3 ms·

Netflix kernel guy here... Off the top of my head, we (Netflix) have contributed the following over the last few years to FreeBSD: - async sendfile - rewrite

Netflix kernel guy here... Off the top of my head, we (Netflix) have contributed the following over the last few years to FreeBSD: - async sendfile - rewrite of the pbuf system - unmapped mbufs - kernel TLS - RACK TCP - BBR TCP - TCP high precision timer system (TCP pacer) - various NUMA improvements, which allow us to stream in excess of 200Gb/s of TLS encrypted video traffic from a single server - Metric tons of fixes Contributing stuff back makes it easier to work with other folks, and makes our jobs easier. We merge from upstream FreeBSD-current every few weeks. The smaller the diff we carry forward, the easier our jobs are.

belorn 7y ago
If everyone contribute back everything then the distinction between BSD and GPL would be indistinguishable. A zero diff would be easier work, and would make your job easier than a small diff. but since that is not the case there is an evidential balance between contributing back and keeping changes proprietary. It would be nice in this kind of threads if both sides were just honest in presenting how things work. Companies will decide on contributing back BSD code based on competitive advantages of doing so. It is a business decision. They can reducing costs by having the code maintained by upstream and reduce integration costs, or they can get advantage over their competitors by keeping the code proprietary. I see similar discussing when companies talk about paying taxes. The press releases will talk about contributing back to society and being responsible citizen, while at the same time employing lawyers who do "tax management" in order to pay as little tax as possible. It is true that they do contribute back with numbers that looks impressive, and paying some taxes is easier than paying no taxes, but a honest description would call it a calculated business decision that balance benefits and drawbacks between compliance and tax avoidance.
- mikece 7y ago
  I would say there's a massive difference between contributing back code and paying taxes. Public companies have a FIDUCIARY duty to provide maximum value to shareholders, and that's been the "legal justification" for the FAANGs to engage in the "reverse Irish, Dutch sandwich" scheme to pay zero taxes. Meanwhile, shareholders don't care about code licensing as long as the company isn't giving away the secret sauce under F/OSS terms. Netflix dude above mentioned how much they contribute back; the "enlightened self-interest" of the BSD world encourages these companies to contribute as much as possible back to the project so their diffs in pulling down updates are minimal. If they go asshole and keep everything private they are making their own headache worse when updating or locking themselves in the past.
  - andrekandre 7y ago
    > FIDUCIARY duty to provide maximum value to shareholders i’m not sure that’s exactly true is it? [0] or at least it seems quite murky (case-by-case, state-by-state) [1] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... [1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5dc3f206-0fcc-469c-bd66-66e83def2fcd https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5dc3f206-0fcc...
- ksec 7y ago
  >If everyone contribute back everything then the distinction between BSD and GPL would be indistinguishable. The difference here is Netflix can choose which part to contribute back. In most cases the CDN work is not their core competitive advantage, their Quality Content are. Which means Netflix can contribute back everything they have done.

belorn 7y ago

If everyone contribute back everything then the distinction between BSD and GPL would be indistinguishable. A zero diff would be easier work, and would make your job easier than a small diff. but since that is not the case there is an evidential balance between contributing back and keeping changes proprietary. It would be nice in this kind of threads if both sides were just honest in presenting how things work. Companies will decide on contributing back BSD code based on competitive advantages of doing so. It is a business decision. They can reducing costs by having the code maintained by upstream and reduce integration costs, or they can get advantage over their competitors by keeping the code proprietary. I see similar discussing when companies talk about paying taxes. The press releases will talk about contributing back to society and being responsible citizen, while at the same time employing lawyers who do "tax management" in order to pay as little tax as possible. It is true that they do contribute back with numbers that looks impressive, and paying some taxes is easier than paying no taxes, but a honest description would call it a calculated business decision that balance benefits and drawbacks between compliance and tax avoidance.

mikece 7y ago
I would say there's a massive difference between contributing back code and paying taxes. Public companies have a FIDUCIARY duty to provide maximum value to shareholders, and that's been the "legal justification" for the FAANGs to engage in the "reverse Irish, Dutch sandwich" scheme to pay zero taxes. Meanwhile, shareholders don't care about code licensing as long as the company isn't giving away the secret sauce under F/OSS terms. Netflix dude above mentioned how much they contribute back; the "enlightened self-interest" of the BSD world encourages these companies to contribute as much as possible back to the project so their diffs in pulling down updates are minimal. If they go asshole and keep everything private they are making their own headache worse when updating or locking themselves in the past.
- andrekandre 7y ago
  > FIDUCIARY duty to provide maximum value to shareholders i’m not sure that’s exactly true is it? [0] or at least it seems quite murky (case-by-case, state-by-state) [1] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... [1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5dc3f206-0fcc-469c-bd66-66e83def2fcd https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5dc3f206-0fcc...
ksec 7y ago
>If everyone contribute back everything then the distinction between BSD and GPL would be indistinguishable. The difference here is Netflix can choose which part to contribute back. In most cases the CDN work is not their core competitive advantage, their Quality Content are. Which means Netflix can contribute back everything they have done.