On Friday 27 October 2006 14:36, Devdas Bhagat wrote: > On 27/10/06 11:23 +0530, Baishampayan Ghose wrote: > <snip> > > > I really fail to understand the reason behind your fascination > > for BSD / MIT style licenses. Do you really think Linux (the > > kernel) would have been as powerful as t is now had it been > > released under, say the BSD > > Yes. Linux happened at the right time. In case you didn't know your > history, the original BSD group was sued by AT&T for releasing BSD > in the late 80s/early 90s. The suit was eventually won by the BSD > hackers, but they lost crucial momentum in the early 90s (till ~ > 1994 or so).
That apart, the majority of coders prefer that their works are not misapropriated and hence prefer to gpl their work, which results in a one way migration of code from bsd to linux. > > After ths, the BSD project forked, with FreeBSD focussing on x86, > wile NetBSD focussed on portability. NetBSD has fallen back to the point of being unusable according to the founder in a long rant on the netbsd list. > > license? Exactly why do you think FreeBSD doesn't support half > > the hardware that Linux (the kernel) supports today? Even 5-6 > > years back > > Because Linux ran with the PC, while BSD ran on far more servers. > Until 2.6, the BSD kernel was far superior to Linux. With 2.6, > Linus had resources from IBM and the NSA thrown in to help, making > it take a slight lead over FreeBSD 5.x. Also, FreeBSD 5.x was the > first BSD version which had kernel threads, and was basically an > experimental release (think Linux 2.5 quality). > > Today, more developers use Linux and are happy if their code works > there, rather than writing portable code. Earlier, developers would > write on *BSD at home, and test on Solaris at work, with the > resultant benefits of stability and performance. > > > FreeBSD was considered far more superior than Linux (the kernel), > > so exactly what happened to the Linux kernel project in the > > recent times and how did FreeBSD lose the race? > > IBM happened. why did it not happen to BSD? couldnt be the licence? > <snip> > > > kernel or gcc, you need to give up some freedoms to make sure the > > essential freedoms are maintained no matter what. Otherwise you > > may Misconception (or inapropriate words). Permission to treat others less equally than yourself is not freedom, it's exploitation. The gpl does not ask u to give up freedom. It tells u treat others exactly equally. . -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
