally" people don't invest millions in code without checking the basic license of the code that they "steal". I would say when we ARE talking about the context of code dependencies we could limit the term "normally" to relate to the aforementioned context, wouldn't you agree?

No, because "attribution" is an absolutely trivial requirement.

So we are talking about a sliding scale of difficulty to resolve the issue that code was taken without proper permission. What about if you are a small startup that is making a competing product to let's say Microsoft or Apple. That company invested millions in dollars into some software that just copy+pasted Microsoft's or Apple's code. Do you really think they would be easier negotiate with or more likely just say flat out "NO".

The only takeaway I got from this thread appears to be that you more or less just don't want me to SAY IT out loud.

And all I can take away from this discussion is somebody whining about how companies have to adhere to the license terms. Guess what champ, they also have to do this with any other license.

Again, your orignal statement about having to release the sourcecode is FUD. A company that does invest millions into something illegal (steal code) just did a bad investment. "Resolving" the issue might require money, maybe millions, maybe more than you invested, maybe it's not psosible at all, depending on the person holding the copyright .

Your argument was that with enough money you can make the problem go away. This is only true if the code owner agrees which is not guaranteed.

As far as I can tell, you can't argue with my original statement, and do understand and agree that open source projects with "onerous" copyleft licenses are a big problem for companies. The only takeaway I got from this thread appears to be that you more or less just don't want me to SAY IT out loud.

BZZZZZZ. WRONG. I agree that the "money throwing" resolution is more difficult depending on the NUMBER OF CODE OWNERS. Which again does have nothing to do with the license. If some code with a proprietary license has 5000 code contributors you have EXACTLY the same problem, on the other hand you then don't even have the potential solution of releasing your code. THIS is the thing I don't want people to LIE about. Saying that you have to release your code is a flat out lie and I don't care what you personally think but I don't want other people to become misinformed due to people like you running around spreading FUD about licensing terms.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[badkarmadayaccount]

MTP would like to have a word with you.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

The fact is that the constant and variable names, as well as the api, had to be the same - you can't just make up your own magic numbers from scratch. If you did, it would not be the same protocol. That dictates a LOT of how you're going to implement the code. Things like buffer sizes, time delays, etc., as well as the overall flow of your program logic. If you knew the first thing about software development you would realize that function dictates form.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[TheRaven64]

It's not a sense of entitlement, it's a desire to reach a situation where everyone receives the maximum benefit. Here's a concrete example for you:

I write a lot of Objective-C code that runs on a variety of platforms (developed on FreeBSD, but it runs on Linux, apparently someone uses some of it on Solaris, and so on). I want a decent Objective-C compiler. Apple also wants a decent Objective-C compiler, and they want to be able to reuse the parser in their (proprietary) IDE and a few other tools.

Apple was shipping GCC as their compiler, but the GPL meant that they couldn't use the parser for syntax highlighting or refactoring tools in their IDE without having to GPL the whole thing. So they started working on a new front end which they released under a BSD-like license and I contributed quite a few improvements and bug fixes. Apple got a few days worth of free work out of me, I got a few man-years of free work out of them. Both of us benefitted. They can keep their IDE proprietary, and I can use a high-quality Objective-C compiler on FreeBSD.

The GPL meant that they couldn't use the code as they wanted, so their only choice was to rewrite it completely. Note that this isn't limited to proprietary software: GPLv2 is incompatible with things like the Apache and Mozilla licenses, so if you want to use a library under one of these then you can't use GPLv2 code. GPLv3 comes with some patent licensing clauses that mean that a lot of companies won't let it in the door.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[TheRaven64]

By writing more GPL software, we are pushing companies to write more proprietary software that duplicates functionality and for which they will file for patents.

And you're encouraging the idea that Free Software is an all or nothing proposition. With the GPL, a company has the choice of releasing everything or releasing nothing. With permissively licensed code, they can easily contribute things that are not directly related to their core business and keep other things proprietary. Once they've done this, it's easier to encourage them to gradually expand the the set of things that they are releasing.

Personally, I would rather a company be encouraged to release some of its code back to the community than they be encouraged to keep everything proprietary.

I should probably add the disclaimer that I am the author of the wiki page that the original poster in this thread cited...

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[TheRaven64]

The only problem is that the GPLv3 closed "loopholes" that previously allowed appliance manufacturers to ship FreeBSD-based boxes as-is under the GPLv2

Actually, a lot of downstream people didn't like GPLv2 either, but there were no feasible alternatives for a lot of things available 5 years ago. The new patent clauses in GPLv3 mean a lot of companies won't let it in the door, in case they end up accidentally giving out a free license to all of their patents by distributing some GPLv3 code (imagine how fucked one of the companies involved in the current mobile phone patent war would have been if they'd distributed GPLv3 code and lost their defensive portfolio as a result).

they're sticking to the GPLv2 for every software in the base system

FreeBSD has not imported any GPLv3 code into the base system. FreeBSD 10 aims to remove all of the GPLv2 code as well.

As a user and if I were to complain, I'd say that it's regrettable that some developers are required to do some NIH work instead of improving or adding features just because of license wars

It is unfortunate, but it also has some advantages. A lot of the GPL'd code in base is, quite frankly, crap. The fact that it's EOL'd upstream means that there is now a solid justification for a complete rewrite. For example, clang is a lot more modular than gcc. When I was implementing the new reentrant locale functions in FreeBSD libc, I wrote a little tool using the clang libraries checked that none of the reentrant functions called any non-reentrant functions or accessed any mutable shared state. This was about 100 lines of code with clang, but would have been insanely hard with gcc. The new STL implementation, libc++, provides C++11 support and, more interestingly, is written in C++11 and so can use things like r-value references internally for better performance (or to avoid needing ugly hacks to emulate them). Since it's written from scratch for modern platforms, it's optimised for the performance characteristics of modern platforms, while GNU libstdc++ is optimised for the hardware that was around 10-20 years ago.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[TheRaven64]

BSD people WANT PEOPLE to take their code and use it for commercial development

I wouldn't say that. I don't want people to take my code and use it in commercial development - I just don't care if they do. I do, however, want people to contribute bug fixes (or even bug reports with helpful test cases) for my code, and ideally new features. The more people using my code, the more likely it is that some people will do this. If people can use it without having to open everything that they're doing, then they're more likely to use it, and it's generally easier for them to contribute changes back than maintain a fork. People who take the code and contribute nothing back are totally irrelevant to me: there is no difference to me whether someone uses my code and gives nothing back or writes a proprietary replacement, except that in the former case they are more likely to pay for my services as a programmer at some later point.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[TheRaven64]

You keep posting that Wikipedia link, but you really should look up what the doctrine of latches actually says in patent law. Simply put, it means that you can't claim any damages that occurred between first discovering infringement and notifying the infringing party. You can, for example, file a patent, see someone start to infringe, wait for 10 years as they grow in market share, and then sue them and require payment for every subsequent device that they sell. What you can't do is claim damages from this ten year period.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[TheRaven64]

you could try building Darwin from source, and get the drivers you need for your hardware

Last time I checked, the entire sound subsystem on OS X was proprietary. I suppose you might be able to port OSS to XNU, but until then you'd have an OS with no audio.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[TheRaven64]

Apple sells a proprietary software stack. Apple developers have contributed over 200,000 lines of code to LLVM / Clang and related projects. Developers at companies like Adobe have also contributed code. This is what we call cooperation in the BSD community. Sure, it's not the same sort of cooperation as companies enjoy with the the GPL community, where they are berated if they keep a single line of code proprietary until they eventually give up and move to a 100% proprietary stack, but we like it.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[zidium]

Um not since the patent law was changed in late 2011!

Now it's first to file, bud.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[tomhudson]

And you should look up the precedents, that make it clear that they can't even do so going forward if the purposefully ignored the issues for a decade so as to try to increase their potential windfall - it's called the "doctrine of unclean hands" for a reason, and why "submarine patents" usually fail.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[zidium]

The GPL harms the overall free software movement by attempting to be a morality license that requires it to be viral and 100% complete.

By doing so it alienates people who want to hold on to their own valuable code *and* prohibits them from sharing *any* changes they make to said code. It also stifles creativity, as the economic benefit from writing GPLed code is near zero (by design), and estranges the greater population of expert software engineers from the open source society.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[zidium]

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[evilviper]

If some code with a proprietary license has 5000 code contributors you have EXACTLY the same problem

Okay, point me to ONE proprietary-license product which has 5,000 independent license-holders. Said product also needs to make source code available reasonably easily.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

FYI: Linux originally had a port of the BSD tcp/ip stack.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[jimi1x]

lol - too true

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[zidium]

Corporations love the GPL because it looks like it's freely available code when in reality it's the HIV of software licenses...

If you ever get intimately familiar with the code, you'll find all your children (derivative works) are infected, and if you distribute their compiled works without giving away your entire intellectual property for free, you'll find yourself killed off in the courts by FSF fanatics.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[GreatBunzinni]

For a headsup, the bonch account and Overly Critical Guy accounts are sockpuppets operated by the same organization. See this post and a previous post I've made here for evidence that these user accounts are used to push the same script, sometimes even copy/paste versions of it.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[GreatBunzinni]

For a headsup, the bonch account and Overly Critical Guy accounts are sockpuppets operated by the same organization. See this post and a previous post I've made here for evidence that these user accounts are used to push the same script, sometimes even copy/paste versions of it.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

By protocol starting out GPL, i mean its reference implementation.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[smash]

I suspect you'll find that most of them started out based on the BSD reference implementation. Linux itself started out with a BSD-derived TCP/IP stack.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

None of that contradicts my point. Did you read my previous post? tomhudson was claming the Internet wouldn't exist without BSD. My point is that while BSD did make an excellent contribution - improving BBN's stack under a free license - that doesn't mean that we wouldn't have the Internet otherwise.

Just like the fact that FreeBSD benefited from having gcc for years doesn't mean it would have disappeared without it.

Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[icebraining]

But why the dichotomy between BSD and GPL? Are there no other licenses? Or even Public Domain?

DARPA wanted TCP/IP to become the standard, and that's why they contracted with three organizations to develop implementions (including BBN's which eventually became BSD's). Why would they chose GPL even if the BSD license didn't exist?

Dennis Ritchie

[ShanghaiBill]

The FreeBSD Project dedicates the FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE to the memory of Dennis M. Ritchie, one of the founding fathers of the UNIX operating system. It is on the foundation laid by the work of visionaries like Dennis that software like the FreeBSD operating system came to be. The fact that his work of so many years ago continues to influence new design decisions to this very day speaks for the brilliant engineer that he was.

May he rest in peace.

Re:Dennis Ritchie

[muon-catalyzed]

more importantly, the creator of C language

+5 New stuff

[sgt scrub]

CCF for those of us that like flow based firewalls is a very nice addition. Cling and Clang are definitely nice to have. I'll have to read up on Capsicum. I can't tell if it is an enhancement to jails or a replacement.

Re:+5 New stuff

[carlhirsch]

Can you point to documentation on CCF? I'm not seeing reference to it on the FreeBSD wiki.

Re:+5 New stuff

[sgt scrub]

Wow. Good question. Each of the modules has its own readme with info on how to implement it. Obviously, you no longer need to go through the build process if your using FreeBSD 9. I don't know of any new docs or a howto. Sorry. However, the info from each of the readme's on this post help. There should be more up to date readme files with FreeBSD 9 but I haven't checked.

Re:+5 New stuff

[TheRaven64]

I'll have to read up on Capsicum. I can't tell if it is an enhancement to jails or a replacement.

It's neither, it's an orthogonal system. It's also insanely easy for developers to use. You call cap_enter(), and from that point on you may not touch the filesystem except via file descriptors you already have open or are passed by another process. Your process is then sandboxed, as every interaction with things outside of a process in UNIX happen via file descriptors. If it has a file descriptor for a directory, then it can use open_at() and friends to open files in that directory, but it can't touch arbitrary parts of the FS. You can also use cap_new() to create a new file descriptor from an existing one that has reduced privileges (e.g. read-only), so it is pretty trivial for a lot of applications to have access to the small set of things that they need and nothing else.

One of the first applications to be modified to use Capsicum was Chromium. It took about 300 lines of code to make Chromium's sandboxing system use it, so each browser window runs with the absolute minimum of privilege that it needs. Various tools in the base system are being modified to use it, as are ports.

Re:woohoo

[meloneg]

When they give up on greater security out-of-the-box?

Memory Requirements

[AmberBlackCat]

Last week, I downloaded Fedora Core 16 and found that, for the first time, I was not able to update Linux on my Inspiron 8200. Because it has 512 megs of RAM and that install required more. Not sure why an installer requires 768 megabytes. So anyway, maybe that's a sign I should look at BSD.

Re:Memory Requirements

[halfaperson]

Maybe it's a sign that you should consider a new computer?

Re:Memory Requirements

[Fallingcow]

Fedora doesn't let you upgrade with a couple clicks or a quick shell command?

Re:Memory Requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. FreeBSD is not actually getting that much more bloated. (None of the BSD's are really I suppose). 486 with 24MB ram

Re:Memory Requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because Fedora 16 (the 'Core' was dropped a while back, btw) has a massive initial ramdisk system that simply doesn't work on older machines.

Re:Memory Requirements

[nzac]

How about another linux distro arch, debian and openSUSE still run on 512 or less.

Re:Memory Requirements

[AmberBlackCat]

Well, I have a newer one but that one's running Windows. I've always thought of Linux as a way to install a modern operating system on older computers that couldn't handle the bloat of Windows.

Re:Memory Requirements

[AmberBlackCat]

Not that I know of. It listed Fedora 14 as an available update. Not 16. And I've always been leery about upgrades rather than completely new installs anyway.

Re:Memory Requirements

[AmberBlackCat]

I might give that a go. My first Linux distribution was Suse. But I still want to see what the big deal is about BSD sometime.

Re:Memory Requirements

[gtirloni]

You are living in the 90s.

This is 2012, everything is bloated.

Re:Memory Requirements

[sidthegeek]

It is a way to update older computers. You just aren't supposed to use the more mainstream distros to do that. Try Xubuntu or Lubuntu for a more preconfigured experience, or try a Gentoo or Arch for a barebones-at-first super-customizable experience.

Re:Memory Requirements

[Sancho]

I love FreeBSD, but there's one aspect that is pretty bloated: ZFS.

The recommendation is on the order of 2GB RAM for every 1TB of ZFS disk.

Re:Memory Requirements

[norpy]

Deduplication is a misunderstood feature in ZFS v21+; some users see it as a silver bullet for increasing capacity by reducing redundancies in data. Here are the author's (gcooper's) observations:

        There are some resources that suggest that one needs 2GB per TB of storage with deduplication [i] (in fact this is a misinterpretation of the text). In practice with FreeBSD, based on empirical testing and additional reading, it's closer to 5GB per TB.
        Using deduplication is slower than not running it.
        Deduplication [on 8.x/9.x at least] lies via stat(2) / statvfs(2); it reports the theoretical used space -- not the actual used space -- which can confuse scripts that look at df output, etc (TODO: find PR that mentions this).

It is only deduplication that needs that much memory. ZFS requires 512mb of kernel memory minimum, so it will run (not necessarily blazingly fast) on afairly humble system.

I have my fileserver running on 2gb ram and an Atom with 5 1tb disks in raidZ and never have any issues.

Re:Memory Requirements

[smash]

Installer probably needs 768meg for a RAM disk for a temp file system. However, my FreeBSD mail relay, handling email for 680 users typically runs with about 25mb of RAM active. (Its a VM, with 1gb allocated, but is way over spec).

Re:Memory Requirements

[smash]

Thats not really bloat, It uses ram/cpu for checksums/de-dup/compression and cache. Its by design. If you don't require/want those features, dont enable them/live wth slower i/o or run ufs.

Re:Memory Requirements

[smash]

Just go into bsd with an open mind and give it some time. it isn't linux and isnt designed to work like linux.

Re:Memory Requirements

[evilviper]

Last week, I downloaded Fedora Core 16 and found that, for the first time, I was not able to update Linux on my Inspiron 8200. Because it has 512 megs of RAM and that install required more. Not sure why an installer requires 768 megabytes. So anyway, maybe that's a sign I should look at BSD.

I have a Compaq 33MHz 486 laptop with a 140MB HDD. Came with 4MB RAM, IIRC, but I upgraded it with a 16MB module.

Smaller than a netbook, has DB-9 and parallel ports built-in. And much, much more importantly, it has a trackball on the right-hand side, making it an artifact of some supreme alien intelligence... from the future... which all other earthbound devices are inferior to.

Even old Linux distros take a long, long time to boot-up, and OpenBSD is slightly worse, taking a long time to get out of the kernel. But on FreeBSD, it flies. Boots-up quickly. OpenSSH runs just fine, but when things are scrolling quickly, you'll remember you're on a 486.

Re:Memory Requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

2GB RAM per TB HDD is only if you're running dedupe. I'm running 10TB with 4GB ram w/o dedup, but with compression on. No issues...fast and reliable.

Re:Memory Requirements

[archen]

I've got a similar firewall doing a fair amount of work and running at about 17mb. However that's apples to oranges with a desktop environment which can consume orders of magnitude more ram. If you're going to maintain a modern system on old hardware, you're going to have to get your hands dirty with an involved setup. That's always been true for FreeBSD or Linux.

Also, why are people talking about using ZFS on a desktop? Do people have too much RAM?

Re:Memory Requirements

[armanox]

What version are you currently on? I know that you can go from F14 to F16 (just did it on a Dell Latitude C400 (1.2GHz P3m, 1GB RAM)), but not sure how much farther back you can upgrade from.

Re:Memory Requirements

[TheRaven64]

FreeBSD vs Linux (unless you are using something like ZFS) probably won't see a huge difference in memory usage. Something like FireFox or OpenOffice will use a lot more memory than either kernel, and will use the same amount on either.

EC2 AMIs available

[cperciva]

FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE machine images for Amazon EC2 are available for m1.large and larger instance types: http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-on-ec2/

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1

[Narishma]

Does Gnome 3 even work on BSD? Doesn't it depend on some kind of Linux-only functionality or library? Or am I thinking of some other project?

Re:woohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

I used NetBSD and/or FreeBSD between 1995 and 2005 and Linux between 1996 and today. By around 2000 Linux was far from a basement project of amateur code, being built primarily by full time developers. The stability of the more mature distributions (go Debian!) matched or exceeded the BSDs, the latter fast losing any remaining technical advantages.

As to "no comments or documentation", you've just revealed that you haven't tried writing in kernel space for either. Linux has been superbly documented for those who, say, wish to write a device driver, while last I gave up on the BSDs it was still a matter of "copy existing code". This works excellently as long as you've decided to throw all engineering principles out of the window and don't understand the difference between stable interface and implementation dependence. Like I said, the BSDs have remained deliberately cliquish, like some stupid nerdish club: to contribute effectively you have to catch the eye of and be guided by existing team members, who will fill in the details for you.

Whenever Stallman irritates me, I remind myself of what freedom's really about: the particular license wording is only an implementation detail, and what is really required in principle is people who are prepared to be open and to share. The BSDs simply don't have this.

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1

[armanox]

I seem to remember the GNOME team saying they were dropping support for everything but Linux.

Re:woohoo

[Brian Feldman]

You had problems developing BSD kernel code and not Linux? That's amazing. What kind of driver or system call did you work on? I've never heard of anyone saying the Linux kernel APIs are more coherent. Ever.

FreeBSD & ZFS

[ThorGod]

What? A new FreeBSD release and no body talks about the ZFS features in the release? I don't memorize version numbers, but I know the ZFS system has updated significantly between 8.2 and 9.0. Deduplication is in there, now, for instance.

Granted, the new installer is one of the bigger changes. sysinstall...I'm happy to see you go!

Re:FreeBSD & ZFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Again: before ANYONE considers using dedup or compression on FreeBSD, please see this post of mine the last time this came up (a week ago), as it contains references to and admittance of the problems:

http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2604202&cid=38589558

Additionally, manual "memory tuning" (specifically arc size maximum) on FreeBSD is still required, and it becomes more important to tune some other kernel variables if you run a mixed environment (ZFS + MySQL + shell machine, for example).

The Slashdot community can expect me to appear and comment every single time "ZFS on FreeBSD" is mentioned. Users need to be aware of the shortcomings so they can make an appropriate choices/decisions (staying with UFS, using another OS, etc.).

Re:FreeBSD & ZFS

[Maglos]

I never noticed any of this /w dedup and compress on. it chugged along and responded just fine. Manual "memory tuning" is not required, my 5tb file server w/ 48gb ram has no problem addressing memory whenever it wants /wo any tuning. ZFS is a beast, regardless of os or hardware but that is the point. You don't get bit loss protection, ram caching, compression or de-dup hash tables for free.

Re:FreeBSD & ZFS

[TheRaven64]

I have a NAS with 6TB of disks and 8GB of RAM, with one filesystem being deduplicated (the one where Time Machine sticks backups with loads of duplicates, currently about 300GB of data). I've not done any manual tuning, and I've not noticed the issues that you talk about...

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1

[geek]

In the future Gnome3 will require SystemD which is Linux only.

ZFS v28

[Maglos]

ZFS v28 not a highlight? I just finished testing a 5tb Freebsd 9.0rc2 Supermicro server. ZFS v28 adds de-duplication and a removes rather nasty failure when an intent log device is removed. It also had built in support for the LSI HBA controller card I used, which made installation much easier. We'll save at least %40 with compression and de-dup but it does half write speeds with our xeon 5600(200MB/s down to 80MB/s) .

Re:ZFS v28

[bill_mcgonigle]

For many scenarios, ZFS v28 is the minimal 'usable' version number, which has previously limited FreeBSD's ZFS adoption. Now it's a real contender, and I congratulate the team.

Re: deduplication. Be sure you have enough RAM or you're going to be in for a heck of a surprise. 2GB of dedicated RAM per TB of disk usage is recommended as a rule of thumb. I found this out the hard way when it was new.

Re:ZFS v28

[Maglos]

I put 48gb in it. Ram is cheap. I have yet to see it "wire" more then half that, but I am slowly deploying it.

Re:ZFS v28

[JumperCable]

We'll save at least %40 with compression and de-dup but it does half write speeds with our xeon 5600(200MB/s down to 80MB/s) .

What is the write speed of duplicate data?

Re:ZFS v28

[Maglos]

I wasn't very scientific with my testing but I don't think duplicates were any faster. I believe the bottleneck is the CPU (a single $500 xeon). I am mostly interested in read speeds which were more or less unaffected. Capacity, bit rot protection and ease of array management(zfs labels drives for easy importing) are also very nice features.

Re:ZFS v28

[smash]

Linux doesnt have ZFS included in most/any distros so don't expect linuxdot to mention it.

Re:ZFS v28

[hawk]

That's because it's license doesn't allow it to be assimilated by the GPL; so it can't run in the kernel, but needs to go through FUSE or some such.

hawk

But, what can I do with it?

[Jozza The Wick]

Can I listen to stuff on Youtube... log into Facebook & Gmail, run Java based applications or run virtual machines from a GUI-based player? I'm kind of a nerd, but once I get my computer how I like it, I stop playing with it and start using it... :D

Re:But, what can I do with it?

[Galactic Dominator]

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x11-wm.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/desktop-browsers.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/virtualization-host.html

Re:But, what can I do with it?

[MightyYar]

If you just want a desktop, the path of least resistance is the FreeBSD-based PC-BSD.

I don't use it for that... I use it as a server in my basement. It currently has a 4-disk ZFS setup on it. I run a Windows VM on it for serving my iTunes library, Netatalk for acting as a Time Machine destination, CrashPlan for my PC backup and as remote backup for family and friends, SabNZB for usenet, Apache for sharing my photos. I'm planning on sticking miniDLNA on it, but I don't have any DLNA devices yet.

Most of my prior unix experience was Solaris and Linux (not counting Mac), and I have to say that this was easier for me... perhaps because of the similarity with Mac, but I'm not really sure why. I like ports a lot - if you've ever used apt-get it is kind of similar. Stability has been fantastic. I've only had to reboot it once for performance reasons, and that was because I filled up the little RAM disks I made for the log files. After that the system got kind of flaky so I rebooted it.

Re:But, what can I do with it?

[unixisc]

Speaking of which, are there any plans to get Wayland on any of the BSDs? Would it automatically be available if one was introducing KDE 4.8?

Re:Having an impact in the discussion

[MrHanky]

The backlash against Apple came some time before Android, and the cause of it was people like you: shills. Perhaps also the fact that Apple is an enemy of the free web. We got tired of every comment fawning over Apple getting +5, insteresting. Instead of taking the hint and cooling down a bit, you're practically frothing. And you talk about "emotional attachment".

Re:woohoo

[Brian Feldman]

I was actually referring to the kernel APIs within the last decade, not from wayyyyyy back in the '90s.

Re:Having an impact in the discussion

[causality]

I don't know who that is, but I'm happy to have such an impact on you. A Slashdot employee recently told me that my comments generate more moderations than any he's ever seen. If my opinions cause that much discussion, than I'm doing more than the usual "me too" posters, and I'll take nothing but terrible karma if it means my posts are making people think and react. And with the downmods I receive, I often do have terrible karma, and that's fine with me (said Slashdot employee also said he didn't consider me a troll). I'm a subscriber and see articles about half an hour before you do, and I will keep contributing regardless.

Eh, understand that I have no dog in this fight. It doesn't really matter to me if you're an honest user or a shill. Anything you say about anything important to me will still be subject to all the usual tests of truth so I don't share this concern about your personal disposition or how you personally get your paycheck ...

What follows is my personal opinion and I have no special insider information. Having said that, I wanted to emphasize that a Slashdot employee has quite a different perspective here. You know what generates page views? Controversy. If you did want to troll, you probably have their blessing as long as people respond to it and it generates lots of discussion.

There's an emotional attachment to Android around here

Man, there's an emotional attachment to just about everything that has no inherent relationship to any emotion. This isn't marriage or psychology we're discussing here. It's part of this general trend of emotional childishness that's been developing over the last couple of decades or so. The idea that you can have a personal opinion without feeling threatened by someone who does not subscribe to it is tragically becoming an endangered species. During the mid 1990s Bill Hicks said the USA, collectively, was at around an 8th-grade emotional level. I wonder if he was being generous. It's a real tragedy our society as a whole does not value character the same way we value cleverness and usefulness

It's not just Slashdot, by any means. Idiots get in fistfights over fucking football teams. There are people who will call you a racist (which like all accusations requires hard evidence) merely for disagreeing about a matter of policy with Obama instead of, you know, explaining why they support that policy. If a consenting developer wants to give free code to a consenting user, some will call that Communist (nevermind that real Communists use force...).

The art of disliking something without demonizing it and turning it into the next avatar of Satan is nearly lost. It's basically one great big schoolyard. I'm wondering if this will eventually "hit bottom" and start improving, or if the next couple of generations will all be a bunch of overgrown two-year-olds.

PC-BSD 9

[future assassin]

http://www.pcbsd.org/ will be announced today hopefully. Looking forward to giving it a spin and hopefully might change my mind about Linux Mint and become my main OS. Didn't have hardware luck with it in the early days.

Re:PC-BSD 9

[unixisc]

I read a great review about it in BSD magazine. Hopefully, it's good on the Wi-Fi drivers and configuring the networking using the utilities of KDE (incidentally, which KDE version does it now use?), rather than having to go through a CUI (I'm not too familiar w/ the networking configuration of BSDs). If it does, I can install it on my laptop. It does seem a tad hefty, though - the download is 3.5GB.

Since you mentioned Mint, I'm assuming that what took you there was Gnome 2.3x. If that's the case, aside from PC-BSD, there's another FreeBSD distro called GhostBSD, which hopefully will get synced up w/ FreeBSD very soon. Am not sure, though, whether they'll have the same improvements as PC-BSD, such as PBI - I'm not even sure whether FreeBSD has it.

Re:omg yay

[couchslug]

Chases off users they don't want anyway. Not everyone wants to rule the desktop!

Re:woohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so since I stopped writing anything kernel level BSDish 6 years ago, can you confirm for me that there's now a stable, documented API enabling me to do what I described in my example, i.e. write a net driver without just copying an existing driver, changing the code and hoping I'm not relying on some obscure implementation detail? I would appreciate a link to such documentation because I'm having trouble finding.

Re:Having an impact in the discussion

[MrHanky]

It's the standard response for people who blatantly advertise one corporation and slanders another. In your case, it's entirely deserved.

Re:You just do not get the difference.

[tomhudson]

The copyright is invalid to the extent that it infringes a patent (or a trademark) - at that point, you do NOT have the right to copy it. Write a book, use a bunch of people's trademarks, and watch how fast you find out that you cannot distribute your book. It's the same with code and patents. Copyright only gives you the right to make copies to the extent that your work is original and non-infringing.

Re:GPL like leprosy (Was: Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD

[causality]

Not only will I not touch GPL code, I keep away from anyone who has been exposed to it as a developer.

Good for you! I would never expect you to use anything you find unsuitable, distasteful, objectionable, offensive, or otherwise not to your liking.

My use and enjoyment of GPL software works on the same principle. There's no reason we can't both have our way.

Re:Having an impact in the discussion

[smash]

Apple is the enemy of the free web. Thats why they contribute to/fund webkit and put it out there for anyone to use. Right....

It's worse than that

[SuperBanana]

Be sure you have enough RAM or you're going to be in for a heck of a surprise. 2GB of dedicated RAM per TB of disk usage is recommended as a rule of thumb. I found this out the hard way when it was new.

It's worse than that. Even with plenty of RAM, I had a ZFS pool of a couple TB and dedupe turned on. Turns out virtually none of the data in the pool was duplicate, and disk access slowed to a near complete crawl because the machine was going through an enormous dedupe table.

Took us months to recover after turning dedupe off - fortunately, the backup software we use periodically re-processes its archives, and in doing so, re-writes them, which removed the data from the dedupe tables.

Re:Having an impact in the discussion

[Overly Critical Guy]

The backlash against Apple came some time before Android, and the cause of it was people like you: shills. Perhaps also the fact that Apple is an enemy of the free web.

The company that contributes WebKit and pushes HTML5 over Flash is the enemy of the free web?

We got tired of every comment fawning over Apple getting +5, interesting.

Can you actually give an example? What comments are you referring to? Because posts fawning over Apple on Slashdot ALWAYS, ALWAYS get modded down.

Basically, you're full of shit.

Idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD license has its place. GPL has its place. *Both* are free software. *Both* have made the world a better place. Trying to pitch one against the other is disingenuous at best and possibly malicious. Are you so stupid? Or are you an Apple or Microsoft shill, as others have suggested?

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1

[Zoxed]

> Does Gnome 3 even work on BSD?

If it did not, then would it be considered a bug or a feature ?!

Networking stack of Windows vs BSD

[unixisc]

The Networking Stack that Microsoft wrote in Vista and 7 seems to be IPv6, using Teredo - an in-house Microsoft development - to communicate w/ IPv4 devices. Is that also based on the BSD stack? FreeBSD's IPv6 is based on KAME, but is that true about Microsoft as well? I was under the impression that they developed their own IPv6 solutions independently, using whatever they see coming out of the IETF.

Re:Networking stack of Windows vs BSD

[drsmithy]

Windows NT hasn't had a BSD-derived TCP/IP stack since NT 3.1 anyway. They rewrote it from scratch for NT 3.5.

Re:Moderation patterns

[MichaelSmith]

MrHanky uses sockpuppets.

No I think MrHanky is the sockpuppet.

How similar to PC-BSD as far as simplicity?

[unixisc]

Actually, the flamebait attitude of the GP notwithstanding, I was about to ask this. I've read that PC-BSD now has a simple installer, isn't the same true about FreeBSD? Also, PC-BSD has push-button installer - PBI, which involves point & click installations w/o needing any CLI (no apt-get or yumm). From the BSD Magazine description of this feature

Another issue the PBI system is designed to solve is dependency conflict and breakage. Different applications sometimes require different versions of the same dependency. This means that installing one package would may break the functionality of another. In order to avoid this, users would have to use workarounds, which can be daunting to those who don’t know their way around the CLI.

One problem this caused was that each individual PBI had to have all of it’s own libraries and dependencies contained within itself. This caused redundancy and substantially increased the necessary size of the programs as well as runtime memory. PC-BSD 9 has revamped the PBI system to utilize intelligent checks on the back-end of pbi’s via a hash database in order to determine whether the needed libraries and dependencies already exist. This made it possible to avoid the redundancy issue and, consequently, lightened up the programs a great deal. These back-end checks go so far as to recognize when a library is no longer needed due to an uninstall. This creates a lighter PC-BSD with less bloat for the user.

What I was wondering is - does this exist in FreeBSD as well, or is there something different?

Re:How similar to PC-BSD as far as simplicity?

[rev0lt]

AFAIK PBI is a PC-BSD funcionality only. If you want a GUI package manager, there are several available (kpackagekit, gnome-packagekit, DesktopBSD Tools, etc), but I can't give you any feedback on them because I never used them. From console, you can install binary packages (pkg_add -r for fetch from the web and install), or build from ports (my favourite approach).

Re:How similar to PC-BSD as far as simplicity?

[TheRaven64]

FreeBSD 9.0 has the ports system, which is great for installing things from source and pkg_add which lets you install packages from binaries. Usually. And sometimes it actually works. Maybe.

9.1 should ship with pkgng, which is a long-overdue replacement for the binary package system, which learns from the things that apt and friends do well and the things that they don't. Hopefully by FreeBSD 10, pkgng will also be handling the more modular parts of the base system.

Re:How similar to PC-BSD as far as simplicity?

[unixisc]

Is there a strong reason FreeBSD didn't use PBI just like PC-BSD?

Re:How similar to PC-BSD as far as simplicity?

[TheRaven64]

PBI has some nice features, but it also has some bad ones. It is quite difficult to generate PBIs directly from the ports tree, which is a big downside. They are also very focussed on desktop applications: for example a lot of the PBI format is metadata explaining how to add applications to the desktop menus and providing the icons. It's less good for server-type things. PBI doesn't (or didn't) include support for fetching packages from a repository, it was intended to be used with a web browser. Before PC-BSD 9, PBIs included a complete copy of all dependencies, which is hugely wasteful of space. Apparently this is fixed in 9, but it wasn't when the pkgng project started, and now pkgng is basically finished (modulo lots of testing).

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1

[unixisc]

There is a FreeBSD based distro called GhostBSD, which has Gnome 2.3x as the UI. PC-BSD too offers Gnome 2.3x as an option - it offers GNOME, KDE, LXDE, and XFCE, which are fully supported in PC-BSD, meaning all utilities have been integrated into the desktop environment itself. The other five available desktop managers are Awesome, Enlightenment, IceWM, ScrotWM and WindowMaker. While these are not fully supported within the desktop environment, all the PC-BSD utilities are still available, though one may need to run commands via the Command Line in order to get them running.

Debian

[unixisc]

Will Debian soon have a kFreeBSD based on FreeBSD 9?

FreeBSD vs OpenBSD

[unixisc]

How does FreeBSD compare w/ OpenBSD? I've read that the original focus of NetBSD was portability, but surprisingly enough, FreeBSD seems to have more ports e.g. FreeBSD supports Itanium, which NetBSD and OpenBSD don't. I'd have thought that for that platform, here was a good opening for the BSDs

Re:FreeBSD vs OpenBSD

[LizardKing]

FreeBSD outperforms OpenBSD on pretty much any metric you are likely to think of, and it outperforms NetBSD on many of them as well (a significant amount of recent work went into NetBSD to make it perform better and to degrade more gracefully under load, prior to which FreeBSD pretty much outperformed it across the board). On security, the area that OpenBSD claims to be particularly hot on, you'd be hard pressed to find much difference in reality. Security fixes tend to percolate from one of the big three BSD's to the others very quickly, and they all offer a number of sophisticated security features.

As to portability, NetBSD is undoubtedly easier to port to another architecture, as considerable work has always been done to ensure that. FreeBSD used to concentrate solely on x86 support, and as a result making it more portable in recent years has required a lot of work, and where there are ports to similar architectures, they tend to be more mature on NetBSD than FreeBSD. OpenBSD is also very portable, and again the support for those non-x86 architectures it has been ported to tends to be better than with the same architectures where a FreeBSD port exists.

Re:FreeBSD vs OpenBSD

[unixisc]

Thanks. On Security, if one has OpenSSH on FreeBSD, is there any difference b/w FreeBSD & OpenBSD? Also, all the above comments about FreeBSD performance - is that valid only on x86, or on the other common platforms of FreeBSD & OpenBSD as well?

Re:FreeBSD vs OpenBSD

[rev0lt]

Usually OpenBSD's OpenSSH is the most up-to-date version (as with PF/ALTQ and CARP, as they also are OpenBSD code). Some years ago I noticed that openssl was a lot faster on OpenBSD than on FreeBSD, and probably the performance of firewalling with PF is better with OpenBSD, but I pretty much gave up on OpenBSD due to lack of improvement on the SMP front, the generalized uninterest in container technology such as jails (or sysjails), poor filesystem performance and the upgrade mess - reinstalling the operating system every year isn't a viable option for me. That said, I sometimes buy the CDs and t-shirts to help the project, and OpenBSD is still a kick-ass operating system, and it is amazing how they keep on improving actual funcionality with such short release cycles.

I like FreeBSD, OpenBSD because...

[alukin]

I like FreeBSD, OpenBSD because no persons such as Lennart Poettring are around it. *BSD guys are true UNIX knights!

Re:I like FreeBSD, OpenBSD because...

[TheRaven64]

It's not just Lennart Poettring. There's also no Ulrich Drepper either! On the down side, OpenBSD has Theo De Raadt, and FreeBSD has me...

CUPS is GPL! khtml (origin of webkit) is GPL

[Damnshock]

CUPS is still opensource because of being GPL!!!

From the CUPS website:
[quote]CUPSTM is provided under the GNU General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library General Public License ("LGPL"), Version 2, with exceptions for Apple operating systems and the OpenSSL toolkit[/quote]

(notice the "exceptions"? pfffffffffff)

And webkit comes from khtml which is GPL as well, that's why Apple was *forced* to release the source code (and yes, it was forced)

They just managed to make you believe that they're good and share code with everyone but that's just *MARKETING* (and I'm amazed how many people fall in their lies :S )

Regards

Re:CUPS is GPL! khtml (origin of webkit) is GPL

[tomhudson]

My point was that Apple *does* share code, contrary to the OP's assertion. And they could have closed off CUPS after buying out the source, or changed the license, but they didn't, so what's your beef?

As for the "It's just marketing" - so what? Even Linus says that he has no beef with companies only contributing when it will benefit them - he fully expects them to behave that way. It's one way to make sure that companies are contributing stuff of real value - because they have a stake in their contribution.

Why do you think that anything less than a total free ride is "evil"? Do YOU work for free?

Re:CUPS is GPL! khtml (origin of webkit) is GPL

[Damnshock]

I don't think anything, I'm just pointing out facts: Apple only shares code when it is forced to. Period.

The amazing thing is that Apple manages to make everyone believe they're a "good" company taking profit of the situation and getting PR about "we share code, we are good" when that's *false*: again, they only share code when they're forced to.

  Companywise it's fantastic, ethically.... debatable to say the least.

Anyway I'll leave your feelings about it to yourself ;)

Regards

Re:CUPS is GPL! khtml (origin of webkit) is GPL

[tomhudson]

I don't think anything, I'm just pointing out facts: Apple only shares code when it is forced to. Period.

How was Apple "forced" to share CUPS after buying the code? They share for the same reason Linus gave for every company to share code on ANY project - because they see a benefit in it for themselves. There's no ethical debate here - there's nothing morally or ethically wrong with either closed or open code. What there IS wrong is zealots trying to imply that people who are on the opposite side are evil - and this applies to both camps - whether it's RMS telling people they should pirate closed source programs because the authors deserve it, or wingnuts like Florian Muller who claim that "open source destroys value", which is just a replay of the "broken windows" economic fallacy, while failing to note that it provides opportunities to create value as well.

Both models continue to co-exist because both meet market and user needs, and it's going to stay that way, no matter how much the haters on both sides want it different. In the end, Microsofts' "linux tax" is only a temporary measure. Patents expire all the time - so as long as congress doesn't pull a "Sonny Bono" and extend them to lifetime + 75 years, this whole thing should die a natural death before the end of the decade.

As for Apple, they will continue to play ball as long as open sourcing various projects benefit them. If at some point it no longer does (or maybe they just get fed up with all the whining), they'll say to heck with it, same as any other rational player would. It wouldn't take them that long to come up with a from-scratch closed implementation of a browser widget toolkit, given they have more money than god, and abandon webkit, for example.

Re:CUPS is GPL! khtml (origin of webkit) is GPL

[Damnshock]

I agree with most of what you say. Both closed and open source are respectful (we are not arguing about this here, right? ;) ). However, my personal taste is that I do not like being "locked-in" neither in hardware nor in software (and Apple is widely know for using such practices ;) )

Anyway...I'll just bring up something for you to think:

"How was Apple "forced" to share CUPS after buying the code?"

Maybe the necessity of sharing the code was one of the agreements of the deal?

Regards

Re:Having an impact in the discussion

[gmack]

Two decades? There have been platform based flamewars for almost as long as I've been on this planet. Back when I was a small child the entertainment was the Apple II vs Macintosh vs PC vs Comodore vs Atari fury in the mid 80s.

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1

[armanox]

I can see that being a problem. I don't know anyone using Fedora with GNOME Shell however - I usually use KDE, the other people I know are using XFCE.

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1

[gmack]

XFCE dropped support for hald so the Thunar file manager no longer mounts usb/DVD etc on any version of BSD.

FreeNAS

[dmt0]

Hopefully FreeNAS project moves to 9.0 sooner rather than later.

Re:Gnome version 2.32.1

[Trix]

In the future Gnome3 will require SystemD which is Linux only.

Like I need another reason to avoid GNOME 3. If anything, that's a point in FreeBSD's favor. :-)

OpenBSD, the only code i trust

[hamsjael]

I Run OpenBSD on a lot of our critical infrastructure systems. I do this for a lot of reasons, but foremost because their uncompromising attitude toward code and documentation. Just one easy attainable proof of the quality of this project is to look at the simplistic beaty of the html from this page: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#WhatIs (CTRL - U).

Re:OpenBSD, the only code i trust

[vga_init]

I quickly looked at the home page of each major BSD variant. OpenBSD's website was by far the ugliest. If I had to pick the best looking one I'd say NetBSD, although FreeBSD is pretty good too.

NetBSD and FreeBSD seem to be run by fairly responsible organizations of people, whereas OpenBSD is chiefly the product of one very insane man. All are great systems. :)

freedom as a spectrum

[epine]

just to avoid using another open source project

The whole point of a licence is to expand the word using to multiple pages of opaque and possibly bothersome legal text. They aren't avoiding the foreign code, just the license that governs it. If the foreign code cared about being used for any possible purpose, it would have a more permissive license in the first place. Glossary of English: permissive => more uses are possible. None of the above changes when prefixed by "just".

if it weren't for

This sentiment is usually continued with "a nail", but I understand you're riffing on a theme here, not making precise claims.

FreeBSD is not trying to kill the GPL ecosystem, which plays an important function in securing broad freedoms. FreeBSD is trying to become a parallel ecosystem which serves different interests and different purposes.

From your side what you have to argue here is that the inherent virtue of the GPL is made possible solely by it being the only game in town, and that anything which treads on GPL exclusiveness is an attack on the GPL itself. I'm personally quite happy to regard freedom as a spectrum rather than an absorbing boundary. What matters to me is the continuity of the gradient, so that things that want to be free can swim happily in that direction.

BTW, is it the lakes or the oceans that Stallman wishes to drain? Obviously you can't have both, one might contaminate the other.

Apple and "forced" sharing: I call BS

[tlambert]

I don't think anything, I'm just pointing out facts: Apple only shares code when it is forced to. Period.

That's utter BS.

I was one of the primary engineers on Apple's POSIX conformance effort, and Apple fixed the POSIX compliance of multiple hundreds of Open Source pacages , and then donated the code back to the projects.

This includes bash (and securing the sh portions of the VSC Open Group compliance tests for them to use without license), UUCP, CUPS, vim (also got them copies of the tests), pax, yacc (bison), lex (flex), tar (GNU tar), gcc (C99 compliance), and so on and so on.

What Apple doesn't do is announce anything, other than from the top. What that level of public relations control buys you is a lot of marketing buzz. What it loses you is public development blogs that inform ignorant people about other things, one of which is Apple's contributions to Open Source.

NB: I don't work for Apple any more, I work for Google, so I don't have a hobby horse in that race, other than correcting your misstatement.

-- Terry

Re:Apple and "forced" sharing: I call BS

[Damnshock]

I'm sorry but I totally disagree here.

How many of those opensource projects where GPL? (yeah, that licence that forces you to provide the source code under certain circumstances...)

Out of that list I can see some: bash, cups, gcc, tar (and the others I do not know but I could expect something similar).

My assertion migh not be true always (haven't check everything ;) , but it's generally true: Apple only shares code when it's forced to.

Regards

PS: maybe we don't need to use such offensive words like "BS" and "ignorants" (and yes, I'm saying that to myself as well :) )

Dude, check your history facts...

[tlambert]

And it happened at exactly the wrong time, when i386 systems were growing in popularity, and people wanted some Unix-like OS to run on it, and really wanted it for free.

Not really. If you look at the usage totals during those crucial years they weren't very high. That is not and was not a dominant marketshare. The issue was simple, the early adopters of Linux were from two groups:

a) Solaris users, who knew Sys-V

The BSD community wasn't interested in supporting either of those communities.

Except that until 1993, SunOS was BSD 4.3 based, not System V based. So all those BSD people in the BSD community, were former SunOS users from ... the BSD community: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(operating_system) .

It was the lawsuit.

I was one of the people in the Sandy, Utah office of Novell USG (the former USL) who camped outside Mike Defazio's office (then EVP in charge of Novell USG) to get 386BSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD the same shipping terms as BSDI's BSD/386 until the 7 "offending files" could be rewritten. The exception on shipping those files was reached with BSDI because BSDI was willing to sign a royalty agreement. The exception was granted for the Open Source versions

-- Terry

Re:Dude, check your history facts...

[jbolden]

Terry

SunOS was always BSD based, there was a complete switchover in OS. Anyway, Solaris came out for end users in 1992. I certainly was using SunOS as a primary in 93 and still had to use it a bit in 95/96 still. But.... the time when the switchover to LInux happened for Solaris users was '94. Remember the original Linux came from the hobbyist community (Minix). Solaris in '94-95 and Windows people (and some SCO) around 97.

If we are going to tell personal stories... I'm a good example. I remember being excited about 386BSD. I had seriously considered buying Dell Unix (a OEM version of SCO) but a lot more for the computer and an extra $900 for the OS... However the reports about 386BSD were it was too raw. I was an end user of Unix not a system admin. I needed easy installation and a full software suite. That didn't even start to exist until 1995. I learned Unix administration from Linux. I think that or slightly more is typical of the Solaris users that switched. I certainly knew about BSD. I heard good things about BSD. I even tried BSD. I believe my first open source Unix was a BSD. But the Unix I actually got to do what I wanted a Unix for was RedHat.

Even today, Linuxes do a much much better job of bringing in new people than BSDs.

Re:Having an impact in the discussion

[MrNthDegree]

Apple are far from the enemy of the free web. Apple offers convenience at a price (your freedom) if you choose to become a member of their cult, but they don't take away the freedoms of others, in fact, they play nicely with others and share their low-level technologies so they can "give back to the geeks". They hoard all the marketable front-end and share all the back-end.

As an avid Linux fanboy, even I can admit that Apple's lock-in is limited to their own customers and not to the world at large. They support freedom of choice, to either lose one's own free speech in the name of convenience (Apple way) or to use a Free Software competing technology which leverages their contributions....

In my case I opt for GNU/Linux, with Desura as a gaming platform and Wine for all my old stuff I still like to use....

Distributing to servers count?

[zidium]

A *real* thorny question is, "What counts as distribution?"

I work at a place with numerous servers. Development, qa, staging, and numerous production servers. We create a package to release to the various servers, which we upload, unpack, and build on disparate boxes. It's almost the same as my GPL'd (unfortunately!) C++ app.

Now, does that count as distribution? The GPL is not clear, and I bet a zealot, if pressed, would say yes. Therefore, the company I work for (and thousands of others) seems to be at risk of losing its source code due to GPL zealotry.

That's why everyone should stay away from it.

Can a BSD be released under a GPL?

[unixisc]

Can anybody fork a BSD and release it under the GPL? E.g. can someone take, say, OpenBSD, put Gnome 3 modified for the OS-X interface on it (like in PearOS), and release it as a fork under, say, GPLv3? Get a really secure MacOS OS for non-Mac PCs.

Re:Can a BSD be released under a GPL?

[iggymanz]

there is a proper way to incorporate BSD licensed code into a GPL project, while complying with the BSD license's attribution requirement.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html