14 ms·

From the announcement: >>"This marks the largest single donation to the Foundation since its inception almost 15 years ago" First, I'm extremely excited to se

From the announcement: >>"This marks the largest single donation to the Foundation since its inception almost 15 years ago" First, I'm extremely excited to see this announcement. FreeBSD is fantastic and extremely underrated. Secondly though, isn't it sad to hear that in FreeBSD existence - this is the largest donation ever ... given that Yahoo use to run it's entire company on it, OS X is based on it, Juniper is based on it, Netflix deploys on it, NetApp, EMC, etc. Edit: typo

jmsdnns 12y ago
Apple somewhat gutted the FreeBSD team to build Darwin, too.
- tiffanyh 12y ago
  Great point. Here's a link to one of many articles that addresses your statement, for those uninformed [1]. Just imagine how many Apples products exist today that go back to FreeBSD roots (Mac, iPad, iPod, iPhone's, etc). [1] http://www.macworld.com/article/1018184/apple.html http://www.macworld.com/article/1018184/apple.html
swills 12y ago
If you read the commit messages you will often see a "Sponsored by:" line, and it's not uncommon to see those companies referenced, so they are supporting FreeBSD, just in the form of developer time. And I believe they also donate to the foundation as well.
- tiffanyh 12y ago
  I'll bite. Core FreeBSD has 272,082 commits [1] Of those, only 9,244 commits [2] have the word "Sponsored" in their commit message; however, 3,486 were sponsored by "The FreeBSD Foundation" [3]. So only a net total of 5,758 commits were company sponsored. Said another way, that means just 2.1% of all commits ever made to FreeBSD, in it's 21 year existence, were companies sponsoring and submitting patches. So no, I think it's safe to say that FreeBSD is primarily run and operated by lone individuals who do it because they personally love FreeBSD. Edit: typo, fixed stats. [1] https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q= https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q= [2] https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=Sponsored https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=Sponsored [3] https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=%22The+FreeBSD+Foundation%22 https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=%22The+FreeBSD+Foundati...
  - justincormack 12y ago
    I don't think thats entirely fair, I don't think anyone obliges you to add "Sponsored" and I would expect the figure is higher than that.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > That means just 3.4% of all commits ever made to FreeBSD, in it's 21 year existence, were companies sponsoring and submitting patches. I understand your point, but all commits are not created equal. Some commits could be immensely 'more important' than others.
  - cperciva 12y ago
    Until a few years ago the "Sponsored" keyword was never used. And as justincormack mentioned, lots of commits are simply not marked as such.
    - tiffanyh 12y ago
      Hi Colin, it that really the case though? Looking at the commit log history [1] - there's plenty of commits with the word "sponsor" in it, as far back as 1996. (Off topic, I have crazy respect for you btw) [1] https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=Sponsored&page=217 https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=Sponsored&page=217
      - cperciva 12y ago
        OK, maybe "never" is a bit of a stretch. "Very rarely, even by people whom I knew were getting paid by their employers to spend 100% of their time working on FreeBSD"?
      - feld 12y ago
        "Sponsored by: " was added to the FreeBSD svn template rather recently. If it wasn't in the template, people usually forgot to fill it in. https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=314983 https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=3149...
  - 12y ago
pjmlp 12y ago
The sad reality is the most corporations are pure leechers, they never give anything back, for those companies open source is just a means of not paying for software.
- threeseed 12y ago
  Most corporations are simply unable to contribute back. But within the IT industry I would disagree that most corporations simply leach. Netflix, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Apple for example have been outstanding contributors to "open source".
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    I work with Fortune 500 companies since the .com days and I can count with my hands, how many times I saw anything being returned back. Yes, there are Netflix, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Apple and a few others. And how many corporations are there in the world?
    - _delirium 12y ago
      I also have rarely seen much contributed back in my limited experience, especially outside of the "tech industry" proper. I've noticed the lack especially in "big engineering" (oil & gas, CAD, aeronautics, etc.), and recently also in "data toolkit" type markets like proprietary bioinformatics toolkits, data-mining toolkits, GIS packages, etc. I don't work there myself fwiw, but for various reasons have spent some time observing development practices. BSD-licensed code is included in tons of profitable proprietary products in those areas that have never contributed back a line to the original project. Much of the time they drag their feet on even giving any acknowledgment to the project they took the code from. Really they would prefer to pretend they invented it all themselves, 100% Custom Proprietary Solution, with no acknowledgement whatsoever. They do typically grudgingly make the legally required copyright acknowledgment, but in the "New BSD" variant of the BSD license that removed the traditional requirement for acknowledgment to be prominent, that's pretty easy to bury in fine print in the most obscure place you can concoct (a random .txt file on the install medium, or somewhere in the fine print at the end of a manual, are two popular options). A plausible counterargument is that these types of companies wouldn't contribute back anyway: they just aren't interested. In that case the practical choice is between letting them free-ride off your code (BSD) or not letting them use it at all (GPL), because they aren't going to make a choice that involves contributing back, regardless of your license. In that case I can see people leaning towards BSD. But I'd personally lean towards GPL, because I think that, at least often, shutting these companies out of the ability to use open-source code would probably be a net win for society. But it's hard to prove that. And this probably depends significantly on your goals and the kind of software you write.
tw04 12y ago
I don't know, NetApp has been a sponsor for as long as I can remember. If I were running the foundation, I'd probably be happy knowing every year I was getting over $100k from NetApp instead of a one-time thing. It's tough to budget off of one-off donations. Not that they'd complain, but you make it sound like none of those companies help at all. for reference: https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors
- kev009 12y ago
  Justin Gibbs of The FreeBSD Foundation has said exactly this, regular yearly donations are very important. The one time donations are great for building a war chest, but it is hard to forecast a cash flow without regular contribution. Paying back into open source is part of Cost Of Good Sold, and companies that seem to have longevity are realizing this.
adamnemecek 12y ago
Indeed. The PS4 OS is also FreeBSD based.
- rys 12y ago
  I believe they're NetBSD-based.
  - adamnemecek 12y ago
    Nope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software#Technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software#T...
    - jaxx456 12y ago
      Wow, that's really cool! Thanks for sharing the link!
  - justincormack 12y ago
    The Apple Airports were at one point NetBSD based, not sure if they still are.
jlgaddis 12y ago
Netapp, Google, Juniper, Netflix, VMware, EMC, Tarsnap, and many others are listed (usually ever year) on the Foundation's donors list [0]. Others (e.g. HP) choose to donate hardware to the Project and most of its infrastructure is hosted (gratis, IIRC) by Yahoo!, ISC, NYI, and Sentex. Side note: Tarsnap is listed at the same level as Juniper (2013) and VMware (2014); I have mixed feelings about that. [0]: https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors
- cperciva 12y ago
  Side note: Tarsnap is listed at the same level as Juniper (2013) and VMware (2014); I have mixed feelings about that. If you look at the donors listed in each category for 2008-2014 (why those years? Because that's what I scraped the website for) then Tarsnap comes after Anonymous (one or more people giving $250k+, $250k+, and $50k+), NetApp ($450k+), Cryptography Research ($250k+), Hudson River Trading ($250k+), Google ($180k+), LineRate ($150k+), NetFlix ($75k+), iXsystems ($70k+), Swisscom ($40k+), McAfee ($35k+), and John Baldwin ($30k+). And of course WhatsApp, who aren't on the donors list yet for some reason. Part of the reason that Tarsnap always looks like one of the largest donors is that Tarsnap's donation always arrives a few weeks into the new year, while other companies are faster and get their money in at the end of the previous year. Not to say that Tarsnap doesn't contribute, of course; just that other companies contribute far more over the long run.
  - egwor 12y ago
    Tarsnap is written by the Colin Percival who works as the FreedBSD security officer. We can sometimes give more than money. (Colin is insanely bright too, so he is a true asset)
    - cperciva 12y ago
      Colin Percival hasn't been the FreeBSD Security Officer for two years. He stepped down from the role because Tarsnap was taking too much of his time: http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2012-05-21-new-freebsd-security-officer.html http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2012-05-21-new-freebsd-secur...
threeseed 12y ago
OSX is not based on it in the typical use of the word. Darwin is a hybrid that incorporates a lot from *BSD courtesy of its NeXtStep lineage. It doesn't use the FreeBSD kernel and it has a lot of Apple specific enhancements. It's more like a sibling of FreeBSD.
- 0x0 12y ago
  I think there's more to the relationship than you give credit for. Even FreeBSD's web pages list OSX as a descendant https://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies.html https://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies.html and several man pages in osx list freebsd as origin for various facilities.
  - jlgaddis 12y ago
    And from apple.com: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/BSD/BSD.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin...
  - threeseed 12y ago
    From what you posted: "Apple's Mac OS X is based in part on FreeBSD and includes a rich UNIX® foundation in addition to the proprietary Apple user interface" And I am in no way dismissing the relationship. I am just pointing out that Darwin was based on NeXtStep but incorporates a LOT of *BSD technologies. I used OSX Beta 1 and it was pretty far from a FreeBSD based OS. Lineage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#mediaviewer/File:Unix_timeline.en.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#media...
    - 0x0 12y ago
      Agreed for sure! But it does look like additional FreeBSD stuff was added as nextstep turned into darwin/osx. I found a couple of other articles, I didn't know Linus turned down the job offer from Steve Jobs before they hired that famous FreeBSD developer. It's funny to think how things might have turned out in an alternate reality :) http://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/ http://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/ It's also fascinating to try old versions of nextstep and rhapsody in virtual machines, you can really tell how osx traces straight back. Even the installer is so similar still, comparing nextstep 3 and yosemite (if you bring up the console window during its progress)
razzmataz 12y ago
Don't forget the PlayStation 3 and 4.
hrktb 12y ago
Yahoo was the poster child of FreeBSD usage, but a few years ago they moved their servers to linux. There was public bits of info here and there at the time, but there's not much left online it seems. A discussion of a computerworld article about it: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-February/078297.html http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-Fe...
hrjet 12y ago
It's a bit of a catch 22 situation though: if mega-corps did contribute large amounts to the project, there would be suspicions raised that they are "influencing" the project. There is often an expression of disappointment when people learn that Google is a significant donor for Mozilla.
- cperciva 12y ago
  If you run a mega-corp and are interested in donating to FreeBSD, please go right ahead. We can figure out how to deal with suspicions about influence later. ;-)
shawn-butler 12y ago
Surprised Samsung, Intel is not on the list. Disappointed more than surprised.
resca79 12y ago
>>OSX is based on it I'm not sure about that. Have you any source?
- Argorak 12y ago
  The OS X userland and some other parts are derived from FreeBSD. One of the project initiators (Jordan Hubbard[1]) went to Apple and ported it for the initial version of OS X. He now left. https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths#FreeBSD_is_Just_OS_X_Without_the_Good_Bits https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths#FreeBSD_is_Just_OS_X_Without_... > The two operating systems do share a lot of code, for example most userland utilities and the C library on OS X are derived from FreeBSD versions. https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/BSD/BSD.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin... > The BSD portion of the OS X kernel is derived primarily from FreeBSD, a version of 4.4BSD that offers advanced networking, performance, security, and compatibility features. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Hubbard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Hubbard
101914 12y ago
You forgot PG's old company, Viaweb. Personally, I do not believe that money magically makes software better. Some of the best code I have ever seen was written by "academics" who received little to nothing for writing it.

jmsdnns 12y ago

Apple somewhat gutted the FreeBSD team to build Darwin, too.

tiffanyh 12y ago
Great point. Here's a link to one of many articles that addresses your statement, for those uninformed [1]. Just imagine how many Apples products exist today that go back to FreeBSD roots (Mac, iPad, iPod, iPhone's, etc). [1] http://www.macworld.com/article/1018184/apple.html http://www.macworld.com/article/1018184/apple.html

swills 12y ago

If you read the commit messages you will often see a "Sponsored by:" line, and it's not uncommon to see those companies referenced, so they are supporting FreeBSD, just in the form of developer time. And I believe they also donate to the foundation as well.

tiffanyh 12y ago
I'll bite. Core FreeBSD has 272,082 commits [1] Of those, only 9,244 commits [2] have the word "Sponsored" in their commit message; however, 3,486 were sponsored by "The FreeBSD Foundation" [3]. So only a net total of 5,758 commits were company sponsored. Said another way, that means just 2.1% of all commits ever made to FreeBSD, in it's 21 year existence, were companies sponsoring and submitting patches. So no, I think it's safe to say that FreeBSD is primarily run and operated by lone individuals who do it because they personally love FreeBSD. Edit: typo, fixed stats. [1] https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q= https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q= [2] https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=Sponsored https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=Sponsored [3] https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=%22The+FreeBSD+Foundation%22 https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=%22The+FreeBSD+Foundati...
- justincormack 12y ago
  I don't think thats entirely fair, I don't think anyone obliges you to add "Sponsored" and I would expect the figure is higher than that.
- pyre 12y ago
  > That means just 3.4% of all commits ever made to FreeBSD, in it's 21 year existence, were companies sponsoring and submitting patches. I understand your point, but all commits are not created equal. Some commits could be immensely 'more important' than others.
- cperciva 12y ago
  Until a few years ago the "Sponsored" keyword was never used. And as justincormack mentioned, lots of commits are simply not marked as such.
  - tiffanyh 12y ago
    Hi Colin, it that really the case though? Looking at the commit log history [1] - there's plenty of commits with the word "sponsor" in it, as far back as 1996. (Off topic, I have crazy respect for you btw) [1] https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=Sponsored&page=217 https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?q=Sponsored&page=217
    - cperciva 12y ago
      OK, maybe "never" is a bit of a stretch. "Very rarely, even by people whom I knew were getting paid by their employers to spend 100% of their time working on FreeBSD"?
    - feld 12y ago
      "Sponsored by: " was added to the FreeBSD svn template rather recently. If it wasn't in the template, people usually forgot to fill it in. https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=314983 https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=3149...
- 12y ago

pjmlp 12y ago

The sad reality is the most corporations are pure leechers, they never give anything back, for those companies open source is just a means of not paying for software.

threeseed 12y ago
Most corporations are simply unable to contribute back. But within the IT industry I would disagree that most corporations simply leach. Netflix, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Apple for example have been outstanding contributors to "open source".
- pjmlp 12y ago
  I work with Fortune 500 companies since the .com days and I can count with my hands, how many times I saw anything being returned back. Yes, there are Netflix, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Apple and a few others. And how many corporations are there in the world?
  - _delirium 12y ago
    I also have rarely seen much contributed back in my limited experience, especially outside of the "tech industry" proper. I've noticed the lack especially in "big engineering" (oil & gas, CAD, aeronautics, etc.), and recently also in "data toolkit" type markets like proprietary bioinformatics toolkits, data-mining toolkits, GIS packages, etc. I don't work there myself fwiw, but for various reasons have spent some time observing development practices. BSD-licensed code is included in tons of profitable proprietary products in those areas that have never contributed back a line to the original project. Much of the time they drag their feet on even giving any acknowledgment to the project they took the code from. Really they would prefer to pretend they invented it all themselves, 100% Custom Proprietary Solution, with no acknowledgement whatsoever. They do typically grudgingly make the legally required copyright acknowledgment, but in the "New BSD" variant of the BSD license that removed the traditional requirement for acknowledgment to be prominent, that's pretty easy to bury in fine print in the most obscure place you can concoct (a random .txt file on the install medium, or somewhere in the fine print at the end of a manual, are two popular options). A plausible counterargument is that these types of companies wouldn't contribute back anyway: they just aren't interested. In that case the practical choice is between letting them free-ride off your code (BSD) or not letting them use it at all (GPL), because they aren't going to make a choice that involves contributing back, regardless of your license. In that case I can see people leaning towards BSD. But I'd personally lean towards GPL, because I think that, at least often, shutting these companies out of the ability to use open-source code would probably be a net win for society. But it's hard to prove that. And this probably depends significantly on your goals and the kind of software you write.

tw04 12y ago

I don't know, NetApp has been a sponsor for as long as I can remember. If I were running the foundation, I'd probably be happy knowing every year I was getting over $100k from NetApp instead of a one-time thing. It's tough to budget off of one-off donations. Not that they'd complain, but you make it sound like none of those companies help at all. for reference: https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors

kev009 12y ago
Justin Gibbs of The FreeBSD Foundation has said exactly this, regular yearly donations are very important. The one time donations are great for building a war chest, but it is hard to forecast a cash flow without regular contribution. Paying back into open source is part of Cost Of Good Sold, and companies that seem to have longevity are realizing this.

adamnemecek 12y ago

Indeed. The PS4 OS is also FreeBSD based.

rys 12y ago
I believe they're NetBSD-based.
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  Nope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software#Technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software#T...
  - jaxx456 12y ago
    Wow, that's really cool! Thanks for sharing the link!
- justincormack 12y ago
  The Apple Airports were at one point NetBSD based, not sure if they still are.

jlgaddis 12y ago

Netapp, Google, Juniper, Netflix, VMware, EMC, Tarsnap, and many others are listed (usually ever year) on the Foundation's donors list [0]. Others (e.g. HP) choose to donate hardware to the Project and most of its infrastructure is hosted (gratis, IIRC) by Yahoo!, ISC, NYI, and Sentex. Side note: Tarsnap is listed at the same level as Juniper (2013) and VMware (2014); I have mixed feelings about that. [0]: https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors

cperciva 12y ago
Side note: Tarsnap is listed at the same level as Juniper (2013) and VMware (2014); I have mixed feelings about that. If you look at the donors listed in each category for 2008-2014 (why those years? Because that's what I scraped the website for) then Tarsnap comes after Anonymous (one or more people giving $250k+, $250k+, and $50k+), NetApp ($450k+), Cryptography Research ($250k+), Hudson River Trading ($250k+), Google ($180k+), LineRate ($150k+), NetFlix ($75k+), iXsystems ($70k+), Swisscom ($40k+), McAfee ($35k+), and John Baldwin ($30k+). And of course WhatsApp, who aren't on the donors list yet for some reason. Part of the reason that Tarsnap always looks like one of the largest donors is that Tarsnap's donation always arrives a few weeks into the new year, while other companies are faster and get their money in at the end of the previous year. Not to say that Tarsnap doesn't contribute, of course; just that other companies contribute far more over the long run.
- egwor 12y ago
  Tarsnap is written by the Colin Percival who works as the FreedBSD security officer. We can sometimes give more than money. (Colin is insanely bright too, so he is a true asset)
  - cperciva 12y ago
    Colin Percival hasn't been the FreeBSD Security Officer for two years. He stepped down from the role because Tarsnap was taking too much of his time: http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2012-05-21-new-freebsd-security-officer.html http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2012-05-21-new-freebsd-secur...

threeseed 12y ago

OSX is not based on it in the typical use of the word. Darwin is a hybrid that incorporates a lot from *BSD courtesy of its NeXtStep lineage. It doesn't use the FreeBSD kernel and it has a lot of Apple specific enhancements. It's more like a sibling of FreeBSD.

0x0 12y ago
I think there's more to the relationship than you give credit for. Even FreeBSD's web pages list OSX as a descendant https://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies.html https://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies.html and several man pages in osx list freebsd as origin for various facilities.
- jlgaddis 12y ago
  And from apple.com: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/BSD/BSD.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin...
- threeseed 12y ago
  From what you posted: "Apple's Mac OS X is based in part on FreeBSD and includes a rich UNIX® foundation in addition to the proprietary Apple user interface" And I am in no way dismissing the relationship. I am just pointing out that Darwin was based on NeXtStep but incorporates a LOT of *BSD technologies. I used OSX Beta 1 and it was pretty far from a FreeBSD based OS. Lineage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#mediaviewer/File:Unix_timeline.en.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#media...
  - 0x0 12y ago
    Agreed for sure! But it does look like additional FreeBSD stuff was added as nextstep turned into darwin/osx. I found a couple of other articles, I didn't know Linus turned down the job offer from Steve Jobs before they hired that famous FreeBSD developer. It's funny to think how things might have turned out in an alternate reality :) http://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/ http://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/ It's also fascinating to try old versions of nextstep and rhapsody in virtual machines, you can really tell how osx traces straight back. Even the installer is so similar still, comparing nextstep 3 and yosemite (if you bring up the console window during its progress)

razzmataz 12y ago

Don't forget the PlayStation 3 and 4.

hrktb 12y ago

Yahoo was the poster child of FreeBSD usage, but a few years ago they moved their servers to linux. There was public bits of info here and there at the time, but there's not much left online it seems. A discussion of a computerworld article about it: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-February/078297.html http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-Fe...

hrjet 12y ago

It's a bit of a catch 22 situation though: if mega-corps did contribute large amounts to the project, there would be suspicions raised that they are "influencing" the project. There is often an expression of disappointment when people learn that Google is a significant donor for Mozilla.

cperciva 12y ago
If you run a mega-corp and are interested in donating to FreeBSD, please go right ahead. We can figure out how to deal with suspicions about influence later. ;-)

shawn-butler 12y ago

Surprised Samsung, Intel is not on the list. Disappointed more than surprised.

resca79 12y ago

>>OSX is based on it I'm not sure about that. Have you any source?

Argorak 12y ago
The OS X userland and some other parts are derived from FreeBSD. One of the project initiators (Jordan Hubbard[1]) went to Apple and ported it for the initial version of OS X. He now left. https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths#FreeBSD_is_Just_OS_X_Without_the_Good_Bits https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths#FreeBSD_is_Just_OS_X_Without_... > The two operating systems do share a lot of code, for example most userland utilities and the C library on OS X are derived from FreeBSD versions. https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/BSD/BSD.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin... > The BSD portion of the OS X kernel is derived primarily from FreeBSD, a version of 4.4BSD that offers advanced networking, performance, security, and compatibility features. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Hubbard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Hubbard

101914 12y ago

You forgot PG's old company, Viaweb. Personally, I do not believe that money magically makes software better. Some of the best code I have ever seen was written by "academics" who received little to nothing for writing it.