4 ms·

Why linux? Why not *BSD?

• gaius_baltar 3y ago
  > Why linux? Why not *BSD? GPL can force manufacturers to cooperate with users. Of course, they can still use closed source binary modules and userland programs ...
  • NexRebular 3y ago
    GPL can also turn manufacturers away. I would rather have variation in the possible BMC operating systems instead of sticking linux everywhere and contributing to a monoculture.
    • ilyt 3y ago
      ...which you wouldn't get with BSD as they'd just close it down and ship you binary, as they would have no obligation or reason to. The BSD "freedom" is not for the user of the software, it's for corporation to take.
      • NexRebular 3y ago
        And how would this affect the original open BSD-based BMC firmware which would be available? If the corporations want to maintain their own fork, it's on them. The original BSD release will stay open and free for everyone to utilize.
        • IntelMiner 3y ago
          How can you trust that a closed source OpenBSD fork is secure when there's no way to audit the quality (or lack thereof) in the firmware the vendor gives you? If it's GPL you can at least interrogate the code release and make an informed decision
          • NexRebular 3y ago
            The same way I can trust all the binary blobs vendors stick into GPL-licensed systems. How do I make an informed decision about those?
    • wmf 3y ago
      Software diversity is a luxury customers won't pay for.
  • taneq 3y ago
    That sure sounds appealing to manufacturers.
    • wmf 3y ago
      Once it reaches critical mass it is appealing because the value you receive from the community is far greater than what you have to give back.
  • zrm 3y ago
    If the point is code diversity, what stops you producing a fork of BSD for BMCs under the GPL?