New Sidekick Will Run NetBSD, Not Windows CE 262
jschauma writes "Many sites are reporting that the next Sidekick LX 2009/Blade, from Danger (acquired by Microsoft early in 2008), is going to run NetBSD as their operating system, causing Microsoft's recruiters to look for NetBSD developers."
Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just asking.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (Score:1, Insightful)
If you don't *like* the ramifications of the license, don't *use* it. Many are fine with the implications of the BSD license.
Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Embrace. (Score:5, Insightful)
It might be "embrace", but you can't do any more than "extend" there. As long as the *BSD crowd's interested it'll be around. Much like Linux will be.
No, this is notable because it's an open admission that WinCE can't cut it .
Try try again. (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me of the Hotmail Unix to Windows conversion a few years back. They failed the first time. But eventually got it right.
Re:Embrace. (Score:2, Insightful)
i also agree this is admitted winCE is crap. we have ruggised hardware at work that uses it and i fucking hate it. activesync is the worse idea evar.
Re:Embrace. (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, would it be nice to have seen MS contribute some code back? Yes, but that was not required by the license so there is no problem. That is the whole point of the BSD-style licenses: you can take my code and do whatever you want with it; you are under no further obligation to me.
Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Embrace. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is notable because it's an open admission that WinCE can't cut it .
Not really. Someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, development was well underway when Danger got bought by MS. That means it was likely cheaper to just continue doing what they were doing rather than scrap the work and start again using Microsoft's stuff. Not to say that something like that would have been unheard of, but it would have delayed a product that they wanted to get out the door. The real test will be whether the next iteration of this hardware runs this same OS or whether it comes with WinMo/WinCE.
Re:Embrace. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is a 'Holy Fuck' in order? (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not like you would be going in to code the next Microsoft Useless Widget 2.0.
Right. You'll just be porting Microsoft Useless Widget from Windows CE to NetBSD.
Re:Embrace. (Score:5, Insightful)
As it stands there is nothing to make them release the source code to drivers they have written.
I don't think you get it. You consider "freedom" to be the ability to force other people to release their own code under terms you find favorable? Wow, dude. That's awesome.
You're still free to download any BSD distribution you like, in its entirety, and do whatever you please with it. Stop whining about the fact that the developers of that codebase made a personal decision that they don't care what others do with their code. What's that, you feel you have the right to make that decision for them? Wow.
Re:Embrace. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally think it would be nice if everything was completely open, but I think that's the kind of utopic vision the world is not ready for.
I wish for the same thing, and look forward to the day when economic scarcity is no longer human concern.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, BSD licensing allows the end user to do whatever their want with the code in question
End users do not use source. End users use binaries. Granted, they can compile from source if they have it. GPL binaries come with source. BSD-based binaries in general don't. It can be 99% BSD code, 1% special closed source driver code but the whole comes without source and it does me fuck all good that it's 99% BSD. BSD is ultimate freedom for the ones with the source, GPL is a little less freemdom what you can do with the source, but it makes sure I will have the source in the first place.
Unless you limit yourself to pure BSD you as an end user have absolutely nothing, no more than if it was through and through proprietary. The freedome that you could try to figure to what bits and pieces of BSD they used, how they put them together and add the secret source yourself is illusory at best, possibly plain out illegal through patent law at worst. Maybe it could help some developer make a similar product, but as user of a closed-source derivative you have no ability to make small changes to improve or fix anything. You are at the vendor's mercy, you have the same lock-in issues, you have the same "embrace, extend, extinguish", they support only the platforms they choose and end support when they choose. "BSD based" means nothing to the end user except maybe that it was slightly cheaper to produce rather than reinvent the wheel.
Of course you can just stay with pure BSD. But then you're fighting a million companies that want to kill off the userbase that actually could improve that code by making them use properietary "value-added" versions instead. Let me take an example:
Linux user use Konqueror, finds bug in engine, patches source, has better Konqueror instantly, sends fix upstream, everyone gets a better Konqueror.
Mac user use Safari, finds bug, can't compile Safari but has to compile Webkit engine by itself, sends fix upstream, someday get an improved Safari.
The last is much, much more unlikely because it doesn't fix the end user's problem. The far more likely story is that he'd file a bug with Apple that may or may not do anything about it but then you're right back to classic "report error to vendor, wait for fix" just as if you reported an IE bug to Microsoft. I just don't see the appeal of "based on open source" because it is not anywhere near "open source". And the only advantage of the BSD over the GPL is to make products "based on open source".
Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just a minor note (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The F5 BigIP does load-balancing and traffic management, it's not used for content delivery.
Re:Just a minor note (Score:2, Insightful)
Which isn't what the BigIP does. F5 is a company, BigIP is a hardware load-balancing and traffic-management system. I've seen 'em, I know what they do.
Re:Embrace. (Score:4, Insightful)
you are arguing against a mind set that has attempted to redefine free.
As though 'Free' didn't have enough definitions already.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (Score:4, Insightful)
What are the constraints that GPL bestows on the end user? Right, none at all.
You're right, none at all. Until you decide to change the code and redistribute it. Oops.
What part of the term "end user" confuses you?
Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (Score:5, Insightful)
No but windows does have BSD code in it. Specifically ftp.exe and some zlib code.
Which is exactly the reason for all the BSD vs GPL holy wars.
GPL is about the freedom of the code: "I've shown you the code, if you use it, show your code to anyone who wants it". BSD is about the freedom of the software: "Hey, I wrote this. Use it."
Regarding Windows:
GPL: "Oh noes! They closed the source!"
BSD: "Cool, they're using my stuff! At least they got *that* part right."
Re:Embrace. (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Code cannot be free. Only people can be free.
Actually, BSD and GPL give exactly the same rights to the developers who get the licensed code. However, the GPL restricts the rights of distributors (not all developers distribute the code they develop; as long as they don't, the restrictions of the GPL don't apply; OTOH the restrictions do apply even if you distribute the unmodified code).
The BSD is designed to maximize the freedom immediate receivers of the licensed code get, while the GPL is designed to maximize the freedom any receiver of the licensed code get, even if they get it indirectly and/or in modified form. In order to achieve the freedom for non-immediate receivers, it restricts the freedom of distributors by forcing them to pass on those freedoms to anyone they give the code.
Not surprising really (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft have woken up to the fact that the only way to defeat Linux and the GPL is to support the BSD type licensed software.
What's the problem with that?
Every system has to have a basic set of rules. That basic set of rules is there to ensure that the system itself will continue to exist.
So for instance, democracy won't last very long if you allow a simple majority of voters to vote democracy out of existence. The dim witted might say that makes it more democratic to allow it, but the more thoughtful will see that if you allow the voters to put an end to their democratic rights, it actually becomes less democratic - less free.
We call those basic rules which protect our democratic rights a 'constitution' and the exact nature of the constitution determine exactly how free we will be.
Hitler was voted into power democratically, and then went to the people again to have them vote him dictatorial powers. Once it's done, it's awfully difficult to get it back. Look what it took to get democracy running again in Germany.
There is a similar situation with software licences. The GPL has its constitution built in. It says that the software it covers has been produced communally, and that if you wish to redistribute it, you must include the source code and the same license ( i.e. the same freedoms ) which existed with that code when you got hold of it.
The BSD license does not have such guarantees built in. Anyone can take that code, ignore the communal effort which went into producing it, close source the code and their own additions and benefit off the backs of the work of others.
The BSD license is not about freedom. It is about encouraging closed source monopolies with some free help, and this is an example of that happening.
Don't confuse open source with freedom. It'll soon all be gone if you do.
Re:Not surprising really (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone can take that code, ignore the communal effort which went into producing it, close source the code and their own additions and benefit off the backs of the work of others.
You mean like the way Linus Torvalds did when he used the work that everyone from Thompson and Ritchie to Allman and McKusick had done in designing the system he cloned?
I'm not criticizing Linus, writing open source code to open systems APIs is a Good Thing. My point is that EVERYTHING we do is done on the back of others.
And if this is another step in Microsoft's slow and reluctant journey from proprietary APIs back to open ones, that's good too.
Re:Embrace. (Score:3, Insightful)
"I don't use *BSD because I hate Microsoft, I use it because I love unix"
That's the whole of the point. It doesn't matter who uses the code; there's no sense of "being ripped off" in the BSD world. You develop it because you love it, and because you want to make things (all things) work better. Not because you want to kick Microsoft (or anyone else) in the teeth.
Locked down platform? (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it strange that until now there isn't a single comment on the open-ness of that platform. Yes, it may run a BSD flavour. Nonetheless, is the platform locked down? Is it possible for any end-user to reinstall the OS without the need of circumvention tools and hard hacks?
That, as I see it, is the single most interesting aspect of this article. After all, if the sidekick platform is locked down then it doesn't really matter it is running a BSD flavour. Moreover, it would once again emphasize the need for the legal constructs added to the GPL in the form of GPLv3.
So, is it locked down? Can it run linux?
Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (Score:4, Insightful)
Regarding Windows:
GPL: "Oh noes! They closed the source!"
BSD: "Cool, they're using my stuff! At least they got *that* part right."
Or rather:
GPL: "Oh noes! They closed the source!"
BSD: "Shit, they added bugs to my perfect code and the billions of users can't do a thing to fix it."
Re:Embrace. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Embrace. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you give people too much freedom, then they will use that freedom to take yours away...
If you let people run wild with no rules, then the strongest will become dictators and everyone else will be subjugated or killed.
BSD gives people too much freedom, because they can now take the free bsd code and close it up...
GPL ensures that the code will remain at a constant level of freedom.
Society is the same, we are not free to go around killing people or forcing others to be our slaves, we sacrifice some of this freedom to ensure that everyone gets the same slightly reduced level of freedom.
Complete freedom only benefits the very few who can take advantage of the system at the expense of the rest.
Re:Embrace. (Score:4, Insightful)
BSD code license is truly free, but GPL makes other code free as well
That's good. So, I can download the GoogleFS code that is linked into Linux? Oh, they don't distribute it? I guess I can't then.
More often recently the GPL has made other code not exist rather than be free. Take a look at the huge (BSDL) contributions Apple has made to LLVM, for example, because GCC GPL'd and so they can't use it for syntax highlighting in XCode.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day. (Score:2, Insightful)
The way I see it, the BSD and GPL and Proprietary licenses are best understood be an analogy to the prisoners dilemma:
-BSD is always cooperate
-GPL is an eye for an eye
-Proprietary is always defect
sorry, you're making too much sense (Score:3, Insightful)
development was well underway when Danger got bought by MS. That means it was likely cheaper to just continue doing what they were doing rather than scrap the work and start again using Microsoft's stuff.
Hm, if only it worked that way. But out there in Biznis land that kind of rationality rarely prevails in my experience. The "NIH" and "OMG ITZ NOT MS" factors rank higher than "faster, better, cheaper" (i.e. anything not MS).
Plus, executives are, often, ah, "incented" to choose the Microsoft solution in the face of any technical or common sense objection. (See: Windows 4 Warships, [crunchgear.com] etc, etc, etc, etc, etc)
Re:Embrace. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who says that's "trouble?"
Anyone who discovers that the product they are using and need to bug fix or update is 99% BSD code, and yet they have zero freedom, because BSD didn't extend freedom downstream, so while the original authors said the code was free, and some developers along the way got some of that goodness, by the time the end users got it the freedom was gone.
Look, I get it, this is the point of the BSD, and nobody did anything 'wrong' in the above scenario. But that's what the criticism with the BSD is: while it starts out free, it doesn't necessarily stay free, and that's its drawback.
With BSD often the best version of a product isn't BSD. Or it can happen that the original BSD code has been abandoned and has become obsolete, while its surviving offspring are awesome... but no longer free. That is the drawback with BSD.
GPL conversely does preserve that freedom, so the best derivative is as free as the original. That's not to say the GPL doesn't have drawbacks to it, it can't be mixed with code from incompatible licenses - of which there are several.
It also dictates that the derivate work must continue to be under the GPL. That's not really a drawback though, just a limitation. Its a drawback in the sense that it limits the author of the derivative work, but at the same time is its strength because it ensures the user of that derivative work has freedom, so that limitation is precisely its reason for being.
Between the two I prefer GPL, because I buy into the idea of preserving freedom downstream, but neither license is perfect.