Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Fri 18th Jul 2008 19:16 UTC, submitted by dockingbay94
OSNews, Generic OSes At the heart of every networking device is an operating system that enables traffic flow. In the case of networking vendor Juniper, that operating system for the past ten years has been JUNOS, a network operating system with its roots in the open source FreeBSD operating system. Juniper has updated JUNOS every 90 days since 1998.
Order by: Score:
Network Operating System
by Bending Unit on Fri 18th Jul 2008 20:02 UTC
Bending Unit
Member since:
2005-07-06

Every 90 days? How exact is this? On the second? I say we should jump!

"It's funny. Almost everyone I talk to wants to know how we can continue to ship feature-rich releases every 90 days"

I could do that too by copying FreeBSD and setting my alarm carefully.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Network Operating System
by Priest on Fri 18th Jul 2008 20:48 UTC in reply to "Network Operating System"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

I think open source is cool too, but why must 100% of all software be open source?

Why can't people just accept that some times, and maybe even most of them time open source is the best solution, but it is not the only solution to every problem.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Network Operating System
by kaiwai on Fri 18th Jul 2008 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Network Operating System"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I think open source is cool too, but why must 100% of all software be open source?

Why can't people just accept that some times, and maybe even most of them time open source is the best solution, but it is not the only solution to every problem.


Depends on how you define opensource and conforming to the licence. One only needs to look at the flack Apple got for the fact that they didn't bend over backwards to provide assistance to KDE developers to get the changes merged from webkit into khtml.

For some, the mere presence of source code is enough to satisfy their definition of 'open source' whilst others claim that for something to be truly open source, it has to include the active participation of the said company in the development in a community like atmosphere.

As for 90 day development cycle, it would be an easy thing to do; just make sure that the updates you provide are either trivial or well tested. Give that they have only one target platform, and they can routinely test the OS, the release cycle of 90 days isn't all that difficult.

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

One only needs to look at the flack Apple got for the fact that they didn't bend over backwards to provide assistance to KDE developers to get the changes merged from webkit into khtml.


There was a common saying in the Soviet Union:

"Anything that isn't forbidden is compulsory. The trick is figuring out which is which."

Reply Score: 2

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27


Depends on how you define opensource and conforming to the licence. One only needs to look at the flack Apple got for the fact that they didn't bend over backwards to provide assistance to KDE developers to get the changes merged from webkit into khtml.

For some, the mere presence of source code is enough to satisfy their definition of 'open source' whilst others claim that for something to be truly open source, it has to include the active participation of the said company in the development in a community like atmosphere.


Just for the record (I know, this is a tired old topic), there's a widely accepted and quite unambiguous definition of "open source software", if by "widely accepted" I may mean the one found in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

Of course, I won't deny that everyone is free to invent and use other definitions, but they should warn about their non-mainstream definition if they use it in articles, blog entries and the like. Doing otherwise would be misleading and bad stile.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Network Operating System
by helf on Fri 18th Jul 2008 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Network Operating System"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

HERETIC! Thou shall not utter such blasphemy!

I STRIKE THEE DOWN!


Well, not me, but you will get modded down rather fast, I'm sure ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Network Operating System
by mtzmtulivu on Fri 18th Jul 2008 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Network Operating System"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

I think open source is cool too, but why must 100% of all software be open source?

Why can't people just accept that some times, and maybe even most of them time open source is the best solution, but it is not the only solution to every problem.


you must be given options before you can choose ... a few people must live in the extremes on both sides of the argument to give you the opportunity to decide how far you want to stand between the arguments ..

the world isnt black and white but some people must present it that way to clearly show the issues ..you can blur it to your convenience but its nice to know where the limits are ..

Edited 2008-07-18 21:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Network Operating System
by rajj on Sat 19th Jul 2008 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Network Operating System"
rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

Why can't people just accept that some times, and maybe even most of them time open source is the best solution, but it is not the only solution to every problem.


Because...

The solution to the problem is the code itself. It being open or not doesn't have any intrinsic properties that preclude it from solving any problem that is solvable with a Turing Machine.

Reply Score: 3

And?
by BSDfan on Fri 18th Jul 2008 21:43 UTC
BSDfan
Member since:
2007-03-14

They're perfectly allowed to use FreeBSD in this way.

Reply Score: 6

I do wonder...
by madcrow on Sat 19th Jul 2008 15:14 UTC
madcrow
Member since:
2006-03-13

...how much the source code for this OS is modded from vanilla FreeBSD. If it's not particularly modded, then the company can be forgiven for not giving back at all. On the other hand, if they've made substantial improvements to the codebase, it really is unconscionable that they would not be giving back. Yes, its allowed under the BSD license, but its not very nice. The fact that the BSD license allows this at all is one of the number one reasons why it stinks as a license.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I do wonder...
by BSDfan on Sat 19th Jul 2008 16:21 UTC in reply to "I do wonder..."
BSDfan Member since:
2007-03-14

*Alert* Stallman follower detected in quadrant B.

What you fail to understand is, people are mostly decent at some basic level... Although they made a proprietary product based on the BSD code base, they probably *do* report back to the maintainers.

A lot of commercial users of BSD products are more then willing to contribute back in some way.. but they're not forced to do so at all.

Even if they don't contribute back, they still have the include the licence notices in product documentation.

Edited 2008-07-19 16:21 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: I do wonder...
by madcrow on Sat 19th Jul 2008 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE: I do wonder..."
madcrow Member since:
2006-03-13

I have my doubts as to whether Juniper has ever contributed anything at all to upstream FreeBSD. Certainly I can find no evidence of any such contributions after conducting a Google search. The very fact that they're allowed to do this is, to me, a shame. If you benefit from FOSS, it just strikes me as greedy and wrong that you can get away with giving nothing back...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I do wonder...
by hamster on Sun 20th Jul 2008 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I do wonder..."
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

I have my doubts as to whether Juniper has ever contributed anything at all to upstream FreeBSD. Certainly I can find no evidence of any such contributions after conducting a Google search. The very fact that they're allowed to do this is, to me, a shame. If you benefit from FOSS, it just strikes me as greedy and wrong that you can get away with giving nothing back...


Well they did...


Juniper Networks, Inc. (http://www.juniper.net) has donated a reference FreeBSD port to the MIPS architecture to The FreeBSD Project. This code will be used as one reference for creating an official project-supported FreeBSD/MIPS offering.


http://www.freebsd.org/news/newsflash.html

It took about 5 sec on google to find that information.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: I do wonder...
by madcrow on Sun 20th Jul 2008 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I do wonder..."
madcrow Member since:
2006-03-13

Hmm... They've been using FreeBSD code in their OS for a decade and all they've ever given back is a barebones port to niche platform. A port which they had completed YEARS before they made it available.

Not exactly a stellar track record. Yes the BSD license ALLOWS this, but that's just proof of how broken and naive the BSD license is. The BSD license comes with a silent and unenforceable implication that "sharing is nice" The GPL is more like a kindergarten teacher that will put you in "time out" if you aren't nice and don't share. Given the level of greed in the tech world, the GPL approach is much more realistic vis a vis maintaining a truly free project.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: I do wonder...
by simo on Mon 21st Jul 2008 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I do wonder..."
simo Member since:
2006-01-09

Yes the BSD license ALLOWS this, but that's just proof of how broken and naive the BSD license is.


i agree completely, i know and have worked for companies who have chosen BSD licensed stuff *PURELY* because they won't have to contribute any of their precious IP back, they didn't care about the merits of the code/OS.

mind you, i guess thats better than using GPL stuff and breaking the license....

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I do wonder...
by renox on Mon 21st Jul 2008 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I do wonder..."
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes the BSD license ALLOWS this, but that's just proof of how broken and naive the BSD license is.


Many developer chose to use it because they like it, who are you to criticize their choice?
For them, the BSD license is neither broken nor naive, you really sound obnoxious when you apply your own personal preference to everybody..

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: I do wonder...
by hamster on Mon 21st Jul 2008 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I do wonder..."
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

Hmm... They've been using FreeBSD code in their OS for a decade and all they've ever given back is a barebones port to niche platform. A port which they had completed YEARS before they made it available.

Not exactly a stellar track record. Yes the BSD license ALLOWS this, but that's just proof of how broken and naive the BSD license is. The BSD license comes with a silent and unenforceable implication that "sharing is nice" The GPL is more like a kindergarten teacher that will put you in "time out" if you aren't nice and don't share. Given the level of greed in the tech world, the GPL approach is much more realistic vis a vis maintaining a truly free project.


I wont bite on your gpl vs bsd bait. It's just plain boring by now.

I don't know if they gave more and neither do you by the looks of it. For all we know they could have donated a shitload of money.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: I do wonder...
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I do wonder..."
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

they could have donated a shitload of money.


They did.

<a href='http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors.shtml">http://...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I do wonder...
by renox on Sun 20th Jul 2008 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I do wonder..."
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Bzzt, they're "getting way with it" because the developers chose the BSD license which allow using code without contributing back..
The developers have chosen *willingly* this licence, so there's *nothing* wrong doing this.

Now, a project live and die but the contributions, so from a long term POV, it's not very wise to take only without contributing back, it's a short term gain with a long term risk..

An example is that if Apple had contributed better from the start instead of having two web-engine (KHtml and webkit) there would be only one, which would probably be even better thanks to having more developers..

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I do wonder...
by phoenix on Wed 23rd Jul 2008 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I do wonder..."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

From the FreeBSD Foundation's July Newsletter ( http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2008Jul-newsletter.shtml#Jun... ):

Juniper benefits from the powerful collaboration between leading universities, individuals, and commercial organizations developing FreeBSD to advance the operating system functionality. The FreeBSD release system provides Juniper with a roadmap for features and a stable base for our code, while its practical licensing enables Juniper to develop intellectual property for advancing high-performance networking. Juniper employs many active FreeBSD developers that continually contribute to the FreeBSD project to further its development as a leading operating system.

-Naren Prabhu, Vice President Foundation Technologies, Juniper Networks www.juniper.net
---------------------------------------------------
Guess you didn't look all that hard.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I do wonder...
by Soulbender on Mon 21st Jul 2008 06:52 UTC in reply to "I do wonder..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The fact that the BSD license allows this at all is one of the number one reasons why it stinks as a license.


Right-o. Good thing that could never happen with the GPL. That surely explains why people here where whining themselves silly last week over how Ubuntu doesn't contribute to the community...

Reply Score: 2

RE: I do wonder...
by anomie on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 17:26 UTC in reply to "I do wonder..."
anomie Member since:
2007-02-26

The bottom line is: you're free to license _your_ open source project as you require / see fit.

Reply Score: 2

Juniper should pay back
by Arabian on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 16:15 UTC
Arabian
Member since:
2007-01-23

They should donate more money for FreeBSD coders who works in MIPS.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Juniper should pay back
by phoenix on Wed 23rd Jul 2008 16:54 UTC in reply to "Juniper should pay back"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11