I'm not sure why the original poster considers this a big deal
It matters only because the code in question used to be under the 4 criteria license. One of them was that you had to mention that you used BSD code in your advertising.
Now...when in Microsoft's history have you seen advertising that said "This product includes software developed by the University of Califorina, Berkeley and its contributors"
unlike many Linux coders, MS actually had the decency to leave the BSD copyright in the code they reused.
I've seen Linux code where they removed the BSD license and re-licensed it under the GPL. Bad, bad linux coders.
I guess only time will tell if the use of Free Software is as much an economic advantage as people have been making it out to be.
Free Software has a cost. That cost is the risk of your IP if you are not careful.
Look at how Corel 1 and 2 had trouble 'getting it right' The risk to Corel is great enough vs the profit potentional, they are trying to sell off the Linux version they make. Free Software is not worth it.
Open Source software (something the most visable supporter of Free Software RMS wants to not be associated with. The Open Source Movement -- I do not support it.) *CAN* protect your IP. Understanding HOW you can have protection for your hard work AND work with Open Source software is the key to protecting your IP.
Free Software wants to destroy IP. IP is the backbone of the information economy. Free Software does *NOT* have an economic advantage when it comes to IP. Open Source software *CAN* provide IP protection and therefore economic advantage.
If you define the OS as what it will run, and the binaries are labeled "Works with MacOS" or "works with Windows" or "works with linux", if they were to run on a emulated MacOS/Windows/Linux environment, does it matter to the consumer if the environment is just emulated/not the "real thing"?
AMD/cyrix has proved that people will buy stuff that is "not the real thing" (where real is defined as Intel), so long as it works the same.
If the LSB gets done, and FreeBSD/SCO/QNX/whomever implements it, is that then a 'supportable linux' in the vendors eyes?
Really? Based on this sample of 300 people, the only one not in trouble is RedHat.
Debian/Slackware/Turbo/Corel linux all did worse than FreeBSD. And Debian and the rest are more dead than FreeBSD. Yet, FreeBSD was within 2% of SuSE/Mandrake/Caldera.
If FreeBSD is "in trouble" so is SuSe/Mandrake/Caldera. Oh, wait SuSe can't afford US Staffers
From an investor's perspective, it's fair to say that BSD is dead.
Acually, BSDi is in the BEST position.
The 180+ linux distros PROVE selling Linux is a commodity market. In a commodity market, you want market differentiation. According to a poll where you are to pick a LINUX version, FreeBSD is as acceptable or more so than any other Linux version (other than RedHat) And what a market differentiation FreeBSD has. A different development model, more open license, runs Linux binaries faster than linux...all these improvements and yet seen as good/better than anything else but RedHat.
BSDi would have to be a publicly traded company for it to matter to any investor. Oh, wait, they are a private company. $14 mil last year from yahoo!/Japanese ISP/Japanese VC....and Japan's economy has sucked far worse far longer than the US dot com market has. a nikkei snapshot
But lets say you are correct. Then BSDi will be bought up by someone else. Odds are some Japanese company. Could even be Sony....Why buy Apple when you can buy the core to Apple's new OS?
f course that can be said.... BSD is hurting more than most, however.
And you keep pushing this anti-BSD adjenda. Give it up.
As someone else pointed out....
It has been brought to our attention that FreeBSD is not a Linux distribution. The data was revised to exclude FreeBSD, and the numbers above reflect the corrections. We apologize for the mistake.
No joke. Just a group of marketing researchers who are showing how skilled they are at asking questions, interperting the data, and making.gif files.:-)
Would you have perfered a title of "Do not buy a report from these people" or "Linux marketing data tainted" or "FreeBSD deleted" or what?
The purpose of the poll was to gain Linux marketing data. Yet 20% of the respondants included data needing to be pulled. Or the purpose of the poll needs to be expanded/changed because the data gathered shows a trend not expected and now needs to be accounted for.
If the poll got 20% "bad data" and was to be linux research (and not a propaganda piece for RedHat, lets say) then the poll was a bad tool to do that research.
If the company can't be troubled to filter out the "bad data" - "bad data" that is large enough to be in the #2 catagory for popularity (RedHat@277 votes vs Suse@64/Mandrake@64/Caldera@63/FreeBSD@60) then why would you buy a report from a company that can't process data...data that is supposed to show information about the "Linux" market.
If the intention of the open source community is to create an OS to rival Windows, wouldn't it be better if the BSD developers developed Linux instead
It would be best if everyone used a BSD style license. Then EVERYONE could use the code.
As it is, a conclusion one could draw from this 300 person snapshot is that FreeBSD is as acceptable, if not more so, than any version of linux other than RedHat.
Nope. RedHat was 1st at 77% or 266 votes. FreeBSD was at 20% or 60 votes.
Now, they were asking for Linux versions. Had they asked for Open Source Unix-like OSes, I'm betting there would have been a few more votes for FreeBSD.
Slashdot Mirror
But, as was asked when Walnut Creek/BSDI merged to form BSDi.....
What will be the outcome for FreeBSD? Or PicoBSD?
The intention may be good, but the execution is the thing.
I'm not sure why the original poster considers this a big deal
It matters only because the code in question used to be under the 4 criteria license. One of them was that you had to mention that you used BSD code in your advertising.
Now...when in Microsoft's history have you seen advertising that said "This product includes software developed by the University of Califorina, Berkeley and its contributors"
unlike many Linux coders, MS actually had the decency to leave the BSD copyright in the code they reused.
I've seen Linux code where they removed the BSD license and re-licensed it under the GPL. Bad, bad linux coders.
There are way too many BSD's.
As opposed to what, 180 seperate versions of Linux. And that is just the registered versions
How many are NOT in their database.....
I guess only time will tell if the use of Free Software is as much an economic advantage as people have been making it out to be.
Free Software has a cost. That cost is the risk of your IP if you are not careful.
Look at how Corel 1 and 2 had trouble 'getting it right' The risk to Corel is great enough vs the profit potentional, they are trying to sell off the Linux version they make. Free Software is not worth it.
Open Source software (something the most visable supporter of Free Software RMS wants to not be associated with. The Open Source Movement -- I do not support it.) *CAN* protect your IP. Understanding HOW you can have protection for your hard work AND work with Open Source software is the key to protecting your IP.
Free Software wants to destroy IP. IP is the backbone of the information economy. Free Software does *NOT* have an economic advantage when it comes to IP. Open Source software *CAN* provide IP protection and therefore economic advantage.
This whole "bsd based" thing has gotten way out of proportion.
.....The new Darwin kernel is based on FreeBSD (it would have been nice if Apple also noted they used parts of Net and OpenBSD, but they didn't)
And on what basis do you form this opinion?
Apple pointed out in thier own documentation that the product was based on FreeBSD.
Here is a URL that says Apple® today announced the release of Darwin 1.0, the advanced operating system core at the heart of Mac® OS X,
On what basis did you draw your conclusion? Me, I read what Apple says about their own product, and has been saying for over a year.
The BSD stuff is a convenient way for apple to use existing software,
The carbon interface is the way to use existing software.
When AOL-Time Warner-BSDi merges with Disney-Apple-Microsoft?
Will FreeBSD survive?
Strength in number is also moving Linux more toward the desktop,
So why is 180 seperate distros, most of them doomed to failure, "strength in numbers"?
I have found that several Linux distros are designed to be more of a "desktop" OS
Then step right up and go an get the FreeBSD for the Desktop!
FreeBSD for the Desktop
Ohhhh, the troll is upset.
(pokes troll with stick)
Any you bring up a point many don't grok.
If you define the OS as what it will run, and the binaries are labeled "Works with MacOS" or "works with Windows" or "works with linux", if they were to run on a emulated MacOS/Windows/Linux environment, does it matter to the consumer if the environment is just emulated/not the "real thing"?
AMD/cyrix has proved that people will buy stuff that is "not the real thing" (where real is defined as Intel), so long as it works the same.
If the LSB gets done, and FreeBSD/SCO/QNX/whomever implements it, is that then a 'supportable linux' in the vendors eyes?
BSD is dead in the sense that CP/M is dead. It is still used, but it is not a viable platform for future development.
Then in your world, the only viable Linux is RedHat. And Caldera/Suse/Mandrake are nearly dead, with Debian more of a hobby effort than FreeBSD.
I just want to make sure that I've got this straight.
Not if your beer has been made using patented yeasts!
If you filter out the yeast, no.
Yeast shit is yeast shit.
Hey...FreeBSD was .1 faster. *smile* and that is all that matters....that it is faster running them linux binaries.
:-)
No one ever said that it was significant, or would stay that way
Once that is done and you get the TCP/IP stack up to speed I might even try it!
Up to speed? Looks like it's been there for a while. Graph shows the 4.2 FreeBSD is faster.
It's a fairly well known fact that the *BSD's are not very popular due to the zealotry and elitism associated with it.
The only 'zealotry and elitism' I see here is what you are trying to associate to BSD.
The duke of URL had a graph showing quake running faster on FreeBSD than Linux. way to the Duke and the duke and for the graph. the graph showing its faster
And Walnut Creek had a 1 page glossy claiming 20-30% faster performance.
Original
Oh, and here's the reg! again.
BSD is already in deep trouble.
.... BSD is hurting more than most, however.
Really? Based on this sample of 300 people, the only one not in trouble is RedHat.
Debian/Slackware/Turbo/Corel linux all did worse than FreeBSD. And Debian and the rest are more dead than FreeBSD. Yet, FreeBSD was within 2% of SuSE/Mandrake/Caldera.
If FreeBSD is "in trouble" so is SuSe/Mandrake/Caldera. Oh, wait SuSe can't afford US Staffers
From an investor's perspective, it's fair to say that BSD is dead.
Acually, BSDi is in the BEST position.
The 180+ linux distros PROVE selling Linux is a commodity market. In a commodity market, you want market differentiation. According to a poll where you are to pick a LINUX version, FreeBSD is as acceptable or more so than any other Linux version (other than RedHat) And what a market differentiation FreeBSD has. A different development model, more open license, runs Linux binaries faster than linux...all these improvements and yet seen as good/better than anything else but RedHat.
BSDi would have to be a publicly traded company for it to matter to any investor. Oh, wait, they are a private company. $14 mil last year from yahoo!/Japanese ISP/Japanese VC....and Japan's economy has sucked far worse far longer than the US dot com market has. a nikkei snapshot
But lets say you are correct. Then BSDi will be bought up by someone else. Odds are some Japanese company. Could even be Sony....Why buy Apple when you can buy the core to Apple's new OS?
f course that can be said
And you keep pushing this anti-BSD adjenda. Give it up.
Errr, the update *WAS* the story/what makes the report suspect.
As someone else pointed out....
.gif files. :-)
It has been brought to our attention that FreeBSD is not a Linux distribution. The data was revised to exclude FreeBSD, and the numbers above reflect the corrections. We apologize for the mistake.
No joke. Just a group of marketing researchers who are showing how skilled they are at asking questions, interperting the data, and making
Would you have perfered a title of "Do not buy a report from these people" or "Linux marketing data tainted" or "FreeBSD deleted" or what?
The purpose of the poll was to gain Linux marketing data. Yet 20% of the respondants included data needing to be pulled. Or the purpose of the poll needs to be expanded/changed because the data gathered shows a trend not expected and now needs to be accounted for.
If the poll got 20% "bad data" and was to be linux research (and not a propaganda piece for RedHat, lets say) then the poll was a bad tool to do that research.
If the company can't be troubled to filter out the "bad data" - "bad data" that is large enough to be in the #2 catagory for popularity (RedHat@277 votes vs Suse@64/Mandrake@64/Caldera@63/FreeBSD@60) then why would you buy a report from a company that can't process data...data that is supposed to show information about the "Linux" market.
Go read what the report was to be about.
http://www.evansdata.com/Linux01TOC.htm
If the intention of the open source community is to create an OS to rival Windows, wouldn't it be better if the BSD developers developed Linux instead
It would be best if everyone used a BSD style license. Then EVERYONE could use the code.
As it is, a conclusion one could draw from this 300 person snapshot is that FreeBSD is as acceptable, if not more so, than any version of linux other than RedHat.
Sorry, you are wrong.
They removed FreeBSD because it was a 'linux survey' not a "open source OS" or "what OS do you use for web hosting" poll.
Given FreeBSD had 60 votes, and you are sighting a catagorgy with 32 votes, the last time I was in math class 60 != 32.
Nice try tho. If there was a -1 wrong, you'd get that.
(don't believe me? Go visit the reg! and note where they placed FreeBSD.)
In this poll, FreeBSD placed HIGHER than Debian. (60 votes VS 52 votes 20.4 VS 17.9 %)
And was in a dead heat with SuSe(64) Mandrake(64) and Caldera(63).
Not bad for a Linux OS poll, a poll where FreeBSD wasn't supposed to be an option. Not to mention for a "dying" OS.
Nope. RedHat was 1st at 77% or 266 votes. FreeBSD was at 20% or 60 votes.
Now, they were asking for Linux versions. Had they asked for Open Source Unix-like OSes, I'm betting there would have been a few more votes for FreeBSD.