4 ms·

> BSD results in variants and splinters. Please count the Linux-based systems.

cowtools 4y ago
It's irrelevant because they are all GPLv2 and intercompatable. Distros are just that: different distributions of the (largely same, interchangeable) software. There is no splintering where it matters: legally and technically. In the BSD world you will have companies like Sony take BSD into their closed source world. The linux equivalent would be some semi-free environment like Android.
- whizzter 4y ago
  So you can reliably install rpm's in debian and vice versa with .deb's? glibc versions? X11 vs Wayland? System-d vs init.d ? Android?
  - cowtools 4y ago
    >So you can reliably install rpm's in debian and vice versa with .deb's? Yeah, just use a chroot. It's the same kernel. You could also just distribute static binaries or have your dynamic libs bundled in a single .AppImage file. >glibc versions? Linux guarantees source compatability, but doesn't guarantee binary compatability (unlike most proprietary software like ms-windows). >X11 vs Wayland? X11 and wayland are different protocols, but Wayland is reverse-compatible with X11. >System-d vs init.d ? I don't know much about init systems, but I don't use systemd, I use OpenRC and it works fine with "systemd-dependent" software like GNOME or KDE by using elogind[0][1] for example. >Android? For android apps, you can containerize an android userspace with tools like Waydroid[2]. [0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Elogind https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Elogind [1] https://github.com/elogind/elogind https://github.com/elogind/elogind [2] https://waydro.id/ https://waydro.id/
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      On chroot installs. Debian's installation manual has a section on how to perform chroot installs. That is, there's a documented process for how to install Debian within another Linux distribution should you choose / need to do that. It came about because the original author was hoping to try out Debian on a Red Hat system. It's all userland over the kernal. These days, even at the process level (or using tools such as jails), it's possible to define largely independent contexts for each individual process. CPU, memory, and kernel are common and/or shared, but other resources can be strongly segregated.
  - evol262 4y ago
    Yes, to all of those, though some take more work than others. It says a lot that "systemd vs init.d" instead of "systemd vs sysvinit" was there. The question is not about the ecosystem, though, but about the kernel itself. Yes, there are embedded vendors (mostly networking equipment, and especially routers) who violate the GPL by not complying, but generally speaking, hardware vendors who choose Linux publish sources. Those sources may not ever make it into mainline, but the device trees/drivers for embedded stuff does provide a reference for a cleaner, better implementation. Compare to FreeBSD for the Playstation's management layer. Where are the contributions for Cell support? Where are the patches Sony certainly needed to make for wifi and bluetooth? Where are the patches from Juniper for validated FIPS?
    - rhabarba 4y ago
      Nvidia graphics cards. Just saying.
      - cowtools 4y ago
        I think it's only feasible for nvidia to release GPL-violating closed source graphics drivers because of the leverage that BSD provides them against Linux.
nequo 4y ago
Not OP so not sure what OP meant but I think the reason GPLv2 beats BSD here is that code derived from BSD-licensed code is often taken closed source. Industry modifications to FreeBSD and Minix (and maybe NetBSD too?) were never sent back upstream or were sent back with a delay. Splinters in Linux-based systems are still open source so good modifications can be added to upstream.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > Industry modifications to FreeBSD and Minix (and maybe NetBSD too?) were never sent back upstream or were sent back with a delay. And the companies that did this paid a price for it when FreeBSD moved forward and they were left behind holding a whole bunch of patches. After the learning the hard way about withholding non-secret sauce patches, many companies contribute back anything that they find in the 'common code' that wouldn't threaten their value proposition. You will regularly see patches with the "Sponsored by" tag in the commit logs: * https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php Here's one from a few hours ago by Netflix: * https://www.freshsource.org/commit.php?message_id=75ad24775b68c59e95bef0047fd6fc8a01271a03 https://www.freshsource.org/commit.php?message_id=75ad24775b... NetApp, Dell-EMC Isilon, Juniper, iXsystems, pfSense, etc are often seen in base, but also in ports and also drivers (Intel, Chelsio, Mellonox). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_FreeBSD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_Free...
- rhabarba 4y ago
  > Industry modifications to FreeBSD and Minix (and maybe NetBSD too?) were never sent back upstream The most popular software that was derived from (a number of predecessors and) FreeBSD, Apple’s Darwin, is free software, nobody stops anyone from taking code from there. In fact, quite a few FreeBSD developers are (were?) paid by Apple.
  - nelgaard 4y ago
    You might take code from there. But you cannot take code from OS X and add it to Darwin. And that is why I cannot just install Darwin and run it on my computers if I wanted to use e.g., network cards.
msla 4y ago
In the words of Count von Count: One. One Linux kernel. Ah-ha-ha-ha! Or at least one that matters.
- rhabarba 4y ago
  Which of the several kernels is it? Android’s? Chrome OS’s? The anti-free Ubuntu’s?
  - cowtools 4y ago
    All those kernels are legally required to be free by the GPL. Those OSes have "non-free" userspaces.
  - Morgawr 4y ago
    ChromeOS developer here. You can see our kernels here: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/refs/heads/chromeos-5.10/ https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/ker... (just linked one of them, we use a few) Everything is open source, we mostly keep up with Linux development and upstream all of our patches but some take time so we have our own branch. Still entirely open source.
    - onphonenow 4y ago
      The fragmentation here was I think a Linus misstep - when the wake lock and other ideas came out some subsystem maintainers were fussing. But code talks and talk walks, the android folks were solving real issues - so my own view would have been to be supportive of their efforts which were not insignificant.
Mikeb85 4y ago
> Please count the Linux-based systems. And they all take the same source from upstream and maintain compatibility. Packaging and some user-space dependencies aside, binaries run on any Linux system.

It's irrelevant because they are all GPLv2 and intercompatable. Distros are just that: different distributions of the (largely same, interchangeable) software. There is no splintering where it matters: legally and technically. In the BSD world you will have companies like Sony take BSD into their closed source world. The linux equivalent would be some semi-free environment like Android.

whizzter 4y ago
So you can reliably install rpm's in debian and vice versa with .deb's? glibc versions? X11 vs Wayland? System-d vs init.d ? Android?
- cowtools 4y ago
  >So you can reliably install rpm's in debian and vice versa with .deb's? Yeah, just use a chroot. It's the same kernel. You could also just distribute static binaries or have your dynamic libs bundled in a single .AppImage file. >glibc versions? Linux guarantees source compatability, but doesn't guarantee binary compatability (unlike most proprietary software like ms-windows). >X11 vs Wayland? X11 and wayland are different protocols, but Wayland is reverse-compatible with X11. >System-d vs init.d ? I don't know much about init systems, but I don't use systemd, I use OpenRC and it works fine with "systemd-dependent" software like GNOME or KDE by using elogind[0][1] for example. >Android? For android apps, you can containerize an android userspace with tools like Waydroid[2]. [0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Elogind https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Elogind [1] https://github.com/elogind/elogind https://github.com/elogind/elogind [2] https://waydro.id/ https://waydro.id/
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    On chroot installs. Debian's installation manual has a section on how to perform chroot installs. That is, there's a documented process for how to install Debian within another Linux distribution should you choose / need to do that. It came about because the original author was hoping to try out Debian on a Red Hat system. It's all userland over the kernal. These days, even at the process level (or using tools such as jails), it's possible to define largely independent contexts for each individual process. CPU, memory, and kernel are common and/or shared, but other resources can be strongly segregated.
- evol262 4y ago
  Yes, to all of those, though some take more work than others. It says a lot that "systemd vs init.d" instead of "systemd vs sysvinit" was there. The question is not about the ecosystem, though, but about the kernel itself. Yes, there are embedded vendors (mostly networking equipment, and especially routers) who violate the GPL by not complying, but generally speaking, hardware vendors who choose Linux publish sources. Those sources may not ever make it into mainline, but the device trees/drivers for embedded stuff does provide a reference for a cleaner, better implementation. Compare to FreeBSD for the Playstation's management layer. Where are the contributions for Cell support? Where are the patches Sony certainly needed to make for wifi and bluetooth? Where are the patches from Juniper for validated FIPS?
  - rhabarba 4y ago
    Nvidia graphics cards. Just saying.
    - cowtools 4y ago
      I think it's only feasible for nvidia to release GPL-violating closed source graphics drivers because of the leverage that BSD provides them against Linux.

nequo 4y ago

Not OP so not sure what OP meant but I think the reason GPLv2 beats BSD here is that code derived from BSD-licensed code is often taken closed source. Industry modifications to FreeBSD and Minix (and maybe NetBSD too?) were never sent back upstream or were sent back with a delay. Splinters in Linux-based systems are still open source so good modifications can be added to upstream.

throw0101a 4y ago
> Industry modifications to FreeBSD and Minix (and maybe NetBSD too?) were never sent back upstream or were sent back with a delay. And the companies that did this paid a price for it when FreeBSD moved forward and they were left behind holding a whole bunch of patches. After the learning the hard way about withholding non-secret sauce patches, many companies contribute back anything that they find in the 'common code' that wouldn't threaten their value proposition. You will regularly see patches with the "Sponsored by" tag in the commit logs: * https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php Here's one from a few hours ago by Netflix: * https://www.freshsource.org/commit.php?message_id=75ad24775b68c59e95bef0047fd6fc8a01271a03 https://www.freshsource.org/commit.php?message_id=75ad24775b... NetApp, Dell-EMC Isilon, Juniper, iXsystems, pfSense, etc are often seen in base, but also in ports and also drivers (Intel, Chelsio, Mellonox). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_FreeBSD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_Free...
rhabarba 4y ago
> Industry modifications to FreeBSD and Minix (and maybe NetBSD too?) were never sent back upstream The most popular software that was derived from (a number of predecessors and) FreeBSD, Apple’s Darwin, is free software, nobody stops anyone from taking code from there. In fact, quite a few FreeBSD developers are (were?) paid by Apple.
- nelgaard 4y ago
  You might take code from there. But you cannot take code from OS X and add it to Darwin. And that is why I cannot just install Darwin and run it on my computers if I wanted to use e.g., network cards.

msla 4y ago

In the words of Count von Count: One. One Linux kernel. Ah-ha-ha-ha! Or at least one that matters.

rhabarba 4y ago
Which of the several kernels is it? Android’s? Chrome OS’s? The anti-free Ubuntu’s?
- cowtools 4y ago
  All those kernels are legally required to be free by the GPL. Those OSes have "non-free" userspaces.
- Morgawr 4y ago
  ChromeOS developer here. You can see our kernels here: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/refs/heads/chromeos-5.10/ https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/ker... (just linked one of them, we use a few) Everything is open source, we mostly keep up with Linux development and upstream all of our patches but some take time so we have our own branch. Still entirely open source.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    The fragmentation here was I think a Linus misstep - when the wake lock and other ideas came out some subsystem maintainers were fussing. But code talks and talk walks, the android folks were solving real issues - so my own view would have been to be supportive of their efforts which were not insignificant.

Mikeb85 4y ago

> Please count the Linux-based systems. And they all take the same source from upstream and maintain compatibility. Packaging and some user-space dependencies aside, binaries run on any Linux system.