Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD Fork Bitrig Announced
With the goal of bringing more experimental development to the OpenBSD
code base, a few developers have announced a fork named
Bitrig. According to their FAQ, Bitrig aims to build a small system
targeting only modern hardware and "be a very commercially friendly code base by using non-viral licenses where possible." Their first step toward that goal was removing GCC in favor of LLVM/Clang. The project roadmap shows their future goals as adding FUSE support, improving multiprocessing, porting the system to ARM, and replacing the GNU C++ library with LLVM's.
sounds like a place to keep my bitcoins...
"commercially friendly"
Bitrig will only target actively developing hardware and architectures such as i386 and amd64
How the fsck is i386 actively developing?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I'm confused. Usually, BSD projects must at least do a release to get on Slashdot. I never see stories about MirBSD or MidnightBSD.
SIGN ME UP!
Perhaps people who have an interest in OpenBSD, but disagree with some of the community's policies? I believe taking a walk with the code for philosophical/political reasons is how OpenBSD was started in the first place. And that's one of the advantages of Open Source.
Paychecks might be one of the incentives, yes, and I don't see why that would be a problem.
...for RMS. First Linus gets the Millennium Technology Prize without a mention of GNU and now this.
This is a good "Put up or shut up" moment for BSD. For all the whining I hear about "Viral" and "Anti Business" licenses the various *BSD projects sure do have a meager adoption (Buisness, home, free or otherwise) compared to their GPL counterparts (Linux). I think an aggressive, forward looking BSD project would be great to have.
Granted, not all the most popular open source projects have "Viral" licenses (Eg - Most Apache foundation projects), but maybe.. Just maybe Linux's success is in part due to the GPL.
Some people feel the GPL is stealing something that they're somehow entitled too. In reality, it's more of an exchange. You give up the ability to have a certain business model, and in return you get the collective work of everyone else who's made the same agreement. You give up exclusive control of your source in return for a world-class, flexible, free, operating system with widespread uses. For free. With a BSD style license you're able to opt out of that "collective work" provision. You can take, but you don't have to give. As a result, the project does not grow.
It's probably in your long-term interest for the project to grow. I think the success of Linux proves this.
Linux was getting too lame so I switched to OS X for desktop shit but I'm still looking for a good open source server. Sorry, I can't take Ubuntu seriously as a server, Debian suffers from ultra-cruft like trying to support obscure 90s processors and Red Hat is so expensive it defeats the purpose. So I've been planning to go to BSD but sort of procrastinating on it. This project looks just exciting enough to get me on board.
Ok, while I was waiting for the "you must wait to use this resource" timer to fuck off I browsed their site...Wow, there's actually nothing there! The site is nothing but a faq and homepage. I thought this project was actually at an installable stage, lmao. Get back to me when you actually have something working. Looks like a good plan but if I had a dollar for every "inspiring plan" on the internet I'd be retired and curing malaria right now.
Freedom -- true freedom -- is about people having the ability to be assholes if they choose.
More Twoson than Cupertino
BSD is a glamour license. The small number of devs that love it want their names in source and help panels. Don't worry about it. OpenBSD has very few users, bitrig will have even less. Don't like it, just avoid any products that use it. Oh wait, you can't tell with BSD liftware.
They should've called it BitrigBSD.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Most points of their agenda are common with FreeBSD and some are already done there or actively been worked on. No one would stand in their way porting WAPBL from NetBSD (if done decently). Ok, stripping the base is (fortunatelly) not on the FreeBSD agenda, but making most of it optional for embedded needs is.
From their FAQ, "OpenBSD [...] has some of the best code around". Ok, but I still do not buy it. If they want to leave some of the conservatism that comes with the security focus of OpenBSD behind (from the article), I do not find a real reason why they started with OpenBSD.
Not that some more good, modern code with any of the BSD would be wrong...
Freedom -- true freedom -- is about people having the ability to be assholes if they choose.
True freedom is anarchy. No thanks.
Why would those companies want to have to maintain their own forks and keep those up to date?
I only used OpenBSD for SPARC hardware and it really belongs to the "big iron". Is this project aiming for the desktop? embedded platforms? Well, good luck with device drivers then. We already have linux for all that and you can't beat it in hardware support. So what's the point?
"be a very commercially friendly code base by using non-viral licenses where possible."
The advantages to Linux over BSD licensed operating systems is that improvements are reinvested in the code base, by mandate. This accelerates development at a much faster rate than we've seen with any of the BSDs since it is a positive feedback loop. Contrary to this, companies take BSD code, improve it, and tend to release nothing back. Because they don't have to. Look at OSX.
So now we have a project that is "focused on modern hardware and SMP" among other things. Compare and contrast to Linux which keeps up with modern hardware a lot better than any of the BSDs. I'm betting the goal of "keeping up with modern hardware" is going to fall by the wayside when they eventually discover how difficult it is when it's just them doing all the heavy lifting.
I also take issue with the "commercially friendly" jab. Linux is GPL, and it's commercially friendly. Sensible companies are not afraid one bit of using Linux. The ones who are don't understand what they're missing when it comes to the code reinvestment cycle.
-- ... 1...
BMO Downmods coming in 3... 2
That is true, so I assume we won't be subjected to the usual BSD/ssh's pissy whining about "non contributors" then?
Failing to take risks is failing to progress, that is the reason bitrig is forking and it is the reason openbsd branched from netbsd and it is the BSD licenses exist.
Yeah, avoid all OpenBSD software. Like SSH....
OpenBSD has *LOTS* of users of it's software.
Honest question: So what were the BSDs (Open,Free,Net) using to compile and run on x86 and amd64 before llvm/clang was around? GCC ?
GCC had its share of problems but this sounds a little ungrateful for what GCC has allowed hackers to do. An open source "good enough" compiler is better then a high priced closed source compiler that may or may not be available for your hardware.
I would welcome a fork if serious developers are doing it. I don't follow the development of OpenBSD (I do use it on one of my machines) and I don't know who these guys are. By the website and some of their priorities it seems a bit amateurish, though I may be wrong.
One example of something they'd like to work on, probably one of the most "legit" items on the list, is better multi-processor/multi-core support. This is needed in OpenBSD for sure. Proper support for "real" (concurrent, kernel-scheduled) threads has not been a high priority in OpenBSD over the years which is pretty unfortunate and weird given where the industry is today. But (and again I don't follow development so much) my understanding is that work has made a lot of strides recently, specifically in terms of rthreads becoming a usable solution. So it makes me wonder if these people would either (a) be better suited to just hack on the OpenBSD tree and submit patches for rthreads, or (b) perhaps they are not qualified for a. and that is driving the whole effort. My sense of cynicism says b but let's hope it's a.
BSD is a glamour license. The small number of devs that love it want their names in source and help panels. Don't worry about it. OpenBSD has very few users, bitrig will have even less. Don't like it, just avoid any products that use it. Oh wait, you can't tell with BSD liftware.
A fair number of gizmos in your house probably runs it, or a similar flavor of it.
"With the goal of bringing more experimental development to the OpenBSD code base..."
How do you even measure the amount of current and future experimental development if everyone can take the source and then hide away all their changes? Seems we won't be able to quantify the success of this project.
I mean with BSD if I experimented and found a way to dramatically improve it (say IO throughput or something) I probably wouldn't tell the world. I'd keep it secret for my project/products or sell the info.
Another true freedom is having the ability to whine like a little bitch.
Why do companies write proprietary software? Because they think it gives them an advantage.
Because it makes the code more widely used. Some people have a goal of making software open for everyone, others apparently have a goal that only their friends can use the software. Reinventing the wheel is a stupid idea, and yet GPL's goal is to force people to either join the commune or reinvent the wheel.
This is nothing new. This is how BSD has done it from the start, because BSD came from a public institution and was funded from taxpayer money and so can not legally, ethically, or morally restrict itself.
This is not about greed, it's about sharing. You probably can more even more money from GPL inhibited software.
I get the feeling you arent really aware of all the growing pains linux has at the moment because of all the going to desktop features they introduce and break useful stuff that worked for years (but is only used if you need to manage more than one system). BSD is more mature and usually doesnt break stuff with new additions.
Whenever I see announcements of "We're creating a fork!!!" the first thing I think of:
http://www.levenez.com/unix/
Lots of tiny branches that just stop.
I found it strange that an aim in the roadmap was to support the latest GNU binutils [1].. I hope they are trying to adress that piece of GNU dependency too. There is the FreeBSD-project libelf/elftoolchain [2, 3] that could be interesting... [1] https://www.bitrig.org/index.php?title=Roadmap [2] http://wiki.freebsd.org/LibElf [3] http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/elftoolchain/
Nope, most run linux over here (TV, settopbox, routers, WAPs, DECT basestation, mobile phone). Maybe the washer, microwave or SIP phone are running a *BSD.
Freedom is also the ability for the rest of us to get together and together and tell an asshole to shut the hell up.
It would have been good for them to take their project and changes back to NetBSD, which might have been happy to use the improvements. As it is, there are a lot of legacy servers not based on x86 that could use this fork, so if it was too much work, then making the changes and then integrating it upstream into NetBSD might have been a better idea, and NetBSD could have made it available on all architectures. Another thing they could have done - take their changes, gone to Minix, and there, put their changes there, be it Clang/LLVM, and so on. Portability would also have been preserved, instead of being needlessly sacrificed
I'm mystified what the motivation would be to work on something like that unless its just another paycheck.
The same motivation that leads coders to contribute to GPL software, in spite of the fact that gazillions of other coders and designers and etc. make money on it without ever contributing anything back.
Including the freedom to take away other peoples freedom, I suppose?
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Linux, by itself, has no desktop features. Linux is the kernel, nothing more.
Some of the various GNU/Linux distributions have made some strange decisions regarding their integrated desktop environments, but that is not the fault of Linus and the Linux kernel, which his team produces.
True freedom is anarchy. No thanks.
You're right, we really need to elect a group of people to coordinate the open source ecosystem to stop this messy chaos we have now. Folks who are smarter than us and can tell us what we all need to do, which projects should exist, and which technologies will win the future.
ahhahahahahahah.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Freedom -- true freedom -- is about people having the
ability
to be assholes if they choose.
Yep, that's human freedom and what BSD is all about (well, except they try to force copyright on you - WTFPL FTW).
GPL anthropomorphizes code and gives it ultimate freedom. Different ends, different means.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
True freedom would be using the do what the fuck you want to license, or creative commons zero or similar.
BSD isn't true freedom because it requires you to keep the name of the original developer.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
please compare the profits of Apple (*BSD) vs any of the GNU OS.
OpenBSD has few users? How did you quantify this? There are no usage statistics collected.
Um, you really don't have a clue, do you?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> BSD is more mature and usually doesnt break stuff
The same GUIs that were broken on Linux were also broken on BSD, since BSD has no own GUI.
I am curious if they are going to support Raspberry Pi too!
One might say "taking credit" is the only real issue copyright should protect. copy someone else's work all you want, but don't you take credit for creating it. One could say BSD is the most free before detracting from the creator.
Better check your network stack on Linux. I'm sure it has a BSD logo on it.
Apple has given back a lot to BSD because GPL didn't want any of it unless it could get all of it.
Perfect is the enemy of good. GPL is a bit idealistic. Great ideal, can't argue that.
Including the freedom to take away other peoples freedom, I suppose?
If someone modifies BSD source and distributes their product without distributing their own source, they haven't taken away anyone's freedom. Anyone who wants to use their binaries without having access to the source can make that choice. Anyone who demands to have source with binaries can go back to the original code. The developer has not taken away anyone's freedom, they have just chosen not to extend certain freedom.
Stop! Dremel time!
If you are going to write something from scratch, you are going to have to maintain it yourself anyway no matter if the source is open or not.
That is a very different situation from using an existing open project maintained by other people. The big advantage there is that other people have done and will do your work for you to some extent. You lose that by making a non-public fork.
Wouldn't one think so from the name? ;-)
If having the ability to modify the software you run isn't a freedom, then there's not much freedom in BSD licensed software (and software in general) to begin with. If having the ability to mofify the software you run is a sort of freedom, than it can be removed by excersing the freedom of the BSD licenses to not distribute source code. "Not extend a certain freedom" is functionally identical to removing it, all that remains is figuring wether or not one finds the freedom to do so more important than the freedom that will be optional. That has always been the balance of freedom when more than one person is involved but some people seem to believe that freedom is an absolute and ignore this.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
GPL attempts to preserve as much freedom as possible along the entire chain of distribution, but that doesn't sound good when trying to do character attacks...
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Care to show an example?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
If reinventing the wheel is bad, then so is hiding away the one you grafted on, if it is not bad then let then why do you expect others to provide the base for the invention of propriatary wheels that will only need to be reinvented to not be continously reinvented?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
The problem is that you're assuming the entire world can just share software. It doesn't work like that. I would be fired tomorrow if I gave away the company's trade secrets to all competitors. But FSF hates that model, they want all businesses to be open source business, never have secrets, never have patents, never have copyright. Maybe someday that may happen but not today. The flaw with FSF is that their idealism smashes headlong into pragmatism and that they are more concerned with creating the perfect world than with actually getting coding done today.
The problem is that you're making assumptions about me. If your company sells copies of software in some form or fashion, then reinventing wheels is just about your job description. If you are going to make others reinvent the wheel it is a tad selfish to complain that they make you do so.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
It is a nice idea but the name makes me want to roll my eyes. Why not something cool like TornadoBSD or something along those lines? :D
my Sony BluRay player is BSD.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/