5 ms·

I find it irritating to see cheap jabs at Linux/GNU/GPL in most BSD presentation I check out. It doesn't prevent me from using it, but it's just childish. Focus

I find it irritating to see cheap jabs at Linux/GNU/GPL in most BSD presentation I check out. It doesn't prevent me from using it, but it's just childish. Focus on your strength, not what you perceive as weakness elsewhere.

teddyh 12y ago
Yeah, when the Linux phenomenon was new, they used to make just as bad (or even worse) jokes at Windows’ expense. But they don’t anymore. Why is that? Maybe they gained enough acceptance that they don’t feel they have to, anymore. In that case, the fact that FreeBSD still does this is a symptom that FreeBSD does not view itself as having gained common acceptance. EDIT: Toned down possibly inflammatory language
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  Have you ever read some comment sections on Phoronix and /r/linux (or even LWN) when BSD is brought up? The lighthearted licensing jabs we see here are nothing compared to the vitriolic disinformation that is regularly seen when uninformed Linux users try to talk about other operating systems. This is an infamous example: http://lwn.net/Articles/430598/ http://lwn.net/Articles/430598/ [gets particularly heated at mezcalero's top level comment] Linux users make jokes at Windows' expense all the time. It's usually not higher profile developers doing it, but nor have they ever, really.
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    I think it's worth noting here that mezcalero is Lennart Poettering. His attitude is a seriously bad one if he's supposed to be one developing Free Desktop software.
    - ishigoemon 12y ago
      Why do you call his attitude seriously bad? I agree with him, portability leads to complexity and therefore isn't worth it when you are trying to move fast. You may disagree that OSS should move fast, of course, but why should you want to slow down others? Free software doesn't need to even support free operating systems, for that matter. I'm sure that there are Windows-only apps that are F/OSS, though I don't know of any off-hand. Of course the systemd developers don't need to support any other OS to write "Free Desktop" software, any more then the FreeBSD developers shouldn't feel compelled to port their filesystems, init-system, or anything else to Linux.
      - Sanddancer 12y ago
        Because he's a developer for more than Linux services, he's also a developer for software like PulseAudio, which is supposedly meant to be kernel-agnostic. That is why I said Free Desktop software, not Free software. If he wants to restrict his viewpoint to the Linux kernel, that's his problem, but if he does, then he needs to stop pretending that he cares about Free Desktop environments and state that he's a Linux Desktop developer.
        emmelaich 12y ago
        > PulseAudio, which is supposedly meant to be kernel-agnostic Was this agnosticism part of the design? And even if it was -- I suspect his experience has altered his view on it.
      - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
        It's not so much his opposition to portability that bothers me personally, which I personally disagree with and think that it should be strived for to a reasonable degree. Rather, it's his patently false and almost obnoxiously smug view of the BSDs as these slow-moving operating systems that simply follow Linux's trail, and his deeper implications of forking being negative and that Linux should play a game of catching up against OS X and Windows instead of doing its own thing. Then his reasoning against portability seems self-defeating. He says that "i need to reach customers using windows" is a good reason, in which case you can substitute "windows" with any OS and have a purportedly valid reason for portability. Not living in an arrogant monoculture that seriously believes you're leading the pack and everyone else is biting your dust sounds like another good reason.
      - teacup50 12y ago
        > You may disagree that OSS should move fast, of course, but why should you want to slow down others? This is a nonsense false dichotomy.
        not_with_retard 12y ago
        A herd is only as fast as their slowest member.
    - digi_owl 12y ago
      Funny how LWN.net seems to be the one place where he is willing to stick his neck into discussions he don't control.
      - emmelaich 12y ago
        Portability is clearly important to him in the sense that it's brought up as a reason for him not have this or that feature in his software. And he clearly has a point; at its worst it is a giant ball of YAGNI. Do you think that Thompson and Ritchie gave a !%^$@ about Multics compatibility? Or OS/360?
porker 12y ago
I saw a joke about the GPL and comment on systemd? GPL joke was unnecessary, though it does comment on why companies may prefer *BSD; the systemd bit - well threads passim here on HN say Linux users are tearing themselves apart enough without help. And I read it as that Linux is onto something good here and FreeBSD should follow.
- keithpeter 12y ago
  Slides 21 to around 30 seemed like an argument for something like systemd - a 'stack' in the middle between the kernel and the applications. I saw it as a back-handed compliment. One has to remember that the slides supported a talk and talks need a little humour sometimes.
  - progman 12y ago
    > argument for something _like_ systemd Correct. Unfortunately systemd is not a well separated 'stack' in the middle between kernel and applications but an interweaved network which tightly connects all three parts. I hope that the community has learned from the SystemV/systemd discussion and will go a new way which avoids the weaknesses of both systems towards a cleanly separated layer.
    - keithpeter 12y ago
      Perhaps I should have said 'something like' and qualified the differences. I'm sure the BSD community can learn and can improve on the idea. Perhaps their result could be ported back to Linux as an alternative.
    - _delirium 12y ago
      At this point there are at least three fairly major "post-sysV" integrated launch/supervision/config systems that I would guess the FreeBSD devs will take away some lessons from (especially because I know there are FreeBSD devs with experience using each of them): Linux's systemd, Solaris's SMF, and OSX's launchd.
  - teacup50 12y ago
byuu 12y ago
Linux and OS X do the same thing to Windows (xbill, Micro$oft, PC vs Mac commercials, etc.) It is kind of sad, but it's how underdogs always work. Selling yourself as an underdog means not only pointing out what you do well, but how you do things better than others, and that always ruffles feathers. Just saying what you do well will result in your competitors saying, "we do that well too", and won't win you any market share. You have to demonstrate that, "no, they really don't do that well." So it's a real balancing act between promoting yourself and not being a dick to your competitors. In my own personal case, I screwed that balance up royally, and it's a problem that has followed me around for the last decade. Similarly, look how hostile OpenBSD is toward FreeBSD about security designs (watch any Theo de Raadt presentation.) I almost never see any FreeBSD users taking pot shots at OpenBSD like that. Then look at the market share of both, and it makes more sense.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  I almost never see any FreeBSD users taking pot shots at OpenBSD like that. Then look at the market share of both, and it makes more sense. Then the more logical explanation is that FreeBSD is lagging behind exploit mitigations. Keep in mind that Theo actually praises Windows and says that they're second after OpenBSD. If this was about being envious over market share, then that wouldn't make much sense.
  - not_with_retard 12y ago
    It makes plenty of sense when you consider who OpenBSD's actual competition is. Hint: They aren't trying to target the desktop market.
- protomyth 12y ago
  > Similarly, look how hostile OpenBSD is toward FreeBSD about security designs (watch any Theo de Raadt presentation.) I almost never see any FreeBSD users taking pot shots at OpenBSD like that. Then look at the market share of both, and it makes more sense. Well, watch the interview with Shawn Webb on BSD Now #52 http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2014_08_27-reverse_takeover http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2014_08_27-reverse_takeover and think about his comments on OpenBSD. A lot of NIH in that interview. I don't think it is isolated to one side as you think.

teddyh 12y ago

Yeah, when the Linux phenomenon was new, they used to make just as bad (or even worse) jokes at Windows’ expense. But they don’t anymore. Why is that? Maybe they gained enough acceptance that they don’t feel they have to, anymore. In that case, the fact that FreeBSD still does this is a symptom that FreeBSD does not view itself as having gained common acceptance. EDIT: Toned down possibly inflammatory language

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
Have you ever read some comment sections on Phoronix and /r/linux (or even LWN) when BSD is brought up? The lighthearted licensing jabs we see here are nothing compared to the vitriolic disinformation that is regularly seen when uninformed Linux users try to talk about other operating systems. This is an infamous example: http://lwn.net/Articles/430598/ http://lwn.net/Articles/430598/ [gets particularly heated at mezcalero's top level comment] Linux users make jokes at Windows' expense all the time. It's usually not higher profile developers doing it, but nor have they ever, really.
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  I think it's worth noting here that mezcalero is Lennart Poettering. His attitude is a seriously bad one if he's supposed to be one developing Free Desktop software.
  - ishigoemon 12y ago
    Why do you call his attitude seriously bad? I agree with him, portability leads to complexity and therefore isn't worth it when you are trying to move fast. You may disagree that OSS should move fast, of course, but why should you want to slow down others? Free software doesn't need to even support free operating systems, for that matter. I'm sure that there are Windows-only apps that are F/OSS, though I don't know of any off-hand. Of course the systemd developers don't need to support any other OS to write "Free Desktop" software, any more then the FreeBSD developers shouldn't feel compelled to port their filesystems, init-system, or anything else to Linux.
    - Sanddancer 12y ago
      Because he's a developer for more than Linux services, he's also a developer for software like PulseAudio, which is supposedly meant to be kernel-agnostic. That is why I said Free Desktop software, not Free software. If he wants to restrict his viewpoint to the Linux kernel, that's his problem, but if he does, then he needs to stop pretending that he cares about Free Desktop environments and state that he's a Linux Desktop developer.
      - emmelaich 12y ago
        > PulseAudio, which is supposedly meant to be kernel-agnostic Was this agnosticism part of the design? And even if it was -- I suspect his experience has altered his view on it.
    - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
      It's not so much his opposition to portability that bothers me personally, which I personally disagree with and think that it should be strived for to a reasonable degree. Rather, it's his patently false and almost obnoxiously smug view of the BSDs as these slow-moving operating systems that simply follow Linux's trail, and his deeper implications of forking being negative and that Linux should play a game of catching up against OS X and Windows instead of doing its own thing. Then his reasoning against portability seems self-defeating. He says that "i need to reach customers using windows" is a good reason, in which case you can substitute "windows" with any OS and have a purportedly valid reason for portability. Not living in an arrogant monoculture that seriously believes you're leading the pack and everyone else is biting your dust sounds like another good reason.
    - teacup50 12y ago
      > You may disagree that OSS should move fast, of course, but why should you want to slow down others? This is a nonsense false dichotomy.
      - not_with_retard 12y ago
        A herd is only as fast as their slowest member.
  - digi_owl 12y ago
    Funny how LWN.net seems to be the one place where he is willing to stick his neck into discussions he don't control.
    - emmelaich 12y ago
      Portability is clearly important to him in the sense that it's brought up as a reason for him not have this or that feature in his software. And he clearly has a point; at its worst it is a giant ball of YAGNI. Do you think that Thompson and Ritchie gave a !%^$@ about Multics compatibility? Or OS/360?

porker 12y ago

I saw a joke about the GPL and comment on systemd? GPL joke was unnecessary, though it does comment on why companies may prefer *BSD; the systemd bit - well threads passim here on HN say Linux users are tearing themselves apart enough without help. And I read it as that Linux is onto something good here and FreeBSD should follow.

keithpeter 12y ago
Slides 21 to around 30 seemed like an argument for something like systemd - a 'stack' in the middle between the kernel and the applications. I saw it as a back-handed compliment. One has to remember that the slides supported a talk and talks need a little humour sometimes.
- progman 12y ago
  > argument for something _like_ systemd Correct. Unfortunately systemd is not a well separated 'stack' in the middle between kernel and applications but an interweaved network which tightly connects all three parts. I hope that the community has learned from the SystemV/systemd discussion and will go a new way which avoids the weaknesses of both systems towards a cleanly separated layer.
  - keithpeter 12y ago
    Perhaps I should have said 'something like' and qualified the differences. I'm sure the BSD community can learn and can improve on the idea. Perhaps their result could be ported back to Linux as an alternative.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    At this point there are at least three fairly major "post-sysV" integrated launch/supervision/config systems that I would guess the FreeBSD devs will take away some lessons from (especially because I know there are FreeBSD devs with experience using each of them): Linux's systemd, Solaris's SMF, and OSX's launchd.
- teacup50 12y ago

byuu 12y ago

Linux and OS X do the same thing to Windows (xbill, Micro$oft, PC vs Mac commercials, etc.) It is kind of sad, but it's how underdogs always work. Selling yourself as an underdog means not only pointing out what you do well, but how you do things better than others, and that always ruffles feathers. Just saying what you do well will result in your competitors saying, "we do that well too", and won't win you any market share. You have to demonstrate that, "no, they really don't do that well." So it's a real balancing act between promoting yourself and not being a dick to your competitors. In my own personal case, I screwed that balance up royally, and it's a problem that has followed me around for the last decade. Similarly, look how hostile OpenBSD is toward FreeBSD about security designs (watch any Theo de Raadt presentation.) I almost never see any FreeBSD users taking pot shots at OpenBSD like that. Then look at the market share of both, and it makes more sense.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
I almost never see any FreeBSD users taking pot shots at OpenBSD like that. Then look at the market share of both, and it makes more sense. Then the more logical explanation is that FreeBSD is lagging behind exploit mitigations. Keep in mind that Theo actually praises Windows and says that they're second after OpenBSD. If this was about being envious over market share, then that wouldn't make much sense.
- not_with_retard 12y ago
  It makes plenty of sense when you consider who OpenBSD's actual competition is. Hint: They aren't trying to target the desktop market.
protomyth 12y ago
> Similarly, look how hostile OpenBSD is toward FreeBSD about security designs (watch any Theo de Raadt presentation.) I almost never see any FreeBSD users taking pot shots at OpenBSD like that. Then look at the market share of both, and it makes more sense. Well, watch the interview with Shawn Webb on BSD Now #52 http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2014_08_27-reverse_takeover http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2014_08_27-reverse_takeover and think about his comments on OpenBSD. A lot of NIH in that interview. I don't think it is isolated to one side as you think.