Re: Commercial Distribution?
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 06:23:45PM -0500, Scott W wrote: > That still doesn't remove (IMHO of course) the validity of my statement > about calling FreeBSD and OS but Linux not based on licensing- FreeBSD > wouldn't exist in it's current incarnation without the use of GPL and > GNU software. Nor would Linux. I agree that basing what an operating system is on it's license doesn't make sense in this context. It does make sense to determine whether or not something is an operating system by looking at what it /is/, however. FreeBSD is an operating system. RedHat Linux (or Mandrake Linux or whatever distribution you happen to like) is an operating system. "Linux", without qualifiers, is a kernel and not an operating system. Analogy: It can be debated that MS-DOS is an operating system. COMMAND.COM, however, is not. > Note that isn't a slam by far in any ways- I certainly use both on my > own servers, and would likely choose *BSD over Linux for client's web > and mail/external accessible sites So would I, since (excepting the possibility of in-kernel HTTP servers and in-kernel data files) you'd need more than just Linux to operate a web server. If FreeBSD was not available I'd consider an operating system like RedHat Enterprise Linux as a web server. -T -- "A computer is like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no mercy." - Joseph Campbell ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
Shantanoo wrote: +++ Scott W [freebsd] [06-01-04 22:39 -0500]: | I know this one may be seen as sacrilege to some, but think about this: | | 1. *BSD uses a fairly significant amount of GNU and GPL licensed | (opposed to the BSD license) code in it. gcc, Perl, XFree86, Apache, | GNU Make, autoconf, mysql, PostgreSQL, etc etc. While it can be argued | many/most of these are not part of the core OS, what about: gcc, | objective c, libreadline, cvs, diff, tar, sort, patch and friends? | (from /usr/src/gnu and /usr/src/usr.bin ) I think PostgreSQL is released under BSD license. I can't find a line in tar's man page that it is GNU's tar. Apache's testing platform is FreeBSD. So probably it is release under BSD license. Will have to check it out though. Shantanoo ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" tar builds under /usr/src/gnu/usr.src.tar and AUTHORS credits it as GNU tar. I did note that about the man page, which is odd (although not a big deal). You're correct about Apache, or at least more correct than I was in listing it- Apache uses to use it's own license, and Postgres is in fact a BSD license. That's what I get for relying on memory ;-) That still doesn't remove (IMHO of course) the validity of my statement about calling FreeBSD and OS but Linux not based on licensing- FreeBSD wouldn't exist in it's current incarnation without the use of GPL and GNU software. Nor would Linux. Postgres has existed for almost as long as Linux, but it and Apache both have certainly had a huge amount of effort concentrated on them, not an insignificant amount of which was generated by the fact of more and more Linux (and yes, certainly *BSD, but arguably to a lesser extent) servers, as well as end-users discovering bugs, asking for features etc etc...if I'm not mistaken, IBM has been involved with Apache regardless of licensing, which is certainly a direct result of their 'embracing' of Linux. Note that isn't a slam by far in any ways- I certainly use both on my own servers, and would likely choose *BSD over Linux for client's web and mail/external accessible sites due to the default security being significantly better (which is still checked and changed as needed before someone may make the comment about installing an 'out of box' install to the world ;-), as well as the core install being significantly smaller than the current gen of Linux distros. I just don't like to see fallacy's propgated about either OS... (or any other than Windblows actually ;-) Scott ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
Apache's testing platform is FreeBSD. So probably it is release under BSD license. Will have to check it out though. HTTPD might be tested on FreeBSD, but not all apache projects are. Tomcat is tested on sun and linux system I believe. Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
--On Wednesday, January 07, 2004 19:15:37 +0530 Shantanoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +++ Scott W [freebsd] [06-01-04 22:39 -0500]: | I know this one may be seen as sacrilege to some, but think about this: | | 1. *BSD uses a fairly significant amount of GNU and GPL licensed | (opposed to the BSD license) code in it. gcc, Perl, XFree86, Apache, | GNU Make, autoconf, mysql, PostgreSQL, etc etc. While it can be argued | many/most of these are not part of the core OS, what about: gcc, | objective c, libreadline, cvs, diff, tar, sort, patch and friends? | (from /usr/src/gnu and /usr/src/usr.bin ) I think PostgreSQL is released under BSD license. It *IS* under the BSD license, and that won't change :-) (It's an RWAR every time it's mentioned to put it GPL). (I spend a lot of time on the PostgreSQL lists.). -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Commercial Distribution?
> FreeBSD is different, because the complete OS is developed and > managed by the project, including ports. There is basically no > need for a distro maker, because FreeBSD _is_ the distro itself > (call it the _canonical_ distro, because nothing prevents you > from changing stuff and forking off a commercial version, let's > call it non-canonical "distro"). I understand basically FreeBSD has better consistency and quality because it is a single project where everything comes together. This fits the general "feel" I have experienced while working with it. I was just wondering why Linux (+GNU stuff) got so much attention with commercial vendors while FreeBSD might provide a better starting point instead. The question came to me when my company was initially thinking about that customized distro, I started wondering things like "(why) are we the only ones thinking about that?" > A Linux distro vendor basically collects components from disparate > sources (kernel, gnu, libraries etc...) and assembles a OS. There is > no central entity which provides an integrated view of a Linux OS, so > there is a need for distro makers. Hm... granted, collecting and connecting the components is one thing that is not necessary with FreeBSD. BUT it comes across more as an operating environment made by IT experts *for* IT experts. The reason why we wanted to create a "distro" instead of just burning the ISOs from FTP was mainly because there was a lot that needed to be done with configuration stuff in order to become usable for our customers. (Then again, we have very special and controlled requirements, so it was acceptable to reduce on the "general purpose" side.) When I started wondering about commercial distros for *end users* I had this image of those friendly Linux installers in mind that enable even Windows users to make the switch. On the other side, you might argue that FreeBSD is not intended for this user group. But then again, why not? FreeBSD has so far worked on any system I installed it on, it worked with any USB devices that I could find, it has so far been a really cool experience. I cannot say that of Linux, even the friendly distros like SuSE occasionally just crash and reboot when I connect my USB camera. So why not... > Ports are great, because you could even include diffs to the > kernel (you have a custom kernel?) and misc. config and > infrastructure files that make up the system. Turn that port > into a package, and have the package system handle the > transmogrification of an official FreeBSD snapshot into > your own custom version. > > Good luck! Thanks again for the tons of advice, that was very very kind of you! ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
+++ Scott W [freebsd] [06-01-04 22:39 -0500]: | I know this one may be seen as sacrilege to some, but think about this: | | 1. *BSD uses a fairly significant amount of GNU and GPL licensed | (opposed to the BSD license) code in it. gcc, Perl, XFree86, Apache, | GNU Make, autoconf, mysql, PostgreSQL, etc etc. While it can be argued | many/most of these are not part of the core OS, what about: gcc, | objective c, libreadline, cvs, diff, tar, sort, patch and friends? | (from /usr/src/gnu and /usr/src/usr.bin ) I think PostgreSQL is released under BSD license. I can't find a line in tar's man page that it is GNU's tar. Apache's testing platform is FreeBSD. So probably it is release under BSD license. Will have to check it out though. Shantanoo ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
> > Personally I see nothing wrong with top posting since if you have any > involvement with the thread you've been reading, along with the fact that > timestamps make chronological ordering easier. However, so as to not offend > the Tikki god, or the resident Stick Wavers, I shall endeavor to bottom > post. It has nothing to do with your mythical religious dogmas. Top-posting is quite irritating in any situation where the question is at all complex - has more than one sentence. It makes the thread more difficult to follow and tends to lead to the thread getting lost and the discussion drifting on to unrelated things and even flames rather thanhandling the problem. jerry > > But, if I should slip and forget, roast me if you wish, then deal with it :) > (Anyone remember killfiles? ::grin::) > > David > > > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Commercial Distribution?
Personally I see nothing wrong with top posting since if you have any involvement with the thread you've been reading, along with the fact that timestamps make chronological ordering easier. However, so as to not offend the Tikki god, or the resident Stick Wavers, I shall endeavor to bottom post. But, if I should slip and forget, roast me if you wish, then deal with it :) (Anyone remember killfiles? ::grin::) David ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Commercial Distribution?
I think you're missing the point here. There were 2 questions asked in the original thread. First was are there any commercial distributions and second, are there any companies that provide a for-fee support chain. Linux was brought up as a well known example of the types of services being requested by the poster. He gets a "Linux is a kernel not an operating system" comment instead, which while factually true, proves to the case of missing the forest for the trees. Get him his help if you know it, otherwise debate finer points in classrooms. To the original poster: Just to end the Linux/FreeBSD stupidity, as these knuckleheads have stated, yes, Linux is a kernel, however as happens in human language, Linux has come to mean more than just the kernel, it's come to mean the entire distribution of applications with it as well. None of the applications will run without a kernel, nor would the kernel be much use if there was no shell interpreter or other application. Yes, the word Linux itself refers to the kernel, but for them to suggest to you that Linux is not an operating system but simply a collection of software packages stuck around a kernel is laughable at best. This is usually a sign of purists trying to wrangle details in a way that somehow makes their better than XYZ. Please read http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/o/operating_system.html to understand what an operating system is. An operating system IS the kernel. Any additional software that comes with it reside in the application layer which is NOT part of the operating system. FreeBSD is entirely no different in that regard. The point still remains, that if I understood your question correctly you were wondering if there were any commercial FreeBSD distributions that also provided technical support ranging from kernels to individual applications. An example of the difference would be Red Hat which is a commercialized distribution and Debian which is a GPL'd project that has no technical support, other than it's mailing lists and IRC chat channels. Check out this list of companies willing to provide support for the FreeBSD distribution. Some are of higher caliber than others of course, so check them all. http://www.unixporting.com/freebsd-support.html http://www.bsdmall.com/fbsdsupport.html (I'd check this one for sure) http://www.freebsdmall.com/cgi-bin/fm/support.html (Same as abve) http://www.freebsdsystems.com/support.html (iNet system specific) http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/consulting.html (DEFINITELY READ THIS) http://www.bsdsearch.com/dir/support/commercial/consulting.php (Nice list) http://bim.bsn.com/~jhs/freebsd/consultants.html Check these out. I have a few clients I work with that also offer technical support on Solaris, Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD. You name it. These are all different operating systems arround a linux kernel. FreeBSD is the operating system, linux isn't. That's the whole difference. -Harry P.S: Lot's of tools are developed by *BSD developers and included instead of GNU versions (ls e.g.) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
On 2004-01-06 22:39, Scott W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I'm not entirely wrong (which is certainly possible) I thought > Alan Cox of Linux kernel fame has also done some work on the BSD > kernel(s?)? I hope you're not confusing Alan Cox of Linux fame with our own, different, Alan Cox who happens to work on the VM subsystem :-) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
> Btw, I looked really carefully and couldn't find any FreeBSD-based > commercial distro (if you don't count OS X). Am I just to stupid to find one > or is this an idea whose time has not come yet? A Linux distro vendor basically collects components from disparate sources (kernel, gnu, libraries etc...) and assembles a OS. There is no central entity which provides an integrated view of a Linux OS, so there is a need for distro makers. FreeBSD is different, because the complete OS is developed and managed by the project, including ports. There is basically no need for a distro maker, because FreeBSD _is_ the distro itself (call it the _canonical_ distro, because nothing prevents you from changing stuff and forking off a commercial version, let's call it non-canonical "distro"). Any distro maker who wishes to fork off something from FreeBSD, would be hard pressed to provide the same level of support as the FreeBSD project itself. Any updates, security and bug fixes etc. would have to be merged into the commercial distro (if it wants to remain up-to-date), and this will by nature always lag behind. It is usually not worth the trouble to maintain a distribution besides FreeBSD. That is also the reason why commercial vendors usually ship (nearly) unmodified FreeBSD CDs, instead of maintining a completely different version. In your special case, the advice to make a port that was given earlier on this list, is very good, because you'd have to maintain your port(s) (and only your port(s)) whenever you update your commercial distro from the FreeBSD repo (which you could do as often as you like and your resources and time permits). What if a security bug is discovered, and immediately fixed by FreeBSD? Would you commit yourself to do the same in your commercial version? Just cvsup, and then apply your port(s) and voila, a new fixed commercial version! Ports are great, because you could even include diffs to the kernel (you have a custom kernel?) and misc. config and infrastructure files that make up the system. Turn that port into a package, and have the package system handle the transmogrification of an official FreeBSD snapshot into your own custom version. Good luck! -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:39:59PM -0500, Scott W wrote: > Note that I don't entirely disagree with the response- IMHO, RedHat and > SuSe are in fact merely distributions, but Linux as a collection of > kernel + core programs is certainly an OS, in the same manner as *BSD > is. I think that if you re-read Lowell's email, you'll find that he doesn't contradict what you're saying :-) -T -- "The act of communication is the primary ethical actlife is meaningful only if the bounds of self can be transcended." - Anatol Rapoport ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
Scott W wrote: Tillman Hodgson wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:14:41PM -0500, David D.W. Downey wrote: And how is that different from Linux? FreeBSD is an Operating System, so is Red Hat, Debian, Stampede, SLS, Slackware, and on and on. FreeBSD does the same thing. FreeBSD didn't develop OpenSSL but it includes it, nor did it develop SSH or swat, but it includes them. Just as linux distributions do. That's somewhat incorrect in my view. See http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/index.html for details. My attempt at a summary: RedHat et al may /distribute/ an operating system, but they did not write it. An analogy in the motorcycle world are the custom bike shops (some of which make extremely nice motorcycles!) versus Harley-Davidson. The custom bike shops carefully (one hopes) select components from the open market and put the polish on the resulting product. H-D may also use open market products (electrics *cough*, carbs *cough*) but are considered a /manufacturer/. Both sell motorcycles (operating systems). There is a distinction, however. -T I know this one may be seen as sacrilege to some, but think about this: 1. *BSD uses a fairly significant amount of GNU and GPL licensed (opposed to the BSD license) code in it. gcc, Perl, XFree86, Apache, GNU Make, autoconf, mysql, PostgreSQL, etc etc. While it can be argued many/most of these are not part of the core OS, what about: gcc, objective c, libreadline, cvs, diff, tar, sort, patch and friends? (from /usr/src/gnu and /usr/src/usr.bin ) 2. It can be argued that the 'core OS' (kernel and _required_ system tools) in *BSD are mostly BSD licensed versus GPL (Linux), but I'd wager a significant number of driver developments, kernel code (or perhaps design), as well as many programs required by most systems running either OS(insert distro here if you're offended), at least share bug fixes and new developments to some respect. If I'm not entirely wrong (which is certainly possible) I thought Alan Cox of Linux kernel fame has also done some work on the BSD kernel(s?)? Note that I don't entirely disagree with the response- IMHO, RedHat and SuSe are in fact merely distributions, but Linux as a collection of kernel + core programs is certainly an OS, in the same manner as *BSD is. Even RH AS/ES 2.1 is little more than a RH tweaked kernel + a few 'commercial' apps (stronghold, not sure of others offhand, haven't ever needed them!), on top of RH 7.3, which is really a Linux kernel + tools snapshot (many of which programs are at least heavily driven by Linux development in the first place), + RedHat or SuSe 'themes' and defaults, some customized rc/init scripts, and an installer. Anyways, I realized I may now be totally missing the point here so am going to now shut my mouth/keyboard...my comments still apply, but I'm not sure whom I'm disagreeing/agreeing with right now.. ;-) Scott Ok, sorry for following up to myself- below is in fact what my above comments are directed at: ls, while certainly useful, and part of the core OS (as are many others), could not in fact be built without the use of gcc, and GNU/GPL'ed compiler (and associated friends, ld, nm, gas, etc), so I really believe the below to be basically propogated and repeated without much thought, but incorrectly...not in that FreeBSD (and Net/OpenBSD) have a higher content of 'pure' (meaning written explicity for the specific OS) code in the core OS, but in that the distinction/differences in reality qualify FreeBSD to be an 'OS' while Linux (not RH, SuSe, other distros) is not... Scott David D.W. Downey wrote: > You're touching on a big difference between Linux and FreeBSD; FreeBSD > is an operating system, whereas Linux is a kernel which can be packaged > with different programs. You can make do anything you want with > FreeBSD, modify it all you want, release it (or not) along with the > source code (or not), but you can't claim it''s FreeBSD any more... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
Tillman Hodgson wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:14:41PM -0500, David D.W. Downey wrote: And how is that different from Linux? FreeBSD is an Operating System, so is Red Hat, Debian, Stampede, SLS, Slackware, and on and on. FreeBSD does the same thing. FreeBSD didn't develop OpenSSL but it includes it, nor did it develop SSH or swat, but it includes them. Just as linux distributions do. That's somewhat incorrect in my view. See http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/index.html for details. My attempt at a summary: RedHat et al may /distribute/ an operating system, but they did not write it. An analogy in the motorcycle world are the custom bike shops (some of which make extremely nice motorcycles!) versus Harley-Davidson. The custom bike shops carefully (one hopes) select components from the open market and put the polish on the resulting product. H-D may also use open market products (electrics *cough*, carbs *cough*) but are considered a /manufacturer/. Both sell motorcycles (operating systems). There is a distinction, however. -T I know this one may be seen as sacrilege to some, but think about this: 1. *BSD uses a fairly significant amount of GNU and GPL licensed (opposed to the BSD license) code in it. gcc, Perl, XFree86, Apache, GNU Make, autoconf, mysql, PostgreSQL, etc etc. While it can be argued many/most of these are not part of the core OS, what about: gcc, objective c, libreadline, cvs, diff, tar, sort, patch and friends? (from /usr/src/gnu and /usr/src/usr.bin ) 2. It can be argued that the 'core OS' (kernel and _required_ system tools) in *BSD are mostly BSD licensed versus GPL (Linux), but I'd wager a significant number of driver developments, kernel code (or perhaps design), as well as many programs required by most systems running either OS(insert distro here if you're offended), at least share bug fixes and new developments to some respect. If I'm not entirely wrong (which is certainly possible) I thought Alan Cox of Linux kernel fame has also done some work on the BSD kernel(s?)? Note that I don't entirely disagree with the response- IMHO, RedHat and SuSe are in fact merely distributions, but Linux as a collection of kernel + core programs is certainly an OS, in the same manner as *BSD is. Even RH AS/ES 2.1 is little more than a RH tweaked kernel + a few 'commercial' apps (stronghold, not sure of others offhand, haven't ever needed them!), on top of RH 7.3, which is really a Linux kernel + tools snapshot (many of which programs are at least heavily driven by Linux development in the first place), + RedHat or SuSe 'themes' and defaults, some customized rc/init scripts, and an installer. Anyways, I realized I may now be totally missing the point here so am going to now shut my mouth/keyboard...my comments still apply, but I'm not sure whom I'm disagreeing/agreeing with right now.. ;-) Scott ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:14:41PM -0500, David D.W. Downey wrote: > And how is that different from Linux? FreeBSD is an Operating System, so is > Red Hat, Debian, Stampede, SLS, Slackware, and on and on. FreeBSD does the > same thing. FreeBSD didn't develop OpenSSL but it includes it, nor did it > develop SSH or swat, but it includes them. Just as linux distributions do. That's somewhat incorrect in my view. See http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/index.html for details. My attempt at a summary: RedHat et al may /distribute/ an operating system, but they did not write it. An analogy in the motorcycle world are the custom bike shops (some of which make extremely nice motorcycles!) versus Harley-Davidson. The custom bike shops carefully (one hopes) select components from the open market and put the polish on the resulting product. H-D may also use open market products (electrics *cough*, carbs *cough*) but are considered a /manufacturer/. Both sell motorcycles (operating systems). There is a distinction, however. -T -- Being generous is inborn; being altruistic is a learned perversity. No resemblance. - Robert Heinlein ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
On Wednesday 07 January 2004 03:14, David D.W. Downey wrote: > And how is that different from Linux? FreeBSD is an Operating System, so is > Red Hat, Debian, Stampede, SLS, Slackware, and on and on. FreeBSD does the You name it. These are all different operating systems arround a linux kernel. FreeBSD is the operating system, linux isn't. That's the whole difference. -Harry P.S: Lot's of tools are developed by *BSD developers and included instead of GNU versions (ls e.g.) > same thing. FreeBSD didn't develop OpenSSL but it includes it, nor did it > develop SSH or swat, but it includes them. Just as linux distributions do. > > There is no big difference. Linux has more commercial support including > first tier support, ala IBM, Compaq, Dell, and to s much shorter extent Sun > Microsystems. > > You'll find many web hosting firms that offer managed care that can handle > the operating system complete with technical support on most dedicated > boxes. However, remember there that you're dealing with web farming. > > I don't know of many larger firms that offer specificly FreeBSD assistance > except through VARs or custom box shops. If this is the route youre > looking to take, I'd be more than happy to lend assistance. > > David D.W. Downey > > > You're touching on a big difference between Linux and FreeBSD; FreeBSD > > is an operating system, whereas Linux is a kernel which can be packaged > > with different programs. You can make do anything you want with > > FreeBSD, modify it all you want, release it (or not) along with the > > source code (or not), but you can't claim it''s FreeBSD any more... > > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" pgp0.pgp Description: signature
RE: Commercial Distribution?
And how is that different from Linux? FreeBSD is an Operating System, so is Red Hat, Debian, Stampede, SLS, Slackware, and on and on. FreeBSD does the same thing. FreeBSD didn't develop OpenSSL but it includes it, nor did it develop SSH or swat, but it includes them. Just as linux distributions do. There is no big difference. Linux has more commercial support including first tier support, ala IBM, Compaq, Dell, and to s much shorter extent Sun Microsystems. You'll find many web hosting firms that offer managed care that can handle the operating system complete with technical support on most dedicated boxes. However, remember there that you're dealing with web farming. I don't know of many larger firms that offer specificly FreeBSD assistance except through VARs or custom box shops. If this is the route youre looking to take, I'd be more than happy to lend assistance. David D.W. Downey > You're touching on a big difference between Linux and FreeBSD; FreeBSD > is an operating system, whereas Linux is a kernel which can be packaged > with different programs. You can make do anything you want with > FreeBSD, modify it all you want, release it (or not) along with the > source code (or not), but you can't claim it''s FreeBSD any more... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
=?Windows-1252?Q?Udo_Schr=F6ter_=28Trionic_Technologies=29?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Wind River Systems and other vendors will sell FreeBSD CDs, and there are > > examples of dedicated systems using FreeBSD that come to mind, such as the > > Nokia IP firewall platform. Or were you talking about a "commercial distro" > > in terms of "a company that provides/charges for technical support"...? > :-) > > Yes, something like that. I guess so far it has been done only with > Linux-based systems, eh? I couldn't find any RedHat-like vendors out there. > Anyway, it was just a dumb newbie question for better "insight" as to what's > out there... You're touching on a big difference between Linux and FreeBSD; FreeBSD is an operating system, whereas Linux is a kernel which can be packaged with different programs. You can make do anything you want with FreeBSD, modify it all you want, release it (or not) along with the source code (or not), but you can't claim it''s FreeBSD any more... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
> Wind River Systems and other vendors will sell FreeBSD CDs, and there are > examples of dedicated systems using FreeBSD that come to mind, such as the > Nokia IP firewall platform. Or were you talking about a "commercial distro" > in terms of "a company that provides/charges for technical support"...? :-) Yes, something like that. I guess so far it has been done only with Linux-based systems, eh? I couldn't find any RedHat-like vendors out there. Anyway, it was just a dumb newbie question for better "insight" as to what's out there... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
Udo Schröter (Trionic Technologies) wrote: [ ... ] Btw, I looked really carefully and couldn't find any FreeBSD-based commercial distro (if you don't count OS X). Am I just to stupid to find one or is this an idea whose time has not come yet? Wind River Systems and other vendors will sell FreeBSD CDs, and there are examples of dedicated systems using FreeBSD that come to mind, such as the Nokia IP firewall platform. Or were you talking about a "commercial distro" in terms of "a company that provides/charges for technical support"...? :-) -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
> You're creating a "turnkey" system with a known and well-defined layout which > includes all of the dependencies to run your proprietary software. Look into > "man release", which discusses how to customize a build and create CD images. Yes, I already made a few builds. We're currently (mainly) looking into how we can make the installer more friendly for corporate helpdesks/IT personnel and how to customize KDE so users won't complain about this not being Windows so much ;) > You should also consider managing your software and it's dependencies as a > port, even though you might never submit the port of your software. On the > other hand, some people like anti-virus vendors have their commercial products > available as a port on a time-limited trial basis (security/vscan, , but > that's up to you... Yes, I'm planning to make two packages. One to install all the modifications and preferences to applications that don't need to be recompiled (this patch would be applied after install). The other package would contain the actual proprietary client software. We discussed the trial idea last year - maybe we will distribute the client and trial users can connect to a public test serever - we haven't decided yet (however, it is not a consumer product). > You're welcome to use BSD software in a commercial distribution. Have fun. > If you contribute useful things back, that's nice, but you don't even have to > do that much. Great, we had many idea for little tools and stuff like that (if only a day had 50+ hours!) Btw, I looked really carefully and couldn't find any FreeBSD-based commercial distro (if you don't count OS X). Am I just to stupid to find one or is this an idea whose time has not come yet? > IANAL: I'd worry more about falling in the shower and breaking my neck than I > would worry about SCO. Yeah, sometimes I just wish some SCO people would do the shower-neck-breaking thing. ;) > Well, you don't have to, but I would really appreciate it if you made > sure that send-pr was either removed or changed to submit bugs to > yourselves. You've probably already thought of this, but I wanted to > mention it, just in case. Yes, we thought of that. I just hope we don't overlook anything obvious! But on the other hand, our customers even call *us* when their Windows breaks, so you're probably not in danger anyway... Thanks a lot for the advice, that was really quick! I'll keep in touch and tell you how the project went, OK? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Commercial Distribution?
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:22:55PM +0100, Udo Schr?ter (Trionic Technologies) wrote: > > Are there any FreeBSD references that MUST be taken out / MUST be left in? Well, you don't have to, but I would really appreciate it if you made sure that send-pr was either removed or changed to submit bugs to yourselves. You've probably already thought of this, but I wanted to mention it, just in case. Thanks, Ceri (FreeBSD bugmeister) -- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Commercial Distribution?
Udo Schröter (Trionic Technologies) wrote: [ ... ] I have a question regarding the creation of a branded commercial distribution based on FreeBSD. OK. Here is the thing: my company wants to offer a standard corporate Unix desktop that is certified (guaranteed) to run our enterprise management software well. We looked into Linux but, for various reasons, a solution based on FreeBSD makes more sense for us. Basically we want to release a CD to our customers which installs our own customized FreeBSD environment, with our own brand name. You're creating a "turnkey" system with a known and well-defined layout which includes all of the dependencies to run your proprietary software. Look into "man release", which discusses how to customize a build and create CD images. You should also consider managing your software and it's dependencies as a port, even though you might never submit the port of your software. On the other hand, some people like anti-virus vendors have their commercial products available as a port on a time-limited trial basis (security/vscan, , but that's up to you... If we want to do this, it is clear that we - must preserve the copyright notices - should place a description like "based on the FreeBSD Project" on the package Yes. Basicly, you should follow and include /COPYRIGHT and /usr/src/gnu/COPYING, depending on how much of the documentation and so forth you include or remove from your particular distribution. - redistribute GPLed source if modified Section 3 of the GPL requires you to redistribute GPLed source (or offer to make such source available when asked), even if you ship a binary of that GPLed program which has not been modified. However, if you configure your system so that section 3c applies, this becomes easier: c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) - swap out references to freebsd support list in the distro so our customers don't spam the community You should have your own top-level documentation which refers people to your support mechanisms, sure. - honor the redistribution rules of the ports Yes, you need to pay attention to the licenses of all dependencies. - should make a donation to the project as profits allow If you like; no doubt it would be appreciated. Are there any FreeBSD references that MUST be taken out / MUST be left in? What you see is what you get: the BSD license is very simple. Are there any other legal or technical issues? How do people on FreeBSD feel about commercial distributions generally? Are we going to get sued by SCO? (just kidding, sort of) There are lots of technical details-- while there is a fair amount of documentation available for building a release, and many steps are deterministic, it really is an iterative process that stops based on subjective criteria (yours). You're welcome to use BSD software in a commercial distribution. Have fun. If you contribute useful things back, that's nice, but you don't even have to do that much. IANAL: I'd worry more about falling in the shower and breaking my neck than I would worry about SCO. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
