Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "A senior OpenBSD developer has complained on a mailing list that upstream vendors of free and open source software are adding in changes without any thought of whether downstream users could adapt to the change. Marc Espie said this would hurt smaller players by not allowing them to keep up with the changes. Basically what is happening is that numerous changes are being made to Linux and smaller projects like OpenBSD cannot keep up with the changes. And, according to Espie, not all these changes are strictly necessary."
Order by: Score:
Way better artticle:
by kragil on Thu 10th Jan 2013 02:24 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

http://lwn.net/Articles/524606/

Better content, better site and certainly better author.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Way better artticle:
by windowshasyou on Thu 10th Jan 2013 03:16 UTC in reply to "Way better artticle:"
windowshasyou Member since:
2011-05-14

Thanks for the link. I skipped the story and went right to the comments after seeing who it was submitted by.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Way better artticle:
by aargh on Thu 10th Jan 2013 10:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Way better artticle:"
aargh Member since:
2009-10-12

Actually, I think this particular ITwire article is worth reading. It's possible that it's because it's an interview, therefore most of the content is written by the interviewee.

Among other things, it also points out this:
"Contrary to what people in lwn.net (Linux Weekly News, a website which wrote about Espie's post without contacing him) did say, there's still a lot of innovation in OpenBSD, and in other BSDs too."

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Way better artticle:
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Jan 2013 10:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Way better artticle:"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It was submitted to undeadly.org ... I simply submitted it here.

As it was actually news about an Operating system I thought it was somewhat relevant to this site.

Edited 2013-01-10 10:55 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Way better artticle:
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Jan 2013 10:50 UTC in reply to "Way better artticle:"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?548112

Edited 2013-01-10 10:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

not all these changes are strictly necessary
by kwan_e on Thu 10th Jan 2013 02:53 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

If not all the changes are strictly necessary, then why should it effect OpenBSD or BSD in general? The examples mentioned are desktop environment type stuff, which is not exactly something OpenBSD needs to support.

Wouldn't OpenBSD do better by focusing on the essentials that it does better than Linux?

Reply Score: 4

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

You would learn the answer to that question if you actually read the article...

Reply Score: 3

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

If you had read the article, you'd know that a big source of the problem is pointless changes, especially in build scripts, where things like GNU sed is required, even though the same thing could very easily be done with any sed in a widely-compatible way.

It is getting worse, as it seems (in the interviewee's view) that newer POSIX standards just seem to be rubber stamping in GNU tool chain features into the standard, with little or no consideration of non-GNU tool chains, even if they're doing really cool, innovative stuff.

Reply Score: 6

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

If you had read the article, you'd know that a big source of the problem is pointless changes, especially in build scripts, where things like GNU sed is required, even though the same thing could very easily be done with any sed in a widely-compatible way.

It is getting worse, as it seems (in the interviewee's view) that newer POSIX standards just seem to be rubber stamping in GNU tool chain features into the standard, with little or no consideration of non-GNU tool chains, even if they're doing really cool, innovative stuff.


You both miss my point.

Yes, it makes it harder to port those programs to OpenBSD. But they're not OpenBSD's core environment. And the BSDers have a problem with GPL software (as mentioned in the article, which I have not only read, but comprehended) that means they'll have to write their own version anyway.

Reply Score: 6

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The point is that quite a few Linux developers seems to have acquired the mindset previously (and currently) held by many Windows developers: "It works on my primary platform, who gives a shit if it's portable?"

Reply Score: 14

cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

GNU sed is required, even though the same thing could very easily be done with any sed in a widely-compatible way.


Quoting the article:
"and no, gsed -i is not a valid excuse. Come on, you need half a line of shell script to do the equivalent of gsed -i"

Sure adding half a line of shell script (I assume 40 characters, right?) is "easy", but it cluters, and if you have to do it every time it becomes a pain. And people don't use the GNU extension because they don't bother to check, but because they are damn convenient.

Personnaly at work, I mainly use a Linux box, and I also have from time to time to use a Solaris box, and it is just a pain in the ass to have to write things like "find . | xargs grep 'somestring'" instead of just "grep -r 'somestring'" and so on. In the end I just end up using the GNU tools on Solaris as well.

GNU extensions were not created to make the system incompatible, they were created for convenience. And I don't see why it should be up to upstream to spend extra work on supporting other platform.

Reply Score: 6

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

GNU extensions were not created to make the system incompatible, they were created for convenience. And I don't see why it should be up to upstream to spend extra work on supporting other platform.


Except other platforms don't want to include GPL code in their OS.

Your attitude is exactly why there has always been cross platform problems ranging from browsers to now just building the browser itself.

It find that you don't do it in your own environments, but open source on larger projects is supposed to be about collaboration, and this sort of laziness makes it artificially difficult.

Edited 2013-01-10 08:51 UTC

Reply Score: 4

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"GNU extensions were not created to make the system incompatible, they were created for convenience. And I don't see why it should be up to upstream to spend extra work on supporting other platform.


Except other platforms don't want to include GPL code in their OS.
"

They don't have to. They can reimplement those GNU extensions. GPL covers only copyright, not reimplementation.

And it's not really GPL's fault that some people are too ideological to include GPL programs.

Reply Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And it's not really GPL's fault that some people are too ideological to include GPL programs.


It's not <non-GPL compatible license>'s fault that some GPL folks are too ideological to include <licensed> programs.

Reply Score: 4

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"And it's not really GPL's fault that some people are too ideological to include GPL programs.


It's not <non-GPL compatible license>'s fault that some GPL folks are too ideological to include <licensed> programs.
"

On the contrary. GPL folks have taken from BSD without fuss. ;)

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

BSD is GPL-compatible ;)

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But why does GNU have to create their own grep and sed etc instead of just using the BSD ones? Could it be...ideologic reasons? ;)

Reply Score: 3

sec0ndshadow Member since:
2013-01-03

Because they wanted to add extensions? And NIH syndrome is a thing?

To paraphrase: Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to the boredom of a developer.

Reply Score: 1

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

But why does GNU have to create their own grep and sed etc instead of just using the BSD ones? Could it be...ideologic reasons? ;)


I don't know. Did BSD grep and sed come before GNU grep and sed? From what I know, GNU was a reaction to proprietary programs for which source was unavailable. In that sense, it's not ideology but pragmatism to write something you have control over.

Reply Score: 4

tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

GNU was designed to be a complete reimplementation of Unix that shared no code with AT&T or Berkeley. It's been that way since the 80s, and the "no copying from BSD" rule was essentially to keep the lawyers at bay.

Reply Score: 5

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

But why does GNU have to create their own grep and sed etc instead of just using the BSD ones? Could it be...ideologic reasons? ;)

In fairness, BSD wasn't open source when many GNU tools were first developed.

Reply Score: 3

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

BSD (and even AT&T UNIX) were open-source from the get-go. You couldn't get binaries for UNIX back in the day. You got tapes with the source on them, compiled them yourself, and installed it.

BSD was not "free software" according to the strange definitions of the GNU crowd. But it was (and always has been) open-source.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

And it's not really GPL's fault that some people are too ideological to include GPL programs.


They were working their implementation to POSIX spec as it states in the article.

Reply Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

They were working their implementation to POSIX spec as it states in the article.


But the POSIX spec does not forbid extensions. It would be a sad day if people can't make more than just the bare minimum.

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

that is true, but the whole point of having a compatible bare minimum is that things can be ported easily between unix like operating systems, OpenBSD is not the only OS that isn't Linux and has a team of people porting software.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Recursive grep is not a GNU extension, it's part of POSIX.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Actually, recursive grep is not posix but a common extension.

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Quoting the article:
"and no, gsed -i is not a valid excuse. Come on, you need half a line of shell script to do the equivalent of gsed -i"

Sure adding half a line of shell script (I assume 40 characters, right?) is "easy", but it cluters, and if you have to do it every time it becomes a pain. And people don't use the GNU extension because they don't bother to check, but because they are damn convenient.

Personnaly at work, I mainly use a Linux box, and I also have from time to time to use a Solaris box, and it is just a pain in the ass to have to write things like "find . | xargs grep 'somestring'" instead of just "grep -r 'somestring'" and so on. In the end I just end up using the GNU tools on Solaris as well.

GNU extensions were not created to make the system incompatible, they were created for convenience. And I don't see why it should be up to upstream to spend extra work on supporting other platform.


So add aliases or shell functions into the build script / your shell environment to map frequent longer functions into shorter workarounds.

You don't need to type 40 character long command chains each and every time.

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Wouldn't OpenBSD do better by focusing on the essentials that it does better than Linux?


Well, they already do the server, firewall and routing side better than Linux so I guess they have to move on to something new ;)

Reply Score: 6

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Well, they already do the server, firewall and routing side better than Linux so I guess they have to move on to something new ;)


Right, and it's not as if Linux is going to catch up to OpenBSD on those fronts, which is the other side of Linux popularity.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Indeed you are right about OpenBSD, it is indeed old and crufty. Just like me. maybe that's why I like it. Same goes for Linux though, Minix is where the real action is at.

Reply Score: 3

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Laughable, one could as easily say Linux is a much better server, firewall, and server than fugly, old and slow OpenBSD.

To be frank, anyone who complains that a server isn't pretty clearly isn't the sort of person who should be giving advice on which enterprise OS to run on production systems.

Reply Score: 4

tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

OpenBSD on a server is Ecce Homo in its original form. Systemd is that old half-blind bint who "touched it up a bit."

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Oh you know because doing the desktop type stuff is perfectly doable for years now. I use it on a few PCs of mine and it is an easy to understand and maintainable unix.

Edited 2013-01-10 08:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v Part of the problem are OpenBsdism
by jgfenix on Thu 10th Jan 2013 09:14 UTC
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

here OpenBSD is the source of incompatibility


No, the problem is developers making arbitrary and dangerous assumptions with regards to memory behaviour and layout.

Reply Score: 4

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Are you referring to the OpenBSD developers?

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yes, obviously....

Reply Score: 2

He's totally right
by stabbyjones on Thu 10th Jan 2013 11:24 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

Over the years I've heard a few complaints like this and it's totally valid. It's getting worse each year.

But in the end I don't care for the BSD licence or BSD distros/software and it seems a lot of other people feel the same way. Unless I start an ISP I probably won't ever have to use it professionally.

Reply Score: 2

RE: He's totally right
by Laurence on Thu 10th Jan 2013 16:52 UTC in reply to "He's totally right"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Over the years I've heard a few complaints like this and it's totally valid. It's getting worse each year.

But in the end I don't care for the BSD licence or BSD distros/software and it seems a lot of other people feel the same way. Unless I start an ISP I probably won't ever have to use it professionally.

I hear the license argument used a lot as reasons not to use *BSD and quite frankly I think it's a dumb reason.

BSD doesn't impose any restrictions on the way you use your software. It doesn't affect the quality of the software itself. The only possible reason to dislike *BSD because of the software license is if you're a narrow-minded elitist that would sooner attack fellow open-source advocates for being different than learn and embrace other technologies.

Hell, why don't we all just stop using Apache because it's not GPL? Or Firefox because it's MPL? Or even Xorg because it's MIT? There's a whole tone of software you run on Linux that isn't GPL, so this whole GNU / GPL elitism that many have is just retarded.

Edited 2013-01-10 16:55 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: He's totally right
by TechGeek on Thu 10th Jan 2013 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE: He's totally right"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

"Over the years I've heard a few complaints like this and it's totally valid. It's getting worse each year.

But in the end I don't care for the BSD licence or BSD distros/software and it seems a lot of other people feel the same way. Unless I start an ISP I probably won't ever have to use it professionally.

I hear the license argument used a lot as reasons not to use *BSD and quite frankly I think it's a dumb reason.

BSD doesn't impose any restrictions on the way you use your software. It doesn't affect the quality of the software itself. The only possible reason to dislike *BSD because of the software license is if you're a narrow-minded elitist that would sooner attack fellow open-source advocates for being different than learn and embrace other technologies.

Hell, why don't we all just stop using Apache because it's not GPL? Or Firefox because it's MPL? Or even Xorg because it's MIT? There's a whole tone of software you run on Linux that isn't GPL, so this whole GNU / GPL elitism that many have is just retarded.
"

Ahhh, WRONG! The reason why the GPL is popular is that many of the developers in open source are now paid by corporations. These corporations want some kind of assurance that the hard work they are paying for isn't going to be plundered by a competitor and stuffed into a close source project. It has nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with business.

EDIT: Thats not to say that many volunteers don't feel the same way. Its the reason why the GPL is the way it is and why Linux isn't under the BSD license.

Edited 2013-01-10 18:45 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: He's totally right
by Laurence on Thu 10th Jan 2013 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: He's totally right"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Ahhh, WRONG! The reason why the GPL is popular is that many of the developers in open source are now paid by corporations. These corporations want some kind of assurance that the hard work they are paying for isn't going to be plundered by a competitor and stuffed into a close source project. It has nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with business.

Again, that doesn't have any impact on using the software what so ever.

If you're a developer, then choosing which licence to release your code as and what projects to work in is very important. But we're talking about reasons not to run a piece of software - not develop for.

Furthermore, if you really cared about the developers work being rewarded, then you wouldn't boycott *BSD just because of it's license - because that's essentially just wasting the developers time.

And lastly, if you really stood by your principles you wouldn't use Firefox, Apache, Xorg nor any of the other non-GPL software on Linux. So all this "I only use GPL" and the boycotting of *BSD because of it's licence, when MIT is almost identical and essential to Linux desktops, is pure hypocrisy.

Sorry if this comes across aggressive, but it really winds my up that the hard work of BSD developers is effectively rubbished by the non-developer Linux community simply because a few zealots don't like the fact that BSD allows corporations not to contribute back to the original source. Something that makes absolutely no difference to the software from a users perspective.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: He's totally right
by kwan_e on Thu 10th Jan 2013 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: He's totally right"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Furthermore, if you really cared about the developers work being rewarded, then you wouldn't boycott *BSD just because of it's license - because that's essentially just wasting the developers time.


No boycott of BSD has been mentioned. Choosing to use programs that happen not to be BSD is not boycotting. The article only goes as far as to mention "laziness".

And lastly, if you really stood by your principles you wouldn't use Firefox, Apache, Xorg nor any of the other non-GPL software on Linux. So all this "I only use GPL" and the boycotting of *BSD because of it's licence, when MIT is almost identical and essential to Linux desktops, is pure hypocrisy.


Did you stop and think for a minute that the fact that "GPL people" do use Firefox, Apache and Xorg is because it is a matter of pragmatism and not principle? Again, no boycotting is happening on the GPL side.

Sorry if this comes across aggressive, but it really winds my up that the hard work of BSD developers is effectively rubbished by the non-developer Linux community simply because a few zealots


As we established, the fact that "GPL people" often use non-GPL software on their systems liberally because of pragmatic concerns is the very opposite of zealotry.

The zealotry is on the BSD side. How hard is it to implement sed -i?

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: He's totally right
by Laurence on Fri 11th Jan 2013 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: He's totally right"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

No boycott of BSD has been mentioned. Choosing to use programs that happen not to be BSD is not boycotting. The article only goes as far as to mention "laziness".

I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about how some individuals specifically chose not to run Free/OpenBSD because of the license. My comment was directly in response of one 'OSNewser' stating exactly this.

Did you stop and think for a minute that the fact that "GPL people" do use Firefox, Apache and Xorg is because it is a matter of pragmatism and not principle?

Well yes, obviously. But you've completely missed my point. I was saying that the very people who whine about the licence *BSDs are released under and refuse to use those OSs for those reasons, are the same people who happily use other software with almost identical licences. My point was those people are using double standards. My point was such laziness in principles are more than just pragmatism, but arguably just an excuse to hide the real reason for not wanting to use *BSDs; because it's slightly different.

It's exactly the same as fanboys who bitch about Debian being better or worse than Gentoo. Or KDE and GNOME rights. Or even the vi / emac wars. Except in this instance, licences are a completely irrelevance excuse.

Again, no boycotting is happening on the GPL side.

Already disproved. Read up.


As we established, the fact that "GPL people" often use non-GPL software on their systems liberally because of pragmatic concerns is the very opposite of zealotry.

But if they were pragmatic then they equally wouldn't oppose OpenBSD (or even FreeBSD) because of it's licence.

So the pragmatics are not those I take issue with. It's the vocal few.


The zealotry is on the BSD side. How hard is it to implement sed -i?

You're really not listening to my point; I'm not talking about developers (licence zealotry is more understandable if you're releasing code), I'm talking about users. And only a small subset of users at that (I'm in no way tainting all Linux users as BSD-bigots lol).

But you never do understand any of the points I put across. Whether I explain them badly or you're just closed to any opinions other than your own - maybe a bit of both? I don't know, but I think we should just give up now while this discussion is amicable ;)

Edited 2013-01-11 08:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: He's totally right
by kwan_e on Fri 11th Jan 2013 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: He's totally right"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"Again, no boycotting is happening on the GPL side.

Already disproved. Read up.
"

Nope. The person you were responding merely stated their preference. They're not boycotting. They're prefering GPL over BSD if the GPL exist.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: He's totally right
by Laurence on Fri 11th Jan 2013 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: He's totally right"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Nope. The person you were responding merely stated their preference. They're not boycotting. They're prefering GPL over BSD if the GPL exist.

That's essentially the same thing. I will grant you that the term 'boycott' can be quite emotive, but the crux is the same: refusing to use one product as a personal protect (in this case, against non-GPL copyleft licences)

I should point out that I wasn't intending to criticise him specifically (though in hindsight I can see why you thought I was). He did say that he also preferred Linux (as a user) to OpenBSD and that he might consider BSD if he worked for an ISP. So he was definitely more pragmatic and the licences were just one of many reasons. But it was his comment that reminded me of some of the conversations I've had in the past with less open minded individuals. As he said himself, there are plenty of people who cite licences as a reason not to use BSD technology and you often see working production-ready technology completely re-written for Linux because said technology isn't GPL - which strikes me as an immense waste of everyone's time.

(and don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Linux nor implying that BSD is in any way perfect. I facepalm over the arguments FreeBSD zealots raise about GPL in their OS. I just wish the FOSS community got alone instead of all this dumb infighting that happens)

Edited 2013-01-11 11:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

wait, what?
by TechGeek on Thu 10th Jan 2013 15:21 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

So you think the larger group of developers should change how they do things so that the BSD group can avoid doing something simple like adding sed -i capability to keep things compatible? You know, there is a flip side to every coin. Maybe the Linux people feel you're being unreasonable by not see it their way. And if they are the ones writing the code, I guess they can do whatever they want.

Reply Score: 4

RE: wait, what?
by tidux on Thu 10th Jan 2013 17:04 UTC in reply to "wait, what?"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

It wouldn't be the first small, sensible improvement they've lifted from GNU. OpenBSD's /bin/ksh supports bash-style escapes in its PS1, so you can run "export PS1=\u@\h\w:\$" and it will behave like you'd expect as a bash user. That's much better than the awful hackery needed in "real" ksh syntax to get that sort of prompt.

Reply Score: 3

RE: wait, what?
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Jan 2013 19:23 UTC in reply to "wait, what?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

http://www.osnews.com/thread?548198

Not really that hard to understand why. It maybe a little more effort, but usually a little bit more effort is what makes a better bit of software.

Reply Score: 2

RE: wait, what?
by Delgarde on Fri 11th Jan 2013 00:36 UTC in reply to "wait, what?"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

So you think the larger group of developers should change how they do things so that the BSD group can avoid doing something simple like adding sed -i capability to keep things compatible?


Or just using the immeasurably superior GNU versions of those tools. That seems to be standard practice on the commercial UNIX systems I've worked on - forget about the versions that come with the system, just install the GNU packages for coreutils, grep, sed, etc. It's easier to just mandate the GNU versions of those utilities than to try and work around the deficiencies of the standard versions.

Reply Score: 3

RE: wait, what?
by Soulbender on Fri 11th Jan 2013 02:28 UTC in reply to "wait, what?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Funny thing is, I can remember a time when there was no shortage of Linux users and devs complaining about how Windows apps and code was not portable to Linux. "Portability is important yadda yadda yadda".
I guess Linux success changed all that, somehow.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: wait, what?
by kwan_e on Fri 11th Jan 2013 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE: wait, what?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Funny thing is, I can remember a time when there was no shortage of Linux users and devs complaining about how Windows apps and code was not portable to Linux. "Portability is important yadda yadda yadda".
I guess Linux success changed all that, somehow.


Only the users who wanted to port Windows programs to Linux. Not the ones who preferred to write something for Linux specifically.

And with libraries like Qt and GTK working on Windows, that problem is also being solved. Yes, success did change all that, but that's because the Linux derivatives went with the pragmatic option.

Reply Score: 3

Developer's point of view
by jessesmith on Thu 10th Jan 2013 17:08 UTC
jessesmith
Member since:
2010-03-11

There is a lot of talk about licenses and the old war between GPL and BSD going on here, but not a lot of talk about practical reasons or thoughts on what is going on upstream.

I maintain a handful of small projects which have been accepted into Linux distros and some of the BSD port trees. I do my development on Linux and have, from time to time, introduced Linux-isms into my build scripts or code. It isn't an act of malice or a stand for/against a license, I'm just making use of the tools available to me.

Now, luckily, I've heard from some very nice people in the BSD communities who have either made suggestions or sent me patches which would allow me to make my upstream projects more cross-compatible. I am always happy to make these changes. Sometimes it might mean re-writing a few lines or adjusting some functions, but the Linux/BSD tools are similar enough it takes very little effort and, as a result, it opens up my software to a wider audience. It seems like a win-win all around. They get code which works natively without patches and I get a bigger audience. As a bonus I now write cleaner cross-platform code. I seriously don't see why anyone would ignore the obvious benefits of working with the BSD communities to improve their code.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Developer's point of view
by Delgarde on Fri 11th Jan 2013 00:45 UTC in reply to "Developer's point of view"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Sometimes it might mean re-writing a few lines or adjusting some functions, but the Linux/BSD tools are similar enough it takes very little effort and, as a result, it opens up my software to a wider audience. It seems like a win-win all around. They get code which works natively without patches and I get a bigger audience. As a bonus I now write cleaner cross-platform code. I seriously don't see why anyone would ignore the obvious benefits of working with the BSD communities to improve their code.


Because it's not always that easy. Generic programs are usually pretty portable, because they're able to code to standard APIs like POSIX.

But system level programs are harder to make portable, because to work effectively, they need to take advantage of OS specific functionality - e.g using driver interfaces, or using frameworks that simply don't exist on any other platform. You *could* make something work by coding to the lowest common denominator - or you could code to Linux, hit 99% of your target users, and not worry too much about the others.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Developer's point of view
by kwan_e on Fri 11th Jan 2013 04:01 UTC in reply to "Developer's point of view"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

There is a lot of talk about licenses and the old war between GPL and BSD going on here, but not a lot of talk about practical reasons or thoughts on what is going on upstream.
.
.
.
I seriously don't see why anyone would ignore the obvious benefits of working with the BSD communities to improve their code.


Because the BSD licence can't guarantee the improvements will be passed back, whereas GPL obligates it (upon distribution). I'm not saying BSD don't pass back improvements, because they obviously do, but there's no guarantee.

It is a practical matter what licences to choose, and the guy who made the mailing list post did list licences as one of the major issues.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually no it doesn't if the software is used internally by a company.

At my last job I maintained my own fork of (out-dated) GPL JavaScript and CMS libraries when used in an intranet setting. None of the bugs I have fixed were ever ported back.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Developer's point of view
by kwan_e on Fri 11th Jan 2013 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Developer's point of view"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Actually no it doesn't if the software is used internally by a company.

At my last job I maintained my own fork of (out-dated) GPL JavaScript and CMS libraries when used in an intranet setting. None of the bugs I have fixed were ever ported back.


Which is a moot point because any modified "open source" programs that doesn't see the light of day may as well not factor into any calculation.

Comparing like with like - publicly redistributed binarie - GPL guarantees reciprocation.

Reply Score: 3

No duh?
by Gullible Jones on Thu 10th Jan 2013 19:45 UTC
Gullible Jones
Member since:
2006-05-23

From 'man udisksctl':

"Additionally, this program is not intended to be used by scripts or other programs - options/commands may change in incompatible ways in the future even in maintenance releases."

Yay continuous wheel reinvention!

Reply Score: 3