5 ms·

> There's a reason it's the core of Juniper routers, Isilon and Netapp storage heads, every Playstation 3/4/5, and got mashed into NeXTSTEP to spawn macOS. Lic

by davidw 2y ago

> There's a reason it's the core of Juniper routers, Isilon and Netapp storage heads, every Playstation 3/4/5, and got mashed into NeXTSTEP to spawn macOS. Licensing? FreeBSD is a fine OS that surely has some advantages here and there, but I'm also inclined to think that big companies can make stuff work if they want to. PHP at Meta seems like a pretty good example of this.

papageek 2y ago
FreeBSD or Linux management plane on routers/switches is mostly irrelevant. The majority of the data simply flows through the asics untouched.
inopinatus 2y ago
The permissive, freewheeling nature of the BSD license is touted by some as an advantage for infrastructure use but in practice, Linux-based devices and services aren't particularly encumbered by the GPL, so to me it's a wash.
- davidw 2y ago
  Could be lawyers at some companies just didn't want anything to do with the GPL, especially if they're fiddling with the kernel itself. Maybe they're not even correct about the details of it, just fearful. "Lawyers overly cautious" is not an uncommon thing to see.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Having seen the screams from some people when you use GPL legally I can't blame the lawyers. You might be correct but you will still get annoying people yelling you are not. there is also the cost to verifying you are correct (we put the wrong address in for where to send you request for sorce, fortunately a tester caught it before release, but still expensive as the lawyers forced the full recall process meaning we had to send a tech to upgrade the testers instead of saying where to download the fix)
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > […] Linux-based devices and services aren't particularly encumbered by the GPL, so to me it's a wash. Linux uses GPL 2.x. If we are talking about GPL 3.x things may be different: > One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means certain “appliances” (which have computers inside) contain GPL-covered software that you can't effectively change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. * https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html If you want to ship (embedded) GPL 2 Linux-based devices things are fine, but if there's software that is GPL 3 then that can cause issues. Linus on GPLv3: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU
cheema33 2y ago
> Licensing? I think you've hit the nail on the head. I used to work for a very very large company. And they had a very strong preference for BSD licensed software, if we were building something using outside software. A few years ago, Stever Balmer and others spent a lot of time calling spreading FUD by calling Linux and GPL a "cancer". Believe it or not, that stuff had a massive impact. Not on small shops, but large company lawyers. Over the years, Steve left Microsoft and Microsoft has become a lot more Linux friendly. And the cancer fear has subsided. But it was very very real. On a side note, if I recall correctly, Steve Jobs wanted to use Linux for MacOS. But he had licensing concerns and called up Linus and asked him to change a few things. Linus gave him the middle finger and that is how we got MacOS with BSD.
- inopinatus 2y ago
  Be all that as it may, this is still a “why not Linux” line of thinking, rather than “why FreeBSD”, which is the more interesting question. And it is not a binary choice.
  - davidw 2y ago
    Because FreeBSD is a perfectly fine OS for server type stuff, and maybe it's better for this, that, or the other thing. So someone probably picked it and it has worked ok for them.
    - inopinatus 2y ago
      Just to be clear, you don't need to convince me - I've been preferring BSDs for my own infrastructure since the 90s. But I'm mindful that the discussion can quickly become polarised and winds up with negative framing or binary assumptions, which isn't helpful for others asking the same question.
      - davidw 2y ago
        I tried FreeBSD once, thought it was kind of fun and interesting and went back to Debian and then Ubuntu, which works well for me. I recall the good old flame wars, but feel kind of past that myself.

by davidw 2y ago

papageek 2y ago

FreeBSD or Linux management plane on routers/switches is mostly irrelevant. The majority of the data simply flows through the asics untouched.

inopinatus 2y ago

The permissive, freewheeling nature of the BSD license is touted by some as an advantage for infrastructure use but in practice, Linux-based devices and services aren't particularly encumbered by the GPL, so to me it's a wash.

davidw 2y ago
Could be lawyers at some companies just didn't want anything to do with the GPL, especially if they're fiddling with the kernel itself. Maybe they're not even correct about the details of it, just fearful. "Lawyers overly cautious" is not an uncommon thing to see.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Having seen the screams from some people when you use GPL legally I can't blame the lawyers. You might be correct but you will still get annoying people yelling you are not. there is also the cost to verifying you are correct (we put the wrong address in for where to send you request for sorce, fortunately a tester caught it before release, but still expensive as the lawyers forced the full recall process meaning we had to send a tech to upgrade the testers instead of saying where to download the fix)
throw0101d 2y ago
> […] Linux-based devices and services aren't particularly encumbered by the GPL, so to me it's a wash. Linux uses GPL 2.x. If we are talking about GPL 3.x things may be different: > One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means certain “appliances” (which have computers inside) contain GPL-covered software that you can't effectively change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. * https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html If you want to ship (embedded) GPL 2 Linux-based devices things are fine, but if there's software that is GPL 3 then that can cause issues. Linus on GPLv3: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

cheema33 2y ago

> Licensing? I think you've hit the nail on the head. I used to work for a very very large company. And they had a very strong preference for BSD licensed software, if we were building something using outside software. A few years ago, Stever Balmer and others spent a lot of time calling spreading FUD by calling Linux and GPL a "cancer". Believe it or not, that stuff had a massive impact. Not on small shops, but large company lawyers. Over the years, Steve left Microsoft and Microsoft has become a lot more Linux friendly. And the cancer fear has subsided. But it was very very real. On a side note, if I recall correctly, Steve Jobs wanted to use Linux for MacOS. But he had licensing concerns and called up Linus and asked him to change a few things. Linus gave him the middle finger and that is how we got MacOS with BSD.

inopinatus 2y ago
Be all that as it may, this is still a “why not Linux” line of thinking, rather than “why FreeBSD”, which is the more interesting question. And it is not a binary choice.
- davidw 2y ago
  Because FreeBSD is a perfectly fine OS for server type stuff, and maybe it's better for this, that, or the other thing. So someone probably picked it and it has worked ok for them.
  - inopinatus 2y ago
    Just to be clear, you don't need to convince me - I've been preferring BSDs for my own infrastructure since the 90s. But I'm mindful that the discussion can quickly become polarised and winds up with negative framing or binary assumptions, which isn't helpful for others asking the same question.
    - davidw 2y ago
      I tried FreeBSD once, thought it was kind of fun and interesting and went back to Debian and then Ubuntu, which works well for me. I recall the good old flame wars, but feel kind of past that myself.