5 ms·

Software doesn't die until all developers abandon it.

znpy 5y ago
Meh. Sometimes it takes very long for things to die definitively. "The BSDs are dieing" is definitely a (false) meme but there's some truth to that. On a lot of things the BSD are either cut out or lagging behind by a lot. Example for both things: Being cut out: containers and kubernetes. Heck, you can even have MS-Windows-based kubernetes workers, whereas just yesterday some random guy released an experimental oci-compliant, jail-based container runtime (IIRC). And that's for FreeBSD, does not even apply to Net/Open/Dragonfly/whatever. Lagging behind: wayland. Mostly working on GNU/Linux, what's the status on the various BSDs? Not pretty. So to wrap up: it kinda depends on your point of view. If your use case falls within what's supported and what the developers develop for, then the BSDs are alive and doing well. Otherwise, the BSDs appear to be dieing very slowly.
- anthk 5y ago
  Arcan > Wayland
  - znpy 5y ago
    Thanks, that doesn't help.
- sennight 5y ago
  > Sometimes it takes very long for things to die definitively. And other times it occurs very quickly and for no good reason. Linux gleefully deletes functionality like hardware accelerated framebuffer scrolling, because the devs can't be bothered to decouple code or maintain existing work. It is interesting because 15 years ago I'd have assumed it to be a byproduct of a free software virality strategy - making the use of outside code as painful as possible by providing no stability beyond exported GPL symbols. But now, with the wildly successful corporate push in Open™ Source©, I'm starting to wonder if it is just a happy accident that software-defined planned obsolescence is now a thing. All those GPL vs BSD licensed code debates... funny how things work out.
  - medstrom 5y ago
    Can you unpack? Software-defined planned obsolescence?
    - sennight 5y ago
      Sure. Hardware producers have zero interest in supporting hardware they don't sell anymore, and if they sell a newer version that competes with the old then such maintenance is doubly costly - as it cuts into potential sales. But they can rely on developer laziness to eventually render what would otherwise be a durable good - into a consumable that must be constantly replaced in a predictable cycle. See the entirety of the smartphone market, for example. Apple chose its logo well, it is well documented that they've crippled functional hardware through software updates - turning hardware into a perishable good. But Android might provide the best example of grotesquely wasteful consumerism - only made possible by the ever dependable, and yet somehow still plausibly deniable, software bit rot.
  - znpy 5y ago
    > because the devs can't be bothered to decouple code or maintain existing work patches are welcome, I guess
    - sennight 5y ago
      No they aren't, that is the point made when: the deprecation is announced, preprocessor flags are added to cordon off the code and throw compilation warnings, finally - the code is deleted. The burden is then shifted onto the hardware producer to maintain their now disconnected code, and adapt to breaking changes blindly made by anyone not accounting for the situation (basically everyone). This obviously doesn't happen, because maintaining code for hardware they no longer sell isn't profitable. At most, the manufacturers will offer a few pre-compiled blobs for the most popular system configurations - which really sucks for anyone who actually subscribes to the ideals originally espoused by free software proponents.
      - znpy 5y ago

znpy 5y ago

Meh. Sometimes it takes very long for things to die definitively. "The BSDs are dieing" is definitely a (false) meme but there's some truth to that. On a lot of things the BSD are either cut out or lagging behind by a lot. Example for both things: Being cut out: containers and kubernetes. Heck, you can even have MS-Windows-based kubernetes workers, whereas just yesterday some random guy released an experimental oci-compliant, jail-based container runtime (IIRC). And that's for FreeBSD, does not even apply to Net/Open/Dragonfly/whatever. Lagging behind: wayland. Mostly working on GNU/Linux, what's the status on the various BSDs? Not pretty. So to wrap up: it kinda depends on your point of view. If your use case falls within what's supported and what the developers develop for, then the BSDs are alive and doing well. Otherwise, the BSDs appear to be dieing very slowly.

anthk 5y ago
Arcan > Wayland
- znpy 5y ago
  Thanks, that doesn't help.
sennight 5y ago
> Sometimes it takes very long for things to die definitively. And other times it occurs very quickly and for no good reason. Linux gleefully deletes functionality like hardware accelerated framebuffer scrolling, because the devs can't be bothered to decouple code or maintain existing work. It is interesting because 15 years ago I'd have assumed it to be a byproduct of a free software virality strategy - making the use of outside code as painful as possible by providing no stability beyond exported GPL symbols. But now, with the wildly successful corporate push in Open™ Source©, I'm starting to wonder if it is just a happy accident that software-defined planned obsolescence is now a thing. All those GPL vs BSD licensed code debates... funny how things work out.
- medstrom 5y ago
  Can you unpack? Software-defined planned obsolescence?
  - sennight 5y ago
    Sure. Hardware producers have zero interest in supporting hardware they don't sell anymore, and if they sell a newer version that competes with the old then such maintenance is doubly costly - as it cuts into potential sales. But they can rely on developer laziness to eventually render what would otherwise be a durable good - into a consumable that must be constantly replaced in a predictable cycle. See the entirety of the smartphone market, for example. Apple chose its logo well, it is well documented that they've crippled functional hardware through software updates - turning hardware into a perishable good. But Android might provide the best example of grotesquely wasteful consumerism - only made possible by the ever dependable, and yet somehow still plausibly deniable, software bit rot.
- znpy 5y ago
  > because the devs can't be bothered to decouple code or maintain existing work patches are welcome, I guess
  - sennight 5y ago
    No they aren't, that is the point made when: the deprecation is announced, preprocessor flags are added to cordon off the code and throw compilation warnings, finally - the code is deleted. The burden is then shifted onto the hardware producer to maintain their now disconnected code, and adapt to breaking changes blindly made by anyone not accounting for the situation (basically everyone). This obviously doesn't happen, because maintaining code for hardware they no longer sell isn't profitable. At most, the manufacturers will offer a few pre-compiled blobs for the most popular system configurations - which really sucks for anyone who actually subscribes to the ideals originally espoused by free software proponents.
    - znpy 5y ago