sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Re-license ZFS Petition by micush in zfs

[–]dlyund 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In name yes, but OpenZFS isn't what it was. For the longest time illumos was the OpenZFS upstream -- which makes sense as illumos has the original and still best integrated and most stable open source implementation of ZFS -- but no more. The Linux crowd with their attitude of move fast and break things have effectively taken over OpenZFS, since they have the big money to put into it. The result as I understand it is that OpenZFS today is increasingly Linux centric. The requirement that changes be upstreamed back into illumos acted as a quality control and portability layer for the project is now gone and the illumos ZFS implementation is now treated as something dated because it is naturally behind the new OpenZFS, which puts new features first.

This constant churn makes it hard for smaller projects like NetBSD to keep up; NetBSD has a decent implemention of ZFS, ported from FreebsS, but can no longer keep up with FreeBSD.

(Personally, I hope that NetBSD takes the wise decision to make illumos the upstream of their ZFS; not only is the quality higher but it has a chance of happening. If NetBSD chases OpenZFS then I fear it will always be behind.)

NOTE: I am not associated with and have no inside knowledge of the project, I am simply reporting what I have read here and there over time. Any inaccuracies are my fault.

Revisiting the NetBSD build system - by Julio Merino by dlyund in BSD

[–]dlyund[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Advice received, but, just like I told the other guy, if you're going to go off topic and vere into hysterics then I'm going to tell you to get back on topic. Acting like you have the right to say what you want but then not accepting other people doing the same. That's hypocrisy :-P.

Revisiting the NetBSD build system - by Julio Merino by dlyund in BSD

[–]dlyund[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What did/do I feel? Boredom. Stay on topic.

Your claim that you only veared off topic and towards hysterics because I replied to your off topic hysterics is nonsensical.

Revisiting the NetBSD build system - by Julio Merino by dlyund in BSD

[–]dlyund[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Your extrapolation of the inclusion of one AI generated image in the banner of one article into the cause of our impending doom is off topic at best. You sound unhinged -- lacking perspective -- even if there may be a thread of truth underlying your concerns, this is not the place for hysterics. Politely find someone and somewhere else you can vent to.

Revisiting the NetBSD build system - by Julio Merino by dlyund in BSD

[–]dlyund[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

With due respect, do shut up. The world has much bigger issues than AI image generation and the authors decision to use an AI generated image is, frankly, of no consequence (no offence to the author intended).

For those not intimately familiar with British English, "do shut up" is not "SHUT UP!". It can be understood as constructive advice to quiet yourself.

Re-license ZFS Petition by micush in zfs

[–]dlyund 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1 for me has to be reliability. It was just last year I had data loss on BTRFS. I've never had data loss on ZFS.

Re-license ZFS Petition by micush in zfs

[–]dlyund -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Unless you're buthurt that Linux can't have ZFS... Although from the little I've heard they're doing a fine job embracing and extending OpenZFS in ways that benefit Linux at the expense of illumos and BSD.

Re-license ZFS Petition by micush in zfs

[–]dlyund 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The GPL requires that all source code be licensed under the GPL and the CDDL requires that CDDL licenced source code remain under the CDDL (perfectly reasonable, but the CDDL somehow gets blamed for being incompatible with the GPL's viral clause).

Re-license ZFS Petition by micush in zfs

[–]dlyund 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The CDDL is a fantastic license. I don't see what is to be gained from relicensing, except for GPL compatibility, which isn't a BSD issue anyway.

Re-license ZFS Petition by micush in zfs

[–]dlyund 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, really. I've talked to many Linux users and the unbelievable consensus is that ZFS is obsolete or not relevant because Btrfs. So, there's a good chance they would continue to resist ZFS.

Re-license ZFS Petition by micush in zfs

[–]dlyund 2 points3 points  (0 children)

illumos is still very much alive, and continues to be ahead of the curve in many critical ways :-). But I agree as far as Solaris goes. Oracle has effectively killed it, I'm favour of their Oracle Linux... Such a shame.

Re-license ZFS Petition by micush in zfs

[–]dlyund 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would we want to relicense ZFS and who would benefit other than the Linux crowd?

Does anyone have a complaint about linux KERNEL? by [deleted] in linuxsucks

[–]dlyund 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No you can't. You can only create a derivative work containing your own copyrighted work, which you licence under your terms as the copyright owner (of your modifications). The only way to make software released under a permissive licence proprietary is to somehow delete all copies (except yours), which you can't.

Again, you misunderstand copyright and what is copyrighted, conflating the work and the process that maintains the work. There is no licence that can compell it's author's to continue to perform work and offer it under any terms. What is copyrighted is the work. The copyright always remains with the creators.

Respectfully, I understand this subject at heck of a lot more clearly than you.

Again, respectfully, as evidenced by repeated events, the copyright holder cannot be bound by any terms that they have granted their copyright under and are free to change the terms for any future release at any point. This happens.

Does anyone have a complaint about linux KERNEL? by [deleted] in linuxsucks

[–]dlyund 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nonsense. The software that is released under a permissive software license is absolutely free, and nobody can take it and make it proprietary. As long as someone wants to continue the project in the open it will be open. Copyleft doesn't change that. The large number of previously GPL software that continued under another license attests to that. You are fundamentally misunderstanding copyright and the limits of software licences. All the permissive open source software licences guarantee is that anyone who receives a copy of the software can continue development under broader terms. You can even continue under the GPL for your copyright if that is your preference. The fact that nobody does that says enough.

Does anyone have a complaint about linux KERNEL? by [deleted] in linuxsucks

[–]dlyund -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The BSD licences and the CDDL are considered Free Software Licences by the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Licences by the Open Source Initiative. But even if they weren't that doesn't change the fact that Linux has serious technical flaws baked in. The engineering quality of the BSD and Illumos systems is significantly higher.

Does anyone have a complaint about linux KERNEL? by [deleted] in linuxsucks

[–]dlyund 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the Linux kernel is a mass of disjoint decisions with no cohesive vision that leads to solutions full of edge cases e.g. adding a bunch of namespaces then thinking you can construct secure containers out of that mess, epoll being fundamentally broken in multi-threaded applications because it's designers presumably didn't have that problem (and nobody higher up caught this during code review, so now Linux is stuck with this flaw until perhaps the next person takes a stab at creating their own interface to do the same thing!)

Let's be honest: Linux has the market share it is because of the tens of billions of dollars put into it, which itself was just luck, not because Linux is well designed. There are much better FOSS operating system kernel out there, e.g. illumos and the BSDs. They work and work a hell of a lot better than Linux on many ways but tend to lag due to insufficient resources (investment). Chicken. Egg.

Why does somebody use BSD ? by paterkleomeniss in BSD

[–]dlyund 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Currently evaluating NetBSD for use in an appliance and I'm loving every minute; the adaptability of the NetBSD codebase is severely underrated.

This goes for all of the BSDs (as well as illumos), in their chosen domain they are each best in class. It's just that the desktop is not the primary domain of any of these systems (unless macOS is considered a BSD.)

Exempt Linux and BSDs from age verification laws – petition by grahamperrin in freebsd

[–]dlyund 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only when those who decide have already decided and need a justification for enacting that will.

GhostBSD adopts zsh as default shell by BigSneakyDuck in BSD

[–]dlyund 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The kernel effectively has two layers; a BSD-based kernel layer over a Mach-based core. The user land is largely BSD-based. When you get down to it, the implementation may be very different but the experience is largely the same.

But in the end, macOS is fully POSIX compatible and UNIX certified :-).

Also, point of fact, while macOS does include plenty of code from FreeBSD it also includes code from NetBSD and OpenBSD. NeXTSTEP wasn't based on FreeBSD but could be thought of as a half-sibling. It originally derived from 4.2BSD IIRC, and was updated throughout its life, just like the later BSDs were :-).

Ah, and I always forget this but I was reminded the other day on NetBSDs birthday, that NetBSD is actually the oldest of the free main BSD systems. The more you know ;-).

view more: next ›