4 ms·

A very valid point. IBM contributes a TON of code to Linux. They could easily have worked to improve security if they cared. Or, improved BSD, and avoided all

A very valid point. IBM contributes a TON of code to Linux. They could easily have worked to improve security if they cared. Or, improved BSD, and avoided all that GPL stuff if they wanted.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
I was actually shocked they didn't contribute to FreeBSD instead then rebrand their management or security customizations as their own enterprise OS. The Chinese ended up doing that with Kylan. Cambridge's CHERI team made it capability-secure with minimal modifications. IBM was in ideal position to do that, too, given they had legendary Paul Karger who already built high-assurance OS's and CPU's for them. Let's just call it Another Missed Opportunity for the Big Blue. :)
- this-dang-guy 10y ago
  That's a big book right there! I was really disappointed in how Apple treated BSD, but I am stupid and naive. I would have expected that from IBM though.
  - grzm 10y ago
    "I was really disappointed in how Apple treated BSD" Would you go into more detail here? The BSD license is very liberal. That's no excuse for bad behavior, but I'm unfamiliar with bad actions on Apple's part wrt BSD, which I gather there were given your phrasing.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Parent might be referring to how they just gobbled it up into Darwin and Mac OS X while contributing about nothing back. At least, I'm aware of them making a bunch of money off Mac OS X and iPhones but not hearing about contributions to FreeBSD at level IBM or Red Hat do to Linux.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. Granted, the BSD base is arguably one step removed from Apple (as that was NeXTSTEP, which Apple acquired), and both Darwin and OpenStep are open source. Apple continues to release the source of some of their software.[0] According to the "Myths" page at FreeBSD, "FreeBSD 9.1 and later include a C++ stack and compiler that were originally developed for OS X, with major parts of the work done by Apple employees",[1] so it hasn't completely been freeloading. I don't know enough about the levels of contribution to either to make a strong comparison, and I'm more than willing to grant IBM and Red Hat make much larger contributions to Linux than Apple does to FreeBSD. And I sympathize with the desire to have more contributions. The "how Apple treated BSD" phrasing sounds like there is more active bad treatment rather than not contributing enough. Maybe the hiring of Jordan Hubbard is considered active bad treatment? (Honest question) [0]: https://opensource.apple.com https://opensource.apple.com [1]: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths#FreeBSD_is_Just_OS_X_Without_the_Good_Bits https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths#FreeBSD_is_Just_OS_X_Without_...
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "so it hasn't completely been freeloading." That's Clang/LLVM compiler that gets them off GCC's GPL codebase. It also allows them to keep more extensions proprietary if they choose. It's been beneficial to the OSS community but I'd say it's barely altruistic. An exception rather than the rule. " The "how Apple treated BSD" phrasing sounds like there is more active bad treatment rather than not contributing enough" Helps to remember that it's how a lack of contributions is commonly phrased. Freeloading is probably the dominant model for both users and companies far as FOSS. It's just how they word the gripe. I agree they should probably use clearer phrasing for others not deep into this subject matter.
        this-dang-guy 10y ago
        You are correct, I should have been more clear in my phrasing.
      - this-dang-guy 10y ago
    - this-dang-guy 10y ago
      I don't believe they have in any way violated the letter or even spirit of the BSD license. It's extremely liberal, and should be. However, they used to really flaunt their BSD roots on OSX, but seem to do very little to give back in the form of code, money, or even PR for that matter. Here's an example of that: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/BSD/BSD.html https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Da... But now they've even removed any mention of this, and allowed projects like OpenDarwin and such to just plain die. I think it's pretty poor behavior from a company that's SO involved in intellectual property rights to just take something as valuable as a complete kernel and userland (not GUI) and then just sweep it under the carpet because no laws require them to do otherwise. Puts a really bad taste in my mouth to see such important work treated like that. I'd have expected it from IBM, but not from Apple.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Gotcha. Thanks for taking the time to respond and fill in more of the blanks. I appreciate it.
- mappu 10y ago
  > The Chinese ended up doing that with Kylan Kylin, for others googling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylin_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylin_(operating_system) It since switched to a Linux base and today powers Tianhe-1 and 2.

A very valid point. IBM contributes a TON of code to Linux. They could easily have worked to improve security if they cared. Or, improved BSD, and avoided all that GPL stuff if they wanted.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

I was actually shocked they didn't contribute to FreeBSD instead then rebrand their management or security customizations as their own enterprise OS. The Chinese ended up doing that with Kylan. Cambridge's CHERI team made it capability-secure with minimal modifications. IBM was in ideal position to do that, too, given they had legendary Paul Karger who already built high-assurance OS's and CPU's for them. Let's just call it Another Missed Opportunity for the Big Blue. :)

this-dang-guy 10y ago
That's a big book right there! I was really disappointed in how Apple treated BSD, but I am stupid and naive. I would have expected that from IBM though.
- grzm 10y ago
  "I was really disappointed in how Apple treated BSD" Would you go into more detail here? The BSD license is very liberal. That's no excuse for bad behavior, but I'm unfamiliar with bad actions on Apple's part wrt BSD, which I gather there were given your phrasing.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Parent might be referring to how they just gobbled it up into Darwin and Mac OS X while contributing about nothing back. At least, I'm aware of them making a bunch of money off Mac OS X and iPhones but not hearing about contributions to FreeBSD at level IBM or Red Hat do to Linux.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. Granted, the BSD base is arguably one step removed from Apple (as that was NeXTSTEP, which Apple acquired), and both Darwin and OpenStep are open source. Apple continues to release the source of some of their software.[0] According to the "Myths" page at FreeBSD, "FreeBSD 9.1 and later include a C++ stack and compiler that were originally developed for OS X, with major parts of the work done by Apple employees",[1] so it hasn't completely been freeloading. I don't know enough about the levels of contribution to either to make a strong comparison, and I'm more than willing to grant IBM and Red Hat make much larger contributions to Linux than Apple does to FreeBSD. And I sympathize with the desire to have more contributions. The "how Apple treated BSD" phrasing sounds like there is more active bad treatment rather than not contributing enough. Maybe the hiring of Jordan Hubbard is considered active bad treatment? (Honest question) [0]: https://opensource.apple.com https://opensource.apple.com [1]: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths#FreeBSD_is_Just_OS_X_Without_the_Good_Bits https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths#FreeBSD_is_Just_OS_X_Without_...
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "so it hasn't completely been freeloading." That's Clang/LLVM compiler that gets them off GCC's GPL codebase. It also allows them to keep more extensions proprietary if they choose. It's been beneficial to the OSS community but I'd say it's barely altruistic. An exception rather than the rule. " The "how Apple treated BSD" phrasing sounds like there is more active bad treatment rather than not contributing enough" Helps to remember that it's how a lack of contributions is commonly phrased. Freeloading is probably the dominant model for both users and companies far as FOSS. It's just how they word the gripe. I agree they should probably use clearer phrasing for others not deep into this subject matter.
        this-dang-guy 10y ago
        You are correct, I should have been more clear in my phrasing.
    - this-dang-guy 10y ago
  - this-dang-guy 10y ago
    I don't believe they have in any way violated the letter or even spirit of the BSD license. It's extremely liberal, and should be. However, they used to really flaunt their BSD roots on OSX, but seem to do very little to give back in the form of code, money, or even PR for that matter. Here's an example of that: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/BSD/BSD.html https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Da... But now they've even removed any mention of this, and allowed projects like OpenDarwin and such to just plain die. I think it's pretty poor behavior from a company that's SO involved in intellectual property rights to just take something as valuable as a complete kernel and userland (not GUI) and then just sweep it under the carpet because no laws require them to do otherwise. Puts a really bad taste in my mouth to see such important work treated like that. I'd have expected it from IBM, but not from Apple.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Gotcha. Thanks for taking the time to respond and fill in more of the blanks. I appreciate it.
mappu 10y ago
> The Chinese ended up doing that with Kylan Kylin, for others googling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylin_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylin_(operating_system) It since switched to a Linux base and today powers Tianhe-1 and 2.