Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 139

Thread: Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Both the BSD licence and the GPL licence is fine. If you don't care about greedy people using your code, sure. The people using the GPL though, does. You however claimed Linux to suck, which is irrelevant to the licence. Unless you actually meant "the GPL sucks" which is just your opinion. Linux is maybe the most powerful kernel on the planet, and coupled with the GNU userland, we get a very powerful OS. The BSD people spend more time bashing Linux (without providing evidence to their claims) then they do doing anything else. I don't get it. This is why the Linux world ignores BSD, because you people just act like children. It's all free software, so stop the infighting for crying out loud!

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xeekei View Post
    You however claimed Linux to suck, which is irrelevant to the licence.
    You're kindly invited to review the first postings in this thread, the license discussion has been brought up by Linux fanboys.

    Quote Originally Posted by xeekei View Post
    The BSD people spend more time bashing Linux (....) then they do doing anything else. (...) because you people just act like children.
    Simply ignoring the "BSD Sucks Dicks" - or whatever name they currently chose - Linux fan trolls doesn't validate this statement either. I can't remember any BSD user called "Linsux LOL" here. Can you?

    So much about "acting like children".

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    ... Also, how does the BSD license decrease a user's freedom? Which part of FreeBSD is closed source, for example, avoiding anyone to review it?
    You must be the most ignorant bsd fanboy ever...

    Have a look here for a starter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...sed_on_FreeBSD

    How many of the commercial products in this list have their code/modifications available for review?

    Another famous example is the PS4, running modified FreeBSD. Where can we review this modifications?

    So there you have your user freedom restricted quite clearly.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    I'm not a fanboy. My main desktop OS is even Windows. Now guess what.

    At least I try to bring some arguments, not only "click this link, EOD".

    Another famous example is the PS4, running modified FreeBSD. Where can we review this modifications?
    Probably nowhere, but that's not required, right? However, obviously misinformed folks here stated that "BSD = closed source" which is just wrong.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    105

    Default

    If any of the BSD-licence bashers would like to look on FreeBSD's mailing lists, or the FreeBSD Foundation Donors Listing, you'll notice that most companies using FreeBSD as the basis for their software generally contribute their patches back. Why is this? Simple-- it's far easier to maintain their modifications if it's part of the FreeBSD upstream tree, rather than doing so by themselves (waste of money). Donations are also useful for offsetting tax.

    Although the BSD licence does not require you to contribute back, many still will. Companies are generally profit-focused. If a company has to create more work for itself, e.g. by needlessly maintaining their patches out of tree, it's an option they are unlikely to take. I suggest some of you grep through the FreeBSD source tree. You'll find a remarkable amount of code that has been contributed back from corporate users. But this is all irrelevant anyway. Whilst FreeBSD obviously appreciates contributions, it doesn't demand them. And that isn't really a downside, either-- trying to remain compliant with complex licences is an irritation. It's why a large amount of the Chinese tablets running their own modified forms of Android do not release sources.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    105

    Default

    As an aside-- market share is really not as important as some people think. It is another cherry picked statistic. You can 'prove' just about anything by selecting the right statistics. For example, the latest release of Ubuntu has a smaller market share than Windows 98. Therefore Ubuntu's latest release is worse than Windows 98. The fact of the matter is, you cannot quantise how 'good' an operating system is. You can't say, for example, Windows has 10 goods, Ubuntu has 13, and FreeBSD has 20. Everything is relative, and depends on what context it is being used in.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    Market share means quality?
    So, how much does Windows have?
    Sure, Windows must have some quality with all it running on every home's router, your small home-office fileserver, in the digital video recorder/set top box under your TV, embed into your printer's server, kernel of Android phones, being also the most frequently deployed OS on super-computer clusters, very popular for webservers, used on most clouds, ... NOT.


    Please wake up. They year of "Linux on everything else beside the desktop" has come long ago and has been reality for ages.

    Linux is used pretty much everywhere, because it's good quality code, that is readily available, give lots of opportunity to modify. And thanks to its GPL nature, lots of these modifications end up back improving the main linux tree. Some times directly (as cluster developper porting the ZFS file system for all to use), some times after a while (the comunity got a little bit fed up of non maintainable "single purpose" forks that regularily happened for embed platform, where the hardware developers went for the fastest thing that they could write to support a given single piece of hardware, instead of trying to make something maintainable, extensible that could increase code re-use. Thus groups like Linaro stepped in, and over all, the linux community has managed to consolidate all this disparate zoo of vendor-specific patchs, into coherent platform drivers. Making Linux even more attractive todayy for embed).

    BSD is also quite popular in these fields. (Though, its different license doesn't stimulate wide-scale industry collaboration like those seen in Linux. Improvement made by Apple and Sony won't benefit other BSDs, unlike the consolidation seen in Linux).

    Windows is huge joke on anything else than home desktop and a few legacy enterprise services.
    (Home desktop users aren't willing much to change. But even there, the current situation with the Windows 8.x family going in a weird direction and companies like Valve pushing as hard as they can for Linux, maybe in a few year down the line we'll see some change starting to appear.
    On the enterprise and server market... well thankfully for microsoft, there's still Sharepoint, Exchange and a few legacy pipeline relying on Access databases or a big mess of legacy Visual Basic and ActiveX, etc. to keep them alive. For everything else...
    Apache and co have all eaten IIS' lunch, file sharing on anything else than legacy enterprise servers (both end of the scale: both the small ready-to-use enclosure for home and SOHO, and the high-end server clusters) rely more often on Samba (and NFS where compatibility with Windows isn't required, etc.) than on Microsoft Filesharing Shares, Windows Azure is a (bad) joke with Linux and *BSD being almost all serious super computing business, even Java is often more used than VB.net and/or Access for "legacy shit that the enterprise can't get rid of", the most widespread phone/tablet OS is android, with Windows RT only running on a small specific subset of hardware available only at a couple of manufacturer. In Science all code prototyping is done with Python/R/Perl/C++ (in this order of preference) whereas almost nobody uses .NET outside enterprise contexts.)

    (public displays are the only one occasionally displaying a bluescreen or a Windows XPE interface)

    (same situation in the console world: for all the XBox-family powered by a Windows-derivative OS, there are Sony's playstations running a BSD-derivative and soon-to-arrive Linux-powered Steam-boxes)

    We're living in a world well most of the big CPUs (anything bigger than a pico or avr microcontroller == anything with an ARM or bigger CPU) is running some Linux or BSD derivative, except for the few "more visible" desktop machines.

    So remind-me again, what were you speaking about Windows market shares ?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    157

    Default

    More troll feeding...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    Seriously? Like which? Please bring me MD5 sums.
    If it is POSIX compatible and has the source available (as is almost all software running on Linux), it can be recompiled on BSD too (and other BSD derivate like Mac OS X, and even on windows with some POSIX compatibilty layer such as Cygwin/Mingw).

    Even if it not, if its one of the few binary software released for linux, lots of BSDs have linux compatibility layers making the Linux ABI available (used to be popular to get linux binary games running on BSD). (So some of the remaining software can be used too.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrYak View Post
    Sure, Windows must have some quality with all it running on every home's router, your small home-office fileserver, in the digital video recorder/set top box under your TV, embed into your printer's server, kernel of Android phones, being also the most frequently deployed OS on super-computer clusters, very popular for webservers, used on most clouds, ... NOT.
    Congratulations on having understood the principle of "operating system purposes".

    Quote Originally Posted by DrYak View Post
    Please wake up. They year of "Linux on everything else beside the desktop" has come long ago and has been reality for ages.
    Interestingly, Linux only runs on my smartphone. Reality can be harsh, huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrYak View Post
    Linux is used pretty much everywhere, because it's good quality code
    Hence the security holes.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrYak View Post
    that is readily available, give lots of opportunity to modify.
    Hence the dozens of new distributions per month, incompatible with each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrYak View Post
    And thanks to its GPL nature, lots of these modifications end up back improving the main linux tree.
    Hence the claim of some Debian developers that Ubuntu never gives anything back.

    Wake up.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrYak View Post
    Improvement made by Apple and Sony won't benefit other BSDs
    Half wrong. Apple invests a lot of time and money into FreeBSD.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrYak View Post
    Windows is huge joke on anything else than home desktop and a few legacy enterprise services.
    I'm with you on that, OTOH, I also consider Linux to be a huge joke on anything at all, compared to the secure, stable and mature FreeBSD.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrYak View Post
    (public displays are the only one occasionally displaying a bluescreen or a Windows XPE interface)
    So what you wanted to say is that only Windows has kernel panics ("bluescreens")? I see.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrYak View Post
    So remind-me again, what were you speaking about Windows market shares ?
    Someone here claimed market share to be proving anything. Not me.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrYak View Post
    If it is POSIX compatible and has the source available (as is almost all software running on Linux), it can be recompiled on BSD too
    Depending on the used libraries, yes.

    While we're speaking of POSIX: Why are some Linux distributions (like Gentoo) not POSIX-compatible? Why doesn't the Linux community care about standards? BSD does.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrYak View Post
    Even if it not, if its one of the few binary software released for linux, lots of BSDs have linux compatibility layers making the Linux ABI available
    FreeBSD runs Linux applications, Linux doesn't run FreeBSD applications. One more "pro" for FreeBSD then.

Posting Permissions

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