Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Software BSD Linux

UserBSD vs. UserLinux - Is It Feasible? 112

Posted by Cliff from the jumping-hurdles-in-pursuit-of-a-good-idea dept.
A not-so-anonymous Anonymous Coward asks: "Someone has suggested to make a UserBSD instead of a UserLinux. From what Bruce Perens' anonymous 1-million-$ backers seem to want (no GPL-/Commercial dual-licensed development toolkit like Qt in any library, but only gratis LPGL stuff), this seems to make a lot of sense. After all, only the kernel would be different, the rest of the stuff (including the KDE or GNOME desktops) runs pretty much the same on BSD as it does on Linux. Is it possible to get the legal problems solved with licenses and still create a usable enterprise Unix desktop system on *BSD?" The idea, in and of itself, sounds fine, but does the choice of kernel really matter? What advantages would BSD have over Linux in such a project, and vice-versa?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UserBSD vs. UserLinux - Is It Feasible? More

UserBSD vs. UserLinux - Is It Feasible?

Comments Filter:

  • This Already Exists? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzybunny ( 112938 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:44AM (#7733303) Homepage Journal

    MaxOS X, no?

    Seriously, I've been using FreeBSD as my desktop in various forms for about 4 years now. It's nice, although my experience became a lot more agreeable once I partitioned my work into two bits--the "hardcore" stuff, like scripting, testing, compiling, sniffing networks, etc. and the "soft" stuff like doing presentations, writing docs, etc.

    I do not like Star/OpenOffice, and the lack of something like Crossover Office (from CodeWeavers) running nicely on FreeBSD, despite Linux binary compatibility, has made me keep an XP box around. For some things, FreeBSD is just faster and better, and for others, XP involves a lot less knob-dicking around to get application xyz working.

    So in short, yeah it's doable, yeah, it'd be nice (I've had _no_ stability issues with FreeBSD at all, and the whole thing is organized nicely) but it would need a lot of work to get it all prettied up for the masses.

    That's honestly why I'm considering buying a Powerbook...
    • Uh.. from the UserLinux white paper [userlinux.com]:

      Make it Free Software
      The core UserLinux system should be 100% Free Software. The service providers will provide proprietary software according to the demand of their particular customers.

      MacOS is not free software.

    • Re:This Already Exists? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by narratorDan ( 137402 ) <narratordan@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @08:22AM (#7733420)
      Very insightful.

      MacOS X is close to what the main question was but the GUI is closed source. (Mac Zealot here, buy the powerbook)

      I've looked at many linux and *bsd distros, and while many of them had nice GUIs most of them had problems centered right around the geek factor. The target was the geek, not the MS drone or the fresh out of the box computer newbie.

      Apple somewhat addressed this with OS X but it only runs on Mac hardware so the Windows lemmings can't jump ship unless they buy a new ship to jump on to. Which is very silly, come-on, who really wants to buy a whole new computer just to see what it's really like doing some real work?

      Want to make a good User*nix? (or *bsd for that matter.) Target the USER, not the geek, nor POWERuser. But don't make the MS BOB error. Make a GUI that's as clean, powerful and most importantly as newbie friendly as the Aqua GUI and but also open enough for the geek or poweruser to bend to their whim and you'll see the tide turn.

      Deranged Mac Zealot.
      NarratorDan
      • Not a Mac zealot (I run Linux, Win9x/2K, OSX at home and at work) and would also recommend OSX as the preferred "desktop" machine. Between Windows, KDE, Gnome (and every weird X11 based wm out there) nothing comes as close to being as "nice" as OSX. It ain't perfect, but I find I get a hell of a lot more done in a shorter time using my iBook than any other machine. The nice, unix'y plumbing underneath is the cherry on top.

      • Apple somewhat addressed this with OS X but it only runs on Mac hardware so the Windows lemmings can't jump ship unless they buy a new ship to jump on to.

        Of course, the classic flawed argument people make is to assume that if Mac OS X ran on PC hardware, that the Windows lemmings would jump ship.

        BeOS proved that generally speaking, Windows users aren't interested in switching to another OS, even if it's far superior to what they have. Furthermore, the adoption rates of recent versions of Windows demonst

        • Re:Jumping ship (Score:3, Interesting)

          by xoboots ( 683791 )
          >> BeOS proved that generally speaking, Windows users aren't interested in switching to another OS, even if it's far superior to what they have

          That takes me back :) With all due respect, BeOS was *never* superior to windows. The post you replied to suggested an OS experience geared towards users, not gear-heads. BeOS had a nice (but incomplete) object-oriented design. Other than that it missed the target pretty much all-around. Asides from its complete lack of user software, it was buggy (crashed whe
    • Powerbook + VirtualPC + good disk investment == Grand Computing Fun.

      Weaned me off Microsoft, and fast.
    • I've also had generally good experiances with using FreeBSD, sometimes in the role of a desktop system, sometimes as a server. Generally I do find it runs the same common applications at least a little faster on the same hardware (when refering to low-mid level pc hardware), kde being a good example of this. I also agree there are places where improvement is needed, where some hardware support is missing, and where some application choices do not exist. This will likely improve over time.

      However, I don'

    • Re:This Already Exists? (Score:5, Informative)

      by pauljlucas ( 529435 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @01:37PM (#7736302) Homepage Journal
      MacOS X, no?
      No: MacOS X uses the Mach kernel, not any *BSD kernel. It's the Mach kernel injected into a *BSD-like environment.
      • Mach is a BSD derivative, is it not? That is, it shares a family tree, probably since around 4.2BSD days. I realize "BSD" tends to mean "free UNIX ending with the letters B-S-D" these days, but as far as heritage goes, that's where Mach came from. Makes sense, since it began as an academic OS.
        • Mach is a BSD derivative, is it not?
          Mach as used in MacOS X is derived from Mach 3.0 (a microkernel) from Project Mach at Carnegie-Melon University. I don't think it has anything in common with any BSD kernel.
  • Thank god it was suggested by an anonymous coward.

    Now I can rest in peace knowing it was a poor attempt at trolling the front-page (something that doesn't even take skill these days, as slashdot editors are never reading entries anyway).

  • The risk (Score:2, Troll)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) *
    is that someone could take UserBSD, and for a small fortune, make something better but closed source and patented. Then the work that everyone else put into it would be used against them.
    • The risk is that someone could take UserBSD, and for a small fortune, make something better but closed source and patented. Then the work that everyone else put into it would be used against them.
      How could it be used against them? They still have their copies, & they can continue to develop it. Maybe I misunderstand the lincensing?
      • How could it be used against them?

        Example: Free Software developers produce a high quality computing platform, and sell it for profit. Proprietary development company decides that the competition is eroding their sales, takes this product, and adds some sort of compatibility layer for their proprietary software. Perhaps this is the ability to run software in their scripting language on this platform. Their implementation remains proprietary. They begin marketing this new platform, advertising that it
        • Thanks for the explanation. I must say, though, that although that scenario could happen, I'm not sure that I would call it "being used against them". With GPL software, you still don't get a whole lot of money for your software. In the above scenario, the customers win because they get better software. The proprietary software wouldn't have been added in the GPL software, so that means low quality or less featured software. In the above scenario, the free software developers don't loose, because they are s
    • There's a solution to your problem.
      1) Form a corporation: UserBSD, inc.
      2) UserBSD, Inc. registers the trademark "UserBSD".
      3) If anyone takes the code and, as you fear, re-sells it as proprietary/closed software, UserBSD, Inc. sues their pants off if they so much as mention "UserBSD". They can call it "Sam" if they like, but not "UserBSD".
      • And this prevents microsoft from stealing my hardwork and putting it in windows how?
        • It doesn't, but it prevents them from calling it "UserBSD." The original point was that someone would steal it, make it better, then sell it closed and put UserBSD out of business. If they change it, then it's not UserBSD and shouldn't be called that. People may prefer a Chevy to a Ford, but Chevy can't call their Mustang clone a Mustang, they have to call it a Firebird, so everyone will know which is the genuine Mustang. If Ford find themselves adding Firebird features to the next Mustang to retain custome
          • That's assuming the name is the selling point.

            UserBSD would no longer have a legitimate claim to being a superior system in terms of functionality if the code were taken, improved (not hard to improve on a work base, just add ANYTHING of any value whatsoever or fix a single bug and don't contribute back) then the stolen system would be superior only because of the work of others they didn't have to do.

            • That's assuming the name is the selling point.
              Do you think there would be such a stink over what Microsoft did with Kerberos [nwfusion.com] if MIT had trademarked "Kerberos" and enforced that trademark? The whole mess would have been avoided if Microsoft couldn't use the name "Kerberos" if their product didn't interoperate with MIT's Kerberos.
          • Why not go for the Apache license? It's basically the BSD license, except you can't call it X without permission from the original coder.
    • People have been trotting out this horror scenario for over a decade now. But it has not happened yet. Nor do I expect it ever to happen. This is FUD and nothing but FUD. And stale FUD at that.

      TCP/IP: Microsoft's (and Linux's for a while) use of the BSD TCP/IP stack never harmed anyone. Microsoft never created an incompatible fork. They never extended it. While it may have offended your sensibilities and thin skin to think that Bill Gates actually touched TCP/IP, in the long run it was a good thing. Otherw
      • Microsoft never used the BSD TCP/IP stack. They purchased the STREAMS implementation of TCP/IP from Spyder Inc. They extended that, tweaked it to work using WinSock, and shipped it.

        The only BSD bits in Windows are the userland TCP/IP tools like ftp.exe and telnet.exe and so on.

        Repeat after me: the Windows network stack DID NOT come from BSD.
        • Last I checked, ftp and telnet were part of the TCP/IP stack. Not the bottom layers of the stack, but definitely the application layer.

          But regardless of semantics, Microsoft's use of ftp and telnet did not affect anyone else's use of ftp or telnet on any other system.

  • Pretty Feasible (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pete-classic ( 75983 ) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:53AM (#7734504) Homepage Journal
    Bruce has suggested UserLinux be based on Debian.

    I propose to work with the Debian distribution, integrating our changes directly into Debian, rather than creating a separate distribution.


    Debian is a big project, and includes a GNU/NetBSD [debian.org] distro.

    -Peter
    • Hmm.. seems a bit slow:
      "Download experimental install floppies (last updated 6th October 2002)"

      Mailinglist archives show only messages from few people.

      I'm gonna interested in this because I'm currently using debian on desktop and soon to test freebsd.

  • UserBSD is a better idea than UserLinux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dublin ( 31215 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @12:03PM (#7735310) Homepage
    This is a great idea. There are a huge number of technical advantages to building atop a BSD, rather than a Linux base for this sort of project, entirely aside from licensing issues. I've used both extensively, and even the best Linux distros are dramatically less stable and robust than the BSDs. (I've also found that those arguing otherwise have usually never really tried the BSDs - just managing to have installed them doesn't count - use in actual production does.)

    But it's also quite clear, given Bruce's requirements for the UserLinux project, that BSD would be a better fit, since it is not a commercially hostile license. It's great that even a guy like Bruce now realizes that GPL-only licensing is the kiss of death for the kinds of large-scale commercial support such a venture needs.

    I personally would be in favor of a modified BSD license that would add only one stipulation: that the code can never be placed under another more restrictive license, preventing the modified-BSD-licensed code from being relicensed (and thus effectively "stolen" from the community) under the GPL or similar viral licenses. In this way, it can be assured that truly free software remains that way and cannot be co-opted and limited to Stallman's twisted idea of "free".
    • > even the best Linux distros are dramatically less stable and robust than the BSDs

      Any benchmark or anything to substantiate your claims ?

      > GPL-only licensing is the kiss of death for the kinds of large-scale commercial support such a venture needs.

      Bullshit !! Then how come commercial vendors like IBM, HP and all support linux and not any BSD based proejcts ? When they joined the "linux bandwagon", BSDs were clearly superior. Actually commercial firms prefer GPL because they are guarantied that the
      • Actually commercial firms prefer GPL because they are guarantied that their work wont be leveraged by competetors against them.

        Then what's all this FUD about commercial firms preferring LGPL-gratis GTK+ over GPL QT?
        • Actually when I said GPL I meant GPL/LGPL. LGPL is different from BSD in that you cannnot make LGPLed software proprietory and it PERPETUATES the freedom. Commercial firms prefer GPL/LGPL over BSD. Its a fact. They dont want to support BSD licensed project and see their competetors leveraging their work against them in the future by making it closed. Regarding the question why they prefer LGPL against GPL is simple. With LGPL they have the advantage of GPL( protection from competetors leveraging their work
      • >> even the best Linux distros are dramatically
        less stable and robust than the BSDs

        >Any benchmark or anything to substantiate your claims ?

        you dont benchmark stability.

        >> GPL-only licensing is the kiss of death for the kinds of large-scale commercial support such a venture needs.

        >Bullshit !! Then how come commercial vendors like IBM, HP and all support linux and not any BSD based proejcts ? When they joined the "linux bandwagon", BSDs were clearly superior. Actually commercial firms pr
    • Less stable? Robust? Quantify these terms, because they sound a whole lot like marketing-speak without any data to back them up.
    • I personally would be in favor of a modified BSD license that would add only one stipulation: that the code can never be placed under another more restrictive license, preventing the modified-BSD-licensed code from being relicensed (and thus effectively "stolen" from the community)

      So, in other words, you would turn the BSD license into the GPL. Maybe you should try actually reading the GPL, and understanding how copyright licensing works, before you start spouting off about it's alledged flaws.
      • Perhaps you should read to find out why the GPL is such a stunningly bad idea - I've read quite extensively on the subject. I suggest starting with Nikolai Bezroukov's excellent and very thorough treatment of the subject at SoftPanorama.org [softpanorama.org] (Warning - reading this through thoughtfully and checking references will take a considerable amount of time, which is why most GPL proponents are so badly informed - they are generally unwilling to be anything other than shallow cheerleaders for RMS - actually thinkin
        • I suggest starting with Nikolai Bezroukov's excellent and very thorough treatment of the subject at SoftPanorama.org

          It will indeed take me considerable time to wade through all of it, but I will. However, so far I have seen nothing that supports your notion that the GPL is a stunningly bad idea. Quite the contrary, in fact. It seems so far that Dr. Bezroukov considers the GPL to be largely responsible for the success of Linux (he directly says so at least a few times), and he implies that it is the BSDL t
    • There are a huge number of technical advantages to building atop a BSD, rather than a Linux base for this sort of project, entirely aside from licensing issues.

      Could you list some then? The only one of this "huge number" is a non-starter.

      I've used both extensively

      As have I.

      even the best Linux distros are dramatically less stable and robust than the BSDs.

      I primarily use Slackware. To date, I've had a total of zero crashes or stability problems with either it or FreeBSD. How is this "dramatically
      • I've used both extensively

        As have I.

        I primarily use Slackware. To date, I've had a total of zero crashes or stability problems with either it or FreeBSD. How is this "dramatically less stable"?

        Sounds like you haven't used both extensively, or you would have seen some crashes. I've never encountered an OS that didn't crash when pushed hard in the right (or wrong) way, including UniCOS on the Cray.

        Single-user slackware in a non-critical desktop role is a far cry from "mission critical enterprise" use, w

    • I personally would be in favor of a modified BSD license that would add only one stipulation: that the code can never be placed under another more restrictive license, preventing the modified-BSD-licensed code from being relicensed (and thus effectively "stolen" from the community) under the GPL or similar viral licenses.

      How would this be different from the GPL? Isn't this precisely why the GPL is commercially-hostile?

      Is not the reason that the BSD license is commercially friendly because it allows

    • You know what shits me?

      When BSD peddlers like you say things like "there are a huge number of technical advantages" without having a single factual piece of evidence to back it up with. Same goes for your "less stable" crapola.

      Please enlighten us, oh one full of wisdom.
      • pf crushes iptables

        systrace

        ubiquitous, audited, crypto
        • SMP on Linux 2.4 (Read Stable Branch) is still a ways better than anything in *BSD arsonal. FreeBSD didn't get decent SMP until 5.x (Read Dev Branch).

          Most non-open source apps are for Linux, can't beat the real thing!

          Hardware support is pathetic in Linux compared to Windows. However... hardware support in FreeBSD is pathetic compared to Linux!

          Don't get me wrong, I like FreeBSD and am actually typing this on my workstation (running FreeBSD), but I still feel that Linux edges it out in certain arena's. If
      • When BSD peddlers like you say things like "there are a huge number of technical advantages" without having a single factual piece of evidence to back it up with. Same goes for your "less stable" crapola.

        As for features, go use the web, I'm not doing your work for you. There are literally dozens of solid architectural reasons why the BSDs (and particularly Open BSD) are superior. This is especially true from a security point of view. (IMO, the Linux community rarely takes real security much more serious

  • Linux is dying (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @12:11PM (#7735397) Homepage
    Warning: the subject line is a joke!

    But seriously, the idea does make some sense. I switched from Mandrake to FreeBSD, and actually find it easier to use. Yes, seriously. The biggest problem for a user of OSS is installing software, and FreeBSD's ports collection does a very nice job of handling dependencies automatically, finding the server that has the software you want, etc. It's similar to Debian's apt. I also like the fact that FreeBSD is a single OS, rather than being fragmented into a lot of different distributions; you can walk into Barnes and Noble and buy a book on FreeBSD, and it actually describes the system you're using.

    As I see it, FreeBSD has a couple of advantages over Debian.

    One is that Debian has set itself a very ambitious goal of supporting lots and lots of architectures. While I'm sure this is great for the tiny number of people who want to run OSS on obscure machines, I think it's also had the effect of making it impossible to create a good installer. Good doesn't necessarily mean GUI-based -- FreeBSD's is text-based, too -- but my own experiences with the Debian installer have been really really painful. Reading Debian's documentation for its installer is like reading code: "If you're installing on a Cray with a punched-card reader attached, do this, unless it's the first Tuesday after the new moon, in which case..."

    The other big disadvantage of Debian, as I see it, is that they simply have a history of being elitist. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with elitism -- the alternative to elitism is sitcoms and top-40 music -- but when it comes to usability for ordinary end-users, they just don't seem to get it. (I say this after several attempts to get a working Debian system going. The third one resulted in a running system, but way too much stuff wasn't going to work right without many weekends of pain and suffering...)

    • I have just switched from Linux (Debian) to FreeBSD. I find that I can do a lot more at once than I could under Linux. Also, the installer is a lot better. The only thing I miss is being able to update my system using binary packages instead of source code (I do have to shut down now and then!). However, I'm sure it can be done; I just haven't found it yet.

      -MrM

      • my system using binary packages

        man pkg_add, pkg_delete, pkg_info

        Although,

        cd /usr/ports/app_folder && make install clean

        is just as easy(plus you get to have compiler Optimizations)

        I prefer to build from source, but I don't have anything but Postfix, cvsup, portupgrade, and bash2 on the machine.(it's a mail server)

        This [geekvenue.net] is a good page on the Howto's of it

  • BSD license will not attract developers.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pirhana ( 577758 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @12:29PM (#7735599)
    I belive the success of Linux(and GNU) over BSD was because of the license also. Most of the opensource/free software developers want their work to REMAIN free. Face it, most of the people dont like their work to be taken away by corporations and made proprietory. If we look in to repositrories like freshmeat and sourceforge this trend is clearer. A good majority of the programs are released under GPL/LGPL. Even many of those who use *BSD as their platform also tend to follow this pattern more or less. Actually if BSDs were licensed GPL, then I think they would have continued to enjoy the developer base they had in the past. If UserLinux is to be dropped in favour of UserBSD, I think its going to enounter the same fate of BSDs.
    • I'm beginning to suspect that a majority of developers using the GPL aren't doing it for FSFreedom reasons. Developers just want to code. They don't want to engineer society. So they pick a license and forget about it.

      Others do it because they're lazy. I've seen many projects whose license is a mere "template" of the GPL. They copy over the GPL into the CVS tree without ever bothering to remove the "gnomovision" stuff at the bottom. Other's put a GPL notice in their source files referring to a COPYING file

  • Why Linux is more successful than BSD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by caseih ( 160668 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @12:41PM (#7735746)
    I've often wondered lately, why Linux? Why didn't FreeBSD or OpenBSD take off the way Linux did and get the kind of corporate interest and deployment that Linux enjoys? The answer is interesting.

    Althought it is true that a "UserBSD" or any BSD could be a very good product, having the same features in every way as Linux, BSD will never have the same success as Linux is having. There never will be any large traditional corporate sponsers of BSD. Why? The reason is the GPL. Although many proclaim the BSD license as a more liberal license, and one that is business friendly, companies that contribute to Linux, such as IBM or Novell will not touch it.

    From a business standpoint, contributing to a BSD-licensed project makes no economic sense. To do so would be tantamount to subsidizing your competitors, such as Microsoft. Linux, on the other hand, is licensed under the GPL. IBM and Novell can contribute greatly to it, in order to build themselves a better platform to support their business. Any improvements they submit to the community benefit everyone, but no one can take their contribution and use it for their own proprietary projects. So the GPL makes it so that what's good for IBM is good for all, but that any benefit that others get from using IBM's code also comes back to benefit IBM again. Thus the playing field is leveled and fair. IBM actually gets the spirit of the GPL whereas SCO just does not.

    Anyway, regardless of the technical merit of using BSD as a platform for a User distribution, because of the BSD license, there will never be the corporate backing needed to really ensure the rapid development needed to support an initiative such as UserBSD.

    I am always wary of corporate dependence, but I feel that companies that work within the letter and spirit of the open source licenses are a great benefit to all, while they themselves can benefit. And this benefits projects like UserLinux.
  • "What advantages would BSD have over Linux in such a project"

    Well, if you were deploying a few thousand appliance boxes of some sort, say file and print servers or firewalls or what have you, then you might be able to avoid the "does this expose us to a SCO lawsuit ?" dance with management.

    ( the thought of dealing with "managment" makes me glad I don't have a job just now )
  • Promoting the BSD license is certainly a bad idea or any license which doesn't carry the requirements of the GPL. If the million dollar contributor doesn't like it, can him and his million with him.

    Besides which the linux kernel surpassed the BSD kernel long ago. I certainly has more in terms of feature and capability, and gives nothing to BSD's kernel in terms of stability.

    I'd almost think it's Microsoft or Apple making that Donation since they obviously have the intention of stealing the blood and swe
  • Simply put GPL licensed software is a better platform to build any kind of *free* enterprise. It just keeps everyone honest, period.
    BSD - even being a very nice OS- is hurt by its license.
  • I may have missed someone else posting this, but it doesn't seem like anyone has brought it up. One of the key advantages with starting with the BSDL is that because it is weaker than any other open source licences you can then mould it to be whatever you want.

    Someone has already pointed out that the LGPL works favorably for companies, they can be sure competitors won't take their code and use it a proprietry system, but at the same time it can mingle easily with their proprietry programs.

    Now if you star
  • We need both Linux and BSD to avoid creating a MONOPOLY, even in open source. Also, diversity helps to limit the spread of virii. It also seems to stimulate development more than having only one core OS.

    The average user, sitting in front of a KDE desktop, would neither know nor care which kernel was actually in use, however the choice ought to be available. Nor would he or she care which licence applied, it is likely that most people have some GPL software on a BSD system and vice-versa. That is OK for end

  • i mentioned userlinux going lgpl only on the no kde in userlinux thread before i found this.

    why would anyone be suprised to learn kde was denied entry given that it is actually designed to be lgpl?

    in terms of the topic, the hardware support for linux is most excellent. more importantly, linux is a corporate name.

    although being gpl does add some annoyances, its not like a software app where you likely have to expose your whole apps source code. if your really in a pinch on some hardware, abstract kernel

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close