Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 73

Thread: FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 Arrives Late, Pushes Back Final

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,900

    Default FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 Arrives Late, Pushes Back Final

    Phoronix: FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 Arrives Late, Pushes Back Final

    The good news: FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 is now available. The bad news with that announcement: FreeBSD 9.0 RC2 is late, which also means the third (and last) release candidate has been pushed back along with the final release. Hopefully FreeBSD 9.0 will arrive in time for Christmas...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTAxNjk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    My GPU doesn't work but they found the time to rewrite grep to avoid the GPL. *yawn*

    Rewrite thousands of lines of code that already existed because we hate the GPL: check

    Version of ZFS that is already stale: check

    NIH some features that have been in Linux since 2007: check

    Working Radeon HD 5000+: Deferred indefinitely

    X.org Server: 4 versions behind

    At least we're unpaid Apple employees that don't give a damn if our software stays freely available or openly licensed: double check

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    My GPU doesn't work but they found the time to rewrite grep to avoid the GPL. *yawn*

    Rewrite thousands of lines of code that already existed because we hate the GPL: check

    Version of ZFS that is already stale: check

    NIH some features that have been in Linux since 2007: check

    Working Radeon HD 5000+: Deferred indefinitely

    X.org Server: 4 versions behind

    At least we're unpaid Apple employees that don't give a damn if our software stays freely available or openly licensed: double check
    Someone changing the code does not make the code stop being free. The moment a change occurs, it is no longer your code. It is a derivative of your code, but what someone does with it has no effect on the licensing of what you published.

    Unlike the GPL, BSD licensing ensures open standards and consistency. If you want horrible fragmentation (like what happened with XHTML/CSS), feel free to worship the GPL. If you want consistent and open standards, then BSD licensing is the way to go.

    As for graphics, the situation on Linux is equally horrible in situations where the vendors are not involved. Each vendor does things differently. Therefore, the graphics really are only as good as the vendors make it. It is not the FreeBSD developers' fault if the vendors decided to produce drivers for platforms uninterested in promoting free and open standards. i.e. the thing that the GPL doesn't do.

    Lastly, xorg Server 1.7.x was current when the merge window for FreeBSD 9 opened 2 years ago, so they basically did the same thing that Linus Torvalds does everytime he tags a Linux kernel release. The only difference is that their development period is 2 years instead of 2 months. That is necessary for the testing and validation that is typical of most UNIX operating systems. If you don't like that, then you can always fork it and do things your way. BSD licensing gives you the freedom to do that, and you can do it anyway you want. You can even lock down your fork under the GPL and then never contribute anything back to upstream much like what Linux did with the BSD TCP/IP networking stack.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    Someone changing the code does not make the code stop being free. The moment a change occurs, it is no longer your code. It is a derivative of your code, but what someone does with it has no effect on the licensing of what you published.

    Unlike the GPL, BSD licensing ensures open standards and consistency. If you want horrible fragmentation (like what happened with XHTML/CSS), feel free to worship the GPL. If you want consistent and open standards, then BSD licensing is the way to go.

    As for graphics, the situation on Linux is equally horrible in situations where the vendors are not involved. Each vendor does things differently. Therefore, the graphics really are only as good as the vendors make it. It is not the FreeBSD developers' fault if the vendors decided to produce drivers for platforms uninterested in promoting free and open standards. i.e. the thing that the GPL doesn't do.

    Lastly, xorg Server 1.7.x was current when the merge window for FreeBSD 9 opened 2 years ago, so they basically did the same thing that Linus Torvalds does everytime he tags a Linux kernel release. The only difference is that their development period is 2 years instead of 2 months. That is necessary for the testing and validation that is typical of most UNIX operating systems. If you don't like that, then you can always fork it and do things your way. BSD licensing gives you the freedom to do that, and you can do it anyway you want. You can even lock down your fork under the GPL and then never contribute anything back to upstream much like what Linux did with the BSD TCP/IP networking stack.
    It's NIH'd crap that I was using in Linux years ago.

    BSD is a colossal yawn-a-thon that's totally unfit for a modern desktop. I should also mention that a lot of modern software has trouble running on BSD due to all the obsolete components in it. It's not just video drivers, but what's the point of using something when your brand new video card is a framebuffer device?
    Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-17-2011 at 05:56 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    BSD is a colossal yawn-a-thon that's totally unfit for a modern desktop.
    DaemonFC, you seem to think FreeBSD is a distribution with a strong focus on desktops. This is, however, not true. FreeBSD like the other BSDs is primarily a server operating system, with a strong focus on internet service providers and hosting providers. Features like Jails, ZFS, strong SMP performance, GEOM I/O framework and the portstree are quite popular for server operators. FreeBSD generally has the best I/O framework and appears to lead the development in TCP/IP stacks as well as SMP performance enhancements, where FreeBSD innovations are migrated to projects like the Linux kernel, MySQL and I believe Firefox as well.

    I do agree FreeBSD is not the best choice for the desktop; it may lack proprietary drivers for many closed hardware. But the proprietary video drivers are quite on-par in terms of performance with the Linux equivalents. Still, saying FreeBSD sucks because it isn't the best choice for the desktop is kind of strange. Comparing server features would be much more logical. Though you can also see what is possible with FreeBSD by looking at Max OSX, which basically is a fork of FreeBSD with a new graphical shell built on top.

    Server operators probably look at FreeBSD with different eyes. In particular, FreeBSD has arguably the best ZFS implementation, with unique features that integrate ZFS with jails, allow booting from RAID-Z pools, automatic SWAP volumes and other enhancements. Linux userscan compile ZFS kernel module themselves or use FUSE module, but basically they are restricted to their own project called Btrfs. And last time I checked, Btrfs could not even correct filesystem damage making it an alpha-quality filesystem at the moment. ZFS is fully usable and the most sexy filesystem to date.

    FreeBSD developers may not hate the GPL, but rather the GPL v3 poses a real threat to FreeBSD. Currently they still use the latest GCC compiler collection still released with GPL v2; the newer versions with GPL v3 will not be used, although they can be installed using the portstree. Instead, FreeBSD goes its own path by not being dependent on very restrictive licenses such as the GPL v3. The LCC/Clang compiler collection is being leaded by Mac OSX will make sure FreeBSD does not keep behind with an outdated compiler suite, an important infrastructure development needed to allow FreeBSD to keep alive.

    Perhaps you could state your opinions with a little bit more nuance, DaemonFC, then you may even get some positive replies instead. There surely is some truth in what you're saying, but due to your extremely negative attitude it currently looks more like a troll post.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sub.mesa View Post
    DaemonFC, you seem to think FreeBSD is a distribution with a strong focus on desktops. This is, however, not true. FreeBSD like the other BSDs is primarily a server operating system, with a strong focus on internet service providers and hosting providers. Features like Jails, ZFS, strong SMP performance, GEOM I/O framework and the portstree are quite popular for server operators. FreeBSD generally has the best I/O framework and appears to lead the development in TCP/IP stacks as well as SMP performance enhancements, where FreeBSD innovations are migrated to projects like the Linux kernel, MySQL and I believe Firefox as well.

    I do agree FreeBSD is not the best choice for the desktop; it may lack proprietary drivers for many closed hardware. But the proprietary video drivers are quite on-par in terms of performance with the Linux equivalents. Still, saying FreeBSD sucks because it isn't the best choice for the desktop is kind of strange. Comparing server features would be much more logical. Though you can also see what is possible with FreeBSD by looking at Max OSX, which basically is a fork of FreeBSD with a new graphical shell built on top.

    Server operators probably look at FreeBSD with different eyes. In particular, FreeBSD has arguably the best ZFS implementation, with unique features that integrate ZFS with jails, allow booting from RAID-Z pools, automatic SWAP volumes and other enhancements. Linux userscan compile ZFS kernel module themselves or use FUSE module, but basically they are restricted to their own project called Btrfs. And last time I checked, Btrfs could not even correct filesystem damage making it an alpha-quality filesystem at the moment. ZFS is fully usable and the most sexy filesystem to date.

    FreeBSD developers may not hate the GPL, but rather the GPL v3 poses a real threat to FreeBSD. Currently they still use the latest GCC compiler collection still released with GPL v2; the newer versions with GPL v3 will not be used, although they can be installed using the portstree. Instead, FreeBSD goes its own path by not being dependent on very restrictive licenses such as the GPL v3. The LCC/Clang compiler collection is being leaded by Mac OSX will make sure FreeBSD does not keep behind with an outdated compiler suite, an important infrastructure development needed to allow FreeBSD to keep alive.

    Perhaps you could state your opinions with a little bit more nuance, DaemonFC, then you may even get some positive replies instead. There surely is some truth in what you're saying, but due to your extremely negative attitude it currently looks more like a troll post.
    OpenSSH (which Firefox uses) came from OpenBSD, not FreeBSD. OpenBSD is a better server than FreeBSD from what I have heard, but still has the desktop issues. Firefox donated $10,000 to OpenBSD earmarked for development of OpenSSH. You won't get any argument from me if your claim is that security software like this should be as freely licensed as possible, even if it means corporate theft from Microsoft and Apple. It keeps end users safer and insures that there are fewer implementations out there which would certainly have different gaps and bugs.

    Also, I agree with the reference code for most standards being licensed under a permissive license. It makes a standard like VP8 or Vorbis or ODF have less problems competing with entrenched opponents which are not freely available, such as OOXML, MPEG, etc.

    TCP/IP is a good candidate.

    What I wonder is why there are no complaints when Microsoft and Apple make BSD code proprietary, but only when the GPL makes sure there is an implementation that stays freely available which is something permissive licenses don't do very well.

    The other problem with BSD licenses is there's no patent grant, so Apple could take BSD code, fork it for themselves, and then sue other people who use that code or even the developers of the code themselves. The Apache license, MPL, CDDL, or even the MS-RL are good alternatives to BSD. Apache is BSD-like but makes sure that people can't take it and sue the author or give their own code to it and sue people for using that. The CDDL, MPL, and MS-RL go a step further and make sure that the software stays under the license which is otherwise very BSD like with the addition of an Apache style patent grant. Perhaps the BSD license isn't fit for the times it finds itself in and other licenses would be safer for developers and their eventual end users.

    As for the BtrFS FUD, BtrFS is designed to be better than ZFS, it's just a lot newer. The fsck tool cannot repair the file system yet, but there are many fewer cases where the file system is likely to become corrupt than in competing file systems anyway. It would be more of a disaster to release a fsck tool which is not finished and could end up damaging the file system itself than making people wait for a few more months. If it makes people who would otherwise complain about problems in BtrFS which would eventually be fixed anyway, so much the better. These types of problems create FUD that never dies, long after the code is fixed. File systems are not "sexy" they are tools. As a tool, their job is to enable you to do yours with minimal interruptions and demands on the user. ZFS uses a lot of CPU and RAM, in fact, they even tell you not to use it without at least a GB of RAM. it scales up, but not down. Which Sun admitted themselves. It's not a good general purpose file system and I would hate to find myself stuck with it on a tablet or netbook or a computer that is more than a few years old. BtrFS has resolved these problems.

    As to the GPL 3? If the BSD people hate it because it protects the user from companies that sue over the code they made or using DRM, then I don't give a rats ass what the BSD people think of it. If they are siding with companies who use DRM, then to hell with them from my perspective.

    What can I say about Clang? It likes to spit out code that is broken, slow,or doesn't do anything at all. It's the part of the LLVM project that rides the short bus. Ironically, the best thing I've seen LLVM doing only works on Linux. Gallium3D can optimize GL shaders with it. Since nothing on any BSD uses Gallium3D, you can forget bragging about it there.

    Servers? I don't run a server, I run a desktop. Linux is great as a desktop, BSD can only barely be used as one, and even then you need a perfect match to the limited hardware pool it supports. Linux is not unpopular on servers. Some of the biggest and most profitable open source companies got there with Linux. But I don't need to tell you what Red Hat is or where their stock has been heading for the last few years, do I?
    Last edited by DaemonFC; 11-18-2011 at 03:57 PM.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    Unlike the GPL, BSD licensing ensures open standards and consistency. If you want horrible fragmentation (like what happened with XHTML/CSS), feel free to worship the GPL. If you want consistent and open standards, then BSD licensing is the way to go.
    It does not ensure consistency at all. It even encourages some companies to make their own "standards" in incompatible ways. Give the code under BSD and get nothing back.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It does not ensure consistency at all. It even encourages some companies to make their own "standards" in incompatible ways. Give the code under BSD and get nothing back.
    I should have written "promotes" rather than "ensures", although the meaning is fairly close. At the same time, you are wrong about it encouraging companies to make things incompatible. The BSD TCP/IP stack was copied by all operating systems, including Linux, and they are all largely compatible. Breaking compatibility makes developers' lives harder, so they avoid it unless they have a good reason to do it.

    As for giving code under BSD licensing and getting nothing back, isn't that an issue with GPL advocates? They take whatever they want, they never give anything back and then they complain about other people wanting to do that to them. On that topic, have you ever made contributions to open source software or are you one of those leeches who uses code, doesn't contribute anything and then thinks he is an expert on how programmers should do things, despite not knowing any respectable programming language himself and having no intention to ever learn?

    With that said, the entire basis of the GPL and other restrictive licenses is the idea that people can claim ownership of numbers, which is absurd. Software is little much than a bunch of polynomials. Telling people what they can and cannot do with polynomials is absurd.
    Last edited by Shining Arcanine; 11-19-2011 at 10:57 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    They take whatever they want, they never give anything back and then they complain about other people wanting to do that to them.
    No, they use code ACCORDING to the licence it's under, they give back according to their preferred licence. If you see yourself as a BSD advocate then why the hell would you argue against the use of BSD code in GPL projects? Saying it's fine if BSD code is used in proprietary projects while complaining about it being used in GPL projects makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    With that said, the entire basis of the GPL and other restrictive licenses is the idea that people can claim ownership of numbers, which is absurd. Software is little much than a bunch of polynomials. Telling people what they can and cannot do with polynomials is absurd.
    Then you must be totally against proprietary code, not to mention commercial proprietary code. Hell, even the BSD licence DEMANDS that you keep the copyright appropriation, I mean how can they claim ownership of numbers?... absurd was it?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    359

    Default GPL is evil so I support FreeBSDs desire to free themselves from that license.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    My GPU doesn't work but they found the time to rewrite grep to avoid the GPL. *yawn*
    Well FreeBSD could use some more developers. They have a disadvantage in that e mindset is with Linux these days.
    Rewrite thousands of lines of code that already existed because we hate the GPL: check
    Don't be ignorant, people don't hate GPL, rather they find the restrictions with in GPL to be unacceptable. Especially version 3 of GPL which is down right disgusting.
    Version of ZFS that is already stale: check

    NIH some features that have been in Linux since 2007: check

    Working Radeon HD 5000+: Deferred indefinitely

    X.org Server: 4 versions behind

    At least we're unpaid Apple employees that don't give a damn if our software stays freely available or openly licensed: double check
    On the other hand Apple releases much in the way of open source that works its way back into FreeBSD.

    Your position on FreeBSD is strange to say the least. Do you really expect every open project to be managed like Linux?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •