×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

262 comments

Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (2, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705669)

Just asking.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (0, Flamebait)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705689)

Of course no. Hotmail run Apache on Linux :)

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705705)

That is interesting, but I was more referring to the fact that MS will be distributing this product.

Most users will never know that Hotmail and Apache are running on Linux.

Thanks for the info, though ;)

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26705789)

Wait, now that you REPEATED that I realize the significance...

Serving Hotmail with Apache on a dinky little SIDEKICK? That's fuckin AWESOME!

No wonder MS is the best company ever.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (0, Redundant)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705811)

C'mon, Taco, leave him alone.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26705909)

-5, Taco? I was being serious.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26705979)

05401 is a code for troll accounts.

Stop feeding him.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (4, Informative)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705879)

That was always one of my favorite MS facts, unfortunately they switched to IIS a few years ago. Netcraft confirmed it [netcraft.com] :)

Just a minor note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706065)

Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't. I know nothing at all about servers but wouldn't it be possible to just put some IIS server between the Linux server and the WWW to make it look like IIS to the outside? Or even configure the Linux+Apache like that directly? Yeah, it's a shame we lost the "Hehe, look at that" because there is no way to prove any of this. However, Netcraft saying they switched over a few years ago doesn't necessarily mean they did... I think.

Re:Just a minor note (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706127)

More likely is that it never ran on Linux in the first place. It's pretty common for industrial VIP systems to use Linux under the hood while the back-end systems run something completely different. For example, check Netcraft's entries [netcraft.com] for Live Search. It claims that's running Linux to this day, which I know for a fact is not true.

Re:Just a minor note (1)

Mikeytsi (186271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706193)

It ran on Solaris, not Linux. It is Windows Server end-to-end now.

Re:Just a minor note (1)

unleashedgamers (855464) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706443)

Last I knew (couple months ago) they used F5 BIG-IP. F5 BIG-IP runs a variant of Linux, although F5 BIG-IP did used to use NetBSD back around '04 (When it was clamed that Microsoft used NetBSD).

I'm positive they run IIS 6.0 in emulation.

Re:Just a minor note (2, Insightful)

Mikeytsi (186271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706505)

No, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The F5 BigIP does load-balancing and traffic management, it's not used for content delivery.

Re:Just a minor note (0)

unleashedgamers (855464) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706529)

They also provide powerful suite of storage management with data migration, storage tiering, data replication, and storage load balancing.

Re:Just a minor note (2, Insightful)

Mikeytsi (186271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706567)

Which isn't what the BigIP does. F5 is a company, BigIP is a hardware load-balancing and traffic-management system. I've seen 'em, I know what they do.

Re:Just a minor note (2, Interesting)

0xygen (595606) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706859)

It's actually the other way around - they used to show up in Netcraft as Linux servers even though they were IIS on Windows Server 2003 for a long time.

This is because the server version reported was actually Akamai's balancing and caching infrastructure in front of the Hotmail servers.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706129)

Personally I think the switchover was too fast. I suspect they just simulate an IIS (which Apache easily allows).

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (3, Informative)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706695)

My tests are quick and dirty and I don't have a full environment to work with, but I think you might be right:

lg:~ root# nmap -sV -O -p 25,80,443 -PN -n www.hotmail.com

Starting Nmap 4.76 ( http://nmap.org/ [nmap.org] ) at 2009-02-[snip]
Warning: Hostname www.hotmail.com resolves to 12 IPs. Using 64.4.38.249.
Interesting ports on 64.4.38.249:
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
25/tcp filtered smtp
80/tcp open http Microsoft IIS webserver 6.0
443/tcp filtered https
Warning: OSScan results may be unreliable because we could not find at least 1 open and 1 closed port
Device type: general purpose
Running (JUST GUESSING) : FreeBSD 6.X (85%)
Aggressive OS guesses: FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE (85%)
No exact OS matches for host (test conditions non-ideal).
Service Info: OS: Windows

OS and Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at http://nmap.org/submit/ [nmap.org] .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 15.76 seconds
lg:~ root# nmap -sV -O -p 80 -PN -n xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx

Starting Nmap 4.76 ( http://nmap.org/ [nmap.org] ) at 2009-02-[snip]
Interesting ports on xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
80/tcp open http Microsoft IIS webserver 6.0
Warning: OSScan results may be unreliable because we could not find at least 1 open and 1 closed port
Device type: general purpose
Running: Microsoft Windows 2003
OS details: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 SP1 or SP2
Service Info: OS: Windows

OS and Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at http://nmap.org/submit/ [nmap.org] .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 8.46 seconds
lg:~ root#

The second server is obviously a known IIS/Win2003 box.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (5, Informative)

hhw (683423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705999)

You mean, Hotmail used to run FreeBSD before Microsoft bought it, and for the 4+ years it took them to migrate it over to Windows without failing?

Hotmail itself has never run on Linux. It may however have some of its content delivered by Akamai's CDN, which does run Linux (but not Apache).

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (4, Informative)

Snowblindeye (1085701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706101)

Of course no. Hotmail run Apache on Linux :)

Hotmail never ran on Linux. Originally, before Microsoft bought it, it was running on FreeBSD with Apache, with some backend servers running Solaris.

Microsoft had a lot of trouble switching to Windows, and even after they claimed they had migrated, they had to admit that some things were still running on BSD.

However, by now I'm sure they've had enough time to finish that switch.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (0, Redundant)

Mikeytsi (186271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706175)

Hotmail has never run on Linux. It USED to run on Solaris (which was the platform it was originally developed on before Microsoft purchased it). It was then converted to IIS over Windows Server for the front-end and Solaris for the Backend mail storage, and is now fully Windows Server based.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (4, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706373)

Incorrect; Hotmail never ran on Linux. It did continue to use Apache for some time, however.

Hotmail, when originally purchased, ran on FreeBSD and Solaris. Portions of it were moved to NT, running on Apache in the POSIX subsystem of the NT kernel (at the time, Apache for Win32 was not available, and Apache was miles ahead of IIS). This is one of the few cases I know of where the POSIX subsystem was used internally by Microsoft, although it is still under development and available in recent NT-based operating systems (some editions of Vista and Win7, and their server equivalents).

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705791)

I feel so torn. On one had here is a chance to be paid to work on netbsd. On the other hand the job is with Microsoft.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705923)

I hear Microsoft is good to work for.

Why not, if you are going to be doing NetBSD work? It's not like you would be going in to code the next Microsoft Useless Widget 2.0.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706027)

It's not like you would be going in to code the next Microsoft Useless Widget 2.0.

Right. You'll just be porting Microsoft Useless Widget from Windows CE to NetBSD.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706635)

Better than the other way around. That would be like digging your own grave or training your successor after being given notice.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (0)

crazybit (918023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706345)

be careful, you can end up programming closed source programs that run on top of a NetBSD kernel.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (1)

NoMaster (142776) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706483)

And there's a problem with that?

Even if a closed-source app statically links *BSD libs it's not a problem. That's the fundamental point of difference between the GPL & BSD licences.

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706829)

Jokes aside, that's how I started working at MS. Grew up hating them, took a temp job there working with Apache, and accidentally backed into a good job as a dev working on Windows. :)

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (3, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705917)

I love that this story comes out just after the latest NetBSD came out and everyone was leaving cynical "why do they still bother" comments. :-)

Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (1)

arogier (1250960) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706535)

Too bad the sidekick is probably still going to be locked into that awful Danger hell. Still I might try the NetBSD version to see what hacks can be done. The sidekick has a nice keyboard for a command line. Then there's filling that screen with the greatest UI for that form factor. # This is going to be great fun or horribly underwhelming.

Quite a loaded summary there (0, Flamebait)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705671)

Loaded with links, that is.

Really? Did we need 5 links in one sentence to convey a message which would've sufficed with at least two less links?

Re:Quite a loaded summary there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26705765)

Which ones would you keep? I personally didn't know what "many", "sites", "reporting", "NetBSD" and "developers" meant, so I was happy to see them all hyperlinked.

I never thought I'd see the day. (0, Troll)

jadedoto (1242580) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705681)

Heaven forbid we use the GPL. Let's go for the BSD license! It's worse!

Go Microsoft, you're finally growing up!

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (2, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705703)

BSD is the only licence that is compatible with MS business practice.

MS is no stranger to Unix, they wrote Xenix long ago.

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (1)

jadedoto (1242580) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705719)

About it being the only compatible free license, this is, unfortunately, very true. It's the only reason why I don't like using it. I don't think it's right to suck up code. Then again, recycling code... Gah, I don't know. BSD license makes me feel all conflicted inside!

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26705779)

If you don't *like* the ramifications of the license, don't *use* it. Many are fine with the implications of the BSD license.

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (4, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705795)

BSD is the only licence that is compatible with MS business practice.

So can I get windows and word with a BSD license?

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (2, Interesting)

H3g3m0n (642800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706019)

No but windows does have BSD code in it. Specifically ftp.exe and some zlib code.

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706803)

That's good. BSD code helped make the OS 90% of people use a better one. Even if I don't like it that's not a bad thing.

The TCP/IP stack too comes from BSD sphere.

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (4, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706819)

No but windows does have BSD code in it. Specifically ftp.exe and some zlib code.

Which is exactly the reason for all the BSD vs GPL holy wars.

GPL is about the freedom of the code: "I've shown you the code, if you use it, show your code to anyone who wants it". BSD is about the freedom of the software: "Hey, I wrote this. Use it."

Regarding Windows:

GPL: "Oh noes! They closed the source!"
BSD: "Cool, they're using my stuff! At least they got *that* part right."

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (1)

PenguSven (988769) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706017)

MS is no stranger to Unix, they wrote Xenix long ago

no, they licensed it from AT&T. It later became SCO UNIX

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706049)

MS is no stranger to Unix, they wrote Xenix long ago.

Oh my God, is that an ASCII RickRoll?

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (1, Offtopic)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705935)

Look, BSD licensing allows the end user to do whatever their want with the code in question, as long as they follow the attribution requirements outlined in the licensing. How can you possibly make code more free than that?

Yes, I'm posting this from an Ubuntu laptop, while performing maintenance on a couple of Debian servers, and poking around at a CentOS server running several variants of Linux in virtual machines. So, yeah, I enjoy using GPL products. It doesn't mean the GPL bestows more freedoms on the end user, as it certainly contains more constraints than BSD licensing.

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (0, Redundant)

LUH 3418 (1429407) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706191)

Some people just completely reject the idea of closed source software. Since BSD allows open source software to be modified into closed source software, they view it as a bad thing.

The GPL forces everyone to make their contributions open, which does have some nice benefits when it comes to encouraging improvement of software... However, it's often incompatible with the way many companies develop software.

Many large software development companies would never want to open source their software. They believe it would allow people to steal their trade secrets. To these companies, the BSD license is a viable option, but not the GPL.

I personally think it would be nice if everything was completely open, but I think that's the kind of utopic vision the world is not ready for.

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (2, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706435)

I personally think it would be nice if everything was completely open, but I think that's the kind of utopic vision the world is not ready for.

I wish for the same thing, and look forward to the day when economic scarcity is no longer human concern.

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706471)

The makers of this device have taken a free operating system and used it to build their product, from which they will make money. I don't see anything wrong with requiring them to release changes they have made, so that others can benefit.

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (2)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706427)

What are the constraints that GPL bestows on the end user? Right, none at all.

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706455)

You're right, none at all. Until you decide to change the code and redistribute it. Oops.

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706799)

What are the constraints that GPL bestows on the end user? Right, none at all.

You're right, none at all. Until you decide to change the code and redistribute it. Oops.

What part of the term "end user" confuses you?

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706441)

Look, BSD licensing allows the end user to do whatever their want with the code in question

End users do not use source. End users use binaries. Granted, they can compile from source if they have it. GPL binaries come with source. BSD-based binaries in general don't. It can be 99% BSD code, 1% special closed source driver code but the whole comes without source and it does me fuck all good that it's 99% BSD. BSD is ultimate freedom for the ones with the source, GPL is a little less freemdom what you can do with the source, but it makes sure I will have the source in the first place.

Unless you limit yourself to pure BSD you as an end user have absolutely nothing, no more than if it was through and through proprietary. The freedome that you could try to figure to what bits and pieces of BSD they used, how they put them together and add the secret source yourself is illusory at best, possibly plain out illegal through patent law at worst. Maybe it could help some developer make a similar product, but as user of a closed-source derivative you have no ability to make small changes to improve or fix anything. You are at the vendor's mercy, you have the same lock-in issues, you have the same "embrace, extend, extinguish", they support only the platforms they choose and end support when they choose. "BSD based" means nothing to the end user except maybe that it was slightly cheaper to produce rather than reinvent the wheel.

Of course you can just stay with pure BSD. But then you're fighting a million companies that want to kill off the userbase that actually could improve that code by making them use properietary "value-added" versions instead. Let me take an example:

Linux user use Konqueror, finds bug in engine, patches source, has better Konqueror instantly, sends fix upstream, everyone gets a better Konqueror.
Mac user use Safari, finds bug, can't compile Safari but has to compile Webkit engine by itself, sends fix upstream, someday get an improved Safari.

The last is much, much more unlikely because it doesn't fix the end user's problem. The far more likely story is that he'd file a bug with Apple that may or may not do anything about it but then you're right back to classic "report error to vendor, wait for fix" just as if you reported an IE bug to Microsoft. I just don't see the appeal of "based on open source" because it is not anywhere near "open source". And the only advantage of the BSD over the GPL is to make products "based on open source".

Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (0, Redundant)

Enleth (947766) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706503)

Actually, both licenses are as free for the end user of the code as they could possibly get. The point is that for BSD, "end user of the code" == "a developer using *the code* as in getting the source into his work", whereas for GPL "end user of the code" == "a computer user running the code in an executable form". See? That's what most people bashing themselves up over this can't (or don't want to) realize. And it seems that having both kinds of "end user" granted maximum freedoms by a single license is impossible because those freedoms conflict - certainly, no license like that exists right now. Now, it's up to you to decide which kind of the "end user" you like more and want to give more freedoms to.

Embrace. (3, Informative)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705687)

This isn't exactly the first time Microsoft has leveraged BSD code in a product... cough, TCP stack, cough...

Re:Embrace. (4, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705815)

It might be "embrace", but you can't do any more than "extend" there. As long as the *BSD crowd's interested it'll be around. Much like Linux will be.

No, this is notable because it's an open admission that WinCE can't cut it .

Re:Embrace. (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705859)

It might be "embrace", but you can't do any more than "extend" there.

This is actually one of the things I admire about developers in a position to release their code under BSD licenses. The end user is free to do anything they please with the code, including rolling it into a proprietary product, as long as they follow the attribution requirements. As for myself, most of my public code is licensed under the GPL, for various reasons (some being financially related). No one can reasonably argue that BSD-licensed code isn't truly free.

Re:Embrace. (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705927)

No, this is notable because it's an open admission that WinCE can't cut it .

At least in the short term. MSFT appear to have bought this product from elsewhere. To keep it alive they need to get a release out the door. Maybe in parallel they are porting the software to run on WinCE.

Re:Embrace. (5, Insightful)

despisethesun (880261) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705941)

No, this is notable because it's an open admission that WinCE can't cut it .

Not really. Someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, development was well underway when Danger got bought by MS. That means it was likely cheaper to just continue doing what they were doing rather than scrap the work and start again using Microsoft's stuff. Not to say that something like that would have been unheard of, but it would have delayed a product that they wanted to get out the door. The real test will be whether the next iteration of this hardware runs this same OS or whether it comes with WinMo/WinCE.

Re:Embrace. (1, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705855)

apple can join that list as well. in fact everyone can. BSD is an awesome software model, and is truly free, unlike the GPL pretenders.

i also agree this is admitted winCE is crap. we have ruggised hardware at work that uses it and i fucking hate it. activesync is the worse idea evar.

Re:Embrace. (5, Insightful)

qw0ntum (831414) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705905)

Is there a problem with Microsoft using BSD code in their proprietary products? The developers clearly understood that was a potential outcome when they placed their code under a BSD license. As a result, they probably don't mind

That said, would it be nice to have seen MS contribute some code back? Yes, but that was not required by the license so there is no problem. That is the whole point of the BSD-style licenses: you can take my code and do whatever you want with it; you are under no further obligation to me.

Re:Embrace. (4, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705949)

Dear Lord, thank you. A post on Slashdot that mirrors the easily understandable fact that BSD licensed code is, in fact, free.

Re:Embrace. (0)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706081)

If netbsd was gpl licensed I would be Free to compile my own version of the OS to run on the Sidekick. As it stands there is nothing to make them release the source code to drivers they have written.

From my POV netbsd is less free.

Re:Embrace. (4, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706133)

As it stands there is nothing to make them release the source code to drivers they have written.

I don't think you get it. You consider "freedom" to be the ability to force other people to release their own code under terms you find favorable? Wow, dude. That's awesome.

You're still free to download any BSD distribution you like, in its entirety, and do whatever you please with it. Stop whining about the fact that the developers of that codebase made a personal decision that they don't care what others do with their code. What's that, you feel you have the right to make that decision for them? Wow.

Re:Embrace. (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706179)

forget it dude, you are arguing against a mind set that has attempted to redefine free. but it's very nature it can't understand free.

Re:Embrace. (3, Insightful)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706673)

you are arguing against a mind set that has attempted to redefine free.

As though 'Free' didn't have enough definitions already.

Re:Embrace. (1, Flamebait)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706657)

As it stands there is nothing to make them release the source code to drivers they have written.

I don't think you get it. You consider "freedom" to be the ability to force other people to release their own code under terms you find favorable?

The question here is, whose freedom?

The BSD license gives freedom to the developer; the GNU license gives freedom to the code itself.

That is: with BSD, you can take code from the community, do work on top of theirs, and keep it for yourself. In a sense, you can take free code and turn it into non-free code. With GNU, you can take code from the community, and do work on top of theirs; then, you are obliged to share back. The code was free, the code stays free. If you use my shovel to build your playground, you damn better let me play too.

Re:Embrace. (0, Redundant)

Ralish (775196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706139)

No, the derivative works from the original BSD-licensed code are "less free". The original BSD licensed code the work was based off is more free.

This is the distinction, GPL places greater emphasis on ensuring that derivative works from the original codebase remain free, BSD doesn't.

The end result is GPL is ideologically less free, but perhaps, more free practically due to the fairly solid guarantee provided that the code and future changes to it will remain free.

Re:Embrace. (0, Redundant)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706341)

i don't see it, the GPL doesn't demand you contribute anything back to the project, merely that you provide source code to everyone you distribute your changes to.

you can take a GPL product, modify the hell out of it and if you only distribute it internally amongst your company the community will never see it. granted BSD doesn't improve on this situation, but atleast you don't waste energy worrying about licensing issues.

Re:Embrace. (3, Informative)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706221)

NetBSD is not less free. The drivers that they have written are. I don't understand why people try to confuse matters.

The BSD license is more free for users and distributors. Derived works /may or may not/ be released under a BSD license. This has NO BEARING on the original work.

Re:Embrace. (1)

JPortal (857107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706359)

Less free to whom? BSD license has less restrictions, period.

Re:Embrace. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706569)

It isn't just about free or partly free or not free. It's also about value.

GPLed software in a device give me, the end-user, more value than BSD licensed software in the same device. I am not at the mercy of manufacturers that use GPLed software. If the software is closed, then the manufacturer decides when/if they update the product and when they obsolete it.

GPLed software is more valuable to me. More valuable to other people, too. Ever here of the Linksys WRT54G?

Re:Embrace. (0)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706615)

Less free to whom? BSD license has less restrictions, period.

Essentially, the BSD is great if you actually have something with a BSD license. The trouble with the BSD license is that by the time BSD derived software gets to you, there is no guarantee it will be BSD, or anything remotely resembling free.

The matrix quote "what good is a phone call if you cannot speak." comes to mind. Oh sure, the BSD license is great, look at all this freedom the BSD gives you, if you had it... too bad the derivative you are working with isn't BSD anymore.

Re:Embrace. (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706755)

If netbsd was gpl licensed I would be Free to compile my own version of the OS to run on the Sidekick. As it stands there is nothing to make them release the source code to drivers they have written.

From my POV netbsd is less free.

No, only the derived, unpublished code could be considered less free. The original NetBSD code is more free, easily demonstrated by the fact that it was able to be combined with other Microsoft code. If it was GPL code, it would have been locked out of this particular product. Ie. GPL makes to code more limited, less free.

GPL is good though if you ask me. It enforces limitations, which I as a programmer often want to put on my code. It's good for this purpose precisely because it limits the freedom of the code in a way that I agree with (usually). Using the BSD license would make the code more free, more available for everyone, more compatible with different licenses and other external requirements. But I don't want that (usually), I rather want exchange of code enforces by GPL limitations.

Re:Embrace. (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705961)

As you'll note from my previous reply, I take no issue whatsoever with Microsoft using a BSD base for a product. I hope you didn't infer that from my GP post.

Re:Embrace. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706497)

Its never a problem to use BSD code in a non-BSD project. Thats what the licence is designed to allow!

Except if you want to use BSD code in, say, a GPL project like the Linux kernel. Then it becomes a major problem.

Re:Embrace. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26705943)

And somehow using the TCP stack was an example of EEE?

My god people! Stop touting EEE. There have been no real examples for ages.

(and for the oldies, the HTML EEE isn't a legit example since *everyone* did it)

Re:Embrace. (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705977)

I didn't imply EEE with my post, only "E." Why do people continue to attach ulterior motives to that post? Can I please have something taken in a purely literal sense for once?

In other news (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705821)

  • The Secret Service hires Pakistani dudes to guard the president.
  • Boeing outsources all aircraft construction to Toulouse.

Try try again. (2, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705845)

This reminds me of the Hotmail Unix to Windows conversion a few years back. They failed the first time. But eventually got it right.

Go NetBSD! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26705901)

Fuck Android in the ass! The Android developers are so stupid that they made the SDK x86 only. Fuck them.

Re:Go NetBSD! (0, Redundant)

H3g3m0n (642800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706035)

So submit a patch.

How many people are going to be developing on non-x86 systems anyway?

Re:Go NetBSD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706333)

Is Android itself x86?

Even better... (3, Interesting)

bofh29a (740402) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705953)

Microsoft's own Exchange servers have Postfix on their spam filtering boxen front-end. Not exactly eating their own dog food, when they have their own Forefront Security for Exchange.

This is the Postfix program at host mailxxx-xxx-R.bigfish.com.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.

The Postfix program

: host xxxxx-xxxx-mail5.customer.frontbridge.com[131.107.115.214] said: 550 5.7.1

$whois frontbridge.com,

Domain Name: FRONTBRIDGE.COM Registrar of Record: Corporate Domains, Inc. Administrative Contact: Microsoft Corporation Domain Administrator One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 US domains@microsoft.com +1.4258828080 Fax: +1.4259367329

$whois bigfish.com ,
Domain Name: BIGFISH.COM Registrar of Record: Corporate Domains, Inc. Administrative Contact: Microsoft Corporation Domain Administrator One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 US domains@microsoft.com +1.4258828080 Fax: +1.4259367329

Re:Even better... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706011)

Its like for version control they use perforce, while MSFT fans are stuck using visual source safe.

Re:Even better... (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706159)

Its like for version control they use perforce, while MSFT fans are stuck using visual source safe.

Outside of one tiny (and fucked) company I had the misfortune of working at, I've never seen anyone use Visual SourceSafe.

Re:Even better... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706289)

Its like for version control they use perforce, while MSFT fans are stuck using visual source safe.

Outside of one tiny (and fucked) company I had the misfortune of working at, I've never seen anyone use Visual SourceSafe.

Our Indian contractor apparently uses it as their standard source control tool.

Re:Even better... (2, Interesting)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706647)

I once worked with an Indian consultancy company. They were working on software for a mobile phone and were using ClearCase. Now ClearCase is expensive, but it does the job. A colleague and I were writing code to test the peripherals on the baseband chips. Now one of the Indian managers said that the project was stalled because the I2S controller didn't support some mode.

Since we had code that tested the I2S controller, we were drafted in to help them. We asked for a config spec. It looked like this

foo.c@\main\1212
bar.c@\main\1254

and so on, for thousands of files. Even worse if you emailed a few different people, you'd get slightly different config specs, but always of this form

Now normally in Clearcase you develop on a branch and then merge to a release branch. So the development config spec will be something like this

element * CHECKEDOUT
element * .../developers_branch/LATEST
element -file * RELEASE_LABEL_1 -mkbranch developers_branch

What this means is take the checked out file if if exists, otherwise look for the one on my branch, otherwise look for the released version

and a release one will be like this. Once you're done developing you merge your branch back and label the result with a new release label. Then the config spec looks like this.

element -file * RELEASED_LABEL_2 -nocheckout

Of course for this to happen you need to have a management structure that makes sure people get things right before they merge them back, and if two teams of people are fighting that things get resolved. Otherwise you end up with a minority report situation where different bits of the team end up working on different baselines.

The worst case of this would be where everyone picked a set of last known good versions that were different. Which is exactly the situation these guys were in.

Now you can see that the spec they sent us showed that something was very wrong.

We managed to get it to build but some things didn't work, actually the things we wanted to check. So we asked them and they said something like "ask Raj, he's go a fix for that". The fix was one file, which he emailed you. You checked the file out and overwrote it with the one in the email.

At this point, it was clear that the I2S settings were totally wrong. We fixed those and managed to punt the whole thing back. Given the chaos the project was in, I didn't really expect it to ever work properly.

It was the most amazing misuse of a version control system I have ever seen. What was odd about it was the individual developers seemed to me to be ok, the problem was the shitty consultancy company was loading them down with work without setting up things like version control properly. Actually I always suspected that the project we saw had been put together in a few hours by some very smart people, who had then billed my client for a shitload of hours which hadn't been worked. Then after that they handed over the whole mess to some much less experienced developers who were basically too timid to realise that they needed to do a drastic set of module tests, merges, system tests, bug fixes and so on until they had a stable baseline to work from, because the alternative would be that the project would crash and burn.

Still I'd never trust one of those big Indian outsourcing companies to do software after that. And as I said, it's a problem of the company, not the developers. With one decent manager, the project I saw would probably have not got to this dire state. Actually with one decent manager they could probably have pulled themselves back from the brink given a month or so.

Re:Even better... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706747)

Thank you for your informative and scary message. My company is currently migrating from cvs to clearcase, and from inhouse development to partly outsourced to india. ClearCase multi site will be used to integrate with the contractor.

I pushed a DSCM solution (mercurial, git, bitkeeper) but I couldn't get people to listen and now I am out of that job.

I don't plan to be around to see it work (or not as the case may be).

So what? Danger will still lock it out. (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706217)

This is why the developer community for the SK imploded. While there's still a core of hard-core SK developers out there, the majority of them moved on to greener pastures after the whole fiasco with Danger and their multiple personality disorder with regards to developers.

This, and their shit hardware QC, are why the Sidekick stopped being a real, going concern several years ago.

wow! Does this mean that there might be... (5, Informative)

rivaldufus (634820) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706423)

more than one open source operating system out there? Will Slashdot survive? It cracks me up that a bunch of posts talked about how hotmail once ran on "linux" and qmail. Can't even say the name, "FreeBSD."

Seriously, this isn't surprising... NetBSD runs on everything. The NetBSD team spends a significant amount of time supporting a large number of platforms - be it a modern X86 server or a sun pizza box.
You'll notice that commercial entities like the BSD license (see: OS X) And, I don't think that the NetBSD developers will suddenly panic: "Someone's going to steal our code!" Contrary to what some here might feel, there is room for more than one open source operating system and, believe it or not, more than one license.
Back in the old days, slashdot had the BSD link right on the front page.

Y9OU FAIL IT!? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26706547)

short of ax miracle Is al5o a miserable
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...