FreeBSD developer Scott Long said on Thursday that the next version of the open source BSD-based operating system, planned for release in September, includes support for
"a lot more" wireless cards and for wireless security standards such as the Wi-Fi Protected Access.
Post a Comment
Member since:2005-08-08
Please... The troll is away, so do not call and feed him.
Regarding the article :
"the guy at FreeBSD who is adding wireless support is under contract from wireless companies to do the work"
Well, let us hope the drivers will be free (as in free speech). The OpenBSD developers already tried to deal with wireless device vendors and it was a real PITA for them to obtain anything (like documentation) without being bound to a NDA.
Member since:
---
A lot of news on that interview, such as:
> The project will also launch a redesigned Web site in
> conjunction with its 6.0 release.
On the FreeBSD topic,
I also read in the mailing lists that portsnap will be moved from ports to the *base* system.
Even if 6.0 will be released at mid-end of september, I don't think we will see it in base for 6.0 though.
Member since:---
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-06-30
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-08
I just love this Google Summer of Code thing. It encourages young talent to pursue ambitious projects and become interested in free software development, helps free software projects, and it's a great way for Google to locate and attract the best and the brightest. The FreeBSD installer is just one of many reasons why we all benefit from Google's program. I'm sure that the success of SOC this year will justify continuing this program for years to come.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Honestly, quit trolling, BSD is plenty free. Absolute freedom. If you don't want to risk someone using your code commercially don't use BSD license, but it is perfectly valid open source.
And I happen to love the fact that Apple used BSD for the wonderful OSX. My PowerBook and everything about it was worth the money, I'm sorry you can't find value in commercial offerings as well as free open source ones.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
"I am also one who is in Disagreement with both the definition of Open Source and of The Free Software fondation the body who are certifying software as such , the fact that the words "at all time" are not included permits that *traitor* license to the cause of Open Source and Free Software are certified as full Open Source and full free software , this allow anyone by design to take an original bsd's software and switch it to a singular proprietary and closed source license.
I call thief all those who use the BSD's protection clause and use it to close the code source and keep it only for themself , the best example of that are Microsoft , Apple and Unix all use BSD'S software and are not giving anything back. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
So your objection is with the companies who take the code and release it under a different license. The *BSD code is available for download. As for Apple; they have release most of their source code to the public (Darwin). The only aspect that they haven't released (that I am aware of) is thier GUI.
On Jul 12 2005 Darwin 8.2 was released; download here:
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
FYI: You haven't mentioned Sun. Sun's origins are based on *BSD code, until they bought the rights to Sys V. Now keep in mind, Sun released Solaris (non BSD code) and Star Office. Some companies do give back (not all).
As for MS: I have no comment.
Member since:2005-07-04
SUN is Unix. And yes probably there is BSD's closed code in Sun too. There is on almost every OS.
Lol, you can't even get your facts right. SunOS (later called Solaris) was originally based on BSD, and then later included SYSV code. Not the other way around.
Also, SVR4 includes BSD code. The files that include it are detailed in the Regents of Berkely and USL settlement agreement.
So SunOS/Solaris definately includes BSD code.
RE[3]: re: Moulinneuf
Member since:2005-07-04
Member since:
---
Even better take all BSD's code and make it GPL and enforce it under the GPL.
what a wicked idea! it is the worst idea i have ever heard. i can say. EVEN MORE BETTER take all GPL's code and make it BSD and enforce it under the BSD.
It show the strenght of the Open source BSD developper that a proprietary OS took and kept for himself there code , too bad for the license.
i've been known for quite some time that BSD license even encourage commercial vendors to use BSD code in any way they want. i don't think that that 'a proprietary OS took and kept for himself there code' is 'too bad for the license'. it is encouraging! BSD license actually benefit the world!
Member since:---
"Cant do that with the GPL , its not a traitor license"
Traitor in wich way ? Well, we're talking about freedom , right ? If you're able to read and to understand then you can read BSD licence and if you don't like, you're FREE not to use it.
If someone decide to do some work and to leave everybody use his work for FREE, where's the problem ?
Member since:2005-08-08
> Why are Wifi driver closed and unavailaible for all platform ? Because someone took the open Standard wich is under a traitor license and closed it and built there product with the new closed driver wich are 99% open standards.
Nein.
That is because some developers (including Linux developers) accepted to sign NDAs, so when other developers (especially the OpenBSD developers) asked WiFi vendors for documentation, they received this kind of response : "Well, all other developers are signing NDAs with us, so there is no reason you cannot do the same."
RE[3]: re: Moulinneuf
Member since:
---
"No with the Definition of Open Source and Free Software who allow the full certification because the wording whas not including but implying only "at all time" so that original and derivative have to be Open Source and Free Software to be certified as such."
This would be your definition of Open Source. Sorry to disappoint you; the world does not revolve around your beliefs. There are many versions of Open Source Licenses and they suit a variety of needs. Have you ever read the LGPL?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
"The *BSD code is available for download."
Not all of it. Most derivative are not.
Some parts of code may belong to other vendors. For example some of the code in Solaris could not be released; because it came from some other company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
"As for Apple; they have release most of their source code to the public (Darwin)."
Its not even funny that people make such lies , Darwin is not most of the Apple code which whas closed , its only what Apple feel like releasing.
Which part is a lie? What didn't Apple release. OS X is part *bsd and part Mach 3.0 (Mach was also based on *bsd). They took an OS and released an OS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
"You falsely believe that your excused because you spit lies base on your lack of accurate information ?"
No need to call someone a liar. I lie is intentional; and I can assure you, there is no intent to spread dis-information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
"There suppose to give all the code back thats what Open Source and Free Software is all about. Not just what they feel like. "
This is your belief; not everyone subscribes to your understandign of opensource. Now, a notable programmer and opensource advocate has a slight different opinion (Eric S. Raymond). FYI: This would be the same person who wrote "The Cathedral & the Bazaar"
Please read the interview:
ESR: "We Don't Need the GPL Anymore"
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html
Now, when you engineer your own programs, you can feel free to choose you license agreement (GPL, BSD, MIT, et al).
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
*** because Darwin by itself does not encompass all of the features of Mac OS X ***
, software that depends on higher-level features of Mac OS X (such as the Cocoa and Carbon toolkits) will not run on a stand-alone Darwin system."
True, but Apple did not take Coca or Cabron from "ANY" Open Source Project (that I am aware of). This would be Apples own unique creation. Please feel free to correct me, if Apple has taken the code from some other OSS project to create: Coca or Carbon.
Member since:
---
Why are Wifi driver closed and unavailaible for all platform ? Because someone took the open Standard wich is under a traitor license and closed it and built there product with the new closed driver wich are 99% open standards.
Because in some countries it's the law. You can't distribute the frequency changing parts of the code as source. That's why the Atheros driver, on all platforms I've seen, comes with a binary HAL. It isn't because of the wicked, closed source fairy stealing away the code. It's because of various goverment authorities in charge of radio band contention.
Member since:2005-08-08
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:---
OpenBSD has a completely open Atheros driver, including HAL, written by Reyk Floeter.
Fair enough, I haven't used OpenBSD so I wasn't aware of this effort. I still maintain though that the binary HAL thing is definitely the NIC manufacturers trying to cover themselves from a legal perspective.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:
---
I just got the point. If some one is saying something like :"I am not stuborn , when proven wrong I will admit to it , it dont happen very often." and just after :"BSD guarantee freedom for the user ? Your delusionnal and a liar and a thief by association." the only thing I can say to that person is to check out this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness . It's apparently useless to argue with someone who's not able to take in consideration other opinions.
So people, please, don't let us mess up this place, it's not supposed to be a Troll's kingdom !
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
---
" Have you ever read the LGPL? "
Yes.
"Some parts of code may belong to other vendors."
I will agree with you on that , but I also include Apple code they are choosing not to release.
" For example some of the code in Solaris could not be released; because it came from some other company."
Thats also a problem , not telling who is doing what , some other company have names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
You may be barking up the wrong tree (old US expression). Are you aware that the Linux kernel has binary drivers? Its probably best that you start at the top of the list. Have you contacted Linus? Or any of the devlopers? Have you contacted Intel?
You have a big job ahead of you. I think that its best; that you get to the bottom of this Non-Free Conspiracy. Snap too it.
Regards
Member since:2005-07-06
Mleoneifnueff you are a nuuuuuuugget.
Really. However ... let's back on to an old question that you never actually answered ...
List (specifically) which parts of OS X Apple borrowed from an open-source project and have not released the source code for. Also explain what your justification is for believing that they should release the source for things like Aqua, iTunes, and Quartz Extreme. Where did they take those from?
Member since:2005-06-30
RE[4]: re: Moulinneuf
RE[3]: re: Moulinneuf
Member since:
---
"but your a dangerous idiot in the long run."
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
You never answered the question, what part of OS X did Apple take that wasn't given back.
You acknowledge that there are closed source binaries (with respect to the kernel) and have no real response. Yet you choose to make deragatory comments about an OS that is Open.
Perhaps you should start with closed source that exists with in the kernel before branching out. Your spreading your nuttieness too thin (kind of like peanut butter).
Seek some professional help
Member since:2005-07-06
"You never answered the question"
I actually did , numerous time.
"what part of OS X did Apple take that wasn't given back."
All of it is Open Source , for it to be acceptable they have to contribute ALL back. Cant be clear enough then that. It ALL came from Open Source even the improvment (what some call derivative).
"You acknowledge that there are closed source binaries "
No , i never acknowledged your lies or agreed with it, I said modules , which mean modules attached to it. there not needed for the kernel to function there are in use in special case and with some hardware.
"and have no real response."
I actuualy gave you a real answer , you just dont like what I said and are twisting it to fit your goal ( insult me and prrove me as wrong ).
"Yet you choose to make deragatory comments"
I dont make deragatory comments , its an accurate observation of over 30 year of use and existance of all BSD project.
"about an OS that is Open."
Yes , I could go for Open , its just not Open source and not Free Software.
"Perhaps you should start with closed source that exists with in the kernel before branching out. "
There not in the kernel there attached to it. Perhaps I whont listen to a liar who as no name and who as nothing accurate and of value at all to say and continue to show that BSD's are not license but a protection clause and that they are not real Open Source and are not real Free Software , wait I already do that.
"Your spreading your nuttieness too thin "
I happen to be right on this and accurate too.
"(kind of like peanut butter). "
I guess you have a problem with peanut butter too ...
"Seek some professional help"
I see a shrink every week among other professional due to my job and because its a requiremnent for one of my job. What about you ?
- Moulinneuf
Member since:---
actually no
it is perfectly acceptable, legal and ethical to take open source use it and not contribute ANYTHING back.
there is no requirement to give back when you were given something without that obligation.
if it was expected to be given back, that should have been part of the license.
RE[2]: Lies meet truth
Member since:2005-08-08
> Open source means the source code is Open at all time both the original and derivative , dont even have to give away the derivative but once you paid for it you must get the source code too , thats what Open Source really is , otherwise its a traitor license passing itself off as Open Source.
You definitely have a weird definition for the word 'open'. Is an open bottle of wine a bottle that is open at all time and that can not be closed, too ?
Member since:2005-07-07
Actually, his definition is even weirder. The code would be "Open" and "Free" only if it forces some *other* code, written by *other* people, to be disclosed as well (that is what GPL dictates).
Seems to me that this idea of "freedom" is much closer to socialism than to liberalism. I know the GPL creators deny it, but it really looks like that (to me, at least).
With academic licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache) you can do whatever the heck you want with the code, as long as you give proper credits. This is much closer to my idea of freedom.
RE[5]: Lies meet truth
Member since:2005-08-18
"I am talking about *Open Source* and *Free Software*."
No, you're talking about *your* definiton of Open Source and Free Software, not the commonly accepted definiton of them.
"Freedom for me is not the availibitlity to take freedom and things from others without permission from other as I see fit , its not either to put anyone else or myself in a cage."
You're not taking anything with the BSD license, you are using a copy of something someone else made. Taking would mean the removal of something from the original user but clearly that's not the case here.
RE[4]: Lies meet truth
Member since:
2005-07-06
Geez, every time! I am so sick and tired of this. Everytime there is a FreeBSD post, the comments almost always end up about the bsd/gpl license debate.
If you don't reply to Moulinneuf then there won't be an argument. Just ignore him and mod down his comments.
Just a friendly request please guys/gals.
Thanks.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-18
"If you don't reply to Moulinneuf then there won't be an argument. Just ignore him and mod down his comments."
Yes, please lets.
People, you cant win an argument with him. He's just like a spoiled little child yearning for attention and no matter what you say he wont admit being wrong.
Member since:
---
Ladys and gentlemen! We are witnessing the evolution of the English language, right before our very eyes!
Long have incorporated words from other languages into our own, and right here on OSNews we witness the assimilation of another.
From this day forward, "Moulinneuf" shall be English for "stubborn retard."
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-07
Wireless device manufacturers may prefer to use FreeBSD rather than the rival open source operating system, Linux, because of features such as its support for fine-grained access controls and security policies, according to Long.
This is utterly rediculous. Why mention Linux in a FreeBSD article?
Linux has a implementation of fine-grained POSIX access controls, and it has multiple implementations of advanced security policies.
Why would he even imply this is a unique feature of FreeBSD, beats me. Why he wouldn't mention the laisser faire liscense of FreeBSD as a potential advantage for wireless driver development, versus the GPL, is beyond me.
