What help does a NDA give to someone releasing a free, open sourced software?
If the code will eventually have to be released free and open, then a NDA only impeeds their ability to code a driver, as now they can't even reverse engineer a driver. If it's binary only, who'd write it? Will it, and the NDA, be used to outsourced a driver to a professional team, or will it be a amature team making drivers?
Both ways the code would never be auditable by the community at large.
The current drivers are at least partially open. Heck, has anyone considered seeing if we could write a wrapper to get it working in the framebuffer? There are ways other then a NDA that a solution can be found.
I didn't say they were unusable as a desktop OS, in fact I'm typing this on my FreeBSD 5.0 laptop ^_^
But they are more concerned with the server side of their systems then with the desktop, is all I'm saying. They will spend more energy on making it a better server then they do making it a better desktop.
On a completely different note, OpenBSD can run Mozilla now. In fact I've seen news on Deadly of Mozilla 1.3 running (with some level of patching), and there's even instructions to get it using Phoenix.
As opposed to most GNU/Linux distros, OpenBSD is "insanely" geared towards closing all and any security holes in the default install, and is fanatical about exploits. The only distro that comes even close to OpenBSD's quality checks is Debian stable. (And honestly, they share the same "problem" - stable but out-dated desktop software with stable, rock solid server apps)
Honestly, OpenBSD and most GNU/Linux distros are going after different audiences: most GNU/Linux distros I see are reaching for the workstation, while OpenBSD (and, honestly, all the BSDs) are geared with the server in mind first, with desktop being a late comer or complete after thought.
If someone's using GNU/Linux as a desktop, they wouldn't be interested, but for someone running a server they want to secure as best as possible, OpenBSD is really a great option.
I think they're more just sane requirements for running WineX and a game then just the emulator. Since it IS a emulation layer, there's really no way to benchmark how much it needs alone.... Right? ^^;;
I know there's some rumblings about a Gentoo/BSD system. I've heard of at least one person appears to already have a psuedo-working version of Portage running.
I suppose the other pages would be helpful as well. XP
Again, copied verbatim from the story on OSNews.
3. FreeBSD's ever present "competitor," GNU/Linux, started winning the crowds with a first wave of hype around 1999, while now many try to convince us that Linux can perform well in the desktop space as well as in the server space. How does the FreeBSD project see the whole situation and how do you feel about a sub-project of "FreeBSD on the desktop?"
Scott Long: GNU/Linux actually got its first PR win with the USL lawsuit in the mid-1990's. That drove an unbelievable amount of momentum away from BSD and towards Linux. In light of that I think that it's a testement to the quality of BSD in general that FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD have remained viable and interesting.
I think that Max OS X has really set the bar for what Unix can do on the desktop. FreeBSD is just as capable as Linux as a desktop OS, but I think that OS X has reminded us that making a desktop OS with mass appeal is a huge task and that FreeBSD should still concentrate on its other strengths as a server OS.
Wes Peters: Most FreeBSD users use FreeBSD on their desktops daily; I have for just about ten years now. I don't know that we have the same drive our friends over in the Linux camp have to rule the world, we just want to make a system that works well for our needs.
To some extent the BSD world in general has already conquered the desktop in the form of Mac OS X. It's a very good product; it has all of the wonderful strengths of BSD and UNIX underneath, and has an unaparalleled user interface and world class applications on top. To many in the BSD world, OS X freed us from any need to become the desktop to the masses; we can concentrate on making a really good technical workstation for users that are comfortable with the X Window System, window managers, and such, and let Apple pick up those who specialize in something other than computers for a living.
I've been a part of the FreeBSD Community right from the start; I downloaded the 1.0 distribution onto floppies the night it was released. In the ensuing ten years the issue of making FreeBSD the operating system of choice for everyone has rarely come up, and when it has it's been mostly ignored.
This doesn't mean I don't think it's suitable to be a commercial operating system. Whatever pretty face your Linux distributor throws on top of Linux will run just as well on FreeBSD. The graphical installer might make a bit of difference, but the key to becoming a commercial operating system is not to have a nice graphical installer but rather to get IBM, Dell, HP, and Gateway to pre-install your OS on their hardware. Without the kind of financial backing that RedHat provides for Linux, that's not likely to happen to FreeBSD anytime soon. It's only just barely happened with Linux, in terms of shipping volume. Better operating systems than Linux or Windows have died on the cross of getting support from just one vendor, BeOS being the most recent visible victim.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: There are a couple of issues here:
1. Linux and FreeBSD both separate the operating system from applications software, including the concept of a "desktop". The applications layer on Linux is usually identical to that on FreeBSD, so from that aspect you should expect to see no difference.
2. What is a "desktop"? There has been a lot of effort in the Linux space to duplicating Microsoft functionality; see OpenOffice for a good example. FreeBSD also supports OpenOffice. The real question, though, is whether we're doing anybody a favour by copying Microsoft. Like Wes Peters, I have been using BSD on the desktop for well over ten years. I find the current crop of "desktop" software incredibly difficult and frustrating to use. I am forced to do it from time to time, but it's both limited and limiting in its approach. The BSD community should be working towards a better alternative, not playing copycat.
Copied verbatim from the story on OSNews. Original URL: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3415
1. What is the status of the Java 1.4.x port to FreeBSD? How has its absence impacted FreeBSD's market penetration? (Editor's Note: Java patchset 3 for BSD was just released)
Chuck, the FreeBSD mascot Scott Long: Several months ago the FreeBSD Foundation funded a contract to bring Java 1.4.1 to FreeBSD. Unfortunately, the process of gaining certification from Sun is quite lengthy, and the money available for the contract ran out before it was complete. Still, the work that was done is quite impressive. Most users have reported that it is relatively bug-free for common applications like tomcat, and some have also reported that it is measurably faster than the Linux version. It is even in production use by a very large internet portal company. The FreeBSD Foundation is currently working to raise funds to complete the contract and have it certified by Sun.
Wes Peters: The current status has been answered well by Scott Long.
As for the market penetration, the only possible answer is "we don't know," at least partly because we don't have a marketing department. I know of a few embedded development firms who use FreeBSD and Java successfully, but cannot comment on how they use it or on their performance needs, etc. I and a number of other developers are very much looking forward to being able to distribute Java 1.4.x in binary, but in the meantime the source distribution works well.
Developments in FreeBSD 5.x may have a strong positive effect on the performance of Java threads once we have time to sort out the interactions between the JVM and the new threading capabilities found in FreeBSD 5, but this work will be completed after the 5.1 release.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: It's interesting that this is your first question: I would have considered it relatively uninteresting.
M. Warner Losh: I find this answer a little rude.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: Scott has described the status. As others have said, it's difficult to assess the impact, but I would suspect that Sun's current licensing strategy would have more of an effect on the use of Java under FreeBSD: it's a real pain just getting the software. Possibly Linux users are more accustomed to jumping through hoops to get software installed, but FreeBSD users expect to be able to type 'make install' and have things done automatically. Sun's licensing conditions make this impossible.
2. A few years ago, companies like WindRiver/BSDi were helping out the FreeBSD project in many ways, including PR, handling relationships with other companies regarding drivers, etc. Now that the FreeBSD project is completely autonomous, how do you handle these issues? PR, tech specs for drivers that might require NDAs (e.g. an ATi/nVidia relationship) etc...
Scott Long: The loss of corporate backing from BSDi has slowed FreeBSD down without a doubt. Without a central focus point anymore, FreeBSD has relied on a more distributed set of backers. This includes NAI Labs, Yahoo!, The Weather Channel, and Apple, among others. They have provided employment for key developers, helped coordinate NDA deals with other companies, and donated server space and bandwidth to the project. Our experience with PR issues is also growing over time and we hope to make a good PR splash with the 5.1 release.
Wes Peters: Scott also answered this quite well. I want to note that FreeBSD was not ever a "division of" BSDi, or Wind River, nor was it ever a product of either of those companies. It is inaccurate to say that FreeBSD is *now* completely autonomous; it always was. I hope your article reflects this point.
BSDi (and Walnut Creek CD-ROM before it) were quite helpful to the FreeBSD Project in many ways; it's not clear (to me) that Wind River ever helped in any meaningful way.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: This is an interesting perception. We never felt more or less autonomous. Yes, different groups have supported us; before WindRiver it
Which is, for the record, available in FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and mauve ports.
But to put a useful spin on this, (to the original author of this thread) OSS is available for "BSD." You may note the red daemon on the main page of that web site and stand in shock, awe, or a mixture thereof.
Of course, that's irrelevent, as ALSA is pretty much the defacto sound standard on Linux now. (Check the developmental kernels) But still, is it not nifty?
They're still alive? They haven't updated their GNU/Linux page in 2 years. I'd honestly assumed they died, as last I had heard of them they were working on the SiN port.
In fact, other than their Amiga page, it seems their entire main site is pretty much at a stand still.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations! You have reached.... THe end of the internet. Please play again..... Now.
A copy of SuSE - $50
A second 20 gig Hard Drive - ~$75
Being able to switch OSes with a simple reboot - Priceless
There are something money can't buy. For everything else, there is larger storage.
What help does a NDA give to someone releasing a free, open sourced software?
If the code will eventually have to be released free and open, then a NDA only impeeds their ability to code a driver, as now they can't even reverse engineer a driver. If it's binary only, who'd write it? Will it, and the NDA, be used to outsourced a driver to a professional team, or will it be a amature team making drivers?
Both ways the code would never be auditable by the community at large.
The current drivers are at least partially open. Heck, has anyone considered seeing if we could write a wrapper to get it working in the framebuffer? There are ways other then a NDA that a solution can be found.
*tosses 2 cents*
I didn't say they were unusable as a desktop OS, in fact I'm typing this on my FreeBSD 5.0 laptop ^_^
But they are more concerned with the server side of their systems then with the desktop, is all I'm saying. They will spend more energy on making it a better server then they do making it a better desktop.
On a completely different note, OpenBSD can run Mozilla now. In fact I've seen news on Deadly of Mozilla 1.3 running (with some level of patching), and there's even instructions to get it using Phoenix.
As opposed to most GNU/Linux distros, OpenBSD is "insanely" geared towards closing all and any security holes in the default install, and is fanatical about exploits. The only distro that comes even close to OpenBSD's quality checks is Debian stable. (And honestly, they share the same "problem" - stable but out-dated desktop software with stable, rock solid server apps)
Honestly, OpenBSD and most GNU/Linux distros are going after different audiences: most GNU/Linux distros I see are reaching for the workstation, while OpenBSD (and, honestly, all the BSDs) are geared with the server in mind first, with desktop being a late comer or complete after thought.
If someone's using GNU/Linux as a desktop, they wouldn't be interested, but for someone running a server they want to secure as best as possible, OpenBSD is really a great option.
I think they're more just sane requirements for running WineX and a game then just the emulator. Since it IS a emulation layer, there's really no way to benchmark how much it needs alone. ... Right? ^^;;
Actually, that's not a good example.
Bleemcast! never came out. The company producing it was sued out of existance by Sony before the first version even hit shelves.
I actually work with someone who had a press preview of one of the disks, one that worked for MetalGear Solid, and it supposedly worked quite well.
Now, Bleem! for the PC didn't make anyone mass-exodus from the PS2, but then, that's really apples and oranges.
Finally, mixing the OS design of the 70s with the operating power of the 80s.
Further information and download instructions can be found in "README~1.TXT" on the first cd.
I know there's some rumblings about a Gentoo/BSD system. I've heard of at least one person appears to already have a psuedo-working version of Portage running.
I suppose the other pages would be helpful as well. XP
Again, copied verbatim from the story on OSNews.
3. FreeBSD's ever present "competitor," GNU/Linux, started winning the crowds with a first wave of hype around 1999, while now many try to convince us that Linux can perform well in the desktop space as well as in the server space. How does the FreeBSD project see the whole situation and how do you feel about a sub-project of "FreeBSD on the desktop?"
Scott Long: GNU/Linux actually got its first PR win with the USL lawsuit in the mid-1990's. That drove an unbelievable amount of momentum away from BSD and towards Linux. In light of that I think that it's a testement to the quality of BSD in general that FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD have remained viable and interesting.
I think that Max OS X has really set the bar for what Unix can do on the desktop. FreeBSD is just as capable as Linux as a desktop OS, but I think that OS X has reminded us that making a desktop OS with mass appeal is a huge task and that FreeBSD should still concentrate on its other strengths as a server OS.
Wes Peters: Most FreeBSD users use FreeBSD on their desktops daily; I have for just about ten years now. I don't know that we have the same drive our friends over in the Linux camp have to rule the world, we just want to make a system that works well for our needs.
To some extent the BSD world in general has already conquered the desktop in the form of Mac OS X. It's a very good product; it has all of the wonderful strengths of BSD and UNIX underneath, and has an unaparalleled user interface and world class applications on top. To many in the BSD world, OS X freed us from any need to become the desktop to the masses; we can concentrate on making a really good technical workstation for users that are comfortable with the X Window System, window managers, and such, and let Apple pick up those who specialize in something other than computers for a living.
I've been a part of the FreeBSD Community right from the start; I downloaded the 1.0 distribution onto floppies the night it was released. In the ensuing ten years the issue of making FreeBSD the operating system of choice for everyone has rarely come up, and when it has it's been mostly ignored.
This doesn't mean I don't think it's suitable to be a commercial operating system. Whatever pretty face your Linux distributor throws on top of Linux will run just as well on FreeBSD. The graphical installer might make a bit of difference, but the key to becoming a commercial operating system is not to have a nice graphical installer but rather to get IBM, Dell, HP, and Gateway to pre-install your OS on their hardware. Without the kind of financial backing that RedHat provides for Linux, that's not likely to happen to FreeBSD anytime soon. It's only just barely happened with Linux, in terms of shipping volume. Better operating systems than Linux or Windows have died on the cross of getting support from just one vendor, BeOS being the most recent visible victim.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: There are a couple of issues here:
1. Linux and FreeBSD both separate the operating system from applications software, including the concept of a "desktop". The applications layer on Linux is usually identical to that on FreeBSD, so from that aspect you should expect to see no difference.
2. What is a "desktop"? There has been a lot of effort in the Linux space to duplicating Microsoft functionality; see OpenOffice for a good example. FreeBSD also supports OpenOffice. The real question, though, is whether we're doing anybody a favour by copying Microsoft. Like Wes Peters, I have been using BSD on the desktop for well over ten years. I find the current crop of "desktop" software incredibly difficult and frustrating to use. I am forced to do it from time to time, but it's both limited and limiting in its approach. The BSD community should be working towards a better alternative, not playing copycat.
As regards ease of use on the desktop, co
Copied verbatim from the story on OSNews. Original URL: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3415
1. What is the status of the Java 1.4.x port to FreeBSD? How has its absence impacted FreeBSD's market penetration? (Editor's Note: Java patchset 3 for BSD was just released)
Chuck, the FreeBSD mascot Scott Long: Several months ago the FreeBSD Foundation funded a contract to bring Java 1.4.1 to FreeBSD. Unfortunately, the process of gaining certification from Sun is quite lengthy, and the money available for the contract ran out before it was complete. Still, the work that was done is quite impressive. Most users have reported that it is relatively bug-free for common applications like tomcat, and some have also reported that it is measurably faster than the Linux version. It is even in production use by a very large internet portal company. The FreeBSD Foundation is currently working to raise funds to complete the contract and have it certified by Sun.
Wes Peters: The current status has been answered well by Scott Long.
As for the market penetration, the only possible answer is "we don't know," at least partly because we don't have a marketing department. I know of a few embedded development firms who use FreeBSD and Java successfully, but cannot comment on how they use it or on their performance needs, etc. I and a number of other developers are very much looking forward to being able to distribute Java 1.4.x in binary, but in the meantime the source distribution works well.
Developments in FreeBSD 5.x may have a strong positive effect on the performance of Java threads once we have time to sort out the interactions between the JVM and the new threading capabilities found in FreeBSD 5, but this work will be completed after the 5.1 release.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: It's interesting that this is your first question: I would have considered it relatively uninteresting.
M. Warner Losh: I find this answer a little rude.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: Scott has described the status. As others have said, it's difficult to assess the impact, but I would suspect that Sun's current licensing strategy would have more of an effect on the use of Java under FreeBSD: it's a real pain just getting the software. Possibly Linux users are more accustomed to jumping through hoops to get software installed, but FreeBSD users expect to be able to type 'make install' and have things done automatically. Sun's licensing conditions make this impossible.
2. A few years ago, companies like WindRiver/BSDi were helping out the FreeBSD project in many ways, including PR, handling relationships with other companies regarding drivers, etc. Now that the FreeBSD project is completely autonomous, how do you handle these issues? PR, tech specs for drivers that might require NDAs (e.g. an ATi/nVidia relationship) etc...
Scott Long: The loss of corporate backing from BSDi has slowed FreeBSD down without a doubt. Without a central focus point anymore, FreeBSD has relied on a more distributed set of backers. This includes NAI Labs, Yahoo!, The Weather Channel, and Apple, among others. They have provided employment for key developers, helped coordinate NDA deals with other companies, and donated server space and bandwidth to the project. Our experience with PR issues is also growing over time and we hope to make a good PR splash with the 5.1 release.
Wes Peters: Scott also answered this quite well. I want to note that FreeBSD was not ever a "division of" BSDi, or Wind River, nor was it ever a product of either of those companies. It is inaccurate to say that FreeBSD is *now* completely autonomous; it always was. I hope your article reflects this point.
BSDi (and Walnut Creek CD-ROM before it) were quite helpful to the FreeBSD Project in many ways; it's not clear (to me) that Wind River ever helped in any meaningful way.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: This is an interesting perception. We never felt more or less autonomous. Yes, different groups have supported us; before WindRiver it
Methinks he's thinking of esd.
Which is, for the record, available in FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and mauve ports.
But to put a useful spin on this, (to the original author of this thread) OSS is available for "BSD." You may note the red daemon on the main page of that web site and stand in shock, awe, or a mixture thereof.
Of course, that's irrelevent, as ALSA is pretty much the defacto sound standard on Linux now. (Check the developmental kernels) But still, is it not nifty?
Duplicate stories..
Duplicate replys....
COINCIDENCE? Or is there something more sinister at work.
And what's the Macintosh connection? These stories and more at 11..
But that's not all.
If you upgrade now, you get this decorative software-cozy! Perfect for storing your old SCO install. FREE!
Order now, operators are standing by.
They're still alive? They haven't updated their GNU/Linux page in 2 years. I'd honestly assumed they died, as last I had heard of them they were working on the SiN port. In fact, other than their Amiga page, it seems their entire main site is pretty much at a stand still.
Of course it runs on NetBSD.