Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Feb 2007 14:41 UTC, submitted by Oliver
FreeBSD "Linux has a large amount of device drivers for hardware not supported on FreeBSD, especially USB devices. Not rarely, such drivers have been written based on information derived by protocol sniffing, reverse engineering and the like. This makes the code highly undocumented, and renders the porting effort extremely error prone. To help with this task, I decided to start working on an emulation layer that would let us recompile the linux source code on FreeBSD, and provide a sufficiently complete emulation of the kernel APIs so that device drivers (or at least certain classes) could be used without modifications to their source code."
Thread beginning with comment 208138
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Miss-information
by mwndk on Thu 1st Feb 2007 21:55 UTC in reply to "Miss-information"
Member since:

"Third , it make the false accusation that most of them are illegal and back-porting and sniffing based on what all BSD do all the time when USB is a standard and that developer are legally working on making them work since USB is a standard."

Just to be sure, are you sure what this project is about? Where in the URL you post, is the information to write own driver support for the three mentiond USB devices? I couldn't find them

"Finally making anything BSD is a waste of time and money as shown by everything BSD ( in the last four decades ) who was closed and is now being used under other licenses inside Microsoft Windows OS and Apple MAC OS X . It does not sustain nor support itself and end up lagging behind its own derivative."
Face it, bsd's likes free as in free beer, not as in freedom.
Don't you think that the community got something back? You think everything is completly lost, when someone chooses to use your code?
BSD works for well know features, that all has to be rocksolid.
There is no problem in others is earn some money. What is the problem?

"Its just another sad attempt at slandering and libel of GNU/Linux by BSD. They don't want it working or any cooperation , they want to slander and libel only."
Please do not loose your head, you know that this is not true.

Edited 2007-02-01 21:58

Reply Parent Score: 3

v RE[2]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 01:10 in reply to "RE: Miss-information"
RE[3]: Miss-information
by Doc Pain on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 01:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Miss-information"
Doc Pain Member since:

"BSD is not Free , because it gets closed and switched ..."

What does this mean?

BSD seems to be very free. From the copyright file:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Where's the problem here?

I don't know if you've had a scientific education. One of the first things you learn: Give the sources of your citations. You take some text (literally or not) from a book of some author and use it in your paper. Then you identify the respective passage as being quoted and name the book where you've taken it from. But you don't give the author any money for doing it.

With the BSDL, it seems to be similar. Correct me if I'm wrong. You have to include the license ("name the source") if you want to use source or binary stuff in your redistribution ("your paper"). You do not have to give your sourcecode back to the BSD team, but you *may*, if you wish to do so.

"I used to think differently , now I know better , my code with BSD become there code."

As far as I understood, BSD explicitly allows you to use BSD code as long as you mention it and include the license. What you implement using BSD does not belong to BSD in any concern. But you may contribute back. In my opinion many "hobby developers" (I may include myself here) are not sure if the things they implement are worth contributed back to the BSD project...

''"BSD works for well know features, that all has to be rocksolid. "

I don't get that one But I am sure I disagree with it anyway as to do with know features and rock solid with BSD as only example.''

I think you make discussion complicated. "I don't understand you but I disagree" is not a good basis.

From my experience, "rock solid" is correct, but I'm no casemodder, nor am I rich enough to buy up-to-date hardware to fiddle around with it. :-) So can't tell about BSD as a means of hardware experimentation.

"That don't help BSD at all if others always get the money."

Can't you imagine that there are people who are morally educated that well so they will contribute back to BSD which helped them to earn money? They exist, be sure.

Reply Parent Score: 2