Things that BSD owes GNU/Linux

Debian Jails:

If it were not for Debian creating their kFreeBSD version of their distribution, FreeBSD would not have the capability of having Debian in their mediocre jails to boast about.

 

Gentoo Jails:

The Gentoo community tries very hard to make their distribution as BSD like as possible. Thus allowing FreeBSD to have Gentoo in their jails until 2012 when misguided changes in the FreeBSD kernel made that impossible.

 

Arch Jails:

With the ArchBSD project created by a person named Amzo, BSD which soon be able too have Arch jails too. But Amzo has been treated like excrement by BSD supporters when discussing about it.

 

ProPolice:

Developed and implemented on GCC and is not heavily used on OpenBSD. In fact, all security features on OpenBSD were actually pioneered on GNU/Linux.

 

FreeBSD’s PKGNG and NetBSD’s PKGIN:

These are all illegal strip down forks of Debian’s APT-GET.

 

OpenBSD’s PF:

A stripped down copy of IPTABLES.

 

FreeBSD jails

Stolen from a Linux prototype.

 

Ports and pkgsrc:

The ideal was pioneered by GNU’s Stallman when he demanded that the source code of a program be made avalible as well.

 

Intel and AMD KMS

Linux developers licensed their KMS components under the MIT license rather then the GPL (a mistake in my view). This allowed FreeBSD and OpenBSD developers to port KMS over legally. If the drivers were GPLed, they have to be done illegally.

 

There are many more but I don’t have time to list them know.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Things that BSD owes GNU/Linux

  1. bcwpxx says:

    In fact BSD owes Linux it’s entire existence. And now there are fighting against Linux. What an ungrateful bunch of pricks.

    • Scali says:

      Lol, how do you figure? The first BSD release was in 1977, the first Linux kernel was released in 1991.
      BSD played a big part in the development of both open source and proprietary UNIX-like OSes. These UNIX-like OSes were later cloned by the GNU project and the linux kernel.
      If anything, linux owes BSD its existence.

      • rpgb1100 says:

        I have seen your anti-Linux blog before and I’m sickened by people like you spreading such lies and FUD about Linux and promoting false advantages of BSD. Also, I’m horrified by your hatred of free and open source software.

        Before 1991, BSD was literally plagiarised AT&T and as the result, they got sued by they and where forced to rewrite their entire OS which turned out to be so much of a failure that it wasn’t an OS at all as it couldn’t even boot. By then, GNU/Linux was up and running as a usable complete system so BSD guys a lot from them and in doing so, violated the GPL. One thing you have to realise here is that BSD “developers” are not developers or innovators like Linux and GNU developers. They are more like forkers and thieves which explains the immense fragmentation and immaturity of the BSDs today.

        GNU/Linux on the other hand was written from scratch. It’s code is original unlike BSD. The only thing that was cloned from UNIX was the way how it worked and functioned. And it achieved that UNIX functionally with code that was written from scratch and not even UNIX. You have to admit the efforts of both Stallman, Torvalds and other FLOSS developers.

  2. Scali says:

    “I’m sickened by people like you spreading such lies and FUD about Linux and promoting false advantages of BSD.”
    The only lies and FUD I see are here.

    “Also, I’m horrified by your hatred of free and open source software.”
    How’s that? I maintain a few free and open source projects myself on SourceForge, and I contribute to other open source projects if the opportunity arises. I also use various open source products on a daily basis.

    “Before 1991, BSD was literally plagiarised AT&T and as the result, they got sued by they and where forced to rewrite their entire OS which turned out to be so much of a failure that it wasn’t an OS at all as it couldn’t even boot.”
    You accuse others of spreading lies and FUD, and then come up with gems like this? lol.
    The true story is that the legality of the source code was not clear. AT&T distributed the source code along with its machines, with no clear license on what you could or could not do with it (in those days, software was not yet seen as something of value).
    So people would improve on the existing source code, and these changes were also shared with others (as sharing knowledge is part of the academic world).
    AT&T allowed this to happen for many years (and probably was glad that it happened, because the improved OSes would also make their computers more capable and powerful).
    It wasn’t until 1992 that BSDi got sued, because they were selling their OS commercially.

    The court rightly ruled that it was far too late for AT&T to claim full copyrights now, because the code had been in the public domain for so long. So AT&T would retain its copyright only on a small part of the code, the rest of the code was forever free (in the form of the 4.4BSDlite distribution). Which was far from a ‘total rewrite’.

    “so BSD guys a lot from them and in doing so, violated the GPL.”
    Uhhh, how exactly do BSD guys violate the GPL?

    “One thing you have to realise here is that BSD “developers” are not developers or innovators like Linux and GNU developers. They are more like forkers and thieves which explains the immense fragmentation and immaturity of the BSDs today.”
    Again, what are you talking about?
    If there’s any OS that suffers from fragmentation, it’s linux. 4.4BSDlite led to 386BSD, which was forked into FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD. And that’s it. Clearly there are MANY more linux distributions.

    “GNU/Linux on the other hand was written from scratch. It’s code is original unlike BSD.”
    Whether or not the BSD code was written from scratch doesn’t change the fact that the BSD code was around long before linux was, and GNU/linux is a clone of the UNIX/BSD OS code.

    “You have to admit the efforts of both Stallman, Torvalds and other FLOSS developers.”
    I never denied their efforts. But you are denying that they just reinvented the wheel, when that was in fact the purpose of the GNU project: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
    “GNU, which stands for Gnu’s Not Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it.”

    • rpgb1100 says:

      The only lies and FUD I see are here.

      They are FUD to mindless BSD zealots like you do not like this sort of facts about your horrendous BSD operating systems and BSD cults.

      How’s that? I maintain a few free and open source projects myself on SourceForge, and I contribute to other open source projects if the opportunity arises. I also use various open source products on a daily basis.

      BSD, MIT and CDDL licensed software are not free and/or open source because number 1, they can be redistributed modified or unmodified without the source code and still be under those licenses and number 2, derived works can be closed or under an EULA.

      Uhhh, how exactly do BSD guys violate the GPL?

      Here’s one incident: http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/bsd-gpl-stolen-code-violation-issue.html. Criminal: Theo de Raadt, Victim: Linux’s bcm43xx driver developers and Broadcom.

      The same thing happened with Jails, PKGNG, PKGIN, chroot etc.

      Again, what are you talking about?
      If there’s any OS that suffers from fragmentation, it’s linux. 4.4BSDlite led to 386BSD, which was forked into FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD. And that’s it. Clearly there are MANY more linux distributions.

      You forget the fact that all Linux distributions are binary compatible due to the fact that they use the same kernel and the same GNU user land with only some modifications plus almost all of them try to be POSIX compliant and follow the Linux standard base. The only noticeable difference between these distributions are the package manager and naming of packages in their repositories.

      The BSD forks/fragments on the other hand are completely different from each other from user land all the way down to the kernel. They are not binary compatible and the layout out their directories and configuration files are so different which is horrible as there are no front end configuration tools available. Their ports had to be so heavily modified just to run on their system and they tend to require more dependencies then when they are installed on Linux and they don’t work the same way on BSD which makes it difficult for developers of that software to solve problems which appear. Worse of all, BSDs don’t follow any particular standard and as a result, their system is not only so different from each other but also from UNIX. I think they do not deserve to be called UNIX-like at all much less UNIX.

      Whether or not the BSD code was written from scratch doesn’t change the fact that the BSD code was around long before linux was, and GNU/linux is a clone of the UNIX/BSD OS code.

      Offcourse, it’s plagiarised AT&T UNIX code. Torvalds wrote Linux from scratch and Stallman and the GNU project wrote the GNU user land from scratch. Therefore GNU/Linux is no UNIX or BSD clone. It is a UNIX work-a-like but with very different and original code.

      I never denied their efforts. But you are denying that they just reinvented the wheel, when that was in fact the purpose of the GNU project: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

      They recreated a much better wheel. As you can see, almost all of the GNU tools outperform their UNIX and especially BSD counterparts. They are also far more flexible.

      • Scali says:

        “BSD, MIT and CDDL licensed software are not free and/or open source because number 1, they can be redistributed modified or unmodified without the source code and still be under those licenses and number 2, derived works can be closed or under an EULA.”

        That’s some zealotry right there. Because neither of these points make the software not free or open. Which is why the FSF considers these licenses to be free/open source licenses: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
        But if you’re a zealot, there’s only One True License(tm).

        “Criminal: Theo de Raadt, Victim: Linux’s bcm43xx driver developers and Broadcom.”

        Possible. Theo de Raadt also ripped off The Owl’s no-execute patch.
        However, that is an exception to the rule. Besides, apparently he already removed the code from the CVS after he was notified.

        “The same thing happened with Jails, PKGNG, PKGIN, chroot etc.”

        I doubt that very much. Things like jails and chroot have been around in BSD long before the GNU project even started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroot

        “You forget the fact that all Linux distributions are binary compatible due to the fact that they use the same kernel and the same GNU user land with only some modifications plus almost all of them try to be POSIX compliant and follow the Linux standard base.”

        If only that were true…
        Besides, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD are not distributions, they are 3 different OSes, that happen to share a common ancestor. There are many more (commercial) BSD derivatives. The point of UNIX has always been to be source-code compatible, and have portable software. Binary compatibility is irrelevant in this view. Generally the different commercial UNIXes/BSDs were mainly custom-ports done by hardware vendors for their own hardware. They would not be binary compatible with other systems anyway, because of the hardware diversity. But n00bs who grew up in an x86-only (Windows) world, would have no clue about any of that.

        “The only noticeable difference between these distributions are the package manager and naming of packages in their repositories.”

        That’s because they’re all GNU/Linux distributions, not different OSes entirely. Which is what makes the fragmentation ridiculous: everyone re-uses the same code, and just repackages it in a slightly different, and usually slightly incompatible way, for no good reason.
        Free/Open/NetBSD do not re-use the same codebase. They each have their own independent kernel and toolchain. That’s the whole point. They are different OSes, maintained by different teams, who have different goals. Just like all those other UNIX/BSD-derivatives out there.
        I guess the old saying goes once again: BSD is for people who love UNIX, linux is for people who hate Windows. Clearly you’re not a UNIX person, you have no idea of the history of UNIX.

        “Offcourse, it’s plagiarised AT&T UNIX code.”

        No. My point was: it’s only plagiarism if you infringe copyright. Since AT&T did not clearly define the way it licensed its copyright for the source code it distributed, it was not clearly defined whether or not BSD was plagiarizing this code.
        It was especially unclear since AT&T distributed the source code with its machines. So anyone who had a UNIX machine, had the rights to use the source code (whatever those rights were exactly). The BSD modifications were originally only distributed among owners of AT&T machines. AT&T allowed everything for many years, even allowing other hardware vendors to use the BSD code as a basis for their commercial UNIX-based OSes.
        Since AT&T did not enforce its copyright, but actually supported the use of the BSD code for many years, it could not have been plagiarism (you lose your copyright if you don’t enforce it).

        “Therefore GNU/Linux is no UNIX or BSD clone. It is a UNIX work-a-like but with very different and original code.”

        Which is irrelevant. Writing an OS clone is not very hard. Especially not if the original OS is documented well in various works, and its source code is available as well.
        Designing an OS is the hard part, which is what the GNU project did not do (they tried to design a kernel, but failed, because it’s the hard part).
        The BSD project on the other hand, extended UNIX with various new technologies and refinements, which were designed from scratch and implemented for the first time in any OS, rather than cloning existing work.

  3. Qwertyuiop924 says:

    Rpgb, you’re on the spot with the facts. Scali, your points here are all wrong, please don’t underestimate the difficulty of writing an os from the specs, and if a man who can do that F**** up pretty hard on nvidia drivers, that does not mean he does not know what he is talking about, period, it means he didn’t read the specs and didn’t know what he is doing here. Or, maybe he did. Maybe the way nvidia did it is incompatible with the linux architecture. Are you willing to do your research and check the source? Anyways, you have clearly failed at rule no. 1 in writing something worthwhile: check your sources. And even if you’re writing your opinion, don’t let your bias get in the way of facts. Now I will go do something that is not a *complete* waste of my time.

  4. StopSayShit says:

    GNU/Linuxoutperform both BSD and Windows. The bash is far more powerfull than your crappy cmd.exe, tcsh and other ksh toys.

  5. Joe says:

    “In fact, all security features on OpenBSD were actually pioneered on GNU/Linux.”

    Like OpenSSH, right? Oh, yes. I know. It is a stripped-down and stolen copy of Linux telnet.

    • rpgb1100 says:

      OpenSSH itself is not a security feature, it’s just a reimplementation of SSH by OpenBSD zealots. OpenSSH uses security features already present in other SSH implementations and is almost as secure. However it got more popular as a result of aggressive marketing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s