Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 87

Thread: Should There Be A Unified BSD Operating System?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    Macs are for girls and gays.

    Back to the "Linux and BSD should work together" part: They do. They are inspired by each other.
    I suggest you stop this childish behaviour.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Nah. When people start to call Macs "elitist systems", it can't be much more childish.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    303

    Default Unified BSD? Not a snowball chance in the hell?

    Oh, it's exactly like this comix. Will not work: different projects have different goals and managed to change both parts of user-mode code and kernel code in incompatible ways.

    And they also failed to integrate corporations into their working processes. You see, BSD license allows to close code and don't give back anything. That's where it backfires. Corporations close all the code they can and never contribute anything to upstream. So whole project is slowed down. Linux does not haves this issue due to GPL requirements.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    And they also failed to integrate corporations into their working processes. You see, BSD license allows to close code and don't give back anything. That's where it backfires. Corporations close all the code they can and never contribute anything to upstream. So whole project is slowed down. Linux does not haves this issue due to GPL requirements.
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTIyNzU

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    Oh, it's exactly like this comix. Will not work: different projects have different goals and managed to change both parts of user-mode code and kernel code in incompatible ways.

    And they also failed to integrate corporations into their working processes. You see, BSD license allows to close code and don't give back anything. That's where it backfires. Corporations close all the code they can and never contribute anything to upstream. So whole project is slowed down. Linux does not haves this issue due to GPL requirements.
    That's right, Linux only has the 1 x month obligatory GPL violation and everyone arguing politics instead of writing code. Oh please.

  6. #26

    Default

    There are hundreds of Linux distributions and several BSD's ... and BSD needs unification?

    But jokes aside, one unified BSD 'to rule them all' would be nice. Is the name TheBSD already taken?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    Nah. When people start to call Macs "elitist systems", it can't be much more childish.
    you proved the opposite.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Ask yourself why these forks exist. Then revisit the question, and the simple answer is; no.

    Why?
    1. OpenBSD does puts too much emphasis on security, with a development model that hinders developmental progres on anything that is not security. This alone already invaliddates the question.

    2. Dragon wants different scheduling styles, not compatible with FreeBSD.

    3. NetB-...

    Oh fsck it; NO!

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    Oh, it's exactly like this comix. Will not work: different projects have different goals and managed to change both parts of user-mode code and kernel code in incompatible ways.

    And they also failed to integrate corporations into their working processes. You see, BSD license allows to close code and don't give back anything. That's where it backfires. Corporations close all the code they can and never contribute anything to upstream. So whole project is slowed down. Linux does not haves this issue due to GPL requirements.
    The GPL allows corporations to avoid disclosing changes to code too. Facebook uses a ton of GPL software and I have not seen them disclose their changes to the GPL licensed components. For example, they maintain their own internal fork of MySQL and I doubt that any of the code in it will ever be released for use outside of Facebook. At the same time, Netflix is in a similar position with FreeBSD, but they are upstreaming their modifications:

    http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/f...ne/068129.html

    Juniper Networks also contributes code to FreeBSD. They are one of the companies that would have been forced to disclose changes under the GPL, yet they use FreeBSD and contribute improvements without a legal requirement to release anything.

    With that said, nearly all of the code being contributed to Linux was written to further corporate interests and would have likely been contributed anyway. Virtually none of the code contributions are things that corporations were forced to release. Whenever a company has code that they do not want to release, they either use something other than Linux or keep it internal.
    Last edited by ryao; 11-13-2012 at 03:38 PM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Exactly how it is written in Linux From Scratch book:


    Unification of Linux was only interesting for proprietary software.

    Dear BSD, go unify, crap even more Instead of fighting with proprietary, you are fighting with a FLOSS operating system like a parasite. I bet, you already got blessing from your holy fathers microsoft & apple


    When I see claims from BSD parasites like "BSD should work with Linux" or "Linux should not implement features that are not welcome/accepted within BSD", you only confirm your parasite behaviour. You essentially make the same developers to carry DOUBLE weight. The only reason why someone would claim this - is to slow down the development and fragment it.

    BSD license is only good for *parts*. And even then, it is not far from "public domain", why bother?
    Last edited by crazycheese; 11-13-2012 at 03:56 PM.

Posting Permissions

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