FreeBSD the most distributed Linux in the World

http://blog.milkingthegnu.org/2008/05/freebsd-the-most-used-linux-in-the-world.html

by TheBigRedDog • 18 years ago

6 14 18 years ago

blog.milkingthegnu.org

uruzseven• 18 years ago

Did you RTFA? BSD isn't Linux.

I think the reason it's used in a lot of hardware and OS X is because of the licensing. They don't need to release the source code after they've used other people's work for their own product.

I suppose that's OK since the developer agreed to the license but the rapid explosion of Linux is in my opinion indicative that developers prefer the GPL even with its flaws.

cperciva• 18 years ago

developers prefer the GPL

Speaking as a FreeBSD developer: I prefer the BSD license. :-)

In all seriousness, while Apple hasn't set a great example for giving code back to FreeBSD, they have been very good at sending bug reports back -- and really, a report of "it looks like you're doing bazzle wrong on line 234 of foo.c" is often more useful than a patch which fixes the bug but doesn't explain why.

Looking at FreeBSD commit mail for the past 4 years, I see commits which were marked as "Sponsored by:" ActiveState, Apple, Chelsio, DARPA, Dell, Ensure Technology Ltd, Ethon Technologies, Google SoC, IronPort Systems, Isilon Systems, Juniper Networks, McAfee Research, Myricom, NetApp, nCircle Network Security, Nokia, Pair Networks, Sandvine, Seccuris, Secure Computing, Sippy Software, Soekris, Sophos, SPARTA, SPAWAR, Timing Solutions, and Yahoo (and I know committers don't always record who sponsored their work in commit messages, so there's certain to be more than just these companies) -- so the notion that the BSD license somehow means that companies don't "give back" to the community is quite ludicrous.

TheBigRedDog2• 18 years ago

Very good point. But it's not completely ludicrous either. The "sponsored by" usually means that the developer is actually employed by the company (hence the sponsor) and that he contributed in this capacity (i.e. ebing paid working on BSD for instance).

However the code itself often amounts to patches and the company itself (Apple in this article) has chosen not to condemn officially FreeBSD by making a direct financial donation to the foundation.

tptacek4• 18 years ago

Take Apple out of the list. And, obviously, the Google SoC.

Now strike DARPA, SPAWAR, Secure Computing Corporation and McAfee Research as well --- that's TrustedBSD, a government-funded project that was required to give its code back (the "McAfee Research" there refers to TIS Labs).

Now strike Chelsio, Dell, Myricom, probably Pair Networks, and Timing Solutions, which is driver code.

Now strike Ethon Technologies, Ensure Technology, and Seccuris, companies nobody's ever heard of with no IP to donate to the project.

What do we have left? ActiveState, IronPort, Isilon, Juniper, NetApp, nCircle, Nokia, Sandvine, and Yahoo.

* What did ActiveState contribute?

* Did IronPort contribute back its custom filesystem and I/O scheduling code?

* Did Isilon contribute back its kernel filesystem clustering code?

* Did Juniper contribute back its networking code? Wait, I know the answer to that one.

* Did NetApp contribute back its WAFL filesystem?

* Does nCircle even have anything to contribute?

* What did Nokia contribute? I know their Checkpoint appliances run FreeBSD.

I sound snarkier than I really mean to here, but I think the list is a bit misleading. Of course, more companies contribute back to Linux than contribute back to FreeBSD; they're obligated to.

xirium2• 18 years ago

BSD gets an edge over proprietary software because if you distribute changes then you don't have to contribute source. GPL gets an edge over proprietary software because if you distribute changes then you must contribute source. Both models have merit and motive. BSD code is distributed widely within proprietary devices and operating systems. GPL code is distributed in a more homogenous form. However, which licence has the largest sum of installed modules?

SwellJoe• 18 years ago

I've stopped visiting milkingthegnu.org, as the inflammatory always outweighs the insightful...both are present, but I always have to fight my way through every post.

tlrobinson• 18 years ago

OS X isn't even really FreeBSD, parts of it are based on FreeBSD (but the kernel isn't).

tptacek4• 18 years ago

That's not exactly true. xnu/bsd/kern, the "Unix half" of the kernel, is FreeBSD. xnu/osfmk, the "Mach half", isn't.

tptacek4• 18 years ago

I'm not so sure about this guy's policework. For instance, NetApp ONTAP is decidedly not FreeBSD. Juniper uses FreeBSD as a control platform, but neither the core functions nor the user CLI are FreeBSD. I'm not sure why I care what IronPort uses.

From several years commercial reversing experience, my guess is that even if you lump NetBSD in with FreeBSD (NetBSD is the preferred BSD OS for non-X86 BSPs), you still see more Linux than BSD in embedded and appliance apps.

From several years shipping appliance products, I'll also suggest that while there may be apps that FreeBSD excels at (due to a better tuned filesystem and VM), for things where raw I/O and compute are the bottleneck, Linux tends to win.

xirium2• 18 years ago

> FreeBSD excels at (due to a better tuned filesystem and VM), for things where raw I/O and compute are the bottleneck, Linux tends to win.

I've noticed that FreeBSD works more responsively in low memory environments. Perhaps that's the VM tuning.

FreeBSD the most distributed Linux in the World

Related Stories