Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:14 UTC, submitted by Charles A Landemaine
PC-BSD "iXsystems, an enterprise-class hardware solution provider, announced today its acquisition of PC-BSD, a rock solid UNIX operating system based on FreeBSD. PC-BSD is a fully functional desktop operating system running FreeBSD version 6, with a KDE desktop interface and graphical system installer. Its PBI system, developed exclusively for PC-BSD, lets users download and install their applications in a self-extracting and installing format. iXsystems' acquisition of PC-BSD will provide funding to the PC-BSD project to increase distribution of PC-BSD and develop future versions of PC-BSD. Development is currently underway for a version of PC-BSD that will allow for easy installation and operation on servers, workstations, and laptops."
Order by: Score:
Hmm
by Xaero_Vincent on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:32 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

Well if this means PC-BSD will become commercial, then I suspect it'll fall to pieces very quickly.
After all, it would become one of the only FBSD derivitives that arn't free.

I tried PC-BSD once but the fact that it didn't even boot up after installation on my 3.5 year old system was enough to discourage me from ever trying it again.

Reply Score: 0

Not so sure about this...
by werfu on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:34 UTC
werfu
Member since:
2005-09-15

PC-BSD is the first BSD distribution that cought my attention for simply one reason : integration. PC-BSD is simplier to use than major other desktop linux distributions. Their PBI model is easy to develop and easy to use. And while you can't deny it use FreeBSD, it has a little something that make it totaly different.

Now I'm somewhat scared for its future. Who are those iXsystem? Anyway, I though PC-BSD was somewhat open source... guess this is due to the BSD license. At last if things go wrong, we could fork it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not so sure about this...
by hamster on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:45 UTC in reply to "Not so sure about this..."
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

About iXsystems
iXsystems is a leading provider of high-performance computing clusters, blade servers, rackmount servers, and storage solutions to the global marketplace. iXsystems supplies FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and Linux servers to a wide cross-section of industries. The company is headquartered in San Jose, CA.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not so sure about this...
by Janizary on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:49 UTC in reply to "Not so sure about this..."
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

iXsystem has been providing the hardware for PC-BSD for a while, most of the people there are FreeBSD supporters.

PC-BSD is really just a few small KDE addons and their nasty package system, I audably laughed when I read about this last night because of how crazy the idea of buying something like this is.

However, as was soon after pointed out to me, it's quite likely that iXsystems is buying them out more as a community base than as a technology, since PC-BSD has that image that you bought into.

And PC-BSD is not a BSD distro, it's a FreeBSD distro, just like DesktopBSD. They are just an add on to the actual operating system, they are not full-flung operating systems of their own, like OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD or DragonFly BSD are. Those two are the only, "distributions," in the BSD world, and they're entirely FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Not so sure about this...
by KenJackson on Tue 10th Oct 2006 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Not so sure about this..."
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Those two are the only, "distributions," in the BSD world, and they're entirely FreeBSD.

That's a good point. Hopefully, iXsystems will make bug fixes, improvements and additions that will be folded back into the FreeBSD core.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not so sure about this...
by rexbinary on Tue 10th Oct 2006 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not so sure about this..."
rexbinary Member since:
2006-01-04

"That's a good point. Hopefully, iXsystems will make bug fixes, improvements and additions that will be folded back into the FreeBSD core."

Since they are using the BSD licence, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe they are required to give back anything. It would be nice if they did of course.

Reply Score: 1

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

They're not required to. I don't expect them to do anything too drastic; probably just a workstation platform to bundle with their servers.

Reply Score: 1

Charles A Landemaine Member since:
2005-11-11

PC-BSD is really just a few small KDE addons

Are you sure? ;)
http://www.pcbsd.org/?p=changelog

and their nasty package system, I audably laughed when I read about this last night because of how crazy the idea of buying something like this is.

Take a peek: http://www.pcbsd.org/?p=pmscreens
If you're laughing, I hope you're laughing for joy ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Not so sure about this...
by Janizary on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not so sure about this..."
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

Yes, I am sure, your lovely changelog illustrates this. Laughing for joy? What are you on about now? I see screenshot of just another random KDE install.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not so sure about this...
by antik on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not so sure about this..."
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

I see screenshot of just another random KDE install.

You can see underneath of KDE with your eyes? Ooo man you are clairvoyant. You'll never know the truth if you won't download it and try it out.

This is pre-beta nr.2 release- I wouldn't pasted it here in normal conditions but I suggest to check it out before official beta (released later this week) and final release (end of the month):
http://devs.pcbsd.org/isos/PCBSD-1.3-prebeta2.iso

PBI packages are downloadable from here: http://www.pbidir.com

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not so sure about this...
by BluenoseJake on Wed 11th Oct 2006 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Not so sure about this..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Thier package system may be nasty, but to gain acceptance in the Windows world, that's the kind of stand alone installers people expect, and it certainly makes life easier than the ports system.

Reply Score: 1

Someone tell me
by maxx_730 on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:51 UTC
maxx_730
Member since:
2005-12-14

How can open source software be bought by a company?

(Except for buying the rights from all the copyrightholders and relicensing it, which is (nearly) impossible in this situation because PC-BSD is based on FreeBSD with many,many contributors)

Edited 2006-10-10 15:57

Reply Score: 1

RE: Someone tell me
by antik on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:57 UTC in reply to "Someone tell me"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

iXsystems bought part of PC-BSD Software LLC. not community.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Someone tell me
by hamster on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:59 UTC in reply to "Someone tell me"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

I do think that it's their way of saying that they will provide funding to the team behind pc-bsd.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Someone tell me
by Jody on Tue 10th Oct 2006 17:54 UTC in reply to "Someone tell me"
Jody Member since:
2005-06-30

It wouldn't be possible to be Linux per se, but one could aquire Red Hat or SUSE.

I don't see this aquisition as a bad thing really, PC-BSD could gain some needed support and become more popular, or iXsystems will do a terrible job and people will use a competing solution.

I have never used PC-BSD before but it looks like they may be onto something with their packaging system and http://www.pbidir.com.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Someone tell me
by maxx_730 on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:47 UTC in reply to "Someone tell me"
Future will tell about our fears
by Haicube on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:56 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

Change is in the american world associated with something potentially good. In the European world it's mostly associated with something possibly bad. For the rest of the world I have no idea.

Regarding IXsystems acquisition, I wouldn't really be able to tell good or bad. Seeing that they'll bring resources is definitely good, but if this would somehow make any changes in the PCBSD (BSDL)policy I'd consider it awfully bad.

Judging from Hamsters post about who ixSystems are I'd say this might be a very slick move for everyone. Making, for instance, storage solutions available to a wider market with an understandable system on top (which PCBSD really is).

I for one think it's far to easy to tell good or bad here, until we hear anything about ixSystems ambitions on a more long term level.

Reply Score: 4

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Change is in the american world associated with something potentially good. In the European world it's mostly associated with something possibly bad.

Yeah, that must be why more and more countries are being let into the EU, Europeans are waking up to the fact that gays aren't Satanic, and in America you still have Amish and old-style Bible-bashers. Because Europe=change bad, Americans=Change good. If you actually knew anything about Europe you'd realise most of us are shocked at how fearful Americans are of change.

(I have nothing against the Amish - but that doesn't mean they're the most modern people in the world. If nothing else they deserve respect for being able to hold on to their way of life for as long as they have.)

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

As a Dane I'm with you.

It's very common in people to be somewhat reluctant to meet changes. However, this does not equal being fearful of changes - just reluctant. And it's because the consequenses are unknown. People don't like that.

twenex' post do not deserve to be modded down.

Personally I like changes sometimes and dislike them other times. Depends on the changes.

Reply Score: 2

dStreSd Member since:
2006-09-16

I, as an American, concur...

Reply Score: 1

Good thing
by Adurbe on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:57 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

Hopefully the capital with help improve PC-BSD. If nothing else they will include it in their company offerings improving its circulation. I cant see this being a bad thing.

Reply Score: 4

On second thought
by KenJackson on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:59 UTC
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

iXsystems' mission is to be the largest provider of open source server hardware and software in the IT industry. "Our support and further development of PC-BSD will drive adoption of the FreeBSD operating system by Windows and Linux users..."

When I read the headline, my immediate reaction was, "Oh NO!" But after thinking about it, this has the potential to be a good thing. There are already a number of high-profile, solid Linux distributions in the public eye, but the fact that they are all Linux seems to confuse some people. So here is another option that is FOSS, but not Linux.

None of the non-computer people I talk to have ever heard of BSD. If iXsystems can really raise PC-BSD's profile high enough to be seen and keep it free, then half of the visible choices (Windows, Apple, Linux, PC-BSD) will be free (as in freedom).

And if they start selling pre-loaded systems with PC-BSD they will earn a super at-a-boy.

Reply Score: 3

Panic mode
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 10th Oct 2006 16:08 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

People go all in panic mode about this, but lets not forget that the more popular Linux distributions are ALL owned by companies. Ubuntu (Canonical), Mandriva, OpenSUSE (Novell), Fedora, Xandros, Linspire, etc.

Reply Score: 1

v Really Happy mode
by Moulinneuf on Tue 10th Oct 2006 18:41 UTC in reply to "Panic mode"
RE: Panic mode
by Tor85 on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:14 UTC in reply to "Panic mode"
Tor85 Member since:
2006-07-04

>but lets not forget that the more popular Linux >distributions are ALL owned by companies.

But this companies cannot close code. With *BSD anyone can.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Panic mode
by antik on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Panic mode"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

We can fork code any time and start new project based on that. But we won't do it, because it would be stupid to make "yetanotherlin...err..unix distro". Half assed solutions is for Linux community, we need more professional developers and commercial support. BSD license gives us more freedom than you can imagine. Stop spreading MS like FUD about GPL is best thing happened to manking after sliced bread.

I am a PC-BSD developer and quality manager and I am not working for iXsystems Inc. and even not for PC-BSD Software LLC. I do my own business and recommend to stay others with their own.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Panic mode
by hamster on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Panic mode"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

But would you mind getting paid the time you use working on pc-bsd.. or would you mind someone else being able to work close to full time on pc-bsd?

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Panic mode
by Moulinneuf on Tue 10th Oct 2006 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Panic mode"
RE[4]: Panic mode
by Joe User on Tue 10th Oct 2006 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Panic mode"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

The BSD License give no freedom , it permits closing by anyone at anytime.

Isn't this freedom then? We should buy Moulinneuf a new brain for Christmas.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[5]: Panic mode
by Moulinneuf on Tue 10th Oct 2006 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Panic mode"
RE[6]: Panic mode
by Joe User on Wed 11th Oct 2006 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Panic mode"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

No ... Lets put you in a cage because I feel like it. Maybe , probably not , then you will understand freedom.

Are you too damn stupid that BSD software developers release their code under the BSD license *KNOWING* and *ACCEPTING* that their code be closed by another company? What's wrong with Apple using FreeBSD source code and closing it? Absolutely NOTHING. If I were a software developer, I would release my code under the BSD license for the sake of freedom. I don't want to force anybody using my code to have to release source code if they make changes. Use my code, change it and release it open or close, whichever. If you can't use open-source software for a closed source application, for me it's close to useless.

BSD is a philosophy. That you give and that you don't expect anything in return. I write for Wikipedia, and I don't expect anybody to cite their source. I wrote a number of articles on Wikipedia and I don't want anything in return for yourself. I did it for people in general. This is the true meaning of giving when you don't want anything in return for yourself.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Panic mode
by Mitarai on Tue 10th Oct 2006 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Panic mode"
Mitarai Member since:
2005-07-28

I second that too.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[7]: Panic mode
by Moulinneuf on Wed 11th Oct 2006 01:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Panic mode"
RE[7]: Panic mode
by thebluesgnr on Wed 11th Oct 2006 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Panic mode"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

Your post shows that you don't quite get what the GPL and free software is all about.

The tit-for-tat, "I'll give you my code you give me your modifications" is the mentality followed by Linus Torvalds and open source in general.

The GNU GPL at its core is more in line with "I'll give you freedom to do 0, 1, 2 and 3 and you can't prevent people from having these freedoms if you choose to use my code". Free software is not about giving back, it's about the recipient of a piece of software having the 4 freedoms to use, modify and distribute that software.

The GPL and other free software licenses don't give you the right to not give users these freedoms if you accept them, others allow you to remove the freedoms you were granted when you redistribute a piece of software (like the MIT license).

RMS also doesn't have a problem with proprietary software developers like Apple using his code. In fact, Apple depends on a project written by RMS licensed under the GPL (GCC); they also depend on KHTML, which has the same requirement as the GPL in this aspect. The problem isn't that Apple will "close" the software, but that Apple will restrict the users of such software. Free software developers that adopt the GPL don't want Apple restricting users of the code they wrote like that.

On a final note, I'd like to request the moderators of this site to delete all the off-topic GPL-BSD debates we've been having here lately. An ocasional off topic discussion is normal, but if this goes on then all the BSD related topics will be filled with this same boring sh*t.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Panic mode
by dylansmrjones on Tue 10th Oct 2006 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Panic mode"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Relax!

PC-BSD is based on FreeBSD and FreeBSD is not going to be closed-source. And if it did, there would be so much code floating around that we could fork it.

So relax!

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Panic mode
by Moulinneuf on Tue 10th Oct 2006 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Panic mode"
RE[4]: Panic mode
by dylansmrjones on Tue 10th Oct 2006 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Panic mode"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Relax dude... I'm a Gentoo user myself (and Windows and OS/2/eCS, and Syllable, SkyOS, AROS and Haiku), and generally prefer GPL over the BSD-license, but relax.

R e l a x .

The only special thing in PC-BSD is the PBI system, and it's not exactly revolutionary. There are several GPL'ed variations on the same theme, so who cares if a bsd-licensed version goes down? If PC-BSD goes closed source, we can just create a new one based on FreeBSD and utilize GNU software to replace PBI.

There is no reason to panic. Relax.

I am not lying, nor am I exploding in a tremendous rage (and how would you know?). However, I am somewhat humoured by your claim that I should be.

BTW: Are you related to NotParker in any way? ;)

Edited 2006-10-10 21:33

Reply Score: 4

v RE[5]: Panic mode
by Moulinneuf on Tue 10th Oct 2006 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Panic mode"
RE[6]: Panic mode
by dylansmrjones on Tue 10th Oct 2006 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Panic mode"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

If he is a bot , then I have been really fooled.

Thanks... that one made me laugh ;) (and perhaps he is a bot.. I dare not say for sure).

I'm not exploding in a tremendous rage, just slightly annoyed. Tremendous rage is a very big thing, and something that rarely happens for me.

There are so many open source and Free Software alternatives to PC-BSD that the loss of it wouldn't be so bad. So I'll just lean back and relax.

It's actually very easy to create a fork - the problem is to maintain the fork. Just like it is easy to create a distribution, but difficult to maintain it (the latter is a huge job).

Forks are easy under the BSD _if_ you have the code. We have the FreeBSD code used in PC-BSD and we have code to replace the PBI-system, so we're not in trouble. But personally I don't think PC-BSD will go closed-source. That's unlikely in my eyes. But if it did, it would do little or no harm to the community. It _is_ replaceable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Panic mode
by hamster on Tue 10th Oct 2006 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Panic mode"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

Heck even if they did close it it's not like they can take away the source code you have allready under th bsdl.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Panic mode
by dylansmrjones on Tue 10th Oct 2006 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Panic mode"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Correct.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Panic mode
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 10th Oct 2006 22:00 UTC in reply to "Panic mode"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Not really "ALL" of them... Who owns Debian or Gentoo?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Panic mode
by dStreSd on Wed 11th Oct 2006 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Panic mode"
dStreSd Member since:
2006-09-16

Debian is owned by the group of developers behind the scenes, not necesarily a Company but their is an entity in control of the trademark and whatnot although they tend to be lax in it's control. And Gentoo is not a true distro it's a pseudo-distro. After you install it it evolves as you please.

Reply Score: 1

TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sure the OS was worth notice. I have 4 OS on my Home desktop.

1. Windows 98 - for Games
2. Windows XP - for my wife
3. debian Linux - for all my computing needs
4. PC-BSD for my experiments and to know where rest of the OS are!

Well I already have started PC-BSD group on orkut, just wondering after the financial support where it will head? I hope someday ease of PC-BSD will lead other operating systems.

Reply Score: 2

ElectricDevil
Member since:
2006-08-22

This will probably bring a more long lasting commitment to the development of PC-BSD. As it is no longer "just a hobby OS". And hopefully there are coming more server centric functionality to the system.

I have good faith in iXsystems, as they have proven them selves to further the BSD community. Like the effort in hosting PC-BSD and the RAQdevil project.

On the not so good side of it, I could raise some sort of mental barrier between PC-BSD och DesktopBSD.

Only time will tell, but I think and hope this will advance the BSD family in some way.

Reply Score: 4

Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

*BSD isn't just a "hobby os", it's a full grown Unix, with a strong engineering background! The "Beer and Hobby Society" isn't anywhere in the Unix community, maybe out there, where people try to mimic some real Unix ;)

Reply Score: 1

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

The "Beer and Hobby Society" isn't anywhere in the Unix community, maybe out there, where people try to mimic some real Unix ;)

Like every non Open Group certified POSIX compliant OS out there, such as GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, FreeBSD, DesktopBSD, PC-BSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD?

Matter of fact, nothing is UNIX if the Open Group has not rubber stamped it. So spare us the "We're real UNIX" until you pony up the money to be certified. Until then these BSD OSes are just another rewritten Unix clone.

After certification it will still mean nothing though. It is not the pedigree that counts, but what the technology can actually do for you.

Pounding on your chest that you delineate from the original UNIX, while it was with shady copyright dealings, is not something to write home about.

r_a_trip. Sick and tired of the false "we're better, we're REAL Unix" blathering.

Reply Score: 5

antik Member since:
2006-05-19

r_a_trip. Sick and tired of the false "we're better, we're REAL Unix" blathering.

Same words about GPL goodness.

Reply Score: 1

silicon Member since:
2005-07-30

I would say GNU's Not Unix and I am proud of it.

Reply Score: 2

Can't be a bad thing
by elsewhere on Tue 10th Oct 2006 16:38 UTC
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

I suppose that, theoretically, the new parent company could close future modifications made to PC-BSD in an attempt to derive a revenue stream, but I don't see the advantage in doing so and I highly doubt that's their intent.

Without knowing more, I can't see where this is a bad thing. BSD, for all it's merits, has lacked commercial backing, development and support on an equivalent scale to linux. On the surface this seems like an attempt really to provide commercial credibility to BSD and provide financial backing while still relying on community involvement for development. I'll refrain from cynicism until it's warranted, and certainly give them the benefit of the doubt here.

Good stuff.

Reply Score: 5

v Could be a very smart move
by Jody on Tue 10th Oct 2006 18:07 UTC
v RE: Could be a very smart move
by Moulinneuf on Tue 10th Oct 2006 18:49 UTC in reply to "Could be a very smart move"
RE[2]: Could be a very smart move
by Joe User on Tue 10th Oct 2006 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Could be a very smart move"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

> The GPL dont care about Open Source , it care that software stay Free as in Freedom.

So you think being forced to release your source code just because you include a small GPL library can be called "freedom". Sorry, we have a different vision of "freedom".

The person who doesn't know what he's talking about is you. Read that first, then we talk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing

Edited 2006-10-10 18:56

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Could be a very smart move
by Mitarai on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Could be a very smart move"
v RE[3]: Could be a very smart move
by borker on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Could be a very smart move"
RE[3]: Could be a very smart move
by borker on Tue 10th Oct 2006 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Could be a very smart move"
borker Member since:
2006-04-04

To whomever mod'd my original post in this thread down... please explain? What was spam or where was offensive language used?

The level of discourse on this site has been declining of late and there seems to be more trolls, astroturfers and general pointless argument than actual real discussion based around fact, not to mention a sad increase of abuse of the mod system.

If you have a negative opinion about a post, state it... point out how I (or any other poster) is wrong in a logical, well supported way, don't chicken out and hit the '-' button.

Reply Score: 2

Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

To whomever mod'd my original post in this thread down... please explain? What was spam or where was offensive language used?

It's very simple. This is a thread about a BSD. And it seems that in every single thread about a BSD, someone has the URGE to bring up the BSD-license vs GPL-debate. People are getting sick and tired of it; it's not on-topic, it's done to death, and it's definitely not interesting anymore. So the GP post was modded -3.

And every post that tried to continue the off-topic discussion got the same treatment, since by derivation, they're also off-topic, and people should know better.

This is an example of the mod system working very well to clean up discussion, the way it's meant to work. But feelings occasionally get hurt, mostly of those off-topic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Could be a very smart move
by borker on Wed 11th Oct 2006 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Could be a very smart move"
borker Member since:
2006-04-04

I do see your point to some degree... and it is anoying how so many threads degenerate into license, DE etc wars, but in this case, the subject of the post is a BSD licensed OS being bought and there are legitimate reasons to discuss the ramifications of licensing choice in this context. Sorry, but though the post i responded to was wrong headed it was not in this context off topic.

Also, I note that the topic I responded to is at +3 so someone posting a misunderstanding about a license is on topic but someone correcting them is off? This is not the mod system working properly.

Edited 2006-10-11 14:00

Reply Score: 2

Buffalo Soldier Member since:
2005-07-06

problem: So you think being forced to release your source code just because you include a small GPL library can be called "freedom"

Solution: Do not include that library. I'm sure you can write a library that is as good if not better.

Why would you include a GPL library in your software if you don't agree with it?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Could be a very smart move
by Oliver on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Could be a very smart move"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Freedom isn't someones flavour of freedom, like the GPL. Freedom is real and without any drawback! If you want to guarantee freedom you have to do it with a proper attitude and the right facts. Some philosopher, people who real care about what is freedom, wouldn't define it that easily - because they know, it's always a two edged blade.
So it's "freedom" according to Stallman, the FSF, whatever - and I admire their fight against bad companies, but it's only their flavour - nothing more. Theo de Raadt (OpenBSD) for example has some other flavour of freedom to offer. So it's the brain to use, not some religion ...

Reply Score: 5

Mod parent down!
by DevL on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:22 UTC in reply to "Could be a very smart move"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

Mod any post about the BSD versus GPL licenses down for that matter. It's getting bloody tiresome to see each and every piece of BSD-related news to be perverted into yet another moronic license war!

Reply Score: 5

v RE: Mod parent down!
by Oliver on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:25 UTC in reply to "Mod parent down!"
RE[2]: Mod parent down!
by DevL on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Mod parent down!"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

For deitys sake! The BSD vs GPL is SO old and SO off topic one can get! Now give it a rest before OSNews becomes yet another Slashdot-flamefest!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Mod parent down!
by Oliver on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mod parent down!"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

It's old and often end in an warefare against each other, but it's important too - it makes the difference.

Reply Score: 0

PC-BSD Acquired
by TaterSalad on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:07 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

This sounds like a good deal. I just downloaded the PC-BSD vmware image last night just because I felt the need to use it and play around with it.

My hopes are that iXsystems gives PC-BSD a financial backing and a good corporate branding. If pc-bsd can get the name recognition it deserves it can become a viable player in today's world of the *nix's.

Reply Score: 3

RE: PC-BSD Acquired
by abhaysahai on Wed 11th Oct 2006 02:22 UTC in reply to "PC-BSD Acquired"
abhaysahai Member since:
2005-10-20

Even I think so.
I believe that a strong corporate backing would further help PC-BSD in bringing out a Nice and "polished" desktop.
iXsystems uses FreeBSD,NetBSD, OpenBSD and linux on servers, and these projects are all community driven. I do not think that iXsystems people will take away the most striking feature ( community ) from PC-BSD.
From their news post it looks like they will infact increase the distribution and stress on usability features.
Looks like PC-BSD is poised to become a viable alternative to Windows.
Way to go PC-BSD.

Reply Score: 3

PBI just isn't right
by Almindor on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:39 UTC
Almindor
Member since:
2006-01-16

Well this acquisition still doesn't change the fact that the PBI package system is inheritedly flawed.

a) PBI programs have their own lib dirs, so if THEY produce a program which requires those libs, it will fail to link/start
b) PBI programs have each got a copy of their own lib which is a wastage of space AND RAM. Not to mention the fact that it's simply plain wrong. Shared objects (libraries) were ment to be SHARED.. as the name implies

The whole idea to fight DLL hell by not using DLLs how they were ment to be used is rather bad. I'm really not happy about the rather idiotic UNIX ABI situations in most/all unix flavors out there, but this PBI packaging doesn't fix it.

Not to mention security implications of using old libs...

Reply Score: 5

RE: PBI just isn't right
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 10th Oct 2006 19:47 UTC in reply to "PBI just isn't right"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

a) PBI programs have their own lib dirs, so if THEY produce a program which requires those libs, it will fail to link/start

What?

b) PBI programs have each got a copy of their own lib which is a wastage of space AND RAM. Not to mention the fact that it's simply plain wrong. Shared objects (libraries) were ment to be SHARED.. as the name implies

It is actually a trade-off for userfriendlyness. I'd much rather have applications be (un)installable by removing its directory, than having to load up a package manager or a terminal EACH time I want to delete an application. I don't have the time to remember each apps package name.

BeOS does it right (application dirs can be moved/removed at will) and OSX does it almost right (OSX kind of sucks since removign a .app directory leaves a trail of files of that .app dir all over the place).

Not to mention security implications of using old libs...

Well, ANYthing is better than having somelib v2.3.12b2 kill applications because they require v.2.3.12b1.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: PBI just isn't right
by Almindor on Tue 10th Oct 2006 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE: PBI just isn't right"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

"What?"

That! It means that eg: if you put an RAD IDE into a PBI and that IDE uses a compiler to make visual (let's say gtk) programs which require gtk libs and few others, the resulting programs won't link, because those lib are only in the local program lib dir visible only to your program.

Even if you instruct the linker to look at that lib dir your resulting app won't start because it doesn't know that lib dir. You can ofcourse then tweak the ld configs to make that lib dir visible.. but then again.. is this userfriendly??

There are many other problem implications, usage of RAM is just one of them.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: PBI just isn't right
by BluenoseJake on Wed 11th Oct 2006 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PBI just isn't right"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'm sure that the devs thought of that and worked around it, do you have any proof of your allegations?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: PBI just isn't right
by Almindor on Wed 11th Oct 2006 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PBI just isn't right"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

No they haven't. Look at the Lazarus PBI package (somewhat older now) of which I am the author (just.. BTW?)

It needs GTK1(and all that needs). Gtk1 isn't installed on PCBSD by default. Ok, so the local Lazarus lib dir got g gtk1 libs in it no prob right?

Wrong:
Lazarus is a RAD IDE using a compiler to produce visual applications (think Delphi style). Once you run it it works, but it won't link the apps. Only if you play around with some settings of ld. Ofcourse even then your app won't start afterwards because it needs those gtk1 libs to work.

I asked on the forums etc. and the general consensus was that there is no general consensus on this problem. It was simply ignored by the PCBSD team and is ignored till this day, atleast to my knowlidge.

I stopped using PCBSD because of this and KDE (I prefer gnome). Don't take it as a rant, I like freeBSD and PCBSD did alot of things right, but this one is simply and plainly WRONG.

Reply Score: 2

RE: PBI just isn't right
by codehead78 on Tue 10th Oct 2006 20:28 UTC in reply to "PBI just isn't right"
codehead78 Member since:
2006-08-04

But doesn't that make the program more stable? If you do all your testing with a set for libs, if just one of those libs pushes an update that introduces a bug...
It just seems like a good idea assuming the package can also make use of common system libs and bundle up "volatile" libs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: PBI just isn't right
by Almindor on Tue 10th Oct 2006 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE: PBI just isn't right"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

Problem is that FreeBSD has very few system level libs you can depend on that ARE there. Ofcourse PCBSD "fixed" this by adding a few common desktop ones. But they don't include eg: libgtk1.2 (xmms anyone?) so a RAD IDE which uses it for example won't be able to make proper working binaries on PC-BSD unless you bundle them in a PBI and install first...

and the problem is not in the IDE, it's a design issue.

As for stability, that's not exactly true. It's more stable in that it won't eg: stop working altogether if you use old libs all the time. But it's less secure and less "stable" if the old libs have bugs and newer ones have them fixed.

Double sided sword.

Reply Score: 1

RE: PBI just isn't right
by bubbayank on Tue 10th Oct 2006 21:00 UTC in reply to "PBI just isn't right"
bubbayank Member since:
2005-07-15

b) PBI programs have each got a copy of their own lib which is a wastage of space AND RAM. Not to mention the fact that it's simply plain wrong. Shared objects (libraries) were ment to be SHARED.. as the name implies

This is not 1995. RAM and drives are cheap. PBI is a simple solution to a problem that leverages the economy of cheap hardware.

Please, tell us what your real-world user-friendly solution to the dependency problem is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: PBI just isn't right
by Almindor on Tue 10th Oct 2006 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE: PBI just isn't right"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

a complete rework of the unix concept in the first place.

And smartlinking, that means static-linking only of those functions/objects you actualy use, into the binary. (I know of only one compiler capable of this and that one is not compiling C or part of gcc) {ld "supports" smartlinking to an extent, very slow extent tho}

Dynamic linking should only be used for basic OS libs (which should be language agnostic, not libc) and security libc (crypt, hash ssl and such).

The problem with PCBSD is that the base OS which it's based on is build to use dynlibs, or atleast designed to since long ago. see eg: my problem with a RAD IDE.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: PBI just isn't right
by luzr on Wed 11th Oct 2006 08:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PBI just isn't right"
luzr Member since:
2005-11-20


And smartlinking, that means static-linking only of those functions/objects you actualy use, into the binary. (I know of only one compiler capable of this and that one is not compiling C or part of gcc) {ld "supports" smartlinking to an extent, very slow extent tho}


Microsoft C++ and linker does it for years.

Otherwise, I agree.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: PBI just isn't right
by sbergman27 on Tue 10th Oct 2006 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE: PBI just isn't right"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Please, tell us what your real-world user-friendly solution to the dependency problem is."""

A real binary package manager with an easy to use gui like gnome-app-install, which defaults to basic mode, but has an "Advanced" button that brings up Synaptic?

Plus something like gdebi, which allows the user to install a 3rd party package by clicking on it in the browser or filemanager?

Edited 2006-10-10 21:32

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: PBI just isn't right
by antik on Tue 10th Oct 2006 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PBI just isn't right"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

A real binary package manager with an easy to use gui like gnome-app-install, which defaults to basic mode, but has an "Advanced" button that brings up Synaptic?

Plus something like gdebi, which allows the user to install a 3rd party package by clicking on it in the browser or filemanager?


Without internet connection as with PBI?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: PBI just isn't right
by sbergman27 on Tue 10th Oct 2006 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PBI just isn't right"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Without internet connection as with PBI?"""

Yes. Pop the CD into the drive, click the package, and you're done. There is nothing to keep the CD distributor from including all the dependencies in separate packages on the same CD, rather than stuffing them all into a PBI.

Or, if we want to use shared libraries in this case, too, the user might be asked to insert his original OS installation CD to pick up some additional packages.

Edited 2006-10-10 21:52

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: PBI just isn't right
by dbojan76 on Wed 11th Oct 2006 09:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: PBI just isn't right"
dbojan76 Member since:
2006-10-11

>Or, if we want to use shared libraries in this case, too, the user might be asked to insert his original >OS installation CD to pick up some additional packages.

Have you ever tried this with Redhat/Fedora? Installing dependancies for some rpm you have downloaded from internet?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: PBI just isn't right
by bubbayank on Wed 11th Oct 2006 06:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PBI just isn't right"
bubbayank Member since:
2005-07-15

Plus something like gdebi, which allows the user to install a 3rd party package by clicking on it in the browser or filemanager?

I miss how this fixes the problem of having three different X apps that want different versions of libraries and the like.

I also fail to see how Grandma or Alice in Accounting are going to deal with a "package manager". I mean right now, today, not some vaporware that does not yet exist even though it's so "easy". I also think that the typical user of a windows-replacement browsing/email station is going to be concerned about whether his/her IDE is working or not...

PC-BSD must be on the right track to draw the ire of those that dwell under bridges. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Questions answered
by kmoore134 on Tue 10th Oct 2006 20:46 UTC
kmoore134
Member since:
2005-11-10

I know a lot of folks have fears and such about this, so I'm trying to address questions over on our forums. Please check it out, and submit any questions you may have.

http://forums.pcbsd.org/viewtopic.php?t=5770

Reply Score: 3

RE: PBI just isn't right
by mawei on Tue 10th Oct 2006 21:37 UTC
mawei
Member since:
2005-08-02

And not to forget: PBI is not userfriendly as it still seems to need root for installation! Modern solutions like "Klik" or "Zero Install" provide user-based installations and don't require root's intervention.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: PBI just isn't right
by MobyTurbo on Thu 12th Oct 2006 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE: PBI just isn't right"
MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

PBI is not userfriendly as it still seems to need root for installation!

No, if you let any user install things rather than requiring root, you've added a major security hole. It renders many user-exploits into root exploits.

I'm not holding up PBI as the best package system there is, I don't know much about it - but this is one feature, shared with most flavors of Unix, that it gets right.

Reply Score: 1

Still Open Source
by kmoore134 on Tue 10th Oct 2006 22:29 UTC
kmoore134
Member since:
2005-11-10

Again, let me assure folks, we have no intention of close-sourcing ANYTHING. All the code has been, and will be available under the BSD license. As for the FreeBSD stuff, obviously that is available as well.

From an End User perspective, not a whole lot will change. The software will still be developed, (I'll be doing it full-time now), enhancements will be made, and new things added. Really this is going to help us develop PC-BSD quicker than before, plus offer professional services for businesses or individuals that may require it.

Reply Score: 5

funds
by netpython on Wed 11th Oct 2006 11:43 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think it's great that PC-BSD has gained some cash-flow for their development.Let's not jump into conclusions.

Browser: Nokia7650/1.0 SymbianOS/6.1 Series60/0.9 Profile/MIDP-1.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0 (Google WAP Proxy/1.0)

Reply Score: 4

My opinion
by sremick on Wed 11th Oct 2006 13:31 UTC
sremick
Member since:
2006-10-11

Not that I have anything new to say that hasn't been said already, but I figured I'd cast my opinion(s). I write as a FreeBSD user and advocate, and I've used it as my primary desktop OS for several years. I don't use PC-BSD primarily but I do have it installed on a test laptop and I've played around with it (I prefer Gnome anyway).

First of all, I'm not worried about this purchase. iXsystems is Matt Olander's company and I've been familiar with his name and the company for a while now.

Secondly... I agree that the license debate is off-topic and a dead horse. Fight it in some other thread.

Next... I agree that FreeBSD's ports/package system isn't perfect. It has lots of room for improvement. But PBI is not the answer. The concept flies in the face of numerous established good ideas that have held for many years. While I am not against change and new ideas in-general, this isn't a "new idea". This is an old road that has been down before and did not pan out. Shared libraries are meant to be just that: "shared".

Next... I am always greatly-offended by the "RAM is cheap" argument that encourages bloated and lazy programming techniques and OS design. It is little fundamentally-wrong ideas like that early in the process that, extrapolated to the big picture, result in OSes (like we see from some vendors) with obscene software requirements. Please stay off the slippery slope "hardware is cheap" comeback... that is no excuse to not take memory-usage into account in every low-level design decision. Sure, you might look at your individual app and say that having your own private copy of alternate library versions loaded into memory only adds another 500K, but multiple that over and over... people run more than one application at a time, then there is the overhead of the DE itself (KDE in this case) and the OS. My machine has 512MB. If RAM is so cheap, feel free to send me some out of your own pocket, since you're so quick to dimiss it as an infinitely-expendible zero-cost commodity.

It is just plain rude to dismiss memory usage (and peoples' pocketbooks) like that, for a questionable return. People have a wide range of systems they like to run their OS on, and it's bad enough that both KDE and Gnome have seriously narrowed their installable market due to their rather severe disregard to memory usage. Even Firefox (my browser of choice) has taken a similar attitude and the fact that developers don't seem to mind that it takes up 2-3 times more RAM (hundreds of megabytes) than my largest WINDOWS app irks me to no end. If PC-BSD continues in its current mentality, it will by-design put both DEs to shame and become the new epitome and king of bloat (maybe they're competing with Vista for the title?).

And lastly... PC-BSD needs to seriously fix the PBI updater. It flat out doesn't work and it appears to be a known problem. That was a deal breaker for me when I set up the test system. If I can't keep my software up-to-date, my OS is broken. It's part of the reason I left Windows for FreeBSD: portupgrade -Ra

Reply Score: 5

bsd
by happycamper on Wed 11th Oct 2006 14:45 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

iXsystems' acquisition of PC-BSD will provide funding to the PC-BSD project to increase distribution of PC-BSD and develop future versions of PC-BSD.

that is great!


I'm sure iXsystems customers are going to be thrill to use pcbsd.

Edited 2006-10-11 14:47

Reply Score: 2