4 ms·

Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

44 points by michelangelo 2y ago

mikece 2y ago
It doesn't say in this press release but are WYSE/Dell contributing back to FreeBSD in any way?
- frogmanalien 2y ago
  It seems like they have some (minor) contributions planned at least based on that article: "Improving FreeBSD’s Linux application binary interface (ABI) will allow a broader base of Linux applications to run seamlessly on ThinOS, enhancing its versatility and appeal."
- craftkiller 2y ago
  They are donors to the FreeBSD Foundation in addition to committing patches: $ git log | grep -i '@dell.com' | wc -l 86
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    > grep '@dell.com>' A better search may be 'Sponsored by:.*[Dell|EMC|Isilon]' or some such. Some Dell folks may be committers and be pushing things with their @freebsd.org address.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - freedomben 2y ago
      Thank you. I naturally am very attracted to the permissive licensing, but time and experience of seeing huge companies take permissively licensed code and use it to make, make billions without giving back anything or anything of substance, and comparing that to how the Linux kernel has evolved, has made me really consider whether GPL isn't needed. That debate is forever ongoing, of course, but it greatly warms my heart to see that Dell is contributing back. This seems like a success story of permissive licensing.
- tyingq 2y ago
  Seems a fair question given this quote: "FreeBSD’s BSD license offers customization flexibility without the obligation to disclose proprietary enhancements." But I suppose maybe some of their less sensitive changes, if upstreamed, relieves them of having to own them.
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    > But I suppose maybe some of their less sensitive changes, if upstreamed, relieves them of having to own them. General best practice is to (a) upstream as much as you can, and (b) keep as close to -HEAD (the development branch) as possible. Some discussion on this at the Vendor Conference from a few months ago: * https://freebsdfoundation.org/news-and-events/event-calendar/november-2023-freebsd-vendor-summit/#event_schedule https://freebsdfoundation.org/news-and-events/event-calendar... * https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLugwS7L7NMXzSalaF4l_78sfRa2l8xvag https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLugwS7L7NMXzSalaF4l_7... Basically: if it's not part of your secret sauce, upstream it.
    - craftkiller 2y ago
      In addition to the vendor summit, Netflix gave a tech talk recently where they recommended both upstreaming and keeping as close to -CURRENT as possible "Why we run FreeBSD CURRENT at Netflix": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4TZxj-Dq7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4TZxj-Dq7s
- throw0101d 2y ago
  Dell (now) owns Isilon (through purchasing EMC), and they do contribute back a lot: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneFS_distributed_file_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneFS_distributed_file_system You can search for "Sponsored by:" in commits for who did work: * https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php
jmclnx 2y ago
Nice to see a BSD getting decent press.
- dazzawazza 2y ago
  The FreeBSD foundation seems to have stepped up a gear lately. Good to see.
darkwater 2y ago
> Choosing FreeBSD as the base of ThinOS was a strategic decision driven by several key factors: > License Advantages: FreeBSD’s BSD license offers customization flexibility without the obligation to disclose proprietary enhancements. This aspect is crucial for Dell, allowing the company to tailor the OS to its specific security and performance needs while maintaining proprietary control over its software. Ok... I see where this is going... > Engineering Efficiency: Dell’s engineering team benefits from FreeBSD’s stable kernel source code. It simplifies integrating and maintaining customized code, reducing the effort and resources required to keep ThinOS up to date. Nice one. > Security Enhancements: The stability of the FreeBSD kernel, coupled with the permissive BSD license, which allows vendors to keep proprietary modifications under wraps, significantly bolsters ThinOS’s security posture and creates a robust platform less susceptible to attacks than a CopyLeft-based system with GPL components. Are they really defending security through obscurity (closed-source blobs) and at the same time attacking GPL in the same paragraph?
- torstenvl 2y ago
  "Security through obscurity" is the vernacular formulation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle and refers to using bespoke encryption algorithms rather than strong encryption keys. I don't see how it has any bearing here. Indeed, outside of cryptography, keeping substantive knowledge secret is quite often a critical component of security. See generally Rogue One ;-)
  - darkwater 2y ago
    Well, the "security though obscurity" principle has been used for many years now to cover alleged extra protections granted by the mere fact of keeping a software source code closed and secret. As in: you will not find that RCE in the software if you don't have access to the source code. And this statement from Dell and the FreeBSD foundation (yeah, it's not just Dell) clearly follows that line of thought.
    - torstenvl 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

44 points by michelangelo 2y ago

mikece 2y ago

It doesn't say in this press release but are WYSE/Dell contributing back to FreeBSD in any way?

frogmanalien 2y ago
It seems like they have some (minor) contributions planned at least based on that article: "Improving FreeBSD’s Linux application binary interface (ABI) will allow a broader base of Linux applications to run seamlessly on ThinOS, enhancing its versatility and appeal."
craftkiller 2y ago
They are donors to the FreeBSD Foundation in addition to committing patches: $ git log | grep -i '@dell.com' | wc -l 86
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > grep '@dell.com>' A better search may be 'Sponsored by:.*[Dell|EMC|Isilon]' or some such. Some Dell folks may be committers and be pushing things with their @freebsd.org address.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - freedomben 2y ago
    Thank you. I naturally am very attracted to the permissive licensing, but time and experience of seeing huge companies take permissively licensed code and use it to make, make billions without giving back anything or anything of substance, and comparing that to how the Linux kernel has evolved, has made me really consider whether GPL isn't needed. That debate is forever ongoing, of course, but it greatly warms my heart to see that Dell is contributing back. This seems like a success story of permissive licensing.
tyingq 2y ago
Seems a fair question given this quote: "FreeBSD’s BSD license offers customization flexibility without the obligation to disclose proprietary enhancements." But I suppose maybe some of their less sensitive changes, if upstreamed, relieves them of having to own them.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > But I suppose maybe some of their less sensitive changes, if upstreamed, relieves them of having to own them. General best practice is to (a) upstream as much as you can, and (b) keep as close to -HEAD (the development branch) as possible. Some discussion on this at the Vendor Conference from a few months ago: * https://freebsdfoundation.org/news-and-events/event-calendar/november-2023-freebsd-vendor-summit/#event_schedule https://freebsdfoundation.org/news-and-events/event-calendar... * https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLugwS7L7NMXzSalaF4l_78sfRa2l8xvag https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLugwS7L7NMXzSalaF4l_7... Basically: if it's not part of your secret sauce, upstream it.
  - craftkiller 2y ago
    In addition to the vendor summit, Netflix gave a tech talk recently where they recommended both upstreaming and keeping as close to -CURRENT as possible "Why we run FreeBSD CURRENT at Netflix": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4TZxj-Dq7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4TZxj-Dq7s
throw0101d 2y ago
Dell (now) owns Isilon (through purchasing EMC), and they do contribute back a lot: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneFS_distributed_file_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneFS_distributed_file_system You can search for "Sponsored by:" in commits for who did work: * https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php https://www.freshsource.org/commits.php

jmclnx 2y ago

Nice to see a BSD getting decent press.

dazzawazza 2y ago
The FreeBSD foundation seems to have stepped up a gear lately. Good to see.

darkwater 2y ago

> Choosing FreeBSD as the base of ThinOS was a strategic decision driven by several key factors: > License Advantages: FreeBSD’s BSD license offers customization flexibility without the obligation to disclose proprietary enhancements. This aspect is crucial for Dell, allowing the company to tailor the OS to its specific security and performance needs while maintaining proprietary control over its software. Ok... I see where this is going... > Engineering Efficiency: Dell’s engineering team benefits from FreeBSD’s stable kernel source code. It simplifies integrating and maintaining customized code, reducing the effort and resources required to keep ThinOS up to date. Nice one. > Security Enhancements: The stability of the FreeBSD kernel, coupled with the permissive BSD license, which allows vendors to keep proprietary modifications under wraps, significantly bolsters ThinOS’s security posture and creates a robust platform less susceptible to attacks than a CopyLeft-based system with GPL components. Are they really defending security through obscurity (closed-source blobs) and at the same time attacking GPL in the same paragraph?

torstenvl 2y ago
"Security through obscurity" is the vernacular formulation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle and refers to using bespoke encryption algorithms rather than strong encryption keys. I don't see how it has any bearing here. Indeed, outside of cryptography, keeping substantive knowledge secret is quite often a critical component of security. See generally Rogue One ;-)
- darkwater 2y ago
  Well, the "security though obscurity" principle has been used for many years now to cover alleged extra protections granted by the mere fact of keeping a software source code closed and secret. As in: you will not find that RCE in the software if you don't have access to the source code. And this statement from Dell and the FreeBSD foundation (yeah, it's not just Dell) clearly follows that line of thought.
  - torstenvl 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]