Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!hookup!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news99.sunet.se!news.uni-c.dk!kroete2!not-for-mail From: erik@kroete2.freinet.de (Erik Corry) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 00:38:06 GMT Organization: Home Lines: 134 Sender: news@kroete2.freinet.de (news) Message-ID: <DJ533J.DDs@kroete2.freinet.de> References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <49rm0g$o8o@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu> <DJ2IBL.71t@nntpa.cb.att.com> <DJ3DM7.n0L@kroete2.freinet.de> <4a14v5$1lq@dyson.iquest.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: arhppp34.uni-c.dk X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950515BETA PL0] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30135 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10328 comp.unix.advocacy:12125 comp.unix.misc:20057 John S. Dyson (root@dyson.iquest.net) wrote: : 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 :-). Yes, but there's only one kernel, one C library, one set of X libraries, and only one recommended filesystem structure. These are the core requirements for compatibility between the distributions. : >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. : : 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. This is a little theoretical: you are arguing that Linus would not have accepted your good arguments. If you have an example of a good argument which Linus has not accepted then the point makes more sense. : 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 It is probably true that Linux development has focused more on features and less on tuning. I don't know what the reasons for this are. It doesn't seem to me to follow from the development model. : 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.) I don't know why you think Linux developers don't get credit for what they do. Surely you don't get credit either other than part of a BSD- licensed thing. Take a look at the CREDITS file right at the top of the Linux source tree. : >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. No, the GPL requires that you preserve Copyright information, too, so authors are given their due credit (unless they give up their copyright). The problem is that the BSD license forbids advertising using the names of authors. This is an additional restriction, and is not allowed by the GPL. It's that banal. I am not a lawyer. : I don't care if BSDI takes my code -- in some ways, BSDI is my friend, and Fine. Most Linux developers do care about this. : 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 To a certain extent, yes. There's a lot of it on both sides of the Linux- BSD fence (and across the fence). : 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!!! Come on, the megabytes are cheap in this age of CDs and large ftp sites. That's not a real problem. And I don't see why you think the GPL is scarey. What scares you about it? : 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 don't see a large investment. You simply take the entire source tree and keep future patches private. You even have the option of including changes you like from the free versions for a while until your version diverges too much. It's a large commitment, but it's a small investment. As I say, if you can live with that then fine, but some people are bothered by it. Don't think yourself immune to being overtaken by a commercial version. It happened to XFree86. That case is slightly different, because Thomas Roell, who started XInside was the main author of X386 anyway, so he wasn't 'stealing' from anyone by making a private version. -- Erik Corry ehcorry@inet.uni-c.dk