Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

OpenBSD Fork Bitrig Announced

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the netcraft-confirms-netbsd-developers-arming-for-war dept.

Open Source 178

With the goal of bringing more experimental development to the OpenBSD code base, a few developers have announced a fork named Bitrig. According to their FAQ, Bitrig aims to build a small system targeting only modern hardware and "be a very commercially friendly code base by using non-viral licenses where possible." Their first step toward that goal was removing GCC in favor of LLVM/Clang. The project roadmap shows their future goals as adding FUSE support, improving multiprocessing, porting the system to ARM, and replacing the GNU C++ library with LLVM's.

cancel ×

178 comments

wtf is a bitrig? (3, Funny)

noh8rz3 (2593935) | more than 2 years ago | (#40311521)

sounds like a place to keep my bitcoins...

Re:wtf is a bitrig? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311611)

A bitrig is 1/8 of a byterig.

Theo is going to me sooooo mad (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311597)

"commercially friendly"

Re:Theo is going to me sooooo mad (1)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | more than 2 years ago | (#40311631)

"commercially friendly"

It would be a good definition for a stripper.

Re:Theo is going to me sooooo mad (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311753)

"commercially friendly"

It would be a good definition for a stripper.

How about "receiver of swollen goods".

Re:Theo is going to me sooooo mad (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311797)

Sounds like when we tried to hire a female penetration tester.

Re:Theo is going to me sooooo mad (4, Informative)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40311669)

I don't think he will be mad about that. Mad about the devs leaving, sure, but not about the commercial fork. If they contribute back to the main trunk, then I think all is well.

Seriously, Theo may be a bit aggressive, but he's not an idiot, the BSD license allows this more clearly than anything else out there short of public domain.
-nB

Re:Theo is going to me sooooo mad (5, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#40311769)

If they contribute back to the main trunk, then I think all is well.

The double edged sword of the BSD License. I'm sure they will probably contribute back but unlike the GPL there is nothing legally to compel them to.

Re:Theo is going to me sooooo mad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312319)

The GPL doesn't legally compel people to contribute back to the main trunk either.

Re:Theo is going to me sooooo mad (4, Informative)

Conley Index (957833) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312353)

The double edged sword of the BSD License. I'm sure they will probably contribute back but unlike the GPL there is nothing legally to compel them to.

That is not a problem from the perspective of the BSD people. In their experience, code being contributed back only because of legal reasons is so rarely of the quality that anyone would consider merging it back to the original OS that it does not matter to worry too much about that code. Anyhow, there are companies that choose to contribute some of their changes back without legal obligation, which tends to be of better quality, since they want to have it included for whatever reason (for example not to have to maintain their own fork in rapidly changing regions of the code), while they do not consider working on GPL code for their own reasons.

It might be different for different projects.

Re:Theo is going to me sooooo mad (3, Insightful)

jonadab (583620) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312919)

> The double edged sword of the BSD License. I'm sure they will probably
> contribute back but unlike the GPL there is nothing legally to compel them to.

In practice, this only matters if the project is so stagnant that it doesn't actually matter any more after all.

If the project is active, the work of maintaining your changes (either by constantly updating your patches every time an upstream change breaks them or, if you prefer to go the clean fork route, porting over or reimplementing upstream changes that you specifically want) is so burdensome that any reasonably competent developer will WANT to get his changes incorporated upstream just so he can get off the maintenance treadmill for a bit and maybe have time to implement something else.

Re:Theo is going to me sooooo mad (2)

erice (13380) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314175)

If they contribute back to the main trunk, then I think all is well.

The double edged sword of the BSD License. I'm sure they will probably contribute back but unlike the GPL there is nothing legally to compel them to.

How does the GPL legally force people to contribute to the trunk? The source must be released, sure. But that doesn't mean you need to create patches, integrate, or even communicate in any way with the developers working on the trunk.

This fork appears to be open source anyway.

Re:Theo is going to me sooooo mad (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312477)

Methinks you need to read up on Theo's antics, before making such a statement. He wasn't happy about businesses using openssh without contributing back, and he kicked up a bloody fuss about when one of the openbsd people made a copy of a linux driver and then tried to "write out" the original of it (you can't, it's still a derived work), only the target for his ire was... the linux people, not the copyright-violator in his own precious bunch.

Theo lost any trace of sanity years ago.

Re:Theo is going to me sooooo mad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40313719)

Funny to see GPL zealots talking about copyright infringement and then whining about DRM.

i386 (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 2 years ago | (#40311743)

Bitrig will only target actively developing hardware and architectures such as i386 and amd64

How the fsck is i386 actively developing?

Re:i386 (2)

blane.bramble (133160) | more than 2 years ago | (#40311835)

Bitrig will only target (actively developing hardware) and (architectures such as i386 and amd64)

Does that help you parse it?

Re:i386 (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40313245)

Double woiosh to you, sir. It wasn't a parsing problem, he was pointing out an incredible stupidity. Look at the number -- I haven't seen an i386 [wikipedia.org] since the early nineties.

Re:i386 (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312527)

"i386" is OpenBSD-speak for the architecture variously known as "x86", "x86-32", "i686", "IA-32", and "32-bit Intel". Just as "amd64" is OpenBSD-speak for the architecture known to others as "x64", "x86-64", "IA-32e", "64-bit Intel", "Intel 64", and whatever VIA calls it.

No interest (-1, Flamebait)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40311767)

"be a very commercially friendly code base by using non-viral licenses where possible."

Horrray!!! Someone can take the communities work, make piles of money with it, and contribute NOTHING back to the community. Greed makes the world go around, baby

I'm mystified what the motivation would be to work on something like that unless its just another paycheck.

Re:No interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311901)

Perhaps people who have an interest in OpenBSD, but disagree with some of the community's policies? I believe taking a walk with the code for philosophical/political reasons is how OpenBSD was started in the first place. And that's one of the advantages of Open Source.

Paychecks might be one of the incentives, yes, and I don't see why that would be a problem.

Re:No interest (4, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312007)

Freedom -- true freedom -- is about people having the ability to be assholes if they choose.

Re:No interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312079)

Freedom -- true freedom -- is about people having the ability to be assholes if they choose.

True freedom is anarchy. No thanks.

Re:No interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312265)

Failing to take risks is failing to progress, that is the reason bitrig is forking and it is the reason openbsd branched from netbsd and it is the BSD licenses exist.

Re:No interest (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314593)

True freedom is anarchy. No thanks.

You're right, we really need to elect a group of people to coordinate the open source ecosystem to stop this messy chaos we have now. Folks who are smarter than us and can tell us what we all need to do, which projects should exist, and which technologies will win the future.

ahhahahahahahah.

Re:No interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312171)

That is true, so I assume we won't be subjected to the usual BSD/ssh's pissy whining about "non contributors" then?

Re:No interest (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312491)

Another true freedom is having the ability to whine like a little bitch.

Re:No interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40313613)

Freedom is also the ability for the rest of us to get together and together and tell an asshole to shut the hell up.

Re:No interest (3, Insightful)

MartinG (52587) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314493)

Including the freedom to take away other peoples freedom, I suppose?

Re:No interest (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314621)

Freedom -- true freedom -- is about people having the
ability

to be assholes if they choose.

Yep, that's human freedom and what BSD is all about (well, except they try to force copyright on you - WTFPL FTW).

GPL anthropomorphizes code and gives it ultimate freedom. Different ends, different means.

Re:No interest (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314637)

True freedom would be using the do what the fuck you want to license, or creative commons zero or similar.
BSD isn't true freedom because it requires you to keep the name of the original developer.

Re:No interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312027)

BSD is a glamour license. The small number of devs that love it want their names in source and help panels. Don't worry about it. OpenBSD has very few users, bitrig will have even less. Don't like it, just avoid any products that use it. Oh wait, you can't tell with BSD liftware.

Re:No interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312311)

Yeah, avoid all OpenBSD software. Like SSH....

OpenBSD has *LOTS* of users of it's software.

Re:No interest (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312449)

BSD is a glamour license. The small number of devs that love it want their names in source and help panels. Don't worry about it. OpenBSD has very few users, bitrig will have even less. Don't like it, just avoid any products that use it. Oh wait, you can't tell with BSD liftware.

A fair number of gizmos in your house probably runs it, or a similar flavor of it.

Re:No interest (2)

kwark (512736) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312695)

Nope, most run linux over here (TV, settopbox, routers, WAPs, DECT basestation, mobile phone). Maybe the washer, microwave or SIP phone are running a *BSD.

Re:No interest (3, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312109)

Why would those companies want to have to maintain their own forks and keep those up to date?

Re:No interest (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312515)

Why do companies write proprietary software? Because they think it gives them an advantage.

Re:No interest (-1, Flamebait)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312345)

I'm mystified what the motivation would be to work on something like that

Meh... The BSD crowd is a bit like the whiny younger brother who never seems to get enough attention. They get to feeling a little inadequate once-in-a-while and come out with their own bootable iscsi target on CD, or update some long forgotton arcane network drivers. After they get some cred for a few weeks they crawl back under the bed. Don't get me wrong, BSD is a great OS, but it suffers from the same growing pains Linux went through 10 years ago.

Re:No interest (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312629)

I get the feeling you arent really aware of all the growing pains linux has at the moment because of all the going to desktop features they introduce and break useful stuff that worked for years (but is only used if you need to manage more than one system). BSD is more mature and usually doesnt break stuff with new additions.

Re:No interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40314509)

Linux, by itself, has no desktop features. Linux is the kernel, nothing more.

Some of the various GNU/Linux distributions have made some strange decisions regarding their integrated desktop environments, but that is not the fault of Linus and the Linux kernel, which his team produces.

Re:No interest (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312595)

Because it makes the code more widely used. Some people have a goal of making software open for everyone, others apparently have a goal that only their friends can use the software. Reinventing the wheel is a stupid idea, and yet GPL's goal is to force people to either join the commune or reinvent the wheel.

This is nothing new. This is how BSD has done it from the start, because BSD came from a public institution and was funded from taxpayer money and so can not legally, ethically, or morally restrict itself.

This is not about greed, it's about sharing. You probably can more even more money from GPL inhibited software.

Re:No interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40314673)

please compare the profits of Apple (*BSD) vs any of the GNU OS.

Re:No interest (1)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314027)

I'm mystified what the motivation would be to work on something like that unless its just another paycheck.

The same motivation that leads coders to contribute to GPL software, in spite of the fact that gazillions of other coders and designers and etc. make money on it without ever contributing anything back.

Unfair coverage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311803)

I'm confused. Usually, BSD projects must at least do a release to get on Slashdot. I never see stories about MirBSD or MidnightBSD.

Re:Unfair coverage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311887)

The difference is that unlike those projects this one does not scuk

Re:Unfair coverage (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312473)

The difference is that unlike those projects this one does not scuk

Scuk?

Re:Unfair coverage (2)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314051)

Scuk?

Dcik. :-)

A DeRaat-free-OpenBSD?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311817)

SIGN ME UP!

Hell of a Day.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311911)

...for RMS. First Linus gets the Millennium Technology Prize without a mention of GNU and now this.

I wish them luck. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311931)

This is a good "Put up or shut up" moment for BSD. For all the whining I hear about "Viral" and "Anti Business" licenses the various *BSD projects sure do have a meager adoption (Buisness, home, free or otherwise) compared to their GPL counterparts (Linux). I think an aggressive, forward looking BSD project would be great to have.

Granted, not all the most popular open source projects have "Viral" licenses (Eg - Most Apache foundation projects), but maybe.. Just maybe Linux's success is in part due to the GPL.

Some people feel the GPL is stealing something that they're somehow entitled too. In reality, it's more of an exchange. You give up the ability to have a certain business model, and in return you get the collective work of everyone else who's made the same agreement. You give up exclusive control of your source in return for a world-class, flexible, free, operating system with widespread uses. For free. With a BSD style license you're able to opt out of that "collective work" provision. You can take, but you don't have to give. As a result, the project does not grow.

It's probably in your long-term interest for the project to grow. I think the success of Linux proves this.

Re:I wish them luck. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311991)

yeah like not at all. webkit, clang/llvm, apache etc etc

GPL is fucking retarded and it does nothing positive. Maybe it had a bit of influence in the early open source days but there is zero evidence of it.

Re:I wish them luck. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312209)

right, that's why BSD is kicking the ass of Linux everywhe--oh, wait, it's the other way around, whoops!

Re:I wish them luck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40313707)

Linux got a huge userbase lead over BSD way back in the early days when the BSDs were tied up in limbo in a bit court case. It's kept it's lead from that huge momentum. That doesn't make it better software.

MySQL is a crap database, but it got a huge lead over PostgreSQL when PostgreSQL was slow to get together an good GUI and windows port.

MS has a *vastly* larger userbase than Linux. Are you claiming it's because the proprietary license is superior to GPL, or might there be other factors at play?

Stupid anonymous troll.

Re:I wish them luck. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312233)

If you don't like it don't use the licence, and don't use GPL software. But don't whinge about not being able to rip it off for your own purposes.

Re:I wish them luck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312271)

Great! Then take all these projects, put them on a BSD based kernel/userland, and take the world by storm!

But honestly, think of it this way. Bob, Mary, And yourself are all developers that use open source software. You are all commercial entities that make money.
You build piece A
Bob builds B
Mary Builds C, which use code from A and B

C is an innovative project that turns out to be a great money maker for You, Bob, and Mary.
With a BSD style license either you or Bob could have withheld your contributions and C would never have existed. Mary could have also witheld C and kept all the money for herself.
With a GPL style license C always gets created, and C always makes money for everyone. This scenario is possible with BSD, but with the GPL it is implied.

Re:I wish them luck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312383)

maybe.. Just maybe Linux's success is in part due to the GPL.

What success? Not trying to troll, but in what sense do you consider Linux to be a success?

It's clearly not number of users. Desktop linux systems are an insignificant fraction of overall desktop users. There are far more users of BSD code in operation systems that are not GNU licensed (Windows, Mac OS).

You give up exclusive control of your source in return for a world-class, flexible, free, operating system with widespread uses.

By what metric is Linux "world-class"? I use it every day because it is the lowest-cost way to run the simulations I do for work, but aside from that there is no sense in which Linux is "world-class". The five GUIs I have tried are all a mess. Sound doesn't work reliably. Multiple monitor configuration is a mess. Cut and paste doesn't work. I can't link a binary and expect that binary to run on another linux machine. The documentation is worthless, and any attempt to get help online ends with condescending people explaining that if I read the source to X11, the solution would be clear.

Re:I wish them luck. (2)

101percent (589072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40313229)

I haven't seen a troll like this in a long time. Cut and paste doesn't work? I spend the last 4 months of school doing vmware with RHEL and backtrack with a win7 host, and had no problems copying and pasting between any of these. Also, I just bought a 15" dell monitor off craigslist yesterday and running stock Debian 6 on a Thinkpad T60, plugged it in and it did mirroring 100% correctly. Tell MythTV users sound doesn't work reliably. Five guis are a mess? Do you listen to Tween Wave? If I apt-get source foobar I can build any debian package on my server and install it on my desktop. Documentation is worthless? The GNU Emacs Reference manual is like 1000+ pages. Any package which lacks a man page is a bug in Debian. Getting help online a problem? No one *owes* you help. Does your employer get free Windows tech support?

Re:I wish them luck. (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314421)

Cut and paste doesn't work?

It has been a while since I tried it, but with X/Xorg you can copy/paste text without an issue and you can copy/paste some kind of specific data (such as images) between applications that use the same toolkit. Everything else (formatted text, vector drawings, files) is a PITA.

Also, I just bought a 15" dell monitor off craigslist yesterday and running stock Debian 6 on a Thinkpad T60, plugged it in and it did mirroring 100% correctly.

So, just because it works for you, it must work for everybody? I had issues with older versions of Ubuntu on a Asus EE900, and with stock gnome you couldn't even click on the "ok" button of the display settings because it went offscreen (1024x600). It is somewhat easy to fix, but not very "user friendly".

Tell MythTV users sound doesn't work reliably.

The other day there was a rant one mile long regarding PulseAudio defects and how it killed low-latency audio in Linux. Many complainers were Linux users.

Five guis are a mess?

There is a consistent lack of consistency, yes. Partially because there is a multitude of toolkits available, and there is no single standard for almost everything. You gain choice, but you lose consistency.

If I apt-get source foobar I can build any debian package on my server and install it on my desktop

Yes, if they are roughly the same version. If they have eg. different glibc versions, you may have problems. And compilation flags in many linux distros can also interfere (try building an i7-optimized binary and run it on a p4), but that may also happen in other operating systems. AFAIK, both PC-BSD and MacOS have a somewhat elegant solution for it.

Documentation is worthless?

Yeah, it is. It is not that rare to find outdated manpages, features that lack documentation, or translation errors. You may not notice it, but if you are used to BSD-style manpages, you will have a shock.

The GNU Emacs Reference manual is like 1000+ pages.

Since Emacs isn't really part of the "base system", the manpages for Emacs are the same regardless of the operating system. I'm not familiarized with it, but size isn't really a quality metric.

Any package which lacks a man page is a bug in Debian.

Please have a look at the manpages of the base system of any BSD. Usually documentation maintainers are very strict, and "having a page" often isn't enough.

Getting help online a problem? No one *owes* you help.

I do prefer the BSD community (obviously), but we also have a bunch of arrogant bastards that will tell people to read the source. I'd say linux atracts a kind of "fanatism" BSD (usually) doesn't, but there are very nice and helpful people regardless of the operating system, so I wouln't expect getting online help for Linux or BSD to be a problem.

Does your employer get free Windows tech support?

Yeah, we actually do.

Re:I wish them luck. (1)

TheTrueScotsman (1191887) | more than 2 years ago | (#40313349)

It's "world-class" as a server OS.

Re:I wish them luck. (5, Informative)

killmenow (184444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40313879)

in what sense do you consider Linux to be a success?

In the sense that it runs twice as many servers as Windows, roughly the same about of desktops as Macs (according to Steve Ballmer), and more mobile devices than any other OS in existence (where, btw, it is outpacing its rivals by a wide margin and now selling more units than desktop devices per year as nearly a million new linux-based (yes, Android is based on linux) mobile devices are activated every day. That sounds pretty successful. And it doesn't even include the embedded market, which you clearly know nothing about. So many embedded devices in use in many industries (the cable industry for instance) run Red Hat Linux and other distros.

By what metric is Linux "world-class"?

As of June 2010 the operating systems used on the world's top 500 supercomputers were: Linux 91.0%, Unix 4.4%, Hybrid Unix/Linux 3.4%, Windows HPC 1.0%, BSD 0.2%
That metric works for me. You apparently prefer ones with pretty pointy-clicky thingies.

Re:I wish them luck. (1)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312675)

For all the whining I hear about "Viral" and "Anti Business" licenses the various *BSD projects sure do have a meager adoption (Buisness, home, free or otherwise) compared to their GPL counterparts (Linux).

Actually, OSX (Darwin BSD [wikipedia.org] ) is nearly twice as popular as Linux (9.0% vs. 4.9% [w3schools.com] ).

Re:I wish them luck. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40313155)

Actually, OSX (Darwin BSD) is nearly twice as popular as Linux

Actually, no it isn't. Unless you're restricting yourself away from servers and embedded devices. But why would you do that? This isn't a thread specifically about desktop operating systems.

Re:I wish them luck. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40313333)

Is there anything lamer than a BSD-fanatic trying to ride Apple's coat-tails? I doubt it. Go back to the asylum, you moron.

Re:I wish them luck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40314263)

So what, are you proud of working for Apple for free? lmao, at least if you had put your effort into some apps or whatever you could've got paid. lol.

Re:I wish them luck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312857)

OpenBSD's success is largely based to their values, and they deserve much respect for their activism, but they are hackers first and foremost, and damn good coders. You are quite obviously largely misinformed and are going about it by beating the dead and buried horse of free licenses wars. Specifics are more valuable than personal anecdotes, so here: OpenBSD's advancement coincides with their willingness to adhere to their principles. Linux and FreeBSD are slowly being NDAd and locked up in the name of progress. Ubuntu is a huge platform for proprietary crap and instead of acting like OpenBSD, Redhat, linux-libre (Debian), soon most linux distros are gonna be a huge mess of proprietary blobs and gpl code. There is more to it than licenses. You have to be willing to make sacrafices and most importantly, write code, which OpenBSD is clearly at the forefront of. I think they only stop writing code when they are auditing code they've written. So please, do not demean BSD or any non-copyleft license to prove your point. Aside from the courtroom, their is so much more to "progress" than "such and such has advanced because of the license."

Re:I wish them luck. (0)

101percent (589072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312955)

Separate point. I'm not saying that GNU/Linux isn't growing at all. But you are grossly misinformed if you think BSD isn't growing. OpenSSH is the most widely used open source software, FreeBSD is huge in the embedded market, UFS/2 is just an awesome bazillion-year old file system which still rocks (ZFS is cool too but it's not really "from" BSD), FreeBSD's SMP support is fucking incredible. If you think FreeBSD+ZFS or OpenSSH is going away anytime soon, then apparently we have a different definition of progress. I guess soon TCP/IP stack is going away.

Re:I wish them luck. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40313391)

FreeBSD's SMP support is fucking incredible.

Is it any better than anything else? As far as I know, linux pretty much has the scalability record of 4096 CPUs in a single system image (SGI Altix).

Re:I wish them luck. (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314709)

While I'm a big fan/heavy user of FreeBSD, I've only seen reports of FreeBSD SMP machines upto 32 cores.

Re:I wish them luck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40313361)

Granted, not all the most popular open source projects have "Viral" licenses (Eg - Most Apache foundation projects), but maybe.. Just maybe Linux's success is in part due to the GPL.

Actually, Linux's success is due in large part to the FUD and ambiguity surrounding USL v. BSDi. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi

Re:I wish them luck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40314001)

For all the whining I hear about "Viral" and "Anti Business" licenses the various *BSD projects sure do have a meager adoption (Buisness, home, free or otherwise) compared to their GPL counterparts (Linux).

Yeah, just look at all of those Apple machines running Linux!! Oh, never mind.

could be interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40311983)

Linux was getting too lame so I switched to OS X for desktop shit but I'm still looking for a good open source server. Sorry, I can't take Ubuntu seriously as a server, Debian suffers from ultra-cruft like trying to support obscure 90s processors and Red Hat is so expensive it defeats the purpose. So I've been planning to go to BSD but sort of procrastinating on it. This project looks just exciting enough to get me on board.

Ok, while I was waiting for the "you must wait to use this resource" timer to fuck off I browsed their site...Wow, there's actually nothing there! The site is nothing but a faq and homepage. I thought this project was actually at an installable stage, lmao. Get back to me when you actually have something working. Looks like a good plan but if I had a dollar for every "inspiring plan" on the internet I'd be retired and curing malaria right now.

Re:could be interesting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312011)

You mean like this: http://mirror1.us.bitrig.org/release/snapshots/amd64/current/

Re:could be interesting... (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312075)

Linux was getting too lame so I switched to OS X for desktop shit but I'm still looking for a good open source server. Sorry, I can't take Ubuntu seriously as a server, Debian suffers from ultra-cruft like trying to support obscure 90s processors and Red Hat is so expensive it defeats the purpose. So I've been planning to go to BSD but sort of procrastinating on it. This project looks just exciting enough to get me on board.

I know the parent is trolling, but for those who ARE looking for a good open source server there are the assorted BSDs, and of course CentOS, and Scientific Linux.

Re:could be interesting... (3, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312185)

Take a look at DragonFly BSD [dragonflybsd.org] -- it exists, Matt Dillon has a track record, and it's doing cool stuff (like HAMMER fs).

Re:could be interesting... (2)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314753)

DragonFly BSD is HUGELY underrated. It is an aswesome project, and I'd love to see HAMMER in both FreeBSD and OpenBSD.

Re:could be interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40314199)

Debian suffers from ultra-cruft like trying to support obscure 90s processors

You don't have to include that support if you don't need it.

Bad name (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312041)

They should've called it BitrigBSD.

Why not starting with FreeBSD? (3, Insightful)

Conley Index (957833) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312051)

Most points of their agenda are common with FreeBSD and some are already done there or actively been worked on. No one would stand in their way porting WAPBL from NetBSD (if done decently). Ok, stripping the base is (fortunatelly) not on the FreeBSD agenda, but making most of it optional for embedded needs is.

From their FAQ, "OpenBSD [...] has some of the best code around". Ok, but I still do not buy it. If they want to leave some of the conservatism that comes with the security focus of OpenBSD behind (from the article), I do not find a real reason why they started with OpenBSD.

Not that some more good, modern code with any of the BSD would be wrong...

Why not starting with NetBSD? (2)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40313957)

It would have been good for them to take their project and changes back to NetBSD, which might have been happy to use the improvements. As it is, there are a lot of legacy servers not based on x86 that could use this fork, so if it was too much work, then making the changes and then integrating it upstream into NetBSD might have been a better idea, and NetBSD could have made it available on all architectures. Another thing they could have done - take their changes, gone to Minix, and there, put their changes there, be it Clang/LLVM, and so on. Portability would also have been preserved, instead of being needlessly sacrificed

no SPARC support? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312117)

I only used OpenBSD for SPARC hardware and it really belongs to the "big iron". Is this project aiming for the desktop? embedded platforms? Well, good luck with device drivers then. We already have linux for all that and you can't beat it in hardware support. So what's the point?

Re:no SPARC support? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314015)

Frankly, I'm a tad disappointed by them deciding to restrict this project to just the x64 architecture, given the portability of both OpenBSD and NetBSD, As I note above, they could have preserved the portability aspect of it by doing it on NetBSD or even Minix.

Yeah, there are a plethora of OSs wanting to run on PCs. Sparc is one target they could have had. Another would have been Itanium. They might even have gotten some Intel and/or HP backing had they gone that route, and little competition, since the only OS's for Itanium are FBSD, Debian Linux and HP/UX.

Re:no SPARC support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40314505)

Itanium is declared dead, there is really no motivation to put any work into this anymore, power is also barely breathing. Sparc on the other hand looks very promising at the moment. The guys from openindiana somehow don't pull this off, so from the motivational standpoint sparc would have been a logical target.

Re:no SPARC support? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314197)

So what's the point?

1: License. Some people dislike GPL and other copyleft licenses, and demand something BSD-licensed or similar. I personally don't care, but for those that do, this is a Good Thing.

2: Just to be different. It's good to have *options*. I personally despise most Linux's init system. Too convoluted, too complicated, at least for my taste. Some distros, like Arch, have adopted a BSD-style init system. OpenBSD, and by extension Bitrig, also have a BSD-style init system. There's also the different package/port systems, and even the kernel is different. I'm not saying one is necessarily better, but being able to choose one that does it differently is a great thing.

3: Size. I've installed OpenBSD from *floppies* - a single 1.44MB floppy can boot OpenBSD enough to download the rest from the Internet. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more "and-the-kitchen-sink-as-well" Linuxes can't even fit on a CD anymore.

4: For Teh Lulz: It's a free project. Do they even *need* a reason? Plenty of Linux distros have started off as "hey, this could be fun..."

Code reinvestment and positive feedback loops. (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312161)

"be a very commercially friendly code base by using non-viral licenses where possible."

The advantages to Linux over BSD licensed operating systems is that improvements are reinvested in the code base, by mandate. This accelerates development at a much faster rate than we've seen with any of the BSDs since it is a positive feedback loop. Contrary to this, companies take BSD code, improve it, and tend to release nothing back. Because they don't have to. Look at OSX.

So now we have a project that is "focused on modern hardware and SMP" among other things. Compare and contrast to Linux which keeps up with modern hardware a lot better than any of the BSDs. I'm betting the goal of "keeping up with modern hardware" is going to fall by the wayside when they eventually discover how difficult it is when it's just them doing all the heavy lifting.

I also take issue with the "commercially friendly" jab. Linux is GPL, and it's commercially friendly. Sensible companies are not afraid one bit of using Linux. The ones who are don't understand what they're missing when it comes to the code reinvestment cycle.

--
BMO Downmods coming in 3... 2 ... 1...

Re:Code reinvestment and positive feedback loops. (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312555)

The advantages to Linux over BSD licensed operating systems is that improvements are reinvested in the code base, by mandate. This accelerates development at a much faster rate than we've seen with any of the BSDs since it is a positive feedback loop. Contrary to this, companies take BSD code, improve it, and tend to release nothing back. Because they don't have to. Look at OSX.

Such as libdispatch, WebKit and LLVM/Clang? Just to mention a few.

Maybe I missed your point but just because Apple doesn't release their entire operating system as open source doesn't mean that they don't invest and contribute to open source.

Re:Code reinvestment and positive feedback loops. (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312637)

Webkit isn't BSD. It's LGPL, because it came from khtml.
Libdispatch is Apache.
LLVM/Clang - oh look, you finally struck gold, a BSD license.

--
BMO

Re:Code reinvestment and positive feedback loops. (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312697)

OK. I missed your point then. I thought that you pointed out Apples as an example of an organization that doesn't contribute back.

Anyway, they do contribute to fair amount of projects. Libdispatch even originated from Apple if I remember correctly.

Re:Code reinvestment and positive feedback loops. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40313067)

Apple has a bunch of BSD code they've modified and never given out. I did not claim that they never do, but they tend not to.

Apple is under no obligation to contribute back. This behaviour was apparent when they tried to deal with the khtml crew and had no idea how to share code, causing a shitstorm and the khtml devs to reject their code. They had to learn how to share code with outside devs. Eventually this happened and we wound up with webkit.

What I'm trying to say is that the BSD license does not encourage the collegiality which I believe is the GPL's greatest strength. YMMV of course, but we've seen it time and again over the decades.

Like I said. For the things that Apple does not wish to share, they miss out on the feedback loop and code-reinvestment. Other people could call it network-effects.

--
BMO

Re:Code reinvestment and positive feedback loops. (1)

101percent (589072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314559)

We must be fair. Releasing Clang/LLVM is kinda a virtue of necessity. Once GCC went GPLv3, they kinda had no choice.

cheap GCC diss? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312335)

Honest question: So what were the BSDs (Open,Free,Net) using to compile and run on x86 and amd64 before llvm/clang was around? GCC ?

GCC had its share of problems but this sounds a little ungrateful for what GCC has allowed hackers to do. An open source "good enough" compiler is better then a high priced closed source compiler that may or may not be available for your hardware.

Re:cheap GCC diss? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312619)

Honest question: So what were the BSDs (Open,Free,Net) using to compile and run on x86 and amd64 before llvm/clang was around? GCC ?

GCC.

GCC had its share of problems but this sounds a little ungrateful for what GCC has allowed hackers to do.

I'm only familiar with FreeBSD but I guess the situation is similar at NetBSD and OpenBSD. They are not ungrateful. They have found another compiler that they think is better for their needs. That simple. Makes good headlines though.

An open source "good enough" compiler is better then a high priced closed source compiler that may or may not be available for your hardware.

I agree, but isn't Clang open source?

Re:cheap GCC diss? (1)

101percent (589072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314595)

OpenBSD has interested in pcc, but I'm pretty sure they use an older GCC that isn't GPLv3 that they maintain. They kinda do this with a lot of their stuff like htpd and named, but not all for license reasons.

I thought the problems are being addressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312363)

I would welcome a fork if serious developers are doing it. I don't follow the development of OpenBSD (I do use it on one of my machines) and I don't know who these guys are. By the website and some of their priorities it seems a bit amateurish, though I may be wrong.

One example of something they'd like to work on, probably one of the most "legit" items on the list, is better multi-processor/multi-core support. This is needed in OpenBSD for sure. Proper support for "real" (concurrent, kernel-scheduled) threads has not been a high priority in OpenBSD over the years which is pretty unfortunate and weird given where the industry is today. But (and again I don't follow development so much) my understanding is that work has made a lot of strides recently, specifically in terms of rthreads becoming a usable solution. So it makes me wonder if these people would either (a) be better suited to just hack on the OpenBSD tree and submit patches for rthreads, or (b) perhaps they are not qualified for a. and that is driving the whole effort. My sense of cynicism says b but let's hope it's a.

Re:I thought the problems are being addressed (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40314125)

I'd like them to enhance IPv6 support. One potential use for this distro could be something like pFsense or Monowall - make an IPv6 router/firewall that has all the security that OBSD has, along w/ the new compilers.

On multiprocessing, I'd think that DragonFly is already way ahead, so if things like PF, OSSH and so on are ported to DragonFly, it would work. They can even take Clang/LLVM there

Ummmm... you need a real goal first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40312483)

"With the goal of bringing more experimental development to the OpenBSD code base..."

How do you even measure the amount of current and future experimental development if everyone can take the source and then hide away all their changes? Seems we won't be able to quantify the success of this project.

I mean with BSD if I experimented and found a way to dramatically improve it (say IO throughput or something) I probably wouldn't tell the world. I'd keep it secret for my project/products or sell the info.

Re:Ummmm... you need a real goal first (2)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312909)

I mean with BSD if I experimented and found a way to dramatically improve it (say IO throughput or something) I probably wouldn't tell the world. I'd keep it secret for my project/products or sell the info.

That is probably because you are young and foolish.

If (corporate) you run a major project using your proprietary software on a bunch of BSD based servers, and you get your people to hack the OS code to fix a performance bottle neck, you certainly would (unless thick as two short planks) release it back, because if you do, then the hacks will (a) get thoroughly code reviewed and tested and (b) be introduced to the globally supported codebase, and consequently automatically introduced into all future OS updates, fully tested, and without your staff having to do a stroke of work.

If you are selling a service (VoIP, Money transfer, share dealing, etc), is the not like selling selling the software. The vast majority of OS users are not your competition, and no significant part of your competitive advantage is down to OS performance (if it is, you are doomed: short sell your company now)

Re:Ummmm... you need a real goal first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40314457)

If (corporate) you run a major project using your proprietary software on a bunch of BSD based servers, and you get your people to hack the OS code to fix a performance bottle neck, you certainly would (unless thick as two short planks) release it back, because if you do, then the hacks will (a) get thoroughly code reviewed and tested and (b) be introduced to the globally supported codebase, and consequently automatically introduced into all future OS updates, fully tested, and without your staff having to do a stroke of work.

Sure... cos it's not like the entire history of the BSDs and it's dozens of closed commerical (and otherwise) forks with user bases of about 5 each disproves this... at all.. no sir. The simple fact is - the GPL's ideals won. Its model of forcing greedy kiddies to play nice was validated massively by the Linux kernel - which caught up and surpassed the BSDs with staggering speed.

UNIX family tree (1)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312631)

Whenever I see announcements of "We're creating a fork!!!" the first thing I think of:
http://www.levenez.com/unix/ [levenez.com]

Lots of tiny branches that just stop.

Re:UNIX family tree (1)

Saija (1114681) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312903)

I think that looks like evolution, you know, the tree of the species with some dying and some changing onto something else

latest binutils? (1)

staalmannen (1705340) | more than 2 years ago | (#40312651)

I found it strange that an aim in the roadmap was to support the latest GNU binutils [1].. I hope they are trying to adress that piece of GNU dependency too. There is the FreeBSD-project libelf/elftoolchain [2, 3] that could be interesting... [1] https://www.bitrig.org/index.php?title=Roadmap [bitrig.org] [2] http://wiki.freebsd.org/LibElf [freebsd.org] [3] http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/elftoolchain/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:latest binutils? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40314387)

tat is interesting and i am adding it to the todo list.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...