GNU Project and Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman posted a message on the OpenBSD -misc mailing list titled, "real men don't attack straw men", suggesting that some comments he had made were being misrepresented. He noted, "one question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about what the system suggests to the user." He went on to note that though he knew of no non-free software included in the base OpenBSD system, there was non-free software distributed via the ports collection, "if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of) some non-free program, I do not recommend it."
In the email, RMS added that he was unsure whether or not OpenBSD includes any non-free firmware blobs. It was pointed out that OpenBSD is known for being explicity focused on not shipping blobs. As for binary firmware, Reyk Floeter explained, "there is a major difference between binary blobs and firmware images; the blobs are loaded as code into the OS kernel, but the firmware runs directly on the device on crappy embedded micro CPUs." Reyk is the author of the reverse engineered ar5k HAL OpenBSD uses to support the Atheros wireless chipset, which was recently adopted by the Linux-based MadWifi project in their ath5k driver. Reyk added, "I'm clearly against binary blobs in the kernel, and in contrast to most of the GNU/Linux dudes I _did_ some against it by writing ar5k, instead of pointing into the wrong direction. This open firmware discussion is just a joke to make the relevant discussion, binary blobs in the OS kernel, irrelevant." Marco Peereboom added, "OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape. Everything that ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it. There is not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents."
From: Richard Stallman <rms@...>
Subject: Real men don't attack straw men
Date: Dec 10, 11:18 am 2007
It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they
construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and
then try to blame me for them.
For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous,
even inconvenient. However, if anyone wants to know what I do think,
I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/.
In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html.
One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any
general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about
what the system suggests to the user.
Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore,
if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend
are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
non-free software.
From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
(though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
blobs). However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
recommend. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.
I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone
I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I
am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason
to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense.
The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
From: Nick Guenther <kousue@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Date: Dec 10, 1:12 pm 2007
On 12/10/07, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
> recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any
> general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about
> what the system suggests to the user.
>
> Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
> think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore,
> if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
> some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend
> are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
> non-free software.
>
> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs).
Um, OpenBSD is the only common OS that is actively against blobs. See
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
We're on the same side here.
> The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
> important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
Sir, it was brought up that the linux distributions you do suggest do
often include in their ports systems non-free software. See e.g.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119726055819074&w=2
What do you say to that? Was that a lie or a mistake?
Respectfully,
-Nick
From: Steve Shockley <steve.shockley@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Date: Dec 10, 1:57 pm 2007
Nick Guenther wrote:
>> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
>> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
>> blobs).
>
> Um, OpenBSD is the only common OS that is actively against blobs. See
> http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
> We're on the same side here.
He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host
machine's processor. Browse around under:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/
For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the
BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be
redistributed as object code only.
From: Reyk Floeter <reyk@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Date: Dec 10, 3:58 pm 2007
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Steve Shockley wrote:
> He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host
> machine's processor. Browse around under:
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/
>
> For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the
> BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be
> redistributed as object code only.
>
yes, but it is so stupid, the firmware is loaded into the device and
not running in OpenBSD itself.
in the past, the microcode was normally stored in non-volatile memory
on the hardware device, let's say a NIC, but now most of the devices
require to load the firmware into RAM. it is cheaper to do it this
way, flash chips are just too expensive for the mass market. mostly
all of the new ethernet and wireless cards require to load an external
firmware image into the _card's_ RAM, it wouldn't be possible to
support any of these chipsets without using their firmware.
but again, there is a major difference between binary blobs and
firmware images; the blobs are loaded as code into the OS kernel, but
the firmware runs directly on the device on crappy embedded micro
CPUs. asking the vendors for releasing their firmware source code is
just ridiculous or a nightmare since I don't even want to see this
code (we wouldn't even have the right compiler for this)...
anyway, i'm clearly against binary blobs in the kernel, and in
contrast to most of the GNU/Linux dudes i _did_ some against it by
writing ar5k, instead of pointing into the wrong direction. this open
firmware discussion is just a joke to make the relevant discussion,
binary blobs in the OS kernel, irrelevant.
reyk
From: Gilles Chehade <gilles@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Date: Dec 10, 1:47 pm 2007
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:58:40PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Steve Shockley wrote:
> > He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host
> > machine's processor. Browse around under:
> > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/
> >
> > For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the
> > BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be
> > redistributed as object code only.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> anyway, i'm clearly against binary blobs in the kernel, and in
> contrast to most of the GNU/Linux dudes i _did_ some against it by
> writing ar5k, instead of pointing into the wrong direction. this open
> firmware discussion is just a joke to make the relevant discussion,
> binary blobs in the OS kernel, irrelevant.
>
... and oddly enough it is the most activist of the _GNU_/Linux dudes who
did not care enough about your efforts in ar5k to raise his voice for the
freedom of software and yet feels the urge to teach us all a lesson about
the true meaning of free software.
Gilles
From: Marco Peereboom <slash@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Date: Dec 10, 12:59 pm 2007
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they
> construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and
> then try to blame me for them.
>
> For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous,
> even inconvenient. However, if anyone wants to know what I do think,
> I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/.
> In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html.
*yawn*
>
> One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
> recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any
> general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about
> what the system suggests to the user.
What you recommend is quite boring what is not boring is your lack of
research into this topic. It's ok to not know what you are talking
about; it is not ok to make blanket statements based on hearsay.
>
> Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
> think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore,
> if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
> some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend
> are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
> non-free software.
OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape. Everything that
ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it. There is
not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD
on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents. We actually have
standards.
>
> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs). However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
> at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.
Unlinke linux OpenBSD does not contain proprietary firmware blobs in the
distribution. Unlike linux OpenBSD does not have a HAL. I can go on
for a while.
>
> I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone
> I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I
> am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason
> to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense.
Here is one, the code isn't bloated and doesn't mostly suck. I find it
unethical to recommend a steaming pile of crap to someone.
>
> The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
> important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
>
Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones
intelligence. You are basically saying: "you are retarded if you don't
let me tell you what you want".
From: Marc Espie <espie@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Date: Dec 10, 6:21 pm 2007
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
> recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any
> general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about
> what the system suggests to the user.
[...]
> >From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs). However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
> at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.
[...]
> The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
> important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
You do realize that that specific stance is *completely* hypocritical.
You do not recommend OpenBSD because its ports system states upfront
that there *are* non-free pieces of software that works under it.
But you recommend Linux distros, even though every one out there knows
there are *more* pieces of non-software that work in it.
Even though Linux contains hooks to allow for binary blobs, or is careful
to stay compatible with binary drivers from nvidia and ATI for people to
choose from.
But noooo, linux distros are white as a cygnus, since they don't suggest
out-right you can install non-free software. They just happen to make it
very easy, and you can just simply run into extended distros and sites
that make it *as trivial* to install non-free stuff as the OpenBSD ports
system.
Heck, *most linux distros out there* have a non-free section as well.
You *do know* that the non-free section of the OpenBSD ports tree is
labelled as such, don't you ? you do know we forbid redistribution
on CD-Rom of various pieces of software. Hence, non-free stuff does not
make it to the official CD-Rom. It does not even make it to the ftp
site.
This includes such prominent stuff as sun's java, which is not free...
and which is probably one of the most commonly installed linux software
out there... along with binary drivers for nvidia cards and other hardware.
Hypocrit.
From: Martin Schröder <martin@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Date: Dec 10, 4:26 pm 2007
2007/12/10, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>:
> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs). However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
> at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend.
Richard, do you still remember the 2004 FSF awards?
http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html
"Theo's leadership of OpenBSD, his selfless commitment to Free Software ..."
Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
Best
Martin
RMS approved
Yes. We all need RMS to recommend things to us, otherwise we would not know what to do! Seriously. Who gives a crap whether or not their OS of choice is officially "RMS approved"?
Who gives a crap whether or
Who gives a crap whether or not their OS of choice is officially "RMS approved"?
Some must do otherwise they wouldn't be discussing this on the list in the first place.
Aha but you dont know these
Aha but you dont know these guys right?
I dont know and I only laugh when some hippie tells me about his ethics.
I laugh into his face.
But I also laugh into the face of corporate control even though
their grip is tighter than the feeble words of the RMS apostel.
I laugh at your comment too!
I laugh at you! Ha! Ye who
I laugh at you! Ha!
Ye who laughs last wins.
No...
He who laughs last didn't get the joke. ;)
Richard Stallman Pwned ROTFLMAOL!!!!1!11one
If I were Richard Stallman, I'd never even appear on the OpenBSD mailing list again.
What a belligerent bunch.
What a belligerent bunch. I'm glad some of the more mature individuals on that list chose to add some replies, otherwise it might seem that the sole purpose purpose of OpenBSD is to bash everything else in a most puerile fashion, even though there is a lot of technical merit to the operating system itself that could be easily missed.
I'd think "grow up", but I'm afraid for most of the hecklers it's not an age problem.
You win the prize for being
You win the prize for being the first comment to bash the OpenBSD crowd today.
OpenBSD fanboys/fangirls
OpenBSD fanboys/fangirls seem to have the impression that they're always under attack. They're not. It's usually the other way around, including in this case, where RMS was attacked and now he's just responding in his own defense.
I suspect the atmosphere would be a lot more pleasant if OpenBSD people, in particular the ones who post on the mailing list, would calm down.
+1
+1
+2
+2
Back to 0
Funny, it looked like RMS _initiated_ the whole spat. Let's sort this out. As per his mail:
-RMS considers non-free stuff antisocial.
-RMS is going off of material of "what he heard"
I'll quote Peereboom:
What you recommend is quite boring [. W]hat is not boring is your lack of research into this topic. It's ok to not know what you are talking about; it is not ok to make blanket statements based on hearsay.
-1
-1
Yes, because people should
Yes, because people should just quietly accept statements that are falsely attributed to them... If a person makes a public statement about another person, the person in question should be allowed to reply. Given the rather prodigiously litigious and high-velocity-internet-rantoriffic age we live in, a polite and lucid reply when confronted with mis-attributed statements verges on the 'quaint'.
As far as people's desire to 'pan' RMS for his highly principled stand on Free Software-- Talk is cheap. His beliefs with respect to the nature of software freedom are clearly articulated and backs his words with action. That's more than most of us can say. Many people will takes shots at him for not blankly advocating all forms of Open Source software, and for not compromising with closed software vendors, but if it wasn't for his 'irrational failure to compromise' the dream of a fee, dynamic, and growing software ecosystem that is in the hands of its users, that can't be 'scooped and closed', would be a lot further off.
'Practical and compromise' shouldn't be codewords for 'Passive Acceptance and Selling Out', if nothing else RMS reminds us of this.
What I get from the mailing
What I get from the mailing list discussion is attacks on RMS for defending "linux" which includes proprietary hooks. But RMS was not suggesting "linux" to anyone, he is recommending gNewSense.
RMS isn't recommending "linux" in the same sense that he isn't recommending "OpenBSD".
But instead people in the discussion prefer to proclaim that "OpenBSD is more free than linux", therefore RMS is wrong for not recommending OpenBSD. Silly.
That is true but the problem
That is true but the problem is that he makes it look as if OpenBSD suggests to you that you must install proprietary drivers.
This is not the case.
I dont like OpenBSD at all, and I laugh about their devs, but in this regard, RMS is totally wrong.
He thinks that he is allowed to tell the user what to do.
I laugh into his face!
>>He thinks that he is
>>He thinks that he is allowed to tell the user what to do.
>>I laugh into his face!
Maybe you should laugh a little less, and actually try and read a bit more, so you can, you know, actually have an informed opinion. But then again an informed opinion, as a great man once said, "might be superfluous, even inconvenient" in your case.
What OpenBSD suggests
> the problem is that he makes it look as if OpenBSD suggests to you that you must install proprietary drivers.
No, the real problem is that some people apparently can't read. Here's what he wrote:
> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs).
He claims to have heard it doens't contain non-Free Software, and he's not sure about non-Free firmware.
> However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or at least so I was told
And so have others confirmed in this thread. And this is the reason why he doesn't recommend OpenBSD. Same reason as he doesn't recommend Ubuntu, Fedora, and Debian: they all work to offer the user non-Free Software, as if such software was morally acceptable. That's why he will recommend gNewSense and Ututo: these don't ever side with non-Free Software over users' 4 essential freedoms. All software included in these respect the 4 freedoms.
Very unfair
That accusation is not fair. He explicitly states that he does not know if OpenBSD installs proprietary drivers or not. In fact, the reason why he ventured on that mailing list at all is probably because of lies such just like that.
He states that the reason why he does not recommend OpenBSD on his lectures and whatnot (which obviously the mailing list participants care a great deal about) is because the user can install non-free software with Ports. Everyone who has used any BSD knows that this is in fact true.
Upon which he is immediately bashed about his ignorance about OpenBSD (so educate the man instead!) and a lot of misleading or false statements are made, such as that everything in Ports is free. Of course the installation scripts are free but that's hardly what RMS meant.
Suggests using non-free software
I agree with you that that's not what RMS meant, but where do you draw the line? If my free OS allows me to install Wine, a piece of free software, doesn't that suggest the use of non-free software?
Afterall, Wine is used to run (or attempt to run) Windows software. Wine itself is free software, but almost all the Windows software is non-free (otherwise we'd just run a port of the product).
Does having a binary emulation layer in your OS for another OS suggest running non-free software because the OS they're emulating allows you to do so? This list is endless and increasingly stupid.
RMS should put "1. A typewriter" in his list of recommended "OS".
No it does not
I agree with you that that's not what RMS meant, but where do you draw the line? If my free OS allows me to install Wine, a piece of free software, doesn't that suggest the use of non-free software?
No it does not. There are open source software running on Windows.
Wine vs ports
So Wine is free software that can be used to run both free and non-free software.
Now please tell me, what is the difference between installing Wine and installing OpenBSD ports (in the context of suggesting non-free software)? Clearly both products are free software and clearly both allow using non-free software.
If OpenBSD ports "suggests using non-free software" then so does Wine.
Wine can run non-free
Wine can run non-free software. Linux can run non-free software, BSD can run non-free software. They don't suggest it.
Some Linux repos and ports CONTAINS non-free software, thereby suggesting to use it. THAT is the problem (If you think suggesting non-free software is a problem, of course)
Does too! ;-p
Wine suggests that you're about to run Windows software. Windows software is mostly non-free. What does that suggest? The most likely scenario is that you're going to run non-free software, hence Wine suggests running non-free software.
Yes, I know this is far-fetched and I don't really believe this silly argument any more than I believe RMS argument about ports being suggestive of running non-free software.
Even if it /was/ suggestive, I don't think I'd really care. I would not mind if all references to non-free software in the ports system was removed, because I mostly care for free software.
Others will feel differently, and that's fine by me.
From what I understand,
From what I understand, RMS's stand is that if a software's website provide links to non-free software, then it is granting legitimacy to the non-free software. However, say if Distro ABC's webpage has links to an ABC developer's homepage which has non-free software links, whether ABC is recommended or not hinges on whether that developer's homepage was included there in a fashion by which people looking for software will click on it, or whether ABC's homepage was included merely to acknowledge his/her contribution to the project. [1]
To say that Wine suggest running non-free software just because it's the most likely scenario but without justification is not correct. But the Wine website does have this link http://appdb.winehq.org/ which includes names and links to non-free software. Hence by strictly following RMS's interpretation, Wine should not be included or recommended as a free software.
An issue here is about RMS's views about merely including links to non-free software as a criteria for making a free software non-recommended as a free software. Note that that such a software is not invalidated as being free as I do not feel that he has a monopoly on deciding what is to be considered free or not using his criteria, he can just do recommendations.
How about links that lead to other links to non-free software? and links to links to links? How about Firefox which uses google search engine by default and includes adverts of non-free software when a users searches for some free software? The list could go on.
My view is that links are a rather volatile means of determining whether or not to recommend a free software. But use them by all means as it's just a recommendation and not the final say on things. Just be more explicit about your definitions [see 1] and whether 2'nd degree links are considered or not. Otherwise, it will seem to be arbitrary and subjective to some people.
Do note that what I mean by recommendation here is RMS's recommendation either in his personal capacity or for FSF.
More free is *bsd, because
More free is *bsd, because anyone can close it, upgrade it and sell?
I've never seen so stupid licence, wrote to be not compatible with really free GPL.
> therefore RMS is wrong for not recommending OpenBSD
Why recommend something what's light years behind Linux?
I've never seen so stupid
I've never seen so stupid licence, wrote to be not compatible with really free GPL.
The BSD license predates the GPL by quite a few years. As others have ably attested, Stallman is an egotist who has misrepresented events such as the "great printer driver snafu" to paint himself as a lone voice crying out for "free" software back in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Others who were present at the time remember things as being quite different, particularly because of the Berkeley Distribution which was already creating an "open source" Unix by adding to and gradually replacing AT&T code. The goal wasn't to explicitly create an alternative Unix, but that came much later with the establishing of the 386BSD project and it successors.
As for Linux being "light years" ahead, you may want to remember that in terms of performance Linux was playing catch up to FreeBSD in particular for a long time, and with the upcoming release of 7.0 it looks like it will be doing so again. Even NetBSD, reputed to have the smallest developer community of the three big BSD's, has much smoother and predictable performance degradation under load compared the wild fluctuations of Linux. Most likely a consequence of the push to O(1) algorithms in the Linux kernel that was naively assumed would give massive, consistent scalability without considering other factors such as buffering and hardware limitations. Add in the wholesale replacement of Linux subsystems in what is supposed to be a stable kernel series (worse still, the notion of a stable release doesn't even exist since 2.6) and I'll stick with BSD, thanks.
"As others have ably
"As others have ably attested, Stallman is an egotist who has misrepresented events such as the "great printer driver snafu" to paint himself as a lone voice crying out for "free" software back in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Others who were present at the time remember things as being quite different,"
That's the problem with being a visionary. Even if the windmills turn out to be giants, the pundits just go in collective denial and state, "Well, *ofcourse* we knew the windmills were huge organic humanoid flour grinding machines in disguise all along, we just decided it wasn't significant, which it wasn't because .. Hey is that a plane ?"
"I'll stick with BSD, thanks."
It's a shame the main reason for using BSD seems to be an irrational hate of rms/GPL or a love for windows and proprietary software in general. Maybe if its users focussed more on actually loving their BSD it wouldn't be so far behind.
It's a shame the main reason
It's a shame the main reason for using BSD seems to be an irrational hate of rms/GPL or a love for windows and proprietary software in general. Maybe if its users focussed more on actually loving their BSD it wouldn't be so far behind.
A shame you selectively quoted a few words from the end of my comment, as it should be clear from the rest of that paragraph that the reason I use BSD is because it better fits my needs than what RMS is pushing. I have worked with a large number of different Unix and Unix-like operating systems, including several Linux distributions. For sheer performance, Solaris has always come out on top in the benchmarks I have run. However, the userland is not as pleasant to work with as those included as part of the BSD's. Linux distributions have a reasonable userland, however in comparison to Solaris and the BSD's, they are poorly documented across man pages, texinfo manuals and HOWTO's that are often missing, incomplete or outdated. The Linux kernel performs well under light to moderate loads, but compared to Solaris and several of the BSD's, it does not scale as well as Solaris and exhibits highly unpredictable behaviour. When forced to work with Linux, I find myself spending inordinate amounts of time finding workarounds for configuration issues that seem to stem from the way Linux distributions are put together, notably Debian.
"It's a shame the main
"It's a shame the main reason for using BSD seems to be an irrational hate of rms/GPL"
"the reason I use BSD is because it better fits my needs than what RMS is pushing"
ok, that made me laugh. Just how deep is this dislike ingrained in BSD culture ?
How deeply ingrained is your
How deeply ingrained is your ability to misinterpret what I said? I made a judgment to use BSD because the performance is more consistent, and the documentation better than that available in Linux. How does that equate to an "irrational hate" of Stallman or the GPL? I even put Stallman up in my apartment when he was over in the UK and his original host let him down at the last minute.
Where does RMS push...
... against consistent performance and worse documentation?
See, when you claim you prefer BSD because it suits you better than what RMS recommends, you're just showing your prejudice against him. Now that you listed some confessable reasons, it becomes completely clear that they have nothing to do with what he promotes.
"It's a shame the main
"It's a shame the main reason for using BSD seems to be an irrational hate of rms/GPL or a love for windows and proprietary software in general. Maybe if its users focussed more on actually loving their BSD it wouldn't be so far behind."
Troll.
But absolutely not any more
But absolutely not any more troll than the message he replied to...
Don't feed the trolls.
Don't feed the trolls.
You wrote about performance?
You wrote about performance? You must be kidding, *bsd are trying to catch up to Linux all the time (look at MySQL benchamrks, but not those made by the *bsd fanboys which don't know that their using kernel with cfs or not).
> Add in the wholesale replacement of Linux subsystems in what is
> supposed to be a stable kernel series (worse still, the notion of > a stable release doesn't even exist since 2.6) and I'll stick with > BSD, thanks.
Are you ill or something? The rc's are very stable and stable releases are the stablest kernels I've ever seen so stop saying your lies please. If I'd like to use my system only on a router I'd choose *bsd. Wait a minute, but there's Linux. So *bsd catch it up...
"look at MySQL benchamrks" I
"look at MySQL benchamrks"
I have, last month, last lot I looked at had FreeBSD way ahead, but hey maybe it's changed with the latest greatest cfs.
Read one more time. Not bsd
Read one more time. Not bsd fanboys benchmarks...
...I suppose linux fanboy
...I suppose linux fanboy benchmarks would be far less biased, right?
If I remember correctly, the
If I remember correctly, the benchmark was a standard benchmark, but the mere presence of a bsd-fanboy in the room skewed the statistics.
"I have, last month, last
"I have, last month, last lot I looked at had FreeBSD way ahead"
Yeah, on FreeBSD 7-CURRENT of a few months ago. Lets wait till FreeBSD 7-RELEASE is out, shall we? :)
Shall we wait until 2.6.24
Shall we wait until 2.6.24 is out or maybe wait until 2.6.26 ?
How about we wait for someone to roll it into a major OS first ?
Nick Piggin posted his Linux benchmarks...
Nick Piggin posted his Linux benchmarks in March 2008 with CFS-enabled kernel and the last pre-CFS kernel (2.6.22).
The results were better for Linux ;)
Yes, and you also wrote about performance
the original post mentioned linux runs better on light to moderate load,
but bsd scales better with concurrency.
you are mentioning mysql benchmarks, which are likely a single process
running on a mostly idle system, performing a common set of operations
on a common set of files.
it would be interesting to compare a test of 100 mysql instances
running concurrently on a single machine, and to see which machine
runs faster / longer / more stably.
Not claiming any BSD superiority, but pointing out that your 'stressful
test case' may infact not be so stressful and also be an example of what the original poster was saying performs faster
also, mysql uses thread-based concurrency, so perhaps your mysql benchmark
might be a good reflection of the thread library and scheduling implementation, but perhaps not a good test of network throughput or
concurrent multiprocess disk IO.
things are not so simple, grasshopper.
Scooped and closed
Scooped and closed. What does that mean? "Hey, you remember that free software I just gave you? Well, it's no longer free so please delete it". Not going to happen. If I release program FOO under an ISC license, that version will always be free (as in free beer).
Is it freedom, or in the best interest to society, to deny people the right to use non-free software? After all, that particular piece of software might just be the thing they need to do their job. That's called helping people.
As much as I'd love for all software to be free software, I'm not going to claim moral superiority and tell everyone how wrong it is to use or produce non-free software. I think there are more important battles to be fought, such as software patents and having sufficient documentation for our hardware.
RMS does not like the argument "freedom to write non-free software" and therefore choose to call that power (over people) rather than freedom. If one could retroactively change license, making software that was once free non-free, he would have a point. If people where being forced to use non-free software, he would have a point.
Hopefully free software will be shown superior by example, not by endless ranting of ethics and moral obligations.
So is KernelTrap now just
So is KernelTrap now just following flame wars between people in Open Source ?
Open source?
Define Open Source?
Do you mean "keep it open source" == GNU GPL
or
Do you mean "make it closed source now" == BSD
If open means the ability to make it my own, make it proprietary and make it so that the ONLY people who can't use it are people that try to embed inside of GNU GPL'd software... then ok.... I see your point.
no, my point was the stories
no, my point was the stories on Kernel Trap are starting to merely keep track of flame wars between different software camps.
I don't know why I mention it, anything that gets said just gets jumped on.
eh?
BSD nor GPL prevents closed source stuff, if I remember correctly. Besides, aren't the ones who close the source off in the first place responsible for it, not the licenses?
You are putting temptation
You are putting temptation in temptations way. I recently used BSD licensed software and left the doors to my car unlocked and the keys in the ignition. Sure no one stole my car and locked me out, but they could have done, and that is unethical not to say immoral.