Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Oct 2009 18:24 UTC, submitted by Lazarus
FreeBSD Not too long ago, Apple open sourced its Grand Central Dispatch library, which aids in developing multithreaded code. It was suggested that it could be ported to other platforms, and the FreeBSD team has done exactly that. They have also done a lot of work related to getting GCD to work in a POSIX environment.
Thread beginning with comment 389091
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
FreeBSD: the crumb of Apple ...
by Moulinneuf on Wed 14th Oct 2009 00:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FreeBSD: the new/Linux :D"
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's a port, not an incorporation or technology, not a development of new technolog , not a starting partnership and attribution of developer to make the technology better and improve it. Not the start of a joint project.

To have a NIH syndrome, you have to invent something of your own or develop something of your own.

Why is BSD subpar to everything else and not a mainstream OS like GNU/Linux , MAc OS X and Apple, if it is as you say incorporating all the best technology an dnot suffering from an NIH syndrome ? Why are most BSD's technology not in FreeBSD.

Reply Parent Score: -3

Ludicrous Member since:
2009-08-19

As much as I appreciate all the GNU/Linux developers for their generous work, how could you possibly accuse FreeBSD for not innovating when GNU/Linux itself is just another UNIX clone with GNU claiming that GNU is not UNIX?

What do you have against a friendly competition in the free UNIX arena, especially against a true UNIX (in terms of where the source code started, not the UNIX trademark)?

I, for one, am glad that there are other open alternatives that work toward the evolution of the UNIX environment. (such as the new malloc which apparently sped up memory allocation).

I also wonder where GNU/Linux would be without all the funding it receives from commercial entities.

As far as NIH, a few that comes to mind in recent years would be...
dtrace->SystemTrap
ZFS->btrfs
GCD->(I wonder if this will be re-invented also...)

I'm sure plenty of GNU and Linux developers would like their works to speak for their quality instead of flame-inducing comments overriding their significance.

Reply Parent Score: 10

Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06


As far as NIH, a few that comes to mind in recent years would be...
dtrace->SystemTrap
ZFS->btrfs
GCD->(I wonder if this will be re-invented also...)


To be fair, ZFS vs btrfs (and probably dtrace vs SystemTap too) was not just NIH but a licensing issue. I don't mean to open up the question of whose fault this was but it's worth noting that the code for ZFS and Dtrace could not be included in the mainline Linux kernel because of the interaction between licenses.

That's not to say that Linux folks wouldn't have gone all NIH and tried to reinvent the wheel even if the code could be incorporated directly, there are surely some examples of that out there. But in this instance they really did have a valid reason not to just use the existing code.

Reply Parent Score: 5