Luckily for the BSDs not everyone is like Theo de Raadt
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Tsela Jun 15, 2005 3:27 AM EDT |
Theo de Raadt carries on with the typical Anti-Linux Pro-BSD FUD ("Linux is only a kernel", "Linux distributions are unstable and Linux people are not trustworthy", "the GPL is not really free". I'm just paraphrasing, but really if you look at it that's really the only things he said), but luckily Christos Zoulas makes up by giving reasonable responses based on technical facts rather than FUD, and giving credit to Linux when credit is due. So don't take my vote as really 100% positive. I'm just glad not everyone in the BSD world is like Theo de Raadt. Glad for the BSDs, that is. |
| hkwint Jun 15, 2005 4:33 AM EDT |
When I read the story, Christos says the same as what you paraphrased. For example, he says NetBSD code is cleaner, and they cannot use GPL-code because of the license, but he just gives more arguments. In my opinion, Theo is just giving honest answers, and it's not FUD, at least not any more than what Christos is saying. But anyway, it's great BSD exists, and these people work real hard with very little money. They saw how they were 'passed' by Linux, so I can imagine they're a bit jealous to Linux' succes, though they wouldn't say so, because goals and philosophies are rather different. But it must hurt, regarding the amount of work they contributed. |
| PaulFerris Jun 15, 2005 5:43 AM EDT |
The funny part for me is that whether or not Linux is technically better than the BSDs, it's really suceeding due to mindshare, and that, I honestly believe is directly attributable to the community and Linus' general attitude. His diplomacy and the fact that he doesn't get so devisive has allowed these things to flourish. A long time ago, I attended a BSD gathering with representatives from the three major BSDs -- they fought in front of the entire audience and everyone seemed so non-plussed by it. It was not a community experience, in other words. Oh, and when they found out I was from LinuxToday a few of them treated me like some sort of spy, which kind of amused me. On a related note, one of the first people to make me aware of the whole BSD/Linux war was a nice guy, but he would always change the subject when I brought up Linux -- even seemed to get kind of hostile about it. I believe he was harboring old hard feelings from the ATT/BSD split (the one way, way back). I also believe that it's some of that blood that keeps the BSD and Linux communities split to this day. It's almost as if the Linux community seems to attract people that are more tolerant of differences, and therefore, they have a healthier attitude about what they're doing. Just my perceptions. --FeriCyde |
| Tsela Jun 16, 2005 2:02 AM EDT |
hkwint: You must have read a different story from the one I read. Zoulas points out to places where NetBSD is cleaner than Linux, but also to places where the opposite is true! As for the thing about the GPL, he just says that they want to keep their kernel under the same license, so they can't use GPL code. That's a fact, not a judgement value (he doesn't argue *why* they want to keep the same license, so maybe he has just the same opinion as de Raadt, but he doesn't voice it out here). Theo de Raadt, on the other hand, says clearly that he thinks the GPL is not really free, and that GNU/Linux is badly coded by irresponsible people. To me, they say really different things. Christos Zoulas keeps to the facts. Theo de Raadt doesn't talk about facts at all. As for giving honest answers, I don't believe for one second that an intelligent person like Theo de Raadt doesn't know how misleading his claims are. Paul: I think the reason why the BSDs don't show up as a community can be clearly understood when one looks at the licenses that embody most the ideals of the BSDs and of GNU/Linux: the BSD license and the GPL: - the BSD license is a "I share this code to you, you may do whatever you want with it except say you wrote it it yourself" license. It's a one-way trip, the only thing different from public domain being the attribution clause. - the GPL is a "I share this code to you, but if you distribute it you'll have to share too, including what you added to my code". It's a two-way road, a reciprocity agreement. It sets users as equals to developers, not as superiors. This is the main thing in my opinion: one can only build a community when its members are on equal footing, where people treat others like they are treated themselves, where respect is mutual, and reciprocity exists. The GPL enforces such respect and reciprocity, and thus attracts people who agree with this way of thinking (are at least can't do otherwise), hence the community can grow and thrive. There's nothing in the BSDs that enforces mutual respect and reciprocity, and because of that the communities built around the BSDs are much more fragile (they can easily be broken by selfishness, and the hurts don't heal easily) and thus more vindicative. This doesn't change the technical excellency that the BSDs can achieve. Even Linus admits to it (read again his views on the difference between Linux and the BSDs in the article that was published last week). But the success of Linux is not only due to technical excellency (despite what the Open Source people might like us to think). It's due to an ideal, the ideal of "share and share alike", and the second "share alike" *is* the key to that success. |
| dinotrac Jun 16, 2005 6:11 AM EDT |
tsela - Actually, I believe that Theo makes clear why GPL'd code is no good for BSD: It places additional restrictions on the use of code, specifically that binaries cannot be distributed without source code. The BSD lisence allows that, and including GPL'd code would require that the rest of the code be GPL'd -- something that the assorted copyright holders would have to agree upon. |
| PaulFerris Jun 16, 2005 10:03 AM EDT |
tsela: Never saw it that way -- very interesting point of view! |
| phsolide Jun 16, 2005 11:09 AM EDT |
I was a NetBSD user from 1995 to mid-2002, on various SPARC based machines. I moved to Linux (SuSE 7.3) in mid-2002 and now I R A SLACKWARE USR! The only thing I miss is BSD options to "ps". I have used Zsh on everything since 1992. I wanted to try all the neato little oddities that Linux has - user mode linux, live CDs, XFree86. That's worked out OK, and it's fun. As a programmer, I'd have to say very, very little difference exists between Linux and NetBSD - all programs I'd written on NetBSD/SPARC recompiled without changes for SuSE (and later Slackware). Come to think of it, a checkers-playing program I wrote in 1990/91 on an AT&T 3b2 (68010, System VR3) compiles and works, down to the test case, on Slackware. I've never understood how people write code that "only works on x86" or "only works on Linux" or "only works on HP-UX". What the sam scratch are those morons doing? |
| Tsela Jun 16, 2005 11:59 AM EDT |
dinotrac: True, but he says first: "our source tree is completely free". By having that next to a mention to the GPL, that clearly implies that somehow the GPL is not free. Zoulas at least was more careful in his wording (I don't have any gripes on them wanting to keep their work under the license they choose. I have gripes with some trying to bash the GPL at every occasion). Here's a hint: I don't believe the BSD license is really Free. It's laisser-faire, but Freedom is not that: with Freedom come responsibilities. And there are none with BSDs. The BSD people seem to confuse Freedom and laisser-faire, an attitude unfortunately very common out there.
But hey, they do a great job. They could just ease a bit on the attitude ;) . That was my message, which is why I tried to write it in as positive a way as I could (I also wanted to nuance my vote, which otherwise appeared as 100% positive, while over the contents I'm not 100% positive :) ). Paul: funny, I didn't think it was so novel to think like that. I've read RMS talk about the BSDs, and what he says, to my understanding, always comes out as what I said :) . phsolide: laziness, and temptation to use specific bells and whistle of a certain platform (sometimes just to look cool). There's also the fact that for the platforms often have incompatibilities that you may not see when you write applications like a checkers-program, but that come out when you try things more low-level, like writing a driver (but I don't think you need to go so low-level). However, if one sticks to POSIX I don't see why one's app couldn't directly be ported to other Unices. And/or use a high-level language (my favourite's Ruby, and I have no problem running a Ruby app on whatever platform I want, without changing the source code at all). And don't take my advice too seriously, I've only been a professional programmer for 5 months, and I have no IT education whatsoever ;) . |
| dinotrac Jun 16, 2005 5:18 PM EDT |
tsela -- I don't see any GPL-bashing. The truth is the truth. The BSD license allows you to do things that the GPL doesn't, and that additional freedom precludes the use of GPL code. There can be no serious question that the BSD is a "freer" license than the GPL, or that gifts to the public domain are freer still. It may well be true that the GPL causes more free software to exist and to be used, but that is a different thing from being a freer license, regardless of what FSF propagandists may wish you to believe. |
| Tsela Jun 17, 2005 12:29 AM EDT |
dinotrac: There was no GPL-bashing from Christos Zoulas indeed. If you refuse to see what Theo de Raadt wrote, then that's your problem. And you're making exactly the mistake I pointed out: confusing freedom and laisser-faire. Only through this confusion you can say that the BSD license is "freer" than the GPL. It's like saying that getting rid of driving laws and regulations would make the drivers freer. Some of them would probably feel freer indeed. But that would be at the expense of all the others who would see their freedom shrink to nothingness, as the roads become in effect the dominion of a few. Now if you think laisser-faire is the highest form of freedom there is, then nothing I could ever say will convince you. But that does not make it correct either. |
| Tsela Jun 17, 2005 3:11 AM EDT |
dinotrac: I suggest you read http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/2005/06/16/linux... (it's also in the queue of LXer). And then dare tell me that what comes out of de Raadt's mouth isn't Anti-Linux BSD FUD (anti-FOSS too, as he takes the Lyons/Enderle/O'Gara line of saying that the community is all about hating Microsoft, except his little band of course). Are you surprised that I read FUD in his words in the article this thread is about, when you see what he says in other articles? For once I must say I admire Linus's reaction. He doesn't lower himself to that kind of smear attacks. I really have to repeat myself: the BSD developers are capable of great technical achievements, but they really need to work on the attitude! No wonder the BSDs don't have the same community GNU/Linux has! |
| dinotrac Jun 17, 2005 4:25 AM EDT |
>And you're making exactly the mistake I pointed out: confusing freedom and laisser-faire. I am making no mistake at all. I am disagreeing with you. The BSD folks want to permit the widest possible use of their code, including binary distributions. The GPL wants to enforce a broader-scale collective "freedom". In many ways, it is a socialist disrespect for the individual, ie, the force of law must be brought to bear because people are too small and craven to do the right thing. |
| number6x Jun 17, 2005 4:57 AM EDT |
dinotrac, BSD allows a wider use of code than GPL does, but it does not permit the widest use of code. There are restrictions on using BSD code. You must retain the copyright notice and be subject to all laws regarding copyrighted works. You must display the correct attribution to the copyright holders. By the definition of 'free' you are using BSD has many more restrictions than code placed in the public domain. By your definition the 'free-est' code is code that is in the public domain. Remember that the goals of these licenses are very different, and therefore the licenses are different. GPL wants to ensure that improvements can be re-incorporated into the original tree. This helps to reduce the tendency to fork a new project off of an old one, and to speed up the development process. BSD is more about getting your 'props'. (I'm not trying to sound silly, all of the people who worked on BSD were able to secure very good employment based on their well earned reputations.) Both licenses have benefits and drawbacks. The word free has more than two meaning, and the differences are sometimes in the point of view. |
| Tsela Jun 17, 2005 5:43 AM EDT |
dinotrac: The fact that you disagree with me doesn't shield you from me saying that you're making a mistake, especially one so glaring as the one you're making. But if you don't want to see it as a mistake, fine by me. But don't try to stop me from saying what I see. As for the rest of your message, it isn't even worth replying to. "Socialist disrespect for the individual". As if ensuring that every individual gets the maximum amount of freedom possible *without infringing on the freedoms of other individuals* could be disrespectful for the individual... Hint: "the freedom of the one stops where the freedom of the other begins". Without this caveat, there is no true freedom. But let's stop with this thread. It's obvious that we won't ever agree on this. |
| richo123 Jun 17, 2005 5:51 AM EDT |
Just for fun (where have I heard that before). Slashdot now has an article supposedly quoting Theo "the man" as saying in Forbes that "Linux is for losers" To quote Mike Myers: "Does the fun ever start?" I find it interesting that Theo would choose Forbes magazine for these comments.... |
| dinotrac Jun 17, 2005 6:59 AM EDT |
tsela - You are completely free to believe that I am mistaken in my view. I am not, however, making the "mistake" you attribute to me. I fully understand the concept. I understand freedom and responsibility very well. I just think you're wrong in your characterization. |
| dinotrac Jun 17, 2005 7:47 AM EDT |
number6x - You are absolutely correct. The public domain is absolutely the freest code/art/literature. What tsela is stumbling over, I think, is that freedom doesn't always lead to the results desired by societal architects. If you want people to share code, for example, you need code to share. If you believe that people will not write free code without a kick in the pants, then you create a built-in requirement to share code -- which is what the GPL does within the context of redistribution. Whether the GPL assumption is true or not is hard to determine because of the way that Linux has taken off. It's coattails have certainly been a boon to GPL'd software. At the same time, a number of popular and seemingly healthy open source projects do not use the GPL, including apache, postgresql, mozilla, all of the BSD OS's, python, x.org, etc, etc. Doesn't matter. Both are good, if different. The main thing is that we have free software and people willing to do it. |
| hkwint Jun 17, 2005 11:33 AM EDT |
Tsela: I must say, you're more bashing the BSD license than Mr Theo is bashing the GPL. But that's my opinion, and I already saw what's the cause of our different opinion: I'm rather new to the whole open-source thing, so I'm not that tied by earlier arguments. Maybe I was a little more objective, by not knowing history. Now, on the other hand, knowing history isn't bad of course since humans almost can't live without it, but there's nothing more objective than remembering nothing, if you understand what I'm telling. So, without any lack of 'remembering disputes of the past' between this different movements, I'm reading different things out of the mouth of Mr.De Raadt then you are. If I followed past disputes, I'd probably read the same things in what Mr.De Raadt is saying as you are (It's a difference in interpretation). Can't blame you for knowing history, so I can understand what you're saying here, if I try to view it in the way you're telling it, all seems to present a possible thruth. But there are more possible truths. I'd like to say this: I while ago on LXer, I had this whole GPL-BSD license conversation before, and I actually think I learned something valuable back then: One freedom can take away the other. So, the BSD license takes away the freedom for users to view the source code, but the GPL license takes away the freedom to distribute software without source code, as just one example. There are many. Point is, these licenses bring different freedoms, and it's up to the user to decide which freedoms are most important, and according to that, decide 'what's more free', and according to that, build your thruth. But it's pointless to say one license is more free than the other, since I'm convinced that depends on to which person you ask. |
| Tsela Jun 17, 2005 12:44 PM EDT |
hkwint: I'm not bashing the BSD license. It's a fine license when you want to spread your software everywhere, and still be recognised as the originator. It's just not a fine license when you want equal freedom for everyone (and that's the only way freedom can survive. It's not special to software, but it's true for any kind of freedom). That's a fact, not just an opinion. By the way, I am also fairly new to Free Software (at least to the ethical part). Hey, I didn't even know Theo de Raadt before I read that article. But his words ticked me off, and I made some Internet research, and found quite a bit of his bashing (I had never heard of this kind of bashing before). The article that appeared just a few days later enforced even more my conviction. In other words, my opinion is not based of the history of software and of Free Software, but on History in general, and especially the fight for equal rights and freedoms (being part of a minority that still doesn't enjoy full equality, I was bound to be attracted to it). Dinotrac discusses things in the context of software only. I don't believe this is a fruitful approach, especially in a world that is so dependent on software for the access to information, knowledge, and the power it can bring. So I discuss things in a broader way, and this is probably why we discussed at cross-purposes (if the point was only software distribution and market share, I'd agree with dinotrac. But I see a broader picture, from which software cannot be separated, whether we like it or not). As for your comment about History, I understand what you mean, but I have to disagree: "remembering nothing" doesn't make one more objective. In my experience, and in the light of History as a whole, it's rather the contrary: it encourages ignorance, fear and thus prejudice (mind you, this is not directed at you personally. It's directed at humanity in general, and thus me too). It also bounds people to repeat the same mistakes again, and with advancing technologies, they tend to repeat those errors with more and more disastrous effects (I'm not talking only about wars here, I'm talking about the fact that those mistakes influence the lives of more and more people). Only remembering can lead to true objectivity, as long as you're not selective in what you remember. Which is why I studied the issue before I wrote my comment, and which may be why you thought I knew about Theo de Raadt and the GPL-BSD disputes before I read this article. I know I probably sound inflexible, and unwilling to listen to arguments. I'm not. I *do* listen. My opinion has considerably evolved since I first began to work on those issues (my ideas used to be a lot like dinotrac's). It's not based on preconceptions or hunches. I may sound idealistic sometimes, but what you would see as ideals are actually ideas fully and completely based on experience and learning. In other words, I'm a pragmatic. I'm just convinced that the only way to ensure true equality and freedom for people *in practice* is to enforce what others would call "ideals", *everywhere*. Well, time for me to really stop with this thread. I'm feeling like I'm fully opening my heart to people I don't even know, and I'm sure people don't really want to bother with this :) . |
| dinotrac Jun 17, 2005 1:05 PM EDT |
tsela - WRT to context -- The discussion at hand pertains to software. Re awareness of freedom in the larger context, I may have picked up a little bit of that in my anti-Vietnam war activities, my pro-UFW activities, my work on the Perot campaign, etc, etc, etc. |
| hkwint Jun 18, 2005 4:43 AM EDT |
Tsela: I know you 'are over with this thread', but I hope you also read the LXer comments on the article you pointed us too (Theo saying Linux is garbage), it seams like Theo didn't say this, and it's just a troll by someone who doesn't like nor Linux nor OpenBSD at all, just trying to make Linus say stupid things. It's here: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/15661/ So indeed Theo is a difficult person (remember the row with NetBSD, after which he forked his own OpenBSD from it, in case you didn't know), but it's not as bad as it looks like in the article you pointed too, since Theo probably never ever said this at all, and this was just a FUD troll by somebody. I indeed couldn't imagine Theo saying such stupid things, it was just embarassing, and I really hope he didn't. BTW: Don't feel guilty about opening you're hart, that's what makes this site interesting, and what seperates a community from a bunch of nerds. |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 18, 2005 10:03 AM EDT |
In the arguments above on which license allows the greatest amount of freedom is a topic for lawyers and philosophy majors. In the real world a BSD type license can be used to cause considerable harm. How many remember the incident where MS took the Kerberos code and extended it then refused to divulge the changed code publicly? By cracking the code it soon was public what MS had attempted (would that avenue even be legal today?). I considered MS's actions to be akin to brazen theft, but from what I have read here many would have no problems with those actions in principle. Hence, I think GPL is the better license when it comes to assuring the gifts of code do the greatest good, just by making such action a copyright violation. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2005 2:16 PM EDT |
TxtEdMacs - Here's the question for you: What harm did MS do? 1. They used code fully within the terms of its license. Whatever you think of that is completely unimportant because it is the copyright owners who get the privilege of deciding what they will and will not permit. 2. As to extending kerberos -- So what? That is also their right, and they didn't need to borrow anybody else's code to do it. The tricky part is getting everybody else to go along. |
| SeanConnery315 Jun 20, 2005 6:34 AM EDT |
While I certainly don't have any religious allegiances to any company/OS, I do have to agree with a lot of the criticism that DeRaadt states. His anecdotal evidence in development practices and user experience is dead-on from any outsider's perspective. While so many folks will nit-pick the (not so?) subtle differences, by and large I can't disagree on too many of his rants. |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 23, 2005 6:52 AM EDT |
Quoting: 2. As to extending kerberos -- So what? Well next time they might use they could employ legal arm twisting to make it too expensive to remedy. About getting everyone else to go along, a simple act of congress just might suffice. It would please me no end to see you just reflect a bit more on your postings, more along the lines of your recent post on: "Yeah I wonder of Michelin racing tires have a good TCO?" where you included interesting, objective information supporting your argument. However, note this is an argument based on analogy that does not meet the the standards of deductive logic. Nonetheless, it was an interesting view where dissimilar endeavors might use somewhat similar design criteria. |
| dinotrac Jun 23, 2005 8:15 AM EDT |
TxtEdMacs -- 1. Getting everybody else to go along was a reference to the fact that they can change their implementation, but they can't make everybody support it. MS's power to create such havoc is a matter of market share and has nothing to do with whether they lift code from BSD or not. 2. A simple act of Congress? First, acts of Congress aren't that simple, but, what are you suggesting? Require everybody to use Microsoft's specific security implementation? That migh be easier said that done, and it ain't that easy to say. 3. As to reflecting on my postings, that's more a matter of freshness. the whole BSD-Kerberos thing was hashed out rather thoroughly long ago. There is no longer any need for me to reflect on the issue. I have understood it for years. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!