5 ms·

Hardware support. I have no idea why the hardware/software industry all focused on the linux kernel as the common base for so many hardware support. The amount

Hardware support. I have no idea why the hardware/software industry all focused on the linux kernel as the common base for so many hardware support. The amount of chips supported in the linux kernel is mind boggling. I worked with FreeBSD in my early career. How do I miss the `make world`. So easy, all-in-one, clean and elegant system.

nine_k 4y ago
Because everybody runs Linux for last like 20 years. Data centers, network appliances, storage appliances, smaller devices of all kinds. It's in the open, the mindshare is colossal, expertise working with kernel and writing drivers is relatively easy to come by. Everybody runs Linux because it's free, there is no danger of closed private forks gaining any traction, there is no danger of it playing MongoDB. So everyone can safely pick it and invest into it. The pace of progress is very high because of that, and anything broken would be fixed very-very soon. Because of that ability to rely on Linux being a common thing that nobody can privatize, huge companies like Red Hat and Canonical could form, and entities like IBM, Oracle, Intel, Google, etc could keep investing in the development. All the above is sort of problematic with FreeBSD. It's too cathedral on one side, and has too few strings attached to hold to it on the other side. So it remains the choice of connoisseurs who need its particular technical brilliance (e.g. the network stack) or its very permissive license (see PlayStation).
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >there is no danger of closed private forks gaining any traction grsec is a counter example to this claim
  - nine_k 4y ago
    From Grsecurity FAQ: > Grsecurity fully complies with the license of the Linux kernel, the GPLv2. Since grsecurity is delivered as a source code patch, it is not possible under the terms of the GPL to offer a free version under an actual restriction that it be used only for evaluation purposes. Any customer receiving a grsecurity patch receives all the GPL-granted rights and responsibilities, including the right to redistribute patches in their possession or even to sell them to others. Forks are completely fine. A lot of hardware, often not even esoteric, is supported by non-mainline kernel versions.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      It is closed because customers are incentivized to not share the patches so they can continue to receive new patches.
      - insanitybit 4y ago
        Customers are free to distribute the patches, Grsecurity is free to choose who their customers are.
        charcircuit 4y ago
        I never implied that what they are doing is wrong or illegal. Just that it is a closed private fork.
        insanitybit 4y ago
        Sure I just think that it is still open source, but I think we're on the same page.
Sirened 4y ago
> I have no idea why the hardware/software industry all focused on the linux kernel I'll die mad about it. So many in the OSS community applaud vendors for upstreaming a driver to the Linux kernel even though they haven't given any basic form of documentation. Not only is this a massive pain if you happen to work on a project that isn't GPL compatible (back to square one, legally required to clean room implement the algorithm if you want to work with Linux source), but you still have no idea how the device actually works and what the sharp edges are (good luck writing bug fixes!). It's utterly baffling that people have generally accepted Linux as if it is the only FOSS kernel that anyone should ever care about.
- rhamzeh 4y ago
  > this a massive pain if you happen to work on a project that isn't GPL compatible Good. And I hope that continues to be the case. The harder life is for non-copyleft licensed software and ecosystem the more society stands to benefit and the more the software industry stands to redeem itself.
  - ninjin 4y ago
    Do you want everyone to vote for the same political party too? To quote OpenBSD’s 4.2 release song [1]: Give and get back some Sharing it all Path we know best we're having a ball Give and get zeros Give and get ones Given to you but Not you to us [1]: https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#42 https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#42 For those of us that treasure freedom, through diversity of ideologies there is strength. Why one would actively put a pox on those with nearly the same goals as yourself is beyond me. But, hey… you do you.
  - Sirened 4y ago
    Trying to spring the GPL on people because they dare to try and understand how their wifi card works is not, in my opinion, a reasonable nor appropriate use of copy-left. Copyright is for derived works, not technical knowledge (i.e. specifications) but when you vendors refuse to provide documentation and only code, they force everyone into this weird position of creating a pseudo-derived work if they dare to (or can even be accused of having!) come near the Linux kernel source. If vendors provided a simple PDF everyone would be happier because now anyone can write the driver free and clear to the best of their ability.
delfinom 4y ago
>I have no idea why the hardware/software industry all focused on the linux kernel as the common base for so many hardware support. Example #2124 out of 251295912931, BSD devs were absolutely hardcore adamant to stick to CVS and SVN as their source control for years after the rest of the world has moved on.

nine_k 4y ago

Because everybody runs Linux for last like 20 years. Data centers, network appliances, storage appliances, smaller devices of all kinds. It's in the open, the mindshare is colossal, expertise working with kernel and writing drivers is relatively easy to come by. Everybody runs Linux because it's free, there is no danger of closed private forks gaining any traction, there is no danger of it playing MongoDB. So everyone can safely pick it and invest into it. The pace of progress is very high because of that, and anything broken would be fixed very-very soon. Because of that ability to rely on Linux being a common thing that nobody can privatize, huge companies like Red Hat and Canonical could form, and entities like IBM, Oracle, Intel, Google, etc could keep investing in the development. All the above is sort of problematic with FreeBSD. It's too cathedral on one side, and has too few strings attached to hold to it on the other side. So it remains the choice of connoisseurs who need its particular technical brilliance (e.g. the network stack) or its very permissive license (see PlayStation).

charcircuit 4y ago
>there is no danger of closed private forks gaining any traction grsec is a counter example to this claim
- nine_k 4y ago
  From Grsecurity FAQ: > Grsecurity fully complies with the license of the Linux kernel, the GPLv2. Since grsecurity is delivered as a source code patch, it is not possible under the terms of the GPL to offer a free version under an actual restriction that it be used only for evaluation purposes. Any customer receiving a grsecurity patch receives all the GPL-granted rights and responsibilities, including the right to redistribute patches in their possession or even to sell them to others. Forks are completely fine. A lot of hardware, often not even esoteric, is supported by non-mainline kernel versions.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    It is closed because customers are incentivized to not share the patches so they can continue to receive new patches.
    - insanitybit 4y ago
      Customers are free to distribute the patches, Grsecurity is free to choose who their customers are.
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        I never implied that what they are doing is wrong or illegal. Just that it is a closed private fork.
        insanitybit 4y ago
        Sure I just think that it is still open source, but I think we're on the same page.

Sirened 4y ago

> I have no idea why the hardware/software industry all focused on the linux kernel I'll die mad about it. So many in the OSS community applaud vendors for upstreaming a driver to the Linux kernel even though they haven't given any basic form of documentation. Not only is this a massive pain if you happen to work on a project that isn't GPL compatible (back to square one, legally required to clean room implement the algorithm if you want to work with Linux source), but you still have no idea how the device actually works and what the sharp edges are (good luck writing bug fixes!). It's utterly baffling that people have generally accepted Linux as if it is the only FOSS kernel that anyone should ever care about.

rhamzeh 4y ago
> this a massive pain if you happen to work on a project that isn't GPL compatible Good. And I hope that continues to be the case. The harder life is for non-copyleft licensed software and ecosystem the more society stands to benefit and the more the software industry stands to redeem itself.
- ninjin 4y ago
  Do you want everyone to vote for the same political party too? To quote OpenBSD’s 4.2 release song [1]: Give and get back some Sharing it all Path we know best we're having a ball Give and get zeros Give and get ones Given to you but Not you to us [1]: https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#42 https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#42 For those of us that treasure freedom, through diversity of ideologies there is strength. Why one would actively put a pox on those with nearly the same goals as yourself is beyond me. But, hey… you do you.
- Sirened 4y ago
  Trying to spring the GPL on people because they dare to try and understand how their wifi card works is not, in my opinion, a reasonable nor appropriate use of copy-left. Copyright is for derived works, not technical knowledge (i.e. specifications) but when you vendors refuse to provide documentation and only code, they force everyone into this weird position of creating a pseudo-derived work if they dare to (or can even be accused of having!) come near the Linux kernel source. If vendors provided a simple PDF everyone would be happier because now anyone can write the driver free and clear to the best of their ability.

delfinom 4y ago

>I have no idea why the hardware/software industry all focused on the linux kernel as the common base for so many hardware support. Example #2124 out of 251295912931, BSD devs were absolutely hardcore adamant to stick to CVS and SVN as their source control for years after the rest of the world has moved on.