Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news1!not-for-mail From: root@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Message-ID: <4a14v5$1lq@dyson.iquest.net> Sender: news@iquest.net (News Admin) Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <49rm0g$o8o@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu> <DJ2IBL.71t@nntpa.cb.att.com> <DJ3DM7.n0L@kroete2.freinet.de> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 09:55:49 GMT Lines: 148 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30015 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10241 comp.unix.advocacy:12063 comp.unix.misc:20017 In article <DJ3DM7.n0L@kroete2.freinet.de>, Erik Corry <erik@kroete2.freinet.de> wrote: >John S. Dyson (dyson@inuxs.inh.att.com) wrote: >: So then finally, someone who uses Linux is admitting that the Linux >: kernel development at least is not open and free. Sounds like a monarchy >: to me. (FreeBSD is somewhere between monarchy and anarchy :-)), and >: the FreeBSD kernel is unencumbered with GPL. > >Monarchy? Benevolent dictatorship! :-) > >Linux development is based on patch files. Anyone who has a kernel >enhancement that has not (yet) been accepted by Linus maintains >a set of patches, which have to be kept up to date as new versions >of the kernel are released. Inevitably, if Linus does not accept >the patches, they will probably die out as the effort to keep >them up to date becomes too large. > >Until now Linus seems to have shown very good judgement in this, so >most people don't regard it as a problem. Of course the internal >layers in the kernel are used to minimise the interaction between >patches as far as possible. > That keeps people from becoming intimately involved and keeps the development centralized. It still does not appear to be open -- in fact, I accepted patches and mods from users when working on SVR4 -- that does not make SVR4 open :-). > >Again, there is nothing stopping someone bringing in the FreeBSD model >if they prefer, but personally I find the multiplicity of BSD versions >(FreeBSD, NetBSD, BSDI, and now OpenBSD) a sign that your way of doing >things isn't without its problems, either. This must represent a similar >duplication of effort to the effort that goes into maintaining Linux >patch files. At least the patch files and new architectures are merged >into Linux eventually: is there an effort to reunify NetBSD and FreeBSD? > You mean there are not various version of the Linux distributions :-). I'll bet you that there are more variations on Linux than the 4 versions of BSD. And how many versions of the Linux kernel are being distributed simultaneously? Notice also, there have been some overtures that might be indicating future cooperation between FreeBSD, and the other *BSDs -- that is not a sign of weakness, but of strength, the previous problems appear to be working themselves out. The teams will probably not merge -- but the spirit of cooperation is appearing. > >My impression is that the splits have mostly been caused by >ego-clashes. In the Linux community, we have so much respect for Linus >that such a clash has never been able to split the kernel. > Also strong opinions -- note that the FreeBSD group is very dynamic and open!!! Whatever the reasons for the seperate groups it has caused significant competition in the BSD community and has caused the development to be open to more people and many new ideas have formed. Case-in-point, my baby, the FreeBSD VM system, we already had a VM system, and it sucked. I had a champion on the newly emerging FreeBSD team (David Greenman) and both of us knew that the VM system was "not very good". It had been meant to be a research project to prove viability, but as such projects go, it turned into "product." I thought that the original code was very very good as a feasibility study -- but it needed to be made more robust. If we had a silly monarchy, the code would never had been incorporated, as I would not have wasted my time trying to convince someone long-distance as to the limitations of the current scheme. I could probably say the same thing about the Linux networking code, or the Linux VM system right now. Linux as it is, has not had the problems of the Net-2 copyright thing, and it only performs marginally better in some areas and is significantly slower in others... If it was a truely an open development, then I think that others could take ownership of the broken pieces (especially if they got some credit other than part of a GPLed thing.) The copyright thing slowed us down by almost 1 year!!! Now we are moving forward faster than ever. > >You say the FreeBSD kernel is 'unencumbered with the GPL'. The GPL >may be an encumberance to you, but to Linux/GNU developers, the >BSD license is also an encumberance: which means you can't use >BSD code in the Linux kernel or in a GPL'ed application. > What is the problem with the BSD copyright? -- I'll bet it is primarily that one must give credit to the developers and not take credit for work that others have done... I think that is a very minor payback for lots of work. I have a very strong philosophical belief that one should always reward people for good performance -- it is part of a very important feedback mechanism. > >The other major encumberance of the GPL is that noone can 'do a BSDI' >with Linux, i.e. copy the code and create a private version. That's not >perceived as a disadvantage by most Linux developers, in fact for many >it is a prerequisite. For example, Alan Cox has stated that he does >GPL development for free, but wants to be paid for development under >other licenses. > I don't care if BSDI takes my code -- in some ways, BSDI is my friend, and in others they are in competition. Isn't it great that FreeBSD is staying ahead of BSDI in some ways -- and gives away its source code :-). Isn't competition great -- I am not afraid of what BSDI can do, the *BSD teams are keeping up pretty well. Bottom line, my work on FreeBSD is advertising, and has helped me in the past to make very good money by Midwestern US standards :-). My work on FreeBSD takes about 20Hrs/week or so average and I believe that I am contributing to the community as a whole, and getting something out of it (Like advertisers on PBS for example.) Seems that I am being inconsistant, since I am a political (thinking) conservative :-). > >And patches >have flowed back from Caldera in a way that I don't imagine BSDI has >done (corrections welcome). > Actually, there was a time that BSDI patches made it into the other *BSDs -- but it appears to be long gone. That is ok, we keep up pretty well -- and have been proactive in finding and resolving bugs. FreeBSD has been leading in several areas and out-performs other *BSDs by being innovative. > >I don't want to be seen as bashing the BSDs: there's probably room >for both. > Nor I. This discussion got started when allegations were made that the FreeBSD development was closed unlike Linux... The end result has shown that Linux is more closed -- but not all that bad. I see the GPL as an ideal that if studied, is very scarey. Socialism is another such ideal. I think that de-facto in both cases (BSD copyright or GPL) people are giving away code. The difference is that the BSD copyright is a gift without strings, except one -- give credit where credit is due. That credit costs maybe about 4-5k -- the source code as the GPL implies, costs multi-megabytes!!! Let me explain a case-in-point... If someone makes a fancy mod to the FreeBSD VM system thereby gaining a 50% performance increase and makes it private, do you think that I cannot do the same??? FreeBSD is already so big and is so complete, it is at very low risk that someone can take it away from the public without a very large investment. I have confidence in the free *BSD groups -- the worse thing that would happen is that the groups would pool their efforts to become competitive again. There are some very powerful and intelligent people backing these free *BSDs -- and they will keep them free... GPL to me is a bit more lazy -- "well, no-one can take the code and make it private anyway, because I am protecting myself with a license". :-). I have much more confidence in myself and the *BSD groups than that!!! John dyson@freebsd.org