

FreeBSD the most distributed Linux in the World - TheBigRedDog
http://blog.milkingthegnu.org/2008/05/freebsd-the-most-used-linux-in-the-world.html

======
uruzseven
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
_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.

~~~
tptacek
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.

~~~
neilc
_Of course, more companies contribute back to Linux than contribute back to
FreeBSD; they're obligated to._

I don't think it's as simple as that. The license has a major influence on the
ecosystem around the project, and it is that ecosystem that determines the
contributions that flow back to the open source code. The GPL encourages a
certain type of ecosystem, and BSD another; that the GPL will automatically
yield a healthier ecosystem than BSD is not at all obvious to me.

One of the major differences is that with the BSD license, companies are free
to build proprietary products on top of the open source code, which opens up a
lot of business models that aren't feasible with the GPL. Take Postgres, for
example -- there are many companies that have used Postgres to build a
proprietary database of some description. Some of these companies choose to
contribute changes back, or to employ Postgres developers full-time, or to
hire them as consultants -- mandating that all changes be contributed back
would probably mean the companies wouldn't exist in the first place, or
wouldn't be using Postgres, which would probably be a net loss for the
project. And if a company chooses not to contribute code back? Well,
personally that's fine with me, but I can understand why others might
disagree.

~~~
tptacek
I'll be glad if you don't make me take the time to do it, but I could argue
that many, many more companies have built businesses on Linux than on BSD. A
_huge_ number of products are built on Linux now. Linux is a more popular
embedded BSP OS than BSD is.

~~~
neilc
Sure, in the case of Linux vs. FreeBSD, you're probably right (although there
are certainly more factors involved than just licensing).

My point is that requiring code to be given back doesn't necessarily yield a
healthier ecosystem, or even more code contributions, than a more laissez-
faire attitude.

------
tptacek
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.

~~~
xirium
> 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.

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

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

