Linked by snydeq on Tue 8th Nov 2011 01:29 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives Deep End's Paul Venezia wonders why more folks aren't using FreeBSD on the desktop. 'There used to be a saying -- at least I've said it many times -- that my workstations run Linux, my servers run FreeBSD. Sure, it's quicker to build a Linux box, do a "yum install x y z" and toss it out into the wild as a fully functional server, but the extra time required to really get a FreeBSD box tuned will come back in spades through performance and stability metrics. You'll get more out of the hardware, be that virtual or physical, than you will on a generic Linux binary installation.'
Thread beginning with comment 496452
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: I agree, 10 years ago.
by Soulbender on Tue 8th Nov 2011 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I agree, 10 years ago."
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

But I do know that BSD is falling way behind and its the license that is the problem.


A) it's not falling "way behind"
B) the license is not a problem

Corporations are not willing to dump resources into a BSD licensed project that anyone can then steal without contributing anything back.


Really. That sure explains the success of Python, Perl, X, Apache, Ruby on Rails, Django and all the other big, successful projects licensed under more permissive license than the GPL. You might notice that many of them are BSD/MIT style licenses. Yes, surely no company ever poured resources into any of them...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: I agree, 10 years ago.
by tuma324 on Tue 8th Nov 2011 16:55 in reply to "RE[3]: I agree, 10 years ago."
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

"But I do know that BSD is falling way behind and its the license that is the problem.


A) it's not falling "way behind"
B) the license is not a problem

Corporations are not willing to dump resources into a BSD licensed project that anyone can then steal without contributing anything back.


Really. That sure explains the success of Python, Perl, X, Apache, Ruby on Rails, Django and all the other big, successful projects licensed under more permissive license than the GPL. You might notice that many of them are BSD/MIT style licenses. Yes, surely no company ever poured resources into any of them...
"

You are confusing things. Python' license is GPL compatible. Perl is dual licensed (GPL and Artistic License). Apache license is also compatible with GPLv3.

Ruby on Rails uses MIT which is GPL compatible. Also, Rails is only popular because of Ruby (the language), which happens to be dual licensed with its own license (which is GPL compatible) and also uses the GPLv2 (check Wikipedia).

Django is BSD, ok, but who uses that?

Projects that don't use the GPL hardly succeeds. Copyleft is the key, and the GPL is unique in what it does.

Just see Theo de Raadt whining because he doesn't get enough contributions in his BSD projects.

Edited 2011-11-08 17:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: I agree, 10 years ago.
by laffer1 on Tue 8th Nov 2011 17:10 in reply to "RE[4]: I agree, 10 years ago."
laffer1 Member since:
2007-11-09

This is a fantasy. Take javascript frameworks for example. Most of them are either dual licensed or under a permissive license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks

If the GPL were superior, everyone would be using ExtJs instead of jQuery, Prototype, Dojo, Yahoo UI, ...

How about web servers? The number one web server on the planet is Apache HTTPD. That is not under the GPL.

Databases? Ignoring commercial (only) products, several of the major databases are under the GPL but there's also Postgres which is doing rather well under the BSD license.

DNS Servers.. last I checked BIND wasn't under the GPL.

X servers.. oh wait that's MIT licensed.

The GPL is really popular, but if you consider how many things linux would not have without other licenses, it's clear that many viable projects do exist under other licenses.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The BSD license is also GPL-compatible but that's not the point. The Apache license is not GPL, the Artistic license is not GPL, the MIT/BSD is not GPL, the Python license is not GPL. The projects I mentioned are not GPL licensed and they're all successful projects.
GPL-compatible is not the same as being GPL. Using BSD/MIT/Apache/Artistic or any other "GPL-compatible" license does not mean your projects is GPL licensed.
OSS > GPL.

Django is BSD, ok, but who uses that?


Flaunting your ignorance, I see.

Projects that don't use the GPL hardly succeeds.


Except all the ones I listen and many more.

Just see Theo de Raadt whining because he doesn't get enough contributions in his BSD projects.


Nobody is whining but you.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: I agree, 10 years ago.
by f0dder on Tue 8th Nov 2011 22:10 in reply to "RE[4]: I agree, 10 years ago."
f0dder Member since:
2009-08-05

Also, Rails is only popular because of Ruby (the language),
You mean, "Ruby is only popular because of Rails" :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: I agree, 10 years ago.
by DOSguy on Wed 9th Nov 2011 00:41 in reply to "RE[4]: I agree, 10 years ago."
DOSguy Member since:
2009-07-27

Rails is only popular because of Ruby (the language), which happens to be dual licensed with its own license (which is GPL compatible) and also uses the GPLv2 (check Wikipedia).


Not any more: http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/10/31/ruby-project-ditches-gpl-favour-b...

Reply Parent Score: 1