Why has BSD failed, compared to Linux?
Why has BSD failed, compared to Linux?
William Butler
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
google.com
youtube.com
google.com
google.com
freebsd.org
opensource.apple.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
google.com
google.com
google.com
wiki.freebsd.org
twitter.com
Jaxson Evans
because it was too free
Asher Evans
Answer your own question by asking yourself which of BSD's goals were not accomplished?
Justin Sanchez
It was too good for this world
Anthony James
It hasn't really failed as much as suffered from an overly fragmented community.
user here has a point, because there are plenty of examples of BSDs being used and adopted (for example, the PS3 ran an OpenBSD variant, and PS4 runs a modified FreeBSD) and without copyleft requirements people are free to exploit this work without contributing back.
On the flipside, however, there are plenty of userland BSD projects that are quite successful compared to efforts by GNU for the same things. So GNU/Linux may be a more successful OS, but the BSD community in general has contributed more to the advancement of UNIX since Solaris and HPUX died out in the 90s.
Jonathan Rivera
>Why has BSD failed, compared to Linux?
It hasn't? For desktop/laptop computers it has almost 10x the install base of Linux, see macOS.
Hudson Hall
macOS isn't a BSD. While it has a lot of the FreeBSD userland, XNU and most of Darwin-core is evolved from NeXTSTEP.
Wyatt Scott
Why has Linux failed, compared to Mac and Windows?
Owen Myers
Linux is widely used on embedded devices, servers, network infrastructure, etc. I wouldn't exactly call that "failed".
Cameron Rodriguez
lol no, the main thing it borrowed from NeXT was obj-c and its frameworks
Because the OSS community is horrible at delivering a working product or good documentation. I spent all of yesterday trying to setup a Firefox Sync server, even with one of their developers trying to help me in the irc channel (vlaidkof in #fxa in irc.mozilla.org) we couldn't get one stood up.
Josiah Stewart
>lol no, the main thing it borrowed from NeXT was obj-c and its frameworks
The whole Mach microkernel design of XNU is directly inherited from NeXT.
Hudson Gray
Sup Forums runs on FreeBSD.
Facebook wanted to port the FreeBSD network stack to Linux because the Linux stack was so shit.
Nicholas Hughes
BSD 4.4 was encumbered with legal trouble, meanwhile Linux began being used with GNU. When BSD stopped being in trouble it was already too late.
>user here has a point, because there are plenty of examples of BSDs being used and adopted (for example, the PS3 ran an OpenBSD variant, and PS4 runs a modified FreeBSD) and without copyleft requirements people are free to exploit this work without contributing back.
They both ran a FreeBSD variant.
Noah Young
>The whole Mach microkernel design of XNU is directly inherited from NeXT.
again no.
en.wikipedia.org
First off it was developed by CMU, not NeXT. Secondly BSD 4.4 kernel now shares some of its code base. And lastly the XNU kernel is not a micro kernel:
Nicholas Brooks
>BSD 4.4 shares code with XNU
I hope you are trolling, Latest BSD 4.4 release was in 1995 and up until OS X, XNU didn't even run on x86, only PowerPC.
Dominic Rodriguez
Also, Mach refers to the design (XNU is a Mach kernel), not the actual Mach kernel implementation.
Leo James
Too bad for Linus, he wanted to make a desktop OS.
Jason Nguyen
Linux runs on far more computers than OS X or Windows.
Kayden Phillips
-virtually no software or drivers, done under the excuse that this makes it more secure
-spent 30% of its life and during the most crucial time of the 90s doing lawsuits with AT&T over nomenclature
-shitty one way license for corporations to steal
-users are turbo autistic hyperspergs with so little to do that the total lack of software works out for them
-new feature requests are disregarded for the most asinine reasons like "well I don't need that so nobody else does" or "the internet was a mistake so we don't need web browsers"
-works on only the hardware the devs happen to own and haven't changed for two decades. they're basically like hardware creationists and leave you with shit like "oh you just need to go buy a 20 year old laptop that's all"
Colton Davis
>Mach refers to the design
yes a microkernel
>XNU is a Mach kernel
again XNU isnt a micro kernel
here let me hold your hand since you're clearly incapable of reading a wiki article
>The Mach virtual memory management system was also adopted in 4.4BSD by the BSD developers at CSRG,[2] and appears in modern BSD-derived Unix systems, such as FreeBSD.
>FreeBSD
Brandon Miller
>again XNU isnt a micro kernel
It's a socalled hybrid kernel, according to Wikipedia, but it's a fucking microkernel if you compare it to monolithic designs like kFreeBSD and Linux. Stop horsing around with your pedantic definitions.
>here let me hold your hand since you're clearly incapable of reading a wiki article
First of all, you claimed that BSD4.4 and XNU shared code.
Secondly, you really think that code from 1995 is still existing in a modern kernel that was practically rewritten from scratch when they ported it from fucking PowerPC to x86?
And as for the latter, if you are talking about FreeBSD, the same fucking applies. kFreeBSD (and any of the other BSD variants for that matter) is actively developed, if there is ANYTHING left of the original BSD code in it, it's just trivial small routines and functions. Modern x86 architectures bare little, if any, resemblance to 286 (or PDP-11), which BSD4.4 was designed for.
Thirdly, virtual memory management system just fucking means that they implemented support for x86 memory paging, which there isn't a lot of different ways of doing anyway.
Jose Anderson
>First of all, you claimed that BSD4.4 and XNU shared code.
No, I said BSD4.4 and Mach shared code. And they do.
>Secondly, you really think that code from 1995 is still existing in a modern kernel
yes, because it does:
google.com
>it's just trivial small routines and functions.
the VM subsystem isnt trivial
Gabriel Smith
Linus wanted to make a kernel you fucking dip
thats exactly what he did
Logan Brown
>BSD
>failed
>macOS
>the greatest commercial OS of all time is BSD
>failed
Jayden Gutierrez
> No, I said BSD4.4 and Mach shared code.
I interpreted what you said as BSD4.4 and XNU sharing code, but okay, whatever.
>google.com
1) These are almost exclusively header files with struct and function definitions
2) Check the revision history, none of these have been unmodified since 1995.
3) Many of these files have comments regarding PowerPC, which strengthens my point
>the VM subsystem isnt trivial
I did not say trivial, I said that there isn't a lot of different ways to do it.
As an example, the Linux implementation that is specific to x86 is less than 500 lines of code. Even in the generic portion of memory management, the largest part of the code is actually mmap (around 50% of everything related to memory management), because it's a bunch of error and sanity checking and lock-free/wait-free performance optimisations.
Kevin Roberts
>Linus wanted to make a kernel you fucking dip
Ignorance and arrogance are best friends forever.
"I started Linux as a desktop operating system. And it's the only area where Linux hasn't completely taken over. That just annoys the hell out of me."
-- Linus Torvalds, (2012-06-14). Audience Q&A following interview panel at Aalto University Center
youtube.com
Adrian Murphy
>I interpreted what you said as BSD4.4 and XNU sharing code, but okay, whatever.
they do too
google.com
>1) These are almost exclusively header files with struct and function definitions
no, l2google
google.com
>2) Check the revision history, none of these have been unmodified since 1995.
omg you mean code has been added in the past 20 years!?! how irrelevant
>3) Many of these files have comments regarding PowerPC, which strengthens my point
It contradicts your point because you said "rewritten from scratch"
>As an example, the Linux implementation that is specific to x86
XNU runs on far more than x86 - see PowerPC and ARM, and FreeBSD runs on even more
Julian Wilson
What I did call trivial and small routines and functions, referred to the code that is still remaining from 1995.
For example this, which is taking and releasing a spin lock: opensource.apple.com
Charles Smith
Linux is unix-like, one of the most successful enterprise systems available. Does it piggyback off of the credit of BSD and other unix? Hell fucking no. Why should Apple have to piggyback its success from BSD when 90% of its components are built in-house?
BSD is literally just the ideas mill while other developers are actually making something of it. I wouldn't even count OpenSSL and OpenSSH since they don't really fall under "build by BSD."
Like your shitty unix philosophy. Do one thing and do it well. Mac OS did one thing very well and that was cater to the consumer demographic with its own in-house, non-autistic operating system. Linux did one thing very well and made a unix-like system very scalable.
BSD did one thing and did it well, created stable ground for Unix.
Thomas Reyes
>google.com
That's a bunch of POSIX signal definitions.... Are you seriously implying that they are sharing code because POSIX signals hasn't changed for 40 years?
>omg you mean code has been added in the past 20 years!?! how irrelevant
You're the one claiming that they are sharing code. Code that has been modified over the course of 20 years is not the same code at all.
>It contradicts your point because you said "rewritten from scratch"
I exaggerated, but no more than you did when you claim that BSD4.4 and XNU are sharing code. I did actually write "practically rewritten from scratch", which is not at all the same as "literally rewritten from scratch".
>XNU runs on far more than x86 - see PowerPC and ARM, and FreeBSD runs on even more
It does run on ARM (because of iOS), but any PowerPC development is defunct and has been for almost 10 years now.
>It contradicts your point because you said "rewritten from scratch"
See My point was from teh begining that the stuff that is actually reused is minimal.
Nolan Myers
...
Luke Watson
>it's a fucking microkernel if you compare it to monolithic designs
ayy the mental gymnastics.
Logan Powell
>they share code
>except when it proves me wrong
>its not the same code if new functionality has been added
>just as corvette isnt a corvette if you strap a new exhaust system on the motor
Charles Ramirez
>Linux is unix-like
>GNU is not unix
>Gahnoo slash Linocks operating systems
what the fuck was everyone thinking???
Josiah Russell
I'm a linux user and (weak) copyleft advocate and i call this bullshit. Let people do what they want with their code and (free)time. GPL lawsuits also scare away developers. It should be the very last resort.
Connor Johnson
>GPL
>can't even link against proprietary code
>literally making your code worthless
Full FOSS is a genuine mental disorder. LGPL is acceptable.
Eli Reyes
No, it's a microkernel if you compare it to microkernels. It's just that according to Wikipedia, fucking everything is a hybrid kernel because it uses some pedantic definition that essentially puts any POSIX complying system in that category (due to the syscall entry point to the kernel).
As an example of how retarded Wikipedia is on this, the reason why Linux is classified as hybrid and not monolithic is because it has loadable kernel modules (aka drivers). This means that Wikipedia considers drivers as something belonging to microkernel design, and syscalls as something belonging to monolithic designs.
This is of course retarded as fuck.
Ayden Sullivan
saved
Owen Fisher
nice try bsdcuck
Lucas Diaz
Cuck licence
/thread
Josiah Adams
wtf i love bsd and hate gnu commies now
Xavier Jackson
There are literally hundreds of tcp/ip stacks that are better than the Linux version(qnx is on feature parity and its a uC os). Really makes you think.
Liam Bennett
You can meme arrow all you want, but saying that macOS is a BSD because it uses a couple of header files that contains some defines is absolutely retarded.
By this logic, you might as well argue that NT is sharing code with FreeBSD because Microsoft borrowed some code for their networking utility programs tracert and ping.
Charles Myers
> It's just that according to Wikipedia, fucking everything is a hybrid kernel because it uses some pedantic definition that essentially puts any POSIX complying system in that category (due to the syscall entry point to the kernel).
>the reason why Linux is classified as hybrid and not monolithic is because it has loadable kernel modules (aka drivers)
no
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Noah Torres
t. GPL nazi
Nathan Watson
>being like something means it is something
>implying linux is an OS and not a kernel licensed under the GNU GPL which is why its called GNU/Linux in the first place
Alexander Reed
Give it back, code leecher
James Young
>20 year old laptop
Should I stick to OpenBSD, if I own one?
Daniel Jackson
>Cuck licence
Xavier Parker
how many corporate penises did you suck today?
Aiden Nguyen
>You can meme arrow all you want, but saying that macOS is a BSD because it uses a couple of header files that contains some defines is absolutely retarded.
stay retarded user
google.com
google.com
google.com
stay btfo
Anthony Jenkins
>posting google searches and memes
>look at how wrong I am - the post
kek
Michael Wright
>other user posted links to source code
>damage control intensifies
David Williams
BSD will be the new hip meme OS of Sup Forums in the future. Red Hat et co are changing Linux to fit their "vision". When Linux as an OS becomes the new Windows, the tinkers will look for something OG with less bloat and NSAcuckery
Gabriel Watson
cuck license
Xavier Phillips
With your retarded logic, I build a house, but apparently I don't get credit for anything because I did not create the raw materials to build this house.
Samuel Baker
you built the house, not the materials. it doesnt change the fact there are whatever brand boards in it.
Adam Williams
>memes
The only thing you can argue is the age of the codes. Though OSX isn't really a BSD as the userspace is an another animal.
Bentley Barnes
The initial legal entanglements. And a lack of corporate sponsorship. IBM, Intel, Redhat, etc. really push Linux.
Even if BSD was under the GPL, why would someone use it when you can piggyback of all the linux effort (for free)?
Jack Turner
>using boards from a vendor automatically disregards any of the work you did to piece things together and make it functional, even modifying the boards so they will fit properly
This is the problem with BSD users. They believe that because -their code- for a single project being used or pieced with other software means that they automatically claim ownership of the whole production/system because they touch it.
Cameron Butler
>links to source
Header files that either are defunct or heavily modified since then.
Dominic Evans
Didn't it get fucked over by lawsuits early on which gave Linux a headstart?
Jaxon Torres
>the anti-BSD autists became so obsessed that they made an infographic
holy shit
Jose Cox
Serious question for BSDfags. If your code was that good, why does everyone heavily modify it so much?
Brandon Cooper
He linked to utility programs such as tee, that's hardly part of the kernel user. Just because both OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD use the exact same version of tee, doesn't make FreeBSD OpenBSD for example.
Hudson Phillips
OpenBSD is great for routers and firewalls. The lack of hw documentation hurt them more as even blob is rare for their kernel (not included in vanilla).
I don't care ZFS but it have its use cases.
Justin Brown
i'm sure windows is good code because no one can modify it
Grayson Stewart
Actually, the userland is pretty much identical to the one of FreeBSD. See >code should remain static for 20 years
Even the Linux kernel is evolving, user.
James Garcia
>BSD has failed
>Sony uses it on PS4
>Apple uses it on their gay machines
You know, they didn't failed at all.
Juan Scott
>Myths about FreeBSD
>The BSD License Means Companies Don't Contribute Back
>The BSD license means that you can take the code in FreeBSD and do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't sue us or pretend that you wrote it. Without the legal obligation to share code, it is possible to use FreeBSD code almost anywhere. Some companies, almost certainly, will take our code, modify it, and never give anything back. They are free to do this, however many don't.
>Consider, for example, the case of two major Internet companies: Google and Yahoo! The former bases their internal infrastructure on a GPL'd operating system, while the latter uses FreeBSD. Because Google does not distribute their modified operating system, they can keep things like the GoogleFS private. In cases like this, where software is developed for in-house use, there are no differences in the requirement to share changes between the two licenses. There are, however, some issues with linking that mean that, for example, a GPL'd library can't be used where a BSD licensed one could be.
>A lot of companies have made significant contributions to FreeBSD over the years. They don't (usually) do this out of a sense of altruism or as a result of legal threats, but out of the most dependable of motives: self interest. Maintaining a fork of any project, especially one that is developed as quickly as FreeBSD, is expensive. Pushing changes upstream is a lot cheaper. If there are changes that are useful to a wider community and not core to their own business interests, then it's cheaper to publish them and reduce the maintenance cost of the fork than to keep them private.
Isaac Torres
Because it doesn't have photoshop and linux users are mostly hostile autistic cunts that scare off normies
Levi Sanders
And what distros other than upstream actually heavily modify the kernel? The distros that matter for just backport features they want from the modified version in the upstream.
Grayson Hall
>It hasn't really failed as much as suffered from an overly fragmented community.
can't possibly be worse than the frag grenade shit linux is made by
Blake Wilson
definitely this
at least the 3 most popular BSD variants gladly take stuff from each other all the time
Oliver Bennett
>This is the problem with BSD users. They believe that because -their code- for a single project being used or pieced with other software means that they automatically claim ownership of the whole production/system because they touch it.
So as I said, macOS contains BSD code.
>I'm too retarded to know what inurl:.c means
Samuel Johnson
>GPL'd library can't be used where a BSD licensed one could be.
GPLv3 is compatible with most BSD license.
Christopher Allen
Right, but it is -not- BSD like you were initially arguing. Just because you share some genetic traits with a biological parent does not mean that you are an exact copy of that parent.
Nicholas Ross
>because your DNA changes due to radiation, mutation and microchimeraism, you're not the same person you were last year
Angel Rodriguez
>too big community
>too much code
>hurr durr intensifies
Brayden Hall
no software and doesn't respect the rights of the developer.
t. linux and windows user
Cameron Mitchell
Cause it was made by UC niggers.
Jaxon Martin
whats the point in open source software?
isnt it like bad because people can see how to hack it?
Liam Ross
That's a good choice, i own around 20 2000-something laptops of which 1 didn't work with free-, pc- , net- or openbsd. It still ran linux like a champ
Dominic Cruz
that's a disadvantage, yes
but this also means the average programmer can see those and report those