FreeBSD is the most popular BSD flavor, however, it is not as popular as Debian/RH/Fedora/SuSE are even individually. Vote below to give us your take as to where do you pinpoint the roots of this fact.The poll is now closed, thank you for voting.
Poll: FreeBSD’s Popularity
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
228 Comments
2004-08-30 12:53 am
Anonymous
Firstly, keeping *derivative works* “free” isn’t a right. That’s not the original creators work, it’s their work *and* someone elses.
It is, if the original creator wishes it so. You can’t do derivatives from my work if I don’t give you explicit permission to do so.
So the GPL preserves the rights of developers who want their work and derivatives of their work to remain free.
Are you saying that conditions that guarantee freedom are somehow detrimental to that freedom?
BSDL and GPL both represent different visions of freedom. Stating that one is freer than another is therefore a matter of opinion, not fact. You’ve presented your opinion, I respect it, now we’ll have to agree to disagree. I swore a long time ago that I’d stay out of BSDL vs. GPL arguments, since I consider these the biggest waste of time possible. Both are good, and both are used extensively for the BSDs and Linux.
2004-08-30 1:01 am
Anonymous
Seriously, how does author know FreeBSD isn’t as popular as each distro? Can the author site a specific source where this info was obtained or is it merely an opinion stated as fact?
If you use a source such as Netcraft, you’d see more than one million *NEW* ip addresses using FreeBSD servers this year.
2004-08-30 1:07 am
Anonymous
If a recent JVM was released for freebsd it would help.
Not that I care much about that though, linux fills my needs and is more versatile.
2004-08-30 1:15 am
Anonymous
Just to remind you all, be sure to sign the “Macromedia Flash For *BSD Petition”: http://arameus.net/petition/index.php
2004-08-30 1:19 am
Anonymous
It is, if the original creator wishes it so. You can’t do derivatives from my work if I don’t give you explicit permission to do so.
That’s not a right. It is – as you correctly point out – a “permission”. A “condition of usage”, if you prefer.
Are you saying that conditions that guarantee freedom are somehow detrimental to that freedom?
Strawman. The conditions aren’t “guaranteeing freedom”, they’re imposing conditions on using someone’s source code.
BSDL and GPL both represent different visions of freedom.
No, they don’t. One represents generosity in close to its purest form (“take it, use it, just don’t pretend it’s yours”), the other represents a system where source code is the currency instead of money (“take it and use it, but be prepared to give anything you use it with back”).
Neither are “completely free” – but the BSDL is a hell of a lot less restrictive than the GPL.
Stating that one is freer than another is therefore a matter of opinion, not fact.
It’s not a matter of opinion of all. The GPL imposes more restrictions than the GPL license. This can *trivially* be assessed and shown objectively. Therefore – for those who believe in degrees of freedom – it is “less free”.
All the other fluff that people go on about – the *impact* the licenses have – are the opinion part.
You’ve presented your opinion, I respect it, now we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I’m quite happy to agree to disagree on the impact of the GPL and accompanying opinions, however, which license is “more free” is not something that is debatable.
I swore a long time ago that I’d stay out of BSDL vs. GPL arguments, since I consider these the biggest waste of time possible. Both are good, and both are used extensively for the BSDs and Linux.
Personally I don’t think the GPL is particularly good – it has too much potential to be massively unfair and is was clearly designed with the objective of eliminating the ability to charge for software. IMHO the LGPL is a much fairer and more equitable way to license code that maximises the benefit to all and provides the fewest drawbacks to both developers *and* software vendors.
2004-08-30 1:20 am
Anonymous
I’m confused that so many people claim to have problems installing FreeBSD. Personally, I think it has one of the easiest to use installers I have seen. Now, I said “easy to use,” not “pretty.” It probably has one of the ugliest installers of any modern operating system, but it does everything you could want an installer to do, unless what you want it to do is put up a pretty background picture while it is installing.
At least the darn thing constantly gives feedback, unlike the more GUI oriented installers like, say, Windows.
2004-08-30 1:57 am
Anonymous
This news article dated July 11, 2004 shows an INCREASE of over 1 million NEW domains based on FreeBSD for a total of 2.5 million domains running FreeBSD. This increase happened over the past year–perhaps due to the SCO scare?
NetCraft currently shows that 4 out of the top-10 sites are running FreeBSD.
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3367381
So the question is: where did the author of the poll get his info?
2004-08-30 1:58 am
Anonymous
That’s not a right. It is – as you correctly point out – a “permission”. A “condition of usage”, if you prefer.
Please don’t obfuscate. You first stated that “keeping derivatives free” wasn’t a right. I stated that it is a right for the IP owner, since he can set whatever conditions he wants on the use of his IP. Therefore, you were wrong in stating that it wasn’t a right.
Now you change tunes and claim something else entirely. In fact, you’re confusing the licensor’s right with the permission granted to the licensee.
We can’t have a rational debate if you keep sidestepping arguments like this.
Strawman. The conditions aren’t “guaranteeing freedom”, they’re imposing conditions on using someone’s source code.
Conditions guarantee that the work – and derivatives – will remain free. That to me is guaranteeing freedom.
One represents generosity in close to its purest form (“take it, use it, just don’t pretend it’s yours”), the other represents a system where source code is the currency instead of money (“take it and use it, but be prepared to give anything you use it with back”).
False. You don’t have to rerelease modified GPL code if you don’t want to. If you re-release it, then the derivative has to be free as well.
Enforcing freedom isn’t “less free”.
It’s not a matter of opinion of all.
I disagree, but you’re entitled to your opinion.
The GPL imposes more restrictions than the GPL license. This can *trivially* be assessed and shown objectively.
More restrictions doesn’t mean less free if those restrictions are there to ensure that derivatives will be as free as the original.
which license is “more free” is not something that is debatable.
Of course it is. We are debating it right now. Anyway, you have the right to your opinion, just like I have the right to my opinion that they are both free, but differently.
Personally I don’t think the GPL is particularly good – it has too much potential to be massively unfair and is was clearly designed with the objective of eliminating the ability to charge for software.
Uh, no. There’s nothing preventing you from charging for GPL software – Linux distro makers do so everyday.
And it can’t be unfair if it protects the freedom of the developer to release code and make sure that code, along with derivatives, remain free.
But, as I’ve said, you’re entitled to your opinion, you’re even entitled to claim that your opinion is fact, just like I’m entitled to disagree with both those assertions, for the reasons stated above. We’ll have to agree to disagree that this is a matter of opinion, it seems…
2004-08-30 2:04 am
Anonymous
I don’t care that it’s used less than linux. Linux is too popular, it’s not my thing. Just as I don’t listen to pop music, I don’t use linux. 🙂
I consider FreeBSD to be more stable and secure, although this is just my IMHO and I do not claim that it is actually this way and not the other way around. 🙂
P.S. I come to try OpenBSD someday!
2004-08-30 2:08 am
Anonymous
I like FreeBSD because it is a better server OS. I think it is better as a desktop operating system, but that is only my opinion. However, there are cold, hard facts that cannot be argued with based on scientific, objective facts available here: http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/socket.png that show FreeBSD, even with debug code on, and as a technology preview, is better than all known server operating systems on the market today.
2004-08-30 2:19 am
Anonymous
The guy who did those benchmarks, conclusion was that Linux was the best all around system. In addition the Linux tested there is also a test version, I believe Linux test-7. The authors comments about the socket benchmark are as follows.
“However, all contestants scale equally well, there are no clear losers. And the overall latency in this benchmark is so low that the results are interchangeable in practice.”
http://www.javaworld.com/jw-10-1999/jw-10-volano.html
http://www.volano.com/report/index.html
http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm
Here are three benchmarks where FreeBSD has the worst performance, though it is admitted these are old.
I personally would like to see a real world benchmark comparing the latest stable Linux release vs FreeBSD 5.3.
2004-08-30 2:22 am
Anonymous
* Linux 2.6.0 test-7 and a comparison between 5.3 RELEASE and the latest Linux stable kernel.
I think it is unfair that some FreeBSD users continue to “bastardize” Linux, when it is a clear competitor to it in serving, having equal or better performance.
2004-08-30 2:26 am
Anonymous
if yer looking for a good graphical installer for *BSD with ncurses, web/cgi interface watch out for bsdinstaller(aptly named eh?) from DragonFLYBSD (forked from FreeBSD 4.) which imho has the potential to kick FreeBSD’s ass in the speed/stability arena.
[1] http://www.bsdinstaller.org
[2] http://www.dragonflybsd.org
2004-08-30 2:27 am
Anonymous
” Linux scales alot nicer than BSD”
Depends on the BSD.
Are you aware that QNX, SunOS, IRIX, MIPS-OS, MacOS X (which mostly runs on dual cpus)are all derived from bsd?
and Solaris has the best of bsd and the best of system v.. true64 actually has a bit of bsd in it.
ODDLY ENOUGH… IRIX was derived from BSD.. HMMM SGI.. Isn’t SGI famous for their outstanding scalability..?! Ofcourse IRIX has some other OS code in it, but what OS dosen’t?
Interesting. I’ve googled, searched at freebsd.org and freebsdfoums.org and found nothing. Can you post a link? [If you are on the FreeBSD mailing list you should have noticed it, it’s not some big huge public release and something most people dont care about]
2004-08-30 2:30 am
2004-08-30 2:36 am
Anonymous
I previously posted that most of Google uses FreeBSD.
What I really meant Yahoo.com
Sorry, it was a mistake. Google does use Linux more than FreeBSD.
But then, http://www.boogle.com search engine does uses FreeBSD LOL 
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.boogle.com
2004-08-30 2:39 am
Anonymous
Quoting
Are you aware that QNX, SunOS, IRIX, MIPS-OS, MacOS X (which mostly runs on dual cpus)are all derived from bsd?
Actually this is misleading. MacOSX runs on multiple CPU’s and scales well though Mac OS X is not entirely BSD, but instead has a Mach Micro Kernel running a FreeBSD based component.
Low level Memory management, scheduling, IPC, VM and SMP is all done in the Mach Microkernel, not in the FreeBSD based component running on top of Mach. This is probably true for QNX.
I know NASA plans on building a cluster of over 10 thousand processors collectivly running Linux, I also know they are not doing this for FreeBSD.
2004-08-30 2:41 am
Anonymous
I think pretty much everyone agrees that BSD *was* superior up until Linux 2.6, for any number of reasons( BSD is much more mature, perhaps better design, etc).
But the point is that IBM ALONE has invested $3 Billion dollars over the past 5yrs.Even if Linux wasent the best, it [ is now | will be].
2004-08-30 2:45 am
Anonymous
Not according to the benchmarks I posted, Linux performs better even the 2.2 and 2.4 kernel series. Though I am sure there was a point during Linux’s infancy when FreeBSD did perform much better.
I have no clue how BSD has a better design, though I plan on investing some money on the Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD operating system, just to investigate.
We should do a benchmark against 5.3 and the latest 2.6 kernel, I personally am not sure who will win, especially with the refinement of ULE and multi threaded network stack in FreeBSD 😕
2004-08-30 2:48 am
Anonymous
FreeBSD really has a big problem with hardware support,
and i like freebsd but i like using my computers!
2004-08-30 3:22 am
Anonymous
“BSD is far more advanced for what linux is today.”
“Advanced in what way? Please be more specific.”
We have less trolls.
2004-08-30 3:41 am
Anonymous
FreeBSD is my choice for a server OS because it really is the _simplest_ UNIX I have ever used. For those looking for a “keep it simple stupid”, clean, well-organized operating system, where there are few surprises than you cannot go wrong with FreeBSD.
The ports collection is fantastic, the init system is simple, config files are simple and easy to modify, and everything you install in addition to the base system is nicely added to /usr/local (as it should be).
I cannot think of an easier OS to setup and use for a nice, clean, easy to deploy server. “The Power to Serve” indeed.
2004-08-30 3:49 am
Anonymous
> But the point is that IBM ALONE has invested $3 Billion dollars over the past 5yrs.
> Even if Linux wasent the best, it [ is now | will be].
Because we all know that more money makes better software…
Windows must great.
2004-08-30 3:50 am
Anonymous
Linux:
mostly-harmless bird (maybe has diseases)
FreeBSD:
Satan, Lucifer, the Devil… will lead you into
temptation, eternal damnation, burning in Hell,
fall from grace, your soul cast into the fire, etc.
Um… I’ll take the bird.
2004-08-30 4:20 am
Anonymous
FreeBSD is my choice for a server OS because it really is the _simplest_ UNIX I have ever used. For those looking for a “keep it simple stupid”, clean, well-organized operating system, where there are few surprises than you cannot go wrong with FreeBSD.
The ports collection is fantastic, the init system is simple, config files are simple and easy to modify, and everything you install in addition to the base system is nicely added to /usr/local (as it should be).
I cannot think of an easier OS to setup and use for a nice, clean, easy to deploy server. “The Power to Serve” indeed.
That’s why I like it too. People can argue about which is more scalable, which is faster etc. until they turn blue in the face. The question is: which makes a bigger difference for most of us? Small differences in some benchmarks or the overall usage of the system?
For most purposes you probably won’t see a big performance difference between the BSDs and various linux distros. So take your pick. Choose a BSD or a linux distro that you feel most comfortable with.
2004-08-30 4:21 am
Anonymous
Are you aware that QNX, SunOS, IRIX, MIPS-OS, MacOS X (which mostly runs on dual cpus)are all derived from bsd?
“Using BSD code” and “derived from BSD” are not synonymous.
And there’s no way in hell there’s more dual CPU OS X boxes out there than there are single CPU OS X boxes.
2004-08-30 4:23 am
Anonymous
Actually this is misleading. MacOSX runs on multiple CPU’s and scales well though Mac OS X is not entirely BSD, but instead has a Mach Micro Kernel running a FreeBSD based component.
I’m not sure how anyone could reasonably make a claim that OS X “scales well” when the biggest machine it runs on only has 2 CPUs.
It *should* scale well, but there is not yet any evidence that it *does*.
2004-08-30 4:34 am
2004-08-30 5:00 am
2004-08-30 5:30 am
Anonymous
Please don’t obfuscate. You first stated that “keeping derivatives free” wasn’t a right. I stated that it is a right for the IP owner, since he can set whatever conditions he wants on the use of his IP. Therefore, you were wrong in stating that it wasn’t a right.
It seems we have a fundamental disgreement on what constitutes a right. I don’t even believe copyright – despite its name – is a right. So, the concept of a fundamental right saying person A can dictate how person B’s ideas may be used because person B used some of person A’s ideas is, as far as I’m concerned, ludicrous.
Even for people who do accept that copyright is a “right”, I can’t see how dictating how other people can use their own ideas based on that “right”, can also be a “right”. To me, that’s the sort of logic that would conclude a landlord also owns his tenant’s furniture because it’s in his house.
Conditions guarantee that the work – and derivatives – will remain free.
Please don’t obfuscate. Conditions that guarantee *derivatives* are *GPLed*. The original code needs no protection whatsoever to “remain free”, it just needs to remain available.
That to me is guaranteeing freedom.
If you wish to consider “freedom” and “the GPL” synonymous, then yes, I suppose it is. I doubt you’ll find many people outside of a narrow slice of the IT community who’ll agree with you on that, however.
False. You don’t have to rerelease modified GPL code if you don’t want to. If you re-release it, then the derivative has to be free as well.
As I said, you have to be _prepared_ to give anything you do using GPLed code back. Not all circumstances demand that you do, but you should always be prepared to (I wonder if a rogue employee uploading some in-house software to a bunch of anonymous FTP sites counts as “distribution”…?).
More restrictions doesn’t mean less free if those restrictions are there to ensure that derivatives will be as free as the original.
Yes, it does.
“Free” means unrestricted. The more restrictions you impose, the further away from “free” you move.
The restrictions placed on individuals living in strictly religious communities are supposed to be there to ensure the soul is “free” to enter heaven. Would you try and argue people in those communities are “more free” than individuals living *without* those restrictions on how they live their lives ?
Uh, no. There’s nothing preventing you from charging for GPL software […]
True enough, there’s nothing preventing you charging for air, either.
However, the practical fact of the matter is you can’t sell GPLed software on any sort of scale because anyone you sell it to can immediately turn around and give it away to the whole world.
[…] – Linux distro makers do so everyday.
Most of them are selling services and/or hardware, not software. The software is incidental.
Everyone always waves their hands and says “you can charge for GPLed software”, but I’ve yet to see any proposals that aren’t:
1. applicable only to some tiny niche market; or
2. tied to non-open software and/or services and/or usage contracts and/or hardware; or
3. dependant on some aspect of the software being “closed” – eg: copyrighted/trademarked graphics.
The only one of these that is really workable at any scale is #2 – and even then only in certain circumstances. Ironically, at the fundamental level, this is nothing more than subscription software, that same model everyone likes to attack closed-source software vendors for trying to move to.
#3 is just blatant hypocrisy, IMHO.
Of course, this lack of possible selling oppotunities is entirely understandable, given it’s one of the primary purposes of the GPL, but I’m always amazed by people who try to argue it isn’t so.
And it can’t be unfair if it protects the freedom of the developer to release code and make sure that code, along with derivatives, remain free.
It most certainly can be unfair. Simply consider the situation where a developer has used GPLed code for only a negligible – say less than 10% – portion of their project. Having to GPL the entire thing – >90% their own, original work – because of that is not fair.
The LGPL is fairer because it only requires improvements and changes to the LGPLed code be returned to the community. The developer’s own, unique work remains theirs to do with as they please.
2004-08-30 5:34 am
Anonymous
BSDL/GPL?
It would have been sweet if DragonflyBSD came with Reiserfs4.
But dreams are far from reality 
2004-08-30 5:43 am
Anonymous
“burning in Hell, fall from grace, your soul cast into the fire”
Geez, that would have been the Raiders and Cardinals on Saturday night. 102 degrees at game time (7 PM). Temperature dropped a whole 3 degrees during the course of the game.
2004-08-30 6:11 am
Anonymous
It seems we have a fundamental disgreement on what constitutes a right. I don’t even believe copyright – despite its name – is a right.
Actually, it is. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right, though it has an expiration period (recently extended by the Sonny Bono act).
So, despite your belief, it can be easily demonstrated that copyright is, in fact, a right.
So, the concept of a fundamental right saying person A can dictate how person B’s ideas may be used because person B used some of person A’s ideas is, as far as I’m concerned, ludicrous.
It may be ludicrous to you, but that’s the law. Period. If you make a derivative of someone else’s idea, you need permission to distribute it.
Please don’t obfuscate.
Please don’t be a smart-ass.
Conditions that guarantee *derivatives* are *GPLed*.
The software is GPLed, not the conditions. Perhaps you should think this through before posting it.
If you wish to consider “freedom” and “the GPL” synonymous
As usual, you put words in people’s mouth, and twist what they are saying around to cover for the fact that you don’t have a solid argument to stand on. I don’t consider “freedom” and the GPL to be synonymous, I have never claimed as such. I was merely pointing out that the argument can be made that the GPL guarantees the freedom of code and of its derivatives.
As I said, you have to be _prepared_ to give anything you do using GPLed code back.
No you shouldn’t. If you don’t want to redistribute it, you don’t have to. The GPL is quite clear in this regard.
Not all circumstances demand that you do, but you should always be prepared to (I wonder if a rogue employee uploading some in-house software to a bunch of anonymous FTP sites counts as “distribution”…?).
The rogue employee could be liable for copyright infringement. The software wouldn’t be considered as redistributed by the company, who could continue to use the software in-house. Again, the GPL is quite clear regarding this.
“Free” means unrestricted. The more restrictions you impose, the further away from “free” you move.
That’s a narrow definition of freedom. Some freedom must be restricted to protect the freedom of others. If I am to live free of harm, then others must be restricted in their freedom to cause me harm. Does that make us less free? No, it doesn’t. It just goes to show that guaranteeing certain freedom means restricting others. That’s what I meant when I said that the BSDL and GPL are both free, but in different ways.
Of course, if you want to cling to simplistic world views, that’s your right – it seems to me, however, that you’re not talking about freedom at all, but anarchy.
Most of [the distro makers] are selling services and/or hardware, not software. The software is incidental.
Really? AFAIK, Mandrake’s main revenue is from selling the software. That, and the Mandrake Club membership.
You seem to forget that large corporations and governments will in fact buy GPL software (and the service contracts that go with them), even though they could just download it and copy them.
Of course, this lack of possible selling oppotunities is entirely understandable, given it’s one of the primary purposes of the GPL
Really? Funny, I didn’t happen to find anything about this on the FSF’s website…unless you’re into conspiracy theories! Sorry to burst your bubble, but the primary purpose of the GPL is not to prevent anyone from selling anything.
Again, case in point: Mandrake Linux. I’ve personally bought three of their boxed sets. So I’m living proof that your argument is groundless.
It most certainly can be unfair. Simply consider the situation where a developer has used GPLed code for only a negligible – say less than 10% – portion of their project. Having to GPL the entire thing – >90% their own, original work – because of that is not fair.
It is entirely fair, because the developer made a conscious decision to use GPLed code. If the developer doesn’t want to GPL his code, then he simply has to use non-GPLed code. There’s absolutely nothing unfair about it. In fact, it is the contrary that would be unfair – because it would use the code in a manner contrary to the wishes the code’s owner, therefore encroaching on his constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
In any case, considering the great popularity of the GPL, I think it’s fair to say that most developers disagree with your views on how fair it is…
Well, it was fun demolishing your arguments, as usual. Time to go to bed now…from past posts, I know well enough that you are obsessed with always having the last word, so I’ll let you have it. I’m content with agreeing to disagree.
(But, really, copyright is a guaranteed right. Read up on it some day…)
2004-08-30 6:24 am
Anonymous
When an OS absolutely positively must be reliable – FreeBSD is often chosen for the job. Linux continues to gain lots of cool features, but not everyone wants cool features – some want peace of mind. When engineers build a machine that must be able to function unattended for long periods of time, they don’t choose Windows and they don’t choose Linux. They choose the OS they expect can run 2-7 years without crapping out.
2004-08-30 7:51 am
Anonymous
for me, the following reasons push me to linux and not *BSD
linux has a much larger momentum. the OS as a whole, from kernel to GNU packages seems to evolve so much quicker. *BSD gains from this to a certain degree but as most packages are designed for linux first, and then need ported to *BSD, all the *BSDs seem to be a bit behind.
i like to quick pace of kernel development, the way kernel advancement seems to keep my machine up to date without any hardware upgrades as each advancement improves my desktop experience.
i also am a big fan of the new reiser4 fs and have been following it for some time. currently it is a linux only filesystem and may stay that way.
2004-08-30 8:01 am
2004-08-30 8:43 am
Anonymous
FreeBSD is my choice for a server OS because it really is the _simplest_ UNIX I have ever used. For those looking for a “keep it simple stupid”, clean, well-organized operating system, where there are few surprises than you cannot go wrong with FreeBSD.
The ports collection is fantastic, the init system is simple, config files are simple and easy to modify, and everything you install in addition to the base system is nicely added to /usr/local (as it should be).
I cannot think of an easier OS to setup and use for a nice, clean, easy to deploy server. “The Power to Serve” indeed.
If you want it really simple and clean, you should check out NetBSD or OpenBSD. Of the two, I find OpenBSD the most usable, NetBSD is too stripped down for me.
FreeBSD is a great OS too (I use it as a desktop), but it’s more bloated and more chaotic than the other two.
GH
2004-08-30 9:15 am
Anonymous
Actually, it is. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right, though it has an expiration period (recently extended by the Sonny Bono act).
America != The World.
Please don’t tell me the US Constitution is your measure of “rights”, because it certainly isn’t mine – personally I consider health care to be much more of a “right” than gun ownership.
Copyright is a legal fiction. It has no meaning outside of modern law, no counterpart in the natural world and is used for little more than protecting obselete corporate business models. Those don’t sound like attributes of something worth considering a basic human right to me.
It may be ludicrous to you, but that’s the law. Period. If you make a derivative of someone else’s idea, you need permission to distribute it.
Actually, you usually need permission just to make the derivative in the first place (I’ve often wondered how people with photographic memories are supposed to avoid copyright infringement).
Something being a law doesn’t make it any less stupid.
The software is GPLed, not the conditions. Perhaps you should think this through before posting it.
The conditions in the GPL guarantee the derivatives will be GPLed. Perhaps you should read comments in context before trying to be a smart arse ?
As usual, you put words in people’s mouth, and twist what they are saying around to cover for the fact that you don’t have a solid argument to stand on. I don’t consider “freedom” and the GPL to be synonymous, I have never claimed as such.
Your comments:
“So the GPL preserves the rights of developers who want their work and derivatives of their work to remain free.”
“Are you saying that conditions that guarantee freedom are somehow detrimental to that freedom? ”
“Conditions guarantee that the work – and derivatives – will remain free. That to me is guaranteeing freedom. ”
Seems to me you’re interchanging “GPL” and “free” or “freedom” pretty much at will.
I was merely pointing out that the argument can be made that the GPL guarantees the freedom of code and of its derivatives.
Yes, if you consider “freedom” and “GPL licensed” to be the same thing.
The GPL guarantees that *derivative code* will be *GPLed*. “The GPL” != “freedom”. Please stop saying “the GPL guarantees code will remain free” when you mean “the GPL guarantees code and its derivatives will remain, or become, GPLed”.
Again, “licensed under the GPL” is not “free”, it is just “licensed under the GPL”.
No you shouldn’t. If you don’t want to redistribute it, you don’t have to. The GPL is quite clear in this regard.
Yes, but if you do redistribute it – or any part of it – it has to redistributed under the conditions of the GPL. Therefore, you should be _prepared_ to give it all out under the GPL, because that might have to be done.
There’s a very good reason why companies using open source code in their proprietry products (like Apple) are being very careful to keep GPLed code at arm’s length.
That’s a narrow definition of freedom.
No, it’s *the* definition of freedom.
Some freedom must be restricted to protect the freedom of others. If I am to live free of harm, then others must be restricted in their freedom to cause me harm. Does that make us less free? No, it doesn’t.
Yes, clearly it does – *by definition*.
This is where you get subjective, when you start talking about the *impact*. Are Americans “more free” because they have the right to own guns and say whatever they want ? Or, are Australians “more free” because we have better social security and strict libel and defamation laws ?
It just goes to show that guaranteeing certain freedom means restricting others. That’s what I meant when I said that the BSDL and GPL are both free, but in different ways.
And you’re still wrong. Neither are free, they just have difference types of restrictions. The BSDL having significantly less than the GPL.
Of course, if you want to cling to simplistic world views, that’s your right – it seems to me, however, that you’re not talking about freedom at all, but anarchy.
Ah, the anarchy card. I was wondering when that was going to come out. Seems to me we need another Godwin’s law dealing with “freedom” and “anarchy”.
Really? AFAIK, Mandrake’s main revenue is from selling the software. That, and the Mandrake Club membership.
Sounds like the “Mandrake Club” is that service I was talking about. And don’t forget the support and proprietry software that comes with the box sets.
You seem to forget that large corporations and governments will in fact buy GPL software (and the service contracts that go with them), even though they could just download it and copy them.
You seem to forget (or simply don’t realise) that most of the corporations *have* to buy it because they need “certified platforms” for existing software and contractual guarantees of support.
Again, case in point: Mandrake Linux. I’ve personally bought three of their boxed sets. So I’m living proof that your argument is groundless.
I shall have to remember your newly found high regard for anecdotal evidence in future discussions.
It is entirely fair, because the developer made a conscious decision to use GPLed code.
This does not imply the result is fair. Particularly when said result might not actually become unfair until some time down the track.
If the developer doesn’t want to GPL his code, then he simply has to use non-GPLed code. There’s absolutely nothing unfair about it. In fact, it is the contrary that would be unfair – because it would use the code in a manner contrary to the wishes the code’s owner, therefore encroaching on his constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
I shall have to remember this reasoning as well, the next time you’re going on about “the Microsoft tax” and per-CPU licensing.
Whether or not a developer willingly uses GPLed code is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fairness of the outcome of using that code.
In any case, considering the great popularity of the GPL, I think it’s fair to say that most developers disagree with your views on how fair it is…
Given how many developers have a deep misunderstanding of what the GPL does (eg: “it only means improvements to my code are given back to the community” or “it means no-one can use my code without giving something back”) or what it attempts to do (“it’s all about keeping code free”), I don’t consider that to be a particularly compelling bit of reasoning.
Well, it was fun demolishing your arguments, as usual.
“The US constitution defines rights”.
“It’s the law”.
“The GPL means free”.
“‘Real freedom’ means not being able to do some things”.
“Freedom is anarchy”.
“Popular means better”.
Yep, I’m reeling from those crushing refutations.
Time to go to bed now…from past posts, I know well enough that you are obsessed with always having the last word, so I’ll let you have it. I’m content with agreeing to disagree.
Ah, so I’m “obsessed with having the last word” but you’re just “demolishing my arguments”. Right.
2004-08-30 11:14 am
Anonymous
We have been teached several times, that the better one is not automatically the more popular one.
Linux got some momentum and got the image of being *the* open source operating system. How many Linux users know that the BSDs exist? (How many FreeBSD users tried out NetBSD?
Which is not always good, as it attracted that crowd that can’t live without coloured prompts and translucent x11 window managers. 🙂
Regards,
Marc
2004-08-30 11:17 am
Anonymous
Yes, it is really popular for its FLEXIBILITY. If you want, you can do things to make FreeBSD satisfy your needs. Hope every user/admin needs. You can’t do something with other OSes, howewer, with FreeBSD you can suffer the thing.
2004-08-30 11:45 am
Anonymous
It is sad that people are so reluctant to try different things. They are missing out on a lot of experiences. Using FreeBSD and OpenBSD (I haven’t got to try NetBSD yet.) as well as different Linux distributions and Unixs and any other OS I have the time to try out. realy helps me understand where the hardware ends and the software begins. Back when I was only using DOS (I used MS, and PC DOS) I though all PC operating systems had a A: B: C: drive then when I switched to Linux I learned about mounting and the /dev structure so I know the OS really handles these things and it it up the programmer to set up how the user interfaces with hardware. As well when I tried out freeBSD I was amaized that there was a graphical arrow over what still seems to me as a text screen. (I can usually tell if it is a frame buffer or not). Plus when I get a problem with one OS I can use a concept that I learned in an other OS to get it fixed.
2004-08-30 12:10 pm
Anonymous
“Also often the GPL license seems to prevent too much forking of the FOSS code (for example, there are several different BSD kernels but basically only one Linux kernel).”
I don’t see the problem, since I can choose the BSD kernel which best fits my usage, I don’t see that coming from Linux and I don’t see why it’s a bad thing.
The BSDs still share the good stuff between them, you just got more choice.
Ignore the word fork, and talk about choices. The OSS gives you lots of choices on for example browser or mp3-player, do you see that as a problem aswell? I think it’s nice I can choose the one which best fits my purpose, konqueror for snappy browsing, mozilla for evil webpages, mpg123 or other in console and xmms or juk in X.
The BSD-license might be a bad choice for a developer which doesn’t want anyone to “steal his work”, but well just don’t release it under BSD-license, that doesn’t stop you from using BSD. On the other hand the GPL efficiently stops you from makeing your own product after gaining knowledge from others code, which isn’t the case with BSD-licensed code. Beeing able to learn from others solutions seems like a good thing to me.
2004-08-30 1:13 pm
Anonymous
America != The World.
Did I mention I’m Canadian?
Please don’t tell me the US Constitution is your measure of “rights”, because it certainly isn’t mine – personally I consider health care to be much more of a “right” than gun ownership.
I don’t care much for the second amendment myself, but the U.S. constitution – and the Bill of Rights – are superb documents. Nowhere on the planet is Free Speech as protected as it is in the U.S. – not even in Canada.
Copyright is a legal fiction. It has no meaning outside of modern law, no counterpart in the natural world and is used for little more than protecting obselete corporate business models. Those don’t sound like attributes of something worth considering a basic human right to me.
You’re grasping at straws here. “No counterpart in the natural world?” What law does?
Copyright may not be a basic human right, but it is a right nonetheless. And it is not only used to protect “obsolete corporate models”, but also individual IP and innovation.
The conditions in the GPL guarantee the derivatives will be GPLed. Perhaps you should read comments in context before trying to be a smart arse ?
Hey, you’re the one who wrote a nonsensical statement (“the conditions are GPLed”), not me!
No, it’s *the* definition of freedom.
Funny, when I checked Merriam-Webster online, there were about a dozen definitions. Which goes back to what I was saying earlier: different freedoms.
Please stop saying “the GPL guarantees code will remain free”
No, I wont. The GPL guarantees code and its derivatives will remain free (as in “Free Software”). If you don’t like that definition of free, then you’re welcome not to use it. Meanwhile, I’m “free” to use it as much as I want.
Ah, the anarchy card. I was wondering when that was going to come out. Seems to me we need another Godwin’s law dealing with “freedom” and “anarchy”.
I think you participating in a thread should be it’s own Godwin’s Law…
And you’re still wrong.
That’s a matter of opinion. I think you’re wrong. That makes us even. Why can’t you just leave it at that?
Oh, I forgot, you’re obsessed with having the last word. Well, I’ll see how far you’re ready to go…
Neither are free,
Well, freedom being relative, I claim that both are indeed free when compared to proprietary software. And both are equally free, in different ways.
I shall have to remember this reasoning as well, the next time you’re going on about “the Microsoft tax” and per-CPU licensing.
Whether or not a developer willingly uses GPLed code is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fairness of the outcome of using that code.
Therefore it is possible to sell GPL software. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.
I shall have to remember this reasoning as well, the next time you’re going on about “the Microsoft tax” and per-CPU licensing.
Really? Please give one instance of me complaining about the Microsoft Tax and per-CPU licensing?
Whether or not a developer willingly uses GPLed code is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fairness of the outcome of using that code.
On the contrary, it is completely relevant. The permission to use the code is only given if conditions are observed. It is completely fair.
Given how many developers have a deep misunderstanding of what the GPL does (eg: “it only means improvements to my code are given back to the community” or “it means no-one can use my code without giving something back”) or what it attempts to do (“it’s all about keeping code free”), I don’t consider that to be a particularly compelling bit of reasoning.
Yeah, well nobody really cares what arrogant internet posters like you think. I know a couple of developers, and it seems to me they understand the GPL and Free Software a lot better than you.
“The US constitution defines rights”.
“It’s the law”.
“The GPL means free”.
“‘Real freedom’ means not being able to do some things”.
“Freedom is anarchy”.
“Popular means better”.
Yep, I’m reeling from those crushing refutations.
Well, since I did not say any of these things (despite you using quotes) I’ll take that as a sign of desperation on your part.
Ah, so I’m “obsessed with having the last word” but you’re just “demolishing my arguments”. Right.
That’s exactly it. Glad to see that you finally got it.
“For example, on Linux, you install an RPM and if it fails dependencies, you have to manually download all the needed RPMs. ”
Pure FUD ! All modern linux distributions have one of the following programs
apt-get
yum
urpmi
who automagically resolve dependencies for you.
And if you want something like BSD ports you can use Gentoo or other source-based distributions.
GPL zealots have the illusion that their work gets protected by their license and no one can do a closed fork on their project, but I wonder how hard is it to rewrite the code (maybe even with automatic tools) to an unrecognizable form before compiling so the GPL zealots would never know they had been ripped off.
That would actually be quite hard – harder than writing your own code from scratch, that’s for sure.
Code obfuscation isn’t something that’s easy to do, and as far as I know there are no tools that can do this.
So indeed developers who choose to distribute their code under the GPL (and that doesn’t mean they’re zealots, by the way) are in fact protected by it. Sorry to burst your anti-GPL bubble.
“I’d say the major reasons BSD lags behind Linux in popularity are a.) Linux was available first, seizing the momentum, and b.) BSD isn’t significantly different enough from Linux to merit a change-over. ”
a) *BSDs were available first, but facing the AT&T lawsuit. So Linux, initially based on Minix, became the first free and legally clean free X86 Unix clone.
b) If you’re used to Slackware they’re not so different. Except the *BSDs have a package management system as good as Gentoo or Debian (you can do binary or source updates). Documentation is best than everything else I’ve seen.
“I initially used Linux because I needed an x86 based unix-like OS, couldn’t afford an SCO license, and Linux was what I found when I went looking.”
As I answered on a), the first legally clean x86 free Unix-like OS. But I find ironic the point about SCO license these days
I totally agree with you: use what fits your needs best.
Companies that sell hardware or services will continue to use GPL: they can’t get hurt and hype is helpful.
Companies that sell software products, like games and desktop software that doesn’t need support will continue to use BSD code, it’s the only way to use OSS and survive.
GPL helps services. BSD helps products. By products I mean every piece of software that can’t make revenue from services.
Have a look at the feedback on this article at Newsforge:
What if Doom 3 were open sourced?
http://entertainment.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/08/02/1228248&…
the Linux community are nothing more that pedant geeks that “help” treating you as ignorants.
No they’re not. Please stop flamebaiting – there’s room for all of us. It’s not our problem if you’re bitter about the fact that Linux is more popular than the BSDs.
You’ve got some gall calling Linux users arrogant, given the brazen arrogance of your own post…
“You are free to live under the rule of our god, otherwise you are not free.”
!?!? That’s the last straw. I’ll be finding my “OS news” elsewhere from now on. Preferably some place who uses the traditional dictionary definiton of the word ‘free’.
Frankly, i agree. Its a troll, simple.
Controversial, though incomplete / non-argumented crap like this supports my theory OSnews needs trolls to get some more pageviews more and more…
Recently, there has been posted quite some crap including the Philips discussion, Haiku “editorial”. Its simply not constructive after it got posted, and needs a low-level discussion to get up to something constructive. Sad, really but good websites don’t last long.
Heh, what does popularity indicate anyway? If populair would indicate quality it would certainly say something about Windows, OpenVMS and Tron. Luckily, it does not, because hordes of people are not qualified to male a (rational) choice nor they base a choice only on quality.
10. It is dying.
LOL.
Next time you read “BSD is dying” you can safely ignore that post without even thinking anyone takes it serious because its one of those one-liners by anti-BSD trolls such as e.g. “GNAA” does on Slashdot, among others. Nothing new, we know its bull already.
Slow news day? Or do you just love to watch the fireworks that erupt when you pit Linux users vs FreeBSD users & GPL supporters vs BSDL supporters? These articles and threads are all the same. They bring out the worst from both sides spewing FUD about the other. So sad. Instead of trying to get the suporters of these two great Open Source OS’s to help one another, all I see is another attempt to divide. I guess Eugenia’s check from Redmond cleared…
BSD is far more advanced for what linux is today.
Advanced in what way? Please be more specific.
I’d say the major reasons BSD lags behind Linux in popularity are a.) Linux was available first, seizing the momentum, and b.) BSD isn’t significantly different enough from Linux to merit a change-over.
I’d like to agree here with, althought BSD was available first, wasn’t it? The explanantion should be: Linux gained popularity faster.
As a site note: The reason, Linux gained popularity faster, was the GPL, IMHO. Most developers don’t like to share their code when other’s are not forced to share back improvements.
In a short form: GNU/Linux got more code > more consumer apps (and drivers) > more popularity > more developers > more code > more consumer apps > …
So, why should a user bother with *BSD ?
“That would actually be quite hard – harder than writing your own code from scratch, that’s for sure.
Code obfuscation isn’t something that’s easy to do, and as far as I know there are no tools that can do this.
So indeed developers who choose to distribute their code under the GPL (and that doesn’t mean they’re zealots, by the way) are in fact protected by it. Sorry to burst your anti-GPL bubble.”
Anytime, buddy
But code is still exposed, rewriting from scratch looking at your code shouldn’t be as hard as thinking the code from scratch. So you’ll only catch the lazy ones
Cheers,
Bilu
Face it, the new generation of Unix users don’t want to have to dig around in the config files just to get a plain GUI system running. We want useful desktops and quick, clean installs.
I’m not talking out of my hat on this one. I’ve been experimenting with the BSD varients the last few weeks and have found that FreeBSD and OpenBSD are more difficult than even Debian/Slackware/Gentoo to install (I consider ‘installing’ the process of gettin me to a system that boots into X and gives me a decent window manager (IceWM is my current prefrence).
NetBSD is easier to get to a text-install than the other two, but X is still a giant PITA. Open/Free have a huge problem with their disk partitioning. Its hard to understand (at least coming from the Linux perspective) and their tools don’t do anything to try to make it easier.
Throw in the fact that driver support is lacking in some areas, SMP support is brand new from my understanding, and they seem to prefer csh to bash (once you’re used to tab-completion and keypad arrow history there’s no going back).
None of this should be taken as a criticism of the *BSD folk’s contributions to the community! Where would be be without OpenSSH, or OpenBSD’s emphasis on continually security auditing the code (which in many cases is common between BSD and Linux).
bcl
Okay, I just read your latest post and I’m sorry for describing you as anti-GPL. You obviously have a more nuanced opinion than that.
However, I would like to remark on this:
Companies that sell software products, like games and desktop software that doesn’t need support will continue to use BSD code, it’s the only way to use OSS and survive.
In fact, a game company could use GPLed code without much problems. That doesn’t mean that the actual sold product could be redistributed freely – because games are a lot more than code. Most of what makes a game unique isn’t code at all, but art and gameplay assets, such as character models, animations, textures, voices, levels, etc. These elements (which represent most of a game’s budget, incidentally) don’t have to be GPLed, since the GPL concerns code. So you could have a game with a free engine, but proprietary content.
For productivity software, the issue is more problematic. But you shouldn’t lump in games, as they are not your typical software product.
But code is still exposed, rewriting from scratch looking at your code shouldn’t be as hard as thinking the code from scratch. So you’ll only catch the lazy ones
Indeed, there is nothing preventing someone from looking at OSS code, getting inspired from its methods and procedures, and writing proprietary code inspired from it (unless there are patent issues). That’s perfectly legit – and in fact nearly all code is inspired from previous effort.
Try Linux for 6 months. Try FreeBSD for 6 months. The choice is obvious. Linux looses.
I tried Linux and *BSD for a year. I choose Debian GNU/Linux as my main desktop box. So I wonder how you were able to fathom that FreeBSD is the better choice after a 6 month trial period? I still have FreeBSD installed but I rarely use it for anything but tinkering.
FreeBSD is hidden behind Linux, but it’s so much easier to:
Easier in your opinion right? Lets make that clear.
– install
– setup
– setup firewall, PF, samba, networking & security in general
– use ports/packages
– manage
If you didn’t mention that your were using FreeBSD, I would have sworn you were refering to any major modern Linux distro above.
You have all you need on the FreeBSD web site. You can also find good books that tell it all (AbsoluteBSD, The complete FreeBSD guide, The FreeBSD handbook…)
Same at the Debian site. There might not be that many Debian books published but, the documentation is satisfactory enough that a book is not needed.
With Linux, it’s so complicated, and the Linux community are nothing more that pedant geeks that “help” treating you as ignorants.
Ahh there we go. Your “FreeBSD elitist of a troll” nature has revealed itself. Typical. Speaking on topics he knows nothing about. You are no better then any Linux, MacOS X, or Windows zealot.
When you are serious with OS, you don’t want Linux. You want professionalism.
LMAO. Were you on an acid trip when you posted that nonsense? Both OSs perform a task and do it well. You can be professional on either two, heck you can even be professional on a Windows box. The real question I want to know is are YOU serious?
While BSD zealots say that the centralized development model (a BSD system is a complete operating system, not only a kernel like linux) is better because it is more uniform, linux distributions provide more diversity of applications and features.
There are linux distributions for joe users (like linspire), for tech users (like Fedora), for nerds (like slackware and debian) and for ultra-nerds (like gentoo). You have graphical, ncurses-based and text based installers.
And BSD ? You have FreeBSD and NetBSD for ultra-nerds and OpenBSD for ultra-ultra-nerds. There are none BSD version for joe and normal users…
“Face it, the new generation of Unix users don’t want to have to dig around in the config files just to get a plain GUI system running. We want useful desktops and quick, clean installs.”
For cripes sakes! Keep your ‘GUI’s out of my *BSD. The beauty of managing a system via text interface seems to be lost on you, or as you put it ‘the new generation of UNIX users’.
Just how hard is it to type a simple ‘cd /usr/ports/category/app && make install distclean’, or ‘pkg_add -r app’? This no harder than the MS/Apple way, fire up browser search for X_app download, swim through ‘installation software’. As for text based configs, it’s pretty much a one shot deal, set it and forget it.
“Marcelo: And BSD ? You have FreeBSD and NetBSD for ultra-nerds and OpenBSD for ultra-ultra-nerds. There are none BSD version for joe and normal users…”
Yes there is. It is called MacOS X.
Much like the title of Star Trek -The Next Gerenation, episode 74 and 75.
“So, why should a user bother with *BSD ?”
The problem with Linux is it’s decentralized nature, above all. It’s hard to document an OS with so many definitions for it.
It pissed a lot of Linux users when Red Hat got accepted as standard and apps and books were developed on it, but would you want a book on the basics like upgrading for every Linux distro around?
Slackware is the closest thing to *BSDs in the filesystem structure and services.
Debian is the closest on community, documentation, binary upgrades and structure definitions: they cared about a standard menu, internationalization everywhere (not just X), and other stuff. I’m not saying that *BSDs are working on this specific issues, but the community spirit of developing a system rather than throwing software together is there.
Gentoo has learned a lot on source upgrades from BSD.
To me, *BSD is the best of Debian, Slack and Gentoo. The best of breed.
A friendly FreeBSD-based distro would be a killer, I’m sure. Fast and easy to maintain. But Debian is also easy to maintain and the Linux kernel supports more multimedia hardware, so it would be better even if it would be slower (not saying that it is slower, just saying hardware support is more important on a friendly distro).
“In a short form: GNU/Linux got more code > more consumer apps (and drivers) > more popularity > more developers > more code > more consumer apps > …”
Hype worked great, didn’t it?
I wonder if Linus never released the Linux kernel under GPL we would be using HURD these days <:)
But with BSD in court what else would he use with his new Minix-inspired kernel than the GNU tools?
If it wasn’t for BSD being in court probably Linux would never existed and HURD would be the first OS to use the GNU tools.
In fact, a game company could use GPLed code without much problems. That doesn’t mean that the actual sold product could be redistributed freely – because games are a lot more than code. Most of what makes a game unique isn’t code at all, but art and gameplay assets, such as character models, animations, textures, voices, levels, etc. These elements (which represent most of a game’s budget, incidentally) don’t have to be GPLed, since the GPL concerns code. So you could have a game with a free engine, but proprietary content.
But what if an engine sells more than the content, like in Id Software games? I’m sure they’d rather open the content and close the engine
Cheers,
Bilu
Ok if you like linux use linux if you like a *BSD use a *BSD
Plain simple
Non of them are better than the other one
I use Arch linux on my desktop and Use FreeBSD for my servers when it comes to Web and Mailservers
The problem with Linux is that there are so many different flavors
Suse, RedHat, Mandrake, Slack you’ll name them.
But they all have there drawbacks.
Suse with Yast i can not get used to Yast
Mandrake I do not know it just does not feel right ( proberly my bad)
Slack package management is not that great for me
Arch i truly love with there pacman package management.
Gentoo broke my system one’s to many.
FreeBSD on my desktop well it is way to slow and Arch linux is way more responsiness <– forgive me my englisch.
So use what you like even if it is Microsoft Windows.
If you are comfortable with it use it.
FreeBSD is not as popular as Linux, because:
1. Other
304 (11 %)
I wonder what the heck “other” was for these people.
2. Not many developers involved
134 (5 %)
This one I don’t know. I’ve never counted them. But is software like cooking? Do too many developers spoil the pot?
3. Not much momentum/advocacy
893 (34 %)
This is definately a very huge one in my opinion. I guess in most people’s opinion as well. This is the one I voted for. The BSD camps are very quiet and very reserved. I bet with more noise they’d be noticed alot more. They need alot more marketing and lot more press. More books. More articles. More of everything.
Perhaps more “neat and cool” features would be nice. Stuff to add that special “bling bling” for new users. I don’t know exactly what this might entail. Actually, if the default .cshrc or .profile files were just modified to add prompt coloring and stuff by default it might wooo new users. It might be somthing as simple as that. Basically, add some usability hacks to things. Working HOME and END keys would be nice on the command line.
4. Too traditional of a unix
169 (6 %)
I don’t know, but I find this to be a good thing. I guess since most Linux users are young, they don’t understand the beauty of traditional Unix. FreeBSD doesn’t try to be something else (ex. MS Windows). It’s a Unix server and workstation and a damn good one at that too.
5. Not enough drivers
352 (13 %)
FreeBSD has supported everything I have thrown at it. The only thing I wouldn’t mind having is more webcam support. It would be fun to setup a webcam server just for kicks. Maybe more support for more multi-port serial devices so I can setup a PPP (RAS for windows people) server at work. Perhaps more telephony stuff would be neat too. It would be intersting to see FreeBSD in the VoIP world.
6. Not enough third party application support
231 (9 %)
Yeah, I have to agree with this one as well. This is probably my second choice. It would be nice to have more support from commercial software vendors. I don’t care if it’s closed source, more software would be good.
7. Not as easy to use/install
356 (13 %)
I really feel sorry for those that have a hard time installing FreeBSD. I mean, FreeBSD isn’t all that hard to install or is it that I’m a very advanced user. The installer is practically a ncurses “Wizard” type installer. How hard can that be?
As far as use goes, well I can understand that for someone new to Unix a shell prompt really isn’t that inviting. Yeah, most Linux installations drop you into a Windows-like enviroment. But that really teaches you nothing about what just happened behind the scenes. I’m the type of user that wants to know what’s going on, what got installed, where it’s installed, what files I need to configure. You know, the Unix way of doing things. The right way of doing things under Unix.
This one if any, would have been my third choice. I mean, yes I do find it easy but perhaps they could streamline things a bit better. Perhaps provide more help for options. Maybe make a GUI installer, although I don’t find that to be very important. A script based self installer would be nice for unattended setups. Although, I think it might have this but I’m not sure.
8. Not Free enough
123 (4 %)
This one I do not understand at all. I think the only reason why FreeBSD isn’t free enough is because it does have some GNU software in it. Otherwise, it would be free in practically every sense of the word. With FreeBSD you can use it for whatever the hell you want. Close it up? Go for it. Do whatever. That’s freedom. The that’s the beauty of the BSD license.
Anyway, that’s my take. Yes the BSD do fall behind which is a shame because they’re all very technicall excellent. They have a very slow growth.
The really sad thing though. As much as I admire BSD, I don’t think that will change. I would much like it to change, but I doubt it will. I hope I’m proven wrong.
Please comment on this:
On software services (where support sells) and products where the content matters more that the engine, GPL helps.
On software products (where support doesn’t sell) and specifically on those where the engine matters more than the content, GPL hurts.
About content and engine, I was talking about desktop software like games, enciclopaedias, office suites, authoring programs.
About software services, I’m talking about software on which the support matters more than the code itself.
Would like to get you opinion on this.
Cheers,
Bruno
It’s because of the AT & T lawsuit that Linux is more popular. Linux was able to gain traction with developers because everyone was scared that AT & T would come down on them like 10 tons of $hit for stealing their intellectual property. By the time the lawsuit was cleared up and it was decided that FreeBSD wasn’t infringing on AT & T’s intellectual property, many developers that would have eagerly contributed work to FreeBSD had settled on Linux instead. FreeBSD is a fantastic OS. It’s performance is equal or slightly better than Linux, most apps that you would run on Linux can be compiled for FreeBSD or already exist in the ports tree, and it has the Linux emulation layer so you can run Linux apps if you need to. Gnome and KDE run on FreeBSD, making it a decent home desktop system, and it’s robustness as a server platform is legendary. The choice of BSD vs. GPL has undoubtedly had some effect as to the number of developers who focus on Linux, rather than FreeBSD, but the root cause is the lawsuit ten years ago. The loss of momentum killed FreeBSD’s chances to challenge Windows on the X86 platform.
“4. Too traditional of a unix
169 (6 %) ”
I think this might be the only really one on the list. When you the Complete FreeBSD, and Grog is talking about how un-Unixlike Open Office (“it breaks a number of conventions”), then tells that he wrote the whole book in Emacs, and oh yeah, he’s got issues with floppy disks too. Well, it basically just makes BSD and its users look behind the times. Naturally not all BSD users are like that, but some of the old school types might just be frightening people away with their antiquated ideas. Night of the living uber geeks.
I agree with you on everything but this:
The loss of momentum killed FreeBSD’s chances to challenge Windows on the X86 platform.
It was never the intent of FreeBSD to challenge Windows, but more about challenging Solaris. As someone said “Linux is for those who hate MS, BSD is for those who love Unix”.
Although there are so different distros that it is possible to love Unix in some distros, and “hate M$” in others.
The GPL momentum was indeed good for all the OSS communities. Modern democracy started with revolutions, but we all learned to get along somewhat these days.
We couldn’t have passed the OSS filosophy to everyone if it wasn’t the GPL advocacy. But evolution continues and we’ll probably stabilize on something better than GPL or BSD, like Creative Commons Licenses for example.
IMHO it would be better to enforce APIs and standards than code openness. So it would be possible to do full-featured commercial-driven software without locking out the open-source version that originated it.
BSD is just too good and pure to be used by *normal* people
. I hope it never achieves the fanfare Linux has now, I plan to run to BSD if Linux becomes mainstream and broken…
I think partially Linux is more progressive than BSD, linux for example seems to cast compatibility to the wind when there is a better way, but I’m no expert.
But the main reason is this. Tux. Admit it, all ya’ll (always wanted to say that) use linux cause of the penguin…
“But code is still exposed, rewriting from scratch looking at your code shouldn’t be as hard as thinking the code from scratch. So you’ll only catch the lazy ones
”
Figuring out someone elses code and copying it is probably harder than just looking up arguments on the best way to do something and then writing the code….
If you need conceptual help you probably won’t just zoom through the code and instantly understand it.
This is like copying people’s code for college homework. You’ll spend more time interpretting their code than just asking them what they did would have taken. Unless you try to simply change names and style, in which you may get in trouble..
BSD is what you get when a bunch of Unix hackers sit down to try to port a Unix system to the PC. Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers sit down and try to write a Unix system for the PC.
I’ve got a better one:
FreeBSD is for people who love unix.
Linux is for people who hate Windows.
http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/2003/10/Features110.html
Here is just one benchmark where FreeBSD 5.x is out performed, by linux 2.4.x SuSe kernel’s by almost a margin of two in some of the benchmarks.
BSD’s users have deluded themselves that they still have a superior system than GNU/Linux systems, presently; even in the server department and networking.
I am quite sure that there are more benchmarks, which concur with this.
I personally can think of more companies which distribute software under the GPL than the BSD liscense. And other shops like Google who have made changes to Linux, though they as of yet have not distributed the changes; which is perfectly legal.
I love how the monkeys clamour about the GPL “protecting” your code from the “evil corporations”. Well, guess what, the “evil corporation” can “steal” your precious GPL code and put it in a closed source product and there’s no way you’d know about it. And for those who’ll pipe in with the, “But I’ll just open it up with a hex editor…”, guess what, you’ve just broken the license agreement to use that software, regardless if it was your code to begin with, or not, which brings me to my second point, the GPL has commoditized programmers. Let’s face it, unless you are a coding machine like SkyOS’s Robert, or you think up some wild and crazy algorithm that’s not even close to anything out there today, you are completely and easily replaceable, usually by someone that will do it for nothing. I mean, come on, do all you GPL monkeys think that you are superior to programmers for hire? I’m sure some will come out with a plethora of bs to try and explain how they are not or how that they are doing what they do for love, do you not think that most programmers for hire are doing it because they both love what they do and want to make a living off of it? Sure, I met a few people in college that went into the programming field to make a buck, but they did not last to long (school and/or industy) and were the minority.
@Adam,
Fact #1:
Google runs mostly FreeBSD. Not linux.
Fact #2:
It’s all a matter of stability. FreeBSD is by far more stable than any Linux kernel, and that’s an industry fact.
In commercial environments, we choose stability over speed ANY time.
Fact #3:
Nasa runs mostly, for many reason, FreeBSD and NetBSD:
http://netbsd.binarycompass.org/gallery/research.html#tcp_sat_nasa
The problem with Linux is it’s decentralized nature, above all. It’s hard to document an OS with so many definitions for it.
Yes, that is indeed a point. But, IMHO, GNU/Linux will get more consistent in the future because the Linux newbies don’t have the patience to work out all the differences.
Hype worked great, didn’t it?
I wonder if Linus never released the Linux kernel under GPL we would be using HURD these days <:)
In fact, I think so. With network economics in your back, hype makes things work (or not in case of FUD).
However, to guess what “could have happend if…” is always a problem.
For example, without the lawsuit it could have been that Linux nor Hurd gained enought attention and that developers would have arranged themselves that other use their code for commercial interests without sharing back. But as a result, it could have been that *BSD would now be as decentralized as GNU/Linux.
Viewed this way, BSD might now appear as “clean” or “best of breed” just because the popularity of GNU/Linux works as a form of “shield” against the diverse interests, users got.
Some users at least think that GNU/Linux’s popularity has bad effects. They only forget that a system falls down to irrelevance without popularity, just as Amiga and others did. IMHO, and without any bad attitute, this will be also the fate of the *BSDs in 5 or 10 years…
About BSD vs GPL, you didn’t show disagreement with this:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=8132&offset=120&rows=135#…
About benchmarks, that ain’t a networking or server benchmark. BSD never claimed to be better in the multimedia field, and MPlayer is primarily developed on Linux. At that time it even crashed under FreeBSD when compiled with thread support IIRC.
I’ve never actually seen any accurate measures of the relative popularity of FreeBSD versus any of the Linux distros. I’m not personally convinced that it’s that much less popular; all the ISPs I know use FreeBSD, not Linux; even some of the “Linux” game servers I know are actually using FreeBSD’s Linux emulation feature. Most of the really serious server users out there swear by FreeBSD over Linux…
“Perhaps more “neat and cool” features would be nice. Stuff to add that special “bling bling” for new users. I don’t know exactly what this might entail.”
What’s cool about FreeBSD is that it is stable. It is the commitment *not* to include superfluous stuff that allows it to achieve this.
In a serious environment, it is better to have less but better supported hardware rather than much imperfect hardware support.
Linux is cool for other reasons. One being that it serves as a sort of Minor League for potential FreeBSD users. People that are serious about linux will eventually get tired of the distro dance and seek something that changes less.
And if you want to play games, get a PlayStation.
People that are serious about linux will eventually get tired of the distro dance and seek something that changes less.
Thats why we have Debian “Stable”
Anyways….
I came from a strickly Windows background and have used Linux as my main OS for the past 2 years.
I tried FreeBSD but was unimpressed by the very poor hardware support.
Linux : It just works!
Yes, that is indeed a point. But, IMHO, GNU/Linux will get more consistent in the future because the Linux newbies don’t have the patience to work out all the differences.
That’s one of the reasons why I think a friendly FreeBSD-based distro would be a killer. Not as much as a x86 version of OS X, but still…
LSB was the major engine pushing for standartization and consistency under Linux. Debian also worked a lot on consistency, but for their project only. Freedesktop.org is pushing desktop standartization, so it goes both for BSD and Linux.
I honestly find it hard to see Linux distros seeking consistency. The only seeking that will happen is chasing Novell modifications. Or something else in the X userland, but not in the console userland.
Can you even imagine a standard packaging system on Linux???
Now you know why I think a friendly x86 BSD would be a killer.
For example, without the lawsuit it could have been that Linux nor Hurd gained enought attention and that developers would have arranged themselves that other use their code for commercial interests without sharing back. But as a result, it could have been that *BSD would now be as decentralized as GNU/Linux.
I honestly can’t see how defecting developers from BSD to Linux or Hurd would make the BSDs decentralized. The opposite would be much more logical for lack of human resources.
Viewed this way, BSD might now appear as “clean” or “best of breed” just because the popularity of GNU/Linux works as a form of “shield” against the diverse interests, users got.
Rewritten could mean cleaner. But centralized can mean cleaner also.
Don’t forget it’s easier to rip BSD to GPL than the opposite, so Linux could have gone “best of breed” easier if it was centralized.
Some users at least think that GNU/Linux’s popularity has bad effects. They only forget that a system falls down to irrelevance without popularity, just as Amiga and others did. IMHO, and without any bad attitute, this will be also the fate of the *BSDs in 5 or 10 years…
Threads like these have the same hyping effect over Linux that Linux had over Windows. BSD showing quality, Linux showing critical mass… well, you know the rest of the story from the “Windows vs Linux” comic book. Don’t lose the next episode
almost all businesses i have dealt with use BSD over linux – they just done;t declare it!
For example, without the lawsuit it could have been that Linux nor Hurd gained enought attention and that developers would have arranged themselves that other use their code for commercial interests without sharing back. But as a result, it could have been that *BSD would now be as decentralized as GNU/Linux.
“I honestly can’t see how defecting developers from BSD to Linux or Hurd would make the BSDs decentralized. The opposite would be much more logical for lack of human resources.”
Ooops, misunderstood that one, sorry
(understood it as BSD developers fleeing to Linux or Hurd because they had grown enough attention even without the AT&T issue)
I guess you’re right, software goes as the community leads.
…more attention and advocacy.
But what if an engine sells more than the content, like in Id Software games? I’m sure they’d rather open the content and close the engine
You’re referring to a very small part of the videogame industry: Id and the Unreal team, plus others who develop game engines. The bulk of the videogame industry is content-based, from Electronic Arts to Nintendo to Activision, etc., all the way down to the small developers. Id and the other engine makers, though they have a profound impact on the development of future games, are not representative of the game development and publishing industries.
But you raise an interesting point: Id does indeed make a lot of its revenue by licensing their game engine, so it wouldn’t make sense to open-source it. Carmack wouldn’t be able to buy yet another sports car if they did…
However, Id has in fact released older engines as open-source, such as the Quake engine. They’re not expecting major revenue for it anyway…incidentally, they didn’t open the content. You can freely download the Quake engine, but no the Quake content…
But you raise an interesting point: Id does indeed make a lot of its revenue by licensing their game engine, so it wouldn’t make sense to open-source it. Carmack wouldn’t be able to buy yet another sports car if they did…
Be fair, he would had got any if he open-sourced Doom and rest right from the beginning >:)
However, Id has in fact released older engines as open-source, such as the Quake engine. They’re not expecting major revenue for it anyway…incidentally, they didn’t open the content. You can freely download the Quake engine, but no the Quake content…
That’s because the content is portable most of the times.
If you were using Linux/BSD/whatever, you could port the open-source engine, and THEN *buy* Quake ;D
So after the engine is sold they do care about selling the content, just like any other game manufacturer
I know you’re just a troll, but I wanted to respond to this particular part.
Well, guess what, the “evil corporation” can “steal” your precious GPL code and put it in a closed source product and there’s no way you’d know about it.
Unless a whistleblower came along, then the company could be sued for millions.
It does seem to me, however, that you’re advocating Open Source Software as the only way to make sure that code isn’t misappropriated… 😛
And for those who’ll pipe in with the, “But I’ll just open it up with a hex editor…”, guess what, you’ve just broken the license agreement to use that software,
So you post it anonymously on a newsgroup…
Seriously, if a company is comitting a wrongdoing by using copyrighted material, who cares if you’ve broken the license agreement or not? Breaking the license agreement means you are not authorized to use the software. That pales in relation to knowingly using someone else’s intellectual property in a commercial product.
Legally, your argument doesn’t stand. Go troll somewhere else.
That’s because the content is portable most of the times.
If you were using Linux/BSD/whatever, you could port the open-source engine, and THEN *buy* Quake ;D
So after the engine is sold they do care about selling the content, just like any other game manufacturer
That’s my point exactly. You can open-source game engines (i.e. software), but open-sourcing content (i.e. art and gameplay assets) is more problematic. Anyway, in most of the games the characters are owned by a licensor or publisher, so a developer can’t even consider distributing the content in the non-software equivalent of an open-source license.
Disclaimer: I work for a console game developer.
Just want to say to you we’ve been having a great talking with different points of view sometimes but allways civilized.
And in the middle of a thread like this, it feels great!
I just wanted to show to you that the GPL license is not allways good.
The BSD license is pretty neutral, but that also means it’s not as good in some cases as GPL.
The best approach IMHO would be a license that enforces APIs or standards rather than code.
That would allow commercial development without locking out its open-source origin.
Maybe this balance is impossible but IMHO is worth trying.
I’d like to have your opinion on this:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=8132&offset=120&rows=135#…
Cheers,
Bilu
By making sure that derivative works remain free, the GPL promotes freedom of code. It protects a developers right to make his creation, and derivative works built on his creation, remain free.
Firstly, keeping *derivative works* “free” isn’t a right. That’s not the original creators work, it’s their work *and* someone elses.
Secondly, the GPL does that by *restricting* what other people can do with GPLed code. That is not “more free”, it’s “less free”.
The fact is that words like “free” and “freedom” are so loaded, have so many different meanings in different contexts, that making such sweeping affirmations as “BSD is more free than Linux” (or, for that matter “Linux is more free than BSD”) is erroneous by definition.
The term is only loaded if you want it to be (usually by trying to talk about things like “better freedom” or “different freedom”). The simple fact is the BSD license has less restrictions than the GPL license.
You may wish to argue that the restrictions the GPL uses are there to “encourage” people to “do the right thing” – much like the restrictions in the US Consitution and Bill of Rights – but that doesn’t change the simple fact that those restrictions place more conditions on usage than the BSD license’s restrictions.
Main BSD problem is BSD license (and best linux advantage is GPL license). With BSD license, no one corporation will spend money on BSD, and without this, BSD will be no more than a test of laboratory.
It is simple and hard, but this is.
Quoting…
Fact #1:
Google runs mostly FreeBSD. Not linux.
Fact #2:
It’s all a matter of stability. FreeBSD is by far more stable than any Linux kernel, and that’s an industry fact.
In commercial environments, we choose stability over speed ANY time.
I would like to see some definative links to support this, I personally have never heard of this before. I have never seen a stability benchmark between FreeBSD and Linux, and I have never seen any benchmark where FreeBSD wins handsdown against Linux or even Windows 2000.
Primarily when I used FreeBSD it was because of uniformity and its package management system. Though I have noticed no differences in stability or performance between FreeBSD and Linux.
On software services (where support sells) and products where the content matters more that the engine, GPL helps.
On software products (where support doesn’t sell) and specifically on those where the engine matters more than the content, GPL hurts.
About content and engine, I was talking about desktop software like games, enciclopaedias, office suites, authoring programs.
About software services, I’m talking about software on which the support matters more than the code itself.
Can anybody say something about this? For or against?
For people who prefer BSD kernels but like GNU userland and “bazar” way of development:
http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/
http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/
For people who prefer BSD kernels but like GNU userland and “bazar” way of development
But I’d rather find the opposite
Then again, I already did:
Slackware Linux with NetBSD pkgsrc Packages
http://users.piuha.net/martti/comp/slackware/slackware.html
whats not friendly about bsd?
they’ve ported anaconda to bsd, everything on linux runs on bsd… you can install all the gnu commands on bsd. The installer is easy too.. just as easy as a text linux one.
when you get it set up and running its about the same when your running a single or dual box.
now now now… If you want a *friendly* bsd then you must not be working on servers. Furthermore, for the desktop you can create scripts that will install an entire desktop with a click of the enter key.
The bottom line comes down to this:
If the problem is that FreeBSD isn’t friendly enough for you in pretty wrapping paper then you shouldn’t be managing a server for any company. peroid. i should as hell wouldn’t hire you if that’s the reason you hate bsd.
1. You can not play games on it. HAH. you can run all linux games on it, and it has some cool games for itself. you can install kde and gnome
2. It cannot be used by my grandma. She can’t use windows either.
3. It lacks a GUI of any note. KDE & GNOME are’t GUI’s???…but they are in the install ports cd.
4. There is no support available for it. i provide support.
5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes. HAH, untrue. Linux is more of a combination of other OS’s and theres notthing wrong with it. even windows have other OS code in it. BSD kept only bsd code from the unix branch of it.
6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform. damn thats stupid
7. You have to compile everything and know C. stupid again
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor. FreeBSD has awsome server hardware support. support for the multimedia is another story.
9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux. untrue
10. It is dying. use has gone up according to surveys and netcraft
@Anonymous
“Fact #1:
Google runs mostly FreeBSD. Not linux. “
Don’t lie, please, Google has never lied about there involvment with Linux, Linux scales alot nicer than BSD, thus the main reason why Google uses it. Throughout the development of the 2.5.x kernel, Google put alot of effort into making the new kernel to work better for them. Its never been a secret that Linux has been the OS of choice for Google.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.google.com
“Fact #2:
It’s all a matter of stability. FreeBSD is by far more stable than any Linux kernel, and that’s an industry fact.
In commercial environments, we choose stability over speed ANY time. “
Linux scales better, uses less resources, more widely supported, and is more stable. Everything is Subjective, You can say anything about an OS to make it ‘look and ‘sound better. Please stop spreading lies about Linux to boost your BSD ego.
“they’ve ported anaconda to bsd”
Interesting. I’ve googled, searched at freebsd.org and freebsdfoums.org and found nothing. Can you post a link?
I know DragonflyBSD is developing their own graphical installer, but that’s about it.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.yahoo.com
Incredible… I wonder if this will be the most commented OSnews story ever..? I agree with the one who suggested that some geeks should get a life.
All Eugenia did was put a nice little poll online: Why isn’t FreeBSD more popular? What’s wrong with that question? Yet, there are dozens of comments only bashing Eugenia for putting such a poll online, and even insulting her personally for it…
Everybody reading OSnews knows that though FreeBSD is used a lot and is a fine OS, Linux is used even more, especially on desktops, and it is a fine OS too… Still, some people seem to get mad & crazy if someone even mentions those facts…
Besides:
FreeBSD has perhaps more in common with Linux than there are differencies. FreeBSD and Linux are on the same open source boat in most things. What benefits the other is usually beneficial for the other too. For example, many people have got interested in BSD or Linux after trying the other first. Both are open source operating systems, based on UNIX ideas. Even a huge part of the software is basically the same for both.
So why do some seem to be such black-and-white, narrow-minded OS zealots? Wouldn’t cooperation and a little more respect and understanding for others be a better solution? Just try it, please, it works.
For people who prefer BSD kernels but like GNU userland and “bazar” way of development:
http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/