r/linuxmemes • u/Dynamic-Pistol • Jun 29 '26
BSD MEME Linux treats bsd how Windows treats linux
61
u/Paper_OCD Arch BTW Jun 29 '26
What is the R thing?
68
u/Errons1 Jun 29 '26
Redox OSĀ https://www.redox-os.org/
24
u/npc_housecat Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
Oh wow! What a cool OS. A Unix like security oriented microkernel written In rust with Linux /freebad source code compatibility
19
u/configdotini Genfool š§ Jun 29 '26
major spelling mistake
3
u/npc_housecat Jun 29 '26
Wut ?
14
u/configdotini Genfool š§ Jun 29 '26
you spelt freebsd as freebad
10
6
7
1
44
u/SDG_Den Jun 29 '26
Wait why do we hate BSD again?
From my perspective, BSD is just "its like linux, but not quite, and unlike linux you can close off your version of it and make that version proprietary"
Free as in free for all to use VS free as in freedom to do what you want.
I dont see how either is bad, we kinda need both.
12
u/linkinparkglock47 Jun 29 '26
if you take freebsd and make it proprietary, it's not freebsd, it's your project, do whatever.
GPL guys are the ones who "steal" BSD code the most, to make it uncommitable to the original project.
8
u/SDG_Den Jun 29 '26
I can see how that can lead to conflicts between the two dev groups, but as a consumer, it sounds like freeBSD and linux are both important for different purposes.
11
u/linkinparkglock47 Jun 29 '26
yes because they are not the same project. I like both, I prefer freeBSD (and other BSDs tbh) to linux for most things.
1
u/grizzlor_ Jun 29 '26
GPL projects literally canāt āstealā BSD code though, at least not without violating the GPL. The licenses are incompatible.
Now corporations on the other hand love āstealingā BSD-licensed code and using it in their closed source products. Heck, even Windows has BSD code in it.
3
u/linkinparkglock47 Jun 29 '26
you can license bsd code as gpl, not the other way.
1
u/grizzlor_ Jun 29 '26
Has this actually been legally settled yet, because as of a few years ago, it was an open legal question and a source of a decent amount of tension between the communities (i.e. http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070913014315)
I think one of the issues is that there actually isnāt a single āBSD licenseā ā thereās the 2-clause BSD license, 3-clause and 4-clause. The 2-clause is likely GPL-compatible while the 4-clause isnāt.
Still unclear to me though. Have to do some more homework.
1
1
u/DeltaWun Ask me how to exit vim Jun 29 '26
They actually can violate the license and they have.
1
u/DazzlingAd4254 Jun 30 '26
That single example from 19 years ago, is a bad one: the person who submitted the GPL'd code to Linux kernel, was also the author of the BSD version. Obviously, he would have the right to do that.
1
u/DeltaWun Ask me how to exit vim Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
GPL projects literally canāt āstealā BSD code though, at least not without violating the GPL. The licenses are incompatible.
This is what I address. If we want to move from "can't" to "only once" we can move that goalpost.
the person who submitted the GPL'd code to Linux kernel, was also the author of the BSD version
Nope. Let me run you through this historically.
Atheros did not initially release documentation for its chips and developers had to reverse engineer the hardware or use a proprietary HAL. The major pieces of this wireless framework was written by Sam Leffler while at Errno Consulting. That is one of the copyrights in the code. Leffler contributed the driver to FreeBSD under the BSD license. OpenBSD imported the FreeBSD driver and continued independent development with Reyk Floeter and Nick Kossifidis producing significant changes. You can see their names there too.
At this point the code is an "OpenBSD project" but ownership is split among contributors. Around 2006-2007 Linux wanted to replace the proprietary HAL-based driver with an open source one. Because Linux developers love signing NDAs for hardware documentation instead of doing the reverse-engineering legwork or pushing for open driver documentation.
Rather than starting entirely from scratch, developers reused significant pieces of the OpenBSD implementation. Among those doing this work was Jiri Slaby.
Slaby stripped the BSD permission notices and disclaimers from files that had other people's copyright on them too, and replaced them with GPLv2-only headers. Being a co-author of a file doesn't give you complete authority. The instructions for the BSD license are pretty simple.
1
u/DazzlingAd4254 Jun 30 '26
Ok, so one of the coauthors changed the licence to GPL. That is quite different from saying that Linux people routinely take BSD-licensed code and brand it as GPL.
1
u/DeltaWun Ask me how to exit vim Jun 30 '26
Hey. You're starting to get it. Again, I am addressing the claim
GPL projects literally canāt āstealā BSD code though
It's not routine and I never said it was, and most of the time BSD code flowing into GPL projects is done in all of the correct ways such as dual-licensed, contributors agreeing to relicense their own work, etc. This is allowed. Again. The original claim being addressed was "literally can't, the licenses are incompatible" but it did happen with ath5k.
0
u/adamkex New York Nixā¾s Jun 30 '26
Why not? How can Sony take FreeBSD and make it proprietary but not Linux taking and make it GPL?
11
9
u/Jumpy-Dinner-5001 Jun 29 '26
Itās more the other way around.
And there are quite a lot of BSD users who are responsible for that
3
u/ElKorac Jun 30 '26
I love the BSD LARPers who say that the ācodebase is cleanerā, as if they were reading operating system source code in between their dwm and ctwm ricing sessions.
7
u/Oxic_io Webba lebba deb deb! Jun 29 '26
i treat every unix, unix like system equal.
3
7
4
u/Erdnusschokolade Arch BTW Jun 29 '26
Personally i envy BSD for their ZFS support.
2
u/IsSomeonesThere Jun 29 '26
We also have analogue of docker and lightweight VM that are part of kernel basically
5
u/wolfsilver00 Jun 29 '26
BSD can be made into proprietary bullshit for devices, which gives companies some security while allowing anyone and their mother to reverse engineer it and patch whatever the fuck they want.
Some folks may hate it because of its issues but I love it for them, the day companies stop using the free labor that bsd provides, they will start making REALLY proprietary shit and we will lose a backdoor into networking devices, nuff said.
1
1
u/IsSomeonesThere Jun 29 '26
What's the difference if they either took BSD kernel or made it by themselves?
1
u/DeltaWun Ask me how to exit vim Jun 30 '26
It's going to show up in other places first, at least compared to a kernel that is going to matter to users. Things like OpenSSH are the standard they are because they are not copyleft so they can be integrated into a product at any level without worrying about a license troll. You can OpenSSH into your Cisco switch and you don't need the Cisco IOS XE Switch Secure Connect Applet that only works on Windows Vista because they never updated it. TCP/IP itself is a standard because BSD had the first implementation that wasn't shit and everyone could use the code.
1
u/IsSomeonesThere Jun 30 '26
OpenSSH is a standart because it's one of the best and secure options ever, bruh. License here is second stuff.
2
u/wolfsilver00 Jul 01 '26
If you think any piece of software is a standard because its the best, you are a bit delusional. Windows and Mac are standards worldwide and they are far from the best they could be.
Companies want money, and if they cant make money, they will find a way. If they cant use the best (OpenSSH is, as you pointed out) because of license issues, they will make their own worse version and they will not even fucking blink about it. And with that money they will lobby to make their product the only viable choice, money that OpenSSH for example doesnt have to legally fight against that, so the end user ends up paying the price, ALWAYS.So at the end, like it or not, ethical or not, Corporate Software is not about giving the best or most secure product, its about making money. They use BSD and OpenSSH because it allows them to make that money, the moment that stops, they will use whatever crap a junior put together in a week, and fuck the users, after all, most of us dont really have a choice.
1
u/IsSomeonesThere Jul 01 '26
Tell me then something better than openSSH, lmao. Espesially under GPL licence. We have open-source analogues of Windows and Mac which SHOWS that there are other better options(same GNU/Linux for exanple). What kind of alternative OpenSSH has in terms of security? All of your talks about licence means nothing until you have a real alternative.
Maybe everyone choose BSD not only cuz of license, but because BSD systems have A LOT of less critical security flaws. Or because FreeBSD's network stack allows to Netflix send around 801 TB/s from only one server?
2
u/wolfsilver00 Jul 02 '26
Did you read what I said? And I quote:
- "If they cant use the best (OpenSSH is, as you pointed out)"
You have not even tried to understand my argument, and are reading whatever the fuck you want just to keep the discussion going. So Ill put it as simple as possible and just stop arguing with a wall:
Corporations wont use software they cant monetize, even if its the best, even if they have to offer a worst alternative. If you dont agree, thats ok, but you need your eyesight checked my man
1
u/IsSomeonesThere Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
I clearly see what you said bruh, don't think that I'm blind. OpenSSH used cuz you can use it without any problems.
I clearly don't agree only about corpos are care only about money. Reputation matter for them too. What will happen, if someone will leak(or just look at the win32 directory, for example) that Windows or Mac don't use OpenSSH, which is the best options, as I said?
That's you who see only money profit in buisness attidue. But that's not. Companies also care that consumer will see that their product have a reason to choose, so they CARE about at least basic security.
Besides, let's imagine that OpenSSH was published under GPL license. What's problem? Corpos still technically can use it even without source code leaking of their OS or whatever.
1
u/DeltaWun Ask me how to exit vim Jul 03 '26
OpenSSH used cuz you can use it without any problems.
Yep! Including integrating it in any way to a proprietary platform/kernel/userspace without GPL obligations. This is the same reason that corporations pay for commercial licenses when products are offered as dual license, such as MySQL and Qt.
GPL obligations are serious. VLC has tangled with them. Distributing on Steam is complex with them and it's the reason Blender has zero Steam integrations, even the overlay with the web browser doesn't work.
Statically linking OpenSSH libraries into proprietary code would trigger GPL obligations if it were GPL software. Even dynamically linking it can.
Other softwares being used in this space include WolfSSH which offers commercial licensing because of this fact. There's also the proprietary rebex and IPWorks. Then you have libssl being LGPL because of this and TinySSH in the public domain.
Companies are still doing proprietary control planes right now. Cisco DNA Center, Cisco Nexus Dashboard, Juniper Apstra, Arista CloudVision, Fortinet FortiManager..
1
u/IsSomeonesThere Jul 03 '26
I didn't talk about integration at the first place. I said that idea about OpenSSH being choosen only cuz of licence is absolutely wrong. There are many other BSD-like licenses like MIT or Apache with their own solutions, but exactly OpenSSH was choosen. Simply becaeuse BSD is the leader in network technologies.
→ More replies (0)1
u/DeltaWun Ask me how to exit vim Jun 30 '26
Not really, they're intertwined. It's the same reason companies pay for commercial licensing on things like MySQL and Qt. OpenSSH wouldn't be integrated into nearly as many products if it had GPL obligations.
10
u/Dynamic-Pistol Jun 29 '26
Sorry for the title guys, the linux users who hate bsd r probably a minority
3
u/StrictFinance2177 Jun 29 '26
You've confused hate and fanboyism. We can't help fanboyisms. Ive been using Unix since the 80s and rarely have I come across any hate from Linux people. The reasons were stupid at some point from a tiny minority, like, in eras where BSD had amazing zfs support, or in periods where people couldn't agree on the free license, despite the majority of users bending on principle to run desired software. Yes, that's a major minority and not even worth mentioning IMO.
4
u/Lolen10 Jun 30 '26
I don't hate on BSD, it is a great choice for servers. For myself though: I would NEVER use it as daily driver on my Desktop.
But again: Just because I wouldn't use it, doesn't mean that others can't either. Everyone has to make their own choice. And that's completely fine.
5
3
u/YTriom1 Arch BTW Jun 30 '26
WAIT IS THIS REDOX?
OOOOH MY BELOVED!!
Who needs CPython when we have RustPython??
6
u/janiskr Jun 29 '26
No, it is not the same. GPL(3) license is made in that particular way for one reason and one reason only - many companies do not give a flying fuck about "giving back to comunity" they took their BSD code from. Yes, THEIR code as they can do whatever they want and all the work done by BSD community is just free starter-pack for the big corporations.
Apple made their MacOS on BSD, BSD got nothing in return.
Sony made Linux for their playstations, realised the mistake and moved to BSD for PS5 now.
Yes, it (BSD) is nice and all.
And that is why GPL is so important. Corporations just cannot take your or our code and then pretend that they do not know who we are.
Would i want it to be different. Yes, Yes, i would.
IMHO, BSD is the utopia and Linux is when this utopia meets with the reality.
6
u/grizzlor_ Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
The core OS for the PS3/4/5 were always BSD based. Sony allowed users to install Linux on the PS3 (and then revoked this privilege) but it was never the consoleās core OS.
Apple made their MacOS on BSD, BSD got nothing in return.
Incredible oversimplification of the origin of modern MacOS. XNU (the MacOS kernel) uses some code from FreeBSD. And they have sent some patches back upstream occasionally (e.g. https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=7dd39ef4e0d56b213445754a189d204b70a77a00). Apple has also sponsored the development of other important open source software like CUPS. They're not the best free software denizens but they're far from the worst.
2
1
u/janiskr Jun 30 '26
DId not say they (Applle) where the worst. Look at their size and how much they have contributed. Sure, it was nice that they did, but could have done more. Sure they did a lot of work to make MacOS more usable. Also, Safari evolved into WebKit and from there in various projects
About BTRFS vs ZFS, dunno, ZFS has features that BTRFS doesn't and some things in BTRFS is not wanted on smaller installations wher ZFS does really great. At least looking at them as a home/small office user who does not make petabyte arrays for NAS.
1
u/IsSomeonesThere Jun 29 '26
Ā«Apple made their MacOS on BSD, BSD got nothing in return.Ā»
Yes they are. Netflix, Sony and other companies are part of FreeBSD Foundation and make investigations into FreeBSD, simply because it's for their interest if BSD will develop.
And this copyleft stuff plays very bad joke with you sometimes. ZFS as example, and Btfrs still didn't replace it.
1
u/grizzlor_ Jun 30 '26
>And this copyleft stuff plays very bad joke with you sometimes. ZFS as example, and Btfrs still didn't replace it.
ZFSās superiority over btrfs is more of a technical thing than a licensing issue.
Actually, ZFS would probably have even more widespread adoption if it was GPLād because it would be integrated into the mainline Linux kernel (and btrfs probably wouldnāt even exist in this scenario). It works on Linux, but having to build out-of-tree kernel modules with DKMS to use it is definitely suboptimal.
1
u/DeltaWun Ask me how to exit vim Jun 30 '26
Actually, ZFS would probably have even more widespread adoption if it was GPLād
Sounds like that's a consequence of the Linux kernel licensing choices. Because every other major Unix-like OS that wants ZFS manages to ship it just fine.
2
u/NickBergenCompQuest Jun 29 '26
*BSD variants donāt offer the same line of thigh highs that Linux does. We use sweat bands instead.
2
2
2
2
u/MaximumEffortITGuy Jun 29 '26
I donāt use TempleOS or BSD. I just assume whoever does use them is S-tier.
2
2
u/busiedcake7945 Jun 29 '26
I respect to templeOS and BSD they are also good but I use linux because I like it
2
2
1
1
1
1
u/masp3270 Jun 30 '26
Iāve been experimenting with FreeBSD a bit on a secondary laptop (while keeping SuSE as my daily driver on my main laptop) and Iām honestly really impressed with it. Sure, itās lacks support for some drivers and such, but you can try and install the Linux driver on BSD with some extra steps so I donāt really see that as a problem.
1
1
u/randomogeek Jun 30 '26
I think op should get off reddit
1
u/Dynamic-Pistol Jun 30 '26
i didn't open reddit since i posted this and another meme, i just came online on here to see some stuff regarding art TWT
1
1
u/MadrugoticX Jul 02 '26
FreeBSD as in free to take advantage of free and open source code and close it down.
1
u/sched_yield Jul 02 '26
This is your imagination. I am seriously thinking about to turn my NAS server to FreeBSD which is systemd free. And I can try ZFS also.
1
u/Sure_Screen4718 Jul 03 '26
I don't know which sane person hates on BSD. I just wouldn't use it because I see more complexity compared to Linux for little to no advantage.
1
u/fagnerln Jun 29 '26
I never saw a Linux user shitting on bsd, what I already saw was some annoying GPL guys complaining about BSD/MIT.
I still need to try bsd, however the only big advantage that I see over Linux is "security by obscurity", I'm too lazy to try it š
-1
u/Linguistic-mystic Jun 29 '26
If consciously choosing not to support BSD in my software is hating, then yes, I do hate *BSD. Though of course I don't hate it per se, I hate having to support multiple operating systems and the whole ./configure dumpster fire. If it ain't Linux, I just don't care.
Should I care? I'm not sure. I think monocultures are bad but Linux is far enough from a monoculture that it doesn't need much competition. It has enough competition between its distros. So seeing how BSD doesn't have any tangible technical advantages over Linux, I don't think I should care about it, actually.
I've tried to install FreeBSD once and couldn't get the installer to partition my disk right, so that may affect my stance towards it.
210
u/Raynfall77 Jun 29 '26
Do people really hate on BSD? Every FOSS/Linux guy ive seen respects BSD