4 ms·

I am glad FreeBSD exists. Not every commercial venture has the luxury to release their source code, even if they wanted to. If you're writing software for banks

I am glad FreeBSD exists. Not every commercial venture has the luxury to release their source code, even if they wanted to. If you're writing software for banks or defense, the source needs to be closed. FreeBSD enables these companies to exist and while consumer grade drivers are not available, many things in FreeBSD are rock solid. Thanks to commercial contributions.

doublerabbit 4y ago
For my hobby server of 1000+ days [1] uptime with ram failing. A raid controller on the brink. I've amazed at the solidarity of FreeBSD. [1] https://i.redd.it/2omcrsz8ut691.png https://i.redd.it/2omcrsz8ut691.png * i am aware how in todays time you shouldn't, updates, and blah blah. But not required.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Are you saying FreeBSD is not robust? Did you confirm that it is the operating system that is leaking memory and not your application? If that's true, that's huge and you should file a report. Better yet, write a blog post about the details and how to recreate it.
  - kevans91 4y ago
    I read that as "the hardware is failing but FreeBSD is still trucking right along"
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      My bad, I misunderstood as sarcasm.
cowtools 4y ago
I disagree. Work on permissively licensed software typically has the net effect of decreasing global freedom by reducing the costs of corporations to produce proprietary software. I try to avoid contributing to permissively-licensed software when possible, and I prefer to co-operate with businesses that use free software to avoid vendor lock-in as much as possible. Why should we all do free work for corporations? At least with the GPL you can negotiate a commercial license in exchange for money, but with a permissive license you forfeit your ability to do that. This article accurately sums up my point of view: https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/why-i-use-the-gpl-and-not-cuck-licenses/ https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/why-i-use-the-gpl-and-not-cuc... Also, the GPL does not require you to share the source code for programs that you do not distribute outside your company.
- trasz 4y ago
  Corporations that don’t want to share code don’t share it even when copyleft.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    From the opinion article I linked: >At the end of the day, though, what does it matter? What is a totally unenforced GPL? It's just a Cuck License—Isn't that what license cucks want? So why should they care? At their very best, BSD and MIT licenses are only what GPL might be at its very worst. >The GPL is a permanent liability for any company that crosses it. Some companies might be so bold to lift GPL code and hide it, but there is always a risk and a worry that prevents its general violation.
    - eredengrin 4y ago
      Those comments are unrelated. The point they were making is that if companies don't want to release source, they will either use a permissively licensed open source project as the base, or they will roll their own (probably lower quality) proprietary version. Or they'll pull an nvidia and release some hacky shim/workaround that breaks all the time and leads to bad user experience.
      - cowtools 4y ago
        > they will either use a permissively licensed open source project as the base which will be less feasible if people don't contribute to permissive projects in the first place, and basically serve as free labor for corporations to take advantage of. > or they will roll their own (probably lower quality) proprietary version this will cost them time and money to produce, putting them at a disadvantage compared to their competitors. >Or they'll pull an nvidia and release some hacky shim/workaround that breaks all the time and leads to bad user experience. nvidia can pull that off with linux because pushover operating systems like BSD give them the leverage to make those sorts of demands of the linux ecosystem. If linux sues nvidia or makes the driver/shim incompatible that's fine by nvidia- they will be mostly content with to tell their userbase to switch over to BSD so they can distribute a closed-source driver. They can do this to the extent that BSD is a workable replacement for linux, so all work on BSD is really just leverage against the linux GPL. If there were no feasible permissive competitors to linux, then linux developers would be quite free to make demands of companies who would be forced to comply with the GPL or write their own OS from scratch.
mistrial9 4y ago
no, this shows incomplete understanding of layering in a modern operating system. Closed-by-default software projects, over time, are less secure; common source code components make a stronger system over time when executed well; secrets can be handled in a secure manner in security-sensitive applications; well factored software using modern layers are more secure over time with common, tested software components.

doublerabbit 4y ago

For my hobby server of 1000+ days [1] uptime with ram failing. A raid controller on the brink. I've amazed at the solidarity of FreeBSD. [1] https://i.redd.it/2omcrsz8ut691.png https://i.redd.it/2omcrsz8ut691.png * i am aware how in todays time you shouldn't, updates, and blah blah. But not required.

systemvoltage 4y ago
Are you saying FreeBSD is not robust? Did you confirm that it is the operating system that is leaking memory and not your application? If that's true, that's huge and you should file a report. Better yet, write a blog post about the details and how to recreate it.
- kevans91 4y ago
  I read that as "the hardware is failing but FreeBSD is still trucking right along"
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    My bad, I misunderstood as sarcasm.

cowtools 4y ago

I disagree. Work on permissively licensed software typically has the net effect of decreasing global freedom by reducing the costs of corporations to produce proprietary software. I try to avoid contributing to permissively-licensed software when possible, and I prefer to co-operate with businesses that use free software to avoid vendor lock-in as much as possible. Why should we all do free work for corporations? At least with the GPL you can negotiate a commercial license in exchange for money, but with a permissive license you forfeit your ability to do that. This article accurately sums up my point of view: https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/why-i-use-the-gpl-and-not-cuck-licenses/ https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/why-i-use-the-gpl-and-not-cuc... Also, the GPL does not require you to share the source code for programs that you do not distribute outside your company.

trasz 4y ago
Corporations that don’t want to share code don’t share it even when copyleft.
- cowtools 4y ago
  From the opinion article I linked: >At the end of the day, though, what does it matter? What is a totally unenforced GPL? It's just a Cuck License—Isn't that what license cucks want? So why should they care? At their very best, BSD and MIT licenses are only what GPL might be at its very worst. >The GPL is a permanent liability for any company that crosses it. Some companies might be so bold to lift GPL code and hide it, but there is always a risk and a worry that prevents its general violation.
  - eredengrin 4y ago
    Those comments are unrelated. The point they were making is that if companies don't want to release source, they will either use a permissively licensed open source project as the base, or they will roll their own (probably lower quality) proprietary version. Or they'll pull an nvidia and release some hacky shim/workaround that breaks all the time and leads to bad user experience.
    - cowtools 4y ago
      > they will either use a permissively licensed open source project as the base which will be less feasible if people don't contribute to permissive projects in the first place, and basically serve as free labor for corporations to take advantage of. > or they will roll their own (probably lower quality) proprietary version this will cost them time and money to produce, putting them at a disadvantage compared to their competitors. >Or they'll pull an nvidia and release some hacky shim/workaround that breaks all the time and leads to bad user experience. nvidia can pull that off with linux because pushover operating systems like BSD give them the leverage to make those sorts of demands of the linux ecosystem. If linux sues nvidia or makes the driver/shim incompatible that's fine by nvidia- they will be mostly content with to tell their userbase to switch over to BSD so they can distribute a closed-source driver. They can do this to the extent that BSD is a workable replacement for linux, so all work on BSD is really just leverage against the linux GPL. If there were no feasible permissive competitors to linux, then linux developers would be quite free to make demands of companies who would be forced to comply with the GPL or write their own OS from scratch.

mistrial9 4y ago

no, this shows incomplete understanding of layering in a modern operating system. Closed-by-default software projects, over time, are less secure; common source code components make a stronger system over time when executed well; secrets can be handled in a secure manner in security-sensitive applications; well factored software using modern layers are more secure over time with common, tested software components.