MirBSD is a derivative of OpenBSD. It is i386-only, and has some packages removed (Kerberos etc.). Additional features include IPv6 support in Apache, ports for djb-ware, a new bootloader and more.
MirBSD No7 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
why do you think GNU and FSF needs to be mentioned. Very little of that OS came from their stuff, most likely none. Probably the only thing that effects them is GCC, and at this point that is everywhere and really doesn’t need mentioned. Oxygen is important to life, yet we don’t thank that constantly. Seriously, GNU and FSF have massive ego far beyond their means, they don’t need to get mentioned in everything.
and most importantly, they didnt do anything for this project!!!
the majority of this project is bsd code, and is licensed under bsd license…
man, thats annoying…
“You have to love that annoying BSD license clause…”
That clause was dropped long ago. The current BSDL is the three-clause license. No advertising requirement.
The author’s simply thanking those that he wishes to.
If he feels GNU/FSF don’t deserve kudos, that’s up to him.
Since a BSD system does NOT use ANY GNU stuff or the GPL, why do you think GNU is getting shafted ???
ALL BSD utilities are written by BSD folks and they pre-date GNU utilities. In fact stallman wrote the GNU utilities cos the BSD ones are covered by the BSD licence – which is like poison to stallman.
moreover, isn’t mirBSD the same guys who, 6 months back, had some copyright issues regarding find and replace in the CREDITS ?
>>moreover, isn’t mirBSD the same guys who, 6 months back, had >>some copyright issues regarding find and replace in the >>CREDITS ?
That wasn’t mirBSD that had the copyright issues… that was MicroBSD. Unless ofcourse mir and Micro are one in the same… I had never heard of mir till today.
While I don’t agree with the downvoted poster, it’s obvious you don’t know what you talking about. The BSD utilities (just the core /bin ones) predate GNU only by a few years, and the more complex ones were developed after. BSD uses GCC, and that is most certainly a GNU project, and an important one.
Richard Stallman did not write the GNU utlities because he hated BSD. Consider this scenario:
Xavier likes Led Zepplin, but hates Britney Spears. He likes the Grateful Dead too, but not as much as Zepp.
Yolanda likes the Grateful Dead, but hates Britney Spears. She likes Led Zepplin too, but not as much as the Dead.
Are you saying that if Xavier prefers to listen to Led Zepplin, that automatically means he hates the Grateful Dead? Maybe he just likes Zepp more.
(If you haven’t figured it out:
Xavier–GNU. Zepp–GPL.
Yolanda–BSD. Dead–BSDL.
Britney Spears–proprietary software.)
GNU considers the BSD license fully GPL compatible. They differ in implementation and slightly in philosophy, but they don’t hate each other.
They’ve stripped OpenBSD 3.3, added some stuff and called it MirBSD 7. The iso they provide is named 34, as if it was the upcoming OpenBSD 3.4.
After reading their description, my head is spinning due to confusion : they talk crap about the GNU but use their tools and on top of that, they are working on something called MirLinux; they list every single project or developer they’ve borrowed from; they say it’s just a replicate of their cvs tree, …
It looks too complicated, compared to other small projects like SkyOS. I think they should do something else and spare us a sequel of the MicroBSD disaster.
“New or enhanced ports, for example: djbdns (IPv6, VeriSign, fixes); Wine/WineX/XoverOffice/ReWind; CUPS; Pine; sIRC; PGP 2.6.3in; RealPlayer; mPlayer; DJB daemontools; Midnight Commander; CenterICQ; p5-Socket6 (for IPv6 sockets in perl) and the GNU GNOME 2.4 suite.”
You won’t find DJBDNS, DJB utils, or Pine in OpenBSD. Theo kicked DJB software out because of license issues.
As dor the 3.4: they’ll probably sync some code.
Why it’s called MirBSD i dunno, but i know Thomas Glaser (a person known in the OpenBSD community) nickname is ‘mirabile’.
Forgot to mention the following:
GCC is included in (Open)BSD. OpenBSD strives to be as free as possible. Therefore, GPL software is depreciated. This means commercial vendors can fork or use the _base_ (ports GPL are ok!) needs to be free, thus BSD licensed or something similair.
Mind you, the BSD licensed OpenSSH is included in several commercial/closed source projects, like hardware routers.
Why is GCC included? Because there’s simply no more free (BSD licensed) alternative as of yet. TenDRA (http://www.tendra.org) looks promising, but isn’t entirely okay for production as of yet. If all goes right, it’ll replace GCC in the future (at least in OpenBSD), moving GCC to ports. GCC won’t be deleted then, it’ll just be in ports.
OTOH, compiling software with any compiler doesn’t make it less or more free because of the compiler software. More info on OpenBSD mailinglists and Deadly.org.
PS: why is there no preview button on this site?
“GNU considers the BSD license fully GPL compatible. They differ in implementation and slightly in philosophy, but they don’t hate each other.”
GPL mandates that you MUST return all your changes to the community. WHEREAS BSD licence gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with your changes. Huge huge difference.
So how is the BSD licence compatible with GPL ???? Just cos they are both for open source projects doesn’t mean a thing. All that counts is the licencing terms, esp. for corporate projects that are required by law to respect these licences.
Also, can you tell me why Stallman DID write the GNU utilities if the BSD one existed already ?
Why it’s called MirBSD i dunno, but i know Thomas Glaser (a person known in the OpenBSD community) nickname is ‘mirabile’.
That is exactly the reason (BTW, the name is Thorsten Glaser). MirBSD is basically his own modified version of OpenBSD. It has been in development for over a year, and it is regularly synced with stock OpenBSD (that’s why the base packages are called foo34.tgz).
As for the DJB-ware and Pine: The license says that you may not distribute binary packages. However, these programs are provided as ports (including some patches), which is perfectly acceptable.
–Benny.
I simply wanted to say, that i hate the openbsd-style, that’s why i build my own mirbsd. Hopefully the others will follow my way and forget openbsd…
greetings
Mirabile
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ? BSD is listed as GPL-compatible.
Stallman and GNU rewrote the BSD utilities because they had some of their own ideas. To this day, GNU utilities are the best-documented and the most standards-compatible, as well as having many unique features. Also, BSD utilities is heavily tied up with the kernel.
Also, GPL does not mandate that you return changes to the community. It mandates that someone distributing binaries must distribute source as well. If a company wants to make internal changes to GPL software and use it within the company (not sell it), they are free to not return the code.
Are you 15?
Okay, let me say a few things:
MirBSD, MirLinux, MirPorts (-> MirOS) are called this way
because my nickname starts with “mir”, but it happens to be
Latin for both “wonderful” and “weird”.
Plus I am totally aware that, in Russian, Mir means both
“peace” and “world”; I chose to take the “Mir-” prefix and
not something else for the MirBSD name because of that.
This is not a forked OpenBSD 3.3 codebase. It started long
ago with OpenBSD 3.1-current, and is regularily synched
against their CVS version (using CVS again). It’s even MORE
up to date than OpenBSD 3.4, the so-called “upcoming release”.
It contains bug fixes and new ports from OpenBSD-current
which you will never get for your 3.4 system you cannot
even install yet.
It’s not really a complicated OS, it just lacks somebody
with a _huge_ lot of spare time to fix up the documentation.
But then – why, as it’s still OpenBSD to ninety-some percent
of the codebase? There’s very few “user visible” changes
against OpenBSD (the addition of a default installed
/etc/profile file probably being the most prominent one).
Feel free to take it as an operating system of its own now;
if you don’t like it, please don’t even bother using it.
For what it’s worth, there has been a story about the release
on http://www.deadly.org (commonly the “OpenBSD magazine”), not
submitted by either of us two. – It has disappeared in a
sudden, and all we got is “Yes, it has been removed.”, and
“No personal affront, keep up your work” in a mail a couple
of minutes later.
Oh, MicroBSD. Some of their code which they submitted has
been integrated, but MirOS cannot “die” like MicroBSD,
because it’s defined as the contents of /usr/{src,ports}/
on my own machine. Since I do try hard to fix up bad licences
as well, you probably are unable to stop me from distributing
it to the general (European usually, but Japanese companies
and IBM are interested) public.
If you still have questions, there’s the IRC channel
mentioned. Wait for <benz> or <mirabile> and ask your
questions. If you don’t get an answer directly, please
wait a few minutes, we are usually busy, but as long as
we are present in IRC, we look in from time to time.
The following one is an impostor:
By [31]MirAbile (IP: 212.94.225.—) – Posted on 2003-10-02 13:08:02
I simply wanted to say, that i hate the openbsd-style, that’s why i build my own mirbsd. Hopefully the
others will follow my way and forget openbsd…
greetings
Mirabile
I would _never_ write my nickname in upper-case.
See [33]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ? BSD is listed as GPL-compatible.
True, but this counts only for the three-clause BSD-style
licence, or the two-clause BSD/MIT/X11-style licence.
The four-clause UCB-style licence, which for example
Caldera International Inc. (the company now known as
The SCO Group) chose in 1999 for publishing the source
code of any UNIX(R) up to 32V under, is not GNU GPL-
or LGPL-compatible, which may have been a reason for RMS.
Btw: In the second version of the release announcement,
the Free Software Foundation is mentioned at the top as
well, but for _different_ reasons than any of you could
imagine. (The announcement will not be online before weekend)
Excuse me for writing his name incorrect. Is Qmail also in Ports?
Greg:
mirabile has pointed out the difference.
I am referring to the (1970’s-80’s ?) BSD licence as used by UCB to release BSD (including part of the AT&T kernel). Obviously I am NOT talking of the 2003 version of this licence cos Stallman made his decision some 25+ years back or so.
And no, I am not 15, and mature people would consider it childish to attack the messenger instead of the message.
Brad:
Probably the only thing that effects them is GCC, and at this point that is everywhere and really doesn’t need mentioned. Oxygen is important to life, yet we don’t thank that constantly.
Oxygen is a by-product of stellar fusion. However, if -I- had invented oxygen, you’re godddamned right you’d be thanking me constantly.
Seriously, GNU and FSF have massive ego far beyond their means, they don’t need to get mentioned in everything.
Actually, they do need to get mentionned in everything. It’s a part of the GPL. [1] [2]
🙂
and most importantly, they didnt do anything for this project!!!
…except provide the compiler. [1] [2]
Spare me,
Good Grief
—————
[1] Don’t like it? DON’T USE IT!
[2] Why are you people such whiny ingrates? Aren’t we supposed to be one big OSS family?
DJB qmail is not yet in the MirPorts framework.
The only reason for this is that nobody so far has
submitted a clean, working port to the mailing list
([email protected] currently).
The DJB daemontools and djbdns ports exist because
there are people (actually, myself) using them and
caring about the port (it’s no “do it once, forget it”
thing; for example adding the anti-verisign diff,
keeping up to date with Felix von Leitners IPv6 diff…).
I don’t use qmail, though (sendmail suffices for my needs).