| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
debian_girl
Joined: 23 Feb 2009
Posts: 42
Location: Austin, TX
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:14 pm Post subject: Debian Gets FreeBSD Kernel Support |
 |
|
as seen on slashdot:
"Today Debian gets one step closer to really becoming 'the universal operating system' by adding two architectures based on the FreeBSD kernel to the unstable archive. This does not mean that the Debian project is ditching the Linux kernel; Debian users will be able to choose which kernel they want to install (at least on on the i386 and amd64 architectures) and get more or less the same Debian operating system they are used to. This makes Debian the first distribution, and probably the first large OS, to support two completely different kernels at the same time."
This really surprises me. Debian are license-monkeys and i'm really pleased they looked past "unclean" BSD license. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/04/msg00001.html
_________________
"The man who does not read... has no advantage over one who cannot."
-M.T. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bmc5311
Buccaneer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 479
Location: Virginia Beach
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
i read that on slashdot the other day -
- what exactly does it mean?
- what are the advantages of a bsd kernal verses a linux kernel?
if you explain it to me (so i understand..), i'll reciprocate by explaining the infield fly rule in layman's terms..  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pogson
Joined: 31 May 2009
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:13 pm Post subject: BSDs |
|
|
I have not used BSD except on a Mac. The various BSDs are descended from ATT when they involved universities like Berkeley, hence Berkeley Software Distribution. ATT and the University disputed copyrights but it came to a draw and Berkely was allowed to do its thing. Various BSDs evolved. The FreeBSD licence is free depending on how you look at it. It is possible to take the software private/proprietary, which is quite different from GPL. However, the kernel and apps that run on the kernel can have different licences. This is just the opposite of running non-free software on GNU/Linux, a somewhat non-free kernel with GNU.
The article in Wikipedia may be helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
One huge difference is that binary-only distribution is permitted, thus taking away the user's freedom to examine and modify the source code.
see clause 7 of the Debian Free Software Guideline:
| Quote: | #
Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. |
I do not see how the right to distribute source code is passed on if the source code is not passed on in a binary-only distribution... Debian can pass on the source code but cannot require receivers of that source code to pass it on under the BSD licence.
Besides the licence issue, FreeBSD is known for huge up-time on servers. see http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/Hosters
I am well satisfied with GNU/Linux and I can work around almost any problem I find. Free BSD might be interesting if there was a project that needed something that was in FreeBSD and not in GNU/Linux. I have never met such a requirement. If I did I might write my own. I think one of the great things in life is having a single licence cover many packages. It is terrible to have to consult a lawyer every time we want to implement some software. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
