Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:17:46 -0500 From: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> To: "Garry" <tbcrew@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this bunk. Message-ID: <D775D216-CFBE-4103-905E-4AF9BEB9DF21@hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: <008c01cb425a$2603bc60$720b3520$@com> References: <008c01cb425a$2603bc60$720b3520$@com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 22, 2010, at 7:25 PM, Garry wrote: > This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or = deny this > as twaddle. >=20 > Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor = lock-in), > they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't = get > much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Apple hired a lot of key people from the FreeBSD project. I don't know = just what comes back to FreeBSD out of Apple but suspect the reason you = and myself don't know is that Apple doesn't care to toot their own horn. = Apple made a significant contribution a while back testing and improving = NFS. As for how much of MacOS X is BSD, pretty much all of the command line = stuff. Apple has gone to great lengths to XML-ize most everything so = while MacOS is BSD, its probably the most distant BSD cousin. > Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for > instance. NT 3.51 used to flash a Berkeley Software Distribution copyright message = on the text console during boot because some code was used. Doubt MS = could leave well enough alone to simply lift the entire stack. The = VMS-inspired NT kernel was probably not organized in such a way as to = optimally use an unmodified BSD network protocol stack. > So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code = for it, > or filing bugs or whatever. > (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, = as > well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE = etc...) >=20 > Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly = tied > in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can = support > software developed under such licenses. So why are you here? Trolling? It bugs the heck out of some people when others manage to build on their = work to make something better, and then not give it away to everyone = else. Others realize that if what we do is truly useful then others will = want to use it to build bigger and better things. That it doesn't matter = if we sell our work or give it away, what others do with it is no skin = off our noses. Our original work is still exactly as accessible as it = was before others made something more of their own version of it. > Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though = Apple > done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE. > So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the = BSD > license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most > significantly Apple. Thats one of the big problems of the GPL-mindset. Seems they spend a = whole lot more time cloning the work of others than in actually creating = anything new. > This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of = the code > in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. There is nothing in the BSD license permitting a "hostile takeover." = Some would claim FreeBSD has executed a "hostile takeover" of what it is = to be BSD. The pre-FreeBSD code is out there, you are welcome to it. = Some would say OpenBSD attempted a hostile takeover of BSD. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D775D216-CFBE-4103-905E-4AF9BEB9DF21>